Conspicuously absent from Rachel Maddow’s otherwise hard-hitting report is the fact that these groups have deep and intimate affiliations with extremist Catholic organizations. While I do not excuse similarly extremist Protestant organizations, the extremist pro-life movement is primarily Catholic.
Here are some examples, each cited by Ms. Maddow.
– “Army of God” declaring Mr. Roeder an American hero. What did MSNBC not report? The founder of that site, “Rev. Donald Spitz”, says “His strict Roman Catholic upbringing as a child started him on his path.”
– Operation Rescue was founded by Randall Terry, a Catholic and domestic terrorist. Suspected terrorist Scott Raeder had the phone number of convicted terrorist Cheryl Sullenger on the dashboard of his car when arrested. Ms. Sullenger is the “Senior Policy Advisor” of Operation Rescue. The unfolding ties between Mr. Roeder and Ms. Sullenger (and Operation Rescue) are noted in two pieces on the DailyKos, here and here.
– The “American League for Life” on its own website describes itself as “the largest grassroots Catholic pro-life education organization in the United States.”
I am not suggesting that all Catholics are terrorists, just as I reject the implication that all Muslims are terrorists. I am, however, struck by the reluctance of the mainstream broadcast and hard-copy media to pursue and report on the persistent and deep ties between extremist Catholic religious organizations and domestic terrorism.
Extremist Catholic groups do not restrict their hate-speech to attacking women. How long will it be before similar attacks begin against gay and lesbian activists?
I suggest that no religious organization should be exempt from investigation, reporting, and prosecution when it crosses the boundary into sponsoring and supporting terror. I see no difference between extremists like Osama Bin Laden and Donald Spitz. I see an enormous difference between government treatment of private individuals who contribute to organizations like “Red Crescent” and those who contribute to “Operation Rescue”.
In my view, this disparity should stop.
“Our bishops’ conference and all its members have repeatedly and publicly denounced all forms of violence in our society, including abortion as well as the misguided resort to violence by anyone opposed to abortion. Such killing is the opposite of everything we stand for, and everything we want our culture to stand for: respect for the life of each and every human being from its beginning to its natural end. We pray for Dr. Tiller and his family.” link
“The Fiqh Council of North America wishes to reaffirm Islam’s absolute condemnation of terrorism and religious extremism.
<
p>Islam strictly condemns religious extremism and the use of violence against innocent lives. There is no justification in Islam for extremism or terrorism. Targeting civilians life and property through suicide bombings or any other method of attack is haram, or forbidden – and those who commit these barbaric acts are criminals, not martyrs.” link
That the way this murder so contradicts the teachings and rules of the Church those who participate in these “Catholic” organizations are behaving in a schismatic manner, thus earning themselves latae sententiae, in my opinion.
these extremist Catholic organizations should be investigated and prosecuted with a zeal comparable to that brought against the Muslim world?
But I would disagree that they are Catholic. They call themselves Catholic, but their self-identification doesn’t matter, because they violate canon law by behaving in such outright schismatic behavior.
<
p>You might think they are Catholic, but in reality they are a bunch of apostates.
My point is that the ties between these acts of terror and extremist Catholic organizations are not being reported. Their self-identification does matter, just as it matters for extremist Muslim groups.
<
p>Does the disavowal by Muslim organizations of analogous Muslim terrorists mean that the mainstream media should similarly avoid reporting the ties between them?
<
p>Religious terror is still terror, and it makes no difference to me, whatsoever, whether the claimed religious affiliations are Catholic, Jewish, or Muslim. The ties exist, they are relevant, and in my view they should be reported.
Is that the Catholic Church as a leader and entire hierarchical system that condemns violence. There isn’t some country halfway across the world that has a Catholic government that condones violence against abortion doctors.
<
p>Muslims do have governments and religious leaders at high levels that condone violence. Remember how Afghanistan recently passed the pro-rape laws? Islam by its design to avoid heresy and idolatry avoided having some sort of Papal-analog allowing the thread of what is allowed by Islam and what is allowed by the Sharia law to be much more widely interpreted.
<
p>When terrorists who are trained by al-quaeda in Taliban sanctioned camps, they are being trained under ecclesiastical authority, because they have many Imams, Sheiks, and other Muslim clerics backing them, and government authority, because the Taliban is a governmental institution regardless that it’s a religious one.
<
p>When a “Catholic” shoots an abortion doctor, he is going against Catholic law, with no backing from legitimate Catholic ecclesiastical authorities, and then faces universal condemnation from the entirety of the Church and ipso facto apostasy.
who is attending his funeral today.
is a criminal in the eyes of his former faith for what he did?
<
p>Sure, you get them on the horn and I’ll be glad to tell them.
When the institutional Catholic church displays the same vigor in stopping domestic terror that it shows towards blocking a woman’s choice about her body, then I’ll pay more attention.
<
p>For example, I’d like to see examples of Catholic Bishops who call for communion to be denied to individuals who contribute to groups like “ALL” and “Operation Rescue” (comparable to their attempt to intimidate Catholic lawmakers).
<
p>The Catholic church has demonstrated itself to be very creative at finding ways to influence public policy on issues that it truly cares about, such as blocking access to abortion, restricting access to contraceptives, and interfering with gay men and women who choose to marry each other.
<
p>I therefore expect to see similar demonstrations of its claimed commitment to stop domestic terrorism in its name and in support of its own loudly-proclaimed dogma.
<
p>From 1998 to 2009, there have been 2 murders of abortion doctors, and since 1977, 17 attempted murders.
<
p>Since 1998, there have been, one would estimate, 14,300,000 abortions (about 1.3 million per year).
<
p>The Church views abortion as the taking of an innocent human life.
<
p> While the man who killed Dr. Tiller is obviously engaging in an act that is terrorism, it’s hardly evidence of a movement of domestic terror in Catholicism. You haven’t provided a monetary connection between the Church and these people, an organizational connection to a true Lay Order, or a clerical connection between these people and clergy of any consequence. All you have his some crap Rachel Maddow said that you decided was factual enough to take at face value. You haven’t explained why ALL needs to be investigated for terrorism. You have brought nothing to the table but the kind of ignorant prejudice that one would expect from anti-marriage opponents.
<
p>
<
p>Since the Catholic Church is One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, Bishops are not afforded authority to behave as they will. They are still bound by Canon Law. Regarding Communion, Canon 915 states that “Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.”
<
p>If you can provide a reason why contributing to groups that try to end the holocaust of innocent lives (once again, you’ll have look at this from the Church’s view) is a grave sin, then such exclusion from Communion would be warranted. From all evidence I’ve seen, neither of these groups have a goal of violence.
<
p>Furthermore, those who are engaging in acts of murder or violence are committing grave sin (as they would be guilty of the sin of Wrath, one of the biggies) and would be excluded from Communion until they repent as demanded by Canon 916.
I can relate to and understand your desire to express that the Catholicism that you practice and the beliefs that you hold dear are at odds with extreme wings of the anti-Abortion movement. And you should be proud and vocal on the subject. But I think groups, like Catholics in this instance, would be better served by taking ownership of the problem, admitting that there are serious issues with the way Catholic groups approach abortion language and violent direct action, rather than dismissing them as “not real Catholics”. In other words,be active and pro active rather than passive and reactive.
<
p>Muslims make the same arguments. If your argument flies that the extremists aren’t “real” Catholics, then it must be accepted from the Muslim world that al-Qaeda and other murderous outfits aren’t “real” Muslims and don’t practice “real” Islam.
<
p>By that fact, there is now no such thing as Muslim terrorists, Islamic extremists, Islamo-fascists, and those plus all related terms must be retired. (I, for one, happen to believe that Islamic terrorism is real.)
<
p>I’ve always found the “not a real Catholic/Christian/Democrat/Republican/American/etc” argument to be specious and an easy way out. It’s always easy to say that an un-liked member of your group is not and never was really in the group; that line of argument relieves the speaker from taking responsibility to police and criticize his or her own group, and it also deflects outside criticism.
<
p>
The American League for Life is an extremist organization that needs to be investigated and prosecuted with zeal.
My full statement was “these extremist Catholic organizations should be investigated and prosecuted with a zeal comparable to that brought against the Muslim world?”
<
p>This organization seeks to eliminate or restrict the availability of birth control pills to ALL American women. They use the same strategy that the extremist anti-abortion movement uses against clinics: intimidate the providers.
<
p>The language they choose is both incendiary and dishonest. Signs that say “The pill kills” fall in the same league as similar signs that label abortion providers like Dr. Tiller as “Baby Killers” and, yes, Jews as “the killers of Christ.”
<
p>I have no doubt that a great many Catholics reject these extremists, just as a great many Muslims reject the extreme claims of their lunatic fringe. That’s why I wrote “with a zeal comparable to that brought against the Muslim world”.
<
p>Why is it permissible to routinely talk about “Muslim terror” or “Muslim terrorist” when describing one kind of terror, while NOT permissible to even report (never mind investigate or prosecute) “Catholic terror” or “Catholic terrorist” when describing another?
<
p>Is there any doubt that Dr. Tiller’s assassination was an act of domestic terror? Is there some reason why government authorities should not investigate his ties to Operation Rescue (since he had the phone number of their Senior Policy Advisor, herself a convicted terrorist, in his vehicle when arrested)? Is there some reason why possible ties between Operation Rescue and the Catholic church should be more sacrosanct than, say, possible ties between Muslim charitable organizations and claimed Muslim terrorist groups?
<
p>Why is it wrong — or even “bigoted” — to address incendiary language that a religious organization uses to inflame its followers, especially when a portion of those followers are known to be committing terrorist acts?
<
p>In my view, the American League for Life is comparable to the Ku Klux Klan. Their material is filled with lies, distortions, and ugly innuendo. They incite violence against abortion providers and violence against contraceptive providers — and then utter empty sanctimonious platitudes when some of their followers act on that material.
that warrants being investigated and prosecuted with zeal, is what you’re saying…
Surely it’s not great that Islam itself and all Muslims are blamed when Islamic extremists commit acts of terror. You seem to be arguing that because of that injustice (the injustice of blaming an entire religion for the criminal acts of a few extremist adherents), the same injustice should be applied to all Catholics because of the acts of a few anti-abortion extremists. That may have the benefit of being even-handed, but surely it would still be unjust to both religions and their faithful.
receives training, funding, and logistical support from an extremist Muslim group in order to detonate an explosive device (let’s use Mr. Padilla as an example), we have no problem prosecuting that group and none of us feel squeamish about identifying him as a “suspected Muslim terrorist” or that group as an “extremist Muslim organization.”
<
p>Why, then, are we not identifying Operation Rescue as an “extremist Catholic organization” and identifying Mr. Roeder as an “suspected Catholic terrorist”? This is, after all, primarily a Catholic issue. The other Protestant sects are at best late to the party, and it certainly is NOT a Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, or Buddhist issue.
<
p>This is my rub with the kid-gloves treatment given ALL. The ALL campaign against contraception (specifically, the pill) is almost exclusively an expression of Catholic dogma. No other mainstream American religion takes a similar stance. ALL is using the same tactics of terror — their intent is to intimidate pharmacies into not offering the pill, in the same way that Operation Rescue is intimidating woman’s health providers from opening (see the ongoing battle right here in Brookline).
<
p>What am I arguing for? I am arguing that we should use the same language for both Muslim and Catholic terrorists. When an extremist religious organization advocates terrorist tactics to advance its agenda, I think we should name it “terrorist” — loudly and unreservedly, whether it’s Muslim or Catholic. When an individual commits an act of terror, we should label that individual as a “terrorist”, whether they are Muslim or Catholic. When that individual identifies himself or herself as “Muslim” or “Catholic”, then we should apply the same label when describing him or her.
<
p>Randall Terry, the founder of Operation Rescue, proclaims himself to be a Catholic convert. “Catholic Online” — hardly a fringe organization or website — loudly and proudly claims him as a “Pro-life activist” in its 2006 puff-piece. The headline reads “National Catholic Register: Pro-life activist Randall Terry converts to Catholicism, still slaying dragons”. In that piece, he is quoted as saying:
<
p>This is not somebody acting outside the church. This is not an isolated extremist, acting on his own. It is too late for the Catholic church to disown this organization and its founder.
<
p>Don’t forget that the latest suspected terrorist had the phone number of the Senior Policy Advisor of this organization on the dashboard of his vehicle when arrested after the assassination of Dr. Tiller. Don’t forget that she now acknowledges frequent conversations with him in the weeks leading up to the assassination. Don’t forget that she, herself, is a convicted terrorist.
<
p>We have been giving Catholic terrorists and terrorist groups a pass long enough, while simultaneously conducting a “Crusade” against “Muslim” terrorists.
<
p>Is that clear enough?
That we should stop the hateful and divisive practice of identifying people as “Muslim extremists” you think we should expand the practice to be hateful and divisive to Catholics too?
<
p>Wow. That’s really tolerant of you.
First, maybe it’s just me, but when I think of extreme anti-abortion activism I usually first think of Protestant Fundamentalism before I think of Catholicism.
<
p>Second, as extreme as Randall Terry is I’m not sure you’ve completed the connection through citations that he has gone as far as calling for murder. Even if he has, that’s always tricky on first amendment grounds.
<
p>Finally, as others have indicated, maybe the real problem is being too quick to identify Islam as a “cause”, at least by implication. However, I do think there’s a difference. Governments from Saudi Arabia to Iran are based on Islamic law and sponsor terror in Allah’s name. The Taliban harbored al-Qaeda as brothers in the cause of jihad. I absolutely believe that true Islam has been hijacked by these people, but while there are certain mullahs that call for violence, no Catholic Bishop would, or at least if he did he’d have the Vatican to answer too. You may not agree with the Church, but at least respect their consistancy: no abortion, no murder, no death penalty, no unjustified war, no euthanasia.
are another’s freedom fighters. There has been some tendency to label any opposition terrorism.
<
p>FOX labeled Iraq as supporting terrorists when the families of suicide bombers had their homes destroyed, they helped fund rebuilding.
<
p>The Christian government in Serbia was involved in ethnic cleansing against Muslims.
<
p>I see how offensive the term “Catholic Terrorist” sounds. I think I will try to refrain from the term Muslim terrorist in the future.
I really like that train of thought. Very interesting!
<
p>Are they freedom fighters or terrorists? That, my friend, is a can of worms, and I have no will whatsoever to get into it.
Here’s why:
<
p>The IRA (by which I presume you mean the “provisional IRA,” the group that continued after Irish independence to operate in Northern Ireland) was not advocating the enforcement of Catholic religious doctrine. The IRA was and is remains Marxist, a philosophy which of course abhors religion. Rather, the IRA sought to represent a community that had heretofore identified itself as opposite the other mainly on religious grounds. Although the IRA fought for a “Catholic Ireland”, it was fighting for a united Ireland run by self-identified Catholics, not a united Ireland run according to Catholic doctrine — a huge difference.
<
p>On the other hand, these American domestic terrorists are working not on the basis of a religiously identified community, but rather a doctrine. Their goal is that American be run according to their version of Catholicism. This is a goal that I would say is identical to that of the official Catholic hierarchy in this country, although the means are self-evidently vastly different.
I’ve never been comfortable with identifying the “Troubles” as a conflict between Catholics and Protestants. Conformity of doctrine has never been the goal. It’s a struggle between those wishing to remain part of the UK and those wishing to unite with Ireland. There just happens to be a strong correlation of the former being Protestant and the latter being Catholic. I would say the IRA were terrorists, but not necessarily “Catholic” terrorists. As for the freedom fighter/terrorist analogy I think there’s still a difference. A terrorist targets innocent civilians, often in large numbers, to make a statement. It’s possible to be a freedom fighter without being a terrorist. For example, I’m not aware of any incident that went beyond vandalism whereby the American colonists attacked unarmed people or property, and they certainly didn’t go back over to Britain and start blowing things up.
of a conversation between two atheists in a Dublin bar:
<
p>”But are you a Catholic atheist or a Protestant atheist?”
but…
my uncle used to sing a song about the heroism of Amherst who gave Small Pox infested blankets to the Indians.
<
p>The American Privateers were pirates authorized by the government.
<
p>It would be difficult to think of any combatants with a blameless record.
<
p>”We shall go down in history as the greatest statesmen of all time, or as the greatest criminals.” (Josef Goebbels)
… you wouldn’t call them “Catholic” terrorists because the violence really wasn’t rooted in their Catholic beliefs?
Are always going to have a pejorative attached to them. We want to delegitimize and dehumanize the ‘other’, saying “terrorist” is just a way to do that, to lump all of those who use violence to achieve a political end as one in the same with every criminal through time. It’s easy, it’s convenient, and it’s pathetic that BrooklineTom has the same level of political sophistication as your generic neoconservative.
Whether he’s extreme or not, I think he’s probably just public enough to get noticed and be enough of an icon that he gets picked out, but he’s not a representative of Catholicism. What’s he’s notorious for are things he did while he was Protestant.
Jose Padilla was widely identified as a Muslim terrorist. According to various published reports like this, he converted to Islam in 1998. Does his similarly recent conversion to Islam mean that he should not be identified as a “Muslim terrorist”?
<
p>In the piece I cited above, the National Catholic Register rather proudly proclaims those “notorious” acts in welcoming him to the faith. The National Catholic Register was certainly not disavowing his life-long “notorious” actions when it published this piece in 2006.
<
p>Mr. Padilla was accurately identified as a “Muslim Terrorist”; no claim was ever made that he is “a representative” of Islam. Mr. Terry is correctly identified as “Catholic” — the question we are currently debating is whether or not the actions of he and his followers should be called “terrorism”.
I cannot believe what I am reading.
President Bush, against abortion, not a Catholic.
Richard Nixon, against abortion, not a Catholic.
President Reagan, against abortion, not a Catholic.
Jerry Falwell, against abortion, not a Catholic.
<
p>Do you folks realize how much bigotry is being spouted here? Many people from most religions have issues with abortion. Say no to anti-Catholic hate speech.
You offered no link or citation as far as I can tell supporting your assertion of “ties between the Catholic Church and domestic terrorism”. JoeTS pointed out that Catholic Bishops unequivocally condemn such acts and you brought forth a similar statement from a Muslim source. The fact is you’re both correct. True Islam absolutely condemns terrorists acts as does true Catholicism. US Presidents have rightfully and consistently stated that we are not now, never have been, and never will be in conflict with Islam. We don’t go after al-Qaeda because of its Muslim roots; we go after it because their members have committed acts of terrorism. Follow the money. Once you can show that any diocese or other official institution of the Catholic Church is financing thse people, then you’ll have a case. Between this and your recent post on clergy’s role in marriage you come across as anti-religion and I can’t agree with that.
If you want to continue our discussion about clergy’s role in marriage, let’s please do that on the page where it began. The topic of this thread is domestic terror and the role of religion — and specifically the Catholic church — in supporting and enabling it.
<
p>When “religion” serves to terrorize, abuse, and kill people then I am anti-religion. If you differ, then I suppose we can agree to disagree.
<
p>It doesn’t take direct money ties for a diocese or other official institution to support, enable, and encourage domestic terror. Official silence is often enough, especially when combined with the obligatory statements abhorring violence when “isolated incidents” take place.
<
p>As I wrote upthread, the “official” Catholic church has found a variety of creative and effective ways to block woman’s access to abortions, the ability of gay and lesbian men and women to obtain the full legal benefits of marriage, and restrict access to contraceptives.
<
p>It doesn’t require money for a Bishop to demand that communion be denied to lawmakers who vote the “wrong” way on the issue of a woman’s choice. Are you aware of any statements from a Bishop demanding that communion be denied to any Catholic who contributes to Operation Rescue?
<
p>If my complaints about officially-sanctioned efforts of the institutional Catholic church to impose their religiously-motivated policies of misogyny and homophobia on the rest of us mean that I am “anti-religious”, then I plead “Guilty as charged.”
<
p>Are you going to go about trying to prove that at any point?
<
p>All you’ve managed to do is say Subject A kills an abortion Doctor. Subject A is calls himself Catholic. Therefore, the Catholic Church supports and enables domestic terrorism.
<
p>Despite attempts at changing the subject to gay marriage and the nitty gritty of Communion, you still have done nothing to prove what you call “the topic of this thread.”
<
p>It’s okay to admit you were mistaken. I have been proven mistaken on many occasions on this blog. Probably more times than when I’m proven correct, but that’s how we learn.
and the Catholic church enabled it.
<
p>I don’t necessarily mean that some Bishop secretly made a payment to somebody in Operation Rescue.
<
p>I do mean that the “church” — the assembled body of believers in the United States (in this case) — allows this terrorism and supports it through individual, if not corporate, contributions.
<
p>Aside from the theo-babble you offered upthread, the fact remains that various Bishops have somehow managed to issue very public statements threatening loss of communion to lawmakers who vote the will of their electorate instead of the will of the Church. Somehow those Bishops managed to find a rationalization for their threat. I am confident that a similar rationalization can be found for those who support domestic terrorist groups like Operation Rescue should the institutional church truly abhor it. After all, the church did a very effective job of changing the Palm Sunday liturgy in the aftermath of WWII, when Christians the world over belatedly admitted the role of such liturgies in inciting the anti-Semitic passions that led to the holocaust.
<
p>You come close to defending terrorist acts yourself when you compare the number of abortions to the frequency of terrorist acts against abortion providers. There is a striking logical similarity between your argument and those offered by Muslim groups who cite statistics about various oppressed groups (always numbered in the millions) and claim that the 911 casualties were, therefore, “worth it”. This is the “logic” of terror (and torture, by the way), and it doesn’t wash.
<
p>I want groups like Operation Rescue treated the same way we treat groups like the KKK and the American Nazi Party. If that offends the religious sensibilities of some, then so be it.
According to Catholic doctrine, these bishops are seeking to withdraw eligibility to Communion from these politicians. This would be a significant factor in the judgment of their souls. These bishops aren’t merely killing politicians with whom they disagree, but are rather trying to take an active part in condemning them to an eternity of torment.
These Catholic politicians know what’s going to happen. They are clearly subject to latae sententiae under Canon 1398 as an accomplice described in Canon 1329.
<
p>The Bishops aren’t condemning out whimsy, but because of clear offenses under Canon Law.
.. the church would intimidate politicians condoning the death penalty under the same guise. I don’t see how the technical definitions behind Canon can be taken seriously as justification for anything if they’re going to be so selectively enforced.
<
p>The fact that they are selectively enforced is prima fascia evidence that this isn’t actually about cannon and proper enforcement. As such, “they’re just following Cannon” just doesn’t cut it.
is not treated the same as abortion, for obvious reasons. an unborn child at risk of an abortion is always innocent. a guy on death row is often guilty. the Church, in official Church documents called ‘encyclicals’ have repeatedly said without question that abortion is always an inherent moral wrong. The death penalty, they have said, is a matter of policy and personal decision: that there is likely no situation where the death penalty is required and that all options should be explored before using that punishment. The death penalty is a completely different question that too often gets thrown into the abortion debate just as a straw man for people to get distracted with.
<
p>and before people jump all over me, yes, I am against the death penalty, a realization made somewhat recently, and I’m also pro-life/anti-abortion, and I don’t see how anyone can be against the former and yet for the latter.
… straw man as long as people spout a ‘culture of life’ as a guiding principal.
<
p>That the Catholic church would treat abortion and the death penalty differently isn’t particularly surprising (got a link btw?), but the Pope says in the encyclical in question that justified use of the death penalty might be “practically nonexistent”. As such, I’d expect that while incidents of theologically ‘justified by cannon’ refusal of communion for those ‘accomplices’ of state execution might possibly number more than than zero, by the Pope’s’ encyclicals standard, we should be seeing this done to politicians all over the country. That we don’t indicates a political selectivity in the enforcement of cannon.
There isn’t really Canon (one N) Law regarding the death penalty, as far as I can tell. (If there is, I’d love to see it!)
<
p>The reason Communion can be denied regarding abortion is because it’s a direct violation of Canon Law 915, stating “Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.”
<
p>Earlier in the thread, I hashed out how abortion causes ipso facto excommunication.
<
p>The fact is, is that the Canon Law is far more explicit regarding abortion than it is the death penalty. I had hoped that Benedict would be more pro-active in this regard.
… law that “excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty” for abortion?
<
p>Looking at Canon 1397 it isn’t a declaration against abortion specifically but rather murder. If, as Pope John Paul’s encyclical asserts, justification for execution is so rare as to possibly be non-existent, I would assume Can. 1397 to apply,… unless the unjustified killing of a person is somehow not murder in Canon law.
The Canon Law you’re looking for is 1398. That’s the one about abortion.
<
p>Now, the politicians who allow it to be legal are considered to be accomplices, for lack of a better term, under Canon 1329.
<
p>Since the person who procures an abortion earns the excommunication from Canon 1398, the accomplices share the penalty as a result of 1329.
<
p>However, I must say it’s kind of refreshing that you’re actually reading these laws. I thought all the brain-activity in this thread was being flushed down the toilet.
… the doctor isn’t singled out (you have to get him or her with the ‘workaround’ in 1329) but only the ‘procurer’. Interesting also that abortion earns latae sententiae but outright murder doesn’t (Can. 1397).
that the Church views an unborn child as the ultimate innocent, defenseless victim, thus the harshness.
<
p>This would be an excellent question for a priest. I’ll have to keep it in mind.
… the list of Latae Sententiae and I’m less than impressed. These are the acts that incur automatic penalty, without review. Presumably these are acts so bad that ‘the details don’t matter’. Using the Eucharist sacrilegiously incurs excommunication automatically as is breaking the seal of confession. Also when “a priest who absolves an accomplice in a sin against the sixth commandment (the ban on adultery) “. The list of crimes I’d consider far far worse than these are innumerable.
Most priests I know (and I know quite a few) are focused on helping people who are having a rough time for a variety of reasons. They don’t care about who gets to be in the club and who doesn’t. It’s the bureaucrats at the Chancery and Vatican who think Christianity is about litmus tests; most priests are more concerned about living Christlike lives, and helping others to do the same.
… a zombie nerve.
“I want groups like Operation Rescue treated the same way we treat groups like the KKK and the American Nazi Party. If that offends the religious sensibilities of some, then so be it.”
<
p>Here you have a case and it’s much different than your previous call, at least as I inferred, to go after the Catholic Church. Operation Rescue is absolutely NOT an arm of the Roman Catholic Church. Just because Randell Terry identifies as Catholic, which he may well be in terms of baptism and confirmation, does NOT mean he speaks for or is supported by the Church Church leadership has time and again condemned these actions. As much as I disagree with the Church’s playing politics with the Eucharist it is their right to do so, and a far cry from calling for anyone’s murder. To take what you suggest to its logical extreme would mean violations of both the speech/press and free exercise clauses of the first amendment. The Church’s role is to convert hearts and minds and they should be unmolested in speaking out against abortion, so long as they don’t try to codify their beliefs in secular law. I strongly object to the latter while the former falls into the category of “I don’t agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” That being said they have as much right as anyone to lobby for laws they favor and I agree that they are sometimes more successful than I would like. That does not make them a terrorist organization and to call them such does a grave injustice to millions of good practicing Catholics, not all of whom agree with Church teaching anyway, and dilutes the meaning of the word. The responsibility for Dr. Tiller’s murder belongs to his murderer and any accomplices or accessories that may be found – no one else.
I share your concerns about protecting the first amendment rights of everyone, including those with whom I strongly disagree.
<
p>I’m glad that you share my feeling that Operation Rescue be treated — especially in the press — as comparable to the KKK and the American Nazi Party.
<
p>I don’t think I ever suggested that the institutional Catholic church was a terrorist organization, just I reject similar attempts to brand various Muslim institutions. I reserve that label for groups such as Operation Rescue that do, in fact, use terrorist tactics to advance their agenda.
I have something similar on my desk.
As far as I can tell, he’s not advocating any action against their rights. If he isn’t, then this is a red herring.
there is zero of it in this comment.
<
p>what is terrorism? having a political opinion different than your own? is terrorism when anyone from a group different than your own is involved in the political process in a democratic country?
<
p>you’re looking like you’re speaking out of a need to denigrate the Catholic Church rather than making any coherent point.
I would say that the Catholic Church does not support or condone religious terrorism, but it certainly supplies the ideological framework that easily lends itself to the justification of terrorism.
<
p>Do bishops and popes send out assassins and plan murders? Not anymore. Do they purposefully give money to people who do so? I doubt it.
<
p>Do bishops and the pope provide language and lines of reason that provide aid and comfort to terrorists? Yes they do.
“Aid and comfort”- good heavens! How can we stop these bishops from making such statements, legally? The Patriot Act? RICO? Or will it take a constitutional amendment that updates “freedom of speech” to ban certain types of anti-abortion rhetoric? Is this the type of thing you’re suggesting when you say “aid and comfort”- that you think there’s a good argument to be made for banning certain types of speech or prosecuting people for their political or religious beliefs, or am I completely misunderstanding your implication? I’ve heard talk-radio blowhards use the phrase to try to slander lefties as traitors and terrorists for, say, criticizing Bush or the Iraq War…it’s a funny phrase.
To any of the issues surrounding this discussion but what needs to happen are real deads. Short of that open condemnation of any action that is a violation needs to be condemned clearly. In the mean time it may be necessary to have investigations of the Church trough the conventional means that authorities use today when investigating conspiracy before the act. If any church is found officially or unofficially being represented as supporting acts that will stop another action they disagree with this would be conspiracy and thus should be prosecuted to full extent of the law.
<
p>Lets not go overboard and become unrational about this a Priest lecturing on Sunday about the evils of Abortion should not be subject investigation of prosecution, unless he stands their and says go out and do what ever it takes to stop this. Then he has crossed the line with trying to tell his followers how to act properly to advocating breaking the law. Using his religion to request action with out restraint to stop another action this is wrong and is no better then what we see from Bin Laden or any of the representatives that twist Islam into taking actions that lead to their acts of Terrorism.
<
p>We all need to watch our comments using our self-restraint and intellect to encourage good personal choices with out the call to rise up and take actions. So yes investigate make people accountable for their words and the actions they are encouraging by their words.
<
p>Certainly you would want someone who stood up and said to a room of white supremacists The President needs to DIE! You would want him thrown in jail and throw away the key. How is a statement any less inflammatory that states Abortion is evil and those who commit abortion are evil and forever damned and should Die! Well how is this different? Is it different because you believe the underlying basis of the comment then how is that room of white supremacists any different? There is no difference. No group in America should advocate or use words that can be linked to result in violence and that activity should stopped.
<
p>As Usual just my Opinion
I never said these statements were illegal, I just said they provide solace and rationalization for sickos who kill innocents over a precise set of issues. The hierarchy of the Catholic Church is free to make any statements it chooses, and we are free to point out the consequences.
people who follow any sort of ideological system, be it Catholicism, Environmentalism, Atheism, Pluralism…all these schools of thought provide language and justification for extremists and outliers to commit acts of violence.
Do bishops and the pope provide language and lines of reason that provide aid and comfort to terrorists? Yes they do.
<
p>I think you would find the Catholic statements remarkably vague and conciliatory on abortion rather than inflamed and outlandish. So, please provide a few examples of what you’re talking about.
BrooklineTom, it just can’t be the case that ‘distributing signs that say “The Pill Kills”‘ or calling doctors who perform abortions ‘baby killers’ is terroristic or even otherwise legally problematic just because it might “inflame radical activists like Randall Terry, John Salvi, and Scott Roeder to plan and carry out crimes of domestic terror.” I mean, from the legal point of view, I’m sure you see the obvious First Amendment issue. And even from a broader perspective, I think people, like you and I, who believe abortion is not murder ought to recognize that there is a serious ethical and religious case to be made on the other side, even if it is ultimately not correct.
<
p>TedF
I’m not suggesting that the government interfere with these protests, the first-amendment issues are obvious.
<
p>I am, however, suggesting that extremist groups like Operation Rescue be treated similarly to the KKK or American Nazi Party. While their rights to protest are carefully protected, their hateful message is equally clearly named and characterized.
<
p>In the broader perspective, I think Sabutai nails it upthread. I am suggesting that our culture and media should group Muslim and Catholic organizations together for the sake of this discussion. Whatever limits we deem suitable for Catholic organizations, we start with a presumption that similar limits should be applied to their Muslim counterparts. Whatever arguments we offer for reporting on, investigating, or prosecuting extremist Muslim groups, those same arguments should be offered for treating extremist Catholic groups as well.
<
p>As I’ve said upthread, my starting point is to address the stark disparity in the way these issues are REPORTED. I think these acts should labeled, simply, “terrorist acts”. Dr. Tiller was assassinated, not murdered. Mr. Roeder is a suspected terrorist, not a suspected murderer. Operation Rescue is a terrorist organization — nothing more and nothing less. I have no doubt that they take great pain to stay within the letter of the law. They still advocate terror, and should be described as doing so by the mainstream press.
Isn’t the better answer to say that the media’s coverage of Muslim groups is sometimes unfair and to demand change on that front, rather than to say that the media should treat Catholic groups as unfairly as they have treated some Muslim groups?
<
p>TedF
Yes, we agree that the media’s coverage of Muslim groups is sometimes unfair. I agree with you that we should avoid unfairly labeling any religious group, Muslim, Catholic, Jewish, or anything else, only because of their religious affiliation.
<
p>Nevertheless, some of these religious groups (both Muslim and Catholic) do actively promote and encourage terrorist tactics, and openly claim religious motivation for doing so. In my view, such claims should not excuse their behavior.
<
p>I don’t agree that we should discourage describing those (and only those) groups as “terrorist”, nor do I agree that we should avoid labeling them as “Muslim” or “Catholic”. Instead, I feel that we should unflinchingly characterize religious terrorism as what it is.
<
p>In my view, the problem is religiously-motivated terrorism — and I prefer that we tackle that problem head-on.
…that the issue is getting pushed and pulled into several different corners.
<
p>The issue started out simple for me
<
p>has the press and the authorities applied the rule of law and the need for the public to know in an even handed manner or have specific faiths garnered what looks like a pass because they are historically European based thus linked more closely to the founding of our country.
<
p>Brookline Tom raised this issue and I think some of the discussion has gone astray, even though many good points have been offered some do seem to be off the mark. Certainly every one can agree that the stereotyping of any group religious or otherwise does a grave disservice to society as a whole. One only has to briefly look back at our President’s speech in Egypt to see this and his call for stopping dialogue that is unproductive and paints a group with a broad brush.
<
p>Yet should we all of a sudden jump down the throat of one group or another because of a senseless act? Maybe this is the time to open a discussion on that issue and Tom has should the authorities deal with any kind of terrorism in and equal and fair manner? I think that is a valid question and on the surface I would agree they have not.
<
p>Support and encouragement of a senseless act comes in many forms not just money and training we all know that their are desperate people who’s circumstances make them prime tools for agendas which is why as a civilized race we need to guard against such actions that will lead to these senseless acts. The Catholic Church among other churches does seem to at times in the moment of passion miss speak and overstep good judgment. Their position which constantly echo’s with out qualification is likely to eventually reach the ear of someone who is highly susceptible to there call for their justice. We should not dismiss their actions as none contributory to the act. and thus Society has the right to demand that when a group of any origin can not contain their zest for an issue then we need to step in to protect those who become targets and those who would make them a target and are most vulnerable to the power of suggestion. Currently when we lose some one to a tragedy like this Doctor this is always the question of why and who is responsible and as a society we want answers so we can correct and move forward with some level of confidence that this will not likely to repeat. This is in my opinion why we have laws and those who enforce, serve and protect.
<
p>As Usual just my Opinion
Defiantly spurs dialogue.
<
p>Open statement I am a Roman Catholic who has walked away from the church because of extremism. Maybe this is the right forum to discuss this.
<
p>I think it is relevant to the discussion when you think about how we expect our church and our faith to be used and applied. It is with out reservation that I suggest that there is an undertone of support for those who battle against abortion and it does receive if not support then comfort and it is a topic that is used to motivate behind the public image of the church.
<
p>read on
<
p>I ran for State Representative 6 years ago and was walking and knocking in my own neighborhood on a Sunday afternoon. I knocked on a door and a woman came to the door and I introduced my self and she promptly stated I know who you are. Seriously I had never met the woman before.
<
p>I said I am sorry I don’t recall the meeting but I was running for State Representative and would appreciate her support. Well she almost exploded at that she started yelling your that baby killer you support abortion we know all about you the (leave out name) told us all about you at our meeting after mass. I looked in shock at her and said I am sorry I have not publicly stated what my stand was, (this was my very first run for any office) to any member of the church and certainly not to this individual who represented the Catholic Church and expressed a condemnation for a stand I was being accused off. I thanked her for speaking with me and said go bye. She proceeded to follow me down the front steps and went out into the street yelling the baby killer is in the neighborhood at the top of her lungs and then yelled my soul was for ever damned and I deserved to die if elected.
<
p>True Story folks!
<
p>Now, this is simply an outrage and with the exception of funerals for friends I have not returned to the Catholic Church nor do I plan to. It is not the church I grew up in nor is it and more importantly the faith I learned. It has not changed my faith or my beliefs it has proven that those who run the church “the human factor” is not on the same page as I am.
To have a member of the Parish I belonged to whom I never had a conversation told other people at a meeting connected to the church affairs had some insight into what I believed in and then branded me as something to be stopped is beyond belief. To suggest that they knew all that was in my heart and head and that some how my concern for non Catholics and even Catholics who have made a choice so devastating as abortion was an out rage.
<
p>Back ground that few may know and I suppose a church official may have had access to I grew up as a child in the church and attended a parochial school for 8 years with great success and although not with an appreciation as deep as I have developed as an adult I did learn the lessons of my faith and have tried to hold true to them in all my own decisions.
<
p>I do feel that a women’s right to choose is civilly important in several situations, such as rape and incest and to protect the life of the mother. That there is an important element that needs to be considered and that is the separation of Church and State. Yet separation of church and state is an important point that I learned in the discussion of JFK running and being elected as President and the issue of his answering to the church as a civil authority.
<
p>I have been fortunate not to have to be involved in an abortion decision my wife who I have known for 41 Years and been married to for 28 years have welcomed our three children with open arms and to our knowledge our two older children have not been involved in a position of having to make such a choice and all three children share our beliefs at least in discussions with us what is in their hearts I can not tell you only they can. I do believe that we need to increase the public safety net to support families and to work hard to reduce the simple need for abortion. I am committed to that in both my comments and my volunteer work.
<
p>Now this is my personal story and some will get more insight into what makes me tick yet I am more then one incident in 53 years, I am the result of a life of events, issues and people who have touched my life. I do label myself as true Liberal on Social issues and a moderate on fiscal issues. I have openly supported the Progressive agenda but not with out question.
<
p>Yet this discussion about the role of the Catholic Church and other faiths in the US deserves consideration. Since there are all sorts of support actions that occur as a result of unseen actions, some that are certainly inflammatory.
<
p>I would agree that until the Catholic Bishops take a proactive stance against violence with the same energy that they oppose abortion and contraception then they are with out comment supporting the events that their preaching results in. Comments after the effect do not have nearly the effect that comments before do.
<
p>As Usual just my Opinion
Do you seriously think that the Catholic church is somehow in the vanguard of anti-abortion jihadists? In a previous thread it was pointed out by Huh that the Evangelicals and Born-Agains have been much more active in this field:
The Baltimore Sun has an excellent opinion piece on this (0.00 / 0)
By one Frank Schaeffer, son of Francis. I’d never heard of either, but the piece is a mea culpa:
<
p>Like many writers of moral/political/religious theories, my father and I would have been shocked that someone took us at our word, walked into a Lutheran Church and pulled the trigger on an abortionist. But even if the murderer never read Dad’s or my words, we helped create the climate that made this murder likely to happen. In fact, it has happened before. In 1994, Dr. John Bayard Britton and one of his volunteer escorts were shot and killed outside an abortion clinic in Pensacola, Fla., by Paul Hill, a former minister and an avid follower of my father’s.
Angry speech has become the norm in American religion from both the right and the left. Words are spoken which, when taken seriously, lead directly to violence by the unhinged and/or the truly committed.
<
p>I strongly recommend reading the whole thing.
<
p>——————————————————————————–
<
p>by: huh @ Thu Jun 04, 2009 at 00:57:45 AM EDT
[ Reply | none0: Delete comment3: Worthless4: Needs work5: Good6: Excellent ]
<
p>——————————————————————————–
<
p>by: you @ soon
To post this comment click here:
<
p>Otherwise click cancel.
<
p>You must enter a subject for your comment
Here is the link, with its conclusion (emphasis mine):
<
p>
<
p>Please note the explicit inclusion of the “Roman Catholic Church”, and tell me again why we should not be attacking their involvement in these terrorist acts?
you have to be consistent and go after all the ant-abortion jihadists–whatever the religion. And to be sure, Catholicism is not without responsibility.
I am equally adamant about the other participants.
<
p>In this thread, I focus on the Catholic portion.
I was raised Catholic too, but no longer practice because of the way the church tries to control people with threats of everlasting life in hell. What an awful way to raise a child. I can picture that woman chasing you into the street, we had a few of those in our neighborhood too.
Frightening.
<
p>In all of my experience as a Catholic, I never once heard a priest or nun convey a message to physically hurt people who did not follow their teachings. Is this message being sent in today’s Catholic church?
<
p>I agree, they should speak out loudly condemning this violence. Perhaps they don’t feel as connected to it as it appears to others. So I guess that goes to Brookline Tom’s point, that the media coverage does not really connect the violence to the Catholic church. Whether they should or not
is a really good question. If they did though, that would surely make the church wake up and pay attention.
is as wrong as Catholics encouraging terrorism.
<
p>Both have extremist groups that are political in nature. No surprise that we have not had a doctor murder during the last 8 years. Roeder’s ex-wife said he had financial problems, when a friend informed him that taxes were illegal. She said that Roeder then became involved and radicalized by the extremist right anti tax groups, prior to his moving into other extremist groups. Radical right extremists use language to whip up anti-democrat, anti-liberal sentiment. Some of this language is aimed to whip up support among groups that are heartfelt about their religion. It’s more of a tool of the radical right to inflame Christians against the left. It is intended to frighten and anger Christians and sets off unstable members.
<
p>The left follows the teachings or Christ as well or better than the right, but you don’t hear Dems suggesting Republicans are trying to undermine their beliefs.
<
p>That being said…it would be interesting to see Catholic Bishops willing to excommunicate, those who promote violence, war and abandonment of the poor.
This is a bigoted Post.
<
p>You go from
<
p>
<
p>But can’t support it. You have no evidence of any sort.
<
p>You say
<
p>
<
p>But you can’t provide even a speck of a money trail or monetary connection between the Church and a tiny minority of violent apostates.
<
p>You say
<
p>But you STARTED the theological question when you brought up Communion. If you had LISTENED you would have seen that one of the sins that causes one to be ipso facto excommunicated is helping to provide or having an abortion. So don’t be so rude as to bring up a theological question and then call the answer “theo-babble” because the answer goes against you.
<
p>Failing to come up with any semblance of a connection between domestic terrorists and the Catholic Church (despite implying that everyone who tithes contributes to it) you have backtracked over and over yourself, you now insist your point is merely media coverage.
<
p>You still can’t tell me what crimes ALL should be vigorously investigated and prosecuted for. You are a simple bigot who thought that posting this type of bullshit on a liberal blog would get a free ride.
<
p>If you wanted to question the way the media covers crimes by people with religious motivations, then do it, but don’t come around here saying the Catholic Church supports and enables terrorism if you have absolutely ZERO evidence. Instead you’ve doubled back and given answers that are dodgy enough to be answers in a presidential debate.
<
p>But I won’t hold the prejudice against you. I forgive the fact you’ve offended my faith. It’s the Christian thing to do.
I didn’t realize they did so much “excommunicating”. Is there any other way to get excommunicated besides having or abetting in an abortion? Will plain old-fashioned murder of an adult do the trick as well? How about torturing people, or targeting civilians in a war? Aiding in an execution- will that get you excommunicated? Sexually assaulting children- is that serious enough to earn the penalty?
It’s pretty much the worst thing the church can do to you, right?
These are largely at the discretion of the bodies of clergy, such as the American Conference of Bishops or the Pope. However, abortion is one of the acts that are described in Canon Law as earning an ipso facto excommunication.
<
p>Excommunication, however, does not mean condemnation to Hell. If I was a Catholic priest who abused children, excommunication would be the least of my worries, if you catch my drift.
Upthread, in response to my challenge that the Church attempt to curtail domestic terror on the part of its followers, you wrote:
<
p>That sounds like a defense of domestic terror to me. Calling me “bigoted”, while a staple of rightwing talk-show blather, doesn’t advance the conversation.
<
p>For those of us who have the audacity to NOT believe that life begins at conception (just as we have the similar audacity to reject claims of human parthenogenesis), such “reasoning” is a meaningless tautology that only serves to demonstrate the ferver of its speaker.
<
p>I am, for example, far more concerned about the impact of bringing unwanted children into the world. If the same institution were aggressively working to provide access to birth control, I would find its opposition to abortion more defensible. Instead, Catholic groups like ALL use the same tactics of terror in an attempt to reduce access to contraceptives.
<
p>
<
p>Excuse me, but these various Bishops started the “theological question” when they issued high-profile press releases announcing their actions. If the institutional church doesn’t want debates like this, it should hold the press releases.
<
p>I don’t care one iota whether or not you “forgive” me. I want the domestic terror to stop. You find my words “offensive”? Here’s what I find offensive:
<
p>- I find the assassination of Dr. Tiller offensive.
– I find the organizations that provide support, aid and comfort to the suspected terrorist offensive.
– I find the 179 bombings, arsons, attempted bombings, and attempted arsons at women’s health clinics since 1989 offensive.
– I find the 3,349 crimes of invasion, assault & battery, vandalism, trespassing, death threats, burglary, stalking, etc., since 1989 offensive.
– I find the 11,429 episodes of hate mail, harassing phone calls, bomb threats, etc., since 1989 offensive.
– I find your attempt to deny the obvious ties between such acts and extremist Catholic organizations offensive.
– I find Catholic activists intimidating providers of health care for women in my neighborhood offensive. The terrorism of John Salvi was not that long ago.
– I find Catholic activists using politics and public policy to impose their homophobia on my friends and neighbors offensive. How long will it be before the same tactics that now target women in my neighborhood are brought against my gay and lesbian neighbors?
– I find the cushy retirement in the Vatican of Cardinal Bernard Law offensive. Cardinal Law enabled the abuse of thousands of children by hundreds of priests over a span of decades.
<
p>I find the campaign of domestic terror against women offensive, I find the complicity of the Catholic church in supporting and encouraging it offensive, and I find your whining about my complaints offensive.
<
p>I’m so sorry I hurt your feelings.
the fact you have claimed the Catholic Church “supports” “encourages” “enables” etc etc domestic terror but have repeatedly failed to provide even shady evidence…
<
p>…not offensive, but kind of funny, and quite stupid.
I don’t suppose you’d like to share your methodology for determining that all those crimes were committed by Catholics and with the encouragement, support, and enabling of the Catholic Church, would you?
<
p>Because, man, I clicked one of your links to religioustolerance.org, and saw all these nasty things like
<
p>
<
p>A little googling on this fellow revealed he’s a protestant. Not only that, but he developed the pro-life movement in Florida to one dominated by fundemetalist protestants rather than Catholics. evidence
<
p>Jeez, and right below that on the same site, was this tidbit
<
p>Uh oh…he’s not Catholic either! And below that!!
<
p>
<
p>Something tells me those white anglo saxon protestants aren’t Catholics…
<
p>And then as if this wasn’t enough, right there on the website you linked to support all your anti-abortion violence, there in black and white for all the world to see:
<
p>
<
p>Are you done now?
I have not claimed that “all” those crimes were committed by Catholics.
<
p>Instead, I assert that some of them were. Further, I claim that by offering incendiary language and rhetoric, Catholic organizations — especially extremist Catholic organizations like Operation Rescue and ALL — contribute to the problem. Their sanctimonious and pious disavowals of “violence” are hypocritical and self-serving.
<
p>Activist Catholic Bishops issue high-profile press releases threatening the withholding of communion from elected officials who vote the “wrong” way, yet do nothing to discourage those “independent” Catholic extremists who do commit and encourage these acts of terror. Instead of agreeing that such striking disparity at least creates the appearance of support, you cite a wildly inflated estimate of the number of abortions (the CDC reports the number as 820,151 in 2005) and wave your hands citing “Canon law” in defense of this hypocritical disparity.
<
p>You object to my characterizing ALL as a Catholic organization, yet it describes itself as Catholic, its members are overwhelmingly Catholic, and its agenda is Catholic. It employs terrorist tactics against the pill similar to those employed by Operation Rescue against abortion. If it quacks, swims, and looks like a duck, it is a duck — your protestations notwithstanding.
<
p>Here is some relevant information from the above CDC report:
<
p>So you cited a number (“1.3 million per year”) SIXTY EIGHT PERCENT HIGHER than reported data, and then demand “evidence” from me?
<
p>Please allow me to just highlight some aspects of this data vis-a-vis Catholic dogma:
<
p>- 81% of these were to unmarried women, 53% were white, and 50% were under 25. The policies you advocate and defend (ban abortions and contraception) would impose a lifelong burden on more than four hundred thousand young, unmarried women and their resulting children. These women made choices you object to, and you presume to then impose your personal religious dogma on them, defending those who encourage terrorist tactics along the way.
<
p>- 95% of these abortions — 779,143 — were performed long before viability, within the first 15 weeks. The dogma that declares that life begins at conception is religious, primarily Catholic, dogma. It flies in the face of developmental biology see (this for example). You strive to forcibly impose this dogma on all of us, believers and non-believers alike.
<
p>These attacks are terrorist actions, Joe. When they are done by Catholics, the perpetrators are “Catholic terrorists”. When they are supported and encouraged by extremist Catholic organizations, those organizations are “Catholic terrorist organizations”. Not all of them, Joe. Not all Catholics. Just those Catholic individuals and organizations that do perpetrate, support, and encourage acts of domestic terrorism. Just as we correctly describe those Muslim individuals and organizations that do perpetrate, support, and encourage acts of terror as “Muslim terrorist” and “Muslim terrorist organizations.”
<
p>It is long past time we stop excusing terrorism when it is motivated by religion.
<
p>There have been about 47 million abortions since 1973, so 47 mill divided by 34 is 1.3 million per year ish.
<
p>
<
p>No, I asked you what crimes they should be zealously investigated and prosecuted for. Hold on, let me go look up thread and see if you actually answered that.
<
p>…
…
<
p>Nope.
<
p>It’s beyond clear that you have no idea what you’re talking about, brooklinetom. This entire post and your comments are just mindless bigotry against Catholicism.
<
p>I’m surprised that the editors didn’t nix this post for failing the “blanket unsupported statements” smell test.
You write:
<
p>According to who? I cited and posted the CDC data, gathered since 1995. Please offer the source of your “47 million” number.
<
p>You add “what crimes they should be zealously investigated and prosecuted for.”
<
p>I’ve said repeatedly that these crimes should be investigated and prosecuted as terrorism. Here is what the US Government means:
<
p>
<
p>Do I need to spell out, phrase by phrase, how Dr. Tiller’s assassination fits into these definitions of “terrorism”? Will it be helpful if I highlight the sections that pertain to organizations that enable and support such actions?
<
p>You write:
<
p>Ah, if you don’t like the speech then suppress it, right?
<
p>First you defend domestic terror (in your comment above comparing the number of murders and attempted murders to legal medical procedures). Then you call for my comments to be suppressed (I appreciate the choice of the editors to instead front-page the entire discussion).
<
p>At least I understand where you’re coming from.
<
p>I find it hilarious that you so blatantly took my question about the prosecutions out of context like that. You weren’t even subtle about it!
<
p>Unless of course, you think ALL is responsible for Tiller’s murder.
<
p>You’re a joke, dude.
<
p>Here’s my citation for the abortion figure
I’m weary of this. Shall I play tit-for-tat and give your latest outburst a “3” as well? Or can we perhaps calm down a bit?
<
p>I have advocated that Dr. Tiller’s assassination be described as “domestic terrorism”. I have called for his ties to Operation Rescue to be investigated. If they are demonstrated to be more than coincidental, then I have called for Operation Rescue to be prosecuted as an organization that sponsors and supports terrorism.
<
p>Most Muslim groups are not prosecuted for supporting terror. Some are. I have not suggested that ALL be prosecuted for supporting terror. I submit that many Muslim groups have been investigated for possible terrorist connections. I suggest that we treat groups like ALL the same way, and then ask ourselves whether an investigation of either is appropriate.
<
p>Meanwhile, separately from any legal action, I deplore the tactics used by ALL against the pill, and I think the group should be described by the press as an “extremist Catholic organization”. I understand that you may disagree.
<
p>I appreciate your citation. Perhaps you have some explanation why your source (Guttmacher) offers a figure of 1.21M abortions in 2005, while the CDC cites 820,151 for the same period. The rate cited by the CDC for 2005 is 15/1000, whereas the rate cited by Guttmacher for the same year is 19.4. I have no idea why the numbers are so disparate.
<
p>On the other hand, I remind you that you began by comparing the incidence of a crime (murder) with the incidence of a legal medical procedure. They are different (at least in a society that continues to separate church and state).
<
p>We have been exchanging arguments, with escalating stridency, for days now. In the heat of those exchanges, I admit I lost track of the specific context of your question about what I feel should be investigated and prosecuted.
<
p>I do not suggest that ALL should be prosecuted for any criminal behavior (yet). I fear that you misread my words in claiming that I do, but if I misspoke, I apologize. I certainly do not suggest that ALL is implicated in Dr. Tiller’s assassination. Instead, I wrote (and feel) that ALL should be lumped with groups like the KKK. I respect the right of the KKK to exist and meet. I am not surprised when they are found to be implicated in hate crimes from time to time. I have a similar feeling about ALL.
<
p>In the meantime, I continue to feel that ALL should be described in the press as an “extremist Catholic organization”, because that is what they themselves claim to be.
<
p>As I said above, I am weary of this escalating spat with you personally. Shall we agree to disagree and let it go at that? I take particular offense at your suggestion that my comments be silenced, as I noted in my response upthread.
First of all, The Guttmacher people directly survey abortion providers while the CDC relies on reports from health centers. Generally, the Guttmacher data is more accurate.
<
p>
<
p>The point I was making is that in the eyes of the Catholic Church, there is no difference between the two. This is why the Church fights so fervently to end abortion. Dr. Tiller is one man in the past decade, whereas abortions number in the millions.
<
p>Also, all doesn’t refer to itself as an extremist Catholic org. It’s just a Catholic one that you see as extremist because you disagree with them so much. Operation Rescue says use any means possible, so yeah, they probably fit that bill.
<
p>In light that we shall never change the opinion of the other, yes, agree to disagree.
I agree that we might characterize them differently (“extremist” or not). I am saying only that their self-identification as “Catholic” makes their identification as such in the press fair game. In my view, it is neither hard nor unreasonable to connect the dots between a demonstration against the pill and the Catholic church.
<
p>I also agree that they are less extreme than OR. I am primarily disturbed by their recent (last weekend) “The Pill Kills” campaign, which I view as comparable to a skin-head or KKK demonstration. Protected free speech under the First Amendment? Yes. Revolting (to me) nevertheless, and particularly inappropriate given the assassination of Dr. Tiller. Your mileage may vary.
<
p>Thanks for your explanation of the Gummacher/CDC disparity.
…, since Islam doesn’t have a pope and the equivalent of Cannon law is all over the place, I’d limit the Catholic identification somewhat. I’d point out that these people cite their Catholic beliefs as justification for their actions. I’d then add the context as to the specifics on their beliefs & actions as compared to specific dogma and the statements and actions of other church leaders. In the case of a Muslim terrorist, I’d point out their Muslim affiliations and compare similarly (especially if the actions were in line with any specific fatwas).
but you’re not going to get anywhere defending the faith here. Folks like this paint with an exceedingly broad brush with tremendous support and or silence. Of course, if they pulled this with another _______(fill in the blank, ethnicity, religion, etc) there would be bloody hell to pay. We’re being expected to contain and subdue every little nutjob that ever took the wafer. We’re also being expected to atone for the sins of the priest scandal, and apologize for any sins committed by other Christian sects because, after all, it’s the Catholics that made them do it. It’s allegedly “primarily Catholic dogma” that insists that life begins at conception…and no other dogma. Evidently, Brookline Tom hasn’t met many Christian fundamentalists, who have no love for Catholics and are ardently anti-abortion.
You are being asked to demonstrate the same public zeal against your followers who commit or advocate domestic terror that you demonstrate against your followers who support a woman’s right to choose.
<
p>That is a far cry from “being expected to contain and subdue every little nutjob that ever took the wafer.” Which aspect of “primarily” is unclear to you? Where did I say “no other dogma”? I’ve met far too many Protestant fundamentalists who are ardently anti-abortion, and I am just as appalled by them. The argument you’re making is essentially “But Johnny does it TOO!”. It shouldn’t work when children assert it and it doesn’t work here. As a parent, my response has always been “but you’re not Johnny”. What’s yours?
<
p>Here’s a paragraph: “Extremist Catholic organizations that advocate terror should be called ‘Catholic terrorist organizations.’ Perpetrators of terrorist acts who identify themselves as ‘Catholic’ should be called ‘Catholic terrorists.'”
<
p>Ok, now try filling in the blanks with some other ethnicities, religions, or whatever. Here are a few:
<
p>
<
p>You think there would “bloody hell to pay”? I think you live in a different world than I, statements like these are made and accepted every day by sources across the political spectrum.
<
p>I’m sorry, but you need to either grow a thicker skin or take more responsibility for changing the behavior of the religious institution you advocate for.
I don’t have followers. I follow Christ…and do my best to bring my children/husband/brothers and sisters to Him. That’s it…and that’s what you’ll find with most Catholics. We’re not exactly evangelicals. And yes, we do have our missionaries in all parts of the world, doing the work of the angels. You know – feeding the hungry, healing the sick, housing the homeless, visiting the prisons, fighting for social justice – and I support them when I can.
<
p>With regard to “primarily” a Catholic dogma – let’s review, K? Primarily means chiefly, mostly, principally…so it’s not unreasonable to believe that you intended to imply that the “birth to conception” understanding of life was “mostly” Catholic, when in fact, it is not. If you want to back track from that – fine. But please be factual.
<
p>And just because I am Catholic doesn’t mean I would presume to judge another person’s “choices.” There are things that I do leave in God’s hands…and this is one of them. Do I wish people would choose Walgreens or CVS instead of abortion? Absolutely. But would I presume to judge a woman with nothing in her wallet, and two kids under five or the woman who’s been raped? Not on your life. Only God can judge.
<
p>And just so we’re real clear, there is a group in the Church which helps women come back “home” after an abortion. Rather than the judgemental and “zealot-like” response you’ve been led to expect from Catholics (like we’re all alike or something), there are people who recognize the all-too-human aspects of life circumstances. http://www.project-rachel.net/ I did a paper on this movement years ago when I was an undergrad. It was an eye-opener. But understanding that would require opening your own mind about Catholics, wouldn’t it?
<
p>And there’s nothing wrong with my skin; I’ve just sick to death of people making bold statements about a faith of which they appear to have a limited understanding. You know, how the Globe and Herald always seem to connect “Catholic” with “rabid?” We get the same sort of thing on here – again, like we’re all alike.
<
p>As for “taking responsibility for the religious institution I advocate for” – what makes you think I don’t? What makes you think I haven’t written to the Cardinal…or my local priest about various issues? What makes you think I haven’t walked up to a bishop at the Archdiocese’s garden party and asked point blank about an issue in the church? What makes you think I haven’t taught my children to “love thy neighbor?” Changing hearts begins in the home…the living room…in the car on the way to school. And I can honestly look you in the eye and tell you that I have helped shape the hearts and souls of two very good and caring people who truly love thy neighbor.
<
p>So, Brookline Tom – you don’t know- you just presume – wrongly.
really?
<
p>and I’ll combat your big numbers with more numbers!
<
p>Human Life International has documented more than 8,519 acts of violence and illegal activities by pro-abortionists. These crimes include:
<
p>1,251 homicides and other killings
157 attempted homicides
28 arsons and firebombings
904 assaults
1,908 sex crimes (including 250 rapes)
106 kidnappings
420 cases of vandalism
290 drug crimes
1,616 medical crimes
… and while a detailed refutation of each data point would prove too tedious to do, a brief sampling of their ‘detailed data’ doesn’t inspire me with confidence in their statistical assertions at all. Not the least of the problems is their definition of terms. They refer to “pro-abortionist” but while they don’t come out and define it specifically, they use the term to include, for example, a man who forces his wife to have an abortion. (nevermind that if ‘pro-abortionist’ is meant to be a counterpart to ‘pro-life’, a ‘pro-abortionist’ would be someone who insists that pregnancies be aborted, not merely an assertion that it should be a choice) This, of course, isn’t pro-choice. First of all. Second, this act isn’t a political statement about the need for keeping abortion legal rather a ‘private’ crime with an abortion component.
I mean, some of these reported incidents are worth acknowledging in order to have an open and fair discussion, but the incredibly flippant tone and questionability of some of them makes it unreliable as a source. It would be nice is someone would totally re-vamp it to reflect a higher level of intellectual honesty.
… english language overflowing with nuance (as demonstrated in the only slightly differentiated meanings of many many synonyms) there would be a word for this kind of use of data. Someone once defined the word “jingoism” as “foreign policy with a chip on your shoulder”. This feels to me like “data analysis with a chip on your shoulder”.
I find it completely insulting that self-professed liberals who ought to want a non-intrusive government, support free speech and political freedom, are now today trying to essentially declare an entire faith an ‘enemy combatant’ simply because it believes that the taking of life in all circumstances, including abortion is wrong?
<
p>BrooklineTom-what are you calling for?
<
p>Every single head of a pro-life organization, every priest, every Bishop, every pro-lifer out there in public, has condemned this killing. Because gosh darn it, us pro-lifers are saddened by the taking of any life, even that of an unrepentant late term abortionist because we value all life.
<
p>I have several quotes from Operation Rescue leader Newman, in that fairly conservative paper the New York Times where he specifically laments the killing not just as an unjust murder, which again he opposes for the same reason he opposes abortion-since they are one in the same, and also laments that this person whom he called a nut and a kook just singe handedly tarnished and ruined the pro life movement.
<
p>All that Operation Rescue did was use its freedom of assembly and speech to open up a clinic offering free ultrasounds next to the abortion clinic Dr. Tiller ran. Isn’t that nice? Something President Obama and other liberals have been calling for on the governments dime being paid for by a private institution.
<
p>Yet BrooklineTom would have us believe that this is domestic terrorism, and that Bishops are aiding and abetting domestic terrorists?
<
p>How come no liberal has attacked BrooklineTom and demanded he issue an apology to the Catholics on this site or at least produce even a shred of evidence, a quote, a link, or anything demonstrating that somehow an official representative of the Catholic church aided and abetted this terrorist act this past weekend?
<
p>Friends ask me why I am moving closer and closer to the libertarian position, and its because liberals are just as intolerant of political opposition as conservatives are. I called myself a liberal when John Ashcroft wanted to label me a traitor and a seditionist for protesting a war I believed, and still believed, took countless number of innocent lives for no reasons. Similarly now that I believe the protection of life applies not just to born Iraqi children but unborn American children those very same liberals who defended me from attacks of being treasonous and unpatriotic claim I am with the terrorists and not against them.
<
p>BrookLineTom you are essentially a John Ashcroft of the left, calling for the government to censor opinions you disagree with, and until you offer any tangible evidence for why the extremist anti-liberty positions you are espousing should be adopted, I think it is you, not I, that is aiding and abetting extremism and terrorism since you clearly do not understand what this country is about, or the principles it was founded on.
<
p>And with the Obama administration now trying to regulate its right wing opponents by labeling themselves terrorists, its unwillingness to give up the expansion of powers Bush allowed himself, its willingness to torture and imprison without trial, I am incredibly disenchanted with my once liberal friends and allies who so ardently argued against the slow road to dictatorship our country was taking under Bush, and now support it under Obama simply because they agree with its ends.
The suspect, Scott Roeder, had the phone number of Cheryl Sullinger, a “Senior Policy Advisor” of Operation Rescue, on the dashboard of his car when arrested. She acknowledges having multiple conversations with him immediately prior to the assassination. She is, herself, a convicted terrorist (she is an abortion clinic bomber).
<
p>I documented all this in the thread starter. In addition to the links to the DailyKos I already posted, there is this piece from the online Kansas City Star. From that piece (emphasis mine):
<
p>This doesn’t sound like “free ultrasounds” to me. You ignore these inconvenient facts, and resort to name-calling instead. Are you prepared to personally label the assassination of Dr. Tiller a terrorist act? Do you disagree that such terrorist acts should be prosecuted?
<
p>At no time have I suggested that the government should “censor opinions [I] disagree with”. Instead, I have called for the press to label Catholic terrorists and terrorist organizations as such when the term is appropriate (such as when the group or individual proclaims itself to be “Catholic”). I’m perfectly happy to call the other groups “anti-abortion terrorists” when they are not affiliated with the Catholic tradition.
<
p>I hope you join me in calling for the government to investigate and prosecute (when needed) every person or individual that perpetrates or advocates terrorism.
<
p>In your spirited defense of Operation Rescue, are you now arguing that Scott Roeder’s direct ties (through Cheryl Sullinger) to Operation Rescue should not be investigated?
If you’re going to call that a “direct tie” I can only imagine what blathering crap I would have gotten if you’d have actually provided some evidence even one of those times I asked you to.
I do believe that there have been offered evidence to suggest that free speech left unchecked by good sense is a dangerous tool in the wrong hands. That BrooklineTom only suggested the Catholic Church is maybe to narrow for this subject under these circumstances, but to suggest that some members of the Catholic church have not exceeded good common sense with their words as have other groups and Faiths not the least of which may be the Southern Baptist Convention is to keep your head in the sand.
<
p>Lets all be clear most groups and the Catholic Bishops have openly spoken against the Killing of Dr Tiller yet they do so publicly after the tragedy has occurred. I think the broader issue of People of Faith is to speak as loudly before there words are miss used not just after.
<
p>We can all agree that statements made in the heat of debate can some times be misspoken and as a result lead to unwanted consequence yet some times these words are used to strike fear and to promote action by just the nature they are spoken in, our Catholic church and the human beings leading it are and will some times cross a line out of frustration. Isn’t this just as much a crime and lets say a group who out of frustration for their religious views strike out against any American.
<
p>Maybe the nerve is still to raw and the debate still to broad to suggest that until free speech is used to build consensus and not openly demonize other humans it is not true free speech in it’s use but crosses a the obligation to a society.
<
p>If you want my personal belief I would be shocked to find a cardinal, bishop, or priest who plots to kill anyone. Certainly we all did not think we would find a Cardinal covering up other crimes yet it happened. SO can it happen that in fact the less public conversations are taken by some, as a call to action, that the tone and volume of the conversation promotes action. May I offer the crusades as evidence of the Church over stepping it’s faith, Or the fact that in the last 25 years a toning down of the objections to Capital Punishment as evidence of focusing action on a particular outcome or an attempt to maintain a certain base.
<
p>We can debate this for weeks in this case I am certain that we will not come up with a you tube clip of a Catholic Priest telling some one to go out and kill some one else so if that keeps you conscience clear then so be it. Yet to suggest that the rhetoric that has occurred in a clear majority of Christian faiths over the anti-abortion issue is not at a fever pitch is well not seeing the forest from the trees and I think Brookline Tom raises the need for civil authority to put it back into check or at the very least to watch and make sure it does not and is not escalating to this level.
<
p>His point is that we are watching another religion for those very signs and we are working and promoting that publicly as a way to reduce unwanted events. In this case I find his original point valid and I would openly offer the point of debate that many other faiths here with in our boarders deserve equal attention and equal investigation to avoid an incident like Dr Tiller’s Death. This is Proactive leadership not Reactive sympathy.
<
p>This certainly is a debate that will continue.
<
p>As Usual just my Opinion
<
p>There’s a very reasonable argument to be made for calling the Crusades defensive wars. Charles Martel stemmed the flow of Islam after the Battle of Tours, but Sicily was no longer under Christian control, the Byzantines were steadily losing ground, and the Reconquista was being planned in northern Spain.
<
p>Looking at the Crusades as merely a holy war or Christianity overstepping its bounds as a faith is very ignorant (not saying this as an insult btw), because it was a completely political act (what EVER are we going to do with all these soldiers left over from fighting the vikings in the north!?) that used religion as an excuse in order to have the ultimate rally around the flag effect.
<
p>While religion played a strong role in the crusades, I would say that it was more of the cross on the soldier’s shield than the man standing behind it, so to speak.
<
p>Now Ed, for the future if you wish to speak of Christianity overstepping its bounds in such a manner again, a more accurate thing to reference would be this. It also shows the way Islam was different back then, seeing how the Ottomans were more than happy to take in all the Jews that left Spain. eh? eh?
… if you consider religion as a legitimate part of statehood. Certainly the Albegensian crusade created more oppression than it ‘defended’ by any stretch of the imagination. Not to mention the Children’s crusade. That the 4th crusade too detours for political considerations is only evidence of ‘defending’ Venetian merchants from competition.
Taking care of the heresy that was Catharism was a legitimate act of the state. We can’t just judge the actions of the past through the lens of today. It’s not practical.
<
p>Whether today we consider religion a legit part of statehood is irrelevant if we’re talking about 13th century France, because back then it, without question, was.
That “France” still wasn’t some unified force.
<
p>The way the southern nobles ended up supporting the Cathars and fighting northern nobles after the Papal bull looks more like civil war type stuff. Very messy!
We can debate the crusades certainly they have been debated for hundreds of years why we would stop now I guess was beyond me but that certainly was not the only example of the church having a hand in actions that proved violent.
<
p>Now I do not suggest that our own Cardinal Law advocate for tha abuse of children, yet his actions can be seen from a perspective that his lack of attention aor his lack of comprehension aided the events that were going on with in his and our church. If properly investigated the threat of indictment loomed close enough that he retreated to Vatican City.
<
p>Just saying that to pillar BrooklineTom for raising the issue of equal under the law is not with out conflict in the facts. Yet you have run the gauntlet because he was picking on one local organization and not casting the net widely enough so as not to seem to have a specific agenda. Yet I read his comments as more generic but using the largest organization in our neighborhood as a focal point for a broader conversation.
<
p>But I think Joe you lose ground defending the Catholic Church, which has for a host of Human reasons a spotty historical record. Don’t fall out of your chair and start yelling what about others, because I am not suggesting other groups do not I am simply commenting on the facts I am aware of. Lets not forget the Spanish Inquesition and no I am not referring to Mel Brooks either. Yet the church played a key roll in trying to affect the public with the approval of government. So our history in review is not with out similar flaws and thus should not be given a pass in a review process. What would be the harm if they were being investigated like hundreds and thousands of other groups and individuals to monitor their actions to avoid public consequence? Is it your position that there is not justification for this under free speech then your proper position should then be that no group should be so reviewed because of free speech? Free Speech does not apply to the Catholics only now does it?
<
p>As Usual just my Opinion
I’m not sure we need to go on that tangent here. Even so, they were centuries ago and I’m not comfortable judging the modern Catholic Church by those wars.
or we risk repeating it! May I suggest you look no further then Cardinal Law. Now where is he that’s right he ran from MAssahcusetts and is sheltered in Vatican City.
<
p>Well I suppose they had their reasons
<
p>As Usual just my Opinion!
.. if that’s all OR did, there wouldn’t have been a need for a FACE act.
<
p>Nowhere did I see Brookline Tom call for ‘censoring opinions’. What I see him asking for is for us to ‘call a spade a spade’ (from his perspective) and he uses the example of the manner in which Muslim who use similar language are labeled in the common discourse as evidence of a disparity. In our common discourse, most do not claim that Muslims are inherently terrorist, but nobody hesitates to label a terrorist (or even an activist) as a Muslim terrorist or Islamist. He just notes that this labeling phenomenon seems particular to Muslims in our American discourse, despite the acts of those who say they are acting on their Catholic beliefs.
But ALL acts completely within the bounds of the first amendment, so unless he’s willing to actually answer a question I’ve asked repeatedly and tell us what crimes they should be investigated and prosecuted for, we can only assume he means their actions that are within the bounds of the first amendment.
… isn’t a first amendment issue. And first amendment rights don’t extend to harassment and intimidation. That’s why prosecutors were seriously looking at RICO a while back.
…and for many of the same reasons. However, I have commented as a liberal in the way you call for in your “How come no liberal…” paragraph.