I was raised Catholic, but have moved on to “not Atheist.” An acquaintance of mine is a practicing Catholic and had some interesting observations, as she struggles with what Akin’s comments meant to a family planner who relys on what you and I may call “the rythm method.” Anyways, she provided a link to the document I cite below.
It effectively erradicates Akin’s footing with Catholics. Further, we see how far apart Catholics are from the GOP platform. (Bold Mine)
Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services
Fifth Edition Issued by USCCB, November 17, 2009
United States Conference of Catholic Bishop36. Compassionate and understanding care should be given to a person who is the victim of sexual assault. Health care providers should cooperate with law enforcement officials and offer the person psychological and spiritual support as well as accurate medical information. A female who has been raped should be able to defend herself against a potential conception from the sexual assault. If, after appropriate testing, there is no evidence that conception has occurred already, she may be treated with medications that would prevent ovulation, sperm capacitation, or fertilization. It is not permissible, however, to initiate or to recommend treatments that have as their purpose or direct effect the removal, destruction, or interference with the implantation of a fertilized ovum.
– snip47. Operations, treatments, and medications that have as their direct purpose the cure of a proportionately serious pathological condition of a pregnant woman are permitted when they cannot be safely postponed until the unborn child is viable, even if they will result in the death of the unborn child.
During the High Mass of the Rick Santorum campaign, there was all sorts of breathy speculation about how the Republican Party was making inroads with Catholics. I wouldn’t suggest, based on the Catholics in my family, that the USCCB has much sway in how Catholics vote. Nor, would I suggest that Santorum does, either.
However, I think it is compelling to read with our own eyes what the USCCB jots down. How does that trickle down from pulpit to pew?
First of most Catholics, including this one, reject a lot of the Church’s teachings on this subject and others, including homosexuality. The Ryan’s Bd Santorums of the world reject Catholic Social Teaching on the death penalty, unjust wars, and most economic and political economy questions. We are all cafeteria Catholics since our faith teaches us that the faith in Christ that unites us must be couple with our individual conscience and reason. As Garry Wills and others have pointed out the opposition to family planning is a recent theological innovation and has little basis in Scripture or patristics thought.
That said even the USCCB is to the left of Akin here, though I would note that this body tends to be more progressive than the Holy See in other matters as well. But this does illustrate how far Akin from any mainstream morality on this topic, save for, apparently, the mainstream of his party.
… the ‘rythm method’. In informed circles, equating the two can make one look ignorant at best. Not to say I think its a good idea in general.
I don’t think that the GOP is as far from the Catholic Church as you might think. http://www.truthwinsout.org/blog/2012/08/28478/
I don’t think that the GOP is as far from Cardinal Dolan as you might think.
The Church doesn’t have an official spokesperson on US politics, and certainly not Dolan, and given its size would not be capable of speaking with a single voice in any event.
The Catholic Church is nothing if not about speaking with one voice. Just ask the Women Religious.
As for Dolan, he’s president of US Conference of Catholic Bishops and as such IS the spokesman for the American church, especially on political matters.
Or were you being facetious?
Dolan might be able to speak for the USCCB, but the USCCB is not the Church. He can speak, I suppose, as the ordinary of the Archdiocese of New York, but the clerical hierarchy is not the Church, either.
The issue with Sr. Pat is clear enough evidence that the Church does not and cannot speak through an individual, Cardinal or not, and is rather evidence that the USCCB is not even successful at speaking with much authority even within the Church itself.
I would not take offense at your writing “the bishops” or the “USCCB.” That would be, alas, true. But what you have written is a rather dramatic overstatement.
Dolan initially seemed like a moderate and reasonable conservative but his record of shunning the President’s efforts at compromise on the mandate, lying about the mandate, allowing the investigation of nuns, and appalling record of pedophile coddling in Milwaukee leave a lot to be desired. Haven’t attended a Catholic MA since Ash Wednesday, good thing Chicago has a strong Anglo-Catholic presence (liturgically conservative and theologically moderate-just the way I like it!). The nun investigation is really a giant threat to a dwindling vocation, most of the women are nearly senior citizens that have given their lives to the Church and I doubt these policies will encourage many young women to follow in their footsteps. The brothers and sisters religious, being the closest to the poor and downtroden are the most effective evangelists for the faith, when Dolan gives up his Cuban cigar and limo habit I’ll respect him. At least O’Malley is still a Franciscan in good standing, my respect for him increases. George in Chicago has a conservative reputation but is a closet moderate and gave a fine speech condemning libertarianism.
Or maybe a little long or a little less (until thre is evidence that ‘conception’ has occured). How gracious of the Bishops.
This is exactly why I hate religion so much. Throw around a few scientific terms, mention the need for “spirtual support” (“Don’t worry, getting raped is all part of God’s mysterious plan for your life?”) and somehow you can convince the “faithful” that maybe the Church isn’t so contemptious of women after all. Maybe there nearly absolutist position on abortion isn’t at all related to their historical and continued disgust for those with vaginas (and, ironically, men who find vaginas disgusting and women who find them delightful).
If a woman is raped and gets pregnant (i.e. the magical anti-rapist secretions don’t work), she should be able to have an abortion if she so choses. The Church’s “interfering with the implantation of a ‘fertilized ovum’ is murder” hokum quoted above is little more than a dying Church seeking to lamely justify its (im)moral position that conception equals life.
The fundamental driving force for the belief that “conception equals life” is that a woman is first and foremost the chattel property of her husband.
All the other “moral” machinations are rationalizations (gay marriage is moral, contraception is immoral, sex outside marriage is immoral, etc) to support this fundamental premise.
… is exactly true. I think the large driving force is the bizarre need for religious organizations to control sex combined with strange and completely not-knowable at best (fictional at worst – and more likely) ideas about ‘ensoulment’. In the past people’s religious thinkers had ideas about when ‘ensoulment’ happens, but in the context of a pretty poor understanding of biology. Now that we know more about biology and reproduction, religious instincts want to tie the ‘special moment’ of ‘ensoulment’ to some particularly special moment in reproduction and conception seems a singularly significant event to the lay-person’s eyes.
Pretty much irrational but there it is.
I think the “bizarre need … to control sex” is driven by the property question. I note (as several authors have observed) that non-procreative sex is generally discouraged, especially in the Christian tradition. Masturbation, bestiality, homosexuality, the various forms of “sodomy”, and so on are all condemned. I further note, for example, that the Jewish tradition of the “Levite marriage” (“yebum”) is intended to preserve the husband’s inheritance — the literally doesn’t count.
I agree with you about the focus on the “special moment” of “ensoulment” (and note that it has changed dramatically over the past two thousand years). My point is that I think it matters primarily because, in this patriarchal culture, progeny — specifically male progeny — is the primary determinant of a woman’s value.
It appears to me that the USCCB and Catholic Church view all issues of sexuality, conception, and marriage through the lens of male domination.
I think female sexuality and sexual power is feared and treating them as property is a psychological coping mechanism for that fear.
The property question is a mechanism for dealing with the real issue – its a symptom, not a cause.
Not all religious people agree with Akin or the Bishops so I’d be careful by lumping “religion” as this amorphous culprit. Many reproductive rights advocates came from mainline Protestant and Catholic backgrounds including Sanger (wasp) and the inventor of the pill (Catholic). The Church historically agreed with Augustine and Aquinas-who I should say borrowed heavily from pagan Greeks like Heroclitus-that abortion was permissible before quickening or roughly the first trimester and the early half of the second. Sagan wrote a secular humanist defense of this view. Pius XII and Paul VI nearly restored this to modern dogma. I think eventually the Church will right itself on these issues-the Holy Spirit has already moved the vast majority of Catholics in this direction including most clergy. The extremist position on reproductive matters was in large part a reaction to the Social Darwinism and Eugenics of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, and is a very recent innovation in the history of the Church.
“The extremist position on reproductive matters was in large part a reaction to the Social Darwinism and Eugenics of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, and is a very recent innovation in the history of the Church.”
I’m not sure I buy this. Too much coincidence in the timing with what we’ve learned in biology. Put differently – as soon as we know the the biology timeline about pregnancy, the previous Church position looks hard to defend as having any grounds in biological events and thus looks overly arbitrary (which it didn’t when we knew less).
I have a link “http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_hist_c.htm” target=”_blank”> that shows a timeline, the position used to be Augustinian and Thomastic, that abortion was permissible after quickening (roughly 16-25 weeks or what we’d call the first and a half trimester today). This position remained consistent for most of the 1500 years of the church with some slight variations, during the counter-reformation it was closer to a ‘life begins at conception’ viewpoint while still conceding ‘ensoulment’ happened later and with a lot of focus on how ‘human’ the fetal shape was. The current position came only recently in the 1880s, and was embodied in encyclicals critical of industrialization, (classical) liberalism, social darwinism, and capitalism.
And yes this also corresponds directly with early mass production of contraception. Ironically the pill was meant to be a Catholic alternative to ‘artificial’ birth control since it just adjusted the natural cycle of the women-but alas this was still viewed as ‘artificial’. Remember the official teaching is not like the Dugger’s or ‘Every Sperm is Sacred’ view, it’s ok to intentionally waste sperm to avoid conception so long as its done ‘naturally’. In any case I, like most Catholics, ignore these teachings and stick closer to using my reason to inform my faith like the Patristic and Scholastic scholars of old as opposed to the Vatican politicians of today.