Hitmen Denounced

I come to praise Jorge Mario Bergoglio, not to bury him. (That will come later.)

In September, 2014, then-National Review columnist  Kevin Williamson tweeted "yes, I believe that the law should treat abortion like any other homicide" and "I have hanging more in mind" for women who undergo the procedure. In April 2018  a podcast from that period came to light, in which Williamson referred to the Twitter exchange by asserting "And someone challenged me on my views on abortion, saying, “If you really thought it was a crime you would support things like life in prison, no parole, for treating it as a homicide.” And I do support that, in fact, as I wrote, what I had in mind was hanging."

Williamson was fired from The Atlantic but he evidently has a very influential ally.  In his weekly address to the assembled throng in St. Peter's Square, on October 10 Pope Francis stated

Today’s catechesis is dedicated to the Fifth Commandment: You shall not kill. The fifth Commandment is do not kill. We are now in the second part of the Decalogue, which concerns relations with one’s neighbour. And this Commandment, with its concise and categorical formulation, stands as a wall of defense of the basic value in human relations. And what is the basic value in human relations? The value of life.[1]Therefore, do not kill....

A contradictory approach also permits the suppression of human life in the maternal womb in the name of safeguarding other rights. But how can an act that suppresses innocent and defenseless budding human life be therapeutic, civil or simply human? I ask you: it is right to do away with a human life to solve a problem? Is it right to hire a hitman to solve a problem? One cannot do this, it is not right to do away with a human being, albeit small, to solve a problem. It is like hiring a hitman to solve a problem.

Is it right to hire a hitman to solve a problem?.... It is like hiring a hitman to solve a problem.

By that, the Pope has rendered his judgement: consummating an abortion, the woman who is, or was, pregnant has hired a hitman to do the job.

The implication of this is clear. The woman is- as a hitman typically is in a contract killing- at least as guilty as the individual who actually has performed the act. If abortion is prohibited (an eventuality made more likely by the ascension of Bart O'Kavanaugh to the US Supreme Court), the woman would be- in Pope Francis' reasoning- subject to severe punishment.

The obvious solution, of course, is not to put additional restrictions on a woman's reproductive freedom.  It will not be avoided, however, and the upcoming, intensified assault on reproductive freedom will test the courage of conservative legislators, who doubtless recognize that holding a woman responsible for an illegal abortion ("murder") is politically perilous. We'll then be able to determine if they are outraged by the act of abortion or instead by the fear that extending to women freedom in this realm would enable them to exercise greater economic and political power.

Share |

Correction

Not a correction but something which was inexplicably omitted from the 8/17/18 post "Theological Predisposition." Two paragraphs read:

That would have a major impact. However, rooting out sexual abuse by priests would require two additional steps, one which probably ultimately will be taken by the Church and the other which will not.

Obviously, allowing women to become priests would reduce the sexual perversion (with no quote marks necessary). At some point, that is likely to occur.

They obviously should have read

... would require three additional steps, two of which probably ultimately will be taken by the Church and the other which will not.

Obviously, allowing women to become priests and all priests to be married....

I regret not including the celibacy portion, one clearly relevant to the topic.

Share |

Theological Predisposition

Amanda Marcotte explains

The Catholic Church sex abuse scandals are often talked about as if they are in the past, but this summer has been a reminder that this horror show continues to unspool, 16 years after the Boston Globe's famous "Spotlight" series exposing the cover-up first ran. This week, a grand jury in Pennsylvania released a report accusing more than 300 priests of abusing more than 1,000 children over seven decades. The details are almost incomprehensibly awful, including accusations of repeated rape, child pornography and priests who marked their victims with jewelry to alert other predators that these children had been "groomed" to accept abuse....

The church in Pennsylvania was working simultaneously to shield child abusers while pushing for laws to punish women for consensual sex, so the easy charge to reach for is "hypocrisy." But that's an accusation that barely skims the surface. The far more troubling reality is that the willingness to cover for sexual predators is entirely consistent with advocating for restrictions on women's reproductive rights. Both attitudes are rooted in the same poisonous commitment to putting men in positions of permanent social dominance as well as rejecting the idea that women and children have bodily autonomy and sexual safety rights.

Agreed. Marcotte argues, persuasively I think

Trump and the Christian right are aligned in their true belief, which is that women must be kept in their place.

So there's no real conflict in the Catholic Church covering up sexual abuse while trying to prevent women from accessing legal and safe abortion services. In both situations, it's about using sexuality as a tool to enforce patriarchal hierarchies. In both cases, it's about a group of conservative men conspiring to organize the world so they hold power and everyone else is subject to their whims.

Shame is a major factor here too. The same sexual shame that religious conservatives try to instill with restrictions on reproductive rights is also used to silence victims of sexual abuse. It's difficult for victims to speak up, precisely because so much shame is built up around sexuality. Victims, male and female, are often subject to people digging through their sexual pasts, using their consensual activities as "evidence" that they're dirty and therefore undeserving of protection against abuse.

It's possible that one reason more survivors of abuse are willing to speak out these days is that the pro-choice movement has done so much work in destigmatizing consensual sex. The fear that victims used to experience -- of being outed as someone who has consensual sex and quite likely enjoys it -- no longer has the power it used to have, creating more space to speak out.

Observing "the lesson here is there is no way for religious groups to preserve their traditions of male dominance and sexual shaming while also eradicating sexual abuse," Marcotte logically concludes "the only way to root out the abuse is to root out those patriarchal values."

That would have a major impact. However, rooting out sexual abuse by priests would require two additional steps, one which probably ultimately will be taken by the Church and the other which will not.

Obviously, allowing women to become priests would reduce the sexual perversion (with no quote marks necessary). At some point, that is likely to occur.

Nevertheless, the other step which would be helpful is one the Roman Catholic Church never will take because it would undermine the indispensable, all-encompassing role of the priest. 

Although origin of the concept is shrouded in mystery, the "priesthood of all believers" is a fundamental precept of Protestantism which emerged from the Reformation. The rationale may be described as

Old Testament priests were chosen by God, not self-appointed; and they were chosen for a purpose: to serve God with their lives by offering up sacrifices. The priesthood served as a picture or "type" of the coming ministry of Jesus Christ--a picture that was then no longer needed once His sacrifice on the cross was completed. When the thick temple veil that covered the doorway to the Holy of Holies was torn in two by God at the time of Christ's death (Matthew 27:51), God was indicating that the Old Testament priesthood was no longer necessary. Now people could come directly to God through the great High Priest, Jesus Christ (Hebrews 4:14-16). There are now no earthly mediators between God and man as existed in the Old Testament priesthood (1 Timothy 2:5).

Confession- a less formal ritual in Protestantism than in Catholicism- and prayer are undertaken directly to God, rather than mediated through a priest or any other mortal individual. "For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the mana Christ Jesus," wrote Paul.

The Reformers' perspective was not superior, some will argue, and your mileage will vary. Additionally, belief in the priesthood of all believers does not guarantee that there will be fewer acts of sexual abuse committed upon children by Roman Catholic clergy than by Protestant clergy.

There are other factors, and not only the ones pointed out by Marcotte. Members of the clergy in many independent congregations are subjected to a process less scholarly and formal than have clergy in either mainline Protestant denominations (e.g., Anglican, Lutheran, Methodist, United Church of Christ, Reformed Church in America, some Baptist) or in Catholicism. Further, there typically will be less vetting of the ministerial candidate.

Nonetheless, the role of the Catholic priest is one which exalts him to a remarkable level, in which he plays a part in the transmission of confession and prayer to the Almighty. It will affect the perception of the clergyman in the eyes of many young people, even in the West and in our most sophisticated of times.

There may be powerful biblical or otherwise theological rationale for eschewing the notion of the priesthood of believers. However, its role in sexual abuse of children should not be completely ignored.

Share |

Bannon Is Almost Right. But It's Not A Sin.

Chris Cillizza in his "The 48 most revealing lines of Steve Bannon's 60 Minutes interview" got it right about Donald Trump (not) specifically being a counter puncher, but somewhat wrong responding to one of Bannon's most controversial remarks.

He quotes Bannon as "Because unable to really to come to grips with the problems in the church, they need illegal aliens, they need illegal aliens to fill the churches" and responds

Um, what? By Bannon's logic, the reason the Catholic Church opposes the repeal of DACA is because they know the faith is struggling and the only way to make their numbers is to allow undocumented immigrants to pack into their church services.

Bet you didn't know that.





He's right- I didn't.   That's because as phrased by Cillizza, "the only way to make their numbers is to allow undocumented immigrants to pack into their church services," the statement is accurate. A year ago, the Public Religion Research Institute (report here; analysis here) found

While non-white Protestants and non-Christian religious groups have remained fairly stable, white Protestants and Catholics have all experienced declines, with Catholics suffering the largest decline among major religious groups: a 10-percentage point loss overall. Nearly one-third (31%) of Americans report being raised in a Catholic household, but only about one in five (21%) Americans identify as Catholic currently.

(In the interests of full disclosure: the decline among mainline Protestant denominations is even greater than in the Roman Catholic Church but increases among evangelical denominations keep the overall Protestant drop below the Catholic drop.)

Religious denominations generally, and their member congregations specifically, recognize that the decline in church attendance and affiliation is especially severe among young people. PRRI noted

And while 21% of the total population currently identifies as Catholic, only 15% of young adults ages 18–29 say they are Catholic, which is not a particularly encouraging trend line for the Catholic Church.

Nonetheless, Bannon was off when he prefaced the statement quoted by Cillizza with "The Catholic Church has been terrible about this. The bishops have been terrible about this. By the way, you know why- you know why." He strongly implied the need for numbers was the sole reason for the church's stance.  By contrast, the Archbishop of New York, Cardinal Timothy Dolan responded to the initial report of Bannon's charge by arguing

And the Bible is so clear, so clear, that to treat the immigrant with dignity and respect, to make sure that society is just in its treatment of the immigrant is Biblical mandate,.  It's clear from the lips of Jesus when he said, 'Whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers, you do to me. When I was a stranger,' meaning an immigrant or a refugee, 'you welcomed me.'

Sister Simone Campbell, the bus riding director of NETWORK Lobby for Catholic Social Justice, already had slammed the Trump Administration's decision to shut down DACA in six months. Hearing of Bannon's complaint, she issued a series of tweets, maintaining "Bannon has forgotten that he is the son of immigrants and forgottten the teachings of his Church," one "whose members support,value & protect immigrant families rather than ter them apart" (although not so much her and ideological allies, it turns out).

There is a happy confluence of openness to immigrants on the grounds of compassion (and, they claim, religious faith) and the need to increase membership and involvement in Roman Catholicism. Further,it is likely that most immigrants from Mexico and points south are at least nominal Catholics.

Cillizza's reaction to Bannon's charge suggests unnecessary defensiveness over the latter motive. There is nothing nefarious in increasing numbers in the pews, without which it is difficult- as Christians might put it- to strengthen an individual's "walk with Christ." Exposing the "unchurched" to worship is a reasonable means of witnessing to non-believers, to which many devout Catholics and Protestants (especially the latter) are devoted.

Give Bannon a little credit, though. Although he is off-kilter, his pronouncement about the Roman Catholic Church's view of immigrants is bold, as well as  pretty good fodder for a blog post.





Share |

Pope Francis Mentioned Him 125+ Times More Than Did Rush Limbaugh


And Jesus said to his disciples, "Truly, I say to you, only with difficulty will a rich person enter the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 19:23, English Standard Version)


In a rant Wednesday, Rush Limbaugh criticized Pope Francis for not pledging allegiance to limitless consumerism, unlimited capitalism, and outsourcing jobs.  Really:

They have been unable to meet the demand, for whatever reason.  They have just recently caught up, and would you like to know how they did it?  They have put one million people on different assembly lines, 600 employees per assembly line at the factory in China at the one factory, where they are making 500,000 iPhones a day, and they still haven't caught up to demand. 

That's a lot of people who are thrilled with something new to buy. A lot of people in China make a lot of money on these places.  I mean, they're not paid what they're paid in America, but they're paid much higher than anybody else in China at these factories.  There's a lot of income being earned.  There's a lot of product being made.  There are a lot of taxes being paid.  There's all kinds of economic activity taking place.  It is stunning.  One hundred production lines, 600 people per line.

A total of more than 300,000 workers dedicated solely to building one product, the iPhone 5S, in one factory.  And this company has many different factories. They make 500,000 phones a day, and they still haven't caught up.  Now, there's a new phone from Motorola, the Moto X.  It has sold 500,000 in one quarter, and the iPhone 5S is selling 500,000 a day, and that's even short of demand.

That's a lot of people thrilled at something new to buy. 

Contrast that with the remarks in the "Apostolic Exhortation" in which Pope Francis observed

Almost without being aware of it, we end up being incapable of feeling compassion at the outcry of the poor, weeping for other people’s pain, and feeling a need to help them, as though all this were someone else’s responsibility and not our own. The culture of prosperity deadens us; we are thrilled if the market offers us something new to purchase; and in the meantime all those lives stunted for lack of opportunity seem a mere spectacle; they fail to move us.

The Pope courageously and incisively added some thoughts even Bernie Sanders probably wouldn't (couldn't) dare utter, at one point maintaining "one cause" of "lack of opportunity"

is found in our relationship with money, since we calmly accept its dominion over ourselves and our societies. The current financial crisis can make us overlook the fact that it originated in a profound human crisis: the denial of the primacy of the human person! We have created new idols. The worship of the ancient golden calf (cf. Ex 32:1-35) has returned in a new and ruthless guise in the idolatry of money and the dictatorship of an impersonal economy lacking a truly human purpose. The worldwide crisis affecting finance and the economy lays bare their imbalances and, above all, their lack of real concern for human beings; man is reduced to one of his needs alone: consumption.

He tackled inequality by arguing

just as the commandment “Thou shalt not kill” sets a clear limit in order to safeguard the value of human life, today we also have to say “thou shalt not” to an economy of exclusion and inequality. Such an economy kills. How can it be that it is not a news item when an elderly homeless person dies of exposure, but it is news when the stock market loses two points? This is a case of exclusion. Can we continue to stand by when food is thrown away while people are starving? This is a case of inequality. Today everything comes under the laws of competition and the survival of the fittest, where the powerful feed upon the powerless. As a consequence, masses of people find themselves excluded and marginalized: without work, without possibilities, without any means of escape.

While the earnings of a minority are growing exponentially, so too is the gap separating the majority from the prosperity enjoyed by those happy few. This imbalance is the result of ideologies which defend the absolute autonomy of the marketplace and financial speculation. Consequently, they reject the right of states, charged with vigilance for the common good, to exercise any form of control. A new tyranny is thus born, invisible and often virtual, which unilaterally and relentlessly imposes its own laws and rules. Debt and the accumulation of interest also make it difficult for countries to realize the potential of their own economies and keep citizens from enjoying their real purchasing power. To all this we can add widespread corruption and self-serving tax evasion, which have taken on worldwide dimensions. The thirst for power and possessions knows no limits. In this system, which tends to devour everything which stands in the way of increased profits, whatever is fragile, like the environment, is defenseless before the interests of a deified market, which become the only rule.

Limbaugh was not amused, and weaved criticism of the pontiff into condemnation of the Democratic Party (quelle surprise!) and even suggested the pope is a knave or dupe: "what this is, somebody has either written this for him or gotten to him.  This is just pure Marxism coming out of the mouth of the pope."  He was particularly exorcised by Pope Francis' recognition

In this context, some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world. This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system. Meanwhile, the excluded are still waiting. To sustain a lifestyle which excludes others, or to sustain enthusiasm for that selfish ideal, a globalization of indifference has developed.

Pope Francis hardly could have been more explicit if he had mentioned the perpetual conservative saint himself, Ronald(6) Wilson(6) Reagan(6).  Nor could Limbaugh have been more explicit in his faith that if the rich be fed, the poor will be.  He claimed

So reading what the pope's written about this is really befuddling because he's totally wrong -- I mean, dramatically, embarrassingly, puzzlingly wrong.  Here's another excerpt.  "Pope Francis said that trickle-down policy..." We hear about trickle-down policies?  "Pope Francis said that trickle-down policies have not proven to work."

Oh, but they have.  It's exactly what Obama is trying to create, in fact, although he wouldn't dare call it that. When you hear Obama talking about job creation and people going to work and roads and bridges being -- what the hell is it but trickle-down?  The left has defined trickle-down as the rich are compassionate and give people things.  And when that doesn't happen, they say that trickle-down doesn't work.  The left has bastardized terms and definitions to the point that trickle-down's become a dirty word. 

Trickle-down is human nature!  Trickle-down is exactly what happens when you engage in economic activity.  You spend money and it trickles down to everybody you spend it with, and then it trickles down to everybody they end up interacting with economically.  Trickle-down is precisely what happens.  But the left has defined trickle-down as the rich are supposed to give the money that they don't need away to people. 

A lot of people might find the trickle-down gospel, alien to Jesus Christ, a little hard to believe.  PBS Newshour reports

American food banks that saw demand for emergency meals take off during the recession are working to meet yet another increase for 2014, following cuts to food stamps that took effect Nov. 1, 2013.

The $5 billion cuts in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program will affect 47.7 million people, one out of every seven Americans. A family of four will lose $36 a month in food assistance, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, dropping from $668 to $632 a month.

In New York City, with 63 percent of pantries and kitchens reporting shortages, the cuts will add stress to an already strained system, says Triada Stampas, a spokesperson for Food Bank for New York City. That food bank, the nation's largest, delivered 72 million meals last year. The organization calculates that across the five boroughs, SNAP cuts will mean that New Yorkers who get assistance will eat a total of 76 million fewer meals acquired with food stamps in the next year.

"We've been talking to private donors for months about these cuts," said Stampas. "But I want to dispel the notion that private charity can make up for the cuts, that's simply not possible. "

Bob Aiken, the CEO of Feeding America, a network of 200 food banks nationwide, said their branches are going to see more visitors as SNAP cuts shrink monthly food budgets.

Feeding America expects to deliver 3.3 billion meals in 2014, an increase from the 3.2 billion meals delivered in 2013 and the 2.2 billion meals delivered in 2009.

With a 46 percent increase in the number of people seeking meals after the recession hit -- from 25 million in 2006 to 37 million 2010 -- Feeding America has been struggling to keep up with demand.

"We are very concerned about the impact this cut will have on struggling low-income people and our network food banks," Aiken wrote in a statement in response to the SNAP cuts. "Unfortunately, our food banks across the nation continue to be stretched thin in their efforts to meet sustained high need in the wake of the recession."

Rush remarked  "The United States of America and its genuine exceptionalism has allowed people to reach the pinnacle of their ability combined with their ambition and desire." Apparently not.  But then it isn't surprising to hear this mindless boosterism from someone who can go on an extended rant (in transcript form, 51 paragraphs) about capitalism, poverty, the Roman Catholic Church, and poor people without mentioning this man:

 


                           

HAPPY THANKSGIVING.... especially to those who won't eat anything like this for another year.



Share |

Time Will Tell

It's a gamble. But probably not much of one.

On Wednesday, Rush Limbaugh commented

I ran across this -- I don't even know what it's called, the latest papal offering, statement from Pope Francis. Now, I'm not Catholic.  Up until this, I have to tell you, I was admiring the man.  I thought he was going a little overboard on the common-man touch, and I thought there might have been a little bit of PR involved there. But nevertheless I was willing to cut him some slack.  I mean, if he wants to portray himself as still from the streets where he came from and is not anything special, not aristocratic. If he wants to eschew the physical trappings of the Vatican, okay, cool, fine.  But this that I came across last night totally befuddled me. If it weren't for capitalism, I don't know where the Catholic Church would be. 

Now, as I mentioned before, I'm not Catholic.  I admire it profoundly, and I've been tempted a number of times to delve deeper into it.  But the pope here has now gone beyond Catholicism here, and this is pure political.  I want to share with you some of this stuff. 

"Pope Francis attacked unfettered capitalism as 'a new tyranny' and beseeched global leaders to fight poverty and growing inequality, in a document on Tuesday setting out a platform for his papacy and calling for a renewal of the Catholic Church. ... In it, Francis went further than previous comments criticizing the global economic system, attacking the 'idolatry of money.'"

I gotta be very careful.  I have been numerous times to the Vatican.  It wouldn't exist without tons of money.  But regardless, what this is, somebody has either written this for him or gotten to him.  This is just pure Marxism coming out of the mouth of the pope.  Unfettered capitalism?  That doesn't exist anywhere. Unfettered capitalism is a liberal socialist phrase to describe the United States.Unfettered, unregulated. 

At 1:00 p.m. Pacific time- 4:00 p.m. Eastern time- on Wednesday, Digby brilliantly responded

Ok, now I'm starting to really enjoy this. Has anyone alerted Wild Bill Donohue to the fact that Rush Limbaugh is calling the pope a Marxist? If Donohue were anything other than a broken down right wing hack, he's be bringing forth the anti-gay, drug addict slurs right about now. (After all, the guy usually defends everything the Church does, including priest pedophilia.) Nothing? Chirp??? 

She could not know for sure at that time that Donohue would not react to Limbaugh's remarks.  But, recognizing his allegiance to politically conservative ideology, she probably does know that the website of the organization "Wild Bill" heads, the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, recently argued on its website

The board of directors at Time Warner cannot distance themselves from Bill Maher any longer. On Friday night, Maher teed up Dan Savage, another anti-Catholic bigot. What happened was particularly vicious.

Maher commented on gay couples who adopt children, alleging that a Hawaiian bishop said these kids had a greater chance of committing suicide. Here is how Savage responded: “That’s total bulls***. He’s confusing children of gay parents with children who are raped by Catholic priests. Sorry, I am just done being lectured about children and their safety by Catholic-f***ing bishops, priests, cardinals.” Shortly thereafter, Savage again remarked about “kiddie-f***ing Catholic priests.”

We are sending to every member of Time Warner’s board of directors a copy of 54 anti-Catholic statements made by Bill Maher on TV [click here to read the report]. Friday’s show concluded the season. The time has come to close this show once and for all.

And now, for what you probably hope is the last time, the clip in which not Bill Maher but a guest of Bill Maher made the remark which set Donohue off:





Donohue's silence- if it remains- is particularly telling given an article published in the hard-right Daily Caller approximately an hour and a half before Limbaugh's rant.  In it, the Catholic League head maintained "Pope Francis is neither liberal nor conservative. He's simply Catholic, and a towering champion of its many causes."

Now a towering figure on the right has criticized Pope Francis for "regurgitating this stuff" about rapacious capitalism and has charged him with being "totally wrong , I mean, dramatically, embarrassingly, puzzling wrong."   The next 24 hours will test whether Bill Donohue is committed to his faith in Catholic Christianity or little more than a "right wing hack."



                                            HAPPY THANKSGIVING


Share |

Offensive Language

There are at least three words which should not be used generically but only to describe those historical acts. One of them is "holocaust," periodically used by abortion rights opponents to describe abortion. Recent comments by two other prominent individuals highlight hyperbole run amok.

The Arizona legislature has passed a bill, now awaiting the governor's expected signature, which

would require immigrants to carry their alien registration documents at all times and require police to question people if there is reason to suspect they're in the United States illegally. It also targets those who hire illegal immigrant day laborers or knowingly transport them.

On his blog, Cardinal Mahony, head of the largest archdiocese in the U.S.A., remarked

The Arizona legislature just passed the country's most retrogressive, mean-spirited, and useless anti-immigrant law.

Perhaps (more on the bill in a later post). But he wrote (typed) also

I can't imagine Arizonans now reverting to German Nazi and Russian Communist techniques whereby people are required to turn one another in to the authorities on any suspicion of documentation.

No, this is not quite "German Nazi" techniques. And Americans, not even Arizonans, are Nazis.

What kind of post would this be, however, without criticism of at least one Republican? If Cardinal Mahony was out of line, so too was an ex-college football star, intelligent enough to realize that he had no future in the National Football League, who became a Congressman- and not a very good one at that. Think Progress reports this exchange that took place at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference earlier this month in an interview with former Representative J.C. Watts (R-OK):

ELSWICK: We were talking about social programs, and J.C., she calls them the new slavery.

WATTS: Dave I think that’s a legitimate claim if the programs aren’t improving people’s lives or getting them into a life of productivity. It’s just like, we could say I think it’s slavery to give your kid an allowance unless you say you gotta take the trash out, you gotta keep your room clean. Parents usually don’t give their kids an allowance without saying you have to do something.

Yep, that's the ticket: giving your son or daughter an allowance while expecting nothing in return= slavery.

Representative Watts in 1997 implied that support for abortion was akin to support for slavery (though in my opinion, not quite equating the two things). A decade later and by then a CNN contributor, he tastefully included Reverend Jesse Jackson in a list of "race-hustling poverty pimps," who "talk a lot about slavery, but they're perfectly happy to have just moved us to another plantation." Apparently, Watts likes throwing that term "slavery" around- nothing like diminishing the horror of owning another human being.

Some terms, like Nazi and slavery, simply shouldn't be trivialized.

Bill Donohue Defends His Faith

Bill Donohue of the Catholic League says many silly things, though he deserves credit for consistency, having said many silly things for many years. In October, he wrote (link directly to the column comes later in this post) in The Washington Post

The ACLU and Americans United for Separation of Church and State harbor an agenda to smash the last vestiges of Christianity in America.... From banning nativity scenes to punishing little kids for painting a picture of Jesus, the zealots give Fidel a good run for his money.

Catholics were once the mainstay of the Democratic Party; now the gay activists are in charge. Indeed, practicing Catholics are no longer welcome in leadership roles in the Party: the contempt that pro-life Catholics experience is palpable.

Not only are the aforementioned organizations out to destroy Christianity, they are Communist, or at least Communist-lite. And the banishment of practicing Catholics from leadership of the Democratic Party must have come as a surprise to the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Or the Vice-President (then vice-presidential nominee of the Democratic Party) of the United States.

On March 30, The New York Times printed an advertisement in which Donohue criticized what he views as biased reprting by the most famous and revered newspaper in the country. An attack upon a newspaper I do not regularly read is of limited interest to me. Not so, however, of a fervent defense of the largest religious denomination in the U.S.A. on a matter of great social concern, even though I am a non-Catholic. Donohue's most interesting, and controversial contention, in defense of his church's behavior and response:

The Times continues to editorialize about the "pedophilia crisis," when all along it's been a homosexual crisis. Eighty percent of the victims of priestly sexual abuse are male and most of them are post-pubescent. While homosexuality does not cause predatory behavior, and most gay priests are not molesters, most of the molesters have been gay.

On the April 4 edition of CNN's Reliable Sources, Sally Quinn (in whose Post's column On Faith Donohue's piece had run in October), addressed Donohue's viewpoint:


KURTZ: … the good thing about your reporting is that it’s built on these documents. Now Bill Donohue of the Catholic League took out an ad in which he said, “The Times continues to editorialize about the pedophilia crisis, when all along its been a homosexual crisis. Most of the molesters have been gay.” He was asked about this on CNN a couple days ago. Let’s take a look.

(PLAYING CLIP)

BILL DONOHUE: If your group is over represented in a particular problem area, you ought to explore it. Yes, there’s a connection between the Irish and alcoholism. And yes, there’s a connection between homosexuality, and — and sexual abuse of minors.

(END CLIP)

KURTZ: Homosexuality is the problem?

QUINN: Well, that’s a whole different issue. And I don’t think this has anything to do with homosexuality. I mean, this has to do with abuse of children regardless of what sex you are.


Uh, no. The abusers of the children are/were male, not "whatever sex you are." Most of the victims are/were male; Donohue claims 80 percent. (The likelihood that female piests would be less inclined to abuse young boys is an issue for another day.) Probably "most of them are post-pubescent"; if not, Quinn, and others of like mind, haven't told us.

Of course, Donohue was correct when he stated "most gay priests are not molesters." If he had acknowledged, as he probably believes, that most homosexuals of whatever vocation are not molesters, it would have been even better. (If he had stated that the vast majority of gay men are not molesters, that would have been even better.)

But have "most" of the molesters "been gay?" From what I can tell, there has been little discussion of this, from Quinn or otherwise, and understandably so. Either they believe, oddly, that the question is irrelevant or they are aware of the answer and want to tiptoe around it. (Or both.)

Is it an irrelevant question? Donohue, an ardent and predictable defender of the Church, surprisingly is one individual who believes it is not. Asked the obvious, unavoidable (except that many journalists have found it avoidable) question last week by CNN's Rick Sanchez of what the scandal suggests about the policy of requiring priests to be celibate, Donohue rose to the occasion: he implied that the requirement should be reconsidered.

Yes, Bill Donohue. While individuals eager to criticize the Roman Catholic Church have been shocked! shocked! at the apparent tolerance shown for priestly pedophiles, Donohue, perhaps inadvertently, has pointed the way. (Kudos to Sanchez for asking a question the answer to which should have gotten more airplay.) Consider the vow of priestly chastity. If few inside or outside the church are willing to challenge the requirement that its spiritual leaders eschew legitimate sexual involvement of any kind, the institution will have little incentive to change.

No doubt the Roman Catholic Church will muster moral outrage to pedophilia roughly equivalent to that of the general public and of its parishioners. And change will be implemented in its approach to accusations of sexual misconduct. Those will represent significant and positive reform. And admittedly, the Church needs to consider other issues, of a more theological nature, before changing policy. But it does no good for the Fourth Estate to avoid discussion of the Elephant in the Room when expressing (justifiable) outrage over the pattern of abuse.

Looking The Other Way

What to make of Father Cantalamessa, the Preacher of the Pontifical Household? At the Good Friday Mass at St. Peter's Basilica in Rome, his homily, with Pope Benedict XVI in attendance, near the end included:

I received in this week the letter of a Jewish friend and, with his permission, I share here a part of it.

He said: “I am following with indignation the violent and concentric attacks against the Church, the Pope and all the faithful by the whole world. The use of stereotypes, the passing from personal responsibility and guilt to a collective guilt remind me of the more shameful aspects of anti-Semitism. Therefore I desire to express to you personally, to the Pope and to the whole Church my solidarity as Jew of dialogue and of all those that in the Jewish world (and there are many) share these sentiments of brotherhood. Our Passover and yours are undoubtedly different, but we both live with Messianic hope that surely will reunite us in the love of our common Father. I wish you and all Catholics a Good Easter.”

Insensitive, offensive, possibly anti-Semitic (one point in favor- no use of "holocaust"). Of course, but not nearly as significant as the purpose behind the remarks.

The BBC online has reported

The Vatican said Raniero Cantalamessa's remarks did not represent its official view (althought).... Fr Cantalamessa's sermon was printed in full on the front page of the Vatican's official newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano.

The words, the message, and the sense of victimhood are all out there. But if they get a lot of blowback, don't blame us- it's nothing official. Nonetheless, we'll make sure they receive wide distribution.

As obvious a tactic as it is, even that is not as significant as the purpose behind the remarks, though the "this is how we feel, no it's not, yes it is" approach is a pretty good hint.

Blogging on Hullabaloo, Tristero nails it:

Instead of denouncing evil deeds, we are being urged to denounce evil words.

Evil words are very bad, but from the standpoint of people trying to manage a huge crisis, they are more easily explained and excused than evil deeds. And sure enough, they've started the process of diffusing the anger.

Get it? All this time you've spent reading about this he said/she said bull_ _ _ _ is time you have not spent reading about" the alleged events giving rise to the controversy.

Lest the Church's misdirection succeed, let us not forget, as the Times of London summarized in its online edition:

1980 As Archbishop of Munich and Freising, Joseph Ratzinger presided at a meeting about Father Peter Hullermann, who had forced an 11-year-old to have oral sex and had assaulted three other children. Diocese authorities approved Hullermann’s transfer to southern Germany for therapy; police were not told. Hullermann returned to pastoral duties within two weeks but it is unclear whether Ratzinger knew this. Hullermann reoffended

1996 The Archbishop of Milwaukee wrote to Ratzinger, then head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, to ask that the Rev Lawrence C. Murphy, a child abuser, be put through a church trial. Father Murphy had molested up to 200 youngsters. The Archbishop received no response but cardinals halted proceedings against Father Murphy after he wrote to Cardinal Ratzinger begging for mercy

2001 Ratzinger ruled that child abuse claims must be handled in canonical trials behind closed doors. Critics say it has done little to stop paedophile priests from transferring to another parish or to encourage reporting of abuse.

Now The New York Times has found

interviews and documents suggested that Father Murphy, who is accused of molesting as many as 200 boys at the school near Milwaukee, also used his family’s lakefront cottage as a lure in his sexual advances, bringing youths from the school into his home beginning at least in the early 1960s.

What has recently come to light in fresh documents and interviews is that he was in the company of boys not only from the Milwaukee area but in the Northwoods region. Two in the area have accused Father Murphy of abuse, one at the isolated family cottage and the other, as late as 1978, at a youth detention center near Boulder Junction.

Speaking with a therapist years later, Father Murphy denied having any sexual contact “with any person” after leaving the school for the deaf in 1974.

Say what you wish about this entire affair: blown out of proportion, just the tip of the iceberg, or perhaps a travesty which should not obscure all the good work the Church does. But

If it is your job to manage an obscenely large and disgusting scandal, it is far, far better to shift everyone's focus onto some batty priest's intemperate and "unofficial" remarks than do nothing and have people learn even more salacious details about priest/boy buggery.

Words matter. But actions matter a lot more. So Father Cantalamessa's take pales to insignificance compared to past behavior of the current head of the largest Christian denomination in the world. Whatever it might have been, and in whatever context.

Matthews Does The Unthinkable (2)

When Matthews took on (video below, as in previous post) Bishop Thomas Tobin of the Diocese of Rhode Island on November 23 over the issue of abortion, he raised two important issues: 1) the criminalization of abortion (previous post) and the role of the Church and the Roman Catholic politician.

Matthews raised the latter issue early in the interview (relevant portion below) on Hardball beginning with video of the first Roman Catholic President, John F. Kennedy remarking at a prayer breakfast in Houston

I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant, nor Jewish, where no public official either requests or accept instructions on public policy from the pope, the National Council of Churches, or any other ecclesiastical source, where no religious body seeks to impose its will, directly or indirectly, upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTHEWS: Welcome back to HARDBALL. That's John F. Kennedy, of course, back in 1960 down in Houston.

The bishop of Providence has been engaged in a series of sharp exchanges these days with U.S. Congressman Patrick Kennedy over abortion rights. Over the weekend, Congressman Kennedy revealed that Bishop Tobin, Thomas Tobin, had asked him not to receive communion because of his support for abortion rights in Congress.

Bishop Thomas Tobin joins us now.

Your Excellency, what do you make of that quote from Kennedy back in '60; "I believe in an American-in an America where no public official either requests or accepts instruction on public policy from the pope"?

REV. THOMAS TOBIN, BISHOP OF PROVIDENCE, RHODE ISLAND: Sure. And that's a good reference and a very famous quote, of course.

A little bit of a difference, though. I think what the president, the ex-president, was talking about was the establishment of a national religion. In fact, what we're trying to do is not dictate what the public policy should be in the United States from a purely Catholic doctrinal point of view.

What we're trying to do, most of all, is instill good human values, but also have Catholics who are in political office be faithful to the dictates of the church and the dictates of their conscience and the teachings of the church.

MATTHEWS: I don't see how you read it that way, Your Excellency. "I believe in an America where no public official, no public official either requests or accepts instruction on public policy from the church."

I don't know how you read that any other way than the way Senator-or then Senator Kennedy said it-no instruction on public policy from his church. You think he meant something different than what he said?

(CROSSTALK)

TOBIN: I suppose there are different ways of approaching that.

But the point is that any Catholic in public office, his first commitment has to be to his faith, not just for a Catholic, but for a member of any religious community. No commitment is more important than your commitment to your faith, because it involves your relationship with God.

And if your faith somehow interferes with or your job gets in the way of your faith, as I have said on other occasions, you need to quit your job and-and save your soul. Nothing can become more important than your relationship with God.

MATTHEWS: If you were a member of Congress-and I know you're a political junky, from reading about you and talking to my friends about you, Your Excellency-what would be your voting record on abortion? How would you deal with the issue if you got to vote in Congress?

TOBIN: Well, of course, I'm not a member of Congress.

But, if I were, I certainly would never be in a position of supporting any degree of abortion legislation that enables or facilitates or encourages abortion. Keep in mind what we believe about abortion. Every time an abortion takes place, a baby dies. I don't know how people of good conscience, especially people from a Catholic background, could take that position in good conscience.

MATTHEWS: Well, what law would you pass?

TOBIN: Well, I think laws that preserve and...

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: That's what we're talking about here, Your Excellency, the law, not the morality of the issue, but the law. You're-you're coming down on Congressman Kennedy and on other public officials because of the way they're approaching the law. What law would you write if you had the authority to do that on abortion rights?

TOBIN: Sure.

I think I would write laws that pre-I would write laws that preserved and protect human life, to the extent that it's completely possible.

MATTHEWS: Right. That's the value. That's the value you support.

TOBIN: We recognize-right.

MATTHEWS: This isn't about values. This is about behavior.

TOBIN: We...

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: What law would you pass? Would you outlaw abortion?

TOBIN: I think that was certainly where our nation would want to move, much like it was before that disastrous decision of Roe v. Wade.

I mean, that was a benchmark, as you know, that...

MATTHEWS: So, you would vote to outlaw it. No, I really want to get...

TOBIN: Sure.

MATTHEWS: We have to get down to this, because your problem with Congressman Kennedy is his position on the law, what the law should read on abortion.

What should the law be? What should a good Catholic, as you would put it, believe about the law? Should the law outlaw, should it ban abortion? Is that what a good Catholic should do?

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: Because you're instructing people now how to vote. So, tell Catholics now on television how they should vote as members of Congress.

TOBIN: Sure.

Catholics should vote as members of Congress on laws that preserve and protect human right. I don't know that I'm in a position to comment on specific pieces of legislation, because, as you know, there are hundreds of them and thousands of them.

MATTHEWS: Would you outlaw it?

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: Well, let me ask you a broad question. Would you outlaw it?

TOBIN: Absolutely, because abortion is the taking of innocent human life.

MATTHEWS: Right, I know. Right. So that's where your difference is with president-with Congressman Kennedy. He wouldn't outlaw it. Isn't that your difference?

TOBIN: That's a huge difference. And keep in mind that I didn't go after Congressman Kennedy. I didn't single him out. I didn't look for him. I responded to things that he had said when he initiated his first unprovoked attack on the church, and other things he's written since then. So I haven't gone after him. I've responded to things that he has said consistently....

Bishop Tobin got off to a bad start. When Matthews asks him to comment on Kennedy's statement "I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant, nor Jewish, where no public official either requests or accept instructions on public policy from the pope...." Tobin curiously responds "I think what the president, the ex-president, was talking about was the establishment of a national religion." This would have been odd, given that Kennedy's purpose in the speech was to assure the Protestant clergymen in attendance that as President, he would not allow his church to dictate his policy- not that their brand of Christianity should not be the national religion. (They already knew he believed that and reminding them would have been self-defeating.) Credit the host for implying that his guest's interpretation was off-base, rather than dishonest: "I don't know how you read that any other way than the way Senator-or then Senator Kennedy said it-no instruction on public policy from his church. You think he meant something different than what he said?"

Matthews went on to elicit an extraordinary comment from Bishop Tobin: "But the point is that any Catholic in public office, his first commitment has to be to his faith, not just for a Catholic, but for a member of any religious community." That, if it were official church position, would come as a surprise to those of us non-Catholics who voted for John Kerry for president, expecting his priority if elected to be the the overall welfare of the American people.

But Matthews wasn't able to make his critical point until the Bishop repeatedly refused, or was unable, to say what the penalty should be for a woman who has obtained an illegal abortion and he stated, significantly, "Well, again, I think it would depend on the specific piece of legislation that was crafted. And I'm not in a position-I wouldn't even pretend to be in a position to do that." Matthews then explained:

....when you realize you don't really want to punish a woman for having an abortion, under the law, then maybe you should step back from using the law as your tool in enforcing moral authority.

Maybe your moral authority comes from the pulpit and from teaching, and a congressman has a totally different role, which is to write the law. Now, I've asked you three times, your excellency, to tell me what the law should be. And if you can't do it, maybe you shouldn't be involved in telling Congressman Kennedy how to write the law. You say you don't know how to do it. Well, you ought to try before you tell him what he's doing wrong. That's my thinking....

No, let's get to the woman. No, you have no idea, and it's not your area. And yet this is the very area you've transgressed in. You've gone into the area of lawmaking, and condemned the behavior of public officials who have to write public policy.

Game, set, match. Fortunately, Bishop Tobin does not speak for the entire American Roman Catholic Church, which has a legal and ethical right to speak out on public policy. But if a clergyman cannot- or will not- say "what the law should be," he should not be telling a legislator how to write the law, nor to "tell him what he's doing wrong." Bishop Tobin indeed "went into the area of lawmaking" and then when pressed, begged off, claiming "I don't know that I'm in a position to comment on specific pieces of legislation, because, as you know, there are hundreds of them and thousands of them."

Trying to have it both ways is not a means of establishing moral clarity. Even if Chris Matthews had not established that, he would have served a vital public purpose simply simply in exposing sensitive issues and, more courageously, doing so with a clergyman.

Matthews Does The Unthinkable (1)

Chris Matthews made me look foolish, given that I had suggested the possibility that he exhibits a preference for politicos of his own faith. He may do so, but it certainly didn't enter into his extraordinary questioning of a member of the Roman Catholic hierarchy Monday evening.

Spurred by the row between Representative Patrick Kennedy (D.-R.I.) and the Diocese of Rhode Island over taking communion, Matthews on the Hardball episode of 11/24 aired two revealing segments, one strictly about abortion and one touching on the matter, The latter, which was the last segment of the program, consisted of a discussion with Patrick J. Buchanan and The Washington Post's Eugene Robinson and included the following:

MATTHEWS: We're back with MSNBC political analysts Eugene Robinson and Pat Buchanan for more of the fix. Pat, we had an interesting discussion, I thought, putting it lightly, with Bishop Thomas Tobin of Providence, because he has gone out and basically, apparently privately advised Congressman Patrick Kennedy, the son of Ted Kennedy, he shouldn't go to communion. Kennedy put that out publicly. It's really become a church/state fight here.

BUCHANAN: I agree with the bishop. He has a moral responsibility to teach and instruct someone who's doing something morally wrong, which is providing funding for the killing of innocent human beings. You asked him, you know, what should the sanction be? Should you really be telling lawmakers what to do? Certainly they did in the Civil Rights era. They said, look, I don't know how this law is going to be passed, but what is being done is wrong. Amanda Perez was ex-communicated for being against civil-

MATTHEWS: I'm not sure that anybody on the pro-life side-or few of them are willing to say a woman should be put in prison for getting an abortion. The word murder is used frequently.

BUCHANAN: They would go back to the 1950s. You put the abortionist in prison. If you put someone there, not the woman, she's the first victim.

MATTHEWS: How would that stop a person from-

BUCHANAN: It may not stop all of them, Chris. You can't stop all drugs by outlawing them.

ROBINSON: I thought I heard the bishop say go back to pre-Roe v. Wade. We all know-we're talking about the real world here. We all know abortion is not going to become illegal in every state. Women are going to go across state lines.

MATTHEWS: It's not going to be eradicated where it's illegal, either. Let's face it, there's always going to be a med student who flunked out of school who's willing to be an abortion doctor.

ROBINSON: The question you asked I thought was a good question. How do you criminalize it? What is the penalty?

MATTHEWS: Pat, I go back to this. Your hesitance to prescribe a punishment tells me you have a problem with calling this, in effect, legally murder. Is this murder?

BUCHANAN: It is the killing of an-

MATTHEWS: Is it murder?

BUCHANAN: -- innocent unborn. Does it meet the definition of murder?

I think it does.

MATTHEWS: Why don't you punish the woman?

BUCHANAN: If an abortionist does it, she's a participant in it, but I think she's a victim.

MATTHEWS: Great. Thank you. You're hedging, hedging, hedging. Eugene Robinson, Pat Buchanan. Right now, it's time for "THE ED

Pretty simple. If abortion is outlawed, it will be because legislators and/or judges have determined abortion is killing and, hence, must be prohibited, at which point 'killing' will have become 'murder.' Otherwise, the motive will have been to restrict radically the power of a woman over her own body or to expand radically the power of government to restrict an individual's control over that body. Few could be so cynical as to deny that a passionate belief in abortion as the taking of a human life would not be the primary motive.

The role of the federal or state government, in case of violation of the law, would be clear: punish both the professional who has taken the life and the woman who requested the act be committed. And given the likelihood that, with the risks inherent in conducting a proscribed procedure, the woman will have sought out the professional and paid him to kill her baby, prosecution of the mother who had been pregnant would be ethically unavoidable.

If Matthews had- as he has previously- merely pointed out the (euphemistically speaking) disconnect or the (still generous) hypocrisy of advocating the prohibition of abortion while unwilling to support prosecution of the woman, he would have been performing a public service, one far too few in his profession are willing to do.

But earlier in Tuesday's program, Matthews- proudly Roman Catholic by background and affiliation- discussed (video below) with the Diocese's Bishop Thomas Tobin this extraordinary lack of will. Call it "Nixon going to China" or whatever you will, but virtually no journalist, and certainly no politician, would deign to conduct an interview like this one (worth reading in its totality):

MATTHEWS: Welcome back to HARDBALL. That's John F. Kennedy, of course, back in 1960 down in Houston.

The bishop of Providence has been engaged in a series of sharp exchanges these days with U.S. Congressman Patrick Kennedy over abortion rights. Over the weekend, Congressman Kennedy revealed that Bishop Tobin, Thomas Tobin, had asked him not to receive communion because of his support for abortion rights in Congress.
Bishop Thomas Tobin joins us now.

Your Excellency, what do you make of that quote from Kennedy back in '60; "I believe in an American-in an America where no public official either requests or accepts instruction on public policy from the pope"?

REV. THOMAS TOBIN, BISHOP OF PROVIDENCE, RHODE ISLAND:
Sure. And that's a good reference and a very famous quote, of course.

A little bit of a difference, though. I think what the president, the ex-president, was talking about was the establishment of a national religion. In fact, what we're trying to do is not dictate what the public policy should be in the United States from a purely Catholic doctrinal point of view.

What we're trying to do, most of all, is instill good human values, but also have Catholics who are in political office be faithful to the dictates of the church and the dictates of their conscience and the teachings of the church.

MATTHEWS: I don't see how you read it that way, Your Excellency. "I believe in an America where no public official, no public official either requests or accepts instruction on public policy from the church."

I don't know how you read that any other way than the way Senator-or then Senator Kennedy said it-no instruction on public policy from his church. You think he meant something different than what he said?

(CROSSTALK)

TOBIN: I suppose there are different ways of approaching that.

But the point is that any Catholic in public office, his first commitment has to be to his faith, not just for a Catholic, but for a member of any religious community. No commitment is more important than your commitment to your faith, because it involves your relationship with God.

And if your faith somehow interferes with or your job gets in the way of your faith, as I have said on other occasions, you need to quit your job and-and save your soul. Nothing can become more important than your relationship with God.

MATTHEWS: If you were a member of Congress-and I know you're a political junky, from reading about you and talking to my friends about you, Your Excellency-what would be your voting record on abortion? How would you deal with the issue if you got to vote in Congress?

TOBIN: Well, of course, I'm not a member of Congress.
But, if I were, I certainly would never be in a position of supporting any degree of abortion legislation that enables or facilitates or encourages abortion. Keep in mind what we believe about abortion. Every time an abortion takes place, a baby dies. I don't know how people of good conscience, especially people from a Catholic background, could take that position in good conscience.

MATTHEWS: Well, what law would you pass?

TOBIN: Well, I think laws that preserve and...

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: That's what we're talking about here, Your Excellency, the law, not the morality of the issue, but the law. You're-you're coming down on Congressman Kennedy and on other public officials because of the way they're approaching the law. What law would you write if you had the authority to do that on abortion rights?

TOBIN: Sure.
I think I would write laws that pre-I would write laws that preserved and protect human life, to the extent that it's completely possible.

MATTHEWS: Right. That's the value. That's the value you support.

TOBIN: We recognize-right.

MATTHEWS: This isn't about values. This is about behavior.

TOBIN: We...

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: What law would you pass? Would you outlaw abortion?

TOBIN: I think that was certainly where our nation would want to move, much like it was before that disastrous decision of Roe v. Wade.
I mean, that was a benchmark, as you know, that...
MATTHEWS: So, you would vote to outlaw it. No, I really want to get...

TOBIN: Sure.

MATTHEWS: We have to get down to this, because your problem with Congressman Kennedy is his position on the law, what the law should read on abortion.
What should the law be? What should a good Catholic, as you would put it, believe about the law? Should the law outlaw, should it ban abortion? Is that what a good Catholic should do?

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: Because you're instructing people now how to vote. So, tell Catholics now on television how they should vote as members of Congress.

TOBIN: Sure.
Catholics should vote as members of Congress on laws that preserve and protect human right. I don't know that I'm in a position to comment on specific pieces of legislation, because, as you know, there are hundreds of them and thousands of them.

MATTHEWS: Would you outlaw it?

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: Well, let me ask you a broad question. Would you outlaw it?

TOBIN: Absolutely, because abortion is the taking of innocent human life.

MATTHEWS: Right, I know. Right. So that's where your difference is with president-with Congressman Kennedy. He wouldn't outlaw it. Isn't that your difference?

TOBIN: That's a huge difference. And keep in mind that I didn't go after Congressman Kennedy. I didn't single him out. I didn't look for him. I responded to things that he had said when he initiated his first unprovoked attack on the church, and other things he's written since then. So I haven't gone after him. I've responded to things that he has said consistently.

MATTHEWS: You said that we should go back to where we were before Roe v. Wade in '73. So let's go back to that, if that is the prescription you're offering here. If you outlaw abortion at the state level, say at the Rhode Island level, or the Pittsburgh level in Pennsylvania, where you come from, or anything like that, then you make it illegal for a person to go get on abortion. So what does that do, in fact? What's the effect on human life? You want to respect and preserve human life. What is the effect that has if you say a doctor can't perform an abortion? Would you criminalize it? Would you put people in jail? If it's murder, as you see it, would you criminalize it?

TOBIN: Well, the first effect on human life is that we preserve human life.

MATTHEWS: How would it work? How would it work? That's one of the questions I have. How would it work if you outlawed it?

TOBIN: Sure. Well, again, I think it would depend on the specific piece of legislation that was crafted. And I'm not in a position-I wouldn't even pretend to be in a position to do that.

MATTHEWS: Well, that's what you're doing here. You're saying that Congressman Kennedy has voted wrong. Tell me how he should have voted. Should he vote to outlaw or criminalize abortion? If you say that a doctor can't perform an abortion, then somebody else might do it or they might leave the country to have an abortion or they might do it illegally. Some midwife could do it or somebody who flunked out of med school could do it. Unless you outlaw it, unless you outlaw getting an abortion, I just wonder if you're really preventing it in any way.
I mean, what would be the penalty for a woman getting an abortion in the world you would like to construct here? What would be the penalty for getting an abortion?

TOBIN: I have no idea what the penalty would be, because I'm not-

MATTHEWS: Well, you're talking about-no. But you're telling congress-people how to vote and what laws to pass. What law should be-

TOBIN: What we're trying to do-

MATTHEWS: No, no. Go ahead.

TOBIN: No, what we're trying to do-

MATTHEWS: I think you're intervening. I think you're getting into law here, and you don't like Congressman Kennedy's voting record in Congress. That's what you're really going after, where he stands on the law. A lot of catholics agree or disagree in every poll I've seen about what the law should be. They generally accept the teaching authority of the church, the magistar (ph), your teaching authority, your excellency.

Where the disagreement is where the law should be, what the penalty should be. I've never heard of anybody in the church, in the laity, in the clergy, or in the hierarchy saying a woman should be put in prison for having an abortion. And then I said, wait a minute, if you think it's murder, there's an inconsistency here.

And if there is a hesitancy to punish a woman for having an abortion, maybe that's instructive to you, sir, your excellency, because when you realize you don't really want to punish a woman for having an abortion, under the law, then maybe you should step back from using the law as your tool in enforcing moral authority.

Maybe your moral authority comes from the pulpit and from teaching, and a congressman has a totally different role, which is to write the law. Now, I've asked you three times, your excellency, to tell me what the law should be. And if you can't do it, maybe you shouldn't be involved in telling Congressman Kennedy how to write the law. You say you don't know how to do it. Well, you ought to try before you tell him what he's doing wrong. That's my thinking.

Because when it comes to the law, it's a secular question. It has not to do with the moral-we do a lot of things in this country we don't like, we think are immoral. But the question is, what sanction do you apply to it? And I'm asking you again with respect, because you are here on the show of your own free will, at our request. What should be the penalty for a young woman or a girl, even, to have an abortion? And if there is no penalty for it, are you really outlawing it?

TOBIN: Sure. And it can perhaps be different degrees of penalties, depending on the involvement of the person. There might be some penalty for the woman having the abortion.

MATTHEW: What would be appropriate?

TOBIN: For a doctor performing-

MATTHEWS: No, let's get to the woman. No, you have no idea, and it's not your area. And yet this is the very area you've transgressed in. You've gone into the area of lawmaking, and condemned the behavior of public officials who have to write public policy. And I get back to what John Kennedy said when he was under pressure to explain the separation between church and state, the difference between rendering unto Caesar the things that are Caesar, which is the law, and rendering to your flock and people like me what is right and wrong.

And I would contest that your problem is you haven't gotten people to obey your moral code through teaching, and you have resorted now to use the law to do your enforcement for you. And the problem with that is you are hesitant, even here, your excellency, to state for me now what the punishment should be under the law for having an abortion, because you know, deep down, if you said one minute in prison, you would be laughed at, because the American people, catholic and non-catholic, do not think it's a criminal act to have an abortion.

They may not like it. They may think it's immoral. But they don't think it's criminal. And yet you are here bringing the force of the law, the authority of the police, and the bench, the law, the judiciary. You want to bring it all to bear, including the Constitution, to enforce your moral beliefs, which are very valid, and I happen to share them. But how do you do it under the law, your excellency? And I'll give you plenty of time to do this. How do you do it under the law?

TOBIN: Thank you. And I appreciate-appreciate the time to try to explain it. I think it's not unusual, and you would understand this, I think, to have the moral law reflected in the laws of a land. We do that all of the time when we say that you may not kill somebody. You may not steal something. You may not beat somebody up. It's not at all unusual to have the moral law reflected in the laws of the land.

Now, exactly how that is played out, that's not the job of the church, much as we're involved in the question of health care. We're trying to establish some very basic principles about health care. We're not involved in the great details of the 2,000 page piece of legislation. And the same approach would be taken perhaps to abortion. We believe that abortion is wrong. It's a matter of the natural law and our legislation often reflects principles of the natural law.

I'm not a legislator. I can't begin to write those laws. My job is to try to promote the truth of the moral law, and to encourage members of my church who freely choose to be catholic to follow the dictates of their faith.

MATTHEWS: I-your excellency, thank you for coming on. I believe you expressed a hesitancy of the clergy to intervene in terms of what sanctions should be. Words like murder and killing are used in the case of abortion, but they do not seem to apply in terms of writing the law, and you've made that very clear. And I would urge you to consider the possibility of error here, because in getting into telling public officials how to set public policy, you're stepping beyond moral teaching, and you're basically assuming an authority, which I don't think is yours. Anyway, thank you very much.

TOBIN: Obviously, we disagree on that point. Thank you.

MATTHEWS: About the authority of the church. And I do believe that Jesus had it right when he said "render under Caesar the things that are Caesar." And as you admitted tonight on four or five occasions, you don't know how to write law. And writing law is very tricky in a secular society, in which you and I live, even with our moral conduct, I hope acceptable to god. Thank you.

TOBIN: Sure. I will reflect on that, if you reflect on the teachings of the church.

MATTHEWS: Thank you, sir. Very much your excellency. >

In the first half of the exchange, Matthews legitimately questions the role of the American Roman Catholic Church in asserting its will (some would call it lobbying, but it may not legally be so) toward the anti-abortion rights provision in the House health care bill. Leaving that aside, however, the second half of the interview revolves around the disingenuousness of many of the anti-abortion rights view.

Matthews asks Bishop Tobin:

1) If you outlaw abortion at the state level, say at the Rhode Island level, or the Pittsburgh level in Pennsylvania, where you come from, or anything like that, then you make it illegal for a person to go get on abortion. So what does that do, in fact? What's the effect on human life? You want to respect and preserve human life. What is the effect that has if you say a doctor can't perform an abortion? Would you criminalize it? Would you put people in jail? If it's murder, as you see it, would you criminalize it?

2) How would it work? How would it work? That's one of the questions I have. How would it work if you outlawed it?

3) I mean, what would be the penalty for a woman getting an abortion in the world you would like to construct here? What would be the penalty for getting an abortion?
4)What should be the penalty for a young woman or a girl, even, to have an abortion? And if there is no penalty for it, are you really outlawing it?

After asking roughly the same question four different ways, Matthews finally gets an answer when Bishop Tobin responds “Sure. And it can perhaps be different degrees of penalties, depending on the involvement of the person. There might be some penalty for the woman having the abortion.”

Finally, consistency- but wait. When Matthews himself responds “What would be appropriate?” the Bishop states “For a doctor performing….” Matthews, recognizing a dodge and realizing that Bishop Tobin doesn’t want to talk about the woman, interrupts his guest. Bishop Tobin is relieved and the interview soon concludes with the men largely agreeing to disagree.

Give the Bishop of the Diocese of Rhode Island credit. Eviscerated by his interrogator, he did not raise his voice, walk off the set, or become accusatory. He demonstrated considerable courage allowing himself to be subjected to a line of question anti-abortion rights politicians, let alone clerics, rarely if ever face.

Nevertheless, neither Bishop Tobin nor others of like mind plainly admit that an individual who seeks and arranges a murder should be prosecuted for first degree murder. That may be cowardice- or instead, as reflected in Pat Buchanan's reluctance "to prescribe a punishment," a lingering doubt that abortion is the taking of a life.





Next: the other issue Matthews raised.

Censoring A Commencement Address

It has come to Barack Obama, and now it has come to Chris Matthews.

Not to the same degree, of course. President Obama is still scheduled to deliver the commencement address at Notre Dame University in South Bend, Indiana on May 17 despite an online petition protesting Mr. Obama's support of abortion rights and embryonic stem cell research. Nearly 65,000 individuals have signed the document, despite- or more likely because- Obama's opposition to banning same-sex marriage in California, and to enacting a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, has been omitted. The Roman Catholic Church opposes gay unions as well as the aforementioned abortion rights and embryonic stem-cell research. Consistency, I hear, is the hobglobin of small minds.

But I digress. In an opinion piece in the May 4 edition of The Philadelphia Inquirer, Stephen Majewski, identified as a graduate of St. Joseph's University in Philadelphia and member of a Roman Catholic parish in nearby southern New Jersey, criticizes the Catholic university's invitation to Chris Matthews to deliver a commencement speech and receive an honorary doctorate next week.

Majewski makes a few legitimate points- legitimate, not justified. He writes

Although Matthews claims to be Catholic, he is a longtime enthusiastic proponent of "abortion rights" - in defiance of the clear teachings of the church. And he has displayed hostility toward those who want to protect innocent human life. In March, Matthews said on his MSNBC program, Hardball, that Kathleen Sebelius, at the time President Obama's nominee to head the Department of Health and Human Services, might face "the terrorism of the anti-abortion people."

A Catholic university's mission, first and foremost, must be to adhere to church teachings. While the values of institutions of higher learning - such as open dialogue and inquiry - should be fostered at Catholic universities, they must be within the framework of the church's beliefs and practices. By inviting and honoring Matthews, St. Joseph's has decided that it is a university first and Catholic second.

An interesting point it is, especially as it ignores the church's antipathy toward embryonic stem-cell research and gay relationships sanctioned by the state (as reflected in the support of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops for a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage), less popular positions among the multitudes of students constituting the target audience of a commencement address. Or the church's passion for anti-poverty efforts and social justice (as memorialized by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, here, in pdf), positions which do not offend Matthews, a Peace Corps worker in his youth.

But criticism of the university's decision is particularly curious given the nature of the talk show host's talk, a commencement address. As almost any regular viewer of either The Chris Matthews Show (Sundays, NBC) or Hardball has noticed, Matthews has some pointed advice for young people graduating from college. He repeated his ideas on last weekend's The Chris Matthews Show:

I've seen ambition in the face and I've paid attention and I've seen what works. The best thing I've learned from the ambitious folks is that old, simple advice: If you want something, don't be afraid to ask for it. If you want a job, get out there. Go to the people who can open doors for you and ask them to do it. Some people are going to say no. But if you don't face down those nos, you're never going to get to the yes that changes everything, the one that gets you through that first door.

The thing is, in life, like in school, not everyone's going to go for your act. Barack Obama lost that first race for Congress. So did President Bush. So did President Clinton. The older Bush lost two races for the Senate and Ronald Reagan lost two races for president before finally finding his way to victory. It's that old, if at first you don't succeed, try, try again.

Another tip: Before you get the job you dream of, grab the one that'll get you through the door. I started as a capital policeman. A decade later, I had the top staff job in the Congress, administrative assistant to the speaker. And don't ever forget that person who got you through that first door. That's the person who's going to keep rooting for you, like your parents.

Ask for what you want. Consult the people who can help you. Don't give up easily. On your way up, don't forget the one who gave you the helping hand.

Probably good advice, maybe not. But neither liberal nor conservative, Democratic nor Republican, Christian, Jewish, heathen, or whatever. And it is a more likely topic that Matthews will address at his commencement address at St. Joseph's University than any views he has held about reproductive freedom.

In an age of Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, and Samuel Wurzelbacher, we expect fanaticism to come in an uneducated, borderline hysterical package. Unfortunately, sometimes it comes in a well-composed, sober column in a major American newspaper.