Man Bites Blog

This post form James Martin, S.J on the America blog exhibits a lot of what’s wrong with Catholic involvement in politics these days.

He passes on a post from Peter McDermott calling on liberals to take some lessons from Irish soccer fans: work together and don’t boo against the home team.

The problem with this advice is the assumption that the “home team” is one’s political alliance.

How many evils in the past have been fueled by Catholics cheering on the “home team” of their political party as they pursued evil policies like aggressive wars, increases access to abortion, embryo-destroying research, and most recently, the embrace of torture.

The last thing Catholics need to do right now is intensify their loyalty to their political teams. Instead, we need to re-consider what team we’re on.

There’s been a bit of a tempest over at the Mirror of Justice blog of Catholic legal scholars that started with this post from Michael Perry on 12/24.

IMO, this is another example of a “play to the crowd” type post. Yes, some opposition to homosexual conduct is rooted in bigotry. But not all of it, and in particular, not the opposition form Prof. George and others who might comment on MOJ.

Yet, for those sympathetic to Prof. Perry’s point of view, it is quite comforting to dismiss the opposition as bigots. Coincidentally (or perhaps not), Prof. Kaveny, whose post I hilighted in my last “playing to the crowd” post, got involved in this disagreement.

In any instance, this is what I wrote to Prof. Perry:

Prof. Perry,

I’m not sure if this is will be helpful or throw gas on the fire, but I though I might take a stab at explaining why Prof. George took such great offense at your 12/24 post.

You explained the purpose of your post as such:

What, then, was my point? That there is this similarity between many who opposed interracial sexual conduct and many who oppose same-sex sexual conduct: Their visceral–yes, visceral–opposition is rooted in a deep-seated emotional aversion to–a disgust at–the conduct, which some of them will then naturally try to rationally vindicate by constructing arguments that those who do not share their emotional aversion regard as, to put it charitably, farfetched.

Perhaps I’m wrong, but I think a fair paraphrase of that is to create an association for the reader between disapproval of homosexual conduct and unexamined bigotry — the same type of bigotry that fueled the anti-miscegenation laws. I don’t think it is difficult to imagine why this would be offensive to someone who disapproves of homosexual conduct but does not consider himself a bigot. I think even the most careful reader of your 12/24 post would find it difficult to escape the attempt at this connection.

I am quite sure that there are some who oppose homosexual conduct because of bigotry. Just like there are all sorts of people who hold all sorts of positions for bad reasons. Some ads against Proposition 8 tapped into anti-Mormon bigotry.

But if Prof. George were to write a post on MOJ about the association between approval for homosexuality and anti-Mormon bigotry, and then engaged in some armchair psychoanalysis about how they came to that position, I suspect you and others who do not condemn homosexual conduct would be offended.

I’m not in charge of MOJ, but my understanding was that it was a place to engage the best arguments for opposing points of view, rather than associate those points of view with the worst motives. And if it’s not, then it’s little better than the rest of the web.

Taking on the worst arguments for the other side may be emotionally satisfying, and may win approval from the crowd of those already convinced, but I don’t think it moves the conversation forward.

Perhaps those on the right are guilty of this as well. But in the past year, I have noticed a lot of this strawman-bashing from the Catholic left, e.g. casting those who prioritize abortion as not caring about anything else.

I think we would have a more fruitful discourse if we could resist the temptation to simply point to the worst of our opposition, and instead engage the best.

At dotCommonweal, Cathleen Kaveny posts a superficially appealing argument:

Saints don’t have to be perfect.

And in canonizing Pope Pius XII, the Church really doesn’t mean to endorse his approach to Nazism. And in canonizing Pope John Paul II, the Church really doesn’t mean to endorse his handling of the Maciel case. But their whole lives cannot be reduced to one position, one action, one set of judgments, as John Allen carefully explains to us.

Mmm. I thought that was essentially the argument made by Notre Dame about the commencement invitation–rejected by many of those who are likely to support the canonization of Pius XII and JPII.

Oh. . . but it’s there’s a difference. Obama was a commencement speaker –not a candidate for sainthood.

Saints don’t have to be perfect. But commencement speakers apparently do.

A-ha! Those silly pro-lifers are so focused on a single-issue that they would canonize people involved in other evils before they would tolerate a commencement speaker who disagrees with them on their issue. She shoots; she scores!

But hold on a minute.

I think it’s safe to say that George Washington and Thomas Jefferson would be considered the secular equivalent of saints in America. We’ve erected vast monuments to them in Washington, D.C. for example.

It is also true that they held slaves.

If a bishop today were to invite someone who held slaves for dinner, that would be a great scandal. Let alone inviting him to speak at the most prominent Catholic institution in the country and receive an honorary degree.

Yet, we are still capable of appreciating the greatness of Washington and Jefferson as presidents and leaders.

In short, nuance and holistic views may be more appropriate in considering the historical view of a person than in granting contemporaneous honors. Because contemporaneous honors do send a message that a person’s objectionable acts are not a big deal or somewhat tolerable. Especially when we are in the midst of a cultural dispute over that very issue. It can also send a discouraging message to those who are engaged in that dispute.

Yes, it sounds absurd that there would be a higher bar for commencement speakers than for canonization. But in certain contexts, different dimensions take on greater or lesser importance.

Having spoken out about the morals of Catholic basketball coaches before, I will now say that I am much more disturbed by revelations that Rick Pitino apparently paid for an abortion from an adulterous affair than I am by Rick Majerus’s views on embryonic stem cell research.

In particular since Pitino has been much more public about his Catholicism than Majerus had been.

Micheal Sean Winters writes on America’s “In All Things” blog  praising Rick Garnett’s op-ed about Notre Dame conferring an honorary degree on President Obama. (HT:  John Breen at MOJ)  But then he concludes:

But, his calm, reasoned argument, which could have found its way into Dr. Glendon’s speech if she had not decided to absent herself from the ceremonies, will not be the face of the opposition to Notre Dame’s decision next Sunday. Randall Terry will garner all the media attention. That is a shame for Notre Dame, a shame for the pro-life movement, and a shame for the Church.   

Perhaps this is because those in support giving Obama the degree have been satisfied to simply point at Randall Terry and cast the bishops opposed as toads of the Republican Party rather than engage thoughtful criticisms like Prof. Garnett’s.

Ramesh Ponnuru has done more than anyone else at National Review to present the Catholic perspective on torture.   But that is damning with extremely faint praise.  Ponnuru’s contributions tend to be stepping in when another Cornerite (including Catholics Kathryn Jean-Lopez and Andrew McCarthy) imply that supporting torture is part of what it means to be a conservative.  The treatment of the torture issue on NRO, considering the number of Catholics involved, was simply pathetic.

In a recent post, Ponnuru attempts to explain why he has not been stronger in opposing torture.

One thing I think Ponnuru does not account for is that he has a particular responsibility to oppose torture since it was being implemented and advocated from his political home.   His witness would have made it more difficult to portray torture abolitionists as lefty peacenicks who hated Bush and would have been just as happy to live under sharia law.

Ponnuru writes:

One might argue that the abortion license is well entrenched and will take a long time to end, whereas torture is a recent, Bush-era innovation that can be put behind us if we take the right steps. But (even assuming the basic truth of that account) you could take that as a reason to prioritize either the easier or the harder task.

The implication is that it is somehow nobler for him to take on the more difficult task of ending abortion than the “easier” task of confronting torture.  I disagree.

It is much easier for me to provide food for my wife and daughters than it is to solve world hunger.  But doing the former is my sacred responsibility, and I would be wrong to forsake it in order to do the “harder task.”

The Catholics at National Review were in a position to stop the rhetorical momentum for torture before it started.  Even now, they are in a position to deal it a death blow.  That they have not is a profound disappointment.

Look, I am totally against adultery, with one exception.

If  terrorists capture either my wife or children, and they insist that they would kill them if I did not have sex with another woman, I would have to sacrifice my sexual purity in order to fuflfill the greater good of protecting my family.  I could not sit idly by and let them be killed!   I’d have to go ahead and commit adultery, and hope my wife and I woud work it out, just like she has to deal with me leaving the toilet seat up occasionally.

Indeed, I think failing to commit adultery would betray a weakness in our relationship, that I didn’t trust our marriage would be able to overcome something like that.  In either case, it would be a moral failing.  As would insisting that I today commit to a no-adultery pledge.  What if the terrorists find out and exploit this weakness?

Plus, the woman they would have me have sex with would likely be a prostitute or woman of similar morals.  And if I used a condom, would it really be adultery? 

Yes, I’ve committed adultery before under much less dire circumstances than I am describing here.  But I’d much rather talk about how unreasonable people would be to expect me to refrain from adultery in my far-fetched hypothetical.  So much so that I spent half a sentence condemning adultery, and three paragraphs defending the practice under these circumstances.

What do you mean you don’t want me to marry your daughter?

In sports, there are many times where the proper play is to intentionally “break” the rules, because the consequences of breaking the rules is less than allowing play to continue as it would otherwise:

• In basketball, teams take fouls in the final minute to force the other team to shoot free throws and lengthen the game.   It’s also best to foul another player who would otherwise have an uncontested lay-up, or when up by three points.
• In football, if a receiver gets  behind a defensive back and there are no other players, the defensive back should commit pass interference, since the penalty would be less than a touchdown.  Offensive linemen should also hold rather than allow a defensive player to get a big hit on the quarterback.
• Baseball pitchers intentionally walk rather than pitch to good hitters.
• Hockey and soccer players should commit a penalty rather than allow a sure goal.

A player who would stubbornly refuse to break the rules in this situation would not be considered a desirable teammate. 

Such thinking is what seems to be animating thoughts like this from the Anchoress (via Disputations):

I have not fully formed my thoughts on torture, yet. I think I am against it but with this one exception: if I have a choice between saving say, 5 million lives in a nuke-contaminated Chicago or being able to say, “but at least we didn’t waterboard that guy,” I am inclined to think I would go for torture. The 5 million might still die, it’s true, but at least I won’t have to answer for standing idly by and watching it so that my morals might remain intact. I will take the chance that my moral failing in that instance will simply join my other moral failings in life, and then God and I will work that stuff out.

Except in this case, the “rule” is the law of God, not the arbitrary regulations of a structured sport.  The analogy would be more like letting a wide receiver get behind you, and then shooting him dead rather than letting him score, or sending your wife to seduce the other team’s best player to make him less effective.

We’ve lost sight of what the ultimate goal is, and instead are focussed on the “game.”  Yes, protecting ourselves and our loved ones is a sacred duty.  But it does not come before our duty to God.   The consequence for breaking the rule of God isn’t a fifteen yard penalty or a couple of free throws we can hope we and our teammates can make up for later.  The consequence is separation from God, eternally if we do not repent.

Actually, you have to work out your moral failing, in either case, don’t you? If you torture, you have to work it out. If you allow millions to die because you’re “too good” to torture, that’s another moral failing you have to work out. And what is the moral failing? Not trusting that God will help you work that out.

Maybe when you don’t have an idea that you and God can work out your moral failings, you have a tougher time dealing with them? I don’t know. But “who saves a life saves the world, entire” may come into play here. I don’t want to kill the guy I’m torturing. But I want to save 5 million lives.

No, thinking like this reveals a failure to trust that God will not put us in a position where we have no choice but to sin.

This isn’t denying that I have moral failings.  What is being asserted is that there is a situation where any choice reveals a moral failing.  Even Christ Himself would make a decision that would reveal a moral failing.  God wants us to work through our moral failings, but He doesn’t set traps for us.

That’s not a God worth either torturing for, or allowing the killing of millions for.  Fortunately, it’s not the God I believe in.

Interesting This American Life Podcast this week (download will be free this week, $0.95 thereafter), on “Things I Used to Believe.”

Actually, the stories aren’t so much about people changing their minds so much as unsuccessful efforts to make them do so.

I found the second story most interesting.  It tells the story of Trisha Sebastian, a lapsed Catholic who was so moved by a Christian football coach Kris Hogan’s efforts to give a prison football team a cheering section in their game against him, that she started a correspondence with him about her growing agnosticism.  Her story stuck in his heart, and they had a couple conversations in which he was unsuccessful in bringing her back to Christian faith.

First, it is apparent that Boyle Hogan (thanks) has done a tremendous amount of good, both locally for the boys of the prison, and in the world.  His witness of faith in action brought Ms. Sebastian back to wanting to re-establish a relationship with God, which is a lot more than I have done today.  Score one for the perhaps apocryphal St. Francis of Assisi.

But in listening to the conversation, you kind of wish Hogan could have passed Ms. Sebastian on to his closer.

Some of what seems to be the missteps:

• Darwin talk is a definite turn-off.  People don’t want to think they’re checking out of intellectual life by accepting Christ, and rejecting evolution sounds a lot like that.
• Even though I think Hogan’s use of Hitler was somewhat valid, I think modern people have read Godwin’s law enough that we tend to reject any arguments citing Hitler as an example.

Christianity is a Cross.  I don’t think people can be intellectually persuaded to take up a cross — it’s an emotional commitment, a statement of faith.   I don’t think anybody ever stormed a beach because they had seen a rigorous demonstration that democracy is a superior form of government or that capitalism is the best way to organize an economy.  I think Hogan would have been better served by talking about the difference Christianity had made in his life, and how that enabled him to do things like what happened on the football field that night.
So, Alec Baldwin won’t be offering Hogan any coffee.   So what?  Again, he’s done a lot more than almost all of us have.   And maybe Ms. Sebastian’s return to the faith will be longer journey than can be contained in a couple phone calls.  I think Hogan’s done his job getting her to approach the door.  The rest of us need to demonstrate that life is better on the other side of it. Not by our superior intellectual arguments, but by how we love.   When people think of “Christians,” the image that pops into their head is not of a football coach giving a prison football team a night they’ll never forget.  That’s our job to change.

For an example of someone who gets everything wrong, keep listening for the efforts a pro-choice mother takes to indocrinate her daughter into that orthodoxy.

Tom at Disputations posts about “prophetic” rhetoric from bishops on abortion, and the response thereto.

As a default, I am inclined to favor a “‘catch more flies with honey than vinegar” mindset.  I’m not sure what good is accomplished by rhetoric like “so-called Catholics” and “conscience transplant.” 

But there does come a point where you have to drop the carrot and go with the stick.  Nobody would be OK with UND inviting an actual serial murderer and giving him an honorary degree, regardless of his other accomplishments.

So what thse commentators are saying is that, for example, President Obama’s record, including his recent decision to fund embryonic research in a way that was utterly dismissive of pro-life concerns, does not rise to that level.

It is understandable if some commentators do not want to immediately join the chorus.  But the tendency to immediately pounce and criticize any discouraging words from bishops about pro-choice and pro-embryonic research from Democratic politicians is something else altogether. 

Bishops make for easy targets.   There’s no easier way to get approving applause then talk about how mean and divisive and hypocrital, etc. those bishops are.  But what good is all this talk going to do.

There are people upset about the Obama decision.  Not all of them are neocon right wingers wanting to align the Church and the pro-life movement with the Republican Party.

I can understand why they are upset.  I can also understand why some might be upset of Dick Cheney or Alberto Gonzalez were so honored.  When people are so anxious to squelch a debate, I wonder what they’re hiding.

George Tiller’s actions of perfroming late term abortions ought to have landed in jail long ago.

They have not in part because politicians like Sebellius have advanced the notion that one can share the Church’s revulsion at abortion and nevertheless not believe it should be criminalized.

Whatever one thinks of that argument, it does not change that Tiller’s actions are absolutely repugnant to anyone who claims to assent to the Church’s teaching on abortion.  He should be considered a villain on the order of some of the worst in history. 

That we are even discussing conditions under which it would be appropriate for someone like Tiller to be a guest at a gala reception hosted by a Catholic governor who clams to assent to the Church’s teaching on abortion is a sad indicator of how the legal abortion license has skewed our thinking about the issue.

If Tiller faced a proper legal punishment for his acts, there would be no question that he should not receive such an invitation, regardless of how much he bid in an auction.  Convicted felons are not often guests of highly elected officials.

Yet what Tiller did is “perfectly legal.”  So we don’t see him as such a bad guy.  Catholics accept and even put forth the explanation that Tiller won the silent auction, so Governor Sebelius had no choice.

The argument that abortion is terrible but shouldn’t be illegal cannot stand.  In order to make it stand, it’s proponents must resort to increasingly silly arguments, like that politicians would host a gala without having any influence over the guest list.

It’s making us stupid.

It has come to light that HHS nominee and Kansas governor Katherine Sebelius hosted a gala dinner for George Tiller, notorious performer of late term abortions.

This has been explained by Sebelius’s Catholic supporters by saying that Sebellus didn’t have a choice — Tiller won a silent auction for the right to attend the gala, so attempts to like Sebellus to Tiller are a nasty dishonest smear campaign from right-wing fringe groups.

Give thou me a break.

First of all, there is serous reason not to beleive this version of events.

Second, even if we do accept this, if this is an acceptable excuse, it reveals the emptiness of Sebellus and her supporters’ rhetoric of opposition to abortion.

Remeber, these same suporters claim that, Gov. Sebelius “agrees with Church teaching that abortion is wrong and has lived and acted according to that belief.”  

George Tiller is not just someone who thinks that criminalization may not be the best method to reduce the number of abortions.  He actually performs abortions.  And not just any abortions, late term abortions, the most vile, disgusting, and barbaric ones that have almost no popular support.

Yet, we’re supposed to believe that someone who accepts the Church’s teaching on abortion would welcome this person into the governor’s mansion just because he won an auction?    What if a KKK Grand Wizard had won the auction?  Or a leader of Operation Rescue?

Is the fact that a seat at a gala in the governor’s mansion is literally for sale to the highest bidder supposed to be a point in her favor?

I don’t know if opposing Sebelius’s appointment needs to be a priority, but the arguments being made on her behalf are embarassing and revealing, and must be resisted if pro-life is supposed to mean anything beyond a vague preference against abortion.

I accept that Obama is pro-choice, and his choice for HHS secretart is also likely to be pro-choiced.  Nevertheless, George Tiller is a vile character, and Gov. Sebelius’s apparent coziness with him deserves a better response than, “he won an auction.”

A published excerpt from David Plotz’s book about reading the Bible from cover to cover concludes with these paragraphs:

The Bible has brought me no closer to God, if that means either believing in a deity acting in the world or experiencing the transcendent. But perhaps I’m closer to God in the sense that the Bible has put me on high alert. I came to the Bible hoping to be inspired and awed. I have been, sometimes. But mostly I’ve ended up in a yearlong argument with God. Why would He kill the innocent Egyptian children? And why would He delight in it? What wrong did we do Him that He should send the flood? Which of His Ten Commandments do we actually need? Yet the argument itself represents a kind of belief, because it commits me to engage with God.

As I read the book, I realized that the Bible’s greatest heroes—or, at least, my greatest heroes—are not those who are most faithful, but those who are most contentious and doubtful: Moses negotiating with God at the burning bush, Gideon demanding divine proof before going to war, Job questioning God’s own justice, Abraham demanding that God be merciful to the innocent of Sodom. They challenge God for his capriciousness, and demand justice, order, and morality, even when God refuses to provide them. Reading the Bible has given me a chance to start an argument with God about the most important questions there are, an argument that can last a lifetime.

Plotz notes that his journey through the Bible has not moved hom from his agnosticism.

And, not to be “dissent is the highest from of patriotism” about it, Plotz’s faith does seem more genuine to me than many of those who profess to be devout.

There is inevitably conflict between one’s faith and how one thinks the world ought to be.  The tendency I have seen lately is to pretend that these conflicts don’t exist.  For example, to believe that there is room within Catholicism for abortion license, preemptive war, and unfettered capitalism.

As Ross Douthat wrote about the HBO drama big love:

I’m sure that this is part of why I like the show so much - because at its best, it successfully dramatizes the tension between traditional religion and modern American life that every serious believer ought to feel. And not only those tensions related to sex (though obviously they loom large - this is an HBO soap opera, after all), but the broader dissonance between what it takes to be a Christian and what it takes to be an American success story, with a business empire, a big house (or three), and all the rest of it. 

Almost all serious religions are in conflict with modern culture.  But you wouldn’t know that to see how most people who call themselves religous go about their daily lives.  So many comfortably align themselves with one of the two major political parties, both of which are seriously out of step with Biblical values.

Christians worship a God who was crucified, and who in essence, promised the same for his followers.  But so many of us seem not to think there’s a tension.

If we were truly engaged, we would be crying out in anguish — both at the world and at God.  Why is there so much suffering and violence, still?  How come bad things happen to good people?

These aren’t new questions for sure, and theologians through the years have offered good answers.  Nevertheless,  it seems it would be hard for someone engaged with his faith to avoid struggling with these questions.

I think then when we stop finding faith hard, when we stop arguing, when we start believing that there is no tension between what our faith calls us to and the current of society — that’s when we’re in real trouble, since it probably means we’ve lost contact with our faith in some way, we’ve fallen asleep.

I think that it is through this conflict that we learn more about each other, in both personal relationships, and in our relationship with God.  Through true and honest debate, not internet combox stlye gotcha games, but repeectful if heated dialogue, we come closer to truth.

Maybe what some of us need to this Lent is pick a fight with God.  We can’t hope to win, in terms of coming out on top, but we may win by learning more.

I was always a ambivalent about bishops denying pro-choice politicians’ Eucharist, but I was annoyed be efforts of lay Catholics to pressure the bishops into doing so.  It smacked a bit too much of mixing religion and politics.

This post from Francis Beckwith crystallizes my uneasiness.  He asks, “Will President Obama offer Vatican ambassadorship to Catholic denied communion?“

I hold no position on whether it would be prudent for President Obama to make such an appointment, but I very strongly believe that the pastoral decision of one priest, who was swiftly corrected by his bishop, should not be relevant to the decision.

But more than that, it reveals the motives of these activists — the concern isn’t that Doug Kmiec (who still professes to be pro-life) or a pro-choice politician is desecrating the Eucharist by receiving it, or that the Church is giving scandal by allowing them to receive.  No, the point is to have a rhetorical trump card.  He was denied communion!  He must be wrong; I must be right!

To use the denial of communion as an argument against the assignment of someone to a secular position devalues the Eucharist in a way that PZ Myers could only dream of.  To someone with a proper understanding of the Eucharist, being separated from the love of Jesus given in this way is of a much greater concern than it preventing appointment to some official post.

I have not been a fan of the arguments Kmiec has used to defend his position, or his conduct in the face of criticism, but if he’s wrong, regardless of whether a priest saw fit to deny him communion.

And then I wonder why some folks are reluctant to embrace to pro-life movement…

To continue a theme I’ve touched on before, Rod Dreher writes of Ross Douthat:

But what if you, like Ross, honestly believe the Church has erred on the facts? Is an orthodox Catholic — that is, a Catholic who actually believes that his conscience is bound by the teachings of the Church — therefore required to counsel what the Church counsels, even if he thinks in good faith that the Church has fundamentally erred? Isn’t an orthodox Catholic required, moreover, to believe that the Church teaches truth in matters of faith and morals, and that despite the appearance of error, the individual Catholic is, in fact, wrong?

Emphasis mine. 

It’s important to note that the context in this case is Douthat’s dissent (yes, dissent) from the Vatican’s position on the morning-after pill.  Orthodox literally means “right belief.”   In the context of “orthodox Catholic,” it means belief in line with the magisterium.  So the question of what an “orthodox Catholic” should do when he dissents from the Church is literal nonsense.

It’s not nonsense because Douthat is a terrible heretic and thus unworthoy of the term; it’s nonsense because the very term “orthodox Catholic” is nonsense — none of us have our beliefs completely in line with the Magisterium, or with God.  In this world, orthodoxy is a journey, not a destination.

My point here isn’t to start trying Douthat for heresy, though I do wish there was some more evidence of some fear and trembling before endorsing Will Saletan’s snark at the Vatican’s expense.  But that there is not this dividing line between “orthodox Catholics” and other Catholics. 

Douthat is correct that Catholics must assent to teachings of faith and morals, though we often disagree on how to apply those to the world.   This is as true for someone like Douthat who questions whether Plan B is abortificient as well as one who prioritized electoral issues differently than some bishops.

On MOJ, Michael Perry posts a letter from a student regarding the Church’s teaching on same sex marriage:

I write to you concerning an article you posted on Mirror of Justice by Kate Childs Graham….

…

Granted, we are provided a one-sided and biased account, but the relationship between Kate and Ariana exhibits all of the qualities valued by the Church in a marital union, save heterosexuality. What ill can come from such communion based on love and dedication between two people? I know that I am short shrifting the Church’s definition and understanding of “marriage,” but is the position of the modern Catholic Church (emphasis on modern) sustainable on principle? Or, is it as I fear, merely clinging to tradition and a (possibly flawed) interpretation of Old Testament allegory?

It is not just “heterosexuality” that is missing from what is valued by the Church in a marital union, it is openness to procreation, which the same sex couple is intrinsically incapable of.

One might argue against the prudence of this being a requirement for marriage, but neither the writer nor Prof. Perry even attempt to address this, which wasn’t just made up in order to keep same-sex couples out, but has always been part of the marriage ceremony itself.

For all of the good done by the Church, and for the strength and beauty of its tradition, I have a hard time imagining myself returning to weekly mass if the Church does not address what I feel is its immoral treatment of many people within and without of its sanctuaries. The LGBTQ community, Catholics and non-Catholics alike, represents one group that I believe gets such treatment from the Church.

This is an attitude that needs to be challenged rather than indulged.

I agree that the Church’s teaching would cause considerable pain to same sex attracted individuals and those of us who love them.  That doesn’t mean it’s wrong.

Many of the Church’s teachings cause pain to people.  The Church’s proscriptions against reproductive technology can be a great source of pain toward married couples attempting to conceive.   Being open to more children can be a real hardship for some families.  Celibacy can be a lonely road for priests and religious.

But there are good reasons behind those teachings.  And there are good reasons why the Church established marriage as it has — for the procreation and raising of children.

Our Savior carried his Cross and endured three hours on the Cross because it was the path of salvation.  Was this painful?  Yes.  Did he deserve it?  No.

I don’t mean to minimize the suffering that same-sex attracted individuals endure, and am not trying to say it’s deserved.  But people like this writer seem to think that reaching agreement on the reality of this suffering ends the discussion on what the prudent course of action.  It doesn’t.

The Church isn’t here to simply affirm us in what we want to do.  It is calling us to be saints.  How it does it may hurt sometimes, but that doesn’t mean it’s wrong.

UPDATE:  Also at MOJ, Michael Scaperlanda has posted a letter from his daughter taking this from a different angle, touching on my theme of followership.

The Blessed Mother was conceived without original sin.

I, on the other hand, was not.

Which may explain why words like, “Let it be done to me according to your word,” are slow to come out of my mouth.

• Roe v. Wade precludes any kind of compromise on abortion policy that any serious pro-lifer can accept.
• Overturning Roe v. Wade is perceived as an extreme measure.
• A good way to gain “strange new respect” is to denounce the “extremists” on your own side.

Which is why I am somewhat saddened to read Fr. John Kavanaugh, somewhat of a hero of mine whom I have had the privilege to hear speak on dozens of occasions, and if I recall correctly has even been my confessor on one occasion, take this last approach in this commentary in America.

The extremist poles on abortion are these: 1) nothing short of criminalizing the termination of any pregnancy from fertilization or conception is acceptable; 2) nothing short of total reproductive choice until birth is acceptable. These extremes have determined the debate in the public square; and as long as this continues, we will never reach consensus to protect unborn human life. They are also polar positions that have never been closely examined by their proponents.

….

Absolutists for “life” should answer questions too. Since you hold, as I do, that a human being’s life begins at fertilization or conception, do you think that Senator John McCain, Senator Orrin Hatch and John Danforth are accomplices to homicide in their support of embryonic stem cell research? Do you know why they hold their position? Can you offer evidence that might change their minds? Do you wish to criminalize those who sell or buy contraceptive pills that are likely abortifacients? Do you think there might be people of good faith and conscience who think a human life does not begin until implantation? If there are, are you proposing that we impose our position on them?

… 

What I do see is that most people open to the facts recognize that a human life has begun by the end of the first trimester of a pregnancy. It is at this point that some common ground may be reached to protect unborn human life. There is political will at hand to ensure such protection; but as long as the extreme positions hold sway, no action will be taken. People know that a human life is being terminated after the first trimester. What compounds the tragedy of abortion is our helpless acceptance of the ugly reality.

Fr. Kavanaugh doesn’t come out and say this, but the tone of the piece suggests that if only the extremists on the pro-life side would let go of their more draconian demands, we could have protections for a great number of unborn children that are currently in jeopardy. 

This is far from the case.  First, I don’t believe there are that many pro-lifers who would refuse to support a ban on second and third trimester abortions.  Second, such a law is impossible under the Roe v. Wade regime.  But wanting to overturn Roe v. Wade makes one an “extremist.”  And in fact, the legal regime of the United States is much closer to the “moral chaos” of the extreme pro-choice position than the “extreme” pro-life position, or even, in my opinion, a more moderate position.

It seems there are three ways to go:

1. Embrace, rather than shun the “extemist tag”.  After all, “extreme” is not a synonym for “incorrect,” although it may be a synonym for “politically implausible.”  But then, so is the idea of electing a black president named Barack Hussein Obama.
2. Re-frame support for Roe v. Wade as the truly extreme position that makes compromise impossible.  As I have noted before, I think that Barack Obama used Roe v. Wade to justify his opposition to the Born Alive Act demonstrates that such a re-framing is possible.
3. Chip away at, rather than overturn Roe v. Wade. 

Picking on the “extremes” of the pro-life side is easy, and will get an approving nod from those in the current elites.  But I think it ignores the real barrier to sensible abortion policy — Roe v. Wade.

It continues to amaze me how people think that the first step to winning over voters necessary is to insult them, whether it’s same sex marriage advocates’ insistence that at least half the voters of California are bigots, or Catholic pro-lifers thinking that the path to pro-life victory is paved with excommunications and denying people communion.

Geoge Wiegel wrote a column suggesting as much, and Ross Douthat takes it down nicely:

John McCain did not lose this election because the Catholic clergy failed to anathematize Barack Obama loudly enough, or because Pennsylvanians and Michiganders thought they were voting for Roosevelt or Truman. He lost it because his party flat-out misgoverned the country, in foreign and domestic policy alike, and because of late the culture war has mattered less to most Americans than the Iraq War and the economic meltdown. And pro-lifers who see the GOP as the only plausible vehicle for their goals have an obligation to look the party’s failures squarely in the face and work to fix them, instead of just doubling down on the case for single-issue pro-life voting.

Amen.  If people want the election to be all about abortion, they can’t wait until two weeks before the election to make it so. 

But Wiegel does get one thing right:

We need more persuasive ideas and language in the fight against euthanasia. Yes, the good guys were outspent in Washington State by orders of magnitude — and that should cause serious examinations of conscience among Catholic philanthropies and individuals of means. But, as in the debate over embryo-destructive stem-cell research, the culture of life has yet to develop a language that trumps the invocation of “compassion” when that’s misused by the culture of death.

And we need prayer — lots of it. Some demons require special powers to exorcize. As of Nov. 5, it is clear that certain of them have taken up residence in the United States of America.

And while I’m here, let me also say that I hope the demographics of this vote puts to rest this notion that today’s youth don’t share the values of their baby boomer parents, that they really love them some Tridentine Rite Masses and Gregorian chant, and that once the baby boomers die off, we will have the Church of the 1950’s back.  Eh, not quite, at leat not without some heavy engagement.

That doesn’t have to look like capitulation, as Fr. McBrien seems to suggest, but it will require more than just saying how really, really, bad those Democrats are.

It is the custom in the pro-life blogosphere to refer to those favoring legalized abortion as “pro-abortion” or “pro-abort.”

I’m not a fan.

In general, I think discourse is helped by assuming people mean what they say they mean, and confronting the arguments presented rather than motivations.  So if someone wants to be described as pro-choice, I will tend to indulge them, at least until they write something, such as against conscience clauses for pharmacists, that belies this position. 

It suckers us into their type of fight.  No longer does the pro-choice person need to defend that killing the innocent is a crime.  Instead, they can have a semantic argument over whether they are really “pro-abortion” and how mean the other person is for saying that, that they’re concerned for their soul, blah blah blah.

The argument is that calling these people “pro-abortion” is just the truth.  My replies:

• Speaking “the truth” isn’t an intrinsic good.  It can even be a mortal sin. 
• I don’t believe that calling a personpro-abortion who would not apply that label to himself is “speaking the truth.”  About actions, yes, that may be true.  Or perhaps about some obvious trait — it may be true that someone is a bad driver even if she doesn’t think so.   But the prefix “pro-” means that someone favors whatever comes after it.  Unless that person is incorrect on the meaning of that term (e.g. someone who believes that favoring waterboarding doesn’t make him “pro-torture”), then it seems that person’s testimony would be powerful evidence to the contrary.

In short, I think it’s a needless provocation.  And since I don’t see how the current abortion regime is going to change without the support of at least some of the people who voted for Obama, I’m not sure that provoking them is the soundest strategy.