The Significance of the Passing of Richard John Neuhaus
Originally posted at Talk to Action.
The recent passing of Father Richard John Neuhaus marks the end of an era for Catholic neoconservatism.
Catholics had a positive duty to vote for the Republican Party, and he strongly encouraged the American bishops to deny the sacrament of Communion to pro-choice Catholic politicians. This Neuhaus was proudly authoritarian, bullying in temperament, and staunchly traditionalist.
The Neuhaus Linker describes in the second paragraph is the Neuhaus the readers of this site and many moderate and progressive Catholics knew -- the one who encouraged the American Catholic clergy to degrade the Sacrament of Communion by using it as a political tool.
But the passing of this Catholic Right icon may perhaps have a greater impact upon the movement he was so instrumental in creating. Of the remaining two key leaders of Catholic neoconservatism, Novak is 75 and certainly more mediagenic than the younger Weigel, age 58. Weigel pops up as a from time-to-time as a commentator on cable shows , but he he is far from charismatic.
There were two things that made Neuhaus the most vital cog in this gang of three.
First, he was a priest. This gave him standing to speak authoritatively in ways that Novak or Weigel could not. When a lay theologian suggests denying Communion to pro-choice Catholics, it does not carry the same weight as when a priest demands the same action. To many Catholics, those who see faith as top-heavy with obedience to papal authority, the priest's collar symobolizes he chain of command.
Secondly - and perhaps more importantly - Neuhaus was well grounded in both Protestant and Catholic perspectives. This understanding facilitated his ability to build political bridges between socially conservative Protestants and socially conservative Catholics. His passing leaves a void that is not easily filled.
Neuhaus struck me as a radical in search of a revolution to lead. After being part of 1960s far-left movements agitating for possibly violent societal change, by the 1980s he had moved towards, and then became part and parcel of the fringe-right movement of neoconservatism. And as his politics changed, so did his view of faith, going from mainstream Lutheranism to a form of orthodox Catholicism that was intolerant of dissent. While his political outlook changed, his strident nature did not.
I never rejoice at the passing of political opponents. I hope he has finally found peace. Looking beyond the life and work of Richard John Neuhaus, as a Catholic and a liberal, I think we will be better off when Catholic neoconservatism too passes away.
- NYGaribaldi's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Comments
zealous...yes
I will mourn his passing. He was a sane and reasonable voice for a beautiful tradition in the Church. I understand your opinion. I do. I simply disagree. A friend put it this way:
Richard John Neuhaus died the day before yesterday. He represents one of the schools of theology with which I almost (but not at all) agree whole-heartedly; hence, although his theology and mine converged on a great many affirmations, they conflicted at many other painfully neuralgic points, and many colleagues and friends of mine held him in low esteem (while many others found in him a dearly beloved friend, leader, and outstanding public intellectual). Since I almost agreed with him, the irritation of being-at-odds and of friends’ disdain for him pains me all the more. I grieve with those to whom he was a great friend, a generous mentor, a vigorous supporter; and for those who will not miss him, I grieve as well, in several different ways.
I wish I had written those words.
As a Catholic...
...I can only see the damage Neuhaus has done to my Church. He is dramatically responsible for turning American Catholicism into a political tool for the Right. Beyond that, his call for unmitigated discipline within the Church has undone much of the progress that was made concerning dissent in the years preceding Vatican II. Regardless of what other Catholic neocons may say, he was no John Courtney Murray.
NYGaribaldi, I am glad to
NYGaribaldi, I am glad to hear that you do not rejoice at the passing of political opponents. However, I am disappointed that you would choose the occasion of Rev. Neuhaus' death to describe him as authoritarian, bullying, strident, and "fringe-right" (the "fringe-right" description, in my opinion, is especially far-fetched). I also do not believe that these descriptions are accurate, or that it is fair to say that Rev. Neuhaus "degraded" the sacrament of Communion by encouraging priests not to offer it to politicians who embrace policies that egregiously violate church teaching. I believe that your posting paints an unfair and unbalanced picture of the substantial accomplishments and contributions of the late Rev. Neuhaus. His memory deserves better.
His Memory Deserved Better?
With all due respect to the dead, I believe that the only thing that was consistent about Neuhaus was his strident radicalism no matter where he stood on the political spectrum. This was a man who always flirted with the idea changing society through violent means, whether on the fringe left protesting at the 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago or from the fringe right in 1990 writing against abortion in the 90s on the pages of First Things -- the latter being so outrageous that neocons such as Peter Berger and Gertrude Himmelfarb loudly complained.
Neuhaus came into the Catholic Church and immediately attacked anybody with a dissenting opinion from his own -- even those of us whose families have been Catholics almost from the beginnings of the Church. And while he attacked dissenters of good will, he himself supported a war in Iraq the Vatican opposed and libertarian economic principles that clearly runs contrary to Catholic thought all the way back to Aquinas.
His Memory Deserved Better? No, Catholicism deserved better.
The necessity of Catholic Dissent
While it is good to paint a well rounded picture of Reverand Neuhaus and his good personal qualities, I don't see it as being out of line to point out also the deleterious effects of Neuhaus in stifling differing voices in the Catholic Church. Frank is right to point out how things like the withholding of communion to prochoice Catholic politicians is being used to intimidate the Catholic Left. If prochoice Catholic politicians are to be denied communion because of this one issue, why not then deny Republican Catholic politicians communion for going against Catholic Social Teachings in regards to helping the poor, promoting the right of workers to organize, or promoting militarism? Both Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict were against the invasion of Iraq. Should Catholic politicians who voted for the war be denied communion then? If these are not good reasons to deny Republican Catholic politicians communion, Frank is right to criticize the use of communion as a political tool against liberal Catholic politicians.
For me this is very personal. While I never had any bad experiences in a Catholic church, I did have some conflicts within an Evangelical church where I both witnessed and experience myself intimidation for asking questions or expressing different views. I witnessed groups of people isolate individuals who expressed different views and try to gang up and bully individuals into conforming to their views. When I got into a seemingly minor conflict and started asking questions about what was going on, I began experiencing the same things that I witnessed happen to other people. When I wouldn't desist in asking questions, there was a lot of talking behind my back and it made my last two years in that church a miserable experience. It made me realize how afraid these people were of being challenged, even over a relatively minor thing. And I think such an atmosphere makes conflicts and misunderstandings inevitable. Innocent people inevitably get hurt because they have no way to defend themselves.
Conservative and Neoconservative Christians have every right to express their opinions and fight for their views. They do not, however, have a right to silence or intimidate views that are different within their church. If you look at church history, whenever the Christian church has tried to stifle different opinions and enforce a uniformity of views, it has always harmed the church in the long run. If we take an example from the Catholic Church, Pope Piux X in the early 20th Century tried to enforce orthodoxy and stifle the perceived threat of Modernism by creating Committees of Vigilance in each dioceses, establishing diocesan censorship boards to oversee Catholic literary ourtput, requiring priests and teachers to take public oaths against Modernism, excommunicating countless Catholic writers and priests, and defrocking independent thinking bishops. Pius X issued Lamentabili sane exitu (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10lamen.htm) and the encyclical Pascendi Dominici gregis (http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10pasce.htm) which basicly condemned discoveries of historians and Biblical scholars, condemned the idea that there was a Jesus of history and a Christ of faith, that Jesus did not found the institutions of the sacraments or the hierarchy, among other Modernist thinkings. Pope Pius Xs actions created an atmosphere of fear and paranoia that severely damaged the church and harmed many innocent people for many years.
Catholics like Reverend Neuhaus are making the same mistake now and they are doing the same damage that Pius X made earlier. The Catholic Church deserves better than that. And the wider Christian church deserves better than that. So while it is good to remember the many positive contributions that Father Richard Neuhaus has made and to realize that he was a sincere man and a good friend to many, it is also good to point out the consequences of his attempts to stifle Catholic dissent.
Angelo
reply
Angelo, I respectfully disagree with your views on this.
Do you believe that it is somehow unChristian for a church to exercise church discipline? If so, how do you interpret the many New Testament passages on the topic (e.g. I Corinthians 5:12, Matthew 18:17, Titus 3:10, I Timothy 5:20)? Do you believe that it is wrong for the Catholic Church to withhold communion from anyone for any reason? Or do you just not like the idea of withholding it from politicians who promote abortion? The Catholic Church (correctly, in my view) sees its teachings on the sanctity of human life as non-negotiable in a way that is distinct from its positions on other issues. I would argue that Catholic churches that turn a blind eye to politicians that flagrantly violate its core teachings are sending a mixed message; a little bit of leaven affects the entire batch of dough (I Cor. 5:6).
I think it is misleading to posture that the issue about communion is designed to "intimidate" left-wing Catholics. I also do not believe that the issue of abortion fits into the left/right construct that frames much of our debate on political (and religious) issues in the United States.
I believe that 21st century churches do not err by exercising church discipline too much, but by exercising it too little. Church discipline is important. See http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=532. It is also important for it to be done correctly -- in a spirit of love, gentleness, and humility (Galatians 6:1), unlike what you appear to have experienced in the evangelical church that you mentioned. The main goal of church discipline is the repentance and restoration of the person being confronted.
reply to BSOR
Thank you BSOR for your reply. I think the toleration of some difference of opinions is important within the church for a simple reason... sometimes the church is wrong. From what I remember from my CCD classes in 8th grade, there are two different churches: the eternal church, made up of God, the saints, the angels in heaven, which is never wrong; and the earthly church, made up of fallible human beings, that make mistakes all the time. Without some toleration of dissenting views and the need of constant debate, there is nothing within the church to point out these errors and the church is liable to continue making these errors.
As the new century began, Pope John Paul II did a wonderful thing by apologizing for the wrongs committed by the Catholic Church against Jews, against Muslims, for silencing Galileo, among other things. I think this was a good thing because it shows how the institution of the church can lead by example a spirit of humility, of asking for forgiveness, of acknowledging error. Yet the church cannot know it is in error unless there are some dissenting voices that are able to point it out.
If we just look at the history of the church over the course of its 2,000 years, it has held some horrible beliefs in error that have hurt many innocent people. At one time, people who had different beliefs from the church were tortured and burnt at the stake. At one time certain churches were segregated by race. At one time the church sold indulgences to gullible peasants who wanted to pay their way to heaven. A few years ago church officials were found out to have shuffled priests to different dioceses who had abused children. In all these instances, there were people within the church who argued and complained and were harassed and intimidated into silence by church authorities for long periods of time.
If we look in isolation at the example of withholding communion to pro choice politicians, it may not seem like an attempt to intimidate left wing politicians. Put into context with other actions of the church within the past several years, however, the withholding of communion to prochoice politicians can be seen as just one of a consistent pattern of intimidation of the more liberal elements within the Catholic Church. Frank has been writing a series of articles in Crossleft on the intimidation by the more conservative elements of the church http://www.crossleft.org/?q=blog/314. I read a book over the summer called The Rule of Benedict by David Gibson about the transformation of Joseph Ratzinger from a leading liberal Catholic voice during Vatican II to a conservative Catholic enforcer of church doctrine and his attempts to reign in the more liberal elements of the church. Both John Paul II and Benedict have had a running battle with the Jesuits, with theologian Hans Kung, with liberation theologists in South America, with the Jesuit magazine America.
The rich history of dissent within the church includes such figures as Martin Luther, Erasmus, Daniel Berrigan, Dorothy Day, St. Paul, among others. When the church has tried to stifle dissent and enforce a uniformity of views, it has had bad effects on the church. I mentioned the example of Pope Pius X as an example. There is also the overreation of the church to Martin Luther's 95 theses and his criticism of indulgences. There is the inquisition, which killed many Muslims and Jews in Spain in the 15th century and forced many of them into hiding.
The church has a rich history of debate, from Pelagius and St. Augustine, to Erasmus and Martin Luther. I don't think either one of us are in that league, but if you look at the debate we're having now, it's a lot better for us to be arguing our points rather than to be trying to quiet each other and not listen. Dissent and debate are important. One of my favorite books is by Cass Sunstein titled Why Societies Need Dissent. In it, he gives a good explanation on why dissent is good for society, and I think it is also good for church. He wrote:
"To a remarkable degree, human beings are influenced by what others do. In selecting restaurants, enemies, doctors, grocery stores, leaders, books, computers, mories, heroes, political opinions, and much more, we often follow other people. Conformity of this kind is not stupid or senseless. For one thing, the decisions of other people convey information about what really should be done. If most people like Shakespeare, admire Abraham Lincoln, and avoid cigarettes, it makes sense to pay attention to them. For another thing, most of us want the good opinion of others. Those who reject widely held opinions and exhibit strange tastes might well find themselves less popular. Their careers might be threatened; they might even be ostracized. Ostracism isn’t pleasant. In many parts of the world, the punishment for noncomformity is death.
For all these reasons, it is often reasonable to conform. The problem is that conformity can lead individuals and societies in unfortunate and even catastrophic directions. The most serious danger is that by following others we fail to dislcose what we actually know and believe. Our silence deprives society of important information. As we shall see, like-minded people often go to unjustified extremes. Those who dissent, and who reject the pressures imposed by others, perform valuable social functions, frequently at their own expense. This is true for dissenters within corporate boardrooms, churches, sports teams, student organizations, faculties, and investment clubs. It is also true for dissenters in the White House, Congress, and the Supreme Court. It is true during times of both war and peace."
My own experiences within an Evangelical church had nothing to do with church discipline... it had to do with a group of people who made a mistake and were trying to cover it up. The original conflicts that I had gotten into had nothing to do with church doctrines or any of the such. A group of people had pressured me into a situation that I had never wanted to get into, and when that situation went bad, I was really angry and wanted to know why these guys had pressured me then abandoned me to fend for myself. At first I thought this involved only a few people. When I directly confronted them about it, many of them denied ever talking to me about anything. When I asked some of the church leaders to help me find out what was going on, I found them trying to get me to stop asking questions. Eventually I found out people were saying stuff against me behind my back. In spite of this, I stayed at the church for two more year, because I had a lot of friends there. But those last two years were miserable for me. By the time I started dating my wife, I had gotten to the point where I had a hard time believing anything any of these church people were saying to me. To this day, I don't know what had happened. All I know is that all of this started when I stopped letting a group of people think for me and I started thinking for myself and started asking, "What is going on?" I'm sorry, but I don't feel like I need to be restored of anything.
I disagree with you, but I respect your right to disagree with me. My recent experiences though has been that I have not been treated with the same respect by a group of people for having different views, that I have been harassed and intimidated for the simple act of disagreeing and asking questions. This experience fuels a lot of my skepticism today.
Angelo
reply to reply
Angelo, thank you for your thoughts.
I hear your concern about past instances where the Catholic Church has reacted in a wrong way to those with dissenting views.
I understand that you do not believe that the Catholic Church should withhold communion from abortion advocates. The question I was trying to get at above is this: Do you believe that there any issues about which a church should take a clear-cut stand and expect the same from church members who profess faith in Christ (even if that means exercising church discipline -- such as declining to administer sacraments -- in regard to those who dissent)? If so, what issues do you believe would be important enough to justify a church taking such a stand? Or do you believe that there is never an instance where a church should take such a stand?
BSOR...Regarding Church Discipline
Please allow me to toss in my two cents worth on the issue of Church discipline...
BSOR said, "Do you believe that there any issues about which a church should take a clear-cut stand and expect the same from church members who profess faith in Christ (even if that means exercising church discipline -- such as declining to administer sacraments -- in regard to those who dissent)? If so, what issues do you believe would be important enough to justify a church taking such a stand?"
First, I am not aware of any scriptural mandate or example that supports the specific idea of withholding the sacraments from any church member as a form of discipline. Therefore, the concept of doing so is an extra-biblical foray into the realm of improvisational church theatrics that cheapens the Holy Communion. It basically reduces a holy ordinance to a carrot and stick dog and pony show that detracts from the essential nature of what the elements of communion represent.
People within the Church can differ on such matters and still agree on the fundamental questions of Who Jesus is and what it means to be a Christian. Let the Church uphold the creeds and tenets of the Church and let our elected officials uphold the Constitution they are sworn to uphold, the laws of the land and the constituency they are elected to represent.
If the Church is going to withhold communion from public office holders over this issue, then they should also withhold it for any and all violations of Church doctrine. What should be done to the Catholic politicians who have suffered divorce or who exercised opposing votes to the Vatican's position on invading Iraq? It becomes an obvious partisan ploy that besmirches the authority of the Church when it is used selectively to target the more liberal politicians while giving a pass to conservatives who violate other important tenets.
Secondly, of course there are offenses that warrant church discipline and some are supported by examples in scripture while others are not clearly codified as such, but are none the less actionable. Blatant sexual immorality is cited in numerous exhortations and one example in the Corinthian church illustrates this. In my opinion, anyone denouncing the authority of Jesus as the Head of the Church should be asked to find the exit.
Jesus gave the procedures for excommunication which starts with a private confrontation of the offender. The next step is taking a couple of witnesses to confront the person and then finally, if there is no repentance, the issue is to be taken before the whole church and the person is to be removed from the fellowship (which would inadvertently cause the cessation of communion). Considering that we are all saved by grace, it would have to be a grave offense. The person in question would have to be unresponsive to several overtures of grace that would cause this process to be initiated and completed.
Finally, abortion is a health care issue that few priests or politicians are qualified to speak to. Politicians rarely ever even address this issue in the legislative environment, so their personal opinion on the matter is usually of little consequence.
Gary
Gary, thank you for your
Gary, thank you for your thoughtful response.
I think you bring up an important point that I had not considered. I believe you are correct in saying that it would be wrong to simply withhold the sacraments from them if other steps in church discipline had not been followed first. You are right that the steps in Matthew 18 are individual discussion, discussion with another person present, and involvement by the entire body. While I support church discipline (including for pro-abortion politicians), I now agree with you that simply withholding sacraments is not a Biblical method of church discipline. Thank you for prompting me to take another look at the issue.
I do not share your perspective that someone's religious views and political views are always separate and distinct; the two can very easily overlap, as they do on the abortion issue. I also very much disagree with the proposition that politicians do not address abortion issues very often; in fact, state and federal legislators often vote on abortion-related bills several times per year. I do understand your concern about making sure that politicians' "violations" of church teaching should be addressed even-handedly; however, I would add that some violations are worse than others.
Peace be with you.
reply to reply to reply
Well the problem with your question is that the Catholic Church does not fit neatly into what Americans think of as a "Liberal" or "Conservative" paradigm. On social issues like homosexuality, abortion, and many family issues, the Catholic Church teachings would fit comfortably into what Americans think of as very conservative positions. On issues of poverty, of peace, of government action, and of workers organizing into unions, however, Catholic Social Teaching in those areas would be considered by Americans to be very liberal and progressive. I guess my beef with the Neuhaus and American Catholics would be if they take one issue, in this case abortion, and use that as a litmus test for Catholic politicians even if those politicians strongly advocate other Catholic positions.
Take John Kerry in 2004 for instance. During his run for the Presidency that year, there was a controversy involving a bishop who objected to Kerry taking communion because of his prochoice stance. If you looked at Kerry's positions on government involvement on helping the poor, on the environment, on worker rights, and on peace issues, Kerry was strongly advocating positions that were in line with Catholic Social Thinking. Republicans who hold conservative positions on abortion may have free market positions on the economy, on helping the poor and on unions that are way out of line with Catholic Social Teaching.
In theory, I would agree that there are positions that I think the Church should take a stand on. I wrote a post http://www.crossleft.org/node/6650 on Pope Pius XI and Pope Pius XII where I think Pius XI was right to take a strong stand against Hitler and Pius XII was too passive in standing up to the Holocaust. For denying communion to prochoice politicians, however, I do not think it is a consistent position for the Church to take. Issues of war and peace are just as much life and death issues as abortion. Issues of poverty are quality of life issues.
Angelo
reply to reply to reply Part 2
Thank you Gary for your reply to the question of church discipline. It's a good question that BSOR asked and you gave a better answer than I did. After I wrote my reply, I thought over BSOR's question and reflected on how important dissent has been for the Catholic Church and the whole Christian Church.
BSOR wrote, "I hear your concern about past instances where the Catholic Church has reacted in a wrong way to those with dissenting views." I'm glad for your concern about how the Catholic Church has reacted towards dissenting voices, but my original comment was trying to point out to the larger issue of how important those dissenting voices are to the vitality and health of the Church. Since all of us human beings are imperfect in our understanding of God, and we have our own biases and prejudices, it is always good to have some toleration of those different viewpoints and different life experiences. It is good to allow some dissent in all human organizations, whether it be government or unions or churches, to test our assumptions and beliefs, to debate and share our experiences, and to force us to face those who disagree with us so we see their common humanity.
There are Catholics who disagree with their Church yet stay Catholics because they love the Church and want to help change it for the better. It would be so much easier for these people to just leave the Church, but they stay and try to voice their views and try to be heard. They try to point out the inconsistencies and show the consequence of certain church beliefs. I admire Frank for taking what must at times be a very lonely fight.
Certainly all of Christianity has benefitted from the dissent of Martin Luther, Erasmus, St. Paul, Martin Luther King Jr., and many other Christians. And it is good when the Church acknowledges error and tries to learn from it, as John Paul II did at the beginning of the new century when he apologized for wrongs the Catholic Church had done during its history, or when Southern Baptists apologized in the 1990s for supporting slavery and segregation. The Mormon Church in the 1970s acknowledged that its beliefs towards African Americans was wrong and it changed them to be more inclusive of them.
Gary's answer to the question of Church discipline is a lot better than mine, so I defer to Gary on this. But it's good for BSOR to have asked that question, to force us to articulate our views. In the same way it's good for Frank to question Neuhaus's position on withholding communion and point out the negative effect it has on liberal Catholics and the inconsistency in punishing only certain infractions of church policy while ignoring others.
angelo
BSOR, what are your thoughts on dissent?
BSOR, I hope you're not getting too tired answering all these inquiries. I was curious about something though. What are your thought on dissent within the church?
I gave some examples on why I think dissent is important. I think there is always a struggle to balance the need for dissent and the need for tradition and stability. What are your thoughts?
Angelo
Thank you for your question,
Thank you for your question, Angelo.
As I said in an earlier comment, I believe that Christians should stand for the essential truths set forth in the Bible, and that Christians should be firm where the Scripture is firm and flexible where it is flexible. I also believe (many on this blog will strongly disagree) that the inspired and inerrant nature of the Bible must be upheld. Gary's comments on the procedure involved in church discipline are on target. Gary is also correct that church discipline is necessary when someone is spreading a false teaching within the church. This is the reason why I would support church discipline for a politician (Catholic, Protestant, evangelical) who supports abortion. I believe that the sanctity of innocent human life is an issue about which the Scripture allows no flexibility. When it comes to debatable matters (worship styles, worship facilities, and minor doctrinal issues), I believe that the church should encourage questions and allow disagreement, provided that the questioning and disagreement does not blur the central focus of the church's mission or create dissention.
Reply to Answer
Thank you for your answer, BSOR. I think many people in Crossleft would have different views on dissent and different views on what are essential truths. I'm one of those people with different views than you. But I respect your right to have a different view of things. Crossleft is a site to find a voice for people in the Christian Left who may have different views on politics, on social issues, on how to read the Bible, or question what the essential truths are in the Bible. I'm guessing that many people have had bad experiences with more fundamentalist Christians that caused them to question things. Or many just have fundamental disagreements with the doctrines that come with a more inerrant view of the Bible, but still believe in Jesus and God.
I personally read and post in Crossleft because it offers an alternative to the politics and doctrinal views of the Religious Right. Some Crossleft readers hold a more traditional view of the Bible but have very progressive political views and read Crossleft for its progressive politics and activism. There are clashes of opinions and debates on issues, but they tend to be clashes between liberals and progressives and different points on the left of the political and religious spectrum. The diverstity within Crossleft of different beliefs is, I think, one of its greatest strengths.
Your explanation gives us a better understanding on why you support church discipline for politicians who support abortion. Thank you for that. I hope the explanations that Frank and Gary and I give you an understanding on why we disagree.
Throughout Church history, the most influential points of dissent have been in areas that were once thought to be essential truths. The earliest conflicts were between Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians on the eating customs and circumcision customs that Jewish Christians felt were essential truths of the Jewish religion. Martin Luther and Erasmus argued about free will. Various Christians denominations have sprouted out of the Protestant Reformation, with their own doctrines and Biblical views. Quakers in the seventeenth and eighteenth century dissented from mainline Protestants with their pacifism and antislavery stances. African American Baptists have dissented from their mainline Baptist support of racism and Jim Crow. The importance of dissent have been when they instigate debate on the most important issues.
I think that is why we should test our beliefs by listening to experience. When we observe the harmful consequences of church doctrines on abortion, homosexuality, birth control, among other doctrines, we have a responsibility to ask questions about those doctrines and ask whether they live up to a truer Christian spirit of loving God and loving our neighbor. If the church has certain doctrines that it tries to impose upon people inside and outside the church, it has a responsibility to listen to the people to whom these doctrines affects and see the consequences of these doctrines upon these people. What has been the effect on prolife beliefs on teen pregnant women, or poor pregnant women, or sexually abused women? What have been the discoveries of science on our understanding of the fetus? What has a prolife position meant for government programs to help poor mothers and poor children? If a Christian women decides to have an abortion, how is she treated within a church? How do the Church's birth control policies affect women of poverty? Why do so many gays and lesbians have such hostile feelings towards the church? How are gays and lesbians treated within churches? How are divorced people treated in churches? How does an inerrant reading of the Bible affect people?
It's important for people within the church to ask questions, to challenge assumptions. I'm just as guilty as anyone else to have wrong assumptions or to be wrong about something and it benefits me when my wife or a friend challenges me and argues out their positions. I think a diversity of opinions is important. If a group only hears from people with the same experiences and have the same opinions, that group falls into the danger of being self righteous and close minded. The church benefits, as the American society benefits, from the ongoing debate between progressives and conservatives. It's good to have that debate between people who see changes that need to be made and those who see traditions that need to be preserved. When one side is intimidated and silenced, it harms the church in the long run because needed questions are not being asked. I remember a preacher saying that we need both a right wing and a left wing in order to fly. The creators of Crossleft made this site specifically as an alternative Christian voice because the Right Wing Christians have been dominating the debate for the past 30 years, and now when people think of Christians, they tend to only think of Conservative Christians. So whether we like it or not, all Christians are affected by the actions of conservative Christians and we have the right to question them.
This is why I believe in dissent within churches. This is why I see value in Crossleft.
Angelo
Your Problem BSOR, As I See it
You place too much emphasis upon the letter of the Law than upon the real-life application of the Law. It is a refusal to acknowledge the reality of grey areas.
Let me put it this way: while abortion may not be desirable, it is often the lesser of two evils. The bishops' black and white solutions for complex issues don't address the realities of a young teenager made pregnant through an act of incest or even by an act of youthful indiscretion. Even more ludicrous is this dogma of abortion under no circumstances, even if both the mother and her baby will both die. Beyond that, in Judaism, unless the head has exited the womb, abortion while considered immoral under many (but not all) circumstances is not equated with murder.
Applying faith is not always a matter of black and white. Instead, there is the ongoing tension between the actual and the ideal. And that is often best resolved by applications of equity.
reply to reply
Thank you, NYGaribaldi.
I am not surprised that you perceive me to be legalistic. I have been taught, and believe, that Christians should be flexible on issues where God's Word is flexible and firm on issues where God's Word is firm. The sanctity of innocent human life falls within the latter category.
Question for you: If you believe abortion violently ends an innocent human life, how can it ever be permissible? If you do not believe that, why do you say that abortion is not "desirable?"
You believe that I refuse to acknowledge gray areas, but I would suggest that you are imagining a gray area that does not really exist. Abortion is certainly not a gray area for the thousands of unborn babies that are put to death on a daily basis throughout our nation -- none of whom will ever have the opportunity to engage in intellectual debates over their personhood. Either a fetus is a baby or it is not. Abortion is either the moral equivalent of an appendectomy (a point of view which requires a refusal to acknowledge some clear medical facts, as well as a refusal to heed every Biblical principle about children being a blessing, about God's plans for the unborn, and about God's oft-expressed hatred of the shedding of innocent blood), or abortion is murder. I would respectfully suggest that if you believe that there is anything gray or uncertain at all about the humanity and personhood of the unborn, you owe it to the unborn to take a pro-life posture to avoid any possibility that you might be advocating the destruction of a million innocent lives every year based on cloudy, euphemistic notions of choice. If there is any chance that abortion kills an innocent human person -- even a one percent chance -- it should be illegal.
"Either a fetus is a baby or it is not."
No, I do not believe that a two or three month old fetus is a baby. It cannot survive outside the womb on its own, nor is it fully formed as a human being. Beyond that, you make it sound as if all abortion were merely a question of birth control when it more often than not, isn't. Economics often has a lot to do with it. Whether a fetus is carrying a significant birth defect (like having no brain) is a consideration that the state should not decide in place the woman and her family. Or how about rape or incest? My goodness, even the Torah makes allowances for abortion under those circumstances! You know who escalates abortion? Your libertarian-minded friends with their anything-goes economics. They're not pro-life but simply pro-birth. And if you don't believe me, just compare abortion rates under Clinton and GWB.
And since Jesus never mentions abortion, perhaps He left it to be decided either as Torah commands or as a matter of conscience,
questions/comments
NYGaribaldi, a few questions and comments:
1. I noticed that you declined to respond to several of the questions I asked you and instead resorted to insulting accusations. That is unfortunate.
2. It seems that you are suggesting that a baby does not become a human person with human rights until it is born. Before that, he or she has no human rights at all. Is that what you are saying?
3. You place great weight on the question of whether a fetus can survive on its own. Can a newborn survive on its own? A very elderly person with special needs? And what about late-term unborn babies who could/would be viable if born rather than aborted?
4. Financial difficulties do not justify feticide. If I am not financially prepared to be a parent, I would be wise not to engage in the act that is designed to result in me becoming a parent. If I impregnate someone, I have become a father. It is my responsibility to provide and care for my child to the best of my ability and to trust God for His provision, even if the child's birth causes financial stress. In the United States, very few children grow up in poverty if their parents are married to each other; refraining from having children out of wedlock is the best way to avoid the financial distress about which you expressed concern, and there is not a shred of evidence that the usual liberal solution -- more government -- would lower abortion rates at all. In extreme unplanned-pregnancy situations, adoption is a wise alternative. I cannot express strongly enough how appalled I am that anyone could attempt to justify the act of abortion simply because the parents of the unborn child did not have enough money.
5. Regarding rape and incest, does a child not deserve life because of the sins of its father? And do you somehow (in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary) believe that abortion is a merciful alternative for women who have been mistreated in this way? Do you think that aborting the child will somehow erase the painful memory of the rape? Do two wrongs make a right?
6. Do you have any factual basis at all for asserting that abortion rates increased during the Bush presidency? All the information I have seen states otherwise.
7. Do you believe that the only words of the Bible that carry any significance are the words Jesus spoke while He was on Earth in the flesh?
A Few Replies
You have obviously have not read my past comment with an open mind otherwise you would have found the answers you were looking for.
To start out, a eight or a nine month old premature baby can survive outside the womb. On the other hand, a first trimester fetus simply will not. The inner workings of human organs and brain just aren't there in the first trimester.I think that Roe got it right in breaking down the question of abortion into trimesters.
Beyond that, issues such as abortion or end-of-life are personal choices that the government should stay out of. No. I don't believe in state-assisted suicide but in a matter where the courts have determined a person's intent, religious demagogues should not attempt to substitute their own judgement.
Now, on the abortion rate question I checked the Guttmacher site and I stand corrected on abortion rates during the Bush administration, but they also said this:
1
And since you're accusing me of not answering your questions, how about answering this one that I asked you several exchanges ago:
Picture yourself in an IVF lab and a fire broke out. You have a few seconds to get out. And in those few seconds you have to choose between rescuing a nine-year old child and a bunch of petri dishes containing embryos. Which would you choose?
1. Link: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_IAW.html
There is no zeal like that of the new convert
There is an old adage that says there is no zeal like that of the new convert. Neuhaus was apparently both a convert to Catholicism and conservative politics, and he was zealous for both.
There is a shift going on that is almost palpable, isn't there?.
How Right You Are Jim
In fact, I wrote this piece on that subject.
Frank, which article?
I would like to read your piece. Your link takes me to "Talk to Action" where I get a "Sorry, we are unable to find that article" message. I found a few of your posts but don't know if it is the relevant piece. I have to have the name of the article for Talk to Action's search engine. Jim
Here You Go Jim
http://www.talk2action.org/story/2008/6/15/153633/597
Thank you Frank
Excellent article, great points.