Comments for Religious Rhetorics

Comment on Political outrage and the false “War on Catholics” by Kari J. Tremeryn

Kari J. Tremeryn — Wed, 20 Mar 2013 14:30:59 +0000

Alison, thanks for your comment. The analogy you make between the Catholic hierarchy and university professors and administrators is interesting but is not responding to the argument I made in this piece. I argued that to call it on a “war on Catholics” for the Obama administration to attempt to guarantee that the workers of most employers, including Catholic hospitals and schools, have access to contraception through their health insurance is to define Catholic identity primarily by the prohibition on artificial contraception. In so arguing I do NOT say anything about who should determine official Catholic teachings, or whether the fact that most Catholics ignore the prohibition on artificial contraception (and that papal advisors encouraged Paul VI to change it) is a reason to change the teaching.

Obviously some people would say that Catholics who ignore the prohibition on artificial contraception are not truly Catholic; however, the “war on Catholics” language surrounding the so-called contraception mandate does not specify that only 2% of Catholic women count as Catholics under this definition (according to the data from the Guttmacher Institute I cited in the above post). “War on the 2% of ‘real’ Catholics” doesn’t have the same panache. Thus I think it’s worth pointing out that the rhetoric is manipulative.

I agree with you, however, that Catholic authorities who are committed to the prohibition of contraception could use the mandate as an opportunity to explain their commitment and its theological and anthropological underpinnings, and perhaps some have. In fact, I think that would have been a better use of their time and resources than fighting the mandate; after all, just because employees have access to artificial contraception does not mean that those employees must choose to use it.

Comment on Political outrage and the false “War on Catholics” by Alison Levin

Alison Levin — Wed, 20 Mar 2013 01:08:54 +0000

Not to play devil’s advocate, but I’m having some trouble seeing why it’s logical that the Catholic Church should should change its views on artificial contraceptives just to follow suit with the majority. I think a good analogy (bear with me here) might be plagiarism in academia–if numerous polls stated that the majority of college students see no ethical or moral problem with appropriating others’ information without proper attribution, should universities change their policies on plagiarism? One could argue that relaxing or discarding such standards of academic rigor might damage scholarship, but not all cultures hold these standards (which are highly patterned on Western ideals of personal property and ownership), and it’s possible to have highly competitive scholarship, invention, and scientific discovery in more communal or statist models.

To get back to the contraceptive issue–let’s change professors and administrators to priests and bishops. The Church’s stance against contraceptives, while unfortunately couched by the media solely in terms of backwardness and restriction, is actually based on deeply held beliefs in the sacredness of the body–an incarnational view of materiality that is indeed central, rather than tangential, to the Catholic faith. This relates also to a view of the unity rather than duality of mind and body (humans have the ability to make moral choices that can order their drives and desires–they are not slaves to their instinctual drives, they do not require mechanization to stand in for interior regulation). While it may be that this view is held by bishops and priests far more than by the laity–much in the way that academics, not students, may be the only ones who care much about plagiarism–should this view be discarded? I would say that the rhetorical usefulness of the Church’s very vocal opposition to the contraceptive mandate in healthcare is in bringing this view to the public–especially to Catholics who are unaware of the underpinnings of their faith.

Comment on Evangelical Accountability in the Social Media Age: The Case of Mark Driscoll, Provacateur by Ernesto Tinajero

Ernesto Tinajero — Fri, 27 Jul 2012 16:38:23 +0000

I think you give too much credit to Facebook for pushing accountability on Mark Driscoll, and not enough credit to Mark in his use of new media to generate what he wants: attention and publicity. His Church grows by drawing attention and casting a wide net. He places a provocative post that withdraws after a lot of attention. He withdraws it with no explanation. Mission accomplished. Many more people that agree or simply dislikes with his critics find him and he grows without appearing weak. (No apology) His Facebook audience grew in the controversy. As P. T Barnum said:
“I don’t care what you say about me, just spell my name right.”
No better motto for the good Pastor Driscoll.

Comment on NCA: Catholic Social Teaching and the Abortion Reduction Counterstory in the 2008 U.S. Presidential Election by Dayton Kao

Dayton Kao — Sun, 22 Jul 2012 11:42:01 +0000

Thanks for sharing superb informations. Your web site is so cool. I’m impressed by the details that you have on this website. It reveals how nicely you perceive this subject. Bookmarked this website page, will come back for more articles. You, my friend, ROCK! I found simply the information I already searched everywhere and simply could not come across. What a great web-site. http://www.gianluigic2233.net

Comment on Political outrage and the false “War on Catholics” by Mike Fazzini

Mike Fazzini — Sun, 03 Jun 2012 01:52:41 +0000

Michael, I appreciate your reasoned and temperate tone with regard to a subject, about which, you may feel passionate. I have an opposing view on the matter, for better or worse.

This line really jumped out at me:
“The bishops are making a stand not because contraception constitutes THE central issue of the Faith, but because it is the issue that is cynically being deployed by the current administration to attempt to divide the parishioners of the lone holdout on this particular issue from their bishops.”

I agree there may be cynicism involved here but not on the part of the administration. The premise you put forward paints an administration that would choose to attack a religious organization for the purpose of political gain. I suppose that is possible but to believe that seems a bit cynical to me.

Why is it not possible that the administration is putting forward a plan that seeks to provide all women with equal access to care? That the Church operates in the public domain for healthcare, education, and public welfare services of many worthwhile and admirable types and, as such, employs thousands of women who may or may not be Catholic the question of equal access to care is not a made up one but a real one.

The Church is not being asked to do anything different than any other group with regard to providing comprehensive healthcare coverage for women. The administration has even gone out of its way to broker a deal to have the insurers be the ones to provide contraceptive coverage and not the insureds to make it a more palatable process for the Church but it is still no deal for the Bishops.

There are over 2,000 different religious denominations in the US. It seems fairly impossible to me to live together in the melting pot of America and meet the particular standards of each religious group while still honoring a life of shared community. For me this is not a matter of an attack for political gain as you intimate but the claiming of special privilege by the Church that has not been given to any other group and that restricts the choices that their employees have vis-a-vis any other organization.

Additionally, to say that Kathleen Sebelius is “a zealous proponent of abortion and contraception” is just not true… at least as it pertains to abortion. I know no one who is a zealous proponent of abortion. I only know people who acknowledge that there are conditions and circumstances where abortion may not be the worst alternative among those available.

I also know people who acknowledge that regardless of whether abortions are legislated to be legal or illegal they will occur. If that is the case, better in a doctor’s office than with coat hangers in a back alley. That is way different than being a zealous proponent of abortion.

Everyone who feels differently than you or the Church about this matter is not as morally bankrupt as you might believe. The caving of the Protestant denominations to the idea of birth control that you refer to might just as easily be prophetic. Scorn them if you must but I suggest it all depends on where you stand to look.

Comment on Political outrage and the false “War on Catholics” by Michael

Michael — Sat, 02 Jun 2012 21:02:42 +0000

I doubt my dissenting comments will see the light of day. Nevertheless, I have a few rhetorical points to be made.
You are likely, and perhaps rightly so, angry for being singled out publicly with others, and having your commitment to your faith called into question (hence your rationalization that the faith does not boil down to contraception: however true this is (certainly the Holy Trinity, the Incarnation, and salvation from death and sin are the central non-negotiables), in our historical circumstances, unlike at Nicaea in 325, they are not the issues being called into question, at this time. In 1517 Martin Luther called for a hearing on indulgences, the treasury of merit, raising money for the construction of St. Peter’s, etc. In our great – & grandparent’s day, in the U. S., it was whether Catholics worshiped Mary or the Pope, and whether they were second class citizens in relation to the WASP establishment and the Nativist/Know Nothings and the KKK persecutions of Catholics. In the last century it has been issues relating to home and family: the nature of family, sexuality and marriage, divorce, and yes, contraception (since 1920, touted by Margaret Sanger and her foundation Planned Parenthood because of her affinity for racial eugenics (she was targeting the black community and “mental defectives” and congratulated German Nazi doctors for their “advances” in eugenics). I concede that it was not legal and widely available until 1968, but it was at the Anglican Conference at Lambeth in 1930 that the first Protestant denomination gave the OK to contraception (hence the Catholic papal response Casti Conubii in 1930). Since then every Protestant denomination has caved in. The sole Christian exception…the Catholic Church stands alone again on the issues of the day (in the first century in Rome, families would leave children out in the wild exposed to the elements for wild animals to consume as “birth control”, or to hide affairs from spouses, etc. It was the Catholics who would rescue these helpless children and take them in. Hell, even pagans found abortifacients deplorable, medicine not sophisticated enough to have developed “contraceptives” until the 1920′s (remember the Hippocratic Oath (“…shall not dispense a medication that causes an abortion” – no wonder its no longer said at medical school graduations). The bishops are making a stand not because contraception constitutes THE central issue of the Faith, but because it is the issue that is cynically being deployed by the current administration to attempt to divide the parishioners of the lone holdout on this particular issue from their bishops. For these politicians believe that 90% of Catholic laity are using some form of contraception anyway and want to cynically divorce, as I said, the laity from the bishops for their political gain at the polls. Despite your personal outrage at being singled out by the moderator of an internet site that is ardently behind the bishops in their stand on this issue, and personally called to task for being a Catholic who supported the appointment of Kathleen Sebelius (who I am willing to concede you may not have known was a zealous proponent of abortion and contraception prior to her appointment). Your “moral outrage” seems contrived, and as you say, personal. But since you moderate a site yourself, you seek to draw us into your personal problem, and whip up public sentiment to soothe your self justified moral outrage.
As for me, I stand with the Catholic bishops, and hence, the Catholic Faith.

Comment on Political outrage and the false “War on Catholics” by The Liars' Den

The Liars' Den — Wed, 22 Feb 2012 20:03:14 +0000

Very interesting writing with great points brought up as well. I am not one who considers myself very religious. Although several of my family members are practicing Catholics or Protestants, I was brought up in a family with a variety of views on religion and was allowed by my parents to have any view I chose as my own. Perhaps it is interesting that one thing that has always drove me away from religion has been the religious rhetoric and the use of it in politics and by those in positions of power.

I look forward to reading up on your previous posts!

http://theliarsden.wordpress.com

Comment on Paternalism and the “Contraception Mandate” by Meg

Meg — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 02:26:46 +0000

Kari, It is unfortunate that the woman lost her ovary, but our religious and moral convictions are of the utmost importance. Given my personal experiences, what I find tragic in that situation is that her doctor believed birth control was actually a way to treat her PCOS. As a woman who has 6 years of infertility behind me, I can assure you that birth control is seen as a “fix” for many gynecological problems and thus overprescribed. I myself was instructed to take birth control for the treatment of recurring ovarian cysts, but refused because it only serves to mask problems and not as authentic treatment of the underlying problem.

My maiden name is Stephens, so that might help place me.

Comment on Paternalism and the “Contraception Mandate” by Kari J. Tremeryn

Kari J. Tremeryn — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 01:01:05 +0000

Meg,

Yes, Poul is my brother. That explains why I remember your name.

I do appreciate the consistency of your view. I hope that you will never have to choose between feeding your family and vaccinating them against serious illness. I also hope that you never lose an ovary like a Georgetown student described in a January 30 NY Times article that I read earlier today. She had polycystic ovary syndrome, for which she was prescribed birth control by her doctor. Georgetown denied her coverage for the treatment in the name of Catholic teaching against contraception. Because she couldn’t afford the prescription otherwise, she developed a cyst and lost her ovary. This is a prime example of the real life cost of this debate. (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/30/health/policy/law-fuels-contraception-controversy-on-catholic-campuses.html?pagewanted=2&_r=2&ref=todayspaper)

Comment on Paternalism and the “Contraception Mandate” by Meg

Meg — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 20:18:44 +0000

Kari,

No, Christian Scientists should not have to pay for vaccinations if they deem them immoral. Vaccinations are nevertheless available to their employees and they can purchase them with their own money. If it is such a hindrance for said employees, they are free to find work somewhere else or perhaps purchase their own insurance rider that covers it.

But you are changing your argument. The reason why, for the sake of analogy, legality doesn’t matter is because your previous argument posited that there was no difference between insurance and salary (hence you wrote in response to Leila: “the employer is no more culpable for how the employee uses the resource of her health insurance than for how she uses the resource of her salary”) You spoke of culpability, which is why using a hit man scenario might clarify the responsibility of the employer when they are footing the bill for something.

In our real life controversy, what matters is whose money is paying for the contraception: with insurance, it’s the employer’s, with salary, it’s the employees. That is the meaningful distinction. What is happening here, whether you agree or not, is that employers are being forced to directly fund contraceptives for the employee. Regarding the employer’s moral culpability, it doesn’t matter whether or not the employee decides to use the contraceptive coverage. Hence my question: If I give my friend $500 for an abortion, and she decides not to go through with it, have I sinned? Twice I have asked and you still haven’t answered, so I’ll tell you the answer: Yes, in virtue of funding an abortion, I have sinned. So it is with the Church: in virtue of funding contraception, she has sinned.

It is outside the bounds of the government to mandate that a person or entity violate their beliefs by purchasing a particular product. Essentially, the government is mandating that we sin. It truly is a religious liberty argument. I hope you begin to see that because it’s very serious when our liberty is threatened. Take heed that (last I heard) all but 5 bishops issued statements agains this mandate, as well as many lay Catholic leaders in this nation, including several who publicly endorsed Obama in 2008.

Your brother is Pole, right? He and I did prison ministry together, but I’m not sure if I’m remembering correctly if you two were siblings… Well, thanks for the dialogue. Blessings!