TW: As you know, I am big on separation of church and state. I am also skeptical of dogmatic moral absolutes and those who seek to impose them on others. I am not sufficiently articulate in religion to get too specific on scriptures etc. but from my view there was a time when a more vanilla, bigger tent form of religion pre-dominated whereby the literal believers and the less confident believers co-existed more or less harmoniously.
The contemporary trend seems regardless of creed towards a less big tent more dogmatic form of religion. Concurrently, many religious leaders are increasingly active politically again an evolution that has gained speed over the past thirty years. Religious dogmatism and separation of church and state do not mix well at all. While I respect the particular religious dogmas or at least the right to have them, when those dogmas are inserted into my governance I get queasy and as necessary will act to counter them with as much passion as the believers.
Strident mullahs, rabbis, pastors and priests and their adherents are setting up tensions that will be increasingly challenging to reconcile. Those carving out and defending more and more immovable moral structures will inevitably clash. Furthermore moderates will tend towards less involvement within those organizations leading potentially towards a vicious circle of increasingly intolerant and ultimately divisive institutions who seek only those blindingly "with them".
From LA Times:
"...None of this impresses antiabortion hard-liners such as Archbishop Joseph F. Naumann of Kansas City, Kan. Earlier this year, when Sebelius vetoed another measure that would have allowed a third party to seek a court order restraining a woman from obtaining an abortion -- even if it was necessary to save her life -- Naumann forbade the governor to receive Communion unless she changed her views.
...For conservatives who've been trying for years to pry Catholic voters out of the Democratic Party, the Holy Grail of political advantage is a long-sought clerical edict that would prohibit any Catholic officeholder who ever has cast a pro-choice vote from receiving Communion. From there, it would be a relatively small step to extend the ban to any Catholic who has voted for a pro-choice candidate. Catholic Democrats would be forced to choose between their party and their church.For years, most bishops -- though unswervingly pro-life -- have avoided such an either/or moment, not least because, on the vast majority of issues apart from abortion, their social agenda coincides more closely with the Democrats than the GOP. But time is gradually changing the character of the American Catholic hierarchy. The generation of pastoral, politically savvy bishops and cardinals appointed by Pope Paul VI and John Paul II in his early years -- the late Cardinal Joseph Bernardin of Chicago, Cardinal Roger Mahony of Los Angeles and Cardinal Theodore McCarrick of Washington come to mind -- are aging and passing from the scene.
In their place a new, more brittle and ultramontane group of bishops appears willing to elevate the abortion issue over all others. That's important because in the past, when more conservative bishops have forbidden Communion to Catholic officeholders, some cardinals -- McCarrick and Mahony in particular -- have declined to enforce the ban. Now, however, the new archbishop of Washington, Donald Wuerl, and Bishop Paul S. Loverde of Arlington, Va., have said they expect Sebelius to obey her local bishop's order if she moves into their sees. If conservative activists can persuade enough local bishops to do to, say, Vice President Joe Biden, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Sens. Ted Kennedy, John Kerry and Christopher Dodd what Naumann has done to Sebelius, the long-sought national edict is a fait accompli.George W. Bush's former advisor on Catholic affairs, Deal W. Hudson, said this week that Wuerl's and Loverde's acquiescence in denying Sebelius the sacrament "will send the message to other bishops that if they choose to pronounce members of Congress from their dioceses unfit for Communion, their authority will be respected in D.C. and across the Potomac in Virginia. The ramifications are enormous." This is a nasty business with serious implications, and the bishops might want to consider where they'll find themselves if even their own co-religionists come to believe they're in the business of dictating officeholders' actions rather than forming consciences."
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-rutten25-2009apr25,0,2222655.story
No comments:
Post a Comment