Tweet
photo courtesy of Brian Rendel (flickr)
For a generation, the name at the top of the list of political heroes of the anti-abortion movement has been Henry Hyde. Bart Stupak wants to put his name at the top of that list for the next generation, and the US Conference of Catholic Bishops is trying their best to make that happen. Bart Stupak’s position on abortion in the health care bill may disturb people, but it shouldn’t surprise anyone, based on the people to whom he listens.
For months, the USCCB had been pushing the story that without the abortion language drafted by Bart Stupak, any kind of health care reform should be stopped. The Senate language, said the bishops, was unacceptable — it had to be Stupak’s way, or nothing at all.
Last Monday, the head of the Catholic Health Association, Sister Carol Keehan, DC, spoke publicly in opposition to the bishops (though without naming them), and called the Senate bill “a major first step” in making dramatic improvements in our health care system. On Thursday, leaders of dozens of Catholic women’s religious orders gave their support to Keehan in a letter to Congress, writing with even more directness in opposition to the USCCB (emphasis in the original):
We write to urge you to cast a life-affirming “yes” vote when the Senate health care bill (H.R. 3590) comes to the floor of the House for a vote as early as this week. We join the Catholic Health Association of the United States (CHA), which represents 1,200 Catholic sponsors, systems, facilities and related organizations, in saying: the time is now for health reform AND the Senate bill is a good way forward.
As the heads of major Catholic women’s religious order in the United States, we represent 59,000 Catholic Sisters in the United States who respond to needs of people in many ways. Among our other ministries we are responsible for running many of our nation’s hospital systems as well as free clinics throughout the country.
After noting what they see as the positives of the Senate bill, they took a very direct swipe at the bishops:
And despite false claims to the contrary, the Senate bill will not provide taxpayer funding for elective abortions. It will uphold longstanding conscience protections and it will make historic new investments – $250 million – in support of pregnant women. This is the REAL pro-life stance, and we as Catholics are all for it.
They said it politely, but the message is clear: the bishops are either liars or dupes, neither of which is terribly attractive.
Bart Stupak’s reaction? According to Fox News:
“When I’m drafting right to life language, I don’t call up the nuns.” He says he instead confers with other groups including “leading bishops, Focus on the Family, and The National Right to Life Committee.”
Apparently Stupak doesn’t like it when actual health care professionals call the claims of his advisers “false.”
The USCCB is not a monolithic group, but its more conservative members are far more outspoken in attacking anything they view as impure. It’s not just about abortion, though that takes center stage. It’s not just about the place of women, though that’s part of it. At its heart, for the bishops, it is about their personal authority.
Here’s the latest example that has my teeth on edge: kicking the children of a lesbian Catholic couple out of the Catholic school run by the parish to which the family belongs and actively participates:
From the time they first enrolled at Sacred Heart three years back they never hid the fact that they are a lesbian couple, they said. “We decided for a number of reasons to send our children to Sacred Heart School,” Mary said. “We have loved it there. Our children were thriving there. When we first enrolled our daughter in pre-school we told the school administrators our daughter had two moms. We asked if this was going to be a problem. We said that if it was going to be a problem we could go else where. We were very open and they said it would not be a problem.”
The women said they never made a “big issue” of their family situation. “We have never flaunted it or pushed any political agenda at the school at all,” Mary continued. “The parents know; the teachers know. We’ve sat with the kindergarten teachers and have talked with them. Never over a three year period we never had any indication that it would be a problem at all. We found it to be a very accepting environment for our child.”
All seemed quite natural until a it came time for next year’s enrollment a couple weeks back . . .
According to Fr. Breslin, the priest of their parish, allowing these children in the parish school “would have been against Archdiocesan policy; and when a priest is ordained he promises obedience to his bishop; and I cannot violate that vow; and I will not.” A few days earlier, he explained his decision like this:
If a child of gay parents comes to our school, and we teach that gay marriage is against the will of God, then the child will think that we are saying their parents are bad. We don’t want to put any child in that tough position – nor do we want to put the parents, or the teachers, at odds with the teachings of the Catholic Church.
Uh, Father Breslin? When you and Archbishop Chaput say to a child that they can’t come to your parish’s school because the Catechism of the Catholic Church (2357-59) calls homosexual activity “intrinsically disordered” and “a grave depravity,” that’s kind of like calling the lesbian parents “bad.”
But hey — if the bishop approved, that’s what counts.
This is the mindset of the people to whom Bart Stupak looks for legislative advice. They don’t like questions, or messy situations, or gray areas, whether we’re talking about abortion or contraception or end-of-life decisions or the children of a lesbian couple or anything else. Everything is black and white to them, and those in authority tell those lower down the totem pole which is which.
God help us.
31 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Thanks for staying up on this Peterr.
I did a diary on the child being banned a couple of weeks ago. I am just dumbfounded at the so-called explanation from those who purport to follow the teachings of Jesus
The same people responsible for child abuse are suddenly the authorities on proper behavior?
God help us.
I wonder if the people of Michigan know Stupak works for the Church, not them? Kinda makes one wonder what the Pope has next in mind for his congressman.
You should meet Chaput in person. The man positively oozes sanctimony.
When the USCCB meets, how there can be any air in the room I’ll never understand.
It is certainly true that the Catholic Church hasn’t made any progress at listening to women. It is amazing that the Bishops are so willing to treat half the population as irrelevant.
If memory serves, one of the biggest barriers that JFK had to fight against in his campaign for the presidency was the fear that he’d be taking his marching orders from the Vatican.
No one seems to be fearful of that now…
See, that’s progress /s.
Onward christopathic soldiers in our march to impose Sharia law. Talibangelicals and The Home For Unwed Fathers shall not stand for unregulated vaginae on the loose.
You are exactly right.
During the U.S. Civil War, Pius IX was officially neutral. Slavery was bad form, but those plantation owners had so much guilt and so much cash with which to assuage it. That is why the Irish fought on both sides of the Civil War.
The Kidnapping of Edgardo Mortora provides some insight into Pius IX and into why US and European civil leaders feared the Vatican.
Pius XII, Hitler’s pope, used WWII to try to reestablish the Vatican as a temporal power. Hitler never could have risen to power without Pius’ support. Pius was more than willing to sacrifice six-million Jews and a million or so Poles, as a way to position himself to eventually broker the peace.
As I noted last week, Chaput thinks that JFK was wrong, and that the church has been paying the price for his mistake ever since.
From Chaput’s speech in Houston:
Link to full Chaput speech (text and video) in that earlier post.
Maybe Chaput would prefer we go back to the years when “papists” weren’t allowed to hold office.
The very bright spot, here, however, are the nuns and their willingness to speak out. I doubt that would have happened twenty years ago.
It’s not so much that the USCCB treats women as irrelevant, but expects them to be subservient.
This is just my hunch, but I’d say that half the displeasure of the hierarchy and folks like Stupak to Sr. Keehan’s comments about the Senate bill is because she is a she. If the head of CHA were a man, the remarks would have gotten a more of a hearing.
These papists live off the lie that Roman Catholic teaching is some kind of monolith.
Nothing was more universally agreed upon in Roman Catholic teaching than the illegality of usury. Suddenly in the 19th century, when they needed loans, that teaching began to change.
In Pius XIs Casti Connubi (1930), he prohibited sex between married Roman Catholics after the wife could no longer conceive. The practice of rhythm was also a mortal sin.
Paul VI overturned that in Humane Vitae (1968). He said Catholics could have sex after the wife could no longer conceive. That cut the tie between sex and procreation and made rhythm not a mortal sin.
For a church that claims that life begins at conception, you would think they would encourage contraception. Nope, a married couple using a condom is still a mortal sin.
Unf****ng real.
Thanks for all your fine writing about religion.
Luther is a theological giant.
Stupak’s speeddial
- The USCCB
- James Dobson
- National Right to Life Committee
- Fellowship/Family
Just wondering what he was up to at the frat house on C Street.
I don’t understand why the rank and file Catholics don’t organize something like no money for a month.
What do you expect, when it’s all based on make-believe? Just think of all the killing and bad policy people have had to endure throughout history because of all the different make-believers. Nothing surprises anymore, unless it be an occasional nod to rational thought.
Me neither.
The quality of their priests is just horrible, even those who do not abuse minors. How many qualified candidates will you get from a labor pool that includes one gender and mandatory celibacy?
Boo, you should enjoy this history.
Has Obama cleared his Bill with the KKK and the Nazis yet? Maybe, he’d like to let them to have a few changes put in before they vote?
?????
It would be a more bipartisan bill if he did.
You know, I’ve just been reading some history-based fiction set in 12th century England, beginning with the terrible wars set off at the death of Henry I without a “legitimate”, i.e., born-in-wedlock, male heir. He designated his daughter Maud as his heir, but her cousin Stephen seized the throne and the barons backed him because they couldn’t see being ruled by a woman.
A many who know this history may be unaware of is that Henry I had a “bastard”son, Robert, an able military commander, of calm temperament and good judgment, who directed his sister’s campaign for the throne. Had he been able to inherit, (setting aside the anti-women prejudice for the moment), all the 19 years of turmoil and famine could have been avoided.
Everybody took for granted the Church’s position of the time that children must be punished for the sins of their parents. We’ve elimnated pretty much all laws that take that point of view today.
This act of expelling to child for the “sins” of her parents makes me wonder if the bishops are moving to return to the concept of bastardy. It doesn’t seem much different, to me.
I read a couple of historical novels on that time way back when.
I’m confident there are enough Democrats in the house, who see the massive benefits in Health Care Reform, to get this legislation passed.
Regardless of the outcome, we need to get Stupak thrown out in his next election. Anyone who brings such a biased theological bent to the government of this great, secular, pluralistic democracy should not be in the legislative process. If he wants a theocracy he can move to Iran or Israel. I plan to donate money to whomever opposes him, either A democrat in the primary or a Republican in the election.
RCharles
The basic premise is that a person MUST follow their conscience. In this case, the nuns believe in their heart and with good conscience that far greater good will come with Health Care Reform. They are then OBLIGATED by church doctrine to stand up and be counted, and to do so publicly because the bishops, in their blind stupidity, have made this a very public dispute between good catholics with different views.
For a simple example, Galileo determined that the earth rotated around the sun and published that fact. The church elders threatened him with torture and death until he recanted, and then kept him under house arrest until he died. Two hundred years later the church accepted what, by then, was common knowledge. Even much later they issued an apology to Galileo.
Today’s bishops just wish they could hold that kind of power over everyone, but now we are far more educated and think for ourselves. The bishops can teach but the ADULTS must decide and vote.
The church has been wrong on many occasions throughout history and is wrong today, if only because it is trying to insert a theological position into our legislation, which is in clear violation of separation of church and state, a founding principal so eloquently stated by Thomas Jefferson.
RCharles
Progress made, but it is worth remembering the work of Pierre Teihard de Chardin, a Jesuit and a palentologist whose works were suppressed for many years by the Roman church. Often referred to as the father of “process theology.”
We should be so lucky. If that were the case we would not have Stupidek and the US Conference of Catholic Bishops dogging our asses like we were altar boys when it comes to giving women their reproductive rights…
In response to BooRadley @ 14
Whatever one thinks of Catholic teaching, Casti Connubii did no such thing as to forbid sex outside of the fertile cycle or after a woman was infertile. To assert that is a direct lie.
The relevant quote is below from Casti Conubii paragraph 59:
“Nor are those considered as acting against nature who in the married state use their right in the proper manner although on account of natural reasons either of time or of certain defects, new life cannot be brought forth. For in matrimony as well as in the use of the matrimonial rights there are also secondary ends, such as mutual aid, the cultivating of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence which husband and wife are not forbidden to consider so long as they are subordinated to the primary end and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved.”
The most striking thing about Stupak is that he’s really not too smart. He always talks about “thinking it over”, which should be translated as: I’ll let you know when I’m told how to proceed….I’m against ANY legislator who defers to a single lobby for all issues. If there are Catholics who support HCR, then it’s certainly debatable as to the (negative) impact on those who want to make abortion illegal.
Help defeat Bart Stupak in his zeal to kill reform by supporting his primary challenger, Connie Saltonstall.
Visit: http://www.actblue.com/page/defeat-bart-stupak
Bart Stupak stated (in an interview on FOX News) that he does not listen to the nuns because these courage women and nuns are “lower” on the Catholic Churches’ hierarchy.