22 ms·

When I was a child in the Catholic Church (70s and 80s) there was NEVER any political discussion that entered into the service (“..render unto caesar what is ca

When I was a child in the Catholic Church (70s and 80s) there was NEVER any political discussion that entered into the service (“..render unto caesar what is caesar’s..” or ‘separation of church and state’. Or, more probable, perhaps it was felt that it simply was not the forum for present-day politics. I don’t know). Since lapsed, A few years ago I was encouraged by a priest, as he enjoyed his fourth old fashioned, to attend a Mass. He noted that I might find it more ‘enlightening’ than I had in the past so I agreed (albeit reluctantly). What I witnessed was no less than a 45 minute diatribe on the dangers of abortion, casting various aspersions (ad hominem) on any political leader not on board with new political agenda of the Catholic Church. Frankly very little else. I hypocritically thought to myself ‘would Jesus be proud of this? Perhaps. But I certainly wasn’t. The addtional twisted irony was that the person I was with actually had an abortion. She sat quietly listening to this without seemingly the slightest bit of concern. She said that’s how all services are now. It occurred to me that all of this must have been carefully planned at the highest levels of both the church and political/financial benefactors that support it. A long and patient process put in motion years ago. I realize This is somewhat anecdotal but speaks to perhaps the planning that culminated in todays decision. This is about power and control operating under the auspices of religion. SCOTUS are just run-of-the-mill sycophants playing along.

lesstyzing 4y ago
Why is it a surprise that the Catholic Church is against abortion? This list of religions that are ok with abolition is short. It would be quite a big thing for a catholic to turn a blind eye to and not consider when voting.
- kgwxd 4y ago
- giaour 4y ago
  > This list of religions that are ok with abolition is short. You are incorrect, but this is also a specious argument. The list of religious that were anti-slavery was short at the outset of the 19th century and a mile long by the outset of the 20th. Church doctrine is not immune to influence by popular sentiment.
- mola 4y ago
  This is not what OP said. He was surprise to hear a highly political sermon where earlier that was not the standard.
  - brokenkebab2 4y ago
    It's common to say "political" when a topic in question is challenged. But everything can be. Zeitgeist, and context changes, so the very same sermon becomes "political". For what I know Catholic position on abortion didn't change from OP's childhood. His perception probably did.
- ceejayoz 4y ago
  > Why is it a surprise that the Catholic Church is against abortion? What's surprising is the American Catholic priesthood tends to go after pro-choice politicians, but not pro-death-penalty ones, despite the church seeing both as similarly objectionable. The political bent is fairly new. The Pope has messaged that he'd rather they butt out. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/15/world/europe/pope-francis-biden-abortion.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/15/world/europe/pope-francis...
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > What’s surprising is the American Catholic priesthood tends to go after pro-choice politicians, but not pro-death-penalty ones, despite the church seeing both as similarly objectionable. [EDIT: This first paragraph is incorrect as is pointed out in a response; it is left unchanged for context of the discussion.] They are not viewed as “similarly objectionable”. The death penalty is viewed as being within the legitimate power of government doctrinally, but the present leadership of the Church views prudentially that the conditions which allow it do not occur in the modern world. Direct abortion is viewed as doctrinally prohibited. This is an important theological distinction because the Church heirarchy is viewed (borrowing some language from law) as having binding authority on doctrine, but only (very strongly) persuasive authority on prudential application of doctrine to particular material contexts. That being said, you are correct that the political actions of the American Catholic heirarchy (more the bishops than the priesthood, and not all of them) are rather unbalanced (and not just on this pair of issues) in a way which is not easily explained by any coherent appeal to the actual social teaching of the Catholic Church.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - giaour 4y ago
      > They are not viewed as “similarly objectionable”. The death penalty is viewed as being within the legitimate power of government doctrinally Respectfully, no. The catechism reads, "the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person"[0]. This is a recent revision, and what you say reflects what was officially taught until 2017. [0]: https://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P7Z.HTM https://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P7Z.HTM
throw1122334 4y ago
bko 4y ago
The framing of this debate is often religious, but it doesn't have to be. The fact is that at some point between inception and time of delivery, the fetus becomes a person and has some rights. Most people agree that it's probably not inception and it's probably not the moment before birth. So the question is when does this happen? In that way, the pro-life crowd has at least a closer framing of the issue. The pro-choice crowd is talking about religion, privacy, social safety nets, etc. But that's all beside the point. If the fetus is a life, none of this stuff matters. We should all try and at least agree upon the framing of the issue and argue from there or we'll never get anywhere.
- hobs 4y ago
  Why do you think that we need to agree on framing the issue when a significant minority will only agree to framing it at conception? You can't find a middle ground with religious extremism.
  - ajmurmann 4y ago
    I think it's hard to draw that line on extremism. Conversation and finding consensus are much easier if people build their world view and values on as small base assumptions as possible. If we cannot agree on base assumptions and values it's much harder to have a fruitful conversation especially if these assumptions cannot be violated because they were hand down from god. Religion generally makes numerous and very large assumptions.
  - bko 4y ago
    I don't understand your point. If you want to convince someone that believes that the fetus becomes a life sometime in the gestation period, screaming about religion and privacy won't get you anywhere. What does this have to do with religion?
    - sidlls 4y ago
      In the US? Almost everything.
    - 4y ago
alistairSH 4y ago
Also possibly illegal. 501c3, including churches, are prohibited from campaign activity. That includes advocating for any particular candidates. "Biden, the sitting POTUS, is a jackass" is probably ok. "Don't vote for Biden in 2024" is absolutely not ok.
xxEightyxx 4y ago
I'm not as old as you (born in the late 80's) but my family left the church (protestant) for this exact reason. There was more discussion of social/political issues than of scripture. To be fair, I think it's OK to some extent, but the elders had made it a priority to denigrate liberal ideas and beliefs. Look up the Koch brothers. They're largely responsible for much of the chaos we see in our country today.
- greyhair 4y ago
  Look up the Federalist Society. That is where the Koch brothers brought together all their like minded rich friends.
- jtdev 4y ago
fulvioterzapi 4y ago
> What I witnessed was no less than a 45 minute diatribe on the dangers of abortion, casting various aspersions (ad hominem) on any political leader not on board with new political agenda of the Catholic Church. A typical Catholic Mass lasts less than one hour. Most of the Mass follows a fixed, prescribed set of prayers and readings, that have nothing to do with politics. In the middle there's a sermon, that usually lasts about 15 minutes, that might include references to news or to politics. Either you ended up at a very atypical mass, and by very atypical I'd say borderline heretic, or you don't remember well. > with new political agenda of the Catholic Church. New? Like it or not, the position of the Catholic Church on abortion has been extraordinarily consistent through the centuries.
- chasd00 4y ago
  Not sure why you’re downvoted, my wife is catholic and you’re right on every point. I would even go further and say deviating from the standard ritual of catholic mass is probably a big no-no in the church and could land a priest in hot water.
- light_hue_1 4y ago
  > New? Like it or not, the position of the Catholic Church on abortion has been extraordinarily consistent through the centuries. That's not even remotely true! For the vast majority of the history of the Catholic Church early term abortion was acceptable. It was only the 1588 that it was outlawed, and that didn't last long, only a few years. Another ban was instituted in 1869. At the timescale of the Catholic Church, the current extremist position on abortions is extremely recent. Far less established as precedent than say Roe was.
  - fulvioterzapi 4y ago
    > Another ban was instituted in 1869. That's more than 150 years ago. Matches pretty much my definition of consistency. Even before, there might have been some doctrinal adjustments, but abortion was condemned by many Fathers of the Church, in the very early centuries.
twright 4y ago
One major change that spurred specifically the Catholic church into politics was the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) which permitted priests and bishops to participate in politics.
starkd 4y ago
Except that the court relinquished its power to decide on these matters. It may not seem like it now to you, but it actually gains credibility by the courts, because they are not put in the middle of such a consequential decision. It allows the legislature to act. This isn't a power grab, but a relinquishing of power.
- MomoXenosaga 4y ago
  https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/3535841-thomas-calls-for-overturning-precedents-on-contraceptives-lgbtq-rights/ https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/3535841-thomas-... It is a powergrab. Christian conservatives have the Supreme Court. This was all planned. Don't kid yourself.
  - starkd 4y ago
    What powergrab has ever relinquished power? It's literally the opposite of a powergrab. What power do Christian conservatives now suddenly have? This was a democrat party talking point to show supporters and fundraisers how indebted they should be for being "given" a right. No one owes any politician anything.
    - poulsbohemian 4y ago
      What may I ask is your specific grievance with the Democratic Party, which you have twice in this thread incorrectly called the "democrat" party? You've clearly got some beef, so state it plainly.
      - starkd 4y ago
        My beef is with politicians in general. No one is indebted to a party, republican or democrat. But at least republicans aren't claiming credit for giving you your "rights". Sorry, for not capitolizing Democrat, since you seem to see such great offense in it.
        4y ago
sterlind 4y ago
this was masterminded in large part by Leonard Leo of the Federalist Society. he's Catholic, and the upper echelons of the organization are virtually all Catholic, and has enjoyed tremendous influence - even providing Bush and Trump with shortlists of Justices to pick from. unsurprisingly, the majority of Justices are now Catholic - Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Sotomayor (liberal, not a FedSoc pick), Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett.
snarf21 4y ago
Like most things, follow the money. How do you get people to care about the same sermon on the same verse year after year? Want to get people involved with their time and money? You just have to convince them of whatever evils they already believe. Be their echo chamber, talk about all the people who are trying to do such terrible things. Be a fear-monger. The same thing that works for Fox News and CNN also works in a church. Get them addicted to the rhetoric and watch the money flow in. Look at people like Joel Osteen who only care about money. I grew up going to church multiple times per week. Today's church is a cult and it is a cult about hate. I learned in Sunday School that God is love and that we should help each other. Today the message is righteous indignation. They don't believe in the Bible or follow Jesus' teachings but they are very very adamant that the "sinners" must be converted to their way of thinking. It is nothing but hypocrisy and if pointed out, Christians have decided that they and they alone have the right to decide what parts of the Bible matter and what doesn't.
raincom 4y ago
"There shouldn't be intermediaries between God and human beings"--is a Protestant doctrine. This doctrine has gone secular: separation of church and state. In other words, protestant Christian ideas have become the foundation of many modern political theories. For a Catholic, the Catholic Church is the intermediary between him/her and God.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
MengerSponge 4y ago
Me when Catholicism incorporates local pagan rituals: Haha fuck yeah!!! Yes!!! Me when Catholicism incorporates local facist evangelicalism: Well this fucking sucks. What the fuck.
bobthechef 4y ago
dpbriggs 4y ago
I never experienced long political diatribes when I attended Catholic mass a few years ago. There wasn't much time for speaking as the mass itself is quite involved. > It occurred to me that all of this must have been carefully planned at the highest levels of both the church and political/financial benefactors that support it. I'm curious if we'll see leaks confirming this. Otherwise this might be an anecdote stretched a little too far. It's far more likely you've experienced some bad pastors.
nickd2001 4y ago
IMHO this is profoundly tragic, and bad, and Jesus would not be proud of that. The church should be helping people to be caring for one another, and looking after the downtrodden and vulnerable. Protecting the rights of unborn children should not involve being nasty to other people, it should involve making clear arguments and being willing to provide decent support for people with unplanned pregnancies. It feels to me like the church, particulary in USA, got hijacked by a bunch of people who don't have any real faith but just use it for their political agenda. Pope Francis wouldn't agree with their stance I'm sure, but then he believes in devolving power away from Rome which, while that is for good reason, allows things like this to go unchecked. Whole lot of complex issues.....

lesstyzing 4y ago

Why is it a surprise that the Catholic Church is against abortion? This list of religions that are ok with abolition is short. It would be quite a big thing for a catholic to turn a blind eye to and not consider when voting.

kgwxd 4y ago
giaour 4y ago
> This list of religions that are ok with abolition is short. You are incorrect, but this is also a specious argument. The list of religious that were anti-slavery was short at the outset of the 19th century and a mile long by the outset of the 20th. Church doctrine is not immune to influence by popular sentiment.
mola 4y ago
This is not what OP said. He was surprise to hear a highly political sermon where earlier that was not the standard.
- brokenkebab2 4y ago
  It's common to say "political" when a topic in question is challenged. But everything can be. Zeitgeist, and context changes, so the very same sermon becomes "political". For what I know Catholic position on abortion didn't change from OP's childhood. His perception probably did.
ceejayoz 4y ago
> Why is it a surprise that the Catholic Church is against abortion? What's surprising is the American Catholic priesthood tends to go after pro-choice politicians, but not pro-death-penalty ones, despite the church seeing both as similarly objectionable. The political bent is fairly new. The Pope has messaged that he'd rather they butt out. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/15/world/europe/pope-francis-biden-abortion.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/15/world/europe/pope-francis...
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > What’s surprising is the American Catholic priesthood tends to go after pro-choice politicians, but not pro-death-penalty ones, despite the church seeing both as similarly objectionable. [EDIT: This first paragraph is incorrect as is pointed out in a response; it is left unchanged for context of the discussion.] They are not viewed as “similarly objectionable”. The death penalty is viewed as being within the legitimate power of government doctrinally, but the present leadership of the Church views prudentially that the conditions which allow it do not occur in the modern world. Direct abortion is viewed as doctrinally prohibited. This is an important theological distinction because the Church heirarchy is viewed (borrowing some language from law) as having binding authority on doctrine, but only (very strongly) persuasive authority on prudential application of doctrine to particular material contexts. That being said, you are correct that the political actions of the American Catholic heirarchy (more the bishops than the priesthood, and not all of them) are rather unbalanced (and not just on this pair of issues) in a way which is not easily explained by any coherent appeal to the actual social teaching of the Catholic Church.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - giaour 4y ago
    > They are not viewed as “similarly objectionable”. The death penalty is viewed as being within the legitimate power of government doctrinally Respectfully, no. The catechism reads, "the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person"[0]. This is a recent revision, and what you say reflects what was officially taught until 2017. [0]: https://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P7Z.HTM https://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P7Z.HTM

throw1122334 4y ago

bko 4y ago

The framing of this debate is often religious, but it doesn't have to be. The fact is that at some point between inception and time of delivery, the fetus becomes a person and has some rights. Most people agree that it's probably not inception and it's probably not the moment before birth. So the question is when does this happen? In that way, the pro-life crowd has at least a closer framing of the issue. The pro-choice crowd is talking about religion, privacy, social safety nets, etc. But that's all beside the point. If the fetus is a life, none of this stuff matters. We should all try and at least agree upon the framing of the issue and argue from there or we'll never get anywhere.

hobs 4y ago
Why do you think that we need to agree on framing the issue when a significant minority will only agree to framing it at conception? You can't find a middle ground with religious extremism.
- ajmurmann 4y ago
  I think it's hard to draw that line on extremism. Conversation and finding consensus are much easier if people build their world view and values on as small base assumptions as possible. If we cannot agree on base assumptions and values it's much harder to have a fruitful conversation especially if these assumptions cannot be violated because they were hand down from god. Religion generally makes numerous and very large assumptions.
- bko 4y ago
  I don't understand your point. If you want to convince someone that believes that the fetus becomes a life sometime in the gestation period, screaming about religion and privacy won't get you anywhere. What does this have to do with religion?
  - sidlls 4y ago
    In the US? Almost everything.
  - 4y ago

alistairSH 4y ago

Also possibly illegal. 501c3, including churches, are prohibited from campaign activity. That includes advocating for any particular candidates. "Biden, the sitting POTUS, is a jackass" is probably ok. "Don't vote for Biden in 2024" is absolutely not ok.

xxEightyxx 4y ago

I'm not as old as you (born in the late 80's) but my family left the church (protestant) for this exact reason. There was more discussion of social/political issues than of scripture. To be fair, I think it's OK to some extent, but the elders had made it a priority to denigrate liberal ideas and beliefs. Look up the Koch brothers. They're largely responsible for much of the chaos we see in our country today.

greyhair 4y ago
Look up the Federalist Society. That is where the Koch brothers brought together all their like minded rich friends.
jtdev 4y ago

fulvioterzapi 4y ago

> What I witnessed was no less than a 45 minute diatribe on the dangers of abortion, casting various aspersions (ad hominem) on any political leader not on board with new political agenda of the Catholic Church. A typical Catholic Mass lasts less than one hour. Most of the Mass follows a fixed, prescribed set of prayers and readings, that have nothing to do with politics. In the middle there's a sermon, that usually lasts about 15 minutes, that might include references to news or to politics. Either you ended up at a very atypical mass, and by very atypical I'd say borderline heretic, or you don't remember well. > with new political agenda of the Catholic Church. New? Like it or not, the position of the Catholic Church on abortion has been extraordinarily consistent through the centuries.

chasd00 4y ago
Not sure why you’re downvoted, my wife is catholic and you’re right on every point. I would even go further and say deviating from the standard ritual of catholic mass is probably a big no-no in the church and could land a priest in hot water.
light_hue_1 4y ago
> New? Like it or not, the position of the Catholic Church on abortion has been extraordinarily consistent through the centuries. That's not even remotely true! For the vast majority of the history of the Catholic Church early term abortion was acceptable. It was only the 1588 that it was outlawed, and that didn't last long, only a few years. Another ban was instituted in 1869. At the timescale of the Catholic Church, the current extremist position on abortions is extremely recent. Far less established as precedent than say Roe was.
- fulvioterzapi 4y ago
  > Another ban was instituted in 1869. That's more than 150 years ago. Matches pretty much my definition of consistency. Even before, there might have been some doctrinal adjustments, but abortion was condemned by many Fathers of the Church, in the very early centuries.

twright 4y ago

One major change that spurred specifically the Catholic church into politics was the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) which permitted priests and bishops to participate in politics.

starkd 4y ago

Except that the court relinquished its power to decide on these matters. It may not seem like it now to you, but it actually gains credibility by the courts, because they are not put in the middle of such a consequential decision. It allows the legislature to act. This isn't a power grab, but a relinquishing of power.

MomoXenosaga 4y ago
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/3535841-thomas-calls-for-overturning-precedents-on-contraceptives-lgbtq-rights/ https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/3535841-thomas-... It is a powergrab. Christian conservatives have the Supreme Court. This was all planned. Don't kid yourself.
- starkd 4y ago
  What powergrab has ever relinquished power? It's literally the opposite of a powergrab. What power do Christian conservatives now suddenly have? This was a democrat party talking point to show supporters and fundraisers how indebted they should be for being "given" a right. No one owes any politician anything.
  - poulsbohemian 4y ago
    What may I ask is your specific grievance with the Democratic Party, which you have twice in this thread incorrectly called the "democrat" party? You've clearly got some beef, so state it plainly.
    - starkd 4y ago
      My beef is with politicians in general. No one is indebted to a party, republican or democrat. But at least republicans aren't claiming credit for giving you your "rights". Sorry, for not capitolizing Democrat, since you seem to see such great offense in it.
      - 4y ago

sterlind 4y ago

this was masterminded in large part by Leonard Leo of the Federalist Society. he's Catholic, and the upper echelons of the organization are virtually all Catholic, and has enjoyed tremendous influence - even providing Bush and Trump with shortlists of Justices to pick from. unsurprisingly, the majority of Justices are now Catholic - Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Sotomayor (liberal, not a FedSoc pick), Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett.

snarf21 4y ago

Like most things, follow the money. How do you get people to care about the same sermon on the same verse year after year? Want to get people involved with their time and money? You just have to convince them of whatever evils they already believe. Be their echo chamber, talk about all the people who are trying to do such terrible things. Be a fear-monger. The same thing that works for Fox News and CNN also works in a church. Get them addicted to the rhetoric and watch the money flow in. Look at people like Joel Osteen who only care about money. I grew up going to church multiple times per week. Today's church is a cult and it is a cult about hate. I learned in Sunday School that God is love and that we should help each other. Today the message is righteous indignation. They don't believe in the Bible or follow Jesus' teachings but they are very very adamant that the "sinners" must be converted to their way of thinking. It is nothing but hypocrisy and if pointed out, Christians have decided that they and they alone have the right to decide what parts of the Bible matter and what doesn't.

raincom 4y ago

"There shouldn't be intermediaries between God and human beings"--is a Protestant doctrine. This doctrine has gone secular: separation of church and state. In other words, protestant Christian ideas have become the foundation of many modern political theories. For a Catholic, the Catholic Church is the intermediary between him/her and God.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

MengerSponge 4y ago

Me when Catholicism incorporates local pagan rituals: Haha fuck yeah!!! Yes!!! Me when Catholicism incorporates local facist evangelicalism: Well this fucking sucks. What the fuck.

bobthechef 4y ago

dpbriggs 4y ago

I never experienced long political diatribes when I attended Catholic mass a few years ago. There wasn't much time for speaking as the mass itself is quite involved. > It occurred to me that all of this must have been carefully planned at the highest levels of both the church and political/financial benefactors that support it. I'm curious if we'll see leaks confirming this. Otherwise this might be an anecdote stretched a little too far. It's far more likely you've experienced some bad pastors.

nickd2001 4y ago

IMHO this is profoundly tragic, and bad, and Jesus would not be proud of that. The church should be helping people to be caring for one another, and looking after the downtrodden and vulnerable. Protecting the rights of unborn children should not involve being nasty to other people, it should involve making clear arguments and being willing to provide decent support for people with unplanned pregnancies. It feels to me like the church, particulary in USA, got hijacked by a bunch of people who don't have any real faith but just use it for their political agenda. Pope Francis wouldn't agree with their stance I'm sure, but then he believes in devolving power away from Rome which, while that is for good reason, allows things like this to go unchecked. Whole lot of complex issues.....