Catholics are pretty much like other Americans

Michael Gerson wrote a column the other day (not worth my time finding the link to) about how Obama is going to alienate all these Catholic voters over Catholic institutions and birth control for employees.   Gerson all too readily conflates ordinary Catholics and the Bishops who are responsible for this policy fight and the lawsuits that have just been filed.  I just don’t see many Catholics at all changing their vote over this.  Here’s the latest Gallup data on attitudes towards birth control:

Not exactly a dramatic difference.  Hard to imagine too many Catholics who would have otherwise been inclined towards Obama getting all upset because of something that they already find morally acceptable.

Godless Gap

Of all the demographic “gaps” in presidential voting, I do find the religious gap rather intriguing.  Here’s Gallup’s most recent polling on the matter:

This is where the action is– denomination, etc., matters, but not nearly as much as simple religious intensity.   For example, check out these following two charts:

Of course, I also think it is quite interesting that we have “Nonreligious Catholic” and “Nonreligious Protestant” as meaningful categories, which certainly speaks to the cultural power of religion.  (For the record, I’d put myself in that Obama-favoring “moderately religious Catholics” category).

Now Gallup’s take away on all this is that Romney needs to eat into Obama’s support among the less/non religious, but if Romney makes up ground– and I suspect he will– I think it is going to happen across all sorts of demographic categories and there will be nothing unique among non-religious.

Kristof on the nuns

Great Op-Ed from Nicholas Kristoff today on the Catholic hierarchy’s misguided efforts against American nuns (which I addressed here).   Some highlights:

They [nuns] are also among the bravest, toughest and most admirable people in the world. In my travels, I’ve seen heroic nuns defy warlords, pimps and bandits. Even as bishops have disgraced the church by covering up the rape of children, nuns have redeemed it with their humble work on behalf of the neediest.

So, Pope Benedict, all I can say is: You are crazy to mess with nuns.

The Vatican issued a stinging reprimand of American nuns this month and ordered a bishop to oversee a makeover of the organization that represents 80 percent of them. In effect, the Vatican accused the nuns of worrying too much about the poor and not enough about abortion and gay marriage.

What Bible did that come from? Jesus in the Gospels repeatedly talks about poverty and social justice, yet never explicitly mentions either abortion or homosexuality. If you look at who has more closely emulated Jesus’s life, Pope Benedict or your average nun, it’s the nun hands down…

Nuns have triumphed over an errant hierarchy before. In the 19th century, the Catholic Church excommunicated an Australian nun named Mary MacKillop after her order exposed a pedophile priest. Sister Mary was eventually invited back to the church and became renowned for her work with the poor. In 2010, Pope Benedictcanonized her as Australia’s first saint.

“Let us be guided” by Sister Mary’s teachings, the pope declared then.

Amen to that.

The Catholic Church and IVF

Well, it’s Sunday the day I usually attend Catholic Mass, so to even things out, it’s also seems like a good day for my criticisms of the institutional Catholic Church.  The latest?  Oh, just firing a teacher for using In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) to get pregnant:

Emily Herx was a popular literature teacher at St. Vincent de Paul School in Fort Wayne, Indiana, until she used her medical leave for in vitro fertilization. Herx lost her job and says a church official called her a “grave, immoral sinner.” When she appealed to Fort Wayne Bishop Kevin Rhoades, he told her IVF was “an intrinsic evil, which means that no circumstances can justify it.” The federal government saw things a bit differently. Herx filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and won — paving the way for a civil lawsuit.

The Atlantic takes this story as a basis for a fascinating interview about Catholic sexual ethics with a PhD in Bioethics Catholic Priest, Richard Sparks.  Some highlights:

A lot of babies are conceived in circumstances that don’t seem particularly holy — a one-night stand, or even a rape. In contrast, two people undergoing fertility treatments would seem to be especially committed to each other and to their future family. 

Precisely. Sometimes Catholic theologians can be very insensitive about that. They’ll talk to a couple who have loved each other, have gone through pain together, and might be struggling with issues about their masculinity or femininity, and they’ll say, “Moral theology says you don’t have the right to have a child.” That might be correct on a blackboard. But to say that to a couple is like telling them what selfish, evil people they are. They’re loving people who want a child badly — and they know the Church wants people to have children, so they can’t understand why they aren’t getting more empathy.

But the Church does disapprove of in vitro fertilization, no matter how loving and committed a couple may be.

When it comes to sexuality, our Catholic natural law teaching is very genital-based. It’s more focused on biology than Catholic teaching is in other areas. Some would say that love, marriage, and commitment have to be taken into account. Pope John Paul II worked very hard to create what he called the theology of the body — instead of just talking about biology, he spoke about the loving meaning of the whole person. But in the end, the Church would say that you can’t go against biology. That’s the mechanics of our nature.

And here’s my favorite part:

The school might argue that it has the right to uphold its own values in any way it chooses.

Certainly. If you’re going to work for a church, or for the Boy Scouts of America, any organization that has values, it’s one thing to say that if you don’t uphold them they don’t want you as a leader. But when they get around to policing people’s sexual lives, what is that organization doing?

Let’s try a few of these. If you have married couples using contraception, does St. Vincent check their medical cabinets? They wouldn’t think of doing that. If some people aren’t paying their taxes fairly, does the Church fire them? I don’t think anyone ever does. What if they’re pro-capital punishment? No.

Similarly, if you hire a gay teacher who doesn’t have a partner, is that okay? What if he does have one? Should he get fired? What if he doesn’t have partner, but once in a while he goes to gay bars? Should he get fired then? If there’s a Jewish teacher who doesn’t believe in Jesus, can she be thrown out? For that matter, what about a Tea Party Republican who doesn’t seem to care much about the poor? Do we fire that person from a Catholic faculty?

The Catholic Church has always been a kind of universal church. Catholic means broad-minded and sympathetic. But now we’re starting to act more like a sect. My worry is that applying these kinds of purity tests can lead to witch hunts.

Now, obviously I disapprove of the church taking this action largely for the reasons Sparks brings to bear, above.  That said, part of me would actually love to see the Catholic Church undertake a bit of a “war on IVF.”  The truth is, assisted reproduction is just as anathema to Catholic doctrine as contraception, but you virtually never hear the Church complain about it or lobby on the issue.  Presumably because they realize the backlash would be massive and they would alienate a lot of otherwise supportive Catholics.  What has always bothered me, then, is the hypocrisy on this.  If the Church is going to always insist that it’s just about following their theological imperatives, they should be just as politically concerned with IVF as they are with contraception, abortion, and same-sex marriage.  The fact that they are not tells you something.  And I don’t think it’s something good.

Nuns vs. Bishops

So, I read a little bit about the Catholic Bishops chastising American nuns for, you know, caring about what happens to poor people, and crazy stuff like that, but did not pay particularly close attention, just thinking “there they go again.”  But then I read this post by Amy Davidson and got really annoyed.  The “problem” of the nuns is not that they are advocating for gay marriage or abortion along with caring about poor people.  Apparently, they are just insufficiently committed to the anti-gay, pro-life agenda.  Of course, all you need to do is check the Gospels.  Jesus spends all his time railing about the evils of gay marriage and legal abortion and hardly even mentions concern for the poor and oppressed.  Anyway:

What is striking, though, is the absence of a smoking gun in the Congregation of the Defense of the Faith’s findings on matters of faith, other than faith in bishops (which is presented as one of the Church’s doctrines). What seemed to bother the Vatican’s investigators was not that nuns were speaking out on political matters, but that they were failing to engage politically in the way the Church wanted them to: the L.C.W.R. had been

silent on the right to life from conception to natural death, a question that is part of the lively public debate about abortion and euthanasia in the United States. Further, issues of crucial importance to the life of Church and society, such as the Church’s Biblical view of family life and human sexuality, are not part of the LCWR agenda in a way that promotes Church teaching.

The Congregation also noted

the absence of initiatives by the LCWR aimed at promoting the reception of the Church’s teaching, especially on difficult issues such as Pope John Paul II’s Apostolic Letter Ordinatio sacerdotalis and Church teaching about homosexuality.

In other words, instead of just talking about “social justice,” the nuns should be out on the barricades, agitating against abortion and gay marriage. And, again, they need to listen to the bishops.

Davidson also recounts the case from a few years back when a nun/administrator at a Catholic hospital approved the termination of a pregnancy that literally saved the life of a mother so she could go home and care for her already born four small children.  The nun got excommunicated for that (here’s my link from back when this case happened).  So long as the nuns are the ones following the stuff Jesus actually talked about, I’ll go with them over the bishops ever time.

Gay marriage and the Catholic Church in Washington

Now this sounds like my kind of Catholic Church:

At least six Catholic parishes in Washington state have ignored the Seattle Archbishop’s call to gather signatures for a referendum repealing the state’s recently-enacted marriage equality law, calling the effort “hurtful and seriously divisive in our community.” “Seattle’s Our Lady of the Lake Catholic Church gave the Rev. Tim Clark a standing ovation Sunday” when he announced that the parish would not be participating in the anti-equality effort:

“I am happy to report that Our Lady of the Lake parish-oners have been overwhelmingly and, thus far, unanimously supportive of the decision I made NOT to gather signatures in support of this Referendum,” Clark wrote in response to an e-mail.

“The standing ovation experienced during one of the Masses says less about me and much more about the health of this parish. I only wished the archbishop could have experienced the sustained applause — the ‘sensus fidelium’ — of the people. He needs to listen to this ‘voice.’ That is my prayer.” [emphasis in original]

Now, if only there were a way to tele-Mass with church in Seattle.

The real Jesus

Can’t say I agree with everything Andrew Sullivan writes here (especially trying to pretend that Democrats and Republicans are equal-opportunity offenders in politicizing Christianity), but I really like the basic message: look not to what today’s churches teach, but what Jesus (and St. Francis, for that matter) taught.

 “I am a real Christian,” Jefferson insisted against the fundamentalists and clerics of his time. “That is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus.”

What were those doctrines? Not the supernatural claims that, fused with politics and power, gave successive generations wars, inquisitions, pogroms, reformations, and counterreformations. Jesus’ doctrines were the practical commandments, the truly radical ideas that immediately leap out in the simple stories he told and which he exemplified in everything he did. Not simply love one another, but love your enemy and forgive those who harm you; give up all material wealth; love the ineffable Being behind all things, and know that this Being is actually your truest Father, in whose image you were made. Above all: give up power over others, because power, if it is to be effective, ultimately requires the threat of violence, and violence is incompatible with the total acceptance and love of all other human beings that is at the sacred heart of Jesus’ teaching.

Now that is an inspiring message.  Hating gays and obsessing on others’ sins, not so much.

Photo of the day

The Pope and Fidel Castro certainly seem like an appopriate shot (from this collection of the Pope’s visit to Cuba) for a Sunday:

Pope Benedict XVI meets former Cuban leader Fidel Castro in Havana, March 28, 2012. (Osservatore Romano/Reuters)

Contraception is worse than war and torture

Really nice essay about the Catholic church’s recent emphasis on contraception.  Includes a lengthy, but really interesting discussion on the relationship between religious organizations and the state and how far one’s conscience or morality should allow for exemptions to state mandates.  The conclusion, though, hits the key point for me:

 The question that should be asked is why the US Catholic Bishops are exerting so much energy and money and time on the matter of contraception, with no similarly public cries of outrage against the death penalty, state-sponsored torture, or the two preemptive wars in which the U.S. has involved itself for fully a decade.

Amen.  I think the Church’s position on contraception is wrong and counter-productive, but I respect the moral reasoning behind it.  What I really object to is the emphasis on this doctrine (and gay marriage, for that matter), when there are major political issues which just seem so morally wrong, yet are almost completely ignored by the hierarchy of the Church.

Religion and family size

so, during the Slate Political Gabfest last week, David Plotz was speculating, based on anecdotal personal experience, about the relationship between religiosity and family size.  ”There’s not any atheists with a bunch of kids are there?” Or something along those lines he asked.  He then lamented the lack of any figures on the matter.  Of course, I realized I already had a number of these variables coded and could pull them up in recent General Social Survey data.  Yes, some atheists have a good handful of kids, but certainly not many.  I think the corner cells are most interesting: only 19% of very religious people have no children in contrast to 44% of the non-religious.  As for having four or more, this is the case for nearly a quarter of the most religious, but only 5% of the non-religious.  As for me, I’d put myself in the moderately religious (though, I think secularly-oriented, regular church attender might be more accurate), 4 or more box.

Dumbest column ever?

I generally make a point of not blogging too much about stupid Op-Ed columns.  If I did I wouldn’t have time to write about anything else.  That said, I’m still annoyed by Kathleen Parker’s column from yesterday, so here goes.  Basically, Parker makes just a ridiculous defense of Komen:

The more compelling questions concern a person’s or an institution’s freedom of conscience and the right to act upon one’s moral beliefs without fear of intimidation and/or government coercion.

Both cases — one involving the Catholic Church and the other, Susan G. Komen for the Cure — deal with the ongoing conflict between the pro-life and pro-choice camps. And both are exposing the dangerous extent to which some pro-choice advocates, including the president of the United States, are willing to tread on fundamental freedoms in order to impose and secure ideological purity…

Whatever one believes about the motivation behind its decision, the larger point is that Komen has no binding responsibility to allocate any part of its $93 million in grants to any organization. Komen is a nonprofit, free agent, and the good it has performed for millions of underserved women around the world is staggering.

Nevertheless, given the rabid response from abortion-rights supporters, you’d think that Brinker and her organization were running puppy mills for soup vendors. Even if their real reason for ending funding is because they no longer want to be associated with an organization as politically controversial as Planned Parenthood — or even if because some of their potential donors want the relationship severed — it is inarguably their right to change course.

Don’t like it? Don’t run in Komen’s fundraising races. Don’t buy a pink blender. Give directly to Planned Parenthood. In fact, both organizations have enjoyed a surge in donations since news of the break erupted. Note to fundraisers: Create an enemy, enjoy a bonanza.

I’ve read a lot about this issue and I don’t recall a single person– not even a random facebook commenter– suggesting that Komen didn’t have the right to do this.  Yet, that’s essentially what Parker is saying has happened.  In fact, the vast majority of responses I saw were exactly what Parker said they should be.  Parker has not created a straw man, but a straw abominable snow man.

She may not be quite as extreme on the whole Catholic hospitals being required to offer birth control to employees on their health plan issue, but she has a similar penchant for over statement.  My favorite:

Essentially, the new law forces them either to forfeit their most fundamental beliefs [emphasis mine] or to face prohibitive penalties

Wow.  I’m sure there’s a lot of Catholics who would be surprised to learn that the prohibition against birth control is among the Church’s most fundamental beliefs.  And, of course, if this is among the Catholic Church’s most fundamental beliefs, I’d certainly argue their priorities are in the wrong place (didn’t Jesus say a thing or two about helping the less fortunate).

Anyway.  Horrible column.  Felt good to get that out of my system.

It’s not easy being a Mormon

A friend of the blog (and the blogger) sent me a link to the Pew study on Mormons released earlier this month.  I assume he wanted me to do something about it.  I recalled hearing one particular finding that caught my attention when this came out.  Apparently, it’s tough being a Mormon.  Worse than being Black, in fact.  As we can see from a portion of this awesome infographic Pew made to highlight key findings.