My Rejection of Liberalism

One of Andrew's correspondents writes, of this post:

It seems to me inevitable that if you employ what amounts to a religious test for your politics, that the same logic would justify a political test for your religion. If the two are so tightly fused that they become indistinguishable -- if the liberal compromise of acknowledging politics as a sphere to itself, with, in a sense, its own reasons and discourse, is essentially rejected -- then how could it be otherwise?

You see this rejection of liberalism, in the best and truest sense of the word, when people like Ross Douthat use language like this: "...a legislator who happens to support deeply-immoral measures..." I for one think there is a meaningful distinction between being pro-choice and supporting abortion, between allowing others to make choices we find morally problematic and actually urging or even demanding others make those choices. I sincerely believe that there are few things more moral, decent, humane, and dare I say Christian than refraining from using the coercive power of the state to punish those who do not agree with every tenet of your moral system. This is not "relativism" -- this is an ethic of restraint when it comes to politics.

A question for the emailer: Are there any "deeply-immoral" measures that a legislator could support that would merit some sort of sanction from his pastor or bishop? Was, for instance, the Archbishop of New Orleans betraying liberalism's "moral, decent and humane" line between church and state when he denied communion to diehard segregationists? If the answer is yes, I applaud your consistency even as I deplore your theory of the Church's proper role in politics. If the answer is no, then what we disagree about is not whether we should refrain from "using the coercive power of the state to punish those who do not agree with every tenet of [my] moral system" (I advocated no such thing, needless to say), but how deeply-immoral a measure has to be before supporting it would become grounds for the denial of communion. In other words, we have a disagreement about (surprise!) the nature of abortion - whether, like other acts of violence, it's the sort of crime that the civil as well as the moral law should sanction, or whether it's a sin along the lines of gossip, say, or sloth, which the civil authorities can't and shouldn't regulate - not some deep theory of church-state separation that involves a "rejection of liberalism" on my part.

And yes, all of this should go without saying.

Comments

"And yes, all of this should go without saying."

And does.

Posted by Fitz | June 4, 2008 2:07 PM

Should people who supported an unjust war which contributed to the deaths of thousands & thousands receive communion? Should people who've made money off of said war receive communion?

Posted by jay | June 4, 2008 2:13 PM

Or torture, which I believe also contradicts the teachings of the Church. Let alone lying, fraud, corruption, etc. The day that I see a GOP politician turned away from the communion rail for that is the day that I'll believe it's not a political stunt.

Posted by Barry | June 4, 2008 2:26 PM

This post advances an argument that is essential to the BrentBozell, 'more Catholic than you' school of conservatives. When they critique present 'immorality' in laws and legislation their infallable Church guides them. But no one can question the friendliness of their Church to (for example--and to avoid Godwin violations) Franco's regime in Spain.

We can do much better than ask the right wing of the RC Church about political morality.

Posted by JohnMcC | June 4, 2008 2:28 PM

I would really like to see Ross justify voting for politicians who support the death penalty-- absolutely against Catholic doctrine-- but being deeply opposed to voting for politicians who support abortion.

Posted by Freddie | June 4, 2008 2:34 PM

"Or torture, which I believe also contradicts the teachings of the Church. Let alone lying, fraud, corruption, etc. The day that I see a GOP politician turned away from the communion rail for that is the day that I'll believe it's not a political stunt."

One VERY important aspect of the issue not raised in Ross's post above is the issue of the "scandal" (note: a theologically specific term) presented to the faithful of a specific parish when communion is received by a openly schismatic politician.

So, you have St Anywhere USA parish... Among its congregation are multiple groups doing pro-life work from adoption services to pre-natal care among the underprivileged to political lobbing and voter drives. You also have multiple parishioners with unplanned pregnancies, children with

Down syndrome, and underage pregnant girls specifically NOT aborting but bearing the child out of faithful Christian duty and witness.

Now - suddenly you have rank politician Bob the abort’er who meanders up the isle every Sunday with the rest of the (bona fide) faithful and receives communion.

Unlike the rest of the faithful who are (naturally) sinners, Bob the abort’er is in open & public defiance of clear Church teaching. Unlike any other congregant no speculation or hearsay or guesswork is required to KNOW that Bob stands against the will of Christ.

This is the element of "scandal" Bobs reception of communion has on the life of a parish. There are any number of reasons why Any individual may be denied communion: but the case of a public servant and elected politician (as distinguishable from even a judge) is that his policy positions are a matter of public record & as a Catholic he is charged with working for social justice regardless of the political cost.

This aspect of “scandal” goes to the heart of the specific denial of communion for pro-“choice” Catholic politicians. Understanding this element of the issue is necessary for a full understanding of subject.

It’s A-LOT more sophisticated than a “political stunt”

(example)
http://www.gmanews.tv/story/98674/Cotabato-bishop-warns-rice-hoarders-wont-be-given-communion

Posted by Fitz | June 4, 2008 2:46 PM

The death penalty is not "absolutely against Catholic doctrine" in the way that abortion is.

Posted by Bobar | June 4, 2008 2:46 PM

Freddie,

The death penalty simply _isn't_ against Catholic teaching in the same way that abortion is. Abortion is inherently an evil whereas the death penalty may be unjust in certain circumstances (and I believe that counts as Papal opinion, not dogma).

(I'm not Catholic btw).

John McC, you did well to mention Franco instead of Hitler. Because in point of fact the Vatican was simply _not_ a 'friend' of Hitler. They were friendly with Franco, yes, but the relationship with Hitler was always antagonistic, even if maybe not as antagonistic as it should have been.

Posted by Hector | June 4, 2008 2:48 PM

Sure the Catholic Church wasn't "friends" with the Third Reich, just every other fascist regime that's ever existed (Franco, Mussolini,the Ständestaat, the Iron Guard, the Ustase, etc.) all explicitly Catholic. So it's only natural that we should follow their lead on matters of social policy in this country, they have such a good track record when it comes to engaging in politics. I say deny communion to every American Catholic until they get in line with the program.

What foolish American libs don't understand about the whole "abortion vs. war" death-debate is that American zygotes and stem cell clusters are of inherently greater value than Iraqi human beings.

That should go without saying.

Posted by dearleader nyc | June 4, 2008 3:05 PM

Hector writes: "John McC, you did well to mention Franco instead of Hitler. Because in point of fact the Vatican was simply _not_ a 'friend' of Hitler. They were friendly with Franco, yes, but the relationship with Hitler was always antagonistic, even if maybe not as antagonistic as it should have been."

I suppose by "not as antagonistic as it should have been" Hector means that the Vatican was the very first state to enter into a treaty with the Third Reich.

It is also a fact that Hitler was never excommunicated from the Church, and was never denied communion.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | June 4, 2008 3:05 PM

Early Christians were called that because they wanted to be "like Christ". Jesus, who was called Christ, set forth a call on person's life that was comprehensive. That necessarily means a "religious test" on not only politics, but every area of life, and especially society. Wilberforce and Martin Luther King both applied that standard to politics. It seems odd that other attempts at similar applications, even if they are different, are questioned today.

Posted by dfb | June 4, 2008 3:20 PM

"What foolish American libs don't understand about the whole "abortion vs. war" death-debate is that American zygotes and stem cell clusters are of inherently greater value than Iraqi human beings."

Hmmmm.... but were did the Vatican stand on the war?

Posted by Fitz | June 4, 2008 3:25 PM

"I suppose by "not as antagonistic as it should have been" Hector means that the Vatican was the very first state to enter into a treaty with the Third Reich."

{For the congenitally dishonest & ignorant}

The "Four-Power Pact" (involving Germany, France, England, and Italy), which preceded the Vatican concordant by a full month (June 7). Even before that, in May the Soviets and the British accepted friendship and trade agreements with Germany; Germany was recognized by the League of Nations; and in August 1933, one month before the concordat was ratified, Palestinian Jews signed the Haavara emigration agreement with Germany. Moreover, Hitler himself later railed against the concordat (Table Talk, July 4, 1942), realizing it had become a means of anti-Nazi subversion.

Posted by Idiotdisrupter | June 4, 2008 3:32 PM

Fitz,
they were agin' it, which is to say it didn't meet the "just war" doctrine, Yay! good for them they're making bold strides into the 17th century.

But we both know that completely unjust American wars will NEVER be an animating concern for the Catholic right, at least nothing close to the abortion/vagina issue. I mean those all those millions of zygote-Americans, we'll surely have to face in heaven, whereas all those dead Iraqis are in hell anyway, so what's the point? Bad conversation regardless.

Are you gonna seriously arguing that the Catholic right cares about what wars this country starts? We could invade Iceland, and as long as the President who did it was firmly in their corner on the abortion issue, you would hear nary a peep out of them. I'm sorry I missed all the hand-wringing about denying communion to pro-war Catholics from Opus Dei.

I must say though I whole-heartedly agree with the denial of communion to not just politicians that aren't up to snuff but indeed any American Catholic whose opinions and lifestyle does not past the Hugh Hewitt purity test. That way we can finally get some of those "empty Cathedrals" I keep hearing about in Europe.

Posted by dearleader nyc | June 4, 2008 3:39 PM

Fitz,
they were agin' it, which is to say it didn't meet the "just war" doctrine, Yay! good for them they're making bold strides into the 17th century.

But we both know that completely unjust American wars will NEVER be an animating concern for the Catholic right, at least nothing close to the abortion/vagina issue. I mean won't we surely have to face all those millions of zygote-Americans in heaven, whereas all those dead Iraqis are in hell anyway, so what's the point? Bad conversation regardless.

Are you gonna seriously arguing that the Catholic right cares about what wars this country starts? We could invade Iceland, and as long as the President who did it was firmly in their corner on the abortion issue, you would hear nary a peep out of them. I'm sorry I missed all the hand-wringing about denying communion to pro-war Catholics from Opus Dei.

I must say though I whole-heartedly agree with the denial of communion to not just politicians that aren't up to snuff but indeed any American Catholic whose opinions and lifestyle does not past the Hugh Hewitt purity test. That way we can finally get some of those "empty Cathedrals" I keep hearing about in Europe.

Posted by dearleader nyc | June 4, 2008 3:40 PM

Ross, you're really not responding the the emailer's question, which as I understand it could be rephrased as: "Do you recognize any difference between a legislator's 'supporting abortion' and his supporting a law that, because he represents many constituencies who don't hold abortion to be the moral evil that he does, under a system of government that gives his moral beliefs no privileged standing, allows each individual to consult her own moral code?"

It's fair to say "no," but it's hard to reconcile with the Church allowing legislators to swear an oath to serve a secular government. If the Church wants to exclude every legislator who supports the freedom of his constituents to operate without reference to the Church's teachings, it is perfectly free to do so, but can expect not to wield much political clout if it does.

Posted by professordarkheart | June 4, 2008 3:47 PM

dearleader nyc

(both) those posts are so convoluted, uncharitable & uninformed that I dont know were to begin.

Please re-read my post above (June 4, 2008 2:46 PM) as well as appreciating what a intrinsically immoral act is, and is not.

Posted by Fitz | June 4, 2008 3:49 PM

"Do you recognize any difference between a legislator's 'supporting abortion' and his supporting a law that, because he represents many constituencies who don't hold abortion to be the moral evil that he does, under a system of government that gives his moral beliefs no privileged standing, allows each individual to consult her own moral code?"

#1. It is a representative democracy and as a Catholic the legislator should either publicly renounce the Church and not receive communion OR attempt to sway the opinion of his constituents toward the more moral public policy.

#2. Said legislator does not live "under a system of government that gives his moral beliefs no privileged standing

Rather he lives in a democracy that is supposed to deliberate and vote on what moral beliefs are given privileged status.

Posted by Fitz | June 4, 2008 4:03 PM

Sorry I didn't know you where above typos too, I don't know were to begin either...

So, this is a legitimate question, I'm not trying to wind you up, I would like a real answer..

Did any Catholic group or Church that you know of propose denying Communion for pro-Iraq war politicians? Because I've never heard of it, but I do hear every election from the Catholic right about denying Communion to politicians who don't comply with Church teaching on abortion. So it would seem to me at least, that the yet-to-be born are placed at a higher premium than those already here.

I think you're making my point for me, abortion (and sex in general) is the number one, most animating issue for the Catholic right, and seems to eclipse other "moral" issues like poverty, war, torture, fraud, etc. as the gravest sin around, even when those things run up against Church doctrine. Like I said, I've never heard anything about a "just war" from orthodox Catholic Conservatives like Hugh Hewitt for instance, who has a "Catholic Test" for public figures who claim to be Catholic, big surprise that support for the Iraq War isn't on this test.

By this standard, one is a "cafeteria Catholic" when it comes to abortion, but a true and pure Catholic even though you're for unprovoked state sponsored violence and want to deport every Mexican in the country.

Of course I know the Vatican was against this war on paper, but as far as the conservative Catholics in this country are concerned that part is optional. Btw isn't the Pope supposed to be God's vicar? How can anyone who seriously believe that go against ANYTHING the church says?

I mean it's all a bit ridiculous anyway? right? Isn't the point that no one REALLY believes everything the Church says anymore. This kind of thinking just never ends, and in both directions, left and right, can be taken to ludicrous ends. I mean its not like the Catholic Church has any kind of REAL authority anymore, so its all just for show, any everybody in this country who identifies as Catholic or religious at all does a bit of picking and choosing as to what parts they take seriously. Big surprise then that those on the right would care more about the sexual/family issues and those on the left would care more about the war/poverty issues. That's all I'm saying.

Posted by dearleader nyc | June 4, 2008 4:18 PM

"whether it's a sin along the lines of gossip, say, or sloth, which the civil authorities can't and shouldn't regulate"

The Seven Deadly Sins (of which sloth is one) are sinful attitudes, not particular actions. It's absolutely correct that the state can't and shouldn't ban an attitude. It shouldn't even be outlawing specific acts of laziness, unless someone is directly harmed as a result (negligent homicide, for example).

But by putting abortion in with such relatively "minor" sins as sloth and gossip, it does kind of trivialize more major sins that the state also should not be involved with regulating. Taking the name of the Lord in vain, failing to observe the Sabbath, and coveting your neighbor's possessions are all fairly major sins, each one breaking an Old Testament Commandment. The state has no business in banning them. Failing to love God with all your heart, soul, and strength; and failing to love your neighbor as yourself; are also extremely major sins that the government has no business in making illegal.

But why is it that the state should not be involved with regulating any of these things? I think the answer will prove instructive.

Posted by Tel | June 4, 2008 4:26 PM

absolutely against Catholic doctrine-- but being deeply opposed to voting for politicians who support abortion.

Yeah, look. I'm no fan of the death penalty, and would vote against it merrily. But I'm a little tired of people who don't know (or care) about Catholic doctrine here spouting off ignorantly. Look it up. It's not that hard to do. It gets reiterated on posts like this ten thousand times, sometimes to the same people. If you can't grasp the distinction between the death penalty and Iraq and abortion, from the Catholic perspective, you're frankly just stupid. Sorry to be uncharitable, but look: the Catholic church is not pacifist. The Irar War may very well have been unjust, but this is not a declared matter of faith and morals, binding on all and public scandal when violated -- it is a prudential judgment, in part.

Hector means that the Vatican was the very first state to enter into a treaty with the Third Reich.

Hmm. Wait. Moe reads James Carroll! Right? Right? Did I get it? This explains several things.

Posted by The Marquis of Carabas | June 4, 2008 4:32 PM

Dearleader NYC,

1) The Iron Guard was a Romanian Orthodox movement, not Roman Catholic.
2) Mussolini was a secular leader.
3) The Vatican explicitly condemned the leader of the French fascist movement, Charles Maurras, in 1926 even though he was a supporter of more political power for the Church. On the contrary, I don't believe that Basque Catholics were ever excommunicated for, say, supporting Azaña against Franco. It's true that the papacy and most bishops did support Franco but I don't think taking a particular position on the Spanish Civil War was ever made an article of dogma required of every Catholic. There were Catholics who supported the Republic without being excommunicated, such as Maritain for example. (Catholics, please correct me if I'm wrong).

Look you won't see me defending the Vatican's record in the interwar period. My sympathies are with the Republic in Spain, with the Serbs in Yugoslavia, and with the Resistance in Spain. One would do well to remember though that the Church had reasons for what it did which weren't all bad. Fascism was a corruption of corporatism in the same way that Bolshevism was a corruption of socialism, and corporatist ideas are not necessarily bad in themselves.

The reigning Pope at the time was celebrated and thanked by the government of Israel after the war for opposing the Nazis.

Posted by Hector | June 4, 2008 4:48 PM

dearleader nyc

In general: Yes there are any numbers of Catholics who (left or right) can always be charged with not defending X or Y doctrine consistently. But every doctrine does not say an act is intrinsically wrong. Many of the matters you bring up are “prudential” – up to individual interpretation in application. Some are not, like torture – but what constitutes “torture” (and whether X or Y politician is actually calling for a policy of torture) is itself up for interpretation.

You should read the post below (entitled: "a matter of life & death) for a full & informed discussion about the diffrent positions the Church takes.

"Did any Catholic group or Church that you know of propose denying Communion for pro-Iraq war politicians? Because I've never heard of it, but I do hear every election from the Catholic right about denying Communion to politicians who don't comply with Church teaching on abortion. So it would seem to me at least, that the yet-to-be born are placed at a higher premium than those already here."

Well, #1. this has become an issue only in the last few elections. It is an eternal Church matter of discipline. (as I said - scandal to the faithful)

#2. The analogy with war (or the just war tradition) doesn’t hold. The proper analogy between abortion and the death inflicted in war would be if X or Y politician was advocating for the intentional bombing of innocent civilians for its own sake.

Do you see the difference? Abortion is intrinsically wrong. The act in and of itself is wrong. Just as the intentional bombing of innocent civilians for its own sake would be wrong. They are both the intentional taking of innocent human life.

If X or Y politician starts advocating for this you can rest assured that (after 40 years of ecclesiastical foot dragging) certain Bishops will start issuing statements that those politicians (if Catholic) should not present themselves for communion.

Posted by Fitz | June 4, 2008 4:50 PM

Idiotdisrupter writes: "The "Four-Power Pact" (involving Germany, France, England, and Italy), which preceded the Vatican concordant by a full month (June 7). Even before that, in May the Soviets and the British accepted friendship and trade agreements with Germany; Germany was recognized by the League of Nations; and in August 1933, one month before the concordat was ratified, Palestinian Jews signed the Haavara emigration agreement with Germany. Moreover, Hitler himself later railed against the concordat (Table Talk, July 4, 1942), realizing it had become a means of anti-Nazi subversion."

The Concordat between the Vatican and the Nazis was signed on July 20, 1933. It's true that the meaningless and mostly forgotten Four Power Pact was signed 5 days earlier. I should have remembered that.

Bitching about when it was ratified is more than silly, though.

One more thing - the Vatican never refudiated the Concordat, just as it never refudiated or excommunicated Hitler or denied him communion. What are a few million Jews between friends?

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | June 4, 2008 4:52 PM

#1. It is a representative democracy and as a Catholic the legislator should either publicly renounce the Church and not receive communion OR attempt to sway the opinion of his constituents toward the more moral public policy.

#2. Said legislator does not live "under a system of government that gives his moral beliefs no privileged standing

Rather he lives in a democracy that is supposed to deliberate and vote on what moral beliefs are given privileged status.

I agree with #1 in large part, though I don't see why it's the legislator's responsibility to renounce the church (as I said, I think the church is perfectly within its rights to renounce him). But I don't see your difference with me in #2. It's exactly my point that the moral beliefs of a religious tradition and the moral beliefs of the state are not coterminous, and that to serve the state means to pledge to enforce on its behalf only those moral beliefs that have been collectively decided upon in the way that you describe. This legislator's Catholicism may well guide his efforts to try to turn his moral beliefs into the public's moral beliefs. That's as it should be. But if, as in this case, the right to violate his moral beliefs is enshrined in the constitution of the state he's sworn to serve, then he's obligated to defend that right. So a committed Catholic can:

a) refuse to swear an oath to any state of which this is true or

b) uphold the right, while working to pass a constitutional amendment that would allow for legislation that reflects his moral beliefs, or to get a president elected who will appoint Supreme Court justices who will interpret the constitution as allowing such legislation and then working to pass the legislation or

c) decide that his is not a state whose moral beliefs can be expected to echo his own and do his best to create public policy that will encourage the kinds of moral behavior he's not permitted to legislate.

Ross is arguing that some actions are so deeply immoral that a) and b) should be the only church-sanctioned options for a legislator of that religion. What makes me suspicious about this argument is that the only sins that he explicitly recognizes as eligible for option c) are gossip and sloth. In the absence of some consistent doctrine explaining what to do with all of the civilly permitted sins that fall between gossip and, say, genocide in severity, it seems inevitable that the decision about what sin to get particularly exercised is bound to be fairly arbitrary.

I just think that, if a church is going to eschew any public servant who is satisfied with the state's permitting acts that the church considers to be deeply immoral, it's honor-bound to get serious and draw up a list of all such acts, and deny communion to any congregant who's not actively working to forbid them. When that happens, I would consider the church's denying communion to pro-choice politicians, along with those who have failed to work to prohibit divorce, birth control, and investment in genocidal or apartheid regimes, to be a fully honorable decision.

Posted by professordarkheart | June 4, 2008 5:02 PM

Regarding the matter of denying communion.

I'm curious about one of the relatively recent historical precedents, the denying of communion to Catholics who supported communist parties or regimes (I believe that was in the 1950s?) Does anyone know the details on that? Was it intended only at official members of communist parties or at anyone who voted for, supported, or otherwise participated in a communist movement? Was it directed against just those who called themselves 'Communist Parties' or at anyone with similar ideas (e.g. the Sandinista government's relationship with the Communist Party of Nicaragua was always chilly at best). And was it ever rescinded? Because I know that in Chile for example, practicing Catholics tended to vote for Allende and the Popular Front in much larger numbers in the 1970s than in the 1950s.

Posted by Hector | June 4, 2008 5:12 PM

Fitz,

Thanks for clearing this all up for me. Of course it really doesn't matter to me what the Church says or teaches, nor do I regard the Church to be a moral authority on anything, even when there is some overlap on matters of policy, I would just as soon go without their blessing. But I suppose I should try to understand what others believe or how they choose to order their lives.

So to sum up torture is as wrong as abortion, unless you're not really torturing someone. (I seem to remember something in the Inquisition, where Church doctrine stated that a priest could not spill a person's blood, so a whole host of twisting and breaking instruments would be applied before a trip to the stake.)

And the deliberate killing of innocents is worse than a policy that doesn't intend to kill innocents but does so without fail over and over again.

It should go without saying, that you and I have somewhat different attitudes on morality, but I thank you for you patience and good humor regardless.

cheers.

Posted by dearleader nyc | June 4, 2008 5:12 PM

Hector writes: "I'm curious about one of the relatively recent historical precedents, the denying of communion to Catholics who supported communist parties or regimes (I believe that was in the 1950s?) Does anyone know the details on that? Was it intended only at official members of communist parties or at anyone who voted for, supported, or otherwise participated in a communist movement? Was it directed against just those who called themselves 'Communist Parties' or at anyone with similar ideas (e.g. the Sandinista government's relationship with the Communist Party of Nicaragua was always chilly at best). And was it ever rescinded? Because I know that in Chile for example, practicing Catholics tended to vote for Allende and the Popular Front in much larger numbers in the 1970s than in the 1950s."

I have nothing to add on that topic, but in the 19th century Irish rebels against what I like to call "the fucking Crown" were often threatened with excommunication. I'm not sure how often those threats were carried out, but obviously the Church has a long history of manipulating the spiritual for political ends.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | June 4, 2008 5:25 PM

Re: One VERY important aspect of the issue not raised in Ross's post above is the issue of the "scandal" (note: a theologically specific term) presented to the faithful of a specific parish when communion is received by a openly schismatic politician.

A schismatic is someone who has broken off his allegiance to the Church in favor of some splinter body claiming to be the "true" church: in Catholic terms this would an Old Catholic, a Lebvrist (sp?), or a Polish National Catholic. Once upon a time we Orthodox would have been included in that group but Rome has backtracked on that. A schismatic does not have any real doctrinal problems with Catholicism (at least not on core doctrine) he simply adheres to secessionist bishops.

Re: I suppose by "not as antagonistic as it should have been" Hector means that the Vatican was the very first state to enter into a treaty with the Third Reich.

???
I think you are confusing secular politics with ecclesial teaching. In American terms the fact that Nixon went to China, and Reagan recognized the PRC does not make either of those gentlemen Maoists.

Re: It is also a fact that Hitler was never excommunicated from the Church, and was never denied communion.

Hitler dropped out of the Church on his own; he was self-excommunicate. I don't know when he last took communion but I'm fairly sure it was long before he began his political career.

Posted by JonF | June 4, 2008 5:29 PM

JonF responds: "Hitler dropped out of the Church on his own; he was self-excommunicate. I don't know when he last took communion but I'm fairly sure it was long before he began his political career."

I believe that's correct. He also could have walked into a church in 1945 and offered confession and taken communion and been in the same standing Cardinal Law is today.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | June 4, 2008 5:40 PM

Sure the Catholic Church wasn't "friends" with the Third Reich, just every other fascist regime that's ever existed (Franco, Mussolini,the Ständestaat, the Iron Guard, the Ustase, etc.) all explicitly Catholic.

The Catholic Church had a policy during the interwar period of signing agreements with all nations. They signed a similar treaty with the Socialist French government of the time as well; that hardly made them "friends" with the French government either. The Vatican had a foreign policy of trying to protect its interests and independence in countries regardless of power. In the case of Mussolini and Hitler, those treaties were definitely violated by the fascists and Nazis.

I think it's rather bizarre to claim that talking to someone and obtaining treaties (later violated) attempting to protect your rights make you someone's "friend." Do you think that Sen. Obama would be the "friend" of Assad and of Ahmadinejad if he concluded a treaty with them? Why or why not?

Posted by John Thacker | June 4, 2008 6:21 PM

One more thing - the Vatican never refudiated the Concordat, just as it never refudiated or excommunicated Hitler or denied him communion. What are a few million Jews between friends?

Refudiated? The Vatican didn't repudiate the Concordat, but it sure was violated by the Nazis. The US never repudiated the Kellogg-Briand Pact either; what does that mean?

Posted by John Thacker | June 4, 2008 6:24 PM

"It should go without saying, that you and I have somewhat different attitudes on morality, but I thank you for you patience and good humor regardless."

Well: considering the comments that preceded this & his tone I can only "thank his for his intellectual sincerity, sophistication, and generosity of spirit”

Posted by Fitz | June 4, 2008 6:30 PM

Re: He also could have walked into a church in 1945 and offered confession and taken communion and been in the same standing Cardinal Law is today.

Confession is available to anyone and everyone. Jack the Ripper, Tim McVeigh, Joe Stalin, Osama bin Laden, Giles be Raiz (look him up)--- there's no one so wicked that sincere repentence would not be accepted (OK, I think non-Catholics would have to indicate some willingnesss to join the Catholic Church). I'm sorry that you have a problem with this-- though you did say you'd like to see hell empty. IMO, this willingness to forgive and start over is very much the core of Christianity's moral message and it is the last thing about the Catholic Church (or my own) I would ever criticize.

Posted by JonF | June 4, 2008 8:10 PM

Orthodox church teaching is that the death penalty is only allowable when there is no other recourse for the protection of society.

It's therefore very, very difficult to argue that the death penalty in permissible in the United States, from a strict Catholic perspective.

--

Regarding torture, on the other hand, there isn't even this little bit of leeway. It's absolutely immoral in Catholic teaching. It's impossible to justify it from a strict Catholic perspective.

--

Personally, I don't believe this tells you who to vote for. People support politicians for a myriad of reasons, and I won't claim to have some special power to read people's souls. But then again, I'm not the type who believes the Eucharist should be turned into some kind of spiritual bomb either.

Posted by Peter Bautista | June 4, 2008 8:27 PM

JonF quotes and replies: "Re: He also could have walked into a church in 1945 and offered confession and taken communion and been in the same standing Cardinal Law is today.

Confession is available to anyone and everyone. Jack the Ripper, Tim McVeigh, Joe Stalin, Osama bin Laden, Giles be Raiz (look him up)--- there's no one so wicked that sincere repentence would not be accepted (OK, I think non-Catholics would have to indicate some willingnesss to join the Catholic Church). I'm sorry that you have a problem with this-- though you did say you'd like to see hell empty. IMO, this willingness to forgive and start over is very much the core of Christianity's moral message and it is the last thing about the Catholic Church (or my own) I would ever criticize."

Jon, the point is that your comment about how he had been "self excommunicated" was meaningless. I don't have a problem with what you're saying above, and - surprise! - I agree that it's one of the good features of Christianity.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | June 4, 2008 8:29 PM

professordarkheart is getting to the core of the issue. I understand it's a matter of faith and morals that abortion is a mortal sin. I understand that means that getting an abortion or advocating abortion or funding for abortion is a double-damn-no-no.

But it does not directly follow from those that one must ban abortion. There's a moral difference between committing an immoral act yourself and allowing by inaction an immoral act to take place. Otherwise, you would have to excommunicate people for not wanting to invade Sudan or Burma.

We should be able to distinguish an outright racist advocate of segregation, from someone like Goldwater who personally opposed segregation and banned it from his stores, but didn't want the state to intervene because that would be "legislating morality". I would disagree with Goldwater, but I think there's a huge gulf between the two positions.

Posted by Consumatopia | June 4, 2008 8:30 PM

"It is also a fact that Hitler was never excommunicated from the Church, and was never denied communion."

TR: I'm not sure he ever sought communion after becoming a Nazi, joined as he didn't start the group, so there was never much opportunity to deny it.

Hitler was arguably "automatically excommunicated" for organizing a Protestant denomination (the Protestant Reich Church), dabbling in the occult, and living with a mistress. His regime was also criticized in "Mit brennender Sorge" by Pope Pius XI. Pius XI also criticized Mussolini in "Non Abbiamo Bisogno."

Posted by Thomas R | June 4, 2008 8:38 PM

I'm not a Catholic, but I think the idea of witholding communion from any sincere believer is a disastrous betrayal of the very meaning of the blessing communicated in communion. God's love is not given only to those who are free from sin, but "shines on sinner and innocent alike". If someone is judged to be a sinner for supporting abortion rights, that's fine, but to deny someone communion for being a sinner, or advocating policies some consider sinful, not only betrays Christ himself, but denies the sinner the very means by which he may overcome his sin. It is only through the blessing of Christ that sin can be overcome, and therefore the denial of communion is to deny the very means by which abortion-rights advocates might come to see the error of their ways. There is simply no place for moral righteousness in the sacrament of Communion. This is the place we are invited to shed all righteousness, all judgment, and enjoy the unconditional love of the Lord. The love of Christ is unconditional, not dependent upon our being pure or sinless. It is needed all the more by those who are sinners. To deny it is to deny Christ the avenue to do his work, it is to interfere with God's work, which we should all humbly bow in gratitude to, rather than assert some kind of moral superiority and control over.

In case you're wondering how I'd handle the extremes, yes, I would say that even Hitler and Stalin and Mao should be granted communion, if they sincerely seek it.

Posted by conradg | June 4, 2008 10:35 PM

Very simple question: is Ross absolutely in lockstep with Catholic doctrine, politically? No. So what is the point of this post? He uses his Catholic faith to justify his political beliefs when it suits his ends, but that's about the extent of it. If he isn't living in perfect accordance with the Church-- say, if he's had pre-marital sex-- than he's no different than a pro-choice Catholic. They both pick and choose.

Posted by Freddie | June 4, 2008 11:44 PM

Freddie, just use the phrase "cafeteria Catholic." Drives 'em crazy when you apply it to them - when they invented it it was solely intended for Catholic social liberals, of course.

Ross is a cafeteria Catholic - but then, most are.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | June 5, 2008 12:10 AM

"than he's no different than a pro-choice Catholic." Freddie

TR: You're assuming Catholics are expected to be perfect, which they most certainly are not or they'd be no need of Confession.

If Ross advocated pre-marital sex or living together before marriage he'd be a "Cafeteria Catholic." If he advocates unrestrained capitalism he'd also be a "Cafeteria Catholic." However simply lying, fornicating, or even murder does not make one a Cafeteria Catholic. It makes you a bad Catholic, or a Catholic in need of redemption, but it doesn't say anything about your beliefs.

A Cafeteria Catholic is, at the very least, a person who does not see a life lived against principles as wrong for a Catholic. The "Right-wing" equivalent would be like a cut-throat businessman who thinks destroying people brings jobs and is therefore okay. Or a CIA guy who thinks torturing suspects serves a greater good so is okay.

Posted by Thomas R | June 5, 2008 1:02 AM

Thomas R says: "A Cafeteria Catholic is, at the very least, a person who does not see a life lived against principles as wrong for a Catholic. The "Right-wing" equivalent would be like a cut-throat businessman who thinks destroying people brings jobs and is therefore okay. Or a CIA guy who thinks torturing suspects serves a greater good so is okay."

In 2004 Ross supported the re-election of Dumbya Bush. At that point it was quite obvious to anyone who wasn't a complete fucking idiot that Dumbya had authorized torture and had lied this country into a pointless war of aggression. Supporting these activities would seem to be against the stated positions of the Catholic Church. Ross could have abstained from offering such support. He could have looked for a 3rd party candidate. He could have written in the name "Jesus Christ." But he dropped his trousers and plopped out a vote for Dumbya the war criminal.

Ross is a cafeteria Catholic. He'll vote for John McCain in November, too, and if that results in a war in Iran as speciously supported in fact as the Iraq War, he'll be okay with that as long as he doesn't offend the elders in his real church - the conservative movement.

Whatever that is.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | June 5, 2008 1:33 AM

Dearleader in nyc wrote:

"Sure the Catholic Church wasn't "friends" with the Third Reich, just every other fascist regime that's ever existed (Franco, Mussolini,the Ständestaat, the Iron Guard, the Ustase, etc.) all explicitly Catholic."

Others have responded to this effectively, and Thomas R mentioned the Church's 1931 encyclical Non Abbiamo Bisogno directed at the Fascists. I just wanted to add that this encyclical accused the Fascists of promoting an ideology of "statolatry" including its efforts "to monopolize completely the young, from their tenderest years up to manhood and womanhood, for the exclusive advantage of a party and of a regime based on an ideology which clearly resolves itself into a true, a real pagan worship of the State."

It doesn't appear that the Catholic Church regarded the Fascists as "explicitly Catholic."

Posted by torourke | June 5, 2008 8:31 AM

Moe wrote:

"One more thing - the Vatican never refudiated the Concordat, just as it never refudiated or excommunicated Hitler or denied him communion. What are a few million Jews between friends?"

Moe, was the word "refudiated" the word of the day at your most recent Klan meeting or something?

Posted by torourke | June 5, 2008 8:41 AM

Ross, you miss the reader's point. The question is NOT how immoral this or that law is, it is the grounds that you offer to your fellow citizens for it. If your justificatory basis is a religious faith-claim, then you propose to wield the power of the state on religious grounds. Both abortion and slavery, to take your examples, can be argued by appeal to public reasons (reasons that all reasonable people can be expected to accept, a standard strictly religious reasons don't meet).

Take care next time you declare that one of your replies should "go without saying".

Posted by Doug | June 5, 2008 8:52 AM

the nature of abortion - whether, like other acts of violence, it's the sort of crime that the civil as well as the moral law should sanction, or whether it's a sin along the lines of gossip, say, or sloth, which the civil authorities can't and shouldn't regulate

I cannot speak for others but you have in this statement trivialized why I think the government should have only limited regulation of abortion. It is not that abortion is as trivial as sloth. It is that abortion is the most thorny moral issue one is likely to face.

There are clear cut cases where abortion is immoral, for example the termination of a viable fetus for birth controll. There are also cases where it is an unambiguously moral like a case where the fetus is guaranteed to die at birth and likely take the mother with it, like acephalia. Most abortions are much more frought with difficult moral issus that one would think that conservatives who do not trust the government to handle the simplest of tasks would balk at involving government in.

Posted by Larry Geater | June 5, 2008 8:57 AM

Thomas R.,

I think you're being unfair to 'cafeteria Catholics". Many of them don't 'live life against their principles', they simply don't happen to believe _all_ of the same principles that the Catholic church teaches, or to agree with them.

Now that may well mean that they ought not to be Catholics, and ought to join the Anglican church instead, or something. (As an Anglican I would definitely like it if more liberal Catholics did that. Hell, if all the cafeteria Catholics became Anglicans then we would be the biggest church in the country) But I think you're unfair to suggest that they're acting in bad faith, or out of base motives rather than sincere disagreement. Abortion is an issue which natural reason condemns as well as Catholic teaching, but many other teachings of the Catholic church are not self-evident in the same way.

Posted by Hector | June 5, 2008 9:09 AM

Once again Ross and the ultramontanists miss the mark here. Members of the Catholic Church are proposing a punishment to members who don't VOTE correctly. It isn't like Ted Kennedy is out there performing abortions. It isn't like these people are out there sinning, and yet the Church is supposed to punish them as if they were. Once again I ask; didn't the Church learn its lesson in interferign in temporal politics?

Posted by freddiemac | June 5, 2008 10:00 AM

A question for the emailer: Are there any "deeply-immoral" measures that a legislator could support that would merit some sort of sanction from his pastor or bishop?

Ross does not at all address the emailer's point, which is to assert:

a meaningful distinction between being pro-choice and supporting abortion, between allowing others to make choices we find morally problematic and actually urging or even demanding others make those choices.

In other words, by hypothesis here the legislator him/herself does not "support" abortion in the sense of personally thinking it's a desirable thing -- he/she may be personally opposed to it -- but rather believes that legislation ought to leave that moral decision to the individual.

Ross's question therefore misses the point.

Posted by okie | June 5, 2008 10:56 AM

Also, though I am not Catholic (or Christian of any sort), the answer to this:

Was, for instance, the Archbishop of New Orleans betraying liberalism's "moral, decent and humane" line between church and state when he denied communion to diehard segregationists?

seems to me unproblematically to be "yes." For one thing, I don't understand why a Christian church should be in the business of itself punishing sinners. Isn't that supposed to be left to God?

And isn't there a Christian tradition of reaching out, providing ministration, precisely to those who are most wretched, most in need of salvation? Those who have most grievously sinned?

Posted by okie | June 5, 2008 11:04 AM

If Ross advocated pre-marital sex or living together before marriage he'd be a "Cafeteria Catholic." If he advocates unrestrained capitalism he'd also be a "Cafeteria Catholic." However simply lying, fornicating, or even murder does not make one a Cafeteria Catholic. It makes you a bad Catholic, or a Catholic in need of redemption, but it doesn't say anything about your beliefs.

Thomas R, it's a valid distinction, but what Ross is advocating is shunning legislators who don't attempt to make abortion illegal. The equivalent would be support for denying communion to any legislator who isn't actively working to ban premarital sex. That is to say (again) there's a world of difference between expecting Catholics to accept the church's teachings (abortion is wrong) and expecting them to impose them through the powers of a secular government (abortion must be considered wrong for everyone regardless of whether their church so instructs them). A church may make the latter declaration; a secular government may not.

The argument is not about the nature of abortion; the decision about what is "the sort of crime that the civil as well as the moral law should sanction" cannot be made on the basis of how intensely one segment of the population feels abortion to be wrong. It can only be made on the basis of whether an understanding that it is wrong is so widely shared by people who don't consider it a religious belief that, like murder and other violent acts, the state has an interest in involving itself in its prohibition. No one who disagrees with that last statement has any business participating in a secular government.

Posted by professordarkheart | June 5, 2008 11:38 AM

No one who disagrees with that last statement has any business participating in a secular government.

Any business participating? Fascinating. Another of the "in the name of plurality, I propose a litmus test that would prohibit those I disagree with from even participating in democratic politics at all, because of a (non-legal) theory I have about how we should reach political ideas." Yet I bet professordarkheart is also among those who think it horrid that some people tried to prevent Communists from participating in US politics on the mere grounds that they were, in principle, dedicated to the overthrow by violent means of democratic government.

Nice work if you can get it.

Posted by The Marquis of Carabas | June 5, 2008 12:02 PM

okie--A couple of points: The church specifically teaches that abortion is not an area where the individual gets to decide. In the view of the church, a politician saying that abortion is a difficult issue that should be left up to the individual is like a politician saying cold-blooded murder is a difficult issue that should be left to the individual, so we shouldn't legislate. The way the church sees it, that's completely wrong, and so the politician who helps establish a regime where abortion is acceptable is publicly persisting in a grave sin. Saying the politician doesn’t personally support abortion just doesn’t cut it, in the Church’s view

That leads to the subject of denial of communion: denial of communion and excommunication aren't ends, they're means intended to bring about penance in individuals by driving home the seriousness of the sins that they cling to. By denying communion to persistent segregationists in the past and politicians who support abortion rights in the present, the Church is, as you say it should, ministering to the most persistent, grievous sinners--individuals who have been talked to, reasoned with and ministered to about the serious errors of their ways, but who happily carry on sinning.

If you read the article Ross links to, you'll see that many of those who were excommunicated or threatened with excommunication did in fact back down. That hopefully led to a true inner repentance, and at the very least made the sin of racism less socially acceptable, i.e. it removed the 'scandal' of segregation.

Posted by T-web | June 5, 2008 12:04 PM

T-web: thank you for the explanation.

Posted by okie | June 5, 2008 12:21 PM

"No one who disagrees with that last statement has any business participating in a secular government."

I was going to respond in more detail to Prof Darkheart other comments. However, this seems to be in total what his point is. It’s not terribly original or well though out. It is however de rigueur among those who want the religious to butt out of their politics.

As a further reminder, every Mass book contains a reminder to every congregant NOT to present themselves for communion if they are in a state of un-penitential grave sin.

The matter of denying communion is as internal a Church matter as it gets. Hell, they even call it "communion".

Posted by Fitz | June 5, 2008 12:23 PM

I propose a litmus test that would prohibit those I disagree with from even participating in democratic politics at all, because of a (non-legal) theory I have about how we should reach political ideas.

The theory is legal; it's called the constitution. Quite a few people I disagree with participate in government, and I'm all in favor of their right to do so.

But my point is not that I'd have specific ideas excluded from government, or from the motives of religious people who work in government; it's that if you swear an oath to serve a state that may not impose religious principles on its subjects, you should uphold that rule in your capacity as its servant. If that conflicts with your religious beliefs about your obligations, then recognize the conflict and give up either the church or the state.

Catholics who wish to see abortion outlawed have a legal path under the law to get it done: persuade enough people to desire it on nonreligious grounds that it can be done without violating the separation of church and state. This is not at all an original idea; in this country, at least, it goes back a couple of centuries.

Posted by professordarkheart | June 5, 2008 12:42 PM

I bet professordarkheart is also among those who think it horrid that some people tried to prevent Communists from participating in US politics on the mere grounds that they were, in principle, dedicated to the overthrow by violent means of democratic government.

I don't know about "horrid," but I do think it conflicted with their principles; so did many of their fellow travelers. But please recognize that I'm not proposing that anyone should be banned from participating in democratic politics; that oversimplified idea is your own invention.

I am simply arguing that, if you consider yourself bound by your faith to do anything you can to get others to follow its teachings, then you can not in good faith swear an oath to an entity that forbids you from using its power to those ends. You have the power and the legal right to do so; it's not the job of the government to uphold the second commandment. But you'd think the church would mind.

Posted by professordarkheart | June 5, 2008 12:54 PM

The equivalent would be support for denying communion to any legislator who isn't actively working to ban premarital sex

Well, except that premarital sex, last I checked, doesn't usually kill anybody (unless you do it really really badly). Abortion would not be an issue of communion denial if it weren't about supporting a legal right to murder some people, which seems like a pretty grave scandal, don'tcha think?

Posted by The Marquis of Carabas | June 5, 2008 12:55 PM

"it's that if you swear an oath to serve a state that may not impose religious principles on its subjects, you should uphold that rule in your capacity as its servant."

This is nonsensical (or very self-serving)

#1. How do we practically apply this. What of "thou shalt not steal's" secualar legal derivatives.

#2. It relies on a very specific understanding of the first amendments establishment clause that not many subscribe to. Even under French lacite the line is not drawn as starkly as this.

Posted by Fitz | June 5, 2008 12:57 PM

prof --

Then I don't get it. You're not claiming that there are no non-religious reasons to oppose abortion (see Nat Hentoff, etc.), so what in fact are you arguing? Abortion would be considerably LESS legal in this country if not for one outrageous Supreme Court decision. A ban on (some) abortions is not a "religious principle" imposition any more than a ban on most homicide is -- or a ban on marijuana, for that matter. The state does not get to "look inside" the heads of those proposing a ban and decide their motives are too religious -- otherwise Social Security might turn out to be unconstitutional because some of us support it in part out of our Christian obligation to help those in need.

Posted by The Marquis of Carabas | June 5, 2008 1:13 PM

Yeah, look. I'm no fan of the death penalty, and would vote against it merrily. But I'm a little tired of people who don't know (or care) about Catholic doctrine here spouting off ignorantly. Look it up. It's not that hard to do. It gets reiterated on posts like this ten thousand times, sometimes to the same people. If you can't grasp the distinction between the death penalty and Iraq and abortion, from the Catholic perspective, you're frankly just stupid. Sorry to be uncharitable, but look: the Catholic church is not pacifist. The Irar War may very well have been unjust, but this is not a declared matter of faith and morals, binding on all and public scandal when violated -- it is a prudential judgment, in part.

I agree with Marquis somewhat. Certainly Catholic doctrine treats war / capital punishment and abortion differently.

But, 2 points:

1. The main difference is NOT the gravity of the sin, but its justifications. Under Catholic morality, an abortion could only be justified, at all, to save the mother's life. A war or an execution can be justified under broader circumstances.

But circumstances of justification is not the same thing as gravity of sin. Presumably, deliberately starting an aggressive, unjust war, with the intention of killing 5 million people, for instance, would be a GREATER sin than having an abortion. So would summarily executing 100,000 people without trial. So I don't think one can hang the denial of communion on the theory that abortion is worse than the death penalty or war. (Also, where's any call to deny communion to supporters of assisted suicide? As far as I know, that's equal to abortion under any Catholic metric.)

2. What Marquis and Ross always continue to ignore is that abortion affects women's rights. That's the reason why we keep it legal. And no matter how much Catholics swear otherwise, given that conservative Catholicism has very traditional, antifeminist views on gender relations, pro-choicers are not going to be convinced that the singling out of the abortion issue over other "life" issues isn't a convenient way of rationalizing statements about the mandates that God supposedly imposed on the usage of penises and vaginas which have been thoroughly discredited and disproven.

Posted by Dilan Esper | June 5, 2008 1:55 PM

Dilan -- the point is that the Church would almost certainly deny communion to the summary execution guy who went on saying it was a fine and dandy thing and he's still on board (if he confessed and repented, he'd be fine as would any pro-abortion politician who changed his stance), and similarly to someone who openly admitted to starting a war he thought was unjust. But we don't have any of those folks around to compare to, do we? Foolish and (in some cases) badly motivated as the Iraq War may have been, there's no good way to see into hearts and say "why, George Weigel was out to start an unjust war!" Actually, I think you get this point, right? Seems to me 2 is your real point, here.

thoroughly discredited and disproven

Dilan, I'm a mathematician of sorts, but not a lawyer. But I really think your use of "disproven" here violates norms of usage legal, mathematical, philosophical, and conversational.

Posted by The Marquis of Carabas | June 5, 2008 2:05 PM

The state does not get to "look inside" the heads of those proposing a ban and decide their motives are too religious

Of course not; I'm proposing that they themselves ought to. If their constituents want them to work toward a ban, then it shouldn't matter to either party whether their motives match up.

A ban on some abortions is currently allowed to stand in this country exactly because it's not a "religious principle" imposition; a ban on all is forbidden under constitutional law because it is, (or at least because no nonreligious reasons to ban early abortion have become generally accepted). The fact is, the law seems to be working pretty well here; a large majority of the population wants to see some limits on abortion (more limits than I want, but hey, that's democracy). Very few want to see it banned outright. So we've got legal abortion within limits.

It's the Catholic church that doesn't come out looking so good in my mind, though admittedly it's none of my business. For two reasons:

1. By denying communion to those legislators who oppose a "religious principles" ban on abortion, it is asking them to violate their oath of office. That seems a little fishy, and it's no less a fact because abortion involves life and other sins don't. If abortion is that much more serious a sin, than the church ought to forbid its members from participating in a government that enshrines a right to it; the scandal begins with their agreeing to serve such a state.

2. As for the argument that its involving life makes abortion an issue that the church is legitimately more interested in than other sins permitted under the law, it would be a lot more convincing if the church were consistent in this standard. I haven't heard of communion being denied to politicians who don't favor a law criminalizing passive euthanasia, for instance, or who don't seek restrictions on private companies investing in genocidal regimes. The selective outrage seems a bit, well, relativist. Does the church have a right to be inconsistent? Of course. But if you're going to argue in favor of its decisions about political conduct, then I will reply that such inconsistency undermines your argument.

"it's that if you swear an oath to serve a state that may not impose religious principles on its subjects, you should uphold that rule in your capacity as its servant."

This is nonsensical (or very self-serving)

#1. How do we practically apply this.

And I hope by now it's clear that I don't think this is an issue that has "practical application." You could as easily ask how the church "applies" its prohibition on coveting your neighbor's ass. You say: under our rules, it's wrong. We hope you won't; our founding texts forbid it. If you persist, then, of course, it's up to God or the voters to call you out.

Posted by professordarkheart | June 5, 2008 2:20 PM

"Dilan, I'm a mathematician of sorts, but not a lawyer. But I really think your use of "disproven" here violates norms of usage legal, mathematical, philosophical, and conversational."

Yes but it’s his very favorite drum to beat.

Posted by Fitz | June 5, 2008 2:25 PM

If their constituents want them to work toward a ban

Fascinating. So representatives in your world are pure poll-driven machines? Not clear why we need representatives at all. You might read Edmund Burke's little lecture on this he once gave his constituents, if you're of a mind to actually think about such matters.

a ban on all is forbidden under constitutional law because it is, (or at least because no nonreligious reasons to ban early abortion have become generally accepted).

Er, no. As Dilan could explain, that has nothing to do with the "reasoning" behind Roe, and is the most evidence of an absurd lack of legal understanding I've seen on this site. Moe is a jerk, but not a fool, Dilan I think has particular bugbears that make him less charitable and reasonable than his nature inclines -- you just don't seem to know what you're talking about, other than a kind of kindergarten theory of constitutional law and separation of church and state that sounds like the ravings of some sad Ron Paulite (and I like Ron Paul) who thinks that he doesn't have to pay taxes because the wrong naval flag is flown in US courtrooms.

Under current US law, there are very few restrictions on abortions -- and it is fairly clear that without Roe, the democratic public would enact a lot more. But ROE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH YOUR WEIRD LITTLE FANTASY THEORY HERE, that's NOT THE REASONING, MAN.

Sigh. Dilan? I'd like to argue with someone who's not completely out to lunch!

Posted by The Marquis of Carabas | June 5, 2008 2:34 PM

More simply:

There is no oath of office in the US that in any remote way prevents legislators from advocating more abortion restrictions, up to a total ban. The idea that there is such is flatly absurd, an attempt to, by sheer force of will, indicate that the very structure of our government indicates your preferred policy positions. That's tyranny, though at least the kind you advocate is not even supported by most Roe supporters.

Posted by The Marquis of Carabas | June 5, 2008 2:38 PM