Mother Davis accepts the challenge of Morals and Ethics Friday as she considers,
There is a fellow named Vincent Bemowski who now and then sends spam comments to the Irregular Times blog, and other blogs around the web, representing CatholicWeb’s outrage at the existence of a non-Catholic morality of some kind or another. The comments don’t have anything to do with the subject at hand, and are cut and pasted here and there, in a strangely desperate attempt to gain attention for the most powerful religious orthodoxy in the world.
Last night, Mr. Bemowski sent us a message that struck me as presenting a very odd moral perspective. In this message, Bemowski wrote:
“On May 2, 2003 Pope Benedict XVI, as Cardinal Ratzinger stated: “He (John Paul II) did not impose this position (’Iraq War not necessary’) as doctrine of the Church but as the appeal of a conscience enlightened by faith†(Zenit News Agency). Unlike many U.S. Democrats, Pope John Paul’s thoughts on the Iraq War were not voiced in an arrogant, judgmental manner. He loved America, and praised President George W. Bush’s moral leadership.
Pope John Paul II never praised President Clinton for his “moral values,†because Clinton, along with most Democrats, believes you have the “right to kill†through abortion – a horrible crime against humanity that has resulted in the cruel deaths of millions of innocent, defenseless, unborn human beings. Cardinal Ratzinger later confirmed: “There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion, even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasiaâ€.
The essence of this message, as I see it, is that Pope Benedict XVI and Pope John Paul II recognized two different moral standards: One for matters of war and the death penalty, and one for abortion and euthanasia. According to the Popes, it is permissible for Catholics to have different opinions about whether war and the death penalty are moral or immoral, but the existence of different opinions among Catholics about abortion and euthanasia is illegitimate, because abortion and euthanasia are absolutely wrong, wrong, wrong.
So, the Pope can say that George W. Bush’s Iraq War is wrong, but then praise President Bush’s moral leadership because of Bush’s stands against abortion and medically assisted suicide.
To be frank, this kind of attitude rubs me raw. It disturbs me profoundly that mercy killing, administered with discipline, gentle methods and legal oversight when requested by someone who is chronic, incurable dire pain and wants to die is promoted as an unquestionable immorality, at the very same time that the deployment of huge masses of people who do not want to die against each other, to slaughter each other in the most brutal ways imaginable, is left as an open moral question.
As for myself, I do not believe that any moral question ought to be called illegitimate. I don’t think that anyone, no matter what kind of fancy hat he wears, has the right to dictate to other people what kinds of moral issues they shall regard as open to consideration.
That said, the Popes’ priorities for what matters they place beyond question is strangely skewed. Violence against healthy, conscious human beings they are willing to consider. Yet, violence against the dying and against those who are yet to be born, and are often yet to achieve any level of consciousness, is regarded by them as so much more immoral that it is removed from the arena of acceptable moral debate.
I don’t understand what could motivate such a selective attitude of moral absolutism. Pope Benedict, if you’re reading Irregular Times today, I’d love for you to try to explain it to me.
Appreciating the existence of an open, non-Catholic world of debate,
Mother Davis
Rationality is not the strong point of the Religious Right… The neo-cons are even less rational.
Euthanasia of the sort practiced in the state of Oregon — under the approval of doctors, in cases of mentally competent people who are terminally ill — doesn’t even qualify as “violence,” since violence indicates a violation of another person’s bodily autonomy. In the case of euthanasia, the recipient is wholly on board with the project. This actually makes the state or church, in preventing the mentally competent and terminally ill person from exercising the right to die, itself an instrument of violence.
“I don’t understand what could motivate such a selective attitude of moral absolutism.”
I’m glad that you made this admission at the end.
although I disagree with the RC church and the Pope on these matters, I do have to respect their position as being rational–even if it does not seem to be so to non-believers.
I was tempted to write a defence of the RC position here, but to do so would require an examinination of Aristotelean Physics, and and a consideration of how, after the rediscovery by the West of Ancient Greek philosophy after the crusades, St. Thomas Aquinas incorporated Aristotelan physics into RC theology resulting in the notion of Natural Law.
Although I think the RC tradition of clinging tenaciously to Natural Law regardless of the consequences is wrong, I don’t consider it irrational.
As for myself, everytime I hear some chatter out of one of these “infallible” popes, I like to remember that their institution has killed more people (christians and non) than any roman emperor ever did. Bringing us such nice things as the Inquistion, the burning of people alive at stakes, crusades, etc… Hearing a lecture on human rights, morals, et al., from that bunch just makes me laugh. Talk about poacher turning gamekeeper…But what do I know, I was named after a river in Hell. Happy Moral Friday to all!!! You guys keep me sane.
A
“Abortion… Has resulted in the cruel deaths of millions of… Unborn human beings”
Question; how is it “cruel” when they can’t actually feel or achknowledge it in any way?
Even if you’re going to say it’s wrong, I’m pretty sure cruel implies some sort of mild sadism, which can’t exist when what it’s directed against can’t feel pain.
To me this is just another evidence of collusion between church and state. Notice, authority has a final say over the life and death of Joe Schmoe. Are you in agony? Is your family’s resources, mental, physical, financial being drained to keep you alive past the point where you feel it is right? Do you know you won’t get any better no matter what, just let it end? Can’t have that: offer your suffering to god, it’s not your place to end life, blah blah blah.
An unwanted pregnancy? They only trot out that same stuff, but don’t expect the same people who demanded that a baby be born to step up with any solutions to the difficulties such an event might cause. The child is actually punishment, a consequense for enjoying yourself. Plus, remember, the Brits have a saying, “To abort little Willie is very silly: that’s what war is for.”
War and such is in the interest of power, another bit of collegiality between the two houses.
Didirot (SP) was right, we’ll never be truly free until the last king is strangled by the intestines of the last priest.
Oh, that’s not true. Then other people would fill the void so that they can be worshipped and believed by the gullible, lost, insecure, poorly educated, and other people who feel the need to bow down to authority, even in times when we know that no person is inferior to any other.
There will always be people with a tendency towards that behaviour, the roles of “kings” and “subjects”, but once society through normalises self-confidence and the like then those people will no longer feel the need to act out those roles.
Humans will always be animals, but we can use our instincts to our own advantage without using them to manipulate others. It’s been happening very slowly for thousands of years.
Common; You feel the needle, and you achknowledge the events too, even if your nerves stop working early on.
The death penalty’s outdated and hypocritical.
If it were fatal yes, but by your standards sky diving and execution by tossing out of a plane would be the same experience.
Whether or not you know you’re likely to live or die doesn’t make a difference to you?