I think the question is one of working multiculturalism. Let’s just take secular or non-religious out of it, and just imagine that everyone is religious. The question then is how do you create a society where there are irreconcilable theologically based moral differences?
Dang, I wanna say “bring about Christ’s Kingdom on Earth,” but that probably doesn’t fly, huh? :D
I agree, I’m just addressing this weird vernacular of “autonomy” in the context of the foetus or children. It’s really the autonomy of women versus the perceived rights of a foetus.
Timex
1701
I think that children are generally regarded as having rights, even if they cannot advocate for them on their own, and instead need to have adult guardians advocate on their behalf.
The rights are still the child’s, and that includes bodily autonomy. Adult guardians are not able to unilaterally supercede those rights. They are generally required by law to act in such a way as to look out for the child’s best interests, otherwise they are no longer allowed to play that role.
Really? No one’s gonna touch this one?
Fine.
I didn’t know the Spider-Man actor was so well-versed in philosophy!
Ah, thanks for clarifying!
Oh, sorry, Scott! I meant to clarify this and then lost track of it. I definitely don’t think that. What is unique is, it seems to me, the distinctive character of each of these individuals. Maybe I’m not saying much by saying that individuals are distinctive, though.
At the same time, I also think we can detect something distinctly Christian about their characters, for what it’s worth: Radical humility, face-to-face engagement with individuals in need, willingness to suffer. Much of that (to Enidigm’s point) wouldn’t even have been considered virtuous in classical times, and may (especially the last?) feel increasingly off-putting to us today…
ADDENDUM: Also, I should be ecumenical and include a Protestant!
I think the whole point of autonomy is that the one with the autonomy decides. The right to bodily autonomy isn’t with the child, and in any event not always exercised in the child’s best interests from a medical point of view. My understanding is that in some states parents can refuse treatment on religious grounds.
As I recall, you agreed with me that they were almost nonexistent, and then pointed to 3 groups, all three of which are almost nonexistent, and one of which you noted was probably religiously motivated after all.
We let parents withhold vaccinations and other medical treatments from their children all the time. We let them make life-threatening choices for their children all the time. Not that I think any of this is a great metaphor for the abortion question; it’s just clear that we don’t grant actual children much bodily autonomy or freedom of will.
Speed limits and other traffic laws; sanitation laws. Lots of public health stuff that isn’t about morality at all.
Like the good Christian Gandhi, then? It’s hardly surprising that one cites exemplars from one’s own culture and faith as uniquely good — who else would you have in mind? — but he’s one that everyone ought to be familiar with.
An overview of the arguments in the Catholic sphere against Archbishop Cordileone’s prohibition on Nancy Pelosi to receive communion:
The Pillar also has a thorough explainer on the theology, law, and practicalities of the decision.
In other news:
“We the people are on the edge,” he said. “We don’t know much about the person who committed these killings, but whatever the case is, arms are available and people are dying and we have made guns as idols, in our faith we would call idolatry, but they are sacred to the point that we don’t take measures to help avoid these situations. It’s horrible.”
“This is just outrageous. So many people are killed daily all over the country because of the use of guns and we protect them. We need to protect people,” he continued. “We are all praying and all of that is a tremendous help morally, spiritually, even humanely, to be close with the people, but it’s a systemic problem.”
“God has mercy and that’s why we have hope because we know with whom we can place our trust, but in the meantime, there are not really people with integrity and dignity dealing with these issues.”
Totally irrelevant until such time as this action by Cordileone is rescinded. Actions speak way louder than words. As long as the church is playing politics with no consequences then they are still somewhere on the Evil <-> Pure Evil spectrum that the thread title established.
I confess I’m struggling a bit with this combination of arguments:
Cordileone’s announcement was a response to Pelosi’s decades-long support for legal access to abortion, including her recent efforts to enshrine the full latitude of Roe v. Wade into federal law.
Cordileone, for his part, would seem to reject the premise of the argument: that barring a particular Catholic form communion is intended to effect a political end. In his letter to Pelosi, and in his public notification released on Friday, the archbishop was clear his end was “purely pastoral” and directed towards Pelosi herself and to the local Catholic community.
So, the action is being undertaken because of Pelosi’s political behavior, but it is not being taken to effect any political end.
Are we supposed to take that seriously?
If you want to be charitable, then yes I think you can take it seriously. Remember that Nancy Pelosi should not be presenting herself for communion due to her longstanding support for abortion rights. And each time she does so, she is committing an additional grave sin. That was true before Cordileone’s declaration, and is not dependent on any decision of his; it’s just clear Catholic doctrine, verified repeatedly by the catechism, the CDF, and multiple popes including Francis.
Taken at face value, Cordileone’s letter says his goal is twofold: To correct Nancy Pelosi’s error for the sake of her own soul, and to limit the damage of scandal and confusion that could come from Pelosi’s example–since she is clearly and publicly guilty of grave sin and of inappropriately receiving (and since she also publicly misrepresents the Catholic faith in talking about her stance on abortion). This is the meaning of “pastoral” in this context. It’s not that there’s not pressure being applied, but the direct goal isn’t to change the current or future policy of the federal government. It’s to protect souls from error.
The “political behavior” of an individual is simply one aspect of their actions in the world, and subject to moral praise and condemnation. It’s not and shouldn’t be (in the Catholic view) segregated from the rest of their moral life.
This is sophistry. What he wants is for her to change her political behavior. If she does that, she gets readmitted to the cool kids group. If she does not, she does not.
Timex
1712
Eh… it’s not irrelevant at all. That stuff is kind of fundamentally material to the discussion.
I think you’ve grasped it exactly (for a certain meaning of “cool kids group”). Why is it sophistry?
If sin is real, if the Eucharist demands a certain worthiness and reverence, if a bishop has valid authority to teach and correct his flock, then the move is at least valid, although its prudence can be questioned. Those propositions may be absurd to an outsider, but they are practically inarguable among Catholics who take their faith seriously.
Thrag
1714
Save her soul? WTF? She’s not getting an abortion. What sin does not wanting to use the force of the state to try and make other women give birth fall under?
What caused the Archbishop’s action? Nancy Pelosi’s political behavior. What can she do to change the action? Change her political behavior.
You can produce a million reasons why the Archbishop should properly want to change her political behavior, but attempting to change her political behavior is itself a political act, and none of those reasons change that. Even if they’re good reasons!
Couldn’t disagree with you more. The catholic church has a sprawling complex organization and hierarchy and history. Trying to shift the discussion to that complexity as if it’s somehow relevant is the standard deflection tactic. It’s just a bullshit dodge.
The church did an evil thing in using religion to play political hardball. Until they quit doing that, and there are consequences for the people who did it, everything else is bullshit.
