Church out of line

Q: U.S. Catholic bishops are defending their direct involvement in congressional deliberations over health-care reform, saying that church leaders have a duty to raise moral concerns on any issue, including abortion rights and health care for the poor. Do you agree? What role should religious leaders have -- or not have -- in government policymaking?

When I was in seminary, I found myself violently angry as the battle over inclusive language in scripture translations pulled all of us into an arena with which many of us were unfamiliar. I was not angry because the women were pushing for inclusive language. I was angry because I felt like they were forcing their beliefs and their issues on me.

I felt that same, familiar anger as I read that Roman Catholic bishops were grandstanding, saying that the church has an obligation to be a moral voice when it comes to abortion and health care for the poor.

In theory, that is true. The church is and should be the moral voice that guides lawmakers as they seek to make policy. But what this feels like is blackmail; it feels like the Catholic bishops will go to any length to push their opposition to abortion onto everyone.

The "least of these" be damned.

Their stance reeked of hypocrisy. I have long said that being pro-life has to be about more than a fetus. The well-to-do women who can and who want to have abortions will still get them, health-care reform notwithstanding.

But if health-care reforms further restrict abortions, less advantaged women will be at the mercy of a church and its doctrines, which both prohibit birth control and abortion. And children will suffer, as they always have. What is most bothersome is that the bishops are putting church doctrine and dogma above the human condition.

While I do not condone abortion, and do not believe it should be used as a method of birth control, I also think that a woman does in fact have a right to choose what she does with her body.

I really do not think that the scripture in Genesis that said "be fruitful and multiply" meant that a woman was supposed to have children, even if she did not want them. And a woman IS allowed not to want children.

The dilemma this "doctrine over human condition" poses, however, especially if one is a practicing Roman Catholic, is that the doctrine in effect prohibits a woman from having sex ... just to have sex, or, to be more romantic, keeps her from making love just because she is in love.

Birth control is a sin, the doctrine says. So, she does not use birth control and prays she does not get pregnant. But if she does, church doctrine says she must not have an abortion.

Doctrine be damned. That is crazy, it is unfair, and it is not right. That's my beef on the doctrine level.

On the right-to-life level, I am angry at the bishops because it seems that they seem to care less about fetuses once they are born. Who advocates for babies born into poverty? Who pushes for babies who grow up without health care, who attend sub standard schools, who have poor nutrition?

If the pro-lifers were out on the battlefields on those issues, I would have no problem with their position. I could fight for a movement like that.

But not this movement. Not this movement that seemingly seeks to control women, and which ignores babies who are alive, clinging to life and needing the support of people who care.

I did not appreciate being goaded into using inclusive language, but I listened to the complaints of the women and thought their arguments had merit. I budged. But I cannot budge on this one. This stance by the bishops feels like blackmail, a strategy that is devoid of compassion for women and for the poor.

On this, the church, these bishops are out of line.

By Susan K. Smith  |  November 17, 2009; 8:21 PM ET Save & Share:                 
Previous: Sarah Palin's 'rogue' Christianity | Next: Faith-based blackmail

The comments to this entry are closed.