Where's the Apology?

Being progressive has come to mean never turning around. An apology would represent a 'turning around' or metanoia, which is inadmissible to many progressives.

But a Christianity without metanoia is like a body without a heart.

I'm also reminded of Chesterton's insight: When you're racing toward the edge of a cliff, the most progressive direction is backward.

I think Catholics who said Obama and the Church would have a lot in common aren't saying they're sorry, not because they have apology aversion, but because they still think Obama and the Church have a lot in common.

I read Michael's comment above, and I see more evidence that American Catholics are no longer one church. I don't place the blame on Catholics who think like Michael because he certainly has a point. First Things really set the tone for most traditional (i.e., pro-family/pro-life) Catholics during the Bush administration, and it was rabidly supportive of the administration's pro-war and anti-"terror" undertakings. Catholics who took seriously the peace/justice teachings of the Church were understandably appalled--and distanced themselves still further from those who saw President Bush as "pro-life."

Now that the shoe is on the other foot, Catholics who support Obama are telling the rest of us to focus on his international policies and his anti-poverty thrust and to "wait and see" or just trust him on the life issues. This is the basic line from America and Commonweal. But reading between the lines, they seem to be saying that abortion and related issues don't really matter very much after all, or even that "choice" on beginning- and end-of-life issues has become an acceptable/preferable stance for Catholics today.

Is anyone left who takes seriously the supposedly "womb to tomb" ethic of respect for life? If so, I don't even know where they would find a Catholic venue open to their opinions.

Neo-conservative Catholics were the ones who were allied with the last administration on matters of torture, etc.

Traditional Catholics have followed Church teaching for centuries and have been opposed to torture, to the war in Iraq, etc.

All of you commenters here who keep bringing up torture and going on and on about it:

You all are such simplistic one-issue voters on this torture issue. You're in such lockstep with the Vatican and the hierarchy that it's clear you have abandoned free thinking entirely.

I’m personally opposed to torture, but I don’t think I could ever impose that view on somebody else.

I’d rather see us have a President who works to reduce the need for torture. We need to get at the deeper issues here – it’s not just as black and white as you religious-types always say. We should work with torturers to support them, not criminalize them.

Your belief that torture is “wrong” is just that – a religious belief. Well, what about all of the people who don’t share that belief? We live in a diverse, pluralistic society. Get with the program.

How can you take what is a matter of faith for you and impose it upon another person who might not share that faith?

Did you know that the amount of torturing in this country actually went up during the Clinton presidency? It was lower under Republican presidencies.

Torture is a difficult issue, and people of good will can disagree about it. Ultimately, I think the torturer should be free to make that choice in consultation with his attending doctors, his field agents, and his God.

Besides, even if we made torture illegal, guess what? - there would still be people out there torturing. And they wouldn’t have access to all the sophisticated equipment that we have in modern torture chambers. They’d use whatever they could find – sticks, broken glass, even coat hangers.

Is that what you want? You want us to go back to the days of back-alley torturing with coat hangers?

A truly enlightened society would keep torture safe, legal, and rare.

This week America is running an editorial blasting the Notre Dame pro-lifers as divisive sectarians who are ignorant of the "richer, subtly nuanced, broad-tent Catholic tradition" that the Jesuits see exemplified in . . . get this! . . . St. Augustine's treatment of the Donatists. (Commonweal chimed in immediately, pronouncing the Jesuit stance "courageous.")

This cannot continue indefinitely. We are becoming hostile camps, with traditionalists friendlier to evangelical Protestants than to the Commonweal/America crowd, and Commonweal/America followers more favorably disposed to secularist politicians than to many of the bishops of our own church.

Since when are "traditionalists" closer to evangelical Protestants than to the America crowd? Granted, we're not favorably disposed to the America/NCR/Commonweal bunch, but by no means do we see evangelical Protestants as congruent with our interests. Remember, we're TRADITIONAL Catholics, not neocons.

Since when are "traditionalists" closer to evangelical Protestants than to the America crowd?

Nemo, you are evidently not a follower of First Things. What unites Catholics and evangelical Protestants? The culture war issues: marriage and abortion, chiefly.

I find myself among the disenfranchised. I was opposed to the war and torture as well as abortion and using parts of babies for "scientific" research (shades of Dr. Mengele here). I hated the economic policies of the last administration (which actually weren't all that different from the economic policies of his Democratic predecessor). I was opposed to the homeland security policies which stripped Americans of freedoms and predicted that the neo-cons who were so enamored of them wouldn't be when there was a liberal Democrat at the helm using them against people who were pro-life and pro-family. So who was I supposed to vote for? In my state it didn't really matter all that much since the President received a substantial majority anyway and we knew he would going into the general election. Even in the primary there was truly no one whom I could wholeheartedly support.

I'm not a neo-con either politically or theologically. I'm not a rabid traditionalist, but I'd like to see the Latin Mass available to all who want it and the reform of the reform that the Pope has called for to happen quickly. I'm to the right of my bishop (who's actually one of the better ones), to the right of our parish priest (who's far better than our last one), but to the left of a lot of my fellow Catholics and all of my evangelical friends on a lot of issues. So who do I agree with? Well the Pope for one. G.K. Chesterton for another. I think there are actually a lot of us out there (or else I run in some strange circles) who say a plague on both your houses when it comes to politics. I find myself agreeing with the localvores at the health food store on some issues and finding it odd that they are so unabashedly for other things that are so contrary to the natural law on others.

Once upon a time I was a Protestant Evangelical and I read a popular Evangelical author by the name of Francis Schaeffer. Schaeffer said that we must always be careful in political matters to be co-belligerents with the right or the left on particular issues, not allies. Unfortunately, Christians in general never followed that advice. Those who were opposed to poverty decided to give the left a pass on issues like abortion and marriage. Those who were opposed to abortion and gay marriage gave a pass to the right on things like torture and allying themselves with multi-national corporate robbers. Even the followers of Dorothy Day to a large extent found themselves more comfortable with those supporting baby killing (whether before birth or in the neonatal nursery) than those supporting the war machine (which also meant babies got killed).

One of the things I like best about being Catholic is that all of my political positions are actually supported by Church teaching. I don't have to pick and choose between my theology and my politics (although clearly some Catholics do or else call themselves Catholic when they don't actually follow Church teaching). As an Evangelical I always felt out of place when I wasn't willing to rally round the flag on the military issues or the glorification of materialism. As a Catholic there is solid support for encouraging my children to live a simple life and to be opposed to abortion as well as aggressive military actions. I honestly believe that fewer Catholics have bought into the whole neo-con agenda than was true among the Evangelicals. Unfortunately, as evidenced in the last election, more Catholics have bought into the liberal lie. If only the Catholics (bishops and college administrators included) would just start listening to and heeding the Holy Father we'd be in better shape as a Church. Whether we'd get better options in the voting booth is another question entirely.

Rather than apologies, I'd like to see the president's self-professed pro-life supporters directly and forcefully challenge him on his already impressive record (in the negative sense) on the life issues. Who better than folks like Kmiec or Kaveny to publicly make clear to their friend in the White House that this is the essential civil rights issue of our time and that their continued support depends on a different course? Who better than Catholic supporters of Obama to engage in public dialogue on the issue in a bold and challenging way? I won't hold my breath.

=========================

[url=" http://mls.fastrealestate.net"]Use DoFollow Links Only[/url]