There may still be hope for the Catholic church

Nattering Naybob: The Red Ranger, as you know we both have had some distractions at work (damn job!) and at home so our little blog has been on hiatus for a little while. I think going forward we can be back to normal for the immediate future at least. Due to the recent SGM dormancy, this content of this post is slightly outdated bit I think is still note-worthy.

We discussed in a previous post (in somewhat tongue-in-cheek fashion) what a breath of fresh air Pope Francis seemed to be at the time of his installation this past Spring. My comments to you were concerned mainly with the symbolism of the new Pope’s eschewing of much of the pomp and ceremony that seemed to be the currency of Francis’ immediate predecessor, Pope Benedict, and of many previous Popes in general.

But recently came news, via The Huffington Post and other news outlets , of a potentially seismic shift in the way that the Catholic church does business. While giving an interview to an Italian paper called La Civilita Cattolica, he basically said that the Catholic church has been too obsessed with enforcing its stifling, archaic stances on gays, abortion and contraception… more specifically, on the church’s absurdly impossible opposition to both abortion AND contraception.

I am what you would call a “lapsed” Catholic. I felt that I could no longer support a church whose hierarchy turned the other cheek for decades while its priests, bishops and in some case, cardinals, were inflicting horrible acts of abuse on young boys. Most odious to me, other than the actual crimes and resulting cover-ups themselves, was the fact that the church was draining the pockets of many in its flock to help pay for the multi-million dollar lawsuit victories awarded the victims of church-sanctioned pedophilia… while doing nothing to sell of its own stashes of gold, paintings, and statuary first (we’ll see if Francis does anything about this display of conspicuous consumption in future months and years).

But Pope Francis’s comments seem to signal a realization that the Catholic church needs to adapt to the times in order to re-focus on its true mission of helping those who need to be saved, rather than condemning those they think should be damned. If Pope Francis is successful in the Herculean job of changing the culture of the church, or at least starting that journey, then I would be curious if Republicans would also modify their nonsensical opposition to both abortion AND contraception. I have to temper that wish with the fact that the institution of Modern Republicanism is trending more and more towards fundamentalist / evangelical Protestantism, and accordingly may not find much legitimacy in anything that the Catholic church does or says anyway. Much like they treat Obama.

The Red Ranger: Again as you know I am not a very religious person but I respect those who are.  I find it interesting that you refer to the Catholic church as a business as that is sometimes how I view it.  They are more interested in pulling in donations than actually helping their congregations.

If the pope changes the Catholic church’s stance on abortion, contraception, gays, etc. I will then change my stance on religion and be a staunch supporter of the banning of all religions.  If a religion can change its basic tenets on a whim to bring itself into the mainstream and perhaps enhance its monetary pool then it is really not a religion but it is a business as you suggested that is just catering to the needs of its customers.

If I were a long time parishioner of a parish where the priest has been sermonizing against abortions, gays, etc. for the past twenty years and all of a sudden one Sunday he comes in and says, “You know all those things I have been preaching about the last twenty years, forget it, abortion is OK, a homosexual lifestyle is fine and by the way we have a sale on condoms 3 for $15 and you can pick them up on your way out”.  Just doesn’t seem right to be able to change like that.

I would have much more respect for the Catholic church if they actually dug in their heels and held firm to their beliefs regarding abortion, contraception, gays, etc.  Perhaps God is testing them by putting so much immorality in the world now.  If the church caves then we are on a path to certain destruction.  It will be slow but ultimately we will get to a point where anything goes and whatever each person wants to do as long as it makes them happy will be acceptable.

I do not understand why you feel that opposition to both abortion and contraception is absurd.  If someone is able to display self-control and take responsibility for their actions then there would be no issue.  However, when people are always looking for their immediate satisfaction regardless of the outcome then I could see how there could be an issue here.  I guess this just goes hand-in-hand with the anything goes attitude that so many people have today.

Nattering Naybob: Interesting take you have there, Red Ranger. My problem with being opposed to both abortion AND contraceptives, is from a policy perspective, not from a moral one. I do not believe that morality can be imposed. It must come from within. Your interpretation of the Pope’s interview seems to me, to fit right in with what he is worried about: that the Catholic church has become more worried about castigating certain types of behavior, rather than welcoming imperfect people into their fold. As the Pope himself perfectly summarized the problem in his interview:

“We must always consider the person. In life, God accompanies persons, and we must accompany them, starting from their situation. It is necessary to accompany them with mercy. When that happens, the Holy Spirit inspires the priest to say the right thing… God is in everyone’s life. Even if the life of a person has been a disaster, even if it is destroyed by vices, drugs or anything else, God is in this person’s life…This church with which we should be thinking is the home of all, not a small chapel that can hold only a small group of selected people. We must not reduce the bosom of the universal church to a nest protecting our mediocrity.”

Unless he turns out to be a total phony who might later “clarify” his statements, this Pope is a true man on the cloth. He seems to be a genuine follower of the teachings of Christ, who many cite at every opportunity but whose message of unconditional mercy is not observed.

Kermit Gosnell

The Red Ranger: I am glad to see that Kermit Gosnell was convicted of his atrocious crimes.  As you know I am in general against abortion, however, I am accepting of abortion in certain situations.  I do not see how anyone could possibly defend his actions.  I can’t wait to see someone who does.  I guess I will have to watch Rachel Maddow’s show tonight.  Oh wait, they probably won’t even cover this story because it doesn’t fit with the progressive, left-wing narrative and talking points.

The flip side of this story is that he may be up for the death penalty.  So is it right for those who clamored for him to be convicted of killing these babies to then be clamoring for his execution.  Seems a little hypocritical to me.

Nattering Naybob: I too am happy  that he was convicted. I would think that anyone who wants to keep abortion safe, legal, and rare, would also be glad. For the benefit of any of our readers who may not be completely familiar with this case, Kermit Gosnell was (ostensibly at least) a “doctor” from Philadelphia who performed late-term abortions. The crimes with which he was specifically convicted involve literally murdering three babies that were newly delivered, by killing them with scissors in too grisly a fashion to describe further. According to FOX News (yes, I am taking an excerpt from a FOX News story)…  

“Authorities said the clinic was a foul-smelling ‘house of horrors’ with bags of stored fetuses, including jars of severed feet, along with bloodstained furniture, dirty medical instruments, and cats roaming the premises.”

Many commentators have asserted that this case demonstrates that Roe v. Wade should be struck down, and all abortion made illegal on a Federal level. However, the Pro-Choice advocate response is that the Gosnell case should be a cautionary tale of what many women would be forced to do if abortion really did become illegal, i.e. patronize an underground, unauthorized “clinic” whose safety and hygienic standards might not be much better than Gosnell’s. Count me as someone who agrees with that rationale.

You mentioned hypocrisy– while I appreciate the nuanced example you gave, my take is a little different, I think the more virulent hypocrisy is anyone who decries abortion, in all cases, and then opposes a law that would require Federal background checks on people who want to buy a gun that might be used to mow down innocent people who have already been born and are contributing members of society. And as I’ve mentioned before, it seems that many politicians and commentators who decry health care reform and want to eliminate the so-called social safety net, care more about a person while they are in the womb, then when they are born.

Regarding Rachel Maddow, I honestly have not seen her reaction to the ongoing story and trial but I seriously doubt that she or any other Pro-Choice people would literally defend Gosnell’s actions because there were the very definition of indefensible.

The Red Ranger: Well, I just heard that Gosnell is not going to get the death penalty so there goes that argument.  So now we will have to pay for him to sit in a jail cell for some number of years.

I don’t really see how it is hypocritical to be in favor of supporting constitutional rights.   After all just because you are against background checks doesn’t mean you support using your gun to go out and kill someone.
I agree that this example should not be used in an effort to outlaw abortion.  Gosnell was clearly outside the lines of acceptable abortion behavior.  The pro-choice advocates clearly want abortion to be something that people view as a simple, tidy little procedure that ends a life in the sterile conditions of a compliant abortion clinic without anyone ever having to see the little dead fetuses.

Nattering Naybob: Sarcasm is not very becoming on you, Red Ranger

“The name is an anagram”

Nattering Naybob: The recent anointing of Paul Ryan as Mitt Romney’s running mate, reminded me of one of my favorite movies, “Rosemary’s Baby”. Let me explain.

“Rosemary’s Baby” tells the story of Rosemary Woodhouse (Mia Farrow), who, unknowingly, is carrying a baby that was spawned by the Devil himself. This unhappy situation was facilitated by Rosemary’s own husband (John Cassavetes) and next-door neighbors (Sidney Blackmer and Ruth Gordon). In a pivotal scene in the film, one of Rosemary’s friends (“Hutch”, played by Maurice Evans), thinks he knows what’s going on and wants to meet Rosemary for lunch to give her a book about Upper West Side witches, which he believes implicates her neighbor, Roman Castevet. But Hutch “conveniently” falls into a coma and dies. Hutch’s housekeeper hands the book to Rosemary at the funeral, telling her only that Hutch had said “the name is an anagram” just prior to slipping into his coma. At first Rosemary thinks she means the name of the book, “All of Them Witches”. She goes home and uses some Scrabble cubes to try and piece together the anagram referenced by Hutch. At first, she is unsuccessful.

Then she notices by chance a reference in the book to a teenager, “Steven Marcato” who is the son of one of the suspected “witches” living in turn-of-the century New York. She then re-arranges the Scrabble pieces again, this time converting “Steven Marcato” into “Roman Castevet”. When she realizes the connection, she is convinced that something is seriously wrong (I always get goose bumps when I see this scene.)

Red Ranger, as you know, the author Ayn Rand (“The Fountainhead”, “Atlas Shrugged”) is the Modern Republicans’ writer of choice. Paul Ryan claims her as his intellectual inspiration (despite Rand’s outspoken support for a woman’s right to choose, and her distrust of religion). So imagine my own fascination when I realized that the words “and Ryan”– as in “Romney and Ryan“– is an anagram of (drumroll)….. Ayn Rand.

To take this to its next logical level, is it not safe to assume that the American people, once they learn more about Paul Ryan’s extremist, anarchist, right-wing agenda, will recoil in the same kind of horror that Rosemary herself showed during the film’s climactic scene, when she saw her offspring’s demon-like appearance for the first time. I recall her chilling, tearful question to the coven of witches responsible for the demonic conception: “What have you done to its eyes !?”

To quote your current Commander-in-Chief, “Let me be clear”: I am not implying that Paul Ryan, or Mitt Romney, should be compared to the Devil, or to the little demon spawn that Rosemary laid eyes on in the cradle. If fact, Romney reminds me more of Roman Castevet, the officious neighbor who helped betray Rosemary.

But I’m just sayin’. “Ayn Rand”…. “and Ryan”…. if you don’t believe me, pull out your Scrabble set and try it yourself, Red Ranger.

The Red Ranger: Very interesting concept on your part. I pulled out my Scrabble game but just kept getting Q’s, X’s and Z’s.

It is interesting how you insinuate that Ryan shouldn’t have Ayn Rand as his inspiration since she supported women’s rights and was not religious. I feel the same way when I see supposed Catholics supporting the Democratic party. How can someone of the Catholic faith support any Democratic candidate when the party is so staunchly pro-abortion and gay rights. Right or wrong the Catholic church is clearly anti-abortion and gay rights. If you are Catholic (which I am not) are you allowed to only follow the beliefs of the church that happen to fit in with your own.

As far as Ryan goes it is interesting to see his budget attacked while the Dems in Washington have brazenly broken the laws of the land by not passing a budget since Obama has been in office. How this is allowed to happen is mind boggling to me. While everyone doesn’t need to agree with what Ryan’s budget proposal is at least he has one. If you have not created one of your own you shouldn’t be criticizing his. One of the highlights of Obama’s first and only term has to be seeing his budget proposal voted down by something like 450-0. The only positive coming out of that was that it was the first time that Congress agreed on something in a long time.

Nattering Naybob: You speak of the Constitution. Fine. Have you ever been to the Jefferson Memorial? I visited it this past May with my lovely wife. We had a very nice couple of days walking around DC. It was the Friday prior to Memorial Day and the place was already hopping in anticipation of the Holiday festivities.

The inside walls of the Jefferson Memorial are inscribed with quotes from Jefferson., one of which regards the Constitution and reads to wit: “I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions. But laws and constitutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made , new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance and also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat that fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors”. In other words, Jefferson is admitting that the Constitution is a living document. If he and the other Founding Fathers ever saw the modern Congress in action, they would probably exempt any modern President from complying with any Constitutional law that depended on Congressional approval of any kind.

The Red Ranger: Glad you enjoyed your trip to DC. I am sure that you didn’t run into Obama since it was a long holiday weekend he probably left town to play golf on Thursday. Michelle and the girls were probably off on a shopping trip somewhere.

I know that you would like to excuse Obama from following any rules since you like the rest of the extreme, radical, socialist, left-wingers are brain washed into thinking that anything he wants to do is acceptable. All I can say is that we have these rules in place so we can stop people like him from ruining the country entirely.

Nattering Naybob: You sometimes give me a headache, Red Ranger.