NPR – No Polls Respected
The Washington D.C. City Council passed a bill overwhelmingly that would allow for same-sex marriage in the District.? What remains to be seen is whether or not the Catholic Church is going to live up to her threat, which included giving up the myriad contributions the church makes?regarding charitable work and social services in the city.? The latest word is that they will likely back down from that threat.? However, I can only expect that this is the beginning of a long battle between zealous egalitarians and traditionalists.?
An interesting little tid-bit was brought to my attention thanks to a friend (who stands on the opposing side of the gauntlet from me in this matter) that was provided by NPR.?? ?Michael Crawford, who is the co-Chairperson of D.C. for Marriage (not to be confused with the voice behind the original Phantom), was on NPR defending his point that a majority of minority groups are against same-sex marriage.? Mr. Crawford paints a rosy picture for same-sex marriage advocates, albeit a false one:
I think it’s important because there is a myth that’s being perpetrated that African-Americans, Latinos and other people of color are opposed to LGBT equality and that’s really not the case. What we’re finding here in D.C. – which is roughly 54 percent African-American that – we are finding a lot of support for marriage for same-sex couples here.
I can understand if Mr. Crawford is getting a lot of support from people within the city supporting same-sex marriage.? He doesn’t do a very good job, however, demonstrating why it is wrong to presume that African-Americans and Latinos would not favor a same-sex marriage bill if brought to a popular vote in the district.? The NPR host then gives a quote from Marion Barry (now there’s some good news…) where he reiterates the same belief that a majority of black voters (he says 70-80%) do not support same-sex marriage, to which Mr. Crawford responds:
Well, I think if Marion Barry is going to throw out numbers like that, he needs to provide his polling data. I am African-American and we have actually talked to hundreds of people in Ward 8, which is Marion Barry’s district and we have found strong support there for marriage equality.
Perhaps Mr. Crawford is right, and Marion Barry needs to provide polling data if he is going to throw numbers out there.? My qualm with Mr. Crawford is that he provides absolutely no data of his own to counter any of the opposing side’s points.? If you read the transcript, you can rest assured that Mr. Crawford supplies a decent amount of anecdotal evidence (200 faith-based leaders in support) to support his deep-seeded hopes, but he does a poor job at addressing the facts as they stand.
- “Twenty-nine other states have enshrined voter-approved prohibitions blocking same-sex marriage in their state constitution as a way to keep state judges from overturning the bans.” (Stateline.org)
- A Quinnipiac Poll finds that a majority of blacks support a same-sex marriage ban in New York; more so than the breakdown of?Catholics and Protestants.?
- The only places that have same-sex marriage are the states (and District) where the sovereign were circumnavigated by the state Courts, or Councils (Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont,? New Hampshire and D.C.).?
- Proposition 8 Passed in California, overturning same-sex marriage that was previously allowed, with the help of black support (70%) and over half of the Latino population according to exit polls.
I’d hate to have to do the heavy-lifting on Marion Barry’s behalf, but I understand that the council-member has more important things to do than be up to date with the latest polls, figures and facts that Mr. Crawford seems to be equally unaware of.?
-rj
Pro-Life IS Pro Health Care Reform
A few months ago, I wrote on Townsend?s Newsweek opinion supporting abortion and other non-Catholic beliefs. Now, she?s at it again, this time saying that the American bishops are ignoring health care over what she makes clear are minor concerns over abortion.
I don?t understand pro-choice Catholics. The Church has been against abortion since time unknown, and these Catholics want it to compromise? Why not join the Church in helping the poor, the homeless, orphans, preventing unwanted pregnancies in the first place?and couples with marital problems? By helping the Church do these things, Townsend would take away much of the ?need? for abortions, as poorer, single woman who become ?unintentionally pregnant? tend to have a higher number of abortions than married, affluent women.
Townsend clearly doesn?t understand the Church?s view on abortion, as is made clear when she writes the following:
Why is it that the bishops are more concerned with restricting millions of American women from making health care decisions that are best for them and their families than they are with ensuring that millions of Americans ? women, men, children, immigrants, the poor, the middle class ? get much-needed health insurance?
As a Catholic, I dare say it?s because the Conference of Catholic Bishops has lost its way. For example, in Missouri, the Catholic Conference issued an e-mail alert urging ?those who are opposed to health care reform but are also pro-life? to ?stay focused on the abortion issue and get the Stupak-like amendment adopted in the Senate.?
Really? As Catholics, are we so laser focused on the issue of abortion that we are willing to join tea partiers and the like to bring down the health care reform bill? And at the enormous expense of millions of Americans who suffer every day because they can?t afford to get checkups, because they must choose bankruptcy in order to save the life of their loved one?
There are at least three major flaws with Townsend?s statements above. First, pro-life stances?are pro-healthcare reform. After all, the Church believes abortion is murder, and if health care reform is to be about improving life, health, happiness etc., than the Church?s position is 100% pro-health care reform.
Secondly, note what the Church did and did not do in the Missouri example Townsend uses. First, it asked people against the current health care reform efforts to support getting a pro-life amendment in. Essentially, the Church was asking its more conservative members to support saving the lives of unborn children by helping to?pass health care reform, despite those members? opposition to the latter. Secondly, the Church did not say- again, according to the limited information Townsend provides- that it wanted health care reform to fail. Instead, it specifically said it wanted the amendment included to pass health care reform.
Thirdly, the Church will never support abortion policies within our lifetimes. However, since it is clearly willing to give its substantial endorsement to a Senate bill that includes pro-life policies, perhaps Townsend could open her eyes to this fact and realize that by compromising on abortion, Democrats would already likely have a bill nearing completion in the Senate. As much as I dislike giving advice to Democrats, in this case it seems to be a no-brainer. Pass a pro-life amendment, you likely pass health care reform.
Unfortunately, it seems that Democrats didn?t get the memo. The Nelson/Hatch amendment mirroring the House Stupak amendment was tabled- essentially killed- yesterday. Also unfortunately, AllahPundit thinks Nelson left himself some wiggle room on filibustering a final Senate bill if it does not include the amendment. Let?s hope not, for the sake of millions of helpless unborn children who are currently at risk from this bill. Let?s contact the offices of Senators Nelson, Casey, Conrad, Pryor, Dorgan and Bayh, the six Democrats who voted for the amendment, and make certain they kill any bill that does not get the support of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.
Kathleen Kennedy Townsend Doesn’t Understand The Catholic Church
Several weeks ago, Newsweek included a column by Kathleen Kennedy Townsend about the then-upcoming meeting between President Obama and Pope Benedict XVI that completely and utterly misrepresents the Catholic Church. As a born-and-raised Catholic, I was amazed at both her lack of knowledge about the Church and her misunderstanding of the role of the Church in guiding its flock. In reflecting on Ms. Townsend’s opinion, I remembered a column by Kathleen Parker published in the New Hampshire Union Leader last year, when Pope Benedict XVI visited America. In it, she said, “Even for non-Catholics like me, there’s something comforting about a stubborn Pope in a world of moral relativity. Like a strong father, he ignores his children’s pleas for leniency, knowing that his rules, though tough, serve a higher purpose.” It seems, however, that Townsend believes the Pope should modify his teachings: “Here Obama (the community organizer from Chicago) could teach the pope a lot about politics?and what a Catholic approach to politics could entail,” and she cites numerous polls indicating a majority of American Catholics disagree with critical Vatican teachings on abortion, stem-cell research and gay marriage (among others).
What Townsend seems to forget is that the Church is not a political party or other entity that should move to the sway of politics. It is a church, where the teachings of Scripture and Tradition rule supreme. As my brother, who recently applied to the seminary to begin training to be a priest, put it, “By American political standards, the Catholic Church’s teachings have always been liberal on economic issues and conservative on social issues, because of the complexities of Catholic thought.” As stated here, the extraordinarily influential Pope John Paul II- given much credit for bringing down the Soviet Union- was more complex than the “conservative” label often attached to him in America. He opposed many aspects of laissez-faire capitalism and supported the rights of Palestinian refugees yet was opposed to abortion, gay marriage, etc. Furthermore, as Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne wrote last week about Pope Benedict’s economic encyclical (seen here), “No one will accuse Benedict of being fashionable, which is why his views run crosswise to important currents in both American conservatism and American liberalism.” Again, the Pope and the Catholic Church do not shift with the political winds of American Catholics.
In another part of the column, Townsend attacks the Church for hypocrisy: “Despite the rhetoric of love and truth, the Vatican shows disdain (if not disgust) toward gays.” Clearly, she has not read the 2006 Catholic document that states homosexual tendencies are not sinful; only acting on them through lust is, both mentally and physically. Similarly, unmarried heterosexuals are not inherently sinful (though, in the interest of full disclosure, Catholic doctrine DOES teach that a homosexual is spiritually wounded), and all are deserving of the Church’s and God’s love. After all, there are many different challenges faced by all human beings in order to receive God?s grace. Townsend’s attacks on the Church for alleged sexism (the anti-contraceptive encyclical Humanae Vitae is her pincushion of choice) also fall flat, because while the Church teaches that only men may be priests, bishops etc., it also teaches there is a unity between the sexes greater than that which is seen on the human level. Two simpler examples disproving the sexism charge are the fact that Christ’s mother Mary is the Mother of the Church, and the Church has honored three women with the rarely-granted title of Doctor of the Church.
Lastly, following in the tradition of moral relativists everywhere, Townsend goes after the Church for its alleged inability to look at evidence regarding contraceptives, particularly with regard to condoms and prevention of HIV/AIDS. The Church is against contraceptives for many reasons- to attack the Church on this topic so generally and with such vitriol is to ignore the complexity and depth of the Church’s theology and practicality on this teaching. Secondly, those who practice Natural Family Planning as supported by the Church have a 5% divorce rate, as opposed to the slightly-under 50% average in the nation, so perhaps the Church isn’t as bigoted, closed-minded and Middle Aged as Townsend implies.
The main message in Townsend’s piece is that the Church is being left behind by her flock as American Catholics move to a more modern, enlightened stage of societal and cultural development; however, there are two flaws in her argument. The first is that weekly attendees of church tend towards more Vatican-supported stances on abortion, stem cell research, gay marriage etc., so for Townsend to say “American Catholics believe XYZ” is accurate but misleading, since non-attending Catholics (between 35% and 41% of self-proclaimed Catholics, as seen here and here) tend to not follow Catholic doctrine (such as weekly attendance of Mass). Secondly, in America we sometimes view the Church as “behind the times,” and in some ways it is (particularly technologically, which Pope Benedict acknowledged recently), but the larger issue is that American Catholics have abandoned many of the Church’s teachings, becoming so-called “Cafeteria Catholics,” seeing doctrine as a buffet which they can pick and choose according to their own tastes. In short, the Church is not abandoning American Catholics. Instead, American Catholics are abandoning the Church. Townsend clearly does not understand this, nor does she understand the basic precepts of religion, which is to hold fast to the teachings of a power higher than that which can be found on Earth.
- dustin
