Matthews Interview of Bishop Tobin Exposes Need To Keep Religion Out of Politics
11/24/09-by Bridgette P. LaVictoire
Chris Matthews is never an easy person to be interviewed by. Having watched his show off and on for the last several years, I can tell people that, no matter how strongly the interviewed wants to prevaricate with regards to a given subject, when Matthews asks a question it had better be answered or the interview will go no further. It is a tough lesson for Bishop Tobin to learn. No matter how exalted one’s rank, Matthews will not take the standard rehashed answer. Unfortunately for Bishop Tobin, he made the mistake of trying to evade and ignore the questions posed by Matthews, and in so doing, only further emboldened the television host.
Matthews is Irish American and Catholic. He is also angry, at least from the tone of his voice in the interview, with the Roman Catholic Church interfering with the secular law of the United States. He is not alone. Many Catholics and non-Catholics are tired of seeing a religious institution demand that other people not of their faith follow their religious beliefs, and the Catholic Bishops are furious that people are questioning them on their involvement in American secular law.
There is a feeling that, if they cannot stand the heat, they should get out of politics, only the politico who said that was far from being polite about his sentiments.
In Latin America, there is a nation which decided to follow the edict of the Pope regarding abortion. All abortions are illegal in that nation now, and the maternal mortality rate has quadrupled, last I knew. No matter what the state of the law is, women will find a way to have an abortion for a variety of reasons. If a woman feels that there is an alternative to having an abortion, she will. The problem is when there is no safety net, and no easy way of giving a baby up for adoption. If there is no prenatal care for mother and child, and there is no help for disabled children or a place other than an orphanage to place a child whose parents cannot take care of it, then women will seek to terminate the pregnancy. In short, if the woman believes that the choice is between giving up a child to a life of torment and suffering or terminating the pregnancy, then they will choose to terminate. It is never a light or simple decision for any mother, and it is something that will always haunt them for the rest of their life.
The only way to really reduce the rate of abortions in the United States and elsewhere is to empower women in their own lives. It is to make sure that women have the means to prevent pregnancies when it is impossible for them to take care of them. it is to make sure that a woman is cared for throughout her pregnancy. It is to make it so that giving up a child for adoption is not stigmatized as it is in our society right now. It is to make sure that adoptions are fair, legal, and likely to place a child in a loving home. It is to give women the ability to take care of the children they have and the children that they will have in the future.
In short, making women equal to men will help to make abortion unnecessary. Making abortion illegal will not stop it. After a while, as Mr. Matthews suggested, it becomes necessary to go beyond simply making it illegal into making it criminal with criminal penalties for the woman who has an abortion. Will they institute the death penalty? Matthews suggested that Bishop Tobin knows that any suggestion about enforcing this via legal sanction would result in people being more upset with Tobin’s position than they are already.
The problem is that people like Bishop Tobin are unwilling to push it that far, and worse. They are unwilling to actually take the steps necessary to make sure women are empowered and capable of making sure that unwanted pregnancies do not happen in the first place. While telling women they should not abort a pregnancy, but rather give the child up for adoption after birth, they push to restrict adoption to only the approved families that follow their moral and spiritual guidelines.
Solving the problems that create abortions will reduce them. It will make them less needed.
If this is truly about the sanctity of life, then the Catholic Bishops must be out there demanding an end to the sale of all weapons since those facilitate murder. They must be out there demanding safe driving conditions since those result in deaths every year. They must demand that Pfizer be punished for selling medication for ailments that those drugs do not treat. That particular one has killed people. They must demand the shuttering of every business which belches out toxic clouds to poison the populous. They must excommunicate any Catholic dictator who murders to hold onto power no matter what their stance on the Church is.
It is hypocritical for the Roman Catholic Church to stand there and demand that one and only one medical procedure be banned on the rationale that life is sacred when there are so many other issues out there which are, frankly, also destroying not only people’s lives but their health.
The Stupak-Pitts Amendment was a fool’s bargain. It was a bargain with the Devil. The Catholic Church will not endorse healthcare reform. They will say a few nice words, but that is it. They will continue to harangue and even drive out any politician who dares to follow the will of his constituents not the will of the Pope in Rome.
Two hundred and more years ago, Catholics were barred from holding office in the American Colonies. Catholics were not allowed to get married in their own churches, and were barred from many civil rights that the United States granted them. There were places where they could not even vote. The Bishops spit upon the memory of my ancestors who fought for this war so that they could practice their Catholic faith unhindered and unfettered by the laws of Britain. My ancestors fought to give this nation freedom of and from religion. By putting their noses into our political system, not only do the Bishops trample the memory of those French Catholics who came to America for freedom, but upon the Irish Americans who sought a free nation to practice their Catholic faith. They trample upon the Scots who were forced from their homes. They defile the memory of John F. Kennedy who stands as the only Catholic to become President, and who made it clear that no President would bend knee to the Pope over the Constitution.
And worse, they spit upon the memory of John Paul II who demanded the withdraw from politics of all Catholic clergy and who never harangued a Catholic politician for his political stances.
In Maine, the Catholic Church spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to enshrine their religious beliefs in the secular law. That is money that could have gone to helping prevent abortions by helping women live better lives so that they would not need to have an abortion.
In the end, this is not simply a battle about abortion, but a battle to keep religion out of our political system.
This is the interview.
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
As a personal note- I believe in keeping an absolute barrier between religious beliefs and secular politics. It is a very slippery two way street that would end up not only with religious law being put into secular law, but with the government eventually telling churches what to do. My personal beliefs on abortion are simple- keep abortion legal, safe, and fix the problems so that it is rare.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_c.png?x-id=7757797d-c109-4af3-800c-1f19e0478f20)
Loading ...
Thank you for a level headed, informative and thought provoking article Bridgette. It is easy sometimes for emotions to overpower reason in these debates. It is important to remember that we have had the degree of religious and legal freedom that we currently enjoy in this country for a very brief moment in history. It is not something that sustains itself without being nourished by everyone in this country. A little bacteria can take over an entire animal or plant and devour it in a relatively short period of time. I’m not into spreading fear and conspiracy yarns to make this point. It really is a matter of logic and reason and we must remain unmoved by superstition or faith or whatever you want to call it. Being good(whatever that means) does not insure our well being or our freedom. Nothing wrong with myth and cultural traditions until it gets used to control peoples minds. Some will continue to sugarcoat their religious agendas and pass it off as truth and Godliness or the likes. In this country we still give no allowance to these ideas being considered in the making and implementation of law.
David Guy,
Thank you for the compliment. While I do not condemn a person’s religion, i do feel that it should be kept out of the secular realm. I feel that we should also solve the problems that are causing issues rather than acting as if they are not the problem.
The Catholic Church (and other churches) need to stop trying to use the government to impose their religious beliefs on the rest of us. If they are against abortions, they should not have one. But they have no right to stop everyone else from making their own decision on the issue. We don’t need religious tyranny in the US and with the Catholic Church forcing its beliefs down everyone’s throats, that’s the slippery slope were sliding down right now. What’s next, death to anyone who isn’t a Catholic?
Hello Michael,
You comment about “no right to stop everyone else from making their own decision” leaves me wondering who is to speak for the baby that is going to die as a result of the abortion. Considering that the woman is going to experience something natural that will effect her physically for less than one year, compared to the baby’s entire life and existance being wiped out, results in only one conclusion. That abortion is the ultimate in selfishness. How anyone can justify killing babies for any reason is beyond me.
So the president of ACORN, NARAL, NOW, HEMLOCK Society (i’m sorry the compassionate death squad society), MANBOYLOVE, HOLLYWOOD, PETA, AFLCIO whoever ALL can state their views and vote but those who belong to a religion? Give me a break, buddy! If you call this reasoned debate, you can’t see your big fat head blocking your view of the rest of the world, like the baby you are going to kill by crumpling or dismemberment to save them pain. You are interested in your own comfort. Why don’t you kill yourself to save yourself the pain?
Hello… Feeling a little picked on there are ya?
no one said you could not vote and you are certifiably… er I mean… certainly are having your say here … read the article and watch the vid again… only this time… pay attention
Hello?
Please have an actual discussion. No one is saying that the Bishops cannot vote their conscience or tell their congregations what is and is not moral. What we are saying is that they should stop trying to blackmail politicians into doing their bidding.
Hello Sei,
Just what did I reveal to you? That I care deeply about all human life. That I have the courage to face the pain that is so very real in this world, and not be a coward and try to hide from it, or a fool who pretends that it is not there.
Twice now you have left our discussions. What am I to make of that? Perhaps that you are unable to defend your position, even when the debate is confined to your narrow terms and conditions? Perhaps you have a tough time admitting defeat.
I suppose that I should take your unwillingness to continue the abortion debate as in indication that you have admitted defeat. I am now even more confident of the correctness of my position and shall now take it to other places.
One final word. “You should put up with little children, for these are of the Kingdom of Heaven”.
Hello Sei
I find it very interesting how when you decide to not debate any further (presumably because you are loosing) that my postings are than blocked. Frankly this sticks of cencorship! If someone were to do this to you, undoubtedly you would be very upset and complaining about your rites being violated. But obviously you have no problem with doing this to those with whom you disagree. But I am not surprised. I have seem many so called “liberal” web sites that do the same thing. Freedom of Speach, but only if I say what you want others to hear.
AMP,
This is a private site, and I have every right to pull what you post. Newspapers do that all the time. As for the debate, I might point out that yesterday I had a very nice conversation with Father Clifford Stanley. It was both informative and interesting.
I have defended my positions, I might add. You have ignored them. While there may be far more for me to learn from a discussion with Father Stanley, I do not feel that a discussion with you will result in anything more to be gained as I do not see common ground with you.
Incidentally, sir, censorship applies only to governments, it does not apply to private organizations. The CBC is not required to post everything that is submitted to them, and is often forced to remove what is not acceptable. I do not do so lightly, I should point out.
As for what I have learned about you, it is why I am ending this conversation. I have learned enough to know that further talks with you are futile. You want me to take up your position and nothing more. Trying to cry about censorship again will result in me ensuring you never get your voice heard here again. Unless there is room for you to accept alternatives to your dogmatic beliefs, then there is nothing to debate.
wake up AMP… it is you people don’t want to see on their porches… and I just got…excommenticaed on a Catholic News Site … for expressing views they did not like….
it is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish – mother teresa
“Almighty God hath created the mind free; all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments of burdens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, who being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in His almighty power to do.” Thomas Jefferson,
Those who are willing to turn their backs upon the suffering of others suffer themselves from a paucity of soul, and an equal paucity of faith.
Interesting. I guess you chose to exclude my reply. That is effectively your admittance of failure in your rational for support of abortion.
You can run from truth, but you cannot hide. I imagine you will not post this comment either.
Lepanto,
I deleted your previous posts because I do not wish to get into this debate today, and will not have time over the next several days by which to have this debate. It was painfully obvious from what you wrote that my article was something you bypassed in order to jump in on the comments. It was also clear that, unless I take up YOUR position on this issue, that this was going to be another useless “debate” on abortion. You have no interest in hearing that your own positions have problems.
Please, do not bother replying to what I write in this comment. I have no time to debate you today, and I can tell already what kind of debate it would be, so it is pointless.
Lepanto, this is a private site, and I have every right to determine what can and cannot be posted. I also have the right to put it this way- you want to debate me and I do not have time right now to debate you. If this angers you, sir, fine, but continue to comment upon that and I will remove your posting privileges.
I would also like to point out that, despite our readership, our commenting public tends to be very small, and mostly limited to me, Lepanto.
I think Chris’ interview of Bishop Tobin was his finest work ever. I think if Chris continuous to protect our secular America, he will become a legitimate and trusted figure in the media.
AMP,
What about the suffering of an infant who is born with their brain outside their body? What about the suffering of an infant with the rest of their internal organs hanging out? There are hundreds, if not thousands, of birth defects which result in infants being unable to live beyond a day or a week. Often times, abortions are performed to spare the mental health of the mother.
To be honest, AMP, you have never been in this situation. You have never- and will never- be in a situation where you have to make this choice and you lack the empathy to understand what it is that another feels. You spout dogma rather than thought when it comes to this. All but the most sociopathic of women will simply abort a feotus without thought, care, or pain. Often times they do it because they feel that any other solution will result in greater suffering. It is that suffering that you and those like you ignore. It is the mothers who give birth to children who, if they survive a day, live their short lives as little more than a lump of cells. It is mothers looking at the life they have and the world around them and feel that any child brought into that life’s circumstance will know nothing but suffering, pain, drugs, violence, and death at an early age. It is often a selfless act rather than a selfish act. It is often done by women who know that they are doing something painful, but they know, once they make that decision, that it is to save that potential child a life of suffering.
If we alleviate that suffering. If we mitigate or even remove the social ills that make abortion an option, then we can make it so that women will not feel the need to have an abortion.
Stop the suffering as a whole.
As a male, AMP, or at least I presume you are, you will never be in this situation. Having help and having a safety net often means a woman will not have an abortion. It is time that we start building that safety net and helping to make abortion something that only happens in absolute medical emergencies.
For once, learn to understand what it is like to be someone else for a while.
Hello Sei,
You list some horrific scenarios, and assume that I have never been in any of them. That is a rather big assumption. For the record my wife and I lost our first child in what the doctor called a “missed miss-carriage”. My wife had to have the dead fetus removed from her womb. When our first daughter was 2 years old she was diagnosed with aplastic anemia, and we were told that with everything that science could do that there was still a one in five chance that she would die. Friends of ours lost their first child due to a diaphramic hernia. The child was born and lived only a week while being hooked up to machines. It within minutes of being unhooked. I think it’s safe to say that I’ve seen some pain.
Your accusation that I am spouting dogma is inaccurate, as my previous post made no mention at all of religion. If you want to have a debate about abortion with religion left out, than bring it on.
In our society we value every human life so much that in Canada (and most of the States) the death penalty has been abolished.
The law as it is currently worded has life not legally beginning until the birthing. But what if the law is wrong. What if life begins sooner. There are many other possible times, such as conception, the first heart beat, the first drop of the fetus’ own blood, the first occurance of brain activity. If any of these moments in time are truly when life begins than abortion at or after such point in time is murder.
The fetus does not have the same dna as either of its parents (nor anyone else except for an identical twin). It is the only thing within a woman’s body that has the potential to be seperated from the mother’s body and continue to live.
Need I go on?
You would allow taxpayer paid, on demand abortion for all women. Why? Because of the examples that you list. Examples that happen infrequently. Even with the pain and suffering that is experienced by BOTH parents (and I seen my share) in such instances as child mortality, that simply does not compare to taking away someone’s entire life.
AMP,
My instincts were right about you. Thank you for proving me correct. You finally revealed what I needed to know about you.
The thing is, I am walking away from this discussion now. I will not say what is on my mind, nor am I going to respond to anything else you write. I long ago set boundaries for myself when it came to discussions like this one. It has come to that point where I either walk away or break my word to myself.
There are many things left I could say to you, but they will go unsaid. Good bye AMP. All that would be left now is a circular argument that would get us nowhere as each of us tried to out do each others pain. I hold much of my own pain in reserve. I do not discuss it except with those I trust. You are not among those.
For the record, Lepanto’s comments from earlier were:
“Bridgette, I applaud your ability to form an eloquent argument; however, it is a non sequitur. What tells you that a woman has a right to decide whether a child should be born or not? Does she possess the wisdom to look into the future life of that child and assess the totality of the joy, love, productivity, accomplishments, and aggregate value of that life to the community and world? Additionally, your point about the Catholic Church “interfering” with secular law is irrational. Kennedy claims to be Catholic, and Bishop Tobin reminded him of what that really means. That’s all. By the way, you need to look into history a bit more. Western civilization and much of its social foundational systems, including our hospitals, universities, architecture, contribution to the arts; things that we take for granted, simply would not exist if it were not for the Catholic church and its contribution to western society in the past two thousand years. That is an historical fact, however much you would like it not to be so.”
As a matter of record, I am an historian with a far deeper grasp of the history of the Catholic Church than just that they had pretty architecture. That history is of both the good and the bad of the Catholic Church without turning a blind eye to events such as the massacre of the Cathars, and the support of the destruction of the native tribes in Latin America.
“Explain this to me: why do we value a sea turtle egg more than a human fetus? If you can provide a logical, socratic and sound answer to that question. I will change my views on the value and sanctity of human life at conception.
Finally, I can prove through reason and logic alone why “the right to choose” is simply wrong. I can do this in three sentences. I challenge you to counter my position in as many sentences as you like.
1. The liberal view holds that a woman should have the “right to choose.” We know that it requires a man and a woman to conceive a child. Yet the man has no say. I find this interesting. However, putting that issue aside for the sake of this discussion, the liberal position believes that the woman has the right to choose the greater good for herself and the unborn child in her womb.
2. So, now the woman must assess the greater good. How does she do that? She is not deciding for just herself, she is deciding for her child as well and for society at large. The fetus is a human being, but that is really not the point here. For whether you accept that a fetus is a human being or not, you cannot deny that it is a life that will grow into a human baby. So by terminating it, you terminate that progression and the living life.
3. So back to the question at hand: how can a singular person, even a mother, look into the future potential for an unborn child and consider all the good that that life may bring to the world. The love he or she deserves to have a chance to have, just like the mother enjoyed; the productivity, the right to live at all. How can a woman make that decision? How can she choose the greater good when she cannot know the answers to that all important question? it is pure arrogance to think she can. Hear endeth the lesson.”
If Mr. Lepanto had actually read what I wrote instead of bypassing it to focus upon a comment exchange, he would know that I am supporting legalized abortion for reasons other than what he wishes to portray. I do not see it in the stark terms he does, and feel that it is important to fix what is wrong in society. I see abortion rates as a symptom of deeper problems and not the problem itself.
I would like to let Lepanto know that unlike most Catholic websites we have recently tried to post dissenting comments to about this same topic… we do not generally remove or edit comments….
We did however have a technical glitch and had to reconstruct your comment as best we could from our notification e mails.
NOW… to answer you…. those were all very good questions for a woman to ask themselves, their doctors, their minsters and what ever god they may… or may not have… before the choosing whether or not to have an abortion…. but in the end the laws of this land say it is her right to be able to have those deliberations… and that choice.
Catholic doctrine maintains that men have the inherent right and responsibility to lead, while women are meant to be in submission to male leadership in the church and family in both their body and soul, but other religions may not hold those views… so whether you or the catholic church think a womens right to choose is right or wrong is immaterial beyond the doors of the church.