Mandatory HPV Vaccine Programs and Catholic Disapproval

With the advent of the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine, the topic of mandatory vaccines for middle school students has become increasingly controversial. D.C. and Virginia have ratified and implemented HPV vaccination programs that mandate middle school girls to have the first dosage of the vaccine as a requirement for enrollment (website). Many other states, like Vermont and South Carolina, have pending legislation. In a Catholic News Agency article, Bishop Fred Henry of Canada, suggested that a program vaccinating young girls against HPV without providing moral guidance could be confused as condoning premarital sex. He reminds the Health Minister, Ron Liepert, that “ ‘No matter [the vaccine’s] effectiveness, the vaccine is not a substitute for chastity.’ ”

Not surprisingly, in the past Christian leaders have been skeptical of medical procedures for their moral and religious implications. Jerry Falwell in “Listen, America!” spoke out against abortion. Both Bishop Henry and Falwell would agree that these medical procedures could negate religious teachings. However, unlike Bishop Henry’s perspective on the HPV vaccine, Falwell did not seem to think that legislation supporting abortion would result in more premarital sex and pregnancy outside of marriage. So, does Bishop Henry present a valid concern or just an additional hindrance to precautions against the spread of a contagious virus?

The state has a responsibility to maintain public health and this implies providing medical attention to at risk youth. Liepert points out that the program would make the vaccine more affordable and accessible. Additionally, public schools are now teaching sex education in an effort to increase awareness of sexually transmitted diseases and teenage pregnancy. Just as the flu vaccine does not encourage children to not wash their hands, the HPV vaccine probably will not encourage young girls to have premarital sex. But, it will abate the spread of a virus and is therefore very much needed to protect the public. Mario Cuomo, in “One Electorate Under God?” explains that public officials’ must act in the best interest of the community when reconciling legislation with their own religious beliefs. Cuomo writes, “The question for the religious public official, then, is not, Do I have the right to try to make public law match my religious belief? But, Should I try? (14)”

Yet, this issue continues to be the topic of heated debate. Should this program include lessons on the moral issues concerning premarital sex? Should religious beliefs be prioritized over concerns for public health?

What’s next, a black Pope? Some think so…

The election of an African-American President in the US could be leading to more firsts, and not just in the United States, but as far reaching as the Vatican. “The election of Barack Obama as the first African-American US President could pave the way for the election of the first black Pope”, according to Archbishop Wilton Daniel Gregory. Archbishop Gregory of Atlanta believes that the election of Obama will set an example for the Catholic Church that could possibly extend all the way to the Holy See. He also comments on the fact that in recent years, since Pope John XXIII specifically, the Vatican has been bringing in Catholic Priests and Bishops from all across the globe to fill the Curia (Vatican hierarchy) creating a very diverse Holy See. In this way the Vatican has been setting an example for the rest of the Catholic Church to follow in racial acceptance and eliminating racial discrimination. Archbishop Gregory believes that election of an African American President in the United States is a sign that racial discrimination has been eliminated from our great nation. While it is great that we’ve elected a black president, I don’t think it by any means is a sign that racial discrimination has been eliminated. We might be a more tolerant country, and maybe it isn’t African-Americans who are being discriminated against anymore, but there is still racial discrimination in the United States.

Archbishop Gregory thinks that the Catholic Church is likely to follow suit in selecting the next Pope. During the last Conclave after the death of Pope John Paul II, many Cardinals thought that it was a definite possibility that the next Pope would be a Third-World Cardinal, someone from Latin American or Africa. The selection of then Cardinal Ratzinger was seen as selecting someone from the same mold as Pope John Paul II in order to maintain continuity and continue the work of John Paul II in the West to make the Catholic Church strong again. But now that the Catholic Church has been setting an example of racial acceptance for so many years and now the United States has elected an African-American leader it wouldn’t be too far to go to believe that the Catholic Church might be next to elect a Pope from a more diverse background.

What other far reaching affects has the election of an African-American president has on the world? It will be interesting to see in the next few years what impact this historical election has had on different parts of the world.

The article can be found here: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article5097668.ece

Abortion in Oregon

This article reports on a recent incident in Oregon. The Catholic governor of Oregon, Ted Kulongoski, hosted a pro-choice event last week. In response, the Archbishop of Portland, John G. Vlazny, called Kulongoski "a source of embarrassment for our church and a scandal for the Catholic community." The archbishop called upon Catholics in Oregon to contact the governor and let him know how they feel.

This is all quite fine, even considering the fact that the archbishop hosts his own annual pro-life event, as it is all part of the political process and nobody is violating anyone else's rights. However, the archbishop implied quite a bit more. He went on to say such things as:

For a Catholic governor to host an event of this sort seems a deliberate dissent from the teachings of the Church.

...grave evil of abortion continues to be promoted as a legitimate moral choice by Governor Kulongoski...

I call upon our Catholic people to express their displeasure to the governor and to remind him of the demands of personal integrity as a member of our faith community in the exercise of his office and public activities.

These statements, and especially the last one, indicate that the archbishop thinks of the governor's position as one from which to enforce Catholic moral values. He implies that it is the governor's duty to uphold the teachings of the Church and to enforce it upon the people, which is completely at odds with the First Amendment. He even says that the governor's integrity is at stake.

From what the archbishop said, he seems to almost be advocating a theocracy. I think that it's important to view his beliefs in light of relevant pieces of history, especially Jefferson and Madison's views of separation of church and state. The archbishop's views can be compared to those of Patrick Henry, who wrote a bill establishing public pay for teachers of the Christian religion, and to Angelina Grimke, who published Appeal to the Christian Women of the South, which advocated following the orders of God over those of the government. But because of the barriers that our founding fathers erected, Jefferson and Madison in particular, these particular ideas never caught on, and neither will the archbishop's. Such ideas that advocate a religiously-run state will always be considered relatively extreme, even among this predominantly Christian nation, due to the moderating force of the separation of church and state.

(Reading the comments is also kind of interesting. Obviously the site caters to a particular population, but the commenters' ferocity is still astounding to me.)

Reverse Endorsements?

Earlier in the semester Gabriela posted about pastors’ inability to endorse political candidates based on the non-profit status of their church. This led to a string of comments and an interesting discussion in class. It seemed to me like the consensus in our class was that if pastors wanted to formally endorse a candidate in their church, they needed to be ready to give up their tax-exempt status. But what about what I call “reverse endorsements," or pastors and churches that condemn voting for a particular candidate either through word or action. For example, there was an article about Sarah Palin’s former pastor who questioned the salvation of citizens who do not vote for George Bush in 2004. Furthermore, an article from U.S. News and World Report discusses how the Catholic Church frequently denies communion to politicians who are pro-choice, including John Kerry in 2004 and most recently Vice-Presidential candidate Joe Biden. Many have questioned whether the Catholic Church is overstepping its boundaries with these types of decisions and I question how this action is any different than endorsing a specific candidate. By saying you shouldn’t vote for candidate A, aren’t you saying vote for candidate B?

This is not the first time bishops have denied communion to Catholics over a political issue. In the 1960s, Catholics in New Orleans and St. Louis were refused communion because of their rejection of integration in Catholic schools. The bishops of these dioceses at the time tried to work with the dissenters, but to no avail. Because of their support of segregated schools, these people were not allowed to join in full communion with the church.

These scenarios are not exactly the same, mainly because the events in the 60s did not focus on a single political candidate. However, they both demonstrate the Roman Catholic Church influencing politics and the thinking of the members of the church. This is obviously not an isolated event, so I think the government needs to reconsider its policy on only banning churches from actively endorsing political candidates. In no way do I want to completely remove the discussion of politics from the pew, as I think it is essential to be able to share political opinions with those who have a similar core system of beliefs. However, I think churches, especially those with as much power as the Catholic Church, need to be held in check. Attention should not be brought to specific candidates, whether through word or deed.

Jesus is my homeboy; bishops take steps to engage young voters

In political campaigns most would agree the concept of “buying votes” or using bribery (unless you’re counting campaign promises) qualifies as corrupt and unethical practice. Many more would go so far as to attack a candidate’s character and moral fiber, to only further question the limits of their personal motives. Suppose the bribes are made by a third party, totally removed from and unbeknownst to the candidate. Now suppose that party is the American Catholic bishops.

Every four years the bishops offer documents to guide their Church members in their voting decisions. This year’s guide, titled Forming Consciences For Faithful Citizenship, maintains “that the church is against abortion, torture and deliberate attacks on noncombatants in war.” Paraphrasing the bishops, Michelle Boorstein for the Washington Post, delivers the message that “Catholic voters have to weigh a range of intrinsic evils and pick among candidates who never match up exactly with the Catholic Church on everything.”

Religion has been and remains a forefront issue in the election, causing great divide among Catholics. Boorstein will confirm that the conjecture I made earlier – that the American Catholic bishops would use bribery to sway voters – is in fact a reality. To encourage American Catholics to visit their website and read their guide, the bishops decided to giveaway an iPod! In yet a further attempt to reach young Catholic voters, a video version of Forming Consciences and corresponding quiz have been uploaded on YouTube.com. A Facebook page has even been developed!

I cannot help but wonder if, in catering to a teen culture, including its materialistic realm, the bishops are sending the wrong message? The mocking-style of writing taken by Boorstein leads me to believe she is also skeptical. While utilizing technology and trying to make politics less foreign and more conversational are good in theory, the bishops just might be trying too hard.

For whatever reason I cannot seem to shake the image of divorced parents trying to out-do the other, by making bigger and better offerings and/or gestures (bribes!) to win their children over. This is not to say either parent is bad, for their actions are based in good intentions, but any message in the way of guidance is all but lost on the sight of a shiny reward. Surely this is not true of all children, nor will the prize potential cloud all Catholics to the well-meaning advice of their bishops. Nonetheless it is absurd to think of the Catholic Church, particularly the larger institution, not even individual parishes, giving away an iPod!

If young Catholics really are this impressionable, John McCain should stock up on iPods now…

Ave Sarah, Dominus tecum

The American public’s fascination with the intersection of sex, politics and gender has found a new expression during this election with the vice-presidential candidacy of Sarah Palin. In this editorial by Anthony Stevens-Arroyo, he presents the Catholic counterpoint to the Evangelical’s warm acceptance of her candidacy. Stevens-Arroyo warns his readers not to indulge in the canonization of Palin, and contrasts her actions, particularly those involving sex, marriage and children, with the Blessed Virgin Mary, whom he considers to be the true role model for American women. Stevens-Arroyo’s accusations against Sarah Palin indicate that neither debates between Catholics and Protestants, nor disputes concerning sex, gender and women’s roles have changed significantly in over a century.

Stevens-Arroyo brackets his article by contrasting the Evangelical and Catholic viewpoints. He begins by noting that Palin left the Catholic church when she was twelve, and argues that her “conversion” from Catholicism to the evangelical tradition may “contribute to the favorable frenzy” surrounding Palin’s nomination. Contrasting the Catholic “natural law” with the Evangelical emphasis on private revelation, Stevens-Arroyo concludes his article by forwarding the argument that Palin’s religious views are dangerous to the American political system.

His comment that “Evangelicals like to boast of an ex-Catholic who renounces our faith” is a reflection on America’s anti-Romanism which began in the late 1800s. At that time, Josiah Strong, a Congregationalist minister, denounced Catholicism for the “irreconcilable difference between papal principles and the fundamental principles of our free institutions.” Over one hundred years and one beloved Catholic president later, a blatant distrust of Catholics is no longer tolerated in the mainstream media. However, as Stevens-Arroyo points out, many Evangelicals still privately maintain the belief that Catholics are not truly Christians, and therefore warmly welcome those who renounce their allegiance to papal authority. In a reversal of Protestant claims about Catholicism, notably Strong’s comment that “the Pope has ‘full and supreme power’ over politics as one of the ‘things which belong to faith and morals,’ ” Stevens-Arroyo argues that today it is Palin’s uninformed version of Christianity which threatens American government.

Continuing his critique of Palin’s “canonization” by Evangelicals, Stevens-Arroyo notes that Evangelicals seems to place more emphasis on repentance after sexual sin than on continuous purity. Moreover, he argues that “the Evangelical fascination with forbidden sexual fruit” has led to more support for Palin because she is considered attractive. He concludes his critique of the evangelical attitude towards gender and sexuality by pointing to Palin’s decision to give a political speech in Seattle after her water had broken as an indication that she values her own prestige more than the health and safety of her child.

A century ago, Stevens-Arroyo’s critiques would not have been unusual coming from the lips of a Protestant minister. The same themes, including lax sexual morals and permitting women to engage in activities which compromised their families, were fiery issues in Victorian era. Morone notes that throughout American history, “there was hell to pay whenever women ventured from the private sphere into the public (or male) realm.” The only difference between Stevens-Arroyo’s arguments and those made in the Victorian era is that Victorians cited Catholics as part of the immorality problem. Stevens-Arroyo reverses that claim, instead blaming Evangelicals for being too lenient on the moral failings of their beloved saint and denigrating the family by holding Palin up as a model for motherhood.

In addition to the long-standing conflict between Catholic and Protestant traditions, Stevens-Arroyo’s opinion reflects genuine concerns about sexual behavior, women’s roles and gender issues. Although his attitude is not reflected as broadly in mainstream culture today, Stevens-Arroyo draws on a historical undercurrent of American society to forward his arguments against Sarah Palin.

For Ex-G.O.P. Official, Obama Is Candidate of Catholic Values

Whether it be a public figure or common citizen, a vote cast holds equal weight within an election; however, when Douglas W. Kmiec endorsed Obama this past year, he represented a large community of conflicted Catholics struggling to find clarity within the important issues concerning this year's election. Can a devout Catholic vote for a pro-choice candidate without allowing an intrinsic evil to remain legal within the United States? Moreover, while the Church speaks out against single-issue voting, does this election force Catholics to choose a side solely based upon abortion?
Douglas Kmiec does not think so. During a recent interview, Kmiec gives clear and concise answers in defense of his support for Obama. He remains loyal to Catholic doctrine when recognizing abortion as an intrinsic evil and grave threat towards Church teaching, yet speaks adamantly about the misunderstanding of Roe vs. Wade and it's direct ability to change through either presidential candidate. Hypothetically speaking, Kmiec believes that if the case were to be overturned on a supreme level, the issue would fall stateside and, most likely, reap the same pro-choice outcomes. Further, he goes on to support the level of aid Obama promises as the change he would like to see within the pro-life/pro-choice debate, posing the choice: "A Catholic can either continue on the failed and uncertain path of seeking to overturn Roe, which would result in the individual states doing their own thing, not necessarily, or in most states even likely, protective of the unborn. Or Senator Obama’s approach could be followed, whereby prenatal and income support, paid maternity leave and greater access to adoption would be relied upon to reduce the incidence of abortion."
Kmiec proposes an excellent choice for all Catholics to seriously consider when casting their vote this fall. While my vote still remains candidate-less, I cannot help but be bothered by the acceptance of abortion as a powerless issue. I believe abortion is an intrinsic evil that cannot be rationalized or solved with solutions of financial aid or an easier system of adoption; instead, I believe every Catholic should denounce the right to kill innocent life and remain in search of solutions towards this goal. Is it realistic to vote solely based upon one's principles, fully knowing that actual change may never occur; or is it more important to cast your vote, despite it's opposition to your morals, so as to be a dutiful citizen?

Welcome!

Welcome to our blog, and to what three collaborating professors hope will be a stimulating expansion of our campuses this fall.

There is no question that questions of faith, religion, and morality are deeply intertwined with questions of our collective identity and direction in the United States of America. Although some voices have limited the "moral issues" of American politics to questions of abortion and same-sex marriage, that area is rapidly expanding to include such areas as war, immigration, health care, affordable housing, care for creation, fighting racism, sexism, and poverty. The major parties are battling over the Catholic vote, the Evangelical vote, and likely other faith-based demographics as well.

This semester, in the midst of our study of religion or theology and politics, we will have a chance to explore together the intersection of faith and politics in this election. Some of us likely already know for whom we will vote. Others perhaps are unsure or are even contemplating not voting. Regardless, we hope that this blog will give us all an opportunity to come into contact with people and with points of view that we would not necessarily contact on our own campus.