Please Excommunicate Me!

Seriously, what does it take to get excommunicated from the Catholic Church these days? Is it enough, as an organization officially aligned with the Church, to be "silent on the right to life from conception to natural death, a question that is part of the lively public debate about abortion and euthanasia in the United States..."? How about if such an organization were "using materials that 'do not promote church teaching' on family life and sexuality, for sometimes taking positions in opposition to the nation's bishops"? I am quoting here from Eyder Peralta's summary on NPR, which in turn refers to reporting by the Associated Press. They are telling the story of the Vatican's reprimand of an American group called the Leadership Conference of Women Religious, which represents most of the women under Catholic vows in the United States. The Vatican wrote eight pages in a review of the practices of the organization, and has set an archbishop to oversee a five-year reform. How about just re-assigning them to convents, and keeping a watch over the particularly radical feminists among them? A little bread and water couldn't hurt, as well. Is that too old-school, or doesn't the Vatican wield absolute power over the Catholic Church anymore?
And then, after the Vatican published its eight-page report, Sister Simone Campbell, executive director of a Catholic social justice lobbying group, stated publicly, "When you don't work everyday with people who live at the margins of our society, it's so much easier to make easy statements about who's right and who's wrong. Life is way more complicated in our society and it's probably way easier to be 8,000 miles away in Rome." She believes that "leadership doesn't know how to deal with strong women and so their way is to try and shape us into whatever they think we should be (sic)."
Is this the new, twenty-first-century, politically-correct Church? Why aren't these women excommunicated already!? Or at the very least, why aren't they released from their vows, and set free to make their own ways in the world, espousing gay rights, health-plan-provided birth control, and radical feminism to their hearts' contents? Frankly, I'm disappointed in the Church. Isn't the point of a hierarchical structure the clarity of policy it provides? How could these women have been confused about the Church's stand on social issues?
Campbell's further statement that the Vatican is used to a monarchy and that American nuns are living in a democracy brought to mind a wonderful irony. Henry VIII of England broke with Rome five hundred years ago, and ever since then, England has looked askance at Catholics, and feared that they were ruled not by their lawful monarchs, but by the pope in Rome. They believed that people would place their loyalty to religion above patriotism. Now these women religious are placing their nationalistic feelings before their sworn vows to Rome. It seems the Anglicans were wrong, and people are more faithful to their national spirit.
In my opinion, the Vatican, 8,000 miles away, can't hold the Catholics in America anymore. Benedict's Church and the church of many Catholic Americans who espouse a far more liberal and less doctrinal approach are miles apart, and this schism, as schism it has become, should be officially acknowledged in a peaceful separation of the two groups. How does 'American Catholic Church' sound?

So Long Baby Boy

Rick 'Baby Boy' Santorum is unremarkable in many ways, but he is Mitt Romney's chief rival for the GOP nomination and he does give you that creepy feeling that maybe, just maybe, some evil Balrog is stirring deep in the bowels of the earth.

Main exhibit: His remarks on JFK's classic speech on the separation of church and state. In a speech five months ago he blasted Kennedy:

Earlier in my political career, I had the opportunity to read the speech, and I almost threw up.

In the heat of the nomination battle, after is triple win in Colorado, Minnesota and Missouri in February, he doubled down:

To say that people of faith have no role in the public square? You bet that makes you throw up. What kind of country do we live that says only people of non-faith can come into the public square and make their case? That makes me throw up.

Should we be worried that Jefferson's wall of separation is crumbling? I think not. In spite of this regressive strain, Americans are publicly more comfortable in their religious or non-religious skins than they once were. So rather than parsing his arguments, I would rather note the ironies of the situation. It is after all, the same politician who led the attack on President Obama's HHS rule on contraception crying for "religious liberty". But JFK's speech broke new ground for the liberty of Catholics and people of other faiths to pursue political office. The ironies don't end there.

Santorum is Catholic. But the vast majority of Catholic voters do not like him (he lost the Catholic vote in Illinois to Mitt Romney by 23 points). He stands instead on the same ground as the Catholic clergy, but is seen as more "severe" than them. Speaking of which, he does in fact have close ties with Opus Dei, the Catholic sect that trains ascetic albino assassins.

Instead Santorum courts born-again Christian conservatives, many of whom share his view that religion should play a larger role in determining public policy. How many? Apparently not enough to win a nomination.

In the closer coordination of church and state, the presumption is that the church would prevail. Moreover the "right" church (or beliefs) would prevail. Certainly, Islam would not be included as part of this righteous church. Indeed, their view is that Islam is a thinly tolerated scourge. It is also assumed that non-religious and anti-religious people would not push religion to the margins as in parts of Europe (eg, laïcité).

So why do I call Rick Santorum my 'Baby Boy'? I am not really sure actually. But perhaps it is to indulge in a further irony with this term of endearment.