religio3
Thu 03/08/07
...
trouble is that augustine takes his story and says its our story too.. his area of sinfullness and weakness, is also going to be true for us.
becomes the primary shaper of the tradition -- reason is that he was a powerful writing -- a compelling writer.
nobody influenced the teaching on sexuality more than augustine.
trouble is that sexuality here is not seen so much as gift or grace, but see as less gift and more threat. augustine finally concludes that the only way he can live a healthy sexual life is through celibacy .. that's his story, but he incorporates it into the christian story.
why didn't he marry the woman?
doesn't say..
sees himself as completely trapped in sin. essentially the big struggle for him -- he was really searching for love, but he misunderstood it -- so often for him love got translated as lust -- it was really a kind of slavery -- dragging around a ball and chain.
this is him looking back 10 years later. really, he was a conflicted person "as if i have two wills at war in me." and righh before his conversion, almost has a nervous breakdown .. he's stiing in a garden and he just breaks down and starts to sob -- driving himself crazy.
two women in his life -- monica is from God -- her prayer has recued him . so as he tells his story of conversion , monica is writ large .. the other woman is almost invisible.
she has to be worth more to him than he is saying -- not confident about it.
but he needs people -- so when he decides not to marry , he needs a community of friends.
is augustine as resolved on this question as he says he is?
why do we adopt his story and apply it to everyone?
augustine didn't really want it to ..
does tell the story in a way where he implies that part of it is our story too . but he becomes such a cournerstone of christian tradition.
held sway until vatican II.
so augustine takes his story and links it up with the christian story.
theologizes on it.
says that in paradise .. before adam and eve fell -- if they had sex in paradise .. maybe they did have sex in paradise, but if they did so, it was a completely rational act .. it wasn't prompted by passion, feeling, or desire .. it was an act of reason and will. completely under their control.
getting that from plato -- adopts the philosophy that the highest part of us in our reason, minds.
a kind of dualism here -- the lower part of our humanity has to do with our passions, desires.
no shock that he's going to say this -- that's what got the best of him .. passions and desire
so that's why eh'll say that in paradise, if there was any sex, it was completely an act of reason.
but then you've got the fall.
does not say that the orignal sin was sex; it was pride.
but where do we most vividly see the consequences of their sin .. for augustine .. its that after the fall, human beings can no longer live by reason and will alone.
after the fall ..
sometimes our passions and desires rebell against our reason, lead us to live in ways contrary to reason.
nowhere is this stronger, augustine says, than in sexuality.
sexuality then becomes a sign of our fallenness.
[(2) fall ]
(3) original sin .. there's a way in which we inherit the effects of the fall.
for him , original sin is passed down through conception.
very different view of sexuality than what we saw in the bible -- augustine is going to be much more lery of it.
fox 22 - while catholics view ....
this sets up a problem about marriage.
on the one had augustine is never going to say that marriage is not good
he'll consistantly affirm the good of marriage
at the same time, its going to be alesser good because at the heart of marriage you have sexual intercorse . and augustine is connecting that with sin.
if marriage is good but at the heart there is something that is not good , you have to find a way to redeem it. -- give it a good purpose. so for augustine the only purpose of sex is procreation.
.. so sex in marriage for any other reason is going to be immoral .. its not enough to be married to make sexual relationships between men and women acceptable.
even goes so far as to say .. if its for procreation but there's still a lot of passion, then its still slightly sinful.
page 23 - five lines down
- - - - - - - -
we can put off changes in our life because we fear the changes . . . we fear happiness.
conversion culminates when he heads the adivce of the child. rings true in our own lives -- sometimes the biggest changes can happen in our own lifes .. we finally have a breakthrough .
feeling of deliverance -- finally unburdened and can find a new life.
paul said "if christ is coming, then what's the point of getting married" .. but he though that christ would come in his lifetime.
acquinas
- - - -
[wadell loves acquinas]
fantastically brilliant.
amazing thinker, writer
greatest work: summa theologiae
summa -- written for into to theology .. supposed to be a beginner book
based on the idea that we who come from god have to return to god. the summa is his answer to what does all thht mean.
its a series of questions. written as a kind of ongoing dialogue / argument.
he would ask a question and as he tried to figre out his answer to it, he would
(1) consult the opinions of the questions
(2) respond -- this is what i think
but didn't see the summa to be the end of the conversation -- wrote it in a way that the reader is drawn into this and becomes part of this ongoing dialogue.
after classes were over, he would dictate.
december 6, 1273 ..
thomas didn't start working on the summa -- reginald , his best scribe, tries to encourage him ..
thomas comes back with a satement " ive see something that indicates that all i've done is straw"
people aren't sure exactly what happened.
coulddhave been a physical experience (stroke?) or spiritual experience
from that day on , he didn't write any more
dies a few months later in march of '74
goes beyond augustine when he deals with the desires and the passions
says they are morally significant.
says they are part of being human .. for him, our whole life story can be read through the passions.
six basic desires.
(1) love - desire something, you want it -- sets things in motion -- want to be united to it .. if yits chocalate , you want to eat it.
-- love ultimately culminates in joy
(2) hatred (opposite of love) - want to move away from it -- aversion .. if i can't avoid it, i'm not going to feel joy ; only sorrow.
learning to love what -- will ulitmately lead us to joy.
but also having a certain hatred -- hate evil
love good.
wrote about depression -- thought it was morally seriously -- it causes us to stop moving.
where acquinas enters into sexuality -- small part called "natural law"
.. but always pegged as a natural law theologian.
natural law -- base morality in our human nature.
.. something is going to be right if its in harmony with who we are.
something is going to be wrong/ evil if it is contrary to nature.
contra naturam - something is wrong if it conflicts with our nature.
natural law ...
basic fundamental human inclinations -- and in order to live a (fullfilled?) life , we gotta take these inclinations seriously.
(1) appetite to self- preservation -- we want to be alive .. we want to stay in existance.
(2) preservation of species ..
taking our biology seriously .. making a connection between what we say morally and who we are biologically.
(3) these first two we share with other species .. beyound this -- we're also political, social. .. ie, we live in communities.
(4) beyond that -- we have a fundamental need to seek the truth
so what natural naw does is build a morality off of these basic human inclinations.
you don't live a good human life by denying these things.
the trouble with all this..
natural law says - a good life is a life lived according t nature -- but how do you understand nature -- more than one understanding of it.
acquinas is most original in his answer to that.
order of reason approach -- human beings are made in such a way that we can use our reason, our intelligence to discover what's good for us.
we can discover what is it thht's truly human.
natural laww is human beings thinking together about what's a good way to live.
so for thomas the good is determined by "right reason."
what is a "good life for humans" .. what's the healthiest way for us to live?
- human beings are by nature communal .. need community
- respect for others; else community is not possible
justice .. key moral virtue.
â–¶ basic human needs - food, shelter,
â–¶ sleep, rest
human beings cannot be captivated by only one thing -- we have other needs.
â–¶ need a sense of purpose, -- the ultimate end -- what really are you living for? what explains you to yourself?
second set of emotions for acquinas:
the "spirited emotions"
- courage, hope,
fear - if fer gets control of you , then you're paralysed by that.
opposite of hope -- extrememe _sorrow_
- anger - final emotion -- for him anger terminates in joy.
does not see anger negatively -- it grows out of our love - rows out of something bad happening to our loves "say something bad about my wife and i'll get angry"
anger has to be a part of a life of virtue; not complacent.
at the same time, anger is a transitional emotion -- anger should move us to action.
but ultimately, anger is completed with joy -- "i have no reason to be angry any more"
good life for humans ...
another one, - money
tuesday -- 2nd way of looking at natural law.
thinks of the natural law in two different ways -- if he had connected his reflections on sexuality to the first model, it would have been a very different picture.
-------
Tue 03/13/07
natural law
reason - human beings able to think about what's good for us
for sexuality -- used a 2nd model of natural law --- based on a 13th century view of biology
- what do we have in common with animal nature?
- our physical, biological nature.
so in the 1st model, what was good is what's reasonable -- moral is what's reasonable for human beings.
2nd model - moral = a certain view of the biological
- the moral purpose of sexual intercourse is procreation
concldes that because he's working off the idea that procreation is biologically prossible
identifying the biological possibility with the moral.
acquinas admits that there's other dimensions to sexual intercourse in marriage
there's other meanings ... primary meaning is procreation; but the secondary meaning is to express live -- affection
to be a means of intimacy , union .. at least opening up to something that augustine was very suspicious about.
these are important human meanings, but they're secondary. the primary end -- the moral end -- is procreation .. acquinas isn't dismissing the human aspects, but is saying that they're secondary
you get this heirarchical understanding
- primary end; truly natural end -- procreation
- secondary ends - can never replace the primary
is saying that for sexual intercourse to be morally acceptable, you can't have sex simply for love, affection and unity.
- - if a couple couldn't procreate, and they continued to have sex, they wouldn't be morall wrong because they're not ruling out the possibility of procreation though any specific means.
if a husband and wife had sexual intercourse and deliberately tried to rule out procreation, then it would be morally wrong.
using this argument , you could have sexual intercourse without love, affection, and union and it could still be moral.
this is problematic .. that's biology determining moral.
most people would say that if there's no love, then there's something morally defificient .. but you can't say that with acquina's argument.
he' more accepting, but ultimately in terms of morals, he's right back with augustine.
what's interesting, is that if acquinas had approached the same issue using the reason model, he would have come to a different conclusion.
- starting foom reason, is it always good/reasonable for every act of sex to be open to children.
if he had started at this point -- doesn't love become primary?
this doesn't discount the good of children, but it puts in a different context.
on this side, children become an expression of love.
with this approach, you can also consider the effect of the woman -- the mother.
also, economic factors.
- emotional, psycological factors, number of other children
so the difference s that inthe biological model, the moral good is essentially reduced to 1 - procreation
with the reason approach , its opened up to take into account other goods
so, today a lot of catholic theologians will describe the biological model as physicalism.
with the model of reason, moral theologians talk about the principal of tatality -- before you can say is this the right thing to do, you have to look at a variety of factors.
- what are the relavent moral circomstances?
- what are the other goods involve? other values?
if acquinas had consistantly used the reason apprach he could have come to a different conclusion on this .
instead he uses the biological model, which was not his -- buut from a roman lawyer named olpian
n once sense, this is odd -- seems to go against his overall approach to natural law
most people think that he just accepcts the received tradition on this question -- he doesnt contest it.
if he ad moved to the natural law as reason , you coul dthink about this issue differently
in most areas of catholic theology, they use the principle of totality
killing -
- in the catholic moral tradition , there are justified examples of killing.
- self defense
- "just" war
but essentially, just "killing" is not enough yo have to look at the intentions, means, and circumstance, forseeable consequences.
so, in other areas of catholic theology (besides this sexuality example), yo have to go past the physical level -- open up the whole picture.
this lead to a kind of clasification of sins
medieval theologians wre facinated by sins - how do yo classify them?
on this model, there were sins that were according to nature (not that they werent' sinful)
and sins contrary to nature
sins according to nature were not seen as not wrong but more natural -- these include adultry, rape, incest. -- they can all lead to procreation.
so on the 2nd level of natural law, you can have things that are seen to be "unnatural" -- they violate the biological nature.
so wasn't saying that adultry, rape, etc weren't wrong, but they were described differently
on the other hand, birth control, homosexuality were seen as unnatural -- sins against nature. because in those instances , there's not the possibbility of procreation.
even though both were seen as sins, this becomes really troublesome once you start using "natural" and "unnatural" because it seems to suggest that sins according to nature are less morally wrong than sins against nature.
once y9ou allow the biological to determine the moral, then horrible things can be spoken of as more natural than other things such as birth control, homosexuality.
summary of this on page 27.
"these manuals divided .."
if you narrow your moral analysis prematurely
if you collaps the entire meaning of something on biology, its insufficient .. insufficient to tell us what is the good and right thing to do here and now.
so catholic theologians tend to be critical of this for several reasons
- one, it separates the moral form the truly personal -- a lot of people would say that before you can morally evaluate ie sexual intercorse, more things have to be taken into consideration.
so what might lead to renewal, a more human understanding of sexuality
- we have to recover a theology of creation; also a sacremental and incarnational theology.
- psysical parts of our body can imitate the holy, and Christ was in carnate.
can't build the whole theology on a theory of original sin.
(2) has to be a much more personalist approach - looking at the persons involved, looking at relationship as a whole. also, look at the "person wholly considered"
- look at the whole setting of their life -- all things considered
(3) Welcome the insights of more people -- open up a conversation
what are the insights of peope our age, married people, divorced, gays/lesbians.
in this particular area, augustine has such influence and these points get passed down .. acquinas doesn't redirect the tradition because of respect for augustine.
not until relatively recently was this openly challenged.
next chapter . .
1968 - domocratic convention - televised (late aug)
in April MLK assasinated in Memphis
two months later, in june, robert kennedy was killed.
early, in january, tet offensive - showed that there was no way the us was going to win this war.
that lead to LBJ saying he wasn't going to run again.
a lot that was happening in the country - shockwaves going through our society.
in the church, the shockwave came on july 29, 1968 - humanae vitae -- birth control letter
this was a tremendous shock
for at least 6 year -- starting in 1962, there was an energy for change -- they did not expect him to reaffirm the catholic position.
this is fox chap. 3 and mccarthy chap. 10.
-------
Wed 03/14/07
1968
the year that sent sockwaves through this country
paul vi -- humanae vitae.
letter was shocking -- peop;e were expecting t to change the psoition on birht control --
enegery for change on this had been devloping
as fari back as _1962_, at the opening session, there was a prominant bishop from belgium -- cardinal suenens -- at the opening session, aid that the church had to address the question of birth control
one of his concerns was -- growing population --
but more so, he spoke about the pressures that the church's teachings put on married couples.
said it was one of the most critical moral questions of the time.
ended up saying that if the church fails to do so, its going to be another Galieo affair -- "the earth is not the center of the universe"
was so concerned about it that he decies to set up his own committee before john 23 set up the committee
composed of tehologians scientists and an economist.
a few months later in march 1963 -- bishop from the netherlands bishop bekkers.
goes on national television in the netherlands and says that the church's teaching on this issue has to change. ..
and its the responsibility of married couples to really answer this question for themselves.
five months later, five bishops from the NL issue a statment saying that its morally acceptable for a married couple to prractice birth control.
so we have high leaders in the church not only questioning but openly dissenting it.
things were starting to stir in the church.
in 1963, john establishes his own committee out of cardinal suenens committee
3 priests, 2 doctors, and an economist initially. (6 people).
john dies in apr '63
paul vi becomes pope -- not nly decides to keep the committee going but adds members to it
they meet for the 1st time in oct '63 ..
he asks many people to the committee because he wants the issue explored form a variety of viewpoints
the public bcomes aware of it -- first time you can really see the influence of the media on the church. the public know what was going on.
- catholic colleges and universities start having workshops to discuss this issue. -- most importantly at notre dame -- the symbol of catholicism in the us.
what all of this did was create a kind of _climate for change._
people knew the church was moving -- that things were staarting to transform a little bit
conversation going and taking place outside of the vatican -- in other words, the vatican cannot control the conversation.
page 56 in fox
"the contraceptive pill . . . "
in addition to this, for a lot of catholics , this became a kind of symbolic litmus test.
the vatican council was a church looking at itself sayng where do we need to change
so if john 23 was saying we gotta look at the signs o the times, for a lot of ctholics, this became a symbolic issue -- are you going to take a moral issue and listen to the sensus fidelium -- are you going to let ordinary people into the conversation.
on june 23, 1964 - four years prior to humanae bitae -- paul vi issues a statement that seems to suggest that this teaching might change
said three things.
1) the current teachings must be considered valid until we feel obliged to change themke's kinda opening the door here -- consider it valid until we feel obliged to change it -- suggest that maybe we will change it.
could have said "we're not going to change it"
2) when it comes to something as serious as contraception, catholics should wish to follow the law.
he's hoping that they will ..its a pretty soft statement. paul vi is acknowledging that this is difficult for a lot of people. much softer tone.
(3) as the church continues to reflect on this question, it has to take into account the insights of a variety of disciplines
in the meantime, back to this committee
(1) at least one element of the church's teaching needs to change -- primary goodness of marriage is children -- committee says "no" -- the heart of marriage is a covenant of love between the husband and wife.
the heart of marriage is not procreation, but a love between spouses
marriage includes more than just having children .. partnership between husband and wife.
so they make this initial ovservation -- it gets bpicked up by
gaudium et spes
church's doctrine on the modern world - everything the church wanted to say but didn't know where else to put it.
so at vatican ii, the church's thology of marriage changed - no longer spoke of it as a contract but a convenant.
in a footnote, they talk about the birth control committee.
this came out in 1965.
in a footnote , they make a reference to the committee -- we know the teaching is under investigation, so we're not going to deal with it here.
in late spring / early summer of 1966, the committee meets for the last time
58 people on this committee .. also a number of married couples
at the very start, they though the committee was just going to endorse the church's teaching
that didn't happen because .. married couples got on and dealted with experiences.
the voices of married people enter into this committe -- that creates a shift.
in 1966, they finish their work and vote 54-4 that the church's teaching needs to change.
their conclusion in five points:
(1) contraception is not intrinsically evil
- it can be morally acceptable in light of the circumstances of each individual marriage .. its permissiable and it can be appropriate -- but you've got to look at the circumstances, the concrete situation of the couple -- how many current kids, economic situation.
this is principal of totality -- moving away from just the physical act.
so on the question "can contraceptin be justified" -- well you gotta look at the circomstances.
(2) (the council's over) they note from the council that the church's teaching on other issues has changed and they give examples -- like lumen gensium -- the church rejected the bellermine theology for a theology that talks about the church as a people of God. .. nostra atatae . etc etc.
cite this and say .. well there's a precident for this -- if the church changed on these questions, it can also change on the question of birth control.
(3) to change this would not only be a healthy response to "the Signs of the times" but it would also be a response to the movement of the spirit ..
this is not just something that we've arrived on at on our own -- but we prayed about it .. we feel thht the holy spirit is behind this.
(4) significant qualification .. nonetheless, they reject what they call a "contraceptive mentality"
.. ie, this is not a moral issue -- we don't have to wrry about it
saying that married couples have a responsibility to reflect on this question -- not a matter of indfference .. not morally neutral.
they want to guard against a careless casual aditude on the question.
they dont want to deny the fact in any way that chilfen are a gift of marriage ..
they want to work against a selfishness -- "having a child is going to crimp our lifestyle"
(5) there's an urgency to this -- and because of that, they want the pope to decide as soon as possible .. because its significant but also because people know what's going on.
that was supposed to be the only thing that came out of this committee.
becomes known as the majority report.
other side: monority report
one of the people who voted against it -- john ford .. and he writes a report saying that "this is why we disagree with the majority" -- THAT becomes known as the minority report.
(1) they admit that the traditional arguements from the natural law aren't convincing.
if we want to keep the church's teaching, we've got to come up with something better.
(2) if you change the teaching, you'll weaken the authority and credibility of the church ... the other stuff that they changed doesn't hit home like moral issues (the church as the people of god, etc)
--- is being able to say we need to change a weakness???
tomorrow -- part 1 -- finish this part up
next section -- chapter 4 in fox and 334 to 344 in mccarthy.
-------
Thu 03/15/07
part 1 - finish material on birth control
majority report -- overwhelmingly in favor of changing the teaching onthis question
paul vi - instead of acting on this right away (in some ways it would have been better if he would have) ,
he thought things trhough in order not to be careless
but what happened was -- this was given to him in 1966 .. if he had made a decision right away, it could have been different than humanae vitae --
if he had told this committee to have this report done before the end of the council, then the birden would not have rested exclusively on him.
tremendous burden to be in that kind of role.
he didn't have the council discuss this, he didn't decide right away -- he sat on this.
in the mean time, karol wotya was supposed to be on the committee but he never came to any of the meetings ..
he starts writing paul the vi and essentially starts sending him drafts of what became humanae vitae.
the people who are really trying to influence him were against a change in the teaching.
in 1967, the majority report was leaked to the press. so peoople know what it said .. and they expected him to change the teaching
finally , on july 29, 1968, paul releases humanae vitae.
sadly, most cathlics have never read it -- they just know that it reaffirmed the church's teaching.
beautiful tehology of marriage
beautiful statment on the sacredness of life .. and a much more psitive assesment of human sexuality
no lingering tones of augustinian pessimism -- that's gone.
what it says about human sexuality .. is extremely positive.
at the same time, and this is why it caused so much turmol, -- it reaffirmed the churches stance against contraception.
so much had lead people to believe that the catholic church was going to change its position.
but some things did change.
says that there are two inherit meaning to sexual intercourse.
(prior to that, there was just one)
so in this sense humanae vitae is a change in the tradition
goiing to uhold the tradition in the sense that procreation is still an inherent dimension of sex in marriage.
but also now there's a second dimension -- the unitive .. sexual intercourse is an expression of love, unity.
in that respect, he goes far beyond the position of augustine and aslo acquinas.
he is saying here that both are primary meanings of sexuality -- its equally important.
paul said that these are so interconnected, so essential, that they can never be separated.
so, from this perspective, contraception violates sexual intercourse in marriage because it would be a couple deliberately doing something that he says would rule out what he sees as an essentially dimention of sex in marriage.
basses this on natural law arguement -- but also because it's willed by God.
because of that, any attempt to separate the two is not morally permissable.
69 fox
so paul is working with the tradition in one sense, but also using explicitly religious language -- "willed by god"
does the catholic church then disallow all forms of birth control? no. only artificial forms.
in terms of natural family planning, humanae vitae upholds that.
what distinguishes natural family planning from contraception.
the intention is the same -- hoping not to have a child.
the circumstances can be exactly the same.
the very next page says that couples can liimit the number of children. so not saying that children are the only good in marriage.
admits that there's circumstances -- financial, pyscological, number -- are moraly significant reasons for limiting births.
and the (hoped for ) consequences are the same.
but the means used are different -- and the difference is significant enough that you have to give a different moral assessment.
but are the means that crucial?
seemed for a lot of people to go against the spirit of vatican ii.
lumen gensium
primary image was the church as a people of god.
says that all baptised christians are priests in christ.
sensus fidelium.
says that the holy spirit works in everybody.
so which church are well following here?
same arguements for invitro fertilization.
understanding of what's natural"
for invitro - you have the procreative aspect, but unitive.
the church admits that limiting births can be morally responsible, that there are other goods to the marriage also, a decision the married couple has to make in good concious.
so that's allowing limiting kids, but contraception is unnatural.
clear that this has not been accepted by catholics
what makes a good law - if a law is good then its ultimately received by the people -- otherwise its not a good law --
for this question there's a lot of dissent on this.
the committee was trying to have a theology rooted in experience -- and humanae vitase was almost bypassing that.
vatican ii said that experience was a source of theology. it was brought into the picture in thh committee -- but then paul backed away from it.
on this question , the church has not been able to completely move away from this natural law system.
certain understanding of the natural connected with biology instead of the more personalist view.
i we stay on natural law, then the princple of totality is eclipsed.
what happened with this
- even bishops shocked by this.
bishop dennis hurley - came right out and said "i disagree with this -- i think its wrong"
also said that humanae vitae was the most painful experience he had in his life as a bishop
the bishops of belgium, germany and canada came out with statements against this. canada essentially said "follow your concious"
he knew catholics would be disappointed with this -- but the reaction just socked him.
(1) he never said that humanae vitae was infallable.
the church has never issued an infallable statement on any moral statement -- including this one -- if it were, then the teaching could never change.
so, he left the door open for revision, change on this question.
(2) - he did not say that catholics who practice contraception were committing serious sin.
ie, did not say that it was a "mortal sin"
(3) he invited catholics to give assent to this... so he wasn't coming down heavy handed.
(4) he also told priests to be compassionate and sensative in dealing with people on this question.
explain humanae vitae to people -- but don't be heavy handed.
admitted that people were going to have difficulty on this ..
explain it but "don't impose an impossible burden"
this was such a shock to catholics that immediately some theologians started to speak out
charles curran --
his moral theology was shaped on hearing confessions.
he knew that if someone didn't console catholics on this question, there was going to be a lot of harm.
(1) if humanae vitae is not infallable, then catholics in good concious can dissent from this.
(2) said that humanae vitae was inconsistant with the ecclesiology of vatican ii.
.. this seems to go back to the bellermine model.
(3) they rejected the natural law argument of humanae vitae. - it wasn't convincing -- an example of physicalism.
(4) it did not consider the teachings of other churches -- and in that sense was against the spirit of vatican ii.
this statement was issued and eventually signed by 600 theologians .. that's an accomplishment!
in the years since vatican II -- paul vi never went after this guy -- he just let it go.
paul vi dies in aug 1968.
followed by jpI -- who's only pope for 33 days
then john paul ii gets elected.
immediatlly, jpii began to emphasize the church's teaching aginst birth control using much stronger language than humanae vitae.
creeping infalability -- .. humanae vitae was not infalable .. but jpii made increasingly strong statements against anything against it.
he also goes after charlie curran.
.. eventually lost his job at a catholic university --
chill effect on catholic theology -- is rome looking over my shoulders.
theology from a posture of fear .. that's not healthy.
this whole question has become symbolic for a lot of reasons
charlie hasn't said a disparriaging word.
readings -- we'll do homosexuality and then back to abortion .
and then the first tuesday nite -- book discussion for kate chopan's book.
-------
Tue 03/27/07
discussion in 425 tonight at 6.
the film.
not being able to call something by name
allow people to claim their identity as gift
being in the closet does uncalculable harm.
you can't say that every human being is the image of God .. and then qualify it. and that's across the board. .. orientation, gender, disability, etc.
its a question of justice.
a lot about where your theology ends up depends on where you begin.
narrative theology -- easy to view the world in one way until someone's story blows that to bits.
to hear people's stories - what does it mean to love
if someone really tells you their story and we are to love them -- then what does that mean when they tell you their story.
theological implications.
whatever we say about theology reflects our understanding of God
what does it mean to love our neighbor?
love always has to deal with the concrete - entering into their story.
chapter 5, fox.
June 17, 1969 // he said "i love dates"
stone wall inn - gay bar in grenwitch village.
on this date - it was kind of regular thing that the police would raid these bars -- harass, etc.
on june 17, instead of not fighting back as usual, the people at the stonewall inn fought back.
seen as a turning point -- to fight back you are:
taking a stance, making a statement.
to fight back is a way of claiming your dignity -- not only am i not gong to take it anymore, but i'm not going to live the lie of the opressor.
the temptation is to live the lie -- to allow the opressor's definition of who you are to prevail. -- once that happens, then you've conceded that -- you've given them power over you.
only way to break that is to reclaim your dignity.
conscientization -
- waking up and becoming aware of the injustice - no longer gong to allow myself to live that lie of opression
- comeing into a sort of new consciousness.
waking up to who you are - really a new beginning
- consientization is the beginning of liberation -- it frees you from opression.
- liberation that allows you to claim your dignity.
so the stonewall incident was a kind of major turing point -- fox beings with this and says that this was the beginning of liberation -- a collective coming out ofthe closet.
ambivalent aditude that gays and lesbians can have toward the catholic church.
actually, this issue is dividing a lot of mainstream cristian churches.
-- church of england.
.. love -hate relationship with thh church .. on the one hand, they're attracted to the church because they want spirituality -- they have a love of the liturgy , spiritual traditions.
but they still feel like outsiders.
who makes us persons -
.. then none of us can ever make ourselves count. a big flaw is the idea that we make our idenity by making ourselves count.
who makes us persons? GOD. its not ability, talent, beauty.
so what makes us persons is God's love .. we matter because we're loved.
if that's your beginning, then nobody can take that away from you.
then that becomes the core element of our identity.
so, as christians, our identity comes from baptism.
to be part of a community that says our fundamental identity is that we are unconditionally loved .. we can have a home here.
but some of the statements re: sexual orientation
statements can become harsh esp when you start using the language of "disorder" -- this creaps into the catholic church's documents on homosexuality .. disorder is another way of talking about sin ... if you claim that about a person's being, then you run headlong into the idea that we are people made by God's love.
what do we name as sin?
"unnatural" from the natural law theory.
how are you understanding nature? here catholic theology can contradict itself .. a key principle is "actus, sequitur esse" -- our actions follow our nature.
so in that sense, its going to change what makes something unnatural or unfitting -- going to change what makes a relationship morally good. .. is it simply about procreation?
-------
Tue 03/27/07 Book discussion
comparative essay
write in whatever way is helpful to you.
shape it in any way you like.
-------
Thu 03/29/07
homosexuality historically
------------------
congregation on the faith
document
two distinctions
(1) orientation - morally neutral .. if a person is gay or lesbian , that's fine.
(2) homosexual activity - that behavior is intrinsically evil
so the only option for gay/lesbians to live out their sexuality .. is celibacy.
-- usually connected with the preisthood, religious life.
.. in this case, celibacy is seen as a grace, gift
right now, the teaching is that if you're generally called to the priesthood, then you are given the grace of celibacy .
(b) in the case of homosexuality, it is not assumed that the grace is given to every gay/lesbian person -- instead the language of moral obligation is used.
-- celibacy is not so much a free choice but a duty, obligation .. because its seen as the only way for gay and lesbians to avoid sin. -- in that respect, its not really seen as a means to grace.
connected with religious life in the priest hood, its a grace.
(c) language of cross -- if a gay or lesbian person were to say that they don't feel they are called to celibacy, well, that's your cross to carry.
but a cross in christianity is a symbol of life -- "tree of life"
its true to say that none of us is going to go through life without crosses , but its different to say that something part of you is a cross.
ultimately there has to be some kind of freedom in relationship to the crosses in our life -- not necessarily freedom to choose -- where i have freedom is how i'm going to respond to that.
the difference here is that someone on the outside of the gay person is telling him what his life is about.
so then it shifts from freedom to a tool of opression. -- this tactic has been used on the poor too.
there the cross really becomes a means of injustice.
its one thing to say a person feels called to celibacy .. another thing to say that you're compelled to live this life -- that that's your cross.
how did theologians react?
two responses.
(1) rejected the traditional natural law arguement on sexuality. " the only acceptable use of intercorse is procreation"
-- the basis of the church's views on homosexuality is that it has no means for procreation.
the crutique of this from the first group of theolgians was to say that its guilty of physicalism -- making a total moral assesment based on the physical act itself.
(B) what they tried to do was invoke the principle of totality .. how do we normally judge if relationships are good or not?
(1) mutuality
(2) respect
(3) honesty
(4) fidelity
(5) love, affection, care .
so what the first group was saying is that if these moral qualities are present in a gay/lesbian relationship, then the relationship should be see as morally good.
some went further and invoked the principle "actus sequitur esse" -- if we really act who we are, then a gay and lesbian relationship is not unnatural -- because its to live according to who you are.
if the orientation is OK, then homosexual relationships would seem to be in harmony with who you are.
.. different understanding of what makes things natural.
so, this first group took a liberal response to the document.
the second group took a bit more restrictive response -- the principle of toleration, compromise.
- charles curren - birth control guy
- lisa cahill (sp?)
(1) for them, heterosexuality remains the norm.
(2) the preference is for gay and lesbians to be able to commit themselves to celibacy (ideally)
(3) at the same time, there's a traditional pastoral principle that you can't demand the impossible from people. --> that can be open to interpretation ..
if its not possible, then you can wind up completely rejecting it.
"dark side"
blase pascal -- if you try to teach humans to be angels, you bread beasts.
the dark side is taat it can lead to something thht's unhealthy - depression, etc.
a lot of charlie's theology was formed in the context of the confessional.
traditionally, moral theology was studied by seminarians to train them to hear confessions -- at its best it was to train them to be sensative to the confesions.
his theology is for people hearing confessions -- yes, we gotta be honest about what are the norms, ideals of the church, but don't crush them with it.
someiimes to ask too much of somebody is more harmful than asking too little -- can backfire.
(4) if heterosexuality is the norm, then any gay relationship will be judged in some way deficient, lacking .. but at the same time they say its better to encourage people to have a healthy relationship than a life of complete loneliness. and better than a life of casual sex.
(5) permits what falls short of the ideal. -> in order to prevent something worse -- namely destructive lifestyles.
there were some theologians that said "this is the church's teaching, its the natural law -- any kind of gay or lesbian relationship can never be justified"
our group 2 would be more of the middle position.
this question was broken open because there was an increasing amount people serving gay/lesbians.
a year after the 1975 document (1976), john mcniell, sj .. "the church and the homosexual"
essentially saying that the natural law arguement against any kind of homosexual relationship is unconvincing. -- not a good argument. so if you're ging to say this, you gotta come up with a different rational.
2ndly, he addresses some bibilcal passages in teh book -- certain biblical passages have been used to say that any kind of homosexuality is wrong.
he says that they have been misunderstood -- they do not talk about homosexuality in the way we understand it today.
2ndly, they've been taken out of context -- soddem and gumorra were not destroyed because of homosexual behavior.
3rd, he foloows the middle group and says, evaluate gay/lesbian relationships with the same criteria that you would use for any other relationship.
reaction from the vatican to this is swift.. they essentially silence mcneill.
they say that the prohibition against homosexuality is based on divine revelation.
they investigated him and he eventually left the jesuits and the priesthood -- he said it he couldn't stay silent about something i know is right.
grass roots ministry -- more and more nuns and priests had gay and lesbian catholics come up to them , tell their story and ask "will you do something for me"
"if you listen to my story, will you hear it, respect it"
nun in PA jeannine granick.
gay man said: whatis yyour church doing for gay/lesbians.
she contacted robert nugent.
they founded new ways ministry, geared toward gays/ lesbians.
the two where not theologians, so when they wrote about this issue, they were writing about ministry .. never did they endorse the acts, but they did say that the church was called to compassion -- we should help them.
this made some bishops nervous -- they felt that under the language of compassion, people would hear and think that gay/lesbian relationships (sexual) were acceptable.
they never wrote anything that was contrary to chatholic theology.
cardianal where they were krol -- didn't want them .
so they went to washington -- there they were forsed to end new ways ministry.
they did keep ministering .. nder pressure until 1999.
in 1999 the vatican said, if you want to remain a priest and a nun, you have to stop this ministry.
one left and one stayed.
1977 -- "human sexuality, new directions in american cathoic thought" comes out
catholic theological society .. (pretty much us)
the traditional way to discuss sexuality is no longer working.
book not just on homosexuality but what it did say about that moved from a different direction from traditional church teaching.
(1) gays and lesbians have the same right to love & intimacy as anyone else -- essentially saying tht this is a basic need of human beings.
(2) judge the relationships as you would heterosexual relationships.
(3) can we assume that Godgives the grace of celibacy to a person simply because they may be gay/lesbian? -- and if we can't, then how can we really demand it?
fox 143 - quote.
"charism" = gift.
break.
most of sexual ethics is coming from us/europe -- part of the reason for that is tht in other areas the most pressing issues are really matters of life and death. .. but it is a question in africa --> AIDS.
with all these books out, the vatican felt like it had to say something
so, in 1986, "a letter to the bishops of the catholic church on the pastoral care of homosexual persons" came out.
this was interesting because even though the letter was supposed to be for thh whole church, it came out first in english -- not latin. so vatican's response to what is happening in the US around this issue. .
this was a change -- in 1975, the orientation was neutral.
now its saying
(1) even the orientation is "objective disorder" -- not saying it was sinful but it was saying that the very nature is an objective disorder.
(2) kept the 2nd argument -- any kind of behavior was seen as intrinsic evil.
if your being is seen to be in objective disorder, then your going to be strongly inclined toward sin.
this comes out of catholic theology -- one definition of sin is "disordered behavior."
so if your very being is disordered, then you're going to act disordered.
page 148 -
a lot of things here are theologically dangerous.
calls certain things into question
if you go back to the creation story of genesis, all of creation is considered very good.
God did not create an imperfect creation; the goodness if affirmed.
secondly, every human being is created in the image of God; child of God.
every human being is sacred, has dignity .. if they have an "ojbective disorder" can you really say they are an equal image of God.
(3) flaw -- all of us are in some way are affected by the fall, but we normally don't understand that in terms of sexual orientation -- does dr. wadell's nephew have ceribral palsey because he's objectively disordered?? no!
raises questions about the goodness of God. - does he create some people in his image and some not so much.
"objective disorder" becomes harmful and dangerous
what does that say about a person's identity?
for a lot of gay/lesbians, this 1986 document was the last straw -- we're not going to accept this definition.
1992 - was a letter to bishops of the us -- about how catholics should respond to legislative proposals about non-discrimination of gays/lesbians.
what disturbed people --
violence against gays and lesbians -- "people should not be surprised when gays and lesbians becomes victims of violence because they're espousing for rights they shouldn't have"
it seemed to alomost impolicitely condone the violence by saying that what's wrong is to ask for those rights.
one thing to say, this is our teaching, another to say , you gotta vote this way. -- conscience -- you can't force somebody to act against their conscience..
there has to be room in the catholic church for dialogue. you have teaching, but you still have to have room for voices.
vatican ii never addressed this but,
their one paragraph on catholic moral theology was that it was steril - we can't base it only on natural law.
look at gospels, secrements.
late 1980's
fox 153 -
dec. 1987 - AIDS. when it first broken in the 80's, people were terrified.
fear -- should we received wine at communion .. if someone who has hiv drinks from the cup.
bishops wrote a letter called, " the many faces of aids: a gospel response"
really a beautiful letter.
instead of addressing the morality of homosexuality, its fucused on aids and human suffering -- how should the church respond to people who are suffering from HIV+ -- we should look to Jesus .. he was moved by suffering.
the church can not turn away from this problem, by doing that, it should show compassio for people dieing from AIDS and also to their families and friends.
who is the church -- where is it most fully alive? - the church is not just the statemnts from the vatican, but its most fully alive where anyone imitates christ.
"many faces" -- wording to challenge the idea that AIDS was exclusively connected with homosexuality.
a small section of the document had .. education measures to prevent the spread of aids .. in that document, said that it was OK to talk about the use of condems to prevent the spread of aids. information abotu condems could be part of education efforts.
this came from thh bishops but immediately was rejected by some archbishops because of this.
cardinal law -- was very strongly against this.
they had asked for the letter to be written .. and they are the ones who say "no we gotta take this off the table"
-------
Tue 04/10/07
the many faces of aids -- a gospel response
dec 1987 - height of the aids crisis.
people scared to death about this -- extreme fear -- extreme measures -- we should stop giving communion -- that coul dbe a way of contacting aids
so the usccb asked some of the bishops to write ths letter
the many faces of aids: a gospel response .. what would be jesus's response to people who have aids.
.. jeus would have been accepting -- do not shut them out of the community but immitate the teachings of Jesus --
.. call to compassion.
churches were starting to open up to people who had aids -- houses for them.
what caused the problem was that there was a small section in the letter that has to deal with education program ..
there was a section in that letter that said, in terms of educaton measures, condeoms could be mentioned as a way to prevent the spread of aids -- wasn't endorsing them, suggesting casual sex.
-- this was an argument for life -- trying to prevent aids == trying to prevent death .. so we're prolife -- so it wasn't anything about casual sexual relationships -- just a pro -life argument.
from that passage, there was strong reaction -- particularly from cardinal law-boston
and cardinal o'connor of ny.
they strongly deounced this document because of the section on condems -- in no way coul that be justified, --- that would be saying immoral behavior was ok -- now they weren't saaing that -- they just said -- give reference to the use of condems.
what law and o'connor said was that the only church could talk about was abstainence..
created such a stir that the usccb voted to withdraw this letter even though they had asked this to be wirtten.
they came out with a second letter that didn't deal with this at all.
jon fuller, sj doctor and theologian
james keenan, sj.
they came out iwth a letter in response to this saying that traditionally, the church's stance against condems is a stance against birth control. -- preventing a birth, preventing life ..
here when you're talking about hiv/aids they say its a completely different situation -- here its being used to save a life, not prevent it.
they argued that the first letter really showed respect for life -- it was prolife
gave the example of the just war - that teaching has changed over the years because the ways that we wage wars is different -- becaase of neuclear weopons , the window on just war is a lot smaller.
-- new situations. -- augustine developed this in the 4th century -- never envisioned heroshima.
so they're arguing that hiv/aids is a new situation. -- so using teh catholic tradition where things have changed in the past, isn't this a situation where we have to change our teaching. -- when it comes to hiv/aids, the condem is used to prevent a death.
the bishops of france accepted the use of condems to aviold what they argued was a grave death -- they said that if the church didn't change their position on this, they could be accused of promoting death.
more recently, there are more and more bishops of africa that are pushing the chhurch to change its teaching in this issue.
-- they see what's happening in their continent - they have to response to a crisis.
enda mcdonagh - irish theologian -- one of the first to say "we gotta deal with this"
catholic organization "caritas" - he was going around the world with this organization and seeing that we don' have time on this issue; our theology needs to catch up.
biblical passages - some say that the bible is so clear on homosexuality that we can never change our view on it.
BUT at the time the bible was written, there was really no understanding of homosexuality as a perminant condition -- people were heterosexual.
so in that case, what makes homosexuality unnatural was heterosexuals acting in homosexual ways.
and, in soe ff the passages, you've really gotta look at the context.
romans 1:24-27 - at first glance, paul can seem to be condemning homosexuality.
verse 24: in consequence, god delivered them up for their lust. . .
isn't paul clearly condemning homosexuality there?
the whole chapter, he's talking about punishment for idolatry -- condmening the corintians by looking at the consequences of idolitry.
verse 27: is talking about men who were married -- had heterosexual relationships and were doing homosexual things.
also, most people think he's talking about temple prostitution -- adolesent boys.
so its not in any way clear that this is an outright condemning of homosexuality.
gen. 19: 1-11 -- sodom and gamora.
story about lot.
two angles come to soddom -- disguised as human beings.
so lot, being a good jew, wants show them hospitality. he sees these two messengers -- come into town.
lot himself was an immagrant -- so he knows what its like to have been a stranger.
wants these two messengers to stay with him.
finally agree that they will .. word gets out that these two strangers are guests in lot's home.
a croud assembles outside lots house .. and they want these two strangers -- send your guests outside so we can have intimacies with them.
then the croud gets angrier .. we'll do worse to youthan them if you don't give us these two guests.
says he's not going to give these two guests .. have my two daughters.
the angels reveal themselves and cast a blinding light on the croud.
what people are saying is that the story is not so much dealing with homosexuality per say -- but gang rape .. that's condemned.
deals with the whole question of hospitality -- the croud siad "you don't tell us what to do -- you're not one of us anyway"
really hard to say that this text is condemning homosexuality.
look at context and background!
three reasons for the catholic position against abortion.
1) sacredness of life -- this is the foundation about catholic teaching of the person -- all life is sacred; all ife has dignity, has value. .. whole teaching of the immago dei. - deep connection between God and ourselves.
important == because without starting here life easily becomes expendable -- beadrock moral principle.
if a society no longer lives according to this, then in a way, all bets are off. .. health care.
if human life has value, then there's other issues -- health care, war, capital punnishment.
key principle -- easy to become desensitized when it comes to issues of life .. this is so true -- most don't see homeless as people just like us -- they become erasable -- "that's the way the world works"
1994 - jpii "evangalium vitae -- the gospel of life.
he sees a "culture of death" -- gradual loss of sensitivity to the value of lif -- a gradual erosion to the idea that life is sacred.
- people become expendable.
2) notion of a kind of stewardship of life -- life is not ours -- its Gods -- life is a gift from god.
if it belongs to God, then its not ours to take -- its not my life, i can't take it -- its God's.
- but at the same time, there are exceptions -- self-defense, "just war"
3) human life is social. vision of solidarity -- bonds exist between us and other people.
we have responsibilities to care and help one another.
.. critique of a radical individualism.
abortion can reflect a loss of strong social bonds.
so often then question can be framed in the language of "freedom of choice" -- that's an important value, but a very thin thread upon which to build a morality ..
.. this focuses on the individual - .. masks a deeper kind of lonliness and isolation -- if everything is up for me to decide, then i'm pretty much alone.
society of increasing isolation -- people pretty much have to face life on their own -- we just dress it up and call it freedom of choice.
are we a people who can give one another a story worth handing on.
"juxtaposition of solitude" -- ships passing in the night.
you have to decide for yourself -- face everything on your own.
aside - sometimes what we're faced with is a lack of friendship -- for aristotle , the good life required friends - you could never know happiness without friends -- th moral life is always something you do as a community .
not just passing acquantances but real bonds -- because you pursue the good together.
isolation, without community, you could not possibly make a good choice.
from aristotle's pov, a lot of the moral decisions we face to day reflect a loss of or fragile community.
most catholics, when it comes to abortion, are largely supportive of the catholic teaching.
catholic teaching that its intrinsicly evil -- under no circomstances can you justify it.
catholics say -- we want to be prolife, but we don't know that there's no execption -- what about rape.
at the same time, they would want to restrict access to abortion -- to make it less available.
the rate of abortion among catholics is roughly similar to non-catholics :-(.
celibacy -- fox 163-197,
march 29th mccarthy.
women in the church.
st. maybe.
-------
Wed 04/11/07
Honors paper -
Due thursday, 04/26/07
kleen chair lecture 7:30 at the fort howard theatre..
abortion
three reasons against abortion
where we are on this questiin -- in general, supportive of the cahtolic view -- but doesn't want to outlaw abortion completely.
history
from the beginnings -- early christian communities
-- abortion was a common pracice in the whole area of the mediterranina because there were drugs available to induce abortion.
there is some early literature where christians started to reflect on how should we live differently because of christ
one of the earliest christian writings didache -- in light of jesus , what should be our moral teaching
one of the topics taken up is abortion -- says that christians should not practice abortion -- not an arguement becuse life is sacred but because jesus teaches us to love our neighbor -- treaks an unborn child as a neighbor -- written around the year 100. (about 10 years after john.)
later, 4th century - theologians started to discuss this
even with augustine, agreed that abortion was wrong but in terms of determining how wrong it was said that it all depends on when it takes place.
- so asking the question, "when is human life truly present?"
augustine said that the seriousness of abortion is gong to increase at this point - said that at the very moment of conception, that's not yet human life.
augustine argued for delayed animation , delayed ensoulment, elayed hominzation -- at what point is the fetus really animated with the soul? - its the soul that makes the human being for him.
said that this was an evolving process.
he argued that for males, it was 40 days in, for females, 80 days in.
so up until this point, its a sin but not as serious.
these numbers .. well they don't really seem to make sense --- how would you know? .. but its the notion of the male being mmore human than the female - so it takes twice as long for the soul to come into the female as it does for the male.
aquinas essentially has the same arguement but works off aristotle.
aristotelian biology - said only gradually does a fetus become a human.
for him, 3 stages
at the very earliest stage, the fetus has a vegitative soul - at that point its not human -- more simlar to a plant.
later, as it develops, it has an animal soul -- for aquinas, at two weeks, it has a rational soul - at that point , its human.
trying to get at this notion of development --
not saying to have an abortion before then is right, but saying taat only after 14 days is there really a human there.
richard mccormick, sj. american catholic moral theologian -- one of the best of the 20th century ..
how do we know when human life beings.
taks abot the idea of nascent life -- process of development -- so for mccormick - the first 14 days after conception -- until there's clear individuality present, not fully recognized as an individual.
charles curran follows thht same approach -- says the first 14 to 21 days.
the official catholic teaching is taht form the very moment of conception, life is sacred -- not saying that there's a person there yet necessarily -- but saying that if the fetus wee not already in some way human , it would never become human.
so this notion of delayed ensoulment does not take away the fact that life is sacred from the beginning
so, not disagreeing with curran and mccormick but saying it doesn't reallly matter.
how has this affected politics.
1984 - ey year for catholics in the us for the us bishops on the question of abortion - geraldine ferraro -- catholic from new york and prochoice .. so this sort of brings this issuue to the forefront
october 7, 1984 (month before the election) -- full page ny times ad .. claims that there are different views in the catholic church on abortion -- was clling for some honest , open conversation on this .. a plea to the bishops to say "we gotta talk about this" -- need converations among the catholic layety
97 catholics paid for this ad - including 20 nuns .. all 97 signed their names too
the vatican was really upset and said that they either recant or they'd be dismissed.
there were two of those sisters - working in west virginia - patricia hussey and barbara ferraro.
they signed the statement and said "we can't recant"
in 1981, they started a home for poor women in west virginia - a lot of women came to this home after being victims of rape and sexual abuse.
they had listened to the stories of these women and as we listen to their experience, we can't claim that in absolutely every instance abortion is immoral.. not that they don't think its wrong but
sometimes there seems to be legit moral exceptions -- in good concience, we cant take our names off this ad
finally in july 1988, they left their religious communities - the vatican hadn't let down.
so in 1984, this becomes really heated in american politics.
one arch bishop who wanted to address this was rembert weakland .. said if we can't sit down and listen to people, this issue is going to tear us apart.
so, he didn't want the curch to become prochoice, just that we need to give people a chance to sit down and for us to be quiet and listen.
so in 1990, weakland scheduled a number of listening sessions around the arch diaseas of milwaukee.
wanted to hear their stories, and views, thoughts, and reflections.
saying that the church can't shut people out -- has to be open to what are people's experiences. .. their reflections on this issue.
what do we have to be afraid of -- what's lost by having a conversation.
so often in this and other areas of sexuality, its one sided -- teaching church but not listening church -- said that there has tobe both.
was trying to do something positive -- bring people together -- vatican didnt like this -- he was supposed to receive an honorary doctorate from a U in switzerland -- vatican pressured them not to give it -- and he didn't get it.
all of this leads to -- what happens with catholic politicians.
prior to 1980, catholics were almost always connected with the democrats.
- in terms of voerall catholic social teaching, except wit the issue of abortion , by and large, the democrats are much more in step with cst than the repulicans. ex:
- capital punnishment
- health care.
- immigration
- labor issues.
- economic policies.
part of the re