Chicago Sun-Times Enters Ring on Mexican Pro-Abort Politicians

The headline of the article:
Vatican fights dirty
Threat against pro-choice politicians in Mexico amounts to bullying

One should know from this what is coming, but let's play along anyway:

The Catholic Church is the bully in eyeglasses.

At least sometimes.

Pushing people around on the playground, picking on the smaller kids -- kids who are not Catholic, I should point out -- and when somebody stands up and challenges him, he cringes, raising an arm, saying, "You wouldn't hit a man in glasses, would you?"

So the Catholic politicians who voted for the murder of the innocent unborn are compared to the "smaller kids" being hassled by the Vatican, the "playground bully." Imaginative!

The church, both fists bared, wades into the political arena. The pope announces that politicians working to relax South America's cruel abortion laws, laws that put women in prison in some countries, might get hurled out of the faith.

"Legislative action in favor of abortion is incompatible with participation in the Eucharist," read a Vatican statement.

Yet should anybody -- such as me -- react to this, why, we're not criticizing an international political powerhouse, but venting hatred on a religion. It isn't right. It isn't fair.

By focusing on leaders, the Vatican corrupts the whole idea of religion. Is not the point of religion that the great and the humble, the powerful and the weak, all stand as equals in God's eyes?

It's strange that Steinberg would express concern for the weak as he does here - unless "the weak" excludes the unborn...

And he misses the obvious that it is not only the Vatican, but all of society, which demands more of "leaders" - are they not to "lead"? Are they not to inspire and motivate others - those who are to "follow"? Should "leaders" not have the will and courage to do that which is morally and ethically necessary for the good of the society? Are not the "leaders" held to a higher level of accountability because they are leading others?

If the church is threatening politicians who advocate liberal abortion policies with excommunication, it should excommunicate the women who have the abortions, plus the husbands and boyfriends who support them.

But it doesn't.

This is where Steinberg completely leaves the rails...There are a number of points here where he shows he is completely ignorant of the facts.

First, he provides cover for pro-abortion politicians by saying that they "advocate liberal abortion policies". This is akin to saying that the genocidal Nazi leaders "advocated liberal eugenic policies," in a effort to mask the truth.

Second, as Dr Edward Peters pointed out earlier, it is not excommunication but denial of Holy Communion, which is different. And lest we forget, this is required, not only by Canon Law, but also by right reason.

Third, those who do procure (or assist in procuring) a direct abortion willingly do incur the canonical penalty of excommunication - something which quick research would have demonstrated. But it seems, Steinberg's too sure of himself to bothered with facts.

The church says that the women "excommunicate themselves," then immediately invites them in for forgiveness, without the humiliation being dangled over politicians.

The Church invites all to repentance in order to be forgiven - and these women are not "public figures" as are politicians, nor do they make laws which are intended to affect society...

Otherwise, they'd be chucking out the faithful by the millions, and that isn't good business. So instead they blackmail and bully political leaders by publically questioning a private matter -- their supposed salvation.

The Church doesn't "chuck out" the faithful, but acknowledges that the non-faithful leave of their own free wills, preferring to wallow in their sins rather than to follow Christ. And this is indeed, "good business" for Christ's enemies...

And again, we see the depth of Steinberg's "misunderstandings" - there is no blackmailing or bullying by the Church. She merely asks that those who claim to be Catholic, live and practice the Faith that they claim to believe. If they publicly choose to violate the most fundamental right of the human person - the right to life - then they freely and publicly are choosing to renounce essential elements of that faith.

Freedom of religion is a beautiful thing. But it stops at the church door, and when you press non-believers to obey the dictates of your faith by pressing on government officials, that's politics, glasses or no.

Remember this next time you leave Holy Mass - Steinberg wants all that is good and decent, all virtue, all holiness, all morality, in effect all the good - to be left inside the Church. It's not welcomed outside! That's his "freedom of religion", or more aptly "freedom from religion", freedom from morality and ethic. He tells us that there is no room for religion in the public square!

And lastly, maybe he can cite examples of the Church "pressing non-believers to obey the dictates" of the faith. Then again, that would require research - something which he seems unable to do. But, pray for him - there's still hope.