Sunday, March 8, 2009

Where do I sign on the dotted line?

UPDATE: See WTFWJD post on this subject. As a follow up to my latest post, even a Christian agrees with me!! Of course I don't know how many Christians agree with her, but at least she loves Jesus! (of course maybe she drinks a little*).

*For those who don't get that last bit, go here.

For my excommunication that is. Because any church that would do this isn't one I want to be counted as part of. As far as I know, because I was baptized Catholic and am therefore counted when the Church says there are X million Catholics in America. So how do I go about getting excommunicated? I don't want to be counted as part of this flock in any way.

The story:

A senior Vatican cleric on Saturday defended the excommunication of the mother and doctors of a 9-year-old girl who had an abortion in Brazil after being raped … He also excommunicated the doctors, who carried out the operation for fear that the 80-pound girl would not survive a full-term pregnancy.
And from here:

"He did not excommunicate the step-father, saying the crime he is alleged to have committed, although deplorable, was not as bad as ending a fetus's life."
Seriously? Really? Are these people for real? Oh, I get it. If you excommunicate child rape where are you going to find more priests? I realize that's nasty and there are supposedly wonderful priests out there and all that. But when this kind of thing goes down, what am I supposed to think of the church I heartily abandoned over 20 years ago?

I think I'm relieved and validated that I left it. And this isn't some edge case, the Vatican backs it. Welcome an anti-Semitic Holocaust denier back into the fold, but god forbid a child be spared abject horror and a potentially life threatening pregnancy in favor of a fetus. Which frankly proves what I've always thought about the church. The life of a woman (and now obviously a child) is worth nothing. We are just baby machines no matter how young or old. And child rapists are more welcome in their kingdom of heaven than a woman caring for her child.

This is exactly an illustrative example of why we who are so derided cling to a certain degree of moral relativism. Since we cannot empirically know God's law (or even that there is a God) how can there be no subjectivity? Certainly the Catholic Church for years showed such subjective judgment regarding their own. But far be it from showing it to a mother caring for her child, or the child herself. Who is this subjectivity reserved for? The so-called princes of the Church and no one else.

Moral relativism is also why I support overturning the federal ban on funding embryonic stem cell research. This guy claims it's a distraction and is going to lead to embryo harvesting. There are many ways to prevent that, but in the end, I don't think there should be anything illegal about me choosing to create an embryo of my own body to harvest stem cells to save or better my life. I can't say that I would or wouldn't do that, but in the end, it's again about my body, my family, my decision.

Moral relativism gets sneered at and derided by those who claim it means an anything goes attitude. It doesn't. It means questions of morality should be decided within human societal and cultural contexts and there isn't a one size fits all policy for every moral decision. It does not mean a degraded morality, it means we are rational humans who can assess a situation within a context and make informed decisions about it. The people who think that any "moral" freedom will automatically lead to deprivation are cynics or fearful. Either they are cynics about humanity in general, or they are fearful of what they themselves don't like and therefore don't want others to do.

But within the light of the above story, I will take moral relativism any day of the week. Including Sundays.

No comments: