Usury, Abortion, & Notre Dame--Oh My!

A very good family friend and I started a debate about Obama speaking at and receiving an honorary degree from Notre Dame. He made the argument that if the Catholic Church is to be consistent, then a banker could never receive an honorary degree in economics from a Catholic institution because lending money for interest is in all instances usury and therefore against Biblical & Church teaching. A crying baby who was ready to go home to bed interrupted our conversation. Facebook then became the medium for our continued debate. I found our conversation interesting. I hope you do too. In addition, I hope that I adequately and accurately defended Catholicism. If I am in error on Church teaching, please leave a comment & let me know! I'm far from a perfect debater or apologist, but I'm trying to find my voice…

My initial message via Facebook:

This article might clear things up about usury & the Church. Basically, the Church didn't change-- the reality of money & economics did. Usury is still a sin-- but lending for interest is not always usarious anymore as money is not a consumable as it used to be in ancient times. The article explains it better than I ever could: http://www.catholicculture.org/tools/email.cfm?itemvalue=1&itemtype=Library Document&id=646&title=The%20Red%20Herring%20of%20Usury

So yes, a banker may receive an honorary degree from a Catholic institution provided he is otherwise a moral, upstanding individual. Obama's views are anti-Catholic values and therefore he should not. Besides, matters of life & death always trump other sins. As an aside-- did you see how they covered up all Catholic signage and symbols when he spoke at Georgetown? What's up with that? It didn't fit in with their "look" they go with for Presidential addresses. I guess God clashes these days. Shame on "Catholic" Georgetown for allowing it and shame on Obama's White House for requesting it.

I always enjoy our debates :) Hope to see you soon!

His reply:

Having been involved in setting up the event for the Clinton visit in 1996, I can tell you that the White House (and any elected office) will define what they want the backdrop to be. It has nothing to do with what is normally there. It never has to do with covering up anything--it has to do with defining the backdrop. Again, Obama's opponents are desperately trying to find fault with him by distorting facts such as the Georgetown visit. The White House wanted the backdrop to be flags. This is not uncommon.

Also, Obama's values are not that far apart from the Catholic Church. The only major difference is stem cell research (which many Catholics support) and government's role in preventing abortion. Obama does not believe in abortion as a birth control option. He believes that, as decided by the U.S. Supreme Court, that goverment intervention is unconstitiutional. I can tell you that most "pro-choice" people like me are also "pro-life". We just can't pass the Right To Life litmus test, because that organization (like most) is trying to prop itself up as a power broker. (There are also pro-choice women who are pro-abortion, of which I think is a result of self-indulgent thinking.)

Also, Pope Jean Paul II ordered all Catholic clergy serving in Congress (and other political offices) to resign. The rationale was that the clergy were supposed to be representing the church and not a lay consituency. Why now are rogue bishops telling people that if they vote for candidate X, they are going to hell? Why did some of these rogue bishops spiritually threaten Catholics if they voted for Kerry (a Catholic)? This contradicts the direction that Pope Jean Paul II took the Church with regard to politics. The clergy should spend their time policing their colleagues with respect to conduct regarding children and influencing their flock on a more personal/community level.

With all of that said, I still believe that the Catholic Church makes a more positive contribution than any other religious organization around the world when it comes to values and representing the direction defined by Jesus.

My response:

I'm not really all that worked up about Obama using a backdrop at Georgetown. It makes sense for him to do so. The President is in a position where he needs to address all Americans and I can understand the need to not isolate Americans that don't share Catholic beliefs & values. The right-wing media definitely blew it out of proportion. However, I think Georgetown should have offered a location where there wouldn't have been conflicts regarding the background. As a Catholic institution, they should preserve their values just as the President needs to preserve neutrality.

However, I find your statement that Obama's beliefs aren't far from the Catholic Church very offensive. There are huge differences. Embryonic stem cell research is paramount to abortion-- of which both are absolute, intrinsic evils and should never, ever be permitted. Just because you don't think abortion is a valid birth control option doesn't make you pro-life. It's a way of rationalizing that it's ok for women to murder their babies. If a 27 week baby is born prematurely, we scramble to try to save him/her. If a pregnant mother is attacked and the baby dies, the assailant can be charged with murder. But if a woman decides she doesn't want the baby, all of a sudden it isn't considered a human being, it's just a "bunch of tissue," and can be crushed and ripped out of her body. You can't have it both ways. As for embryonic stem cell research, just because some people who claim to be Catholic say they're ok with it, that doesn't mean that's the Catholic view. Anyone who is a faithful Catholic and loyal to the magesterium and understands that life begins at conception cannot in good conscience believe embryonic stem cell research is ok. Besides-- there are lots of undifferentiated stem cells available without moral consequence-- placentas and umbilical cord blood have thousands of stem cells. But both get thrown away every day when a baby is born. Instead a lot of people think it's easier to destroy a tiny embryonic baby. It just doesn't make sense. As for Roe v. Wade, I believe it was a poorly defended case and a prime example of the Supreme Court legislating from the bench. If it comes down to a right to privacy, then a lot of things we do in the ER should be illegal. We shouldn't be able to stop people from committing suicide, we shouldn't force drug overdoses to stay until they're medically stable, we shouldn't keep drunks from wandering out into traffic, doctors should be able to assist people to commit suicide-- it's their right to privacy, afterall. Also interesting-- the woman defended as "Roe" in the case is now a pro-life advocate.

Maybe I'm (very) biased, but I've held a 23 week baby that had just died (born prematurely at home). It's far from a bunch of tissue. He had a perfect little face, 10 fingers and 10 toes, just small. The baby was born trying to breathe. That same baby could have been legally aborted. How is that ok?

I think the comment about the sex abuse scandal was a bit unfair. It was a disgraceful and horrific thing that happened and can never be adequately amended, but thankfully there have been lots of reforms made in light of the scandal. For example, every week in the Church paper there is a number to call to report abuse and in order to volunteer with children/teens, you have to attend a training and receive a certification. In an institution the size of the Catholic Church, scandals have and will happen (not that that makes it ok, but it's an imperfect institution with imperfect people in it). It's funny to me, however, that any time someone wants to criticize the Church they bring up the sex abuse scandal, but if someone wants to argue against Evangelicals they never bring up the sex scandals (secretly gay ministers, etc.) of the past decade. No one picks on the Episcopalians for ordaining women & gay ministers. The Catholic Church seems to get the most criticism.

Which bishops have said people are going to hell for voting for a particular candidate? I'd be interested to see names & quotations. The Church doesn't teach that. The closest I've heard (which has probably been misunderstood by many, like a lot of Church teachings) is that if you specifically vote for a pro-choice/pro-abortion candidate because of that stance you are in a state of mortal sin because of your action to protect/promote the evil of abortion. Just because you voted for the pro-choice candidate doesn't automatically damn you to hell. It's a matter of intention, knowledge, and consent. That's in the Catechism. Mortal sin leads to hell. Not voting for Kerry necessarily. Hypothetically, if there was an election and both candidates were pro-choice and you voted in your best conscience for the candidate you thought would do the most good, you would not be guilty of a mortal sin. You don't have a pro-life option in that instance. So by voting for the candidate you believe to be the best choice you aren't committing a mortal sin.

I think a lot of the problem is that the Catholic Church is sadly misunderstood and there are a couple generations of very poorly catechized Catholics running around right now-- my generation especially. The "I'm OK, You're OK" mindset just doesn't hold up. Everything isn't OK. There are very clear right & wrong in the world and I think a lot of Catholics have fallen into the trap of moral relativism. If you really study and get to the root of Catholic teaching, it's both consistent with Jesus' teachings, most importantly, and also very logical.

Just curious what you thought about the usury article. You never commented on it.

I always learn a lot from discussing these "hot topics" with you and I appreciate that you put up with my conservative opinions :) I have a lot of respect for you & your opinions, even if I don't agree with all of them.