'Hardball' host gives 'insulting lecture' during interview with Bishop Tobin, Catholic League charges
Washington D.C., Nov 24, 2009 / 03:06 pm (CNA).-
Washington D.C., Nov 24, 2009 / 03:06 pm (CNA).-
On Monday Bishop Thomas Tobin tangled with television pundit Chris Matthews on MSNBC’s “Hardball” about the relation between religion and politics as well as the legal status of abortion. Matthews’ comments, which charged that the bishop has overstepped his authority, were criticized as a “rant” and an “extended lecture.”
Bishop Tobin, of the Diocese of Providence has been critical of Rhode Island U.S. Rep. Patrick Kennedy’s attacks on the Church for opposing abortion. Rep. Kennedy recently revealed that the bishop had asked him to refrain from receiving Holy Communion in 2007 because of his public contradiction of Catholic teaching.
Chris Matthews began the Monday evening “Hardball” segment with a clip of remarks by Rep. Kennedy’s uncle President John F. Kennedy, the first Catholic U.S. president. In his political campaign President Kennedy had said that a politician should not accept “instruction on public policy” from the Pope or any other ecclesiastical source.
In response, Bishop Tobin emphasized that all religious believers, including Catholic politicians, should put their faith before their career. (He did say this, but first Tobin tried to say that Jack Kennedy didn't mean what Jack Kennedy actually said. The statement quoted here was Tobin's fall back position after Matthews wondered if Tobin was trying to twist the meaning of what Kennedy actually said.)
“Nothing can become more important than your relationship with God,” he told Matthews, who is Catholic.
Bishop Tobin endorsed a return to U.S. law before the pro-abortion Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade. Matthews pressed him on this point, asking what laws he would write if he were a member of Congress.
Bishop Tobin endorsed a return to U.S. law before the pro-abortion Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade. Matthews pressed him on this point, asking what laws he would write if he were a member of Congress.
“I am not a member of Congress, but if I were, I would never be in a position of supporting any abortion legislation that encourages abortion,” the bishop replied.
“What law would you pass?” Matthews pressed. “You’re coming down on Congressman Kennedy and other public officials. …Would you outlaw abortion?”
“That’s the direction our nation ought to move,” the prelate responded.
Asked to tell Catholics how they should vote as members of Congress, he said Catholics should vote for laws that “preserve and protect human life.” (Then get out there and tell congress to quit authorizing the production of more nuclear weapons.)
Matthews asked Bishop Tobin to be specific, asking whether women who procure abortions should be thrown in jail.
“I have no idea what the penalty would be,” the bishop replied.
“I have no idea what the penalty would be,” the bishop replied.
Matthews professed agreement with the bishop’s moral views, but then claimed Bishop Tobin had “transgressed” into the area of lawmaking. He characterized the bishop’s reluctance to name specific penalties for a woman who procures abortion as an expression of “hesitancy” from the clergy.
“Words like ‘murder’ and ‘killing’ are used in the case of abortion but they do not seem to apply in terms of writing the law,” Matthews commented. “And I would urge you to consider the possibility of error here, because in getting into telling public officials how to set public policy, you’re stepping beyond moral teaching, and you’re basically assuming a moral authority which I don’t think is yours.
“As you admitted tonight four or five times, you don’t know how to write law, and writing law is very tricky in our secular society,” Matthews’ comments concluded.
“I will reflect on that if you reflect on the teachings of the Church,” Bishop Tobin responded. (This is the kind of response which so demonstrates the maturity level of our bishops. The fact Matthews was trying to point out is that while Americans may agree abortion is immoral, they do not agree it should be criminal in secular law. This is the very point Tobin refused to address, and then reduced himself to the above statement.)
“I will reflect on that if you reflect on the teachings of the Church,” Bishop Tobin responded. (This is the kind of response which so demonstrates the maturity level of our bishops. The fact Matthews was trying to point out is that while Americans may agree abortion is immoral, they do not agree it should be criminal in secular law. This is the very point Tobin refused to address, and then reduced himself to the above statement.)
Bill Donohue of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights characterized Matthews as having “spun out of control.” (Takes one to know one.)
“Matthews proceeded with an extended and quite insulting lecture,” Donohue charged in a Tuesday press release. “He had absolutely no interest in a discussion on the question of the morality and legality of abortion—all he wanted to do was to make the bishop sit there and listen to his rant. Indeed, his tirade was simply over-the-top.” (No Bill, Mathews was trying to get the Tobin to answer his question as the whether the good bishop saw criminal prosecution as part of his anti abortion platform for secular America. Does following Catholic teaching on abortion mean advocating for the incarceration of women and doctors? Tobin wouldn't answer.)
Donohue claimed that no non-Catholic would treat a bishop in such a way.
“But too many liberal Catholics, especially Irish Catholics, think they are exempt from the same standards of civility that apply to others.” (Ooooh, more projection.)
“But too many liberal Catholics, especially Irish Catholics, think they are exempt from the same standards of civility that apply to others.” (Ooooh, more projection.)
Pro-life advocate Jill Stanek wrote on her blog that she thought the Matthews interview should have focused on the question “Are preborns human or not?”
“If they are, then we need laws to protect them, just as we do all other innocent human life. If we're not sure - if the answer is above one's pay grade - then we should err on the side of life,” she wrote. (Jill doesn't answer Matthew's question either. If abortion is really murder, who goes to jail and for how long?)
“If they are, then we need laws to protect them, just as we do all other innocent human life. If we're not sure - if the answer is above one's pay grade - then we should err on the side of life,” she wrote. (Jill doesn't answer Matthew's question either. If abortion is really murder, who goes to jail and for how long?)
The question of criminal penalties for women who seek abortions is a common talking point among supporters of permissive abortion laws. The issue was considered in an August, 2007 symposium titled “One Untrue Thing” on the conservative web site National Review Online.
In that symposium, Villanova University law professor Joseph Dellapenna said “none of the anti-abortion laws overturned by Roe v. Wade… treated the woman as a criminal.”
Rather, he explained, the laws treated the woman as a victim in part because of the dangers of abortion and in part because of the need for her testimony to convict the abortionist. (Targeting solely the doctor, while leaving the woman/man free of culpability, would most likely not pass constitutional muster. Both users and dealers go to jail in the war on drugs.)
In the same symposium Clarke D. Forsythe of Americans United for Life pointed out that before Roe the abortionist, not the prosecutor, tried to argue that an abortion-seeking woman should be treated as an accomplice. This was done “for the obvious purpose of undermining the state’s criminal case against the abortionist,” he wrote. (Sharing the responsibility is also morally consistent. The double standard served to make society feel less guilty about prosecuting abortion at all. Many men also found this system personally very beneficial, as they too weren't culpable as accomplices.)
************************************************************
Chris Matthews did get preachy, but then he always does. Half the time MSNBC can't do a decent transcription of his show because Matthews is always talking over his guests. What made this time different is that Bishop Tobin really helped bring it on himself by not coming close to answering any of Matthew's questions or points.
Matthews obviously hit a nerve if CNA feels compelled to attempt to answer the question Matthew's asked about criminalizing abortion. Tobin certainly didn't come close to any answer.
Bill Donohue calling out Matthews for his Irish Catholic incivility is a hoot. The responses of these men to Mathew's arguments is like watching play ground bullies compare the relative merits of their daddy's biceps. I'm kind of thinking this is because these pro life stalwarts have given very little thought to what criminalizing abortion really means. Maybe the idea of prisons full of America's teen age daughters isn't a pretty picture. It certainly appears that the idea of holding the male aspect of the abortion equation accountable isn't even in the picture.
This has been an interesting couple of weeks. Lots of backlash starting to appear, and I put this interview with Bishop Tobin in that category. For years and years the Catholic pro life movement has been allowed to function in a universe free from practical accountability. Not any more. It does appear that transparency and accountability are the buzz words around which the Catholic backlash is coalescing and finally, the pro life movement is starting to feel it. America really does want to know how far they are going to take the 'murder' 'killing' death language when it comes to abortion. That's the issue on which this debate will finally be decided.
Hope everyone has a blessed Thanksgiving. I will do what I've done since my dad worked for the Detroit Lions--watch them lose to the Packers on Thanksgiving. Those Thanksgivings do not involve too many fond memories. Most of the time the turkey got butchered rather than carved as dad would wax eloquently on and on about the parentage of Vince Lombardi and Bart Starr. Mom would just roll her eyes and pass the gravy. When it came to the Packers, Dad did have more than a smidgen of Bill Donohue even if he wasn't Irish--so did Vince Lombardi for that matter. Maybe it's a Catholic thing.
