The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
PDF versionInductions on money, religious freedom, and polarization
by John L Allen Jr on Jan. 28, 2011
COLUMN
Any logician worth his or her salt will confirm that deduction, moving from the general to the specific, is a much stronger form of argument than induction, which works the other way around. The problem with drawing broad conclusions from specific cases is that a counter-example may be lurking just around the corner.
Even so, I’m going to try my hand at some induction this week, teasing out broad implications from three specific storylines percolating around the Catholic world.
As a preview of coming attractions, here are the conclusions to which I’ll build:
- The Catholic church may be entering a season of major reform regarding money management.
- Religious freedom is destined to be the towering diplomatic and political priority of the Vatican and the global church in the 21st century.
- Against all odds, there’s hope for overcoming polarization in American Catholic life -- and it stems from an area where those divisions seem especially pronounced, Catholic healthcare.
With that, as the great logician Sherlock Holmes would say, the game is afoot.
* * *
The city of Maribor in northern Slovenia is usually a fairly quiet place, known mostly as a popular Alpine ski resort. Yet today the Archdiocese of Maribor faces what one popular Italian media outlet has described, perhaps a bit breathlessly, as “one of the most devastating financial disasters in the history of the church.”
In a nutshell, the Italian weekly L’Espresso reported on Jan. 21 that after decades of risky investments, the Maribor archdiocese is now in hock to the tune of more than $1 billion, and that a network of banks, real estate firms, and media companies owned by the archdiocese is on the brink of collapse, potentially wiping out the savings of thousands of small investors.
Earlier this week, the Maribor archdiocese released a detailed statement, the gist of which is that things aren’t quite that bad. The companies cited in the article, it said, are actually independent, even if the archdiocese and two smaller Slovenian dioceses own a controlling stake. As of the end of 2010, it said, the total debt of the archdiocese itself was just $24 million, and it pays its bills on time.
That said, the statement acknowledged a “moral responsibility” to protect investors in companies owned by the church, and said the archdiocese has pledged some of its property to try to stem the bleeding, including a prized 13th century cloister and a workshop for musical organs. The statement also said the archdiocese has already overhauled its financial practices to make them “more in service to its gospel mission.”
NCR: February 17-March 1, 2012
Subscribe to NCR to get all the news and special features that aren't always available online. In this issue:
- Conscience Roundup
Hear what theologians, commentators, and our editors have to say about the contraception mandate
- Special Section: Religious Life
Work of missioners, past and future; African meetings; and more
- Tribute to a Peacemaker
New York's Pax Christi fetes Daniel Berrigan
For the rest of us, here’s the interesting part of the story.
The financial woes in Maribor have developed over decades, but the Vatican apparently got wind of them only recently. In November 2009 Pope Benedict XVI appointed a new coadjutor bishop to clean house, and in 2010 the Vatican dispatched a financial expert to study the books. The obvious question is why it took the Vatican so long to get up to speed.
The answer, according to the L’Espresso report, is that the archbishop’s financial adviser pulled an end-run around rules requiring Vatican approval for debt above a certain threshold. Businessman Mirko Krasovec reportedly said that he didn’t consult Rome because he thought the requirement only applied to individual loans, not to cumulative debt, and that they applied only to the archdiocese itself, not to companies owned by it or affiliated with it.
L’Espresso offered this bit of speculation: In the wake of the Maribor meltdown, the Vatican may consider “more stringent controls on bishops and priests who fancy themselves latter-day J.P. Morgans.”
Ecclesiologists, of course, might wince at that idea. There’s a solid argument to be made, rooted in the principle of subsidiarity, for the Vatican to defer to local bishops on administrative questions which are not matters of faith or morals, even if bishops sometimes abuse that latitude.
Yet L’Espresso may be right that the Vatican will consider more exacting financial controls, for three reasons.
First, in a 21st century world, the notion of a purely local scandal is an anachronism. No matter how isolated a corner of the planet, if a problem breaks out in the Catholic church, it metastasizes on the Internet and quickly becomes a “Vatican story,” if only through the lens of “Why hasn’t Rome done something?”
Second, the Vatican is reeling from its own financial headaches, including accusations of corruption at the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples under its former prefect, Cardinal Crescenzio Sepe, and an investigation of the Vatican Bank for alleged violations of anti-money laundering statutes. Partly in response, Pope Benedict recently created a new financial watchdog agency in the Vatican. The climate is primed, in other words, for a comprehensive review of money management.
Third, the sexual abuse crisis has already created a sense that Rome needs to take a more direct hand in overseeing local bishops, to remedy a perceived lack of accountability. It wouldn’t be much of a stretch to extend that vigilance to financial questions.
Yet even if the Vatican doesn’t act, the Maribor episode likely will accelerate momentum at other levels of the church towards “good government.” It will make bishops and other church leaders more wary about trusting financial Svengalis, and it hands reformers another card to play in making the case for best practices, such as outside audits and professional investment strategies.
Another force pushing the church in that direction is the rise of the global south in Catholicism. Across Africa, Asia and Latin America, the struggle against corruption in politics and business is a defining social justice priority, and it will be difficult to make that case if the church is not perceived to have clean hands itself.
It’s a root sociological principle that scandal breeds reform, and in that sense, the Maribor story is likely to have relevance well beyond the Alps.
* * *
On Jan. 21, the Supreme Court of India delivered its long-awaited verdict upholding a life sentence for a radical Hindu activist in the murder of Graham Staines, an Australian Evangelical missionary burned to death along with his two young sons in 1999. The Supreme Court rejected the death penalty for activist Dara Singh, which under Indian law applies only in the “rarest of rare” cases.
The verdict was welcomed by the Catholic bishops of India, both because someone was held accountable for anti-Christian violence stemming from Hindu radicalism, and because the death penalty was not applied.
Yet the bishops were also critical of the reasoning in the Supreme Court ruling, which seemed to suggest that the intent behind the crime somehow lessened its gravity. That intent, according to the justices, was “to teach a lesson to Staines about his religious activities, namely, converting poor tribals to Christianity.”
The ruling repeatedly expresses disapproval of missionary activity, especially among members of the tribal groups, meaning the roughly 85 million indigenous persons in India who occupy the lowest rungs of the socio-economic ladder. They account for a disproportionate share of recent converts to Christianity, including the Catholic church, whose membership is heavily drawn from the “Dalit” underclass. Hindu radicals accuse Christians of coercing, even forcing, Tribals and Dalits into conversion, a suggestion which the Supreme Court ruling could be read to support.
The fear, in other words, is that the ruling may do as much to stoke anti-Christian hysteria as to retard it.
“I am deeply concerned about the implications of this judgment,” said Cardinal Oswald Gracias of Mumbai, speaking on behalf of the Indian bishops.
“Religious freedom is a human right,” Gracias said, “just as it’s a human right for a person to present his own beliefs to others, and it is a human right for every person to freely accept a religious practice and beliefs.”
In terms of broad implications, here’s the take-away.
As the 21st century rolls on, the leadership tone in Catholicism will increasingly be set by guys such as Gracias, who live in neighborhoods where the battle for religious freedom isn’t about an alleged “war on Christmas” or the latest exhibit in an art gallery. It’s a matter of life and death, as recent events in Iraq, Egypt and Nigeria, as well as India, eloquently illustrate.
As leaders from those parts of the world exercise greater influence on the Vatican and on global Catholic consciousness, religious freedom will be set in stone as the church’s top diplomatic and geopolitical priority.
In English-speaking Catholicism, India in particular will be a force. By mid-century there will be 25 million Catholics in India, more than the Catholic populations of England, Ireland and Canada combined. Since English is the primary language of Indian theological and public policy debate, Indian Catholics will exercise a gravitational pull in Anglophone Catholic circles.
The pride of place assigned to religious freedom may frustrate some Catholic social justice activists, who would like to see a greater share of time and treasure invested in anti-poverty crusades, campaigns against war and the arms trade, environmental struggles, and so on. Those issues won’t disappear, but as long as Catholics have to fear for their lives precisely in those parts of the world where the church is experiencing its most dramatic growth, defending religious freedom will remain at the top of the to-do list.
* * *
As a footnote on India, senior officials from the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, led by American Cardinal William Levada, traveled to Bangalore for an unusual colloquium involving the Indian bishops and a cross-section of 26 Indian Catholic theologians Jan. 16-22.
Indians have pioneered some of the most daring theology in the Catholic world over recent decades in the area of religious pluralism, meaning the relationship between Christianity and other religions. Though the colloquium took place behind closed doors, reports from the UCAN news service suggest there was a lively exchange, pivoting on the tension between respecting the core doctrines of the faith (especially Christ as the lone and unique Saviour of the world) and the cultural context in which those doctrines have to be proclaimed.
The fact that the Vatican’s doctrinal brain trust flew halfway around the world to have that conversation is another way of saying, “India matters.”
It’s also worth noting that Maltese Msgr. Charles Scicluna, the Promoter of Justice in the CDF and in effect the Vatican’s chief prosecutor on sex abuse cases, was part of Levada’s delegation. That’s significant because India has been a focal point for frustrations about disparate policies on sex abuse around the Catholic world, including perceptions that foreign-born priests facing accusations in the United States or Europe can simply return home and evade justice.
Last April, the case of Fr. Joseph Palanivel Jeyapaul stirred headlines. Jeyapaul had served in the Crookston diocese in Minnesota during 2004-05, and was later accused of sexually assaulting two minor girls. In the meantime Jeyapaul had returned to his home diocese in southern India, where he continued serving as a priest in a bureaucratic capacity even after his bishop had been informed of the charges. The bishop imposed “precautionary measures” but not removal from ministry, which is the policy in the States.
It will be interesting to track whether Scicluna’s visit leads to greater coordination of sex abuse cases among the Indian bishops and the nations to which their clergy are being dispatched these days.
* * *
Finally, I filed a story this week for the print edition of NCR updating the relationship between the U.S. bishops and the Catholic Health Association, representing more than 1200 Catholic hospitals, health systems, and other healthcare facilities in America.
The story does not focus on the strains in that relationship, which would be a sort of “dog bites man” reporting. Everybody knows what the tensions are: fallout over the national debate over healthcare reform, and the more recent case in Phoenix in which Bishop Thomas Olmsted revoked the Catholic status of a member hospital over accusations that it performed an indirect abortion. While the CHA has accepted Olmsted’s authority to do that, it clearly doesn’t share his conclusion.
Instead, I concentrated on the more surprising dimension of the story: To wit, despite all the headaches, the two sides are still talking. In fact, I quoted four leading American bishops, including the past and current presidents of the bishops’ conference, to the effect that their ties with the CHA remain fundamentally strong, and that good conversations are taking place.
The two key players in that dialogue now are Archbishop Timothy Dolan of New York, president of the bishops’ conference, and Daughters of Charity Sr. Carol Keehan, president of the CHA.
Here’s why the story is relevant beyond its immediate implications for Catholic healthcare.
It’s a notorious fact of life that American Catholicism is often a house divided against itself. Though it’s hardly the only one, a primary fault line these days runs between the evangelical wing of the church and its reform-minded, social justice-oriented camp. What makes the CHA story beguiling is that in many ways, Dolan and Keehan are apt symbols for that larger contrast.
Dolan is a quintessential evangelical Catholic, a self-described “John Paul II’ bishop -- robustly orthodox, far more interested in taking the church’s message to the streets than in tinkering with its internal structures, and proud of the way the American bishops have made the pro-life cause their defining social concern. Dolan’s election to the presidency of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops marks, as writer George Weigel argues in a recent First Things essay, “the End of the Bernardin Era” -- a reference to the late Cardinal Joseph Bernardin of Chicago and his center-left leadership.
Keehan, of course, is an American woman religious representing one of the primary carriers of the church’s social mission. She’s unapologetically pro-life, but sees that commitment as part of a continuum of concerns about human life and dignity -- a core element of the Bernardin vision.
Yet neither Dolan nor Keehan are in any sense extremists, and both insist that what unites them is more fundamental than their differences.
Keehan is willing to pay the price of admission for any serious effort to engage officialdom, which is a clear acknowledgment, as Olmsted put it in his letter to the Phoenix hospital, that “there cannot be a tie” in the Catholic system; ultimately, it’s up to the bishop to decide. Dolan, for his part, clearly understands that for episcopal authority to be credible, it has to be exercised with restraint and only after wide consultation.
(In a recent interview, Dolan said he’s well aware that for many people these days, in the wake of the sex abuse crisis, listening to the bishops speak about morality is like “Nixon giving a talk on clean government.” He said bishops have to defend “the unique normative value” of their magisterium, but they have to do it with “graciousness” and even “a sense of contrition” for past failures.)
My point is this: If Dolan and Keehan, and the bishops and Catholic healthcare providers they represent, can stick together, it would provide a powerful lesson for the rest of the church that our internal tensions do not have to be fatal.
There are, naturally, plenty of people who would love to see Dolan and Keehan at one another’s throats, and those are usually the loudest voices in the room. Perhaps it’s time for the quiet middle in the church to let them know that sanity has a constituency too.
This is a very uplifting
This is a very uplifting article. The Church in America needs reminding that Catholics around the world face life and death struggles, and that the Bishops must not act like feudal lords. The election of Dolan to president of the Council of Bishops disturbed me, and his fighting with the New York Times seemed to be a bit out of touch with the reality of the country, the fact that he urges bishops to act with "graciousness...and a sense of contrition," gives me hope.
The quiet middle is the largest part of the Church in America, I believe. In the end the Church belongs to Christ, and nothing we can do as humans will ever contravene what God can and will do within the Church. Flawed as we are, God is at work among us.
John, Watching the internal
John,
Watching the internal dispute of American Catholics over who can authoritatively speak definitively about the morality of abortion is disheartening. The complexity of the concerns requiring addressing and the arguments offered to support particular pastoral or legislative directives too often leaves out the realm of the tragic within the human journey. The Church worldwide will continue to be a beacon of light only to the extend that orthopraxis takes precedence over orthodoxy. If abortion is the defining social issue for American Catholics as they Bishops would like it to be, and I doubt that it actually is, then it behooves the Bishops and all those who follow them to practice compassion and mercy in the face of tragedy and the horrific. I'm afraid the credibility of the magesterium today is so low that all their ranting and raving, condemning, and political posturing does little more than turn most people off when what they are seeking are ministers and leaders who can guide them through the shadow of death and lead them to still waters where goodness and mercy shall flow all the days of their lives. Who has authority these days? Those who walk with people, share their pain, know their joys and sorrows as they confront the issue of unwanted or unsustainable pregnancy. I wish you would interview some Catholics who have such authority. They might be worth listening to. The Bishops and their mouthpieces simply aren't any more.
One of the pitfalls of
One of the pitfalls of "induction" is that it assumes that a generalization or "universal" lies behind the example(s). That can work but implies that the "particular(s)" belong to and are contained within a legitimate generalization. But what if the issue is really the expression of a much larger "paradigm".
Let's take an example. In the fifties automobile companies blamed the high rate of deaths associated with the auto on poor drivers. With PR investments and political support (investment) they got away with it and, yes, there was a considerable amount of validity to their argument. Until, Ralph Nader published the thoroughly researched and well documented "Unsafe at Any Speed" which demonstrated that the automobile industry (the larger umbrella under which sub-categories of "drivers", road infrastructure, auto sales and maintenance, etc.operated) produced a shoddy even dangerous product, knew it, denied it and blamed others. No matter how good a driver I was the gas tank of the Corvair might still explode and kill me.
It is reasonable to assumee that the US bishops and the Health Care people will come to a quiet compromise. Can any assumption be legitimately made that this will heal the divisions within US catholicism?
The divisive issue within US catholicism is much larger, broader and deeper that health care. While the sexual abuse of children - both in its harm to child victims and the institutional response - is the most henious expression it is not the only expression of absolute, patriarchical and exclusionary authoritarianism (cf. bishops and health care above).
Whether consciously or not, the american people get this. Clearly, the church understands this and will fight tooth and claw, even slip in a compromise or two as long as it obscures and deflects from the larger issue.
Rather than prolong this I would recommend reading the January 29, 2011 Editorial from "The Tablet" titled "Hard lessons for the Chruch".
The better answer is for
The better answer is for clergy to divest and let the financial operations of a diocese be controlled by lay non-profit corporations. That helps the other issues get solved as well.
Yes, let's put all diocesan
Yes, let's put all diocesan finances under "Businessman Mirko Krasovec". What could possibly go wrong?
Given NCR's previous coverage
Given NCR's previous coverage of a training institute for women religious in India last year, and the scope of gender discrimination in India as well as throughout Catholic structures, I wish that future NCR references to this colloquium would identify the Indian theologians in the context of its previous reports. Specifically, are any of the theology faculty mentioned in that article among the 26 theologians?
The sad fact in all of this
The sad fact in all of this Bishops vs. Hospitals issue is that it seems to boil over mostly about the issue of abortion. I often wonder what greater influence both groups would have today on that issue if when the laws that brought HMO's came into existence, the Bishops would have had the wisdom to create what would have become the largest and most influential HMO by consolidating all of the hospitals into such a Catholic group. Unwillingness to give up local control and focus on topics like presumed US Imperialism in the world, foreign aid, seemingly impending nuclear war and other much more headline oriented issues were distracting them. The hospitals had economic survival issues that were equally serious and often presumed to be of more concern in the face of HMO competition.
But of course I write with perfect hindsight. I hope the lesson is not repeated in some way.
Thank you again John for a
Thank you again John for a column that is insightful and clarifying with your use of analogies and metaphors. The stab - not the best use of words - at lining up three events and coming to a sense that a movement is gathering momentum, that people will not stand for financial mismanagement, that a eurocentric top-down culture, is waning, and that the Phoenix situation of de-Catholicizing a Catholic hospital is unbalanced, lacking in conventional moral theology and calls for a change!
Allen writes: "the Vatican
Allen writes: "the Vatican will consider more exacting financial controls, for three reasons." In the impeccable logic of the Vatican, yet more centralilsation of accountability and power is the solution. That is also the response of authoritarian governments. The logic of more participatory bodies would be to initiate accountability to the local members, in this case, the diocese.
Allen writes: "Across Africa, Asia and Latin America, the struggle against corruption in politics and business is a defining social justice priority, and it will be difficult to make that case if the church is not perceived to have clean hands itself." Not many cleans hands around in our top-heavy, pyramidal Church of the South, I'm afraid. To date most financial scandals in the Church of the South are kept under wraps. An ecclesial culture of secrecy in an accountability-goes-upwards-only Church in societies that are systemically corrupt themselves, and where bishops "consult" with a limited number of "prominent" Catholic laity many of whom have their hands in the national till, does not bode well for increasing transparency. Separating the juridical, legislative and executive powers of the bishop and making him accountable to the people of the diocese (and not just to a few cronies), would entail an ecclesial "cultural revolution" that we sorely need.
Will wonders never cease! I
Will wonders never cease! I didn't choke on anything I read in this very, very thoughtful essay and I haven't been able to say that for the past couple of years. Thoughtful induction becomes your writing, John.
I hold a couple of reservations however. You say "religious freedom will be set in stone as the church's top diplomatic and geopolitical priority." That's a gigantic piece to swallow. Religious freedom runs two ways as we've already begun to discover in Italy (crucifixes in public places, schools particularly), in France (Muslim women's head/body coverings), in Switzerland (the mosque situations in some cantons), in the USA (attempts at pre-emption against Sharia Law objection to mosques or temples on trumped up bases of disturbance or other things). We Christians have a lot on our historical plate to deal with in this regard. There are horses of many colors in this barn. For instance, does the Japanese Bishops' problems with the Neocatechumenate group fall under this rubric? Just what are the problems the bishops face? Why?
I can agree with you that Indian theologians (do we include Sri Lankan Tissa Ballasuryia among these?) have been in the forefront of much Asian theological ferment over the recent past. I can't agree however, that they are the sole Asian champions of contextual theologizing. Other voices were equally strong when developing the axiom of "Triple Dialogue" as a result of the last Asian Synod of Bishops.
It was extremely comforting for me to read that the "Vatican's doctrinal brain trust" now acknowledges a "tension between the core doctrines of the faith... and the cultural context in which those have to be proclaimed" and THEREFORE hied themselves to India for a face-to-face on things that may unite. It was saddening though that these were close-door events. Exploring common ground should never be closed off from those whom it affects.
Speaking of common ground brings us happily to a memory of Cardinal Bernadin and to the two figureheads in the US healthcare situation. They are exploring Common Ground. They are exploring the "tension between core doctrines" and the "cultural context in which they have to be proclaimed." Discovery of Common Ground can lead to harmony if we are humble and open enough to let it.
Thanks for fruitful mental provocation.
Your barking up the wrong
Your barking up the wrong miter if you think Phoenix Bishop Olmsted really has the “graciousness” and even “a sense of contrition” for past failures" to lead his diocese as a shepherd the way Dolan states is required the health care issue. For Bishop Olmsted to "defend...their magisterum in a more compasionate manner, assumes that he has the pastoral skills. It just isn't going to happen that way - at least not with the bishop of Phoenix.
The Vatican 2 Document on
The Vatican 2 Document on Religious Freedom is a marvelous document. The Catholic Church would do well to read it and practice it itself, if we would expect other religions and people in general to observe it’s many very wise principles for searching for truth.
This is a good summary on the
This is a good summary on the state of the church. I think there is hope here. I am glad that Archbishop Dolan and Sister Keehan are talking. That is an encouraging start. Dolan's understanding of how people who have heard about the bishop's scandals will receive any form of moralizing on the part of Bishop is fantastic. He sounds like he might have things in perspective.
So, there's GOOD news and
So, there's GOOD news and there's BAD news.
First, the bad news:
"...listening to the bishops speak about morality is like “Nixon giving a talk on clean government.”
Now, the good news:
"scandal breeds reform..."
Everybody feel better now?
John Allen wrote: In a
John Allen wrote: In a recent interview, Dolan said he’s well aware that for many people these days, in the wake of the sex abuse crisis, listening to the bishops speak about morality is like “Nixon giving a talk on clean government.”
And there you have it in a nutshell. Dolan admitted the incongruity, but then goes on in that interview to seek legal and moral refuge in holding apostolic office.
.
Speaking of money, freedom
Speaking of money, freedom and polarization:
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/peoria-diocese-restarts-archbisho...
GIVE US THOSE BONES, so we can open a SHRINE and start raking in the CASH!
In the words of Fulton Sheen himself:
"Life is like a cash register, in that every account, every thought, every deed, like every sale, is registered and recorded." Fulton Sheen
www.archbishopsheencause.org
The principle of subsidiarity
The principle of subsidiarity could be upheld if each Metropolitan would have a team to investigate all dioceses in his province.Same country same rules... Done.
By all means, let the
By all means, let the financial affairs of all the world's bishops be subject to the supervision of Vatican bureaucrats. After all, in a globalized world the bishops are merely local functionaries and representatives of Vatican, Inc.
But, on the other hand, you seem to agree with Archbishop Dolan that the views of even individual bishops have "unique normative value" even on matters of natural law which, as the Church teaches, are determined by all who can reason.
As usual, John, you pretty accurately reflect the Vatican's worldview. But having it both ways, whenever it suits them, will never work. In all cases they use various and even antithetical theological theories to buttress their primary concern -- that they be in charge, just like any normal autocratic regime.
Why would this financial
Why would this financial scandal result in reform when so many others have not. Is it possible that many in India would view Christian Evangelism as an extension of the Western Imperialism that is a part of India's very recent past. Given Christianity's own history of intollerance we should tread softly among other cultures.
On the American Bishops: "Common contrition for past failures!!!" As long as Bishops continue to use soft language and actually be held accountable for the crimes they allowed to continue under their very noses, they will have no credibility as teachers of the faith. In the United States they are no more than an arm of the Republican Party.
Two thoughts: John Allen
Two thoughts:
John Allen calls JPII "robustly orthodox." JPII was not. Like B16, he was docetist, Jesus as God rather than a man who realized he was "one with" God. JPII wrote that Christianity was superior to Judaism, Islam and Buddhism because Christianity was founded by God (Jesus) whereas the other religions were founded by mere men. And B16, in "Jesus of Nazareth," writes that Jesus could call God "Father" by right but the rest of us can call God "father" only because Jesus (God) allowed us to do so. This theology is nonsense and far from "robustly orthodox." It is docetist, which, last time I checked, was rightly declared heresy by the early Church.
Second, Archbishop Dolan says the teaching of any bishop has "unique normative value." He means lay people and lower clergy have to obey bishops, even on matters of natural law about which bishops have no particular expertise. But, let a bishop defy Rome, as Archbishop Milongo did re married priests, and we see how "normative" they are. Milongo was sacked and deprived of even his pension for years of church service. Allen reflects the Vatican view: bishops must be obeyed by lay people and lower clergy but, if they stray from the Vatican party line, under the latest pope-autocrat, they can expect to be out of a job.
On the piece on India and the
On the piece on India and the prejudicial comments from the supreme court on religious conversion, the court has amended the language and toned down this part. See:
http://www.ucanews.com/2011/01/25/court-withdraws-comments-on-religious-...
"It’s a notorious fact of
"It’s a notorious fact of life that American Catholicism is often a house divided against itself."
Why are statements like the above seen as a weakness or to put it in the others words "notorious.
In a very complex society like the US (or my country Canada) there are huge differences among us all. The sign of a mature society, church or family is how you agree to disagree, In other words politics or compromise.
I am no longer a Catholic but I see it as a sign of great strength that the Church I belonged to and loved is not a monolith.
j
Pope Pius IX condemned
Pope Pius IX condemned religious freedom in his infamous Syllabus of Errors. This policy wasn't overturned until Vatican II, that Vatican Council that right wingers love to hate. Now even the right wingers are calling for it. Dr. King was right. The arc of history does bend toward justice. I just wish it would bend faster.
There's a quiet middle in the
There's a quiet middle in the American Catholic Church?
Yes, they're called "pew
Yes, they're called "pew potatoes" who attend mass on weekends, toss a shekel or two into the collection plate, get their ticket punched, and otherwise don't care about all the ecclesial crap emanating from the bowels of the Vatican and local chancery. They are indifferent.
The opposite of love?
Indifference.
They are the quiet (and indifferent) middle in the U.S. church.
Damn sad.
The conflict between Bishop
The conflict between Bishop Olmstead and the Catholic Health Association is a symptom of a serious problem for the heretofore unquestionable authority of the hierarchy: a group of lay and religious experts have challenged the opinion expressed by a bishop on a critical moral theological issue. The CHA and the particular ethics commission at the hospital in question have provided an argument for their decision based on present Roman Catholic moral theology; the bishop does not enter into the discussion, but --in effect--says, "They are wrong, because I am a bishop and I say so." Increasingly, clergy, religious, and lay people are standing up and saying, "The hierarchy is wrong; the hierarchy has lied to us; the hierarchy has placed itself above the accepted principles on the basis of which we decide what is acceptable and what is not."
This is a situation that transcends simple interpretations of what the authentic opinion of the Church is. The 'sensus fidelium' and the 'sensus magisterium' of theological experts have asserted a critical right to be consulted in what the authentic Catholic faith is. The Pope, the papal curia, and the bishops are being held responsible for their opinions according to established norms by an educated laity and the authoritative opinions of theologians. It is no longer possible for the curia to declare that a particular theologian is no longer a recognized Catholic theologian for his or her opinions to be ignored.
We have entered into an era in which "moral authority' transcends other kinds of authority. One must engage the other in dialogue and argue honestly and openly for one's point of view in order to persuade other-minded people. It is no longer acceptable simply to declare conclusions without the support of rational discourse: the Pope, the Curia, the bishops [either individually or in union with one another] are no longer able to impose their opinions on the rest of the Church by fiat. Their positions must stand the test of rational discourse in order to obtain the agreement of the Church.
The exercise of such a new authority on the part of the Patriarch of the West, the Pope is set forth in the
Anglican Roman Catholic International Commission's Report "Authority in the Church III". It needs to be adopted by both churches and implemented in order for us to be obedient to Christ's prayer for the Church.
I found Father Bronk's
I found Father Bronk's posting remarkable and so, so much to the point. The church acts as if "canon law" is superior to and takes precedence over civil law. It acts as if the coercive/penal power associated with civil law is trumped by the authoritity and "penal" powers of the canon law.
The church still has not grasped the reality that medieval linking of church and civil authority has been dissolved. Devout adherents to the John Paul II/Benedict brand of catholicism might be horrified by the idea of "excommunication". The reality is that it bears no relationship to the associated literal medieval "dismemberment" and even "lesser" punishments which preceded the culprit's descent into the "everlasting fires of hell". Persons who exercise their reasonable intelligence and faith who act in conscience will take church pronouncements seriously but are confident that Christ and conscience are more closely related than canon law with either.
The presumed "authority" of hierarchy to dictate public policy, professional practice and even private morality rather than being a sincere contribution to the discussion is a medieval hangover. In my opinion, it is directly related to the absolutely "stupid" assumption that a pedophile priest would take the threat of ecclesial "censure" seriously (other than the loss of a grooming tool) It is another indication that clericalism underlies the entire structure, is alive, henious, and a substitute for intelligence, good will and real faith.
John, I would like to suggest
John,
I would like to suggest that the phrase, "evangelical Catholic," is a misonomer. If I remember the root of the word evenagelical it has to do with someone who proclaims the Gospel of Christ. Those who you describe as "evangelical Catholics" seem not so much to be interested in proclaiming Christ as they are in assserting their power and control.
Better you should revert back to the tried and true descriptor--triumphalistic Catholics-- to describe those people.
AMEN. Triumphalist =
AMEN.
Triumphalist = "Traditionalist" = Reactionary = Fundamentalist = Legalistic = Closed-minded = Orthotoxic
Mr Allen: Clearly you have
Mr Allen: Clearly you have mis-stated the facts in the case involving Bishop Olmsted of the Phoenix diocese and Sister Margaret McBride. The case did NOT involve an indirect abortion thus invoking the principle of double effect but rather was a case of direct abortion..resulting from the decision of the Catholic ethics board to kill the child in order to save the mother. Bishop Olmsted could not have acted otherwise than to acknowledge the self-excommunication of those board members involved including Sister Margaret. She knew that her actions would have consequences. This incident was not the only time Bishop Olmsted had to try to work with a non-complying ethics commission. It is and was the duty of his position as Bishop to protect all his flock, especially the weakest among them, the un-born. He would have been derelict in his duties were he to have done otherwise. This is an entirely different position that Archbishop Dolan
and Sister Carol Keenan find themselves in...but I will predict sooner or later Archbishop Dolan will have to "lower the boom" also if he is to maintain his credibility among his flock. He could have done a "better" job
concerning Rembert Weakland while he was Bishop of Milwaukee. Again he chose
to be the "nice guy" instead of protecting his flock. I hope he has toughened
up since he moved to the "Big City" or that archdiocese will suffer from his
failure to protect his flock by protecting and proclaiming the truth.
Once again — there is no such
Once again — there is no such thing as "self-excommunication". The very term is an oxymoron — laypersons have no power to formally excommunicate themselves — Period. Latae sententiae excommunication is a penalty assigned by Roman law... law which was written by the men who govern the Church. It is an unjust law that presumes absolute guilt and full culpability without any trial or hearing of the facts of the case. Fundamentally it makes even the debates over "direct" or "indirect" abortion irrelevant because there is no hearing of the case whatsoever prior to the harsh authoritarian punishment assigned — the Phoenix tragedy being 'exhibit A'.
.
The Roman law involved has nothing to do with justice or the gospel message of our Lord Christ. It has nothing to do with "protecting the flock". Olmsted made it clear that the ONLY acceptable outcome (in his world) was that the critically ill mother had to die with the 11-week fetus in order to perfectly preserve Canon Law. The Roman law related to abortion is entirely designed to have absolute hierarchical control over reproduction and medical decisions related to it. The only thing being "protected" is hierarchical power and the prelates who wield it.
.
The anti-abortion zealots, the-no-abortion-no-exception-folks, are fond of repeating the teaching of 'the end not justifying the means'. They conveniently ignore that justice as an "end" is not served by their chosen injustice as a "means". They teach as their "doctrine" rules written by control-obsessed men... something the Lord of the Church condemned.
.
Canon Law is an outgrowth of
Canon Law is an outgrowth of Anglo Saxon common law, not Roman law. Common-law decisions were first collected by Gratian in the 11th century, and only codified much later. And Bishop Olmsted, however unwise his actions, did not base his decision on canon law, Roman law, or anything of the sort. He based his decision on the teaching authority of the church as described in the Pastoral Epistles and every council since, including Vatican II. Again, I don't agree with his actions, but they were based on scripture and tradition, not canon law.
Whether the Phoenix abortion
Whether the Phoenix abortion was "direct" or "indirect" is irrelevant.
Fact is the abortion was necessary to save the mother's life. This was a bona fide case of self-defense against the aggressive presence of the placenta and the unborn 11-week-old child. The surgical team enabled this woman's self-defense, just as a police officer might kill a deranged man to enable YOUR self-defense, just as a soldier might kill the enemy to enable OUR collective self-defense.
In all of these scenarios, the words 'innocent', 'unjust', etc. are irrelevant.
Self-defense is self-defense. Period.
It's long past time that Olmsted, Burke, Vasa, and ilk cut to the chase and see such cases as involving the application of the principle of self-defense.
Nothing more.
Nothing less.
Everything else is obfuscation and only serves to hinder morally correct resolution of so-called "hard cases".
With so many people having
With so many people having left the RC church, I'm wondering who really is part of the quiet middle of the church and I would be interesting hearing from them. I hope that Dolan and Keehan can find common ground in the style of Bernardin. I don't believe that it is the end of the Bernardin era at all. I don't necessarily believe that George Wiegel has an accurate reading of the pulse of most Catholics nor is he very good in reading the signs of the time. I say that partly because of what is going on in Egypt at the moment. Anyone who had eyes to really see and ears to really hear would have known that this was going to happen. I can say that about what happened in Berlin and the Soviet Union in 1989, except that I already saw that in 1985 when I visited East and West Berlin. The same can be said of what is happening in the Roman Catholic church. It is not just about removing oppressive political structures, but it is about the spiritual/religious longings of people as well. The people are no longer surprised that church, business and governments have mismanaged finances and have squandered what little financial security we managed to accumulate for ourselves. We have become thoroughly saddened and disgusted by the clerical sexual abuse and are no longer surprised when sexual abuse cases are reported in other parts of the world. I also don't listen to the loud voices on either end of the spectrum but I have learned that most of the good news comes not from the clerical male hierarchy, but from the women religious and from the people themselves regardless of their denominational or religious affiliations.
In 1970, a year after I
In 1970, a year after I graduated from a Salvatorian-run College/seminary, The Salvatorian Fathers, Sisters and SVD Fathers were swildled for a collective 17 million (a huge amount then) by a "good Catholic investor" who I hope is comfortably rotting in hell for what he did to a lot of good people -- but you see this financial tinkering has been going on for a LONG time -- One HOPES Those days are OVER for good!
Lore, Many of the problems we
Lore, Many of the problems we face are caused by people like Bernadine. That includes nuns who teach good news that is not good and not true. Your side is East Berlin. In ruins and out of date.
So the Good News is not God's
So the Good News is not God's unconditional love for us???
Or did you have something else in mind?
We obviously disagree. I
We obviously disagree. I prefer the style of Bernardin over that of an Olmsted. I should have written "most" women religious as there are probably some lay people, priests and women religious who do not teach, live and preach the Good News. As for my comment about East/West Berlin in 1985, perhaps I could have written that more clearly. That East Berlin was in ruins and out of date was exactly my pointn and that is how I perceive the institutional hierarchical Vatican center of the church. Back in 1985 it was my opinion that it was just a matter of time before things collapsed economically in East Berlin. I just didn't expect that to happen so quickly. It is my opinion that it is a matter of time before things have to change at the Vatican. The church, as the People of God is alive and well being led by His Spirit and that is where I put my trust.
ThurstforTruth have you read
ThurstforTruth have you read any comments by those people who have stated that Bishop Olmsted was not accurate in his determination that the medical events at St. Joseph's Hospital was not a direct abortion but decision based on Catholic Moral Priniciples. If you have not read the analysis of this terrible medical problem written by Professor M. Terese Lysaught, PhD. you do not know what was actually happening at the hospital. Unfortunatley, the Bishop depended upon his own medical advisors, after the fact analysis of the medical team, who did not have access "to the clinical history and the nature of the clinical crisis faced by the mother and her child." Two statements by the Bishop in his description of the medical situation were not accurate. The bishop stated that, "the baby was healthy" and that the mother suffered from "hypertension." The baby was not health according to the medical staff at the hospital and the mother was suffering from " severe, life-threatening pulmonary arterial hypertension with profundly reduced cardiac output." If nothing would have been done the mother and the baby would have died. This problem was not going to be solved by giving the mother a "pill." Both the mother and the baby, who was in the 11th week of pregnancy, would not have survived till viability of the baby. I wish that you and others who are so quick to side with the bishop would read all the information that is available before making the supportive statements of Bishop Olmsted actions. He has the right to make judgements but should have all the facts before he jumps to a conclusion.
Skipping over most of the
Skipping over most of the comments, I just want to say that I find this encouraging. That final sentence is classic. I'm thankful that someone, at least, is speaking to the center.
Re: Religious Freedom as a
Re: Religious Freedom as a defining issue. I sincerely hope so, but it has to go both ways. We need to be zealous about the religious freedom of others, as well as our own. How this plays out for Muslims will be especially interesting. But we must also recognize that others also have carefully-reasoned moral positions (some of which we consider quite wrong), and that these are part of religious freedom, too. E.g., some religions consider abortion to be a positive duty if the baby is deformed or otherwise seriously defective. How do we approach this?
Post new comment