So much for the 'irrelevance' of the bishops

Critics of our bishop's involvement on our behalf are critics of the basic democratic process. Yes, our bishops GUIDE us on moral and doctrinal grounds, but in a participatory democracy they also REPRESENT us in positions of influence. It is a totally false, even dangerously discriminatory perspective to say that Bishops are a few lone voices dictating outcomes on millions. Rather they give voice to the aspirations of millions of the faithful in an organized way, to make sure our perspective of faith is given fair weight in public decision making. When that works badly, we get the sexual abuse cover-up and its aftermath. When that works well, however, we get the more seasoned discussion we heard in the healthcare debate around the Stupak amendment.

It is Remembrance Day. I am reminded of General Haig, after visiting the fields after the Battle of the Somme, expressing shock at the conditions of the actual battles into which he send the hundreds of thousands of soldiers to fight. Only after viewing the actual life of war did he recognize the bad decisions the Allied leaders had made, so far removed from battle. Their capacity to correctly understand the nature of the war led to the death of many. Surely, we have learned the fallacy of decision making from far away places, whether they be War Rooms or Bishop Conferences. The American Bishops clear and unwavering stance on abortion, and their unwillingness to allow full health care reform, is akin to the Allied Generals directing the First World War from the safety and cleanliness of their offices. Life is full of messy and uneasy choices, abortion being one of them. How many Bishops have had real, pastoral experience with actual women and men discerning abortion? I expect that if the majority of the Bishops had such experience their stance on abortion would be a little more nuanced. It most certainly would if we had women Bishops who could perhaps bring a different set of eyes to this difficult moral challenge.

Why should I (or any Catholic for that matter) give a rip about what non-Catholics think about Catholic dogma and the murder of the unborn? I don't care what they think and most Catholics probably feel the same way. Just a few pinheaded public Catholics (like Patrick Kennedy)who somehow cannot comprehend that their desire to do things their own way without regard to Christ's teachings is not well placed at all, at all, at all. Their relationship with our Creator is their business, but when they put ME in the position of paying for a practice that is long standing and which both my Church and I abhor, then it is my business too.

It is time for all of us to quick apologizing for our beliefs and start living them fully and courageously. I no longer apologize for being a Catholic and I quite firmly chastise people who spout frequently ignorant and scurrilous misinformation about MY church in my presence! I am 67 years old and I don't have to put up with that nonsense any longer and I will not!

"That’s not to say, of course, that the sex abuse crisis wasn’t (and isn’t still) an enormous blow to the image of the church and the bishops, or that it hasn’t taken a toll on the capacity of the bishops both to govern the church from within and to influence the world on the outside. Yet, it clearly has not generated the 'irrelevance' some predicted."

"Irrelevance" isn't the word I'd choose to characterize where the bishops have placed themselves with their handling of the sex abuse crisis. I think they've ended up in a far less sanguine place than a place of irrelevance.

For many of us, they're now counter-signs of the message of salvation they and the church want to proclaim. And they'll remain counter-signs until they deal forthrightly and transparently with what they've done in this crisis--and stop the cruel diversionary attacks on women and gays, which are further undermining their moral authority.

I'm not surprised that many people still look to the bishops as credible leaders, despite what they have done in the abuse crisis. They have always had and will continue to have centrist supporters in the church who present themselves as disinterested observers of struggles between right and left, but who essentially stand with power in any conflict situation.

And the bishops (and Vatican) continue to have the power in their hands--at least, economic and political power. Spiritual and moral power are something else again.

Unfortunately, neither of the sentences "the bishops are irrelevant..." nor "the bishops are dictating ..." is a logical statement, because to neither of them we can determine the truth value (true or false) beyond any daubt. That's why we cannot apply the "law of the excluded middle".

Also, even if both of these sentences were statements, neither of them is the negation of the other. If P is "the bishops are irrelevant..." the non-P would be "the bishops are not irrelevant..." or else "the bishops are relevant ...", in which case, they needn't be dictating anything to anybody.

It's only to the formal point of the argumentation. The matter-of-fact reasoning is, of course, absolutely correct.

Anonymus, I'm sure Bishops have had plenty of experiences with actual women and man "discerning" abortion. They have not and do not live in a vacuum after all.
The thing is that Catholics should not even "discern" abortion any more than they would contemplate killing a born child--it is murder, period. Even if this health care bill were moral in every other way (and it isn't) the very fact that abortion would be subsidized with paxpayers' money should make anyone recoil. Kudos to the Bishops for standing firm in the defense of life and the true teachings of the Catholic Church.

I agree with you 100%. Why should your beliefs about life in particular or in general be disregarded just because they form a part of your religion? In a democratic society governed by democratic principles, our religion, our atheism, our dislikes, our desires, and everything that serve to make us who we are come to play a part in the political process. The bishops were nor the Council spoke for themselves like some raving lunatics. On the contrary, they were speaking on behalf of a belief system, a religion, and represented the fears and hope of millions.
To say that the bishops were wrong to publicly support the Amendment is at once erroneous and deceptive. This view of democracy holds that Catholicism, Christianity, and any other religion is wrong and making decisions based upon it are illogical.
Democracy is only desired when "we things the way we want to do them." This is what it sounds like to tell people representing a belief system to give up their democratic rights.
I say that when American Democracy listens to the people (not people from Mars or people from Spain or Timbuktu, but the AMERICAN PEOPLE), then it is working the way it should!

Pure and simple, you can not be Catholic and be pro choice! In the case of Patrick Kennedy, or any Congressman or Senator for the matter, if they are pro choice they are not Catholic. And if they claim to be, they simply aren't and must refrain from reception of any of the Sacraments of the church. However, the Sacrament of Reconciliation is always open to them if they truly have a change of heart and accept this important teaching of the church.

It saddens me to see the bishops pander to the conservative base and continue culture wars here. They really needed to compromise on this one. Just because abortion coverage would have been allowed under private health plans in no way would have compelled them to allow it to be offered in a catholic hospital -- that wasn't even under discussion. Keeping it out of the public option is fine because the federal ban on funding abortions is something we can agree on. However, banning somebody either on the public option or with a plan from the exchange from buying a rider to cover abortion WITH THEIR OWN MONEY is beyond the pale. It represents a grave encroachment on the private citizenry by the bishops trying to put their agenda into civil law -- something they have no business doing.

Health care, should it include money for abortion. We have a court dcision that women have the right to do as they wish with there body. Must we mow have to pay for the right. I think the Stupack amendment was the right thing. If it took our bishops to influence the representiative to open there eyes to make the right decisions so be it. Let's not me influence hy the word health care for every one. It does not provide care for eveyone equally.

It is not the bishops

I wouldn't so quickly say the bishops have regained a lot of political influence. They have jumped on the right wing bandwagon that was already well underway. Thus, they love it when they get credit. I just hope the millions of Catholics without health insurance now or will be without health insurance in the future because they can't afford it also give the bishops their due credit.

Under the First Amendment (See the Bill of Rights), the people have the right peacably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Citizens of the U.S. do not lose this right simply because they become bishops.

John, you wrote, "One can obviously debate the merits of the bishops’ role..."

My question is, why should we debate that?

Are we relying too much on law to tell us what is right and what is wrong? No matter the law I must follow an informed conscience. Because a behavior is declared legal like abortion or assisted suicide does not compel me to follow the law. Having a law like legalized abortion may well say something about the way regard life in this country but does not dictate my behavior. Must I conform to the "world" in order to livde in the world

I suspect the bishops had no more (or less) influence than the laity at large on this matter. Like other folks, I have no use for the current crop of hierarchs who suck-up to the Vatican, but they do have their right to speak as individuals as well as their duty to teach as bishops.

As a pro-lifer, I welcome the House's decision. I hope its provision remains in any final legislation enacted by Congress.

Although I condemn abortion, I leave it to God in the final analysis to judge the hard cases, i.e., rape, incest, life of mother. In a pluralistic society, such exceptions likely represent the best our country can do to address this vexing issue.

This has very little to do with democracy and everything to do with power speaking to power. There is real money behind the bishops, and real power to destroy politicians with that money. I doubt the dems are listening to the bishops because they represent 68 million Catholics, which they clearly don't. They are listening because they represent a huge part of the health care industry.

The truth is only 13% of abortions are paid with health insurance plans. The other 87% are paid out of pocket.

Representative Stupak was threatening health coverage for 45 million people over a small minority. The bishops have already helped set the precedent that the majority takes precedence in human rights over the minority by supporting the over turn of gay rights in California and Maine. If the Stupak ammendment had been subjected to the same general vote, it would never have passed.

Let's not be deceived here. Take away the Catholic hospital system (built by the LCWR) and the bishops would not have gained that kind of access to political officials.

Am I alone in thinking that John L Allen gives far too much attention to the inter-play between politicians and prelates? In the main that's a game of ephemeral significance. I suggest that what's really significant is what preachers are saying, and not saying, in parishes.

As "Anonymous" said above, how in God's name does one DISCERN ABORTION? WHAT?!?!

The Bishops are not suppose to be conserative or liberal they are Catholic! They teach us as Jesus taught us.This from apostolic succesion. Now I sugest every one go back to the first comment and when abortion is mentioned just substute it with murder of a baby. Remember ladies and gentlemen it is not just our bodies but the mother and child! then come back and tell me abortion is okay when it is a grave evil!

Certainly the bishops have a right to speak out on abortion and other political issues to present principles in which they believe. However, as in Maine, when a diocese spends over $500,000 to actually influence votes directly, they should, if actually ethical and Catholic, give up their tax-exempt status.

Whatever the case, they will not longer do things like that with my contributions; they will now go to specific religious orders and agencies which spend wisely on the widow, the poor and the orphan.

The bishops refused to support the bill specifying health care reform because it allowed public funds to be used in support of abortions. The bishops proposed amendments to the bill, and the amendments were adopted. Where, then, is the statement of support from the bishops saying that the obstacles are removed, the bill conforms to our previously announced commitment to social justice in health care, and we support it. I haven't seen any such statement in spite of the fact that the bishops got everything they sought. The bishops have a God-given opportunity to write these protections against public funding of abortion into law. Why are they not lobbying Senators to support the HR bill? Maybe their commitment to the Republicans is so great that, even when the legislation meets their standards, the fact that the authors are Democrats is just too much for them. Myabe it's more about their politics than about social justice or even about protecting the life of the unborn.

Stupak reports that a bishop turned his back on him because he was a pro life Democrat saying there is no such thing. And Allen gives them a high five for speaking doctrine that every secularist in the country has heard 10000 times.. To say that the bishops got their way is way off... 40 Pro life Dem reps and two pro life Dem senators will carry the day. not bishops .. Bishops have no vote .. what is Allen thinking???

I see he abortion question as much as anything else nothing but a trump card in the minds of the church leaders.

Used to distract the public from the terrible abuses the church hid, and allowed to continue against children by sex starved priests establishing their authority by humiliating defenseless children.

And we're still waiting for the church to simply excommunicate Hitler and his gang. Who orchestrated the murder of 50 million people. A man who gained election in germany on the backs of church based hatred of the Jews.

And despite the nice words that the church sometimes hides behind about gay people, its real condemnation, along with other ultra conservative religions, results in a 9/11 every single year of 3000 gay kids who cannot stand the ostracism, bullying etc.

And then there are 6000 other kids who commits suicide. Some of them fall into the category of kids who failing with girls - they just don't know how to deal with the other sex, think there is nothing else to do except "become gay". And to their young minds, that is a fate worse then death. According to my son's psychologist, this is a very common fear. We were lucky, we know some other people who lost their chidren in what appears to be this situation.

All of these deaths - of real people - are orchestrated by a church whose meally mouthed messages about gays translate into the common vernacular of so many as "he's queer, lets beat on him".

And the church dares to talk about life?!!