The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
PDF versionProgress doesn't always come easy
Dec. 10, 2009
Sr. Mary Ann Walsh
Commentary
Recent talk about the Catholic church's role in politics reminds me of two great moments in church social teaching in the United States: the New Deal and the Civil Rights eras.
Both moments found the church embroiled in controversy, with strident cries that it did not belong in the public arena. The eventual rewards for the church's role were huge for society, but came at a cost for the church.
The same, unfortunately, remains true today.
A leading figure of the New Deal era was Monsignor John Augustine Ryan (1865-1945), who headed the social action department of the U.S. bishops' National Catholic Welfare Council, the predecessor of today's U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. Critics pejoratively referred to him as "Monsignor New Deal" for his social action efforts, which included fighting to establish a living wage and authoring the 1919 "Program for Social Reconstruction" -- essentially, an outline for what would become Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal.
What Ryan and the church sought in the early 20th Century seemed radical then, though it is commonplace today. He agitated across the board as he applied the church's social teaching and theology to the ills he saw about him and worked to remedy some of them.
Ryan is now a hero in social teaching lore, but he didn't reach such heights without making foes, both inside and outside of the church.
The Civil Rights movement of the 1960s saw church leaders speak out against racism and discrimination, most dramatically in Selma, Ala. During a series of marches in Selma in 1965, Catholics from 44 dioceses were among the peaceful protesters on and after Bloody Sunday, when police attacked marchers with ropes and whips as horrified Americans watched on TV.
Among the marchers was the Rev. John Cavanaugh, the former president of the University of Notre Dame, who stood with priests and nuns as they walked alongside Protestant ministers and rabbis. The presence of these religious figures put off those who would have preferred that the men and women of the church had stayed home and prayed instead of disquieting everyone with their peaceful march.
Accusations against the church inevitably arise whenever the church meets its obligation to fight for the weak and speak for those who cannot speak for themselves. In recent years, it's become popular to say that the bishops -- even the church itself -- are irrelevant. Some even believed it, which is why it was shocking to some when a majority of House members shared the bishops' concerns and voted to ensure that health care reform does not expand abortion. Critics underestimated the church's sense that Americans abhor paying for someone else's abortion, and now they decry an alleged violation of the separation of church and state.
NCR: February 3-16, 2012
Subscribe to NCR to get all the news and special features that aren't always available online. In this issue:
- US News: Bishops Host Conference on Immigration
Conference fields advocates' questions on law, policy
- Special Section: Deacons. Serving as parish administrator; roles of wives; and more
- Study: Black Catholics are more engaged
New study by Notre Dame researcher about parish involvement in America
The bishops took their stand as citizens and leaders, and made sure the voice of millions of Americans -- Catholic and non-Catholic -- was heard. They stood exactly where they should stand, fighting for the poor and voiceless.
The challenge before us is to make health care affordable for all, both for citizens and legal immigrants, and to ensure that reform does not expand abortion. There is nothing new here. Standing for the poor and voiceless is where the church always has been.
No one seems to mind when Catholic Charities annually delivers $3.5 billion worth of food and human services to people of all religions -- and of no religion. Nor do they mind when the church provides $5.7 billion in health care annually through its network of more than 600 health care institutions. It's only when the bishops are heard in the public sector that the critics speak out.
American history shows that when the church stays true to its mission, America is a proud nation -- where the elderly have Social Security and the young do not live in a world of separate water fountains for whites and blacks.
It's worth remembering that steps toward those ends did not come without criticism, and they didn't come easy.
[Sr. Mary Ann Walsh is director of media relations for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. This commentary appeared with Religion News Service.]
It is great to see the
It is great to see the success our priests, bishops and nuns have had in giving voice to the voiceless, but it is disheartening to see them (the USCCB in this case) acting with such apparent partisanship in this health reform debate.
While they are right to be upset with democrats who aren't supporting tighter restrictions on abortion funding, why aren't we hearing about the bishops' disappointment with Republicans who have decided to vote en masse against health reform? One of the bishops' very principles for reform is a delivery system that is accessible to all, and clearly the Republicans are hell bent on defeating this historic opportunity to accomplish such a noble goal.
Couldn't the bishops, who have spent countless hours in the offices of key Democrats discussing their abortion concerns, employ some of that same political clout with the Republicans, getting them to vote for reform AND stricter abortion-funding provisions? Seems success wouldn't depend on such a slim margin of Democrats if we had some Republicans on the right side. Surely the bishops are smart enough to have already thought of this. So since this tactic is not being employed, the natural assumptions we are left with are that they have a singular focus on abortion and are actually hoping that reform fails. Poor people and all the rest of their "concerns" be damned.
What we hear from many vocal,
What we hear from many vocal, conservative bishops is there are ways other than a national plan to provide health coverage. However, it has not happened.
If the bishops truly advocate
If the bishops truly advocate meaningful health reform, where were their voices during the Bush administration, when a plan without abortion clearly could have been passed? Why are there voices only heard when a Democratic administration tries to pass health reform measures?
It does not help the Bishop's
It does not help the Bishop's cause, however, when they say they are for abortion neutrality in the legislation but then support a provision that goes beyond that stance. Events will circumvent the issue, however, as the public option is going down in flames, making much of Stupak/Nelson irrelevant. What will be left is likely compromise legislation which will likely allow tax subsidies to be used for abortion coverage through private insurance (as they are now through employer tax exclusions for such coverage) but not direct subsidies. Hopefully the bishops will go along with such a compromise, since not doing so may sink the bill (which would continue economic conditions which lead women to seek abortions - with and most likely without insurance).
It does not help the cause of
It does not help the cause of the bishops for them to claim they want abortion neutrality and then support a provision that goes farther, possibly even encumbering the current tax subsidies which fund about 13% of abortions through an employer tax subsidy for private insurance. Of course, with the likely death of the public option, Stupak/Nelson will likely become irrelevant. Even if it is not, it will likely be modified to exclude the current abortion subsidy and any more direct tax subsidy for private insurance while banning direct subsidies for buying insurance which covers abortion. The bishops should settle for such a compromise in order for reform to go forward. This would be the most "pro-life" move, since without insurance many women will resort to abortion out of fear for the economic circumstances of the family and will continue to pay cash for the procedure.
The bishops also need better advice on their support for overturning Roe judicially, which won't happen (and indeed, given the constitutional issue, should not happen).
This article mentioned a
This article mentioned a couple of pioneering clergy during both periods, but the majority of the hierarchy was against both reforms until almost every popular poll in the USA was overwhelming in favor of the historical outcomes. EG, During the New Deal, the Church also had demagogues like Rev Coughlin, the Radio Priest.
A recent Catholic historian (Boyea, 1995) has posited that he was not removed by the Vatican, since "Coughlin's superior, Detroit Bishop Michael Gallagher, had the canonical authority to curb him, but Gallagher supported the 'Radio Priest'. Due to Gallagher's autonomy and the prospect of Coughlin leading a schism, the Roman Catholic leadership did nothing." (Source -- Wikipedia here --
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Coughlin#Cancellation_of_radio_show)
This seems like shades of the Curial & Pontifical reactions to the recent Ryan and Murphy reports in Ireland. Things apparently haven't changed much in more than half a century!
This sounds like a weak
This sounds like a weak attempt to make the bishops look better than they are. So, they send their best smoke and mirrors person, Sister Mary Ann Walsh, a true chameleon, into the fray, full of sound and fury, signifying and believing nothing.
It is good to be reminded of
It is good to be reminded of the courageous efforts of Monsignor John A. Ryan in the historic government social assistance programs of the 1930s and those of the priests, sisters, laity in the equally historic civil rights movement of the 1960s. But the names of at least a few bishops who showed courage in each of these critical periods would have gone far to make the case that the bishops have always and everywhere been on the side of what is right and just. Monsignor Ryan had quite a number of episcopal critics. How many bishops were at Selma? Archbishop Patrick O'Boyle did notably take part in the historic March on Washington led by The Reverend Martin Luther King,Jr. in August 1964.
One recalls also that when a few bishops, such as the much lamented Archbishop Paul Hallinan, began to raise questions about the war in Vietnam in 1966/67, they got little support from the vast majority of their episcopal colleagues. Despite the strong appeals of Pope Paul VI for an end to the war in Vietnam, most of the bishops showed up very late in the day in expressing their clear opposition to the war.
So this paper is now praising
So this paper is now praising priests for being involved in the political process when they work with democrats but if they work with republicans it is a violation of church/state?
and what are they supposed to
and what are they supposed to work with Republicans AT? Lowering the capital gains tax rates?
Post new comment