Civility, respect should be our aim

Its about Love and Responsibility. Love yes! But NEVER without RESPONSIBILITY.

I absolutely confirm with your sentiments Professor Cafardi. Although I don't agree with all of the Holy Father's theological/social views I think it's horrible and extremely unfortunate that the whole Williamson affair has been used as an opportunity to attack his personal integrity. How can we not take into consideration the reason that ultimately motivated His Holiness to make this decision? Even if there is a horrible lack of communication between the Pope and other members of the Curia regarding certain decisions can't we at least TRY to understand why these decision are made?

Again, I don't agree with the ultra-conservative viewpoints of the SSPX, and I think the Holy Father was sincerely trying to heal a schism within the Church. Opening the door to returning to communion with Rome doesn't necessarily endorse all of their creeds and beliefs. In fact, we know that even though the excommunications have been removed they will not formally be reconciled or incorporated within the framework of the Church until they accept the reforms of the Second Vatican Council. With the Vatican II being the very reason for the existance of the SSPX it's hard to see how they will carry out their part of the bargain. So looking at all these things, I think it's wrong to attack Joseph Ratzinger as a person because of a decision he thought he made with the intentions and best interets of the Universal Church in mind.

Also you're right Professor, fundamentalism does not have a place within the Church. When we shout and automatically condemn one another before trying to understand the other side we cease adhearing to our true Christian calling to love one another as Christ loved us and exhorted us to do unconditionally to all of our fellow human beings.

Thank you, Nicholas Cafardi for so beautifully expressing what I and some of my friends have been feeling for months. Our heartache is expressed in the passage from Galatians. It is almost as if there are two different Catholic churches in the US. And it seems as if no one in the hierarchy cares how much pain many of us are feeling in all of this. There is no love and compassion in the "my way or the highway" approach. Thomas Melady spoke of politicizing Communion, but it is the Church as well that is being politicized, and therein lies the danger of division. Those of us who love our church and feel that there are different ways to approach solutions, are targets of vitriolic rhetoric and uncivil behavior. You are so right to say that fundamentalism has no place in the Catholic church. May your prophetic voice be heard by those leaders who can begin to heal the rifts and the pain, and may the words of our Lord resound in our ears-"You shall love your neighbor as yourself."

Peace and blessings.

Professor Cafardi supported the Democratic ticket, knowing it was 100% pro abortion. Perhaps he believes that a woman has the right of a woman to murder her baby. Maybe he just doesn't care, and wants to honors those who do.

Of course there is "social justice", which means escalating the war in Afgahnistan and Pakistan,

Dear Mr. Cafardi,

Maybe you missed the sex scandal? Maybe you missed the fact that John Paul II gave Cardinal Law the 2nd most important church in Rome. Maybe you missed the fact that John Paul II essentially blew off the magnitude of the sex scandal in the US church.

Such behavior means that just because someone is pope they are human and ought to be held accountable.

If the faithful were not scandalized by recent events, I would be shocked. Scandal occurs as the result of improper behavior. The question arises, then, as to who has behaved improperly.

In our democratic society, it is quite improper for the Church to make pronouncements on both elections and the implementation of policy after only consulting with one side, especially on a wedge issue like abortion or a presidential race. There are responsible voices on both sides (you and I among them). There is no record of our having any opportunity to advise the Bishops on the best way to protect the unborn - both in terms of legislative strategy and candidate qualifications. The goal of protecting the unborn cannot be argued with, however how to do it is a matter of legitimate debate. If our voices are disregarded, error is bound to occur. While the infallibility of the Magisterium protects the Church from moral error, it does not protect it from errors in either strategy or propriety. When the latter occurs, the people are right to be scandalized.

Catholics, on whatever portion of the political spectrum they may lie, need to remember that it is a fundamental tenet of the faith that ALL human beings are sinners in need of God's mercy. And they need to take to heart the command of Jesus to remove the planks from their own eyes before attempting to remove the specks from those of their brothers and sisters.

End of sermon.

Well that was certainly a great last line, "For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another."

It's true whether in religion, politics or just in general living. We really need to live the idea that there isn't always my way but also your way and our way and their way and just one of those is seldom the only right way. Even when there is only one way, telling it with love instead of self-righteousness is best and only after thinking it through first.

Civility disappears with fundamentalism and lest anyone think I am meaning conservative here let me say fundamentalism is widespread in society in all groups anymore. It can be found in every government and religion and even in all the neighborhoods (try painting your door the "wrong" color in a CC&Rs neighborhood). Anytime you think everyone who doesn't agree with you are fundamentally wrong or bad consider yourself to be a fundamentalist and then go back and read more about Jesus' way.

It has never been made clear, at least to me, whether and elected Representative
Senator, Congressperson is to vote what he believes is the opinion of the majority of those who elected him or is he free to vote as he pleases. If it is the first case, the he has no real choice but to reflect their will. If on the other hand it is the second then he must vote as his conscience dictates. Until this is determined then all arguments about how an individual voted are just posturing.

As a Catholic convert of Jewish ancestry,the Holy Father's remission of the excommunication of Bishop Williamson was grossly offensive and a grave mistake. There should be no place in the Church for a bishop who is a Holocaust denier and one who will not accept Vatican II. It would have been fine for Pope Benedict to have lifted the excommunication AFTER Williamson had made a full retraction of his 20 plus years of Holocaust denying statements and of his refusal to accept Vatican II, but not BEFORE. Confession, contrition, and repentance come before absolution, not after.
While the Holy Father is a good, decent, and holy man, unfortunately his pastoral concern has hardly been even handed. My problem is not with the Holy Father as a man, but only with some of his actions. It would have been nice if he had shown the same pastoral concern for Hans Kung and a number of other theologians with whom he disagrees, as he has shown for a Holocaust denier.

If all this is true than why are the Bishops treating President Obama with such disrespect for his talk at Notre Dame?? Me thinks, the professor is preaching to the choir.

Take a lesson from the Pope? Give him the benefit of the doubt? Excuse me??? Isn't he the one constantly insisting on absolutism and the absence of any room for "doubt" in most every issue ... like women's ordination, abortion, condom usage/birth control, exclusive masculine language in describing the Trinity (just to name a few)? To him and his legions, who are sending people away from our Church in huge flocks with their diatribes and excommunications, I say read this yourselves: "For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another."

Dear Prof. Cafardi,
Thank you and God bless you for taking the time to compose and publish your essay! More so-called Christians need to learn the social doctrine of the Church. It is all about putting the Commandment of Love in practice in the modern world.

This is a very, very important issue. I have been waiting for a long time for Catholic/Christian leaders to address the issue of what is the proper tone and response when someone has a different opinion. There are too many ithin the Christian community wwho will use outrage, dismissiveness, sneering scarcasam and insults when someone may see a situation differently. I have been greatly dissapointed that out religious leaders have done little, if anything at all, to affect a respectful debate. I don't know why they have not been in the forefront in shaping the tone of these discussions. I can only assume that they feel that the end may justify the means and therefore, thru their silence condoned so much unchristian behavior. If this is true then they have abandoned their committment to teaching their flock, not just when there has been disrespect, but even when hatefulness and the bearing of false witness have been on full display. Regardless of ones positon, we are desprate to have leaders who will insist on honest, respectful dialogue. I hope this article will be the begining. Again, thank you.

Perhaps it would be easier to give Benedict XVI the benefit of doubt if he had not been Joseph Ratzinger first. The door has to swing both ways if it is a virtue you want to have applied to you.

I have returned to the church after many years of lax attendance and I am now quite concerned there may not be a place for me under the umbrella after all. I come down on the side of those who found compelling reasons to vote for President Obama. I am clearly a sinner albeit probably not much of a hypocrite. "For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself quotes the Pope and if I might add following the Gospel of the 5th Sunday of Lent we will save our souls by giving them away hopefully in the service of our neighbors.
Along with respect perhaps we could follow the expression of St Francis of Assisi occasionally:
"Preach the Gospel at all times, and if necessary, use words."
I thank you!

I am a Catholic from down under and it is with alarm that I see the US catholic church tearing itself apart.

Although I take Nicholas P. Cafardi's point it is exceedingly disappointing that the Holy Father's benevolence seems only a "one way" street.

There is no extension of the hand of reconciliation to those marginalised by the church.

This is the most disappointing aspect of Benedict's papacy thus far.

Those who would say: "give the pope a chance", well we are waiting but it seems in vain, instead we see inappropriate people being put forward as bishops: eg the case of the Benedict's favored person as auxillary bishop of Linz, the promotion of people such as RAymond Burke, the strengthening of the positions of people such as my own archbishop George Pell of Sydney who is nothing if not a professional "head kicker".

where is the balance here?

God Bless Pope Benedict XVI

"As Pope Benedict himself said to the priests of Rome, "Catholicism has always been considered the religion of the great 'et et' ['both/and']: not of great forms of exclusivism but of synthesis."" I could not agree more, nevertheless it was "himself" who contends that condoms are not, not just might not, a potential element of a response to AIDS, in fact, condoms, exacerbate the crisis, he says exclusively. He has been dogmatic continually in areas where debate and compromise are called for.

Benedict is a great preacher of value but not a liver thereof. He has been divisive in particulars, and even his rhetoric has, in many cases, been divisive.

As long as the synthesis is his, he is comfortable with those coming towards him. He must begin to recognize that he is not the god-like synthesis point toward which we all in our weakness approach. He is but one, albeit significant, actor who must participate in the compromise that is synthesis.

When the Holy Father gives the American bishops the message to back off Democratic politicians and to show civility, they will follow the good shepard like sheep. By his silence, he tacitly approves of random,regional pot shots at Democratic candidates and office holders by a few of the old ladies in red skirts. He alone can return civility to the American Church by calling off the bulldogs. The press release last week of a cardinal wannabe in Indiana to boycott one of the nation's most prestigious Catholic universities when it honors the President of the United States with an honorary degree is not civility, yet it brought no public direction or correction to the bishop from Rome or the Papal Pro-Nuncio. Civility would be nice, but until the word comes from Rome for the hierarchy to be civil, this nonsense will continue. I think that I do not malevolently interpret the Holy Father's silence and lack of leadership in bringing civility to the American bishops.

The author genuinely has a point. We should always assume the best, wait to hear what people have to say. This is as true for the Pope as anyone else.

But, I think this pope has the potential to become a better pope if he is willing to hear how his statements impact people and how they are received. No one should have to take verbal abuse; the pope is no exception.

But this pope is defining himself by who he embraces and who he leaves unembraced.

Pope Benedict was trying to heal a seperation. He reached out to bring back a group back into the fold. He was willing to forgive if people wanted to come back. He was displaying leadership.
The US politicians who do not oppose abortion are complicite in the evil. I have never heard a straight explaniation why these politicians do not look to further an agenda of life. One of the roles of leadership is to try to bring people to a higher level. Catholic politicians who do not take a stand are avoiding their responsibilites as leaders. It is very convientent to say that you are opposed to something but do not want to impose your views on someone else. If you are convienced of the truth, you would have no choice but to let your views known. You could not exist within a system that requires you to separate your personal views from your political views. This is what upsets many people. Why should'nt you be considered a hipocrit when you want to the benefits of taking both sides to an argument.

Thank you for your reasoned and thoughtful call out to all Catholics to give each other the benefit of the doubt. So often Catholics on the right or the left pillory the opposite side, and when those of us in the middle try to mention the middle ground - or speak for the absent - we are then also attacked. It's odd, and it certainly doesn't feel "catholic".

Unfortunately the Vatican--pope & bishops (including those in USA) & curia--
do not listen to the faithful unless the latter turn up the volume. The church needs to stop acting as an all-powerful monarchy, treating the faithful as dumb serfs. The above cited folks have yet to admit that a prmary cause of the 'priest scandal' was and remains incompetent leadership, the humility to say we were wrong, and to seek forgiveness of the church, aka the faithful.

Civility is founded on justice, truth, and love.

J Pter CareySJ

Excellent and honorable concepts in Carfardi's thinking. But my problem is that this Pope reserves his "and/or" treatment to the fundamental wings. We've seen him give no quarter to the likes of Hans Kung.

And for Benedict to plead like a hurt puppy that people are being mean to him because he didn't know any better in the Williamson case is totally disingenuous. Even if he didn't know about the holocaust denial issue, there's no way he didn't know that he was re-engaging a man who for some time has been telling people that there were no planes that flew into the twin towers.

Benedict is taking lumps that he deserves.

Robert Mugabe is Catholic. Don't forget to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Or Tim McVeigh.

A woman murdering her baby? You mean the cell in her stomach that the Church is so concerned about? What about all the homeless already born, the children murdered in Iraq and Afghanistan, the hungry in Darfur and much of Africa? How about the homeless on the streets of American. Move away from the one issue AND the fear the Church has of women.

Thank, you Professor, for just what I would expect from you. Although I am mystified at some of Pope Benedict's decisions, I felt his pain between the lines of his letter to the Bishops. It appears that some stern words are in order about the need for healing in the Church using the Commandment of love that explains Catholic Social Teaching. I agree with you about giving the benefit of the doubt, even though that requires a leap of faith in the case of Archbishop Raymond Burke and his gaff over criticism of his "brother" bishops. There are millions of us Catholics who voted enthusiastically for Barack Obama as well as worked on his campaign as a way to heal the anger and bitterness resulting from 8 years of a corrupt and misguided presidency that claimed to be pro-life. Rebuilding our nation demands we come together around what we have in common. Catholicism and it social justice blueprint provides us with the tools not only to negotiate mixed interpretations of Respect for Human Dignity, but get involved in our community as called for the 2007 UCCB Faithful Citizenship

Questioning the action of a Pope is not an "American invention".

Even the Apostle to the Gentiles, St.Paul "chewed up" Peter(Kephas), the first Pope in Galatians 2: 11-14

And when Kephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face because he clearly was wrong. For, until some people came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to draw back and separated himself, because he was afraid of the circumcised. And the rest of the Jews (also) acted hypocritically along with him, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy. But when I saw that they were not on the right road in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Kephas in front of all, "If you, though a Jew, are living like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?"

Just google. Really. the problem with this whole thing is that the information was so available. Feel sorry for Pope Benedict XVI? The academic? The one who as Joseph Ratzinger gave so many a difficult time because he didn't agree with what they were writing?

Instead of saying he was disappointed ... maybe he should say 'thank you.' People all over were screaming, 'the pope has no clothes on.' Where were the Pope's aides? priests? Bishops? etc ... maybe they were admiring his 'clothes.' Be glad Pope Benedict XVI that there are still people in the Church who tell the truth.

A partial-birth abortion involves more than a cell in a woman's stomach.

"we in the American church have forgotten how to give our fellow Catholics the benefit of the doubt."

There hasn't been the benefit of the doubt offered by Rome for those of us who sincerely believe issues such as celibacy in the priesthood and women as priests, let alone all of women's issues, have not been discussed or adjudicated properly. As someone earlier said, "the door swings both ways."

I find it disingenuous to assume dissidents such as myself are the bad guys, when those in power refuse to enter in healthy debates about the serious problems in our church, all because we are just the laity.

We need to continue to speak out. Sorry, but if you can't stand the heat, don't come into the kitchen. Because the heat is rising as we speak. As I recall, JC never told the people they couldn't talk about something.

For those who note that there are two American churches, I would agree. The one church wants to return to pre-Vatican II ways. The other church (the one I love) wishes desperately to have a church which recognizes the value of ALL, including laity. Unfortunately, if I held my breath for that to occur, I would die.

We had a Capuchin Franciscan present the homily at our church this past Sunday. He mentioned going to a parish in Detroit that was concerned about the fact that the mega-church in the area was comprised of 40-60% former Catholics. What was not discussed, said, or discerned were the reasons for that situation. Of course we all know them - the sex abuse, the patronization of the laity, the arrogance of clergy, the frustration the laity feel in America over not being able to have an equal place at the table,the exclusion of women in the church both in language and roles, the divergence from the gospel message by those in power, the attitude that we are not capable of serious thought and consideration of theological issues, etc. etc. etc. Ergo, the people are not being fed. So they will go where they are fed. End of story.

So "benefit of the doubt" doesn't really cover the ills of our church. It's far deeper, and more insidious.

As a disclaimer, I am a direct Midwesterner, and shying away from stuff is just not in my genetic makeup. It's not healthy to keep stuff hidden, as we as have seen over and over and over again.

Let's air the differences quit with the benefit of doubt baloney.

Isn't Prof. Cafardi just like Cardinal Law and Weakland? Brown nosing the powerful. Post-modern talk about compassion and forgiveness. For the perpertrators. Clueless about right and wrong. Turns his nose up at the unsophisticated, who speak the truth. 50 cent words about civility.

And, of course, not even crumbs for the victims, millions of innocent children murdered.

Voicing disagreement and criticism is not the same as showing a lack of civility. I get the impression that Prof Carfardi wants a return to the days when the priest (or pope)speakes and the people listen with respect. In those days, the priests (or pope) deserved respect. Today, there is a very deep wound in the Church that the pope and his fellow bishops refuse to address, namely, the moral failure of bishops to address their moral failure in covering up the sex abuse of children by priests. Virtus training is not only insufficient, it does not address the core problem. In other words, not being able to identify pedophiles was not the problem, and yet, that is the focus of Virtus training. If the pope wants the respect of the US church, then get Cardinal Law out of Rome. Put him in some hole in the wall never to be seen or heard from again, where they put other bishops who abuse their office.

Yes, Tim McVeigh was a Catholic. So was Eric Robert Rudolph, who blew up a gay bar and an abortion clinic in the South, crippling and blinding a nurse for life, then later bombing the U.S. Olympics because of his hatred of foreigners, resulting in the death of one or more persons. This is "hatred of the OTHER" or "THOSE WHO DISAGREE WITH US" taken to the extreme.

I don't know if civility should be our aim on the issue of abortion. I think it is somehow appropriate that the voice of the unborn be toddler-esque, as irritating as that may be.

This article is a wonderful statement about a way of facing issues in
the Catholic Church nowadays. It seems to me that we are moving way too much toward strictly comdemning different ways to promote good things.
The whole abortion issue has reached a level where everything which is not strictly prohibition, is considered 'intrinsically' evil.
Where does man take the right from to judge cellow Catholics
by thinking otherwise, particularly not thinking about the outcome, but only about surface objections?

My Pope, right or wrong?

Amen for this thoughtful, healing article!

Civility? yes. Charity? certainly. But "benefit of the doubt"? I'm afraid that, after the past couple of decades, there's little room for doubt. Benedict is just the next "guy" heading up a hierarchy that has shown itself to be unresponsive and irresponsible. When the local head of the Mafia dies and the new "don" takes over, do you give him the benefit of the doubt? Do you think maybe this new guy will turn it into a charitable organization? We're dealing with an organization that is what it is. There will be far more impact by the hierarchy on Benedict than the other way around.