The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
Printer-friendly version
PDF versionRight wing warriors cause damage to the church
Extreme rhetoric also threatens abortion reduction policies.
May. 15, 2009
Miller
Analysis
The images out of Notre Dame are similar to what transpired at Georgetown when President Obama spoke here: students were enthusiastic to hear from a president whose election was both a watershed moment in American history and a turn from the destructive and divisive politics of the recent past, while angry protesters at the gates denounced a betrayal of Georgetown's Catholic character.
If their apocalyptic shouts win no converts their cause, they are still quite successful in equating abortion with the sum total of Catholic concern about public life. The president had come to Georgetown to discuss his economic vision and policies. These were an enormous improvement over the market fundamentalism that has brought us to our current crisis and much closer to Catholic Social teaching, if not beyond critique. This central Catholic concern was once again obscured by what a colleague has called "the abortionification" of Catholicism.
The same dynamic is at work in the well-produced controversy at Notre Dame. President Obama is worthy of honor both as an office holder and for his political achievements. His first acts as president, contrary to the strangely hypothetical mantra of protestors did not include signing FOCA (which still has not even been introduced in this Congress) but rather closed Guantanamo and the CIA's system of secret prisons, and forbid the use of waterboarding in interrogations. He has ended funding for nuclear weapons development and he has made abortion reduction one of the central focuses of his administration.
Certainly there are serious differences on abortion rights, but there is much for a Catholic University to support and honor. But, once again, all other dimensions of Catholic concern are eclipsed by the sole focus on abortion.
This exclusive focus is certainly driven by the sincere concerns of many committed to the issue. It is, however, also driven by the work of highly organized, politically motivated organizations that want both a wedge issue to win Catholic votes and a means to marginalize Catholic teachings that challenge their politics. The rightwing echo chamber is strikingly silent when Republicans such as John McCain or Condoleezza Rice speak or receive honors from Catholic universities despite their disagreements with the Church on life issues. These manufactured controversies are deeply harmful to both pro-life politics and to the Church.
While the extreme rhetoric and tactics of the organizers at Notre Dame gain media attention and energize their membership, they do nothing to convince those who disagree. Moreover, they alienate the vast middle of the American public whose support is essential to the pro-life cause. Their extreme rhetoric also threatens to derail the growing movement for abortion reduction policies. This has enormous potential to both reduce abortions and to open a space in American politics where pro-life and pro-choice citizens can work together.
Preview NCR's Family Life Issue
Watch this video from NCR Editor Dennis Coday for highlights from our annual Family Life special section.
You won't find these articles on our website. Subscribe now to receive all the content from each biweekly issue.
The politics are no doubt, as daunting as their promise. Pro-life political capital is severely eroded when the President who as a candidate put abortion reduction into the Democratic platform and made it a major focus of the Office of Faith Based and Neighborhood Initiatives is derided as the "most pro-abortion president ever." Why would a politician risk alienating pro-choice groups for such a response?
The affair at the gates of Notre Dame illuminates a great threat posed to the Church as the bishops become increasingly identified with extreme groups in the public eye. As the nation, the majority of Catholics and, indeed, the Vatican were celebrating Obama's historic election and the new politics he has brought to the Whitehouse, individual bishops as well as the Bishops conference have embraced the most radical denunciations of the president.
They launched a church-based letter writing campaign against FOCA legislation, which even to this day has not been introduced in Congress, and their current stem- cell campaign warns against policies that the administration has explicitly rejected. Outspoken bishops have described Obama's election as "apocalyptic," his invitation to Notre Dame is described as an "embarrassment," another thundered "We are at war!"
At times it seems these bishops are living in an alternate reality. It is the world of the press releases and letter writing campaigns of radical pro-life groups and conservative political organizations. For too long, these groups have received the tacit support of bishops because of their ostensible orthodoxy and support of moral absolutes. (They have in fact deeply distorted traditional catholic teaching on the meaning of "intrinsically evil" acts and "scandal.")
Increasingly, such groups are the ones in control of the Catholic message. Randall Terry traveled to Rome to seek the ouster of bishops who would not allow him to distribute his manipulative voting guides at their cathedrals. Indeed the guidelines on speakers being invoked against Notre Dame's invitation were influenced by years of lobbying by the Cardinal Newman society. Indeed Bishop D'Arcy has distanced himself from Terry and discouraged members of his diocese from participating in his protests, but he and the other bishops who have spoken against the invitation were from the start trapped in media the script written by these organizations.
Abortion is beyond question one of the fundamental moral challenges of our of
our age. Unlike the single-issue organizations, however, Bishops' teaching responsibilities extend to the full range of Catholic teaching. Their ability to witness to this fullness is endangered by their proximity to these single agenda organizations.
The bishops don't control the bullhorn, which curiously seems to get turned off whenever they engage other issues such as poverty, health care, torture or war. A study by the Barna group warns that the young are less and less attracted to Christianity because they identify it with the agenda of right wing culture warriors. The Bishops' witness to the vital positive contribution that Catholicism can make to public life is threatened when they are perceived to speak with the same voice as the extremists at shouting at the gate. Pro-life politics is marginalized and the full range of Catholic concern is not felt in public life.
Vincent Miller is an associate professor in the theology department at Georgetown University where he teaches courses in Catholic theology and religion and culture.
I completely agree with
I completely agree with Miller's observations/interpretations. Nothing I might add, could state the obvious better.
I second that! Thoughtful,
I second that! Thoughtful, accurate, complete. Amen.
What planet is Miller living
What planet is Miller living on?Obviously not Earth....It is liberal"Catholics" who are weakening the strength of The Church(already at an historical low of influence)with their willingness to tolerate anything but a weakening of liberal governmental policies.The Slavery called Abortion ought to be condemned as loudly as possible and appearing to cowtow to the extremism and brutality of Obama only serves to strengthen the hands of those who want more fetal oppression,not less....You do not "lessen"abortion by spreading it,funding it and expanding it limitlesslyThat Mr.Obama has even chosen to squelch the conscience rights of those in Federally-funded health agencies apparently does not move even some liberal "Catholics"from their Obama Worship...Perhaps young people get frustrated with "Christianity"when it stands for nothing except the secular nonsense you find in the culture at large...
Liberal Catholics have no
Liberal Catholics have no problem condemning abortion, Fr. Jenkins did a very good job of doing just that. We do not check our brains or history educations at the front door, however. Having abortion states and non-abortion states is no wiser than having slave and free states to borrow your analogy. In the aftermath of the Civil War, not only was slavery outlawed with a 13th Amendment (although big business got around it with the "conviction of a crime" clause and began renting convicts for slave labor, often freedmen on trumped up charges) but also the 14th, which gave the federal government power over state majorities and set legal protection to begin at birth. Roe is based on the grant of federal power and the definition of personhood found in the plain language of the 14th Amendment. Attempts to undo federal power judicially will undo most other such grants - and Catholics need not agree to it. What Catholics must agree to are attempts to prove that there was some evidence that personhood was conferred earlier under federal law - provided they are honest. Since in 36 years that has not occurred, even with a majority Catholic bench, one must presume that there is no such evidence. That leaves Congressional action to confer legal status on the unborn at some stage in the pregnancy.
When the right to life movement is ready to abandon the hopeless cause of overturning Roe on jurisdictional grounds (a shaky enterprise at best) and willing to open debate on congressional action to grant rights to the unborn, the rest of us are willing to join in support - provided that it is done in such a way as to not recreate a black market for abortion.
We are also quite willing to put in place policies that make not only pregnancy, but parenthood, affordable. Its called an option for the poor and its in the Magisterium. When you stop calling it socialism and join us, you will have a much better chance of us joining you in limiting access to abortion. Until then, not so much.
Thank you for this thoughtful
Thank you for this thoughtful message. I just came from the "catholicculture" website, which is wonderful in some respects but extrememly discouraging to me about this issue. I agree with you what you have written and support your notion that their is a full-range of Catholic concern that includes abortion, but includes as well issues of torture, war, the death penalty, gun control, etc.
Spot on! Where were these
Spot on!
Where were these people when it came to proclaim the Catholic doctrine on just war - reiterated by Pope John Paul II - against the irresponsible and criminal warmongering and warwaging of the Bush Administration?
Hypocrites the lot of them, especially the bishops who use the abortion issue to try to get noticed for the sake of their career interests.
I am so sick of hearing this
I am so sick of hearing this same old tired rant: how can the Church condemn abortion but not war? Only someone who has never bothered to read the Catechism or educate themselves about the Faith would make such a statement equating a moral absolute with a subjective position.
Issues of war and peace are prudential matters and not issues on which the Holy See, the Universal Magisterium, or the bishops themselves may speak definitively. When Pope John Paul opposed the War in Iraq in 2003, he was voicing his opinion, an opinion formed by his understanding of just war doctrine and, undoubtedly great prayer, and which Catholics have the obligation to seriously consider and pray about, but, in the end, it was an opinion only and not a binding declaration. So too were any declarations by the individual bishops. War is a prudential matter left to individual consciences to decide, NOT a matter of definitive Church teaching.
On the other hand, abortion is a morally reprehensible crime in every circumstance and that teaching has always been held by the Church since the earliest days of the Church (specific denunciations of abortion are found in the Didache, for example). Abortion is an issue that the Popes, the Universale Magisterium and the bishops have, and should, speak definitively on.
The taking of innocent human life is always a moral crime, and the Church recognizes that, even in the case of war. John Paul was right when he asserted that, in keeping with the just war doctrine, all attempts must be made to eliminate, or at least minimize, innocent casualties. Obviously, should one wish to critique the issue of war on that basis, one would be welcome to do so. However, the pontiff knew that he could not make a definitive statement and did not attempt to do so; it belongs to the individual Catholic to form his or her conscience and make his or her decision to support, or to oppose, war.
I would hope that, in the future, we will be able to analyze these issues from the standpoint of a person who understands the teaching authority and structures of the Church, as well as its catechism.
The method of protecting life
The method of protecting life is also a prudential matter. The current National Right to Life Committee/Republican Party strategy of gutting federal power is illegitmate on its face. One can oppose it without even treading on the question of the morality of abortion. Step away from the Confederate Flag Wavers and you might find more Catholics standing with you.
Dear Vincent Thank you for
Dear Vincent
Thank you for writing intelligently on an issue that usually produces lots of heat and little light. I look forward to your posts in the future.
Steve
It is about time that
It is about time that somebody writes about the prophets of doom. Great article!!
As for Obama's being "worthy
As for Obama's being "worthy of honor both as an office holder and for his political achievements," I can only quote Bp. Trautman, "On his fourth day in the White House he approved federal funding to perform private abortions in other countries (the overturning of the Mexico City Policy). He restored to the United Nations Population Fund monies to support abortions, while opposing federal funding for pro-life pregnancy help centers. He authorized funding to conduct human embryonic stem cell research." Achievements indeed.
John Paul II's "Ex Corde Ecclesiae" says that universities must look towards their bishops to authenticate their claim of Catholicity to be "an expression of the faith and mission of the Church." More than 75 bishops have decried the honoring of Obama at Notre Dame (Feel free to google that statement, I won't link to each document here). Something doesn't add up about Notre Dame's fidelity to the Church, her bishops, or her teachings.
There are 425 bishops in the
There are 425 bishops in the United States. Accepting your number, only 18% of the bishops expressed their opposition.
I'm sorry John McLancie, but
I'm sorry John McLancie, but when Church Leaders act like the Church is their personal preserve (and the rest of us poor shmucks are admitted to the church at the pleasure of the hierarchy), when American Catholics who have the same Constitutional rights as other Americans---are told whom they should NOT vote for by the hierarchy---then the line must be drawn.
Throughout history, the institutional church has tried to take over the ownership of the Good News, institutionalizing it by emphasizing observances, observance to law, obedience to feudalistic-style hierarchs, which are painted up to be more important than the core values of Jesus' life and message. What about the bad example that these bishops are giving with their vicious attacks upon the President of the United States?
Catholic universities, which were originally staffed by members of religious orders, operated freely from under the heel of the local ordinaries. For good reason, too. Any theological growth and understanding that the Church gained over the centuries did not come from the bishops, but from the theologians. Until these extreme bishops return from the far distant planet from where they have been dwelling---and return to earth and reality---there will not be any coming to agreement with the rest of American society---who also have something to say about the abortion issue.
Incorrect. The Mexico City
Incorrect. The Mexico City policy did not require grantees not to perform abortions, which is illegal under US law. The Mexico City Policy was a gag order prohibiting the mention of abortion services.
To liberal catholics, legal
To liberal catholics, legal abortion is a "challenge".
Why do you never call abortion a holocaust, murder evil. Why do you never ask why abortion should be legal, when infanticide is criminal?
And to conservative Catholics
And to conservative Catholics why don't you practice what you preach? If abortion is murder why don't you advocate the arrest, prosecution and execution of the mother and the jailing of the doctors involved. If you insist on this language then be honest.
As a matter of fact, as a
As a matter of fact, as a prolife Catholic I do advocate the arrest and prosecution of anyone involved in a procured abortion. I do not advocate execution, since I am agains the death penalty. When are people like you, who think you are intelligent, going to "get it" about abortion? Why are you defending baby-killers?
Dear Mr. PhD. When do you
Dear Mr. PhD.
When do you think you other anti-abortion hard-liners are going to "get it" - that criminalizing women who have had abortions is not going to happen in this country. My guess is that if this element supported a politically tenable position, it might have a chance of actually making a difference in this national debate. Alas, you prefer to be morally pure charicatures. So what if that stance hinders the kind of change that will actually DO SOMETHING to save unborn children. I'm sure you are far more comfortable in the cocoon of moral certitude than in the nasty, muddy field of making a difference.
I'm fascinated by
I'm fascinated by liberal"Catholics"who moan about trying to reduce the number of abortions(but only end up supporting politicians who do nothing of the kind)but never use that same kind of rhetoric about Slavery,The Holocaust,Racial Discrimination and the list goes on and on...I guess only the unborn are supposed to be dispensable....
Does this mean I can sign you
Does this mean I can sign you up to support an expansion of the refundable Child Tax Credit to a level which will discourage abortion - or will you regard that bit of enforcement of Catholic doctrine (Just Wage - Rerum Novarum - Leo XIII) to be socialism?
Do you favor penalties equal
Do you favor penalties equal to those of killing an infant? Do you favor a tort if the child dies under medical care? Are you willing to see the practice of obstetrics cease in the first trimester, as doctors refuse to see patients to avoid such suits?
How do you plan to grant rights to the child? Do you favor a human life amendment or can Congress act under the 14th Amendment? Is overturning Roe acceptable, even if it guts the power of the federal government to overturn state government incursions on the rights of protected minorities (or do you not favor protecting women, ethinic minorities, gays and lesbians?)?
Do you really think we are "protecting baby-killers" by insisting on the protection of minority rights and adherence to constitutional provisions?
Is criminalizing abortion essential to being pro-life? Is there a scripture or canon that requires specific state remedies or is this the province of government officials to decide?
Do you believe it is moral to resist the criminalization of tobacco, alcohol and drugs if that criminalization does not work?
Is it licit to resist the division of the nation into abortion states and non-abortion states as an attempt to repeat the dysfunction of slave and free states?
Given that 10% of abortions are likely inevitable (rape, incest, life of mother, gross fetal deformity) and 5 of 6 of the remainder are for economic reasons, would it not be better to work on the economic reasons first, so that women who would resort to abortion aren't faced with an unaffordable pregnancy/child vs. an illegal abortion? Would it not be better to make the child affordable first and then find ways to restrict abortion?
Given that the number of clinics is roughly driven by the demand for abortion, wouldn't solving the economic issues first be expected to cut the number of clinics by 5/6ths - making it easier to prevent that 1 of 6 which is not about the economics?
Love the sinner, hate the
Love the sinner, hate the sin.
In a more perfect world, you would get sent to prison for performing that act. But just as you don't send a person with mental illness to jail, you don't send a mother in this society today to prison. It doesn't mesh with what society believes. Morals are protected by the Church, but laws are created by people.
Isn't the arrest and
Isn't the arrest and prosecution of women who have abortions and the doctors who perform them the primary goal of the political arm of the pro-life movement? Isn't that why conservative Catholics insist that the only valid way to be pro-life is to vote only for politicians who vow to do everything in their power to overturn Roe v. Wade?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you make something against the law, then logically, there have to be penalties for breaking that law. This is the piece that is often missing from pro-life rhetoric.
I am Catholic, I believe abortion for convenience sake is wrong, and I do not want to toss young women in jail for having one. No doubt my more militant brothers and sisters in the church would say this makes me, well, not really a Catholic at all. Yet, here I am.
You can call for my excommunication or you can talk to me. From my more conservative brothers and sisters,I would like to know this: In a just world, what would be the legal penalty for abortion? And who should pay that penalty?
I'm listening.
Why do you never ask why
Why do you never ask why abortion should be legal, when infanticide is criminal?
In case of abortion the person to be "aborted" (or killed) was dependent and attached to the mother and current scientific knowledge cannot yet make that person alive outside and independent of the mother. So we are not talking about one person life here, but two. So the right of the mother has also be taken into consideration when deciding whether abortion should be legal or not.
Sure you can say that it is the right to live of the baby versus the 'inconvenience' of the mother for 9 months to carry the pregnancy to full term. But have you ever been in that mother shoes to know what kind of 'inconvenient' that is ? without first enacting the law supporting the pregnant mothers, safe guarding her well being, ensuring that she can carry her pregnancy full term with all the support and help she needs, then creating a law to criminalize abortion would be greatly unfair to women.
infanticide is murder because the infant can easily live with a surrogate mother, and can be cared by other people. She will be independent of her mother, so there never be a just reason why it should be murdered.
(Not that I said there is ever be a just reason to kill a baby inside the womb, but as I laid out above, that there is the right of the other person i.e. the mother that we have to take into consideration.)
Why do you never call abortion a holocaust, murder evil.
The explanation above I hope is sufficient to explain why abortion is not the same as holocaust, murder evil. Because there is never a justification to kill another human being the way the nazi did to the jews, gypsy etc. Since they can just send them away instead of killing them. Of course the real reason for nazi killing is more philosophical then practical, they didn't want to send the jews away, they really wanted to kill them. That's just another different between holocaust and abortion, the mother didn't want to kill the baby if she doesn't have to, she wants the baby to go away from her life but until we have star trek like technology that can teleport the baby outside the womb into a place where she can live without her mother, then criminalizing abortion will be unfair to the mother.
In all, I personally disagree with abortion and regard it as killing another human being. But I don't think criminalizing it now is the right way to go, especially if the women right for protection and care by the society during pregnancy is not yet recognized. If you want to criminalize abortion are you ready to prosecute and launch a criminal investigation to every single women who had miscarriage ?
I think the right way to go about this is to remove the reason why the women chose an abortion instead of enacting a law removing her right to do so.
Easy to Preach and Pray, but
Easy to Preach and Pray, but very, very tough (if not impossible for our Catholic Bishops in the Bible Belt) to Follow-up and Practice what one preaches, especially when it is regarding....
Death Penalty in Florida.
This coming week, Bishop Thomas Wenski of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Orlando, Fla., will take the unusual step of celebrating a Mass of Reparation, to make amends for sins against God.
Bishop Thomas Wenski of Orlando Florida ought to examine his own conscience and check whether he could do more than just "talk about" abolishing the Death Penalty in Florida.
He ought to concentrate his efforts on something closer to home -
the ABOLITION OF DEATH PENALY in FLORIDA.
http://www.usccb.org/deathpenalty/
http://www.iwasinprison.org/
He ought to read:
The Biblical Truth about America's Death Penalty by Dale S. Recinella Northeastern (November 18, 2004) ISBN-10: 1555536328 ISBN-13: 978-1555536329.
A longtime supporter of the death penalty, dale S. Recinella underwent a radical change of heart when a colleague asked him to step out of his legal specialty to help with a murder case. That experience launched a lengthy investigation during which Recinella uncovered damning evidence that American courts administer the death penalty in ways deeply at odds with the biblical faith Americans often invoke to justify it. In the first place, Recinella shows, Americans often quote the Bible's eye-for-an-eye verses without understanding the scriptural and Talmudic context that defined the offenses meriting death. Scripture-quoting advocates of the death penalty abound in America's Bible Belt (where a disproportionate number of executions occur), but Recinella concludes that these fervent religionists have attended little to the scriptural insistence on strict equity in administering capital punishment. What reading of sacred writ, Recinella asks, can possibly justify the punitive imbalance that puts so many poor blacks on death row? Some readers will resist the author's call for a moratorium or outright ban on executions, but this book will greatly enrich the national debate over the issues. Bryce Christensen.
It deals with Biblical standards of Capital Punishment and then compares them to the system used in America today. It is the best-researched, most faithful to scripture, and most evenhanded analysis I have ever read concerning the Death Penalty. Whatever your persuasion on the issue, this book will teach you a great deal. Recinella is a trained lawyer and committed Christian who now volunteers part-time on Florida's death row. He thus understands law, the Bible, and the system of execution in America. I challenge anyone who supports the Death Penalty to read this book.
I am already against the
I am already against the death penalty but put the book on my list at Amazon.
Puppets for Terry among Bible
Puppets for Terry among Bible Belt Bishops
Bishop D'Arcy ought to be commended for distancing himself from Terry:
"Bishop D'Arcy has distanced himself from Terry and discouraged members of his diocese from participating in his protests."
I wonder how many of the Bishops of the Bible Belt (in the list below) will follow the lead of Bishop D'Arcy and stop being the "puppets" for Terry.
How many of these "Bible Belt Bishops" will have the courage to put out statements that they are not "PUPPETS FOR TERRY" but "disciples of Christ":
1. Daniel Cardinal DiNardo of Houston,
2. Gregory Aymond of Austin
3. José Gomez of San Antonio
4. Oscar Cantú of San Antonio
5. Alfred Hughes of New Orleans
6. Robert Baker of Birmingham
7. Gerald Barbarito of Palm Beach
8. Robert Lynch of St. Petersburg
9. Thomas Wenski of Orlando
10. Victor Galeone of St. Augustine
11. Edward Slattery of Tulsa
12. Anthony Taylor of Little Rock
The "Puppets for Terry" ought
The "Puppets for Terry" ought to read what Fr. Raymond Chappetto at Our Lady of Snows Church in Floral Park, Queens, New York had said on 6-11-08:
"We are not here to condemn, to condone actions and, most of all, we are not here to judge."
http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/queens/2008/11/05/2008-11-05_queens_...
Queens church prays for help through vicar sex storm
BY ANDREW GARIB and BILL HUTCHINSON
DAILY NEWS WRITERS
Thursday, November 6th 2008, 2:44 AM
Members of a Queens church rocked by the alleged sexual shenanigans of a Viagra-popping vicar prayed Wednesday night that they overcome the scandal.
About 150 parishioners gathered for a "prayer service" at Our Lady of Snows Church in Floral Park to ask God to guide them "through this very difficult time."
"We will not allow events that are beyond our control to bring down our parish," the Rev. Msgr. Raymond Chappetto told them.
Last night's service was prompted by a stunning $25 million lawsuit filed by Judith Rodrigues-Lytwyn, 50, who claimed the church's former vicar, the Rev. Elvis Elano, seduced her into a sexual relationship.
Rodrigues-Lytwyn charged Elano took advantage of her vulnerability after she went to him for confession and told him of her pending divorce from an abusive husband.
In the Brooklyn Supreme Court suit filed last week, she included photos of her and Elano, 44, on a romantic beach stroll, and others of the cleric bare-chested and holding a rose in his mouth.
"Our parish has been violated. ..." said Chappetto, referring to photos of Elano.
Chappetto refused to criticize Elano, telling the congregation, "We are not here to condemn, to condone actions and, most of all, we are not here to judge."
The pastor's message prompted applause from parishioners.
"I think we're all together on this. It has brought the parish together," said Tony Sweeny, 76, a member of the church for 36 years.
Elano was transferred to St. Joseph's Parish in upstate Kingston during the summer. He was suspended last week from his duties as a hospital chaplain.
whutchinson@nydailynews.com
PUPPETS FOR TERRY How many of
PUPPETS FOR TERRY
How many of these "MOSTLY WHITE" seventeen Cardinals and Archbishops will have the "courage and spine" to follow Bishop D'Arcy and not cave in to their Parishes being taken over (by using Abortion as a Camouflage) by the EXTREME RIGHT WING of the REPUBLICAN PARTY:
1.Cardinal Justin Rigali - Philadelphia, PA; Chairman, USCCB Pro-Life Committee
2.Cardinal Francis George - Chicago, IL; President, USCCB
3.Cardinal Anthony Bevilacqua (Archbishop Emeritus) - Philadelphia, PA
4.Cardinal Daniel DiNardo - Houston, TX
5.Archbishop Donald Wuerl - Washington, D.C.
6.Archbishop Daniel E. Pilarczyk - Cincinnati, OH
7.Archbishop Edwin O'Brien - Baltimore, MD
8.Archbishop John C. Nienstedt - St. Paul-Minneapolis, MN
9.Archbishop Joseph Naumann - Kansas City, KS
10.Archbishop John J. Myers - Newark, NJ
11.Archbishop Alfred Hughes - New Orleans, LA
12.Archbishop José Gomez - San Antonio, TX
13.Archbishop Timothy Dolan - New York, NY
14.Archbishop Charles Chaput - Denver, CO
15.Archbishop-Elect Robert Carlson - St. Louis
16.Archbishop Eusebius Beltran - Oklahoma City, OK
17.Archbishop Daniel Buechlein - Indianapolis, IN
#15, Abp.-elect Carlson, has
#15, Abp.-elect Carlson, has been on board with the nuttiness for some time now. As bishop of Sioux Falls (prior to Saginaw) before elections, he'd send out cassette tapes to be played at mass, reminding parishioners how to vote. A few cathedral priests would mention political parties in their homilies, which only made explicit what Bp. Carlson circumlocuted his way around. In 2004 he had a public smackdown with Tom Daschle over the Senator's campaign talk of his Catholic formation. (Perhaps fair, as Daschle had lapsed in the 80s, but Carlson didn't have to gab about it to the Weekly Standard. Now, Daschle slipped on a number of banana peels, but certainly Carlson was a big one, and that hurts when loss at the polls is so narrow. And what, Thune is some great Catholic?) St. Louis, prepare for Burke-lite: same myopic partisanship; less legalese!
Miss Muppett, scan your lists. You'll find there plenty of the loud voices of the (transparently partisan) Obama/ND "controversy." This type of attention-getting, bullying behavior is mistaken for leadership and earns promotion from HQ.
The bishops have no choice.
The bishops have no choice. As direct descendants of the Apostles they must uphold the doctrines of the faith given to us by Jesus Christ. Abortion is an intrinsic moral evil. You cannot rationalize your way around it. Those who are pro choice choose death over life. Our God is a god of love. Abortion flies in the face of love, depriving helpless, innocent human beings of life. How can it be made any more plain than this? People need to pray for those so called intellectual types out there in the "world" promoting the culture of death. Abortion is genocide. The screams of millions of innocents cry out to God for justice.
"Abortion flies in the face
"Abortion flies in the face of love, depriving helpless, innocent human beings of life. How can it be made any more plain than this?"
It cannot be made any more plain than this. Yet these so-called Catholics who defend abortion still cannot see it. Why is this? I think the reason is that they have hardened their hearts. They are of the same spirit as the world that hates Christ and hates his Church. And this should not surprise us; if you read history you will find that there have always been people within the Church who actually hate the Church. Why do they hate the Church? Why do they hate Christ? Because they hate the truth.
Answer my questions above
Answer my questions above before you make generalizations about liberal Catholics. And keep a civil tongue in your head when talking about your bretheren - which will be good practice when faced with the coming class of liberal bishops who were raised to believe in the spirit of Vatican II. When half of the JPII priests adopt the party line (because you can never know if a conservative is true blue or conforming), you may be faced with a hierarchy composed of people of our ilk.
You are equating the moral
You are equating the moral teaching on abortion with the legal strategy to stop or reduce it. They are not the same thing and there was never an "abortion law" at the federal level to support or oppose. It was not "legalized" per se - rather state restrictions were ruled to be unconstitutional. Many in the pro-life movement are singing from the Republican neo-confederate (so called Federalist) hymnal in seeking the overturn of Roe on states' rights grounds. This strategy has to do with federal v. state power and has nothing to do with the morality of abortion. It can be opposed as bad public policy without necessarily supporting legal abortion.
So, when I am in defense of
So, when I am in defense of the teachings of the Church on abortion, I am a right-winger and I am damaging the church. I wonder if we could have a syllogism on that type of thinking.
Yes, there are the extremes at Notre Dame, then, on the other hand there are a large number of the Holy Cross Fathers who are not in agreement with the choice. They have let their thoughts be known. . .and at times, argued.
This is a happening that could have been avoided easily. The President could have acted in a honorable way by declining the offer in view of his own positions on abortion, stem cell, the Mexico Policy, et alii. But instead, accepted knowing that his position was contra to church teachings.
There are at times that traits of narcissism can lead to the making of bad judgments.
I personally think that this was a bad judgment on his part. He could have been courageous and used some of that "intellectual honesty" that everyone seemingly adulates. He didn't. This did not have to happen.
"There are at times that
"There are at times that traits of narcissism can lead to the making of bad judgments."
Please, explain! What is your point?
It leads to "I am more
It leads to "I am more important than anything else". The sequitur you can create yourself . . .look at me . .see how good I am .. .
Granted, the church body will be more wounded by the visit of Obama to Notre Dame than the student body.
After the fact: It happened; so, now, we can let go of this matter. Narcissism won out . ..see how good I am; I came, I conquered, I divided . ..forget your teachings. . .let's be "open-minded" on abortion . .now, from reason alone, please tell me how that is possible.
It seems that his accepting
It seems that his accepting was to show his gratitude to the former president of Notre Dame who worked so hard on behalf of civil rights. Nevertheless, all Catholic institutions should be snubbed.
You are making a caricature
You are making a caricature of President Obama's motives as well as of those of the people at ND who invited him and granted him a degree honoris causa. Is that fair? Is that helpful? What particular qualifications do you have, what special privileged insights and information do you have to be able to analyze your President's motives the way you did?
Moreover, "Granted, the church body will be more wounded by the visit of Obama to Notre Dame......" I agree because what certain people (including a number of bishops) did and said in name of "Pro-Life" will turn off more people from the church (and also from anything having to do with Pro-Life organizations); I am one of them. Yes, the church body will be wounded, but not in the way you suggest and not because of Obama's visit to ND and receiving a degree.
I completely agree. Obama
I completely agree. Obama should have treated an invitation from a Catholic institution like poison.
Nah, Notre Dame put him over
Nah, Notre Dame put him over the top in Indiana. He owed them a victory lap.
Good point.
Good point.
The present pope, Benedict
The present pope, Benedict XVIth century aka Papa Ratzi, was instrumental in the death of the beloved theology professor at Saint Paul University in Ottawa, Father André Guindon O.M.I. who had much the same approach as the author of this article. Then Grand Inquisitor Joseph Ratzinger summoned the ailing oblate missionary to Rome to justify his positions layed out in his book "The Sexual Creator" where he proposes a less stringent approach to homosexuality and GLBTs in the church.
"THE BISHOPS DON'T CONTROL
"THE BISHOPS DON'T CONTROL THE BULLHORN".
Amen!
That's exactly the problem. The corruption runs wide and deep. The bullhorn of American Catholicism is controlled by the likes of EWTN, Ave Maria, Relevant and virtually every other media outlet that styles itself "Catholic" despite that they are not affiliated with the Church. Through the beneficence of their wealthy owners and trustees, these media arbiters of orthodoxy present theology through their own filter, often linking it to their political ideology just for good measure. Similar to rightwing 'talk radio' hosts who control the AM dial, the 'Catholic' media controls the megaphone of opinion. And when they shade the truth, who dares challenge them for supremacy in the battle of the Mitre vs the Mighty Microphone? Think: Michael Steele vs. Rush Limbaugh. Who was beaten into submission, the head of the party or the guy with the microphone?
We could create a society
We could create a society here in the US where abortion would no longer be the most attractive of a number of bad alternatives for a woman. It would be a society where she could find the help she needed during and AFTER her pregnancy - where her child wouldn't be relegated to a life of poverty and her career hopes would not be dashed. It could be a society where abortion, even if still legal, would truely be rare. But this kind of world costs $$ and the last thing that pro-life republicans want to do is pony-up. They'd much rater pass a law - ineffective,perhaps, but cheap. You can't serve both God and $$ and my Lord, these Democrats want to raise our taxes.
The damage is already done.
The damage is already done. Roman Catholic bishops (all of them, not just the right-wing ones) are no longer respected or listened to in the United States. They lost their moral authority when the sexual-abuse scandals came to light. Today, they are viewed as rather odd relics of another age.
10 Holy Cross fathers protest
10 Holy Cross fathers protest Obama's presence!! 350 Holy Cross fathers have no objection. 20 seniors may boycott.... 1800 won't
Notre Dame 60... Bishops scoreless... Convert Randal Terry to be given honors at many parishes for this defeat???
Of course, all of the
Of course, all of the constant dissent found on the pages and web site of NCR does not damage and scandalize the church. It is only those pesky, orthodox pro-lifers who want to stop the holocaust of abortion that damage the church. And yes, abortion is a modern day holocaust.
We are a country of many serious problems, but we have only one holocaust--the slaughter of unborn innocents supported by our President. I thought this was above his pay grade.
The scandal is confusing the
The scandal is confusing the support of a specific act of abortion with an unwillingness to support a dubious political strategy to gut the power of the federal government to rule state level tyranny of the majority unconstitutional. There was no abortion law in the United States, only a SCOTUS decision denying state jurisdiction. Don't call on me to avoid communion for not supporting a legislative proposal that does not even exist or a legal strategy that has no hope of success (given that Roberts and Alito refused to overturn Roe when given the chance).
I'm grateful for so coherent
I'm grateful for so coherent an examination of what I see to be a negative and discouraging course of behavior by both lay and clerical members of the Church. If memory serves, at the Democratic Convention here in Denver, Obama stated that while he had different views from the pro-life side, reducing the number of abortions should be something upon which all sides should be able to agree. I've also read that if Roe v.Wade were overturned tomorrow, abortion would not be ended, but revert to a state-by-state issue, which makes the more militant pro-life crusaders'--and the more strident bishops'--rhetoric less credible. I hope for an end to abortion, but in a way that ensures that every woman finds the help she needs to either act responsibly before she's pregnant or to support her to bear or give up her baby. I wonder where all these vocal and passionate pro-lifers are about voicing support for the Pregnant Woman's Support Act, which I believe is an actual bill going through Congress, and which I think the President has voiced his support for. Surely if they want to make a point, this would be a much more effective media item.
And it was just this sort of
And it was just this sort of thing that led me to reject the church and all it stands for. When you read church history, you see this grasping for power in the secular sphere every time the church is losing power elsewhere. For example, when the church lost the Papal States, we ended up with the proclamation of the dogma of papal infallibility. The church is rapidly losing her influence in the west and it will continue to do so, even in traditionally Catholic areas like Ireland, Poland,Italy and Spain. Soon the church will be reduced to pockets of wingnuts here and here in the west, with the majority of its members being in third world nations.
I read with great interest
I read with great interest the articles about the festive end-of-year protests that will face the President when he shows up on the Notre Dame campus. But I did a bit of research and found that other presidents have been protested as well.
Ronald Reagan spoke at the school, the man who, as governor of California, signed the first legislation legalizing abortion. Now, he may have said he was against abortion when he was in the White House, but he actually did this.
When he spoke, the circling airplane flew this on its banner:
The Church celebrities arrested for disturbing the peace were the following:
George W. Bush, pre-torture and pre-lying us into a war, showed up on campus having executed more convicts on death row than any other Texas governor. With one, there is still speculation that he was innocent. But, win a few, lose a few.
The following catcalls were heard coming from the rear of the graduates:
The following bishops threatened the school administration for inviting a killer to speak:
We have history here.
These kinds of articles only
These kinds of articles only reinforce the conviction among many that the progressive Catholic establishment marches in lockstep with the progressive political establishment. Their job seems to be to translate the social objectives of the political left into a language and concepts acceptable to statistical groups of Catholics. When there are disagreements between the political and religious teachings, the religious ones are worked on to somehow align them with the political objectives. Making abortion "fit" is, of course, the main problem here.
In my opinion, the Catholic left's use of the "seamless garment" mentality has discredited the entire concept among many Catholics. A much more logically compelling narrative of understanding social concerns via a graduated scale, is rapidly gaining ground outside the progressive circles.
Simply denouncing this development without any intellectual engagement, then attempting to drive a wedge between the Bishops who propose this new model of thinking and Catholics who agree with them, will be widely viewed as just a ploy of the Catholic left to prevent undesirable political outcomes.
Miller's article is a typical
Miller's article is a typical American double-talk. It is important for Catholics to focus on abortion (of course without eventually excluding other concerns in the seamless robe approach) because the right to life is the most basic of all; the unborn need a voice. The arguments of Miller echo the arguments of those people, even Christians, who did not openly support slavery and apartheid, but who would rather support "political correctness" by trying to complicate and circumvent ordinary arguments. Do they deserve to be Christians? It's not for us to judge, but the Acts of the Apostles offer valuable insights on proper christian conduct.
It is truly sad, that the
It is truly sad, that the Bishops are so unwilling to be honest and are so intolerant. It would be better to try to use the visit of President Obama as a constructive attempt by both sides to reach out and try to establish a middle ground from which both sides can begin to find some kind of consensus. No one I know is pro-abortion and neither is President Obama. If people had listened more carefully during the campaign you would have heard him say that, but the hard-line conservatives simply hear only what they want to hear. and I find them to be HYPOCRITES.
What do we have to be afraid of in true dialogue? President Obama is trying to reach out can we do less?
Dear northcountry1 Abortion
Dear northcountry1
Abortion is murder. Do you disagree?
We advocate the arrest and prosecution the mother, if mentally competent. We certainly advocate the jailing of the doctors involved. Being pro-life, we do not advocate execution, if other punishments are effective.
Now, please tell us. Why should abortion be legal when infanticide isnt? You liberals say you want a dialogue, but we cant you to answer that.
Now, please tell us. Why
Now, please tell us. Why should abortion be legal when infanticide isnt?
The answer is here, I posted it above in reply to your other comment about nazi murder. Too bad you fail to read it.
In case of abortion the person to be "aborted" (or killed) was dependent and attached to the mother and current scientific knowledge cannot yet make that person alive outside and independent of the mother. So we are not talking about one person life here, but two. So the right of the mother has also be taken into consideration when deciding whether abortion should be legal or not.
Sure you can say that it is the right to live of the baby versus the 'inconvenience' of the mother for 9 months to carry the pregnancy to full term. But have you ever been in that mother shoes to know what kind of 'inconvenient' that is ? without first enacting the law supporting the pregnant mothers, safe guarding her well being, ensuring that she can carry her pregnancy full term with all the support and help she needs, then creating a law to criminalize abortion would be greatly unfair to women.
infanticide is murder because the infant can easily live with a surrogate mother, and can be cared by other people. She will be independent of her mother, so there never be a just reason why it should be murdered.
(Not that I said there is ever be a just reason to kill a baby inside the womb, but as I laid out above, that there is the right of the other person i.e. the mother that we have to take into consideration.)
"the abortionification" of
"the abortionification" of Catholicism," is so apt. Two thousand years of sophisticated theology reduced to one issue.
And now the bishops are dancing to the tune of Randal Terry. Cardinal George should be proud, the church is on the warpath and Terry is the general; the bishops are the chaplains to these warriors. "Abortion is murder" (of course this is pure hypocrisy--the bishops do not call for the jailing of women who have abortions.) And now the new Archbishop in New York has joined the outcry over Notre Dame. The only consolation in all of this is the list of bishops and cardinals who have not joined the anti-Notre Dame crowd--maybe there is some hope for our church.
Refreshing article. What the
Refreshing article. What the loud protesters are excited about is the President's actions on funding for overseas operations and stem cell research. They generalize to abortion, Surely they realize that the President of the United States does not have the power to make abortion illegal, Congress does not have that power. The legality of abortion in the United States is not within the power of the President and Congress to decide. Period. Secondly, trying to get Roe v Wade to go away as policy is a complete, utter failure after how many decades ....
Meanwhile it is entirely possible for the government to undertake to extend care and assistance to pregnant women and their offspring to ensure that there are no economic or medical motives for fear and abortion. That alone would probably save millions of babies.
The Republicans have been the enemy of the pregnant woman. They in various and sundry often budget-related ways tell her she must have the child, but that getting pregnant was her fault and after the child is born she'll have to take care of the consequences of her sin. Now there's a policy that encourages abortion! If you fail to cross your legs at the necessary time, Devil take you and the child that you must have. Now there's an an abortion of Christianity for you.
Great comment.
Great comment.
Joseph Ratzinger never should
Joseph Ratzinger never should have been given the power he had before he was Pope and now during this darkest period in Catholicism since the post reformation period of Trent, we have nothing but extreme right wing Cardinals, Archbishops and Bishops. There may be a few progressive thinkers among their ranks but they have neither the courage nor the strength to stand up to the right wingers because they will be shot down. Look what they did to John Quinn, the former San Francisco Archbishop after his book on the reformation of the Papacy? These men who are in control live as kings and princes and their life style alone is a shameful example of exactly what Christ did not want his Church on Earth to be like. They have not only lost ALL credibility but they bring shame to Chris's name and His teachings. Stop giving them money to live the high life in palaces and mansions, with their own personal drivers, limos, chefs, housekeepers and you name it. They do not deserve to live this way while people on this Earth have no food, shelter, health care or hope. Yes, the corruption runs wide and deep but we contribute when we give these despicable power holders our money. They abuse our gifts for the most part. A very small amount may trickle down to the poor, but in general these men are Republican Generals and NOT shepherds of the Church.
Why dont all of us Catholics
Why dont all of us Catholics just sit with our hands over our ears, over our eyes, or over our mouths, lest we be branded uncooperative and divisive "Right Wing Warriors".
Live human babies are being burned alive, cut into pieces, and sucked out of their mothers wombs on a daily basis, while mild mannered Catholics sit like bad monkeys with their hands over their ears, over their eyes, or over their mouths.
Wake up to the genocide of the most helpless members of our human family. How is that for an apocalyptic shout?
It would nice and easy if Mr.
It would nice and easy if Mr. Kmiec was correct that those protesting Obama's recieving an honorary degree were just right wing political hacks looking to score points for the next election. Unfortunately, for him and the liberal Catholics in name only, that is not true. At least not for those Catholics that are inside the Church working to educate our fellow Catholics and fellow Americans on this issue. The liberal left in the American Church has absolultely no idea who is on the orthodox side of the aisle and this type of analysis proves it. We cannot be dismissed so easily on this or any other issue.
In fact, the abortion idustry and its supporters have far more to lose politically and economically if we acutally reduced or eliminated abortions. BTW, for the last 30 years there has been talk of making abortion "safe, legal and rare". Abortion is now safe, legal but not rare. If only the abortion supporters would put 1/2 of their efforts into reducing abortions perhaps Mr. Obama's remarks yesterday wouldnt be so laughable. How do we find common ground when we are approaching 50 millions abortions an unknown number of which are now done for gender selection and genetic abnormalities. I don't even want to contemplate the numbers of babies aborted globally. Abortion is a great form of birth control. Unfortunately, someone dies in the process.
Mr. Obama, the abortion industry and its supporters including their "Catholic" supporters have absolutely no credibility in their claim that their goal is to reduce abortions. The ball has been in their court for a long time on this issue and they HAVE NOT MADE ABORTION RARE! If anything they have fought every effort to reduce abortions. Crisis pregnance centers are staffed by pro lifers trying to give women an option to abortion. How many women are counseled with other options when they go to Planned Parenthool? None and there are videos to prove it.
The "Catholic" supporters of abortion also need a new argument since the one they use that the rest of Obama's social agends is so close to Catholic social teaching that abortion should be a side issue. Well, if a person is never born because they were aborted then how do they benefit from his social agenda? And how is it Catholic social teaching that homosexuals should be married and adopt children? How is it Catholic social teaching that the govt. should take care of us from cradle to grave and that we should give up our responsibility to take care of ourselves and our neighbor. How is it Catholic social teaching that health care professionals should leave their conscience at the door? His switcheroo on that one is suspect. How is it Catholic social teaching that we the faithful, whether the voter or the politician, should leave our conscience formed by our faith out of our public decision making? It is not which Mr. Kmiec would know if he read Church documents regarding the role of the government in ensuring a just society. Look it up.
The arguments supporting the scandal at ND are twisted, sad and desparate. Hopefully, this is the beginning of the end for left leaning in name only Catholics. They would be much happier elsewhere.
s
Support expanding the Child
Support expanding the Child Tax Credit to a refundable credit of $500 per child per month and you will see abortions go down. Don't call it socialist, unless you are willing to call Leo XIII, Pius XI and John Paul II socialists - all of whom called for a preferential option for the poor and a Just Family Wage. You cannot worship both God and Money.
Good article. To Anon, I
Good article.
To Anon, I assure you I am not liberal in name only and it is scandalous for you to question the Catholicism of your bretheren. It is the kind of Calumny that requires confession and absolution. Worse than that, it makes you impossible to work with so that any solution to this crisis becomes impossible - which is good for GOP fundraising but tragic for the unborn who might be saved if we worked together.
What is "common ground" in
What is "common ground" in regards to abortion. One side believes that it is always morally wrong to intentionally kill an unborn child and the other side doesn't. Either that or the other side knows it's morally wrong but thinks women should have the right to choose to kill their unborn child.
Warm and fuzzy words about reducing abortions do nothing to stop the killing now. All it does is to elude the basic principle that all human life from conception until natural death has value.
The pres is such a talented speaker that he can basically say to the country that he believes it is ok to kill unborn children and people still fall over themselves in adulation because the message is wrapped up in an attractive package. Actions over words. What are his actions? Radically pro-abortion. No amount of rhetoric can hide this fact for anyone thinking clearly. Should we have merely "reduced" slavery? On this issue, it's time for many people to wake up to reality.
It would have been
It would have been disrespectful to come to N.D. and explain why Roe was not wrongly decided, even though BHO, as a U. Chicago Con Law Prof could have done an excellent job explaining it.
The common ground is in dealing with the 75% of abortions where the cause is money. Deal with these and realize that another 10% of abortions belong in a hospital setting (rape, incest, fetal deformity - and I'm not talking Downs) and you have 15% of abortions left, which will cut the number of clinics by at least 75% if not more - assuming any survive the low volume.
To deal with these abortions, expand the Child Tax Credit from $1000 to $6000 per year per child and make it fully refundable and payable as part of wages. Do this before any abortion restriction, as if you do it second, you will simply have women resorting to back alley abortions. If women are not seeking abortions or can't find a clinic, ending the "right to abortion" by recognizing fetal rights at the federal level will not seem so harsh.
Don't call me a bad Catholic because I have a better and more compassionate strategy than you do.
I wonder if those who
I wonder if those who criticize the protests of "right wing warriors" are as equally ready to criticize the protests of "left wing radicals"? Would those who say the actions of pro-life protestors are damaging to the Church also say that the actions of priests and nuns, such as trespassing on military bases and banging on jets, missiles, and other weapons, with hammers, that result in their arrest and prosecution are just as damaging?
You see, the river flows both ways. I realize that it may never have occured to some folks, but the spectacle of priests and nuns being hauled away in handcuffs, not because they were protesting, but because they willingly broke the law -- "civil disobedience" -- is humiliating to the Church.
Christ specifically said "render to Caesar what is Caesar's". In other words, obey the civil authorities. Speak truth to power, yes. Try to evangelize civil society, yes. Work toward a free and virtuous society, yes. But, follow the law until you can change it. The Jews of Christ's time found paying taxes to the Romans every bit as odious, if not moreso, as many find supporting and maintaining a military. Yet Christ told them to do it anyway.
There is nothing wrong with organizing and staging protests, in fact, that can be morally praiseworthy. But, there is nothing praiseworthy about violating the law; especially if you are a priest or nun who should no better. Just as the anti-abortion radicals who murder abortion doctors and nurses damage their cause; just as environmental and animal-rights radicals who vandalize property and throw blood or paint on people wearing furs damage their cause; just as gay rights radicals who desecrate the Eucharist at Mass damage their cause; so too do anti-war radicals who break the law at military bases or who disrupt Easter Mass at the Cathedral of the Holy Name in Chicago and throw red paint on parishioners and their children damage their cause.
Leftists should consider that, often, they do more harm to their own causes than good.
Its not the tactics I mind at
Its not the tactics I mind at all, it is the fact that you are going along with the neo-fascist call to overturn Roe on procedural confederatist grounds (taking away federal jurisdiction) that has me oppose you. Seek Congressional action to give rights to the unborn at some stage in the pregnancy - and let the stage chosen be the product of consensus - and you will get my support and the support of most liberal Catholics. As long as you are associated with confederate flag waving states rights Republicans, don't expect my support. It is no sin to reject their political strategy.
After reading the comments
After reading the comments from these "liberal"Catholics,I can understand why politicians and the Media have no fear (and hence no concern)when they ignore the Church and it's teachings.....Liberal "Catholicism"is a joke.....
Post new comment