The Independent News Source
Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
Taking the bishops' temperature on Obama-Notre Dame
The Notre Dame-Obama controversy was talked about everywhere
Jun. 19, 2009
Cardinal Roger Mahony of Los Angeles presents a Los Angeles Lakers championship T-shirt to Bishop Thomas G. Wenski of Orlando, Fla., during a break at the bishops' spring meeting in San Antonio June 17. Mahony and Wenski had a friendly wager on the NBA Finals. The Lakers bet the Orlando Magic. (CNS photo/Bahram Mark Sobhani)
Printer-friendly version
Send to friend
PDF versionI spent much of this week in San Antonio for the spring meeting of the U.S. bishops, where the press gallery was the loneliest corner of the room. Largely because the bishops opted not to put the flap over Notre Dame and President Barack Obama on their public agenda, many media organizations, including every major secular news outlet in the country, took a pass.
In reality, the fact that the Notre Dame-Obama controversy wasn't floated in public merely meant that it was talked about everywhere else.
Archbishop George Niederauer of San Francisco said on Wednesday that it came up "at breakfast, over coffee and in the hallways," and several bishops reported that the topic surfaced during their private regional meetings Wednesday morning. Bishops also reported that it came up in Thursday afternoon's closed-door executive session, in the form of a discussion of the conference's 2004 policy statement on engaging figures in political life. (That statement stipulated that Catholic institutions should not honor politicians who hold views contrary to church teaching, a provision that many bishops felt Notre Dame violated.) The session was led by Bishop William Murphy of Rockville Center, chair of the bishops' committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development, which is responsible for the document.
I tried to take the bishops' temperature on the Notre Dame controversy, and I came away with four basic impressions about where things stand, and where they might go from here.
The bishops (surprise!) don't all think alike
One question left hanging in the air from the controversy has been what to make of all the bishops who didn't speak out. To be sure, the number of bishops who came out against the university was extraordinary. The web site Lifesitenews.com came up with a total of 83, far in excess of the number of bishops who normally take up other hot-button issues, such as communion bans for pro-choice politicians.
Still, there are a total of 425 bishops in the United States, including 258 who are active as diocesan bishops or auxiliaries. So, how should one interpret the silence of the more than 300 prelates who held their tongues?
One thing my time in San Antonio made clear is that at least some of those 300-plus bishops were not entirely on the side of the critics.
"I'm sure the enemies of the church were delighted to see the bishops attacking the country's premier Catholic university, but I wasn't delighted," one bishop told me. He said he was "appalled" by the criticism from some of his brother bishops.
Another prelate pulled me aside to ask why Obama's Catholic critics didn't give him credit for pledging at Notre Dame to respect a "conscience clause," meaning legal protection for health care workers who object to providing abortion services. Yet another bishop said he's concerned that the approach of some of his colleagues vis-à-vis Obama risks becoming "too negative, too narrow, and too partisan."
I have no way of knowing to what extent such views represent a larger body of opinion among the bishops, but I can at least confirm they exist.
Of course, this isn't exactly a shocker. In a group of more than 400 headstrong leaders, there's likely to be more than one view on most matters. Yet it never fails to confound some people that there are different currents within the conference, perhaps because it makes it more difficult to engage in lazy generalizations about what "the bishops" think.
Sources said that when the bishops got into executive session, some argued that matters such as the Notre Dame affair should be left in the hands of the local bishop, without a scrum of prelates from other parts of the country piling on. Others complained that when some bishops speak up on an issue and others don't, it allows activist groups to cast various bishops as either heroes or villains. Still others suggested that the conference needs to consider questions of enforcement when Catholic institutions don't heed directions from the bishops.
When I asked Curry the day before if he felt the bishops were likely to reach a decision in the executive session, he laughed.
"It would be wonderful if we could have a decision that everyone would agree on," he said, "but I doubt very much that everybody is going to come to a consensus at the moment."
Why didn't the moderates speak out?
An obvious question begged by the foregoing is why bishops one might describe as "moderate" on the Notre Dame/Obama controversy weren't willing to speak publicly.
To some extent, the answer is that it always works this way. On virtually every issue in the church, it's easier to find sharply defined voices on either side than in the middle. Moderates believe in collegiality, so they're hesitant to be seen as criticizing brother bishops. Further, the whole point of being a moderate is to see oneself as a mediator of conflict, not a party to it. When self-described moderates see a fight brewing, their instinct is to not to take sides, but to explain why both have a point.
In the case of the Notre Dame controversy, I suspect two other factors were also in play.
First, Notre Dame didn't just invite Obama to give a speech, but they also awarded him an honorary doctorate. Many bishops saw that as out of step with their 2004 statement, "Catholics in Political Life," which included the language cited above about withholding honors from politicians whose views conflict with church teaching. (The extent to which its provisions apply to Obama has been debated, since he's not Catholic. Most bishops presume, however, that when it's a question of a moral truth, the principle applies to non-Catholics as well.)
Some bishops said privately that had it not been for the honorary doctorate, they wouldn't have objected to seeing Obama speak at Notre Dame; after all, they say, he's the President of the United States, and the church is obligated to deal with him. In the abstract, some might have been inclined to see the invitation favorably even with the honorary doctorate, but they felt duty-bound to respect a collegially enacted policy of the conference.
Second, many bishops regard it as a matter of principle that any response to a local dispute, even one with national implications, ought to come from the local bishop, who in this case was Bishop John D'Arcy of Fort Wayne-South Bend. Once D'Arcy had expressed his opposition to the Obama event, many bishops would have felt uncomfortable taking a different position, whatever their private views.
During their executive session on Thursday afternoon, there was discussion about issuing a statement of support for D'Arcy, who also made a presentation to the body.
Compounding this point was the impression that D'Arcy, now 76 and on the brink of retirement, was not adequately consulted by Notre Dame. Since D'Arcy is a widely respected figure, not to mention someone perceived to have gone to great lengths over the years to defend the university, this impression was another reason why some bishops might have hesitated to say anything that could be perceived as unsupportive of him.
One cardinal laughingly put the impact of it all on D'Arcy this way: "That was one hell of a retirement present!"
A paradox for the center-left
Using political categories to evaluate the church is always sloppy, but at a rough-and-ready level, sometimes it can help make sense of things. Applying that framework to American Catholicism, one might say that the "center-left" in the States has long favored a strong bishops' conference, often accusing the Vatican and/or conservative American bishops of undercutting the authority of the conference.
During the 1980s, hard-hitting documents from the U.S. conference on the economy and on nuclear war were celebrated by progressive-minded Catholics. Still today, center-left Catholics generally expect strong leadership from the conference on their core concerns, including immigration reform, the death penalty, and opposition to conflicts such as the U.S.-led war in Iraq. If it's not forthcoming in a given case, center-left Catholics often rue the "decline" of the conference.
Yet there's a growing tendency today among moderate-to-progressive Catholics to argue for allowing certain matters to be resolved by individual bishop, rather than seeking a binding national policy. That was the position taken by the center-left during debate over implementation of Ex Corde Ecclesiae, John Paul's document on Catholic higher education, and it's the same position increasingly taken in liturgical disputes. Famously, the commission led by Cardinal Theodore McCarrick regarding communion bans for pro-choice politicians ended up recommending that the decision be left to the local bishop, an outcome hailed by many on the center-left and blasted by many on the center-right.
On the direct question raised by the Notre Dame controversy -- whether the bishops need a stronger policy governing speakers at Catholic universities -- the dynamics seem likely to play out the same way, with moderate-to-progressives arguing for local flexibility, and conservatives clamoring for a tough national stance.
Obviously, a partial explanation for all this is easy to spot: As the conference has become less likely to adopt positions congenial to the center-left, those Catholics have become less eager for bold leadership from the conference.
So here's the paradox. On the one hand, the center-left can't hold onto an expectation of strong national leadership only on the issues it likes, which may imply gradually declining expectations of the conference. As enthusiasm for the conference in that camp diminishes, however, so too may commitment to it, suggesting that the historical tendency of center-left bishops to win elections and to hold key positions in the USCCB may abate -- which could clear the way for the center-right to adopt precisely the strong positions that at least some on the center-left might fear.
The $64,000 question for the center-left camp is whether those bishops can figure out a way to argue for local flexibility, while at the same time maintaining a strong investment in the conference. To say the least, it will be interesting to see how that paradox is resolved.
From bishop-as-ruler to bishop-as-teacher
Despite the popular mythology that Catholicism is rigidly centralized, the Notre Dame/Obama affair offered a classic reminder of the limits of episcopal power. In this case, the combined force of 83 bishops -- including the bishop of the local diocese, the president of the national bishops' conference, and five cardinals -- wasn't even enough to compel a Catholic university to find another commencement speaker.
Like many Catholic universities in America, Notre Dame is sponsored by a religious order and governed by an independent board of directors (consistent with the famous 1967 Land O'Lakes statement), which means that bishops have few direct ways to impose their will. Further, the decade-long battle over Ex Corde illustrated that casting the relationship principally in terms of power is usually a losing proposition, regardless of the eventual outcome.
Going forward, some bishops may want to cast about for new ways of forcing places like Notre Dame to toe the line. One wonders, however, if that's the right lesson to draw. The way the Obama controversy played out could plausibly support another conclusion: In the absence of power, to fall back on persuasion. (Whether the bishops were actually persuasive is, for purposes of the theory, beside the point.)
I ran this hypothesis past Archbishop Timothy Dolan of New York on Thursday, who was among the 83 bishops who criticized Notre Dame for the Obama invitation. In broad strokes, he seemed to agree.
"As far as authority and power go, it may look like a defeat. But in terms of a recovery of episcopal voice and muscle, it may have succeeded," Dolan said.
"I always look at things as a church historian," Dolan said. "Twenty-five years from now, when somebody's doing a master's thesis on all of this, it could be a chapter where the bishops came together and said, 'This is a moment when we need to exercise some teaching authority.' "
"We kitchen-tabled an issue," Dolan continued. "In normal Catholic homes throughout the country, people are talking about this. Granted, there might not be unanimity, but there's recognition that the bishops have something to say, they need to say it, and they ought to say it."
In truth, not every Catholic home in America may concur that those 83 bishops needed to say what they did. The discussion in Thursday's executive session would seem to suggest that even some bishops aren't inclined to look at the Notre Dame affair as a shining moment in the recent exercise of the teaching office.
Yet Dolan's reply nonetheless points to a possible paradigm shift: Circumstances may be compelling bishops to become more comfortable exercising their authority in the academy through the bully pulpit, through public teaching (and even, to some extent, through public "shaming"), rather than edicts.
If the model of bishop-as-teacher is indeed gaining strength, it's a potentially fascinating transition -- ironically, one for which many leaders in Catholic higher education have long clamored. Some may not like what the bishops had to say, but having said it may help the bishops to be less inclined to engage in battles over power, and more willing to embrace the art of argument.
Over the long run, who knows where that might lead?
Read John's daily reports from the bishops' meeting on the NCR blog, NCR Today.
Thanks again, Mr Allen....you
Thanks again, Mr Allen....you wrote...
"I tried to take the bishops' temperature on the Notre Dame controversy, and I came away with four basic impressions about where things stand, and where they might go from here."...and then later...
"The discussion in Thursday's executive session would seem to suggest that even some bishops aren't inclined to look at the Notre Dame affair as a shining moment in the recent exercise of the teaching office."
...what the bishops taught me through their discussion of the Notre Dame scandal and their subsequent inaction, is that their words (spoken or written)mean nothing.
As usual, great article,
As usual, great article, John. I find myself agreeing with Bishop Dolan. He seems to reinforce the teaching role of bishops. In any organization, you don't win all the time; therefore, what you want to get across is the truth. In this case, the truth is abortion is wrong and should be eliminated as much as we're able. I think we can all agree on that.
Good article John. However,
Good article John.
However, two points: one, Archbishop Dolan thinks the Bishops got their bully pulpit back, perhaps, but for a large amount of people we saw through the Bishops this time and now believe that they are Republican first - thereby we give them less credibility than they already had.
Secondly, you state that Catholics should not honor politicians with views contrary to Church teaching. Fine, but now we can see through that and all that means is abortion. You can deny the divinity of Christ, see nothing wrong with torture, and be be honored. This is just partisanship.
The bishops have little credibility in my book, but I have to admit Karl Rove is a genious since he was able to hijack the bishops of this institution and have them agree: Republican Party first!
The bishops have been used by
The bishops have been used by the Republican party for years. The leaders of the Republican party, such as Rove, knew that, regardless of how they ignore other teachings of Catholic social teaching, if the party was pro-life and anti-gay rights they would have the bishops in their back pocket. It is embarassing to realize that the bishops could not see through this and were played so easily by the leaders of the Republican party. Fortunately, many lay Catholics were more aware of what was going on then our bishops were
I have come to view the USCCB
I have come to view the USCCB as the Republican Party with mitres. They will support a presidential candidate who pays lip service to opposing abortion while disagreeing with the Church on everything else and speak against a candidate who disagrees with us on abortion and agrees with us on 90% of everything else. The bishops lead the American church in the same sense that the carved wooden figure leads the ship.
The response message
The response message entitled, "Good Article John, However," was very clear in praising the original article. I believe that many of the Bishop's who spoke out against the situation at Notre Dame's graduation were really Republican partisans. The Republican Party has controlled the White House for about 20 years and also controlled Congress during these years and yet they really did not do much about abortion except give lip service. Many conservative Catholics have joined the Republican Party hoping that they could eliminate the right of women to choose abortion. Unfortunately, they have been taken in by the right wing of the Republican part.
During those 20 years quite a
During those 20 years quite a bit of pro-life legislation has been passed. If you are alluding to the fact that Roe v. Wade has not been overturned, that is a judicial issue. It would take at least one more constructionist (or anyone otherwise disinclined to interpret the right to privacy as the right to abort an unborn child) in the supreme court. Unfortunately, our current president has promised to appoint judges who will uphold the interpretation of the right to privacy that supports Roe v. Wade.
I believe it's disingenuous to speak of the right of a woman to choose to kill her child. Conservative Catholics were not hoping to eliminate a human right, but rather the laws that permit what they perceive as the violation of a human right. This is not inherently a partisan issue, but unfortunately the Democratic party has aligned itself rather strongly in favour of abortion, and our current president has already taken a number of actions which significantly promote abortion.
Denying the divinity of
Denying the divinity of Christ is not a public political action in defiance of our fundamental moral principles. Lobbying to outlaw our belief in the divinity of Christ would be such an action. Actively supporting torture would be another such action, but being subject to allegations of supporting it is not. The position of the bishops is internally consistent and rests on principles that predate any political party.
only a far left person would
only a far left person would bring in political parties as concerns the scandal at Notre Dame.Since you brouught it up i suggest you look at the board of trustees and the rockefeller foundations association with Fr. Hesburgh.It all started 25 years ago culminating in allowing the most pro abortion loving president to receive an honorary degree.Take the blinders off and call it what it is THE MURDER OF INNOCENTS.You can talk about"torture",capital punishment,war etc none compare to the taking of defenseless life in the womb and as obama approved the killing of a baby outside the womb.It has nothing to do with politics and all to do with a baby's right to live.
War is nothing in comparison
War is nothing in comparison with abortion! Really? Who do you think get killed in war? Lots of them are babies and pregnant mothers.
Steve
John, Arch-bishop Dolan is
John, Arch-bishop Dolan is right. The bishops found their voice. Unfortunately, their voice sounds shrill and narrow. Barack Obama's voice at Notre Dame sounded thoughtful, respectful, nuanced and conciliatory. If the bishops want to be players in the political arena, they need to find a more politically productive voice than they did during the Notre Dame debacle. The bishops demanded blind obedience and trust in their prudential judgement. If that is the basis of their campaign, then obviously they haven't been reading many newspapers in recent years.
Steve
Dear cashelguy2, THANK YOU
Dear cashelguy2,
THANK YOU for your comment. Amen, Amen and Amen again. The bishops who had such a hissy fit about this issue came off a distant second best to the President in tone, content and courtesy. As you say, "If they want to be players in the political arena, they need to find a more politically productive voice than they did during the Notre Dame debacle." What do you think are the chanes of that happening?
Dear J.H. I'm glad you asked.
Dear J.H.
I'm glad you asked. Considering the current crop of American bishops, I'd say the chances are the same as I have of getting my own show on FOX "News." The bishops have already dug themselves into a political hole with their uncritical embrace of the Republican Party. Instead of reconsidering how they got into their present hole, all signs indicate they are reaching for a bigger shovel.
Steve
Where was the "teaching"???
Where was the "teaching"??? All the general Catholic populace heard was a condemnation...maybe the bishops should be "teaching" and then let our newly informed consciences form their own conclusion?? Otherwise, it's not teaching, it's indoctrination.
Most of the reactions from
Most of the reactions from the "general Catholic populace" that I heard took a different view than yours. The bishops did not condemn the president, but stated that a Catholic institution shouldn't honour with a doctor of laws degree a politician whose laws are contrary to fundamental moral principles. There's a world of difference between the two. No one can force you or anyone else to form a certain conclusion, but just like a math teacher can tell you that some mathematical claims are right or wrong the bishops--our moral teachers--can tell us that certain actions are right or wrong. That is teaching, and I thought they did a good job explaining the principles that led to their conclusions.
This whole thing just upsets
This whole thing just upsets my stomach. What I have not heard is: Did any bishop or better this priest's bishop actually have a sit-down and talk to him, face-to-face?
It seems like everyone hid behind their email and public statements.
Migel, Moore, OK.
By "him" do you mean Fr.
By "him" do you mean Fr. Jenkins or President Obama? If the former, the answer is yes--Bishop D'Arcy did talk to him face-to-face. If the latter, then it's probably more a question of the president's availability than the inclination of the bishops to talk to him. Perhaps it seems like people hid behind public statements because those are the only ones that are public.
"As far as authority and
"As far as authority and power go, it may look like a defeat. But in terms of a recovery of episcopal voice and muscle, it may have succeeded," Dolan said.
Be afraid, New York Catholics! Be very afraid!!!
Since abortion is a mortal
Since abortion is a mortal sin, and strictly against Catholic teaching, why didn't our Holy Father simply put his foot down and "just say no" to Notre Dame's sinful ways?? He's "the boss", and he has the ability to stop these shenanigans, no matter where in the world they might be scheduled. And while he was at it, there might have been a few excommunications along the way. Rome has the Universal control, and it's time for a crackdown on these sinners. And, yes, our Pope does have authority over all of the Bishops, no matter what they say. Thank you!
Sorry, "Deeply Traditional
Sorry, "Deeply Traditional Catholic"
No, the Pope can't stop Notre Dame or any Trustee-led Catholic University from doing anything. Excommunications? Get a grip
Oh, Padre Pio, you have it a
Oh, Padre Pio, you have it a bit askew.
Actually, our Holy Father is the CEO of our Church, controls everything, and could switch off the electricity at Notre Dame, lock the doors, and have the Mortally Sinful college bulldozed.
Then, he could excommunicate the Trustees, and watch you scratch your head.
God Bless Pope Benedict, and thank you, Lord, for making him infallible, an immovable object, and an unstopable force. Now, if he'd just do his job. (That's not a contradiction.)
Deeply Traditional
Deeply Traditional Catholic,
You're just being sarcastic, right?
If not, then I recommend you do a little reading up on the nature of Control and Ownership as it relates to a Trustee Led University such as Notre Dame.
Also, regarding Pope Benedict being infallible, you might also want to read your Catechism and learn something about what infallible means and how it is used.
Happy Reading
Wow,"Deeply Traditional
Wow,"Deeply Traditional Catholic", you are nothing if not deeply traditional, and it seems, nothing more either. You may not have noticed but "excommunication" means nothing in the face of reason, conscience and love of the fellowship of Christ. "Rome has universal control..."? Okay....
Thank you, Dennis M, for
Thank you, Dennis M, for agreeing with me.
Some of the readers on this page just don't seem to get it, but you're obviously on the ball, even if you merely parrot what I already said.
That is, did you really need to repeat ad nauseum how much of a Deeply Traditonal Catholic I am?
As for excommunication, it doesn't have to mean anything. It's just something the Holy Father can, and likely should, do to the Administration / Mortal Sinners at Notre Dame. Just before he revokes their Charter, and turns the place into an Educational Center for Unwed Mothers.
At least, this is my humble opinion. No feedback necessary.
Thanks for listening, and God Bless ..... YOU!
I know of many mortal sins:
I know of many mortal sins: adultery; desecration ot the Holy Eucharist; sodomy; deliberate enjoyment of impure thoughts. If a non-Catholic commits any of those mortal sins, and it is public knowledge, should a Catholic university be excommunicated if it gives him or her an honorary degree? Remember a mortal sin if not repented means you go to hell. One who who seeks to have an abortion and dies without repentence goes to hell, just the same as one who deliberately enjoys impure thoughts and dies without repentence goes to hell. Nothing can be worse than an unrepented mortal sin, as I am sure all Catholics know.
Dear Hack, I was not aware
Dear Hack,
I was not aware that killing 30 million babies was equivalent to adultery?
"Just say No." I think it is
"Just say No."
I think it is just this approach which has proven to be the failure. A failure of credibility. Being an ancient I can actually remember the result of the GI Bill. Suddenly we had an educated Catholic population. No longer would irrational Authority suffice. People were educated and wanted more. More education. More guidance. More Wisdom.
NOT, "Just say No."
Sadly I think too many bishops still see 'The Laity' as children to be ordered.
Seeing us as children they take away our 'candy' but this time they take away the very thing needed for a spirit filled life.
Many Catholics reject the simplistic 'making of a law will end abortion' as not reasoned nor even close to reasonable. But that is all much of US Catholic leadership seems to offer.
Once again they seem to choose authority over formation .... or even, as a minimum, information.
Dear Deeply Traditional
Dear Deeply Traditional Catholic,
I invite you to delve more deeply into the Tradition that makes us Catholic. You'll quickly discover that Church's tradition is one of collegiality, theological reflection, and the local Church manifesting the Church Universal while at the same time the Church Universal is the local Churches in communion.
The Holy Father is not the boss. He is the Pontificus Maximus, literally, the "great bridge." His office is one of facilitating the conversation amongst his brother bishops, seeing the needs of the universal Church, and serving as a visible reminder to us all of Christ's presence in the Church. We are the Roman Catholic Church, not Catholic Inc. The Holy Father is not our CEO. And, he actually does not have the ability to just swoop in and make a decision in local Church situations. Benedict XVI has a profound appreciation for the principle of subsidiary, especially in juxtaposition to his immediate predecessor.
RE: "And yes, our Pope does have authority over all the Bishops, no matter what they say." The authority Canon Law discusses is not dictatorship you seem to be fond of collapsing into papal authority. The Bishops are to be in union with the Holy Father, to be sure. But read both the documents of the Second Vatican Council the 1983 Code of Canon Law - the amount of autonomy the Diocesan Bishop enjoys is quite expansive - and at the same time it is always practiced within the context of the College of Bishops. I don't envy the navigation of that tension.
But let's just entertain your skewed paradigm of Church authority for minute. The Holy Father condemned the War in Iraq, yet Notre Dame invited the speech writer from the second Bush Administration to give a rousing lecture of pro-life issues. In the context of that speech, when it was time for Q and A, he was asked how to reconcile pro-life convictions with the torture of Gitmo Bay. His angry response led to the one who asked the question being removed from the aula. Where were the protests, posters, and condemnations for his presence on the Notre Dame campus? Afterall, the Holy Father doesn't agree with the Iraq War either, and he's the boss, right?
OK, Annonymous, I will grant
OK, Annonymous, I will grant you that you're wrong about the Holy Father not agreeing with the Iraq War. Catholics know that non-Catholics, all of them, are destined for an eternity in Hell, and a little war might save a few souls. Or, something like that.
However, I wasn't talking about the Middle East. I was talking about Notre Dame and their sinful ways.
Even you called him Maximus, although I'm unclear (sorry) where that little term came from, but the literal translation of the word is "CEO", ie, the person with the power to terminate an undesirable member.
Our Holy Father clearly possesses the Authority, and likely the obligation, to dispose of the Fighting Irish, and excommunicate the Mortal Sinners.
And this excommunication process should likely run deeply. Very deeply.
Canon Law does not apply, in any sense of the word, to situations involving Papal responsibility to the unborn innocent. His Authority transcends both Canon Law and the occasional independence granted to our Bishops, God Bless them.
And, God Bless you too, Anon. This is my opinion, and no feedback is necessary, thank you.
Deeply Traditional Catholic
Deeply Traditional Catholic says "Catholics know that non-Catholics, all of them, are destined for an eternity in Hell, and a little war might save a few souls. Or, something like that."
You are not a deeply traditional catholic. You are a deeply disturbed catholic.
Where do you get this garbage from? It is absolutely garbage!! To hold such an opinion, that God would destine souls to an eternity in Hell if they are not Catholics says that your spirituality and idea and relationship with God is at a very low primitive level and in my opinion is heresy and borders on paganism.
You seem to think that the Church is only a corporate power with the head being a CEO. That is a very worldly view and not spiritual in the least. Where is Jesus in this corporation in which you would have the absolute dictator CEO fire/excommunicate people for their political views? Jesus is not there.
Your opinion is deeply frightening because it has nothing to do with Faith in Jesus Christ nor does your view contain any sense of wisdom or understanding of the Gospels or recognition for the Head of the Church who is Jesus Christ. Somehow in your corporate theology you simply severed the Head of Christ off the top of the Church. And you accuse others of mortal sin? Only you will not be destined "for an eternity in Hell, and a little war might save a few souls." Do you claim that war can save souls now? I thought Jesus saved souls. Wow, where have I been to not be so enlightened to think that war can save souls now!!! How sick and preposterous these notions you have cooked up and imagine. They are not Catholic thoughts. They are not Christian thoughts.
Your boss, from what you say, is not Jesus.
Dear Deeply Traditional
Dear Deeply Traditional Catholic,
Of course you're not interested in my feedback. You're incapable of engaging the conversation beyond your uninformed opinion.
For the sake of clarity:
The Church deems the notion that, "there is not salvation outside the church," as heresy. In the 1950's, there was a Jesuit priest who maintained this notion in Boston. He was excommunicated.
The literal translation of the word "maximus" is "great." It's Latin. I'm confidant you're a fan of the Trindentine Rite, so at least know what the words mean.
Excommunication in fact the denial of sacraments, not capacity to attend a Catholic University
Papal authority does not transcend Canon Law. First of all, the Infallibiity of the Holy Father is in relation to faith and morals when speaking ex cathedra. Since Vatican Council I, the Holy Fathers have in fact made very few infallible statements in the formulaic way in which a Holy Father must speak to be clear he has spoken infallibly. Secondly, during the Second Vatican Council, Paul VI wanted papal authority to be articulated as the Pope answering to no one but the Lord. The fathers of the Council rejected this.
Deeply Traditional please stop conflating those adjectives with Significantly Uninformed. It's offensive to those of us familiar with the Tradition and love it.
NO FREE PASS BY NEW YORK
NO FREE PASS BY NEW YORK ASSEMBLY
by Sister Maureen Paul Turlish
Victims’ Advocate
The New York Assembly should not be giving a free pass to sexual predators of children - of any stripe, sexual orientation or religious affiliation.
Nor should there be any statute of limitations where the sexual abuse of children is concerned.
A major epidemic is going on in our country, a pandemic if one considers it in its worldwide proportions and it is hard to believe, in light of such concerns, that we continue to have churchmen in the state of New York as elsewhere who actually oppose the removal of statutes of limitations regarding the sexual abuse of our children.
In the state of New York, it appears that leaders of the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Jewish denominations are of the opinion that sexual predators and abusers should not be held accountable.
This should be unacceptable to all of us who are concerned with the trafficking of individuals for sexual exploitation, because, make no mistake about it, the sexual abuse of children in religious denominations, sects and cults are part and parcel of the wider e pidemic and pandemic of trafficking for sexual exploitation.
It is particularly disheartening in light of the fact that the Roman Catholic Church, the Holy See, was one of the earliest signatories to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Is this an example of a “Do as I say, not as I do,” mentality?
“Window” legislation, as it relates to civil statutes, is the single most important factor in holding sexual predators and their enabling individuals or institutions accountable.
New York’s Markey/Duane bill is rather modest when compared to Delaware’s 2007 Child Victims Law which went from an egregious two year statute of limitation to none going forward and includes a two year civil window for previously time barred cases of childhood sexual abuse - by anyone - and which remains open until July 10, 2009.
I was privilaged to testify before the Senate and House Judiciary Committees in support of Delaware’s child abuse legislation.
So imperious are religious denominations’ disregard of children in the state of New York, that the statute of limitations now protects known sexual abusers of children from criminal prosecution forever once short statutes of limitation expire.
I cannot comprehend the hubris that would occasion the type of behavior that has been so graphically delineated in a number of investigations in the U.S. including the 2002 Suffolk County, NY Grand Jury Report which detailed the clergy sex abuse of children in the Diocese of Rockville Centre. Yet churchmen still question the rightfulness of extending the statute of limitations.
Why, one wonders, are dioceses in the state of New York not distributing postcards for the members of the Catholic community to sign and send to their legislators in Albany to support the complete removal of statutes of limitations going forward in regard to the sexual abuse of children, criminally and civilly?
This is not a matter belonging to what the Catholic Church calls the “deposit of faith,” and, leaving aside the matter of mortal sin for the moment, the sexual abuse of children is a matter of criminal behavior.
Can there be any question about the intrinsic evil of the sexual abuse of children or of the fact that such individuals' are intrinsically flawed.
Certainly not! Grace, after all, does built on nature.
Church officials who claim that their dioceses, parishes, churches or programs will go bankrupt have produced no data to support such inflammatory statements and in states like California and Delaware there has been not the slightest possibility of that happening.
In fact, in addition to settling a $ 660 million dollar lawsuit a few years ago, the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, California built and paid for a new cathedral that any city in the world would be proud to showcase.
It is important to remember that window legislation is not “anti” any particular group; it is pro-child. It forces records, if they exist and have not been destroyed, to be made available in a court of justice and hopefully into the public venue as well.
Moreover, there should be no accommodation in law giving more protection to individuals who have been accused of the sexual abuse of children than to the victims themselves.
I think now is the time to make those who violate and abuse our children accountable in all states no matter when the abuse took place. Remove statutes of limitations going forward and include window legislation for past crimes.
It is unconscionable for religious denominations and their leadership to protect and enable sexual predators by refusing to support changes in the laws that would hold both the perpetrators and their enablers accountable.
In all good conscience, I strongly encourage all people of good will in the state of New York, including Catholics, to support criminal and civil laws that are as strong as possible in holding the sexual predators of our children and any individuals or institutions, who were complicit in their protection, accountable.
Sister Maureen Paul Turlish
Victims’ Advocate
New Castle, Delaware
_____________
Sister Maureen Turlish is a member of the Delaware Child Victims Voice (www.childvictimsvoice.com), the National Survivor Advocates Coalition, (http://www.nsacoalition.org/) and in on the Board of Directors of DACOA, the Delaware Association for Children of Alcoholics.
In addition, she is a Delaware educator and victims’ advocate who testified before the Delaware Senate and House Judiciary Committees in support of Delaware’s 2007 Child Victims Law.
She can be reached at: maureenpaulturlish@yahoo.com
John: I would give you four
John:
I would give you four different points.
1) It was unprecedented that 83 bishops would involve themselves in a local affair and do so publicly. It was even more unheard of that some bishops would suggest that Notre Dame lost its Catholic identity and that its president was outside of the norms of Catholic practice and discipline.
2) The Notre Dame affair created a major scandal in the church involving even leaders from the Vatican who normally don't get involved in such things; here, you have one major Vatican offical reminding Catholics not to forget the scandal at Notre Dame who is one of the pope's closest advisors. This scandal will continue to affect the way that some Catholics look at Notre Dame and the way that some bishops will look at Notre Dame. And this will not disappear over night.
3) Notre Dame, as the Catholic flagship for universities and colleges, have laid down the gaulet: who cares what its local bishop says.
4) Notre Dame's president lack of respect for his own bishop undermines this idea of dialogue and highlights instead that personal politics are more important than church unity. What ever happen to working together for the good of the church?
Finally, no where here or elsewhere on NCR ever spoke about the obvious: why did Notre Dame have to give this honorary degree so soon after the inauguration and so soon after a very bitter polarized Catholic vote. What was their goal? divide the church or dialogue, and if it were dialogue, where was the Catholic response to Pres. Obama's presentation.
Non existent.
"3) Notre Dame, as the
"3) Notre Dame, as the Catholic flagship for universities and colleges, have laid down the gaulet: who cares what its local bishop says." - "4) Notre Dame's president lack of respect for his own bishop undermines this idea of dialogue and highlights instead that personal politics are more important than church unity." Mara seems to encapsulate the populist orthodox view. Unfortunately, I think s/he is in error.
Notre Dame seems to have zeroed in on the "teaching authority", "the teaching office" of the Church which the bishops missed. Teaching is just that - teaching. My sense of what Jenkins et al did was teaching at its best. They affirmed Catholic doctrine and Christlike ways, acknowledged the good in other and what was shared and provided a Christ'like opportunity to dialogue, discuss and share in good faith with good faith.
Teaching is not bullying. Teaching is not ruling. Teaching is stimulating the capacity to learn, feeding it with reason (and, yes) faith. Ruling is ordering with the expectation of obeisance and "learning" or "teaching" are simply skinnerian by-products.
My personal take on the whole affair is that Notre Dame, and rightly so as a Catholic instituion of learning/teaching, stood for the best of "teaching" which the bishops seem to see as an authority rather than as a responsibility. That we all may learn....
Thank-you for your comment.
Thank-you for your comment. However, I see some of the points you raise a little differently.
1)Yes, it was unprecedented that 83 bishops spoke out against the invitation from Notre Dame to President Obama and that should be noted. None-the-less, that is still about 1/5 of the total bishops, which also needs to be noted. Even though it would be wrong to assume that the bishops who did not speak out (more than 300) supported this invitation, it is still a small percentage of the total. Something you would not know by the news reports.
2)Most Catholics supproted Notre Dame's invitation to President Obama rather than the bishops position. It was more then 50%, with only about 25% not supporting it.
3)One can care what the local bishop thinks, but come to a different conclusion. My understanding is that the local bishop does not have the same jurisdiction over a Catholic University operated by a religious community as it does over a local parish, school or a diocesan university.
4)Could you explain how Notre Dame's president "lack of respect for his own bishop undermines this idea of dialogue"? I am not aware of how the presiden of Notre Dame showed a lack of respect for his own bishop (a disagreement is not necessarily a lack of respect). I am aware that the bishop chose not to attend and I respect his decision, but I am not sure upon who that reflect as "undermines this idea of dialogue".
5)If you have been reading NCR, there has been a good deal of discussion raised by giving an honory degree to President Obama.
You are wrong. Fr. Jenikins
You are wrong. Fr. Jenikins is not a diocesean priest. As such, he owes no promise of obedience to the local bishop. Notre Dame is not a diocesean school - ditto on #3. The Conference really has no authority over such institutions either - the Orders who run them and own them do.
If there is any scandal, it is that of Bishops trying to act outside their authority, since over Notre Dame and other order institutions, they have NONE. They can certainly teach, but then their teaching must be coherent. On abortion, it clearly is NOT.
Except for the fact Michael
Except for the fact Michael Binder, that the Holy Cross order doesn't own Notre Dame - and only "runs" it in so far as having Priests on the Boards of Trustees and Governors, some administration and faculty members.
They are far outnumbered by lay Trustees, faculty, administrators - and only have half of the votes (not necessarily a solid voting block by any stretch) on the ultimate authority body - the Board Governors.
Mara, "here, you have one
Mara,
"here, you have one major Vatican offical reminding Catholics not to forget the scandal at Notre Dame who is one of the pope's closest advisors."
I would assume you mean Raymond Burke. The St. Louis Bishop who was not so much promoted to Rome as he was banished to Rome for leaving his Diocese in wreckage
I really believe that this
I really believe that this topic has been milked by all parties as far as it can be milked. To those who are still crying over spilled milk I would say---TOUGH!!! I supported Notre Dame originally and I even more so support Fr. Jenkins and the University now. There was no way that Notre Dame provided President Obama with a podium from which to promote, defend or otherwise proselytize regarding his pro-choice views. Unfortunately, the over-reaction by some of our "leaders" brought more attention to the issue that was necessary. As usual, religious leaders made a great media circus over something that would not have been an issue if it had not been made such by the circus ringleaders, commonly referred to as some Bishops.
I agree fully that this is a
I agree fully that this is a subject that has already received more attention than it deserved. Those on both sides have expressed their feelings. Let´s now move on.
IT seems that a greater
IT seems that a greater number of bishops are learning by default what VC2 taught us quite clearly -- that the Church will evolve no matter what the pointed hats have to say. The decline in Church attendance is indicative of present historical trends that are undeniable. The evolution of our American Catholic Church is inevitable. If only the bishops would listen to our respected theologians, sociologists, and also the VOTF !!!
Pax. Aristophilos
It is time for the bishops to
It is time for the bishops to be kinder. I am very tired of having bishops use any thing they do not like as a bully pulpit moment. This is not their church...it is the Church of Jesus...it is my church also. Jesus would never have done what the bishops did...he would have found another way of truth and compassion. I am remembering who built Notre Dame and why it was built...their football team is not called Fighting Irish for nothing.
Hurrah for the courage of Notre Dame to stand up for primciplings!
Margaret O'Rourke, dmj
John: I too took a pass when
John: I too took a pass when I read the bishops' meeting agenda. Is that the best they can do? Now that the Irish bishops have condemned the child abuse offenders, and the pope issued a letter decrying priests who break their vows, maybe the bishops might feel safe in issuing a statement supportive of the victims?
Also, how about another agenda item (which I think should have been one of your "megatrends": How can the bishops regain the moral high ground, and credability, they lost during the decades of covering up (and thus empowering) the pedophile priests?
The laity isn't listening to them much any more. Haven't they noticed?
I like this article very
I like this article very much. The following phrase summarizes why I am so happy with the bishop's temperature taken by John Allen: "If the model of bishop-as-teacher is indeed gaining strength, it's a potentially fascinating transition..." I believe that the use of power can become an obstacle to a common journey while the teaching can increase the understanding of each other and encourage a common journey toward a holistic promotion of life, not only certain stages of life.
"Jesus founded a church, not
"Jesus founded a church, not a school or a magisterium, and he organized a college of apostles, not of rabbis, and he proclaimed love, not torah."
John McKenzie, S.J.
'This is a moment when we
'This is a moment when we need to exercise some teaching authority.' said Archbishop Dolan.
What "teaching authority" have the Bishops exercised since Dei Verbum to "teach Scripture" to our Youth and Lay adults?
Hardly a handful of bishops have any Scripture Classes for the Laity in their Dioceses. Even the deacons have a "pathetic" background in Scripture. Those in charge of RCIA cram the Catechism and have a pathetic knowledge of Scripture.
Teaching Scripture ought to be the PRIORITY of the Bishops and not meddling with Universities and Colleges where they are unwelcome intruders.
Archbishop Dolan may be an exception, in that he has posted his homilies as audio online homilies.
How many of those "83 SINGLE ISSUE" Bishops have had the guts to post their homilies online? What are they "scared" of or "shy" about?
Mark 8:38 -
"Whoever is ashamed of me and of my words in this faithless and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of when he comes in his Father's glory with the holy angels."
"...it may help the bishops
"...it may help the bishops to be less inclined to engage in battles over power, and more willing to embrace the art of argument.
"Over the long run, who knows where that might lead?"
Who knows, indeed, but one can hope. Perhaps it will lead to an honest discussion of a key question in the abortion issue: when does an embryo or fetus become a person?
Up til now, popes and bishops have adopted the position that it is always a person because we say so. Happily that doesn't wash with most people these days.
The reality is we don't know and we may never arrive at an answer absolute and certain. That is why a majority of Americans, Catholics included, while deploring wholesale abortions, are unwilling to impose secular or religious dictates on women sincerely struggling with the pros and cons of an unwanted and perhaps unsupportable pregnancy. They see it as far better to promote sex education programs and benign social policies which which will reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and mitigate the hardships of raising a child born into difficult circumstances, financial or otherwise.
That is how I and, I think, many others including our president, consider ourselves pro-life and pro-choice.
It is not the Church which
It is not the Church which has shied away from a discussion of when life begins, claiming it is "above their pay grade."
So far, Timothy Dolan has
So far, Timothy Dolan has presented himself as the puppet par excellence, especially since his obsequiousness has paid off so handsomely!! Of all the bishops present, pray tell why did you think his voice was representative of anything but the party line? Some indepedent thinking from the bishops on any topic period would be nice to hear. Dolan is too interested is glad handing.
Well I may be way out in left
Well I may be way out in left field, but I just think the whole controversy that brewed about NotreDame-Obama is ridiculous. Most people of common sense would see it as the university inviting the President to speak and giving him the traditional honorary award or degree or whatever it was. As I understand it, this has been a tradition at Notre Dame since the first day of Genesis!
Who sees it as approval of abortion?! That is really a stretch, except for people who are always spoiling for a fight, instead of seeking understanding.
How about just some plain sense here?
I'm afraid that what this
I'm afraid that what this highlights is that the only teaching that matters is that on abortion. Those who kill in unjust wars, those who abuse, those who encourage torture, and, most especially, those who express racist views, those who encourage and/or order others to do so also violate the Church's teaching. But their appearances, being honored, and the like raise none of this fury. Can we finally be honest about what is on the plate, please? It is this apparent siding with partisans that is the final defeat on any authority -- moral or actual -- that the bishops might try to yield in any sphere of life. One wishes the days of Cardinal Cushing were past, but it appears that that has not come to be.
Dwight
Minneapolis
The disagreement here is not
The disagreement here is not about abortion -- President Obama has said abortion is always a tragedy. The disagreement is about what we do about abortion. A number of bishops continue to promote a 36 year old strategy to fight abortion that has been a failure giving ample credence to those who charge them with using their position to hand the church over to the Republican party which only further undermine their moral credibility and does a grave disservice to the unborn. That the "silent majority" sits by and watches this happen in the name of "collegiality" indicates a complicity in this pattern. One can disagree with his brother bishop without criticizing him. It is time somebody had the backbone to stand up to the bullies in the church and time that bishops make an effort to heal the wounds caused by these bullies, not pour salt in them
Great article, John, as
Great article, John, as always. Tim Dolan sees the bishops as regaining
their voices. If they sound more like him and DeNardo, that can be positive. But some of the bishops' statements were AWFUL! mEAN-SPIRITED AND PARTISAN. President Obama sounded much more charitable and collegial than many of the 83 bullies, er, bishops.
If Jesus had been at the
If Jesus had been at the meeting, can you envision Him, putting down the Obamah/Notre Dame event?
Have any of the bishops listened to Obamah? I do not think the president is any more in favor of abortion than any of the bishops I have heard speak out against it. Furthermore he has compassionatly done more to rid the world of abortion than any bishop I can think of.
Making rules does not get rid of abortion any more than prohibition got rid of alcohol.
The thing is, Brother Ed,
The thing is, Brother Ed,
the Pope "issued a letter decrying priests who break their vows," as you say, and he says how sorry he is and that it's terrible, terrible, but he does NOTHING!
Benedict has disciplined NONE of the many American bishops who have been complicit in the sexual abuse of hundreds, probably thousands of additional children who should never have been put in harm's way BUT for those bishops' complicity.
Those bishops who are known child abusers, abusers of older children, young men or women are retired to live out their days in the comfort.
Bernie Law has a plum Rome position and keeps his various seats and positions, which is an out and out disgrace and auxiliaries who should have been removed now have their own dioceses.
We have no bishops who haven't been emasculated.
We have no Bishop Geoffrey Robinson of Australia and no Archbishop Diarmuid Martin of Dublin.
Bishop Thomas Gumbleton has been scorned, blacklisted and marginalized; a veritable pariah in church circles.
"Regain their moral high ground?" Forget it, it will never happen given the self destruct trajectory they continue on.
Same for the credibility. That went out the window as soon as the People of God realized that their promises of accountability and transparency were a joke.
The Emperor Has No Clothes!
Bishop's Respect and
Bishop's Respect and Authority?? Hah!
Just look at the Cleveland Diocese. The most faithful and active (that means money too) don't even invite their Bishop Lennon to their events. His priests do anything to avoid him and lay ministers laugh at him.
Excuse me! "...but having
Excuse me!
"...but having said it may help the bishops to be less inclined to engage in battles over power, and more willing to embrace the art of argument."
Give me a break John!
The person inviting dialogue and constructive debate on the one topic our church has been boiled down to by its very politically partisan bishops before, during and after his participation in the graduation exercises at Notre Dame was President Obama. Where was this supposed "teaching voice" and "emabrace of argument" on the part of the 83? All I saw were threats, condemnations and warnings. That is all about power.
And as for the moderates taking the role of peacemaker... peacemaker to whom? As the right wing of our hierarchy becomes organized and very vocal advocates of the extremist Republican talking points, where is this supposed center-left voice among the bishops that the large group of "moderates" are mediating between?
NO... me thinks that what we have here is a clutch of 400 or so careerist church men who are standing by and keeping their noses clean, perhaps afraid themselves of the degree of power and internal authority that the far right has engendered for itself with Rome.
I have read about this before... it is the same behavior that the "moderate" German and Italian hierarchies displayed as a minority of their bishops openly picked up and embraced the values and diatribe of the fascist movements in their countries, at the expense of all our other Catholic values and teachings. Their silence then spared the vast majority of them from any kind of significant consequences though the wars eventually ravaged around them. Their silence, the complacency of that larger group of "moderates" then served only one purpose, to make it easier for the Gestapo and the Brown Shirts to identify the remaining clergy and hierarchy who were true supporters of labor and peace, and who might make waves by insisting on Catholic social justice, a life of service to the poor and teaching the Good News. Those few true followers of Christ were the ones who ended up in concentration camps, prisons and mass graves. The rest, the silent moderates, are probably burning in hell.
If my memory serves me right, back then the point issues around which the right wing church would declare orthodoxy or lack thereof were also abortion, gays and anti-communism (or any attitude not supportive of the corporate takeover of their nations).
Funny that we haven't seemed to have become a much more Christian planet as a result of their single-issue fanatacism. All the contrary. Same can be said of our own bishops retreat away from their own pro-Gospel positions on the rights of workers, the need for justice, the embrace of peace and the vision to see all aspects of our endeavor as part of a whole. Elections come and elections go and we become less and less embracing of our own values, and more and more embracing of values that only resemble ours in their rhetoric but never by the way the right wing exercises the power we may have given them with our bishops' free advocacy and cooperation (or silence as the case may be)and our block of votes. If this that we are living in our country now is any example of the "family values" that we have been so ardently promised by the right that was in power all these past 30 years, then please, how about some honest re-evaluation of our position. Is being stuck in first gear over the absolute unwaivering adherence to the bishop's position on abortion getting us anywhere? No.
Did collaborating actively with a war criminal president and his party do good things for our country and our faith? No.
So, if we are moving to a teaching moment, would not that mean putting a cap on the spewing of rhetoric from our bishops and actually sitting down and talking or engaging publicly and on the same stage in respectful debate with the sitting president be at least a try to actually improve the situation? Yes.
Oh, and by the way... as a Black Catholic woman watching the behaviors of this band of non-elected leaders of our church with regard to the first ever elected President of the U.S. who resembles me and shares much more history with me than any of them, I will pass on the language I would like to use because I am, after all, a good and decent Catholic.
"Teaching authority",
"Teaching authority", "teaching office" and "Bishop as teacher" are three distinct terms used by Allen in his article. Nowhere however does he (maybe bishops have) define what "teaching" is in the "bishopric" sense. But is it really teaching or is it ruling? Given that bishops are in the business of "being Christ" one might more reasonably ask whether we are speaking of "teaching" in the sense of "Jesus'like" or are we presupposing the stereotype of the judgmental, old man with a beard God? How would Jesus exercise His teaching authority, office? Is that what they mean? Hardly.
It seems to me that Jesus had more of a grasp on "teaching" than the bishops. Teaching is really the capacity of the learned to nurture the nature of learning. Having the "authority" to teach implies responsibility, as the Bishops undoubtedly know, it also implies a capability to teach. Otherwise it is simply an authoritative, domineering, regulative authority. Which one can quickly and easily dicern, is not "teaching". Are they rulers or teachers? They want to be both, it seems, without paying attention to or acknowledging that authority in a given field without capacity is oxymoronic, at least as teaching goes.
Anybody ever wonder why so
Anybody ever wonder why so many in the hierarchy see fit to don french cuff's all the time? It is, after all, the ultimate sartorial display of wealth. Certainly not WWJW.
Excuse me! "...but having
Excuse me!
"...but having said it may help the bishops to be less inclined to engage in battles over power, and more willing to embrace the art of argument."
Give me a break John!
The person inviting dialogue and constructive debate on the one topic our church has been boiled down to by its very politically partisan bishops before, during and after his participation in the graduation exercises at Notre Dame was President Obama. Where was this supposed "teaching voice" and "emabrace of argument" on the part of the 83? All I saw were threats, condemnations and warnings. That is all about power.
And as for the moderates taking the role of peacemaker... peacemaker to whom? As the right wing of our hierarchy becomes organized and very vocal advocates of the extremist Republican talking points, where is this supposed center-left voice among the bishops that the large group of "moderates" are mediating between?
NO... me thinks that what we have here is a clutch of 400 or so careerist church men who are standing by and keeping their noses clean, perhaps afraid themselves of the degree of power and internal authority that the far right has engendered for itself with Rome.
I have read about this before... it is the same behavior that the "moderate" German and Italian hierarchies displayed as a minority of their bishops openly picked up and embraced the values and diatribe of the fascist movements in their countries, at the expense of all our other Catholic values and teachings. Their silence then spared the vast majority of them from any kind of significant consequences though the wars eventually ravaged around them. Their silence, the complacency of that larger group of "moderates" then served only one purpose, to make it easier for the Gestapo and the Brown Shirts to identify the remaining clergy and hierarchy who were true supporters of labor and peace, and who might make waves by insisting on Catholic social justice, a life of service to the poor and teaching the Good News. Those few true followers of Christ were the ones who ended up in concentration camps, prisons and mass graves. The rest, the silent moderates, are probably burning in hell.
If my memory serves me right, back then the point issues around which the right wing church would declare orthodoxy or lack thereof were also abortion, gays and anti-communism (or any attitude not supportive of the corporate takeover of their nations).
Funny that we haven't seemed to have become a much more Christian planet as a result of their single-issue fanatacism. All the contrary. Same can be said of our own bishops retreat away from their own pro-Gospel positions on the rights of workers, the need for justice, the embrace of peace and the vision to see all aspects of our endeavor as part of a whole. Elections come and elections go and we become less and less embracing of our own values, and more and more embracing of values that only resemble ours in their rhetoric but never by the way the right wing exercises the power we may have given them with our bishops' free advocacy and cooperation (or silence as the case may be)and our block of votes. If this that we are living in our country now is any example of the "family values" that we have been so ardently promised by the right that was in power all these past 30 years, then please, how about some honest re-evaluation of our position. Is being stuck in first gear over the absolute unwaivering adherence to the bishop's position on abortion getting us anywhere? No.
Did collaborating actively with a war criminal president and his party do good things for our country and our faith? No.
So, if we are moving to a teaching moment, would not that mean putting a cap on the spewing of rhetoric from our bishops and actually sitting down and talking or engaging publicly and on the same stage in respectful debate with the sitting president be at least a try to actually improve the situation? Yes.
Oh, and by the way... as a Black Catholic woman watching the behaviors of this band of non-elected leaders of our church with regard to the first ever elected President of the U.S. who resembles me and shares much more history with me than any of them, I will pass on the language I would like to use because I am, after all, a good and decent Catholic.
its amazing to read some of
its amazing to read some of these comments. people who claim to be catholic and at some level claim to be pro-life accuse the bishops of being partisan. yet abortion will always be the one issue they are willing to "discuss", negotiate, postpone, reevaluate latter, be open minded about etc.... The bishops have put up with this moral three card monte for years until they realized that actions speak more than words. you can't claim that innocent human life is your highest priority if you are always willing to trade it off for whatever the liberals say is the issue of the day.
what do you know about Jesus that you didn't learn from the Church. For all those people attacking the bishops teaching ability you are also attacking the source of everything you know about Jesus.
if the bishops quoted siding with ND are so certain that everyone agrees with them...why don't they use their names.
conscience clause....this comes under the heading "Duped, willingly"...first Obama said "SENSIBLE conscience clause"...which will mean requiring pharmacists to give out abortificients and morning after pills plus some sort of required referral for Pro-life physicians and coming back in four years to make abortion a "human right" through the UN or pulling gov funding with a requirment to treat.
otherwise keep "dialoguing" and see where you end up
Thanks, John for your
Thanks, John for your consistently honest journalism. These are unnecessarily tumultuous time within the American Church. Unnecessary because as a nation we are lead by a president who is fearless in addressing national and International ills of society but takes a page out of our magnificent Catholic Social teaching compendium to craft new policies - with the exception of choice on abortion. In Rome we find Benedict XVI at work fearlessly calling for a worldwide campaign for peace, end of hunger and poverty, and mutual respect for divergence in faith. For so many American Catholics - clerical and lay to brush aside this historic convergence of leadership will go down in history as a colossal blunder measured in the growing vacancy in the pew.
A couple of
A couple of observations:
“Still, there are a total of 425 bishops in the United States, including 258 who are active as diocesan bishops or auxiliaries. So, how should one interpret the silence of the more than 300 prelates who held their tongues?”
One way to interpret it is not to interpret it at all. Some would like to imply that these bishops chose not to condemn ND – a good or bad thing depending upon one’s view – but that’s an assumption and nothing more. E.g., in Baltimore, Archbishop O’Brien publically criticized ND. There is no reason whatsoever to believe that his auxiliaries hold a different view. It is more likely they felt no need to reiterate what the Archbishop said. These tallies concerning the number of bishops to speak out on a given issue are therefore largely useless, in my opinion.
"Applying that framework to American Catholicism, one might say that the 'center-left' in the States has long favored a strong bishops' conference, often accusing the Vatican and/or conservative American bishops of undercutting the authority of the conference."
I would remind folks on teh Center-Left and others that the Bishopss Conferences have no real authority and never have. The idea of the Vatican “undercutting” the Conference is a laughable progressive fantasy that imagines the Conference can somehow save them from the edicts of Rome.
"If the model of bishop-as-teacher is indeed gaining strength, it's a potentially fascinating transition..."
The “model” of bishop as teacher can only gain strength in places where the bishops, to their utter shame, have a history of failing to teach. The threefold Episcopal office entails teaching, governing and sanctifying. Always has. The fact is, all three offices are inseparable. Knowing when and how to apply teaching over governance is the gift, I suppose...
Perhaps we will eventually
Perhaps we will eventually return to how the Church operated in the early centuries when bishops were chosen by the people in the community, when priests were married and women were respected leaders in the Catholic Church. Many Catholics do not even know the history of their own religion. Now, people of conscience are leaving in droves. They do not care what the bishops say or what the pope has to say, for that matter. The abortion issue is an American political issue, not even considered worthy of political discussion in Italy. The Notre Dame fiasco brought out all the nut-cases who did nothing to help their cause, especially if observed by someone had to make such a painfully sad decision.
First HOW MANY READ THE
First HOW MANY READ THE DOCUMENTS OF VATICAN II? MANY SO CALLED "PROGRESSIVE" CATHOLICS DO NOT EVEN TAKE THE TIME TO READ VATICAN II AND THINK IT IS A RUPTURE. VATICAN II IS NOT A RUPUTRE.
MANY CATHOLICS USE VATICAN II AS MORE LIKE A POLITICAL AGENDA. And I AM A YOUNG CATHOLIC SEMINARIAN AND BECAME A CATHOLIC.
I WAS RAISED AN ATHEIST BUT BECAME CATHOLIC AFTER READING THOMAS AQUINAS AND ST. AUGUSTINE.
I AM SURPRISE MANY CRADLE CATHOLICS ARE VERY LUKEWARM. Many CAtholics are not really Catholic at all.
ITS SAD THAT A FORMER ATHEIST AND A PRODIGAL SON WHO IS STILL TRYING TO LEARN MORE FINDS MANY CATHOLICS IGNORANT OF THEIR FAITH.
I LOVE BEING CATHOLIC!
Dear Bishops - It's over. The
Dear Bishops -
It's over. The American public barely remembers the controversy of it was thought about at all.
You need to salvage what little credibility you have left and develop a pro-life program that isn't a pale imitation of Randell Terry's. Start with making the Pregnant Woman's Support Act a priority.
If the bishop considers
If the bishop considers himself a teacher then he must be prepared for dialog,critical thinking and maybe different conclusions. Too many of these so called teachers hide behind their authority and don't allow for differences of opinion. I would suggest to these people, try reading Socrates . It might help.
Our holy father is constantly
Our holy father is constantly critising bishops for not exercise their authority in teaching. I hope this exercise will encourage more to speak out on issues of faith and morals. And on those same issues, Catholic institutions will defer to their local bishop rather than deciding they can make possibly contraversial decisions themselves and the bishop doesn't need to know. After all central to our Catholic faith is obedience to right authority.
"central to our Catholic
"central to our Catholic faith is obedience to right authority."
Many Catholics these days are seing it more as obedience to rightWING authorities. You know, as in the political sense.
Dear John, as always, your
Dear John, as always, your reporting is excellent which is why NCR is the best Catholic newspaper in the US. (Most of the others being propaganda sheets for local bishops though they do a service re local Catholic actitities). Your related column, your interview with Bishop Kicanas, in line to be the next head of the USCCB, also excellent. Kicanas showed himself a good politician. He spoke a lot and said next to nothing. Reminds me of Sen. Reid, the Senate majority leader. Reid is neither too liberal nor too conservative and rocks no boats. Why he has his position, which, I suspect, is also why Kicanas has his. But is this "leadership" given the present situation of the de-construction of Catholicism in the US, i.e., fewer and fewer parishes, schools, priests and nuns?
Your reports, like NCR in general, is great re Church politics and Church as institution but also, like NCR generally, very weak re theology and spirituality. For example, many bishops have said that the future of the Church depends on saints as in the past (Benedict, Francis, Dominic, Ignatius, etc.) and Karl Rahner, the premiere theologian of Vatican II, said that the Church had no future absent a revival of mysticism. But NCR has always neglected these topics except in a very superficial way.
In the past 50 years there have been many great Catholic mystics and saints even in the US, men and women who have realized the unitive way of union with God. Many are now dead -- Chardin, Merton, Anthony de Mello, Wayne Teasdale, Bede Griffiths, and lately Thomas Berry. Many are still alive: Bernadette Roberts, Thomas Keating, Beatrice Bruteau, Raimon Pannikkar, Brother David Stendahl-Rast, Bruno Barnhart, etc. Yet neither NCR nor the bishops seem to have much interest at all in what they've had or have to say.
I would urge you and NCR to focus less on Church politics and to bring such voices to bear on the current crises.
Post new comment