Do the Catholic Bishops Really Mean What They Say?
October 6, 2009
Kenneth D. Whitehead
The public opposition of more than eighty Catholic bishops to the University of Notre Dame’s decision to honor pro-abortion President Barack Obama represented an unprecedented public expression of episcopal sentiment on a controversial moral issue. The bishops normally draw back—“prudently,” as they see it—from calling attention to themselves and to the Church. For so many of them to enter into the lists in this particular case surely suggests an enhanced understanding of the seriousness of the central moral issue of our time.
At the end of August, however, Archbishop Michael J. Sheehan of Santa Fe, New Mexico, gave a very different episcopal perspective in an interview with National Catholic Reporter. In discussing the outcry over the Notre Dame commencement, Sheehan worried that the Catholic Church in America risked “isolating itself from the rest of the country.” He judged the refusal to talk to a politician or to give him communion because of a difference on a single issue “counterproductive,” even “hysterical.”
Of course Sheehan did not clearly make the crucial distinction between merely “talking to a politician” and doing public honor to one. He instead “wondered aloud what was so bad about inviting Obama and giving him a degree.” By way of comparison he observe that the pope recently made President Sarkozy, who is “pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, and married invalidly to an actress” an honorary canon of St. John Lateran. The Vatican, he claimed, apparently did not have “quite as big a concern” about Notre Dame’s honoring Obama as the bishops who spoke out against it.
Asked by NCR if there were any other bishops who agreed with him, Archbishop Sheehan replied, “Of course. The majority.” This majority, he said, only remained on the sidelines so as not to start a public internecine fight.
Thus, if Sheehan is correct, a majority of the American Catholic bishops opposes the official policy that they themselves established in their June 2004 statement “Catholics in Political Life.” That document told the world that, “the Catholic community and Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles. They should not be given awards, honors, or platforms which would suggest support for their actions.” The protesting bishops based their opposition on this plain, unambiguous declaration.
But if, as Sheehan contends, a majority of the Catholic bishops in the United States actually disagrees with this policy, why did they vote for it in the first place? What sort of organization officially adopts a policy that most of its leaders reject? Such patent dishonesty seems rather more detrimental to the Church than “loud tactics.”
The archbishop thinks that opposition, even to a president as aggressively pro-abortion as Barack Obama, is to be deplored because it risks isolating Catholics from the rest of American society. But why should anyone think remaining in accord with a morally decadent society is somehow part of the Church’s mission? According to what principle is the Church supposed to lay aside her fundamental moral principles in order to conform to a society that has in so many respects long abandoned Judeo-Christian moral principles? Of course, the Church as a whole has not decided to “go along to get along” in this fashion. The only question is whether some bishops, as Sheehan’s statements suggest, are no longer in sync with the Church.
It is true that the American Catholic bishops have never been able to agree on a common policy on the question of refusing Holy Communion to pro-abortion public figures. The reason for this remains unclear. Canon 915 of the Code of Canon Law plainly says that those “who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to Holy Communion.” Numerous Church documents have established that Catholic politicians who enable, support, or promote abortion are indeed guilty of “manifest grave sin,” and hence should not be admitted to Holy Communion.
More than that, the bishops have received specific orders from higher authority on this matter. When then Cardinal Ratzinger was still the prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, he sent a communication to Theodore Cardinal McCarrick, then archbishop of Washington, D.C., that explained how wayward Catholic public figures should be handled. Their pastor should first counsel them in person, explaining that they are objectively guilty of “manifest grave sin.” If they do not desist, they should be asked not to present themselves for Holy Communion. If they do present themselves for Holy Communion they must be denied.
As was widely reported at the time, Cardinal McCarrick, did not communicate this message from Rome in its entirety to his brother bishops. Some therefore think that many bishops do not know their duty. But, given the publicity that has surrounded the whole affair, this is impossible to credit; the bishops must know what they should be doing. Nor does resorting to the common argument that they should not “polticize the Eucharist” relieve them of their responsibility to enforce canon law.
Certainly the fact that the pope himself chose to honor Nicholas Sarkozy does not in any way excuse the American bishops. Perhaps the pope’s action was as mistaken as that of the disobedient bishops, but this can in no way negate the force of Canon 915 or even of Ratzinger’s own directive.
“Catholics in Public Life” and Ratzinger’s directive simply manifest the Church’s recognition of the seriousness of the American situation: More than fifty million babies have been killed by abortion since it was legalized by the U.S. Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision in 1973. This rivals and in some cases exceeds the death tolls inflicted by the Hitlers, Stalins, Maos, and Pol Pots of the twentieth century. Dozens of American Catholic episcopal statements have reiterated that abortion is in a class by itself, currently outweighing by far nearly all other public moral issues combined.
In his NCR interview, however, the archbishop effectively treats abortion as just one more issue. He brags that “we have gotten more done on the pro-life issue in New Mexico by talking to people that don’t agree with us on everything. We got Governor Richardson to sign off on the abolition of the death penalty in New Mexico, which he was in favor of.” Sheehan goes on to admit that the same Richardson is another one of those pro-abortion Catholic politicians, whom he has evidently not “counseled,” however. His reaction when the interviewer mentions Governor Richardson’s pro-abortion stance is to ask defiantly (and here I quote directly), “So?” An archbishop of the Catholic Church thinks the death penalty constitutes an evil on the same scale as the unlimited abortion license.
God forbid that such obtuse and callous moral equivalence should represent the views of the majority of the American Catholic bishops. Sheehan should be pointedly rebuked by the leadership of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops for venturing into the public print with views so much at variance with the USCCB’s official position.
In the present climate in which a spade is so rarely called a spade, it is unfortunate that the old practice of fraternal correction has lapsed among the American Catholic bishops. True, only the bishop of Rome has authority over any other bishop, but it is a shame that nobody to whom Sheehan might be disposed to listen spoke to him about the scandal caused by his interview.
Maybe the bishops actually are (mostly) united about the moral gravity of the killing of the innocent, but as long as an assertion to the contrary stands uncorrected and unchallenged, it will be taken as more evidence that the American Catholic bishops are not “completely united and resolute in our teaching and defense of the unborn child”—in other words, that they do not necessarily really mean what they say.
Kenneth D. Whitehead is a former U.S. Assistant Secretary of Education and the translator of over twenty published books.
Comments:
10.6.2009 | 7:13am
PedroS says:
I have checked the background relating to the honoring of Nicholas Sarkozy as honorary canon of the Basilica of St. John of Lateran. Since 1604, that honor is given to the French Head of State ex officio, that is to say, without regard to the person itself. Therefore, that honor cannot be construed as any kind of suggestion of aproval of the actions, policy prescriptions or beliefs of any French Head of State.
That honor seems to me clearly different from the one given by Notre Dame to Pres. Obama: it would only be comparable if Notre Dame had a previous tradition of bestowing honorary doctorates to every American President. That tradition might well be started, but given Pres. Obama's abortion politics, he would not be a suitable candidate for the beginning of such a tradition....
That honor seems to me clearly different from the one given by Notre Dame to Pres. Obama: it would only be comparable if Notre Dame had a previous tradition of bestowing honorary doctorates to every American President. That tradition might well be started, but given Pres. Obama's abortion politics, he would not be a suitable candidate for the beginning of such a tradition....
10.6.2009 | 7:50am
Dan Deeny says:
Mr. Whitehead's article is important. He clearly explains the problem the bishops have made for all of us. I didn't realize Bishop Sheehan is so confused. We must pray for him and for all the bishops.
10.6.2009 | 7:53am
Michael says:
The statements of Archbishop Sheehan are truly regretable.
But this all fits in with his past. Archbishop Sheehan was rector of the corrupt seminary in Dallas in the 1970's and was personally responsible for the ordination of Rudy Kos, a child abuser who nearly bankrupted the Diocese of Dallas in the late 1990's. The Vatican later determined that Kos had never been validly ordained.
But this all fits in with his past. Archbishop Sheehan was rector of the corrupt seminary in Dallas in the 1970's and was personally responsible for the ordination of Rudy Kos, a child abuser who nearly bankrupted the Diocese of Dallas in the late 1990's. The Vatican later determined that Kos had never been validly ordained.
10.6.2009 | 8:02am
Laura Baylis-Lockett says:
I strongly agree that our American Bishops have become 'Americanized.' The lack of following the teachings of the Church are leaving the laity questioning the true path. we look to our Bishops to set a standard for us; we expect them to also follow this standard. America is a corrupt nation: abortion, the death penalty, the financial inability for parents to raise their own children (daycare), and the outright abuse of the poor. The Church should 'isolate' ourselves from the rest of America and stand firm on Christ's teachings. If the Church leadership can not stand firm, then how to they expect the laity to stand?
10.6.2009 | 10:26am
Alex Monro says:
It is an awkward fact but many people find it hard to take the Roman Catholic position on the morality of sex, contraception and birth control seriously. The reason for this is twofold. The first is that sex would seem to be for more than simply childbearing - even biblically this is the case, as the Song of Solomon attests. The second is the celibacy pushed onto priests. This is a clear case of an unnatural diktat from Rome becoming established practice despite its non-Christian heritage. It is deeply unhealthy and has led to other deeply unhealthy problems which have received plenty of coverage. I do have some respect for these bishops who were willing to stand out on the issue of abortion - I agree with their stance and I know how unpopular it makes them. But there is some rearranging of their own house that needs to take place too. Indeed, it probably needs to take place first.
10.6.2009 | 11:01am
jason taylor says:
Alex Monro, the Song of Songs was about what a husband and wife were saying to each other. The Catholic position is not as far as I know, that it is sinful to find it pleasurable to produce the next generation of Catholics but that it has to be disciplined like every other human activity.
10.6.2009 | 11:11am
Bibbit says:
I hate to say it, but I pretty much agree with Tony. Not because I dislike Tony, but because I wish it weren't true. Of course when he says, "What we see is the end result of the reigns of 3 popes over 40 years who did not really wish to make use of the Church's authority to judge and to punish, and preferred to only use the Church's teaching office to admonish, hoping to change hearts with "mercy" rather than with justice," I think he means the last 4 popes, though I might say 5. The first of the last 3 served a very short term in office.
My daughter gets confirmed this class year. I know from personal teaching experience that at least 75% of the kids with her do not deserve to be confirmed. They openly admit they do not believe or care. They are there mainly because it is expected of them. So it starts very early. We push kids through the CCD system without even caring whether or not they learn anything. We don't care of they don't go to Mass, confession, or anything else. They "graduate" to the sacrament of confirmation and are sent on there way. Often to never show up again till they get married, and then they fall away again. I know I sound cynical, but I've been involved with CCD for quite some time now. My first students are long since married with kids. I have gone out of my way to say Johnny here does not deserve to move on, but always it falls on deaf ears. Johnny moves on. So to expect any more of Johnny is not logical. Johnny’s experience with CCD and watching the Ted Kennedy’s of the world give him no reason to take his faith seriously.
Of course there's always hope. It's not just a virtue, it's a reality. We do have many fine bishops who speak out, and the young priests of today are much more bold for the faith than those middle age and older. And of course we have our Lord. So I have much hope for the Church my kids grow old attending. I'm sure it'll be better than the one I grew up attending and better still than today.
My daughter gets confirmed this class year. I know from personal teaching experience that at least 75% of the kids with her do not deserve to be confirmed. They openly admit they do not believe or care. They are there mainly because it is expected of them. So it starts very early. We push kids through the CCD system without even caring whether or not they learn anything. We don't care of they don't go to Mass, confession, or anything else. They "graduate" to the sacrament of confirmation and are sent on there way. Often to never show up again till they get married, and then they fall away again. I know I sound cynical, but I've been involved with CCD for quite some time now. My first students are long since married with kids. I have gone out of my way to say Johnny here does not deserve to move on, but always it falls on deaf ears. Johnny moves on. So to expect any more of Johnny is not logical. Johnny’s experience with CCD and watching the Ted Kennedy’s of the world give him no reason to take his faith seriously.
Of course there's always hope. It's not just a virtue, it's a reality. We do have many fine bishops who speak out, and the young priests of today are much more bold for the faith than those middle age and older. And of course we have our Lord. So I have much hope for the Church my kids grow old attending. I'm sure it'll be better than the one I grew up attending and better still than today.
10.6.2009 | 11:29am
Richard says:
We have come full circle. When JFK ran for president he had to explain to a large segment of the electorate why he would govern a democracy as president and not as a Catholic president who takes his political direction from the Pope.
Interesting comment about the Pope's actions with regard to Sarkozy above - a mind-boggling rationalization.
I think it absurd to accuse a politician of "promoting" abortion when he/she is voting on complex legislation that may allow an individual to decide to end a pregnancy. The issues are far more complex than many bishops and commentators would have it. And for heaven's sake abortions did not start up when the Roe v. Wade decision was issued. There have always been women who have decided to end pregnancies and there always will be no matter what the law or the bishops say. This was understood when I grew up in the Church and went to Catholic schools. This very site has noted that the abortion issue has become a fulcrum for the American Church only in the past twenty years or so. And it seems that it has become such a lightning rod issue as a result of the abuse scandals and loss of clerical power and influence. Now there is a tendency on the part of some bishops to "draw the line in the sand." You are either with them or against them.
We live in a democracy and if the bishops push this too far they harm not only the good of the country making public policy the slave to one moral issue, but they divide people and potentially push their communicants to the point of deciding whether they are with their Church or their country.
Interesting comment about the Pope's actions with regard to Sarkozy above - a mind-boggling rationalization.
I think it absurd to accuse a politician of "promoting" abortion when he/she is voting on complex legislation that may allow an individual to decide to end a pregnancy. The issues are far more complex than many bishops and commentators would have it. And for heaven's sake abortions did not start up when the Roe v. Wade decision was issued. There have always been women who have decided to end pregnancies and there always will be no matter what the law or the bishops say. This was understood when I grew up in the Church and went to Catholic schools. This very site has noted that the abortion issue has become a fulcrum for the American Church only in the past twenty years or so. And it seems that it has become such a lightning rod issue as a result of the abuse scandals and loss of clerical power and influence. Now there is a tendency on the part of some bishops to "draw the line in the sand." You are either with them or against them.
We live in a democracy and if the bishops push this too far they harm not only the good of the country making public policy the slave to one moral issue, but they divide people and potentially push their communicants to the point of deciding whether they are with their Church or their country.
10.6.2009 | 12:34pm
Colin Gormley says:
@Alex Monro
You'd have to explain then the requirement of Eastern Orthodxy bishops to be celebate. And that whole Paul exortation about being celebate is better than not.
You'd have to explain then the requirement of Eastern Orthodxy bishops to be celebate. And that whole Paul exortation about being celebate is better than not.
10.6.2009 | 12:52pm
William L. Harnist says:
The philosopher Eric Hoffer (1902-1983) has said, in "The True Believer," that leaders will always betray the followers--whom in reality are the True Believers. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that we have such statements coming from the likes of Michael J. Sheehan.
10.6.2009 | 1:20pm
Bibbit says:
@Richard:
"We live in a democracy and if the bishops push this too far they harm not only the good of the country making public policy the slave to one moral issue, but they divide people and potentially push their communicants to the point of deciding whether they are with their Church or their country. "
I don't like to assume, but may I assume you are not Catholic? Because I don't see how a Catholic can think pro-life legislation would be bad for the country.
And by the way, abortion is not decades old, it not centuries old, it's millennia old. The Jews before Christ taught it was wrong, and Christ's Church has never wavered from that belief. That fact that people chose wrong all day long doesn't mean the Church should decide it is no longer wrong. And abortion is NOT complex, it's quite simple. It's the direct taking of an innocent human life. Draw up the most complex bill you may choose to, if it has support for that direct killing you don't vote for it, period. The issue is not complex at all. Substitute genocide or the like and I assume you'd have no problem agreeing with, me, but for whatever reason you choose to not see it when it comes to abortion.
"We live in a democracy and if the bishops push this too far they harm not only the good of the country making public policy the slave to one moral issue, but they divide people and potentially push their communicants to the point of deciding whether they are with their Church or their country. "
I don't like to assume, but may I assume you are not Catholic? Because I don't see how a Catholic can think pro-life legislation would be bad for the country.
And by the way, abortion is not decades old, it not centuries old, it's millennia old. The Jews before Christ taught it was wrong, and Christ's Church has never wavered from that belief. That fact that people chose wrong all day long doesn't mean the Church should decide it is no longer wrong. And abortion is NOT complex, it's quite simple. It's the direct taking of an innocent human life. Draw up the most complex bill you may choose to, if it has support for that direct killing you don't vote for it, period. The issue is not complex at all. Substitute genocide or the like and I assume you'd have no problem agreeing with, me, but for whatever reason you choose to not see it when it comes to abortion.
10.6.2009 | 1:52pm
Richard says:
Saying that the issue of abortion is simple and always wrong under all circumstances is the preferred stance of the extreme right and the Evangelicals. There is an inability to deal with the many health situations attendant in many cases where there is literally a choice between the life of the mother or the life of the fetus/zygote. There are situations where if the family finds out a girl is pregnant she will be killed. To take a "feel good" moral stance in the light of these realities is just that, a position calculated to demonstrate the speaker's goodness rather than to deal with difficult realities in life. Sure the Church always held abortion was wrong. There are lots of things the Church has said are wrong. Augustine and Aquinas didn't think it was a mortal sin until the "quickening" or about the end of the first trimester.
10.6.2009 | 2:26pm
William H. Phelan says:
When Bishop Fellay and his staff meet with the Vatican's theologians this month, they will be discussing DOCTRINAL issues. The SSPX is in no great hurry to rejoin the Church for the simple reason they do not believe there is anything worth joining! Frankly, I am in an FSSP chapel and I really can't imagine how the Church leadership is even relevant. The Third Secret of Fatima due for release by 1960?, Medugorje which has gone for twenty years unopposed?, liturgical abuses which have gone on for forty years? Is anyone going to say someone has been steering this mess?
10.6.2009 | 2:46pm
Joe DeVet says:
There are many good bishops, probably by now most of those heading up dioceses are themselves leading their individual flocks "in spirit and in truth."
However, something happens when they try to collaborate via the USCCB. There's an incredible bureaucracy which reflects the schism underneath an apparently smooth surface. This schism is, roughly, between those who interpret Vatican II as license to make it up as they go along, and those who continue to believe the authentic truths of the faith. The Vatican-II-license crowd is in the majority among the staff of the USCCB (mostly laity), and as a result much of their work is self-contradictory, tainted with dissent or at least revisionism, and at loggerheads with the 'orthodox' side of the schism.
There may also be the factor of "group-think." A poster by the Demotivation group (google them, it's a scream) has one on Teamwork: "All of us are stupider than any of us!" This probably applies to the bishops when they assemble.
The worst outcome of these pathologies is the recent exhortation to the feds to serve up a health care bill which is "abortion-neutral." What a perfectly shameful policy.
However, something happens when they try to collaborate via the USCCB. There's an incredible bureaucracy which reflects the schism underneath an apparently smooth surface. This schism is, roughly, between those who interpret Vatican II as license to make it up as they go along, and those who continue to believe the authentic truths of the faith. The Vatican-II-license crowd is in the majority among the staff of the USCCB (mostly laity), and as a result much of their work is self-contradictory, tainted with dissent or at least revisionism, and at loggerheads with the 'orthodox' side of the schism.
There may also be the factor of "group-think." A poster by the Demotivation group (google them, it's a scream) has one on Teamwork: "All of us are stupider than any of us!" This probably applies to the bishops when they assemble.
The worst outcome of these pathologies is the recent exhortation to the feds to serve up a health care bill which is "abortion-neutral." What a perfectly shameful policy.
10.6.2009 | 2:51pm
Cor Ad Cor says:
Can anyone say "heretic"? Is it possible, just possible, that many of the American Catholic bishops are in rebellion with the Church? Might it be that they no longer believe, no longer pray, and are actually part of a schismatic church in America? It looks that way to me.
10.6.2009 | 2:59pm
Bob G says:
To Richard:
Wow! We see it all on this website.
You say opposition to abortion is the stance of the extreme right and the Evangelicals. Including John Paul II? And the U.S. bishops? This claim tries to settle the issue by name-calling.
If it comes to a REAL choice (rather than a contrived one) between the lives of the mother or the fetus, I'd bet the Church would say the mother should live. But this happens maybe once in a million times. You don't determine general rules by the exceptions.
And that one about some pregnant girls might be killed takes the cake. The murderer would get the chair, so that probably happens less than one time in a trillion.
And if Aquinas and Augustine permitted sanctioned abortion in the first trimester (I doubt it) it was because they knew nothing of biology. Anyone who knows biology knows the fetus is “quickened” at conception.
Try again.
Wow! We see it all on this website.
You say opposition to abortion is the stance of the extreme right and the Evangelicals. Including John Paul II? And the U.S. bishops? This claim tries to settle the issue by name-calling.
If it comes to a REAL choice (rather than a contrived one) between the lives of the mother or the fetus, I'd bet the Church would say the mother should live. But this happens maybe once in a million times. You don't determine general rules by the exceptions.
And that one about some pregnant girls might be killed takes the cake. The murderer would get the chair, so that probably happens less than one time in a trillion.
And if Aquinas and Augustine permitted sanctioned abortion in the first trimester (I doubt it) it was because they knew nothing of biology. Anyone who knows biology knows the fetus is “quickened” at conception.
Try again.
10.6.2009 | 3:07pm
Bibbit says:
Richard, you aren't going to like this reply, but I am convinced it is correct. My reply is that you can’t be a good Catholic and believe the way you do. To be a good Catholic, you must be one by choice. To be one by choice you must agree with what the Church says is necessary to be a good Catholic. One of those necessary things is that Christ speaks through the Church, and that when we hear the Church we hear Christ. Now mind you, I don't believe that if the Church were to tomorrow say 3 + 3 = 7, that it would indeed be true. However, were the Church to say tomorrow that as a matter of faith I must believe that Mary is the Mediatrix of all graces, I would believe it. Because when I chose to be Catholic I came to the belief that I could trust the Church in these instances. I have to believe I can trust the Church in these matters, if I don’t, I’m simply not Catholic. You obviously believe the Church gets it wrong in matter of faith and morals, that being the case, why be Catholic? If you’re not, please say so, it makes a very big difference.
10.6.2009 | 3:10pm
Paul says:
This is a fine article, aptly describing the failure of nerve among church leaders. It would be interesting to hear the author's thoughts on the causes of this widespread neglect of canon law and how it has been defended (or rationalized) by the leaders themselves.
In response to Richard's comment, the increased attention the U.S. bishops have given to abortion since Roe v. Wade requires no explanation beyond Roe itself. To somehow connect it to the sex abuse crisis strains credulity. It may be true that Roe v. Wade followed in the wake of permissive attitudes toward abortion in the society at large, and in that sense it was not altogether new. But it also true that Roe exercised a profound influence in its turn. Roe's enshrinement of abortion as a constitutional right (not a wrong to be tolerated but an entitlement conferred by the highest law in the land) set in motion a profound change in the legal and cultural landscape. One need not have lived before Roe to recognize that such a change must affect the way in which the issue is debated (or not debated) publicly. You can agree or disagree with the bishops for responding to this change in the way they have, and you can certainly blame them for many shortcomings. But their change of emphasis on abortion does have a rational connection to the changes wrought by Roe and its progeny.
In response to Richard's comment, the increased attention the U.S. bishops have given to abortion since Roe v. Wade requires no explanation beyond Roe itself. To somehow connect it to the sex abuse crisis strains credulity. It may be true that Roe v. Wade followed in the wake of permissive attitudes toward abortion in the society at large, and in that sense it was not altogether new. But it also true that Roe exercised a profound influence in its turn. Roe's enshrinement of abortion as a constitutional right (not a wrong to be tolerated but an entitlement conferred by the highest law in the land) set in motion a profound change in the legal and cultural landscape. One need not have lived before Roe to recognize that such a change must affect the way in which the issue is debated (or not debated) publicly. You can agree or disagree with the bishops for responding to this change in the way they have, and you can certainly blame them for many shortcomings. But their change of emphasis on abortion does have a rational connection to the changes wrought by Roe and its progeny.
10.6.2009 | 3:58pm
Bill says:
Alex Monro
Your allusion to "deeply unhealthy problems" as a consequence of priestly celibacy demonstrates ignorance of the facts about the abuse. Overwhelmingly, the abuse by priests was homosexual in character. These men were hebephiliacs and ephebophiliacs who satisfied their lust by violating the sacred trust Catholics have for priests. To say their scurrilousness was caused by their celibacy is absurd. It was their abandonment of fidelity to the Church.
Your allusion to "deeply unhealthy problems" as a consequence of priestly celibacy demonstrates ignorance of the facts about the abuse. Overwhelmingly, the abuse by priests was homosexual in character. These men were hebephiliacs and ephebophiliacs who satisfied their lust by violating the sacred trust Catholics have for priests. To say their scurrilousness was caused by their celibacy is absurd. It was their abandonment of fidelity to the Church.
10.6.2009 | 4:18pm
Boanerges says:
Abortion: Intrinsically Evil. Death Penalty: Prudential Judgment. Yes there is a difference and most bishops don't know it.
Prior to 325, almost 80% of the worlds bishops were "Arian" (denying Jesus' divinity). St. Athanasius stood before the Ecumenical Council at Nicea and gave witness to Jesus as the second person of the Trinity and won back most of the bishops. THIS bishop called a spade a spade and didn't "nuance" Church teaching. Too bad we don't have more Athanasius' in the USCCB. This BS would end! He also coined the phrase: "the floor of hell is paved with the skulls of bishops." It's true today as well. The bishops need to grow some stones.
By the way, Athanasius also "punched out" Arius once when they met. Not a bad way to put an exclamation point on it all.
St. Athanasius, pray for us
Prior to 325, almost 80% of the worlds bishops were "Arian" (denying Jesus' divinity). St. Athanasius stood before the Ecumenical Council at Nicea and gave witness to Jesus as the second person of the Trinity and won back most of the bishops. THIS bishop called a spade a spade and didn't "nuance" Church teaching. Too bad we don't have more Athanasius' in the USCCB. This BS would end! He also coined the phrase: "the floor of hell is paved with the skulls of bishops." It's true today as well. The bishops need to grow some stones.
By the way, Athanasius also "punched out" Arius once when they met. Not a bad way to put an exclamation point on it all.
St. Athanasius, pray for us
10.6.2009 | 4:42pm
John V says:
This brings to mind the second reading from this past Sunday's Office of Readings, which was taken from the Pastoral Guide by St. Gregory the Great, pope. Sorry I don't have time for more than a copy and paste, but here it is from universalis.com:
A spiritual guide should be silent when discretion requires and speak when words are of service. Otherwise he may say what he should not or be silent when he should speak. Indiscreet speech may lead men into error and an imprudent silence may leave in error those who could have been taught. Pastors who lack foresight hesitate to say openly what is right because they fear losing the favour of men. As the voice of truth tells us, such leaders are not zealous pastors who protect their flocks, rather they are like mercenaries who flee by taking refuge in silence when the wolf appears.
The Lord reproaches them through the prophet: They are dumb dogs that cannot bark. On another occasion he complains: You did not advance against the foe or set up a wall in front of the house of Israel, so that you might stand fast in battle on the day of the Lord. To advance against the foe involves a bold resistance to the powers of this world in defence of the flock. To stand fast in battle on the day of the Lord means to oppose the wicked enemy out of love for what is right.
When a pastor has been afraid to assert what is right, has he not turned his back and fled by remaining silent? Whereas if he intervenes on behalf of the flock, he sets up a wall against the enemy in front of the house of Israel. Therefore, the Lord again says to his unfaithful people: Your prophets saw false and foolish visions and did not point out your wickedness, that you might repent of your sins. The name of the prophet is sometimes given in the sacred writings to teachers who both declare the present to be fleeting and reveal what is to come. The word of God accuses them of seeing false visions because they are afraid to reproach men for their faults and thereby lull the evildoer with an empty promise of safety. Because they fear reproach, they keep silent and fail to point out the sinner’s wrongdoing.
The word of reproach is a key that unlocks a door, because reproach reveals a fault of which the evildoer is himself often unaware. That is why Paul says of the bishop: He must be able to encourage men in sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it. For the same reason God tells us through Malachi: The lips of the priest are to preserve knowledge, and men shall look to him for the law, for he is the messenger of the Lord of hosts. Finally, that is also the reason why the Lord warns us through Isaiah: Cry out and be not still; raise your voice in a trumpet call.
Anyone ordained a priest undertakes the task of preaching, so that with a loud cry he may go on ahead of the terrible judge who follows. If, then, a priest does not know how to preach, what kind of cry can such a dumb herald utter? It was to bring this home that the Holy Spirit descended in the form of tongues on the first pastors, for he causes those whom he has filled, to speak out spontaneously.
A spiritual guide should be silent when discretion requires and speak when words are of service. Otherwise he may say what he should not or be silent when he should speak. Indiscreet speech may lead men into error and an imprudent silence may leave in error those who could have been taught. Pastors who lack foresight hesitate to say openly what is right because they fear losing the favour of men. As the voice of truth tells us, such leaders are not zealous pastors who protect their flocks, rather they are like mercenaries who flee by taking refuge in silence when the wolf appears.
The Lord reproaches them through the prophet: They are dumb dogs that cannot bark. On another occasion he complains: You did not advance against the foe or set up a wall in front of the house of Israel, so that you might stand fast in battle on the day of the Lord. To advance against the foe involves a bold resistance to the powers of this world in defence of the flock. To stand fast in battle on the day of the Lord means to oppose the wicked enemy out of love for what is right.
When a pastor has been afraid to assert what is right, has he not turned his back and fled by remaining silent? Whereas if he intervenes on behalf of the flock, he sets up a wall against the enemy in front of the house of Israel. Therefore, the Lord again says to his unfaithful people: Your prophets saw false and foolish visions and did not point out your wickedness, that you might repent of your sins. The name of the prophet is sometimes given in the sacred writings to teachers who both declare the present to be fleeting and reveal what is to come. The word of God accuses them of seeing false visions because they are afraid to reproach men for their faults and thereby lull the evildoer with an empty promise of safety. Because they fear reproach, they keep silent and fail to point out the sinner’s wrongdoing.
The word of reproach is a key that unlocks a door, because reproach reveals a fault of which the evildoer is himself often unaware. That is why Paul says of the bishop: He must be able to encourage men in sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it. For the same reason God tells us through Malachi: The lips of the priest are to preserve knowledge, and men shall look to him for the law, for he is the messenger of the Lord of hosts. Finally, that is also the reason why the Lord warns us through Isaiah: Cry out and be not still; raise your voice in a trumpet call.
Anyone ordained a priest undertakes the task of preaching, so that with a loud cry he may go on ahead of the terrible judge who follows. If, then, a priest does not know how to preach, what kind of cry can such a dumb herald utter? It was to bring this home that the Holy Spirit descended in the form of tongues on the first pastors, for he causes those whom he has filled, to speak out spontaneously.
10.6.2009 | 8:58pm
Tony says:
Bibbit,
Clarification: I referred to 3 popes in the last 40 years: I meant John 23rd, Paul 6th, and JP2. I was not trying to identify the "last 3" Popes - for one thing, Pope JP1st had almost no effect that is measurable.
Joe DeVet says that there are many good bishops now. I would almost agree with that: there are a number of good bishops now, maybe as many as 20 to 25. Out of 180 dioceses, that isn't "a lot." There are probably another group, not clearly numerable but could be 30 or more, who are not nearly as daft as some of the nut-cases we had to survive during the 70's and 80's, who are fair bishops by and large, 90 % of the time. Again, that is not enough. It is the other 10 % of the time that really counts.
Where are the bishops who have demanded the "catholic" colleges to abide by "Ex Corde Ecclesiae"? As far as I know, no more than 1 or 2. Where are the bishops who refused to allow the stupid change to altar girls? Only 1, at this point. Where are the bishops who have excommunicated pro-abortion politicians? Only 2 or 3.
I agree with Joe completely, though, about the destructive effect of the USCCB apparatus. They seem to take every good idea and make it worse, while coming up with all sorts of garbage of their own. Which leads to another question - or rather 2: first, where is the bishop who will call out the USCCB to its face? (Again, one that I know of - Bishop Bruskewicz). Secondly, if one grants that collegiality means that the college of bishops acts with the Pope in such matters as Magisterial teaching, by what principle does a NATIONAL body of bishops have a unique God-given and mandated role? At least in our case, the national conference has acted mainly as a cover to hide bad bishops behind a wall of fake unity, while preventing good bishops to have anything like the burgeoning effect they should have had. So, is the USCCB in essence a disordered manifestation of subsidiarity? When God chooses a bishop and ordains him as the leader of a flock, he gives a bishop the charism and the graces to go with that office. To whom does God give the charism and the graces to be a good USCCB?
Clarification: I referred to 3 popes in the last 40 years: I meant John 23rd, Paul 6th, and JP2. I was not trying to identify the "last 3" Popes - for one thing, Pope JP1st had almost no effect that is measurable.
Joe DeVet says that there are many good bishops now. I would almost agree with that: there are a number of good bishops now, maybe as many as 20 to 25. Out of 180 dioceses, that isn't "a lot." There are probably another group, not clearly numerable but could be 30 or more, who are not nearly as daft as some of the nut-cases we had to survive during the 70's and 80's, who are fair bishops by and large, 90 % of the time. Again, that is not enough. It is the other 10 % of the time that really counts.
Where are the bishops who have demanded the "catholic" colleges to abide by "Ex Corde Ecclesiae"? As far as I know, no more than 1 or 2. Where are the bishops who refused to allow the stupid change to altar girls? Only 1, at this point. Where are the bishops who have excommunicated pro-abortion politicians? Only 2 or 3.
I agree with Joe completely, though, about the destructive effect of the USCCB apparatus. They seem to take every good idea and make it worse, while coming up with all sorts of garbage of their own. Which leads to another question - or rather 2: first, where is the bishop who will call out the USCCB to its face? (Again, one that I know of - Bishop Bruskewicz). Secondly, if one grants that collegiality means that the college of bishops acts with the Pope in such matters as Magisterial teaching, by what principle does a NATIONAL body of bishops have a unique God-given and mandated role? At least in our case, the national conference has acted mainly as a cover to hide bad bishops behind a wall of fake unity, while preventing good bishops to have anything like the burgeoning effect they should have had. So, is the USCCB in essence a disordered manifestation of subsidiarity? When God chooses a bishop and ordains him as the leader of a flock, he gives a bishop the charism and the graces to go with that office. To whom does God give the charism and the graces to be a good USCCB?
10.7.2009 | 5:29am
Sean says:
As an American living in France, I would like to supplement
this article by making a few remarks about the situation in
France. The comments that I make below are necessary for
understanding the significance of President Sarkozy becoming
an "honorary canon" of St John Lateran.
First, (as already pointed out by another comment) the head of the
French state is traditionally made an honorary canon of St John
Lateran. It is part of the relation between the Holy See and
France. It's not as if Benedict woke up one morning and said,
"Let's bestow an honor on some admirable person today -- how
about Nicolas Sarkozy?"
Second, it not accurate to say that Sarkozy is "pro-abortion".
To my knowledge, he has never pronounced himself for or against
abortion. The political climate in France does not require
politicians to take a stand on abortion, so most of them do not.
One exception is Christine Boutin, who spoke out against abortion.
She was President Sarkozy's minister of housing until this summer.
The Socialists might be classified as "pro-abortion", but they
lack the pro-abortion enthusiasm of the Democratic Party. The
last time they were in power, they extended the time limit for
abortion from 10 weeks to 12 weeks. France, therefore, is still
about 6 months away from Roe vs Wade. (Although one should also
note that looser rules apply for children suspected of being handicapped,
and that the state health insurance pays for abortions.) President
Sarkozy's administration has not modified the law on abortion.
Similar remarks apply to Sarkozy being "pro-gay-marriage". I am
not aware of him saying anything about the subject. There exists
a "Civil Pact of Solidarity", that was put in place by the Socialists.
It seems they wanted to create a kind of parallel marriage that would
be open to homosexuals. The administration of Sarkozy has made some
changes to the law that bring these "pacts" closer to marriage.
One might argue that this is being "pro-gay-marriage". But now, only
about 5% (7% in 2006) of the "pacts" are between people of the same sex.
The "pact" has become a "marriage lite", used in place of marriage
by couples unsure of their commitment.
Finally, about "being married invalidly to an actress": It would be
hard to argue that Sarkozy's marriage is valid. But I think his wife
is better classified as a "singer" rather than an "actress". Furthermore,
he was made an honorary canon just before Christmas 2007, whereas he was
married in early 2008.
this article by making a few remarks about the situation in
France. The comments that I make below are necessary for
understanding the significance of President Sarkozy becoming
an "honorary canon" of St John Lateran.
First, (as already pointed out by another comment) the head of the
French state is traditionally made an honorary canon of St John
Lateran. It is part of the relation between the Holy See and
France. It's not as if Benedict woke up one morning and said,
"Let's bestow an honor on some admirable person today -- how
about Nicolas Sarkozy?"
Second, it not accurate to say that Sarkozy is "pro-abortion".
To my knowledge, he has never pronounced himself for or against
abortion. The political climate in France does not require
politicians to take a stand on abortion, so most of them do not.
One exception is Christine Boutin, who spoke out against abortion.
She was President Sarkozy's minister of housing until this summer.
The Socialists might be classified as "pro-abortion", but they
lack the pro-abortion enthusiasm of the Democratic Party. The
last time they were in power, they extended the time limit for
abortion from 10 weeks to 12 weeks. France, therefore, is still
about 6 months away from Roe vs Wade. (Although one should also
note that looser rules apply for children suspected of being handicapped,
and that the state health insurance pays for abortions.) President
Sarkozy's administration has not modified the law on abortion.
Similar remarks apply to Sarkozy being "pro-gay-marriage". I am
not aware of him saying anything about the subject. There exists
a "Civil Pact of Solidarity", that was put in place by the Socialists.
It seems they wanted to create a kind of parallel marriage that would
be open to homosexuals. The administration of Sarkozy has made some
changes to the law that bring these "pacts" closer to marriage.
One might argue that this is being "pro-gay-marriage". But now, only
about 5% (7% in 2006) of the "pacts" are between people of the same sex.
The "pact" has become a "marriage lite", used in place of marriage
by couples unsure of their commitment.
Finally, about "being married invalidly to an actress": It would be
hard to argue that Sarkozy's marriage is valid. But I think his wife
is better classified as a "singer" rather than an "actress". Furthermore,
he was made an honorary canon just before Christmas 2007, whereas he was
married in early 2008.
10.7.2009 | 8:44am
Andrew says:
To Alex Monro:
I understand your points - you are thinking from a very modern perspective.
However, if you want to discuss this issue I would give you the advice to (at least) understand the position of the Church on the role of human sexuality, i.e. in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, from 2331ff. It`s a wonderful vision of human sexuality, difficult, yes, but then again we are talking about a spiritual life here and not about living as moderns do, according to their own personal feeling and reasoning.
Consider article 2362: "Sexuality is a source of joy and pleasure...", and 2363: "the spouses` union achieves the twofold end of marriage: the good of the spouses themselves and the transmission of life."
It`s not that anti-sexual as you think. And we all know that sometimes it takes a lot of efforts until a pregnancy occurs. I don`t feel the Church is prudish.
I think the Church`s teaching is time-honoured and reasonable, while giving me a great vision to follow and fullfill my sexuality in love with my wife.
As for chastity - I say this because I feel you may be a sympathizer of Buddhism - they also regard chastity as a spiritual state of being that a disciple should try to achieve, and so do all the great spiritual traditions of the world. There must be some wisdom in chastity, don`t you also think?
kind regards,
I understand your points - you are thinking from a very modern perspective.
However, if you want to discuss this issue I would give you the advice to (at least) understand the position of the Church on the role of human sexuality, i.e. in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, from 2331ff. It`s a wonderful vision of human sexuality, difficult, yes, but then again we are talking about a spiritual life here and not about living as moderns do, according to their own personal feeling and reasoning.
Consider article 2362: "Sexuality is a source of joy and pleasure...", and 2363: "the spouses` union achieves the twofold end of marriage: the good of the spouses themselves and the transmission of life."
It`s not that anti-sexual as you think. And we all know that sometimes it takes a lot of efforts until a pregnancy occurs. I don`t feel the Church is prudish.
I think the Church`s teaching is time-honoured and reasonable, while giving me a great vision to follow and fullfill my sexuality in love with my wife.
As for chastity - I say this because I feel you may be a sympathizer of Buddhism - they also regard chastity as a spiritual state of being that a disciple should try to achieve, and so do all the great spiritual traditions of the world. There must be some wisdom in chastity, don`t you also think?
kind regards,
10.7.2009 | 10:40am
Khanski says:
After WWII, a German pastor was released from a concentration camp, and commented on his lack of speaking out against the NAZI party that went something like this:
"When they took the Trade Unionists I did not speak,
When they took the Jews I did not speak,
When they took the Catholics I did not speak,
When I wanted to speak, no one was there to listen"
One of the earliest Christian documents we have is the "Teaching of the Apostles" (~60-100 A.D.). Part I, sec. 2 state "Practice no magic, sorcery, adultery, abortion or infanticide"
What is very sad, is that so few of the "shepherds" guided their flock. I am sure many are well meaning and need our prayers. However, we have ceased any contributions to anything associated with the US Catholic Bishops , and have sent more contributions to the Cardinal Newman, and the Becket group. At least they seem to demonstrate leadership.
"When they took the Trade Unionists I did not speak,
When they took the Jews I did not speak,
When they took the Catholics I did not speak,
When I wanted to speak, no one was there to listen"
One of the earliest Christian documents we have is the "Teaching of the Apostles" (~60-100 A.D.). Part I, sec. 2 state "Practice no magic, sorcery, adultery, abortion or infanticide"
What is very sad, is that so few of the "shepherds" guided their flock. I am sure many are well meaning and need our prayers. However, we have ceased any contributions to anything associated with the US Catholic Bishops , and have sent more contributions to the Cardinal Newman, and the Becket group. At least they seem to demonstrate leadership.
10.7.2009 | 12:19pm
Charles Cassil says:
khanski: My recollection of the last line is even more chilling: "And when they came to take me away, there was no one left to speak for me."
10.7.2009 | 1:02pm
Gail F says:
Dr. Whitehead, thank you for this article. As a layperson, I am frequently dumbfounded by the actions and words (or lack of them) from bishops.
Now, I know that a certain amount of tolerance is necessary. Someone mentioned the Arian heresy -- and a huge percentage of Christians at the time, not just bishops, were Arians. You can't make the Donatist mistake and condemn everyone for all time, you have to be able to take them back. Just as after World War II, Germans and Italians had to be accepted back into the Church and not cut off forever despite the truly horrific crimes of their governments and many individuals. Were all those people "truly" repentant? Probably not. Were many of them lukewarm both when their countries or factions were committing sins and heresies, and still lukewarm after returning to "normal"? Probably. Bishops deal with the mass of people, and priests with the individuals. The heretical notions so prevalent in our society call for a certain amount of tolerance, just so that they can be forgiven later. But it seems to me that we've gone beyond that.
Likewise, I'm sure that the bishops don't want to make it impossible to be a Catholic politician.
But how can it be that they're not alarmed by has actually happened? It does seem to me that they don't believe what they say. I know that for the last 2000 years the really great bishops have been few and far between. But I think we could use one in America right now.
Now, I know that a certain amount of tolerance is necessary. Someone mentioned the Arian heresy -- and a huge percentage of Christians at the time, not just bishops, were Arians. You can't make the Donatist mistake and condemn everyone for all time, you have to be able to take them back. Just as after World War II, Germans and Italians had to be accepted back into the Church and not cut off forever despite the truly horrific crimes of their governments and many individuals. Were all those people "truly" repentant? Probably not. Were many of them lukewarm both when their countries or factions were committing sins and heresies, and still lukewarm after returning to "normal"? Probably. Bishops deal with the mass of people, and priests with the individuals. The heretical notions so prevalent in our society call for a certain amount of tolerance, just so that they can be forgiven later. But it seems to me that we've gone beyond that.
Likewise, I'm sure that the bishops don't want to make it impossible to be a Catholic politician.
But how can it be that they're not alarmed by has actually happened? It does seem to me that they don't believe what they say. I know that for the last 2000 years the really great bishops have been few and far between. But I think we could use one in America right now.
10.7.2009 | 1:03pm
Kevin Loughran says:
Didn't Pope Leo XIII anticipate all of this in his encyclical Testem Benevolentiae Nostrae in 1899 when he warned about the nascent heresy of so-called "Americanism":
The underlying principle of these new opinions is that, in order to more easily attract those who differ from her, the Church should shape her teachings more in accord with the spirit of the age and relax some of her ancient severity and make some concessions to new opinions. Many think that these concessions should be made not only in regard to ways of living, but even in regard to doctrines which belong to the deposit of the faith. They contend that it would be opportune, in order to gain those who differ from us, to omit certain points of her teaching which are of lesser importance, and to tone down the meaning which the Church has always attached to them. It does not need many words, beloved son, to prove the falsity of these ideas if the nature and origin of the doctrine which the Church proposes are recalled to mind. The Vatican Council says concerning this point: "For the doctrine of faith which God has revealed has not been proposed, like a philosophical invention to be perfected by human ingenuity, but has been delivered as a divine deposit to the Spouse of Christ to be faithfully kept and infallibly declared. Hence that meaning of the sacred dogmas is perpetually to be retained which our Holy Mother, the Church, has once declared, nor is that meaning ever to be departed from under the pretense or pretext of a deeper comprehension of them." —Constitutio de Fide Catholica, Chapter iv.
It seems this corruption is made manifest in the unfortunate comments of the Archbishop. We can't say we weren't warned.
The underlying principle of these new opinions is that, in order to more easily attract those who differ from her, the Church should shape her teachings more in accord with the spirit of the age and relax some of her ancient severity and make some concessions to new opinions. Many think that these concessions should be made not only in regard to ways of living, but even in regard to doctrines which belong to the deposit of the faith. They contend that it would be opportune, in order to gain those who differ from us, to omit certain points of her teaching which are of lesser importance, and to tone down the meaning which the Church has always attached to them. It does not need many words, beloved son, to prove the falsity of these ideas if the nature and origin of the doctrine which the Church proposes are recalled to mind. The Vatican Council says concerning this point: "For the doctrine of faith which God has revealed has not been proposed, like a philosophical invention to be perfected by human ingenuity, but has been delivered as a divine deposit to the Spouse of Christ to be faithfully kept and infallibly declared. Hence that meaning of the sacred dogmas is perpetually to be retained which our Holy Mother, the Church, has once declared, nor is that meaning ever to be departed from under the pretense or pretext of a deeper comprehension of them." —Constitutio de Fide Catholica, Chapter iv.
It seems this corruption is made manifest in the unfortunate comments of the Archbishop. We can't say we weren't warned.
10.7.2009 | 3:06pm
Robberson says:
As some know, I am a relative new-comer to the Catholic Church. However, as a former bank president for many years I am not a new-comer to the loud voice of money.
I suspect and only suspect that were I a Bishop responsible for so many financial commitments, I might, just might possibly without recognizing, it be influenced in my decisions by money or the lack of it. This is not to excuse the actions of some regarding these issues but rather to face the fact that money often speaks louder than words-even the words of our Pope.
I suspect and only suspect that were I a Bishop responsible for so many financial commitments, I might, just might possibly without recognizing, it be influenced in my decisions by money or the lack of it. This is not to excuse the actions of some regarding these issues but rather to face the fact that money often speaks louder than words-even the words of our Pope.
10.7.2009 | 4:45pm
Joe says:
And for heaven's sake abortions did not start up when the Roe v. Wade decision was issued. There have always been women who have decided to end pregnancies and there always will be no matter what the law or the bishops say.
In the first of these sentences Richard gives us a strawman. Nobody has said that abortions "started up" with Roe v. Wade. In the second sentence he comes close to making an empirical claim from his armchair, namely that Roe v. Wade has had no significant effect on the number of abortions in America. Why do I think he says this? Because interpreting him charitably dictates interpreting him as saying something relevant. And it's irrelevant to the discussion that there have "always" been some abortions. But the empirical claim that he should be making if he wants to say something relevant is, sadly for him, utterly false. The impact of Roe is not some figment of a sex-crazed hung-up clerical mind, it's incredibly well documented.
Richard also claims that the issues are complex, that the Church should recognize the complexities of politics, etc. But he shows his ignorance of how truly radical the Roe regime is, even when measured against such bastions of social conservatism as the Western European nations. The kind of "compromise" positions one finds there, though still not acceptable on the Catholic view, are completely ruled out by Roe. If you are adamant that Roe not be overturned, no matter what the cost - which describes the official position of one of our political parties - then you are against anything but the most nugatory restrictions on abortion. There is nothing strange about interpreting this as support for abortion - nothing that is even close to the Democrats' playbook (at least at the national level) can be called a compromise on the question of abortion.
In the first of these sentences Richard gives us a strawman. Nobody has said that abortions "started up" with Roe v. Wade. In the second sentence he comes close to making an empirical claim from his armchair, namely that Roe v. Wade has had no significant effect on the number of abortions in America. Why do I think he says this? Because interpreting him charitably dictates interpreting him as saying something relevant. And it's irrelevant to the discussion that there have "always" been some abortions. But the empirical claim that he should be making if he wants to say something relevant is, sadly for him, utterly false. The impact of Roe is not some figment of a sex-crazed hung-up clerical mind, it's incredibly well documented.
Richard also claims that the issues are complex, that the Church should recognize the complexities of politics, etc. But he shows his ignorance of how truly radical the Roe regime is, even when measured against such bastions of social conservatism as the Western European nations. The kind of "compromise" positions one finds there, though still not acceptable on the Catholic view, are completely ruled out by Roe. If you are adamant that Roe not be overturned, no matter what the cost - which describes the official position of one of our political parties - then you are against anything but the most nugatory restrictions on abortion. There is nothing strange about interpreting this as support for abortion - nothing that is even close to the Democrats' playbook (at least at the national level) can be called a compromise on the question of abortion.
10.8.2009 | 2:15am
Joanna Ionescu says:
Richard's comment (10.6.2009, 11:29 am)
"And for heaven's sake abortions did not start up when the Roe v. Wade decision was issued. There have always been women who have decided to end pregnancies and there always will be no matter what the law or the bishops say...and it seems that it has become such a lightning rod issue as a result of the abuse scandals and loss of clerical power and influence."
By the same logic, there have always been and there will always be human beings who commit murder, steel, discriminate, use terrorist tactics such as little bombings here and there (apparently as means to protest whatever), engage in genocides and ethnic cleanings, no matter what the law or the bishops say, so why not legalize all such actions? Nay, why not enshrine them (the actions) as constitutional rights for individuals or nations?
Working out the conclusions of such a logic was not too difficult, I admit. But no matter how hard I tried, I could not see the causal connection between abortion turned into a "lightening rod issue" after Roe v. Wade and the abuse scandals and loss of clerical power and influence. The only causality I can see here is that Roe v. Wade itself generated the subsequent religious, cultural and political polarization. Perhaps someone, or Richard himself, could elaborate a little in order to clarify the reasoning behind this connection, if it is not too much to ask.
"And for heaven's sake abortions did not start up when the Roe v. Wade decision was issued. There have always been women who have decided to end pregnancies and there always will be no matter what the law or the bishops say...and it seems that it has become such a lightning rod issue as a result of the abuse scandals and loss of clerical power and influence."
By the same logic, there have always been and there will always be human beings who commit murder, steel, discriminate, use terrorist tactics such as little bombings here and there (apparently as means to protest whatever), engage in genocides and ethnic cleanings, no matter what the law or the bishops say, so why not legalize all such actions? Nay, why not enshrine them (the actions) as constitutional rights for individuals or nations?
Working out the conclusions of such a logic was not too difficult, I admit. But no matter how hard I tried, I could not see the causal connection between abortion turned into a "lightening rod issue" after Roe v. Wade and the abuse scandals and loss of clerical power and influence. The only causality I can see here is that Roe v. Wade itself generated the subsequent religious, cultural and political polarization. Perhaps someone, or Richard himself, could elaborate a little in order to clarify the reasoning behind this connection, if it is not too much to ask.
10.8.2009 | 3:07am
William James says:
This is a good and timely article. Recently, I have made similar observations myself in comments at the Catholic News Agency website. About all I can add is that the current generation of weak American bishops will retire soon and be replaced by a new generation of strong leaders. The leadership of this current generation is drawn mostly from baby-boomers. Has anything good ever come from the baby-boomer generation?
10.13.2009 | 12:29pm
Its the orientation says:
A cursory ten minute search on Bishop Sheehan reveals the following:
http://lospequenos.org/RohrDossier/Material/16.1%20The%20Archbishop%20and%20the%20Priest.pdf
http://www.bishop-accountability.org/resources/resource-files/databases/DallasMorningNewsBishops.htm
http://faithfulrebel.blogspot.com/2007/08/one-of-worst-articles-yet-on-motu.html
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1125949/posts
http://74.125.113.132/search?q=cache:5GP4NxuLEtsJ:rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2009/08/i-worked-under-cardinal-bernardin-and.html+bishop+sheehan+bernardin&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
It does not surprise me. These "bishops" who do not see the need to protect babies (or children or youth) or protect the tree of life and its fruit (sacrament of communion) from desecration, all have the same MO: they were rectors of seminaries, they were high up in the Bishops Conference, and they protect, defend and ordain predatory homosexuals. They serve the fairy kingdom and they need to be removed from the Church.
http://lospequenos.org/RohrDossier/Material/16.1%20The%20Archbishop%20and%20the%20Priest.pdf
http://www.bishop-accountability.org/resources/resource-files/databases/DallasMorningNewsBishops.htm
http://faithfulrebel.blogspot.com/2007/08/one-of-worst-articles-yet-on-motu.html
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1125949/posts
http://74.125.113.132/search?q=cache:5GP4NxuLEtsJ:rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2009/08/i-worked-under-cardinal-bernardin-and.html+bishop+sheehan+bernardin&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
It does not surprise me. These "bishops" who do not see the need to protect babies (or children or youth) or protect the tree of life and its fruit (sacrament of communion) from desecration, all have the same MO: they were rectors of seminaries, they were high up in the Bishops Conference, and they protect, defend and ordain predatory homosexuals. They serve the fairy kingdom and they need to be removed from the Church.
For at least 40 years now, the American bishops have refused to act on the juridical norms by punishing the guilty. Whatever the "reasons" they give, the reality is that they have no intention of ever following those norms. They have so completely gutted the sense of those laws that very few Catholics even understand that there are laws for punishing offenders. In the incredibly few occasions where some bishop did use canonical writ to punish a manifest sinner, the whole church was taken aback in shock. As if it should be more shocking to punish the guilty than to live in peace with evil without lifting a finger to stop it.
These current men are, by and large, the hand-picked successors to the bishops in the 70's and 80's who consented to the destruction of the liturgy by experimenters, in direct defiance of repeated warnings by the Vatican that only Rome has the authority to modify the Mass. Of course, the bishops were in a sense effectively following the lead of the Vatican itself, which (though issuing warnings repeatedly) almost never took positive steps to stop a particular violator of norms.
What we see is the end result of the reigns of 3 popes over 40 years who did not really wish to make use of the Church's authority to judge and to punish, and preferred to only use the Church's teaching office to admonish, hoping to change hearts with "mercy" rather than with justice. The problem is that it is not an act of mercy to permanently withhold due punishment to the guilty while those guilty scandalize the young and destroy the very notion of due order and obedience to law. That is an injustice to the rest of the Church. It cannot be true mercy to pretend that some exhortation to obstinate and manifest public sinners (usually impersonal exhortation, and often limited to articles in the diocesan newspaper - which is never read by the people who need admonishing) might change their hearts without a whip to get their attention. As God Himself teaches, punishment is a tool for making the guilty take note of their evil - refusing to ever use that tool is a real lack of mercy to sinners.