Rosa DeLauro, CNS, and the Disoriented Catholic Left
April 25, 2012
George Weigel
One does wonder, sometimes, just what goes on at Catholic News Service (CNS), an agency that wouldn’t exist were it not for the U.S. bishops and the bishops’ conference. This past April 16, CNS distributed a lengthy interview with Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., giving her a platform to blast the 2013 federal budget proposed by Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., and to badger Cardinal Timothy Dolan to pay as much attention to “the poor, the hungry, the middle class, the people who are going to be eviscerated by the Ryan budget” as Dolan and the bishops he leads are paying to the defense of religious freedom.
The Congresswoman’s appeal was specifically Catholic—“my Church, the Catholic Church, needs to speak out loud on this issue”—which involved an irony left wholly unexamined by CNS. For Rosa DeLauro’s voting record is in some tension, to put it gently, with Catholic understandings of justice.
The Catholic Church teaches the inalienable right to life of the unborn and insists that that obvious moral truth be acknowledged in law; Rep. DeLauro is a consistent pro-abortion vote in the House. The Catholic Church worked with the District of Columbia education authorities to provide “opportunity scholarships” to Catholic inner-city schools for poor children; Rep. DeLauro supported the Obama administration’s cruel refusal to fund that program. The bishops have declared that religious freedom is under serious assault in the United States today; the gentlewoman from Connecticut has been notably AWOL in defending the first of American liberties.
How, then does Congresswoman DeLauro imagine herself as someone who speaks for “my Church, the Catholic Church?” My hunch is that she imagines herself a spokesperson for authentic Catholicism because she, like many other Catholics on the port side of both American politics and the Church, have long thought that they alone hold the high ground at the intersection of Catholic social teaching and public policy.
Memo to Congresswoman DeLauro and friends: Those days are over.
They’re over because four decades of intellectual and political work, coupled with extensive care for women in crisis pregnancies, have made the pro-life cause the cultural marker of serious Catholicism in America.
They’re over because much of the Catholic left has obstinately refused to promote religious freedom in full and the inalienable right to life as priority social justice issues.
And they’re over because contemporary history has vindicated Catholicism’s anti-statist social justice principle, subsidiarity.
The impending fiscal meltdown of European welfare states vindicates subsidiarity by making clear that providing necessary aid to those in genuine need means, among other measures, developing the associational and charitable instincts of civil society. The alternative is state bankruptcy and social chaos.
Then there is Obamacare, which flatly contradicts subsidiarity and its principled rejection of vast concentrations of state power—the dangers of which are amply demonstrated by the coercive HHS “contraceptive mandate.” The universal health care the Church rightly seeks must be accomplished by means other than handing over one-sixth of the economy (and critical medical decisions) to unregulated regulators.
These home truths are bad news for Rosa DeLauro and those of her persuasion. Now, to make matters worse, here is Paul Ryan, a congressman of uncommon intelligence who can ably argue the public policy implications of Catholic social doctrine and who understands that what the Church asks of a just society is the empowerment of the poor– breaking the cycle of welfare dependency and unleashing the creativity the Church believes God builds into every human soul.
Paul Ryan is the Catholic left’s worst nightmare and his demonization from that quarter has just begun. Ryan is a big boy, though, and he’ll fight his corner well. That argument might even lead to some consensus about empowerment-based anti-poverty strategies and fiscally responsible social welfare policies among serious Catholics of both political parties.
Rather than being a megaphone for dissenting Catholics posing as authentic representatives of the Church and hyperventilating about people being “eviscerated” by a budget, might CNS help provide a level playing field for the debate?
George Weigel is Distinguished Senior Fellow of the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, D.C.
Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.
Comments:
4.25.2012 | 10:57am
Fr Michael says:
It would be nice if Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro and her Team Obama colleagues would offer a budget which is not asking our grandchildren and great-grandchildren (and China) to fund the benefits of those living now. All the Democrats in the House of Representative voted against Obama's budget. What the political process is effectively doing is just offering a series of bribes/benefits in exchange for votes. The reality is that we can not afford to fund all the promises made to those living today. I am a senior - Yes, it is okay to discuss cutting my benefits now for the sake of the common good. Taking all the money from the millionaires will not solve the problem. We should be asking Team Obama for their alternative, rather than trashing Ryan who has made an honest attempt slow our race toward the abyss.
4.25.2012 | 12:19pm
Luke T. says:
Great and necessary commentary on the sufferings of the church today.
Church of the East Member,
The church today is quickly becoming the only voice of authority or revelance in the public square. What other reason could explain the attacks on her from every corner of the that square? If the church had no authority and relevance she would be left alone, to herself, ignored, laughed at, pitied, forgotten. No, people "instinctively sense" she is what she claims to be, the universal church stretching out through all time and eternity, the body of Christ, His bride, His hands and feet in this world. Because this is so, when she speaks those who disagree with her can not ignore her. No, she must be insulted, scorned, mocked, brought to heel. But it is all in vain.
Church of the East Member,
The church today is quickly becoming the only voice of authority or revelance in the public square. What other reason could explain the attacks on her from every corner of the that square? If the church had no authority and relevance she would be left alone, to herself, ignored, laughed at, pitied, forgotten. No, people "instinctively sense" she is what she claims to be, the universal church stretching out through all time and eternity, the body of Christ, His bride, His hands and feet in this world. Because this is so, when she speaks those who disagree with her can not ignore her. No, she must be insulted, scorned, mocked, brought to heel. But it is all in vain.
4.25.2012 | 12:26pm
The Moz says:
If people by now don't see that poor morality always leads to bad economic performance and poverty, then maybe only the collapse of the euro will make them open their eyes.
Not unless you address the morals of a community can you begin to address "poverty".
For all comfortable Americans who think there's poverty in America, HA! There is if anything too much material wealth among so-called poor Americans. Go to Eastern Europe and see real poverty where kids are winning international math competitions and wiping the floor with even middle class Americans.
The problem is morals not "wealth". People simply have forgotten that the rules of life are like it or not, conservative. Of course the basics should be covered, like basic health care but the big problem is with attitudes to life and to wealth as if as long as i complain long enough someone else will pay for me.
Bad personal morality, no personal dignity, no honour or courage = bad economic performance, more government, more social division etc.
Did Obama bring America closer together or push it further apart? Answer honestly.
Not unless you address the morals of a community can you begin to address "poverty".
For all comfortable Americans who think there's poverty in America, HA! There is if anything too much material wealth among so-called poor Americans. Go to Eastern Europe and see real poverty where kids are winning international math competitions and wiping the floor with even middle class Americans.
The problem is morals not "wealth". People simply have forgotten that the rules of life are like it or not, conservative. Of course the basics should be covered, like basic health care but the big problem is with attitudes to life and to wealth as if as long as i complain long enough someone else will pay for me.
Bad personal morality, no personal dignity, no honour or courage = bad economic performance, more government, more social division etc.
Did Obama bring America closer together or push it further apart? Answer honestly.
4.25.2012 | 1:22pm
michael Currie says:
C.o.t.e., after taking a deep breath, 2 or 3 in fact, I thought that I would attempt to address your comments calmly, cooly and collectedly, then I thought again. You seem to be of the opinion that the current T.V. series about the Borgias is a news program. It's not. Only willful ignorance or worse can account for your insults regarding the largest, longest lasting and consistant charitable institution that the world has ever or ever will know.
You speak as though you have the inside track on what the majority of the folk feel and think as well as why they think it. Yikes, this is an awesome load you carry particularly while juggling your chrystal ball and carrying the lefts water. Oh and by the way everyone I knew voted for McGovern including me.
You speak as though you have the inside track on what the majority of the folk feel and think as well as why they think it. Yikes, this is an awesome load you carry particularly while juggling your chrystal ball and carrying the lefts water. Oh and by the way everyone I knew voted for McGovern including me.
4.25.2012 | 1:31pm
Joseph Quixote says:
To Church of the East,
Serious Catholics realize that if we are not able to defend the most innocent, the most helpless, and the most in need (50+ million innocents killed since 1973) then we are unable to concentrate upon other matters. Is there not a hierarchy of need and therfore actions? I ask you what is worse, the killing of innocents in the womb or the "unjust domination of society by the rich."
(even if we accept your statment as being true)
If you accept that the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit then you must see that what the Church considers as important as actually having Importance.
Do you believe that the Bishops are guided by the HS or do they just have an axe to grind like everyone else in secular society? You need to look at infalliability and not just in the sense of the Pope. The Bishops are in agreement about the horror of abortion and faithful catholics need to put their prayers, actions and money against this evil.
The "seamless garment" argument which you seem to put forth is thankfully (in my opinion) going the way of the dodo bird.
Serious Catholics realize that if we are not able to defend the most innocent, the most helpless, and the most in need (50+ million innocents killed since 1973) then we are unable to concentrate upon other matters. Is there not a hierarchy of need and therfore actions? I ask you what is worse, the killing of innocents in the womb or the "unjust domination of society by the rich."
(even if we accept your statment as being true)
If you accept that the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit then you must see that what the Church considers as important as actually having Importance.
Do you believe that the Bishops are guided by the HS or do they just have an axe to grind like everyone else in secular society? You need to look at infalliability and not just in the sense of the Pope. The Bishops are in agreement about the horror of abortion and faithful catholics need to put their prayers, actions and money against this evil.
The "seamless garment" argument which you seem to put forth is thankfully (in my opinion) going the way of the dodo bird.
4.25.2012 | 1:43pm
Tony Francois says:
Church of the East Member:
Is it universally true that those who defend the right to life of the unborn and the aged are indifferent to, and inactive in the alleviation of, the suffering of all others? Is it universally true that anyone who proposes any fiscal reform of social safety net programs in America hates the poor? Is it universally true that the Social Security Administration has more compassion for the living poor than the National Right to Life Committee?
My experience, at least, is that those who dedicate their charitable time to defense of the unborn and the aged are heavily involved in charity to the families of those they are serving. The work of crisis pregnancy centers in particular is largely an effort to provide material support, along with emotional and spiritual support, to women who are not getting them from the fathers of their children or their broader families.
Perhaps you could explain (with evidentiary support) how it is that an effort to ensure that Social Security and Medicare are solvent in the future is 'abdicating the pro-life ethic at all points between the beginning and end of life.' Do we not have an obligation to future generations to ensure (a) they are not taxed into poverty to pay for today's overspending, (b) that they get actual benefits to which they have a reasonable expectation, and (c) that current benefits are not de-valued, in whole or in part, by the inflation that is the most likely alternative to failure to reform the current system.
Perhaps you could also explain why these safety net programs are not means-tested? How in the world can one justify, under Catholic social teaching or any other ethic, why the wealthy and the truly poor get the same benefits?
You might also observe the large role that the very wealthy play in underwriting abortion around the world (e.g. Warren Buffet), and wonder why they are so dedicated to abortion as a cause. Hint: read the economic discussion of abortion's role in our economy in the Supreme Court decision in Casey v. Planned Parenthood. There you will see the extent to which the Court considers abortion as an essential social practice for maintaining the wealth of our nation.
Is it universally true that those who defend the right to life of the unborn and the aged are indifferent to, and inactive in the alleviation of, the suffering of all others? Is it universally true that anyone who proposes any fiscal reform of social safety net programs in America hates the poor? Is it universally true that the Social Security Administration has more compassion for the living poor than the National Right to Life Committee?
My experience, at least, is that those who dedicate their charitable time to defense of the unborn and the aged are heavily involved in charity to the families of those they are serving. The work of crisis pregnancy centers in particular is largely an effort to provide material support, along with emotional and spiritual support, to women who are not getting them from the fathers of their children or their broader families.
Perhaps you could explain (with evidentiary support) how it is that an effort to ensure that Social Security and Medicare are solvent in the future is 'abdicating the pro-life ethic at all points between the beginning and end of life.' Do we not have an obligation to future generations to ensure (a) they are not taxed into poverty to pay for today's overspending, (b) that they get actual benefits to which they have a reasonable expectation, and (c) that current benefits are not de-valued, in whole or in part, by the inflation that is the most likely alternative to failure to reform the current system.
Perhaps you could also explain why these safety net programs are not means-tested? How in the world can one justify, under Catholic social teaching or any other ethic, why the wealthy and the truly poor get the same benefits?
You might also observe the large role that the very wealthy play in underwriting abortion around the world (e.g. Warren Buffet), and wonder why they are so dedicated to abortion as a cause. Hint: read the economic discussion of abortion's role in our economy in the Supreme Court decision in Casey v. Planned Parenthood. There you will see the extent to which the Court considers abortion as an essential social practice for maintaining the wealth of our nation.
4.25.2012 | 5:24pm
Francis Patrick says:
Now that the Bishops have strenuously spoken out on the failings of the Ryan budget (http://www.usccb.org/news/2012/12-063.cfm) and the Arizona immigration law (http://www.usccb.org/news/2012/12-071.cfm), can we on the left start calling those who support such laws anti-Catholic, as we have been for believing that preventive health services -including contraception- should be available to all workers through their employer health plan, even if we work in a Catholic University?
I think for those of us on the left, or in reality, in the middle (it is the Bishops who are out of the mainstream), feel that we are being actively pushed away by our Church by the Bishops and other professional Catholic commentators. Is it so wrong to advocate for increased nutritional assistance? To make sure there is an adequate supply of HUD VASH vouchers so that our veterans don't sleep under bridges? Since the Bishops themselves say "a just spending bill cannot rely on disproportionate cuts in essential services to poor and vulnerable persons" is it wrong to ask why there aren't statements from the pulpit and letters read at Mass asking for parishioners to contact their Congressman?
But contraception? Rally the troops. Send buses to DC. Read letters in the pulpit and encourage parishioners to intimidate their Church-going Democratic Members of Congress after Mass on Sunday.
As the pews continue to empty, are we really in a position where we should be making a large group of Catholics feel unwelcome in their own Church?
You do not decide what is Catholic. Neither do I.
I think for those of us on the left, or in reality, in the middle (it is the Bishops who are out of the mainstream), feel that we are being actively pushed away by our Church by the Bishops and other professional Catholic commentators. Is it so wrong to advocate for increased nutritional assistance? To make sure there is an adequate supply of HUD VASH vouchers so that our veterans don't sleep under bridges? Since the Bishops themselves say "a just spending bill cannot rely on disproportionate cuts in essential services to poor and vulnerable persons" is it wrong to ask why there aren't statements from the pulpit and letters read at Mass asking for parishioners to contact their Congressman?
But contraception? Rally the troops. Send buses to DC. Read letters in the pulpit and encourage parishioners to intimidate their Church-going Democratic Members of Congress after Mass on Sunday.
As the pews continue to empty, are we really in a position where we should be making a large group of Catholics feel unwelcome in their own Church?
You do not decide what is Catholic. Neither do I.
4.26.2012 | 8:36am
RJEastHartford says:
While I respect and certainly agree with the author’s commentary regarding the moral authority of the church it is clear he has a political agenda as well. Not only is it on display here but also is found in commentary he has provided for other publications. Comments such as: “lead to some consensus about empowerment-based anti-poverty strategies and fiscally responsible social welfare policies among serious Catholics of both political parties’ gives the implication of cutting government, that not only would assist the poor but the middle class as well. This at a time as corporations cost shift health care, retirement/pension security, short term disability etc. in search of increased quarterly profits. Can the middle class (and poor working class), under this assault, have the ability to continue contributing to the appeals, as they increasingly become need-based recipients of such aid? This debate should be happening right now during this election year. Large corporations directed by large hedge funds (% shareholders) lobby to have their taxes cut, have advantage in the bankruptcy laws and seek legal(?) alternatives to new and old financial regulations and seek to privatize and monetize tax revenue streams. While First Things is commentary on religion in the public square the author is offering essentially the same advice as Rep. DeLauro, differing only in that it is from a conservative Republican, anti-union and anti-middle class and working class agenda. They are both wrong. The country needs this debate.
4.26.2012 | 9:43am
dorothy scott says:
What I as a pro-life Catholic find hard to understand, is why these pseudo Catholics such as Rosa DeLauro, Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden, and many other of our reprensentatives who publicly flaunt the laws of the Catholic church, have not been excommunicated. They are an affront to all Catholics who obey Church laws, and frankly we are puzzled by the inaction of our Church leaders in this respect .
4.26.2012 | 12:14pm
Dean from Ohio says:
I had a dream. Church of the East member was Captain of the S.S. SOS. Let's join them:
First Officer (FO): Captain, she's sinking, our Ship of State.
Captain (C): Nothing that a little smart leadership can't cure, surely. We have just the people at hand.
FO: Well, a 15 degree list to port isn't normal, Captain. It's all we can do to keep it from inclining more. The engineer wants to strip the electrical panels to divert more power to the pumps.
C: During lunch?
FO: Captain, this is an emergency! We've broken out the gas powered portable pumps too. If you look out on the port side you can see them lined up and pumping.
C: What about our carbon footprint? Besides, why all this attention to the port side? That's all I near, "port this, port that." Surely the starboard side must have its own problems.
FO: The Damage Control Officer, Commander Weigel, says the main leaks are on the port side. We are pumping there because that's where the water is, and where the leaks are.
C: I remember something about counterflooding from my damage control seminar. Why can't we just open the seacocks on the starboard side and even it out?
FO: Captain, counterflooding is a last ditch resort, when we have a more dangerous list. We should keep trying to stop the leaks and get the seawater out of the port side first.
C: So we have time then. Good. Let's finish lunch and get the main deck cleared for after-lunch recreation. Get those black tubey-looking things off the deck.
FO: Captain, those are pump discharge hoses and that is where the water is going overboard. That's where we have to put our attention: where the water is coming in, and where the water is going out.
C: You are so narrow minded. What about the rest of the ship? We have ten decks between keel and mast, and all you can think about is "where the water is coming in, and where the water is going out." What about everything in between? Good thing you have me for a captain; I have to look after these things myself. What about the dining hall? The ballroom? Our passengers have come to expect entertainment, and we are going to give it to them.
FO: Captain, the electric power, the Damage Control Officer ....
C: Oh, stop it. What does he know anyway? He needs retraining. And who knows? Perhaps even he himself will experience some such transformation in his own life.
FO: Do you want the same thing to happen to this ship that happened to the S.S. COTE?
C: As if that had anything to do with anything! At least I had the good sense to be over a shallow reef. That ship never really sank. It does fine with a 20-degree list to port. We just closed off the wet parts.
FO: Depth under keel 400 is now fathoms. List is now 18 degrees.
C: Steady as she goes!
First Officer (FO): Captain, she's sinking, our Ship of State.
Captain (C): Nothing that a little smart leadership can't cure, surely. We have just the people at hand.
FO: Well, a 15 degree list to port isn't normal, Captain. It's all we can do to keep it from inclining more. The engineer wants to strip the electrical panels to divert more power to the pumps.
C: During lunch?
FO: Captain, this is an emergency! We've broken out the gas powered portable pumps too. If you look out on the port side you can see them lined up and pumping.
C: What about our carbon footprint? Besides, why all this attention to the port side? That's all I near, "port this, port that." Surely the starboard side must have its own problems.
FO: The Damage Control Officer, Commander Weigel, says the main leaks are on the port side. We are pumping there because that's where the water is, and where the leaks are.
C: I remember something about counterflooding from my damage control seminar. Why can't we just open the seacocks on the starboard side and even it out?
FO: Captain, counterflooding is a last ditch resort, when we have a more dangerous list. We should keep trying to stop the leaks and get the seawater out of the port side first.
C: So we have time then. Good. Let's finish lunch and get the main deck cleared for after-lunch recreation. Get those black tubey-looking things off the deck.
FO: Captain, those are pump discharge hoses and that is where the water is going overboard. That's where we have to put our attention: where the water is coming in, and where the water is going out.
C: You are so narrow minded. What about the rest of the ship? We have ten decks between keel and mast, and all you can think about is "where the water is coming in, and where the water is going out." What about everything in between? Good thing you have me for a captain; I have to look after these things myself. What about the dining hall? The ballroom? Our passengers have come to expect entertainment, and we are going to give it to them.
FO: Captain, the electric power, the Damage Control Officer ....
C: Oh, stop it. What does he know anyway? He needs retraining. And who knows? Perhaps even he himself will experience some such transformation in his own life.
FO: Do you want the same thing to happen to this ship that happened to the S.S. COTE?
C: As if that had anything to do with anything! At least I had the good sense to be over a shallow reef. That ship never really sank. It does fine with a 20-degree list to port. We just closed off the wet parts.
FO: Depth under keel 400 is now fathoms. List is now 18 degrees.
C: Steady as she goes!
4.26.2012 | 12:34pm
Dean from Ohio says:
@dorothy scott - "What I as a pro-life Catholic find hard to understand, is why these pseudo Catholics such as Rosa DeLauro, Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden, and many other of our reprensentatives who publicly flaunt the laws of the Catholic church, have not been excommunicated."
This reminds me of what an old Scottish Sergeant major is supposed to have told an young subaltern in the British Army of WWI, when the subaltern proposed throwing a grenade into the German trench just 50 feet away:
"Well, 'ee can do that, an I canna stop you. But they can too."
This reminds me of what an old Scottish Sergeant major is supposed to have told an young subaltern in the British Army of WWI, when the subaltern proposed throwing a grenade into the German trench just 50 feet away:
"Well, 'ee can do that, an I canna stop you. But they can too."
4.26.2012 | 2:10pm
Artaban7 says:
"I know your works; I know that you are neither hot nor cold. I wish you were cold or hot. So because you are lukewarm, I will spit you out of my mouth...Be earnest, therefore, and repent." Revelations 3:15, 19
"I think for those of us on the left, or in reality, in the middle (it is the Bishops who are out of the mainstream), feel that we are being actively pushed away by our Church by the Bishops and other professional Catholic commentators." --Francis Patrick
Francis, were I you, I wouldn't be so eager to claim the middle. The middle tends to be where sinners desensitized to their own sin tend to hang out. Far, far better to be with the Bishops, living counter to the perverse mainstream, the mainstream increasingly similar to the "ye of little faith" admonished by Christ. You are not being "actively pushed away". You are being called to the same thing all of us are as Christians: repentance from sin.
And like all of us, you have the choice, to join yourself with a Church who has welcomed but challenged you, or to choose the idols/ideologies of your own making. May God guide that decision...
"I think for those of us on the left, or in reality, in the middle (it is the Bishops who are out of the mainstream), feel that we are being actively pushed away by our Church by the Bishops and other professional Catholic commentators." --Francis Patrick
Francis, were I you, I wouldn't be so eager to claim the middle. The middle tends to be where sinners desensitized to their own sin tend to hang out. Far, far better to be with the Bishops, living counter to the perverse mainstream, the mainstream increasingly similar to the "ye of little faith" admonished by Christ. You are not being "actively pushed away". You are being called to the same thing all of us are as Christians: repentance from sin.
And like all of us, you have the choice, to join yourself with a Church who has welcomed but challenged you, or to choose the idols/ideologies of your own making. May God guide that decision...
4.27.2012 | 11:11am
Mick Leahy says:
Please take note that the poor in America (and in bankrupt Ireland with its social welfare payments double that of neighbouring, solvent UK) are as rich as Croesus compared to the poor of Christ's time, or of much of the world in our own time. The Church is correct to appoint the unborn innocents being murdered as first priority, they truly are being left with nothing. As for 'universal health care', apart from the obvious of providing the basics, and to ensure dignity for all, the Church should keep out of it. There is an atmosphere in the world now that the most one can hope for is to live as long as possible, at any cost. This, I believe, will lead to the early euthanasia of the common person, in order to spare resources for the super-rich to live a few years longer.
4.27.2012 | 2:14pm
Francis Patrick says:
Artaban7: I welcome your concern for my soul. I assure you, my faith is strong. And I do agree with the bishops on many things. They, for example, are most eloquent on the issue of immigration. I would ask you and other posters to "be with the bishops" on that issue and support the DREAM Act and comprehensive immigration reform with a path to citizenship for those who are in the country now.
I would note that the Bishops lobbied recently in Connecticut to eliminate the death penalty. Where is the condemnation of politicians, particularly Catholic governors who actually participate in the machinery of death for their support of the death penalty? I would ask dorothy scott and others why their animus is reserved only for some and not others?
Every day I choose to be Catholic. My faith is strong. The Church leadership challenges only my patience. The Church gives me comfort.
The bishops have such a strong platform from which they could address serious ills in our society and choose to talk about some issues and not others. I disagree on which ones they choose to focus and wish they would focus on other issues. I do not think that makes me a bad Catholic any more than disagreeing with the President makes you a bad American.
Perhaps the bishops should move out of the perverse mainstream and start focusing on a degraded culture that finds it acceptable to shower wealth and fame on reality television stars and allows people to sleep every night under bridges.
Perhaps the Bishops should avoid the perverse mainstream and discuss how providing health care for all and ensuring that workers have an adequate wage, access to quality healthcare and a dignified retirement is not a partisan issue but is the mark of a just and fully ordered society.
Perhaps we as Catholics should avoid the perverse mainstream of cable television conflict and stop thinking of those who have different political views than us as sinners desensitized to their own sin.
"The middle tends to be where sinners desensitized to their own sin tend to hang out." Wow. Really? is there where we have come?
I would note that the Bishops lobbied recently in Connecticut to eliminate the death penalty. Where is the condemnation of politicians, particularly Catholic governors who actually participate in the machinery of death for their support of the death penalty? I would ask dorothy scott and others why their animus is reserved only for some and not others?
Every day I choose to be Catholic. My faith is strong. The Church leadership challenges only my patience. The Church gives me comfort.
The bishops have such a strong platform from which they could address serious ills in our society and choose to talk about some issues and not others. I disagree on which ones they choose to focus and wish they would focus on other issues. I do not think that makes me a bad Catholic any more than disagreeing with the President makes you a bad American.
Perhaps the bishops should move out of the perverse mainstream and start focusing on a degraded culture that finds it acceptable to shower wealth and fame on reality television stars and allows people to sleep every night under bridges.
Perhaps the Bishops should avoid the perverse mainstream and discuss how providing health care for all and ensuring that workers have an adequate wage, access to quality healthcare and a dignified retirement is not a partisan issue but is the mark of a just and fully ordered society.
Perhaps we as Catholics should avoid the perverse mainstream of cable television conflict and stop thinking of those who have different political views than us as sinners desensitized to their own sin.
"The middle tends to be where sinners desensitized to their own sin tend to hang out." Wow. Really? is there where we have come?
4.28.2012 | 3:42am
G says:
I agree that the Church today, the larger part of it, completely identifies itself with the issue of anti-abortionism, and related issues. With the Pro Life position. As the very core of its being. But Weigel's assertion that this is the right, the "true" Church, is false.
When I younger, years ago, c. 1950-60, I found myself attracted to the core picture that Catholicism - at the time - offered to us. The Church, in that timeframe, was centered around this core image: of Jesus, Joseph, and Mary; living a life of peace and harmony with others.
That was what the CHurch really was. But today? Today the old post-Vatican Church, has been utterly destroyed. Replaced, by George Weigel's Neo Con Church. Which loves war, and worships the embryo.
Weigel asserts that his is the traditional church. But Wegel and the Bishops' church, would have been unrecognizable, and shockingly heretical, to Catholics of that era. The new "Conservative" church of war and embryo-worship, would have been utterly shocking to the old school Church.
When I younger, years ago, c. 1950-60, I found myself attracted to the core picture that Catholicism - at the time - offered to us. The Church, in that timeframe, was centered around this core image: of Jesus, Joseph, and Mary; living a life of peace and harmony with others.
That was what the CHurch really was. But today? Today the old post-Vatican Church, has been utterly destroyed. Replaced, by George Weigel's Neo Con Church. Which loves war, and worships the embryo.
Weigel asserts that his is the traditional church. But Wegel and the Bishops' church, would have been unrecognizable, and shockingly heretical, to Catholics of that era. The new "Conservative" church of war and embryo-worship, would have been utterly shocking to the old school Church.
4.29.2012 | 10:13pm
Peter Wolfgang says:
I'm the president of the Family Institute of Connecticut Action and for whatever it's worth--not much, alas, in our state's third congressional district--I laid out the case against Rosa in 2010:
https://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=449026476715
https://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=449026476715
4.30.2012 | 4:43am
Dean from Ohio says:
@G - "Weigel asserts that his is the traditional church. But Wegel and the Bishops' church, would have been unrecognizable, and shockingly heretical, to Catholics of that era. The new "Conservative" church of war and embryo-worship, would have been utterly shocking to the old school Church."
Nonsense. A prominent feature of the Church from its own first cries of birth has been against infanticide (http://christiancadre.org/member_contrib/cp_infanticide.html). If abortion for sex selection had been technically feasible before the 1980s, pagan culture would have done that instead (as it does now) and the church would have just as roundly condemned it then as now.
A quotation from the link above:
"A chilling letter from a pagan husband to his wife captures the casual nature of this practice among the pagans:
'Know that I am still in Alexandria.... I ask and beg you to take good care of our baby son, and as soon as I received payment I shall send it up to you. If you are delivered (before I come home), if it is a boy keep it, if a girl, discard it."
"Naphtali Lewis, Life in Egypt Under Roman Rule, page 54.
"According to Stark, 'this letter dates from the year 1 BCE, but these patterns persisted among pagans far into the Christian era.' Stark, op. cit., page 97-98."
Indeed, so much so was it accepted in that culture that Herod the Great felt no hesitation to make the choice for infanticide on behalf of the parents for the whole town of Bethlehem. The Holy Family--Jesus, Mary and Joseph--were saved from this cultural pattern imposed by someone "in a hurry" only by direct divine intervention.
Why is it a leap of faith that God works through his Church now to effect the same rescue that he himself performed through an angel in those days? The opposite of God's own continuing plea to save life is not "living a life [there's that that word again] of peace and harmony with others," but a hardened heart:
"Today, if you hear his voice,
do not harden your hearts as you did at Meribah,
as you did that day at Massah in the desert,
where your fathers tested and tried me,
though they had seen what I did.
For forty years I was angry with that generation;
I said, 'They are a people whose hearts go astray,
and they have not known my ways.'
So I declared on oath in my anger,
'They shall never enter my rest.'
Ps 95:7-11 (NIV1984)
A culture, or a Church, that chooses rest over life will in the end have neither.
Nonsense. A prominent feature of the Church from its own first cries of birth has been against infanticide (http://christiancadre.org/member_contrib/cp_infanticide.html). If abortion for sex selection had been technically feasible before the 1980s, pagan culture would have done that instead (as it does now) and the church would have just as roundly condemned it then as now.
A quotation from the link above:
"A chilling letter from a pagan husband to his wife captures the casual nature of this practice among the pagans:
'Know that I am still in Alexandria.... I ask and beg you to take good care of our baby son, and as soon as I received payment I shall send it up to you. If you are delivered (before I come home), if it is a boy keep it, if a girl, discard it."
"Naphtali Lewis, Life in Egypt Under Roman Rule, page 54.
"According to Stark, 'this letter dates from the year 1 BCE, but these patterns persisted among pagans far into the Christian era.' Stark, op. cit., page 97-98."
Indeed, so much so was it accepted in that culture that Herod the Great felt no hesitation to make the choice for infanticide on behalf of the parents for the whole town of Bethlehem. The Holy Family--Jesus, Mary and Joseph--were saved from this cultural pattern imposed by someone "in a hurry" only by direct divine intervention.
Why is it a leap of faith that God works through his Church now to effect the same rescue that he himself performed through an angel in those days? The opposite of God's own continuing plea to save life is not "living a life [there's that that word again] of peace and harmony with others," but a hardened heart:
"Today, if you hear his voice,
do not harden your hearts as you did at Meribah,
as you did that day at Massah in the desert,
where your fathers tested and tried me,
though they had seen what I did.
For forty years I was angry with that generation;
I said, 'They are a people whose hearts go astray,
and they have not known my ways.'
So I declared on oath in my anger,
'They shall never enter my rest.'
Ps 95:7-11 (NIV1984)
A culture, or a Church, that chooses rest over life will in the end have neither.
5.3.2012 | 9:45am
Jason says:
She needs to spend more time in adoration and praying the rosary (and perhaps other devotions). I must say that I felt some of what this congressperson feels, when it comes to controlling Gods gift of life either preventing its beginning or causing its end. My wife and I spent a lot of spiritually challenging time thinking and discussing these things. After a year or so of rosaries, adoration and praying (in addition to mass), we felt the Catholic teaching has always been the right way. This realization came about in a thoughtful way. Not coercive, not easy either. It required a greater understanding of the mysteries, the faith and the teachings on how to live in synergy with the faith.
For that very reason, among others, many millions both in the US and globally regard the witness of orthodox Catholicism as having no authority or relevance in the public square. People instinctively sense the fundamental moral inconsistency in stoutly maintaining a "pro-life" ethic when it comes to the beginning and end of human life, but abdicating that "pro-life" ethic at all points of human life in between, particularly insofar as the unjust domination of society by the rich leads to suffering, destitution, and death for the poor. And so they understandably dismiss the orthodox Catholic moral witness as unworthy of their attention.
I predict, however, that increasing numbers of orthodox Catholics who now subscribe, more or less, to Weigel's perspective, will come around to recognizing this basic moral inconsistency themselves in coming years. Their change of heart will unfold as the ongoing collapse of the world economy that began last decade costs them their own material affluence and privilege, and thus leads the scales that currently conceal the injustices that the rich perpetrate to maintain their power and privilege to fall from their eyes. Unaccustomed poverty and destitution have a remarkable capacity for radically altering people's view of the world. And who knows? Perhaps even Weigel himself will experience some such transformation in his own life.