The Church Flatulent
The Catholic hierarchy is no doubt disappointed that the Blunt-Nelson amendment – designed to provide accommodation for those who, for reasons of conscience, find paying for contraceptive devices and abortifacients unpalatable – failed to pass in the Senate today, and I can easily understand why. Eighteen years ago, as John McCormack pointed out on Tuesday in an article posted on the website of The Weekly Standard, the precise language of that amendment was, as a matter of course, included in the healthcare proposal that came to be called Hillarycare. But, of course, that was then, and this is now. In 1994, the Democrats in the White House, the Senate, and the House of Representatives were eager to avoid offending the Roman Catholic Church and its faithful adherents, and now, with exceedingly rare exceptions, they are intent on humiliating that church and its adherents.
The bishops, priests, and nuns of the American Catholic Church may be dismayed, but they should not be in any way surprised. The situation that they now find themselves in is one of their own making. Thirty-eight years ago, when the Supreme Court handed down its decision inRoe v. Wade, the country was resolutely hostile to abortion on demand. At that time, many Democratic politicians, not all of them Catholic, announced their opposition to abortion. For a time, Bill Clinton and Al Gore were in their number. Had the Church pressed the question resolutely at the time, the 5-4 court decision would quickly have been reversed. As Mr. Dooley was wont to say, the Supreme Court follows the election returns.
But, of course, under the leadership of Archbishop Joseph Bernardin, who became President of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops (NCCB) in 1974, the hierarchy chose to soft-pedal the issue, treating abortion as one among a number of issues, such as the death penalty and the public provision of healthcare, that Catholics should take into consideration when voting in local, state, and national elections. Nowhere did the bishops expressly say that outlawing abortion was no more important than providing healthcare and eliminating the death penalty, but by treating these issues all as part of a “seamless web,” Bernardin and his supporters implied as much.
Moreover, thanks to the efforts of Bernardin and those of his adherents whom he installed as his successors atop the NCCB in later years, Catholic politicians came to realize that they could with impunity publically repudiate the teaching of the Church to which they professed to belong and propagate the notion that pregnant women had a right to kill their children as yet unborn. Mario Cuomo was the pioneer. He tested the waters, encountered criticism, and came away politically unscathed. Before long, virtually every Catholic who held elective office as a member of the Democratic Party occupied the ground that he had cleared. No one was excommunicated for taking this stand. Next to no one was publically reprimanded, and the faithful were never once told that they could not in good conscience vote for pro-abortion candidates. In the meantime, thanks to the silence of a host of clergymen who gave only lip service (if even that) to the notion that abortion is murder, more than forty million unborn Americans were deprived of their lives. It would not be too much to say that those who remained silent in the face of this have blood on their hands.
The Blunt-Nelson amendment failed to pass the Senate today for one reason and one reason only. The supporters of abortion-on-demand are serious about the matter. They will do what it takes to punish at the polls any Democrat who crosses them. The bishops of the Roman Catholic Church in the United States have spent almost four decades intimating with a wink and a nod that they are not really serious about this question. In the process, they have made themselves politically irrelevant.
For the first time in memory, however, the leadership of the American Church has fallen into the hands of a man who appears to have a backbone. We will soon learn what Timothy Dolan, Cardinal-Archbishop of New York, and his episcopal colleagues across the country are made of.
It is not easy to recoup moral authority that one has spent four decades in squandering. It will take a supreme effort on their part. It will take courage. It will take determination and grit. And it will take humility – for it cannot be done if the bishops do not first admit to themselves and to the rest of us that they have been party for a very long time to a pact with the devil. Renewal begins with repentance. If the Church Flatulent does not now become again the Church Militant, in the United States, it will be regarded from now on as the Church Irrelevant.
- Comment (93)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (4)
Comments:
Aug '10
Re: The Church Flatulent
Prof. Rahe, This has got to be a drag chronicling the state of church in this affair.Rusty armor.
Jun '10
Re: The Church Flatulent
Which "organization" has been a stronger supporter of the unborn since Roe V. Wade than the Catholic Church?....
Oh, that's right.
How many more posts on how Card. Bernardin was lukewarm before we can set our sights on defeating the HHS mandate and defending the Church?
May '10
Re: The Church Flatulent
There is another, interesting perspective on this in a source with a somewhat different take generally. HuffPo features an essay entitled 'The End of the Church' that is rather insightful. It gives some perspective on where we are and where we're headed.
Interestingly, it is not only the Church that was despoiled by getting in bed with politicians. The union movement, that started out as a force for good for the common man, has been similarly befouled. Both the Church and the union movement stand as witnesses to the truth that power corrupts.
Sep '10
Re: The Church Flatulent
KC Mulville: Hey, a post about the Catholic Church ... and ... and ... oh yeah, right.
Just out of curiosity, Professor, can you discuss what's theologicallywrong about the Seamless Garment? · 42 minutes ago
See the 1988 Crisis Article Does the Seamless Garment Make Sense by Michael Pakaluk
Jun '11
Re: The Church Flatulent
Dr. Rahe,
I generally agree with all you have said, but with this caveat/observation: Laying so much of the blame at Cardinal Bernardin's feet too easily exonerates the vast numbers of laity who have willingly ignored candidates' pro-abortion voting records and the many (most? vast majority of?) practicing Catholics who knowingly and willingly violate Humanae Vitae's teachings on contraception and sterilization every single day.
Strong Church leadership on these topics will help. But ultimately, just like the success of the Church writ large, it is the laity itself that must embrace the problem and drive change -- even if it means some difficult conversations with family and friends who are Catholic but who vote for openly pro-abortion candidates.
We must all speak up now, and not wait for Church leadership in America to grow a spine (or cure its gas problem).
Jun '10
Re: The Church Flatulent
KC Mulville: Hey, a post about the Catholic Church ... and ... and ... oh yeah, right.
Just out of curiosity, Professor, can you discuss what's theologicallywrong about the Seamless Garment? · 44 minutes ago
The Seamless Garment seems to be just another term for relativism. And we know what the current Pope thinks about relativism. It's a tool that tyrants use to smooth over the inconvenient (to them) truths in natural law.
Edited on March 2, 2012 at 2:49amRe: The Church Flatulent
Thanks Prof. Rahe. My catechism took place during the post Vatican Barnardine era. I was poorly catechized under the leadership of Bernardin and I had to discover the magisterium on my own. It wasn't being taught so it's hard to lay blame any of this on the laity.
Cardinal Dolan's courage makes him a sleeper candidate for the Chair of St. Peter.
Colin B Lane: Dr. Rahe,
I generally agree with all you have said, but with this caveat/observation: Laying so much of the blame at Cardinal Bernardin's feet too easily exonerates the vast numbers of laity who have willingly ignored candidates' pro-abortion voting records and the many (most? vast majority of?) practicing Catholics who knowingly and willingly violateHumanae Vitae's teachings on contraception and sterilization every single day.
Jun '11
Re: The Church Flatulent
Joe Escalante
Thanks Prof. Rahe. My catechism took place during the post Vatican Barnardine era. I was poorly catechized under the leadership of Bernardin and I had to discover the magisterium on my own. It wasn't being taught so it's hard to lay blame any of this on the laity.
5 minutes ago
My catechism wasn't great either. But I know many, many people who vote not only without regard to but in direct contravention of known Church teaching on abortion. Hard to lay that at Bernardin's feet. Sort of like saying, "Boy, if only the university leaders would talk more about the evils of binge drinking on campus, we could eliminate student alcohol problems." Alas, the paying customers have to believe in and embrace the edict.
Feb '12
Re: The Church Flatulent
I think the comments about the clergy being silent about the evils of abortion are way, way, way overdone. I certainly developed my respect for human life and belief the life begins at conception from my Catholic instruction and the examples of many of the religious sisters and priests that shaped my conscience growing up in the seventies and eighties. I sat in the pew last fall almost moved to tears as a visiting nun who works with poor women who are pregnant spoke to our congregation and exhorted my parish in the most beautiful, passionate, and inspiring manner about the issue of abortion and not turning our backs on the unborn.
So while I agree that our church has given too much cover to democratic pols who champion abortion. They certainly have not been silent on the horrors of abortion.
Feb '12
Re: The Church Flatulent
As much as I appreciate Prof. Rahe's attention on the Catholic Church in America, I hardly consider him an expert on this matter, and I find myself agreeing with about half of his points, while the other half seem tainted with too much speculation, too much anecdotal support, or too little hard evidence to support the claims he wants to admit as facts. There are many important themes and observations in Prof. Rahe's posts that deserve to have a light shone upon them, but I can't help but feel he's trying to punch above his weight.
Is there any chance we could get George Weigel or someone with similarly stellar bona fides on the matter of the US Church, its history, and inner workings to comment as a guest contributor on these matters or critique the posts Dr. Rahe has put so much thought into?
Mar '12
Re: The Church Flatulent
I agree with Dr Rahe. A little shock is necessary on the secular front to expose and discuss the issues in order to clear the path for the Church going forward.
However, there is no doubt that propitiation and reparation to God will be the prime mover in restoring peace, justice, holiness, humility and love to a fallen humanity; and it begins with a renewed and increased faith to the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Only then will the Church find it's legs as a militant and teaching influence in securing the rights of individuals to pursue true happiness found in God.
Jan '11
Re: The Church Flatulent
Pseudodionysius
See the 1988 Crisis Article Does the Seamless Garment Make Sense
I've come across the same arguments before. I don't agree with them. They're mostly of the form that if people misinterpret the theory, the theory is to blame. Those who think that the Seamless Garment means that we can equivocate all evils, giving them all the same weight, are misinterpreting the theory. The fact that Catholic pro-choice politicians exploit the misinterpretation for their own purposes doesn't mean that the theory itself is wrong.
The reason why I stressed the theological analysis of the theory is to distinguish it from the political. As a political theory, I don't agree with it, but it isn't a political theory. It's a moral theory. (The government owes you protection for your right to life, but doesn't owe you food or clothing. As Christians we do owe it to others to help them as best we can, but not through civil government.) As a theological or moral theory, it works perfectly fine. It says that to be passionate about the beginning of life but ambivalent about the living of life is morally inconsistent.
Jan '11
Re: The Church Flatulent
etoiledunord
The Seamless Garment seems to be just another term for relativism.
With respect, I disagree.
The biggest misinterpretation of Seamless Garment is that it equivocates all evils, or that all the other evils are really planks in the Democrat Party platform, so you're morally obliged to be a big spending liberal. (Mario Cuomo interprets it that way, but he was a big-spending liberal long before Bernerdin came along. Cuomo is not a theologian, no matter what he thinks of himself.)
Now I'd argue that the better interpretation of what Bernardin was trying to get at is found in the writings of the two most recent popes. When John Paul II talks about the culture of life, or when Benedict scorns the culture of death, that's what we're talking about. It isn't just one issue.
It isn't that if we're ambivalent about living, it's OK to be ambivalent about abortion. I don't think that Bernardin was saying that we need to weaken our resolve on abortion. Our opposition to that is firm ... we need to bring that same devotion to defend the rest of life.
Mar '12
Re: The Church Flatulent
"... I don't think that Bernardin was saying that we need to weaken our resolve on abortion. Our opposition to that is firm ... we need to bringthat same devotion to defend the rest of life. "
Point taken. However, Bernardin's inability to draw a line in the sand as Dr Rahe stipulates is an epic failure in terms of practical application for implementing what should be the Church's teaching influence on society.
Aug '10
Re: The Church Flatulent
Dr Rahe, when you titled this post, did you have in mind these lines from The Inferno?
ma prima avea ciascun la lingua stretta
coi denti, verso lor duca, per cenno;
ed elli avea del cul fatto trombetta.
Re: The Church Flatulent
KC Mulville: Hey, a post about the Catholic Church ... and ... and ... oh yeah, right.
Just out of curiosity, Professor, can you discuss what's theologicallywrong about the Seamless Garment? · 12 hours ago
I did in my earlier posts. It confuses the moral teaching of the Church with the politics of a certain set of churchmen, leaving the laity to suppose that supporting an expansion of the welfare state is their duty as Christians.
Re: The Church Flatulent
James Gawron: Dr. Rahe,
When you get the chance please review and comment on my essay "My View of Abortion and Embryonics: An essay within an essay". I connect all the dots with my Constitutional arguments at the end. It is very long. I'm sorry for that. The subject matter demanded it.
Regards,
Jim · 11 hours ago
Will do after I am done teaching today. You are right about the subject matter.
Re: The Church Flatulent
Samwise Gamgee: Which "organization" has been a stronger supporter of the unborn since Roe V. Wade than the Catholic Church?....
Oh, that's right.
How many more posts on how Card. Bernardin was lukewarm before we can set our sights on defeating the HHS mandate and defending the Church? · 11 hours ago
If you mean by "the Catholic Church," the recent Popes, you are certainly right. If you mean the institutional Catholic Church in the Untied States, I beg to differ. The various groups of evangelical Protestants have done much better.
Re: The Church Flatulent
Colin B Lane: Dr. Rahe,
I generally agree with all you have said, but with this caveat/observation: Laying so much of the blame at Cardinal Bernardin's feet too easily exonerates the vast numbers of laity who have willingly ignored candidates' pro-abortion voting records and the many (most? vast majority of?) practicing Catholics who knowingly and willingly violateHumanae Vitae's teachings on contraception and sterilization every single day.
Strong Church leadership on these topics will help. But ultimately, just like the success of the Church writ large, it is the laity itself that must embrace the problem and drive change -- even if it means some difficult conversations with family and friends who are Catholic but who vote for openly pro-abortion candidates.
We must allspeak up now, and not wait for Church leadership in America to grow a spine (or cure its gas problem). · 11 hours ago
I agree. I focus on the bishops, however, because their failure as teachers has sanctioned the laity's failure to act. Think of the message that they have repeatedly sent.
Sep '10
Re: The Church Flatulent
KC Mulville
Pseudodionysius
See the 1988 Crisis Article Does the Seamless Garment Make Sense
I've come across the same arguments before. I don't agree with them.
To fully understand Cardinal Bernardin's theory, you have to understand the role that Father Hehir played in developing it.