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:
Sep '10
Re: The Church Flatulent
I'm shocked, shocked, to read this!
Can you believe that Weakland was immediately succeeded by Dolan in the Archdiocese of Milwaukee? Talk about night and day.
Sep '10
Re: The Church Flatulent
And this one from 2008 in reviewing a piece by Hadley Arkes (not then a Jewish-Catholic convert as he is now):
Edited on March 2, 2012 at 6:20pmJan '11
Re: The Church Flatulent
Well I'm somewhat taken aback, since what's being offered as "proof" is nothing more than opinion. The fact that a blogger (Diogenes) virulently criticizes something does not, in fact, constitute proof of anything. Bryan Hehir is included ominously, as if the very mention of his name slams the door shut on any possible objection.
At one point, it's added that Hehir is not to be confused with some rogue Jesuit - who has nothing to do with the discussion, and is only included to provoke outrage.
That's a prime example 0f ad hominem argument. Let's just say that I don't respond well to that kind of argumentation.
That's why I'm asking ... tell me what you think about the morality and theology of the theory itself. We don't need to hear what others have said. It isn't a conversation when all we're doing is tossing assumptions at each other. Anyone can google.
Re: The Church Flatulent
Pseudodionysius:You're claiming that Bernardin's theory was intended to support a political party. But JPII's "culture of life" argues the same moral theory.
No. It doesn't. Diogenes wrote an excellent column back in 2008, using John Finnis's distinction between negative norms (praecepta negativa) semper et ad semper, and affirmative moral principles and norms (praecepta affirmativa) semper sed non ad semper. In it he pillories the article trying to defend the illusionist shell game by Kenneth R. Overberg, S.J. listed on the St Anthony Messenger website. · 2 hours ago
Edited 1 hour ago
I take it, KC, that you did not even bother to read the column of Diogenes that Pseudodionysus links above. It should answer all of your theological questions, and let me add that the distinctions that Diogenes draws accord perfectly with common sense.
Edited on March 2, 2012 at 7:11pmSep '10
Re: The Church Flatulent
The fact that a blogger (Diogenes)
The "blogger" Diogenes was a pseudonymous poster on the Catholic World News website run by Philip Lawler who was comprised of several commenters composing over 4,000 articles. Based on the literary, philosophical and theological horsepower available in the archives, I doubt very much that he/she lacks for credentials.
The flaw in the seamless garment has been analyzed quite extensively by the work of the late Fr Ernest Fortin, SJ, whose major student J. Brian Benestad wrote an excellent text on Catholic social teaching. Page 227 is where the analysis of the 1980's documents produced by the USCCB occurs. This story at Catholic World Report has the subtitle: The conventional wisdom operative in American Catholic social justice circles neglects the role of virtue. That pretty much summarizes the theological and philosophical point in one sentence.
The article is composed by Russell Shaw, formerly secretary for public affairs of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops/United States Catholic Conference from 1969 to 1987. Who does he mention in the article? The same fellows that I have.
Edited on March 2, 2012 at 7:22pmRe: The Church Flatulent
Let me repeat something I have said before. We cannot possibly understand where we are and why we are in trouble if we do not retrace our steps and find the fork in the road where we went wrong. I would submit that the man who led us down the primrose path was Joseph Cardinal Bernardin and that his "seamless garment" argument was the instrument by means of which he deluded a great many Catholics. Unless I am mistaken Cardinal Dolan is in the process of leading us back to that fork in the road and onto a path consistent with the teaching of the Catholic Church.
Sep '10
Re: The Church Flatulent
What do I think? Fairly simple.
The Magisterium of the Catholic Church provided the answers to most of the questions and far too many leaders and teachers succumbed to human temptation and sin in ignoring those teachings in those they instructed from the pulpit. The remedies were outlined by others, voluminously, in the articles and books that I have linked to. It wasn't a failure of reading comprehension; too many clerics and religious actively chose to dissent.
There's a long article by Lawrence J. Engel called The Influence of Saul Alinsky on the Campaign for Human Development written in 1998 in Theological Studies, available here, which documents the -- at that time -- $225 million -- in CHD monies and how it became an integral part of the USCCB.
[ The author argues that the Campaign for Human Development, founded in 1969, is U.S. Catholicism's most significant and longest social experiment in the 20th century. A postconciliar response to an America in crisis, the campaign is a unique theological resource in the development of an indigenous North American theology. Central to its uniqueness was the bishops' embrace of the dean of community organizing, Saul David Alinsky.]
Edited on March 2, 2012 at 7:38pmJan '11
Re: The Church Flatulent
Paul A. Rahe
I take it, KC, that you did not even bother to read the column of Diogenes that Pseudodionysus links above. It should answer all of your theological questions ...
And you would take that wrong.
To be clear. Like philosophy, theology has debates and disputes. This is one of them. The same holds true for every theory in theology. Every theory brings out objections ... which are themselves subject to counter-objections, then defended by one, then attacked by the other, and round and round we go.
Suggesting that those articles should "answer all of my theological questions" is no different from citing Richard Rorty and claiming that he would "answer all of my philosophical questions." No opinion is a final answer. Theology, like philosophy, depends on the back-and-forth.
In other words, it's an ongoing conversation ... and gee, wouldn't it be wonderful to have a website where people could do that kind of thing?
So I ask, again, not for "answers" from citations. Instead, I'm interested in how you think. I first heard about the Seamless Garment during the 1980s - and have been reflecting on the themes since then. I already know the criticisms.
Edited on March 2, 2012 at 7:44pmSep '10
Re: The Church Flatulent
I'll close my comments here with a question. Why was the 1993 Encyclical Veritatis Splendor drafted? It was drafted to reiterate classic Catholic moral theological teaching and to unequivocally condemn proportionalism which was being taught in Catholic seminaries and formation houses, and being used as a justification for allowing many exceptions to that teaching, including contraception. Janet Smith wrote about that in 1993. Dr. Smith was widely believed to have been denied tenure at the University of Notre Dame for committing the offense of defending papal teaching.
Re: The Church Flatulent
KC Mulville
Suggesting that those articles should "answer all of my theological questions" is no different from citing Richard Rorty and claiming that he would "answer all of my philosophical questions." No opinion is a final answer. Theology, like philosophy, depends on the back-and-forth.
In other words, it's an ongoing conversation ... and gee, wouldn't it be wonderful to have a website where people could do that kinds of thing?
So I ask, again, not for "answers" from citations. Instead, I'm interested in how youthink. I first heard about the Seamless Garment during the 1980s - and have been reflecting on the themes since then. I already know the criticisms. · 2 minutes ago
What I think is that the distinction drawn by Diogenes is correct. Abortion is murder. That we are forbidden. As Christians, we are called upon to be our brothers' keepers. How we can best perform this duty is a matter for prudential consideration -- primarily by citizens and statesmen. Any attempt by the clergy to muddy the pertinent distinctions and to suggest that, if we reject abortion, we must as Catholics adopt a particular stance with regard to, say, welfare reform is dangerous and wrong.
Edited on March 2, 2012 at 7:52pmJan '11
Re: The Church Flatulent
Paul A. Rahe
Abortion is murder. That we are forbidden. As Christians, we are called upon to be our brothers' keepers. How we can best perform this duty is a matter for prudential consideration -- primarily by citizens and statesmen.
Then, I would agree with you. But the Seamless Garment theory never asks you to diminish that conviction.In fact, it depends on it.
The argument is not that abortion is just one of many evils. It's that the reason abortion is morally wrong is that it's an attack on life. The sacrilege of abortion is that it destroys life - which is the foundation of all the other graces that God gives us. We are obliged to defend life.
It follows that if there are other attacks on life besides abortion, we can't limit our defense of life to just opposing abortion. That's logic, not a rhetorical plea to stop opposing abortion.
John Paul says the same thing. He claims that the moral law "thou shalt not kill" is the foundation for everything else. We are, bluntly, under orders from God to defend life - whether it's attacked by abortion, euthanasia, ESC, war, or other threats.
Re: The Church Flatulent
I beg to differ. Bernardin's "seamless garment" theory was designed to muddy the distinction between our moral duties and the political program that he advocated, and it achieved its intended end brilliantly. It has even, I believe, confused you .
We may be under orders from God to defend life in all cases when it is attacked by those who advocate abortion and euthanasia. But we are not under orders to defend it in all cases when it is threatened by war. There are such things as just wars, after all. There are even occasions in which it is our duty to kill. Discerning what is our duty when a given war looms is a matter of prudential judgment -- to be exercised in light of the just war teaching of the Church by statesmen and citizens.
Like Cardinal Bernardin, you confuse areas where the dictates of the moral law are crystal clear and areas where the dictates of that law in particular circumstances are only rarely crystal clear. He did this deliberately in pursuit of a political program. You did not do so deliberately. But you unwittingly showed where the confusion lies.
What is ESC?
Apr '11
Re: The Church Flatulent
Paul A. Rahe:
What is ESC? · 25 minutes ago
Embryonic Stem Cell [research/ therapy]. I agree that ESC, along with unjust wars, abortions, etc., differ markedly from the other categories put forward earlier in the post as it is not a justified and sanctioned killing. I also agree that damaging that distinction is unhelpful in the defense of genuine rights as well as in the likely confusion of the clergy and laity and consequent promotion of heresy.
Edited on March 2, 2012 at 9:29pmApr '11
Re: The Church Flatulent
Paul A. Rahe
etoiledunord: Red Meat from Michael Voris:
http://pewsitter.com/view_news2_id_12148.php ·
Fascinating.... · 22 hours
It struck me as jam packed with wishful thinking and willful denial. We've never had someone in the primaries who was Catholic and talked about social issues? In this very election, we're seeing Newt Gingrich taking that role. In the past, we've seen Pat Buchanan taking it. In 2008, we had a bucket load of Catholics running, although most of them dropped out early and Giuliani would clearly be considered a Kerry-like fake Catholic.
I agree that the support for a Catholic candidate amongst evangelicals exceeding the support amongst Catholics is something that might alarm the church authorities, but I don't think it follows that the church authorities should be alarmed. Catholics are, so far as I know, not enjoined to vote their own into public office. If they were voting against Catholic doctrine, that would be a problem, but this claim is not made.
The attempts made to claim that Santorum got the vote of Mass attending Catholics seem to fail entirely, and even more so when Arizona, New Hampshire, Florida, and Nevada are taken into account.
Jun '10
Re: The Church Flatulent
KC Mulville
The Seamless Garment argument is that if you actively oppose abortion (which Catholics areobligedto do), and you engage in political action or normal civic participation to change it, then it is morally inconsistent to refuse to do the same for capital punishment and nuclear war.
You're claiming that Bernardin's theory was intended to support a political party. But JPII's "culture of life" argues the samemoraltheory.
Interesting point, KC, there does seem to me to be a fair bit of similarity between Bernadin's "consistent ethic of life" and JPII's Gospel of Life.
In particular JPII seems to list capital punishment as one of the "life issues" on par with abortion, and that troubles me as it seems to be a reversal of the Church's previous position that the death penalty, like war, is legitimate and necessary under some circumstances and discerning those circumstances is a question of political prudence. JPII's opinion that modern circumstances no longer justify capital punishment is certainly worthy of a hearing, but many now seem to elevate it to settled Catholic doctrine that the death penalty is intrinsically immoral. It's not.
Sep '10
Re: The Church Flatulent
It's that the reason abortion is morally wrong is that it's an attack on life. John Paul says the same thing.
A close reading of his encyclicals Veritatis Splendor and Evangelium Vitae shows him to observe the classical thomistic 3 fonts of morality when analyzing a moral act, and they tie directly into various reference points in the current Catechism. Evangelium Vitae is more technical than the catechism, which is by definition concise, and the 1974 CDF document Declaration on Abortion is even more expansive than Evangelium Vitae.
Abortion is wrong because its the direct killing of an innocent life, not because its an "attack on life". Direct killing presumes moral agency and direct culpability assignable to a moral agent, which is why reference is made to Canon Law 1398 and 1392 for those who perform an abortion and cooperate in one.
Jan '11
Re: The Church Flatulent
Well, it's entirely possible. I've been confused lots of times. (h/t Airplane!)
But before I take a Scarlet A (or a C for confused) on this one, let's go a little further.
"There are such things as just wars, after all. There are even occasions in which it is our duty to kill."
This where the rubber of the moral theory meets the road. The teaching is that while it's true that wars and killing are sometimes necessary and moral, it's only if they protect life elsewhere. The teaching says that it's only justified to protect other life. Capital punishment may be moral, but only if it protects other life.
You cannot kill for property. You cannot kill for revenge. You cannot kill for political leverage.The only justification for killing is if it saves life elsewhere.
Whether a war does that (or not) is a prudential judgment. But it's "prudent" only if it preserves life - and that is a moral judgment.
I'm not confused at all about that.
ESC = embryonic stem cells
Sep '10
Re: The Church Flatulent
The late Cardinal Avery Dulles from First Things, April 2001:
Edited on March 2, 2012 at 10:06pmJun '10
Re: The Church Flatulent
KC Mulville
The teaching is that while it's true that wars and killing are sometimes necessary and moral, it'sonlyif they protect life elsewhere. The teaching says that it'sonlyjustified to protect other life. Capital punishment may be moral, butonlyif it protects other life.
You cannot kill for property. You cannot kill for revenge. You cannot kill for political leverage.The only justification for killing is if it saves life elsewhere.
I don't think just war theory can be reduced to a calculus of lives saved. As Ronald Reagan once said, there is one sure way to have peace and to have it today: surrender.
I think that just reasons for war include defense of natural rights. Suppose for instance a Catholic nation faced imminent invasion by a Communist or Islamic nation that would strip them of the right to practice their religion. They have two choices: surrender, and no lives will be lost, only freedom of religion. Or go to war, with the foreseen outcome that many on both sides will die. On your theory defending themselves would be unjust as it would cost more lives than it saved. I disagree.
Sep '10
Re: The Church Flatulent
I agree that the support for a Catholic candidate amongst evangelicals exceeding the support amongst Catholics is something that might alarm the church authorities
I don't see why. Evangelicals and Catholics Together has been around since 1994.