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
December 13. Cardinal Joseph Bernadin, with significant content input by Fr. Hehir, delivers talk at Fordham University on “consistent ethic of life” (also known as “seamless garment”). He linked the bishops’ opposition to abortion with their statement on nuclear weapons and their rejection of capital punishment. Bernadin would deliver several more lectures expanding the “consistent ethic of life” to include opposition to pornography along with support for government-funded anti-poverty programs and providing healthcare to the poor. The addresses are considered largely Fr.Hehir’s work and reflective of his thinking. In a 1996 book, Hehir is said to have felt pushing abortion in public policy would cause the bishops to lose valuable allies. In a 2001 book, his rationale was that the abortion issue did not exhaust the riches of Church social teaching and the Church’s teaching on abortion would be enhanced by placing it in the context of a broader social agenda. Regardless of Fr. Hehir’s rationale, the concepts would later be proven wrong. ....cont'd
Note: Block quote not working. Above material is a direct quote.
Edited on March 2, 2012 at 1:49pmSep '10
Re: The Church Flatulent
....In a 2001 profile of Fr. Hehir, the author wrote that the ‘consistent ethic of life’ had not succeeded in diminishing public support for abortion. Furthermore, leading opponents of abortion within the hierarchy such as Cardinal O’Connor had feared pro-choice Catholic politicians would point to their support for other elements of the Church’s social agenda as a way of deflecting criticism of their pro-choice position–fears that proved well-founded
Note: Block quote not working. Above material is a direct quote.
Edited on March 2, 2012 at 1:50pmJan '11
Re: The Church Flatulent
Again, I don't lay that at the fault of the theory itself. The fact that liberal "Catholic" politicians shamelessly deflected any blame is the fault of ... well ... liberal "Catholic" politicians. The fact that abortions haven't diminished is not a failure of a moral theory. As you know, I argue that it's a failure of the people.
Jan '11
Re: The Church Flatulent
Paul A. Rahe
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.
No, you didn't. That's not a theological argument.
Would you agree that it's morally inconsistent to oppose abortion, but to be ambivalent about the rest of life?
Dec '11
Re: The Church Flatulent
The catholic church should pick up a rand novel and realize that evil requires sanction. The government cannot make the church do what it does not want to do. The church should 'Go Galt.'
There are always avenues of non-compliance.
Re: The Church Flatulent
KC Mulville
Paul A. Rahe
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.
No, you didn't. That's not a theological argument.
Would you agree that it's morally inconsistent to oppose abortion, but to be ambivalent about the rest of life? · 3 minutes ago
Of course, I would agree. But if you think that this is all that Cardinal Bernardin was saying, you are hopelessly naive. He was a very intelligent man; he knew precisely what he was doing, and everyone at the time understood the signal he was giving.
Re: The Church Flatulent
Guruforhire: The catholic church should pick up a rand novel and realize that evil requires sanction. The government cannot make the church do what it does not want to do. The church should 'Go Galt.'
There are always avenues of non-compliance. · 6 minutes ago
There is reason to think that Cardinal Dolan is thinking along similar lines.
Jan '11
Re: The Church Flatulent
Paul A. Rahe
Of course, I would agree. But if you think that this is all that Cardinal Bernardin was saying, you are hopelessly naive.
No, but we have to start somewhere.
Stop for a moment and do not assume that Bernardin was corrupt. Let's leave aside how the Teddy Kennedys and Mario Cuomos of the world would distort and bend any idea to cover their government lust.
Take three issues: abortion, capital punishment, and nuclear war. Those were the main issues that Bernardin's original speech at Fordham were focused on.
The Seamless Garment argument is that if you actively oppose abortion (which Catholics are obliged to 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.
John Paul II argued the same thing. However, JPII made an important distinction (that I agree with): the obligation to participate in the political process doesn't, by itself, mandate any particular political agenda.
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.
Re: The Church Flatulent
Tom Lindholtz: 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. · 14 hours ago
Thanks for this. A good part of what Ms. Bass has to say is true. I nonetheless think that you will see the churches make a comeback. There is nothing like a whiff of persecution to put backbone into a church, and a church with backbone attracts people.
Re: The Church Flatulent
The American Church will not with any success be able to defend itself if it does not recognize how it got itself into this mess. Understanding the past is the key to being able to conduct oneself with intelligence in the future. In the 16th and 17th centuries, the Church in Europe had to clean up its own act before it could defend itself against the Reformation.
Re: The Church Flatulent
MJMack: 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? · 12 hours ago
I take it that you have not read the article The End of the Bernardin Era: The Rise, Dominance, and Decline of a Culturally Accommodating Catholicism which George in February, 2011 in First Things. Read it twice. Read between the lines.
Re: The Church Flatulent
Midget Faded Rattlesnake: 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. · 6 hours ago
I should have.
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 · 15 hours ago
Very interesting, indeed. And challenging. I am going to have to print it out and read it two or three more times. Have you read any of the work of Hadley Arkes on this question? Hadley brings Kant into play as well.
Sep '10
Re: The Church Flatulent
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.
In addition, if you had read the detailed chronology of Fr Hehir, who was a major contributor to Cardinal Bernardin's 1983 Fordham address, you would have noted not only his consistent opposition to clear Church teaching on a wide range of moral theological issues, but his consistency that earned him the same award as Sister Carol Keehan did in 2009.
Diogenes also highlighted Fr Hehir's role in the conscience clause canard in 2010. You can see a helpful YouTube video of his remarks to go along with the commentary.
Edited on March 2, 2012 at 5:34pmRe: 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.
John Paul II argued the same thing. However, JPII made an important distinction (that I agree with): the obligation to participate in the political processdoesn't, by itself, mandate any particular political agenda.
You're claiming that Bernardin's theory was intended to support a political party. But JPII's "culture of life" argues the same moraltheory. · 2 hours ago
Yes, indeed, I am claiming that Bernardin knew exactly what he was doing. You should read with care the piece on Father Hehir, Bernardin's right-hand man, that Pseudodionysius links above -- and then read the material linked in that piece. Their aim was to sustain a political alliance, and to do so they had to soft-pedal the Church's teaching on the taking of innocent life. Now the chickens have come home to roost.
Sep '10
Re: The Church Flatulent
Fr Hehir should not be confused with Fr John Paris, SJ of Boston College who argued in 2005 that snuffing Terry Schiavo was a good thing. I don't know if there's a trademark of copyright protection on the phrase "prominent Jesuit bio-ethicist" but if not, there should be.
Feb '12
Re: The Church Flatulent
No, I read that when you linked to it in a previous post. You go well, well beyond what Weigel lays out in that article. As for your request that I "read between the lines," that is precisely the speculative and overreaching conclusion drawing I am complaining about. I don't want to read between the lines because there are many different things that one could read, or read into, between those lines. I'd rather get a direct reaction from Weigel or someone of his authority himself.
Re: The Church Flatulent
Pseudodionysius: 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.
In addition, if you had read the detailed chronology of Fr Hehir, who was a major contributor to Cardinal Bernardin's 1983 Fordham address, you would have noted not only his consistent opposition to clear Church teaching on a wide range of moral theological issues, but his consistency that earned him the same award as Sister Carol Keehan did in 2009.
Diogenes also highlighted Fr Hehir's role in the conscience clause canard in 2010. You can see a helpful YouTube video of his remarks to go along with the commentary. · 2 minutes ago
Bernardin was party, KC, to a systematic and largely successful attempt to confuse his fellow clergymen and the Catholic laity as to where their duty lies.
Sep '10
Re: The Church Flatulent
In the following book Religious Leaders and Faith Based Politics a decent survey article shows the quite open and public collaboration among Fr Hehir, Cardinal Bernardin, Bishop Thomas Gumbleton, and former Archbishop Rembert Weakland in crafting various documents and initiatives during the 1980's. None of this requires much detective work, since these are connections mentioned by supporters, rather than detractors.
Sep '10
Re: The Church Flatulent
In a 2003 short piece entitled The Seamless Garment, Diogenes quotes another blogger with his short aphorism as to the practical effect of the doctrine on our moral discourse as it came to a conclusion in the Terri Schiavo case:
Edited on March 2, 2012 at 6:23pm