Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
American Catholicism’s Pact With the Devil
You have to hand it to Barack Obama. He has unmasked in the most thoroughgoing way the despotic propensities of the administrative entitlements state and of the Democratic Party. And now he has done something similar to the hierarchy of the American Catholic Church. At the prospect that institutions associated with the Catholic Church would be required to offer to their employees health insurance covering contraception and abortifacients, the bishops, priests, and nuns scream bloody murder. But they raise no objection at all to the fact that Catholic employers and corporations, large and small, owned wholly or partially by Roman Catholics will be required to do the same. The freedom of the church as an institution to distance itself from that which its doctrines decry as morally wrong is considered sacrosanct. The liberty of its members – not to mention the liberty belonging to the adherents of other Christian sects, to Jews, Muslims, and non-believers – to do the same they are perfectly willing to sacrifice.
This inattention to the liberties of others is doubly scandalous (and I use this poignant term in full knowledge of its meaning within the Catholic tradition) – for there was a time when the Catholic hierarchy knew better. There was a time when Roman Catholicism was the great defender not only of its own liberty but of that of others. There was a time when the prelates recognized that the liberty of the church to govern itself in light of its guiding principles was inseparable from the liberty of other corporate bodies and institutions to do the same.
I do not mean to say that the Roman Catholic Church was in the more distant past a staunch defender of religious liberty. That it was not. Within its sphere, the Church demanded full authority. It is only in recent years that Rome has come to be fully appreciative of the larger principle.
I mean that, in the course of defending its autonomy against the secular power, the Roman Catholic Church asserted the liberty of other corporate bodies and even, in some measure, the liberty of individuals. To see what I have in mind one need only examine Magna Carta, which begins with King John’s pledge that
the English Church shall be free, and shall have her rights entire, and her liberties inviolate; and we will that it be thus observed; which is apparent from this that the freedom of elections, which is reckoned most important and very essential to the English Church, we, of our pure and unconstrained will, did grant, and did by our charter confirm and did obtain the ratification of the same from our lord, Pope Innocent III, before the quarrel arose between us and our barons: and this we will observe, and our will is that it be observed in good faith by our heirs forever.
Only after making this promise, does the King go on to say, “We have also granted to all freemen of our kingdom, for us and our heirs forever, all the underwritten liberties, to be had and held by them and their heirs, of us and our heirs forever.” It is in this context that he affirms that “no scutage nor aid shall be imposed on our kingdom, unless by common counsel of our kingdom, except for ransoming our person, for making our eldest son a knight, and for once marrying our eldest daughter; and for these there shall not be levied more than a reasonable aid.” It is in this context that he pledges that “the city of London shall have all it ancient liberties and free customs, as well by land as by water; furthermore, we decree and grant that all other cities, boroughs, towns, and ports shall have all their liberties and free customs.” It is in this document that he promises that “no freemen shall be taken or imprisoned or disseised or exiled or in any way destroyed, nor will we go upon him nor send upon him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land” and that “to no one will we sell, to no one will we refuse or delay, right or justice.”
One will not find such a document in eastern Christendom or in the sphere where Sunni Islam is prevalent. It is peculiar to Western Christendom – and it was made possible by the fact that, Christian West, church and state were not co-extensive and none of the various secular powers was able to exert its authority over the church. There was within each political community in the Christian West an imperium in imperio – a power independent of the state that had no desire to replace the state but was fiercely resistant to its own subordination and aware that it could not hope to retain its traditional liberties if it did not lend a hand in defending the traditional liberties of others.
I am not arguing that the Church fostered limited government in the Middle Ages and in the early modern period. In principle, the government that it fostered was unlimited in its scope. I am arguing, however, that the Church worked assiduously to hem in the authority of the Christian kings and that its success in this endeavor provided the foundation for the emergence of a parliamentary order. Indeed, I would go further. It was the Church that promoted the principles underpinning the emergence of parliaments. It did so by fostering the species of government that had emerged within the church itself. Given that the Church in the West made clerical celibacy one of its principal practices (whether it was honored in the breach or not), the hereditary principle could play no role in its governance. Inevitably, it resorted to elections. Monks elected abbots, the canons of cathedrals elected bishops, the college of cardinals elected the Pope.
The principle articulated in canon law — the only law common to all of Western Europe — to explain why these practices were proper was lifted from the Roman law dealing with the governance of waterways: “Quod omnes tangit,” it read, “ab omnibus tractari debeat: That which touches all should be dealt with by all.” In pagan antiquity, this meant that those upstream could not take all of the water and that those downstream had a say in its allocation. It was this principle that the clergymen who served as royal administrators insinuated into the laws of the kingdoms and petty republics of Europe. It was used to justify communal self-government. It was used to justify the calling of parliaments. And it was used to justify the provisions for self-governance contained within the corporate charters issued to cities, boroughs, and, in time, colonies. On the eve of the American Revolution, you will find it cited by John Dickinson in The Letters of a Pennsylvania Farmer.
The quod omnes tangit principle was not the foundation of modern liberty, but it was its antecedent. And had there been no such antecedent, had kings not been hemmed in by the Church and its allies in this fashion, I very much doubt that there ever would have been a regime of limited government. In fact, had there not been a distinction both in theory and in fact between the secular and the spiritual authority, limited government would have been inconceivable.
The Reformation weakened the Church. In Protestant lands, it tended to strengthen the secular power and to promote a monarchical absolutism unknown to the Middle Ages. Lutheranism and Anglicanism were, in effect, Caesaro-Papist. In Catholic lands, it caused the spiritual power to shelter itself behind the secular power and become, in many cases, an appendage of that power. But the Reformation and the religious strife to which it gave rise also posed to the secular power an almost insuperable problem – how to secure peace and domestic tranquility in a world marked by sectarian competition. Limited government – i. e., a government limited in its scope – was the solution ultimately found, and John Locke was its proponent.
In the nascent American republic, this principle was codified in its purest form in the First Amendment to the Constitution. But it had additional ramifications as well – for the government’s scope was limited also in other ways. There were other amendments that made up what we now call the Bill of Rights, and many of the states prefaced their constitutions with bills of rights or added them as appendices. These were all intended to limit the scope of the government. They were all designed to protect the right of individuals to life, liberty, the acquisition and possession of property, and the pursuit of happiness as these individuals understood happiness. Put simply, liberty of conscience was part of a larger package.
This is what the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church forgot. In the 1930s, the majority of the bishops, priests, and nuns sold their souls to the devil, and they did so with the best of intentions. In their concern for the suffering of those out of work and destitute, they wholeheartedly embraced the New Deal. They gloried in the fact that Franklin Delano Roosevelt made Frances Perkins – a devout Anglo-Catholic laywoman who belonged to the Episcopalian Church but retreated on occasion to a Catholic convent – Secretary of Labor and the first member of her sex to be awarded a cabinet post. And they welcomed Social Security – which was her handiwork. They did not stop to ponder whether public provision in this regard would subvert the moral principle that children are responsible for the well-being of their parents. They did not stop to consider whether this measure would reduce the incentives for procreation and nourish the temptation to think of sexual intercourse as an indoor sport. They did not stop to think.
In the process, the leaders of the American Catholic Church fell prey to a conceit that had long before ensnared a great many mainstream Protestants in the United States – the notion that public provision is somehow akin to charity – and so they fostered state paternalism and undermined what they professed to teach: that charity is an individual responsibility and that it is appropriate that the laity join together under the leadership of the Church to alleviate the suffering of the poor. In its place, they helped establish the Machiavellian principle that underpins modern liberalism – the notion that it is our Christian duty to confiscate other people’s money and redistribute it.
At every turn in American politics since that time, you will find the hierarchy assisting the Democratic Party and promoting the growth of the administrative entitlements state. At no point have its members evidenced any concern for sustaining limited government and protecting the rights of individuals. It did not cross the minds of these prelates that the liberty of conscience which they had grown to cherish is part of a larger package – that the paternalistic state, which recognizes no legitimate limits on its power and scope, that they had embraced would someday turn on the Church and seek to dictate whom it chose to teach its doctrines and how, more generally, it would conduct its affairs.
I would submit that the bishops, nuns, and priests now screaming bloody murder have gotten what they asked for. The weapon that Barack Obama has directed at the Church was fashioned to a considerable degree by Catholic churchmen. They welcomed Obamacare. They encouraged Senators and Congressmen who professed to be Catholics to vote for it.
I do not mean to say that I would prefer that the bishops, nuns, and priests sit down and shut up. Barack Obama has once again done the friends of liberty a favor by forcing the friends of the administrative entitlements state to contemplate what they have wrought. Whether those brought up on the heresy that public provision is akin to charity will prove capable of thinking through what they have done remains unclear. But there is now a chance that this will take place, and there was a time – long ago, to be sure, but for an institution with the longevity possessed by the Catholic Church long ago was just yesterday – when the Church played an honorable role in hemming in the authority of magistrates and in promoting not only its own liberty as an institution but that of others similarly intent on managing their own affairs as individuals and as members of subpolitical communities.
In my lifetime, to my increasing regret, the Roman Catholic Church in the United States has lost much of its moral authority. It has done so largely because it has subordinated its teaching of Catholic moral doctrine to its ambitions regarding an expansion of the administrative entitlements state. In 1973, when the Supreme Court made its decision in Roe v. Wade, had the bishops, priests, and nuns screamed bloody murder and declared war, as they have recently done, the decision would have been reversed. Instead, under the leadership of Joseph Bernardin, the Cardinal-Archbishop of Chicago, they asserted that the social teaching of the Church was a “seamless garment,” and they treated abortion as one concern among many. Here is what Cardinal Bernardin said in the Gannon Lecture at Fordham University that he delivered in 1983:
Those who defend the right to life of the weakest among us must be equally visible in support of the quality of life of the powerless among us: the old and the young, the hungry and the homeless, the undocumented immigrant and the unemployed worker.
Consistency means that we cannot have it both ways. We cannot urge a compassionate society and vigorous public policy to protect the rights of the unborn and then argue that compassion and significant public programs on behalf of the needy undermine the moral fiber of the society or are beyond the proper scope of governmental responsibility.
This statement, which came to be taken as authoritative throughout the American Church, proved, as Joseph Sobran observed seven years ago, “to be nothing but a loophole for hypocritical Catholic politicians. If anything,” he added, “it has actually made it easier for them than for non-Catholics to give their effective support to legalized abortion – that is, it has allowed them to be inconsistent and unprincipled about the very issues that Cardinal Bernardin said demand consistency and principle.” In practice, this meant that, insofar as anyone pressed the case against Roe v. Wade, it was the laity.
I was reared a Catholic, wandered out of the Church, and stumbled back in more than thirteen years ago. I have been a regular attendee at mass since that time. I travel a great deal and frequently find myself in a diocese not my own. In these years, I have heard sermons articulating the case against abortion thrice – once in Louisiana at a mass said by the retired Archbishop there; once at the cathedral in Tulsa, Oklahoma; and two weeks ago in our parish in Hillsdale, Michigan. The truth is that the priests in the United States are far more likely to push the “social justice” agenda of the Church from the pulpit than to instruct the faithful in the evils of abortion.
And there is more. I have not once in those years heard the argument against contraception articulated from the pulpit, and I have not once heard the argument for chastity articulated. In the face of the sexual revolution, the bishops priests, and nuns of the American Church have by and large fallen silent. In effect, they have abandoned the moral teaching of the Roman Catholic Church in order to articulate a defense of the administrative entitlements state and its progressive expansion.
There is another dimension to the failure of the American Church in the face of the sexual revolution. As, by now, everyone knows, in the 1980s, when Cardinal Bernardin was the chief leader of the American Church and the man most closely consulted when the Vatican selected its bishops, it became evident to the American prelates that they had a problem – that, in many a diocese, there were priests of a homoerotic orientation who were sexual predators – pederasts inclined to take advantage of young boys. They could have faced up to the problem at that time; they could have turned in the malefactors to the secular authorities; they could have prevented their further contact with the young. Instead, almost certainly at the instigation of Cardinal Bernardin, they opted for another policy. They hushed everything up, sent the priests off for psychological counseling, and reassigned them to other parishes or even dioceses – where they continued to prey on young boys. In the same period, a number of the seminaries in which young men were trained for the priesthood became, in effect, brothels – and nothing was done about any of this until the newspapers broke the story and the lawsuits began.
There is, I would suggest, a connection between the heretical doctrine propagated by Cardinal Bernardin in the Gannon Lecture and the difficulties that the American Church now faces. Those who seek to create heaven on earth and who, to this end, subvert the liberty of others and embrace the administrative entitlements state will sooner or later become its victims.
Earlier today, Barack Obama offered the hierarchy “a compromise.” Under its terms, insurance companies offering healthcare coverage will be required to provide contraception and abortifacients, but this will not be mentioned in the contracts signed by those who run Catholic institutions. This “compromise” is, of course, a farce. It embodies a distinction where there is, in fact, no difference. It is a snare and a delusion, and I am confident that the Catholic Left, which is still dominant within the Church, will embrace it – for it would allow the bishops, priests, and nuns to save face while, in fact, paying for the contraception and abortifacients that the insurance companies will be required to provide. As if on cue, Sister Carol Keehan, a prominent Obamacare supporter who heads the Catholic Health Association, immediately issued a statement in which she announced that she is “pleased and grateful that the religious liberty and conscience protection needs of so many ministries that serve our country were appreciated enough that an early resolution of this issue was accomplished.”
Perhaps, however, Barack Obama has shaken some members of the hierarchy from their dogmatic slumber. Perhaps, a few of them – or among younger priests some of their likely successors – have begun to recognize the logic inherent in the development of the administrative entitlements state. The proponents of Obamacare, with some consistency, pointed to Canada and to France as models. As anyone who has attended mass in Montreal or Paris can testify, the Church in both of these places is filled with empty pews. There is, in fact, not a single country in the social democratic sphere where either the Catholic Church or a Protestant Church is anything but moribund. This is by no means fortuitous. When entitlements stand in for charity and the Social Gospel is preached in place of the Word of God, heaven on earth becomes the end, and Christianity goes by the boards.
It took a terrible scandal and a host of lawsuits to get the American Church to rid itself of the pederast priests and clean up its seminaries. Perhaps the tyrannical ambitions of Barack Obama will occasion a rethinking of the social-justice agenda. The ball is now in the court of Archbishop Timothy Dolan of New York, who has welcomed the President’s gesture without indicating whether it is adequate. Upon reflection, he can accept the fig leaf that President Obama has offered him. Or he can put Sister Keehan and her supporters in their place and fight. If he wants to regain an iota of the moral authority that the Church possessed before 1973, he will do the latter. The hour is late. Next time, the masters of the administrative entitlements state won’t even bother to offer the hierarchy a fig leaf. They know servility when they see it.
UPDATE: Friday night, shortly after I posted this piece, as Anne Coletta pointed out in Comment 5 below, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops issued a carefully worded statement critical of the fig leaf President Obama offered them. In the meantime, the Rev. John Jenkins, President of the University of Notre Dame, applauded “the willingness of the administration to work with religious organizations to find a solution acceptable to all parties.”
FURTHER UPDATE: Since posting this, I have also written American Catholicism: A Call to Arms and More Than a Touch of Malice on related subjects.
Published in General
Also, don’t discount the effect of Mammon. I’m increasingly convinced that the institutional church’s willingness to accept state funding has dissolved its backbone.
I have to say that I find this entire post and most of the subsequent comments extremely disconcerting and very inaccurate. Professor Rahe, your first paragraph is entirely misleading, making it seem as if the bishops have not been outspoken about religious liberty except when it relates to themselves. I am a lobbyist for four Catholic bishops and we routinely work on religious liberties matters for many groups, most recently the Amish. Also, the bishops have been calling for a broader exemption to the HHS rule, covering all.
And, not to get into the weeds with the rest of it, but Catholic Social Teaching is broader than American politics. Saying that the Church has made a deal with the Left and lost it’s nerve is patently untrue. Of course, many individual Catholics place their politics over their Church, but the Church’s teaching is quite clear, challenging both the Left and Right. The Catholic Left’s temptation is to downplay abortion, contraception, etc., and the Catholic Right’s temptation is to downplay the Church’s teaching on the rights of immigrants and the role of social institutions, including government, in advancing the common good.
It was indeed a pact with the devil. ·13 minutes ago
Than you for this and your other comments. There are those in our number — and you are among them — who know more about the workings of the American Church than I do. ·26 minutes ago
Note: Quote functionality disabled. I read Phil Lawler’s book in 2011 after putting it off for far too long. Its excellent. And you will be stunned when you see the role of the hierarchy in trying to compromise with Planned Parenthood against the wishes of their flock.
I’d also like to recommend After Asceticism by the Linacre Institute. The typesetting is appalling in the book, but the information is well worth the effort.http://www.catholicculture.org/news/features/index.cfm?recnum=50434
Anticipated.
I have J Brian Benestad’s latest book from CUA Press on Catholic Social Doctrine, so when you wish to put up a Member Post with concrete examples of that which you speak, I am more than happy to contribute.
/waving hand — Here I am!!
Yes, when has the Church not undergone persecution? When has it not been in conflict? I have friends on the front lines, but I guess I’m a bit of a coward. I’ve been looking to the leadership to give me the signal.
Pilli, do you not believe Sebelius has condemned herself to eternal damnation with her positions on abortion and the contraception mandate? My understanding is that, like sin, excommunication is an act of will and she’s already done it. I just think it would be an appropriate moment for the hierarchy to let the rest of the faithful know the hazards involved.
And it isn’t eternal if one conforms one’s will to the teachings of Christ. Sebelius may rejoin the communion. She just has to decide if she wants to be a Christian — or a Democrat.
Immigrants or illegal immigrants? That you mention abortion and rights of immigrants as though they were of equal gravity is precisely the devil’s bargain that the hierarchy has made, and apparently hired you to flack for.
“awakened from their dogmatic slumbers”
juxtaposed with a picture of John Locke.
I’ll assume that was no accident, Professor Rahe.
juxtaposed with a picture of John Locke.
I’ll assume that was no accident, Professor Rahe. ·2 minutes ago
Actually, that is what Hegel said of Kant, that he had awakened philosophy from its dogmatic slumber.
Grendel, I did not say they were of equal gravity. I said the temptation of the conservative Catholic is to downplay those issues (because they don’t play as well on the Republican side of the aisle). Clearly, a direct threat to human life is a graver issue than anything else could ever be. The Church is quite clear on that. That fact shouldn’t be ignored by the Catholic Left, and the Catholic Right shouldn’t use that as a reason to dismiss everything else the Church has to say in her social teaching. Every issue is important, but yes, some are more important than others. And some involve a little prudential judgment, whereas others are absolute (like abortion).
I have always found it ironic that five verses after Peter is called a rock, he is told, like Satan, Get thee behind me.
A person not standing under the charisma of faith might suspect that an institution that insists on authority must eventually stumble over its own dialectic.
A more cynical wag will assert that like always calls to like and that the bureaucracy of Catholic church, like the bureaucracy of the welfare state, likes top-down operations. That may be going too far, as cynics often do, but they also frequently carry a bit of truth along for the ride.
Pseudodionysius: “awakened from their dogmatic slumbers”
juxtaposed with a picture of John Locke.
I’ll assume that was no accident, Professor Rahe. ·2 minutes ago
Edited 0 minutes ago
It was originally Kant speaking of David Hume because of the danger that Hume’s epistemology put scientific enquiry in.
I am curious Mr. Rahe, what your evidence behind this claim is. From what I understand, in the early nineties Bernardin developed and implemented a policy in Chicago where priests were removed, their cases were reviewed by professionals with experience in cases of abuse, and formalized procedures for cases to be referred to outside authorities. Perhaps you are referring to a period before the early nineties. It would make your case seem more credible and worth respecting if you could provide some more specifics on this charge you’ve made.
juxtaposed with a picture of John Locke.
I’ll assume that was no accident, Professor Rahe. ·2 minutes ago
Edited 0 minutes ago
True, but Hegel liked the phrase so much that he elaborated it, even as he reworked ontology and epistemology, attempting to show that they reflect each other, in a way that sublated the critical philosophy’s subject-based theory of knowledge. He was convinced that Kant made important advancements but did not finish the job.
I am curious Mr. Rahe, what your evidence behind this claim is. From what I understand, in the early nineties Bernardin developed and implemented a policy in Chicago where priests were removed, their cases were reviewed by professionals with experience in cases of abuse, and formalized procedures for cases to be referred to outside authorities. Perhaps you are referring to a period before the early nineties. It would make your case seem more credible and worth respecting if you could provide some more specifics on this charge you’ve made. ·12 minutes ago
It began in the mid-1980s, and the same policy was followed virtually everywhere. Cardinal Bernadin then led the USCCB.
Did Prof Rahe attack the Magisterium? IMO, no. In fact, a good part of his post was on how the institutional hierarchy has set it aside while indulging in the modern world.
Let me add that there was a report commissioned in the early 1980s by the USCCB. It recommended confronting the problem in the manner I outlined. The report was suppressed and did not become public knowledge until after the scandals in Boston broke. The priest who served on the three-man commission which did the investigation and wrote the report was silenced and exiled to a military base in Greenland, and the great game — in which the crimes committed were hushed up and the perpetrators were sent off for psychological counseling and then reassigned to a new parish or diocese — began. Let me add that repeat offenders were not removed.
Cardinal Bernadin headed the USCCB at the time. If you dig around, I believe that you can find the report I have in mind. It was available online at one point. I suspect that Katievs may know where to send you on this.
We know only a part of this sordid story. And what we know we know solely because of the lawsuits that took place. The bishops are no more in the habit of airing their dirty laundry than are politicians and businessmen. It would, they say, cause scandal.
Western Chauvinist — Sorry if I seemed to be calling you out. I don’t disagree with you on much, and I am steadily unsure about the wisdom of calling out for specific public figures to be excommunicated — and I am not sure I can correctly characterize you as having done that, exactly. I don’t disagree with their being cause for considering such an extreme move, but I think that it isn’t my place to decide that very difficult pastoral decision.
WC — I also agree with you that the youth movement is a very exciting part of the Church. I will be going to Catholic Undergound with some tadpoles next weekend, and they’ve been to this amazing Camp Veritas in NY, with Franciscan Friars of the Renewal, and archdiocesan priests, and Poor Clare sisters, and other religious, with the Rosary every day, and Eucharistic Adoration, and go-carts and zip-lines and swimming in a lake, and every day they heard that they need to be in the culture around them but not of the culture, that Jesus loves them and wants them to come to Confession, that the culture of death wants to ensnare them in its lies… (Links not embedding, I’ll edit later?) This camp was started by a dad, a layman.
Much of the vibrancy in the Church is very counter-cultural and radical. And very orthodox. And possibly “leading from behind?” in terms of the laypeople vs. bishops?
Well, Prof. Rahe, that seems like not enough evidence to make such a powerful charge about one man. His actual behavior and treatment of the issue in his own diocese of Chicago, which he ran from the early eighties until his death twenty years later indicates he was more open to creating a transparent policy with actual teeth than you suggest. So I think you ought to be careful about laying the abuse scandals at Bernardin’s feet. Here is a contemporaneous account of the Chicago archdiocesan efforts at reform
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1992-09-22/news/9203260361_1_sexual-abuse-communities-and-priests-clergy-abuse-linkup
Leave it to our bishops to say in multiple paragraphs what they could have said in one sentence: “This is not a compromise.”
Unfortunately all very true, Dr. Rahe. It was the relentless “Social Justice” teachings, panzy non-response to Islamists, silence on the Christian genocides in the Middle East, and weak don’t-offend-anybody homilies that eventually lead me away from the Church.
Thank you, Professor. You’ve once again given me more to think about than is probably good for me.
The careful moral analysis is simplified (in my mind) by a little mathematics.
The base plan costs X. The “objectionable coverage” costs Y. They are going to charge everyone X + Y and call the coverage “free.” Thus, they take the lie that the coverage wasn’t going to be required, smear on as frosting the lie that it’s now “free,” and call the resulting cupcake “truth”.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1992-09-22/news/9203260361_1_sexual-abuse-communities-and-priests-clergy-abuse-linkup ·48 minutes ago
Edited 47 minutes ago
I understand your loyalty to Cardinal Bernadin, but I am sorry. He was the one in charge when the report was suppressed, the priest on the committee was exiled, and the great game began. He also picked the new bishops who implemented this policy, and he publicly articulated the rationale for treating abortion as one concern among many. You may wish to believe the best of him, but the facts add up.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1992-09-22/news/9203260361_1_sexual-abuse-communities-and-priests-clergy-abuse-linkup ·54 minutes ago
Edited 54 minutes ago
I plugged in the URL provided. You should re-read the article. Cardinal Bernadin is responding to pressure from Cook County State`s Atty. Jack O`Malley. This happened after the scandal broke in the Chicago Archdiocese and after the public authorities had begun investigating the abuses that the archdiocese was hushing up. It, in fact, provides the evidence that you were demanding — Bernardin was forced to appoint a committee with no priests on it to investigate charges and report to O’Malley.
… the Church has made a deal with the Left and lost it’s nerve is patently untrue. Of course, many individual Catholics place their politics over their Church, but the Church’s teaching is quite clear, challenging both the Left and Right. The Catholic Left’s temptation is to downplay abortion, contraception, etc., and the Catholic Right’s temptation is to downplay the Church’s teaching on the rights of immigrants and the role of social institutions, including government, in advancing the common good.
Please, let’s do get into the weeds. What rights of immigrants do you believe the Right is downplaying? What you really mean to say is, the Right is racist and xenophobic because it doesn’t want to welcome illegals across the southern border with open arms.
This is a dangerous game the hierarchy is playing. It defames conservatives, it perfectly jibes with the moral relativism the Left prefers, and it subverts the rule of law we’ve found not just useful, but necessary for social order.
The American bishops are promoting a schism — two irreconcilable worldviews. Either salvation is through Christ or it is through human agency. Now is the time for choosing.
Prof Rahe, thanks for that note. It is an important one since it is that strain that dominates Protestantism in the US today.
Furthermore, as someone firmly on the right, I absolutely defend the role of social institutions. I firmly believe in subsidiarity — in the good done by the social institutions closest to the people, for example the parish. When you and other defenders of socialism, which the American Church euphemistically calls “social justice,” speak of social institutions you mean government. And the bigger the better. You mean a government so big it provides universal health care, and, oh, by the way, contraceptive mandates.
I’m sorry if you’re picking up on some hostility here. I feel we’re fighting a multi-front war to save our country and the faith, and I get a little worked up. But really, do you not see how people who are so terribly wrong on the life issues can’t possibly be right on issues of immigration and economics? These aren’t people who mourn for the human condition. They revel in the good feelings they get from confiscating the fruits of other people’s labor and redistributing it to their favored political constituencies. It’s just wrong!
Prof Rahe, thanks for your post and your general point that since the early 20th century the church, both Catholic and Protestant, has been engaged all too often in what Thomas Sowell has classically called stage one thinking. Stages two, three, etc have inevitably coming to fruition and too many in the Church naively seem shocked, shocked by the outcome.
I think it is fair to point out that too many on the Right have been engaged in this as well. Most recently, we saw it with President Bush’s compassionate conservatism. Besides being guilty of inappropriately implicating conservatism in is base form as lacking compassion, it too made the fundamental error of believing that somehow the church could do its business with the involvement of government and somehow come out unscathed. How foolish.
The church, Catholic and Protestant, Right and Left, needs to wake up and realize it is better to leave God’s work to His people and leave caesar’s unto caesar. I doubt it it will though. It will continue to be seduced by the power of the government, leaving the church with less liberty, and ironically, less effective in what it is called to accomplish.
Needless to say, I strongly disagree.
I’ve rarely seen a broader brush. You lump all of the bishops, priests, and nuns together as liberal stooges, pedophilia enablers, and moral cowards. That’s entertainingly provocative, but it’s a huge disrespect to the vast majority of clergy who entered religious life to serve, not to advance a political perspective. You do them a tremendous disservice.