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
But, KC, the bishops did support Obamacare. It’s true that not all clergy should be painted with this brush, but the very fact that Kathleen Sebelius has not been excommunicated, publicly, shows how tepid the hierarchy’s response is. It’s time to man-up.
One doesn’t have to be a McCarthyite looking for communists under every rock to see the Marxism inherent in the American Church’s teaching of social justice. I even had a diocesan “expert” layperson tell me to my face that social justice is socialism. I’m not saying this is the true social justice teaching of the Roman Church. I’m saying the American bishops have allowed the heretical version to persist.
Prof Rahe, thanks for that note. It is an important one since it is that strain that dominates Protestantism in the US today.
It is, indeed — and I could not figure out a way to touch on it without digressing and causing readers to lose my drift.
Answer: because according to the rubrics of the mass, Catholic priests don’t give sermons. They give homilies. The difference is that a homily is supposed to be grounded in the biblical readings of the day. When a priest gives his homily, it isn’t supposed to be an open-ended speech or lecture. He’s required to make specific points from the readings. He can connect his reflections to current affairs, but only to explain some point from the readings.
·38 minutes ago
It’s a funny thing, KC. The priests are supposed to give a homily focused on the readings. But far more often than you indicated they address political issues.
There are plenty of occasions provided by the readings for a discussion of chastity, contraception, and abortion. But they are silent on those issues.
Wow, Professor, this is wonderful. I am wondering if you have ever read Harold Berman’s magisterial “Law and Revolution.”Berman’s argument–presented in great detail–is that the western legal tradition is the product of competition between and among various secular jurisdictions and church canon law. He traces the starting point to the papal reforms of Gregory VII. Berman’s analysis is consistent with your well-constructed argument, and adds even more flesh to the bone. Highly recommended for you and anyone else interested in legal history or in the relationship between the church and emerging European states from 1000 to 1500. (There is a sequel that covers the Protestant reformation, but I haven’t yet read it. Prof. Berman had planned a third volume, but alas, did not live long enough to complete it. Such a loss.)
There are plenty of occasions provided by the readings for a discussion of chastity, contraception, and abortion. But they are silent on those issues.
Well, you know what’s funny about that? The rubrics insist that the homily stick to the readings – but (most of the time), the ones who disregard that and spout off on politics are the ones who disregard rubrics anyway … i.e., in my experience, the liberals.
The ones who follow the rubrics are usually the more conservative in the first place. That’s why, when it happens, it’s usually the liberal’s perspective that gets heard, and the conservatives keep their opinions to themselves.
In the Jesuits, every scholastic (even novices) is assigned to give a homily on a regular basis; we went to mass every day, so it wasn’t difficult. The peace-justice types frequently skipped any connection to the readings; we called it the Dr. Strangelove compulsion. They just had to lecture us about peace.
But the moral teaching of the Church is not a matter of “current affairs”.
the conservatives keep their opinions to themselves.
It’s also not a matter of opinion.
No apologies necessary, Mama. I realize I’m treading gingerly on that thin line and could tip over into sinful pride. We’re all sinners and who am I to judge what is in Sebelius’ heart? That is the province of her pastor.
However, if she were in conformity with the Church’s teachings, she would have resigned her position rather than support this direct assault on her faith, and more broadly on freedom of conscience. I think anyone with conviction for the truth has to admit that. And Nancy Pelosi is out there leading people to believe that the Church makes no claims as to when life begins (or the fetus is ensouled). Pastors should also define some boundaries for their flocks. They’re not.
I am not waiting for the excommunication of Kathleen Sebelius to tell me it is time to engage in battle. …
…is it something that she should be publicly, officially condemned to Hell for doing? That is what excommunication does. . . . It is eternal condemnation.
I can see withholding Communion…if indeed she attends Mass. Excommunication? Wow!
At one level, excommunication is being barred from Holy Communion. However, excommunication is something one does to oneself. The decree is not a sentence imposed but a recognition of objective fact. The Church teaches that it is a grave sin to abuse public office to commit, promote, or be complicit in a serious evil. It is the bishops’ duty to quash scandal and acknowledge the situation, or to announce a rigorous exculpation.
As for the eternal consequences you find too severe, well, that’s what mortal sin does. For her sake and the edification of the faithful, the bishops should announce that she (and others) are excommunicate and barred from receiving Holy Communion in any diocese in the US. You can’t expect her to take the matter seriously if the bishops aren’t frank about it’s seriousness.
But the moral teaching of the Church is not a matter of “current affairs”.
True, katie, but the point is that the homily is not the time for the priest to discuss contemporary political issues.
When you prepare a homily, your job is not to spout off on what you want to say. Your job is to explain what the readings themselves say. The readings dictate the homily; the priest’s job if to remain faithful to what Jesus was trying to teach, not to borrow the readings to make a point, even if the point is an approved teaching of the church.
That’s why, when the bishop wants to make a specific point, he usually releases a letter, to either be distributed in the bulletin, or read (as a letter) during the course of the liturgy. But that’s different from a homily.
I find a lot of this discussion interesting but it seems to be getting off track from the central point Prof. Rahe was making. The Catholic Bishops and others were in full support when I, a Christian business owner, was ordered to subsidize contraception and other procedures I find objectionable, all in the name of universal health through Obamacare. That somehow was wonderful, charitable and not an affront to religious liberty. But not now when they are being impacted.
In short, the Church, Catholic and Protestant, should have never gotten in bed with the government and accepted monies for its churches, hospitals and charities and should never ever should have supported Obamacare. It’s now paying for its sins.
True, katie, but the point is that the homily is not the time for the priest to discuss contemporary political issues.
When you prepare a homily, your job is not to spout off on whatyouwant to say. Your job is to explain what thereadings themselvessay. The readings dictate the homily; the priest’s job if to remain faithful to what Jesus was trying to teach, not to borrow the readings to make a point, even if the point is an approved teaching of the church.
I agree with you that the priest is supposed to take his cue from the readings. But it’s also true that he is supposed to be concerned with teaching and edifying and pastoring the faithful. I think it would be hard to argue that the Church has done a good job of proclaiming the Church’s moral teaching to the faithful over the course of the last several decades.
And it’s important to stress again that the moral teaching of the Church is not a political issue. The HHS mandate is, but the immorality of birth control isn’t.
I can see withholding Communion…if indeed she attends Mass. Excommunication? Wow!
Not exactly. Excommunication is Latin for “exclusion from the communion.” The practical effect is exclusion from all of the sacraments until the person repents and receives absolution.
Catholics should not present themselves to receive the Eucharist if they have committed grave (i.e. mortal) sin, and if that sin is public knowledge and they present themselves anyway they should be denied (first and foremost for their own good, since receiving would be another grave sin).
Now, if you die in a state of mortal sin without repenting, let’s just say your hope of salvation is slim. In both cases salvation is in jeopardy, so I’m not sure the difference is a stark as you suggest.
In short, the Church, Catholic and Protestant, should have never gotten in bed with the government and accepted monies for its churches, hospitals and charities and should never ever should have supported Obamacare. It’s now paying for its sins. ·7 hours ago
The U.S. bishops called the final version of PPACA “unacceptable” in part because it contained insufficient conscience protection. ·5 hours ago
The “final version”? Weak sauce, my friend. I am glad Archbishop Dolan heads the USCCB, but I don’t believe that the marxist-Catholic culture there can have changed completely overnight. A big reason we have Obamacare (no Orwellian “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” for me) is the Catholic justice lobby.
Political policy lies outside the expertise of the prelates. They know no more than any of the rest of us. And for the most part they know less. They can rightly tell us that we need to be concerned with the common good. They cannot offer us much help in discerning what constitutes the common good in any particular set of circumstances. Political prudence is not their forte, and when they abuse their authority as teachers of faith and doctrine to instruct us with regard to public policy, they frequently disgrace themselves and scandalize the rest of us.
Case in point: I recieved email from the California Catholic Legislative Network yesterday. The first item was on the HHS mandate, the 2nd on the Prop 8 ruling. Here’s the 3rd item:
Isn’t this an awfully technical, prudential decision for the bishops to opine on? Does this really rise to the level of a “moral obligation?”
Paul, Very insightful.
One assertion at the beginning, however, troubles me. You say the bishops “raise no objection at all to the fact that Catholic employers and corporations, large and small, owned wholly or owned by Roman Catholics will be required to do the same” and “perfectly willing to sacrifice” the liberty of others.
Paul, that’s not true. Just because the press does not report it doesn’t mean the bishops didn’t say it. In their original letter, they made this clear. They repeat it in their new letter issued late Friday: “we note at the outset that the lack of clear protectionfor key stakeholders—for self-insured religious employers; for religious and secular for-profit employers; for secular non-profit employers; for religious insurers; and for individuals—is unacceptable and must be corrected. And in the case where the employee and insurer agree to add the objectionable coverage, that coverage is still provided as a part of the objecting employer’s plan, financed in the same way as the rest of the coverage offered by the objecting employer. This, too, raises serious moral concerns.”
The bishops are rightly criticized for many things, but not this.
I have both volumes. They are excellent.
In short, the Church, Catholic and Protestant, should have never gotten in bed with the government and accepted monies for its churches, hospitals and charities and should never ever should have supported Obamacare. It’s now paying for its sins. ·5 hours ago
Amen
Isn’t this an awfully technical, prudential decision for the bishops to opine on? Does this really rise to the level of a “moral obligation?” ·2 hours ago
Sorting out the dictates of prudence in political and economic matters should by and large be left to the laity.
Isn’t this an awfully technical, prudential decision for the bishops to opine on? Does this really rise to the level of a “moral obligation?” ·2 hours ago
Sorting out the dictates of prudence in political and economic matters should by and large be left to the laity. ·7 minutes ago
It’s especially imprudent to assume that progressive schemes actually have beneficial outcomes, let alone the intended outcomes. Progressive legislation almost always ends up killing people, literally killing people, from Prohibition to welfare to ethanol.
But being (a) Liberal (Fascist) means never having to say you’re sorry.
Late jumping back in on this, but wanted to return to my points about Bernardin. Sorry if this seems pedantic. A charge as serious as the one alleging responsiblity for the sex abuse scandal, though, should not be made sloppily. The Church’s critics need to be held to the same level of intellectual integrity as they demand of Her.
To be clear, I am no fan of Bernardin’s legacy. I’ve sat through too many homilies in Chicago churches listening to the leftist tripe you mention, blood boiling, wanting to yell back at the priests liberal nonsense. And I hold Bernardin and his politics responsible for priests like Fr. Pfleger. So don’t misread my call for accuracy and substantiation on this matter as an apology for him.
However, Prof. Rahe, what you’re citing as facts aren’t accurate. Bernardin headed the NCCB from 1974-77. He was not in charge of that group when the report you mention was prepared and suppressed. Bernardin became the head of the Chicago church in the early eighties and many of the cases being investigated by O’Malley predated Bernardins tenure.
continued below…
Its true the Bernardins reforms came after state officials started pressuring the Archdiocese. However, they made voluntarily and stand in contrast to the way other cardinals decided to handle their problems, ie Cardinal Law in Boston. That is important to note and Bernardin deserves credit for it, not blame. Its also important to note Bernardin himself was falsely accused of abuse three times during his vocation.
My guess is, Prof. Rahe, you knew Bernardin was head of the NCCB at some point, gave the Gannon lecture in the early eighties, and had developed an abuse policy that became held up as a model for the rest of the country to emulate. I’m speculating you may have conflated those events as being somewhat contemporaneous. However, the fact is Bernardin’s leadership of the NCCB predated his Gannon lecture by a decade, and the Gannon lecture predated the development of the abuse policy by about a decade. What’s more, the abuse policy he did develop in the early nineties was a good one. It also, to correct you on another point, did still involve priests. Its just that it also involved laity and outside experts on abuse.
continued below…
If I’m wrong about how you formed your assessment, I apologize, but without any real specifics about how you came to your speculative conclusions on the matter of Bernardin’s role in the sex abuse scandal, it’s hard for me to be as accepting of your characterization as I’d like to be.
Please, let’s do get into the weeds.
You put a great many words into my mouth with which I do not agree. I consider myself a conservative (I’m on Ricochet!), so I don’t think “the Right” is xenophobic. But, many conservatives today are attacking the bishops for their “liberal” view on immigration without even understanding it. The Church recognizes the right of a nation to secure it’s borders. But, it also recognizes the rights of migrants to seek out a new life for themselves. Someone who had no legal means to enter the country (like an unskilled worker) who did so to escape extreme poverty and find work, and who has since been a responsible member of society can be held responsible, but with a penalty that fits the crime. However, many conservatives now say that a fine of several thousand dollars isn’t enough for such a crime, and that it would amount to “amnesty.” So, the only thing left is mass deportation, even if it rips families apart and deprives American enterprises of needed labor. There has to be a proper balance.
In short, the Church, Catholic and Protestant, should have never gotten in bed with the government and accepted monies for its churches, hospitals and charities and should never ever should have supported Obamacare. It’s now paying for its sins. ·7 hours ago
The U.S. bishops called the final version of PPACA “unacceptable” in part because it contained insufficient conscience protection.
I have to respond to this as well. I do not defend socialism, and whatever gave you the idea that I did!? “Social Justice” is a bit of a loaded term, and one that has been adopted by people who don’t see it as the Church sees it. Also, as the last comment in your previous post, salvation comes through Jesus Christ, but His followers are called to work toward a society that better reflects the values of the Kingdom of God.
So, God is cool with abortion as long as the money is laundered through an insurance company. Was that in the Sermon on the Mount or somewhere in Leviticus? I forget. It’s been a long time since I attended Vacation Bible School.
I have a member post in response here. I’d like to address one subject immediately, because it leads to the heart of my objection: why don’t they preach about political issues during the sermon? When was the last time that you heard a sermon on abortion?
Answer: because according to the rubrics of the mass, Catholic priests don’t give sermons. They give homilies. The difference is that a homily is supposed to be grounded in the biblical readings of the day. When a priest gives his homily, it isn’t supposed to be an open-ended speech or lecture. He’s required to make specific points from the readings. He can connect his reflections to current affairs, but only to explain some point from the readings.
The homily isn’t where the church does its teaching on current affairs. You’re not supposed to hear current affairs discussed there. That’s why, as liberal as many of these priests are (and I certainly don’t deny that) I also didn’t hear many homilies about the Iraq War, Libya, tax policy, or bank bailouts.
We’re not Protestants, where the minister has much more leeway.
KC Mulville — you are entirely correct, and I do find myself using the terms sermon and homily interchangeably, wrong though it is…
I will say that the homily is meant to explain the Gospel and to make sense of it for the everyday life of Christians. There are many Gospel passages that beg for application to matters of sexual morality such as contraception or abortion, or the importance of a rightly formed conscience, or the need for Confession, or the importance of forgiveness, or any other important issue for Christians. Instead we typically get an anodyne oozing morality that I characterize as, “Be nice. Be really, really nice.”
I know that many pastors are genuinely good men, but courageous is harder to find. It has always been thus, I know this, but the stakes are very high today. The inability of most Catholics to defend the stand on contraception their Church professes is partly the fault of our shepherds. It is also our own fault, because we all can inform ourselves of the truth. Lord help us.