There is a healthy struggle brewing among the nation's Roman Catholic bishops. A previously silent group, upset over conservative colleagues defining the church's public posture and eagerly picking fights with President Barack Obama, has had enough.
The headlines this week were about lawsuits brought by forty-three Catholic organizations, including thirteen dioceses, to overturn regulations issued by the administration requiring insurance plans to cover contraception under the new health-care law. But the other side of this news was also significant: That the vast majority of the nation's 195 dioceses did not go to court.
It turns out that many bishops, notably the church leadership in California, saw the litigation as premature. They are upset that the lawsuits were brought without a broader discussion among the entire membership of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and wanted to delay action until the bishops' June meeting.
Advertisement
Until now, bishops who believed that their leadership was aligning the institutional church too closely with the political right had voiced their doubts internally. While the more moderate and liberal bishops kept their qualms out of public view, conservative bishops have been outspoken in condemning the Obama administration and pushing a "Fortnight for Freedom" campaign aimed at highlighting "threats to religious freedom, both at home and abroad."
But in recent months, a series of events -- among them the Vatican's rebuke of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious encouraged by right-wing American bishops -- have angered more progressive Catholics and led to talk among the disgruntled faithful of the need for a "Catholic spring" to challenge the hierarchy's shift to the right.
Bishop Stephen E. Blaire of Stockton, California, broke the silence on his side Tuesday in an interview with Kevin Clarke of the Jesuit magazine America. Blaire expressed concern that some groups "very far to the right" are turning the controversy over the contraception rules into "an anti-Obama campaign."
"I think there are different groups that are trying to co-opt this and make it into [a] political issue, and that's why we need to have a deeper discussion as bishops," he said. "I think our rhetoric has to be that of bishops of the church who are seeking to be faithful to the Gospel, that our one concern is that we make sure the church is free to carry out her mission as given to her by Christ, and that remains our focus.” Clarke also paraphrased Blaire as believing that "the bishops lose their support when the conflict is seen as too political."
Blaire's words were diplomatic. But in a letter to the bishops conference that has not been released publicly, lawyers for California's bishops said the lawsuits would be "imprudent" and "ill-advised." The letter was not answered by the national bishops' group before the suits were announced.
Already, there are reports that some bishops will play down or largely ignore the Fortnight for Freedom campaign, scheduled for June 21 to July 4, in their own dioceses. These bishops fear that it has become enmeshed in Republican election-year politics and see many of its chief promoters, notably Archbishop William E. Lori of Baltimore, as too strident.
The irony in the current acrimony is that Catholics were broadly united last January across political lines in opposing the Department of Health and Human Services initial rules on contraception because they exempted only a narrow category of religious institutions from the mandate.
Facing this challenge, the president fashioned a compromise under which employees of Catholic organizations such as hospitals and social-service agencies would still have access to contraceptive services but the religious entities would not have to pay for them. This compromise was accepted by most progressive Catholics, though many of them still favor rewriting the underlying regulations to acknowledge the religious character of the church's welfare and educational work.
But where the progressives favor pursuing further negotiations with the administration, the conservative bishops have acted as if it never made any concessions at all. Significantly, Blaire identified with the conciliatory approach. As Clarke wrote, "Bishop Blaire believes discussions with the Obama administration toward a resolution of the dispute could be fruitful even as alternative remedies are explored."
For too long, the Catholic Church's stance on public issues has been defined by the outspokenness of its most conservative bishops and the reticence of moderate and progressive prelates. Signs that this might finally be changing are encouraging for the church, and for American politics.
(c) 2012, Washington Post Writers Group
For more coverage of the contraception mandate, click here.
In referring to signs he detects that more moderate and progressive bishops may be dissenting from the USCCB religious-freedom strategy, E.J. Dionne says:
"But where the progressives favor pursuing further negotiations with the administration, the conservative bishops have acted as if it never made any concessions at all. Significantly, Blaire identified with the conciliatory approach. As Clarke wrote, "Bishop Blaire believes discussions with the Obama administration toward a resolution of the dispute could be fruitful even as alternative remedies are explored."
It is my understanding that Obama Administration has closed the door to further discussions. If so, it would seem there is little or no room right now for discussion or exploring "alternative remedies." If not now, then when should the law suit have been filed? After the mandate is in effect and the alternatives are to pay $10,000 a day fines, close a ministry, or some other equally noxious option? I agree with Dionne that there may have been a better time (perhaps, as Bishop Blaire seems to have suggested, after the USCCB's next meeting) and the tone of the some bishops' remarks might lead to the perception that sides are being imprudently taken in a presidential race; however, the key point of the" definition of a Catholic Ministry" and who is to make that definition, to which Dionne seems to give great weight also, is the central point in this controversy, and, I believe, that needs to be addressed, and addressed forcefully and promptly. The lawsuit does this and, because so much is at stake for the Church, I think it is time for we moderate and liberal Catholics to stop quibbling about timing and tone, and get behind the bishops' leadership's efforts. If we allow the federal government to ignore hundreds of years of precedent in this country, and nearly two millenia overall, of what is the real ministry of the Church, and dictate a new definition, I believe the "clout" of the Church to influence the social and economic justice issues we moderates and liberals so rightly favor will also suffer gravely. All Catholics should view this fight as an institutional survival issue.
The Obama administration is nothing if not open to discussion. They have taken any number of steps toward the middle in dealings with the Republicans and have been rebuffed or ignored every time. They made such a step with the bishops -- and got a Republican-like response.
The bishops do agree with the Democrats on the safety net issue. Yet they continue to rail about the mandate and claim the administration is hanging tough. Hanging tough? Fiirst of all, they announced a one year period before it goes into effect. This hardly sounds like a fiat or edict. Then they bent the rule to be more accomodating. Cardinal Dolan is the only one I am aware of who said the administration has closed the door.
Let us pray that the more calm, prayerful, humble and shepard-like bishops influence the tone of the discussion with the administration. Less and less do I recognize the church these days. It has locked itself into a power struggle, prematurely and most likely unnecesssarily. It seems too ruffled to deliver Christ's message of peace and love and understanding, too ruffled to open up to discussion.
It was the USCCB that closed the door on discussions....and then stomped around calling the President names to boot. These particular bishops not only totally ignore the President's offer of a compromise when discussing their "religious liberty" complaints, they baldly claim the government is attacking THEIR rights as if it were forcing them personally to pay for contraceptives out of diocesan funds! I don't know how many times I've had to explain to angry parishioners that dioceses, like churches and church schools, have been exempt from the mandate all along.
It is my understanding that the administration did not consult with the bishops when devising the first mandate, nor did they discuss the so-called "compromise" with them before imposing it. This does not seem like openness. the fact that the University of Notre Dame has joined the lawsuit gives me hope that the more liberal and moderate forces withing the Catholic community see the importance of challenging the government's attempt to define the ministry of the Church, which to me, is the key reason for the lawsuit.
This piece by E.J. Dionne is so full of spin, I'm not even going to bother commenting on it directly. Mr. Dionne is trying to exert control over the narrative using his substantial influence, but he's not going to succeed. Not surprising since he is probably working hand-in-hand with officials in the Obama Administration to manipulate Catholics into supporting the Administration's attack on Church institutions. More on that here: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/theanchoress/2012/02/10/obama-accommodation....
Beverly Bailey, the USCCB did not close the door to discussions. Please show me where the Obama Administration talked with the USCCB at all, let alone with any of the Bishops of the Catholic Church individually. The USCCB made repeated attempts to talk with the Administration, and these requests were never heeded. If I'm wrong, show me.
What did happen is a bunch of groups presumed to represent the Church (the CHA under Sr. Carol Keehan, notably) in the "discussions" with the Obama Administration concerning the contraception, sterilization, and abortion mandate of ObamaCare. All of these discussions were private and only sympathetic "Catholic" institutions and public opinion moulders were invited.
I take Jim Lein's closing comment to task: "Let us pray that the more calm, prayerful, humble and shepard-like bishops influence the tone of the discussion with the administration. Less and less do I recognize the church these days... It seems too ruffled to deliver Christ's message of peace and love and understanding, too ruffled to open up to discussion."
Oh, do stop, please. Do you know what a shepherd is, Mr. Lein? Part of being a shepherd is taking a club to the heads of wolves when they are attacking the flock. We need Bishops who will stand up against real injustice and immorality: actions taken by the civil authorities to force people and institutions to take part in evil. I am very proud of the united response of the Bishops in the United States. Unfortunately, a lawsuit is the only way to get this completely unjust, completely un-Constitutional mandate overturned, Bishop Stockton's reservations notwithstanding.
Finally, I appreciate Wayne Sheridan's comment. Thank you Wayne! But folks, stop applying political terms to "forces" within the Church, I beg of you! There are not liberal Catholics, progressive Catholics, conservative Catholics, etc. We're all members of the Body of Christ. But if you arrogantly dissent from the clear teachings of the Church, where is your heart? If you support political movements and ideals which can only harm the Church's mission to save souls for Christ, where is your heart? If you're labelling yourself as belonging to a faction within the Church, you are doing harm to yourself and to your fellow Catholics. Read St. Paul's letters. I don't even acknowledge people who call themselves conservatives or traditionalists, so I'm not just criticizing people who are more to the left in their political outlooks.
Peace be with you all, sincerely. I pray that gradually we will all be "one" again, as Our Lord talks about in today's Gospel (Jn 17:20-26).
John
In all this stew, has anyone asked about the rights of NON Catholics to exercise their consciences even if that runs athwart the rights of the bishops?
The Catholic Church is in grave danger of dying out because it is as instrument of oppression. To survive, it needs to modernize, i.e. to allow for the ordination of women, optional celibacy, birth control, marriage for priests, the embracing of divorced Catholics who wish to come to the Table. On these issues the leadership is wrong and people know it. I'm grateful that some bishops are hesitant to support the lawsuit, politically charged approach to dealing with differences with the federal government. It gives me hope.
Has anyone notices that "Patheos" and "pathetic" are very close to each other?
What is so difficult to understand: Holy Mother Church has outlived Rome and every empire for thousands of years-Because she is right. It is not "politics", but charity for all. If you do not agree, pray. But stop being ignorant and spreading error. May Mary guide and protect us. Ora pro nobis!
for John; the nature of "one in Christ", having just read the gospel verses, doesn't suggest we will be indistinguishable. we are all unique individuals, made in the divine "image". in that sense, only the divine knows the boundaries of that unity. so, .... please don't tell me i can't be a "liberal" catholic. especially at a time when the bishop'a aren't even conservative.