Church and State: O’Brien and O’Malley
The Washington Post has an account of some strongly worded correspondence from Baltimore Archbishop O’Brien to Maryland Governor O’Malley over same-sex marriage. My initial reaction was that O’Brien is exerting an awful lot of pressure. But I thought for a moment, and realized that governors — and politicians of all sorts — get pressure all the time, from all sorts of lobbying groups. It would be interesting to set O’Brien’s letter in the context of all the other letters from stakeholders that O’Malley gets every day.
So my questions:
1. Is political pressure exercised by a religious leader upon a congregant inherently different from any other sort of political pressure, from a moral perspective?
2. Is it legitimate for citizens who are not of the particular faith of the politician to ask whether and how he will stand up to religious pressure by his/her religious leaders? Or is that simply bringing us back to religious prejudice of the Kennedy era?
3. (Update): NOTE THAT O’Malley’s office released the letters, NOT O’Brien’s. O’Brien was clearly not attempting to shame or embarrass O’Malley. ‘OBrien didn’t threaten O”Malley, as far as I can see. O’Brien is not chaputizing O’Malley, so to speak. Why did O’Malley release the letters, then? Something is not sitting right here with me.
P.S. I’m in season four of The Wire. Apparently, O’Malley was the major inspiration for Tommy Carcetti. Now, what I’d really like to see is the letter from the (fictional) Cardinal Archbishop of Baltimore to Carcetti!
I think Abp. O’Brien showed restraint in his approach, though one may wonder if he’s choosing a losin gbattle in the wave of current movements.
That said, imagine if this was Pennsylvania and the new Abp. wanted his voice heard in the public square or other bishops as well. or other bishops…
I doubt there wil be one answer for Cathy’s questions as we struggle with this.
Cathy –
A statement about morality from a religious leader who offers non-religious evidence in support of his position is no different from that of a non-religious person offering evidence. The only question should be: is the evidence offered only a matter of revelation or is the evidence a matter of general human experience
The distinction between revelation and non-revealed truth, as you undoubtedly know, is straight from Aquinas. But some of the bishops don’t seem to have heard of it — they just make assertions without any supporting evidence. For example, they keep saying that homosexual alliances weaken heterosexual marriage, but I have yet to see even oe bishop offer any non-religious evidence of any sort in support of that contention.
Such religious authorities are irrelevant in the public square.
Bob–you’re right. And I updated my post to add a third question.
Why did O’Malley release the letters, then?
So that people would attack and criticize Archbishop O’Brien, obviously. So that people would have a knee-jerk reaction against Archbishop O’Brien and spend most of their blog posts questioning the actions of, not O’Malley, but Archbishop O’Brien.
Bender, on this one I am inclined to hope you’re not right.
I think there is a big difference between bishops privately corresponding with Catholic politicians in their flock (like any citizen can) and publicly shaming them. And I have always seen Archbishop O’Brien as a straight shooter. People can and will disagree with the substance, but I don’t see the form of his intervention is open to question.
As far as I can tell, it’s never the bishops who release these letter(s), so I’m surprised that’s ever presumed.
2. Is it legitimate for citizens who are not of the particular faith of the politician to ask whether and how he will stand up to religious pressure by his/her religious leaders? Or is that simply bringing us back to religious prejudice of the Kennedy era?
I think Paul Horwitz’s op ed piece in the New York Times made an excellent point on this question. Here’s the key paragraph:
I think it is perfectly legitimate to ask Catholics, or members of any other religion, how their religious beliefs will affect their performance in office, and how any religious organizations they belong to, including the Catholic Church, might affect what they are willing to do and not willing to do in office.
It seems to me the reason we tend not to raise questions about a politician’s religion is that we take almost for granted that politicians of “normal” religions (of which Catholicism is now one) are perfectly comfortable going against the teachings of their religion and defying the religious leaders within their own faith if to do otherwise would interfere with their political fate. We take for granted that a Catholic Democrat is going to behave like a Democrat even if doing so is not consistent with Catholicism, and a Catholic Republican is going to behave like a Republican even if doing so is not consistent with Catholicism. We take politicians’ religion seriously only to the extent that we expect them to, which is basically not at all, unless, of course, they are from religions not within the Judeo-Christian tradition, and then we greatly fear they might be influenced by their religion.
As far as I can tell, it’s never the bishops who release these letter(s), so I’m surprised that’s ever presumed.
Mark,
Why should the public not know that one of their elected officials is being privately pressured by someone he or she professes to believe is one of the successors to the Apostles?
1. Is political pressure exercised by a religious leader upon a congregant inherently different from any other sort of political pressure, from a moral perspective?
Yes, of course it is. If we were talking about the Church of Scientology, the answer would be obvious. A bishop can apply pressure to a Catholic unlike pressure anyone else can apply.
With respect to question 1, I wonder whether it is accurate to describe O’Brien’s act as “political pressure.” The letters were apparently intended to be private, and appeal to O’Malley as a Catholic. If it were truly political, it would seem it would need to be more public and appeal to him in his political capacity. I see nothing wrong with O’Brien appealing to O’Malley as a Catholic to be mindful of his obligations as such. I have no problems with this approach, and indeed it should be encouraged.
Re: question 2, I think it is not appropriate for such questions to be raised insofar as the dialogue is intended to be private, i.e. wholly non-political.
O’Brien greatly impressed me during the Legionnaries of Christ episode, as he was one of the first to greatly limit their activities in Baltimore; he does not strike me as a rash or intemperate actor. O’Malley is less impressive to me, as he has often relished attempting to goad his fellow governor (and co-religionist) to the north, Chris Christie, into petty debates.
Archbp O’Brien’s letter, and O’Malley’s response, strike me as perfectly acceptable and well-phrased questions and responses on an important topic.
As for why O’Malley’s office released them, on principle it is important for public officials to disclose lobbying like this, especially when it is of a personal religious nature, as this was.
Also, the existence of the letters was known and was going to be the subject of stories. From a political and PR standpoint, best to get them both out there. Also helps the accuracy of stories at the start, rather than doing damage control later.
BTW, I see (H/T Mark Stricherz) that Rick Santorum is invoking his faith in a somewhat different manner in Iowa:
http://www.radioiowa.com/2011/08/08/candidates-speak-of-spines-religion-biography-benchmarks/
Hey, what good is religion if it can’t get you some swing state votes?!
Michelle Bachmann’s standard line could use some polishing, I think, if she wants to avoid cover photos like the one on the latest Newsweek:
Does that make her a Cylon?
Are both letters available in full?
Thanks, David–The PR angle had not even crossed my mind. it always helps to have the perspective of a journalist.
David’s first comment was excellent in that the Abp. was hadly doing more than making a reasonable statement of his position (as was the governor.)
The release of the lettersISTM was eminently reasonable given the situation also as David points out.,(some love secrecy, but that’s a problem we seem to have -especially if you want to be heard in the public square.)
As to Santorum,.Bachmann and their doings, blech!
“As for why O’Malley’s office released them, on principle it is important for public officials to disclose lobbying like this, especially when it is of a personal religious nature, as this was.”
I’d be interested in seeing how Maryland defines “lobbying” as I’m just not sure on the basis of the story in the Post that this qualifies.
Thanks, David Gibson, for giving me the image of Michelle Bachman’s spine lighting up while she’s with the “Silver Fox.” Thanks.
How about O’Brien questioning O’Malley’s motives?
“We urge you not to allow your role as the leader of our state to be used in allowing the debate surrounding the definition of marriage to be determined by mere political expediency. The people of Maryland deserve no less.”
If it’s OK for motives of politicians to be accused of ‘mere political expediency’ in bishops’ demands, I think bishops have opened wide the door to ‘be accused of episcopal ladder climbing and Vatican a– kissing ‘ in all future letters….
Jeff, A/B O’Brien did not ‘greatly’ impress me when he forced Fr Tom Doyle OP to resign from the position of Air Force chaplain because Doyle at the request of other chaplains dared to suggest that O’Brien mandating daily Mass when deployed overseas was not necessary or canonical..
As one who lives in Baltimore, I have a hunch that at least one motivation for the release of the letters is to portray O’Malley as a strong leader on this issue, a leader who will respond in kind to the arguments of a religious leader like O’Brien. O’Malley’s leadership on this is rather new, and clearly a post-New York phenomenon.
Season Four is the best and most heart breaking season of The Wire.
Jeff Landry, I meant lobbying in the general sense, as in pressing your case to a public official. I don’t know that there’s any rule regarding the exchange of letters between O’Brien and O’Malley, but their existence was known and best to have it out in the open.
In general, I would always presume a politician to be working in his or her best interest. I would also assume that the archbishop knew the letters would emerge sooner or later, and both letters seem phrased in the kind of language that reflects public discourse. If the archbishop and the governor had met for a private tete-a-tete, now that would be interesting.
The governor most likely releases much of his correspondence publicly so that it does not have to be requested under Maryland’s Public Information Act, which is quite broad:
“Public records are any records that are made by, or received by, a covered public
agency in connection with the transaction of public business. The scope is broad, and all
“records” possessed by an agency generally fall within the definition of “public records.””
Go here if you are interested: http://www.oag.state.md.us/Opengov/pia.htm
The executive branch is a covered agency, and the above quote is from Chapter 1.
I agree with Joe Petitt on why O’Brien released the letter. He did not want to wait for O’Brien to do it because had that been the case he would have been in the weaker position of responding and defending himself. This is a standard practice among smart politicians. Now the ball is in O’Brien’s court, and of course it would be very difficult for him to respond. In my opinion, O’Malley wins all around, because the story dies with the news cycle. He is Jesuit trained (Gonzaga College High School) and is no dope.
David–
It’s unfortunate that once again the hermeneutic of suspicion rears its ugly head on the blog, with the hermeneutic of charity in hiding (I realize it did not start with you). It’s distorting, debilitating, and darn mean. Where is the “pressure” exactly? Why not assume a shepherd is tending to one of his sheep that’s straying into an area where he may be harmed? Why can’t an umbrella just be that thing that repels the rain?
The MD Catholic Conference press release on July 22 noted the Archbishop’s letter to the Governor. On-line July 28, the Archbishop said he had sent the letter and expanded on it. He publicly opposed the governor’s stand on same-sex marriage and prayed for him to be influenced by his faithful upbringing and change his mind on marriage. The news was out. The Governor responded on August 4. That media requests to likely sources were responded to on Aug 8 can more likely be attributed to modest news value and two weekends than to nefarious machinations by anyone.
http://www.mdcathcon.org/governors-decision-to-sponsor-same-sex-marriage-bill-is-regrettable-?a=1&c=1105
http://www.catholicreview.org/subpages/storyworldnew-new.aspx?action=10342
The actual letters exchanged can be seen at:
http://www.catholicreview.org/subpages/obrienomalleymarriage.aspx
Mark Proska,
The bishop is talking to the governor and saying,
How is that not pressure? One may think it is wholly appropriate and be proud of the bishop for saying it, but it’s still pressure. The bishop is urging the Catholic governor not to do something, and telling the governor that what he is contemplating is against his faith and bad for the people. It is impossible to look at it merely as a shepherd tending to one of his sheep, because what the governor does affects the whole state.
Now, when the bishop urged the governor to abolish the death penalty, that was pressure, too. I happen to oppose the death penalty, and so I am happy for the bishop to apply as much pressure as he can on the governor to abolish the death penalty. But it is still pressure. It is also, I think, a different category of pressure than if the bishop were making a moral argument to a non-Catholic governor, which is why I think it is perfectly acceptable to ask Catholic candidates for office how their religion will affect their politics, and even say to them, “Look at the case of Bishop O’Brien and Governor O’Malley. As a Catholic politician, what would you do if your bishop came to you privately and urged you, as a Catholic, to support issue X and oppose issue Y?”
Bishop O’Brien isn’t just tending to Governor O’Malley’s soul. The bishop doesn’t want same-sex marriage in Maryland, and he’s using his position as bishop to stop it. Many people would think that is a good thing, and many others would think it is a bad thing, but it is a simple fact, and it is not “distorting, debilitating, and darn mean” to call it a fact.
Mark Proska, are you talking to this David or David N? In any case, he answered better than I could. II haven’t seen anything uncharitable here. Archbp O’Brien is doing his job, no?
Thanks to Barbara and Jack Barry for the sunshine law stuff and the tick tock. Nothing too unusual here.
I think the interesting questions are how bishops can make their voices heard, and how and whether they can influence policies — by pressing leaders or voters — and whether any of that works, or works against their cause. The trend lines on gay marriage are clearly going against the hierarchy’s view, so it’s a tough slog.
I know this is serious business, but the Baltimore diocesan paper’s filename for the letters is too good to be true:
http://www.catholicreview.org/subpages/obrienomalleymarriage.aspx
Jack–Thanks for your link to the actual letter. It’s surprising we didn’t see it sooner, given that’s what all the fuss is about.
“How is that not pressure?”
David N.–I’m sorry, can you tell me how that *is* pressure, other than the pressure we all feel to do the right thing? You’ve reiterated several times that the bishop is exerting *pressure*, but you’ve given no support for it. What punishment does the good bishop threaten the governor with? What revenge can he exact? Why should the governor feel any pressure whatsoever? If he felt pressure of any kind, would he have consented to releasing the letter? Wouldn’t that just have increased the, ahem, pressure?
Welcome to Mark Proska’s Master Class in Deconstructionism!
Mark,
The article says:
Quite clearly, the message of the bishop is, “I know you are under pressure from one side, and I want to apply equal pressure from the other.” When you acknowledge that someone is under pressure to do something, and you speak with “urgency and intensity” telling them not to do what they are under pressure to do, you are exerting “counter-pressure,” which is, of course, pressure.
What punishment does the good bishop threaten the governor with? What revenge can he exact?
Threatening someone with punishment, or signaling you will take revenge I suppose are forms of pressure, but they also smack of coercion.
Why should the governor feel any pressure whatsoever?
Aren’t you a Catholic? Would you honestly say that if a bishop came to you and urged you as a Catholic not to do something you planned to do, telling you it was counter to the Catholic religion, you would feel no pressure?
Cathy’s original questions and David G.”s questions are really what this thread should be about, and they are not easy to answer -unless you take some simpleminded approach.
Maybe some of this will surface next month at Fordham in the conferences on the hierarchy and Faithful Citizenship.
The group dynamic of USCCB -whichcedes all to the individual bishop in his see – wil be interesting to observe vis a vis individual bishops going forward (say in Philly).
David–
If I were in the governor’s position, and my conscience was at odds with the Church’s teaching, I hope I would have met with my bishop first to seek his counsel, before coming to any conclusion, rather than avoiding him as much as possible, as it appears the governor has done. The *pressure* would have come from the internal conflict between my conscience and the long held teaching of the Catholic Church. Given the bishop’s compassionate, engaging and pastoral letter, his words, if anything, would have relieved the pressure, not created or increased it.
The bishop’s letter ends,
“I welcome the opportunity to speak personally with you on this issue, and hope you will not hesitate to contact me should you wish to do so. As always, I continue to keep you and all our elected leaders in my prayers.”
Yep, it’s hard to believe the governor could withstand such *pressure*. Yet, somehow, some way, he did– the governor’s letter ends with this:
“I look forward to working with you on *other* issues of mutual agreement. And I respect your freedom to disagree with me as a citizen and as a religious leader without questioning your motives.”
In other words, I have no interest in meeting with you or discussing the issue with you, despite the importance of my Catholic faith to me and the authority that I believe the Holy Spirit has entrusted in you…oh, and by the way, I want to raise the issue of your motives.
Beautiful.
OFF TOPIC QUESTIONS: Do the American bishops ever get together specifically to learn some theology together either in small groups or large ones? Do they get together to actually talk about theological issues ofi nterest to the faithful? It seems to me they have a duty to do so. If they won’t listen t o the various theologians at least they could listen t o each other.
In some states some professionals are required to keep up with new developments. Seems to me th priniple is a good one.
Since there was an exchange of letters, I think it presumptuous to say the governor had no interest(because he didn’t folow Mark’s “beautiful” approach.)
It’s so easy to caricature those we disagree with or don’t like.
I think David did an excellent job of exposing the current status with objrctiivity.
In other words, I have no interest in meeting with you or discussing the issue with you, despite the importance of my Catholic faith to me and the authority that I believe the Holy Spirit has entrusted in you…oh, and by the way, I want to raise the issue of your motives.
Mark,
Why should the governor meet with the bishop if the governor has already made up his mind? I assume that the governor (and any Catholic politician, or politician of another religion) has thought through how his faith must affect his politics. You seem to feel the governor should allow himself to be dissuaded by the bishop (though in the absence of pressure). Clearly the governor doesn’t feel that way. It’s his conscience that is at issue, not yours or mine. I believe a Catholic politician has sufficient leeway to support same-sex marriage as a person acting on behalf of the people of his state rather than an agent for the Catholic Church. I know the Church opposes same-sex marriage, but it also opposes divorce and remarriage, too, and I do not believe a Catholic politician is obliged to oppose divorce and remarriage.
“You seem to feel the governor should allow himself to be dissuaded by the bishop (though in the absence of pressure).”
I said nothing of the kind. What I thought I made clear is that the governor should have actively sought the counsel of the bishop, not have avoided it. How can a good Catholic, who wants to remain in communion with the Church, so nonchalantly pursue a course of action that goes against the teaching of his Church? Mind you, that, in and of itself, does not make him a bad person, but how can he consider himself a serious Catholic? Perhaps he does not, but if that’s the case he should just come out and say so.
Another Mark “beautiful” – the governor is “nonchalant” how does he know this?
How can one consider oneslf a “serious” Catholic if they disagree on pubic policy with their bishop, evn if they are elected?
Ask thousands of people who IMO are serious and don’t follow your approach.
BTW, O think the Abp. did a good job of speaking up, but that’s beside your point.
1. Is political pressure exercised by a religious leader upon a congregant inherently different from any other sort of political pressure, from a moral perspective?
In Maryland, a primary function of the Governor of all the citizens is to be “pressured” daily by many people telling him what he must and must not do for a variety of conflicting serious reasons. One more voice is not noteworthy unless it carries special political leverage or moral authority.
In his July letter, the Archbishop speaks “on behalf of the Catholic Church in Maryland” as, ex officio, he is entitled. There is no reason to equate that to speaking on behalf of most Catholic voters in Maryland, as the Governor and Archbishop know well. His political leverage is modest, shaped by what he has done and said on a variety of prior issues.
In March, the Archbishop gave a brief public statement on same-sex marriage and its potential to dismantle marriage altogether.
http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/faith/2011/03/archbishop_obrien_samesex.html
Arguing on the basis of the impacts of same-sex marriage, he apparently didn’t notice that:
Two groups are involved:
- Some are inclined toward heterosexual marriage and are highly unlikely to go the other way.
- Some are inclined toward same-sex marriage and are highly unlikely to go the other way.
and
- Proper concerns about children’s upbringing and the loving and nurturing they experience arise whatever environment they are in.
- The Church officially blesses non-procreative marriage already, for example, by marrying an old, previously unwed man and woman.
His statement did little to advance his cause as government decisions since have shown.
This time, to his credit, he avoids the apocalyptic hyperbole noted from churchmen in New York. On July 28, he invoked the concerns of Church and governments for marriage “because it is the only union capable of procreating children and, therefore, necessary for the continuation of the human race”. Fortunately for us humans, ways to continue the race had been found long before government and churches began to make rules on official marriage. His epistemic authority (the power to affect thought or belief – Thanks, J. A. Komonchak) is modest over those who pay attention to his words.
If I as citizen or governor were to be advised by some expert who is on the record as Archbishop O’Brien is, I would seriously question his credibility whatever the subject might be. There is no reason to expect him to be any more authoritative on other subjects than he has publicly shown himself to be on something as important to him as same-sex marriage.
“…the governor is “nonchalant” how does he know this?”
You are, of course, free to conclude the governor has been quite chalant about the whole matter, but do you honestly feel I’ve not answered your question already as to why I’ve concluded the opposite?
Separately, I think I need help with this whole idea of “pressure.” For example, is voicing an alternative point of view a form of exerting pressure? Should I feel pressured by those in here who express a different view than my own? Are the commenting guidelines a form of pressure? Since pressure, as it was introduced in the thread, had a pejorative connotation, it seems to the conversation could benefit from a bit more nuance.
Since pressure, as it was introduced in the thread, had a pejorative connotation, it seems to the conversation could benefit from a bit more nuance.
Mark,
Where do you find pressure used as a pejorative. Cathy Kaveny said at the beginning:
She also pointed out that the letters were released by the governor, and not the bishop, saying, “O’Brien was clearly not attempting to shame or embarrass O’Malley.”
You seem to feel something is being attacked that you need to defend. Nobody is criticizing O’Brien for sending the letter. You are criticizing O’Malley for not going to O’Brien for more of his “counsel” before making a decision (which O’Malley clearly had already made).
You are completely in your rights for allying yourself totally with the bishop in this situation and criticizing O’Malley for not suspending judgment on the matter of same-sex marriage until he had discussed it with the bishop, but I don’t think I am reading too much between the lines to conclude that the governor should have talked things over with the bishop and acceded to the bishops request not to support same-sex marriage. But if the governor had already made his decision, why should he waste his own time or the bishop’s by further consultation when he had already made up his mind? Do you think there was any new information or any novel arguments the bishop could have marshaled?
“Is it legitimate for citizens who are not of the particular faith of the politician to ask whether and how he will stand up to religious pressure by his/her religious leaders?”
Since when do people *stand up to* something good? Good things we stand for, or with.
“But if the governor had already made his decision, why should he waste his own time or the bishop’s by further consultation when he had already made up his mind?”
Of course, there was no initial consultation, so talk of further consultation is misleading. If the governor felt that engaging his bishop to understand his teaching (whether he would consent to it or not) was a waste of his time, what evidence do we have that the governor is a serious Catholic? The vapidness of the letter to his archbishop (I urge others to read the governor’s letter that was linked to previously) is further evidence that the governor is not serious.
Jack Barry –
The Archbishop’s March statement says that homosexual unions do not provide children with proper parenting. This, however, says nothing about how homosexual unions weaken heterosexual marriages. If he wants to argue that adoption by homosexuals is against the interests of the children, that would be one thing. (Note: he offers no evidence that it is bad.) But to claim that such adoptions *also* weaken heterosexual marriages is a total non-sequiture.
As I reflect on this, the thread has lots of ties to several matters we’ve talked about:
The Church’s voice in the public aquare and what policies it uses to implement that and how effective they are.
I think the Bishop’s letter was pressure and appropriate -a leadership statement from the voice of the Church in Baltimore directly to the Governor (and beyond to the people of Maryland.) The effectivenes there of IMO depends on its credibility within the comunity.
This is different from coercion(we’ll deny you comunion, Gov, or withhold services by our charitable arm.) I’d posit those approaches are counterproductive in the total comunity and undermine the first approach.
But, in the command/control Church “full court presses” and the like are the m.o, de jour inside the organization and I again posit they don’t work well there also.
I thought it remarkable this week that Bishop Tobin noted the”visitation’ of the nuns had created lots of misunderstandings/tensions and likened (I thought derogatorily) his predecessor, Cardinal Rode’s approach to Fox news in miscommunicating.
(Of course, we’ve had other “visitations” that continue to mark us with tensions and misunderstandings, etc.)
If the Church is to gain ground, overuse of weaponry strikes me a poor tactic. but then it must counter with rational argument – the nub of the issue here.
Which leads me to say that I think Mark would do well to say what his opinion is of how the Bishop should act, but refrain from vapid ad hominems about the governor and how serious a catholic he is.
That’s just more of the same kind of failed policy support that undermines the case to be made.
Two separable aspects of Abp. O’Brien are on the table.
He put his views out in the US public, joining Dolan, DiMarzio, and other members of the hierarchy who have spoken on the Chaput “issue of our time”. Their effectiveness has not matched their rhetorical reach — the foundations of civilization, the continuing of the human race, polygamy, the dismantling of heterosexual marriage, and similar cataclysms. A sage in a different part of our world pointed out that extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof. If that’s not available, some of the rational argument Bob Nunz recommends could help them a lot in the public square.
Concerns about pressure are diversionary. By all indications, O’Malley is robust, principled, and intelligent enough to withstand the flood of diverse pressures that routinely come his way. That is why he sits where he does. He has known of O’Brien’s position since at least March when all readers of the Baltimore Sun saw what it was. Any change since then would certainly have appeared in the news.
The other aspect of Abp. O’Brien is his ability actually to influence Maryland legislation. He speaks officially for the Church in Maryland, but that should never be confused with speaking for the Catholic voters of the state.
His authority as a leader able to influence actions, including legislating and voting, depends on the overall effect of what he has said and done on Catholic schools and associated children’s welfare, local Legionaries of Christ, statutes of limitation, abusers in the area, and relieving Fr. Tom Doyle, USAF, for a few examples. Elsewhere, one hears of parishioners voting with their feet. Last year, a more serious voting with their children was chosen by some in his diocese because of Abp. O’Brien’s management of his school system. Some parents withdrew their children from Catholic schools with a promise never to return. Evaluating him on one issue misrepresents the man, whatever his title and office.
Bob–
In response to your request, I have no problem with the Archbishop’s actions. I also would have no problem with a bishop, to avoid scandal, publicly declaring that a public figure’s actions put him outside the communion of faithful. In fact, I think his office requires him to do so. That would no come close to coercion, in my view. Where might we be if Athanasius were as timorous as you think today’s bishops should be over matters that affect the faithful?
Also, I do not think identifying actions that do no comport with those of a serious Catholic constitutes an ad hominem.
Mark, I think you think you are a “serious Catholic” and those who don’t afree aren’t.
Just more presumption in my view.