Live coverage of USCCB meeting (updated)
November 15, 2011, 9:14 am
Posted by Grant Gallicho
From Telecare (And we’re live again):
In case you missed yesterday’s coverage, check out David Gibson’s RNS story, the Catholic News Service report, and Laurie Goodstein’s New York Times account. You can read Bishop Lori’s address on religious freedom here. And Archbishop Dolan’s presidential address here.
Glad that the USCCB invited an Eastern bishop to speak. Most Catholics in the West have no idea that there are 21 rites in the Catholic Church.
And many Catholics will not admit that there have been an equal number (if not more) of wrongs in the Catholic Church, not the least of which is the shameful way the non-Latin Rites have been treated.
“Eminence,” said the reporter to Wuerl in closing the interview. Oh, my. Maybe next time, “Excellency” and “Your Grace” may be heard as well.
Carolyn – it is an honorific, along the lines of “Mr.” or “Dr.” or “Fr.”. I hope the media can be both courteous and zealous in pursuit of the story.
In the current Commonweal, Dennis O’Brien has an excellent piece recaling the Bishops’ ecoonmic pastoral of 25 years ago.
What a difference today in both the cast of characters and the relevance of what’s said.
We live in sad times in the US Church.
FWIW, my write up of the first day of the meeting:
http://www.religionnews.com/index.php?/rnstext/catholic_bishops_open_annual_meeting/
Jim,
It is not my preference to reinforce the clerical culture that uses excessive honorifics, when Cardinal or Archbishop or Bishop are serviceable and courteous, in person. I think it is unhelpful from the perspective of both official and layperson.
What fully cured me was walking with McCormack through an airport a year before the scandal broke. Witnessing the almost obsequiousness of the local public, where it felt as though the waves parted as we passed, with the royal nod and accompanying aroma of entitlement, I was truly distressed. I thought to myself, “My God, he expects to be treated that way.” It left me that uneasy.
As the scandal broke a year later, I heard from survivors about the hauteur and arrogance of bishops.
A little story: An outstanding priest friend down South was elevated to monsignor, and gave a moving homily of what it meant to him as he retired for health reasons. Not the garb, which he had no intention of buying for hundreds of dollars or for any externals, but because he always told his bishop the straight-up truth, and the bishop remarked how much he appreciated that. No sycophant he.
The new monsignor joked that people could still call him “Bob” (not his real name), though he preferred “Your Grace”. The congregation exploded in appreciative humor.
My days reporting for newspapers trained me for full title at first mention, then last name only, in print. Besides, I had my fill of “Your Excellency” etc. when I worked at the UN.
Politeness, yes; optional nobility-tinged titles, no.
I watched the morning press conference at the Bishop’s annual November meeting and had mixed emotions. Archbishop Dolan was asked a question, which he said that he had expected, about the Penn state scandal. His response covered issues like acknowledgment of the pain of the victims and the need for education about the issue, which he claimed the Catholic Church has done very well. He also mentioned the need for groups and institutions to work together to deal with this issue. (Sorry, I heard this as a subtle reference to “We are not the only institution that has had to deal with this.”)
Not once, did I hear him mention the most troubling part of the scandal at Penn State and in the Church, the culpability of those in authority who hid and/or protected the predators or were in denial. (Sad to say, it does not appear that the hierarchy “gets it” yet.)
To be fair, I think I heard in a follow-up question by Laurie Goodstein (of all people) the Archbishop admitting offhandedly something about that the Church (hierarchy) not dealing with the issue as well as they could have.
Helen,
You give a good example of the practiced resort to euphemism vs reality when hierarchy speaks of the crisis/scandal.
To wit:
1) not handling the issue as well as we could =
cover-up, obstruction of justice, failure to report under the law, callous disregard for victims and child protection, willful blindness
2) sorry for what I did and didn’t do, my advice was not helpful to victims =
same as #1
3) harm, or maybe boundary violation =
rape, sodomy, sexual molestation, groping, felonious sexual assault
4) so sorry for the pain suffered by victims (passive voice) =
so sorry for the pain I caused (rediscovery of the first person singular)
That’s the general idea: bleached language that ignores the facts
I am dismayed to see Carolyn Disco being instructed in the niceties of ecclesiastical protocol. In the diocese of which I am a member, the Ordinary, on being named a cardinal, quickly changed (or approved the change) of the name of the annual diocesan appeal from “The Archbishop’s Appeal” to “The Cardinal’s Appeal.”
Some years ago, I was present at a meeting at which a bishop said, “the diocese to which I belong.” I could have wept.
“3) harm, or maybe boundary violation =
rape, sodomy, sexual molestation, groping, felonious sexual assault”
Have bishops described rape or sodomy as boundary violations?
Sexual molestation and groping could sometimes be open to interpretation and a defense lawyer might try to downgrade them to boundary violations, but it seems to me unlikely than anyone would be so foolish as to characterize rape and sodomy so; they would invite instant and universal jeers.
The bishops seem to me a bunch of somnambulist zombies. Their abortiongaymarriage mantra deafens them to all else. They do not know that they have planted a time bomb with the new zombie translations that is going to explode next Sunday week…
What’s wrong with “the diocese to which I belong”? Secular priests use or have used of them that locution. If the bishop means “the people to whom I belong” he is speaking as a good pastor.
Joseph O’Leary, I could perhaps have been clearer, though someone has written to me privately, thanking me for quoting how the bishop referred to the diocese to which he was assigned. That writer understood my point.
I was moved by the fact that this very gentle, pastoral bishop did not say “MY diocese,” but rather “the diocese to which I belong.” That meeting in 1987 was my first experience of the bishop. This use on his part has never varied in the twenty-four years since. And not “MY priests,” but “the priests of the diocese.” Etc. I suppose I could have said, “I wanted to cheer,” but in fact my reaction was more profound.
That bishop, who wrote to me yesterday, was very much involved with the preparation of the 1998 ICEL Missal. He and I and many others are not looking forward to this Sunday, the last Sunday in Vatican II Time.
Yikes, I have to say, I’m surprised that folks are tripped up by simple civility. Addressing a bishop by his honorific is not so much an acknowledgement of his personal virtue as respect for his office, i.e as a genuine successor to the apostles.
There is a spirituality in this, as well. Tolkien observed, “Tipping your cap to the Squire may be dam’ bad for the Squire but it’s dam’ good for you”.
If I had to say why I find the honorific “eminence” somewhat objectionable, it is that it not only evokes, but seems to depend on, a differential in status between the one being addressed and the one using the title. A person is “eminent” simply because he stands out among others in an area or field — it has no reference to what he does or his actual professional status or duties.
It is unlike other honorifics or titles (Father, Reverend, Doctor, etc.), which focus more on the status of the person being addressed, rather than his relationship to the one who is addressing him.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but it’s like saying every time you use it “I am acknowledging that you stand above me in rank and stature.” I can see why people might not like it.
“The bishops speak in hushed tones when it comes to poverty and economic justice issues, and use a big megaphone when it comes to abortion and religious liberty issues.”
Jesus was crucified by the State. The American bishops want the State to help them do their job. They have convinced few of their position yet seek legislation to support what they believe. So this is the new evangelization; abortion and same sex marriage. Terribile dictu, this band of bishops do not look redeemed.
.
I suppose the sycophants and many Vatican insiders as well as those beholden to the bishops. will continue to defend this sorry lot. The American people do not believe them. American Catholics do not believe them. They are still a force to contend with the bully pulpit which is more Russ Limbaugh than Paul the Apostle. I guess they intend to talk about justice and the economy. I suppose it will be in “hushed” tones as the author quoted above deplored.
Maybe they should get into the primaries, enter the debates and see if one of them could be elected president.
Jim P. At the least those of us who wish to remain small r republicans have a right to not imitate European honorifics and we can do so without being disrespectful and also without criticism by those who wish to imitate European excesses. I shook Pope JPII hand as any republican would and he seemed accepting.
For the record: Here is what Arch. Dolan said about Penn State, according to Laurie Goldstein’s story in the Times. NB: the words “bow our heads in shame.”
“Archbishop Dolan also came prepared to answer questions about the sexual-abuse scandal at Penn State University, which has reminded so many observers of the Catholic Church’s own abuse scandal. He said that the accusations against a former university football coach were a reminder that sexual abuse is a universal problem that affects most institutions.
“Every time that once again takes over the headlines we once again bow our heads in shame,” the archbishop said. “We know what you’re going through, and you can count on our prayers.”
I almost threw up this morning.
Not about Sandusky’s defense or that more victims came forward, but the piece in First Things by Rodney Howcare on Penn St.
I though it indicative of the Bishops and their supporters’ approach.
After the facile generalizations about modernity and how the notion of love in the Church has been replaced by tolerance (like many sermons I hear blaming our problems today on “political correctness” -you know who some of that is aimed at). the suthor says it’s had to know what to do with Sandusky, but love the sinner and hate the sin.
BVI sees the sex abuse matter as basically sin and ‘Filth” by individuals – no problem with RCC.
Lots of calls for sorrow and prayer, but did that do enough in Philly, KC and elsewhere?
Down at bottom, I think it’s all about us first still in the minds of many Churchmen; in their small worlds they can’t see the narcissitic problem Fr.Martin talked about in his reaction to Penn St.
So the issue of titles of respect (and perks)is very important to our policy guys, especially if you wish to critique them.
A last view: Abp. Dolan does have juice by reason of his positions in NY and USCCB.
By having juice, he’s also fair game to be critiqued.
The religious liberty argument IMO can’t go forward on the basis that society is full of evil values.
As I said in my first post here, we need a cast of charcters like those of 25 years ago who genuinely engaged the society.
Abp. Dolan assured the Penn State people of his prayers. He made no mention of praying for the victims. No, he still doesn’t get it.
By the Way, is this a major move by Telecare? Usually the bishops conference is on EWTN as far as I know. I notice there are other Catholic channels appearing. Does anyone have a handle on all this?
My favorite titles are “Il Magnifico” and “Stupor Mundi”, Stupor for short.
Just as the ancients did, we may also learn to appreciate the multiplication of titles. As a practical matter, Louis XIV and other French monarchs financed their exploits by selling offices, a trick Obama might be forced to emulate.
Tocqueville pointed out other more subtle and easily overlooked benefits: “In the upper classes, more time was spent in embellishing life rather than in making it comfortable, and in seeking distinction rather than acquiring wealth.” The monarch’s reach was limited by his need to respect these titled eminences. And they in turn were not content to render the debased form of servitude common in the democratic age among those who cynically obey for merely utilitarian reasons.
“Let us not despise our fathers; we have no right to do so. May it please God that we may recover, along with their prejudices and faults, a little of their grandeur!”
Much more about how posterity will judge ua as remarkably petty in “The Ancien Regime and the French Revolution”
Mr. Pauwels, wordchoice has consequences from an organizational/institutional point of view. Gestures also have consequences: I’m reminded of a traditionalist blogger who gushed at the opportunity to kneel and kiss AB Burke’s episcopal ring when Burke was still in St. Louis. The blogger may have seen himself as simply being traditionally courteous, but the behavior also helped reinforce the ecclesial culture of an archdiocese seen many years ago as “Little Rome”.
Regarding Dolan’s visit to the White House, this AB doesn’t speak for me, and I want Uncle Sam to take note of this fact.
“Religious Liberty”, my rear end!
The use of the phrase is enough to insult one’s intelligence.
Being a top politician in the world’s oldest all-male feudal oligarchy, I suppose that we shouldn’t be surprised that Timothy Dolan would be able to read which way the political winds are blowing.
Dolan’s obsequious pilgrimage to the White House last week to make nice with Barrack Obama is as good as any political forecast about the coming presidential election as you could hope for.
US bishops seem to be acknowledging that they have come to the political calculation that they will be forced to do business with Obama for the foreseeable future.
For the autocratic bishops it’s much more a case of “lighting a candle rather than cursing the darkness.”
For the rest of us not in the thrall of Republican presidential candidate delusions, this is welcome news that Obama seems to have achieved at least a political truce with US bishops who have more than a little cash to spread around in the coming election through their surrogates in the right-wing smear machine.
BTW: This latest attempt, [described in the NY Times as “passionate”], voiced by the newly appointed Baltimore archbishop and soon-to-be-cardinal William Lori, to cast their (the bishops’) failed decades-long pastoral leadership as an attack on US Catholics’ religious liberty rings so hollow and limp.
When did Catholic feudal oligarch bishops get religion about the civil rights and the rights to privacy of women???
I have to assume that the bishops are once again going flog the abortion issue to mask their near complete alienation and irrelevance to the lives of Catholic women and men.
At the U.S. bishops’ meeting yesterday I viewed a presentation on the new “Ad hoc Committee on Religious Liberty” by the Bishop Lori. Later on in the meeting the bishops overwhelmingly approved a 3% increase of diocesan funds to the USCCB, which to me means they are putting their money where their mouths are. (Oh, well, no other way to express it). As one bishop in the audience noted the funds were needed for this new venture.
I have reservations about this committee:
In addition to Bishop Lori, five of the other ten bishops on the committee wrote protest letters to Fr. Jenkins about the invitation and honorary degree given to President Obama at the 2009 graduation. (Another member was not a bishop at the time (Bishop Barres of Allentown) and another was an auxiliary bishop in 2009 (Bishop Paprocki, now Bishop of Springfield).
As to the ten consultants: All but two (Fr. de Souza, whose credentials I cannot find but he is listed as a chaplain at Queen’s University in Ontario and Mary Ann Russell) are lawyers. Two (Carl Anderson and Mary Ann Glendon) have had significant roles in Republican administrations.
That said, here is my bottom line:
- Can the vast majority of the members of this committee rise above their obvious anti-Obama, Republican party leanings?
- More important, where are the THEOLOGIANS, the John Courtney Murrays? Even the bishops of Vatican II had their periti.
The Goldstein and the Times “reporting” is a joke:
“The nation’s Roman Catholic bishops opened a new front in their fight against abortion and same-sex marriage on Monday, recasting their opposition as a struggle for “religious liberty” against a government and a culture that are infringing on the church’s rights.”
That is pure editorial…pure liberal spin in a news story.
At least this piece is in the opinion section (and is much more on spot)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obama-turns-his-back-on-catholics/2011/11/14/gIQABHCKMN_story.html?hpid=z4
I’d like to ask the editors here if they think religious libert is under attack in the Us.
I thank Brett for his partisan arrow at “liberal”spin,,A high level of discussion indeed.
You can read Bishop Lori’s address on religious freedom here. And Archbishop Dolan’s presidential address here.
Just pointing out what should be obvious: that the Times story was an opinion piece and not objective reporting.
@ Brett:
“Pure liberal spin”??? Really???
I guess Laura Goldstein’s tough reporting on the child rape scandal in the Catholic Church over the last decade was actually part of a “liberal” conspiracy?!? Do I have that right, Brett?
This line of attack sounds strangely familiar to those initial attempts at push-back from Vatican flacks just when the rape and sodomy tidal wave was engulfing the church.
I guess Brett must think we were just imaging that “kissey-pooh” performance by Dolan at the White House last week!?! Being the consummate career politician, Dolan knows which way the politcal winds are blowing.
US bishops are becoming more and more desperate as their political hegemony over the Catholic community continues to implode right before their eyes. The only thing going for the hierarchs today is their fat investment portfolios which funds their regime and serves to insulate them from their own people whom they have betrayed.
The poor hierarchs are just hanging on by their finger nails in growing hurricane force winds of political change – both in the Catholic community and in the American electorate.
Brett:
I am a practicing (until I get it right) Catholic and a daily reader of the NY Times. I agree with you that Laurie Goodstein appears to be editorializing in her reporting. However, the comment she made in her article has crossed my mind.
Hi Helen – yup, she is definitely free to her opinion but that is not her job as a reporter, especially in the opening paragraph! ;)
Jim, get a grip.
Thank you very much, Helen.
On a small point in a different post: Bishop Lori has not YET been appointed to Baltimore. But a reward will surely come in time. I don’t doubt that he would prefer to come back to Washington, but that would mean a four or five-year wait.
As for honorifics owed to the successors of the Apostles (remember Cardinal Philip and Cardinal Bartholomew, for example), Cardinal O’Malley prefers “Cardinal Sean” and the late Cardinal Hume wanted to be called “Father Basil.”
Not sure how Laurie’s Goodstein’s lead is spin, given that she is writing what the bishops are saying. They actually liked her piece.
In any case, I transcribed Abp Dolan’s entire response (plus one from Bp Lori) on Penn State here:
http://www.religionnews.com/index.php?/gibson/2011/11/archbishop_dolan_on_penn_state_we_know_what_youre_going_through/
Remember, Brett: Reality is a social construction.
Goodstein is trying to downplay the issue of religious liberty and conscious rights as simply a ploy for a “right-wing agenda” — that is certainly not the case.
The recent rulings of HHS and the Obama admin are certainly attacking Catholic participation in the public square. Look at the shutting of Catholic Charities in numerous states or the denial of grants in HSS or the contraceptive mandate…
If any one is “recasting” the issue, it is the NYTs.
David Gibson:
Thank you for your transcription. I was relying on my memory for what had been said during the morning session that I referred to in one of my previous comments on this topic.
“We bishops in our own response to this, have said, in a way, with deep regret, we have not been a good example of how to deal with this in the past – in the past. We’d like to become a good example of how to do it now…”
I remember hearing Archbishop Dolan say that – very humble, but very much understated.
“US bishops seem to be acknowledging that they have come to the political calculation that they will be forced to do business with Obama for the foreseeable future.”
The reality is that the UCCB endangered their funding by playing politics. Bishops have always known (until this present bunch) to stay out of politics. Cardinal Law the father of this UCCB started the right wing agenda. They should have known that the blatant politics they played in the ND event could backfire. Govenment funding and jobs are always political with the Churches getting specific funding as long as they remained non-partisan.
The irony is no one is spinning more here than Brett.
Providing the highest rated social services to the migrant and refugee community is about as non-partisan as you can get…but they were still denied our tax money by Obama appointees at HHS.
No Catholics need apply…
Oh, I dunno. In an organization where the Big Kahuna is called Bishop of Rome, Vicar of Jesus Christ, Successor of the Prince of the Apostles, Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church, Primate of Italy, Archbishop and Metropolitan of the Roman Province, Sovereign of the State of Vatican City, Servant of the Servants of God, what’s a little “Eminence” or (my personal favorite), “My Lord” expected from the ontologically disfavored?
The precedent stands with how some cultures and times referred to Il Papa: In Spanish and Italian, “Beatísimo/Beatissimo Padre” (Most Blessed Father) is often used in preference to “Santísimo/Santissimo Padre” (Most Holy Father). In the medieval period, “Dominus Apostolicus” (“the Apostolic Lord”) was also used.
“Eminence” represents down-sizing, don’t you think?
}:>}}
Brett: Catholic can apply so long as they remember what the Brits say:
If you take the Queen’s shilling, then you must do the Queen’s bidding.
If you don’t want to play by those rules than don’t expect to be recipients of taxpayers’ money. That’s money from ALL taxpayers, not just Holy Romans.
For pertinent comments by a moderate liberal who is not wearing blinders in regard to NYT spin see “The NYT on the bishops’ concern for religious liberty” by Prof. Rob Vischer
http://mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/mirrorofjustice/2011/11/the-nyt-on-the-bishops-concern-for-religious-liberty.html
Excerpt:
“Here’s a deeply cynical article in the New York Times on the bishops’ new religious liberty committee (mentioned here by Rick). A few points bear noting:
“First, focusing on religious liberty is not simply a “recasting” of the Church’s existing opposition to abortion and SSM. These are related but distinct issues. I’m pretty sure that the bishops are not dropping opposition to abortion or SSM from their agenda, and supporting the religious liberty cause does not require consensus on the merits of abortion or SSM. …
“Finally, I tend to be leery of cherry-picked quotes to close off an article. They often seem to be carefully chosen laundering devices to allow the expression of the author’s own opinion without (explicitly) violating journalistic standards. So the article ends with this: “The bishops speak in hushed tones when it comes to poverty and economic justice issues, and use a big megaphone when it comes to abortion and religious liberty issues.” This is an unfairly sweeping statement, especially as the final word in a “news” article. To take one of many examples: Archbishop Nienstedt, no shrinking violet on SSM and abortion, was front and center over the summer in opposing the GOP’s efforts to balance the Minnesota state budget through draconian cuts to social services. It didn’t sound too hushed to me.”
Also from Mirror of Justice, “Michael Gerson on “Obama’s Catholic Strategy” by Greg Sisk.
http://mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/mirrorofjustice/2011/11/michael-gerson-on-obamas-catholic-strategy.html
Excerpt:
“As the 2012 campaign approaches, can any pro-life Catholic still claim that the cause of human life is not under assiduous attack by this administration? And, on the fundamental question of religious liberty, can anyone seriously deny today that, as Archbishop Timothy Dolan observes, the Obama Administration is levying an “assault [on Catholic rights of conscience] which now appears to grow at an ever-accelerating pace in ways that most of us could never have imagined’? “
Michael J Kelly,
I respect your point of view. But don’t insult our intelligence by claiming objectivity.
Jim, we do not have a queen, we have a representative government. The secular, anti-religious leanings of the current admin are not “neutral” nor are they representative of the majority.
While we may not be a Christian nation, neither are we a secular one. 70 million Catholics and many million more from other traditional groups should have a say how tax money that they provide is spent and should not be forced out of the public square on the basis of your extreme liberal idea of “neutrality”
Bill Mazzella
Bill Mazzella
Sorry for the immediately preceding post with just your name. I hit the submit button by mistake. As for you comment (6.20) re: objectivity. This is a liberal blog. I am a conservative. I presented an excerpt from a liberal making the indisputable observation that Goodstein’s supposed reporting was simply NYT liberal editorial spin. The supposed insult is in your imagination. Get a grip.
Brett Joyce:
You wrote, “The Goldstein and the Times ‘reporting’ is a joke.” Yet David Gibson tells us that the bishops “actually liked her piece.”
Do you think they would have liked it if they found it to be a joke?
And if – as is apparently the case – they didn’t find it to be a joke, what do you make of that?
Also: “Jim, get a grip” isn’t an acceptable response to Jim Jenkins’ post. If you have specific disagreements, fine; let’s see them. But it’s not fighting fair to simply blow him off with a derisive “Get a grip.”
“70 million Catholics and many million more from other traditional groups should have a say how tax money that they provide is spent and should not be forced out of the public square on the basis of your extreme liberal idea of “neutrality”
Those 70 million Catholics are phantoms of your imagination. The Bishops do not speak for 70 million Catholics. Even the bishops and those few who agree with them only get a “say” not a “veto.”
Those bishops and like midned voters also lost the last national election. There were public referendums specifically on abortion in two of the most pro-life states in America–South Dakota and Mississippi.
The phantom 70 million and the bishops lost thos eelectionstoo.
If the bishops characterize all who oppose them as “secularist” then, by the bishops’ own definition, the secularists have won and are entitled to enact their agenda by this thing we call majority rule.
Nobody is squelching the bishops. They are perfectly free to write angry letters to the editor of their local papers and speak into microphones and whimper about being ignored or maligned. That’s called free speech, fredom of assembly adn freedom of religion and the fredom to be ignored. Nobody denys the bishops those four freedoms.
They are not, however, entiteld to the “privilege” of any respect for their position merely becasue they are “religious.” The rights the bishops claim are the same rights “secularists” can exercise. There is no “religion” trump card to resolve clashing political views.
As you note, we have a representative government. The bishops are in the (small) minority.
The religious freedom issue is the latest ploy of the bishops to portray the Catholic community as a victim of the policies of the Obama administration, in order to try to influence Catholic voters in the next election. It is the cheapest trick in the bag of rank political hacks. The problem is that Catholic voters do not feel oppressed, or discriminated against, and actually agree with the Obama’s administration’s goals. The bishops know that at some level, as the behind the scenes meeting between Dolan and the President shows. The bishops desperately want to “change the conversation” about their horrible failure in the sex abuse scandal and they thought they had an issue in religious freedom that would rally Catholics against the President. Ironically, that good Catholic Sandusky and his good Catholic boss Paterno put the bishops back on center stage. Not only were the comparisons between Penn State and the RCC all over the press and internet, the board at Penn state made the bishops look even worse when they fired the president and the coach. So now the bishops pump up the volume on the victimhood of the Catholic Church in America, but alas to no avail. They are not in control of the conversation and will not get a hold of it because the rank and file do not follow their program for unseating the President.
Boy, you guys are all riled up now!
The current admin was rebuked in 2010, losing countless seats in the house and many in the senate and it will lose again in 2012.
As for oppression, I would say that forcing an specific group out of the public square, closing their charities that serve the poor and vulnerable, and forcing them to act against their religious conscious via mandating chemical contraception.
If this is not political oppression of all Catholics who are still faithful (and oppression of the poor served by them), I am not sure what would change your minds…lions perhaps?
“I would say that forcing an specific group out of the public square, closing their charities ….”
What public agency closed any Catholic charity? A bishop chose to not accept $30 miilion taxpayer dollars–a perfectly reasonable exercise of the First Amendement. That’s not government termination.
“forcing them to act against their religious conscious via mandating chemical contraception”
Can you point to anything in which the government has mandated that a bishop or any Catholic use chemical contraception? I did not think so.
“The current admin was rebuked in 2010″
As a wise man once said, “It’s the economy, stupid.” That all that matters to American voters. You could be right that Obama will lose in 2012. But, if you and the bishops are wrong, and Obama is re-elected in 2012, will you stop whining about non-existent religious oppression and maybe consider that your politics are just bad?
“lions perhaps?”
Lions, yes. Hyperbole, no.
Joe McFaul,
Thanks for bringing us back to reality.
A recent survey shows that only 16% of Catholics polled have ever heard of Faithful Citizenship and only 3% have read it. Catholic voters are not looking to the bishops for advice on the upcoming election.
There are two sides to this story. The bishops are blind if they think that they will get a president to act against his conscience, especially when his conscience matches that of most Americans. Only in the Congress do they have any power any more, and it is limited to relatively minor victories.
On the other hand, there is now noticeable concerted effort by some atheists to eliminate religion. Richard Dawkins has said explicitly that religion is analogous to smallpox and that is his aim is to eradicate it. He is not alone and is actively pursuing his goal. Wikipedia tells us:
“In October 2008, Dawkins officially supported the UK’s first atheist advertising initiative, the Atheist Bus Campaign. Created by Guardian journalist Ariane Sherine and administered by the British Humanist Association the campaign aimed to raise funds to place atheist adverts on buses in the London area, and Dawkins pledged to match the amount raised by atheists, up to a maximum of £5,500. However, the campaign was an unprecedented success, raising over £100,000 in its first four days, and generating global press coverage.[127][128]
In the US there are other now well-known neo-atheists, including Hitchens, the philosopher Dennett, Steven Pinker in psychology (also a writer of best sellers) who view religion as very bad for society and want it out of the public square.
Also, in the US the Freedom From Religion Foundation has won numerous lawsuits. It’s primary goal seems to use the courts to thwart religion. See:
http://www.ffrf.org/legal/
Not to mention NOW. Don’t expect anything short of war from it, as Sibelius put it.
And it seems to me that the recent HHR decision was dirty pool.
John Page, surely “my diocese” and “my priests” would be arrogant expressions; the bishops is perhaps trying to be humble by saying “the diocese to which I belong” — you still haven’t explained why you find the latter phrase offensive, except to refer to someone else who “gets it”. The bishop is perhaps saying that the diocese does not belong to him but he belongs to the diocese; similarly the priests do not belong to him but he to them as their servant.
Yes, the whole “religious liberty” angle is quite misguided. For it brings into question the religious liberty of those faiths and beliefs which speak contrary to Catholic views; if the Catholic view is enforced, that would mean someone else is having their liberty reduced. That is, if the way religious liberty is being employed right now. Which of course, is not what religious liberty is about. Religious liberty is not “Catholics get everything.” That is not religious liberty.
Why hasn’t the USCCB actually asked some of those who are involved with inter-religious dialogues, experts in the field of inter-religious dialogue, to deal with the question of religious liberty?
The sad thing is religious liberty can be a legitimate concern. But seeing the problem as being from the Obama Administration is to look to the wrong target. Again and again, I ask, why are not such apocalyptic terms being used in relation to the GOP and their attempts to squash Catholic actions (such as aid to illegal immigrants)? The real issue is that the Catholic Church should be working — with other religions — to see where religion and real religious liberty — is being squashed; not getting funding from the government is not a denial of liberty — but trying to tell Catholics they can’t help the poor, the stranger, the orphan by law — now that is a denial of liberty; where did I see that denial coming from? Why no voice about that REAL denial?
Father Joseph O’Leary:
You persist in choosing to misunderstand me. Like many on this site, I never know whether I am on my head or my heels when dealing with you. We do agree on the coming Missal, but little else.
I was praising the bishop for not saying MY diocese, My priests. Clear?
The titles need to go; they entangle people in all sorts of false relationships. Let’s start with “Father.” Utterly disobedient in light of the Gospel. Time to get real. One can use perfectly serviceable first names (baptismal names!) without expressing disrespect. If there are men in church office who need/demand them, we should be worried (and yes, many of us ARE worried, to put it mildly)!
Whilke there’s a lot of newsprint on the gaffes of the never ending GOP debates, the problems of chnange on the Middle East, the EU and its finances, the broadening sex abuse scandal at Penn St, -raising consciousnes and calling forth more victims across the country- and, finally, the divide and disparity n our own country and the protests movements attempting to be shut down by government institutuons and their supporters – that’s what’s real and dominating real news.
It’s rooted in the problem of greed and power and how to hang on to it.
It shows up in our Church in self centeredness (as Mr. Karlson noted well) – the love of titles and perks more than service is just a symptom.
I think we just continue to encourage moral dry rot as our country slides backward and the world changes. There’s a concomitant anti intellectualism and intellectual dishonesty that pushes this forward. The cry of elitism rises up from those doing very well is another symptom of the hypocrisy.
I don’t see much if ant leadership coming out of our bishops here.
They are more conscered with their power and their distinctive Church and waht they have to say being the say.
IMO they can use their pressure, but it contributes to the continuing downwatd spiral.
Joseph O’Leary:
You wrote,
He’s not saying he found it offensive. He’s saying the opposite: He was moved almost to tears. Or, as he put it in his original comment, “I could have wept.”
As if that weren’t enough, he went on to say, in a subsequent comment,
To me, that’s perfectly clear. So: while you feel he still hasn’t explained himself, it seems to me that he’s explained himself quite well.
More:
NCR just published a letter from Catholic Democrats to Abp. Dolan on the need to address the issue of poverty forcefully.
It notes why poverty was not brought up at the Bishops’ meting, to which the reply was “it was not on the agenda.”
Maybe Sr, Walsh can deal with another ‘ab’ -”abp” -anybody but the poor.
“As for oppression, I would say that forcing an specific group out of the public square, closing their charities –”
If the only way these Catholic groups can keep their charities open is by taking public monies, then they deserve to close.
If Catholics and others find these charitable activities to continue to be valuable, albeit on a limited basis according to their own “values,” then they need to pony up the funds to do so. And they will still be tax deductible, one of the essential marks of religious support.
http://www.spiritual-politics.org/2011/11/the_threat_to_religious_freedom.html
Lori on religious liberty:
“We also see that the reach of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment is being expanded so as continually to narrow the protections offered by the Free-Exercise Clause, thus turning the First Amendment on its head.
The establishment clause was meant to protect the Free-Exercise Clause not the other way around. The result has been that both individual citizens with strong religious convictions and also religious institutions are less broadly accommodated and even marginalized on the grounds that any minimal accommodation somehow constitutes the “establishment” of particular religions in our land.’
<b<The facts, the inconvenient truth, the reality that Lori ignores, per Prof. Mark Silk:
http://www.spiritual-politics.org/2011/11/the_threat_to_religious_freedom.html (Thanks Jimmy Mac)
“In fact, what has done most to narrow Free Exercise protections of late has not been an extension of the Establishment Clause but the Supreme Court’s 1990 Smith decision, which denied Free Exercise challenges to “neutral laws of general applicability.”
Smith, however, was the brainchild of Antonin Scalia, who hardly qualifies as an anti-religious secularist.
Twenty years ago, the Catholic bishops joined the broad coalition that succeeded in persuading Congress to pass the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which overturned Smith–until the Court in turn declared it unconstitutional.
But that was back in the last millennium, when the bishops concerned themselves more with legal precision, less with rhetorical hyperbole.”
How instructive that the bishops were trying to exempt themselves from child protection laws – those “neutral laws of general applicability.” Have they no decency?
The facts, the inconvenient truth, the reality that Lori ignores
Sorry for incorrect formatting above.
You guys can all jump on me but Dolan’s visit with Obama suggested to me a different purpose and goal.
What if, in fact, Dolan is struggling and fighting against an outspoken and militant group of bishops who currently have the spotlight (i.e. Lori, Morlino, Olmsted and others who are playing the “religious liberty” card and focusing only on the culture war issues)? Would not his visit with Obama (now public and leaked) serve a purpose; an indirect message to this internal group of bishops that Dolan has figured out their game plan and did an end run with the President sending a message.
Dolan is not stupid; and I see no one writing about the polarization and internal dissension within the USCCB. Not sure how naming Lori to speak before Congressional committee; or allowing this group of bishops to be named to this committee jives with my suggestion but wonder if Dolan is trying to head off even more polarization during the 2012 campaign and the USCCB?
Any way, just some thoughts.
Carolyn – thanks for posting the Smith case and later SC decision that it was unconstitutional. Wonder if this “religious liberty” issue won’t replay much of the earlier Smith debate….Constitution speaks to not “establishing religion” vs. religious liberty….Lori has, in fact, turned that upside down. Conscience protection – that is a complex issue; would we agree that a religious sect has the legal right to allow a child to bleed to death because that is what they believe? Would we allow a hospital in an emergency to deny life-giving care because it violated an employee’s conscience? There needs to be an ongoing debate around the very issues and nuances that the Smith case raised. In a sense, we need common good and laws that protect this while balancing the right of a religious group or individual not to violate their conscience – how we resolve that balancing act will require much discussion. (BTW – Lori’s presentation and questionning was not really his shining hour – his inability to handle the question around slavery (church’s supported consciences that believed in slavery) and same sex marriage struck at the heart of the bishops’ religious liberty committee.
Bill deHaas:
If, as now appears to be the case, the White House invited Archbishop Dolan to a meeting, the archbishop would surely not have declined. That would have been discourteous, if not provocative. In the end, there appears to have been, in the words of diplomatic communiques, “a frank and cordial exchange of views.”
But, the ad hoc committee on Religious Liberty continues at full speed ahead under Bishop Lori, who was appointed by Archbishop Dolan. Traditionally, USCCB committee chairmen appoint the membership of their committees. However, I believe that the president of the conference is given a chance to review the list before the members (and consultants) are publicly named. Even more so in this exceptional case.
Archbishop Dolan may now be looking towards a quieting down of the rhetoric, but, as far as I can tell, there was no evidence of that in Baltimore this week. Perhaps in time a different approach will be revealed, but only if a majority of the body of bishops has expressed (in closed session perhaps) its misgivings about the present course now under way. If not, the president cannot go against the view of the body.
“the present course now under way”
Strike:”present”
Thanks, John. You are wiser and much more on top of this than I. But, picking up on your thought, wonder if Dolan has his finger up measuring which way the wind is blowing and giving these guys enough rope to hang themselves?
There does seem to be a stark contrast between the current economic and financial crisis in the US and the almost complete lack of USCCB statements in regard to this. Instead, we get this “new” cultural war committee and an attempt by the USCCB to interject itself again into the US cultural wars. Folks like Bishop Blair or the LA bishop on immigration appear to be relegated to the second or third tier of importance. Do they realize that folks do pay attention and find that the USCCB is ignoring realities and come across as ideological to the extreme?
John – some added information today:
From the Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good by MSW:
http://catholicsinalliance.org/cgf111611winters.php
Doesn’t appear that the media or even the catholic media/USCCB have focused on these aspects of the meeting – only religious liberty grabs the headlines.
Here is another approach from a Manhattan Episcopal bishop vs. the culture wars of the RC bishops:
The Rt. Rev. Mark S. Sisk
November 15, 2011
Bishop Sisk writes in response to the Occupy Wall Street protests. This article was originally planned for the next (December) Episcopal New Yorker, but in light of last night’s developments in lower Manhattan, it has been decided to publish it now electronically.
On Friday, October 21, I visited Zuccotti Park, the site—at least until last night—of the Occupy Wall Street protest. Whatever happens next in Lower Manhattan (and as I write, on the morning of November 15, things are moving fast, with the outcome unclear), there can be no doubt that this protest has struck a chord, and given birth to a movement that appears, in spite of everything, to be gaining momentum. For some, this chord seems to have sounded like a long awaited trumpet call to action; for others—who have not been shy to express their disdain—it is decidedly discordant.
Back in October, it was not always easy to distinguish those who were “tourists”—people who swung by to see what was going on out of simple curiosity—from those who were active participants in the protest itself. But what was clear was that this was not some tiny cell of extremists. Those present represented what was, to me, a surprisingly wide swath of the American people. Some, young and not so young, gave the appearance of being seasoned protesters. Others, again both young and not so young, seemed to be first timers: folks who held their banners and slogans with a slight aura of awkwardness.
It is true that it was not easy at Zucotti Park to sort out the substance from the theatre. The media have offered little help, with their focus, unsurprisingly, on the most colorful and extreme expressions of protest. They have highlighted slogans that call for the jailing of bankers, while ignoring placards like the one I saw that said “99% + 1% = ONE”—which I interpreted as intending to highlight our common interests and essential unity as a people. Nor, sadly, have those in public leadership often commented helpfully—and they are certainly disingenuous when they point to the protestors’ lack of a plan as evidence of a lack of seriousness, when apparently they have no plan themselves. Indeed, all too often the opposing voices that we hear are shrilly dismissive—their aggressive, trivializing tone hinting, to me, at a deep, largely unconscious, level of anxiety. It cannot be lost on many that all this is taking place with the background noise of the Arab Spring ringing in our ears.
Whatever happens next in Downtown Manhattan, it is terribly important that the core energy behind this protest not be lost behind a blizzard of slogans and rhetoric. The particular motivations of those protesting are, undoubtedly, as mixed as the American people itself. One dominant thread, however, is an (admittedly inchoate) critique of unfettered capitalism.
But the fundamental issue is not that the laws of capitalism are flawed; the fundamental issue is that we are flawed in our attitude to them.
There can be little doubt that capitalism is a productive way to order economic life. But we need to remember, as the protestors have reminded us, that that is all that it is—an economic system based on the entirely reasonable propositions that capital has value, and that supply and demand are the most efficient way to set prices. Capitalism is of no help at all in determining what is morally good—that is something that must instead be determined by the community’s wider values.
And there should be no question that when an economic system fails to reflect those communal values, it should be modified and governed until it does. To say, as some do, that any attempt to control or guide our economic system is neither wise nor possible is to admit that an economic system has decisive control of our lives. For a Christian, such an admission would be nothing less than to yield to idolatry. (Though I do not claim deep knowledge of other religious traditions, I suspect that this is true for them as well.) God alone is the One, and the only One, to whom we can concede such ultimate authority. For the non-theist to make the argument that the laws of economics are immutable is to concede that we have no power of ourselves to help ourselves. That is the same argument that those in the grip of various kinds of addiction make: “I am not in control, my addiction made me do it.”
Did anyone pick up the discussion between two bishops, one from the Southwest, about
the use of a Spanish translation of the New Missal, noting that Mexico’s is not ready yet, and noting that they will be allowed to use “todos” and not “multos”? It seemed interesting — to say the least –, but maybe I’m wrong . . .
Sorry, John Page, I was dreaming.
“They will be allowed to say todos…”
In fact very many priests do not deliver the mass texts precisely as written, and some bishops have urged priests to continue to use such tactful pastoral adaptation in using the ghastly new texts.
The most subversive and Leninist thing one could do is to read the Eucharistic Prayers I or IV exactly as written, thus prompting recognition among the faithful that something is rotten.