Cardinal Dolan enters No Spin Zone.
Last night’s O’Reilly Factor featured an interview with Cardinal Timothy Dolan about — what else? — the contraception mandate. The exchange was fairly unsurprising: Dolan doesn’t want to seem like he’s judging the president, or anyone else (but he is judging their policy positions and motives). Nor would he ever tell anyone how to vote (but the bishops did endorse the GOP’s doomed legislation to rescind the mandate). And of course a noun, a verb, and “religious freedom.”
What I find most interesting about the interview is the nakedness with which Dolan presents the bishops’ communication strategy:
Our opponents are very shrewd because they’ve chosen an issue that they know we’re not very popular on. And that is why, Bill, we have to be very vigorous in insisting that this is not about contraception. It’s about religion freedom.
And I don’t want to judge people but I think there would be a drift in the administration that this is a good issue and if we can divide the Catholic community because it’s already divided and if one can caricature the bishops as being hopelessly out of touch these bullies who are trying to achieve judicially and legislatively what they’ve been — been unable to achieve because their moral integrity has been compromised recently there is that force out there trying to caricature us.
All right. But we can’t back down from this fight because it’s about religious freedom; it’s close to the very heart of what the democratic enterprise that we know and love as the United States of America is all about.
So, according to Dolan — and not that he’s judging — the Obama administration decided to pursue the contraception mandate because they knew the vast majority of Catholics remain unpersuaded by Humane vitae. (Otherwise, what, they would have gone for abortion?) And because the administration deemed the the bishops’ moral authority sufficiently depleted by the sexual-abuse scandals. (Does Dolan really believe that bishops haven’t been able to persuade Catholics on this issue because of the sexual-abuse scandal?) So it’s precisely because the church’s teaching against contraception is so unpopular, Dolan explains, that the bishops must insist that their opposition to the mandate is really about religious freedom. (Don’t tell the bishops’ press shop.)
I have no doubt that those who devised the bishops’ messaging strategy know how quickly an anti-contraception gambit would fail. That’s why USCCB press releases emphasize that the mandate would cover first “abortion drugs” (never “emergency contraceptives that could act as abortifacients”) then sterilization procedures, and finally prescription contraceptives. But at what point will the bishops explain how the proposed accommodation forces Catholic hospitals, universities, and charities to violate their religious beliefs? Will anyone clarify how Bishop Lori went from allowing Catholic hospitals to give rape victims morning-after pills to opposing their inclusion in the mandate because they’re “abortion-inducing”? In other words, when will the Catholic bishops make a Catholic argument against the accommodation?
When the administrative committee of USCCB met in mid Match and decided they’d take nothing but their view of acconodation, the gauntlet was thrown -no matter what the semantics.
Interestin that Cardinal Dolan shows up on “fair and balanced” Is that preaching to the choir?
Of course, he also has his blog and Bill Donahue.
All of which is divisive, not the administration.
But, so it goes…..
They don’t have one – and Dolan showing up on EWTN and O’Reilly, etc. isn’t going to change this fact.
It is both sad and unfortunate that Dolan (don’t expect much from Lori – his PhD in sacramental theology doesn’t seem to prepare him well for discussing religious freedom) can’t tap into his “alleged” church history expertise and make a comprehensive argument. His tenure to date is only embarrassing.
Grant – I don’t think you’re entirely correct in how you’re recapping Dolan’s views. I’d think it goes something like this:
* The Obama Administration was surprised by the solidarity among Catholics of all political stripes in response to the original contraception mandate
* It is in the Obama Administration’s political interest to break up this solidarity, because for whatever political reason, the administration wants/needs the support of Catholics who are politically progressive (e.g., perhaps the administration believes it needs women to be motivated to vote for President Obama in order to win the election this fall)
* Therefore, the Obama Administration’s strategy is to emphasize contraception, rather than religious liberty, because it knows that contraception is an issue that will drive a wedge between progressive Catholics (women?) and the bishops
* The Obama Administration is also calculating that the bishops’ moral authority has recently been diminished because of the sex-abuse scandal. This is politically helpful for the Obama administration.
* The bishops, for their part, perceive that the core issue here really is religious liberty, not contraception.
I don’t see any of this as particularly ‘judgmental’ on Dolan’s part.
I didn’t say he was being judgmental. It’s simply a matter of fact that he is judging the policy positions and motives of those who disagree with him about the mandate.
Jim pauwels
Do you have some “insider” information about the Obama administration’s strategy with Catholics voters, or are you like me inclined to speculate about motivations. If the latter, permit me to offer my thoughts. It seems to me that, since the USCCB ad hoc committee for religious liberty was established last fall, they were just waiting for an issue. That is their strategy to counteract the significant Catholic vote for Obama in 2008.
Jim P. –
If you call someone a bully and say they are less than honorable, you think that isn’t being judgmental? Take your blinders off.
I’m on of the ones who think there is a religious freedom issue here, and I also think that Cardinal Dolan is a diplomatic disaster.
Helen –
You might be right about the bishops’ political motive, but I also think that they are tired of being dumped on because of the sex scandal and trying to get some respect back So they’re trying to present themselves as courageous patriots talking back to the mean tyrant. So far Cdl, Dolan’s performance just makes him look like a loudmouth. It will get him even less respect thn he used to have.
Ann Olivier: Because you “think there is a religious freedom issue here,” please spell out exactly what the “religious freedom issue here” is?
By the word “here,” I assume you mean under the accommodation, to use the term that Grant Gallicho uses.
Cardinal Dolan and his confreres clearly laid out the current papal stategy in late 2009 in the Manhattan Declaration, a pact with some right wing Republican operatives and fundamentalist evangelicals. Please see http://manhattandeclaration.org/. Religious liberty was the “ploy”. The Republicans would regain the presidency and Congress and keep lower taxes on the wealthy ideally, and the pope would get more Opus Dei leaning US Supreme Court Justices, as three 80+ year old Justices retire over the next four years.
In the pope’s fantasy, the US Supreme Court would then (1) reverse the 1965 Griswold v. Connecticut decision that legalized contraception and undergirds the Roe v. Wade decision, and (2) expand the bishops’ “religious liberty” shield further to protect bishops from judicial investigations of, and financial liability for, their negligent oversight of priest sexual predators.
Two weeks ago the US Supreme Court let stand a Missouri state court decision that shielded Dolan’s old diocese of St. Louis from one such judicial inquiry, but not all courts have to follow this decision, at least until the US Supreme Court mandates this, which the pope apparently eagerly looks forward to.
The pope can fantasize all he wants. The ineffectual Dynamic Duo of Dolan and Dohohue have been “out-Fluked” by a Georgetown student Joan of Arc, thank God. The pope’s dream of an American theocracy will never be realized, Amen.
The Founding Fathers shunned European state churches, both Catholic and Protestant, and opted for religious liberty and toleration, and rejected establishing a state church. That will not change, no matter what ploy the pope uses.
Helen – no insider info on my part, I’m just reading the tea leaves.
There were a number of religious-liberty concerns prior to the contraception mandate. There were concerns about conscience protections for health care workers under PPACA prior to the contraception mandate. There were also issues of Catholic adoption agencies being required to place children in same-sex partnerships, civil unions and marriages.
Ann – I don’t think Cardinal Dolan is calling anyone a bully. He’s suggesting that he and his brother bishops are perceived as bullies who want to legislate their morality on the rest of the country.
Speaking of fantasy! There is, I believe, a case to be made against the bishops’ position, but this isn’t it.
I was responding to the comment at 3:29pm.
Grant Gallicho: You ask, “at what point will the bishops explain how the proposed accommodation forces Catholic hospitals, universities, and charities to violate their religious beliefs?”
First, the Catholic bishops assume that all Catholic hospitals, universities, and charities want to appear to be in good standing with the Catholic bishops by appearing in public to support the Roman Catholic Church’s claim that artificial contraception is morally evil.
Next, in accord with this first assumption, the Catholic bishops further assume that if these Catholic institutions were allowed to exercise their freedom of religion, they would prohibit contraception from being included in the insurance coverage that they offer their employees.
Next, the Catholic bishops argue that Obama’s accommodation plan will prevent these Catholic institutions from being allowed to exercise their freedom of religion to prevent contraception from being included in the insurance coverage of their employees.
Next, the Catholic bishops seem to think that these Catholic institutions should be allowed to exercise their freedom of religion so that these Catholic institutions appear in public to endorse the Roman Catholic Church’s claim that artificial contraception is morally evil, because otherwise their claim to be Catholic institutions would be compromised from the standpoint of appearing in public to be Catholic institutions. Evidently, these Catholic institutions are regarded by the Catholic bishops to be something like super-persons who are supposed to appear in public as super-supporters of the church’s official teaching against artificial contraception.
I do not agree with this line of reasoning. But it appears to me to be the line of reasoning that the Catholic bishops are following.
But what do you think, Grant? Do you think the bishops are following this line of reasoning, or not?
From all of those of us who never indulge FOX News, thank you for doing the dirty work for us …
This encounter between Cardinal Dolan and Bill O’Reilly generates almost endless questions. So many questions, so little time:
Can anyone now argue that Dolan is little more than a politician – albeit in a feudal oligarchy? Has Dolan the politician eclipsed Dolan the shepherd?
Isn’t Dolan’s primary political constituency in the Vatican, and not among any discernible part of the American electorate? What is the primary motivation of the bishops?
Why would the hierarchs choose a political wedge issue [i.e., contraception] that only further serves to divide and separate them from their own Catholic population? Are the bishops even interested in unity of the Catholic community?
Is it possible that Dolan may be actually engaging in pre-conclave political maneuvering to perhaps promote his own candidacy as the potential candidate of the Vatican curia – especially if no white European papabile emerges with the necessary support?
Is it Dolan’s contention that Obama went looking for this confrontation with US hierarchs? Didn’t the hierarchs have planning sessions with their media and political consultants at the USCCB plotting their “religious liberty” campaign? What possible motive would politician Obama have for potentially alienating one of his constituency groups?
Is Dolan really saying that the hierarchs have been politically victimized by Obama because of their [the hierarchs] have a credibility problem with their own Catholic population?
Did Dolan and his brother hierarchs underestimate Obama’s political skills to turn the tables on their political gambit just when they believed they had wounded Obama politically in an election year?
I object to the cardinal’s idea that the Obama administration thought this would be a good issue to divide Catholics. That gives the administration a) too much credit for deviousness it could never pull off and b) too little respect for what it is trying to do with a national insurance plan.
As for a), you can continue to be paranoid, but I haven’t seen much general competence, much less devious competence, there.
As for b) every civilized country in the world (present company excluded again when the Supremes rule) has universal health care. I have tried, pretty futilely, to find out what countries like Switzerland (which has an insurance mandate) and France do about the issues that have our bishops upset. Germany, I know, automatically covers legal abortions. I haven’t heard of bishops being jailed and churches shuttered by order of the state there. I honestly think the Obama administration knew it had to leave abortion off the list but didn’t realize it would unleash Cardinal Dolan, FoxNews and Karl Rove if it included contraception.
Dumb or uninformed I can believe. Deliberately advancing a secularist agenda strikes me as a delusion of grandeur by someone who thinks it is all about him.
John Page.. I agree.
Jerry S thinks there ia an overall papal strategy to take over the US Gov morality police. …. Wrong.
Dolan and Jim P think there is an Obama strategy to effect/put down the Catholic Church. Wrong too.
The Democratic base and constituencies just feel BC is a good health idea. So give up your paranoia. Give up the religious liberty farce .. until Religious liberty advocates can propose a senario when and how a bishop dime is forced into the ACA basket… just one dime please..
Those who doubt Cardinal Dolan’s analysis might find more credible the NYT’s explanation of the White House strategy as reported on Feb 10. Of course the two accounts are not that different and certainly are not mutually exclusive:
“For the White House, the decision announced Friday to soften a rule requiring religious-affiliated organizations to pay for insurance plans that offer free birth control was never really driven by a desire to mollify Roman Catholic bishops, who were strongly opposed to the plan.
“Rather, the fight was for Sister Carol Keehan — head of an influential Catholic hospital group, who had supported President Obama’s health care law — and Catholic allies of the White House seen as the religious left . . .
“The White House picked the deputy chief of staff Nancy-Ann DeParle to talk to Sister Keehan about ways the rule could be made palatable. ”
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/11/health/policy/obama-to-offer-accommodation-on-birth-control-rule-officials-say.html?_r=2
Ed,
Whether a bishop’s dime is or is not involved is totally beside the point. Money does not define or determine morality. It may be one fact used in determining moral culpability but it is at best a secondary concern.
Jim Jenkins,
Contrary to you, I actually find Cardinal Dolan to be a quite compelling pastor in his sermons, writings and leadership.
Patrick Malloy:
Based on reading some of your previous comments, I had come to believe that you consider the reporting of the New York Times beneath contempt. Clearly I was mistaken.
I think the timing is ironic. Not a single bishop has criticized the Ryan budget by name, and yet it throws pretty much every principle of Catholic social teaching out the window. When Catholics like Steve Schneck and Vince Miller rallied against the Ryan budget last time, they want on O’Reilly, who yelled at them and mocked them because not a single bishop would endorse their statement.
I think we can safely declare the demise of the new evanglization. Well done, Cardinal Dolan. Great work, that!
Jim Pauwels
True, but this issue is perfect. Why? Most of the other issues involves states; this mandate comes from a federal agency. The PPACC, which validates the Catholic Church’s longstanding interest in health care reform, is much too complicated to handle.
This issue is easy to explain and understand. Aha, it’s the perfect issue to take a stand on and besides we can show Sebelius we mean business.
Bruce now admits there is no bishops’ dime. But thinks that if bishops moral ideas are not Gov. enforced their religious liberty is infringed….. un-believable! Except that is C.Dolan’s exact position.
“I think the timing is ironic. Not a single bishop has criticized the Ryan budget by name, and yet it throws pretty much every principle of Catholic social teaching out the window. When Catholics like Steve Schneck and Vince Miller rallied against the Ryan budget last time, they want on O’Reilly, who yelled at them and mocked them because not a single bishop would endorse their statement.
I think we can safely declare the demise of the new evanglization. Well done, Cardinal Dolan. Great work, that!”
These histrionics are hilarious. Just this week David Gibson was telling us that Pope Benedict had pulled the rug out from under “Paul Ryan Republicans”, yet now, the whole shebang is up in smoke.
Helen – I think my opinion of the ability of 300+ bishops to successfully pull off a political conspiracy is more modest than yours :-). The bishops were getting seriously out-generaled in the public relations battle throughout most of February and March. If the bishops have been positioning this as an easy-to-understand issue, they’ve fallen behind on their dotCom reading – the posts and comments on this issue have shown that the moral analysis is complicated and impossible to translate into sound bites and slogans.
FWIW – When President Obama had his initial meeting with then-Archbishop Dolan, at which the President assured Dolan the latter would be pleased with the HHS regulations, I believe Dolan took the President at his word and came away hopeful that a new chapter in church-state relations had been established. I think the bishops were surprised and dismayed when the regulations were subsequently announced (and apparently, the President was, too). Everything else – the bishops’ anger, the Obama Administration’s divide-and-conquer strategy, the ‘accommodation’, the collapse in trust between the two parties – has flowed from that.
When President Obama had his initial meeting with then-Archbishop Dolan, at which the President assured Dolan the latter would be pleased with the HHS regulations, I believe Dolan took the President at his word and came away hopeful that a new chapter in church-state relations had been established. I think the bishops were surprised and dismayed when the regulations were subsequently announced (and apparently, the President was, too)
I have spent a lot of my life negotiating agreements and if the other party said that he was sure that I would be pleased by the next draft they would present, I wouldn’t count on that at all. Basically, it just means “now that we understand what your’re hoping to get, we’ll see if we can find a solution that will satisfy you enough to get you onboard and will also meet our other goals for this deal.”
What you see when you get “the next draft” will not necessarily be anything you would be willing to accept. It’s just part of the negotiation.
Bruce now admits there is no bishops’ dime
Actually Ed, I did not say that at all.
John, I totally agree.
What you see when you get “the next draft” will not necessarily be anything you would be willing to accept. It’s just part of the negotiation.
But then why shouldnt the bishops be complaining loudly and asking for the world. That also the way negotiations work….
the Obama administration decided to pursue the contraception mandate because they knew the vast majority of Catholics remain unpersuaded by Humane vitae. (Otherwise, what, they would have gone for abortion?)
Sure. If they thought they wouldn’t alienate too many of their Catholic supporters, the Obama administration would be gung-ho about requiring coverage of abortion.
The language, the language, and the assumption underlying all…”our opponents” have “chosen an issue they know we’re not very popular on.” As if a president of the United States were itching to pounce on Catholic bishops! As if there’s a war on.
Clearly, Cdl. Dolan and many bishops (just how many would be interesting to know) signed on spiritually with the Republican party under Bush, which makes Obama the enemy. Everything’s been self-fulfilling prophecy every since. Sigh.
Once again, Cdl. Dolan employs the strange rhetorical strategy he and his associates like — first refresh the memories of all listeners of the opposition points before getting around to one’s own. (e.g., Mar 14 – United …)
Each time he starts off by emphasizing contraception, he reminds Catholics and others of what so many Catholics honestly believe about contraception after decades-long campaigning by the Church authorities. If Dolan has a good argument about what freedom of religion is for all US citizens in 2012, it’s curious that he doesn’t start strong with it, expand, and hammer it home. It’s hard to believe a powerful, rigorously detailed statement on the subject isn’t ready at hand by now.
Studebaker:
Re: your comment:
“Sure. If they thought they wouldn’t alienate too many of their Catholic supporters, the Obama administration would be gung-ho about requiring coverage of abortion.”
Not only Catholics.
It is impossible to consider this subject without considering the RC church’s ban of “artificial” contraception. As David Gibson has pointed out, the RC episcopate’s objections contradict their church’s own moral theology:
http://www.religionnews.com/culture/social-issues/are-bishops-ignoring-their-own-moral-theology. If the prohibition of artificial contraception is as important as the RC bishops give the impression of thinking that it is, perhaps the time has come for dissenters to seek a spiritual home elsewhere. But large scale explicit departures over an issue so peripheral to the Decalogue and the Good News would undermine the RC bishops’ pretentious to represent close to a quarter of the U.S. population.
I just watched the Dolan interview on Fox News which leads me to urge everyone to see this video. http://video.foxnews.com/v/1535398096001/timothy-cardinal-dolan-enters-the-no-spin-zone
A major guffaw that Dolan makes is after O’reilly asks him whether he would tell Catholics not to vote for Obama. The Cardinal responded that this would probably get more Catholics to vote for the “opponent” and he goes on to say that even very faithful Catholics do not want their bishops to tell them who to vote for. The words Dolan uses exactly is that he “would probably be doing the opponent a big favor.” Is that a mammoth Freudian slip or what? It clearly shows his political partisanship. Shame on him.
Watch the video. There are other acute indicators of Dolan’s confusion and lack of direction. None more serious than the above.
“The words Dolan uses exactly is that he “would probably be doing the opponent a big favor.” Is that a mammoth Freudian slip or what? It clearly shows his political partisanship. Shame on him.”
Yes. I had suspected as much for some time; then, watching this mandate “battle” go the way of the Affordable Care Act mess, I pretty much knew. Still, it’s disturbing to hear the words spoken so casually yet loud and clear.
At least now I know I’m not the only one who’s noticed. Thanks for that.
“Sure. If they thought they wouldn’t alienate too many of their Catholic supporters, the Obama administration would be gung-ho about requiring coverage of abortion.”
Obama’s a constitutional lawyer who’s very aware of the divisions Roe v. Wade caused in this country and, like all public officials, doesn’t want to “alienate” any of the many groups opposed to unlimited abortion, no matter how he himself may regard the issue.
Regardless of how much Catholic bishops may oppose it, contraception is no longer considered controversial by any large constituency in the US. Most pertinently, the Institutes of Health categorized it as “preventive” care, and the Affordable Care Act is supposed to require insurance companies to respect these categories. Abortion is not so categorized, and isn’t likely to ever get such a designation considering how strong many Americans oppose it.
“Abortion is not so categorized, and isn’t likely to ever get such a designation considering how strong many Americans oppose it.”
strongly.
Jim P. –
You’re right, and i apologize for the blinders remark. I misread Cdl. Dolan — he wasn’t accusing the administration of those sins. But it was unfair of him to assume what he has about the administration. There is simply no evidence that the President was dupllicitous when he met with Dolan. True, the adminstration obviously was mistaken to think that its first mandate would be acceptable to the bishops, but why wouldn’t it think it was acceptable to them when at least a few bishops were already paying for employees contraceptives? The reasonable interpretation of those bishops’ behavior was that the Church would go along with the first mandate the way those few bishops went along with their state mandates. Dolan is obviously accusing Obama of bad faith, and don’t think he deserves the accusation.
Thomas Farrell –
The religious issue is the bishops’ claim that their own religious freedom is being curtailed by having to pay for the contraceptives of their employees. Granted, the people have a right to have the contraceptives supplied to them, but since they can get the contraceptives in other ways, the bishops should not be forced in effect to be the agents of the government. With the first manate they were not being told to simply tolerate the BC, they were being told they must participate in making the BC availabe.
Granted, the revised mandate seems to overcome the problem of the first one (though I don’t really understand the ins and outs of the new proposal). But since the bishops still are not satisfied that they won’t have to pay, the issue isn’t dead.
I watched the interview and I think Dolan comes across very accessible and positive. He is very New York in the sense that he is pretty aggressive and engaged. He isn’t your boilerplate typical ecclesiastic leader, measured, nuanced, circumspect (also characteristics I admire). But I do think American Catholics should be pleased with him as a spokesperson for the hierarchy. He is an effective leader I think.
That said, he has a tough sell. To make this into a religious freedom issue is a bit difficult because the first question that fair minded non-ideological people have is, what is the religious issue at stake here. And when he says covering contraception, I think most people would do a bit of a double take and wonder how that is a religious issue. An argument can be made but it is a tough one.
Besides there are medical reasons, besides contraceptive, that the pill could be prescribed (regulation of periods, etc.). So, in practice, it is pretty hard to prevent the sale of a legal non-abortificient product.
Ultimately, he (and Catholics in the public square) need to win their case by persuasion. But you need to choose battles wisely. I think the public prayer display case from Rhode Island that was discussed here a few months ago is a better example of erosion of religious freedom than this case.
I have been alerted that I should have used “gaffe” instead of “guffaw” referring to Dolan’s foray into partisanship politics. Certainly Dolan’s guffaws are legendary while his gaffes seem to be catching up to his guffaws. A gaffe in a guffaw can be unseemly, repugnant and repulsive. Perhaps my Freudian slip is I see more gaffes in his guffaws. Or as the Imitation of Christ says: “Many times we should be crying instead of laughing.”
I’m not sure Dolan was unfair to Obama. Despite the comment about negotiating strategy, the initial regs came out last summer. Then in the fall Dolan met with Obama, presumably told him the regs were problematic and Obama assured Dolan the latter would be pleased with the HHS regulations. And in January the final regs are published unchanged. I’m not sure how the President could have come to the conclusion that Dolan would be please with the HHS regs unless he just was not listening.
If I had been in Dolan’s shoes, I would have felt deceived given that fact pattern.
“contraception after decades-long campaigning by the Church”
Jack Barry –
“Campaigning” is exactly the right word! The bishops have not tried to persuade people with evidence and sound argument. They’ve cast the whole so-called “debate” as a war, and campaigned against it.
But they do not seem to think that it is their duty as teachers to persuade. Indoctrinate is what they try to do. That might work in some seminaries in “formation” (why don’t they just call it brain-washing?), but it won’t work with the new, educated laity.
“Certainly Dolan’s guffaws are legendary while his gaffes seem to be catching up to his guffaws.”
Could he be entering the Mitt Romney school of politicking – with guffaws as an extra added attraction?
If the individual mandate is overturned , the hospital mandate that hospitals must treat the uninsured might be overturned too. This will close more Catholic hospitals more quickly then BC costs. I see a future of triage tents staffed with volunteers in hospital parking lots. No Bishops need apply.
Ann O,
After the briefest foray into the modern world, where they heard talk of lay people having their own competence in matters that directly concern them, the bishops took a decided step backwards and slammed the door as hard as they could on that world. Persuasion is the discourse of equals. For ignorant underlings, commands are sufficient. Or used to be.
Persuasion requires not only sound argument but a real effort to understand and address the other person’s circumstances and needs. Slogans like “open to life” are not much help.
Bishops may be wary of persuasion because they know deep down that they don’t have much of a case to make on contraception. They barged into this controversy confident that they could beat down any resistance with the old methods, but they cannot. And once again, the misperceived need to protect the reputation of the institution overrides other considerations.
I’m with Morning about that budget. Catholics United has a petition going around asking the Bishops to defend the poor against the Ryan budget. http://www.catholics-united.org/
Perhaps the most notable thing about this affair is the bishop’s attack on secularism whatever that means. If secular means anything it means worldly or concerned about material things. A subject in which the bishops seem to do quite well. They live in luxurious mansions with ample servants providing plentiful food and fine wine not to mention superlative health care. I guess Dolan does not call them “fat balding bishops” for no reason. With all the deceit and lack of truth the bishops have injected into this election year imbroglio it might be noted that the fat balding bishops remark might have been the rare truth proceeding from them. As for the people it is still “let them eat cake.” That word secular needs another look.
Thank you, John Page (3:41pm) and Ed Gleason (4:09pm) for your ex cathedra dicta on my purported error (3:29pm). If I am wrong in my assessment, it will neither be the first nor the last time. But it will not be because of your naked infallible declarations.
Please consider, for my possible benefit and that of other readers who may lack your intuitive reasoning skills, giving relevants reasons for your abrupt statements.
“The language, the language, and the assumption underlying all…”our opponents” have “chosen an issue they know we’re not very popular on.” As if a president of the United States were itching to pounce on Catholic bishops! As if there’s a war on.”
There is a war on – it’s better known as the 2012 presidential election. It is shaping up to be a hard-fought and close election, with a handful of swing states, some of which have sizable Catholic populations (Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida), determining the outcome. Both the Obama and, presumably, Romney campaigns will have hundreds of millions(!) of dollars at their disposal to win the White House. With financing and resources of this scale to pour into a handful of states, it’s not far-fetched to suppose that Catholics would be in the sights of both campaigns. The Obama Administration would be remiss in *not* doing its utmost to prevent the bishops from influencing voters in these states.
Ann Olivier: You say, “Indoctrinate is what they [the Catholic bishops] try to do.” Exactly!
First, the Catholic bishops see themselves as holding privileged positions as the supposed successors of the apostles. As we know, Paul saw himself as an apostle and saw apostles as out-ranking everybody else. So as supposed successors of the apostles, the Catholic bishops see themselves as out-ranking everybody else. For this reason, they see their jobs as requiring them to indoctrinate everybody else to think as the bishops themselves think, just as Paul himself tried to indoctrinate everybody else.
Moreover, the Catholic bishops think that the Catholic tradition of so-called “natural law” moral theory is the way that they and everybody else should think about sexual morality. As you say, the Catholic bishops see themselves as indoctrinating, or at least as trying to indoctrinate, everybody else to think as they do about sexual morality.
Now, as they see themselves as supposed successors of the apostles, they out-rank everybody else, so they want no debate from everybody else regarding what they (the bishops) say about sexual morality.
The Catholic bishops do not see themselves as trying to persuade but as trying to indoctrinate, as you say.
So we might ask, How is indoctrination different from persuasion?
Persuasion might involve asking questions and perhaps raising objections and perhaps debating.
But indoctrination begins with straightforward memory work. See, for example, the Catholic catechism, which presupposes that the bishops responsible for putting the catechism know the right questions that everybody else needs to know and that the bishops also know the right answers that everybody else needs to know. Indoctrination begins with memory work.
Now, is it possible for paragons of Catholic indoctrination (i.e., properly indoctrinated Catholics) such as the Catholic bishops ever to become de-indoctrinated about, say, the church’s teachings regarding sexual morality?
NCR reports that one Catholic bishop recently called for a review of the church’s teachings regarding sexual morality. NCR has published an editorial supporting the bishop’s call for such a review.
Now, we might also wonder if the Catholic bishops could stop trying to indoctrinate everybody else to think the way they think and start trying to persuade people instead. Or would it endanger their self-concept as the supposed successors of the apostles for them to stop trying to indoctrinate everybody else and start trying to persuade people instead?
For the Catholic bishops, debate among equals is acceptable for Catholic bishops to engage in with other Catholic bishops. So if in principle the Catholic bishops can allow other Catholic bishops to engage in debate with them, then perhaps they could use this admittedly limited experience of debate among bishops as a model that they could follow in engaging in debate with non-bishops, or at least in attempting to engage in debate with non-bishops.
In any event, you have raised an important point about indoctrination, Ann O.
“I have spent a lot of my life negotiating agreements and if the other party said that he was sure that I would be pleased by the next draft they would present, I wouldn’t count on that at all. ”
Wow – really? The word, the personal assurance, of the President of the United States, is just a bad-faith negotiating tactic?
There has been at least one news story reporting that the President was unhappy with the initial HHS regulations, in part because he had given his word to Dolan previously. The story recounted debate and division within the White House leading up to the original regulations: Sebelius and Jarrott wanted virtually no religious exemption, whereas Biden and Daley warned that this policy would cause political problems. What’s more, the President was personally involved in crafting the ‘accommodation’, again in part because he felt that his own administration had undercut him.
I don’t believe that the President of the United States would deliberately lie to bamboozle a bishop. Even if he would (which I don’t concede), the conversation in question was not a hardball negotiation – it was a friendly chat. Or so Dolan has characterized it, and I haven’t heard that the White House disputes that characterization.
If that is the way the President does business – gives his personal word, knowing fully that it is a lie – why should any other world leader, or his own party, or the American people, ever accept anything he says?
Irene and Morning’s Minion – nobody expects that the Ryan budget has the least chance of becoming law. I would never dispute anyone’s right to sign a petition, but it seems to me it’s as least as much a waste of time, and at least as politically motivated, as those anti-FOCA petitions from a few years ago.
FWIW – I haven’t seen that the bishops have responded directly to the Ryan budget – no doubt in part because they know it stands no chance of passing – but they have released recent statements urging the government to pass a budget that gives a preferential option to the poor.
From what I understand, the Obama Administration hasn’t even proposed a budget, so presumably what we’ll actually end up with is a continuance of what we have right now.
@Jim Pauwels (3/30, 8:29 am) Here’s my .02 on Cardinal Dolan’s remarks, specifically his seeming characterization of the Obama administration as his/the USCCB’s “opponents”.
First, to state the obvious, Dolan can say pretty much anything he wants. Furthermore, what he said was well within the bounds of political discourse.
Second, here’s an administration that has ended one unjust war, is winding down another war, has responded to the worst economic crisis in 70 years by repeatedly fighting for (and sometimes winning) increased support for those most affected by the crisis, and passed landmark health care legislation that promises to largely accomplish the goal of ensuring access to health care for all Americans.
On many of these (and other) issues, the president has faced an opposition party that has gone to unprecedented lengths to, well, oppose anything he proposes—even if what he proposes is policies their own party developed and previously supported.
Why does Cardinal Dolan (apparently) consider Obama “the opponent”? Sure, Obama disagrees with the USCCB on some issues, and has advanced some policies which the USCCB opposes. Why the language of “opponent”? (I don’t recall similar language directed towards the Bush administration when some of their policies were in opposition to the USCCB’s stance on certain issues.)
Jim Pouwels, re your 8:30 post of this morning. “There is a war on….” Calling an American election campaign a war is simply an abuse of language. Anyone who has been in a real war knows the difference. Inflated tlak like this is exactly wnat we need no more of in this country. Please desist!
@ Jim: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget
@ Bernard Dauenhauer: Thank you for your posting, and would only point out that it is not just Jim. The war rhetoric is destructive and pervasive.
So many interesting, often well thought opinions. I’d like to add mine, so here goes. Dolan, et.al, are mortals not God. They state quite often their motives and means are an expression of God’s love and only that. Some of us take their words literally. Others question. In as much as they are mortals they do the best they can. Often failing. Often succeeding. For example, when one has committed the entirety of ones life to devotion to a faith (not a religion) based on the words and deeds of Christ as the one and only way to God one simply cannot expect anyone else to believe they can accept “freedom of religion”. One can reasonably doubt they have an useful understanding of the word itself. While it is reasonable to believe pure logic is a hopeless path to God it is also reasonable to believe the utter absence of logic fairs no better. Where Dolan and his supporters saying “freedom of Catholicism” I would be considerably less confused. But, then, I do am a mere mortal why would I not expect to be confused?
A final point. It seems more than an little imprudent for a man of God to allow himself to be so enthralled with a messenger of God. Why would one knowingly delay their journey to the source? Perhaps an admission neither their words nor deeds are at all times and in all places divine.
Jim Pauwels, I haven’t heard Cardinal Dolan say that President Obama promised him anything specific. The most specific information I’ve seen is Davd Gibson’s report on the meeting:
Dolan said Obama was “very sensitive” to the bishops’ concerns over gay marriage and insurance mandates to provide artificial birth control coverage as part of the new health care reform law.
“He was very ardent in his desire to assure me that this is something he will look long and hard at. And I left there feeling a bit more at peace about this issue than when I entered.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/14/obama-dolan-dialogue_n_1093679.html
Separately, Cardinal Dolan seems to have said that President Obama told him (promised?) that he (Dolan) would be happy with what the administration did.
I haven’t seen anything from Cadinal Dolan saying that the president promised to do any specific thing (do away with the mandate; expand the exemption to include hospitals, universities, Charities, etc; expand it to include individuals).
Normally, in a negotiation, your goal is to get the other party to commit to specific points. Getting to the end of a negotiating session in which the other party has only said that he understands your issues and is sure you will be happy with their next proposal just eans that you need to wait to see the next proposal and don’t count on anything in the meantime.
In response to your post above, I don’t know of anything that suggests that President Obama lied. It sounds as if he did “look long and hard” at the issue and he did produce an “accomodation” which responded to that issue.
What the other party thinks ought to make you happy often doesn’t , which is why I said I wouldn’t count on that statement.
Cdl. Dolan and confreres need drama because they can’t find a more effective approach. Count the times Dolan has introduced the “fight” and the “battle” he insists he doesn’t want. The bishops’ principal contributions to date on the HHS matter have been to object and try to divert.
“Religious freedom” is a handy umbrella (see Dolan letter 9/29/11) and sounds All-American but gets complicated when actually applied to every individual citizen, which is what it is about. Each bishop’s denial that contraception is the issue reminds everyone what the bishops have done about it in the last 43 years.
The child sexual abuse coverup that was to be history according to Bishop Gregory in 2004 is headlines in Philadelphia, Kansas, the Donohue/Dolan blogs, and Listecki’s Mass and court case, for current examples. International news on the USCCB includes “No Pork Mandate, Bishop Lori tells Congress” from Zenit, no less (2/16/12). Under the circumstances, it should not be surprising that Cdl. Dolan says whatever makes him feel good.
Per as some have suggested here (for example, Jim Pauwels), why is it assumed by individuals that in the negotiations over religious exemptions to providing women with full health care coverage that President Obama is presumed to be duplicitous, and Cardinal Dolan was deceived?
What possible motive would President Obama have for lying to Dolan? How politically stupid [for which there is no evidence that is the case with Obama] would it be for the President to want to decieve the hierarchs?
Is it possible that Dolan’s actual political gambit was to sabotage the implementation of the President’s signature legislative accomplishment in an vain attempt for the hierarchs to reclaim lost credibility among Catholic people? Could that be construed as being even slightly “dishonest?”
Aren’t both men politicians playing to their supporters – albeit Dolan operates in a feudal oligarchy – that require them to diplomatically conceal motivations and intentions in any horse-trading political negotiations?
Is it significant, and what does it say to us, and how does it help frame the debate, that the President’s women advisers [Sebelius & Jarrett] lobbied for full insurance coverage for women’s health care needs, and the men advisers [Biden & Daley] wanted accommodation with the hierarchs?
Concur with above.
You might want to add this late article by John Allen on his analysis of B16′s statements in Mexico and Cuba about church/state relations and the role of bishops.
http://ncronline.org/blogs/all-things-catholic/benedicts-gentle-debunk-clericalism
Would suggest that B16 needs to recall Dolan and the two should sit down and talk.
Highlights:
Typical expressions of this clericalism include:
1) “Clergy see themselves as political powerbrokers, playing a direct role in affairs of state.
The church projects an image of power and privilege, with its preferred spiritual imagery emphasizing God as a cosmic monarch.
The role of the laity is conceived in largely passive terms — “pay, pray and obey.”
Little premium is placed on evangelization or faith formation, with pastoral care understood largely in terms of administering the sacraments.”
2) “First, Benedict insisted that the Catholic church is not a political party, and that its most important contribution to political life is the formation of individual consciences — putting the premium on the role of clergy as pastors, not pundits or activists.
In response to a question about the church’s political role, he stressed that one has to be clear about “what the church can and should do, and what it can’t and shouldn’t do” — a reference to the danger of directly partisan stands.”
3) “Yet Benedict never said anything about the looming elections, even something anodyne like a generic call to electoral responsibility. Strikingly, he largely avoided the hot-button issues of abortion and gay marriage.
As far as the political loyalties of the Catholic church, Benedict insisted that the church should “stand beside those who are marginalized as the result of force, power or a prosperity which is blind to the poorest of the poor.”
IMO, Catholic hospitals, universities, and social agencies are doing exactly what B16 is stating in the last paragraph. That is more important than trying to prove some “threat” to the institution’s religious liberty with inconsistent, weak arguments by the USCCB.
It sounds as if he did “look long and hard” at the issue and he did produce an ‘accomodation’ which responded to that issue.
Yes, but you have left out the step in the process where his administration first established the rules completely unchanged. Then after an uproar, he might have looked long and hard for an ‘accommodation’ but he had already damaged his relationship with Dolan. And lets not forget, that in looking long and hard he didnt speak with Dolan. So the administrations words and actions do not show any concern for the USCCB issues. And, IMHO, thats a lousy negotiator.
Ed Gleason said: “I see a future of triage tents staffed with volunteers in hospital parking lots.”
They already exist: http://www.freemedicalcamps.com/
What bothers me about this pull-out-all-the stops defense of religious liberty is that there really ARE Catholics elsewhere in the world who suffer greatly in trying to live their faith. It almost seems disloyal to them to talk about the contraceptive mandate as an assault on religious liberty. If we’re serious about this issue, what we should be doing is uniting to ensure Nigerians won’t get murdered while attending Mass, or rallying for the release of the Chinese bishops in jail.
Re Thomas Farrell @ 9:00 on indoctrination VS persuasion.
Here is one example of indoctrination:
“When you can assume that your audience holds the same beliefs you do, you can relax a little and use more normal ways of talking to it; when you have to assume that it does not, then you have to make your vision apparent by shock — to the hard of hearing you shout, and for the almost blind you draw large and startling figures.”
Flannery O’Connor, “Mystery and Manners” (essay) http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=104056377
There are times that this man is proven correct:
Archbishop – A Christian ecclesiastic of a rank superior to that attained by Christ. (H. L. Mencken)
“why is it assumed by individuals that in the negotiations over religious exemptions to providing women with full health care coverage that President Obama is presumed to be duplicitous, and Cardinal Dolan was deceived?”
Hey, Jim J and everyone, just so my POV is clear on this: I don’t accuse the President of being duplicitous. I go to some lengths to suggest that a President’s word needs to be his bond. I do suggest that people in his administration undercut him on the original HHS contraception mandate. (Many things come out of a presidential administration without the president’s personal review and approval). I also believe that he personally intervened to help craft the ‘accommodation’, and I think he did so in good faith to try to solve a genuine moral dilemma for Catholics, including those who are important to him politically, such as Sr. Carol Keehan.
@Bruce (3/30, 2:46 pm) All that may be true—Obama a lousy negotiator, damaging his relationship with Dolan, etc.
Then we reach the point in the negotiation where Dolan has to react to the “accommodation”. One option Dolan had was to accept Obama’s offer, and claim victory. Another option Dolan had was to take Obama’s offer as a point for further (quick) negotiation, perhaps face-to-face with the president, accept a deal on better terms, and claim victory.
We both could likely come up with several other directions the negotiation could have taken. Instead, Dolan rejected Obama’s “accommodation”, launched a campaign against, and did so knowing that key segments of the institutional Church opposed (or would oppose) his decision.
Now Dolan and the USCCB are in a campaign where Catholics are on both sides of the issue, and it’s not clear to the average person what he and they are fighting for. (But it sure looks a lot like it has to do with contraception.)
Bernard and jbruns – thanks for sharing your your concerns about the language of war. War is a pretty common metaphor for many aspects of human life, certainly including politics, and I don’t think the way I used it is particularly out of line.
FWIW – I think Cardinal Dolan used the term “opponents”, not in reference specifically to President Obama, but to the church’s opponents in the culture war. It’s helpful to recall that this HHS controversy is not a battle that the bishops picked or were looking for. I accept the analysis that suggests that it was forces that have long been bitter foes of the church – and which are allied with the administration – that were instrumental in causing the religious exemption to be defined as narrowly as it was.
I realize my preceding paragraph is replete with war-words. If you have better metaphors for describing the culture conflict, I’m all for using them – suggestions accepted.
” It’s helpful to recall that this HHS controversy is not a battle that the bishops picked or were looking for. ”
Au contraire. I think that these bishops were just looking for something to sink their teeth into and advance their Republican-leaning/influenced agendae.
They have adopted political tactics at their own peril. They have naught to win and very much to lose, including the support of a large portion of their ever-decreasing church population.
A word to the wise is oftimes insufficient.
“What bothers me about this pull-out-all-the stops defense of religious liberty is that there really ARE Catholics elsewhere in the world who suffer greatly in trying to live their faith. It almost seems disloyal to them to talk about the contraceptive mandate as an assault on religious liberty. ”
Irene – you’re right that nobody’s life is endangered, nobody is in danger of being imprisoned, over the religious-liberty dispute with HHS. At the same time, it occurred to me the other day that the word “tyranny” can rightly be used about a government that forces a religious community to act against one of its deeply held tenets. Our civic forefathers from the 18th century deeded us this vocabulary that tastes strangely old-fashioned, but still describes vital ideas – words like “liberty”. And “tyranny”.
It sounds strange to describe the Obama Administration as “tyrannical” – but in fact it seems quite fitting.
@Jim Pauwels (3/30, 3:47 pm) Tyrannical? In what ways, specifically, does the Obama administration seem tyrannical to you? (And how do those ways differ from—or not—from previous administrations?)
Jim P. — If you find tyranny and war fitting and useful descriptions of what you see, you may want to complete the triad with martyrdom, mentioned in Nebraska and Chicago not too long ago and now in St. Louis. http://stlouisreview.com/article/2012-02-16/ever-increasing
INteresting that your position on the “health coverage forcontraception” is one of the things that can get you disinvited from speaking at a Catholic college”
A small Catholic college that invited Victoria Reggie Kennedy to speak at its spring commencement has rescinded the offer under pressure from the Worcester bishop, who described her apparent political views as out of line with Catholic teachings.
Anna Maria College in Paxton, west of Worcester, released a statement today placing the decision at the feet of Bishop Robert J. McManus and saying it still believes Kennedy is an appropriate choice.
However, the statement continued, “after hours of discerning and struggling with elements of all sides of this issue, the Executive Committee of the Board of Trustees decided with deep regret to withdraw its invitation.”
Anna Maria, a independent liberal arts college with 1,100 students, is deeply entwined with the diocese; last night, its president attended a dinner with McManus. Its statement notes that “as a small, Catholic college that relies heavily on the good will of its relationship with the Bishop and the larger Catholic community, its options are limited….”
“He’s always been very warm with me, but he had a hostile stance about this from the first moment: ‘I am not happy about this; it has put me in a very difficult position,’” said Whelan, who also is a pediatrician at Harvard Medical School. The bishop, he added, invoked what he believed were Kennedy’s positions on divisive social issues, including abortion, gay rights, and health coverage for contraception.
http://www.boston.com/Boston/metrodesk/2012/03/college-cancels-kennedy-commencement-speech-under-pressure-from-worcester-bishop/QX1qzjBwrAea3eZnI8U6XN/index.html
Rick Garnett of Notre Dame has this to say about the issue
it is a mistake to think about the mandate only in terms of the question whether it purports to require culpable cooperation-with-evil. Instead, the mandate burdens religious freedom, it seems to me, by compromising the integrity of Catholic institutions’ witness.
Jim Pouwels: In real wars people get killed. There is a term for dealing with tyrants, namely tyrannicide. Do you not realize how poisonous the political discourse in the U. S. has become? These terms do not properly refer to one’s political opponents, who are after all, your fellow citizens. The refer to one’s enemies, who are not one’s fellow citizens.
Your failure to make these elementary distinctions makes it hard to think that your critical comments on other matters are manifestation of blinding prejudice rather than thoughtful reflection. You do neither yourself nor anyone any respectable service when you resort to outrageous and incendiary epithets.
“Archbishop – A Christian ecclesiastic of a rank superior to that attained by Christ. (H. L. Mencken)”
Unless one assumes Mencken was at that moment channeling God where is the validity? As for the usefulness, perhaps one may win the debate if the topic is “who’s the biggest banana” but I believe the issue here is whether one can have their cake and eat it too. That is, can one claim absolute, verifiable truth on the grounds of divine mystery?
Geezzz. One more time. I believe I can correctly assume the big questions here have to do with a fellow who merrily road a donkey into town. Pull out that pillar and Catholicism is something very different than it is now. That anyone would believe it is helpful to follow behind on a high horse claiming the problem lies in the other fellow’s inablity to grasp a great truth clearly detailed in bureaucratic process makes little sense.
Irene,
Your comment about Nigeria and China reminded me of St. Therese of Lisieux
But Therese’s “little way” of trusting in Jesus to make her holy and relying on small daily sacrifices instead of great deeds appealed to the thousands of Catholics and others who were trying to find holiness in ordinary lives.
Bernard – I’m pretty sure I’m not the first person to use war as a metaphor for political conflict, and I’m sorry to learn my doing so disqualifies my comments from further consideration.
“Philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language”
— Ludwig Wittgenstein, apparently in a warlike mood
“Au contraire. I think that these bishops were just looking for something to sink their teeth into and advance their Republican-leaning/influenced agendae.”
Do you have a particular reason for thinking so?
“Tyrannical? In what ways, specifically, does the Obama administration seem tyrannical to you?”
In the way I mentioned in my comment to which you responded. Do you think it is NOT tyrannical for a government to use its authority and its police power to force a citizen to violate a deeply held and cherished religious tenet, one that the same government had previously tolerated for 225+ years?
Do you think it is NOT tyrannical for a government to use its authority and its police power to force a citizen to violate a deeply held and cherished religious tenet, one that the same government had previously tolerated for 225+ years?
In the end, the Supreme Court will decide whether the contraceptive coverage mandate is unconstitutional. Cases are already going through the courts.
The issue is not whether the Constitution guarantees “free exercise [of religion].” Of course it does – the words are there on paper.
The issue is whether any particular action of the government violates that right. That is what the SC will decide.
The courts have already decided that you cannot withold income taxes because you oppose war and that you cannot claim consciencious objector status because you believe a particular war is unjust.
Therefore, “free exercise of religion” is not absolute. It is a matter of judgement – and the judgement is made by the courts.
@jim. No, this is not even close to “tyrannical.”.
War is such an exhausted synonym for any dispute, that you might as well say kerfuffle or fuss.
Tyranny, though, still has some useful particularity, and it would be good to preserve it by not pretending that any proposal by an American government official is likely to be the death knell of freedom.
Presidents have considerable power, but no one honestly supposes it to be unlimited or unchecked. Congress, the courts, elections, polls, interest groups, and bureaucratic drag all impose restraints on every president. Today the commonest criticism of our government is not that it acts despotically but that it seems incapable of acting at all.
If you insist on describing everyone you disagree with as a tyrant, you will need a whole new vocabulary for the really unaccountable bad actors in the world.
‘Today the commonest criticism of our government is not that it acts despotically but that it seems incapable of acting at all.’
This is the popular press criticism when looking at the government. Its not the view individuals have when they actually deal with the government.
And regardless of how the courts decide, forcing anyone to violate a deeply held and well known religious belief is tyrannical. To quote Edmund Burke, all that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. Evil is not neutral and there can be no neutrality exercised toward it. Anyone who is not against it is in favor of it.
“And regardless of how the courts decide, forcing anyone to violate a deeply held and well known religious belief is tyrannical.”
Bruce -
But this is not the issue of the bishops’ case at this point. The President has offered a compromise — let the insurance companies pay, and he has offered to talk further. The bishops won’t accept this compromise and they don’t seem inclined to talk. This is not tyranny.
Your discounting of some of the facts and your exaggeration of the negativity of the President’s behavior suggest strongly that you can’t or won’t look at his actions objectively.
“And regardless of how the courts decide, forcing anyone to violate a deeply held and well known religious belief is tyrannical.”
Bruce, it sounds as if you will still be upset even if the courts strike down everything you oppose and affirm everything you believe, as long as they leave unpunished anyone who proposes a policy you consider wrong (or evil, if you prefer). You might have a little more secular faith. Fumbling and fallible and creaky as our constitutional procedures may be, we enjoy a greater measure of freedom here than 99% of all the people who have ever lived elsewhere. And the Catholic Church in particular has grown and flourished in America beyond all hope.
Best to save tyranny to describe those horrendous times when people are imprisoned, tortured, and burned at the stake for expressing a belief that their masters disapprove.
Regarding the use of the word “war:” I think that war means that frustration, fear and defensiveness has given way to aggression and attack of an opponent in a manner that openly invites others to join into the aggression and attack. I think that war is a violent and viral form of fear. Not rational, not constructive and, given the damage done, rarely defensible.
Ann,
The compromise does not work for the bishops because it basically window dressing. The policy has 2 basic components, a mandate for services and some exempted institutions. Compromise, which is defined as making a concession to settle a dispute, would require the administration either to relax the contraceptive requirement or expand the list of exempted institutions. Alternatively, the bishops have to accept contraception, which they cant and wont, or change the nature of the institutions by limiting those served or severing the Catholic tether.
The tether that needs severing is the one between church and state. The President should STOP meeting with bishops and close the faith-based office in the White House that he inherited from Bush.
Will there ever be a candidate courageous/foolhardy enough to run on a promise of doing whatever s/he can to END tax exemptions for religion?
Reminding taxpayers of what that would mean for them as individuals and for the nation as a whole might convince some to cast a secret ballot against religion and its ever-increasing stranglehold.
@Jim Pauwels (3/30, 6:30 pm) Deacon Pauwels, thanks for your response. (Thanks also to everyone else who joined this “sub-thread” about tyranny.)
To respond specifically to your question (“Do you think it is NOT tyrannical for a government to use its authority and its police power to force a citizen to violate a deeply held and cherished religious tenet, one that the same government had previously tolerated for 225+ years?”): We’re talking, I think, about a contraception mandate for religiously-affiliated nonprofit employers. So we’re not talking about “a citizen”, but rather incorporated institutions. And your statement assumes (I think) that opposition to contraceptive health care is a “deeply held and cherished religious tenet”. Given that the overwhelming majority of Catholic women (and, by extension at least, their sexual partners) use contraceptives, it’s at least an open question as to how deeply held and cherished a religious tenet we’re debating.
One might argue that the bishops have consistently maintained their teaching against contraception. (One would likely be correct.) However, a teaching held by a church in which the overwhelming majority of its members violate that teaching without repercussion from that church’s authorities is, well, let’s just say it’s an open question how important that teaching is. (Or, at least, outsiders might reasonably conclude that it’s not that important to that particular faith.)
Secondly, the US government regularly uses its authority and police power to force citizens to violate deeply held and cherished beliefs. Other commenters have given some examples. All governments do. It’s more-or-less in the nature of “the state”, at least according to most of the political philosophers and scientists I’ve come across.
Christianity (like most religions?) has always existed in some degree of tension with the state, and with state power. And over the last two generations, the US—both its society and its government—has become increasingly secular. But I still think describing this incidence as an example of tyranny is (at least) an overstatement.
John,
I’d like to see our freedom stay or grow. I just read ‘In the belly of the beast’ and ‘Bonhoeffer’, both of which tell how easily freedom can be given away. Tyranny doesnt start with torture and stake-burning, it starts small.
The Mar 31 Wall Street Journal has an interview with Cardinal Dolan about this subject.
@Bruce (3/31, 10:55 am) I too would like to see our freedom(s) “stay or grow”. I’ll just note for the record that this is not a case in which “freedom” is on one side of the issue.
The Mar 31 Wall Street Journal has an interview with Cardinal Dolan about this subject.
The article is by James Taranto, a member of the editorial board of the WSJ. It is in the Opinion section.
He quotes Cardinal Dolan on his understanding of his discussion with President Obama (the ellipses are Mr. Taranto’s):
At the end of their 45-minute discussion, the archbishop summed up what he understood as the president’s message:
“I said, ‘I’ve heard you say, first of all, that you have immense regard for the work of the Catholic Church in the United States in health care, education and charity. . . . I have heard you say that you are not going to let the administration do anything to impede that work and . . . that you take the protection of the rights of conscience with the utmost seriousness. . . . Does that accurately sum up our conversation?’ [Mr. Obama] said, ‘You bet it does.’”
The archbishop asked for permission to relay the message to the other bishops. “You don’t have my permission, you’ve got my request,” the president replied.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303816504577311800821270184.html
Looks as if Cardinal Dolan and he President have different views on whether the “accomodation” and subsequent request for comments and suggestions is an adequate response to those issues.
It would be interesting to see the full text of the Cardinal’s summary of he conversation, wihout the ellipses.
The US Catholic bishops have a desperate need to be recognized for accomplishment and effective authority in practice, neither of which has been evident for years.
In his religious freedom letter to bishops (9/29/11), Cdl. Dolan referred to 70,000,000 citizens over whom the bishops are shepherds, avoiding the popular debate over who is really a true Catholic. He ignored thoroughly established facts about Catholics and Sunday Mass attendance, Reconciliation, other sacraments, contraception, and other hints about Catholicism and Catholics. The results of the shepherding are countable.
“’We’re … teachers,’ Archbishop Dolan said of the bishops’ role, ‘… the teachers’”, after his election as USCCB president. In today’s WSJ interview, on Humanae Vitae (1968): “We forfeited the chance to be a coherent moral voice when it comes to one of the more burning issues of the day”. The bishops taught, although not, in hindsight, what the Cardinal understandably wishes they had. The students learned.
“Religious freedom” is a convenient buzzword provided one remains sufficiently vague about how it applies, as Dolan, Lori, and associates do. To date, their primary response has been “not that!”. One might hope for the cardinal to use one of his PR venues to say “religious liberty for each citizen in the US in 2012 means …”. Then he might turn to reconstructing the fold for which he and his confreres claim responsibility. I deplore the analogy to war for the reasons Bernard D. and others have offered but can’t help thinking of Custer’s Last Stand.
Apt analogy, Jack.
While Custer was making war on women in the west, Americans back east were celebrating the nation’s Centennial, flocking to the Exposition by the millions, marvelling at the signs of the future: telephone, electricity, typewriter, etc., etc.
Which side are you on, boys? Which side are you on?
Dolan is outstanding in the Taranto interview.
(Btw, I see Taranto consistently refers to Dolan as “Archbishop Dolan”. Maybe it’s a WSJ style book thing?)
“We’re talking, I think, about a contraception mandate for religiously-affiliated nonprofit employers. So we’re not talking about “a citizen”, but rather incorporated institutions. And your statement assumes (I think) that opposition to contraceptive health care is a “deeply held and cherished religious tenet”. Given that the overwhelming majority of Catholic women (and, by extension at least, their sexual partners) use contraceptives, it’s at least an open question as to how deeply held and cherished a religious tenet we’re debating.”
Hey, Luke, (and Jim McK, and anyone else who feels constrained by courtesy) – please, just call me Jim :-).
Yes, we’re talking about the mandate. I don’t know that tyranny affects only individuals and not groups of people, such as members of a religion. In fact, we know that tyranny frequently is directed toward members of groups.
Also – individuals direct groups. It is morally burdensome on decisionmakers of Catholic employers, Catholic insurers (which are often the same thing as Catholic employers) and Catholic individuals to be required to pay for something that they find morally objectionable.
That a lot of Catholics use birth control is not pertinent. Until now, the church has not been required to subsidize it. If a tenet could be violated only if its own members had never violated it, there is not a single Christian tenet that would be exempt from government intrusion.
Just as we need to give African Americans extremely wide latitude to tell us (rather than us tell them) whether or not racism still exists, we need to extend the same latitude to oppressed religions to tell us whether or not they are oppressed.
“If a tenet could be violated only if its own members had never violated it”
My apologies – I should have said, “if a tenet could be exempt from oppression only if its own members had never violated it, there is not a single Christian tenet that would be exempt from government intrusion.”
A quick look at religious freedom in 2012 is available at Zenit. The word “war” applies.
http://www.zenit.org/article-34550?l=english
(Btw, I see Taranto consistently refers to Dolan as “Archbishop Dolan”. Maybe it’s a WSJ style book thing?)
All cardinals are archbishops (I think). Not all archbishops are cardinals.
Maybe the WSJ treats “archbishop” as the cake and “cardinal” as the frosting?
Bruce @ 03/31/2012 – 10:45 am said: “Alternatively, the bishops have to accept contraception, which they cant and wont,”
But they can and have in 28 states. See the chart on page 3: http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_ICC.pdf
All cardinals are archbishops (I think).
Avery Dulles was a Cardinal but not a bishop. In olden times, laymen could become Cardinals and later receive minor orders that didn’t involve a promise of celibacy. The 1917 Code of Canon Law Introduced the requirement that you had to be a priest to be apponted a Cardinal.
However, I have read that Paul VI considered appointing Jaques Maritain as a Cardinal.
Sorry, I forgot to close the italics after the ifrst line.
So a Christian Brother couldn’t be a Cardinal?
So a Christian Brother couldn’t be a Cardinal?
I imagine that if the Pope wanted to make him a Cardinal, it could happen.
Jacques Maritain was a layman.
According to Wikipedia, there are cardinal bishops, cardinal priests and cardinal deacons. What does that mean? (Are there no limits to the hierarchical structure of the Catholic ruling class?)
Much detail on varieties of cardinals and the associated complexities is at the Holy See press office:
http://www.vatican.va/news_services/press/documentazione/documents/cardinali_documentazione/cardinali_documentazione_generale_en.html
Archbishop O’Brien and Archbishop Dolan became Cardinals at the same time. O’Brien is a Cardinal-Deacon and Dolan is a Cardinal-Priest
Here are the lists:
Cardinal-Bishops: http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/scardx1.html
Cardinal-Priests: http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/scardy1.html
Cardinal-deacons: http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/scardz1.html
Cardinal Levada, who is only a Cardinal Deacn, is head of te CDF. Is that office considered a lowly one in the Curia? Hmm.
Wasn’t Dulles ordained to the episcopate upon learning that he was to be made a cardinal?
Jimmy @03/31/2012 – 6:25 pm
But they can and have in 28 states.
That dramatically overstates the case. First, they can escape any state mandate by following ERISA. And that chart also shows 19 states with exemptions of various degrees. Furthermore, in at least NY and CA they litigated to the state supreme court where the church lost, so at best, they are complying under duress. Not exactly acceptance.
I will weigh in here on the esoterica of cardinals before a Holy Week, Octave of Easter break.
It’s all a bit complex.
1. The pope may name a bishop of a diocese a cardinal. For example, Cardinal Lehmann (named a cardinal in 2001) is the BISHOP of Mainz since Mainz historically, is not an archdiocese.
2. In recent decades, popes have named various priests who are over eighty, and thus unable to vote in a papal elections, cardinals. This is meant as a recognition of long service to the Church, usually as prominent theologians. Priests over eighty named cardinals may choose to be ordained bishops, or not. Cardinal Dulles chose not to be ordained a bishop. In the recent consistory, three priests over eighty were named cardinals. Two chose to be ordained bishops before the consistory, one at age ninety-one !, the other at eighty-six! The third, the Jesuit theologian Karl Josef Becker, chose not to be ordained bishop, as had his various Jesuit confreres before him, including Avery Dulles.
3.The cardinals are divided into three orders — deacons, priests, bishops. This is a tradition of many centuries, and one shouldn’t read too much into this now somewhat artificial distinction. All residential bishops, that is, bishops of dioceses, for example, Cardinal O’Malley of Boston and Cardinal Vingt-Trois of Paris, are cardinal priests. All curial cardinals are usually cardinal deacons, with the exception of six senior curial members, who are cardinal bishops. Cardinal deacons can after a number of years in office apply to be “promoted” to cardinal priests. The fact that Cardinal Levada is still a cardinal deacon after nearly six years (a relatively short time) says nothing about his prominence or influence in the Roman Curia.
In short, not all cardinals are archbishops.
Useless knowledge, no doubt. Alas, I am (too) well versed in it.
All blessings and graces of the pascha paschatum, solemnitas solemnitatum to all.
In short, not all cardinals are archbishops. BUT, according to the present practice, the vast majority are.
John Page –
Thanks for the lesson. The fact that the terms “bishop”, “priest”, and “deacon” cardingal are still in use even after they are largely meaningless shows, I think, how the Vatican despises change so much that it won’t even dispense with archaisms that are misleading. WHY is it so rigid?
One more week before I am free from my Ash Wednesday decision to try to refrain from bishop-bashing until Easer! I can barely wait!!
Claire, is that an April Fools comment?
Ann, Wikipedia has this on the origin of Cardinals:
The original “cardinals” in the first Christian centuries were friends and counsellors of the Bishop of Rome. Some were ordained deacons or priests and some were not. In those days of persecution these men took on the duty of standing at the door of the house where the agape feast, as the Mass was then called, was being celebrated. They admitted or rejected people hoping to attend the Sacred Liturgy. They also kept watch for soldiers or informers who might interrupt the gathering. Since the word for “hinge” in Latin is cardo they became known as ‘hingemen” – cardinals. Soon many bishops called their advisors “cardinals” but, in time, the Pope decreed that only the advisors of the Bishop of Rome could be known by the title, “cardinal”.
Ann —
Rank has its privileges and responsibilities. Rules published by the Vatican lay out quite a few for cardinals of the three orders. e.g.:
- The Cardinal Dean has no power of governance over other cardinals but is first among equals. He ordains the elected Roman Pontiff a Bishop if he is not already ordained. If the cardinal doesn’t have a domicile in Rome, he must get one.
- After 10 years in the diaconal order, a cardinal-deacon may transfer to the cardinal-priest order, apparently by asking and being approved. Priority of order and promotion is preserved.
- The senior Cardinal Deacon announces the name of the newly elected Supreme Pontiff.
- In 1962 John XXIII established that all future cardinals were to be bishops.
It is easy to suspect that many of these rules were established to settle serious arguments over the years since those original cardinals advised.
http://www.vatican.va/news_services/press/documentazione/documents/cardinali_documentazione/cardinali_documentazione_generale_en.html
Mark: no, actually. Don’t you think it’s a good way of practicing self-discipline during Lent?
Interesting article on medical billing
The bizarre calculus of emergency room charges
http://www.latimes.com/health/la-me-lopez-erfollowup-20120401,0,6799675.column
Claire–
Yes, although for me it has been easy, far too easy to call it a Lenten sacrifice, at least since The Challenge of Peace.
John Page ==
That cardinals were originally defenders of the doors does help explain why they’ve maintained their militancy. The oath they take on becoming cardinals is short, but includes a voew to defend the Church to their death. Again we see the past in the present.
but how to change this obsolete system? The popes do need advisors. But the fact that the popes are elected only by papal advisors surely is a bad rule, especially since so many of them are concentrated in one tiny place. i think the Vatican needs to be studied by some first class management experts. (Yes, experts usually do have a lot to offer) Rule by praetorian guard has got to go.
Jack =
Interesting that that information comes out of the new Vatican Press Office. That office is, i suspect, going to instigate bit of a revolution. At least I hope so. What it does is violate in principle of the omerta of the Vatican. Maybe it’s that open window that john XXIII talked about. Poor Fr. Lombardi. the guard will use him for target practice.
“Are there no limits to the hierarchical structure of the Catholic ruling class?”
How many Cardinal Nuns have you run across?
Good hinges, when well oiled, never squeak.
Our good cardinals NEVER squeak!
Cardinal Schoenbrun has been known to squeak a bit. But he’s back in the chorus. And a few cardinals have complained about the behavior of some of their brothers in the recent flap about the Vatican bank and the leaks to the press, but no names were named.
That to me is the test: is there any cardinal who is willing to name another one publicly and complain about him. Until that happens omerta will reign.
Ann – and do it BEFORE they reach the age of 80 and are put fully out to pasture.
The truth would make them free, albeit uncomfortably so. But think how breathtakinglt wonderful it would be for the rest of us!
Seems time to remind that no Catholic would be required to use contraception against her/his conscience. We are talking about health insurance coverage to be utilized by those for whom it is not an issue.
@Jim Pauwels (3/31, 3:48 pm) Jim, thanks for the reply. I’m all for giving the oppressed “wide latitude” for telling us how they’re oppressed. Nonetheless, given the status of the Catholic Church in the US, it’s hard for me to think of American Catholics as “oppressed”.
“It is morally burdensome on decisionmakers of Catholic employers, Catholic insurers (which are often the same thing as Catholic employers) and Catholic individuals to be required to pay for something that they find morally objectionable.”
If I understand your point correctly here, then the implication is that employers should be exempted from governmental laws they find “morally burdensome”. Thus, for example, Christian Scientist employers would be exempt from virtually all health insurance mandates. Quaker employers would, given the high percentage of military spending in the federal budget, would be exempt from acting as an agent of the state by withholding income tax for their employees. Mormon employers would be exempt from alcohol, caffeine and nicotine-related costs in health care. An employer who found sex outside of marriage morally objectionable would be exempt from costs related to the pregnancies of, and child-rearing costs of unmarried employees.
Yes?
Hi, Luke, regarding who should be exempt from burdensome regulations: I agree with the many commenters in all of these threads who have pointed out that religious freedom isn’t, and can’t be, absolute in the US. Nevertheless, my views is that religious freedom should be honored unless there is a good reason to override it. My opinion, which I believe is reasonable (naturally, I always do :-)), is that free contraception isn’t a sufficient reason to override the protection of religious liberty. I would not object to granting Mormon employers an exemption to a free-coffee mandate, either.
It occurs to me (I’m slow) that religious freedom is a God-given right. Free contraceptives are a human granted right. Not sure why the first would not always trump the latter. Particularly given the argument isnt over access but price, i.e. they are freely available for purchase, no insurance needed.
Giving birth to a child can be freely available for purchase – no insurance needed.
Agreed?