“No USCCB document is relevant in this diocese.”
The “Battle of the Bishops” get raucous…A remarkable story, via Whispers, about Scranton Bishop Joseph F. Martino, who has become one of the most vocal proponents of the “single-issue” theory of voting and a fierce opponent of voting Democratic. Martino’s recent letter on voting was the centerpiece of this NYTimes story, and according to this story in The Wayne Independent yesterday, Martino “walked the talk” as he crashed a parish forum on the election and rebuked the panelists (who seem to represent diverse political views) for a one-sided discussion that included the U.S. hierarchy’s voter guide, “Faithful Citizenship,” but not his letter. The money quotes:
“No USCCB document is relevant in this diocese,” said Martino. “The USCCB doesn’t speak for me.” “The only relevant document … is my letter,” he said. “There is one teacher in this diocese, and these points are not debatable.”
Martino apparently wanted the forum canceled. Many broke into applause at his “intervention,” while about a quarter of the audience walked out. Martino soon followed. Ugly for the parish, for the diocese, for civil discourse, and for the hierarchy, which seems increasingly divided. They are to meet after the election to discuss their collective response. This sort of witness is clearly not working. As Rocco notes, Martino wasn’t present at last November’s USCCB meeting in Baltimore which passed the Faithful Citizenship statement with 98% approval rate.
Something about Christ bringing not peace but a sword…do you think?
I am just wondering why those who profess to be Catholic, respect the Right to Life and respect Marriage and the Family, have not insisted that the Democratic Party change their platform to one that is Pro-Life and Pro-Family.
Holy cow. This is even more shocking when you know how rarely Martino shows his face to the people — he prefers to communicate by letter and surrogate.
The diocese is already sadly divided, I’m afraid — “realignment” is underway, a necessary but painful process of closing parishes and schools, and the leadership on that front has been less than compassionate. Partly because of that, there is an ugly ongoing battle between the Catholic-school teachers, who would like to unionize, and the bishop, who refuses to discuss the matter. Scranton has had its share of sex-abuse scandals and cover-ups, all marked by the usual lack of communication and accountability from the chancery. Plus there’s a lot of local turmoil relating to immigration policies. Martino’s response, in every case, has been to insist on his absolute authority — but this is the first time I’ve heard of him doing so in person. He talks like he’s trying to turn the diocese into a splinter group.
Nancy, this is about so much more than that. But there are, in fact, prolife Democrats trying to do just what you describe. Many of them come out of Scranton.
“I am just wondering why those who profess to be Catholic, respect the Right to Life and respect Marriage and the Family, have not insisted that the Democratic Party change their platform to one that is Pro-Life and Pro-Family.”
I’ve been wondering the same thing about the Republicans.
Realizing that our Catholic stand against abortion is correct, I cannot see how John McCain would make any difference over Obama’s ideas. Hearts and minds must change. You can’t legislate morality and making abortion illeagal, though admirable, won’t work in my opinion.
I heard the Constitutional Party candidate on NPR last weekend. He’s far right wing, but what he said made sense:
Rev. Baldwin, you, I know, are opposed to abortion, and you believe that the Republican Party has not been serious about opposing abortion.
Well, I think that’s putting it mildly. You know, every four years at the national election, they come out and say that, you know, the conservative Christians have got to vote for them. The pro-life conservatives need to vote for them because they’re the pro-life party, etc. But I think the track record speaks for itself.
It was a Supreme Court dominated by Republican appointments that gave us Roe v. Wade. It was a Supreme Court dominated by Republican appointments that gave us Doe v. Bolton. It was a Supreme Court dominated by Republican appointments that has led the court ever since 1973, and the current configuration, I believe, is 7-2 in favor of Republican appointments. And nothing has been done to overturn Roe v. Wade or to end abortion on demand.
Beyond that, look at from 2000 to 2006. The Republican Party controlled the entire federal government, the House of Representatives, the Senate and the White House. And for six years they did nothing to end abortion on demand or overturn Roe v. Wade. When George W. Bush became president in January of 2001, more than 1 million unborn babies were being killed in the mother’s wombs every year in this country. When George W. Bush leaves office in January of 2009, there will still be 1 million-plus babies aborted every year in the wombs of their mothers. The Republican Party, when it comes to the life issue, is all rhetoric. And I can’t believe that they can come to the pro-life community in 2008 with a straight face and say, vote for us, we are pro-life, vote for us, I am pro-life, and expect to be taken seriously.
I think it’s time the people who really do believe in the sanctity of human life, who believe that it’s the responsibility of government to protect life, even life in the womb, that they should look for people that are not just talking the talk when it’s election time, but people who really, truly believe in the sanctity of human life. And it’s obvious that John McCain, George W. Bush, Republican Party is not serious about it.
So, if neither McCain or Obama are “really” going to do anything about abortion, does it then make sense to support an attempt to reduce the number of abortions and reach a common ground?
This is why I have to choose Obama.
Gotta love this. Let me give credit to the US bishops for their document. Ninety eight per cent (98%) is a resounding number. Sounds like Chaput and Martino are not Catholic. Good to see the bishops get out of the partisan arena. Is this a turning point? Maybe not. But most significant.
I’m thinking it was providential that my family moved away from Scranton when I was a child. :)
All kidding aside, however, I’m most bothered by Bishop Martino’s casting aside of USCCB documents, including “Faithful Citizenship,” which was adopted by 98% of U.S. bishops. A document approved with that degree of unanimity shouldn’t be ignored by any individual bishop. And I think FC is a remarkable document, in any event, showcasing Catholic social teaching at its best. Its focus on the formation of conscience, and not on specifically who to vote for, is a reminder that the Church should never be affiliated with any political party or candidate.
This excerpt from the NYT’s article linked by David G. also caught my eye:
“The campaign of Senator John McCain of Arizona has dispatched high-profile surrogates like Senator Sam Brownback, Republican of Kansas, to remind Catholic audiences of the Republican candidate’s opposition to abortion.
For Mr. Obama, who supports the right to abortion, his campaign has trained its grass-roots organizers in the details of recent policy statements of the Bishops Conference.”
I can understand a presidential candidate sending in a surrogate who might identify with the locals in a key swing state, but I find it humorous that the Obama campaign has been training its grass-roots organizers “in the details of recent policy statements of the Bishops Conference,” presumably FC. “OK, I think I understand the full dimensions of ‘intrinsic evil’ and ‘conscience formation,’ but can anyone suggest some buzz words I can use with the Catholics I meet in the mall this afternoon?”
i might add that the above info which many posters have ratified, namely, that Republican appointees kept Roe in, is the clincher that many of us have been screaming about. It is a fraud issue. Only to get Republican votes.
Thanks to David for this post.
It should be contrasted with Bishop Steib’s comments reported at NCR today as opposing “on e issue” voting.
Obviously, Martino’s trashing of USCCB is both arrogant and childish. Reminds me of Bishop Bruskewitz.
Unfortunately, he is copying some others like the angel at Denver.
Bill C.’ s comment about the pro-life Republican surrogates made me think how sad this campaign has become. There is a continuing attempt especially by Palin (and then backed by McCain) to reduce issues to simple minded mantras like “Joe the Plumber”, “Socialism” and, quite hurtful, “elitism” to attack fellow conservatives who think intellectual gravitas means something.
As the East becomes more powerful, we say we want better educated kids to keep up and surpass, yet they downplay inteligent complexity in the political fields where they’re not doing well!
So it is, i posit, with one issue voting approaches.
So, Bill, maybe Bishop Steib’s comments might help. I haven’t seen the one by Auxialiry Zavala in Los Angeles, but that might be of help too.
Of course, Rush might just say it’s just minorities sticking together as he so facilely said re Colin Powell.
So that goes in this continuously ugly campaign that guys like Martino , to my mind, abet.
Just want to mention that, except for its description of Holy Communion :-), the Wayne Independent article is pretty good. Makes me wish I could have been there. :-)
What I find interesting is that all of the Catholics I have encountered who insist you must vote based on abortion alone claim they are following the principles laid out in “Faithful Citizenship.”
Eamonn, I applaud your reasoned approach (although I disagree with your conclusions).
If you don’t mind my asking: in your opinion, is Obama “more Catholic” than McCain? In other words, do you believe the policies he supports are more reflective of Church teaching, whether it be doctrine, social teaching, or teaching on the life issues? If so, can you elaborate a bit?
My own calculation is that McCain is in concert with the church, or at least has a position that is defensible within the parameters of church teaching, on just about every major issue. And I find Obama to be lacking in several critical areas.
I’d just second Jim Pauwels’ praise of the Wayne paper, which sounds like one of modest resources. How about a cheer (or “shout out,” as Sarah P would say) for local media.
Also, to clarify, Bp. Martino is absolutely correct of course in his assertion that his authority (and statements) are the only ones with canonical sway in his diocese.
Whether that’s the best approach, well…
Interesting historical note…The previous Archbishop of New York was from Scranton, though it was just a drive-by tenure, I believe. Maybe Wm. Collier can enlighten us on the history of Scrapple and Scranton before John O’Connor. Has it always been thus?
Unagidon, the Republican Party Platform does not support the Freedom of Choice Act or the redefining of Marriage and the Family.
David, you’re right — O’Connor was bishop of Scranton, but only for a year before he was appointed to NY. He was followed by Bishop Timlin, who is now retired but still on the scene in Scranton. He’s a popular man-of-the-people type, which only makes Martino look more aloof and out-of-touch. In fact, Martino’s infamous letter quoted from one Timlin issued in 2000, also asserting that abortion is *the* issue for Catholic voters, as though he knew Timlin’s word carried much more weight with people than his own. (Of course, it didn’t mention anything that might have changed in the national scene since 2000.) I was a girl and much less politically aware during Timlin’s tenure, but I don’t remember him being quite so authoritarian or pugnacious; he certainly was never so divisive.
Mollie, this is good news that there are Pro-Life and Pro-Family Democrats in Scranton trying to change the Democratic Platform in regards to these major issues.
Some day, maybe, someone will notice that if being stringently anti-abortion brands a bishop as a partisan, the problem isn’t with the bishop but with the pro-abortion party.
Tom (et al): If Martino is right, as you seem to say, that would seem to make the U.S. hierarchy “pro-abortion” because he is voicing the true pro-life position and they are not. That seems over the top.
I think, for me, Bishop Martino’s remarks and actions crystallized the problem some Bishops have with the laity and their authority to tell the laity how to vote. It’s nothing more than a power play.
Think about it. First church leaders sow the seeds that most lay Catholics are incapable of making correct moral decisions because the Catholic Church they grew up in had not formed their conscience correctly. As a result, today, the bishops are the only ones capable of deciding how one should vote, under pain of mortal sin They seem to infer that in previous times, particularly in that golden era before Vatican II Catholics were well educated and for the life of me, I don’t know where all these well educated lay Catholics were. We were however, very well educated to always say, “Yes Father, you are right, Father” Most ordinary Catholics did believe that Father was always right and would do what ever he said, even to the point that if their own child was abused by a priest, they would keep it secret because they were told that if it were made public, it would bring scandal to the church. After all, Father was well educated, and they were not. He could even speak a foreign language, Latin, and they could not. All they did was work in a factory or on a farm or have some menial job. They certainly were not college educated. Some did not even have a high school diploma.
Bishop Martino would love to return to that “Yes Father, You’re always right father” era.
However, Bishop Martino and others forget that today’s lay Catholic are far more educated, even more educated than many bishops. They are quite capable of deciding how to vote in accord with their own conscience, a right clearly pointed out by Cardinal Newman and a right the church has recognized.
Yes, the church should teach its moral view Faithful Citizenship, but it is not necessary to insult parishioners and their intelligence by telling them who to vote for. Catholics have been well trained to spot false promises, hypocritical grandstanding, and power plays. After all, they were raised in the Catholic Church. The laity can figure out what is the right thing to do and deserve more respect than some Bishops give them.
Bishop Martino is saying that since we know that Sen.Obama supports the Freedom of Choice Act that lifts ALL restrictions on abortion, and Sen.Obama supports redefining Marriage and the Family, there no longer exists a compelling argument for anyone who professes to be Catholic to vote for Sen.Obama. The Catholic Advisory Board should try to get Sen.Obama to change his belief in regards to these major issues and encourage him to become Pro-Life and Pro-Marriage and the Family. That would be the kind of advice one would expect a Catholic Advisory Board to give, advice that is consistent with our Catholic Faith.
David G.–
I don’t know a lot about scrapple, I’m afraid. I left Scranton when I was eight. Joe Biden’s no doubt an expert about the ground pork parts, corn meal, and spices concoction that is then shaped into a loaf, sliced, and pan fried. Joe left Scranton when he was 10. :)
I know some of my relatives in Scranton eat it, but as some posters educated us in a dotCommonweal thread a couple of months ago, if I remember correctly, scrapple has a Pennsylvania Dutch origin and is more common in southeastern and southcentral PA, and to some degree in south Jersey. Personally, I would never eat the stuff. I haven’t eaten any red meat in nigh on 30 years, but even so, assorted pig scraps don’t sound enticing.
Scranton does have a religious story to tell, however. It has two Catholic universities, Marywood (sun by the Sisters of Mercy, I believe) and the University of Scranton (run by the Jesuits). The city was also the crucible for the founding of a schismatic church, the Polish National Catholic Church, in the late 1890′s. The story goes, my parents use to tell me, that Polish Catholic immigrants in Scranton became upset when non-Polish priests were being assigned to Polish parishes. Parishioners felt they couldn’t relate to priests who couldn’t speak their language. Other problems developed, and eventually the PNCC was formed and went into schism with the RCC. I believe there is a fairly large overlap of dogma between the PNCC and the RCC, but there are also some significant dogmatic differences–e.g., the PNCC denies the infallibility of the Pope, and its adherents don’t believe in the Assumption or the Immaculate Conception. They also believe in general absolution instead of personal confession.
There’s more to Scranton than “The Office,” Bishop Martino, and Joe Biden. :)
First, it is Bishop Martino’s right to be the teacher of his diocese; as I’ve often found, though, havinga right to do something doesn’t make it right.
Of course most bishops here are JCDs who tend to bring a legalistic rather than pastoral approach in varying degrees of gradation.
I congratulate Nancy on being a fine example of the “yes, Father” Catholic cCare describes.
Somewhere on another thread a poster complained about what ever happened to Faithful Citizenship in the discussion?
We had a thread earlier on a Faithful Citizenship discussuion in another area.
So I repat is that all Martino is doing (within his right) is abetting an ugly political campaign by simplistically reducing it to the one issue.
So it goes…
How does a Bishop going to an event at a parish in his own diocese “crash” it? How does saying one issue is more important in this sitaution amount to “the slur of single issue” voting (which means you don’t even weigh those other issues)? To call it this betrays your bias.
We don’t know everything the bishop said about Faithful Citizenship. But David is right–Faithful Citizenship can be used by either “side” to some degree. The document is monstrous. Seriously, what percentage of Catholics can or will read through the whole thing? 0.01%? And why should anyone need to read through such a goliath to be a faithful citizen? Most Catholics will necessarily need the document mediated to them through bishops, priests, and panels like this. And inherent in such a task is interpretation–which is what the bishop was responding to, the interpretation of the nun and the county commissioner.
The bishop’s position is not inconsistent with FC. You can cite parts that seem to be in tension with it, and I can cite parts that seem to reinforce it. In fact, Prof. Kaveny found it necessary to reject FC’s central idea, that intrinsic evil is central to voting. What central issue from FC is Bishop Martino rejecting? He says what he thinks is a proportionate reason, which is the analysis that FC said to use. Read his letter. The fact is that Bishop Martino, in saying that other issues don’t trump abortion, is much more consistent with FC than the standard orthodoxy propounded by the Professoriat Magisterium that is honored here.
Here’s the irony–this organization’s contributors (not merely commenters) claim to represent the Catholic pro-life approach and they ***reject*** the teaching of the Pope and all the bishops in unison with them in Evangelium Vitae on abortion and on society’s responsibility not to exclude the preborn from the human community. But the outrage here is directed at a bishop’s comments that his own teaching, in his diocese, is more authoritative than what a nun and a local politician said about FC. And the bishop just happens to disagree with your favorite professors.
Bob, our answer should always be “yes” regarding teachings that are consistent with our Catholic Faith. That is why I say “yes” to protecting Babies in their Mother’s Womb and “yes” to God’s definition of Marriage and the Family.
One corrective to William’s background — Marywood is run by the Sisters, Servants of the Immaculate Heart of Mary (the IHMs). The Sisters of Mercy run College Misericordia, nearby in Dallas, PA. An IHM Marywood professor, as well as someone from the U of Scranton, sat on the panel at the discussion to which the bishop objected.
David N. makes an important point. Bishop Martino isn’t the first to insist on this narrow definition of How Catholics Must Vote, but he’s the first I know of to insist that “Faithful Citizenship” is invalid, rather than claiming that he alone is interpreting it correctly. That’s alarming.
Nancy said: “Unagidon, the Republican Party Platform does not support the Freedom of Choice Act or the redefining of Marriage and the Family.”
Since neither of these as you have defined them requires the party to actually do anything, I’m sure that they the Republicans will come through. But their followers also have to account for (and answer for) supporting them for decades without them doing anything in particular that required activity or political risk.
Their followers need to, not the Democrats.
David:
No. Bishop Martino can be right without the U.S. hierarchy being “pro-abortion.”
It is not difficult to distinguish between “Faithful Citizenship” and, “The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v Wade and a woman’s right to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay, and we oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.”
In fact, as Matt points out, both the bishop and the hierarchy can be right.
My point remains that, if being anti-abortion makes a bishop pro-Republican, that is an indictment of the Democratic Party, not of the bishop.
VOX POPULI …..
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/20/AR2008102002290_pf.html
A Catholic Shift to Obama?
By E. J. Dionne Jr.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
An excerpt:
“Polls have varied in measuring the Catholic shift toward the Democrats, but Obama seems to be running ahead of John Kerry’s performance in 2004. According to the network exit polls, Bush carried 52 percent of the Catholic vote to 47 percent for Kerry. By contrast, a mid-October Pew Research Center survey showed Obama leading John McCain among Catholics by 55 percent to 35 percent.”
Tom: it is an indictment of both. Neither party comes close to representing Catholic values and teaching. The bishop’s role, the Church’s role, is to point that out; to be in the world but not of it. In this case, though, I think the bishop is less concerned about protecting life, or the integrity of Catholic teaching about same, and more concerned about shoring up his own authority. That seems to be his main priority, especially in light of the many things he doesn’t feel compelled to address in person.
I guess I’d be preaching to the choir with an “I told you so,” but I did have a letter in Commonweal a couple issues ago not too presciently predicting this kind of behavior from high profile bishops in swing states. i wonder if it serves to show the ultimate irrelevance of most episcopal statements when bishops themselves easily discard them? Perhaps in the one-issue-focus attempts- as well as the coming controversies on liturgical language we are seeing — the further discovery that most of our esteemed episcopal teachers have no books (a poor metaphor on the emperor’s no clothes). You betcha that he’s got some gumption to say “my way or the highway” and — doggone it — some flair. Maybe he’ll be assigned to Fairbanks or Juneau!
So about Christian unity… Oh never mind, seemingly Catholic unity is hard enough to come by with words such as Martino’s.
I find him stunningly arrogant. These are some fascinating days in and around our church.
It’s Memphis vs. Scranton – who shall prevail? (I am probably not yet well known enough around these parts. I guess I should have issued an irony alert before I typed that.)
Embarrassing – forwarded Whispers to my old students this morning. AGAIN, had to listen to highlights from our pastor this week-end on the joint Fort Worth/Dallas bishops’ letter – poorly written and basically saying the same as Martino. There is now a website – http://www.catholicsfor change.org – for those who want to protest this letter.
Here is the more balanced approach from the LA auxilary: In an interview yesterday, Gabino Zavala, an auxiliary bishop in the Los Angeles Archdiocese, said his fellow bishops have long insisted that “we’re not a one-issue church,” a view reflected in their 2007 document “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship.”
“But that’s not always what comes out,” says Zavala, who is also bishop-president of the Catholic peace group Pax Christi USA. “What I believe, and what the church teaches, is that one abortion is too many. That’s why I believe abortion is so important. But in light of this, there are many other issues we need to bring up, other issues we should consider, other issues that touch the reality of our lives.”
Those issues, Bishop Zavala said, include racism, torture, genocide, immigration, war and the impact of the economic downturn “on the most vulnerable among us, the elderly, poor children, single mothers.”
“We know that neither of the political parties supports everything the church teaches,” he added. “We are not going to create a culture of life if we don’t talk about all the life issues, beginning with abortion but including all of them.”
Zavala was careful to say that he did not want to take issue with any of his fellow bishops. But his view contrasts with that of others in the hierarchy.
Now Rigali has just come out with another clarification as the head of the USCCB Right to Life Committee. His whole approach is Roe v Wade while dismissing and correcting the Kaveny, Cafardi, and Kmiec approach.
By the way, recent polls indicate that Obama is increasing the % of Catholics who are voting Democratic this year. Wonder if this is the result of certain bishops.
For me, this is sad; polarization not a teachable moment; pandering to the right; and Martino’s actions were not only non-pastoral but (to use my 8th grade term) an occasion for scandal.
I also find it interesting that some of the most outspoken single issue bishops are the exact same ones that are knee deep in the sex abuse scandal – link on Scranton/Martino:
Shortcut to: http://reform-network.net/?p=2133
Bill D. — For the record, Martino inherited most of Scranton’s sex-abuse problems. He hasn’t been a model of compassion or transparency in handling them, but he can’t be accused of looking the other way.
Catholics moving more to Obama is not a surprise: the phenomenon of Catholics with a deep sense of faith in Christ, the Gospel and the experience of faith in the lives of fellow Catholics . but a deep sense of alienation toward the institurtion is often reflected in Kerry kennedy’s “Being Catholic Now” and is hardly foreign in my experience.
The sense is the Institution doesn’t listen, only talks and that it doesn’t really deal with the complexities of everyday life.
One divide at this blog is between the loyal to authority (“Yes, Father) group and those who like many continue to question and struggle to make it fit with the beliefs they receive from the Church and the realities they perceive.
Seeing politicization by the hierarchy no matter how correct on a point they may be, increases the distrust and undermines the message.
I;ve got to second Bill D’s that this is a sad polarizing time, instead of the teachable moment it might be.
Mollie:
Catholics are supposed to be anti-abortion, right? So the fact that a bishop is anti-abortion is no indictment of the bishop.
It’s not the job of a bishop to inveigh evenly against both major parties. It’s the job of a bishop to preach the Gospel. And if preaching the Gospel comes off as partisan, so much the worse for the other party.
The bishops have been teaching like billy-o since Speaker Pelosi’s ill-conceived comments on Meet the Press.
Reject their teaching if you like, but it’s silly to do that and then complain that they’re missing a teaching moment.
Unagidon, the Republican Party has been able to pass some legislation limiting the number of abortions. Imagine if the Democratic Party were to support the protection of Babies in their Mother’s Wombs as well as support Marriage and the Family in UNITY with the Republican Party. Only Good can come from that.
Living in the Diocese I have to comment that our good Bishop may have lost it, lurking & sneaking through the parishes ready to jump on everyone – why didn’t he request it cancelled? This really signifies a mandate that any Bishop running a Diocese should have been in a parish first, unfortunately Bishop Martino was not.
If Martino can get away with this type of behavior and partisan intervention, then I say, “More power to him.” People (read: The laity) get what they pay for.
Personally, I think this guy has gone off the deep end. At the least, the IRS should scrutinize his behavior during this election season. If the good bishop is determined not to have violated IRS rules, then perhaps one would have to conclude the underlying law is not worth the paper on which it is written.
Perhaps if the folks in the Scranton diocese lost their tax break……..???
With frustration, this is my last post on this. I think many, many Catholic,s like those who post here are highly educated now. They are not just willing to follow a dictate from a hierachy , as noted above, deeply discredited by scandals and failure to listen to or be pastoral with their membership.
They are not just guided by the issue of abortion, despite the right to Life efforts of many and, to some degree, because of the stress on one issue. (have youa rgued with a wife or kid who told you, “you always say that!” and shut down what you have to say.)
Beyond that, may are deeply concerned about our status and future as a country, their LFE, their children”s Life, their community’s Life, the world’s Life!.
They care about the message of the gospel, not just one thing.
When I read,say, Matt’s post, he’s living in an enclave world apart from this. He and his cohort are more concerned that they’re right and the rest ar e”bad apples” etc. and are unconcerned about the effectiveness of how the message they are presenting is touching people. If you don’t see their insight, tough.
So more are moving away.That seems to be a fact. let’s blame them, say our Right to Lifers.
Let’s put all our eggs in the GOP, maybe change Roe (whatever that might bring), basket and if the world goes to hell in a handbasket, at least we were the good people.
I kep suggesting that doesn’t wash.
Let those who have ears….
Nancy asked ….
“I am just wondering why those who profess to be Catholic, respect the Right to Life and respect Marriage and the Family, have not insisted that the Democratic Party change their platform to one that is Pro-Life and Pro-Family.”
The Democratic party doesn’t belong to Catholics – try to imagine the number of non-Catholic democrats, not to mention non-Christian democrats. I used to one, and it still creeps me out a bit to see the increasing entwinement of religion and politics.
And not everyone who is Catholic and democrat wants to criminalize abortion or ban gay marriage.
Nancy said: “Unagidon, the Republican Party has been able to pass some legislation limiting the number of abortions. Imagine if the Democratic Party were to support the protection of Babies in their Mother’s Wombs as well as support Marriage and the Family in UNITY with the Republican Party. Only Good can come from that.”
Nancy, the Republican Party has dragged out the “one issue” for Catholics every 4 years for 30 years. Then they hibernate again. They dominated the government during most of Bush’s term and were able to push through both a war and major tax cuts for the rich. Dennis Hastert and Tom Delay were able to keep the House in all night as they dictated to them votes that they were to take.
In a normal functioning democracy, the people will recall politicians who promise something and then fail to deliver. In our country, this is not done in the case of abortion. All a politician has to do to deliver the one issue voter is to say that he opposes abortion. He is not required (by you) to actually do anything about it.
We might well ask why the “pro-life” party has not been willing to bring this thing to a head outside of a few months before an election. But one thing is for sure. A person who votes for people on this issue who plans to do nothing out of expediency is exactly the same as one who votes for someone who plans to do nothing out of principle. “Pro-life politicians constitute the first; “pro-choice” politicians constitute the second. And the first are the way they are because you want them to be that way. Otherwise, why keep voting for them?
1. It is clear that Republicans do not care about right to life. They love the issue for political benefit.
2. Seven Republican appointees and no willingness to overturn RoeVsWade.
3. Many here push the deception.
4. Many here have bought the deception.
5. A lot of the above are making money on this issue.
My problem is that Martino has not been preaching the gospel. He seems more concerned with the political — outlaw abortion, outlaw same-sex marriage, outlaw outlaw outlaw. His authoritarian disposition sees Law as the answer to all his problems.
Martino had a real opportunity to speak to people about the love we have for one another, the love a mother should have for a child, the love God has for each child. That would have been preaching the Gospel, imo.
Instead he painted a picture of children alienated from their mothers. That picture contributes to an anti-life culture, telling a mother that her child’s life is not a part of her life. It substitues legal relationships for love, which is fine if he wants to be a legislator. But if he wants to be a bishop, he needs to offer the love that can bring mother and child together, not a law that divides them.
What is clear is that there are some who profess to be Catholic but do not support the Right to Life of a Baby in their Mother’s Womb or the Sanctity of Marriage and the Family because they do not have the Courage to be Catholic. Christ never said that it would be easy, He only said it would be worth it.
Monocular focus on abortion at a time that church social teaching is otherwise in the doldrums has driven some bishops mad.
Republicans think much less seriously about the painful issue of abortion than Democrats do. That is why they can use it so cleverly as a demagogic ploy.
Abortion has always been part of life, including Catholic life. Those who object to it being “safe, legal and rare” are in fact urging the punishment of women by making it “unsafe, clandestine and more common”.
As the French bishops showed in a book published in 1979 or so, the Christian response to abortion is to tackle the social, economic and cultural causes, not to pounce on women in the hour of crisis.
Nancy said: “What is clear is that there are some who profess to be Catholic but do not support the Right to Life of a Baby in their Mother’s Womb or the Sanctity of Marriage and the Family because they do not have the Courage to be Catholic. Christ never said that it would be easy, He only said it would be worth it.”
But we don’t ask our politicians for the Courage to be Catholic, because most of them aren’t Catholic. We ask them for the courage to support their platform.
In these discussions about abortion, I often hear people refer to the tens of millions of aborted children and how this trumps the consideration of what liberals refer to as “social issues”. If this is true, abortion also trumps things like tax breaks for the rich, wars in Iraq, immigration policies and offshore drilling. Abortion itself would even trump marriage amendments and all other cultural issues. Abortion, in other words, is a sword that cuts both ways; it doesn’t just trump what “liberals” want. It trumps everything.
People who vote for people who claim to be opposed to abortion and who bring out the “millions of dead” argument in an election but who don’t act that way in office are not actually opposed to abortion. Let me repeat this. They are not actually opposed to abortion. They merely hold an anti-abortion sentiment. They are the Pharisees that Christ referred to in the Bible. You are correct that Christ never said it would be easy. But it is very easy to cast a vote and then bask in a warm glow of self righteousness of a job well done while one waits for the next round of elections. Show me what is hard about this.
I agree with Jim McK about the failure to truly preach the gospel. This particular incident makes me wonder whether it’s really politics Martino cares about, though — his main concern seems to be his own status. I mean, reading the original story, his objection boils down to, “Nobody’s talking about MY LETTER!” That’s more than a little petty.
Of course the Republicans overall haven’t been good on this issue. That’s not the point right now–the point is that the Democrats are much much much worse. The choice between McCain and Obama is not a choice between the status quo, and the status quo plus government funding for low income pregnant women. The choice is between a mildly improving status quo (because we are free to protect conscience and add abortion restrictions in the states which reduce abortion), or a massive expansion of abortion by striking down all pro-life laws which prevent six figures of abortion each year, mandating government funding of abortion and forcing doctors to participate in killing, helping Planned Parenthood outlaw pro-life pregnancy centers, funding abortion internationally and guaranteeing extremist pro-abortion judges.
It is wrong to paint the choice for Obama as just keeping the legal regime the same but doing good on the economic side. When the three Professors did it in Newsweek and said it was the Catholic pro-life thing to do (even though they reject Evangelium Vitae and the bishops’ teaching on abortion), they were lying. They knew these ways in which Obama will expand abortion and they have never offered any coherent explanation to the contary, because there is none.
Matt, you are out of bounds with your last comment. I understand the emotion and stakes of this issue, but calling colleagues liars is not permissible, nor even remotely justified. Cease and desist.
Since there are some on this blog who claim that Bishop Martino has an ulterior motive, as a Catholic Bishop, for focusing on the evils of abortion and the redefining of the Sacrament of Marriage with those Catholics who Christ Has entrusted to Him I have only one question:
What exactly would this motive be real, or imaginary?
Unagidon, who are the people that are responsible for the restrictions that have been replaced on abortion since Roe v. Wade? United we stand, divided, we fall. You know that.
OK David, then discuss the elements of the claim without the conclusion. We’re talking about a massive expansion of abortion, not the status quo. The authors know that and have offered no evidence to the contary. They have not in any way rebutted the fact that this is an option for a massive expansion of abortion in all the ways I and countless others have documented. Yet the authors chose a national audience to represent the option as the status quo, to convince Catholics to act on it as if that were the option. The authors also reject the Church’s teaching on abortion and government’s duty to the preborn, as stated in Evangelium Vitae and repeated universally by the bishops (that abortion is murder, that it must be illegal–Kmiec even says that religious freedom and subsidiarity requires it to be legal), yet they represent themselves as presenting the truly Catholic pro-life approach. Which one of these points is incorrect?
Matt, I think all of your assertions are incorrect, and you offer no evidence to support them. What you are doing with your ad hominem statements is presuming and announcing that the authors of the Newsweek article are lying. That is a leap, and impermissible here. I do not presume bad faith on your part, and expect you would not do so of others.
David–I have offered tremendous evidence and made no presumptions. You cannot dodge these questions, nor can this organization dodge responsibility for facilitating the dissemination of plain errors masquerading as a Catholic viewpoint.
If this is the first time you have seen my comments and you are wondering where exactly I supported these claims, just go back and read my extensive comments right here in the past week on this and other threads.
“To whom much has been given, much will be expected.” We, who are Catholic, have been given the gift of the fullness of the Truth.
unagidon
“We ask them for the courage to support their platform.”
Right and whether you like it or not abortion is a central component of each of the respective platforms and it is perfectly appropriate and necessary for citizens to become educated as to what that platform is.
I think that you, and others, are being far too facile in dismissing Republican attempts as mere opportunism. You, and others are obfuscating the central issues and are confusing (to borrow a good phrase from McCain) a strategy with a tactic.
ON the Republican side, among the activiss, the strategy is to reduce abortions and promote life. The tactics used are:
1. Appoint judges who will allow legislators to pass laws on this issue. This goes to judicial philosophy, constitutional understanding, etc.
2. Support international policies with respect to abortion rights (i.e. at the UN stand for policies supporting adoption, family planning not necessarily inclusive of abortion, etc.)
3. Support laws restricting particularly gruesome procedures like late term partial birth abortion.
4. Support parental notification laws.
Additionally there are tactics that can be used with respect to adoption regulations and incentives. We can also talk about other options with respect to expanded maternity benefits and other social agendas that would likely enjoy broad Democratic support (although it may conflict with traditional Republican ideology).
On the Democratic side among the abortion rights activists, pace Bill Clinton, the strategy is NOT to make abortion safe, legal and rare but instead to make it safe, legal , and ACCESSIBLE. The tactics to promote that position are:
1. Appoint judges who will maintain Roe v Wade.
2. Push back on successes in the public policy area by such legislative initiatives as FOCA (note that this is precisely the argument that Obama used at Planned Parenthood).
3. Resist any restriction for any reason.
4. Promote abortion as an international right for women and include it in the broad spectrum of health care and reproductive choice.
Being completely objective here, I think that you have seen more movement on the Republican side to increase spending in social areas (particularly under Bush) that historically and ideologically are inconsistent with traditional conservative philosophy which tends to a more individualistic and libertarian posture. You have not seen a corresponding movement on the Democratic side to support, even modest restrictions, or policy positions based on principled stands.
Matt, I have followed your comments and your main arguments are disparagement and unsubstantiated assertions. If you have anything else to offer, fine. Otherwise, move on.
David–you, like the three Professors, have made no substantive response whatsoever to any of the list of things I and others have described in detail as a massive expansion of abortion, nor have you explained how it is defensible to represent the option as merely the status quo even though all of these expansions are on the table, nor have you explained how it is honest to represent oneself as the legitimate Catholic pro-life approach without telling people that you reject the universal teaching of the bishops on abortion and its legality. Your response is simply “Shut up,” which is consistent with the fundamental problem in these Professors’ statements and your “defense” of them.
“The Catholic Advisory Board should try to get Sen.Obama to change his belief in regards to these major issues and encourage him to become Pro-Life and Pro-Marriage and the Family. That would be the kind of advice one would expect a Catholic Advisory Board to give, advice that is consistent with our Catholic Faith.”
Hi, Nancy, just to say … I agree!
George said: “Being completely objective here, I think that you have seen more movement on the Republican side to increase spending in social areas (particularly under Bush) that historically and ideologically are inconsistent with traditional conservative philosophy which tends to a more individualistic and libertarian posture. You have not seen a corresponding movement on the Democratic side to support, even modest restrictions, or policy positions based on principled stands.”
George, the issue is supposedly abortion as the single most important issue in the election for Catholics to consider. Looking at your list, which is a rather pathetic one considering that the GOP has supposedly opposed abortion for 30 years and considering that they possessed legislative and/or executive control for much of that time, I don’t see much that required any risks on their part.
“1. Appoint judges who will allow legislators to pass laws on this issue. This goes to judicial philosophy, constitutional understanding, etc.”
Judges don’t allow legislators to pass laws. Legislators pass laws on their own authority. They can even pass a law overturning Roe v Wade. They can pass laws modifying abortion laws (since Roe v Wade is not about abortion as such) to conform with the privacy provisions of Roe v Wade. They can even pass laws around abortion, say, by (initially) restricting it to the first trimester. The partial birth abortion ban proves that they can do this.
“2. Support international policies with respect to abortion rights (i.e. at the UN stand for policies supporting adoption, family planning not necessarily inclusive of abortion, etc.)”
Not much risk in supporting administrative policies that have nothing to do with Americans, is there?
“3. Support laws restricting particularly gruesome procedures like late term partial birth abortion.”
As I pointed out, this statement conflicts with your first statement.
“4. Support parental notification laws.”
This statement also conflicts with your first statement.
Being completely objective here, we could pass all kinds of laws limiting abortion. The majority of people in the United States don’t want unrestricted abortion right and they don’t want an unrestricted abortion ban. There is a tremendous middle ground here that the “Party of Life” refuses to exploit of even enter.
I can see the argument that one should not vote for Obama because of his personal stance on abortion. I can even see the tactical argument that one should not vote for Obama because one believes that his support for certain things may lead to a roll back of anti-abortion initiatives. What I can’t see is the McCain and the Republican Party offers an alternative. What I am not seeing is Republicans also saying that they should also sit out this election because the GOP never delivers on its promises. People may say that Catholics should force the Democratic Party to adopt a true pro-life position that accords with true importance of the abortion problem in the United States. I will counter and say that Catholics should force the Republican Party to do this. Since the GOP claims to be close to this position already, one wonders why they don’t. And the argument the GOPs hands are tied until they can stack the Supreme Court or until the Democrats come around is simply, at this point, nonsense when one looks at all the GOP has been able to accomplish since Reagan and especially under Bush.
Nancy said: “Unagidon, who are the people that are responsible for the restrictions that have been replaced on abortion since Roe v. Wade? United we stand, divided, we fall. You know that.”
Restrictions? They are the very same people who cry that abortion is the top issue in any election and then, aside from the occasional bone, cry that their hands are tied by the Supreme Court while they overturn all sorts of other things that are supposedly forbidden by the Constitution.
So, Nancy, who are the people that are responsible for the tiny number of restrictions on abortion despite the fact that they were in power most of the last 8 years? And who elected these people and want to elect them again despite their dismal record?
Ms. Mollie – been traveling but saw your response to my posting. In addition to all the other comments about Martino’s actions, you obviously did not read the total link. I have had to live through a 18 year bishop rule in Dallas – a man who avoided the truth; yes, inherited the sex abuse folks in this diocese; but then compounded the problem by ignoring, not reading personnel files, leaving decisions to others, and then fighting victims in a high profile court case where he repeatedly mistated facts; made allegations, and acted as if he was “god”…..not unlike Martino.
My point – Martino may have inherited sex abuse situations but what has he done to meet the call of B16 this past spring? Like many other bishops, he stonewalls, he hires lawyers, he does not meet with victims, etc. Yet, he calls himself pro-life. My point – he is doesn’t get it. He talks big via a letter but does not walk the gospel call.
David:
Among Matt’s assertions — all of which you’ve said are incorrect — are the following:
1. “Kmiec even says that religious freedom and subsidiarity requires [abortion] to be legal.”
2. “[T]he Church’s teaching on abortion and government’s duty to the preborn, as stated in Evangelium Vitae and repeated universally by the bishops [is] that abortion is murder, that it must be illegal.”
3. “The authors [of the Newsweek article] reject the Church’s teaching … that abortion… must be illegal.”
4. An Obama presidency will entail:
a) “a massive expansion of abortion by striking down all pro-life laws which prevent six figures of abortion each year,”
b) “mandating government funding of abortion and forcing doctors to participate in killing,”
c) “helping Planned Parenthood outlaw pro-life pregnancy centers,”
d) “funding abortion internationally,”
e) “guaranteeing extremist pro-abortion judges.”
*None* of these assertions is true? Not even the ones that are Obama campaign promises?
Unagidon, united we stand, divided we fall. You know that. Where are the voices of those who respect the Sacrdness and Dignity of Life which begins with the Right to Life?
Bill DeHaas, your statements are ad hominum.
Nancy, I think the correct question is “Where are the voices of those who respect the Sacrdness and Dignity of Life which begins with the Right to Life in the Republican Party?”
Or rather, why do we just hear voices and see no action?
That would be ad hominem.
Unagidon, we see some action but not enough because we are not united on this issue. You, Unagidon, know that united we stand, divided we fall.
Nancy, platitudes do not inevitably become persuasive through repetition. It is certainly possible to fall by being united in pursuit of a foolish or destructive position or in the denial of reality. Look at what’s happening in the current election cycle. The weakest societies and institutions are those that brook no dissent and refuse to examine themselves honestly.
The following quote is David’s idea of “unsubstantiated.” Denying this, as he did, is to commit the same basic false statement made by the three Professors.
“Roe itself enormously increased the annual number of abortions in our society. The law is a teacher, and Roe taught many women, physicians and others that abortion is an acceptable answer to a wide range of problems. By the same token, even the limited pro-life laws allowed by the Court since Roe have been shown to reduce abortions substantially, leading to a steady decline in the abortion rate since 1980. Bans on public funding, laws requiring informed consent for women and parental involvement for minors, and other modest and widely supported laws have saved millions of lives. Laws made possible by reversing Roe would save many more. On the other hand, this progress could be lost through a key pro-abortion proposal, the “Freedom of Choice Act,” which supporters say would knock down hundreds of current pro-life laws and forbid any public program to “discriminate” against abortion in providing services to women.”.
http://www.usccb.org/prolife/Rigali-Murphy-Joint-Statement.pdf
And here’s an interesting footnote:
“We encourage Catholics to seek those resources that are authorized by their own bishops”
That’s a quote from FC. FC itself says, listen to your bishop.
Notice it does not say listen to your partisan Professor claiming to represent the Catholic viewpoint (perhaps because he just might reject the Church’s teaching on abortion).
“Looking at your list, which is a rather pathetic one considering that the GOP has supposedly opposed abortion for 30 years and considering that they possessed legislative and/or executive control for much of that time, I don’t see much that required any risks on their part.”
That “30 years” is a gloss that doesn’t hold up to scrutiny.
To become law, leglislation requires approval by both houses of the legislature plus the President.
Perhaps I’m not remembering all of the permutations and combinations, but since Roe v Wade, I think the *only* time Republicans have controlled both houses in Congress and the White House was for a six-year stretch of GWB’s presidency. And for a good portion of that time, the Senate was very evenly split – I think it was something like 50-49 with an independent. (Can anyone confirm?)
President Ford, although a Republican, was pro-choice (he nominated one of the current justices who make up the “pro-choice” bloc on the Supreme Court, Justice Stevens).
During Ronald Reagan’s eight-year presidency, I believe the Republicans controlled the Senate that entire time – but Democrats continued to control the House.
The same is true for George HW Bush’s presidency.
Those first six years of the GW Bush Presidency were the opportunity. I’m disappointed that not more was done. Now the window has closed for the forseeable future.
Anyone who has followed Republican politics since Roe v Wade knows that the GOP is not and never has been univocal on abortion.
For that matter, there are pro-life Democrats in elective office.
Still, there is no denying that on this issue, the GOP is the party of the big tent.
Nancy said: “Unagidon, we see some action but not enough because we are not united on this issue. You, Unagidon, know that united we stand, divided we fall.”
I am, in fact, united with the Church on this issue. What I am asking is why the GOP, which you are voting for and which claims to be the pro-life party, is not united with Catholics around the issue of banning abortion, other than to talk about it a lot.
Jim said: “Anyone who has followed Republican politics since Roe v Wade knows that the GOP is not and never has been univocal on abortion.
For that matter, there are pro-life Democrats in elective office.
Still, there is no denying that on this issue, the GOP is the party of the big tent.”
It looks like you are making progress, Jim.
We have seen that we can pass anti-abortion legislation in the US if we want to. While I admit that a total ban on abortion will require a miracle in the US, partial bans are possible. You have already pointed that out. You have also identified a possible problem in the GOP, which is that they in fact are not united about the abortion issue. You seem to me to be pointing this out as a problem in regard to unified action on their part. It seems to me that it should be easier to unify all of the people in the big anti-abortion tent. Yet I see this being addressed. I don’t see the GOP being punished in the polls by the anti-abortion people. I will put it to you that in fact, you are enabling the GOP to do almost nothing. Perhaps if the GOP would get its own house in order, they could then more convincingly tell people outside of the house that they are really serious about “one issue”.
U says “We have seen that we can pass anti-abortion legislation in the US if we want to.”
Not under FOCA.
Let me repeat. We can pass anti-abortion legislation in the US if we want to. I for one would welcome a good FOCA dust up. It might clarify some things both on the Left and the Right.
I know I am offending the “rule” of the recent Commonweal discussions that they must be “all about abortion, all the time” but I feel daring enough to raise another (albeit obvious) point here. That is, that Bishop Martino ought to have more regard for the collegiality of bishops than he has. He has offered a very bad example to everyone in the Church by publically disparaging the efforts of his fellow bishops to get at some important matters collectively. Certainly, the bishop is teacher in his diocese. But that’s no excuse for this sort of dismissive behavior. We have been seeing the Vatican chipping away at the authority and autonomy of episcopal conferences for years now. This bishop is just continuing the trend. But it’s a pernicious trend. We see here the exact opposite of what Vatican II sought to do in expanding the role and prerogatives of episcopal conferences.
Alas, Martino doesn’t know it (apparently), but he is shooting himself in the foot here. If a bishop wants to safeguard his authority, he cannot do it by undermining the work of other bishops. The logical outcome of such a tactic is for people to trust their local bishop less, not more, and finally to look directly to the Vatican alone for guidance — not local guidance of course because that’s what it cannot give. I don’t think the man gave thought to what he was doing in that session, it sounds as if he lost his temper. But if he did give thought to it, he’s sadly mistaken in his premises and his conclusions.
Rita,
The collegiality of bishops is universal, not national.
Dear Kathy,
I am not so ill-informed as you seem to think. But perhaps you might expand on your comment. Do you mean to say that collegiality is not pertinent inside an episcopal conference?
Rita:
Actually, a national bishops’ conference is a group with less grounding in church canons than a parish financial council.
Ah yes, church canons. But does that justify dismissing it? Disparaging its work? It seems to me the bishops owe their brother bishops more respect in the matter. It should not depend on church canons.
The national conference is not a successor of the apostles or of the apostolic college. The local bishop, who is a successor of the apostles, has much more authority than the national conference. The other bishops in the country don’t have any authority to tell him what to teach or think.
I don’t think you’re ill-informed, Rita, but that you have a certain way of seeing things that is very popular among people who have a lot invested in the status quo–a status quo that includes a ridiculously influential bishops’ conference that is equally ridiculously obedient to mid-career liberal lay Catholic professionals.
It seems clear that no bishop is ever wrong. However, the frustrating thing is that they never all seem to be right at the same time.
“The collegiality of bishops is universal, not national.”
Kathy,
Of course. But the national collegiality is part of the universal so the above statement is contradictory. Yet it seems to show how you, and others, let one issue cloud judgment. It is a favorite horse that you all will not let go. And it really is clear that it is a purely political horse.
“mid career liberal lay Catholics” Did someone say ad hominem?
I can’t help but add that at one time the Bishop’s Conference was in fact influential til it’s power was castrated by the Curial Roman legalists.
Elsewhere I’ve tried to indicate the continuing dimunition of respect for local ordinaries and their less pastoral more bearocratic/legal approach.
I think there’s much you can criticize about USCCB, including the failure of the president to step aside, given his abysmal record on sex abuse matters, The potential it has for good, however, seems to be downgraded here by the adulators of Martino and others who speak for one issue. Ugh!
Bill,
Actually my point has nothing to do with abortion. It’s purely ecclesiological.
Let me ask you this: have you ever seen a comment from me in which I criticize a bishop for teaching in his own diocese?
I hope this persuades some Catholics in Bishop Martino’s diocese to vote for Obama. I think it might. We have an under-class of about 14 million people in bondage to our violent immigration policy. I think they have more of a chance with Obama and the Democrats.
I’m with Rita in that I don’t think this post should occasion yet another discussion about abortion politics. There are lots of reasons for that — bad manners, tail-chasing — but the most obvious reason, to me, is that Bishop Martino’s position is that such discussions are not permissible. We are not allowed to argue about it, not even if we, like some participants in the panel he interrupted, are arguing that a Catholic cannot vote for Obama. Bringing up FOCA, making prudential judgments and reasoned predictions, is right out; the bishop has taken that out of our hands. Unless, of course, we are all inwardly rejoicing that we are not members of his flock and therefore not required to restrict ourselves to affirming and regurgitating the content of his letter.
The topic here is what Martino did and said on Sunday night. Perhaps there are some of you who agree with him about everything, who agree with every conclusion he reached in his letter. That’s presumptuous, by his logic; it is not your place to agree or disagree. Is that how you understand his role as bishop? Perhaps. Perhaps you think this is the kind of leadership the Church needs. Perhaps you think the people of St. John’s, and of the diocese, including the academics and vowed religious, are luckier than they know to have such a shepherd. If that’s what you think, go ahead and argue it. But if you want to talk about the circumstances of this election, you’re already disagreeing with Bishop Martino, and he has made clear that you are out of line.
Rita, thanks for raising the question of Bishop Martino and the national conference. I agree with you that his comments come off as dismissive and that’s unfortunate. I also agree that a bishop’s collegiality with his national conference is a logical and practical expression of his collegiality with the college of bishops.
Probably we should cut him a little slack in the sense that presumably his remarks weren’t prepared and, as you note, quite possibly were temperamental. I think he was trying to say that it’s his job, not the USCCB’s job, to teach in his diocese. FWIW, it came off to me as though he were responding to criticism that something in his letter contradicts the Faithful Citizenship doc.
I suppose that Catholics can take dictation from their bishops. But as soon as this stupid election is over (and it is over) we are going to then have to face the serious work of actually doing something ourselves. And we are going to need to talk.
The bishops, too, are going to face the serious work of actually doing something after the election, in the form of discussing “the practical and pastoral implications of political support for abortion during their annual assembly, November 10-13, in Baltimore.”
Should this lead to a document, look for more disparaging of the USCCB.
Actually, look for more disparaging of the USCCB regardless. Somebody’s ox is sure to be gored.
Bush lied. It’s a common accusation here at Commonweal. What is not common is criticism from the blog authors, who foment such accusations, that calling people liars is an impermissible leap and intolerable presumption of bad faith in this forum. Apparently it matters whether your target is defending babies from abortion or not. David himself said nary one word to that effect at least one post on the subject, a post in which other “judgment police” contributors also participated.
http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/blog/?p=2026
Hence the double standard. I consider it legitimate in principle for you to look at a situation and determine that the only reasonable possibility based on the evidence is that people are lying. Say that Bush lied for all I care, and debate the merits.
But then when I look at the present situation, and conclude that the only way Profs. Kaveny, Kmiec, and Cafardi could have described the option in their Newsweek article as one of status quo plus pro-life economics, not mentioning the accompanying massive expansion of abortion, is that they knew it included the latter and were deceiving floks into believing that it did not, in order to persuade them to follow their advice from thier purported legitimate Catholic view (even though Kmiec at least rejects the universal Church teaching on abortion and its legality)–I make this judgment, and the same contributors who reveled in Bush lied say the judgment is illegitimate per se.
People applying such a double standard also have, not surprisingly, related double standards when it comes to whether abortion opponents are the bad guys. Prof. Kaveny rejects the central idea of FC and the contributors here cheer–Bishop Martino applies FC narrowly (including FC’s exhortation that the bishop’s teaching controls) and he is public enemy number one.
And when someone calls you to account for it, they are told to be quiet.
The influence that leadership of the Church ever had on citizens is highly overrated. In Canada, in the nineteenth century the perception (and reality) was that priests knocked on doors told ignornant citizens who to cast their vote for and they dutifully did so.
In Upper Canada (the French historically described as lower Canada based on geography tend to vote as a bloc no matter what) there was no evidence to suggest that this in fact actually occurred. Yet Premiers and Cardinals acted like it did and Cardinals were able to take full advantage of this perception and obtain funding for schools, hospitals and so on. The Church and state was even more enmeshed in Quebec with the Church operating hospitals, schools, unions, almost all facets of civil life.
I don’t even know if it is revealing to speak of a “Catholic” vote. It is probably more revealing to break the vote down according to class, ethnicity and social status. People will vote according to these patterns (with the usual statistical deviation on each of the margins).
Intellectual partisans on either ideological spectrum will spin teaching to suit their own objectives.
At issue is how each Bishop should exercise his teacing office. I think this is a call they have to make. But in modern democracies the teaching office is and always has been largely prophetic and not directive (nothwithstanding (mis)perceptions to the contrary).
The influence that leadership of the Church ever had on citizens is highly overrated. In Canada, in the nineteenth century the perception (and reality) was that priests knocked on doors told ignornant citizens who to cast their vote for and they dutifully did so.
In Upper Canada (the French historically described as lower Canada based on geography tend to vote as a bloc no matter what) there was no evidence to suggest that this in fact actually occurred. Yet Premiers and Cardinals acted like it did and Cardinals were able to take full advantage of this perception and obtain funding for schools, hospitals and so on. The Church and state was even more enmeshed in Quebec with the Church operating hospitals, schools, unions, almost all facets of civil life.
I don’t even know if it is revealing to speak of a “Catholic” vote. It is probably more revealing to break the vote down according to class, ethnicity and social status. People will vote according to these patterns (with the usual statistical deviation on each of the margins).
Intellectual partisans on either ideological spectrum will spin teaching to suit their own objectives.
At issue is how each Bishop should exercise his teacing office. I think this is a call they have to make. But in modern democracies the teaching office is and always has been largely prophetic and not directive (nothwithstanding (mis)perceptions to the contrary).
What if we were to float someday a Christian or Catholic Democratic Party based on Catholic principles, either on its own or as a faction of another party? And we had to wade into the American political arena and make things happen? And to make things happen, in this protestant secular democracy of ours, we had to compromise sometimes? Could we do that?
Prof. Kaveny rejects the central idea of FC and the contributors here cheer . . .
Matt,
What is the central idea of FC that Cathleen Kaveny rejects?
Unagidon,
I like the blurb to Tucker Carlson’s blog piece currently in The Daily Beast.
Republicans know the race is over. Only Democrats, so accustomed to failure, still believe Obama could lose.
How true.
David–it is FC’s idea that a or the central factor in assessing your vote is intrinsic evil.
Republicans know the race is over. Only Democrats, so accustomed to failure, still believe Obama could lose.
Hmmmmm…..I guess the racist Catholics quoted in an earlier entry from the NYT have seen the light. The implication was that the Church leadership needs to spend a lot of time discussing race (i.e. inducing guilt???). They haven’t and yet the margins are very high.
But should Obama lose in PA will it be because of
a) race
or
b) class (Joe the Plumber)
If he should win, does that mean race is gone as an issue in America?
Well, we have reached the 100-comment plateau–a round of applause?
Obviously, that milestone is due more to the issue of abortion than a theme of the original post, that of the bishops’ divisions and divided voice. Thanks to Rita and Mollie for bringing us back to that issue, at least briefly. Bp. Martino was certainly within his rights to do as he did, but I think the fact that he did not engage in any dialogue on the topic is the disturbing part for many.
I am also struck in all of these threads by how easily doctrine and politics are conflated–and how quickly some (including bishops) will link policy positions–which are clearly speculative and can yield to many possible interpretations and outcomes–to doctrinal trangressions and thus bad faith (at best). Some have commented on this phenomenon, and it remains true. Sadly.
Final point, I would direct readers to today’s statement from Cardinal Justin Rigali of Philadelphia, chairman of the Committee on Pro-Life Activities, and Bishop William F. Murphy of Rockville Centre, N.Y., chairman of the Committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development, in which they say that an either/or approach is not sufficient–that Catholics should both oppose abortion-on-demand laws and work to enact policies to support pregnant mothers and reduce abortions.
Here is the CNS story:
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0805371.htm
Here is the text of the statement:
http://usccb.org/prolife/Rigali-Murphy-Joint-Statement.pdf
An opening graf:
“Some argue that we should not focus on policies that provide help for pregnant women, but just focus on the essential task of establishing legal protections for children in the womb. Others argue that providing life affirming support for pregnant women should be our only focus and this should take the place of efforts to establish legal protections for unborn children. We want to be clear that neither argument is consistent with Catholic teaching. Our faith requires us to oppose abortion on demand and to provide help to mothers facing challenging pregnancies.”
Hard to wrap oneself in the mantle of the GOP with that statement, I think. Or to condemn those who would vote Democratic.
I’d also point to the closing graf, which again stresses the primacy of “Faithful Citizenship” while also pointing to documents from bishops. And it also knocks guides from outside groups that are being distributed, largely by conservative groups:
“In light of a wide range of attempts to interpret Church teaching or imply that outside materials represent the teaching of the Church, we wish to affirm that Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship is the teaching that has been approved by the body of bishops of the United States. As we explained in that statement, ‘We encourage Catholics to seek those resources that are authorized by their own bishops, their state Catholic conferences, and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.’ “
If he should win, does that mean race is gone as an issue in America?
I think it will mean that race as an issue is not gone, but is diminished. I heard or read somewhere (and now I can’t find it) that because of economic conditions, some who would ordinarily not be willing to for a black man are going to “grit their teeth and vote for Obama.”
David,
While I thought “Faithful Citizenship” was ambiguous enough to be read many ways, it seems to me that the statement from Cardinal Rigali and Bishop Murphy — which I take to be a kind of clarification of the original document — confirms the reading of those who claimed the bishops were saying Catholics are obligated to vote for McCain.
With such a heavy emphasis on Roe v Wade, this even undercuts the position of a number of people writing on Vox Nova who argue that Catholics may not vote for either candidate, since both support intrinsic evils (abortion, stem-cell research, an unjust war in Iraq, and so on).
I said earlier that some were interpreting the bishops statement that they were not telling Catholics for whom or against whom to vote as the equivalent of winking and saying, “We can’t tell you how many feet are in a mile, but if you add 3000 plus 2280, you can figure it out for yourself.” It appears to me those people were correct.
David N: I do think Rigali & Murphy were trying to forestall the idea (put most directly by Nicholas Cafardi) that the legal battle on abortion is lost and so it’s all about social policy now. (And I don’t think he was raising a white flag on all legal remedies.) But my reading, which may be wishful thinking, is that the document makes it clear that neither side can claim the mantle of Catholic teaching, and both sides have much to do in that regard. I can’t read the document as giving license for partisans of one part to claim the right to condemn partisans of the other part, or the agonized middle who may simply be trying to do what’s best and right given too imperfect choices on this issue. And I think it is also noteworthy that this parsing dealt solely with abortion, not the range of other issues in Faithful Citizienship.
I do wonder what was the relationship of this statement–which seems aimed at a certain claming of the waters–to the Martino episode and others like it.
“Thanks to Rita and Mollie for bringing us back to that issue, at least briefly.”
Um, hello?
Oh yes, Kathy, thanks for your timely ruler-to-the-wrists.
I thought you were thanking them for bringing us back to the issue, not for agreeing with you on everything.
Last Sunday, our bishop of West Virginia stated 7 things to consider when voting for the presidential candidate. Of course the first thing was the right to life issue. But the other 6 things pointed to social justice issues which mark the democratic party. As mostly a republican voter, I will vote for Obama because I think he has it right on all of the other issues. That doesn’t mean that I can’t continue to hope and pray and work for right to life issues and marriage and family issues.
David G:
Were you going to back up your claim that all of Matt’s assertions are incorrect, and that he offers no evidence to support them?
Tom: A good start for you and Matt would be to cease from the character assassination and use of terms like “pro-abortion.” When your response to arguments is that your interlocutors are lying or duplicitous or otherwise dishonest, then you have neither an argument nor the right to a response if indeed there was something to debate.
Faithful Citizenship was a statement on affirming the need to form consciences for Faithful Citizenship prior to knowing who exactly would be the final candidates for the Office of the President of the United States of America in the coming election. The statements from Cardinal Rigali and Bishop Murphy confirm the fact that in forming a Faithful conscience that is consistent with the Sanctity of the God given Right to Life of all Human persons, one can not support the Freedom of Choice Act.
As Catholics, who are called to be Faithful to our Church as well as our Country, we should insist that all future nominees for the Supreme Court recognize the personhood of a Baby in their Mother’s Womb and protect these persons with every Right that is guaranteed them in our Constitution. All Catholics should join together to protect the Right to Life of all children in their Mother’s Womb.
It is understood that we should also promote the welfare of all our citizens by continuing to support programs that help strengthen Marriage and the Family.
David G:
You’re more offended by my use of the term “pro-abortion” than by the fact that your party and your candidate are pro-abortion.
That’s Commonweal Catholicism in a nutshell, isn’t it?
I am learning so much about what it means to be a Commonweal Catholic in this thread. It’s been illuminating. I think my favorite revelation so far was that we’re all detrimentally attached to the “status quo” — I certainly never expected to be accused of that!
The “status quo”, in this case. would be the belief that one’s own individual interpretation in regards to Faith and Morals trumps that of the Magisterium.
If it is true that one’s own individual interpretation of Faith and Morals trumps that of the Magisterium, then we would no longer be Catholic, we would be Protestant.
Nancy:
“is true that one’s own individual interpretation of Faith and Morals trumps that of the Magisterium, then we would no longer be Catholic, we would be Protestant.”
…..or “American” Catholics. That is what Leo XIII, and otherwise “progressive” pope thought and named it accordingly – “Americanism”.
Americans as a culture are still mostly Protestant. Cardinal Ratzinger once observed that most Catholics will call themselves CAtholics but in practice think like congregationalists. Therein lies the ecclesiological tension.
George, if what you say is true, then it is time for all of us, who profess to be Catholic, to become Catholic Americans.
This sort of thing happens throughout history. National churches (one more strike against them, besides their almost nill ecclesiological meaning) easily become political puppets of either the right or the left. Catholics in the US have had a pro-labor, pro-social program ethic–all well and good, except that the reasonable alignment with the left has become an unhesitating habit. Now the Catholic vote is subject to the Democratic Party, which for whatever reason (money? votes?) has made itself subject to NARAL.
National churches make us buy into evil policies. Then where are we?
Sure. But what does that look like?
What accounts for the disconnect between the Bishops rhetoric with respect to social policy and the activity of polticians? Not only in this situation but in history.
I am not saying that there has to be lockstep agreement but one should be able to detect congruence.
Bishops, the leaders of our faith communities, have a tough time. Pius XII is criticized on this site for not doing enough in World War II or else there is requests to open up Vatican libraries, etc.
Pius XII should have done MORE it is argued by some. Others argue he did quite a bit and did raise his voice in opposition to the Nazi ideology. I doubt Germany, and the German public would have halted the Nazi agenda because Pius XII criticized it. He did obliquely and arguably reasonably clear. Its not like the public, then as now, were completely unaware of the agenda. My father had a friend who was a German (not a Nazi) who was drafted. When my father was lamenting how his EasternEuropean culture and country had collaborated with the Nazi and he was sharing the shame he felt, the man said EVERYONE knew.
Plus the reality of the situation is that the Nazi’s really were very efficient in the delivery of social services, income security programs, etc. We don’t talk about that but these were the issues the German people faced.
Note, I am not saying the election today is analagous. I am simply saying that Bishops are in a Catch 22.
Democracy is what it is.
George, look at this from an American perspective, rather than a Roman.
In 1928, Al Smith ran for president as the first Catholic condidate from a major party. The Catholic/Protestant polemics meant there was suspicion that the American President would be beholden to the Pope, and required to do what he said. That was exacrebated by the Pope’s anti-democratic stance, and the Vatican’s attitudes toward Mussolini, which made any papal involvement in US politics look very unappealing. Those factors contributed to Smith’s defeat.
In 1960, JFK had to address the issues with Catholicism that had plagued Smith. This resulted in an assertion that the Pope could not command JFK to obey, ie the president’s policies would not neccesarily be congruent with Papal authority.
Now we face a different situation, but it involves again congruence between Church teaching and a a politician’s vote. Democrats hold to the politicial philosophy developed in the ’60s, while some bishops fight against it.
Joe Biden, when he justified his position on abortion, practically quoted the first paragrpah of V2′s declaration on Religious Liberty; the bishops who have asserted they alone are the Church’s teachers, like Martino, Chaput, etc., have largely ignored that facet of the discussion, and focused exclusively on the life issue. I find them unconvincing as a result, almost ignorant of Catholic political philosophy, though I I give deep consideration to their positions.
If the bishops wish to issue a statement that JFK was wrong, and that Catholic politicians & voters have to obey the bishops or the Pope when they teach, then I will judge such a clear retreat from our tradition.
Having returned to this thread after a time, I can only reiterate my original point. Bishop Martino gives a bad example to the faithful and ultimately only calls into question his own credibility and the unity of the episcopate, and by extension the Church, by not behaving in a way that shows respect and collegiality toward his brother bishops. Appeals to a magic bullet concept of the authority passed down from the apostles, and derrogatory and prejudicial comments about the American episcopal conference do not make a convincing argument for any bishop abandoning the prudence, civility, and theological intelligence necessary to frame his comments in such a way that they do not come off as dismissive of a serious pastoral effort, as these have. Any ecclesiology that undervalues koinonia by prefering an individualistic vision of a bishop’s “rights” is more like American individualism tinged with authoritarianism than like an authentic representation of a genuine Catholic concept of authority.
The local Church is a true Church, and has dignity directly given to it by Jesus Christ. The national church is ecclesiologically a convenience. It is not a Church in a strict sense but has authority to manage certain affairs.
No matter what its “serious pastoral efforts” may be, they are not binding to a bishop, whose authority is not American or French or Dutch but apostolic.
Jim and Rita:
The central issue here is the role of Church and state (in the sense of binding Catholics to particular pulic policy postures).
Apply your above comments to Pius XII. His more circumspect (arguably) position with respect to the Nazi ideology has occasioned a lot of reprobation from Catholic intellectuals on this board. Why isn’t Pius XII the very model of gradualism while at the same time maintaining clear teaching? Shouldn’t his cause for beatification be suppported by liberals and progressives as examplars par excellence of Church/state relationship in the modern world.
By the 40′s the nation state had already come into its own, papal states were in decline and the reconfiguration of church/state in the modern world relationship was emerging.
Pius XII stood at this watershed moment.
Yet he is castigated by the progressives on this board who would have wished he assumed a more prophetic postsure a la Burke et al.
Is anyone denying the authority of the local bishop, Kathy? What the bishop said was that USCCB publications are not relevant in his diocese. That statement is on its face absurd.
What is the absurdity, Grant?
I’ll ask again, then. Is anyone denying the authority of the local bishop?
As for publications, pick one. Their book on marriage? Their booklet on primary and secondary Catholic education? The one on capital punishment and the culture of life? On penance? On the Real Presence? “Pastoral Plan for Prolife Activities”? The John Jay study?
Do you believe all those lack relevance? Do you agree that “no USCCB document is relevant” to that diocese? To yours? To any? None?
“Denying the authority of the local bishop” can be done in many ways.
One could say, “I deny the authority of the local bishop.” And no, no one said that.
One could say, “I think that the authority of the local bishop is conditioned by the publications of the USCCB,” and no one quite said that either (although you may be implying that, I don’t know.)
One could say, “The local bishop cannot teach in his diocese as he sees fit, but must make sure his way of teaching is not dismissive of the national conference’s work.” I think Rita has been saying this–correct me if I’m wrong, Rita–and that she’s making an ecclesiological, theological error in saying it.
The bishop’s “teaching” was: “No one in this diocese may have a conversation (at least not in a building that I ‘own’) about anything once I have expressed my opinion about same. You are not allowed to question my interpretation of Church teaching, because my interpretation of Church teaching MUST be correct by virtue of the fact that I am a bishop. Or, rather, by virtue of the fact that I happen to be YOUR bishop. Other bishops may disagree with me, but you must agree with me and disregard them because of where your parish is located.” I think that’s the error we should be worrying about here.
The bishop’s teaching was his letter, and he didn’t want its authority negated, publicly, in his diocese, by what his office later called “erroneous interpretations of Church documents, particularly the U.S. Bishops’ statement on Faithful Citizenship…”
Two relevant passages (among many others) from the Second Vatican Council:
–The individual bishops, who are placed in charge of particular churches, exercise their pastoral government over the portion of the People of God committed to their care, and not over other churches nor over the universal Church. (LG 23)
–Bishops, as vicars and ambassadors of Christ, govern the particular churches entrusted to them by their counsel, exhortations, example, and even by their authority and sacred power, which indeed they use only for the edification of their flock in truth and holiness, remembering that he who is greater should become as the lesser and he who is the chief become as the servant. This power, which they personally exercise in Christ’s name, is proper, ordinary and immediate, although its exercise is ultimately regulated by the supreme authority of the Church, and can be circumscribed by certain limits, for the advantage of the Church or of the faithful. In virtue of this power, bishops have the sacred right and the duty before the Lord to make laws for their subjects, to pass judgment on them and to moderate everything pertaining to the ordering of worship and the apostolate.
The pastoral office or the habitual and daily care of their sheep is entrusted to them completely; nor are they to be regarded as vicars of the Roman Pontiffs, for they exercise an authority that is proper to them, and are quite correctly called “prelates,” heads of the people whom they govern. Their power, therefore, is not destroyed by the supreme and universal power, but on the contrary it is affirmed, strengthened and vindicated by it, since the Holy Spirit unfailingly preserves the form of government established by Christ the Lord in His Church.
A bishop, since he is sent by the Father to govern his family, must keep before his eyes the example of the Good Shepherd, who came not to be ministered unto but to minister, and to lay down his life for his sheep. Being taken from among men, and himself beset with weakness, he is able to have compassion on the ignorant and erring. Let him not refuse to listen to his subjects, whom he cherishes as his true sons and exhorts to cooperate readily with him. As having one day to render an account for their souls, he takes care of them by his prayer. preaching, and all the works of charity, and not only of them but also of those who are not yet of the one flock. who also are commended to him in the Lord. Since, like Paul the Apostle, he is debtor to all men, let him be ready to preach the Gospel to all, and to urge his faithful to apostolic and missionary activity. But the faithful must cling to their bishop, as the Church does to Christ, and Jesus Christ to the Father, so that all may be of one mind through unity, and abound to the glory of God. (LG 27)
“One could say, “The local bishop cannot teach in his diocese as he sees fit, but must make sure his way of teaching is not dismissive of the national conference’s work.” I think Rita has been saying this–correct me if I’m wrong, Rita–and that she’s making an ecclesiological, theological error in saying it.”
Kathy, I think the challenge for any bishop in his role as teacher of the faith is to live in the tension between the vertical – “I am the teacher of my diocese” and the horizontal – “I am in communion with other bishops around the world”. Too much emphasis on one dimension at the expense of the other has the potential to distort the bishop’s ministry. I don’t speak for Rita, but I think this is part of what she is getting at.
It’s true that national conferences aren’t absolutely necessary to the notion that all the bishops of the church be in communion; it wouldn’t be sufficient for a bishop who wishes to demonstrate his collegiality to claim, “I’m teaching in concert with the national conference on this matter.” But neither are national conferences something entirely “other” from collegiality. On the contrary, they are a local, concrete expression it.
We’re in the Catholic church, where everything symbolizes *something*.
Jim,
There is horizontal and horizontal. If, God forbid, a bishop were to teach that artificial birth control is morally acceptable to the Catholics in his diocese, that would indeed be undermining the communion of bishops.
But the national conference is not an ecclesiologically meaningful body, and if its authority has become excessive, that too is a threat, both to the universal communion and to the local ordinary’s authority.
More to the point, from the Council: Decisions of the episcopal conference, provided they have been approved legitimately and by the votes of at least two-thirds of the prelates who have a deliberative vote in the conference, and have been recognized by the Apostolic See, are to have juridically binding force only in those cases prescribed by the common law or determined by a special mandate of the Apostolic See, given either spontaneously or in response to a petition of the conference itself. CD 38.4
“One could say, ‘The local bishop cannot teach in his diocese as he sees fit, but must make sure his way of teaching is not dismissive of the national conference’s work.’ I think Rita has been saying this–correct me if I’m wrong, Rita–and that she’s making an ecclesiological, theological error in saying it.”
No, I am not saying that the bishop cannot teach in his diocese as he sees fit. I am saying he undermines his own credibility and the unity of the episcopate (which is an icon of the unity of the church, thanks Jim) and gives a bad example to the faithful if in the process of doing so he bluntly rejects the work of his brother bishops. There is a way of making a particular (more local) judgment call, or even respectfully disagreeing, without tossing the NCCB statement in the trash. Collegiality demands this much at least.
Rita,
I am having a hard time understanding you here. Perhaps you are using the word “collegiality” in a non-technical way? Because the American bishops do NOT form a college.
I’m not laying traps, by the way. I simply think that we are disagreeing on a fundamental point of ecclesiology, and that is the location of the unity of the bishops. In my opinion (and I think this is supported in the documents, the canons, everywhere one might look) the unity is universal, and the authority is shared, in communion, on the universal and local (diocesan) levels.
I don’t think that there is one group that has unity in governance (the universal) and another that has unity in sign-value (the national).
If I may add more local color — I’d like to point out that the parish where this discussion took place is an hour’s drive from the chancery. A long trip for a bishop who likes to stay home.
The bishop’s teaching was his letter, and he didn’t want its authority negated, publicly, in his diocese, by what his office later called “erroneous interpretations of Church documents, particularly the U.S. Bishops’ statement on Faithful Citizenship…”
But no one at the forum was negating the authority of his letter, unless they were tacitly doing so by reading and discussing a document other than his letter that touched on the same subject and also represented Church teaching. Martino objected to these people having a discussion about Church teaching and its real-world application. He does not have the authority to do that. He does, of course, have the authority to ask a parish in his diocese not to host a panel he thinks might cause scandal or confusion… and if he had made that request, and it had been ignored, then, yes, his authority would have been challenged. But unfortunately he decided to just show up and yell instead. No one there knew they were disobeying the bishop’s wishes until he stormed in and told them so. Should they have guessed at his lack of respect for his fellow bishops? Panelists and pastor seemed genuinely stunned, as I certainly would have been (and am).
What should be said is this: “This bishop is NOT relevant in this diocese.”
Some more important context:
A few days before the forum in Honesdale, a local TV station hosted a discussion with panelists similar to those at the parish forum. I did not see much of it, but I saw one panelist harp on our moral and religious responsibility to listen to the bishop. The last question of the evening came from a caller who cited Faithful Citizenship. As the moderator was rushing to the end of the show, the last comment was that we read FC because it comes from the bishops, intentionally using earlier comments supporting Martino to oppose him.
That is probably what Martino was addressing, more than the actual proceedings in front of him at St Johns. I am guessing he had a prepared position based on his juridical authority, but in the situation, presented it ineptly, out of context, and in an unexpectedly diruptive manner.
George,
If Pius XII is ever venerated by the Church, it will not be for prophetic opposition to Fascism, but for a more oblique, pastoral opposition. (five years after the Holocaust, he called attention to God’s love, body and soul, for a Jewish woman. How’s that for oblique!)
JFK was elected bcause of his forceful assertion of independence from Papal and episcopal authority. (if he had not made such an assertion he would not have been elected)
For bishops to have any credibility, they have to recognize both these facets of our tradition. They have to recognize that people who do not appear to oppose something (fascism or abortion) can work against it more quietly, and that politicians have a responsibility that may lead them to differ with Church authorities. Legalistic certainties do not carry much weight with people pained by their options as they go into the voting booth.
Jim:
“If Pius XII is ever venerated by the Church, it will not be for prophetic opposition to Fascism, but for a more oblique, pastoral opposition”
That is precisely my point. It seems that many Catholics are opposed to him. Why? That seems to be the approach they favour for US Bishops in regard to abortion.