UPDATE: Bishops scotch talk on politics
…At least officially. Dan Burke at Religion News Service has the scoop, that the USCCB has decided to remove from the agenda a discussion about Catholics and politics. They put the item on the agenda in September, and even this week archbishops Chaput of Denver and Myers of Newark (and likely others) were saying the debate was very much needed, as this RNS report shows.
“I think this is something that has evolved since September,” Sister Mary Ann Walsh, the USCCB spokesperson, told RNS. “Many bishops have already addressed the issue (of pro-abortion rights politicians) through pastoral letters, so there’s not the same need they saw in September.”
I don’t know of any other rationales at work, but the decision is probably a good one. Firstly, they can, and most certainly will, have unofficial discussions and sound each other out, which is what they need to do. An “official” discussion could have led to lots of speechifying and no conclusions, or revealed even more disagreements. The election is over, they can afford to think this through, talk it out. As the thread below on Catholics and politics indicates, the church is not of one mind, or may not even know its mind. (Or is out of its mind?!) Secondly, they may want to see what the Obama administration does, what their approach is, what their relationship might be, before issuing declarations.
Point of discussion: I think in all of this, there are three discrete issues that are often conflated but shouldn’t be. One is a response to Catholic pols (or others, I suppose) who start explaining theology on national TV. That would be Biden and Pelosi, now 2 and 3 respectively in the national power structure. Their theologizing really upset many bishops. But correcting them on theology is one thing. A separate issue is whether Catholic politicians should be barred from communion for certain positions, or if and when “ordinary” Catholics should be barred. The final issue concerns their approach to influencing policies and politics. These are interconnected issues but involve different areas and (may) require different answers.
PS: CNS has a story on a letter from Pensacola Bishop John Ricard to Joe Biden regarding news that Biden had attended mass in the diocese. Seems like a constructive approach. Reactions? Letter (PDF) is here…Via Rocco.
When I first saw the headline, I thought it meant that scotch would be served as the bishops discussed this, which may have been a good thing for may involved…
John, John…They would never scotch Scotch!
Come to think of it, have I made a faux pas with my Pictic reference? Is it like “gypped”?
Why would it not be appropriate for VOTF or other Catholics to write the same letter to the bishops with reference to their cover up of pedophilia? To Cardinal George in particular. Why don’t we demand that? Double standard for sure.
Good points, Mr. Gibson, just not sure I am as positive as you are in terms of their go forward stance(s). Agree that there will be much discussion behind closed doors but am also concerned that certain high profile bishops will continue to pontificate (if I may borrow your title) and this will continue to both confuse and alienate.
It also does not address the polarization that is still in place……unfortunately, it is my experience that the hierarchy deal with things behind closed doors, in silence, they are not transparent, and are not accountable. When all is said and done, individual bishops do not need to pay attention to the USCCB.
But, a wait an see attitude might be appropriate. Keep in mind that there are at least 15 pending bishop appointments including high profile posts in NYC, Detroit, STL and USCCB committee elections will also generate opinions.
From Bishop Ricard’s letter to Joe Biden (emphasis added)
“Thus, human life is to be respected from the moment of conception until natural death. The Church has taught this from the beginning, and civilized societies live by this principle.”
If, as Bishop Ricard pointed out, the Eucharist is a sign of the unity of the church, then perhaps U.S. Catholics need to dispense with the Eucharist unless/until we define what “unity” means. Given the importance attached by certain hierarchs to the abortion issue, and a Catholic response that largely ignored dire eternal warnings, one might argue there is no “unity” at this time.
I wonder if Bishop Ricard understood the principles outlined in the original Faithful Citizenship statement. Or pehaps just didn’t agree with them? What exactly did you find constructive about his open letter, David?
Thanks, Ms. Gannon. I had the same reaction you did. What if every bishop that ever has a catholic politician come through their diocese when campaigning now gets a version of that local bishop’s thoughts, letters, etc.
When did it get to this point in time. Do you think any catholic bishop in 1960 would have written JFK and threatened or corrected any of his catholic views?
When did bishops begin to believe that their role in US society was to play policeman? Is that a Teachable Moment? The best teachers and mentors in my experience were foks with strong convictions that could inspire, use eloquence, challenge not condemn, make you think not repeat mantras, give direction that brought your best rather than speak from fear, etc.
Do we really want 270 bishops to each interpret their theology of receiving the eucharist or even their understanding of the eucharist? Just think what you would get from Finn, Naumann, Morlino, Martino, Gracida vs. Wuerl, Steib, Kicanas, Niedenhuer, etc.
The too short (and I say that with much regret) honeymoon with the president-elect and the new administration may soon be over for some of us, including the Catholic bishops, if this report from the AP is correct: “President-elect Obama’s transition chief said Sunday the incoming administration is looking to reverse President Bush’s executive order on stem cell research,” among other EOs. It looks like taxpayer funding of ESCR will soon be a reality. I’m not particularly surprised, just disappointed.
Although I voted for Obama, I share William’s disappointment about the prospect of the future president giving the “green light” to federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. I understand there are quite promising alternatives to ESCR, and it would behoove Obama to pursue a common ground here (or to forge one).
Unfortunately, certain of the Catholic bishops may very well have wasted their political capital — and made it more difficult for Catholics in general to persuade a new administration to incorporate Catholic moral teaching in public policy.
Again, such reactionary hierarchs are their own worst enemy, and the silence of their fellow bishops may not be forgotten by political leaders — or Catholics in the pews!
Actually Joseph, there has not been one case where Embryonic Stem Cell Research has been successful. That funding should be going to find cures through Adult Stem Cell Research which has been successful. There have also been studies linking excess iron and other metals to Neurological Disease, ( just Google) but you do not hear about those studies. Mindboggling, isn’t it?
I would like to see more funding into research using umbilical cord blood and adult stem cells. It’s my understanding these two areas show genuine promise.