Equal opportunity bishops: RNC’s Steele is boycotted
Michael Steele, the ostensibly pro-life Catholic and, also ostensibly, the new hope of the GOP–though that’s dimmed considerably since he won election as head of the RNC–is being boycotted by Bishop Gerald Gettelfinger of Evansville, Indiana. Steele is to be the keynoter at the local annual Right To Life Banquet on April 16, but the GQ interview in which he seemed to clearly support the principle of a right to abortion continues to make waves.
According to a local Evansville TV station report, diocese spokesperson Paul Leingang said Bishop Gettelfinger is “uncomfortable” with Steele’s remarks. “After talking to him [Steele] and looking at the statement, the Bishop concluded that his decision stood. He would not attend,” Leingang said. He said Gettlefinger has attended the Vanderburgh County Right To Life Banquet faithfully for at least the past decade.
I guess Indiana just isn’t big on politicians these days.
Hat tip to USA Today’s Cathy Grossman.
PS: Anyone know why Sen. Casey backed out of the commencement address gig at St. Vincent College? No explanation here, though one would wonder whether it has something to do with the increasing heat that the ostensibly pro-life Democrat has been getting, especially from his hometown bishop, Joseph Martino of Scranton. Of course, St. Vincent’s is where George W. Bush gave his valedictory last graduation season, at the invitation of the school’s president, Jim Towey, his former faith-based initiative director. There were protests but none that I recall from bishops.
Here’s some of what JFK had to say in 1960. I think most Catholics were in agreement with him back then. Now I think a lot of Catholics, including some of the outspoken bishops, would read his statement as defending the right to “act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles.”
One wonders what Steele said to Bishop Gettelfinger, since Steele’s position on abortion seems to vary from day to day. He certainly was pro-choice in the GQ interview, but then he issued the following “pro-life” statement “clarifying” his position:
Will the real Michael Steele please stand up?
I enjoyed the GQ interview. He’s an interesting guy, in a Lieutenant-Governor-ish sort of way.
The Republican Party has always had a pro-choice wing. They *are* a big-tent party in that sense. I wish the Democrats would figure out the same thing.
His comments about seminary and the sex-abuse scandal are very interesting.
Jim, I can’t beleive that a party (if Steele speaks for them) that adulates Rush, Coulter :”the best bobmb thrower”, Cheney, et al. is a “big tent” party.
I do hav ea question though on this thread:
Was Sen. Casey one of the persons mentioned in the “Brownback letter?” and if so, did that piece of garbage have anything to do with this?
If nothing else, this proves that for the bishops abortion is a fundamental moral issue and not just a Democrat vs. Republican, that is, it is NOT an entirely political issue. I think embryonic stem cell positions also need to be vetted. By vetted I do not mean used to determine whether somebody gets to speak or not, as I find Ken Woodward’s argument in favor of not having a cow over whether the president speaks at Notre Dame convincing.
I find myself wondering if perhaps Bp D’Arcy’s negative reaction stems from the possibility that the university did not discuss inviting the president to speak at commencement with him beforehand.
David,
The majority of the people in this country are both pro-life and pro-choice, so I think it is a bit unfair to accuse Mr Steele of constantly changing his position. He is trying to express what most people believe, something the most polarized cannot recognize. (which is not to say that there is no inconsistency in his stance, just that it is common)
As for JFK, Cardinal George, in his presidential address to the US Conference of Catholic bishops last fall, bemoaned the fact that JFK had renounced his faith in order to be elected. I assume he was speaking of the material you posted. If the bishops would just make it clear that this is the choice — being a catholic like JFK or one like Cardinal George — they might be surprised at how many opt to be in the church of sinners struggling to help one another rather than with the righteous defenders of the faith.
If nothing else, this proves that for the bishops abortion is a fundamental moral issue and not just a Democrat vs. Republican, that is, it is NOT an entirely political issue.
Scott,
I am not sure what it means, since we don’t know what Steele’s real position is. Is it what he said to GQ, or is it what he said in a statement responding to criticism of the interview? And I believe Michael Steele has given assurances that whatever his personal position is, he will represent the official position of the Republican party.
Admittedly, Steele’s comments in the GQ interview sound pro-choice. But if he is really pro-choice, what is he going to say as keynote speaker at a Right to Life banquet?
I don’t see this as a sign that bishops are nonpartisan. I see it as a very confusing story about Michael Steele and one bishop. In order to make an informed judgment, we’d have to know what Michael Steele said privately to the bishop. Certainly if he said that the Republican party could be a “big tent” and accept pro-choice members, that is not a sufficient reason to boycott him. It would be going too far for Catholics to insist that the Republican party had to purge itself of pro-choice Republicans.
So it’s not clear to me what Bishop Gettelfinger is trying to tell us.
David:
As I understand it, the current Republican platform is decidedly opposed to abortion and committed to the protection of life in utereo. If this is the case, then His Excellency’s concerns seem unfounded. As I understand it, Bp Gettelfinger is not comfortable enough with where Steele stands on the issue, either personally or as the leader of one of the two major parties to attend the event.
I admit to casting my net too broadly as far as what it tells us “about the bishops.” I think it tells us that Bp Gettelfinger wants it to be seen as a being too fundamental to be merelyt partisan. On my own reading, I find the proximity in both space and time to the Notre Dame controversy involving the president curious to say the least. Like you, I’d like to know what Steele said to the bishop to cause the bishop to respond in this way.
It is funny that right after posting my comment here, I read Cathleen’s post on Abp Chaput’s very puzzling Detroit address. It made me think about Chaput’s interview with Raymond Arroyo on the eve of the Democratic Convention in Denver. In the interview, His Excellency expresses puzzlement as to why he was not invited to give any of the invocations. Like many, I find Abp Chaput’s position far too alienating precisely because it can too easily be perceived as partisan.
Like you, I’d like to know what Steele said to the bishop to cause the bishop to respond in this way.
Scott,
It occurs to me to wonder what Steele could have said privately that would impact the bishops decision. If he said, “Quite frankly, your excellency, I slipped and revealed my own personal opinion to GQ, but in my official capacity as head of the RNC, I advocate the position of the Republican platform,” that shouldn’t really make a difference. It’s not a matter of whether or not Steele should receive communion. It’s a matter of his public position. If his public position is pro-life, and if his address at the Right to Live banquet is going to be pro-life, then there’s no rational explanation for the bishop to stay away. It will be very odd if Steele uses the occasion to argue the pro-choice case!
I am not questioning for one moment whether Steele should be admitted to communion. I think he should be, just as I have no problem with VP Biden receiving communion. Besides, not being a bishop it is not a call for me make. I do not think Gettelfinger is saying that either. I can only surmise (surmise is all either of us can do) that Bp Gettlefinger must not have been pleased with what Steele plans to say at the dinner and/or his ambiguity on the matter. He will undoubtedly have to address his GQ comment at the dinner. If not there’ll be a huge elephant standing in the middle of banquet hall. Who knows? Steele’s public performances as RNC Chair have been inconsistent, uneven, and at times bizarre, not to mention contradictory. To that end, I direct to Charles Blow’s recent take on Steele’s weird pronounciations: Steele Ridiculous
David, it appears that Michael Steele was conflicted and now he sees the Light, to which someone replies, ridiculous.
“May all those on whom faith does not shine, at least see the light!”- St.Therese of the Little Flower
Mr. Gibson posted a PS above concerning Senator Casey, Saint Vincent College, Commencement Speech.
Why is Casey not speaking at Saint Vincent College for it’s May 2009 Commencement. Simple.
The Administration and/or Mr. Casey were intimidated by the tireless “Catholic” efforts of the Cardinal Newman Society.
Connect to this site and access the threads below:
http://www.svcalum.com/
Want to know why csey got cancelled
.09 commencement speaker cancels
Thank you Lord for the National Cathoilic Reporter
Let us now praise the Notre Dame STudent Body
Bob Casey speaks at SVC – August 2008
and other threads with obvious titles.
I think Bishop Gettelfinger is a classAA member of the American hierarchy -I’m not sure that the big hitters want to deal with the ranging views of Mr. Steele.
Poor young Senator Casey. The Cardinal Newman society and its “temple police” and their followers are after him.
See how these Christiuans love one another.
So much for the call for common ground and balance in our Church.
A major obstacle, I think, among Catholics, to the Right to Life Movement is the continued arrogant attacks on anyone their friends in groups like CNS take on those not in lockstep with them.