Something for the bishops to think about
Related to several posts of the last weeks: Dennis O’Brien sent me a copy of a letter he wrote to Cardinal Francis George. I hope the Cardinal (as well as other bishops) takes it essence to heart.
Dear Cardinal George:
Prior to World War II, the Polish government urged Poles not to shop at Jewish stores. The action reflected an intense Polish nationalism in which the Jews were regarded as “outsiders” – people without a national state and hence citizens of nowhere. Cardinal Hlond, the primate, endorsed the boycott while warning Poles against antisemitism. Whatever one may think of the government decision and the Cardinal’s careful distinction between a nationalist boycott and racial hatred, it seems clear that his statement could be used – and was used – as part of a deeper and darker anti-Jewish scenario which, as we know, was to be carried forward in horrifying reality on the Polish soil of Auschwitz.
Since the election of President Obama, we have seen a burgeoning of hate groups in the United States. The sale of guns has escalated remarkably. Talk radio shows foster a “hate Obama” rhetoric which has recently escalated beyond “socialist” to “fascist.” This distressing situation was discussed in the most recent Economist . Among the causes fostering this rancid and destructive environment is anti-abortion.
I believe that the Catholic Church in America is positioning itself like Cardinal Hlond. In the severe anti-abortion rhetoric used by many bishops, in the protest against giving the first African-American president an honorary degree at Notre Dame, Church leaders – yourself included – are giving a patina of legitimacy to some of the most destructive voices in America. Continual denunciation of the Obama administration for fostering a “culture of death” suggests that extreme opposition is legitimate.
Hitler fostered a culture of death and bombing Gestapo headquarters would have been an act of justifiable revolution. One may be opposed in general to abortion – I am, I believe that President Obama is also – and yet have compassion in specific cases. Something that Abp. Sobrinho of Brazil evidently did not have in the recent case of the nine year old raped by her stepfather. One may disagree about stem cell research but at least credit the motive of the research to cure intractable suffering.
As President of the USCCB, I believe you should publically and unequivocally denounce anything that even hints at a “hate Obama” movement. As Christians we never endorse hatred but in the statements and stance of many bishops, legitimacy is being lent to hatred.
Dennis O’Brien
Excellent post. Please connect this letter to Francis Cardinal George and the post below on ND and D’Arcy and a suggested way for Jenkins and D’Arcy to jointly get out of this current dilemma. They could also paraphrase and use this letter and William Collier’s post about the Pregnant Women bill being supported by Democrats.
I’d write to the cardinal that he might propose a more concerted effort against the use of contraceptive devices and against the pill among Catholics. For I do believe it was the pill that undermined the Church in the U.S.
Godwin’s Law is based on the length of a comment thread. Here it is radically escalated in the post itself. This is a laughably unsubtle attempt to libelously paint the legitimate exercise of episcopal authority as Nazi fascism.
I can’t agree that this is a letter which the bishops should give much regard. When I taught high school, I always taught students to watch out for the Hitler argument. Usually, the person with the weaker argument is the first person to resort to identifying his or her opponent with Hitler or the Holocaust. That is precisely what Mr. O’Brien is doing: identifying his opponent with an example of grave moral evil on the basis of weak support. It doesn’t seem like his letter should be taken seriously.
Kathy, the burden of proof is on the backers of the bishops to show that the hierarchy did not support the culture of death by Hitler. On the contrary, can you seriously disprove Richard McBrien’s assertion that the whole flap on ND is a bunch of Republicans unhappy at having lost the election. Your sad reaction is recorded here by you. http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/blog/?p=2481
More to the point is McBrien’s assessment of the bishops being the reason for the mess we are in. The terrible appointments of bishops in the last thirty years.
“That’s exactly what Pope John Paul II — or any other pope for that matter — was able to do in his long term of office, and that is why the Catholic church finds itself today . . . with such a dearth of pastoral leadership,” said McBrien.
The Notre Dame professor added that John Paul II’s greatest failing as Pope lies in the bishops he named.
“Men were appointed bishops or promoted within the hierarchy on the basis of loyalty to the Holy See rather than on the basis of pastoral aptitude, theological sophistication and leadership skills,” quipped McBrien.
Bill, that wasn’t sad. It was prescient.
Hitler killed people for money and for ideology. And that equates to a bishop’s boycott of a graduation exactly how?
Kathy, did we not have Catholic German bishops? Or did they all leave town? Tell me they did not know what was happening. Dennis O’brien gives us just one example of a bishop’s very sad behavior. It is like the law of traffic ticket moving violation. Those who get ticketed for moving violations have the most crashes.
It would be well for many of our bishops to remember these quotes from 2 early church writers on bishops:
“A bishop never more resembles Jesus Christ than when he has his mouth shut.” Attributed to St. Ignatius of Antioch.
“The floor of hell is paved with the skulls of bishops.” St. John Chrysostom
Thanks, Margaret, for posting the Dennis O’Brien letter. The point it makes about the danger of whipping up hatred, or at least of giving apparent legitimacy to those who do whip it up, is a point that, unfortunately, has to keep being made. O’Brien makes it very well.
Margaret, also a huge thank you for sharing that letter.
It does unfortunately express what has been my observation from this side of the border.
Some bishop any bishop has to step up to the plate and express it.
Up here we have in parallel to the Obama-UND affair had a Lifesitenews.com campaign to discredit the bishops annual Development and Peace Lenten fund raising campaign by claiming without direct evidence that some Mexican and other organizations to which D&P gave small amounts of funding were advocating for abortions and so splashed headlines all over their website that D&P funded abortions.
Some bishops reacted by cutting off any funding to D&P as a result, that is until the Chair of the CCCB, Archbishop James Weisgerber called Lifesitenews on the table, and established a committee to properly investigate the charges.
it didn’t stop Lifesitenews from continuing their attacks and charges but it did calm down the bishops. A little of that kind of leadership in the Obama-UND would have gone a long way to shutting down the pressure that bishops felt to respond in the negative.
Which only takes us back to the lack of leadership in the USCCB
I think the point of the letter is that when you let rhetoric become increasingly extreme, and keep throwing logs on the flames of outrage, you may think you are whipping up enthusiasm for your cause, but those flames can get out of control in an instant, and the conflagration that ensues engulfs much more than the object of your own ire. There comes a point where you can’t take it back, you can’t call it off even if you try. The letter is imploring Cardinal George to consider the possibility of this unintended side effect seriously, in light of the proliferation of hate groups and easy access to guns.
I do not think it is a ridiculous argument. He could also as easily have used other historical examples, such as the calling of the first crusade, which precipitated devastating massacres of Jewish communities in Europe — the pope didn’t call for this, but it’s what happened. They tried to stop it too, but couldn’t.
I do think, however, that the next to last paragraph of the letter is incoherent. I don’t know what the author is trying to say here.
Rita, if the Nazi reference was not front and center in the letter, your characterization of it might make sense. But no number of vigilantes equals the Nazi state.
Auschwitz. Right.
There is no doubt that there is a significant minority in the US that resents the fact that there is a Black president. ‘we are losing our America’. I do not include bishops.. however O’Brien is correct that the bishops’ anti-Obama rethoric is feeding this minority.. A/B John Quinn pointed this out a week ago and there has been no acknowledgement or rebuttal from the complaining bishops.
For a fuller analysis of passages of primate and Cardinal August Hlond’s pastoral of Leap Day 1936 (February 29, 1936), I refer to Commonweal of April 5, 1996.
http://www.articlearchives.com/humanities-social-science/religion-clergy-religious/1290298-1.html
This is an article by Eugene Fischer.
Kathy, I don’t find Nazi analogies to be all that helpful either, but I do think it’s important that the bishops realize that they have lost control of the conversation not only among liberal Catholics who voted for Obama, but among conservatives who did not. Randall Terry comes with a history and a context. Whether there is a direct line between Operation Rescue and later clinic bombings and assassinations is probably impossible to say for sure, but Terry played no small role in radicalizing the pro-life movement in the 90s, which, in turn, IMHO, was the biggest gift the pro-life movement ever gave to the pro-choice movement.
The point is, the percussive echoes of the bishops statements are likely to be bounce around in directions that they did not anticipate and do not particularly like. I am perplexed that they don’t seem to understand this.
I tend to agree that the next to the last paragraph would improve the letter had it been deleted. More generally I find the the expressions “culture of life” and “culture of death” so vague as to be almost useless. What does it mean to say that HItler “fostered a culture of death”? It would be far better to say that Hitler had plans for the murder of masses of people that he regarded as subhuman.
This thread, as well as the others that have dealt with the Notre Dame issue have helped me to clarify some thoughts that have been rattling around in my head for a while. If I’ve simply become more obtuse, please tell me.
Frequently cited is the dictum that the local bishop is the chief doctrinal and moral authority in his diocese. Bishop Martino of Scranton cited this claim as part of his rejection of the authority of the USCCB’s document on “Faithful Citizenship.” Apparently, in terms of present canon law, he’s right. There’s also the “successor of the Apostles” talk.
What sense are we poor faithful to make of these claims when we know a bit of history? We know that bishops, even popes, have said doctrinally foolish things. We also know that any number of their moral pronouncements have made little sense. And yet, thank God, we do believe that the Catholic Church is divinely established.
Is it too much to say that just because a local bishop decrees something about his authority or about his reading of his responsibilities to doctrine and morals does not mean that everybody in his diocese ought to roll over and salute?
Let’s grant that it is important to “save” the bishop’s role. What does it take on his part and on our part to save it?
The present issue of Commonweal has the article on “Best-Practices…” Let’s try to think through what’s going on there. Theo old model of the territorial parish ruled by the pastor in accordance with the prescriptions of present Canon Law as the stable unit of Catholic practice is on its way to being an historical relic. What about a diocese? Is the local bishop-prince model any less anachronistic? For example, Bishop Martino apparently is untouchable. Does that model still make any sense? Other bishops also can apparently act with impunity regardless of how peculiar their decisions may be. But many of the laity move around. they don’t spend all their lives in the same diocese, much less the same parish.
Adequate transparency, financial, disciplinary, etc. seems to be in the eye of the beholding bishop. Just from a managerial standpoint, none of this makes a lot of sense. To say that it is sanctioned by Canon Law simply raises the question of the adequacy of Canon Law as it is presently codified.
All these issues bear on our understanding of what it is to be a Church, of what it is to have a mission to other people, and most of all to be a community that lives in the love and gratitude that the gospel calls us to. Lisa Fullam’s piece on sexuality and virtue ethics in the present issue of Commonweal points us in a fruitful direction for thinking about a whole host of Christian moral matters, not least of all about what the virtue of Christian obedience might look like if the people in charge recognized the adult laity as their fellow pilgrims.
The point of O’Brien’s letter is corrext, though folks here will argue about parsing paragraphs.It’s really about the political wisdom of how the hierarchy is dealing with this – and I’ve already said I think it’s sadly unfortunate.
Others will differ and the problem is how not I or they biut most Catholics will perceive this -which is what I think the head of USCCB should be thinking about.
The debate here will go on …..and on ….. and on
It’s good to be reminded occasionally that the Christian right, when looked at closely, has much to recommend it. Peter Steinfels, in a review of a recent political science study, highlights solid empirical findings that are too often ignored in news accounts and elite discussions:
“The vast majority of Christian-right leaders,” he writes, “have long labored to inculcate deliberative norms in their rank-and-file activists — especially the practice of civility and respect; the cultivation of dialogue by listening and asking questions; the rejection of appeals to theology; and the practice of careful moral reasoning.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/25/us/25beliefs.html?_r=1
I think O’Brien’s concern is a definite possibility. But, is there any evidence so far of this connection? He offers nothing.
I can offer only one rather tenuous piece. The anthrax killer, who recently committed suicide, was a strongly anti-abortion Catholic, and he seems to have targeted pro-choice Catholic politicians, Leahy and Daschle. Of course, he was also mentally ill.
I also find it hard to take OBrien seriously when he says that Obama is in general against abortion, but for compassion. Support for abortion as a constitutional right is not general opposition.
The Dept of Homeland Security memo that went around recently warning about the uptick in right-wing extremism got the Catholic/pro-life right in a stir by mentioning single-issue abortion opponents as a group to watch.
The Washington Times broke the story and has the report:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/14/federal-agency-warns-of-radicals-on-right/
The pro-life movement may not like it, but given the record of some anti-abortion nasties going off the reservation, and the way dehumanizing language (like that used toward Obama) can fuel justifications for violence, O’Brien (and the DHS) would seem to have a point.
I think Dennis O’Brien has a very good point, but I don’t believe he expressed it well. I, too, could have done without the Nazi analogies. There is real Obama hatred in this country, and Bishop D’Arcy and others are fanning the flames, whether that is their intention or not.
One grammatical point: When you are the “I” writing the sentence, and you say, “As President of the USCCB, I believe you should . . . ,” you have made just made yourself President of the USCCB. Better to say something like, “I believe you, as President of the USCCB, should . . . .”
Please stop the hyperventilating!
I meant to say, where is the evidence connecting the bishops’ rhetoric to these extremists?
David G.–
It’s late and I’m tired, but I read the DHS report through twice, and I think the Washington Times mention of abortion groups as a focus of the DHS is disingenuous. The focus of the DHS report is instead on an uptick in right-wing extremism as a result of severe economic conditions, the election of an African-American president, and the hoarding of weapons and ammunition because of the right wing’s fear that the Obama Administration will seek to impose gun control. I believe the word “abortion” appears but twice in the 9-page report, once in the definitional footnote cited by the newspaper (see text of footnote below) and, IMO, grossly misconstrued, and once in a comment that many white supremacist groups are also against abortion and same sex marriage.
Of course there will always be a few extremists like Eric Rudolph, and their beliefs tactics are anathema, but it’s a very big stretch for the newspaper to have concluded that the rise in right wing extremism is specifically tied to anti-abortion groups.
“Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.”
Back on April 14th I wrote a piece on the Obama-UND fracas for the Spiritan education website Tomorrow’s Trust of which I am the editor & founder titled “Keeping Notre Dame and the invitation to president Obama in its proper perspective” (http://tomorrowstrust.ca/?p=5813).
I have been reluctant to share it because I do not want to be seen as promoting traffic to the site. However, I think it timely in light of our recent discussions.
The lack of civility in American political discourse has been growing for a long time. It is what other nations have come to expect of America. It is just they way they are. But what has happened since Obama became president has reached new heights of incivility.
It is not a stretch to call much of it both motivated by hate and espousing or inciting further hatred. IMO it not only may include single issue groups who oppose abortion but does include such groups.
That the bishops are partisan Republicans seems undeniable. That Republicans use abortion for merely political issues is likewise clear. Just witness how Pataki, Giuliani and Arnold, all pro choice, were featured at the Repbublican National Convention without a peep from the bishops or other right wingers.
At the same time we must not lose sight of the fact that so many whites have accepted this black president. Aren’t all of you looking at the polls. The right wing did the same thing to Bill Clinton. Republicans are just unhappy they lost the election.
Maybe we are giving the bishops too much attention on this. The louder they shout the less influence they have.
This lecture (at ND) calls into question the premise that abortion is a single issue: http://streaming.nd.edu/ethics/mcgurn.wmv
“dehumanizing language can fuel justifications for violence” (like that used toward Obama)
or more like the “dehumanizing language” that has been used to justify abortion from the beginning.
Nancy, you are right about the dehumanizing language regarding abortion, which is why I think it is especially inappropriate that “pro-lifers” use the same tactic.
William Collier, I agree that the DHS memo has been overplayed by a hypersensitive right looking for a reason to be angry and to feel victimized. It was way overhyped. On the other hand, that right-wing extremists of all stripes are being watched more closely given the uptick in hate groups and gun sales and anti-Obama rhetoric is not surprising, or out of bounds. Yes, there is a danger of this tarnishing the pro-life movement. But you also reap what you sow, and the virulent hate speech against Obama et al can have an effect. I believe that words matter, which is why we should watch them. Also, in law enforcement terms, what are the alternatives? They can’t ignore threats–what if something happened?
As this thread is about something for the Bishops to think aboput – I would go back (since we raised his thoughts) to Peter Steinfel’s column of April 26, 2008 on the aftermath of BXVI’s visit.
The critical issue for the American hierarchy is Church, he noted.
The divided Church, more than ever, is not being helped along by the Bishops actions here.
Bill C. is right that USCCB support for Support for pregant Women legislation is an opening to “common ground” and Cardinal Rigali has written to all House members to support it in just that context.
Meanwhile, though, Mary Ann Glendon has withdrawn from the Laetre medal honor (see the new thread), something not possible in view of the posture a number of Bishops took and kept on taking about the Obama honoring.
Deeply at bottom, it strikes me over and over, is perspective of where Catholics stand and how a majority who supported the president (and presumably are part of the group that think he’s turning the Country in the right direction -up to 50% from 5% in a recent survey) and where the hierarchy (who speak out) stand,
Some Bishop’s stand may lend some weight to hate of Obama, but I don’t think that’s the major problem – it’s their dissociated perception from many Catholics who see a much wider (and, to them, much more relevant) frame of refence in the political world.
“Just witness how Pataki, Giuliani and Arnold, all pro choice, were featured at the Repbublican National Convention without a peep from the bishops or other right wingers. ”
Do the bishops generally make a habit of crticizing political convention speeches? Can you cite an example?
Does anyone know where Mr. O’Brien’s statistics that “anti-abortion” [sic] is a cause of an alledged increase in guns sales is from? That seems like quite a difficult metric to track – is that from DHS?
The letter is infamous. It makes me very angry that it’s thought to be worthy of any consideration, and I can’t imagine the bishops will take it seriously.
Pro-life Catholics are the moral equivalent of Polish virulant anti-Semites during WWII? That’s insulting beyond belief.
It would seem to require a trip through the looking-glass to try to link WWII-era European anti-Semites – fellow-travellers of the Nazis – to pro-life Americans in this context. It is not pro-life Americans but their pro-choice opponents – including the President – who support a legal regime that has killed over forty million human beings in the United States.
As for the level of rhetoric: take a deep breath, everyone. People feel passionately about some things, and so they use passionate words. But nothing I’ve read strikes me as extreme, at least the extremity that Dennis O’Brien tries to invoke. Certainly nothing has been said or done that warrants fears of abortion-clinic bombings, much less genocidal extermination.
As a point of comparison, consider the annual protests that used to take place at the School the Americas. Scores of people were arrested at some of them. Were those extreme events? Did they make you fear for your safety? Yet there is no reason to suppose that anything at Notre Dame will approach the level of one of those protests.
Jim, where I would have advised caution is when Randall Terry and company decided to use the invitation and the bishops’ reaction as a basis for “organized” opposition. This recognizes that Randall Terry has a history of using highly confrontational tactics that probably spurred some escalation in the level of violence against abortion clinics. That he is now a Catholic convert means that he will likely use institutional church statements and positions, whether in or out of context, to further his agenda. This is when a bishop starts conferring privately with other bishops and participants to figure out how best to voice opposition while making it clear that they vehemently oppose the furtherance of radical or specifically political agendas.
Of course, the Secret Service will likely get to Terry if he doesn’t pipe down (and I am assuming that has occurred to him as well, as he does seem to have dialed down the volume a bit).
It would be nice to just agree that everyone has passionate feelings and should take a deep breath, etc., but that would overlook a lot of history where passionate feelings gave way to passionate, sometimes violent, action.
The Cardinal Newman Society was all over the place naming names and harassing thinking Catholics when Ex Corde Ecclesia was issued. They are more incendiary than any group within the church. They are the modern day version of militant monks who bishops used to employ to do their dirty work. http://ncronline.org/news/politics/catholic-academic-ayatollah-shows-true-colors
COMMNENT DELETED.
We’ve managed to keep this pretty civil. This comment crossed the line.
Margaret Steinfels
The name Auschwitz is a German word. The town where the invading Germans built and operated their death camp is named Oswiecim. In modern times the name Auschwitc only refers to the remains of the death camp which is maintained as a museum.
The phrase, “Polish soil of Auschwitz” is repugnant to any Polish person. To say that atrocities were “carried out on Polish soil” is to absolve the true perpetrators, the Germans.
Margaret–
So, let me see. You approvingly post a letter that:
1. Claims that anyone who’s purchased a gun recently is thereby a member of a hate group;
2. Implies that if you are pro-life, hence against Obama, you are among “some of the most destructive voices in America”; and
3. Blithely assumes that if you don’t agree with Obama, you hate him.
Yet, when I criticize Mr. O’Brien’s less than mature reaction to people with whom he disagrees politically, THAT is a comment that’s too uncivil to allow to stand.
Do I have that about right?
Okay folks, here is Mr. Proska’s comment which I deleted for being uncivil. Maybe better said, it’s just plain adolescent from the school of gna,gna,gna, and so’s your mother.
Mark Proska: “I have drafted my own letter to Dennis O’Brien, which is below:”
Dear Mr. O’Brien,
Grow up.
Signed,
All-the-people-you’re-fed-up-with-because-they-insist-on-believing-they-live-in-a-democracy-and-won’t-stand-idly-by-so-the-man-you-voted-for-can-do-as-he-pleases-as-if-he-were-a-dictator.”
His post above at 2:07 pm suggests that he may have missed a class or two on reading for meaning.
No, you don’t have it anywhere near right, Mark Proska. “Grow up” is not a criticism. Nor is calling the president a dictator. Your “signature” would find a more appropriate home on a sign at a teabagging party.
Grant–
I don’t know, if somebody said I should grow up, I’d take that as a criticism! If you reread my post carefully, you’ll see that I was not calling the president a dictator. I was implying that his supporters are treating him like one if they will brook no opposition.
Margaret–
Thanks for reconsidering, it’s more than most people would have done.
Ok, back to my “reading for meaning” class now…
MP: You’re very welcome. Really!
And when you’ve passed the test [rereading Dennis O'Brien's letter], please correct your post at 2:07. You may yet attain a better than passing grade.
As if the Nazi analogy weren’t enough, folks are tossing around such wild analogies as the 3rd Republic (the usually reliable Joseph Gannon, in another thread) and Feuerherd, in an article Bill points to above, calls Patrick Reilly both a McCarthy and an Ayatollah.
People are pulling out all the stops in order to demonize people who disagree with them. And all in the name of civility!
FWIW – while I hope that nothing criminal or violent will happen when the President goes to Notre Dame, it does seem that there will be some sort of a protest circus for the media going on in the vicinity. What that will entail, I have no idea, but presumably it won’t be allowed to happen on campus, and so it seems entirely possible that the President won’t actually see any of it!
Who knows, maybe they’ll thrown tea bags onto US 31. Or wave yucky signs in front of the cameras.
Jim P.: These US have a long and treasured tradition of political free speech quite free from the violence we see on the Continent. What therefore gives you the indication that there will be criminal activities or violence associated with these particular protests?
“What therefore gives you the indication that there will be criminal activities or violence associated with these particular protests?”
I don’t have any reason to think there will be any. Sorry if I implied that I did.
There are peaceful ways of breaking the law. For example, Catholic peace protesters used to spatter military equipment with animal blood. But I doubt that anything will even rise to that level around Notre Dame.
I am concerned about a disturbing trend to label any opposition to the current president as motivated by hatred (“As Christians we never endorse hatred but in the statements and stance of many bishops, legitimacy is being lent to hatred.”). The position of the church is that life is sacred, and that abortion is the taking of an innocent life. Since when is taking a principled stand on a fundamental belief lending legitimacy to hatred.
In addition, Mr. O’Brien is projecting his own beliefs onto President Obama – when the evidence is to the contrary. “One may be opposed in general to abortion – I am, I believe that President Obama is also – and yet have compassion in specific cases.” The evidence suggests that Mr. Obama holds views that are beyond that of NARAL when it comes to abortion. As a state senator in Illinois, he spoke out (and voted) against the Induced Infant Liability Act, which would have protected babies that survived late-term abortions. My counterpoint to Mr. O’Brien is that a Catholic institution that provides an honored forum (such as commencement speaker with the conferral of an honorary law degree) lends legitimacy to those anti-Catholic views.
Many thanks to Bernard Dauenhauer (April 26, 7:38 p.m. post) for pointing out the role of geographic jurisdiction in what kind of authority a bishop or pastor tries to enforce. He can actually lose his authority (that is, ability to persuade) by overstating it. The mobility in our current world and the wide spread of communications also highlights the need for care in asserting one’s authority.
This post by Margaret is an important contribution towards common ground. We can all agree that it is legitimate to look back on actions of Church officials during severe social injustices and condemn those actions as possibly collaborating with the injustices. We even agree it’s legitimate to compare today’s injustices to the Jewish Holocaust. We can’t agree on what is an injustice today, or which can be compared to the Holocaust, or what actions collaborate with those injustices. Margaret and Dennis think a parallel can be drawn between anti-semitism/Holocaust and a related boycott, on the one hand, and today’s anti-Obamaism and participation in criticism of Obama. Abortion opponents believe the parallel between anti-semetism and genocide is killing of millions of innocent children, and that the parallel collaboration is in Church officials and Catholics who support the policital perpetrators of those injustices. Let the reader decide which is a more proper parallel, abortion and gas chambers, or criticism of Obama and gas chambers. But at least we can agree that it is legitimate to make these claims.
Jason Drakes: “Margaret and Dennis think a parallel can be drawn between anti-semitism/Holocaust and a related boycott, on the one hand, and today’s anti-Obamaism and participation in criticism of Obama.”
I posted Dennis O’Brien’s letter; I didn’t write it. Ergo, I don’t necessarily think in tandem with the letter. I do think that the rhetorical pitch of some on this post has misconstured the point.
It seems to me that many on this thread have jumped to the Holocaust without stopping along the historical path between Cardinal Hlond’s statement, Polish nationalism, Polist anti-Semitism, and the German Occupation of Poland. Though they converged they didn’t cause one another; perhaps in the end we could say they congealed. They didn’t have to. There would have been no Holocaust in Poland but for the Germans. There would have been anti-Semitism, discrimination against the Jews, and perhaps the death of some Jews at the hands of Polish anti-Semites. The Germans brought the policy, the will, and the technique. We can probably say much the same about French Catholics, German Catholics, etc. Convergence of many factors increased the ease with which the Germans killed.
The point at hand in the U.S. today is a virulent anti-Obama right wing radio (and some Cable News), a spike in gun sales following the election, a declining but chronic racism, a growth in militias, an alliance with Terry Randall and operation rescue.
This is cause for the Catholic hierarchy to think about their rhetoric, their actions, their allies, and those who come to be their allies. Of course, neither Cardinal George, or Bishop D’Archy, or any other bishop look at matters in this way but the possible convergence of many factors should be examined before the fact.
For example. Bishop Finn of Kansas City is quoted in a recent speech (NCR):
“We are at war.
“Harsh as this may sound it is true – but it is not new. This war to which I refer did not begin in just the last several months, although new battles are underway – and they bring an intensity and urgency to our efforts that may rival any time in the past.
“But it is correct to acknowledge that you and I are warriors – members of the Church on earth – often called the Church Militant. Those who have gone ahead of us have already completed their earthly battles. Some make up the Church Triumphant – Saints in heaven who surround and support us still – tremendous allies in the battle for our eternal salvation; and the Church Suffering (souls in purgatory who depend on our prayers and meritorious works and suffrages).”
“But we are the Church on Earth – The Church Militant. We are engaged in a constant warfare with Satan, with the glamour of evil, and the lure of false truths and empty promises. If we fail to realize how constantly these forces work against us, we are more likely to fall, and even chance forfeiting God’s gift of eternal life. The ultimate promise of the Gospel.”
http://ncronline.org/news/faith-parish/kansas-city-bishop-pro-lifers-we-are-war
Don’t we agree then–it is legitimate to look at past church complicity in injustice and compare it to today. You think church contribution to antisemitism, tinged with proximity to the holocaust, is comparable to complicity in anti-Obamaism as an injustice. Abortion opponents think church complicity in favor of Obama is the comparable parallel, related to an injustice with a continuing body count. The disagreement is in what today is injustice, either support for rulers and policies that perpetuate killing millions of innocents is collaboration in injustice comparable to pre-WWII anti-semitism, or opposition to those rulers and policies is today’s comparable injustice. There is agreement on the terms of discourse. There is exact opposite opinion on what is injustice, and between which of the two points of view corresponds to church teaching on whether and how much abortion constitutes injustice.
I think you’ve all missed it (including Margaret). If you would been out there on the blogs or on the receiving end of the chain mails you’d know that the only “hate”, if that, is for Fr. Jenkins of Notre Dame and his cronies. The man is just . . . disobediant.
In my opinion the letter has hit the nail on the head. The Notre Dame situation is no longer about religion it is very much about partisan politics. Even Bishop D’Arcy is being criticized by Randall Terry for not going far enough in halting the Presidents presence.
Notre Dame has become the most recent battle field for elements of the Pro Life Movement trying to re energize itself. Unfortunately these pro life elements are more concerned with partisan politics than they are about Catholic integrity.
Cardinal George is not in the best of health these days. There is a real question among the priests of the Archdiocese about who is in charge. The Cardinal absents himself from many of his duties listening only to those from the far right of the Pro Life Movement. It has gone as far as to have priests in the Archdiocese sign a letter opposing President Obama’s presence as the commencement speaker at Notre Dame in May. This is still in process.
The Cardinal appears to be very concerned about his health.
The letter will most likely not get beyond his handlers, I hope it reaches him. If it does he may have pause for thought.
The Archdiocese these days represents the contents of the letter. There is an climate of fear surrounding the governance of the Archdiocese, and priests are afraid to speak up.
Thanks for the update and the info.