When Being Pro-Life is Somehow Not Enough
If you are following the Notre Dame/Obama flap, you might be tempted to think that being consistently and vocally opposed to legal abortion would protect you from having your invitations to speak at Catholic institutions of higher education criticized by the Catholic Right. You’d be wrong, though. Here’ s an interesting news item from Scranton:
[Scranton Bishop Joseph] Martino issued a statement Friday stating King’s College decision to have [Senator Robert] Casey address the college graduates was insulting to the pro-life community because Casey voted last week to support ex-Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius as Secretary of Health and Human Services.
[Martino's] statement read: “I do not believe he has the moral stature to stand before the graduates of a Catholic college to address them about their futures and the challenges they will face when on the most important issue of the day—the sanctity of human life — he cannot muster the courage to oppose the pro-abortion agenda which is currently being promoted in Washington.”
So, as I understand Martino’s position, consistently opposing legal abortion, both by speaking out on the issue and by opposing specific items of legislation (as Casey has done), is not enough to qualify you to speak at a Catholic college. You must agree with each and every one of the good Bishop’s prudential judgments about exactly how to go about forwarding that agenda. If you do dare to disagree with Bishop Martino about whether opposing a particular nominee to head HHS is the right place to take your stand, you will no longer be deemed to be a person with sufficient moral stature to be fit to address Catholic college students and your invitation will be interpreted as an “insult” to the pro-Life movement. Got it?
I believe the technical canonical term is “super-ultra-remote material cooperation with evil.”
And donations to the Bishop’s Annual Appeal are down, you say? Isn’t that strange.
“Got it?”
Yes, but — sadly — the good bishop doesn’t have it (or much left of it), the “it” in this case being any credibility.
Really, I see guys like Martino ad nauseum continuing to dig themselves deeper into credibility holes of their own making.
I think Benedict is bad enough, but if I’d had a local ordinary like the bishop of Scranton, I’d have left the institutional church years earlier.
To folks in Scranton, I say ignore this bishop and other wingnuts like him.
Hello Eduardo (and All),
If I’m not mistaken, Senator Casey is on record as supportive of embryonic stem cell research (though I do not know in exactly what manner he supports embryonic stem cell research). And I think Senator Casey is Roman Catholic. So I think one could make a case that Bishop Martino has better grounds for opposing Senator Casey’s making a public address at a Catholic institution of higher learning than anyone has for opposing President Obama’s scheduled public address at Notre Dame.
But of course, is not the point you are making here. Bishop Martino could have said that Senator Casey should not appear at King’s College because he is a Roman Catholic who is publicly opposing a particular church teaching on the sanctity of life. But instead, Bishop Martino cites Casey’s vote in favor of the Sebelius nomination, which I find puzzling to say the least.
“consistently opposing legal abortion, both by speaking out on the issue and by opposing specific items of legislation”
Unless “consistently” and “opposing” means often not opposing. In which case it isn’t consistent, as Casey’s is not consistent. Catholics can’t support a variety of anti-life items and claim to still be “consistently” pro-life just because that’s what they verbally call themselves.
As far as I can see, the only person competent to speak at Catholic college graduations in the Scranton diocese would be the good bishop.
Martino was the bishop that interrupted a meeting in a parish hall about voting last fall and said’I.m in charge’.
Forget Martino types; The real problem though is the 250 ‘silent bishops’ who are letting the ‘shout outs’ dominate the media, turning million of Catholics away from the real Catholic values and pro-life seamless garment positions. Bernadin is gone and no-one has stood up and picked up his miter. Acquiesence is defeat by default..
If I’m not mistaken, Senator Casey is on record as supportive of embryonic stem cell research . . .
Peter,
I think you are mistaken. I can find no instance in which Casey has supported stem-cell research and many cases in which he has expressed his opposition or voted in opposition.
But of course, is not the point you are making here. Bishop Martino could have said that Senator Casey should not appear at King’s College because he is a Roman Catholic who is publicly opposing a particular church teaching on the sanctity of life.
I disagree here. Unless the bishop actually can specify how Casey is publicly opposing a particular church teaching, he has no right to say it. It is good he was specific because, in my opinion, he is wrong, and we are able to say why.
Eduardo–
You have shown that Casey talks the talk. Bishop Martino has shown that he does not walk the walk. I’m afraid I have to go with the good bishop on this one. (Unless you’re claiming that the Secretary of HHS is a meaningless position, but in that case, are you insulting the ex-Governor?)
Sorry, but I don’t think it’s a stretch.
“Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, commended the Senate vote.
““We applaud the Senate’s vote to confirm the eminently-qualified Gov. Kathleen Sebelius to serve in this critical position,” Keenan said in a statement. “Anti-choice advocates tried every desperate trick in the book to derail her confirmation, but this vote shows that a majority of senators understand that Americans are tired of the antagonistic politics of the past. As our country faces challenges on a number of fronts, especially on the issue of affordable health care, we look forward to ensuring that women’s health and sound science are a priority, rather than the failed political maneuvering that damaged this agency during the previous Bush administration.”
“Cecile Richards, president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, added in a statement:
““We applaud Gov. Kathleen Sebelius’ confirmation as secretary of health and human services. She is an excellent choice to lead HHS and has a proven track record of increasing access to affordable care. As countless women and their families struggle to afford quality health care during these difficult economic times, the need for health care reform that improves health outcomes is immediate. Her ability to work in a bipartisan fashion will serve her well as the Obama administration and Congress tackle the critical issue of health care reform for American families. We look forward to working with her and the administration to expand access to care and lower health care costs.””
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2009/04/sebelius_needed.html
President Obama really does seem to go out of his way to find Catholics with deplorable records on the sanctity of life (e.g. Biden, Daschle and now Sebelius) and nominate them for key positions. A lot of Catholics are outraged, and they have a right to be.
Before the election, lots of talk about right to life Sen. Casey.
I think Martino is way over the top on this and the “wingnut” classification is spot on, as is the sorrow of the silent fellow Bishops.
I think the flip offs by Jim P. of Biden, Daschle and Sibelius is deplorable -if he was a bishop, he’d probably deny communion or if a Senator, write a Brownback type letter.
This is more and more of the Catholics hating each other, lacking the voice of Vatican moderation(as per Allen). Al ot of Catholics are outraged by Martino, et al.and they have a right to be.
So where is this getting us?
Casey is walking a tightrope as a Senate Democrat with pro-life leanings. The only other Democrat I can think of that is pro-life is Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska and, unlike Casey, Nelson is from a conservative state. I’m not entirely pleased with Casey’s voting record on life issues, but he has a number of positions and votes that can be considered:
–he recently re-introduced the PWSA in the Senate
–he recently voted for protection of conscience rights
–he opposes expansion of destructive embryonic research beyond the Bush policy
–he opposes Roe v. Wade
Casey and Bishop Martino also had a dispute earlier this year about Casey’s failure to vote for legislation that would have reversed President Obama’s reversal of the Bush suspension of the Mexico City policy. Casey’s vote for Sebelius seems to have reignited the bishop’s ire.
While I don’t consider Casey as strong on life issues as I’d like him to be, there are three reasons why I think the bishop is wrong about his commencement speech comments:
1. The invitation was extended before Casey’s vote on Sebelius, but after Casey’s vote on the Mexico City amendment. The bishop didn’t say anything about the invitation at the time it was extended.
2. The bishop states that he is acting pastorally. I’m sure he thinks so, but wouldn’t it have been better if he had approached Casey individually to discuss what he thinks are Casey’s deviations from Catholic belief?
3. Knocking Casey the tightrope walker so hard will do nothing to encourage other Catholic legislators to reassess their political beliefs in light of their religious beliefs.
Should be:
“I’m not entirely pleased with Casey’s voting record on life issues, but he has a number of positions and votes that can be considered pro-life”
Bishop Martino has developed a taste for controversy, I’m afraid, since the national election. He’s been after Sen. Casey for a while now — I think he’d prefer a riper target, frankly, but Casey will do in a pinch. He has also been looking for reasons to go after the Catholic colleges in the diocese recently, so now he can kill two birds with one stone! His MO is to release a statement or a letter publicly and then refuse to comment. He’s also been refusing to meet with the college representatives. “Pastoral” is definitely not the word.
I might agree that it’s a stretch if Sebelius was Sec of Housing or Transportation, but she is responsible for implementing the very regulations that Casey is supposed to be so opposed to. He may support conscience rights, but he just voted in a Secretary who is on record as wanting to limit them to the greatest extent she can using the authority he just voted to give her.
“President Obama really does seem to go out of his way to find Catholics with deplorable records on the sanctity of life.”
Call it payback time for the shameful way he was treated by most of the Catholic hierarchy when running for POTUS. I use the term “most” because the most sheep-like of them kept their mouths shut while their intellectually-challenged verbose few ranted and raved about the arrival of Satan in the White House.
I hope he continues to flat-out ignore the wishes of the Catholic hierarchy in this country. He continues to retain support of most voting Catholics, so let the bishops stew in their own juices.
But I do wish them a very good day …..
Mollie–
I have no reason to believe your harsh characterizations of the Bishop’s intentions, but I do agree he should not refuse to meet with Casey or college representatives, so long as it’s not a publicity stunt.
Has he refused private meetings with college representatives? If so, how did you find out about it?
I don’t believe that the U.S Bishops have the moral stature to speak for me or other Catholics. How about covering up child abuse and being poor stewards of Catholic finances.
Mark, I’m from the lucky diocese of Scranton. The local papers are having a splendid time reporting on all the details.
Mollie–
I’ve read two accounts from Scranton papers and neither one mentioned that Bishop Martino has refused to meet with college representatives. They did say that he has refused requests from the newspapers for interviews, but I have no problem with that.
Here’s what I did find though. The reason Casey gave for voting to confirm Sebelius was that Casey believed it would be irresponsible to leave the HHS Secretary position vacant as the world is fighting the swine flu situation. Is that pathetic or what. I will purchase a one-year subscription to Commonweal (must be new, not a renewal) if someone can come up with a lamer excuse than that within 24 hours.
One of the sad things here is the way Sebelius’ nomination for secretary of HHS has been reduced to the question of “for abortion or against it?” as though the position in its totality is about that question. In this thread both pro-choice and anti-abortion groups have been quoted as commiting this unreasonable reductio.
Plus, not only is Sebelius’ office not centrally concerned with abortion, but even if re-criminalizing abortion were her personal priority, it’d be nearly impossible for her to achieve that goal to “Catholic” standards, given the law of the land. Remember, the Church makes no exceptions when the life of the mother as well as that of the fetus are endangered.
Here is what Archbishop Naumann said about Sebelius’ nomination for HHS Secretary:
“In many important areas Governor Sebelius embraces Catholic social teaching. She has advocated for more affordable housing for the poor, she has worked to expand access to health care for economically disadvantaged children, and she has supported incentives encouraging adoption. Still, for the reasons stated above, her appointment is ill advised.”
http://www.moralaccountability.com/abortion-reduction-debate/archbishop-joseph-f-naumann-on-the-sebelius-nomination/
Hello David (and All),
“I think you are mistaken. I can find no instance in which Casey has supported stem-cell research and many cases in which he has expressed his opposition or voted in opposition.”
I’m glad to be corrected on this point, in part because I admire Sentator Casey. I got my (mis?)information from reading a report about two years ago about a group (whose name I forget) that protested Casey’s speaking in public at the Catholic Universioty of America when he was campaigining for the senate seat he ultimately won. One of this group’s complaints about Casey was his alleged support of embryonic stem cell research – I should not have believed their hearsay.
Mark, I guess I was unclear — I was talking about colleges other than King’s. So this, for example.
I can’t speak to the bishop’s motives. I imagine he thinks he’s providing the leadership the people of the diocese need. I would disagree, but that’s my problem.
Sounds like Martino et alii believe they are in the Middle Ages. Except that they may not behead those who differ with them. They need to get the soldiers back on their side.
So, maybe King’s College could invite Senator Brownback instead. Any bets on the Bishop’s reaction to that?
I believe the technical canonical term is “super-ultra-remote material cooperation with evil.”
You can pretty much sing that term to a tune from Mary Poppins.
Mr. Drakes –
You tell us, “Catholics can’t support a variety of anti-life items and claim to still be “consistently” pro-life just because that’s what they verbally call themselves.”
What is it to non-verbally call oneself a “Catholic”? To call oneself a Catholic by one’s actions? If so, how can the bishops who enabled and covered up the abusers call themselves “Catholic bishops”? Is there some other way to self-identify as a Catholic?
Who gets to decide who is “a Catholic” anyway? As I learned it you’re a Catholic until you’re officially thrown out. If the popes and bishops had been consistent in their teachings throughout history, we might make a case that “a Catholic” is one who subscribes to that consistent body of teachings. But that consistent body doesn’t exist. You can get all sorts of inconsistent positions out of the varying sets of magisteria that have appeared historically and been called “the teaching of the Catholic Church”. Specifically, Pope John Paul II in Splendor Veritas in the section on stem cell research speaks highly ambiguously, even contradictorily.
HOwever, many self-identified Catholics seem to think that his so-called “definitive” statements about stem-cell research have closed the issue. This self-identified Catholic (me) strongly suspects that he didn’t use the term “infallible” because he still had his doubts. (No, I would not call him ” John Paul II the Great.”)
When Vatican II itself (oh, that again) says that Catholics must sometimes disagree with what the Church teaches if it is a matter of conscience, I do not see how you can dispute their self-identification as Catholics.
This whole question of “who is a Catholic” needs airing, Especially by the American bishops.
Bishops and Catholic Universities – there’s “change” in the air!
Ann,
Who’s Catholic? Pick any issue. Like transubtantiation.
For the laity that’s easy, one is not “not Catholic”, one is just mistaken or wrong. Why did you think that Pelosi can get away with teaching what she does?
For the clergy or catholic institutions its a bit dicier. I recall some liberation theologists getting tossed a few years back for saying exactly the same things that were perfectly ok for their lay followers to say.
All this has a lot to do about leadership, about who’s going to hold the baton.
“Let my conscience be your guide, or else,” saith His Lordship.
[Martino’s] statement read: “I do not believe he has the moral stature to stand before the graduates of a Catholic college to address them about their futures and the challenges they will face when on the most important issue of the day—the sanctity of human life — he cannot muster the courage to oppose the pro-abortion agenda which is currently being promoted in Washington.”
The issue is not the sanctity of human life. To say so is to obfuscate. Whether criminalization of abortion is feasible is an issue. Whether it would be the most effective way to minimize the number of abortions is another. In both instances a prudential judgment is called for. Martino apparently thinks that his judgment overrides everyone else’s. Not everyone will agree.
I remember when there was almost universal approval — including among Catholics — of John F. Kennedy saying, as a candidate for president:
And now we have a bishop telling a United States Senator whom he may or may not vote to confirm as Secretary of Health and Human Services.
David,
Cardinal George has already repudiated that statement from JFK, calling it a renunciation of his Catholicism. I am not surprised that some of those who heard him should adopt that opinion as well. (he was addressing the US bishops conference)
As Abp Naumann’s remarks make clear, there is plenty of room for a difference in “prudential judgment” on the appointment of Secretary Sebelius. I am not sure why his comment would be taken in any other way.
But then, I do not see why the support of NARAL or Planned Parenthood means Sebelius is a bad choice. Supporting “affordable health care” and having an “ability to work in a bipartisan fashion” just do not seem like objectionable position, no matter who says it.
Of course, who says it is entirely the point. It is entirely a political issue, based on partisanship rather than on principle. We are to discover what is right by seeing who supports and who is opposed, not by considering the issues and making our own judgments. Universities are the prime targets for this kind of partisanship, since most teach principles of forming one’s own opinions.
Mr. Carl –’
What you say reminds me of Bertrand Russell’s old observationf. “I am firm, you are stubborn, he is pig-headed”. In the case of the bishops, their attitude is — the laity is mistaken, the lay leaders are dangerous, the theologians are heretics. I’ll grant you that conspicuous Catholics have a duty to say when they are departing from an official teaching of the Church and must not do so without thorough study and prayer. But that does not mean that we, and the theologians, should never do so.
“Who gets to decide who is “a Catholic” anyway? As I learned it you’re a Catholic until you’re officially thrown out. ”
The Catholic Church is a relatively ordered organization – at least in theory – and there is a relatively straightforward answer to your question, Ann: it’s a matter of agreement bettween the person and his bishop.
This is manifested in a practical way, for example, by the granting and revoking of sacramental faculties to the clergy.
Getting in to the church is easier than getting out. For example, excommunication, or banning from communion, don’t expel a person from the church; they are forms of discipline imposed on someone who is still within the church (with the goal, at least theoretically, of helping the discipined person reestablish full communion in the church).
I can leave the church by making it clear, through my words and actions, that I am no longer a member. In some instances, a bishop may publicly state that a person has left the church, if it seems that there is confusion about it. For example, there has been a case recently of an Episcopal priest who has become a Muslim. Apparently she thought she could be both a Christian and a Muslim simultaneously; I believe her bishop has disabused her of the notion.
FWIW – my own personal criterion for what Ithink of Catholic politicians is whether or not they seem to be trying to live according to the faith. A long track record of legislative votes and campaign speeches in favor of abortion leads me to the (personal) conclusion that at some point they stopped even trying. That is, IMHO, a serious breach in communion.
Mr. Pauwels, in the interest of “muddying the waters” a bit, I formally left the Church of Rome in December 2006 for reasons I shared in writing at the time with my former pastor. I noted that while I had decided to leave the church, I was not renouncing my Catholic faith.
I still consider myself “a Catholic” by faith, just not by affiliation with the Church of Rome. For now, I am an unchurched Catholic. Although I don’t anticipate joining another denomination, I cannot rule out possibly affiliating with an alternative Catholic community that accepts women’s ordination and gay marriage. Although I condemn abortion, I’m prepared to leave judgment to God in genuine cases of rape, incest, and life of the mother.
Excommunication — at least in terms of any practical repercussions — seems to be an outdated concept. While some bishops are prepared to throw down the gauntlet, their targets likely hold positions on issues shared by many members of the flock who continue to go to Mass, serve the church in various ways, and contribute to the offertory collection. The word ‘scandal’ seems to be overused. Indeed, one is reminded of the passage from Ecclesiastes that “there is nothing new under the sun.” Bishops telling their people that certain topics are off-limits for discussion (e.g., women’s ordination) seem to be ignoring Vatican II’s teaching about the “sense of the faithful,” the idea that the Spirit is always at work among the People of God who — as a whole (if I recall) — cannot be in error in matters of faith.
Jim Pauwels –
From what you say it seems that the only way for a bishop to get rid of you is to burn you at the stake. Interesting.
Joseph Jaglowica –
You raise some interesting questions. What is it to be ‘affiliated with” the Catholic Church as distinguished from “being a Catholic”?
I suppose my own basic question, given Vatican II and its sayings concerning the sense of the faithful and concerning conscience, is: who speaks for the Church? Sure, the Pope and ibshops have to say what they oconsider to be the authentic thinking of the Lord, and their sayings can’t be discounted lightly. But I don’t see how we can ever be totally sure, first, that we have interpreted what they are saying correctly, and, second, neither can we ever be totally sure that what they say is exacgly true, of even true at all. In other words adherence to “the faith” takes a lot of belief, not only in the message but in the messengers, and we are often wrong about both. (Sorry, Nancy, that the way I see it.))
Regarding excommunication, I shared my thoughts on this subject a few months ago with a fellow blogger et al in an e-mail. I framed discussion around Roy Bourgeois’ participation at a female ordination and the reaction from Rome. FWIMBW, I offer it here:
What are the roles of the person excommunicated, of the community itself, and of the bishop/pope in the process?
According to Catholic teaching, a person excommunicates himself from the church community, and the bishop/pope merely acknowledges such act by formal pronouncement. Of course, not all de facto excommunications (as distinguished by, for example, a formal notification in writing to one’s bishop of a decision to leave the church) are even known by the community, much less known or formally acknowledged by a bishop or pope.
However, what is the person’s de facto (vs de jure) membership status if the members of the community disagree among themselves — or with bishop/pope — about the matter? What if the “target” of the excommunication decree disagrees with her bishop/pope about her status vis-a-vis the church and, in fact, is still accepted by the local community as a member? Given the example of Jesus who excluded no one from his message, is excommunication — its ecclesial history notwithstanding — any longer a legitimate or even realistic/workable/viable application in a strife-torn community such as the Church of Rome? In short, does a papal/episcopal pronouncement of excommunication carry any actual and legitimate weight today — when the apparent “sense of the faithful” disagrees with official teaching on issues such as gay marriage and women’s ordination?
I would contend that except for knowing and willing heinous actions that bring discredit upon a member’s community (holocaust, genocide, etc.), excommunication for disagreement with official teaching is no longer a viable, realistic, or appropriate option, especially when the person’s action/thinking is shared by a growing number (maybe the great majority?) of fellow community members.
Ann, you make a good point by noting that “adherence to ‘the faith’ takes a lot of belief, not only in the message but in the messengers.” With respect to the latter, I see Benedict trying to preserve a monarchical, control-oriented papacy and bishops like Martino, Burke, et al doing their level best to frustrate the work of the Spirit among the People of God. These guys are desperate to keep in place a way of doing things that can just about guarantee institutional death. But perhaps we need death to bring about new life for the church.
You people don’t know how dysfunctional this Scranton diocese is. The noise about who is absolutely Catholic enough to speak bounces around like a pointer from college to college; meanwhile, the church here is being ripped apart by the bishop. The Bishop talks to no one: not priests, not college presidents, not laity. He issues his broadsides through press releases to the newspapers and refuses to listen to, or privately speak with, those with whom he has disagreed.
The two of us were baptized, received First Communion and were married all in the same parish church. We’re loyal to the parish, but we are thinking of looking at another denomination that’s more stable than this one.
Jan — I too received all my sacraments in the same parish, also in the diocese of Scranton. So, if I may: Please don’t leave! Bishops come and go, but as your experience demonstrates, there’s stability in the sacraments and the parish community. The Church needs you!