Can the Bishops Win This Battle?

This past September, Archbishop Timothy Dolan, President of the USCCB, sent President Obama a letter that was long overdue. “I write with a growing sense of urgency about recent actions taken by your Administration that both escalate the threat to marriage and imperil the religious freedom of those who promote and defend marriage,” the archbishop wrote. “The Justice Department’s [attack on the Defense of Marriage Act], in addition to other troubling federal decisions occurring recently, prompts me yet again to register my grave concerns.”

Archbishop Dolan’s public overture represents a significant departure from the path of his predecessors. Only yesterday, Archbishop Wilton Gregory was hailing Obama’s election as “a great step forward for humanity.” And Abp. Gregory was not alone: countless Catholic bishops applauded Obama’s victory as the harbinger of another victory they had long sought — government-run “health care for all.” How bitter were the tears that fell after they were betrayed.

The long history of the close relationship between the Catholic bishops and the Democrat Party has been going on for a hundred years. In 1916, James Cardinal Gibbons, Archbishop of Baltimore and Primate of the American hierarchy, feared that Catholics would be regarded as unpatriotic if they opposed U.S. entry into the European War. So Gibbons assured President Woodrow Wilson that Catholics would proudly serve in World War I (they did), and that America’s Catholic bishops would not oppose U.S. entry into it (they did not).

My father was in graduate school at Catholic University in 1916. A Democrat and leader of “Catholics for Wilson,” he led the cheers outside the headquarters of the Democrat National Committee on election night: “We want Wilson, One time more, We want peace, We don’t want war,” they chanted. Within a month, Cardinal Gibbons set my father straight when they met outside the Post Office one snowy day on campus: “Don’t worry about the war,” the prelate told the youngest graduate student on campus. “You’ve got to have Great Expectations. Don’t you know your Dickens?” Three months later, dad was in the Army.

This historic decision did not come not easily. Pope Benedict XV had assigned Gibbons the task of enlisting Wilson in the pope’s efforts to bring the European war to an early end. It was not to be.Once the war was under way, Gibbons established the National Catholic War Council (NCWC) to aid American Catholics serving in the wars. In 1919, the NCWC became the National Catholic Welfare Council, later the “Conference,” and today, the USCCB.

 

The Right Reverend New Dealer

The conference has seldom strayed from its alliance with the Democrat Party. During the Roosevelt years, its most famous leader was known as “The Right Reverend New Dealer.” (e.g., “If the Republicans elect their candidate for the presidency in 1944 . . . the most important gains of labor would all be swept away within six months. . . . So long, however, as the present occupant of the White House remains there, no fears need be entertained for the cause of labor or the cause of social justice.” Monsignor John A. Ryan, the Statler Hotel in Cleveland, Ohio, January 1943).

That relationship continued to with the advent of Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society. Since the 1960s, the USCCB, Catholic Charities, Catholic hospitals, and Catholic higher education have received tens of billions of dollars in taxpayer funding. Cardinal Joseph Bernardin put the USCC (now the USCCB) on liberal cruise-control, joining with Democrats to advocate a myriad of social welfare programs, all the while receiving increasingly generous outlays of federal funding.

However, it has not been all sweetness and light, and Archbishop Dolan’s recent “grave concerns” did not arise in a vacuum. The bishops’ exultation of 2008 was abruptly punctured by the passage of Obamacare, when they were betrayed, profoundly so, by the party that they had so long supported. But the horse was out of the barn, and with it escaped any hopes that Obama would be the “reasonable” president seeking “common ground” who was hailed as a hero at Notre Dame’s 2009 commencement. Today Obama, and his Democrats represent a dagger aimed at the heart of the Catholic Church in America.

To the layman’s eye, Archbishop Dolan’s election last year as USCCB president reflects a sense among our bishops that some changes might be desirable. But last January, following the lead of his predecessors in years past, Abp. Dolan joined several other bishops in sending members of Congress a legislative “agenda” for the new Republican Congress which, as usual, advocated more government spending.

 

Rep. Paul Ryan, A Faithful Catholic Layman

But legislation introduced by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, a Catholic, had taken a different approach. In an April 27 letter to Abp. Dolan, Ryan wrote that “The Church normally and rightly refrains from pronouncing directly on specific legislation—the subject of prudence about which there is a legitimate diversity of choice and judgment—but properly brings to light the moral principles that inform legislative deliberation.”

Eyebrows rose all over town. For years, the USCCB, with little opposition, had promoted its agenda as the “Catholic” position, an approach which opportunistic Democrats have appreciated for two reasons: first, the USCCB’s liberal agenda harmonizes with their own. Regarding the only exception – the life issues – well, pro-abort Catholic Democrats on Capitol Hill carry the bishops’ water regarding health and welfare programs, higher education funding, and support of Catholic Charities USA. Hence so far their bishops will not resort to Canon 915 regarding their support for abortion rights.

Back to Rep. Ryan’s letter: “I offer this letter to provide facts about our Budget to help advance an informed debate in light of social teachings about the well-being of the family, subsidiarity, the preferential option for the poor, and the dignity of the human person.” That statement, which simply reiterates basic Catholic social principles, rings with a tone of authority that bishops do not often hear from a mere layman who does not share their personal, prudential political views.

Rep. Ryan’s letter went on to detail the crisis confronting congress, explaining that “the House Budget’s overarching concern is to control and end the mortal threat of exploding debt.” If the budget is not brought under control, he wrote, “ultimately the weakest will be hit three times over: by rising costs, by drastic cuts to programs they rely on, and by the collapse of individual support for charities that help the hungry, the homeless, the sick, refugees and others in need.”

It is not often that congressmen write such letters. Alas, most Capitol Hill offices ignore mail from outside their district, even if it’s signed by a bishop. But an unfortunate feature emerges from the USCCB bureaucracy’s steady stream of political advocacy: the bishops’ truly authoritative voice on magisterial truths (condemning the objective evils of abortion, contraception, and homosexual acts, for example) tends to be drowned out, and ultimately ignored — until, suddenly, Archbishop Dolan realizes that marriage, family, and life itself are under attack by the USCCB’s former allies.

In a courteous reply to Ryan, Abp. Dolan chose not to attack the Republican budget as the mean-spirited product of callous racists and selfish millionaires. He acknowledged the principles that Ryan and he shared in common, observing that “within the given parameters of such principles, people of good will might offer and emphasize various policy proposals that reflect their experience and expertise.” He then went on to affirm that “we bishops are very conscious that we are pastors, never politicians. As the Second Vatican Council reminds us, it is the lay faithful who have the specific charism of political leadership and decision (Lumen Gentium, 31; Apostolica Actuositatem 13).”

To dispel the confusion, should the USCCB perhaps append “Truth in Teaching” labels to each of its political recommendations? “These views reflect objective, magisterial truths to which all laity must assent”? Or, “These views represent the thoughtful prudential views of USCCB members, but Catholics are free to disagree”?

 

So I Wrote to Bishop Hubbard

That was in May. In August, I noticed that Bishop Howard Hubbard of Albany, Chairman of the USCCB Committee on International Justice and Peace, had written to members of the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction on Capitol Hill. “It would be wrong to balance future budgets by hurting those who already hurt the most by cutting programs such as foreign aid, affordable housing programs, child nutrition, or health care,” he wrote.

I mentioned Bishop Hubbard’s letter to a friend of mine, a priest who is a canon lawyer. He told me that yes, the laity owe obedience to such teachings. Inspired, perhaps, by Archbishop Dolan, I wrote Bishop Hubbard directly:

Your Excellency, I worked for many years on Capitol Hill, specifically on foreign aid legislation. Many Catholics, on Capitol Hill and elsewhere, disagree with your particular prudential views. Nonetheless, speaking for the USCCB, you endorse specific legislative particulars on which good Catholics disagree in the name of Holy Mother Church. In your words, “it would be wrong” to oppose your views.

My question, then, is this: does your public advocacy of such specific legislation constitute a teaching of the “authentic magisterium of their bishops,” like Humanae Vitae, to which the “faithful are bound to adhere with religious submission of mind” (Canon 753; Lumen Gentium 25)? Is a Catholic of good will bound by Canon Law “to adhere with religious submission of mind” to your prudential political views?

Bishop Hubbard responded with a gracious and helpful reply. The USCCB offers “moral guidance on the general direction of proposed legislation” because “the Church is concerned with the temporal aspects of the common good….” (CCC 2420). “The role of the state,” he wrote, “is to promote the common good of all,” and “political authorities are obliged to respect the fundamental rights of the human person… especially of families and the disadvantaged.” (CCC 2237)

In closing, Bishop Hubbard observed that “of course, it is possible for people of good will to disagree over how precisely to protect the rights and welfare of poor and vulnerable people, but the obligation to do so is without questions. Sadly, this question is not a major element of the national debate on deficit reduction.”

 

The Fight Will Come to Us

It is sad indeed that many critics of federal spending do not focus on the question Bishop Hubbard stresses. After all, scholars like Patrick Fagan of the Family Research Council have provided ample proof that many welfare programs hurt the poor more than they help. In fact, such programs are destructive to the family, they encourage promiscuity and illegitimacy, and they perpetuate poverty across the generations and even cause higher crime rates and lower academic performance among recipients. Why do advocates of budget cuts fear that referring to such studies will paint them as heartless, when the opposite is true?

On matters of principle and prudence, good Catholics can disagree: on principle, should the state promote the common good of all, or provide it? Applying Catholic social principles, which approach will help the poor in foreign lands more –  supporting the annual $500 million “family planning” component of U.S. foreign aid that aims to reduce the population of Third World countries, (including $65 million that goes for abortion)? Or opposing it?

In his speech to the USCCB plenary session last week, Archbishop Dolan confronted not a prudential squabble but a frontal attack on Catholic truths themselves, an attack sustained not only by the government, but by the cultural swill in which it swims. While respecting the laity’s rights regarding political prudence, His letter, and Bishop Hubbard’s, also challenge the laity. How should we respond?

In no way should we ask bishops to support our particular prudential views on political issues instead of theirs. Quite the contrary: in the war on Catholic truth now under way, we need to encourage our bishops in their teaching of the magisterial truths that unite not only all Catholics, but all humanity. Today, the pagan attacks –  many of them bipartisan, by the way –-  focus on a single goal: the destruction of Humanae Vitae. When our priests and bishops preach those hard teachings, we should thank them and encourage them, instead of standing up and walking out in the middle of a sermon or assailing the homilist after Mass. We might then prayerfully and respectfully urge our bishops to enforce Canon 915 regarding the reception of the Eucharist by those engaged in manifest public sin.

When that day comes –  and it will –  our bishops will be attacked like never before. A few years ago, pro-abortion Catholic Patrick Leahy provided a preview of how he would react. Leahy, the chairman, superbia vitae, of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, was asked by a Capitol Hill reporter about Pope Benedict’s approval of the exclusion of some pro-abortion politicians from reception of the Eucharist. In a response that has somehow escaped widespread attention, Leahy took dead aim: “I’ve always thought that those bishops and archbishops who for decades hid pederasts should be indicted,” he responded.

Behold the possible near future: while Leahy exercises his subpoena power, the government will shut the water off to Catholic programs that help the poor. Kathleen Sebelius, whose bishop has already advised her not to receive the Eucharist, has already taken the lead in that pogrom. Catholic Charities, which receives billions in government support every year, will suffer tremendously. And many bishops who publicly oppose single-sex marriage and fear harassment from the IRS will get it.

In fact, the time will come when the bishops will have to decide whether unilaterally to renounce the Church’s tax-exempt status before it is revoked. In recent years, the laity, confronted with the left-leaning excesses of the USCCB and the CCHD, has all too often been to say, “I gave at the office – last April 15th.” Those days will soon be over. We will have to give of our substance.

Before long, the laity will have to arise as never before to exercise the Church’s Corporal and Spiritual Works of Mercy, because the government won’t be funding them any more. Archbishop Dolan and Bishop Hubbard have affirmed not only our rights as laymen, but also our duties. If we, as laymen, urge our bishops to confront head-on the attacks of the Culture of Death with all the tools at their disposal, we must shoulder our growing share of the burden. In a world that Blessed John Paul II saw as “transformed by the incessant spread of religious indifference, secularization and atheism,” the laity and the bishops should be firmly united in mutual respect as we endeavor to pursue the Church’s mission to “restore all things in Christ.”

Christopher Manion

By

Christopher Manion served as a staff director on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for many years. He has taught in the departments of politics, religion, and international relations at Boston University, the Catholic University of America, and Christendom College, and is the director of the Campaign for Humanae Vitae™, a project of the Bellarmine Forum Foundation. He is a Knight of Malta.

  • sarto

    Ahh, how the Right loves to call the Church’s social teaching “prudential,” a weasel word for easily dismissed and ignored.

    But then, I consider the Church’s obsession with the bedroom issues to be equally prudential. As I told my young relative about to marry a lovely Catholic girl–you will be going to Engaged Encounter, which is a great thing. I have presented at several enganged encounters. But when the discussion comes to birth control, you are going to hear about Humanae Vitae, and you will hear a lot about Natural Family Planning. Now I know you both: You are thoughtful and prayerful and you are accepting your marriage as your way to live your Baptism. You arenot afraid of the cross and understand that your crosses will come. You will be living your sacrament, which is not the sacrament of any priest or pope. Within that sacrament you will be praying to hear the voice of the HolySpirit. You will also be listening to the voice of the Church. And you will maybe talk to other wise people. But when it comes to considering whether to have another child, pray, listen to God and to each other, do not try to run away from the Cross. And make up your own mind about what you will do. After faithfully, prayerfully listening, follow your conscience.

    • Jon

      My wife and I used contraception for much of our marriage. As Protestants, we didn’t think anything of it, because everyone did it.

      Around the time of the birth of our first child, we gained Catholic friends at work, and started to learn about this thing called NFP. A change in our marriage started first as an unwillingness to give birth control chemicals to our nursing daughter. With a new appreciation of the miracle of conception, we gained an unwillingness to risk an abortion through the use of the pill, the IUD or other devices. We started to learn about fertility, but we still used barrier methods at times. To me, it didn’t “feel” right at so many levels, but most of all we had a sense that we were injuring this special time together.

      And about 8 months ago, after the birth of our son, we together came to a new realization, that the marriage embrace was meant to be holy. It didn’t involve just 2 people, but also God. Our thought was that we should come together in His presence, in the way our creator made us to do so, in an act that may or may not bring a new child into the world.

      So we have practiced NFP, and it has been huge for us. Our marriage has grown much closer. We became more giving and less selfish. We gained a holy desire and expectation and joy for the marriage embrace unlike anything we had experienced before. We gained a desire for more children, and yet the grace to periodically abstain until our son finishes nursing.

      The Church’s teaching on sexuality is powerful for a marriage.

      This, among many things, helped my wife and I make the decision to seek full communion with the Catholic Church.

    • Cord Hamrick

      Sarto:

      Since as a matter of fact leftists policies hurt the poor most of all, I suppose it truly is obligatory, not merely prudential, for Catholics to vote against leftists, in support of the preferential option for the poor.

      Thanks for raising that point; for unless I were voting for a pro-life leftist against a pro-choice free-marketer, I truly do not know how I could look my poorer neighbors in the face were I to vote for a leftist.

      So it is obligatory to assist the poor through free market reforms. But if this is obligatory, then how much more obligatory must it be, to support a teaching which is…

      (a.) far more clearly within the charism of the Magisterium (that is to say, dealing with faith and morals and uncluttered by matters of economics or politics or science); and,

      (b.) taught far more consistently through instruments of far greater magisterial authority, to the point that it is very difficult, while retaining intellectual consistency, to assert any way in which they cannot be regarded infallible?

      For of course all the encyclicals of the social teaching make a point of admonishing us to act in a fashion which helps the poor, but firmly avoid prescribing particular policies and systems to achieve that end. They specify intent, and leave a wide spectrum of possibilities as to how that intent may be achieved.

      But the teachings on contraception and abortion are not like that. It is anything but a discussion of mere intent. Instead, they say, bluntly: Do this particular act, and you endanger your soul.

      Presumably this teaching is correct, right?

      Or is the Church incorrect?

      Is the idea of Magisterial infallibility false, Sarto?

      Or is there some limitation, of which I am unaware, which places the manner and instruments with which the Church has taught against artificial contraception into a different (non-infallible) category?

      If this is the case, I’d like to know about it.

      • John Zmirak

        Cord, I believe that the teaching on contraception is binding and authoritative, but I have nowhere seen it presented that the encyclicals which taught or which later re-affirmed it were exercises of the extraordinary magisterium. Arguments that the condemnation of contraception are infallible hinge on the meaning of the ordinary magisterium, whose extent and nature are still under discussion. Pope Paul presented HV as an authoritative interpretation of natural law–that is, of reliable human reasoning, based on the code that God wrote in the human heart. If HV had been an ex cathedra statement, there wouldn’t have been nearly the tangled controversy in subsequent years. But as Cardinal Ratzinger wrote some years back, using the extraordinary magisterium to teach natural law would seem to undermine the very essence of natural law… that it is accessible to all rational men of good will.

        • Bill Bannon

          John,
          Correct. Humanae Vitae was introduced twice at its press conference as non infallible by Monseignor Lambrushini and were he speaking on his own, the Pope would have had to correct him in
          subsequent days in public …the way the statement was made in public.
          It was held by some to be infallible by way of universal ordinary magisterium ( Germain Grisez, Fr. Ford et al) and it was held not to be so ( Karl Rahner, Bernard Haring et al) and a small number held HV to be infallible ( Ermenigildo Lio, Brian Harrison).
          I personally think it needs ex cathedra because
          ex cathedra unlike UOM….stops the debate. Until then, it will drift as it is drifting while Popes go about other things and address it rarely compared to the dissent level. Ex cathedra according to Vat.II requires painstaking review of the tradition and no Pope yet seems to want to do that whatever their reasons ( see last paragraph of LG25).

          • Bill Bannon

            John ps…St. Alphonsus Ligouri in his tome on moral theology actually addressed the fact that natural law is only evident in simple areas and not in complex ones and he referred to saints taking opposite positions on some areas….I suspect he meant usury, slavery etc. or the Dominican/ Franciscan versus Jesuit fight on the Chinese ancestral rituals.

        • Howard Kainz

          Pope Paul VI discussed natural law arguments against contraception, but his main argument is in the moral theology range. He writes in Humanae vitae, “To dominate instinct by means of one’s reason and free will undoubtedly require ascetical practices, so that the affective manifestations of conjugal life may observe the correct order, in particular with regard to the observance of periodic continence.” He is going beyond discussions of right and wrong here to provide insight about the soul’s spiritual progress.

    • Lucy

      Sarto,

      Thank you!!!! I could not agree more. Quote: “You will be living your sacrament, which is not the sacrament of any priest or pope.”

      We in my family live by that creed. We have mass in our living room every Sunday because we don’t need any priest or pope. I act as Priest!

      As far as the social teaching goes the Church is not going to be in my bedroom, or my pocketbook either.
      All these teachings from the popes and priests about helping the poor is just throwing good money after bad.

      Yes, it is good to be my own pope and priest.

      • Deacon Ed Peitler

        I hope someday you return to the Catholic Church

      • Cord Hamrick

        Deacon Ed:

        Your expressed hope for Lucy is salutary, provided that her note is sincere. But the impression I received while reading that note is that the note was satirical.

        I mean, here we have a response to Sarto whose note suggested he was telling the faithful ways they could be disobedient to the Church’s teaching. A clumsy, hamhanded, and literal reply to this, such as I might reflexively write, might include references to millstones.

        But it looks to me as if “Lucy” took a different approach: Following Sarto’s thinking to its logical end and then describing that end with ironical enthusiasm.

        Here we have a woman saying, “I act as Priest!” …as if she didn’t know what a ruckus that would cause.

        Next, because Sarto’s own spin on Catholicism seems to focus largely on achieving social justice through government compulsion (as if there weren’t far better ways), “Lucy” hoists him on his own petard, saying, “As far as the social teaching goes the Church is not going to be in my bedroom, or my pocketbook either. All these teachings from the popes and priests about helping the poor is just throwing good money after bad.”

        And as if that weren’t over-the-top enough, “Lucy” very nearly quotes Mel Brooks, declaring, “Yes, it is good to be my own pope and priest.”

        It’s so perfectly over-the-top I wouldn’t be surprised if it were Mark Shea writing it. But whoever wrote it, it’s still just a recipe for serving up Irish children “stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled.”

  • Michael PS

    Am I alone in finding an eerie similarity between the “Truce of 1968, in which the Church declined to discipline dissenters from Humanae Vitae ” and the “Peace of Clement IX” during the Jansenist controversy?

    In both cases, after the Church had been riven by a decade-long dispute, a papal document was issued that was intended to be definitive.

    In both cases, the original quarrel was immediately forgotten and argument raged over the scope of papal authority to decide the question. In The Jansenist case, peace, of a sort, was achieved, when Pope Clement IX brokered an agreement that neither side would argue the question, at least, from the pulpit.

    The “Peace of Clement IX” lasted for about 35 years and ended in 1705 when Clement XI declared the clergy could no longer hide behind “respectful silence.” Eventually, in 1713, he issued Unigenitus and demanded the subscription of the clergy to it. There was enormous resistance, with bishops and priests appealing to a future Council (and being excommunicated for their pains, in 1718). As late as 1756, dissenters were still being denied the Last Rites.

    Will the “Truce of 1968” end in a similar fashion?

  • Bill Bannon

    The essay lost me when it suddenly saw a widespread attack on Humanae Vitae among politicians. According to the USCCB, 96% of Catholics dissent from Humanae Vitae so why would non Catholic pols even have it on their consciousness since few are following it.
    “Evangelium Vitae” is the encyclical that infallibly (not simply definitively) condemns abortion in section 62 in a brand new manner of exercising infallibility by polling all Bishops world wide by mail and email rather than through a physical Council and then using a shortened modified form of the ex cathedra wording. I would think that is the encyclical secular pols would worry about but even there….why worry…if Catholic pols vote pro choice often?
    I liked the first history part of the essay but to think that non Catholics plot and worry in respect to ignored encyclicals is odd and seems out of touch with reality. It’s as though the author wishes non Catholics were reading encyclicals so strongly, that he is now imagining it. He ought to find out first if Catholics are reading encyclicals…and proceed from there.

    • Rebecca

      Bill is right. Most non-Catholics aren’t even aware of the existance of encyclicals.

  • pammie

    What a wonderful way to start out this Thanksgiving week– a Christopher Manion piece in “Crisis Magazine”.

    We as Catholics are supposed to be the salt of the earth. And to do so we must follow as nearly as possible the Faith handed down from the Apostles. To do otherwise is to lose our purpose, our flavour, our real influence in this world. Unfortunately we live in a time where a majority of our clergy are full of more psychobabble than plain talk. I do long for those days when one could make heads and tails of it all without a M.Div behind one’s name .

  • Deacon Ed Peitler

    #1 When the house of cards called the federal government comes tumbling down and the wherewithal to assist the poor is non-existent, we can place some of the blame on big-government, liberal bishops who have habitually been in the pocket of the Democrat Party.

    #2 Reading Bonhoffer for the first time, I conclude that it would be wise for the bishops collectively to read him too – for his ecclesiology. Bonhoffer, because his primary identity was in Christ, went to the gallows because he sought to undo the evil totalitarian government of his day. Will any of our bishops be so willing in defense of Christ and his Church? Tell me which bishops will be in the back of the line in offering his life for Christ?

    #3 It is high time that ALL Church entities get out of bed with the government. It would be charitable to say that at best the government is amoral. But noting 50 million dead babies in the past 45 years, immoral would be better suited. What is so different between the Nazi’s annihilation of 6 million people and the US government’s support of the death of 50 million? Only 44 million! It’s high time that we severed our relationship with Satan instead of endorsing his politics.

    • Nick Palmer

      Deacon Ed, I always appreciate your thoughtful and orthodox commentary. It helps crystalize key issues for me when I lack the training or reading to get there myself.

      Question, if I may, and it relates also to some comments in Mr. Manion’s article. The Church teaches that homosexual acts are proscribed. Recently, a journalist in Boston’s Catholic paper, The Pilot, wrote that homosexual urges are somehow connected to Satan. He was roundly excoriated and issued a somewhat circumspect apology. Was he wrong to do so? Was his initial commentary, in fact, correct?

      • Phil

        I think you will find your answer here:

        Go to, or make your Home page, http://www.mycatholic.com

        Under Catholic World News, click on:

        Boston: Cardinal Stands by Editor Who Printed Column on Homosexualilty

      • Deacon Ed Peitler

        Homesexual urges are not in themselves sinful because they are the result of our human nature disordered as a result of original sin, since ‘in the beginning it was not so.’ So, yes, homosexual acts are gravely sinful since they violate scripture, as well as the natural law. Homosexual lustful urges are in sinful but can be the occasions of sin if they are not countered with virtue.

        • Deacon Ed Peitler

          I meant to write” “Homosexual lustful urges are NOT in themselves sinful but can be the occasions of sin if they are not countered with virtue.”

  • sibyl

    Interesting discussion. I’d like to answer the question raised in the headline, though — can the bishops win this fight? And my answer is, no. This battle is already lost because we have almost completely lost the sacramental view of marriage.

    It’s not just that people have to be told what a sacrament is and how important it is to be faithful to vows; it’s that people don’t even have a sense of sin anymore, so that broken vows become embarrassing and depressing, but not reasons to fear for one’s immortal soul.

    I really believe that the bishops have a much more fundamental job before them: to realize that they are dealing with huge numbers of spiritually illiterate people, even those that went through the Catholic schools and were raised in Catholic homes. Catechesis, certainly. But at an even more basic level, to begin to waken people from the properity-induced slumber of American life, to see that the spiritual world is a real world, and that what you do there really matters as much as what you do in the material.

    This is, in my opinion, why so many Catholics seem so at ease with the liberal/radical agenda. The words sound so good, and the overt claims sound so nice, and God’s law just doesn’t seem as real as the political voices that want “change”, with all its phantom promises.

  • A R Kearney

    I do not know how Paul Ryan, a follower of Ayn Rand, can be considered a good Catholic.

    • Kevin

      Paul Ryan also voted for ENDA, which would make gay rights an imperative of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and all sorts of other government branches.

  • Deacon Patrick Mongan, MD

    Our Church history is replete with examples, both good and bad, to guide us in our relationship with the “World” (Mk. 12:17, John 17:16, 18:37; Rom. 12:2). The constant tension between transforming the World (Our Mission) and the deforming of the Church by the World has been present from the very beginning of the Church as evidenced in the Epistles. How the Holy Spirit was guiding that history only God knows, but we know in faith that the Church was guided even tho at times we did not seem to listen. With the loss of the Papal estates the Church could more easily proclaim the Gospel with less corrupting influences by the involvement in “politics”. Yet our Bishops seemed to forget these lessons and were too cozy with politicians with Boston as perhaps the “poster child” for these errors (read “The Faithful Departed”). Yes, it is a legacy that will be difficult to extricate ourselves from, but with God possible, and it will happen!!! Did the Church make a serious error in ever expecting the “government” (esp. federal) to aid in the “corporal works of mercy”?

  • Stilbelieve

    Can the bishops win? Of coarse they can – they hold all the cards. They talk to their flocks every week. All they have to do is inform their congregations of the damage this Administration is doing to the mission of the Church and to couple that with teaching of intrinsic evil. Then hold up their Profession of Faith and the Lord’s Prayer as mirrors and ask them to look at themselves in it to see if they really believe what they say they believe and pray for. Remind them that each of us will have an accounting before Jesus and will He be able to say, “Christ truly reigned over our heart?” At that moment will we hear these words, “Come you who are blessed of my Father and inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world?”

    At that point, announce that volunteers will be outside church helping people who want to for spiritual reasons remove their names from the political organization that is attacking the mission of the Church in the world and is diabolically opposed to what they say they profess to believe and pray for. When tens of millions of Catholics remove their names from the Democrat Registration Rolls and stop voting for them – the attacks on the Church will end. And the bishops and priest should be first in line to remove their names from the Democrat Party.

  • Phil H

    Our bishops have traded the lives of the unborn for the comfort of the poor. YES! “comfort of the poor”. Our poor here in the United States live better than the poor in most nations. During the Bush vs Clinton election cycle, the USCCB all but endorsed the democrats. The Bishops turned their backs on the unborn and the teachins of Church o what is truly evil vs what they believed was in the best interest of the poor. It takes an intelligent person to overcome simple reactions to complex problems. i.e. someone is hungry so feed them. intelligent people ask why do they not have food. will we have to feed them again tomorrow

  • Phil H

    oops, fat fingers……………tomorrow?
    Tomorrow should not be a problem for Christian. BUT Everyday for the rest of their lives is a problem, Our Bishops have failed us. They had good intentions. How does that old saying go? The road to hell…..

  • Mr. Marx

    Can the bishops win this one? No way, they have already lost. By accepting government $$$, they have to (as in, go to jail) if they do not comply with federal/state rules.
    Only option that allows the church to be true to Rome is to walk away from ALL, repeat ALL government funding. Burn your state license to perform marriage. Give up your tax-free status. In short, retreat from this world.

    Will the church be persecuted by the state? Count on it.

    Google “Obama repeal of faith based initiatives”.

    You will see as far back as 2009 that pagans and Protestants were demanding that the State dictate how the faith organizations work, hire and fire. Catholics need not apply.

    Shekels always, always become shackles

  • Matt

    Most of history’s holiest men have come out of environments of persecution, from Moses, John the Baptist, and Jesus of Nazareth, through the Christian martyrs of both the pagan Roman empire and the European “reformation”, down to both our current pope and his immediate predecessor.

    Can “the Bishops” win? Depends on what you mean by “the Bishops”. If you mean the crowd that currently occupy most American dioceses, then I have to suspect the answer may be “no, they’ve made too many expedient compromises with evil…there may be hope for their individual souls, but they cannot lead the Church to victory”. But the continuing Magisterium of the Church will win. New men will replace the current ones, and they may succeed where the present bishops have failed.

    Indeed, recent signs are already trending in a positive direction. 20 years ago a good and orthodox man such as Timothy Dolan could not conceivably have been elected to the head of the American episcopal conference.

    In the meantime, if our earthly Church loses some of its special privileges, we should recall that it has in the past faced far, far worse than is ever likely to occur here in America, and come through it all the stronger.

    “Upon this rock, I shall build my Church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.”

  • Observer

    As far as I understand it, no lay person has the authority to teach what is Sin, and what isn’t Sin. To say that HV was just a suggestion and not grounded Church teaching is not only absurd, but also leaves it to the individual to figure out what is right and what is wrong; it would certainly come was a surprise to many Bishops and Priests. Sarto, you may have expressed a pleasing sentiment to your relatives concerning marriage, but what you teach is heresey and potentially could lead other(s) into Sin.

    When it is all said and done, philosophical categories, theological systems, and human constructs are not the final arbiters. The Church set fairly clear foundations about what is and what isn’t allowed. Artificial birth control is never allowed; NFP is allowed under certain circumstances (it was never meant to be “a way of life” as some Catholics believe). Couples can practice abstinence (many must for health reasons); but most priests will tell you that abstinence should only be used in the more dire circumstances. Most of this is easy to understand. But, the vast majority of Catholics, for a variety of reasons, chose not to obey. Unfortunately, many Catholic lay have taken it upon themselves to speak with authority on this issue.

    What is ironic is the fact that those who teach that ABC is not a Sin, and every Catholic couple should limit thier family size, are the same people who demand generous entitlements that only a nation with large families can provide (Germany had a birthrate of 5.8 children per female when Bismarck introduced the first Social Security pensions). Non-Hispanics females in this nation average only 1.7 children, and by 2025 there will be only 1.52 workers for every 1 retiree.

  • Pingback: Georgetown Alumni Politicians Dissent on Abortion, Marriage « Campus Notes

MENU