Last week, when I wrote about the stirrings of backlash on the part of some Catholic activists and Bishops over the Obamacare requirement that Catholic hospitals provide contraception and abortions, I expressed my doubt that mainstream Catholics really cared that much.
I got a few Catholics sounding off in my comment section that sounded a little more bellicose than I expected.
Chad the Elder over at Fraters – who is, unlike me, Catholic – is a lot less sanguine:
Many Catholics seem all too willing to erect their own wall between church and state and like to pretend that their politics has nothing to do with the Catholic Church and vice versa. The problem is that when the government breaks through that barrier and injects itself into the affairs of the Church by attempting to force it to accept policies that violate core tenants of its beliefs, the illusion of this happy little coexistence is shattered.
Does it?
I’m not trying to be snotty, there – it’s a genuine question.
If people have little tangible investment in the practical results of religious freedom – if it’s more an intellectual and rhetorical parlor game than an immediate, vital part of their life – then will it “shatter” so much as “melt like stale jello?”
Well, at least it would be if the Church were more consistent and forceful in explaining exactly what is taking place and why it matters to American Catholics.
There’s that, too. Leaving aside that the laity themselves, to my observation, seem to think it’s an issue well above their pay grade, I have a strong hunch that a good chunk of the Catholic hierarchy is lukewarm on upsetting the progressive applecart.
For whatever reason, Elder’s observations seem to be in tune with mine:
My experience may not be typical, but so far little word of this current controversy has surfaced in our parish on any given Sunday. A few months ago, there was an insert in the bulletin that touched on it. Since then, nothing. No homilies, no presentations, no mention in the weekly bulletin. The only thing related to politics that has merited attention has been on the marriage front, with updates on the Minnesota Marriage Amendment appearing in the last few bulletins. But nothing on the Obamacare rules which are a direct threat to the freedom of the Catholic Church to exercise its religious beliefs.
In order for there to be action, there needs to be a call for it first. I fear that too many Catholic leaders are still reluctant to sound it.
And while I’m assured by many Catholic friends that some of the post-John-Paul-2 clergy is more conservative, I have serious questions as to whether that’s filtered down to an awful lot of lay Catholics and their immediate leadership. Chad’s observations don’t do much to dissuade me.
Of course, it’s similar in my own Presbyterian church (where, to be fair, the problem is opposite; an extremely liberal elected temporal leadership representing congregations that are frequently much more conservative.
My two cents — we’re really talking about two separate issues here.
First, the thing that non-Catholics need to understand about the Church is that, while there’s a definite hierarchical structure, local bishops and priests have a lot of autonomy. It would not surprise me if the pastor at Chad’s church is soft-pedaling the message, because it’s unlikely he’ll be called to account for doing so. Without knowing the particulars, I’d be willing to wager that the priest is an older gent who was ordained when Paul VI was the pope; things changed during JPII’s papacy. A priest who was ordained after, say, 1982 or so would be more likely to take the issue seriously. There are still a lot of priests who were ordained in the 1960s and 1970s who are pastors in this Archdiocese — that’s where the liberals are in the clergy. They are aging and slowly fading from view, but they are still there. And while Nienstedt is a lot more insistent on following Church teaching than his predecessors, he’s still going to give the older priests some latitude. Younger priests are, in the main, a lot more conservative and are much more likely to be on board with such things. I can tell you this — the pastor at my parish is fully on board with the Church’s position on this issue and will continue to speak out about it.
The second issue is this — there are plenty of secular Catholics, in the same way that there are secular Jews. The Church and its teachings are inconvenient if you’d prefer to live a secular life, and many people do. Being an observant Catholic is tough work. Catholics who regularly attend Mass tend to be significantly more conservative and are highly motivated by what’s been happening, but there are exceptions.
Mr D…40 years ago, our society was much more religious overall, so that could be why liberals went into the priesthood (is that what you call it). They were liberals but still religious.
Since then our world has become very secular. Religion is almost non-existent for a large part of Americans. So those that go into the priest business today are perhaps more true observant Catholics, vs a liberal who went to church because thats what everyone did years ago.
Chuck, I suppose, although 40 years only takes us back to 1972 and a lot of the problems we face now were well underway by that point.
I would say this — the younger priests and seminarians are a very serious group these days. They understand what they have to do.
There was a letter from Bishop Nienstedt (head of Mpls Diocese, I believe) condemning the birth control coverage mandate, in the bulletin at our church last weekend. It was more than lukewarm. It conveyed dismay and warnings of future dire consequences for the Catholic church in America and religious freedom in general. I’m not a churchgoer (I only went because the my son’s cub scout pack had a fundraiser thing after mass), so I don’t know what else has been talked about or put in the bulletin in recent weeks.