On Saturday’s NARN show, Ed and I spent a segment talking about the Catholic Church’s relative silence (at least in America) on abortion in politics (a conversation Ed continued at Hot Air this morning).
I’m a Protestant, of course, and mildly peeved that the state of discourse is now such that I have to painstakingly disclaim “I’m not anti-Catholic”.
But I’ve had a few questions for American Catholics for a very, very long time.
Catholic doctrine – to this goy, who had exactly a semester in Catholic school, and that only because my elementary school had to be torn down, so we rented a room at Saint John’s Academy – has always seemed like a bit of a paper tiger among American Catholics. Catholics in the US seem scarcely less willing than us goyim to do all the stuff the priests and nuns told ’em not to way back when – use birth control, get divorced, knock back a couple of Big Macs on Friday, what have you. As to being pro-life? Many of America’s most-Catholic cities – Boston, New York, Philly, Saint Paul, New Orleans – are also the most left-leaning, ergo most pro-“choice”. And that’s not a demographic accident; generations of American bishops, archbishops and (I dunno) flying-buttressbishops, like Minneapolis/Saint Paul’s former Archbiship Flynn, were scarcely farther to the right than Barack Obama on any issue, and seemed conveniently and consistently silent as re politicians’ stances (especially those of “Catholic” pols, like Joe Biden, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi and, lest we forget, pro-“choice” congresswomen Betty McCollum, not merely Catholic but graduate of Catholic women’s college and pristinely-liberal hothouse Saint Catherine’s, in Saint Paul which, like neighboring Saint Thomas, seems to find Catholic doctrine more a matter of fund-raising than a moral foundation.
So when I see this story, about Denver’s archbishop questioning Biden and Obama on “choice”, and lighting a figurative fire under his followers’ (parishioners? Archbishopricticioners? Prelatistas?) figurative feet over “choice”…:
Denver Roman Catholic Archbishop Charles Chaput labeled Barack Obama the “most committed” abortion-rights candidate from a major party in 35 years while accusing a Catholic Obama ally and other Democratic-friendly Catholic groups of doing a “disservice to the church.”
Chaput, one of the nation’s most politically outspoken Catholic prelates, delivered the remarks Friday night at a dinner of a Catholic women’s group.
His comments were among the sharpest in a debate over abortion and Catholic political responsibility in a campaign in which Catholics represent a key swing vote.
…my response wasn’t so much “there y’go” as “why is this news?”
Of course, it is news; of America’s bajillion archbishops, Chaput would seem to be one of very, very few actually telling Catholic politicians to reckon with Catholic doctrine in adopting their positions.
And, possible Reaganesque flight to the right notwithstanding, an awful lot of Catholics will be voting for The One next month.
Compare and contrast; when evangelical Protestants don’t vote their faith, it makes the news; when the Catholic hierarchy asks Catholics not even to vote their faith, but for Catholic pols to be aware of the rules, regs and beliefs of that faith, it’s newsworthy.
Where is the Catholic hierarchy?
Mitch-
Actually a number of bishops through the country–including the Twin Cities–issued statements critical of Pelosi’s comments on the church’s position on abortion.
And among weekly Mass attending Catholics. McCain has more support than Obama.
I expect that you’ll hear more from the bishops in the weeks and years (especially if Obama wins) ahead.
I expect that you’ll hear more from the bishops in the weeks and years (especially if Obama wins) ahead.
While I realize the Catholic hierarchy isn’t big on, er, “rash” reactions to much of anything, I have to confess the timing seems a bit…inconvenienet? Or convenient? Not sure.
The other problem is generational. The current crop of bishops and certainly priests with seniority are grey haired hippies. They were young priests or decided to become priests when Left wing social justice ideas came into the church via Vatican II. Many of the younger priests (and now some Bishops) cut their teeth in the Pro-Life movement of the 70s and 80s. When these older guys retire, if they are replaced, it tends to be with priests of a more conservative stripe. Also Pope JPII and the current pope did/are doing their best to retire and replace some of the more leftwing bishops in the American Church.
Margaret is right, Mitch. The Vatican II crew is fading from the scene and the bishops coming up now are JPII proteges. John Nienstedt is an excellent example of this process, which is why people like Nick Coleman have been trying to intimidate him ever since he’s come to town. Harry Flynn was Vatican II all the way.
Nienstedt is operating quietly right now, but you’ll see a big change as he consolidates his position. And it will be a good change but it will be incremental.
You still see the random Obama sticker in the parking lot, but I saw more Kerry stickers in the lot last time around by a substantial margin.
Not simply grey haired hippies, Margaret… and there are those. They also have tons of boomers.
But, you’re right… the more conservative priests are on the way. However, we might not see the Gen-X and post-Gen-X crowd become a movement among the bishops and the hierarchy in general for another twenty to thirty years.
Observations about church politics are duly noted – and, to a degree, reflected in my own Presbyterian church.
But here’s the big question: does doctrine count? Why not? Is the whole “ignore that nasty abortion stuff” purely a function of having lefty bishops?
We are very lucky about what happened 30+ years ago. The church could have picked a liberal for Pope. Instead they chose JPII. And he built the structure to set up future leadership that mirrors him. It trickles down over several decades.
I’m a lapsed Lutheran (the ELCA partnering with MoveOn.org in 2004 was the final straw). I’ve actually considered converting to Catholicism, assuming I can get over the cultural differences. I want a church that has standards, even if it means they lose members.
It’s not just the bishops, Mitch.
If you get a chance to find “Goodbye, Good Men” take a look… the author suggests that some of the activists in church are the women who are involved with RCIA and various committees.
If he’s right, and I think he’s on to something, the more conservative clergy will need to address this Trojan Horse.
To add, if Nienstedt enforces church doctrines, I’ll seriously consider coming home to the Catholic church. I think Martin Luther would recognize today’s Catholic church as something he wanted to achieve.
A little something on the priest shortage (albeit from Wikipedia) references “Goodbye, Good Men”:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priest_shortage
The church is never to going to come out and tell its members how they should vote. That is a matter of individual conscience and besides the church doesn’t want the IRS hounds released. It will remind them what issues the church believes are the most important it determining who they should vote for.
I have a hunch (or maybe just a hope) that we’ll be hearing more from Archbishop Nienstedt on abortion and politics soon. Here was his statement on Pelosi’s comments on when life begins:
http://www.priestsforlife.org/magisterium/bishops/nienstedt-pelosi.htm
“On behalf of the 650,000 Catholics of this Archdiocese, I wish to reinforce what Cardinal Rigali, Bishop Lori of Bridgeport, Conn. and Archbishop Chaput of Denver have said about Speaker Pelosi’s misinterpretation on the question of when life begins. The Church has taught for centuries that life begins at conception and there is no room for misrepresentation of that teaching. In addition, modern medical techniques have been able to confirm what the Church has already known. Surely, there may be some Catholic politicians who will take a different interpretation of this Church doctrine during the coming election campaign, but Speaker Pelosi’s remarks underscore once again the need for Catholics, and especially Catholic politicians, to form their consciences according to the moral truths taught by the Catholic Church. “
The local Catholic priest here in our town was at the Republican caucus and was 100% pro-life…both anti-abortion and anti-death penalty. That meant he was at odds with some of the other Republicans concerning the death penalty, but everyone could live with that. I liked him.
I think Badda was onto something concerning the women…the only way they can feel good about themselves is to follow a pack of like-minded ninnies all avid to keep the right to “choose” murder.
Mitch, I attended mass yesterday in Victoria, Texas. The priest left no doubt where the church stands, mentioning the Born Alive Protection Act and the Freedom of Choice Act specifically. No names were used, but the meaning was clear. He also presented the principle of cooperation-that if you vote for someone knowing what he will do, for good or evil, you are, in part, responsible. Surprising decisions or votes by the elected official are, therefore, not the voter’s responsibility. It was quite clear to me that he believed that a faithful Catholic could not vote for Obama/Biden. And I agree. See also Robert George’s recent piece on Obama and abortion.