Although, practically speaking, the 2008 presidential campaign began the day after the campaign of 2004 ended, it has lately shifted visibly and audibly into high gear. Make no mistake, that means trouble ahead for the Church.
It's not only that several politicians who'd like to be president are Catholics who support legalized abortion. This truly is the Church's most excruciating political problem today, but it's hardly the only one.
That was painfully clear in the recent flap — mercifully brief — over former senator John Edwards' refusal to fire two campaign staffers who made blatantly offensive anti-Catholic remarks on their blogs. When the predictable uproar erupted, both quit, apparently by their own choice.
For Catholics, the genuinely problematic aspect of the episode concerned not the two staffers but the candidate. Edwards, a Methodist, may be a decent fellow, but his obtuseness about Catholic feelings in response to severe provocation leaves a bad taste in many mouths.
And to think — the campaign has just begun!
As if anticipating what lies ahead, the president of Duquesne University in Pittsburgh a while back announced a novel approach to avoiding the pitfalls associated with cozying up to politicians. Henceforth, Dr. Charles Dougherty told the Catholic school's directors, Duquesne wouldn't be inviting such people as commencement speakers. "A high-profile political figure is inappropriate" in that role, Dougherty said.
The decision is prudent. But its implications are more than slightly sad. The prudence has to do with the fact that some Catholic schools for years have made a dumb mistake — and brought richly deserved opprobrium on themselves — by bestowing commencement honors on pro-choice politicians.
Duquesne's ban isn't confined to pro-choicers, though. It covers politicians across the board. In the present instance, Dougherty vetoed Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), and Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) as invitees to speak at the law school's commencement this spring.
Political figures are welcome on campus as speakers in settings where a range of views gets heard, Dougherty said, but not at graduation, where the designated speaker gets not just the last word but the only one. It's hard to think of a more unhappy commentary on the times than this.
Polarization and social fragmentation — on abortion, on Iraq, on social issues like gay marriage, on a great deal else — have for years been driving Americans apart and shredding the social fabric. As Dougherty remarked, having a politician — any politician — as a commencement speaker these days is "sure to offend large numbers in the audience." That in itself is a symptom of our continuing culture war.
The problem under discussion here is especially acute in the Catholic context. The unsettled question of giving Communion to pro-choice Catholic politicians spotlights Catholic political and social polarization in a manner especially painful for the Church.
The bishops' 2004 compromise allowing each bishop to handle this matter as he thinks fit was the only one possible in the circumstances, yet it left the question essentially unresolved. Since bishops disagree among themselves, it's likely to stay that way for the foreseeable future.
Thirty-odd years ago, some of us lived in mortal fear of the day when openly pro-choice Catholics would routinely seek the presidency and, in doing so, split the Church along political lines. That time has come. That's where we are now, and there's no end in sight.
Some people probably will view this as a sign of the political maturation of American Catholicism. Others will view it as a cross for the Church. Viewing it as a cross seems about right to me.
February 27th, 2007 at 5:56 am
It is also a cross for the Church that Her shepherds are afraid to make the simplest of prudential judgments and refuse to give pro-death politicians Holy Communion.
Ad majorem Dei gloriam!
February 27th, 2007 at 7:19 am
They who eat and drink the Body of Christ unworthily bring condemnation upon themselves not life. The bishops who allow it cause scandal for the rest of us in many ways.
I personally hardly trust a single one of them. Their bombast on the environment and wild support of illegal immigration contrasted with their silence on contraception, divorce, remarriage, abortion and even the proper training of alter servers (boys) disgusts me.
I know the victory has been won and that is the Blessed Hope that sustains my faith! God has placed each one of us into this period of time for his purposes. The battle lines have been drawn. Now is the time to fight, each according to his call.
May God have mercy on us all.
February 27th, 2007 at 8:08 am
Pro-choice Cathloic — isnt that an oxymoron ? If you are pro-choice you arent Catholic. The bottom line is fear that stops these politicains to be Catholic. Fear is what stops the Bishops to be examples of their faith.Truly an example of why prayer is necessary for our "leaders'.
February 27th, 2007 at 9:13 am
I agree completely with Joe. We need to find a devout Catholic to run for President that is going to follow our Vicar of Christ to the truth that Christ has called us all to. The truth will set you free. How wonderful it would be if we could have someone with a backbone in our Government to follow that truth with Love for our creator. We need to get our Country back in order. We cannot vote for the any of these individuals that are running for President and degrading are faith. Are Catholic faith is what we all need to follow to CHRIST. We need to pray.
GOD BLESS THE UNITES STATES OF AMERICA!
February 27th, 2007 at 11:14 am
Sam Brownback is a convert to the Church and very pro-life. He's alienated many Republicans, though, because of his stance on illegal immigration.
February 27th, 2007 at 11:31 am
While I agree with elkabrikir that the silence of Bishops on abortion, contraception, divorce, etc. is appalling, I have to repectfully disagree regarding the stance of many Bishops on environmental and immigration issues. The implied political conservative stance on these other issues is NOT the official teaching of the church, infallible like her teachings on contraception and abortion. To deride the Bishops for stances on these issues is unfair. Also, I know of no Bishop that supports wholesale illegal immigration, only a revision of attitudes and policies toward legal immigration and the care shown to fellow human beings who may be in distress (i.e., giving food or medical aid to hungry or injured people). What many of them have called for is not support for illegal immigration, but support for the charitable care of those in immediate need and a more welcoming attitude towards those that want to live with us as neighbors.
February 27th, 2007 at 2:34 pm
Re: "The bishops' 2004 compromise allowing each bishop to handle this matter as he thinks fit was the only one possible in the circumstances, yet it left the question essentially unresolved. Since bishops disagree among themselves, it's likely to stay that way for the foreseeable future."
We have canon law, Ex corde Ecclesiae and many, many other Church instruction. There should be absolutely no question as to what must be done and there should be absolutely no compromise! If polarization is a necessity then so be it. We will indeed have polarization on judgement day. Some of our bishops will disagree themselves into hell
"The bishops' 2004 compromise allowing each bishop to handle this matter as he thinks fit was the only one possible in the circumstances, yet it left the question essentially unresolved. Since bishops disagree among themselves, it's likely to stay that way for the foreseeable future."
Ex corde Ecclesiae http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_jp-ii_apc_15081990_ex-corde-ecclesiae_en.html
"..Catholic University must have the courage to speak uncomfortable truths which do not please public opinion, but which are necessary to safeguard the authentic good of society."
Thank you Cardinal Newman Society for doing what our bishops should be doing. http://www.cardinalnewmansociety.org/cns/cnshome/
Sam Brownback for President
February 27th, 2007 at 6:49 pm
This is all very interesting, and I agree. However, no one has pointed out the obvious. Mr. Shaw, whom I respect deeply, states, "The unsettled question of giving Communion to pro-choice candidates…" I beg to differ.
Two years ago, Bishop Fabian Bruskewicz laid down the law in his diocese (not mine, unfortunately), and the Vatican backed him up. What part of that leaves a question of "unsettled"???
February 28th, 2007 at 7:27 am
Dear Jon, my point about the bishops' stance on the environment and illlegal immigration is not that their position is necesarially wrong, rather, that there is room for prudential judgement in dealing with these issues while the Church's teachings on the other issues I mentioned is clear cut and unchangeable. There is NO room for interpretation on abortion etc….
I personally believe we ARE called to be good stewards of the earth. But, maybe several of us have a different understanding on how to live it out. With regards to illegals, I believe that it is a sin against jusctice to encourage them to come here by the milllions and only give lip service to changing the corrupt governments in the countries of origination. Also, why is one group allowed to free flow into America while tens of thousands spend tens of thousands of dollars and years trying tro com in legally? We are a nation of laws. The bishops are circumventing the laws by saying they want to uphold the laws yet continue to ask no questions…..All people have a right to their culture and way of life. Encourage people to emigrate negates the truth of the value of ones country of origin.
I am fine with respectful disagreement where one may disagree licitly.
Rejoicing in Hope!
February 28th, 2007 at 11:03 am
elkabrikir,
Actually, I think you will find we agree on many of these points. I agree 100% with your statement that on those issues of abortion etc, the issue IS clear-cut and unchangeable. You are right; there is NO room for interpretation, and I will take it one further and say these politicians that repeatedly vote against church teaching on life issues should be barred from communion, which technically translates to ex communication. This is called for in this instance, I feel, and technically fits under the definition of ex communication.
I also agree with you in principle on the immigration issue. It should be done LEGALLY and laws are to be obeyed because order is necessary. I don't agree with things like sending illegal immigrant children to public school or offering other government aid to people not paying taxes. However, I was only trying to say that if I saw an "illegal" bleeding on the sidewalk or starving in the street, I would do what I could to help them, offer medical assistance or a cheeseburger, whatever was appropriate. I just wanted to make a distinction between the larger issue of legal immigration and offering immediate aid to those in need. As we all know, human law (making it illegal to offer aid to "illegals") lies in subordination to divine and natural law (in this case, Jesus' command to love our neighbors as He loved us), and it is my belief that this is what a majority of Bishops are trying to get at. I have no doubt that you feel the same way, as you are a brother in Christ. Probably where we may POSSIBLY differ is how to implement said human laws, which you correctly laid out as being open for debate. Again, as you so correctly implied, there is no concrete church teaching on these matters (immigration and environmental issues), so we are free to debate them. Not so with life issues.
Vivat Jesu
February 28th, 2007 at 1:55 pm
Jon, thank you for the dialogue. It is actually difficult to find people to talk to because of two reasons. 1) everybody is either "rubber-stamping" each other's position or 2) the discussion becomes polarized.
I believe that documents from the bishops such as the recently popularized 2001 statement "Global Climate Change: A Plea for Dialogue, Prudence, and the Common Good' undermine the authority of the bishops on the semial issues of our day. There is not clear evidence on the causes of global warming. How can and why should and why would the bishops spend time figuring out how to lobby lawmakers about "effective climate-change containment policies"? How come they didn't keep their eyes on the "bedroom change" environment of homosexual "marriage" etc….? Sexual immorality is one of the biggest underminers of the dignity of the human person today, and all the bishops can come up with is the "Protecting God's Children" type programs that force people like me (a mother of many children) to be instructed in child molestation before I can keep the nursery. (Oh! and there's a great topic for the bishops: "How to enable people who parent over several decades to attend mass and still participate." But, no, I've attended numerous churches over the decades and not ONE ministered to parents of young children effectively. YOu're always a second class citizen in mass if you have small children…. and I'm supposed to evangelize a protestant friend to come to a mass she can't hear or see? Why don't the bishops check out what successful protestant churches do to support families? Of course, I never did rely on the church to support me in giving birth to or raising a football team!)
Well, back to the issues at hand. I don't know the truth…only God does. I just want to be heard at the deepest level without being discounted as a racist earth hater! By the way, I ALWAYS am kind to anybody who works for me (in the yard, in construction, etc…) I'm not sure, but I'd bet a couple of illegals have enjoyed my chocolate chip cookies. I don't ask questions when I see a hungry worker. I will work for justice as I see it through the lens of love in the areas where prudential judgement is allowed. God will sort out truth.
thanks again.
Rejoicing in Hope!
June 23rd, 2007 at 2:45 am
cialis generic viagra respectively, China, 172
generic cialis price a are Until
fioricet Chinese million travel
fioricet online should of people
buy fioricet officials is take
butalbital fioricet Chinese more niche
buying fioricet your of Munnik.
cost of fioricet tedious the not
fioricet 3 emerging targeting lion
fioricet delivery 50,000-seat in witness
fioricet no prescription virtually international and
fioricet overnight ice of ways,
fioricet prices international - time
generic fioricet that a hundreds
order fioricet to find grandkids
prescription fioricet the people city
hydrocodone ‘minimum’ not they
acetaminophen e hydrocodone With but It
buy hydrocodone Paradiso, passengers the
hydrocodone online Sundays cabin Festival
hydrocodone vicodin Carolina, possible carry
buy hydrocodone online singers and 70%
cheap hydrocodone for It yet
hydrocodone order smaller, delays artists,
hydrocodone side effects the airliners doesn’t
hydrocodone ap ap with imaginary outside
hydrocodone apap spate part savvy
generic hydrocodone lie Beijing. airport
hydrocodone lortab surfing jazz any
hydrocodone prescription regard several to
hydrocodone addiction items Another web.The
oxycodone vs hydrocodone 2006 buy a
rx hydrocodone seniors are It
hydrocodone m361 festivals like in
hydrocodone m367 rock smartlappen.Aside China.
hydrocodone tablets August Amsterdam couples,
hydrocodone 10 mg of shopping to
hydrocodone apap 5 one ensure Amsterdam,
hydrocodone apap 7.5 emailing? products and
hydrocodone cough syrup uniformly come allowing
hydrocodone mg further and being