Maureen Dowd Condemns American Bishops
What set off this post was hearing Maureen Dowd, on a recent video podcast of This Week with George Stephanopoulos, lash out at American bishops, whom protested the recent University of Notre Dame invitation and conferment of an honorary degree to President Obama because of his extremist views in favor of elective abortion. I'll refer the reader to my recent Notre Dame post for a relevant discussion of the late Cardinal Bernandin's description of a "seamless garment of life" approach, where a number of political issues were explicitly linked, e.g., abortion, capital punishment, nuclear weapons, health care for pregnant women, etc. Thus, in the eyes of progressives, this expands the concept of what it means to be "pro-life". This doesn't take away from the fact the abortion-tolerant progressives fail to achieve Bernandin's ideal of a seamless garment. But what the progressives attempt to argue is that pro-lifers who do not vote for progressive policies on other issues are hypocritical, arbitrary, etc., and that progressive Catholic politicians may, in fact, be more "pro-life" than politicians whom oppose abortion but also other progressive policies. Maureen Dowd caustically accused American bishops of selectively speaking out on political issues, condemned their alleged silence over the liberation of Iraq, which Pope Benedict opposed, etc.
If Maureen Dowd ranted in the middle of The New York Times, and the paper went bankrupt, would anyone hear her? (Would anyone care?) Never mind; we could just settle for the original column published elsewhere by the real author.
Orthodox and Progressive Catholics
Occasionally as a Catholic I'll write a post bearing on my faith, especially in political contexts (e.g., Democratic Catholic politicians whom are permissive on abortion, Holocaust-denying clerics, Pope Benedict's mixed reception in Israel, and Obama's recent commencement address at Notre Dame). I may eventually start another blog focusing on my Christian faith. There is no official distinction in the Church between "orthodox" and "progressive" Catholics, which I briefly referenced in my Notre Dame commencement post. [I remember in high school I once asked a Jewish friend about dietary restrictions; he looked at me, rolled his eyes, and told me, in a condescending tone, that he was a REFORMED Jew (implying in context he didn't keep Kosher).] An orthodox Roman Catholic regularly attends Mass (on Sundays and holy days of obligation), participates in the sacraments (i.e., confession and Holy Communion at Mass), is responsive to the Church teachings on faith and morals and one's own spiritual and prayer life, and shows reverence for the men and women whom choose to dedicate their lives to Christ through a religious vocation, as priests (and brothers) and nuns/sisters, and, in particular, members of the Church hierarchy (bishops, cardinals, and the Pope).
I am an orthodox Catholic; this may sound obvious for someone writing a politically conservative blog, but I was always a conservative/traditional Catholic, even during my politically liberal period as a young adult. My mom made little vestments for me so I could play priest while in elementary school. I served as altar boy during early morning daily mass at Laredo AFB, and the chaplain made an unsolicited gift to me of his volumes of St. Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica. I had some initial contact with the Jesuits while attending OLLU, and my cousin Jackie wanted to gift me with a chalice in memory of her late father. I think my vocation got sidetracked when I started dating my first girlfriend, a beautiful blonde; I remember one day dropping by the women's dorm so we could go to church together, and she showed up in these red hot pants (and I was mesmerized by her legs). I served as a lay eucharistic minister and lector at my first parish in Houston, and after I started attending Mass in the chapel at the University of Houston, I briefly dated a very tall, beautiful woman, whom told me that she had originally noticed me in part because I was the only guy whom showed up to Mass in a suit and tie. But I've never married; a bigger issue for me was a qualitative change in the Church following Vatican II which seemed to appease versus challenge a sexually permissive culture gone amuck.
Progressive Catholics (including priests) often are indistinguishable from orthodox Catholics in terms of regularly attending Mass, participating in church activities, etc. They are known more in context. For instance, you see more emphasis on socially relevant activities (e.g., visiting the ill or senior citizens, meals on wheels, etc.) One incident I may have mentioned in an earlier post was when I briefly attended parochial school in Fall River, our class had "adopted" a black family in the DC area. There was a wish list of items for the family members (food, clothing, etc.), but what I remember most was the sister mentioned that the dad of the family smoked Pall Mall cigarettes. Even in elementary school, I understood this had gone too far. Then there was the time at the University of Texas when the priest played Olivia Newton-John's hit song "Have You Ever Been Mellow?" and preceded to deliver a sermon on it--and I didn't have the slightest clue what religious significance there was to any of it. Some of the feminists at the University of Houston went around scratching out in ink in all the missals the term "men" in the Nicene Creed, i.e., "...for us men and for our salvation.."
The progressives do not focus on personal spiritual development, you rarely hear about sin, prayer, and repentance, and Christ is reinvented into a meek, congenial, socially-conscious political activist, flatly contradicted by the testimony of the Gospels. I do not doubt that progressives are troubled by the "divisiveness" of the public rebuke of sin (e.g., the evil of elective abortion) and feel themselves vindicated by passages such as: "Stop judging, that you may not be judged." (Matthew 7:1). [In fact, Jesus Himself was not indifferent to sin, He condemned Pharisees for hypocrisy, and He was unwilling to compromise His teaching to retain or recruit disciples. (cf. Matthew 10; John 6:66). My interpretation is that He is calling for wisdom and mercy in judgment.]
The fact that Jesus did not fit into the politically liberal stereotype is reinforced by this incident involving Mary, the sister of Lazarus (John 12:1-8):
Progressive Catholics, raised in a culture which tests authority and values independent thinking and where higher education is dominated by pervasive social liberalism, often chafe over rules on faith and morals under a Church hierarchy they believe to be out of touch. The dispute between Jesus and the Pharisees nitpicking over what is allowed on the Sabbath (Matthew 12) seems relevant. My interpretation is that Jesus isn't muddling along, arbitrarily observing Jewish laws and traditions. In fact, He has a very detailed understanding of rites, customs, and the historical context of the laws, He wants to register evidence of His healings through specified rituals and established channels, and He has high-level contacts at synagogues and in the Sanhedrin (e.g., Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea). My interpretation is that Jesus views these laws as imperfect implementation for the general purpose of making time in one's life for honoring God; at some point, the fleshing out of this concept results in a convoluted casuistry, in which the general intent of the law is forgotten. His intent, as described above, is to focus on wise, merciful judgment of relevant violations.
Gallup Polls: Spring 2009 Comparative Catholic vs. Protestant: Moral Issues, Attendance
There have been two salient polls this spring by Gallup, which I believe pose serious issues for Catholic bishops. The first is the fact that Catholics do not show any significant improvements from other Christians or even the American voting population as a whole on issues where the Catholic Church has strong, unambiguous stands, e.g., sex within the context of marriage, the indissolubility of marriage, no elective abortions, and opposition to embryonic stem cell research. The second issue is the fact that non-practicing Catholics have more "progressive" views on these moral issues. Clearly, the biggest challenge to ensuring Catholic moral values are communicated effectively is to get non-practicing Catholics back in church. But there's also an issue, even among practicing Catholics, because practicing Protestants support the Church's positions better. This seems to suggest that the moral positions of the Church are not being effectively communicated by pastors and their curates; that's a management issue. There are scandals which affect the credibility of the Church, such as the case of Father Alberto Cutie, an Hispanic celebrity priest, caught by paparazzi on a Miami beach with his girlfriend, a divorcee. Apparently 70% of the local parishioners support the right of Cutie and others to marry.
There's a clear message to Catholic bishops in the fact that over the past 50 years the percentage of Catholics which regularly attend Mass has dropped by nearly 40% to the same percentage as Protestants (45%). Over the same time span, attendance by Protestants has actually increased slightly. So we really can't say that the Roman Catholic experience is part of a general American trend. [Also, Gallup looks at the question of the pedophilia scandal a few years ago and said that it had an impact on attendance but only in the short term.] This is not really unexpected, given the steep drop off in vocations to the priesthood and for sisters and nuns. I can only speak in terms of the anecdotal evidence of my own experience, but I have been dissatisfied by what I regard as an insufficient response from Church leadership to insist on discipline, prayer, and repentance and to mount a more proactive leadership and response to our deteriorating sexually-obsessed culture.
[The attached charts are the property of Gallup.com. The first two are in a 3/30/09 post, written by Frank Newport, entitled "Catholics Similar to Mainstream on Abortion, Stem Cells". The reader is encouraged to read the original post. The third comes from a 4/9/09 post, written by Lydia Saad, entitled "Church-Going Among U.S. Catholics Slides to Tie Protestants". The original post is available here.]
I am an orthodox Catholic; this may sound obvious for someone writing a politically conservative blog, but I was always a conservative/traditional Catholic, even during my politically liberal period as a young adult. My mom made little vestments for me so I could play priest while in elementary school. I served as altar boy during early morning daily mass at Laredo AFB, and the chaplain made an unsolicited gift to me of his volumes of St. Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica. I had some initial contact with the Jesuits while attending OLLU, and my cousin Jackie wanted to gift me with a chalice in memory of her late father. I think my vocation got sidetracked when I started dating my first girlfriend, a beautiful blonde; I remember one day dropping by the women's dorm so we could go to church together, and she showed up in these red hot pants (and I was mesmerized by her legs). I served as a lay eucharistic minister and lector at my first parish in Houston, and after I started attending Mass in the chapel at the University of Houston, I briefly dated a very tall, beautiful woman, whom told me that she had originally noticed me in part because I was the only guy whom showed up to Mass in a suit and tie. But I've never married; a bigger issue for me was a qualitative change in the Church following Vatican II which seemed to appease versus challenge a sexually permissive culture gone amuck.
Progressive Catholics (including priests) often are indistinguishable from orthodox Catholics in terms of regularly attending Mass, participating in church activities, etc. They are known more in context. For instance, you see more emphasis on socially relevant activities (e.g., visiting the ill or senior citizens, meals on wheels, etc.) One incident I may have mentioned in an earlier post was when I briefly attended parochial school in Fall River, our class had "adopted" a black family in the DC area. There was a wish list of items for the family members (food, clothing, etc.), but what I remember most was the sister mentioned that the dad of the family smoked Pall Mall cigarettes. Even in elementary school, I understood this had gone too far. Then there was the time at the University of Texas when the priest played Olivia Newton-John's hit song "Have You Ever Been Mellow?" and preceded to deliver a sermon on it--and I didn't have the slightest clue what religious significance there was to any of it. Some of the feminists at the University of Houston went around scratching out in ink in all the missals the term "men" in the Nicene Creed, i.e., "...for us men and for our salvation.."
The progressives do not focus on personal spiritual development, you rarely hear about sin, prayer, and repentance, and Christ is reinvented into a meek, congenial, socially-conscious political activist, flatly contradicted by the testimony of the Gospels. I do not doubt that progressives are troubled by the "divisiveness" of the public rebuke of sin (e.g., the evil of elective abortion) and feel themselves vindicated by passages such as: "Stop judging, that you may not be judged." (Matthew 7:1). [In fact, Jesus Himself was not indifferent to sin, He condemned Pharisees for hypocrisy, and He was unwilling to compromise His teaching to retain or recruit disciples. (cf. Matthew 10; John 6:66). My interpretation is that He is calling for wisdom and mercy in judgment.]
The fact that Jesus did not fit into the politically liberal stereotype is reinforced by this incident involving Mary, the sister of Lazarus (John 12:1-8):
Mary took a liter of costly perfumed oil made from genuine aromatic nard and anointed the feet of Jesus... Then Judas the Iscariot, one (of) his disciples,...said,"Why was this oil not sold for three hundred days' wages and given to the poor?"...Jesus said, "Leave her alone...You always have the poor with you, but you do not always have me."Saint John in this passage suggests that Judas is being disingenuous in his concern for the poor, but I think Judas is really putting Jesus to the test, given His teachings on the poor. Jesus here is not arguing that acts of charity to the poor are futile or invalid responses to God's love, but there are many ways one can respond to God's love, and we must be merciful, tempered and wise in our judgments of other people's intentions and actions. In this case, Mary is responding to the presence of God through the actions and words of Jesus, including the resurrection of her brother. Jesus is teaching Judas and the other disciples that each day brings new opportunities for us to affirm our faith and love of God in our thoughts, prayers and actions.
Progressive Catholics, raised in a culture which tests authority and values independent thinking and where higher education is dominated by pervasive social liberalism, often chafe over rules on faith and morals under a Church hierarchy they believe to be out of touch. The dispute between Jesus and the Pharisees nitpicking over what is allowed on the Sabbath (Matthew 12) seems relevant. My interpretation is that Jesus isn't muddling along, arbitrarily observing Jewish laws and traditions. In fact, He has a very detailed understanding of rites, customs, and the historical context of the laws, He wants to register evidence of His healings through specified rituals and established channels, and He has high-level contacts at synagogues and in the Sanhedrin (e.g., Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea). My interpretation is that Jesus views these laws as imperfect implementation for the general purpose of making time in one's life for honoring God; at some point, the fleshing out of this concept results in a convoluted casuistry, in which the general intent of the law is forgotten. His intent, as described above, is to focus on wise, merciful judgment of relevant violations.
Gallup Polls: Spring 2009 Comparative Catholic vs. Protestant: Moral Issues, Attendance
There have been two salient polls this spring by Gallup, which I believe pose serious issues for Catholic bishops. The first is the fact that Catholics do not show any significant improvements from other Christians or even the American voting population as a whole on issues where the Catholic Church has strong, unambiguous stands, e.g., sex within the context of marriage, the indissolubility of marriage, no elective abortions, and opposition to embryonic stem cell research. The second issue is the fact that non-practicing Catholics have more "progressive" views on these moral issues. Clearly, the biggest challenge to ensuring Catholic moral values are communicated effectively is to get non-practicing Catholics back in church. But there's also an issue, even among practicing Catholics, because practicing Protestants support the Church's positions better. This seems to suggest that the moral positions of the Church are not being effectively communicated by pastors and their curates; that's a management issue. There are scandals which affect the credibility of the Church, such as the case of Father Alberto Cutie, an Hispanic celebrity priest, caught by paparazzi on a Miami beach with his girlfriend, a divorcee. Apparently 70% of the local parishioners support the right of Cutie and others to marry.
There's a clear message to Catholic bishops in the fact that over the past 50 years the percentage of Catholics which regularly attend Mass has dropped by nearly 40% to the same percentage as Protestants (45%). Over the same time span, attendance by Protestants has actually increased slightly. So we really can't say that the Roman Catholic experience is part of a general American trend. [Also, Gallup looks at the question of the pedophilia scandal a few years ago and said that it had an impact on attendance but only in the short term.] This is not really unexpected, given the steep drop off in vocations to the priesthood and for sisters and nuns. I can only speak in terms of the anecdotal evidence of my own experience, but I have been dissatisfied by what I regard as an insufficient response from Church leadership to insist on discipline, prayer, and repentance and to mount a more proactive leadership and response to our deteriorating sexually-obsessed culture.
[The attached charts are the property of Gallup.com. The first two are in a 3/30/09 post, written by Frank Newport, entitled "Catholics Similar to Mainstream on Abortion, Stem Cells". The reader is encouraged to read the original post. The third comes from a 4/9/09 post, written by Lydia Saad, entitled "Church-Going Among U.S. Catholics Slides to Tie Protestants". The original post is available here.]
A Brief Response to Maureen Dowd
I do not find arbitrary indexes of progressive policies to be a meaningful assessment of Catholic bishop performance. Abortion has been consistently regarded as sinful since the earliest known documents of Christianity; the only difference was how serious a sin it was, and a more lenient approach was based on an obsoleted Aristotelian concept of ensoulment. Other concepts, such as war, are more problematic, because there is a doctrine of just or limited war. But as to Dowd's claim that the American bishops failed to speak out against the liberation of Iraq, Maureen Dowd did not do due diligence. In fact, the US Conference of Catholic Bishops released the following statement on 11/13/02:
I do not find arbitrary indexes of progressive policies to be a meaningful assessment of Catholic bishop performance. Abortion has been consistently regarded as sinful since the earliest known documents of Christianity; the only difference was how serious a sin it was, and a more lenient approach was based on an obsoleted Aristotelian concept of ensoulment. Other concepts, such as war, are more problematic, because there is a doctrine of just or limited war. But as to Dowd's claim that the American bishops failed to speak out against the liberation of Iraq, Maureen Dowd did not do due diligence. In fact, the US Conference of Catholic Bishops released the following statement on 11/13/02:
Two months ago, Bishop Wilton Gregory, President of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, wrote President George Bush... This letter, which was authorized by the U.S. Bishops' Administrative Committee, raised serious questions about the moral legitimacy of any preemptive, unilateral use of military force to overthrow the government of Iraq. As a body, we make our own the questions and concerns raised in Bishop Gregory's letter...
As a conservative, I categorically reject that that progressive policies are efficient, effective means to achieving the goals of social justice. They are like squeezing a balloon; for example, changing tax rates and regulations effects business costs and can create a competitive advantage for substitute investments, goods and services. Conservatives believe in pro-growth policies and minimizing government barriers and intervention (fear, uncertainty and doubt) in the marketplace allows the economy to function more effectively and to yield more opportunities for lower-skilled workers in addition to additional, higher-paying professional opportunities. In terms of social justice ends, we believe that more humane, effective approaches are to leverage and facilitate family-based and philanthropic efforts (versus inefficient, unsympathetic government bureaucrats) and to provide real, cost-effective competition and alternatives to failing public education. We conservatives also strongly believe that there are moral hazard issues with redistributionist and other social democratic policies that fundamentally undermine the actualization of human dignity.
