AmericanPapist Comments
Tom, here's a little quote that I happened to read this morning that jibes well with this very topic: "I, indeed, though a debtor to your kindness, for which I cannot be ungrateful, that kindness which has surpassed that of many emperors, and has been equaled by one only: I, I say, have no cause for a charge of contumacy against you, but have cause of fear; I dare not offer the sacrifice [holy communion] if you intend to be present. Is that which is not allowed after shedding the blood of one innocent person allowed after shedding the blood of many? I do not think so." --St. Ambrose to Emperor Theodosius in 390 AD, after the emperor had ordered a massacre in Thessalonica. Pretty cool huh? You know, I sincerely doubt that good ol' Theodosius actually thought that he unjustly killed people in Asia Minor. Sound like any Senators you and I might know?
I'd be curious what the Cardinal really said. Calling for greater civility is great and should be commended, but I have doubts that he would've said the Church shouldn't be engaged in the issues. Especially at a Red Mass.
Well, as Barry Goldwater said when accepting the Republican nomination for President in 1964:
--------------
"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!"
----------------
The problem with calls for "civility" is that they usually -- not always -- come from persons who cannot withstand legitimate criticism and therefore seek to weaken it.
This is like members of the judiciary who respond to critics of their judicial activism with claims that their "judicial independence" is being attacked. No, Your Honor, it's your abuse of power that is being attacked.
right brassband.
this kind of advice, I've noticed over the years, invariably comes those who don't themselves know how to argue, as opposed to quarrelling, and so can't tell the difference. more often than not, they are also just plain wrong on the topics at hand, which makes their patronizing calls for "civility" disingenious.
Methinks, for all of their cadderwauling, the US Bishops really aren't serious about abortion. If they were, this would have been settled decades ago, with Teddy Kennedy's excommunication. They simply lack credibility. No wonder the laity is confused when the bishops cannot muster the courage to deal with this issue with the legitimate ecclesiastical sanctions at their disposal. They tire me. Tom
There is an issue here. There are lots of times where a debate becomes uncivil and even violent. On the abortion debate it seems like the least likely vice for us to fall into. The more dangerous vice is cowardice. Screwtape had a theory about warning people to worry about the vices they least likely to fall for.
It should probably be noted that quite a few theologians, prominent religious, prominent office holders of many a chancery are also very mum on Abortion and have counselled a 'let's ignore and hope it goes away' mentality as the 'wise' course of action. Ask these folks about pro-lifers and you're bound to get IPPF talking points about 'violent pro-lifers' spit back verbatim to you.
Quite a lot of 'professional' Catholic bureaucrats have never participated in pro-life action or ministry, don't know much about the subject apart from what they read in the secular Media, and tend towards considering it a secondary issue to their great moral struggle to end poverty via socialist programs.
It's just uncomfortable for them so they avoid it - and get angry when pressed by "the People" to do something.
Bishops have to deal with this sort of 'official bureaucratic filter'; how many "catholic" colleges and universities will back them up if they go 'nuclear' on pro-abort Catholic politicians? How many local Media personalities who are Catholic will cover their Media flank? How many Business leaders, VIPs who are bankrolling key projects will defect due to personal conflicts over this issue? These are serious considerations for Bishops that us lay people simply don't have to face.
I don't think these 'challenges' are insurmountable and don't think a committed Bishop couldn't wisely overcome them in a few years of strategic hiring and promotion policy within the chancery, but it would take some doing. It'd have to be a front burner issue.
And it's not. Because it's uncomfortable, touches on serious issues of morality, especially....sex...and "choice"... and could 'get one killed' - unlike virtually any other 'moral' issue of our time: no one is going to lose career or life by being "against the wars" or against the death penalty, or for more government services for the poor....
People tend to avoid things that are a) career enders b) could invite real persecution c) could end friendships and donor support and d) open the door for antagonism from the world, the flesh and the devil.
Joe, in other words, they don't take it seriously. It's just a lot of hot air. Tom
The group which issued that paper is a Democrat Party-organized "group" and its purpose is to "reconcile" Democrat red-in-tooth-and-claw politics of abortion with the Catholic position.
Good luck with that.
The call to "civility" of course is a pre-emptive strike which maligns those who speak in opposition to Democrat policy on abortion (and gay "marriage," etc., etc.)
In other words, they're mudslinging already, and telling OTHERS not to sling mud.
tjm. I think, I really do, that the bishops are serious about abortion. I don't think they are serious about some key areas of sacramental discipline, and THAT comes across as being soft on abortion. fwiw.
If you ask any bishop they'll hold the party line on abortion being a travesty, sin, etc. etc. so I think we must give them the benefit of the doubt in them taking it as a 'serious' issue.
But not as serious as say, the priest scandal crisis has been to get the steamrollers fired up and moving to plow everything and everyone out of their way towards the goal of zero tolerance.
The key difference of course is that with respect to child-abuse, the "world", the media, the law, 'civil society', all major players, etc. are on the same side, so if anything not joining the 'cause' would have been risky as opposed to joining it.
So the conclusion is...they believe it's serious...but not something to risk schism, rebellion, loss of friends and funds and reputation over - obvious exceptional bishops being the exceptions to this of course...
It's just hard to resist the spirit of the current age. It takes faith, hope, and an unrelenting, uncompromising love; heroic fortitude, burning zeal for souls as opposed to a managerial risk-adversion stance.
Joining the world in preaching "zero tolerance without apologies" for rooting out sex-predators is one thing. In many ways it's not so heroic to fight something that has no public or private support.
Opposing the world and a sizable portion of the professional bureaucracy in the same tone when it comes to protecting the absolutely innocent against a huge political-industrial complex takes serious commitment.
So it's not that they don't realize abortion is serious, it's that they by and large don't want to run the risks of fighting it more forcefully - hoping it'll pass away on its own.
In this one is reminded of Church history: heresies have rarely been defeated via argument and Church disciplinary actions. Most of the time they've simply run their destructive courses and literally died out with the heretics....leaving the Church bruised but still standing.
Unfortunately for individuals affected by the heresy this 'institutional victory' comes too late. So as Vatican II taught us, perhaps the cure for these ills is not to wait for the hierarchy to act, but to mobilize on our own.
One practical way would be for a 10th of all dedicated pro-lifers to seek out professional jobs in parish offices, chanceries, and Catholic universities.... the institutional blocks to a broad and deep pro-lifeCatholic movement need to be replaced with folk who will act decisively. In a sense this is a generational thing and is happening already.
Those who are risk-adverse are retiring and being replaced by JPII laity. Many of the orders for whom abortion was at best a side issue to socialism are dying out and being replaced by young vibrant orders who 'get' that social justice is impossible without REAL JUSTICE: if the totally innocent have no right to life the rest of our rights rest on the shifting sand of human whim, passion, and ultimately, might.
dad29, I'm crunched for time right now - could you provide some documentation for your interesting claim? Or is that evident in the articles cited? Thanks.
Mr. Peters, although I believe you believe this, after 3 decades it boils down to "actions speak louder than words," "words without actions are meaningless." By their inaction they are contributing to public scandal. If I were a young unmarried pregnant woman, I would really wonder as I pondered my decision about an abortion. I think I could convince myself, "well, the bishops have never excommunicated a Catholic politician on this issue they claim is so very fundamental. I guess it really isn't." Regretably, I have come to believe the bishops are more concerned about the Church's tax exempt status and "going along to get along" than the Faith itself. Tom
Here's the key:
Alexia K. Kelley, executive director of Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good
Kelley was a Kerry campaign staffer.
As to the rest of them--their statement speaks for itself. I hold to my interpretation that it is a pre-emptive strike which actually starts the mud-throwing by positioning moral objections as "un-civil."
No East Coast Party mukety-muck, whether Dem or Pubbie, speaks for the Midwestern sensibility.
Commenting by HaloScan
