|
Published: November 11, 2008
Still on the agenda
Despite reports to the contrary, bishops will discuss abortion and politics
Baltimore / (CNA) -- Since the election of Barack Obama as the next president of the United States, several Catholic commentators have speculated on how the original agenda of the annual Fall General Assembly of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) will change. According to bishops involved in the organization of the three-day meeting, which began yesterday, the agenda, including a public discussion of abortion and politics, is fully on track.
Speculation that the agenda might change came late last week when several prominent Catholic commentators argued that the bishops had "lost authority" by speaking out strongly against Catholics voting for pro-abortion politicians like Sen. Obama last Tuesday. On Friday, Religion News Service reported that the USCCB “has scuttled plans to discuss abortion and politics next week in Baltimore,” citing the bishops’ spokeswoman, Sister Mary Ann Walsh. RNS also quoted Sister Walsh as saying that the agenda had yet to be finalized.
 Moreover, according to the National Catholic Reporter's John Allen Jr., “some analysts, especially those of a more liberal bent, are spinning the election of Barack Obama as a ‘repudiation’ of what they see as an overly strident and partisan tone from the bishops, especially on abortion. A few ardently pro-life Catholics, meanwhile, actually believe that what they call ‘silence and treachery’ from the bishops on abortion helped pave the way for Obama’s success.”
On Friday, Peter Steinfels argued in his regular New York Times column that "anyone constructing a list of the big losers on Tuesday would probably include the nation’s Roman Catholic bishops." Steinfels served as editor of Commonweal magazine before landing a job at the New York Times in 1988 and still frequently contributes to the magazine that he and his wife, former editor Margaret O'Brien Steinfels, have helped shape since 1964.
During the election season, Commonweal's blog openly wooed Catholics to vote for Obama and harshly criticized bishops who took a strong stand on life and family issues. Seinfeld supported his assertion that the bishops were “defeated” on the grounds that nominal Catholics voted 52 percent to 45 percent for Obama. “Will that fact be candidly addressed when the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops meets next week in Baltimore?” he asked, suggesting that the bishops should “change strategy.”
A similar suggestion was made by Fr. Thomas Reese S.J. of Georgetown University in an article published by the Dallas Morning News on Sunday. Quoting the same figure of nominal Catholics voting for Obama, Reese said, “Episcopal authority took a major hit during the election,” and argued that “(the) division between the vocal, partisan bishops and the silent, nonpartisan bishops will be a major issue at the Baltimore meeting.
“This argument," Reese continued, “will take place behind closed doors lest the bishops scandalize the faithful with their divisions.” Reese also came up with his own list of proposals, which would essentially require the bishops to remain silent about the evil of abortion and concentrate on practical political engagement for “reducing abortions,” as promised by President-elect Obama.
“Why am I not surprised?" joked one bishop about Reese’s comments, speaking on condition of anonymity to CNA. "Fr. Reese is a mainstream media darling, but the truth is that he has very little knowledge of what goes on (in the episcopate) and far less influence.”
Another bishop, who also requested anonymity, confirmed to CNA that the bishops would not drop the issue of abortion or hold the conversation behind closed doors. On the contrary, they will discuss it on no less than three occasions: “in our regional groups, in executive session, and in the public session.”
The sessions open to the media will take place on Nov. 10 from 9 a.m. to mid-afternoon, and today from 9 a.m. until mid-afternoon. The rest of the meeting will be for breakout sessions, executive sessions, and prayer and reflection.
Archbishop John Vlazny of Portland confirmed that abortion would be a topic for the bishops. “We plan to set aside time to discuss practical and pastoral implications of political support for abortion, an issue that remains problematic for us and our people,” he said.
Posted Tuesday, November 11, 2008 2:51 AM By JG
The US bishops need a militant Catholic vision. For starters, I suggest they read "Christians and the Pro-Life Ploy." The bishops are called to become prophetic witnesses against an antiChristian US government and vicious culture. Yet the best we have (i.e. Chaput) are neo-cons, pro-life yes, but still American neo-cons through and through.
|
Posted Tuesday, November 11, 2008 5:33 AM By St. Christopher
The bishops caused scandal all right; scandal by showing -- with only some exceptions -- faithful Catholics that Church leaders should compromise with evil. Very few bishops did anything of value to political conservatives, whether about abortion or other issues of supposed concern to the Church. It is simply crazy to even report, much less worry about, liberal apologists such as Fr. Reese or Peter Steinfels. The bishops did not do enough to proclaim the necessity of certain behaviors and the sinful consequences of not doing so. Did any bishop ever mention sin? This is a ridiculous group of bishops, more like high school kids jockeying for positions of secular favor. And what about the logic of the NY Times. You lost so your version of faith is in question -- what dopes, and what enablers of Satan. Any bishop worth his position should publicly stand up, state that they have failed to be repositories of the true faith, pledge to do so immediately, then go forth to evangelize the world. Will this happen? Fat chance. But, we will see endless whining, endless bleating about wanting to be relevant and about "loving" everyone. I wonder if there is a way to impeach or recall the bishops?
|
Posted Tuesday, November 11, 2008 6:08 AM By Ski Ven
No, Mr. Steinfels. The biggest losers are those who are enabling institutionalized mortal sin. Life is too short.
|
Posted Tuesday, November 11, 2008 6:51 AM By OneoftheSheep
“This argument," Reese continued, “will take place behind closed doors lest the bishops scandalize the faithful with their divisions.” Reese also came up with his own list of proposals, which would essentially require the bishops to remain silent about the evil of abortion and concentrate on practical political engagement for “reducing abortions,” as promised by President-elect Obama.
I don't think the faithful can be scandalized any more than we already have been. Reese's suggestions are tantamount to telling Jesus to tone down his gospel lest it be taken seriously by the flock.
Seems to me it is time to take the candle out from under the bushel and shine our Catholic light into the darkness of this Culture of Death. "The people perish for lack of knowledge."
|
Posted Tuesday, November 11, 2008 6:59 AM By Ann
IF the bishops excommunicated politicians who vote for pro-abortion legislation, the medicinal effect which Canon Law envisions might kick in and result in huge wake up calls for people. The bishops silence and timidity actually supports the pro-abortion crowd.
|
Posted Tuesday, November 11, 2008 7:11 AM By E.P.Michaud
Are the Steinfels still writing for Commonweal??? Why are they? How can they reflect the truly Catholic thinking on abortion and family values?
|
Posted Tuesday, November 11, 2008 9:53 AM By Rob
Why are they discussing abortion and politics after the fact? The damage is already done. The bishops had their chance to keep a pro-abort out of the White House but they chose their own liberal, political agenda over what is morally right. They got their man Obama into the White House. Any comment they make about abortion now is like spitting into the wind. Obama will be the most pro-abortion president in history and nothing from the bishops will change that. Too bad there aren't more bishops like Chaput or Burke around who tried to do all they could to keep Obama from the White House.
|
Posted Tuesday, November 11, 2008 10:16 AM By Fr. M.P.
Given that Obama is in, there needs to be a plan on how to work with or against his agenda as appropriate. The drive for goodness and truth can never end.
|
Posted Tuesday, November 11, 2008 10:36 AM By Laurette Elsberry
Don't hold your breath on anything good coming out of the Baltimore conference. If the bishops collectively had wanted to emphasize that a pro-abortion candidate should not be voted for, they would have issued a statement before the election. Now they can waffle, and table any meaningful decision. Cardinal Francis George, president of the USCCB, is not one to promote Catholic teaching. According to an Associated Press article published Nov. 11, Cardinal George decried abortion, but stated "we must all rejoice" that an African American has been elected president. That's not the point we must be concerned about. Obama has played the race card, the abortion card, and the "gay" card and abortion and homosexual perversity will only increase. Another interesting point in the above story is Archbishop Vlazny of Portland's doubletalk about abortion politics being problematic. Is he one of the ones who will wimp out? Probably. Here is an archbishop who supports homosexual inroads into his Diocese. Hint: If you find a pro-sodomite faction in your hierarchy, including diocesan staff, you will find an acceptance and even protection of abortion. Pro "gay" means pro abortion. Both equal sexual liberation, a goal of the libs, including Democrats and, increasingly, Republicans.
|
Posted Tuesday, November 11, 2008 12:41 PM By JLS
I think the bishops are over their heads in the waters of defiance by Catholics, and have chosen to rely on God for the enforcement of His Law. Time will tell.
|
Posted Tuesday, November 11, 2008 1:48 PM By Sister Joan Clair
..."A few ardently pro-life Catholics, meanwhile, actually believe that what they call ‘silence and treachery’ from the bishops on abortion helped pave the way for Obama’s success.”
Can anyone help me with finding the 'silence and treachery' quote, who said it initially or how it was used? Thanks.
|
Posted Tuesday, November 11, 2008 2:57 PM By St. Christopher
TO: Sister Joan Clair -- I cannot help you on the who said, or first used question regarding the quote, but the words are golden in their truth. The bishops said very little about abortion until the election was virtually assured. And the manner of their opposition was muted and fragmented. In fact, a good deal of the Catholic Church clergy is homosexual, a group that does not oppose abortion, generally. In fact, at a recent clandestine meeting with gay Episcopalian bishop Robinson he advised attending Catholic priests to support women's ordination as they are more accepting of homosexual priests. So there you have it, a gay-in-fact or gay-friendly episcopate is not likely to support anit-abortion positions, as this could have a ripple effect on other issues that they hold dear. Such a tragedy.
|
Posted Tuesday, November 11, 2008 6:01 PM By JLS
I don't see why the bishops are expected to beat their gums when so many "Catholics" do not want to listen. It does not take Catholicism to know that abortion is gravely wrong. The Church has spoken out time immemorial on this. Anyone who has responded to the faith of Christ would both naturally and supernaturally look into these things. Those many who do not do this are not really faithful, but shams. We are living in times when there are great numbers of paper Catholics, the ones who prove it by a piece of paper stating it as fact. Problem for them is this, that when they find themselves in their final confession box, it'll be too dark for St Peter to read it, and he'll have no reason not to pull the flush handle on that fraud who replaced the true ransom, Jesus, with a piece of paper.
|
Posted Tuesday, November 11, 2008 8:37 PM By JLS
The only way for the bishops to realize a political administration friendly to the Church is to call for it. It will not be found in a "revitalized" Republican or Democratic party. The Church has first to persuade the public that it should raise moral men to the leadership position. In order to do this, the bishops have to educate the public. I'm not at all saying that they have not been working to do this, but what I'm saying is that for some reason the public is not responding. The public hears whatever anyone can think of to grab their ears ... The bishops can talk all they want, but this is not going to have much effect. The only thing that will do it is holiness. A worldly or bad man will turn away from a holy one, in many or most cases. Thus, if the bishops all get holy, then the bad clergy will likely leave ... either that or they'll crucify the holy ones. In either case the holiness will draw men of good will and faith. How much simpler can it get? Become holy, and all the troubles will wash down the drain. What does the Church imagine that Jesus wants if not for a holy Church? Is it imagined that Jesus wants a Church infested by weeds? So, there are two methods of holying up the clergy, hence the Church, hence the world, and they are either formal excommunication or simply holying up, so that the defiant prefer to leave.
|
Posted Wednesday, November 12, 2008 7:25 AM By elmo
Chaput was against the Iraq War. I thought by definition a neo-con has to support the war. You should get your facts straight before slandering people
|
Posted Wednesday, November 12, 2008 4:20 PM By JLS
No Catholic bishop can be both a "neo-con through and through" and a Catholic bishop. Bishops have political leanings, one has to consider the fact that God's authority in a bishop is infinitely moreso than any authority in a politician or group of politicians. Bishops do their best to exercise their divine authority.
|
Posted Wednesday, November 12, 2008 5:32 PM By Dave N.
An interesting quote about Cdl. George at the Bishop's conference. "George acknowledged that the church faces 'dissent from some of her teachings and dissatisfaction with aspects of her governance.’ " (Ya' think?) If a large proportion of the public over time can be convinced not to smoke, abortion should be a snap. But the bishops (particularly in the US) have zero credibility with the public on this or any other issue as long as they fail to fully acknowledge and repent of their role (for some, on-going) in the sex abuse scandal and of course many other problems pending in the US church. (Notably, even the Pope's promise to address this situation remains unfulfilled.) Baring something as dramatic as this, most people, and more importantly most Catholics, will continue to look upon the bishops' pronouncements with distrust and even disdain. It's sad to see that such a good message can be fouled or even undermined by such hypocritical messengers. The bishops must lead as examples of repentance; it's the only way out of this mess.
|
Posted Wednesday, November 12, 2008 7:45 PM By Dan
I read an article elsewhere which announced that the bishops in Baltimore chose the liberal Zavala over the pro-life bishop Robert Finn to head up the Communications Committee. The article goes on to say: "That the bishops chose Bishop Zavala over Bishop Finn who called voting for pro-abortion candidates a grave sin sends a clear message to pro-life Catholics who believe abortion is the central issue of our day. "We don't want to be embarrassed by a bishop who might speak TOO clearly on this issue." I believe it will be business as usual for our timid leaders.
|
Posted Thursday, November 13, 2008 1:32 PM By Victoria G.
I haven't been able to find anything about the broadcast of the bishop's conference, so I suppose it is, once again, behind closed doors.
|
Posted Friday, November 14, 2008 8:22 AM By JLS
Victoria G., there is planned one day of the conference, tomorrow I think, which is public ... not sure where I read this.
|
© California Catholic Daily 2008. All Rights Reserved.
|