In All Things
Just Say 'No' to Episcopal Extremism
Yesterday the Vatican appointed a new auxiliary for Washington, D.C., forty-five year old Bishop-elect Barry Knestout. This is a big feather in the cap of D.C.’s Archbishop Donald Wuerl: Getting such a young auxiliary through Rome’s sometimes arcane appointment process is not easy. Wuerl, of course, has declined the invitation from conservatives and from some of his more extreme fellow bishops to refuse communion to pro-choice Democratic politicians.
Last week, Bishop Robert Finn of Kansas City, Missouri was a candidate for chairman of the U.S. Bishops Conference Communications Committee. Finn, it will be remembered, said those thinking of voting for Barack Obama should consider their eternal salvation. He garnered 97 votes, losing to Los Angeles’s Auxiliary Bishop Gabino Zavala who received 129 votes. Zavala went on the record before the election to assert that Catholics need not be one-issue voters. Major committee chairmanships are rarely awarded to auxiliaries so Zavala’s victory was especially striking.
Archbishop Joseph Naumann of Kansas City, Kansas made headlines last spring when he instructed that state’s Governor Kathleen Sebelius to abstain from receiving communion because of her pro-choice stance. At the conference, Naumann argued persistently for the entire episcopal bench to adopt his "no communion" policy for pro-choice politicians. Naumann was a candidate for the Bishops’ Committee on Pro-Life Activities. He lost to Houston Cardinal Daniel DiNardo 165-59.
To be clear: All bishops are opposed to abortion. That is not the issue. At issue is how the bishops should conduct themselves in the public square. Bishops hate to disagree in public so you are not likely to hear more moderate bishops publicly say what must be said. But, yesterday a Vatican source said it on background and pointed out that I can say it in the light of day: These bishops who want to turn the altar rail into a battlefront in the culture wars, these clergy who wish to drag the Church’s teaching into the partisan arena, these prelates who believe that their approach to a complicated legal issue is the only approach, they are extremists and they are a minority within the hierarchy. They stand outside our American traditions of political behavior and outside our Catholic traditions of episcopal governance. They are Pharasaic in their skimpy appraisal of the super-abundance of God’s mercy and delusional in their assessment of the political landscape.
The ad limina visits have been delayed until 2010, so the Holy See will not speak comprehensively to the American hierarchy until then. But the Holy Father would be well advised to make a statement in his selection of new bishops: No Pharisees. And, the USCCB deserves credit for sending the same statement in their selection of new committee chairmen: No extremists.




Add Comments (registration required)
Comments
Yeh...I think you've nailed it.
The Donatists lost to Rome, which was back by the Emperor at that time, but held on in North Africa to varying degrees until the Muslim conquest in the 600-700s. As we see even today, rigorism and fundamentalism are very appealing to many. But Donatism was defeated.
Cardinal George’s statement at the bishops’ conference set exactly the tone bishops SHOULD offer.
He was forthrightly, unapologetically against abortion. Yet he pointed out that Barack Obama was elected because of the economy, not his stand on abortion.
(None of the condescending references to concerns about the economy or the war that some of our wouldbe Dobsons offered.)
If, the cardinal added, Obama misread his election as a mandate to push the Freedom of Choice Act, or move to require Catholic hospitals to provide abortions, the church would fight him every step of the way, as it should.
As I said, the proper tone. I also suspect that between the economy, ending the war, and other high priority concerns, it will be a long time, if ever, before the Freedom of Choice Act is pushed in any serious way.
As for your descriptions of certain bishops as ''pharasaical'' in their approach to religion, and ''delusional'' in their political views- right on!
And here we see the continuity of the Church. None of these supposed "extreme" bishops are asking anything other than the confession and penance of those who have sinned. One could arguably say today's "extremists" are those who would have the bishops be keep mum rather than fulfil their responsibilities by warning their flock that there are grave spiritual consequences for receiving the Eucharist unworthily. It would be nice though if they made these warnings on a whole host of sins and not just the political ones.
Burke was promoveatur ut amoveatur,that's he was kicked off S. Louis.
Yeh...I think you've nailed it.
Most pro-life Catholics have figured out that until there is actually a PLAN in place which really deals with these issues THERE CAN BE NO OBLIGATION TO SUPPORT THESE CANDIDATES AND OPPOSE THOSE WHO DISAGREE. Promising to punt to the states does not qualify - since it would upset the balance of the federal-state relationship in a way that is unacceptable. It also says nothing about HOW a right to life would be granted at the state level. The dirty little secret of the pro-life movement is that its solutions don't poll well. This is why it does not mention them.
Where I come from, this is called dishonesty.
You should probably take what I say to heart, especially if you disagree - because until you do it will be impossible to reach people like me - the emerging Democratic Catholic majority.
The purpose of denying communion is not to punish the politician. It is to make Church teaching clearer to the faithful. Many Catholics believe that abortion is acceptable. When Catholic pro-abortion politicians receive communion, it is a source of scandal for the faithful. It reinforces the errant views of so many Catholics regarding this issue.
Working for peace and working to help the poor are what we are called to do. However, while watching your magazine's apparent attempts to put abortion in a box in the corner and focus exclusively on other issues, I am reminded of Mother Teresa's words at the National Prayer Breakfast in 1994:
"Many people are very, very concerned with the children of India, with the children of Africa where quite a few die of hunger, and so on. Many people are also concerned about all the violence in this great country of the United States. These concerns are very good. But often these same people are not concerned with the millions who are being killed by the deliberate decision of their own mothers. And this is what is the greatest destroyer of peace today - abortion which brings people to such blindness."
While nearly 50 million unborn children have been killed in this country since 1973, America publishes articles complaining about bishops who want to end the scandal caused by pro-abortion politicians receiving communion? If it were 50 million killed in concentration camps in this country, what would be your reaction? If it were 50 million immigrants killed trying to cross the border, what would be your reaction? What if elected officials called themselves Catholic and yet supported such killing? Would you protest vigorous efforts to correct the effects of these leaders' actions on the views of the faithful?
Abortion should not be separated from justice issues. It should be the primary justice issue. Where is the justice in an unborn child that is dismembered in the womb?
The quarrel people have has to do with solutions, not goals.
Add Comments (registration required)
* The opinions expressed here are those of our contributors, and do not necessarily reflect the editorial opinion of America magazine.