In All Things
The Pope, Speaker Pelosi & Deal Hudson
It is time for Deal Hudson to change the name of his site from InsideCatholic.com to InsideRepublican.com. His partisan attack on Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who was received today by Pope Benedict XVI, puts him in an odd place: Hudson is now, officially, more Catholic than the Pope.
Hudson, who has long served as the point man for cooperation between the GOP and conservative Catholics, tries to defend the Pope’s decision to meet with Pelosi as mere diplomatic protocol, the kind of thing Benedict must do as head of state. He even acknowledges that grace may be present: "It’s a good idea for Benedict to meet with Pelosi, because one can never underestimate the impact of being in his presence." Actually, the Master promised to be present wherever two or three are gathered in his name, and did not specify that one of the two or three had to be the Bishop of Rome. I can understand why conservatives oppose "cheap grace" but must they replace it with "sparse grace"?
But, Hudson is not content to ostensibly praise the Holy Father. He goes on to tell him to do his job. Hudson writes: "Pelosi, of course, should be denied communion, but it is unlikely to happen. Any priest who celebrates Mass with Pelosi present will be carefully chosen beforehand in order to avoid embarrassment to the Speaker and her entourage." Actually, the priest may or may not be chosen by Pelosi. She could just attend whatever Mass is being said at the church closest to her hotel. But, that priest will most definitely have been chosen by the Bishop of Rome to serve the spiritual needs of the city. And in the Eternal City, there is no such policy of denying communion to politicians because of political disagreement.
Not content to tell the Pope to do his job, Hudson also has instructions for the Archbishop of San Francisco. "Given the publicity Pelosi will receive during this trip, Archbishop Niederauer should issue another public statement reiterating his criticism of her position on abortion -- and that, furthermore, if she presents herself for communion, he will deny it to her," Hudson opines. "If he were to remain silent, he would experience the embarrassment of having other U.S. bishops responding to Pelosi, in his place, on behalf of the Church." I am not sure if it bothers anyone else, but it strikes me as passing strange to not only tell the kind Archbishop Niederauer how to do his job but also how to feel about it, that his appropriate emotional response should be embarrassment. This is creepy. If I received this essay from a student I would have circled this paragraph and written the word "Boundaries" in the margin.
Speaker Pelosi made a hash of Catholic theology last summer on "Meet the Press" and her Archbishop set the record straight without guessing her motives and without diminishing his affection for her as a child of God and a daughter of the Church. Pope Benedict has made it clear that he will leave the denial of communion to local ordinaries where it properly rests. Hudson should listen to the Q-and-A at Marquette Law School with Archbishop Timothy Dolan on the subject: The man widely expected to be named Archbishop of New York later this week made clear that the "no communion" approach was not his. If Pope Benedict really wanted to endorse the effort to turn the communion rail into a battlefront in the culture wars, he would have named someone else to the cathedra in St. Patrick’s.
Mr. Hudson is no doubt a sincere Catholic and a sincere Republican. But, his interest in promoting his party continues to lead him down intellectual paths that are at odds with the most basic of Catholic principles. We bloggers are entitled to be a little churlish, to even indulge a little ad hominem vitriol in the interest of spicy prose, to encourage the "clash" of ideas rather than the calm, charitable sharing of theological discussion. But, as we approach the communion rail, shouldn’t we have something on our mind other than the state of the soul of the person next to us in the line? And, where does InsideCatholic get off telling the Pope how to run his diocese or Archbishop Niederauer how to feel when running his?
Comments (18) |
2291 Views
Add Comments (registration required)
Comments
True enough about Deal Hudson, but the same could be written for the likes of Catholic Democrats as well who have bent over backwards to accomodate their party's dancing in toe with the pro-abortion lobby under the benign label of being "pro-choice". Some of these same people saw it fitting to scold (in an official capacity as members of Congress) Pope Benedict XVI over the SSPX matter. Did you have the same sense of outrage at Democrats "telling the Pope how to run his diocese"?
The Vatican statement also includes the following: ''His Holiness took the opportunity to speak of the requirements of the natural moral law and the Church's consistent teaching on the dignity of human life from conception to natural death which enjoin all Catholics, and especially legislators, jurists and those responsible for the common good of society, to work in co-operation with all men and women of good will in creating a just system of laws capable of protecting human life at all stages of its development.''
This diplomatese for: the Pope gave the Speaker a good talking to.
I don't think you'll see any more pro-abort Democratic pols stopping by for a Papal chat anytime soon.
He seems very keen to be passing on information others "should know." It seems to have been his modus operandi in his Karl Rove days--getting a minor USCCB worker fired, only to have tumbled from political grace when others blabbed on his own flawed past. One might think an experience of being publicly outed and humiliated would inform his current practices. Maybe so, maybe not.
Personally, I don't have a problem with him being a Republican. He doesn't have theological training, and his career has mostly been in politics. People who know Mr Hudson know he's a diehard ideologue in the public sphere, and a devoted Catholic too. Which comes first isn't really my concern, nor should it be anyone else's. We can read what he writes and make our own judgments, if we feel so compelled.
That said, I'm not going to the House Speaker for theological insights either. Ms Pelosi and Mr Hudson operate in the same realm--and politics is clearly their gift. When I want theology, I'll go elsewhere. Each of them has shown a similar depth with theology in their public writings and statements, and a discerning reader would find it out soon enough.
http://natcath.org/NCR_Online/archives2/2004c/082704/082704i.php
Quoting from my letter in NCReporter in 2004 to clarify:
“In my view, what Hudson did amounted to rape, taking advantage of a drunken, troubled student, when the power differential was obvious: a 44-year-old faculty leader with a vulnerable 18-year-old. How dare he adopt the benign public relations language of bishops about “mistakes,” “grievous sin” or “embarrassing event” when I believe “crime” is the more appropriate term? And shall we parse the definition of rape to exclude Hudson’s action? His version of consent must be breathtaking.
What was missing in the article though was some indication of how XXXX is faring today. I pray she is a victim turned survivor, and has come through the darkness somehow. The perpetrator goes on to power and glory while the wounded copes as best she can.”
According to the Washington Times http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20040921-114801-5122r.htm,
Hudson lost his tenured position at Fordham and paid a $30,000 settlement. The article noted, “Specific accusations of more recent sexual misconduct had come to the (Crisis) board’s attention…This was not about one incident 10 years ago…”
Hudson had written previously about “the lie that a person’s private conduct makes no difference to the execution of their public responsibilities.” Having been hoist with his own petard, let his words be taken seriously.
One might postulate that to deny a sinner the means of salvation is to reject power of the Holy Spirit to transform lives. This would be the ''sin against the Holy Spirit.'' Have these priests considered that they could be placing their own souls in unpardonable danger?
The problem with being a journalist seems to be that one comes to believe that one has been transformed into a theologian / biologist / politician / and so on and on. Is it a confusion of opinion with serious thought?
Another difference between Jesuits and Dominicans?
Then the very next paragraph, the author is appalled by Mr. Hudson noting what 'should' be done. Reading very deep into the comment, the author believes Mr. Hudson is telling the Pope how to "do his job." That is the logical equivalent of me being at a ball game and saying "what the coach 'should' do here is put on the hit'n'run." I am no more telling the coach how to run his team than Mr. Hudson is telling the Pope how to act! For God's sake, we all have an idea of how we think things 'should' be, but no one makes us out as arrogantly as the author does to Mr. Hudson.
And as for the second to last question regarding 'the state of the soul of the person next to us in the line,' I would remind the author to reread the parable of the Good Samaritan. Additionally Paul tells we are to reproach an errant brother, not coddle or ignore him over our own concerns. We are called to assist in the salvation of our fellow man, not leave him lying on the road when morally (or physically) destitute.
Mr. Hudson has his personal flaws (don't we all?), for which he has repeatedly and earnestly apologized. Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI have repeatedly apologized for the flaws of the clergy. Flaws acknowledged, how does that impact the truth of their words? Answer: It doesn't. Thwe difference is Pelosi, Biden et al refuse to acknowledge their own flaws that are directly impacting the lives of the most vulnerable.
Final point. If you've never read Inside Catholic or CRISIS Magazine, then you probably don't know it is regularly populated by Democrat Party writers, bloggers and readers.
Can you imagine in the Church of the first century a local politician entering a Church in Corinth or Rome or Jerusalem and someone pointing out to Paul or Peter or one of the other elders present that this woman or man in fact supported the local custom of women killing the baby in their wombs?This person in authority described herself as an ardent member of their Church and although she disagreed with Peter and Paul on certain issues that should not be a problem for anybody. Then Paul perhaps shrugging his shoulders says "ok lets get started" and the local Pol takes her place with the other Christians present and perhaps sits next to Mary (Mother of Jesus) and a couple of gals called Felicity and Perpetua!!A big tent indeed.This is my body given up for you!This is your body given up for me
I also must say that the caricuture from Mr Winters as to Deal Hudson is a tad sad. If one has been noticing lately Deal and the contributors have all sort of opinions often critical of the GOP.
I suppose Deal's series of post on opposing what Israel was doing in Gaza escapted everyones attention as just a recent example
Add Comments (registration required)
* The opinions expressed here are those of our contributors, and do not necessarily reflect the editorial opinion of America magazine.