Church and State

The Washington Times on the bishops and Catholic politicians

Ever since the Holy Roman Empire in pre-medieval Europe, the Vatican has seen the church as a public institution entitled to negotiate with political figures, says David Walsh, a political-science professor at Catholic University. Given the bias toward separation of church and state in American politics, U.S. bishops have hesitated to intervene.
"They'd rather say that even more than being religious issues, these are human rights issues," he says. "I think that'd be the kind of rhetoric McCarrick would be more comfortable with."

Bishop Burke, soon to be of St. Louis, sent a letter

The 21/2-page letter details how Lassa voted on several recent bills and legislative initiatives related to abortion - including her vote against a bill that would have allowed health care professionals to refuse to participate in procedures that violate their personal or spiritual beliefs.

"As a faithful member of the Catholic Church, you have an obligation to fulfill the duties of your office with regard not only to the laws of the state, but also with regard to the moral law," Burke wrote

And then Hugh Hewitt takes it from another angle: why won't bishops defend politicians being attacked for their faith?

The bishops ought to agree to at least defend the defenders of the faith against the attacks of this last group. That is, if a Catholic who is orthodox and observant in his or her beliefs comes under attack for those beliefs, especially by elected officials presuming to call themselves "Catholic" and gain the political advantage of so doing, then the bishops ought to at least rally around that public man or woman against the attacks.

Alabama attorney general William Pryor comes to mind.

Pryor is one of the president's judicial nominees who has been filibustered by the Democratic minority because of his "deeply held views," which is code for his Catholic beliefs. The Catholic lay group, the Knights of Columbus, has denounced the bigotry beneath the opposition to Pryor, and Republican senators used much of their recent lengthy debate to highlight Pryor's extraordinary credentials that qualify him for service on the Eleventh Circuit.

But the American Catholic bishops as a group have been silent on the Pryor nomination, thus emboldening Pryor's opponents and underscoring their own trepidation.

Comments

[Patrick Sweeney]

No one will believe the bishops are serious until a politician is excommunicated. And the bishops are basically blocked by 40 years of precedent in not excommunicating politicians for acting in contradiction of clear Catholic moral teaching.

[walter]

(continuing Patrick's line of thought...) and supported in their inaction by the fact that some of the laity continue to vote for these guys! Or is that a possible reason for their inaction, rather than a result?

[John]

The Vatican should have penalized bishops for not acting...then the bishops would have moved, at least some of them. This issue has been miss-managed all around. The Vatican giving orders then not enforcing them makes a mockery. Even bishops who wanted to do things gave up after a while.

[kevin]

"The Vatican should have penalized bishops for not acting..."

John, should the Vatican really have to do such a thing? I mean, if the Vatican had to "penalize bishops" for their inactions, maybe 10% of the ones here in the U.S. in the last 25 years or so would NOT have been penalized (for lack of proper catechesis, no mandatum from the theologians, failing to admonish pro-death politicians etc. etc).

The idea that the Holy See has to micro-manage all of the bishops and their diocese's across the globe when they have pretty much laid the law down is a bit much if you ask me.

I understand what you mean, I am frustrated with these "hapless bench of bishops" too. My sense is that the tide is turning. Hang in there, pray for the bishops, and the Holy Father. I realize you might say "But it is the Holy Father's job" and you would be correct. Let's just pray about the situation.

[Mike Benz]

What do people think the McCarrick committee will end up doing? The Wash. Times article talked about the committee issuing guidelines. I can't imagine that we're going to see black and white written rules. Does anyone else think we will? I would imagine that we'll see more tough words laid down but not much in terms of what Bishops will do if politicians don't reform.

Is there a document from the USCCB about what this committee's mandate is?

[John Hetman]

For the most part, we are asking Tweedle Dee to censure Tweedle Dum. Most of our bishops are more reminiscent of Henry VII's time than that of a lean, fighting Church. Pasty, pampered creatures; the children of a once-vibrant Faith, they long for security and comfort.

As for our "Catholic" politicians who support immorality in the name of alleged constituent consensus, they are minor megalomaniacs who lust after their place in the holiday parades. Cowards and traitors to their faith, no one forced them to run for office.

When the persecution comes (full force), you can watch these guys and gals fall away from Church like oak leaves in an October gale.