May 9, 2013

Michael Gadson

Catholic and American? Part one

If you asked Catholics in the United States in the 1950s if it was possible to be fully Catholic and fully American, most would have answered with an enthusiastic YES! In the first decade after World War II where Catholics and non-Catholics had fought side-by-side against common enemies, simultaneously overcoming some deep-seated prejudices among themselves, the great majority of Catholics had few if any worries about the compatibility of the Catholic faith with American culture. Do we still feel that way today?

The Most Rev. Thomas J. Olmsted is the bishop of the Diocese of Phoenix. He was installed as the fourth bishop of Phoenix on Dec. 20, 2003, and is the spiritual leader of the diocese's 820,000 Catholics.

The Most Rev. Thomas J. Olmsted is the bishop of the Diocese of Phoenix. He was installed as the fourth bishop of Phoenix on Dec. 20, 2003, and is the spiritual leader of the diocese’s 820,000 Catholics.

Can we still be Catholic and American?

Sixty years ago when Catholics were pursuing higher education as never before, when vocations to the priesthood and religious life were at an all time high level, when Catholic hospitals and schools were expanding and flourishing at unprecedented rates, most Catholics in the United States were proud to be here; and very few anticipated the tensions that would erupt within American culture in the 1960s and the crises that would fray the fabric of the Catholic community after the Second Vatican Council.

Now, over half a century later, many Catholics have at best ambivalent feelings about the relationship between Catholicism and America. So much has changed since the good old days of the ’50s. Consider, for example, the following: 45 years of legalized abortion has killed more than 50 million unborn children, the HHS mandates of the federal government seriously threaten religious liberty, and the powerful political and other societal forces gravely weaken the institution of marriage and with it serious threats to the well-being of children. Should Catholic still be excited about being American citizens?

Do we even have a problem?

Last year, the archbishop of Toronto, Cardinal Thomas Collins, spoke of the obstacles to the New Evangelization found in Canada and the United States today. He said: “Public opinion polls indicate a disturbing phenomenon… While we are trying to evangelize, the rulers of this age, who shape popular culture, are effectively de-evangelizing many Christians. Often the misguided ideas against which we speak are increasingly attractive, and the principles we affirm are unattractive, to Catholics as much as any others, who are unconsciously absorbing the false wisdom of the age.”

What is it in American society today that makes “misguided ideas” attractive? And what makes solid principles of Catholic faith and morals unattractive? It is not hard to see how this cultural phenomenon greatly hinders efforts of the Church in North America to bear witness to the saving message of Jesus Christ. But how many even see and acknowledge that we have a problem?

The depth of the present crisis is evidenced in the fact that large numbers of Catholics, being more embedded in our secularist culture than in the life of the Church, feel quite at home in this world. Not only do they not feel motivated to work for cultural change, writes Russell Shaw in his new book “American Church,” they do not even see a problem, not even feel a need to take a good, hard look at what is happening to the basic foundations of American society and at its corrosive effect on the Church and other faith-based institutions, and upon human dignity and the foundational institutions of society, especially marriage. As Russell writes (p. 13), “On the evidence, many appear neither ready nor willing to provide a Christian critique of things like legalized abortion… the contraceptionist consumerist mentality that dominates the American dream of material success, the idol of American exceptionalism abroad, and much else in the world view of contemporary secular America in serious tension with their religious tradition.”

Keep your eye on the Chair

A recent headline caught my eye, NOT because it conjures up memories of a former basketball coach but because it expresses the opposite of apathy. The headline read: “Sometimes, Throw a Chair.” The greatest challenge that we Catholics face in America is indifferentism, not Americanism; it is not a problem of being too patriotic but a problem of being morally lazy, intellectually sloppy and spiritually asleep.

Many things can freeze us in our tracks and keep us from responding to crises that threaten us individually or as a community: from doubts and fears on the one hand to failure even to notice that there is a crisis. We can fail even to notice “a progressive secularization of society and a kind of eclipse of the sense of God” (as Pope Benedict XVI described the crisis); or even worse we can fail even to care about this dramatic drift away from faith in God that has poisoned the culture of so-called “first world” countries like America.

In striking contrast to this sickly slide into sloth that has weakened our American culture, we have the startling words of Jesus (Lk 12:49), “I have come to set a fire on the earth, how I wish it were already blazing!” We also have the refreshing spontaneity and compelling witness of Pope Francis who continually challenges mediocrity even as he inspires love. His personal witness to Christ has been formed in the crucible of suffering, in his relentless advocacy for the forgotten and poor, and in his courageous defense of human dignity and religious freedom before hostile governments in his native land.

Pope Francis, perhaps more by his own person and deeds than his words, is awakening Catholics to our mission from Christ at this pivotal point in history. We don’t have to worry about Pope Francis throwing a chair but we can be sure that his witness to Christ from the Chair of Peter will continue to make the indifferent uncomfortable and ignite the fire of love among followers of Christ today. May we welcome that fire with grateful hearts.

In the next issue of The Catholic Sun, I will look more closely at the relationship between the Church and American culture, at the challenges we Catholics have faced and continue face today, and what we must do in order to be faithful to our mission. The vast field of evangelization in America has both disturbing trends and grace-filled marvels. It is precisely in face of both that we have the duty and privilege of knowing, loving and serving Jesus Christ.

Category: Bishop Olmsted, Views

Mar 29, 2013

Michael Gadson

No Comments

USCCB: offer Good Friday fast, abstinence for strength to live Catholic faith …

Click here to advertise on CatholicCulture.org

USCCB: offer Good Friday fast, abstinence for strength to live Catholic faith in daily life

CWN – March 29, 2013

From Our Store: Essays in Apologetics, Volume II (eBook)

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) has asked Catholics to offer their fasting and abstinence from meat on March 29 “for the strength to stand with Christ and conduct our personal and professional lives according to our religious convictions.”

“On this Good Friday, let us ardently pray to Christ our Savior for the courage and strength to express our religious convictions—to be unafraid to witness to the truth,” the USCCB flyer continued.

The USCCB has asked Catholics to fast and abstain from meat on all Fridays until the conclusion of the Year of Faith; both are obligatory on Good Friday.

Additional sources for this story
Some links will take you to other sites, in a new window.

Friday Fast For Life, Marriage Religious Liberty: March 29: Good Friday (USCCB)

There are no comments yet for this item.

Mar 2, 2013

Tom Shannon

No Comments

Bill Seeks to Protect Religious Groups

Ed Colbert says the Houston Independent School District wouldn’t let him host a Catholic Bible study group on school grounds after school hours because of his religious beliefs.

In response to concerns like these, state Rep. Matt Krause, R-Fort Worth, has filed a bill that would codify in Texas law existing U.S. Supreme Court rulings that ensure that religious groups have the same rights to hold meetings at public school facilities as nonreligious organizations.

“The bill adds a little extra layer of religious liberty,” Krause said.

Under House Bill 1525, known as “The Religious Equal Access Act,” if a public school district allows noncurricular community groups not organized by students to meet during “noninstructional” time, the same access would be allowed to religious organizations. Krause said the bill would protect groups that may have been denied access to facilities because of the religious nature of their organization.

“The issue is really a lack of legislation saying something either way,” Colbert said.

Colbert, who lives in Houston, said new legislation would make it easier for both religious and nonreligious organizations to use public school facilities for meetings and community events — creating a level playing field.

“If an atheist believes he is speaking the truth and wants to rid the world of superstition, he should compete in the marketplace of ideas,” he said.

Krause, a lawyer, founded a Texas office of Liberty Counsel, a legal and educational organization dedicated to “advancing religious freedom, the sanctity of life, and the family since 1989, by providing pro bono assistance and representation on these and related topics.”

He said in a statement that through his pro bono work, he witnessed many people who experienced “viewpoint discrimination” while trying to access public facilities. He called it an infringement on First Amendment rights of free speech. Current laws prohibiting viewpoint discrimination are “crystal clear,” Krause said, but a lack of knowledge could be why some school districts deny religious organizations access to facilities.

“We need to put all school districts and everyone on notice that [viewpoint discrimination] is something you cannot do,” he said.

The U.S. Supreme Court rulings that Krause cites in the bill are Lamb’s Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School District and Good News Club v. Milford Central School. Both cases set precedents for religious groups and their rights regarding free speech on government property.

In the 1993 decision in Lamb’s Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School District, the court decided that government could not limit free speech because of a specific viewpoint. The court found in the 2003 case Good News Club v. Milord Central School that if the government has a “limited public forum,” it could limit the speech there to certain topics, but it could not discriminate against speech because of the viewpoint, including religious perspectives.

Zachary Moore, coordinator for the Dallas-Fort Worth Coalition of Reason, an umbrella organization for several Texas atheist groups, said he hasn’t seen any evidence of religious groups being denied access to the same use of school facilities as nonreligious groups, and doesn’t see a need for reinforcing current laws.

Although Moore said he doesn’t see a need for additional laws to protect religious organizations, he said that Krause’s legislation would help protect free speech rights of the secular movement, too.

“[Krause] is doing our work for us,” he said.

Texas Tribune donors or members may be quoted or mentioned in our stories, or may be the subject of them. For a complete list of contributors, click here.

Mar 1, 2013

Ann Compton

No Comments

Kathryn Lopez: Catholic Church doesn’t need a revolution

The pope has renounced the papal throne. Long live the progressive pope! Such are the rallying cries from establishment voices wanting to see the Catholic Church loosen up now that Pope Benedict XVI has decided to step down. But maybe people should listen to the Church’s actual views.

Mary Hasson from the Ethics and Public Policy Center has been doing some unique work looking into what Catholic women know and want from their Church. It’s scandalous and yet not entirely surprising that she found only 13 percent of Catholic women who occasionally attend Mass accept Church teaching on contraception.

It’s not a shock given that the average Catholic Mass goer is not exactly being taught the theology and even practicality of the Catholic teaching on sexual morality. Catholics all too often see Church teaching as a litany of “No”s when, in fact, it is all about “Yes.” Yes to human dignity and happiness. Yes to the respect for one another that comes from truly believing you are made in the image and likeness of God.

“On the one hand, the number is small, no question,” Hasson acknowledges. “That 13 percent includes not only weekly churchgoers but also women who attend less regularly, perhaps a few times a year. However, if we look only at women who attend Mass weekly, the percentage accepting the Church’s teaching on contraception goes up, doubling (to 27 percent) among young women ages 18-34. That’s a sign of hope — in spite of decades of dissenting theologians, silence from the parish pulpit and distorted cultural messages about sex, these women have heard the Church’s teaching and embraced it. These women form a solid core of faithful Catholics who can attest to the personal benefits of following the Church’s teaching on sexuality and family planning.”

And despite the current conversation about women, contraception and religious liberty that’s overtaken the government’s federal health-care push, the media coverage has been such that most Americans still don’t quite know what all the fuss is about. Some Catholic women have a similar relationship to Church teachings on contraception: 37 percent, in Hasson’s findings, were unsure about the specifics.

“The 37 percent seems to confirm the stories that abound of Catholic women who went to Mass every week for years and to confession regularly, but never heard that contraception is wrong. Similarly, how many Catholics have gone through (extensive marriage prep in the Church) by never heard word one about the Church’s teaching on sexuality or family planning,” she said. “Or perhaps (they) heard some general teachings, and then, with a wink, were told to follow their consciences, with no further guidance about forming their consciences.”

A cover story in glossy New York magazine recently dared to question the good of the birth-control pill based on the damage it had wrought on women’s lives and bodies. The one institution that proposes a radically different way might just have something to offer the world — if it only taught it and lived it.

Feb 23, 2013

Ann Compton

No Comments

The Church Doesn’t Need a Revolution

Tweet

The Church Doesn't Need a Revolution

The pope has renounced the papal throne. Long live the progressive pope! Such are the rallying cries from establishment voices wanting to see the Catholic Church loosen up now that Pope Benedict XVI has decided to step down. But maybe people should listen to the Church’s actual views.

Mary Hasson from the Ethics and Public Policy Center has been doing some unique work looking into what Catholic women know and want from their Church. It’s scandalous and yet not entirely surprising that she found only 13 percent of Catholic women who occasionally attend Mass accept Church teaching on contraception.

It’s not a shock given that the average Catholic Mass goer is not exactly being taught the theology and even practicality of the Catholic teaching on sexual morality. Catholics all too often see Church teaching as a litany of “No”s when, in fact, it is all about “Yes.” Yes to human dignity and happiness. Yes to the respect for one another that comes from truly believing you are made in the image and likeness of God.

“On the one hand, the number is small, no question,” Hasson acknowledges. “That 13 percent includes not only weekly churchgoers but also women who attend less regularly, perhaps a few times a year. However, if we look only at women who attend Mass weekly, the percentage accepting the Church’s teaching on contraception goes up, doubling (to 27 percent) among young women ages 18-34. That’s a sign of hope — in spite of decades of dissenting theologians, silence from the parish pulpit and distorted cultural messages about sex, these women have heard the Church’s teaching and embraced it. These women form a solid core of faithful Catholics who can attest to the personal benefits of following the Church’s teaching on sexuality and family planning.”

And despite the current conversation about women, contraception and religious liberty that’s overtaken the government’s federal health-care push, the media coverage has been such that most Americans still don’t quite know what all the fuss is about. Some Catholic women have a similar relationship to Church teachings on contraception: 37 percent, in Hasson’s findings, were unsure about the specifics.

Dec 5, 2012

Michael Gadson

No Comments

"To Hell With It" Award – Fr. Butler

Flannery O’Connor, early in her career, famously attended a party of the Catholic intellectual elite in New York City, during which the consensus of the group emerged that the Eucharist was, whatever their doubts about the doctrine of transubstantiation, still a useful symbol, worthy of admiration if not really the assent of deeply held faith. Flannery famously confronted this faux-rationalism of the literati with the comment, “Well, if it’s only a symbol, then to hell with it.” Today, I begin a short series of commentaries – “To Hell With It” – on Catholic identity, inspired by Flannery’s quip, which is more than a quip; it is a challenge to us all to question our own capacity for a sophisticated rationale for this cause or that agenda.

I start with Father George Rutler, a man who I would like to meet because I enjoy his capacity for story-telling, but a man with whom I would argue profoundly because he has aligned the cause of Holy Mother Church, which I do not doubt for a second he ardently holds dear to his heart, with a political agenda that is unworthy, perhaps not of Rutler, but definitely unworthy of Jesus Christ. I refer you to Rutler’s column at Crisis magazine the other day on religious liberty.

One would be hard-pressed to find a single article that manages to insert more right-wing agit-prop than this. There is the equation of America’s current debate over religious liberty with the French Revolution, as if President Obama, whatever his faults, was really little different from Robespierre. I take back not a single word I have uttered against President Obama and his obnoxious HHS mandate with its narrow exemptions for religious institutions. But, he is not Robespierre, there are no guillotines, and the HHS mandate is not the Civil Constitution of the Clergy. Historical analogies are meant to enlighten, not inflame, contemporary political debate.

Rutler then takes on, a propos of nothing in particular, the US bishops’ statement on the economy in the 1980s, “Economic Justice for All.” Rutler writes: “The letter’s flaws were addressed by laymen who knew about economics, such as William Simon, J. Peter Grace, and Michael Novak.” So, we must listen to our bishops, except when they fail to agree with us? As for Mssrs. Simon, Grace and Novak, they know something of a particular brand of economic thinking, a brand that has its roots in a deeply anti-Christian ideology espoused by the likes of von Mises, Hayek and Rand. Simon, Grace and Novak were early apologists for the plutocratic age in which we live, confident that the market would bring about all manner of human happiness and right living (remember the End of History?), a confidence that has been unshaken in Rutler’s mind by recent history. I guess his 401(k) must have done better than mine.

Rutler goes on to note that “the archbishop responsible for the letter on economics retired in unhappy circumstances from his archdiocese which eventually filed for bankruptcy protection.” Of course, “Economic Justice for All” was passed overwhelmingly by the full body of bishops, so it is wrong to suggest that there was only one archbishop who was “responsible” for it. But, Rutler wishes to create a correlation between whatever truths were found in the economic pastoral and the subsequent personal failings of Archbishop Weakland who led the drafting committee. On this theory, we should ignore the Successor of Peter because Peter denied Jesus three times, or condemn the Declaration of Independence because it was written by a slave-holder. But, this is not really a theory so much as it is an ugly attempt to further besmirch the reputation of a man whose flaws are well known but whose writings can stand or fall on their own. It is telling, is it not, that Rutler does not once challenge any of the content of the pastoral letter he is trying to undermine.

Rutler notes that while Protestants backed the candidacy of Mr. Romney in the recent election, Catholics backed Obama narrowly and Latino Catholics backed Obama with 71% of their votes. He notes: “Actually, everyone has suffered from the neglect of catechesis in the past forty years.” He clearly intends to intimate a causal connection here. Certainly, I am prepared to agree with his observation about the neglect of catechesis, although I would not let any child of mine near a CCD class led by Rutler. But, I am also prepared to acknowledge that Latinos were right to reject the candidacy of a man and a party that showed great disrespect for them and for their interests and to wonder if Rutler will some day be condemning those bishops who rightly argue for immigration reform. (Perhaps we should consult some of his neo-con friends, people who “know about immigration policy,” and see if they can gin up a counter-letter to the bishops’ statements on the subject in the manner of Simon, Grace and Novak.) Conscience is deeper than morals, it goes to what Levinas called “the moral challenge of the face of another.” Our conscience informs not only our conduct but our stance towards the world and especially towards other people and to God. Mr. Romney suggested undocumented Latinos self-deport and his wife unhelpfully addressed a group of Latinos as “you people.” Latinos had every right in the world to vote as they did.

Bad as all this is, what truly earns Rutler his place in this “To Hell With It” series is his evident willingness to conflate Catholic faith with American civil religion. He notes approvingly George Washington’s comments about “our blessed religion” and Franklin Roosevelt’s D-Day Prayer. Rutler laments “We are not a Christian nation now.” But, I am suspicious of this conflation of our Catholic faith with American civil religion. I will go further and say that I am suspicious of the conflation of our Catholic faith with the dominant Protestantism that has shaped all religion, including ours, in American history. For starters, I have been re-reading Patricia Bonomi’s “Under the Cope of Heaven” and Linda Colley’s “Britons” so the deep hostility to Catholicism that shaped the political thinking of the American revolutionary generation is at the forefront of my thinking. The civil religion that Washington and Roosevelt evoked is not the same thing as the Catholicism I discern in the Creed. This civil religion received its pithiest expression from Dwight Eisenhower when he said that America’s “form of government has no sense unless it is founded in a deeply held religious faith, and I don’t care what it is.” To be fair, Ike was trying to explain the source of America’s commitment to equality in our religious tradition. And, the latitudinarianism of Eisenhower’s “I don’t care what it is” is not merely the result of his pre-Inauguration conversion to Presbyterianism, but is deeply rooted in American religious experience.

I do “care what it is.” I reject civil religion as an imposter, just as I reject Michael Novak’s attempt to apply the prophet Isaiah’s “suffering servant” text to the modern business corporation. Rutler stands in a long line of Catholic neo-conservative thinkers who decry the encroachments of secularism, without recognizing how far encroached it is, that it has already gained a foothold in their minds, that in reducing religion to a prop for Americanism, they are engaged in a kind of blasphemy or even idolatry. Jesus Christ did not die to make America great. Period. If He had, if Catholicism and civil religion were the same, I would not give a hoot whether it survives or dies. For failing to see that, Father George Rutler wins this week’s first “To Hell With It” award.

Dec 4, 2012

Michael Gadson

No Comments

"To Hell With It" – Fr. Butler

Flannery O’Connor, early in her career, famously attended a party of the Catholic intellectual elite in New York City, during which the consensus of the group emerged that the Eucharist was, whatever their doubts about the doctrine of transubstantiation, still a useful symbol, worthy of admiration if not really the assent of deeply held faith. Flannery famously confronted this faux-rationalism of the literati with the comment, “Well, if it’s only a symbol, then to hell with it.” Today, I begin a short series of commentaries – “To Hell With It” – on Catholic identity, inspired by Flannery’s quip, which is more than a quip; it is a challenge to us all to question our own capacity for a sophisticated rationale for this cause or that agenda.

I start with Father George Rutler, a man who I would like to meet because I enjoy his capacity for story-telling, but a man with whom I would argue profoundly because he has aligned the cause of Holy Mother Church, which I do not doubt for a second he ardently holds dear to his heart, with a political agenda that is unworthy, perhaps not of Rutler, but definitely unworthy of Jesus Christ. I refer you to Rutler’s column at Crisis magazine the other day on religious liberty.

One would be hard-pressed to find a single article that manages to insert more right-wing agit-prop than this. There is the equation of America’s current debate over religious liberty with the French Revolution, as if President Obama, whatever his faults, was really little different from Robespierre. I take back not a single word I have uttered against President Obama and his obnoxious HHS mandate with its narrow exemptions for religious institutions. But, he is not Robespierre, there are no guillotines, and the HHS mandate is not the Civil Constitution of the Clergy. Historical analogies are meant to enlighten, not inflame, contemporary political debate.

Rutler then takes on, a propos of nothing in particular, the US bishops’ statement on the economy in the 1980s, “Economic Justice for All.” Rutler writes: “The letter’s flaws were addressed by laymen who knew about economics, such as William Simon, J. Peter Grace, and Michael Novak.” So, we must listen to our bishops, except when they fail to agree with us? As for Mssrs. Simon, Grace and Novak, they know something of a particular brand of economic thinking, a brand that has its roots in a deeply anti-Christian ideology espoused by the likes of von Mises, Hayek and Rand. Simon, Grace and Novak were early apologists for the plutocratic age in which we live, confident that the market would bring about all manner of human happiness and right living (remember the End of History?), a confidence that has been unshaken in Rutler’s mind by recent history. I guess his 401(k) must have done better than mine.

Rutler goes on to note that “the archbishop responsible for the letter on economics retired in unhappy circumstances from his archdiocese which eventually filed for bankruptcy protection.” Of course, “Economic Justice for All” was passed overwhelmingly by the full body of bishops, so it is wrong to suggest that there was only one archbishop who was “responsible” for it. But, Rutler wishes to create a correlation between whatever truths were found in the economic pastoral and the subsequent personal failings of Archbishop Weakland who led the drafting committee. On this theory, we should ignore the Successor of Peter because Peter denied Jesus three times, or condemn the Declaration of Independence because it was written by a slave-holder. But, this is not really a theory so much as it is an ugly attempt to further besmirch the reputation of a man whose flaws are well known but whose writings can stand or fall on their own. It is telling, is it not, that Rutler does not once challenge any of the content of the pastoral letter he is trying to undermine.

Rutler notes that while Protestants backed the candidacy of Mr. Romney in the recent election, Catholics backed Obama narrowly and Latino Catholics backed Obama with 71% of their votes. He notes: “Actually, everyone has suffered from the neglect of catechesis in the past forty years.” He clearly intends to intimate a causal connection here. Certainly, I am prepared to agree with his observation about the neglect of catechesis, although I would not let any child of mine near a CCD class led by Rutler. But, I am also prepared to acknowledge that Latinos were right to reject the candidacy of a man and a party that showed great disrespect for them and for their interests and to wonder if Rutler will some day be condemning those bishops who rightly argue for immigration reform. (Perhaps we should consult some of his neo-con friends, people who “know about immigration policy,” and see if they can gin up a counter-letter to the bishops’ statements on the subject in the manner of Simon, Grace and Novak.) Conscience is deeper than morals, it goes to what Levinas called “the moral challenge of the face of another.” Our conscience informs not only our conduct but our stance towards the world and especially towards other people and to God. Mr. Romney suggested undocumented Latinos self-deport and his wife unhelpfully addressed a group of Latinos as “you people.” Latinos had every right in the world to vote as they did.

Bad as all this is, what truly earns Rutler his place in this “To Hell With It” series is his evident willingness to conflate Catholic faith with American civil religion. He notes approvingly George Washington’s comments about “our blessed religion” and Franklin Roosevelt’s D-Day Prayer. Rutler laments “We are not a Christian nation now.” But, I am suspicious of this conflation of our Catholic faith with American civil religion. I will go further and say that I am suspicious of the conflation of our Catholic faith with the dominant Protestantism that has shaped all religion, including ours, in American history. For starters, I have been re-reading Patricia Bonomi’s “Under the Cope of Heaven” and Linda Colley’s “Britons” so the deep hostility to Catholicism that shaped the political thinking of the American revolutionary generation is at the forefront of my thinking. The civil religion that Washington and Roosevelt evoked is not the same thing as the Catholicism I discern in the Creed. This civil religion received its pithiest expression from Dwight Eisenhower when he said that America’s “form of government has no sense unless it is founded in a deeply held religious faith, and I don’t care what it is.” To be fair, Ike was trying to explain the source of America’s commitment to equality in our religious tradition. And, the latitudinarianism of Eisenhower’s “I don’t care what it is” is not merely the result of his pre-Inauguration conversion to Presbyterianism, but is deeply rooted in American religious experience.

I do “care what it is.” I reject civil religion as an imposter, just as I reject Michael Novak’s attempt to apply the prophet Isaiah’s “suffering servant” text to the modern business corporation. Rutler stands in a long line of Catholic neo-conservative thinkers who decry the encroachments of secularism, without recognizing how far encroached it is, that it has already gained a foothold in their minds, that in reducing religion to a prop for Americanism, they are engaged in a kind of blasphemy or even idolatry. Jesus Christ did not die to make America great. Period. If He had, if Catholicism and civil religion were the same, I would not give a hoot whether it survives or dies. For failing to see that, Father George Butler wins this week’s first “To Hell With It” award.

Nov 16, 2012

Cindy Adams

No Comments

US bishops discuss penance, homilies, religious liberty, economy

BISHOPS-ROUNDUP Nov-12-2012 (1,150 words) With photos posted Nov. 11 and 12. xxxn

US bishops discuss penance, homilies, religious liberty, economy

By Catholic News Service

BALTIMORE (CNS) — The U.S. bishops’ fall general assembly in Baltimore began with an emphasis on conversion and a return to the sacrament of penance.

New York Cardinal Timothy M. Dolan of New York, president of the U.S. bishops’ conference, told the bishops at the start of the Nov. 12-15 meeting that he could imagine the criticism he might get for emphasizing penance when there are plenty of “controversies and urgent matters for the church right now.”

Choir member Julia Lin-Peczkowski of Laurel, Md., says hello to Auxiliary Bishop Richard Spencer of the Archdiocese for the Military Service as U.S. bishops gather for Mass at the start of their annual fall meeting in Baltimore Nov. 12. Lin-Peczkowski said she knew him before he was named bishop, when he was “just Father Rick.” (CNS/Nancy Phelan Wiechec)

But he stressed that the bishops cannot engage culture, dialogue with others or confront challenges unless they first recognize their own sins and experience the grace of repentance.

The cardinal also said the sacrament of penance was something the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops planned to stress for all Catholics year-round with reflections on re-embracing Friday as a day of penance, including the possible re-institution of abstinence on all Fridays.

Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano, papal nuncio to the United States, echoed Cardinal Dolan’s call for reconciliation.

Noting that there have been some clergy who “out of weaknesses have brought great pain to others,” Archbishop Vigano reminded the bishops. “We must continually undergo conversion ourselves … so people have faith and confidence in us.”

Bishop David L. Ricken of Green Bay, Wis., chair of the bishops’ Committee on Evangelization and Catechesis, presented a document that encouraged all Catholics to make a renewed effort to seek the sacrament of penance, also known as reconciliation.

If approved, the document will be published as a pamphlet in time to allow dioceses to prepare for Lent 2013.

The bishops’ assembly, which opened nearly a week after Election Day, also included discussions about religious liberty and marriage.

Archbishop William E. Lori of Baltimore, chairman of the U.S. bishops’ Ad Hoc Committee for Religious Liberty, said the work of defending religious liberty would continue despite “setbacks or challenges.”

“Defense of religious freedom requires not just dealing with short-term and mid-term goals, but indeed is a project that requires long-term foundational and formational work,” he added.

San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore J. Cordileone, chairman of the U.S. bishops’ Subcommittee for the Promotion and Defense of Marriage, said Election Day was “a disappointing day for marriage.” Voters in Maine, Maryland and Washington state approved same-sex marriage; Minnesota voters rejected a constitutional amendment to define marriage as being between one man and one woman.

He praised the work of the bishops in those four states to defend traditional marriage, noting that in all those states they were outspent by supporters of same-sex marriage.

Each measure passed by small margins, he said, a factor that pointed to the need to “redouble our efforts.”

A new statement on the economy, intended as a pastoral message of hope, received some sharp criticism as the document was formally introduced for consideration Nov. 12.

In floor discussion, some bishops said “The Hope of the Gospel in Difficult Economic Times” — which the bishops agreed in June should be drafted and fast-tracked to be ready for November — lacked connections to the bishops’ 1986 economics pastoral letter, gave what they felt was short shrift to church teaching on workers’ rights and inadequately addressing “the growing gap between the haves and have-nots” among other issues.

The document, written by a drafting committee under the direction of Archbishop Allen H. Vigneron of Detroit, was scheduled for a final vote of approval Nov. 13.

The bishops also heard a preliminary presentation of a document that highlights the need for better preaching in Sunday homilies.

“Preaching the Mystery of Faith: The Sunday Homily” encourages preachers to connect the Sunday homily with people’s daily lives. It was prepared by the Committee on Clergy, Consecrated Life and Vocations, chaired by Archbishop Robert J. Carlson of St. Louis.

Preaching needs to be done “more effectively in the context of the new evangelization,” Archbishop Carlson said. “Our people hunger for better preaching, preaching that would help them rediscover their faith.”

The bishops also discussed the proposed “scope of work” for revision of the Liturgy of the Hours submitted by the Committee on Divine Worship. The committee’s request comes as the International Commission on English in the Liturgy has started work on revising some parts of the liturgy, specifically hymns, some orations and some antiphons.

A statement drafted by the Doctrine Committee was withdrawn, after the committee asked permission to expand its scope. Titled “Contemporary Challenges and Opportunities for the Exercise of the Teaching Ministry of the Diocesan Bishop,” it calls upon bishops to take advantage of new technologies — including social media, blogging and cellphone technology — to respond when church teaching is portrayed inaccurately.

Auxiliary Bishop Edgar M. da Cunha of Newark, N.J., a member of the USCCB Committee on Family, Marriage, Laity and Youth, gave an update on World Youth Day next July in Rio de Janeiro. He said about 12,000 U.S. pilgrims are expected for the international event, but organizers are preparing for a turnout of 1 million registrations, plus 2.5 million at its closing Mass.

Bishop da Cunha, a Brazilian native, also addressed safety concerns, pointing out that Rio de Janeiro’s reputation “is less than the reality.” He said organizers have gone to great lengths to address the issue. They have seen a notable police presence and felt safe there, he added.

The day before the start of the bishops’ fall assembly, officials of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious met with three U.S. bishops charged with overseeing the organization’s reform.

“The discussion was open and cordial and those present agreed to meet again to continue the conversation,” according to a brief statement issued Nov. 12 by Franciscan Sister Florence Deacon, LCWR president, and Seattle Archbishop J. Peter Sartain, who was assigned by the Vatican to provide “review, guidance and approval, where necessary, of the work” of LCWR, an umbrella group of 1,500 leaders of U.S. women’s religious communities representing about 80 percent of the country’s 57,000 women religious.

In April, the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued an assessment of LCWR and called for its reform to ensure its fidelity to Catholic teaching.

In another session Nov. 11, a group of U.S. bishops and Catholic bloggers discussed — and tweeted about — how to use social media to spread the Gospel message.

In elections Nov. 12, Bishop Kevin J. Farrell of Dallas was chosen as treasurer-elect by the U.S. bishops on the first day of the bishops’ assembly. The bishops chose chairmen-elect for several committees: Bishop Michael F. Burbidge of Raleigh, N.C., for Clergy, Consecrated Life and Vocations; Cardinal Daniel N. DiNardo of Galveston-Houston, for Divine Worship; Archbishop Thomas G. Wenski of Miami, for Domestic Justice and Human Development; Bishop Richard J. Malone of Buffalo, N.Y. (and currently administrator of the Diocese of Portland, Maine), for Laity, Marriage, Family Life and Youth; and Auxiliary Bishop Eusebio Elizondo of Seattle, for Migration.

The bishops also elected members of the board of Catholic Relief Services.

- – -

Contributing to this report were Mark Pattison, Patricia Zapor and Dennis Sadowski in Baltimore and Carol Zimmermann in Washington.

END

Copyright (c) 2012 Catholic News Service/USCCB. All rights reserved.
This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed.
CNS · 3211 Fourth St NE · Washington DC 20017 · 202.541.3250

Nov 14, 2012

Cindy Adams

No Comments

US bishops discuss penance, homilies, religious liberty, economy

US bishops discuss penance, homilies, religious liberty, economy

By Catholic News Service

Print

Email

Comment

Posted: 11/13/2012