| |
Fr Richard John Neuhaus
INTRODUCTION. WE ARE, IN A WAY, RELATED TO TODAY'S CONVERSATION. WITNESSING A POTENTIALLY HISTORIC TURNING POINT, I BELIEVE, IN THE HISTORY OF CATHOLICISM IN AMERICA. AND CONSEQUENTLY, BECAUSE OF THE SIZE AND THE INFLUENCE OF CATHOLICISM IN AMERICA, A TURNING POINT OF CONSIDERABLE CONSEQUENCE IN AMERICAN HISTORY. WHICH BEARS NOT ONLY ON CULTURE AND POLITICS, BUT WHAT OUGHT TO BE MORE IMPORTANT TO ALL OF US THE FUTURE OF CHRISTIAN WITNESS TO THE GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST MORE COMPREHENSIBLY. AND ESPECIALLY IN AN ECUMENICAL ERA, WHAT HAPPENS IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, THE LARGEST AND SINGLE PART OF THE CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY IN THE UNITED STATES, HAS STRONG AND INESCAPEABLE IMPLICATIONS FOR ALL OTHER CHRISTIANS. WITH STRONG IMPLICATIONS FOR JEWS AND INDEED FOR ANYONE WHO IS SERIOUS ABOUT RELIGION, MORALITY, AND PUBLIC DISCOURSE AND HOW THOSE TWO ARE TO BE HELD TOGETHER IN ENGAGEMENT. AND ALSO WE ARE WITNESSING, I BELIEVE, AN HISTORIC TURNING POINT IN THE ROLE OF THE BISHOPS IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH OF THE UNITED STATES. MUCH OF WHAT I SAY HERE IS DISCUSSED IN GREATER DETAIL UNDER THE TITLE OF A TURNING POINT FOR THE BISHOPS IN THE OCTOBER ISSUE OF "FIRST THINGS," SO SOME OF YOU WILL BE ABLE TO REFRESH YOUR MEMORIES BY READING THAT. I SHOULD RIGHT AT THE BEGINNING I SUPPOSE -- WHERE DID MY FRIEND KEN WOODWARD GO? DID HE ABANDON US? DID HE FLEE? HE'S OVER THERE, IS HE? A TABLE OUTSIDE. WELL, IN RESPONSE TO MY FRIEND KEN WOODWARD, WHO SOME OF YOU MIGHT COMMUNICATE TO HIM, HE OBVIOUSLY DOES NOT KNOW, AND WE SHOULD PREFF FACE IT WITH THIS, HE DOES NOT KNOW ARCH BISHOP RAYMOND BURKE OF ST. LOUIS. WHO IS, OF ALL THE MEMBERS OF THE AMERICAN HIERARCHY, ABOUT THE LAST ONE IN THE WORLD YOU'D ACCUSE OF GRANDSTANDING. [APPLAUSE] HE IS A MAN -- HE IS A QUIET MAN, AN UNASSUMING, SELF-EFFACING MAN WHO WORKS WITH ENORMOUS CARE AND DELIBERATION, AS YOU WOULD EXPECT FROM A CANONNIST AND AMONG CANONNIST, HE IS A PERSON WHO HAS A REPUTATION OF BEING THE VERY MOST CAREFUL, HAVING SPENT A NUMBER OF YEARS ON THE ROAD TO ROME, THE HIGHEST COURT SO TO SPEAK, OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. AND IT'S NOT GOOD, SOMEONE WILL COMMUNICATE TO MY FRIEND KEN WOODWARD, TO REPROACH HIM ABOUT NOT HAVING COMMUNICATED WITH THE OFFENDING POLITICIANS. HE SET A MODEL IN LA CROSSE, WISCONSIN, WHERE HE WAS IMMEDIATELY BEFORE HE CAME TO ST. LOUIS, OF TRYING TO ESTABLISH BOTH IN TERMS OF CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATION, BUT MAKING A PUBLIC WITNESS TO THE FACT THAT HE'S MAKING THE EFFORT OF DIALOGUE WITH THE OFFENDING POLITICIANS. AND ALL OF THAT, THROUGH HIS PERIOD IN LA CROSSE, AND THEN COMING TO SPLUSE, WAS DONE WITH ENORMOUS DELIBERATION. AND I WOULD SAY THAT NOT ONLY ARCH BISHOP BURKE, BUT IF WE LOOK TODAY AROUND THE CHURCH IN THE UNITED STATES, WE HAVE A NUMBER OF LUMINOUSLY ARTICULATE, ATTRACTIVE, YET FIRM AND UNAMBIGUOUS ACTIONS SINCE THE JUNE MEETING OF THE BISHOPS. VERY NOTABLY, THE JOINT LETTER FROM THE ARCH BISHOP OF ATLANTA, ARCH BISHOP DONAHUE, AND THE BISHOPS OF CHARLOTTESVILLE AND CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA. IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THAT, I WARMLY RECOMMEND IT TO YOU. AND ANYBODY WHO READS THAT STATEMENT SO CAREFUL, SO WELL-CRAFTED, SO WINCESOME IN REACHING OUT AND YET SO UNCOMPROMISING IN TELLING THE TRUTH, ANYONE WHO HAS READ THAT STATEMENT AND SIMILAR STATEMENTS BY, FOR EXAMPLE, BISHOP LORI OF BRIDGETON IN CONNECTICUT, BY FOR EXAMPLE ARCH BISHOP JOHN MIERS IN NEWARK, NEW JERSEY, ANYONE WHO HAS READ THOSE STATEMENTS WILL NOT SPEAK RECKLESSLY ABOUT THE BISHOPS NOT KNOWING HOW TO ADDRESS THESE QUESTIONS. [APPLAUSE] AND I WOULD FURTHER SAY THAT IT IS PRECISELY BECAUSE THIS IS AN ELECTION YEAR IN WHICH, FOR THE FIRST TIME IN PRECISELY 40 YEARS, AND FOR ONLY THE THIRD TIME IN AMERICAN HISTORY, THERE IS A CATHOLIC RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT, THE MOST VISIBLE OFFICE AND THE MOST POWERFUL OFFICE, COMMUNICATING MOST UNMISTAKABLY THE IDENTIFICATION OF CATHOLICISM WITH THE POSITIONS THAT THAT PERSON TAKES. IT IS PRECISELY BECAUSE OF THIS MOMENT THAT THIS ISSUE NEEDED TO BE ADDRESSED NOW. [APPLAUSE] AND THAT'S WHAT -- AND THAT'S WHAT THE BISHOPS MADE CLEAR IN THEIR JUNE MEETING IN COLORADO. THERE WERE MANY WHO SAID, LET US TAKE TIME, LET US TAKE -- WAIT UNTIL AFTER THE ELECTIONS, WAIT FOR ANOTHER COUPLE OF YEARS, AND THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF THE BISHOPS REJECTED THAT COUNSEL AND SAID, NO. RIGHT NOW WE GOT A MAJOR PASTORAL PROBLEM OF THE TEACHING OF THE CHURCH BEING SEVERELY COMPROMISED AND THE ENEMIES OF THAT TEACHING EXPLOITING THE POSSIBILITY OF MISREPRESENTING, ALSO TO OUR CATHOLIC PEOPLE OF WHOM WE ARE SHEPRERDS, WHAT IN FACT THAT TEACHING IS. NOW WE MUST SPEAK AND SPEAK CLEARLY. AND I THINK IT IS A HEARTENING THING THAT WE HAVE SEEN THIS MOVE. NOT ENOUGH, NOT CLEARLY ENOUGH, NOT PERSISTENTLY ENOUGH OR PERSUASIVELY ENOUGH, BUT IT IS A GREAT, GREAT MOVE FORWARD FROM WHERE WE HAVE BEEN IN GENERAL WITH REGARD TO EPISCOPAL LEADERSHIP IN THE LAST SEVERAL DECADES. [APPLAUSE] NOW, LET ME SAY SOMETHING WITHIN THE CULTURAL AND HISTORICAL CONTEXT IN WHICH ALL OF THIS IS HAPPENING. IT IS FAIR TO SAY THAT MANY, IF NOT MOST OF THE INTERNAL DISAGREEMENTS WITHIN CATHOLICISM IN THIS COUNTRY SINCE THE SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL HAVE FALLEN ALONG THE LINES OF TWO ACCENTS, IF YOU WILL, COMMONLY CALLED "LIBERAL, CONSERVATIVE, RIGHT, LEFT, PROGRESSIVE, REACTIONARY." BUT LEAVING THOSE LABELS ASIDE. ON THE ONE SIDE, THE STRESS UPON CATHOLIC FIDELITY AND DISTINCTIVENESS, WHICH CHARACTERIZES ONE WHOLE CLUSTER OF ISSUES IN DISPUTE. AND ON THE OTHER SIDE, SO TO SPEAK, THOSE WHO WOULD STRESS PRIMARILY CULTURAL ENGAGEMENT. THOSE WHO SEE THE FIRST AS BEING THE PRIORITY MOST URGENT IN NEED OF ADDRESS ARE OFTEN VIEWED BY THEIR OPPONENTS AS BEING CONFRONTATIONAL. THEY, IN TURN, RECIPROCATE VERY GENEROUSLY BY CALLING THEIR OPPONENTS CULTURAL CONFORMISTS AND SELL-OUTS, ETC. IN SOME WAYS, WE, IN THIS ISSUE THAT BRINGS US TOGETHER, AND IN THE WHOLE MATRIX OF THEOLOGICAL, MORAL, CULTURAL QUESTIONS, WHICH IMPINGE UPON THIS ISSUE, IN SOME WAYS WE ARE SEEING THE CONTINUING CONTEST BETWEEN THOSE WHO SAY THE GREAT QUESTION IS TO DETERMINE WHAT IT MEANS TO BE AN AMERICAN CATHOLIC. THAT IS TO SAY, HOW DO YOU BE CATHOLIC IN A DISTINCTIVELY AMERICAN WAY? THAT'S THE GREAT QUESTION. TO WHICH OTHERS SAY, NO, THE GREAT QUESTION IS HOW TO BE A CATHOLIC AMERICAN. HOW DO YOU BE AMERICAN IN A DISTINCTIVELY CATHOLIC WAY? THERE IS AN ENORMOUS DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE ACCENT ON AMERICAN CATHOLIC AND CATHOLIC AMERICAN. THE POINT OF MENCHES OBVIOUSLY FOR THE DISPUTE THAT BRINGS US TOGETHER TODAY GOES BACK TO 1960, 44 YEARS AGO. INTO JOHN F. KENNEDY'S CAMPAIGN AND ELECTION. JOHN F. KENNEDY'S GOING TO HOUSTON, TEXAS, YOU REMEMBER, TO THE PRIMARILY BAPTIST MINISTERIAL ASSOCIATION, AND PROMISING THEM THAT IN EFFECT HE WAS NOT REALLY A SERIOUS CATHOLIC AND THEREFORE, THEY HAD NOTHING TO WORRY ABOUT. HE PRESENTED WHAT, IN THE USUAL PHRASE WE CALL A STRICT AND INDEED RADICALLY STRICT VIEW OF THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE. MOST CATHOLIC LEADERS, MOST BISHOPS AND MOST THEOLOGIANS AT THE TIME WERE UNHAPPY WITH KENNEDY'S STATEMENT, BUT FOR THE MOST PART, THEY BIT THEIR TONGUES. SO EAGER WERE CATHOLICS IN THIS COUNTRY, SO UNDERSTANDABLY EAGER WERE CATHOLICS IN THIS COUNTRY TO HAVE THE LEGITIMATION OF BEING TRULY ACCEPTED AS CATHOLICS AND AMERICANS. AND THAT IS PRIMARILY WHAT THE 1960 ELECTION AND THE ENORMOUS OVERWHELMING CATHOLIC SUPPORT FOR JOHN F. KENNEDY WAS ABOUT. IT IS AN UNDERSTANDABLE THING THAT THE CURRENT DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE, JOHN KERRY, HAS SAID AT A COUPLE OF POINTS THAT HE IS PUZZLED BY THE CONTROVERSY REGARDING HIS POSITIONS. HE SAID, "I THINK THOSE QUESTIONS WERE SETTLED IN 1960." REFERRING, OF COURSE, TO JOHN F. KENNEDY IN HOUSTON. BUT SO VERY, VERY MUCH HAS CHANGED. HISTORY HAS MANY IRONIES IN THE FIRE, ONE MIGHT SAY. AND ONE IS THAT TODAY THE SAME BAPTISTS, THE SAME EVANGELICAL PROTESTANTS ARE CRITICAL OF KERRY BECAUSE HE'S NOT MORE CATHOLIC THAN HE IS. AND ALL THIS HAS TO DO UNDERSTAND OF COURSE, WITH RECONFIGURATIONS OF A POLITICAL NATURE OF THE LAST SEVERAL DECADES. INCLUDING DRAMATICALLY CHANGED ATTITUDES TOWARDS CATHOLICS ON THE PART OF EVANGELICAL PROTESTANTS. BUT THE CATHOLIC VOTE IN 1960 OVERWHELMINGLY FOR JOHN F. KENNEDY, A VOTE FOR ACCEPTANCE FOR SYMBOLIC MEMBERSHIP BEYOND REASONABLE QUESTION THAT CATHOLICS HAD BEEN SEEKING FOR SO LONG. THEY ARE NOW REAL AMERICANS. IN THOSE DAYS, IN 1960, THERE WERE FEW HOT-BUTTON ISSUES THAT RUFFLED NON-CATHOLIC FEATHERS. MAINLY, WHETHER THERE WOULD BE AN AMBASSADOR TO THE VATICAN AND AID TO CATHOLIC SCHOOLS OR RELIGIOUS SCHOOLS MORE GENERALLY. BUT UNDERNEATH THAT THERE WAS A DEEP, DEEP, DEEP CURRENT OF NOT SIMPLY ONE ISSUE BUT OF MANY REPRESENTED BY PAUL BLANCHARD'S BEST-SELLING BOOK "AMERICAN FREEDOM IN CATHOLIC POWER," WHICH MADE THE CASE VERY STRAIGHTFORWARDLY THAT CATHOLIC SOCIAL DOCTRINE AND PATTERNS OF CATHOLIC UNDERSTANDINGS OF AUTHORITY RELATIVE TO THE PAPAL REALM WERE INCOME PATTABLE WITH DEMOCRACY AND THAT EVEN THEY REPRESENTED A CONSCIOUS THREAT TO DISMANTLE. TO DISMANTLE THE AMERICAN HABITS AND CUSTOMS OF DEMOCRACY, ESPECIALLY RELATIVE TO RELIGION. THE NOTION OF THE CATHOLIC IDEAL BEING A CATHOLIC STATE AND A CATHOLIC SOCIETY FED VERY POWERFULLY THE PROPAGANDA ENGINES OF THE ENEMIES OF THE CHURCH. THE DEMOCRACY QUESTION WAS, IN MANY WAYS ANSWERED AT THE SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL, AND IN THE CONTINUING DEVELOPMENT OF CATHOLIC SOCIAL DOCTRINE, MOST MAGNIFICENTLY AND COHERENTLY AND COMPELLINGLY UP TO THE 1991 MASANAS ON THE JUST AND FREE SOCIETY. 1960 AND NOW, 44 YEARS LATER, WHAT HAS HAPPENED ONE MIGHT SAY? THAT IS SO DRAMATICALLY CHANGED THIS CIRCUMSTANCE? AND OF COURSE, MANY THINGS HAVE HAPPENED IN THESE FOUR DECADES, WE COULD ALL COME UP WITH OUR LIST. BUT I WOULD PUT TO YOU THAT THE MOST IMPORTANT SINGLE PUBLIC EVENT IN AMERICAN LIFE IN THESE LAST FOUR DECADES, THE MOST IMPORTANT SINGLE, THE MOST IMPORTANT CONSEQUENTIAL POLITICAL EVENT IN THESE LAST FOUR DECADES, WAS THE EDICT OF ROE VERSUS WADE OF JANUARY 22, 1973. IT CHANGED, IF NOT EVERYTHING, IT CHANGED THE FUNDAMENTAL DYNAMICS OF HOW PEOPLE UNDERSTOOD AND RELATED TO THE POLITICAL PROCESS THAT WE CALL AMERICAN DEMOCRACY. AND WHAT JUSTICE BYRON WHITE AT THAT TIME CALLED A SINGLE ACT OF RAW JUDICIAL POWER. THE SUPREME COURT WIPED OFF THE BOOKS OF ALL 50 STATES AND THEY WERE ON THE BOOKS OF ALL 50 STATES, ALL LAWS PROTECTING UNBORN HUMAN LIFE. A PRINCIPLE WAS ESTABLISHED IN ROW V. WADE AS I NEED NOT TELL MOST OF YOU HERE, THAT IS TRULY PREMISED UPON A LETHAL LOGIC, THAT ONLY THOSE HAVE RIGHTS WHO CAN EFFECTIVELY ASSERT RIGHTS. AND NEEDLESS TO SAY, THIS LETHAL LOGIC WILL NOT BE LONG LIMITED AND INDEED IS NOT LIMITED SIMPLY TO THE UNBORN. NOW, ALL THAT BACKGROUND TO THE PRESENT MOMENT, THE PRESENT MOMENT AND THE QUESTION THAT BRINGS US TOGETHER. THE BISHOPS IN THE LAST TWO YEARS HAVE BEEN BRUISED AND BLOODIED AND BATTERED BY WHAT IS CONVENTIONALLY CALLED THE GREATEST CRISIS IN THE HISTORY OF THAT THOL SCHISM IN AMERICA. THE CRISIS REGARDING SEX ABUSE AND THE FAILURE OF THE BISHOPS TO ADDRESS THE PROBLEMS RELATED TO SEX ABUSE, INESCAPABLY RELATED TO THE PERVASIVE PRESENCE OF HOMOSEXUALITY AND OF ATTITUDES FAVORABLE TO HOMOSEXUALITY IN THE CLERGY OF THE UNITED STATES. ONE MIGHT HAVE EXPECTED AFTER THESE LAST TWO YEARS, BEGINNING IN BOSTON IN JANUARY, 2002, ONE MIGHT HAVE EXPECTED THAT THE BISHOPS WOULD MAINTAIN A LOW PROFILE AND HUNKER DOWN AND WOULD SAY, THIS IS NO TIME FOR US TO BE ADDRESSING QUESTIONS ON MORALITY IN PUBLIC. WE HAVE COMPLETELY BLOWN OUR CREDIBILITY. AND WE HAD JUST BETTER FIND A HOME TO CRAWL INTO UNTIL ANOTHER SEASON COMES ALONG. BUT IT IS A REMARKABLE THING THAT IN THE JUNE MEETING OF THE BISHOPS IN DENVER, IN WHICH THESE ISSUES WERE JOINED IN A WAY THAT MOST BISHOPS WILL TELL YOU THEY HAVE NOT JOINED ISSUES IN A MEETING OF BISHOPS FOR MANY YEARS, THAT QUITE THE OPPOSITE TO HUNKERING DOWN WAS CHOSEN AS THE COURSE. THERE WERE THOSE, AMONG THE BISHOPS, WHO WANTED TO SEE ARCH BISHOP RAYMOND BURKE PUBLICLY REPROVED AND CENSORED. THAT WAS TURNED BACK BY THE OVERWHELMING, ALMOST WITHOUT DISSENT, OVERWHELMING NUMBER OF BISHOPS. AND THE POSITION TAKEN, THE DOCUMENT THAT CAME OUT OF THE JUNE MEETING, CATHOLICS IN POLITICAL LIFE, WHILE BY NO MEANS PERFECT -- WHO WRITES A PERFECT STATEMENT? AND CERTAINLY NOT COMMITTEES WRITE PERFECT STATEMENTS. BUT IT IS A REMARKABLE STATEMENT. THE CENTER HAS MOVED DRAMATICALLY. THE ISSUE NOW IS NOT WHETHER THIS WILL BE PUBLICLY ADDRESSED. THE ISSUE NOW IS WHETHER BISHOPS WILL PUBLICLY ADDRESS IT WHILE SIMULTANEOUSLY ENTERING INTO DIALOGUE WHILE AT THE SAME TIME MAKING CERTAIN POLICY DECISIONS THAT WILL RANGE FROM, IN THE CASE OF PERSISTENT, UNREPENTTANT, PUBLIC AND SCANDALOUS DEFIANCE OF THE CHURCH'S TEACHING, WILL RANGE FROM URGING THE PERSON NOT TO PRESENT HIMSELF OR HERSELF FOR COMMUNION TO PUBLICLY REFUSING COMMUNION. THAT IS A GREAT MOVE ON THE PART OF THE BISHOPS. THAT'S WHERE THE RANGE OF THE DISCUSSION IS NOW. THAT WAS NOT TRUE A YEAR AGO. THAT WAS NOT TRUE 10 YEARS AGO, GOD KNOWS. SO WE ARE SEEING SOMETHING OF EXTRAORDINARY IMPORTANCE HAPPENING. NOT NECESSARILY WITHOUT ITS COMPLICATIONS AND COMPLEXITIES AND RISKS AND TAKERS. -- RISKS AND DANGERS. THEY ARE THERE TO BE SURE. HAD THE LETTER FROM CARDINAL ROTSINGER BEEN CANDIDLY AND FULLY SHARED WITH THE BISHOPS, WHICH IT WAS NOT, AND WHICH CARDINAL ROTSINGER CLEARLY INTENDED THAT IT SHOULD BE, HAD THE LETTER FROM CARDINAL ROTSINGER BEEN FULLY AND CANDIDLY SHARED WITH THE BISHOPS AND HAD IT BEEN A PART OF THEIR CAREFUL DELIBERATION AND DECISION MAKING AND DRAFTING OF THAT STATEMENT, I THINK THERE'S EVERY REASON TO BELIEVE THE STATEMENT WOULD HAVE BEEN YET MORE LUCID, YET MORE FIRM, YET MORE CLEAR. UNFORTUNATELY, THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN. BUT WHAT DID HAPPEN IS A GREAT GOOD. THE QUESTION OF COMMUNIAL AND COMMUNION HAS BEEN CLEARLY SET FORTH. POINTING OUT, AS MANY OF THE BISHOPS DO, AND RIGHTLY SO, THAT THE QUESTION OF POLITICIANS OFFENDING POLITICIANS ON THE ISSUE OF ABORTION IS BUT ONE INSTANCE OF A MUCH, MUCH LARGER PROBLEM, AND THAT IS THE WHOLE AMNESIA, WIDESPREAD AMONG CATHOLICS IN THE UNITED STATES, WITH REGARD TO WHAT IT MEANS TO BE RIGHTLY DISPOSED TO RECEIVE THE BLESSED SACRAMENT. SO THAT IF THIS PASTORALLY WORKS, AS SOME OF THE MORE THOUGHTFUL BISHOPS ARE SAYING, IT WILL REVIVIFY OUR UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THE RELATIONSHIP IS BETWEEN COMMUNIAL AND COMMUNION FAR, FAR BEYOND THE QUESTION OF PUBLIC FIGURES AND POLITICIANS RELATIVE TO ABORTION. IS IT PERMISSIBLE TO VOTE FOR A JOHN KERRY? WE JUST USE HIM FOR SHORT HAND. WE'LL JUST SAY ANY POLITICIAN WHO PERSISTENTLY, PUBLICLY, DEFIANTLY, AND IN THE FACE OF REPEATED PASTORAL EFFORTS OF EDUCATION AND REPROACH, CONTINUES TO SUPPORT THE UNLIMITED ABORTION LICENSE DECREED BY ROE VERSUS WADE, CAN A CATHOLIC EVER VOTE FOR SUCH A POLITICIAN? ROME AND THE U.S. BISHOPS NOW HAVE MADE UNMISTAKABLY CLEAR, ROME LONG AGO AND ALL ALONG, THAT ABORTION IS NOT ONE ISSUE AMONG OTHERS. IT CANNOT BE VIEWED AS ONE ISSUE AMONG OTHERS. IT IS SBIN SICKLY EVIL TO DELIBERATELY TAKE AN INNOCENT HUMAN LIFE, BORN OR BORN. IT IS EVIL, WHICH MEANS IT'S ALWAYS EVERYWHERE AND UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE EVIL. THIS IS NOT TRUE -- THIS CANNOT BE SAID OF ANY OTHER ISSUE IN DISPUTE IN MAIN STREAM POLITICS IN THE UNITED STATES TODAY. THIS IS SINGULAR AND IT DOES HAVE PRIORITY. THIS IS NOT TRUE, YOU CANNOT SPEAK IN SUCH LANGUAGE AS THE CHURCH HAS CONSISTENTLY SPOKEN OF INTRINSIC EVIL WITH REGARD TO MINIMUM WAGE OR WITH REGARD TO THE WAR IN IRAQ, WITH REGARD TO CAPITAL PUNISHMENT. THIS IS NOT SIMPLY, AND HERE I THINK THE BISHOPS HAVE A LOT OF WORK TO DO AND ALL OF US HAVE A LOT OF WORK TO DO TO MAKE CLEAR TO OTHERS THIS IS NOT SIMPLY A MATTER OF TEACHING OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH BUT A MATTER OF MORAL REASON, REINFORCED BY THE CHURCH'S CONSISTENT TEACHING. THAT IT'S ALWAYS EVIL TO DELIBERATELY TAKE HUMAN LIFE. AND THE FLIPSIDE IS NOT IS IT EVER PERMISSIBLE IN A LEGALISTIC, QUIBBLING LAWYER-LIKE SENSE? WHAT KIND OF SIN IS IT, FORMAL, IMMATERIAL, COOPERATION, DISTANT AND IMMEDIATE COOPERATION, JUSTIFIED AND UNJUSTIFIED, COUNTERINDICATORS. LOOK, ANY WELL-INSTRUCTED CATHOLIC HAS HAD IT REPEATEDLY, INSISTENTLY, PERSUASIVELY, LOVINGLY PUT ON HIS OR HER CONSCIOUS, THAT WE HAVE A MORAL OBLIGATION TO POSITIVELY PROTECT INNOCENT HUMAN LIFE. AND THE QUESTION IS, CAN A VOTE FOR SUCH A PRO--ABORTION POLITICIAN BE CONSTRUED AS AN EXERCISE OF THAT DUTY TO PROTECT UNBORN CHILDREN? MARY COMBO ATTEMPTED THIS IN 19LE 84 TO MAKE THAT ARGUMENT. BUT THIS IS NOT TRUE WITH FOR EXAMPLE JOHN KERRY. KERRY IS NOT SAYING THAT HE'S GOING TO ADVANCE THE PRO-LIFE AGENDA MORE EFFECTIVELY. HE EXPLICITLY, HE AND OTHERS LIKE HIM REPEATEDLY ARE PLEDGED TO ABORTION RIGHTS, "ABORTION RIGHTS," WHICH ALL AGREE, EVERYBODY AGREES THERE'S NO DISPUTE MEANS THAT UNBORN CHILDREN SHOULD NOT BE LEGALLY PROTECTED FROM BEING KILLED IN THE WOMB. THE STATED GOAL OF MOVING TOWARD A SOCIETY IN WHICH EVERY UNBORN CHILD IS PROTECTED IN LAW AND WELCOMED IN LIFE, WHICH IS THE GOAL OF THE PRO-LIFE MOVEMENT IN ALL OF ITS CIRCLES OF RESPONSIBLE LEADERSHIP, I BELIEVE, THAT GOAL IS EXPLICITLY REJECTED BY THOSE WHO STAND BEFORE PLANNED PARENTHOOD, AND OTHERS, AND PLENG ALLEGIANCE TO A DON'T-GIVE-AN-INCH PRO-ABORTION AGENDA. HOW CAN THIS POSSIBLY BE CONSTRUED AS COMPATIBLE WITH THE INDISPUTEABLE CATHOLIC OBLIGATION TO WORK TOWARD THE PROTECTION OF INNOCENT HUMAN LIFE? I MUST SAY THAT I HAVE A CERTAIN SYMPATHY FOR JOHN KERRY AND OTHERS. ABOUT A YEAR AND A HALF AGO, HE, WHEN CONFRONTED BY A REPORTER ABOUT HIS POSITION, SAID, LOOK, FINALLY HE SAID, IT'S NOT MY PROBLEM, IT'S THE BISHOP'S PROBLEM. AND WHAT DID HE MEAN BY THAT? HE MEANT THAT HE IS SIMPLY TAKING THE POSITION THAT HE'S TAKEN FOR A COUPLE OF DECADES. WHY ALL OF A SUDDEN IS IT NOW A BIG DEAL? I HAVE GREAT SYMPATHY FOR THE POLITICIANS IN PUBLIC FIGURES OF OTHER SORT WHOSE ASK THAT QUESTION. WHY ALL OF A SUDDEN IS IT A BIG DEAL? THE ANSWER, OF COURSE, IS IT WAS ALWAYS A BIG DEAL. BUT THE BISHOPS BEFORE NEGLIGENT. AND IN SOME CASES, NOT PERHAPS UNKIND TO SAY COWARDLY. MOST OF THEM WERE AND ARE, I EXPECT, DEMOCRATS, LIBERAL DEMOCRATS AT HEART. AS INDEED HISTORICALLY HAVE BEEN MOST CATHOLICS. AND IF -- IMAGINE THIS -- IF IN THE 1970'S WHEN THE BISHOPS HAD MUCH GREATER INFLUENCE WITH THE LEADERS OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY, IF THEY HAD THEN CONFRONTED THE LEADERS OF THE PARTY AND EXPLAINED WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF THE PARTY BECAME CAPTIVE TO A DON'T-GIVE-AN-INCH FOR THE UNLIMITED ABORTION LICENSE, IF THE PARTY DECIDED AS IN FACT IT HAS DECIDED THAT THERE IS NO ROOM IN NATIONAL LEADERSHIP FOR ANYBODY WHO DEVIATES ONE IOATA FROM THE PRO-ABORTION AGENDA. AS THAT PARTY MADE CRYSTAL CLEAR. TO THE LATE AND WONDERFUL GOVERNOR ROBERT CASEY OF PENNSYLVANIA. BISHOPS SAY -- SOME BISHOPS SAY, MANY CATHOLICS SAY, THIS IS GOING TO BE A PARTISAN ISSUE, BECAUSE THERE ARE MORE DEMOCRATS WHO WILL FALL UNDER CENSURE THAN REPUBLICANS. THERE ARE ENOUGH REPUBLICANS TO KEEP US BUSY FOR A WHILE, BE SURE OF THAT. BUT WHAT DOES THAT KIND OF LOGIC MEAN? DOES THAT MEAN IF A MAJOR PARTY HAS IMBRACED A GREAT EVIL, THAT WE CANNOT THEN CRITICIZE THAT GREAT EVIL, LEST IT BE VIEWED AS PARTISAN AGAINST THAT PARTY? THIS IS NONSENSE. THAT IS TO SELL THE CHURCH'S PUBLIC WITNESS, AND PUT IT IN THE HANDS OF THOSE -- [APPLAUSE] LET MY UNDERSCORE. I THINK THAT ONE CAN IMAGINE SEVERAL DIFFERENT WAYS WITH BOLDER, MORE IMAGINATIVE EPISCOPAL LEADERSHIP. AND SO THE BISHOPS ARE IN LARGEST PART RESPONSIBLE FOR A SITUATION THAT THEY ARE NOW TRYING TO REMEDY. THERE ARE SOME CONSERVATIVES WHO SAY, AND I'M GOING NOW TWO MINUTES OVER MY TIME, THERE ARE SOME CONSERVATIVES WHO SAY THAT ALL WE NEED IS FOR THESE POLITICIANS AND OTHERS TO BE HONEST ENOUGH THAT IF THEY AGREE WITH THE CHURCH, THEN THEY SHOULD LEAVE THE CHURCH AND THAT'S THAT. I THINK THIS IS HIGHLY PROBLEMATIC. THE CHURCH IS NOT JUST ANOTHER VOLUNTARY ORGANIZATION LIKE THE ROTARY CLUB. THAT'S NOT HOW THE CATHOLIC CHURCH UNDERSTANDS ITSELF. FOR MANY CATHOLIC POLITICIANS, THEY ARE UNDERGOING A PAINFUL WRENCHING OF LOYALTIES AND WE HAVE TO CAREFULLY AND LOVINGLY HELP THEM TO MOVE TOWARD A DECISION THAT IS CONSONANT WITH UNDERSTANDING THAT THEIR HIGHEST ALLEGIANCE IS TO CHRIST AND HIS CHURCH, NO MATTER WHAT THE OTHER CONSEQUENCES. WITH THE DEEPEST COMMUTAL BONDS AND ETERNAL SALVATION AT STAKE, THESE ARE SOLEMN QUESTIONS FAR BEYOND THE REALM OF PARTISAN POLITICS. WHAT ALL THIS IS GOING TO PORTEND FOR THE FUTURE OF CATHOLICISM BETWEEN THOSE WHO PIT BEING CULTURALLY ENGAGED AND THOSE WHO PIT AGAINST THAT, THE NECESSITY OF ACCENTING PUBLIC DISTINCTIVES, THESE ARGUMENTS ARE GOING TO GO ON AND ON. I KNOW THERE ARE SOME FRIENDS, TRADITIONALIST IN DISPOSITION WHO SAY WE SHOULD FACE UP TO THE FACT THAT THERE ARE NOT 64 MILLION CATHOLICS IN THE UNITED STATES. AT MOST, MAYBE 20 MILLION, PERHAPS EVEN 10 MILLION, NO MORE. AND THAT WHAT WE OUGHT TO WORK FOR IS A PURER AND A STRONGER AND A MORE UNEQUIVOCAL AND A BOLDER CHURCH. WELL, I'M NOT SURE ABOUT THAT AT ALL. CATHOLIC MEANS CATHOLIC, LOWER CASE, WHICH MEANS UNIVERSAL AND COMPREHENSIVE AND OVER EVERY CHURCH THERE IS A BIG SIGN, "SINNERS ARE WELCOME." JAMES JOYCE, NOT THE GREATEST OF THEOLOGIANS, OF COURSE, CALLED THE CHURCH AND SAID THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS, HERE COMES EVERYBODY. HERE COMES EVERYBODY. AND THAT'S A CATHOLIC SENSIBILITY, I THINK, TO PARAPHRASE GIRSTRUDE STEIN, THE GREAT QUESTION FOR US IS UNDERSTANDING THAT CATHOLIC SENSIBILITY AND THAT CATHOLIC SELF-UNDERSTANDING. WHAT IF THERE IS NO HERE HERE? THAT'S THE QUESTION. WHAT IF, IN OUR WELCOME, IN OUR OPENNESS, OUR INCLUSIVENESS, THAT WE HAVE SO VITIATED WHAT IT IS THAT IDENTIFIES WHERE THE CHURCH MIGHT BE FOUND THAT FEWER AND FEWER WILL FIND HER? THE BISHOPS' TASK IS TO RENEW THE HERE HERE. TO TEACH THE FAITH IN ITS FULLNESS, INVITING ALL TO THE HIGH ADVENTURE OF CATHOLIC FIDELITY. RENEWAL HAS MANY PARTS BEYOND QUESTIONS THAT OCCASION THIS MEETING. FOR INSTANCE, CATHOLIC HIGHER EDUCATION AND THE RESISTANCE TO IT ON THE PART OF MANY IN THE CATHOLIC ACADEMY IS A MAJOR PART OF THIS WHOLE QUESTION OF ENGAGEMENT AND DISTINCTIVENESS. AND MUCH OF THE CATHOLIC ACADEMY TODAY, IT'S STILL 1960. IT'S STILL A POIGNANT YEARNING FOR ACCEPTANCE BY THE BIG WORLD OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY. SO I RETURN TO BEGIN, ATTENTION BETWEEN DISTINCTIVENESS AND FIDELITY, WHICH CAN LEAD TO SECTARIANISM AND ON THE OTHER HAND, CULTURAL CONFORMITY. THE QUESTIONS THAT BRING US TOGETHER WERE CREATED NOT BY THE BISHOPS CHANGING THE RULES HERE IN THE UNITED STATES, BUT BY THE STATE, THE GOVERNMENT, CHIEFLY IN THE INSTANCE OF ROE VERSUS WADE, ESCALATING THE ASSAULT ON CATHOLIC FAITH AND FULLNESS. AND FAITHFULNESS. AND THAT'S THE GREAT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 1960 AND 2004. THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, LED BY THE BISHOPS, AS IT MUST BE, IS TODAY BELATEDLY BUT WITH INCREASING BOLDNESS, RESPONDING TO THAT ASSAULT. THANK YOU. [APPLAUSE] >> THANK YOU, FATHER NEWHOUSE. I THINK THAT WAS MODERATELY WELL-RECEIVED. AND NOW I WOULD LIKE TO CALL UP TO THE PODIUM FOR HER PRESENTATION DR. HELLWIG.
|
|---|
No comments:
Post a Comment