WASHINGTON, D.C. — As the yearlong battle over health-care reform came to a head last month, an open dispute over public funding for abortion exposed deep fissures within the Church. Some bishops’ conference staffers privately worried that “polarization in political life is being transferred to ecclesial life.”
During the final week of the bruising health reform negotiations on Capitol Hill, Network, a self-described “national Catholic social justice lobby,” endorsed the Senate bill that was about to be voted on in the House of Representatives. In doing so, they called into question the U.S. bishops’ objections to provisions dealing with abortion funding and conscience protections.
Network wasn’t the only Catholic group to challenge the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, which emerged as the chief pro-life critic of the bill: The Catholic Health Association’s endorsement had already incensed pro-life advocates. Network’s public letter of support for the Catholic Health Association provided additional political cover for the bill’s defenders, who argued that it preserved the status quo on federal funding of abortion.
A month later, the U.S. bishops and conference officials are still angry.
“In the past, we have worked with Network on immigration reform, and they attend some meetings of our coalition,” said Kevin Appleby, director of Migration Policy and Public Affairs at the bishops’ conference. “But working in a coalition requires trust. Network can’t have it both ways: It can’t benefit from the bishops’ advocacy and then undercut them at a strategic moment.”
Appleby’s sense of betrayal was echoed by Bishop Thomas Tobin of Providence, R.I., who recently wrote Sister Carol Keehan, the Catholic Health Association president, to request that the CHA drop a Catholic hospital in his diocese from membership. Any “association with CHA is now embarrassing,” he said.
“Your enthusiastic support of the [health-care reform] legislation, in contradiction to the position of the bishops of the United States, provided an excuse for members of Congress, misled the public and caused serious scandal for many members of the Church,” wrote Bishop Tobin.
Bishop Lawrence Brandt of Greensburg, Pa., prohibited the Sisters of St. Joseph in Baden, Pa., whose leadership team signed Network’s letter endorsing the bill, from receiving diocesan media or parish support for their vocation recruitment effort.
Sister Simone Campbell, executive director of Network, expressed frustration and bemusement at the criticism leveled against her organization.
“What we did was about affirming the Catholic Health Association,” said Sister Simone, a member of the Sisters of Social Service congregation. “Our letter had nothing to do with the bishops; we just have a different take on the bill.”
At issue are Network’s actions during the final week of negotiations between Democratic Party leaders and pro-life holdouts in the House. Network issued a press release March 17 that challenged the substance of the bishops’ opposition to the bill: “[D]espite false claims to the contrary, the Senate bill will not provide taxpayer funding for elective abortions. ... This is the real pro-life stance, and we as Catholics are all for it.”
Further, in an interview with The New York Times, Sister Simone was described as an “anti-abortion” nun, who “did not directly criticize the bishops, but said ‘some people could be motivated by a political loyalty that’s outside of caring for the people who live at the margins of health care in society.’”
The Times’ story suggested that Network was involved in securing both health-care reform and pro-life provisions and thus could be trusted as an unbiased organization. But Network’s website provides no evidence of pro-life work.
Asked to explain Network’s record on life issues, Sister Simone said the lobby historically addressed economic justice concerns in policy debates, including health-care reform. Network’s first workshop on health reform was 36 years ago, and the lobby had kept its focus on quality and affordability.
“I am a person who believes firmly in the dignity of life,” Sister Simone said, but “because we work in coalition, I relied on the CHA to address the abortion issue. Sister Carol Keehan was working with Senators Ben Nelson and Bob Casey on the Senate bill’s language, and I knew she felt satisfied.”
The health-care overhaul battle provided a textbook moral conundrum for longtime social-justice activists who include the unborn in their defense of human dignity. The bishops’ lengthy but ultimately unsuccessful struggle to forge acceptable legislation testified to the priority given to the right to life — and all moral absolutes — in Catholic doctrine.
Sister Simone suggested that her organization engaged in a similar deliberation but reached a different conclusion.
“We felt the right to life has been protected. We could have ducked this whole thing, but there does come a time when policies come up that we don’t normally take a stand on.”
However, Network’s website has provided no sign of any internal debate — or sensitivity to pro-life concerns. More recently, though, the group posted this note on its homepage: “NETWORK congratulates the U.S. House of Representatives for passing the historic healthcare reform legislation. This is a remarkable time in our nation’s history as we finally take concrete steps to bring healthcare to tens of millions of people who have been denied this essential right. Providing them with healthcare while continuing to make sure that federal money does not go to abortion will save many, many lives. NETWORK helped make this happen.”
In 2006, however, Network commended U.S. Rep. Robert Brady, D-Pa., for voting “100% in accordance with Network’s socially responsible agenda for the first session of the 109th Congress.” But Project Vote Smart confirms that Brady also “supported the interests of the NARAL Pro-Choice America 100 percent in 2006.”
1970s’ Style Activism
Founded in 1974 by 47 politically active nuns, Network’s agenda reflects that era’s preference for addressing towering economic and foreign policy issues, such as unemployment and nuclear disarmament.
“My impression of Network in its early days is that it represented a 1970s’ style of social activism, as it was practiced within the ranks of activist nuns of those days. It also reflected the incursions of a feminist sensibility into women’s religious orders,” suggested author Russell Shaw, former USCCB spokesman. “I’m not aware that it ever got involved in the abortion issue.”
Network opened its doors just after the Roe v. Wade decision, and the social consequences of legal abortion had yet to emerge. Mother Teresa would soon begin her lonely campaign, which challenged the notion that a just, peaceful society could coexist with legal abortion.
Four decades later, Americans have grown increasingly concerned about the social cost of abortion. But this sea change hasn’t altered Network’s agenda. Network’s members — a mix of women religious, priests and laypeople — have a strong preference for “peacekeeping,” immigration, health care, housing and employment.
“In a couple of previous administrations, we were taught that taxes are bad. But they are good, and they bring about the common good,” said Sister Marge Clark, a member of the Sisters of Charity of the Blessed Virgin Mary, another Network lobbyist, who cited the U.S. bishops’ economic pastoral to back her position.
Michael Novak, the theologian and author, suggests that Network’s legislative agenda ignores the deep roots of social justice as a virtue that animates human beings and their moral choices.
“Most talk about social justice as an overarching social program, a utopian vision, a political platform, arranged around placing all care for the needy in the hands of the state. In other words, the most common use of social justice no longer provides an alternative to the state,” Novak argued.
Back at the USCCB, Sister Mary Ann Walsh, a conference spokeswoman, provides a concise response to Network’s stance: “There was a difference on how the CHA and USCCB viewed the legislation: The bishops’ position was trust but verify.”
Joan Frawley Desmond writes from Chevy Chase, Maryland.
Edward Pentin: Images of Rome's 2013 March for Life
Comments
Post a Comment
Though I am a prolife advocate, I saw this article that really challenged my believes on abortion and how the current law is consistent with the constitution and even how faith itself is consistent with the law. All this abortion debate is here to do is to divide the country on law that is already in place, it almost like saying we need to make sure there is no fraud in health care, ok there are laws that deal with it. I know it’s shocking, but it definitely was a good read, check it out
http://keironjackman.wordpress.com/2010/01/25/abortion-religion-politics/
I support and thank the sisters if Network. (OK, now tell me how I am not a real Catholic, blah blah blah ad nauseum.)
The blood of innocent children murdered in the womb will cry out to God for vengeance with even greater fervor because of this “law”.
These women are fake and support politics over the church.
Where was Network at the March for Life!
I’m happy that the catholic women around me are working for a new femininity and not the old feminism.
So NETWORK practices a 1970’s style of political activism, do they?
Gee, I never would’ve guessed. (I’ll try not to drip too much sarcasm.)
I have long been appalled by how priests, nuns, and laity can allow themselves to be fooled into believing that we’ll have social justice without learning how to handle money as individual people, or by making believe that various laws aimed at “helping people” will actually do anything but.
Could some of these people PLEASE re-read the Catechism and start over?
“Our letter had nothing to do with the bishops; we just have a different take on the bill.” - Sister Simone
Absolutely right Sister, your letter had nothing to do with the bishops and that is the problem. If Sisters say they are Catholic, then everything they do has to do with the bishops. Sisters, you need to reevaluate your mindset. To think that you can call yourself Catholic and then continually disobey (not disagree… everyone is allowed to disagree and question) the bishops is lacking in integrity, respect, and good example to the faithful. May God forgive you for causing more division in our Church.
Sister Marie
Do some of the American nuns think that the decisions taken by the Bishops conference are to be objected to in public ? If so it would mean that there is clash between the tenets of Catholic Church and the belief of the Bishops and these nuns. It is better all work together for the good of the people and for the glory of God. Authorities should be respected and a difference should come into the light if there is grave harm to the TRUTH or JUSTICE
In Sr.Simone’s saying that Network’s letter “had nothing to do with the bishops..” doens’t she realize that that is the problem. They…the bishops…are the “teachers” in this Catholic Church…NOT Network, NOT the Leadership Conference of Women Relgious, NOT C.H.A…..and definitely not Srs. Campbell or Keehan.
Re Kenny. I read the link you posted and sent a comment which is under review. Please read if you like to; it will be numbered in the mid 30s uder Jim Fv.
David. Why so defensive? Are you really a Catholic? If so, do you believe what you profess to believe in the Creed in Sunday Mass, and what you pray for in the Lord’s prayer standing before the Holy Eucharist? Can you prove it? Someday, you may have to.
Now to this article. Not to wear out an old expression made popular the year before last by Obama’s Reverend Wright, but - “The chickens - are coming home - to roost.” What would you expect to happen, bishops, when you opened the door to prolife to mean also so-called “social justice issues,” which carry all those liberal and leftist ideas along with them? Not to speak of all those people who harbor those ideas, as well. How’s all that “Hope and Change” doing for you?
I wonder by who’s authority are the nuns at Network able to choose their own take on life?
One can disagree privately and publicly with the USCCB and the Bishops when they themselves go against the teachings of the Church. For instance, Canon Law explicitly states that those who publicly support abortion must not receive the Eucharist…the majority of Bishops continue to waver on this even though Archbishop Burke who is a Canon Lawyer and the head of the highest Church tribunal in Rome declares that it is NOT a matter of personal opinion but a matter of Church law…so the Bishops need to obey before they can expect others to obey. Nonetheless, thank God for courageous Bishops like Bishop Tobin and others who do stand with the Church consistently…Pelosi is getting more and more arrogant as she defies the Bishops and the teachings of the Church…she pushed to make sure that abortion funding in some form would remain in the bill…and Sebelius has been given great power in deciding how the funding is applied…and Sebelius was a close colleague with George Tiller who killed babies who were alive moments before he aborted them…with some priests from years ago engaging in ual activity with teenage boys and Catholic nuns and priests defying their Bishops and their Church publicly, it’s no wonder we’re in such a mess…but God is working in all and through all and He will have the victory…
I would like to remind Catholics who do not listen to pope or bishops of Jesus’ word to His disciples (pope and bishops): “Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me…..”(Luke 10: 16). So people who reject USCCB’s guidance reject Jesus.
In his encyclical entitled Veritatis Splendor, Pope John Paul II wrote, “People today need to turn to Christ once again in order to receive from him the answer to their questions about what is good and what is evil.” In choosing not to comply with the teachings of the U.S. Conference of Bishops, the ordained sisters have not only failed to live by their vow of obedience, but have also put their wills before the will of God. In so doing they have chosen pride over humility.
Gemma…I am afraid you are not quite correct…the USCCB has no papal authority. It is a group of Bishops who, if you remember, fought Mother Angelica over issues and tried to take over her television station. The USCCB also wrote up a voting guide which was incredibly misleading and caused many Catholics to vote for Obama…they said, in part, that one could vote for a pro-abortion politician as long as that was not the main reason why they voted that way; the USCCB supported the Health Care BIll except when Stupak caved and abortion language remained in the bill…the majority of Americans, Catholic and non Catholic do not support the bill for many reasons and are not obliged to follow the guidance of the USCCB. The Bishops are not infallible - remember, Cardinals and Bishops kept sexually abusive priests among children…I’m not blaming them because they might have been misinformed or confused by psychiatrists and others…we should respect our Bishops, follow their guidance as long as it is in conformity with the teachings of Christ and His Church and challenge the Bishops when they are not acting or teaching in accordance with Christ and His Church.
I have to say again - we are not called to follow the ‘teachings’ of the USCCB but the teachings of Christ and His Church…when the ‘teachings’ of the USCCB are in conformity with the teachings of Christ and His Church, then we must try to follow, but there have been times when the Bishops have not been aligned with the Church…one instance is when some Bishops ordered Catholic Hospitals to give out the ‘morning after pill’ to women who had been raped…however, politicians and lawyers insisted that a pregnancy test would not be permitted first to see if the woman was already pregnant - and the morning after pill causes a chemical abortion because it does not permit the embryo to be implanted in the womb. However, some Bishops went along and allowed this anyway and Catholics and others protested strongly in front of those hospitals…we have to be careful in all of this…
Sam, you make a valid point when you say that that we are called to follow the teachings of Christ and His Church, but how does one do that and choose to ignore the teachings of the very people that we are taught God had entrusted to shepherd His Church?
Tony…I think what we need to do is to learn the teachings of Christ and His Church…most of our Bishops are good, holy men…another thing is to check and see if the Bishops are following the guidance and teachings of the Pope…Pope Benedict stated clearly more than once that public figures who publicy support and make laws to promote abortion should not receive Holy Communion but there are many Bishops who refuse to follow that guideline…there are Bishops who believe in amnesty for illegal aliens and Bishops who do not…Bishops are not infallible. And they have really no juridical authority…yes, we must follow their guidance but ONLY when they themselves are in line with the teachings of the Church and the guidance of the Pope. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is an excellent guide to the authentic teachings of the Church…
Sam…I agree The Catechism of the Catholic Church is an excellent guide, and reading chapters 894, 895 and 896 of the Catechism, it says a bit of what we each believe “The bishops, as vicars and legates of Christ, govern the particular Churches assigned to them by their counsels, exhortations, and example, but over and above that also by the authority and sacred power which indeed they ought to exercise so as to edify, in the spirit of service which is that of their Master” (Chapter 894) and “The power which they exercise personally in the name of Christ, is proper, ordinary, and immediate, although its exercise is ultimately controlled by the supreme authority of the Church…” (Chapter 895). It also says, …”The faithful…should be closely attached to the bishop as the Church is to Jesus Christ, and as Jesus Christ is to the Father.” (Chapter 896).
Yes, most of our Bishops are good and holy men, and worthy to be followed, but the point that I was trying to make regarding the article in question (which also speaks to our Bishops) is that whenever we substitute our will for that of God’s will we enter into error; the good sisters, by disagreeing with their Bishops, and Bishops when they disagree with Church teachings or that of our Holy Father.
Tony, you are absolutely correct…what those sisters did was scandalous and did much harm because ‘Catholic’ politicians then voted for the bill explaining that it had been approved by Catholic Nuns…Nancy Pelosi proclaimed that fact very loudly…and, in fact, it became known that Obama had called one of the leaders into the White House to get her on board and then even gave her one of the pens he signed the bill with…Judas received thirty pieces of silver…this nun got one of Obama’s pens!!! Shame. And yet these women, including Pelosi and other ‘Catholic’ politicians who publicly promote abortion are permitted by the Bishops to continue to receive HOly Communion in defiance of the teachings of the Church and in defiance of the Pope who is the supreme teaching authority. I have a very good and close relationship with my Bishop and with other Bishops…but when a Bishop needs to be challenged, such as those who supported giving the morning after pill to women without a pregnancy test..we need to speak up. Thanks for being such a great supporter of the truth Tony and of the Church, Sam
If the Catholic Church wants to involve itself in political issues, then it must surrender its tax-exempt status. This “Network” is not a religious organization. It is a political lobbying organization. So much for the separation of Church and State. This church is infected with a virus of corruptin and deception. That’s why the fruit it produces is rotten, like these rotten women. God abandoned the Catholic Church after it implemented Vatican II. Pedophiles, communists and the abjectly corrupt run it, and they demand you fund it while they destroy your life and the country. Ask yourself if there is anything this church’s authority figures say and do that resemble Jesus Christ, or his teachings? Leave the dark side and come into the light, and the enlightenment.
Alecto, Christ said right from the beginning that there would be scandals and evil, but that His Church would prevail. Vatican II was implemented badly by those in the ranks, but it was and is of God. Jesus said He would never abandon His Church and He hasn’t and never will. There are great sinners among us and great saints and ordinary people striving to do their best. Pedophiles and communists do not run the Church-the Holy Spirit runs the Church - I am afraid that you have at least one foot on the dark side…I will pray for you because I believe you do love the Church despite the faults and failings of her sons and daughters. I do not and will not support CCHD - I don’t know where the funds go. I’d rather support my own Parish and a local mission to Haiti where I worked for many years. We are all ‘infected’ with sin - but grace is stronger and love more powerful than hate. Don’t let bitterness wear you down. St.Peter betrayed Christ, His Apostles abandoned Him when He needed them most. Christ knows we are human, striving to do the best we can, falling often - but we go on making our feeble attempts to follow Him and He will enable us to keep going if we but trust Him - and love other as He loves us…not easy but essential for peace of mind, heart and soul. May the Lord bless you Alecto.
The movie “With God On Our Side” mocks Zionism as a product of rich Jews and apocalyptic Evangelicals and it asks us to see the “social justice” of the Palestinian cause. But, before we make a judgment let us consider what The scriptures and history tells us. In about 2000BC, Genesis 12, Abraham migrates to the “Promised Land” and in Genesis 23 purchases land from the Hittites. Genesis 21, Isaac and not Ishmael would inherit the land and Genesis 27, Jacob flees after stealing Esau’s birthright blessing; Deut. 34 “I will give the land unto your seed.“, Num. 34 Isaac then Jacob (Israel) are heirs to the covenant and the land; famine drives Jacob and family into Egypt and Philistines occupy Gaza along the Mediterranean Sea; after 400 years in Egypt and 40 years in the desert with Moses, Joshua leads Israel in conquering Canaan and in 1000AD King David captures Jerusalem; in 722BC the Assyrian Empire takes Israel in the north captive and in 586BC the Babylonians take Judea in the south into captivity, and after 50 years King Cyrus of Persia allows the Jews to return to their “promised land”; in 332BC the Greeks and 61BC the Romans control the Jewish Kingdom, yet, in 164BC the Maccabean revolt and regain independence from the Greeks, 70AD after a rebellion the Romans destroy the temple in Jerusalem and 132AD after another revolt the Romans expel the Jewish people and rename the land “Palestine”; 300AD Christianity becomes the dominant religion until 638AD when the Arabs conquer the land, restrict Jewish life and in 1009AD persecute Christians, destroy churches and close religious sites; in 1095AD Crusaders take and hold the Holy Land until 1291AD when they are driven out by the Moslem’s; 1917AD British forces occupy and set up a Mandate for Palestine and Jordan and in 1919AD promise a national homeland for the Jewish people; in 1946AD the Jews return to the land and in 1947AD British propose partition with the Jews along the north coast, the Sea of Galilee and the Negev Desert and the Arabs along the south coastal area (Gaza), Galilee, the Jordan Valley, Samarea and the area around Jerusalem so that both Arabs and Jews have “contiguous” crossings north of Gaza and south of Nazareth; in 1948 the Arabs reject the partition plan, Israel declares its independence, war follows, many Arabs flee, a cease fire is declared with Israel holding all “Palestine” except for Gaza which was governed by Egypt and Samarea and the area north, east and south of Jerusalem which was governed by Jordan; in 1967AD after another war Israel occupied the area from the Egyptian Suez Canal to the Jordan River to the highland area on the Syrian border; and, as “land for peace”, they gave back the Sinai to Egypt and self-governance to the Palestinians in the occupied territories. Over their four thousand year history the Hebrew people never gave up the Promised Land; when the land was occupied they rebelled; and, when they were taken into captivity they returned. In contrast, the Arabs in Palestine were indistinguishable from the Arabs in Jordan or Saudi Arabia; were nomadic herdsmen who didn’t individually “own” the land; and, are relentless in committing acts of subversion, terror and war. It’s radical Muslims who make life miserable for Christians not just in Palestine, but in Egypt, Iraq and all Muslim majority countries. In several months waves of Palestinians will try to walk across the Israeli border and ships carrying weapons will try to enter the Port of Gaza. When it comes to what is “just” should we not let the Scriptures, history and “the facts on the ground” determine this?
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.