BALTIMORE — During their annual meeting in Baltimore, the U.S. bishops voted against the release of a much-anticipated pastoral statement of support for Americans suffering from the economic crisis on Nov. 13.
“This document is dead,” stated the dismayed president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York, after less than the required two-thirds majority of his brother bishops supported the release of the statement “Hope of the Gospel in Difficult Economic Times.”
The debate preceding the vote underscored disputes over the scope and tone of the statement and offered glimpses of nostalgia among some older bishops for the 1980s, when the conference’s ambitious pastoral letter “Economic Justice for All” earned widespread attention in the media.
But the vote against the statement’s release was widely explained as primarily the unfortunate result of a fast-tracked effort that circumvented the usual review process that allows the full body of bishops ample time for debate and revision before a vote. Cardinal Dolan acknowledged that the outcome underscored the importance of following established procedures for producing statements that fully reflect the “voice of the body.”
Archbishop Jose Gomez of Los Angeles echoed that insight during a press conference following the vote. Archbishop Gomez suggested that the statement needed to bolster its “vision of hope with tangible examples of what the Church is actually doing” to aid those in need, such as outreach provided by Catholic Charities and local parishes.
Archbishop Allen Vigneron of Detroit, who was appointed by Cardinal Dolan to spearhead the writing of the statement, expressed both regret and acceptance of the action taken by his brother bishops, who approved the statement by a 134-85 margin, with nine abstentions, short of the 152 votes needed to pass it.
More Modest Message
“Hope of the Gospel,” in its final draft, outlined a relatively modest message for Church leaders, who in past decades have tackled broader issues of social inequalities, the marginalization of the poor and the rights of workers to bargain collectively and strike.
“We are very conscious that we stand in the tradition of Catholic social teaching, from Pope Leo XIII’s Rerum Novarum to Pope Benedict XVI’s Caritas in Veritate, as well as the documents and statements that have come from the bishops’ conference these past 25 years, including 'Economic Justice for All' (1986),” wrote the authors of the statement.
“We do not intend to offer a comprehensive analysis of economic systems at work in our nation or in the world. Rather, we want to offer a word of pastoral wisdom and encouragement based on the light of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.”
Much of the 14-page statement underscores the need for moral integrity in the creation of a more just society, particularly in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis that exposed an array of ethical lapses in the banking sector and in government oversight.
The statement shifts attention from a national debate on the origins of the economic crisis and solutions for unemployment to the spiritual and moral challenges faced by ordinary Americans. It points to the need for virtue during times of hardship, when aimlessness and despair may tempt some to give up hope and discontinue their efforts to secure employment
The authors establish a connection between broader social trends, like the growing number of children raised in single-parent households, and rising levels of poverty, highlighting the need for better religious formation and the inculcation of virtue in schools.
“We write during this Year of Faith. … It is our hope that this letter will encourage prayer and study, as well as promote conversation and discussion within our parishes and our dioceses, in order that together we may find creative and constructive ways of resolving the economic problems we face.”
Actions, Not Words
During the press conference following the vote on the statement, Bishop Jaime Soto of Sacramento, Calif., acknowledged that action at the parish and diocesan levels offered a more important message of hope to the poor than a conference document.
He noted that the U.S. bishops had enthusiastically approved plans to promote the canonization of Dorothy Day, the founder of the Catholic Worker Movement, the same day as the statement vote, pointing to her legacy as a source of inspiration for many Catholics.
“Whatever we say on the economy has to be demonstrated with clear-cut action, and Dorothy Day is an example of that,” said Bishop Soto.
A number of bishops confirmed that many Catholics across the country had been extraordinarily generous in the midst of the economic crisis. For example, the national collection following the 2010 earthquake in Haiti had yielded $85 million for relief and rebuilding efforts in the Western Hemisphere’s poorest country.
However, the debate preceding the vote on the document also reflected conflicting views about the scope and prophetic role of conference documents. Several older and retired bishops lamented the failure to present the rich intellectual foundations of Catholic social teaching and apply principles in a more decisive and “specific” manner.
“My problem is that there is no sting and no bite,” stated Bishop Peter Rosazza, retired auxiliary bishop of Hartford, Conn.
Retired Archbishop Joseph Fiorenza of Galveston, Texas, hinted at the generational divide within the USCCB during an interview with the Register. He noted the document’s failure to address the rights of unions to organize or to critique specific policies that fomented social inequalities and suggested that some “younger” bishops were cautious about applying Catholic social principles.
“The economy is different today. But if we still want justice for our people, the economy has to be judged on how it affects people: Is it for people or trying to use people?” said Archbishop Fiorenza. “We asked that question in 1986, and we got it right then.”
Urgent Matters
Just one week after the election, the skepticism from some bishops may partly reflect a desire to stay focused on urgent matters at hand, from securing diocesan services to those in need to weighing the Church’s options for dealing with the federal contraception mandate.
During a Nov. 13 press conference, Cardinal Dolan confirmed that the conference sought to re-engage the Obama administration while pursuing legal and legislative remedies.
After a yearlong effort to educate the public about the threat posed by the mandate, the mood of conference deliberations this November signaled a time of careful analysis, with Church leaders seeking to deploy the weight of their office in a judicious manner.
Archbishop Joseph Naumann of Kansas City, Kan., argued during the conference debate that the bishops overstep their “competence" when issuing specific policy judgments. During an interview after the vote, however, he made it clear that his diocese was committed to serving those in need, and reported that Church agencies experienced a jump in donations since the onset of the crisis.
Bishop Thomas Tobin of Providence, R.I., told the conference that the release of the statement would do little to enhance the bishops’ credibility.
“I am just not sure in this very difficult time that we as bishops need another document that won’t be relevant. I don’t think we can afford to erode our relevance any more. If we want to give hope to our people … we should scrap the document, go home and provide tangible support to those in need.”
The 2012 campaign season, which included the appointment of Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan as the GOP vice-presidential candidate, prompted an expectation among committed Catholics that the public would be treated to a robust debate on the proper application of Church social doctrine.
Ryan had been criticized in several letters issued by USCCB committees concerned about the impact of his budget proposals on social entitlements. During the spring USCCB meeting in Atlanta, several bishops urged that the forthcoming statement on the economy avoid any appearance of partisanship, and that concern may have influenced the development of the final draft.
During a Nov. 13 press conference, Bishop Jaime Soto acknowledged that Ryan’s candidacy did not yield a satisfying debate on Catholic doctrine, but it did resonate with some of the public.
“The fact that in an election year any candidate might even pronounce the word ‘subsidiarity’ is already an accomplishment. In terms of the whole conversation about the role of government, I welcome that subsidiarity has been brought into the lexicon of public discourse,” said Bishop Soto, with a flicker of humor.
Immigration Reform
Bishop Soto joined a number of his brother bishops at a Nov. 13 press conference to announce the conference’s stepped-up effort to press for comprehensive immigration reform to address the status of undocumented workers.
The conference may have tabled its statement on hope during tough economic times, but the bishops made it clear that they would continue to help those in need, and fight to overcome injustice.
The stalled effort to secure immigration reform, said Bishop Soto, “has been justice delayed and denied. This issue needs to be brought forward now.”
“We have a significant population that lives on the margins of life,” he said. “They made tremendous sacrifices to be here. They are citizens waiting to be incorporated in this society.”
Faith and Hope
Archbishop Vigneron said that he, too, sought to focus his energies on providing spiritual and practical support for the needy during a seismic shift in the economy, particularly in Detroit.
“One of the most debilitating things about economic troubles is people’s feeling a sense of powerlessness or hopelessness,” he said. “When I am talking to Christians, I focus the message on Christ. When I am with interfaith groups, we talk about how religion can build up a sense of community and encourage people to look at one another as the most important resources we have.”
As Detroit and the automobile industry struggle to re-establish their mission and priorities in a changing world economy, Archbishop Vigneron added, “My message is that God is with us, and we are with one another. People can deal with a lot of trouble if they are not alone.”
Joan Frawley Desmond is the Register’s senior editor.
Comments
Post a Comment
I am so disapointed in the Bishops in wanting to give amnesty to illegals. The word illegal should mean something. I know we are to be compassionate but they did wrong and there should be consequences for breaking the laws of this land. We should have the right to secure our own borders. It won’t do any good if we don’t first secure the border with a fence and enforce the laws instead of undermining the laws by not suppporting the Sherriff of Arizona.
This is why the church is becoming irrelevant, today. The bishops, at least many of the older ones still worship at the alter of socialism and the Democratic Party. Not realizing that both have destroyed the traditional family and the economy as well. And now are very freedoms are being challenged. They were silent during this election and now they want to issue a letter of guidance? It would be laughable if it wasn’t such a severe derelict of duty.
The Bishop’s are almost irrelevant anymore with Social Justice always at the forefront of all their chatter. Thank God He sends The Holy Spirit to all so we can know if we are following God and NOT man. I’m convinced many if them are on their way to Hell, and as for me and my family, we serve The Lord.
I am very disappointed in our bishops. I don’t believe in amnesty to illegals. We should urge them to become legal. What’s the problem? If I go to Russia I pay $150 dollars or more just to go into the country. Let’s try to defray the cost for these illegals if that’s the problem. If they need to speak English, let’s teach them. Plenty of us are already doing that. These bishops that spoke out against Paul Ryan should be ashamed of themselves. We had such a great man and lost him. I lost all respect for my religion at that time. We were taught to help the poor’ which we do. These bishops seem to think the president must do it. Unions! That is giving to people that many times don’t deserve it. Anything the government gets involved in means lost revenue through their very corrupt system. Who are the well off in this country? The unions. Who has degraded our education? The unions. They take from all of us,retiring at early ages while we the people pay for their cushy retirements. I know, they are all around me. The people left in the Catholic church are the conservatives. The Dems want to change the Catholic church allowing abortion, gay marriage and all their socialistic tendencies. Now, we who are left are losing respect for our bishops, priests and nuns. Where do we go? Would I trust going to confession to a person whom I know can’t represent Christ? I can’t. I pray we can find our way. I love my Catholic faith but I am losing it.
We have some serious problems in the Catholic Church. No, I am not referring to homosexual priests molesting adolescent males. I am referring to the tens of thousands (perhaps more) of Catholics who have left the Catholic Church for a) protestant churches b) no church at all. Statistics suggest that only about 25% of Catholics attend Mass every Sunday.
Now we are faced with a Church being called to the New Evangelization. Shouldn’t we be figuring out why Catholics leave the Church in droves and how to attract the un-churched to the faith rather than issuing documents on how to manage the US economy? Let’s pay attention to what is most gravely affecting the Church
I believe in helping those in need, but I do not believe in enabling people to expect hand out when they are able to work. I believe Christ’s Church should start preaching that there is good and evil and that sin has the consequence of hell. I hear NOTHING about the wages of sin in church. How can people be convinced to follow Christ if they aren’t made aware of the choice between eternal Salvation or eternal damnation?
I have to scratch my head at the Bishops’ promotion of the Dream Act. Is it not a Catholic moral principle that one cannot commit an evil to achieve good? Seems to me like entering another country illegally would fall under that heading. It seems to me that many of the Bishops are thinking with their emotions on some of these issues and are neglecting to weigh what they say against the catechism.
The bishops should worry about the salvation of souls first by making sure they and their parish priests preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ with truth and clarity and not sugar coat it. If people follow the Gospel, they will be generous to those less fortunate and not depend on the government. I thought only teenagers think money grows on trees. So many grown-ups seem to believe it, too, thinking we can live on extended credit forever. I’m glad this document didn’t go thru. Good for the bishops who voted against it. (I wish they’d read the latest post on Courageous Priests about the church.)
I was not aware that to be Christian and one of the Catholic persuasion entailed the allegiance to a political party. Seems America is powered by the hard labour of ” illegals” who are abused often and treated with contempt, but still make it easy for the Housewives of America to go to work. So often we bandy about the word Socialism and don’t understand the meaning if it. Both comments are disdainful of the poor and alas according to our Blessed Lady. The rich will be out down in the imaginations of their hearts, and be sent away empty, but the poor will be filled with good things. Guess the witness right now is Mit Romney and salvation coming from the IMF! Good luck to you.
The bishops need to support the middle class more. They have ample programs for the poor and the rich give them some money, but if it wasn’t for the millions of middle class, those with small business, the senior citizens, the 2 income hardworking families, the stay at home home moms and the ushering dads; the church wouldn’t be able to outreach as many as they do.
Unfortunately many of the bishops are living in the 70s, when stupid thinking destroyed old churches and drove away many people from the Church with their un-church like thinking. I still remember a Confirmation Youth Minister telling our kids that ‘we have evolved from things like transubstantiation’.. I think that is when we pulled our girls out of class. Unfortunately the damage had been done, one is an atheist & the other gets to Church a few times a year. Dolan is an awesome bishop but we need 100 more of them to get things right with the Church again.
I guess the good news is that the older and retired bishops who seem to be nothing more the operatives of the Democrat party are on the way out and are now being outvoted.
momoferej, I disagree, they didn’t “do wrong”. Robbing and killing are wrong. Working is not. Most of them come here to work and we have no legal avenue for them to do so. Most of them came from destitute circumstances in their own country so that they can feed their families. You would do the same in order to feed your family if you had the opportunity. We should secure our borders so that criminals don’t come in, but we need to allow people to come into our country and work.
Well said, Dennis. Socialism, liberation theology, etc. have contributed to the irrelevancy of bishops and contributed to the social ills that negatively affect us all.
After almost 45 years, the Bishops still refuse to meaningfully address the “Elephant” in the room. Namely, Humanae Vitae. They continue with their well meaning but irrelevant and ignored promulgation’s on all manner of subjects except the intrinsic evils related to irresponsible sexual behavior. They simply refuse to be clear, unambiguous,unequivocal,forceful,informative and unapologetic, concerning the grave sins relating to, contraception, abortion, homosexuality, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, cloning and all other related culture of death issues. Stop with the “social justice”. They have allowed the term to be hijacked. They can’t now expect to properly define it in the terms of “subsidiarity”. It’s like putting air in your car tires when the car’s engine has blown a gasket. The focus must be clearly on sanctity of life issues. If it is not addressed head-on the Bishops will continue to diminish their relevance,their office,the Church and most importantly, the loss of countless souls they are entrusted with. They must lead rather than continuing to react. We must pray that the Holy Spirit infuse them with the moral courage required by their office
“Much of the 14-page statement underscores the need for moral integrity in the creation of a more just society, particularly in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis that exposed an array of ethical lapses in the banking sector and in government oversight.”
The “ethical lapses in the banking sector” were pushed on them by the Democrat Congress and President Clinton who threaten AG action against banks and lending institutions that didn’t relax industry lending and credit requirements to enable lower income and poor to obtain mortgages. Every time Congress held hearings to tighten up the requirements for loans and on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the Democrats opposed it. And the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops were there to LOBBY AGAINST any tightening that would reduce mortgages to low income and poor. The bishops and ACCORN and community organizers who harassed banks and lenders, and the Democrats, starting back with Jimmy Carter, who got the Community Redevelopment Act passed into law, brought this whole avoidable crisis on, and refused, to the very end, to do anything stop it. The banking industry did what they had to do to keep the Democrats in Congress and the White House from suing them for discrimination, or taking other actions against them like withholding permits to expand and deny approving other lending business matters.
If the bishops wanted to help the poor get mortgages they should have started their own banking system, fist, and find out how to do it successfully before they lobbied Congress to force the home mortgage industry to become a charity. If the bishops can’t even influence their own flocks to not endorse the pro-abortion party with their names and votes, and that includes the clergy themselves,what makes them think they can tell a bank how best to loan money and conduct business? Clean up your own house first, before you make a mess of somebody else’s. The USCCB should be disbanded and focus returned to working on subsidiarity that bishop Soto was so impressed with; you have enough work to do to try and get Catholics in your dioceses to act on what they profess to believe and pray for, and to get priest to start preaching on how we can end the intrinsic evils.
What many orthodox Catholics are still unaware of, is the fact that the U.S.Bishop’s Conference is very divided, with only a small minority of bishops (loyal to Rome) who are willing to apply “tough-love” and have the courage to act on the Gospel. The majority of the bishops are in the middle—not willing to speak against anything, not willing to speak for anything—just silent, more or less going along with the status quo. There is a small minority as well, of liberal bishops, who continue to push their agenda of priestesses, gay marriage, etc.—and not all of them are older bishops. The diocese I am in has a “young bishop” who is clearly a “closet liberal”—he speaks the party line, but his agenda shows his true colors. There are more of these bishops than we realize. We must pray for our bishops—that they have courage; that they have Wisdom; that they strive to truly be holy men; that they strive to embrace the Gospel fully; too many of them have settled for being pragmatic administrators of their dioceses, instead of spiritual fathers.
Socialism is dirty, Brother, with all due respect. I am on the lower half of the economic ladder and about to be unemployed. If Catholic democrat “Social justice” policies helped the poor, Greece and Spain would be booming. They are collapsing due to soak-the-rich tax policies and overspending on “compassionate” programs. I and other lower income people need low taxes on all levels of income (including the rich), and far less in government spending. Federal programs are the least efficient, most wasteful and deadly (see Greece and Spain) ways of helping the poor. Those who are able-bodied and receive aid should do workfare. If they refuse, this proves they do not want to work. God said if we do not work, we should not eat-see the Bible. Catholic democrats should be ashamed of voting for the evil man in the White House, not for his naive and tragic economic policies. That can be attributed to Catholic democrats’ poor education and lack of economic knowledge. But Catholic democrats should be ashamed of voting for one who supports: infanticide, thinking sexual perversion is the same as Holy Matrimony, and for his war on the Church under the guise of “heath care”.
Calling in from southern Arizona, where illegal immigrants trash our land, burn our forests, slaughter our livestock, break our water lines, and, once in a while, murder our neighbor. It is foolish to say that these people come here to work hard and contribute. They are here to take what they can get. Do I sound bitter and nasty? The facts are bitter. We nearly lost our home to an illegal-started wild fire, a fire that, investigation showed, was started to draw first responders away from where the illegals wanted to sneak through to the interstate. If they were decent people, why would they leave garden taps running after opening them to get water? They have been taught that their economic troubles are because of gringo oppression so they feel entitled to take what they can get. The bishops’ demand for “social justice” is rooted in accepting that premise, that we are unjust in not accommodating the “gimme” attitude of people who sneak into this country.
“Bishop Soto joined a number of his brother bishops at a Nov. 13 press conference to announce the conference’s stepped-up effort to secure passage of the Dream Act.”
Nice. Democrat bishops promoting the disregarding of our nations immigration laws to have U.S. citizens move over to make room of illegal aliens in our schools, that we pay for, in our hospitals that we pay for, on our roads that we pay for, just so those, mostly Hispanic, can get jobs legally and become future pro-abortion endorsing Democrats, even though many are Catholics. Bishops, including Jamie Soto, what ever happen to the Catholic principle that “the ends don’t justify the means?”
So it is OK to cut in front of somebody standing in line; or sit in somebody’s seat inside the theater and be allowed to stay their simply because you occupy it? If the bishops want to help these people, do themselves, don’t push it on us the citizens. Furthermore, read your bibles and learn the true meaning the kings comment “whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me.”
I should know better than to read the comments…BUT, what divisive comments!! If you want the Bishops and parish priests to preach the Gospel, promote life and true Catholic teaching—how about YOU do it. And, if necessary, use words. WE ARE THE CHURCH! Glory to Jesus Christ! Glory to Him forever!
And how is entering this country illegally an evil? Abortion is legal—however, we know that it is evil, right?! sheesh. Latinos have a beautiful devotion to the Blessed Mother and celebrate her feast days with vibrancy.
The bishops should worry less about social issues and more about leading the faithful to Heaven and away from the path to perdition.
As to post by Stillbelieve. You just nailed it to the wall. Here are a few of my favorite quotes from Venerable Archbishop Fulton J Sheen. IMHO he is the roll model for any “modern” Bishop to follow. Can you just imagine what could/would happen to the Church, the faithful and the Country? Perish the thought of “Truth on Steroids”. Then you wouldn’t need the USCCB to tell Bishops what to say, how to say it, to whom and when. It is natural and fully understandable of the need for collegiality among the Bishops. They have a very difficult job in our pagan society. It is very human and healthy as long as the collegiality is not overshadowed by “politics”. It seems that politics has been trumping the Truth and their mission to deliver it with clarity, charity and courage.
The quotes from Venerable Archbishop Fulton J Sheen have all three. The only thing missing is observing the style and smile of his delivery. Pray for his canonization and many more Bishops to follow his example.
“Who is going to save our Church? Do not look to the priests. Do not look to the Bishops. It’s up to you, the laity, to remind our priests to be priests and our Bishops to be Bishops.”
“Too many people get credit for being good, when they are only being passive. They are too often praised for being broadminded when they are so broadminded, they can never make up their minds about anything.”
“There is no other subject on which the average mind is so much confused as the subject of tolerance and intolerance….Tolerance applies only to persons, but never to principles. Intolerance applies only to principles, but never to persons”
“Our Lord was Crucified by the nice people who held that religion was all right in it’s place, so long as it’s place was not here, where it might demand of them a change of heart. The gravest error of the nice people in all ages is the denial of sin.”
“REAL LOVE involves real hatred: Whoever has lost the power of moral indignation and the urge to drive the sellers from the temples has also lost a living, fervent love of Truth.”
“Cowards go to Hell. Never forget that. No matter what happens in your life never forget that basic truth”
“The very qualities that the world praises…tolerance applied to principles, open mindedness applied to truth….are the very qualities that lead souls straight to Hell!”
“Judas Iscariot is the patron saint of social justice”
I am a lifelong Catholic, having graduated from all Catholic schools, worked for the Catholic Church my entire adult life. I have been employed
by two dioceses and one archdiocese; been administrative assistant to two bishops. The Catholic Church has been my life and my lifeline. No longer can I say that. I am so disappointed by socialist priests and bishops. I am disgusted by nuns who defy obedience and “ride the bus!” Our church is in as much trouble as is our country! As the mother of ten children, I am so discouraged. I now tell my children to rely only on the Holy Eucharist and their own personal morality. We no longer have thinking leaders either in our church or country. We can and will all be led astray by depending on our body of bishops, priests, and government. SO SAD!
A rudderless and directionless Church will never be successful with a New Evangelization. The Church needs to first obtain order within before thinking others will come back. The reality of naive thinking is a belief that now is the time for evangelization.
Just when you need some hope and leadership from our Bishops to get us through the next four years of darkness we get more of the same from them. Maybe they should start working harder on protecting the unborn instead of worrying about ‘the poor’. Unbelievable. Putting the nails in their own coffins.
The USCCB needs to sit up and take diligent notice of all these comments. The laity, empowered by the Holy Spirit since Vatican II, is speaking most powerfully and with one voice. What is being said is that the primary mission of the Catholic Church is NOT social justice (whatever that means), but rather to go forth and “teach all nations.” It’s the education, gentlemen, the formation of conscience of what is right and what is wrong, the spiritual welfare of each individual, and ultimately, the goal to get each individual to Heaven! When Jesus said, “When I was hungry, you gave me to eat…,” in the main he was teaching about “spiritual” hunger and “spiritual” thirst. Don’t just give people a fish…teach them to fish!!! Back to basics, our brothers, back to basics!
UNIONS ? I was a member of the UAW for many years and was continually disgusted by the lazyness, greed and selfishness and their blind support of democrats and lies they put out about republicans…..... also I recently left a parish that never talked about abortion, contraception and my gut began telling me the pastor was a democrat more than a priest and he talked how baffled he was that attendence was dwindling, I found a parish that is worth the extra drive, we regularly hear abouit the evil’s of abortion, contraception, homosexual marriage, and how we have a responsibility to vote pro-life, this parish is overflowing at every mass, so many young people, I’m 61, I felt like a young guy at my former parish , but feel like an old man at my new parish but I love it. People want the truth, even when it may hurt at 1st…..
If the focus was on preaching the gospel, all of it, heaven and hell, good and evil, conversion of hearts or hardening of hearts, with a clear commitment to actively petitioning for the aid of the Holy Spirit in the conversion of hearts, then the resulting renewal would resolve these other side-issues automatically, including the political ones.
The cart is trying to pull the horse here, it seems.
Many of these posts should be sent to the bishops and pastors. Bishop Sheen said it best when he asked who is going to save our church. We must not simply rely on our church leaders and bishops, as that is just as silly as relying on government.
.
Yes, jacobum, Ven Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen is indeed the role model for any “modern” Bishop to follow. Here are two more commentaries by the late Archbishop concerning Catholic social justice teaching which unfortunately has been hijacked by secular progressives within the Church. It’s difficult to add to the wisdom and insight of this holy man.
(Re: Temptation of Christ in the desert, Matthew 4:1-11):
Our Lord was not denying that men must be fed, or that social justice must be preached; but He was asserting that these things are not first. He was, in effect, saying to Satan, “You tempt Me to a religion which would relieve want; you want Me to be a baker, instead of a Savior; to be a social reformer, instead of a Redeemer. You are tempting Me away from My Cross, suggesting that I be a cheap leader of people, filling their bellies instead of their souls. You would have Me begin with security instead of ending with it; you would have Me bring outer abundance instead of inner holiness. You and your materialist followers say, ‘Man lives by bread alone,’ but I say to you, ‘Not by bread alone’. Bread there must be, but remember even bread gets all its power to nourish mankind from Me. Bread without Me can harm man; and there is no real security apart from the Word of God. If I give bread alone, then man is no more than an animal, and dogs might as well come first to My banquet. Those who believe in Me must hold to that faith, even when they are starved and weak; even when they are imprisoned and scourged.
“I know about human hunger! I have gone without food Myself for forty days. But I refuse to become a mere social reformer who caters only to the belly. You cannot say that I am unconcerned with social justice, for I am feeling at this moment the hunger of the world. I am One with every poor, starving member of the race. That is why I have fasted: so that they can never say that God does not know what hunger is. Begone, Satan! I am not just a social worker who has never been hungry Himself, but One who says, ‘I reject any plan which promises to make men richer without making them holier.’ Remember! I Who say, ‘Not by bread alone’, have not tasted bread for forty days!”
Sheen, Fulton J. Life of Christ. San Francisco:Ignatius Press, 1977.
And concerning Judas And Social Justice:
“What our Lord says to Judas, he says to the world today: You seemingly are very interested in social justice. Why are you not concerned about individual justice? You love your neighbor, why do you not love God? This is the attitude of the world today. We have swung away from a period in which we were concerned with individual sanctification to the neglect of the social order. Now we have gone to the extreme of being immersed with social justice, civil rights, and so forth, and we are not the least bit concerned about individual justice and the duty of paying honor and glory to God. If you march with a banner, if you protest, then your individual life may be impure, alcoholic, anything you please. That does not matter. Judas is the patron saint of those who divide that universal law of God: Love God and love neighbor.”
Sheen, Fulton J.,Brady, John, & Dietrich, Henry. Through the Year With Fulton Sheen. San Francisco:Ignatius Press, 2003.
I’m with Bishop Tobin..“If we want to give hope to our people … we should scrap the document, go home and provide tangible support to those in need.” And, with Paul Ryan on subsidiarity. It’s time for the bishops to teach their flocks that we should not be sending our dollars to Washington, but using those dollars in our local communities. The bishops need to be doing a better job of catechizing their flocks. Unions have outlived their importance. Their leadership has drained our governments of important tax dollars to fund their excessive pensions and benefits that the local American neither receives nor can afford to subsidize. And, private sector unions are just as guilty. Look today at the Hostess brand announcing their closing because of unreasonable union demands. Now 18,000 people will be out of work, but I’m sure the union leaders will be just fine. So, let’s get back to subsidiarity. At least there were bishops who recognize that they are not experts on issues of economy. Unfortunately, President Obama is proving to be just as obstinate as he was before reelection. He wants our dollars and wants us to give up our God given rights. Pray, pray pray…
The lack of clarity comes not from the failures of the bishops, rather our lack of understanding of history and the contextual meaning of the bishops’statements. Today, the media has muddied our perceptions of Catholic principles, as partisan politics have twisted the language of our doctrine to serve their agendas. Even the author of this article is uniformed. The reference to the canonization of Dorothy Day, during the conference, is the key to understanding of the position of the Catholic Church with regards to socialism. If Ms. Day was alive today, she would be known as a libertarian, opposing the authority of the central/federal government. She would be seen as a proponent of individual rights of the states, and the people, where the property and authority lies among the individual not the government nor corporations. She supported free enterprise, and small businesses,and a system that protects us from the oligarchy we have today. Simply look the campaign spending to understand who is running our country and why special interests are a problem.
As for the Dream Act, I can understand why the bishops have empathy and forgiveness towards illegal immigrants. The population represents the fastest growing, fully engaged members of the church and clergy. Pegasus they are right having mercy on Good fearing, hard working families that have already become members of the community. The problem lies with the government offering handouts AND amnesty.
Sadly, we have become confused. Ms. Day’s quest for distributionism, the rights of the working class, and solidarity gave before the buzz words for the radical left Marxists. Look into Dorothy Day, as well as G.K. Chesterton who also was a proponent of these concepts. It its our responsibility to determine the future of our liberty and our freedoms. If we do not understand our history, we will make the same mistakes. Get informed, and stop blaming the church leadership for our ignorance.
Yes, jacobum, Ven. Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen is indeed the role model for any “modern” Bishop to follow. Following up on your quotes, here is a commentary by the late Archbishop concerning Catholic social justice teaching which unfortunately has been hijacked by secular progressives within the Church. It’s difficult to add to the wisdom and insight of this holy man who saw this happening years ago.
“What our Lord says to Judas, he says to the world today: You seemingly are very interested in social justice. Why are you not concerned about individual justice? You love your neighbor, why do you not love God? This is the attitude of the world today. We have swung away from a period in which we were concerned with individual sanctification to the neglect of the social order. Now we have gone to the extreme of being immersed with social justice, civil rights, and so forth, and we are not the least bit concerned about individual justice and the duty of paying honor and glory to God. If you march with a banner, if you protest, then your individual life may be impure, alcoholic, anything you please. That does not matter. Judas is the patron saint of those who divide that universal law of God: Love God and love neighbor.” Sheen, Fulton J.,Brady, John, & Dietrich, Henry. Through the Year With Fulton Sheen. San Francisco:Ignatius Press, 2003.
For the most part, we seem to be in agreement about the state of the Church in the US…that (the extremely leftist, politically-motivated) liberation theology has been trumping orthodoxy for so many years…unfortunately, this deceptive, anti-Catholic teaching has allowed many so-called practicing Catholics (God only knows what they’re practicing!) to justify voting for politicians who promote comparable ideology. Sadly, this includes a sizable amount of clergy and religious as well (nuns on the bus???). How can one forget the Democratic Convention which featured pro-abortion spokeswomen and the omission of God in the platform? This election was about clear moral issues as well as a failing economy, which certainly does not help the poor or disadvantaged. If Catholics had voted according to traditional Church teachings we wouldn’t be having this discussion. The question is, what can we (as lay people) do about it?
Typos in my last post. Perhaps the bishops should have mercy on the God fearing, hard working individuals who although have come here illegally, yet our now members of the church community.
Distributionism and solidarity have become the “buzz words” of the radical left.
While the bishops should be reading (this blog) to see what people in the pew are thinking, I doubt they care. That is how far removed they are from real life.
If they had to support families, like those of us living in the real world, they’d think twice about promoting a social gospel that rewards ILLEGAL behavior.
Big news for bishops is they have a brand new liturgy of the hours text to enforce on those that must read it, and Pope Benedict is now endorsing the Latin language being taught in seminaries. In the real world, they’d teach English in seminaries, because of all the foreign-born priests that are in our US churches.
Noted from the article: [“Archbishop Gomez (Diocese of Los Angeles) suggested that the statement needed to bolster its “vision of hope with tangible examples of what the Church is actually doing”]. This—from a foreign born Bishop who was a major speaker at a Los Angeles rally last year promoting illegal immigration. To AB Gomez: “Kindly take your hands out my pocket to give what I have worked hard for to someone else.” I am able to make my own decisions without your help and without any Dream Act passed by the US Government. Stop pushing your Social(ism) Gospel down the throats of every Catholic within earshot. Everyone does not agree with you or the Social(ism) Gospel.
Terah James:
Your view is very shortsighted. What you call the” social gospel is not at all what they are teaching. If you have read any of the encyclicals you would understand that the church denounces socialism as well as communism. Further the terms used by the clergy, such as social justice, are used in a different context. I am so tired of individuals with such prejudiced points of view who have never really looked into their very biased and negative attitudes, before making conclusions. Some terms have two connotations; i.e. in terms of the actual definition and the political.
Casting Crowns: Aside from the fact that Latin is the traditional language of the church, the language on which most of the world’s languages are based, no church leader is shoving socialism down our throats. If you read any of the encyclicals, you would know that socialism is unacceptable in the Catholic Doctrine. The problem with the Dream Act is not the charity of the church, rather it is the handouts and the lack if border controls on the part of the govt.. Since the Hispanic membership of the church continues to grow exponentially at the Sunday mass, and among the clergy, I can understand the church’s compassion, even if I disagree with the legislation as it is written today. I support the charitable gesture, get not under the current circumstances and lack of border controls.
@LJ re LJ’s post on Nov 16, 2012 11:21 AM
Though I tend to align with where I think LJ might be going, it is important to be explicit about the vital importance of the role of Mass-attending laity who will be better inspired and equipped via improved preaching and homilies sought by Cardinal Dolan and the USCCB. The November 15 CNS article below affirms the absolute need for ALL Christians to work together to make Christianity more credible to a society that is more and more divided on Christianity—especially in the area of ethics which can falsely elevate “choice” to a presumed unalienable right. Benedict XVI warns that “one of the major voices proclaiming and defending human dignity [Christianity] is becoming easier and easier to silence, which places all human beings at risk”.
.
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1204829.htm
.
BXVI notes how bad it can get: “Where God is eliminated from social life, there is also a strong risk that human dignity will be *trampled*,” he said, pointing to the example of the “mass exterminations” carried out by the Nazis and the Soviets.” (emphasis added)
.
Though that extreme is unlikely in America’s near future, if we don’t decisively win in this current and most basic battle over crucial sacred conscience, then further *trampling* will trace back to a victorious President Obama trampling via his HHS mandate—with history’s footnote revealing that Catholics in large numbers were not Catholic-enough to show unequivocal, sustained robust outrage in a timely manner. Can there be any better predictor for tyrants’ success in silencing Catholics than Catholics who cared too little, too late about God’s Gift of Conscience?
.
Regarding an actuarial model behind the HHS mandate to facilitate so-called “preventive care” and another for mandatory-insurance to create balanced insurance-pools, the models can work well, applied to hypothetical populations of *special robots having periodic needs plus vulnerabilities coming with use and wear”. Robots of course have no conscience. But God-Imaged people are infinitely more valuable before God and mankind. Most importantly, people will be judged by God for their *eternal status (heaven or hell)* based on how they responded to their conscience. It is that factor alone which invalidates certain applications of actuarial models applied to people. President Obama earns the mantle of TYRANT because he disrespects fellow Americans as if they were mere animals, insects or robots, caring not that he places Catholics in grave spiritual jeopardy re their consciences.
.
Cardinal Dolan rightly used several times the vivid “gut-level” phrase “Strangling the Church” (on “CBS This Morning” on May 24). Fr. Robert Sirico of the Acton Institute used the phrase “like an animal being branded for roundup and identity” to describe a neighbor so-branded during WWII. It is well known: “gut level” expressions are not the same as “gutter-level” expressions which we would never expect Cardinal Dolan and any priest to use. BUT WE DO EXPECT our shepherds and priests—for our (their sheep) sakes—to be willing to stir up the flock with ACCURATE gut-level words as *part* of the way to rationally rally the flocks! If our Bishops won’t help us that way, no words of solace will suffice if we lose.
Thank you Bishop Soto and to all other bishops that are so compassionate with the immigrants!!! God Bless them always!!!
Interestingly most comments focus on the weaknesses and failures of our Bishops and fellow Catholics…not on our own individual failure to follow Jesus. Need to focus on our own sanctification - regular prayer life,rosary,Mass and Holy Communion. Having greater love for our families and reflecting Jesus in our lives would be more helpful than dwelling on the weaknesses in our Church.
While it is true that Bishops are more closely bound than the laity. But after reading the posts on this site I think they have little to worry about compared to the people posting here. The lack of charity on this web site is an abomination in the eyes of God! Instead of complaining, all of you should get off you back sides and go out and work with the poor. I do! I work with them every day. It breaks my heart to hear what they have to go through. Jesus fed the multitude and turned water into wine. When have any of you done anything to feed or give drink to the poor? The Bishops and Priests feed us the body and blood of Christ. What have any of you done to help the poor? That is the bottom line of Vatican II, the laity is to do work just as hard the Bishops and Priests do!!!! I am sure there is a Saint Vincent De Paul Society some where near all of you. If not you could start a chapter in your area. It is an international Catholic lay organization dedicated to helping the poor. If any of you can be bothered to stop complaining long enough to actually do something for someone else.
The ground breaking research on the root causes and authentic solutions for our economic decline are to be the topic of a new book by John Horvat II called Return to Order. He shows how the timeless principles of an Organic Christian Society are what we need to reverse the bad economy, as well as to get off the “frenetic intmepernace” that is the root cause of all the reckless spending. More information on his soon to be published book can be found at http://www.ReturnToorder.org
The unions today are not representing working people. They are a powerful political arm of the Democrat party using forced dues to promote their agenda including abortion and homosexuality. Their main interest is to have many more millions of dues paying members to support the highly paid union bosses. That is why they protect the worst offenders against being fired. It is not wise for the Bishops to issue pro-union messages that mislead a very mis-innformed flock of voters!
Kathleen:
Your comments are stunningly smug, and filled with assumptions about individuals you do not know. Really?
@Kathleen: Feeding the poor is a great work of service. However, many secular organizations do the same in your community and in mine. The difference is that Catholic and Christian service organizations should also be sharing the saving Gospel of Jesus Christ as well. The Salvation Army is one group which does even if some people in the dining room don’t wish to hear it. If all you are doing is feeding someone but failing to **instruct and teach** the lost—all the food in the world will not help save those who are lost and have never heard the gospel. Tricia is correct that you have no idea what other people do for the cause of Christ. All I can tell you is that if you have no witness, no personal testimony concerning your own faith in Christ then your work is truly incomplete in what Jesus has commissioned all who believe in Him to do. You and the clergy need to get over the idea [“The Bishops and Priests feed us the body and blood of Christ.”]. The Eucharist is not pixie dust which (when received) stores up points for you in heaven like a Boy Scout merit badge.
Economy can only work if the ratio of material growth is less than the ratio of spiritual growth. In other words, when a people are always striving for perfection, that trend towards perfection spills over into the economy. Calm, balanced and authentic economic growth is the natural consequence of a true and deep spiritual life. My friend John Horvat has written a new book on this, which you can see at http://www.ReturnToOrder.org
The Salvation Army also preaches against Holy Church, as does Miracle Hill. To proselytize is a mortal sin. I heard a Miracle Hill Chaplain brag how he used to be Catholic and how he had harassed his mother into leaving Holy Church on her death bed. I explained to him he would be damned if he did not repent of his sins before he died. He did not take the truth to well. I have heard a major in the Salvation Army say Catholics will not go to heaven! The only protestant organization that does not commit this sin is the one started by Billy Graham.
Robert Ritchie:
I agree with you regarding the balance of spiritual life. We seem to have placed our sense of virtue on the back burner. It is time to begin using politics and virtue in the same sentence,as well as business. Thanks for the book reference. There is also a new book, Our Last Hope, by Mike Maharry. It will be out in print this month…..worth a look.
Kathleen:
To quote the words of Christ; “Let the one who is without sin cast the first stone.” It is time for all of us to look within ourselves with judgement, instead of those around us. Righteousness is a good thing, self-righteous is not so constructive. I am grateful to the Catholic Church and the gift of faith, the only Christian Church that was founded by Christ Himself.
@Kathleen, you still haven’t mentioned anything about your witnessing and sharing the gospel. Jesus was not too kind in His remarks to those who will say “We did x,y and z in your name.” Feeding the poor is important. But whom did you tell about Christ?
@ Kathleen, re your Nov 17, 4:20 AM Post
An author on the life of Frederic Ozanam, founder of the Society of St. Vincent de Paul, called Ozanam’s *always reliable demeanor* his “stupendous apostolate of friendliness”—stupendous because it always showed despite constantly troubling health conditions. Since you had cited the Society, Kathleen, consider making certain types of remarks less accusatory and a little friendly, like Ozanam who was effective that way. Solving problems of the poor involve *prudential* judgments and hard decisions which too easily can lead to being too judgmental. And yes, I did many, many hours of volunteer work for the poor and vulnerable over decades.
.
You are basically correct about Vatican II and its charge to the laity though your “just as hard” stipulation needs to allow for family size and condition (nuances are sometimes necessary). In a subsequent comment I will outline what I believe needs to be done – and can be done—if both American Bishops and laity work cooperatively. Hopefully you and others will critique it constructively. Especially in this Year of Faith we can make God-pleasing progress despite the 2012 election results.
Tricia:
Thanks for the reference to Mike Maharry’s new book Our Last Hope, which sounds like something I would enjoy reading. Concerning the other debate about the fault of clergy and laity, both are at fault, since such a monumental decline in basic morality and sound doctrine cannot happen without both clergy and laity being involved.
The “poor” are not monolithic—they don’t all want handouts. Some do, and perhaps one of the commentors above works with such people. (I do not know.) I know some poor people—I call them “economically fragile”—who have no use for the bishops or their opinions of economic policies, who are not at all interested in hearing some overfed/overweight bishop declare how the “poor are blessed,” and how the bishops are “in solidarity with the poor,” who deplore higher taxes on anyone, who want nothing to do with government welfare programs for which they qualify.
As for the illegal immigrants. Yes, some—even many—may well be deserving of our sympathy and help; but the ones that Sir Louis described above sound more like thugs than poor helpless people. Grouping these two types of people together is not a good thing.
Robert Ritchie:
Your post:
Concerning the other debate about the fault of clergy and laity, both are at fault, since such a monumental decline in basic morality and sound doctrine cannot happen without both clergy and laity being involved.”
Would you elaborate please. Not sure I get your point. I tend to blame the media, which is full of nonsense ans statistics with no substance, with which we are pelleted daily.
Tricia:
The moral crisis among Catholics is surely exploited and exagerated by the media. The media is also hypocritical in the way it fosters immoral behavior on its pages, but then turns around and hunts down and denounces any moral scandals inside the Catholic Church. The same bad behavior that they favor, they condemn when it involves the Catholic Church.
But the media is not the cause of this moral decline among Catholics. The moral decadence among Catholics is a fact that is internal to the Church, although we can say that the pop culture, media included, are a contributing factor.
Does that make sense?
William F. Foldger, thank you for your correction of me. This is only the second year I have been in the Society and still have much to learn. Plus I was in the Air Force for 18 years which made me terribly blunt.
Robert Ritchie:
Thank you for clarifying your point. At first glance, I did not follow your line of thought. I am not sure I fully agree, but you make a valid point as to the reasons that many have turned away from the church. It is without question; that many have chosen to abandon their faith, as a result of some of the internal Church practices. With that said; our perception of reality, history, and the truth is highly influenced by the messages around us, i.e. news media, television,political campaigns, etc. In fact, we hear nothing about the miraculous good deeds of the clergy and laity, nor do we hear about actual historical accounts where our government is clearly out of control.
In my honest opinion, the lack of clarity regarding the Clergy’s position on socialism and such prnicples, comes not from the failures of the bishops, rather our lack of understanding of history and the contextual meaning of the bishops’statements. Today, the media has muddied our perceptions of Catholic principles, as partisan politics have twisted the language of our doctrine to serve their agendas. Even the author of this article is uniformed.
Further, I tend to agree with G.K. Chesterton’s works, primarily his book, “Eugenics and .Other Evils” and “What is Wrong With the World.” We tend to think we live in a world of “new thinking” a different world. Although some things have changed from covert to overt in the mainstream, things really have not changed all that much, especially man’a audacity in creating the ultimate Utopian society, and his quest for power and authority. Lastly, from a political science perspective, blame and polarization of various groups of people, religious or otherwise, is a tactic political organizers use effectively.
Thank you again for your post. I do not intend to challenge your thinking. I am merely stating my point of view, as well. Thanks again.
@Tricia
“Lastly, from a political science perspective, blame and polarization of various groups of people, religious or otherwise, is a tactic political organizers use effectively.”
Are you implying that identifying church-going Catholic Democrats, including the clergy, as the cause for abortion-on-demand remaining the law-of-the-land; and the reason pro-abortion, pro-infanticide, pro same-sex marriage Barack Obama won two presidential elections, who is a main cause of our continuing economic and foreign policy predicaments; and the sole reason the U.S. Catholic Church and the U.S. Constitution are under attack, is not a valid spiritual criticism, let alone a political one?
@Kathleen
Sincerely, Kathleen, thank you for your Air Force service; I respect your humility. Though never shot at, my technical career had me in the observer nose of the Navy P-2 Neptune Patrol Bomber doing C.W. offshore night-ASW experiments. Similar joint-work got me flying with Royal Canadian Air Force crews (in their Argus), both military being my honor to be with and to assist. With visiting family still here a bit longer - post-Thanksgiving - my posting is delayed further into this week. The issues are complex and it is best to somewhat delay rather than rush.
Stillbelieve:
No I was not implying that at all. I am very disheartened when I consider the last election. I had not intended to make inferences with my statement. Blame shifting is a political tactic to distract liberty loving people from exercising their rights to federal laws and mandates. While many are grieving over the a abhorrent acts of the federal government, the viable solutions, such as nullification and the national debt relief amendment are being ignored. I do feel that blame is not the place to channel one’s energy. I intend to do what I can and exercise my constitutional authority. In the last three weeks I have written letters to members of my general assembly and to my bishop. As a result, we have prime sponsorship in my state to stop the federal govt from spending like crazy. See: restoringfreedom.org 36 states are in this process.
I have hope and faith in the process. I also feel it would be sinful to do nothing. You know even as early as ten years after the US Constitution was ratified our federal govt was out of control. Simply look at the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798. The political game is a powerful yet ugly process. Let’s not fall prey to their agenda with anger and a sense of hopelessness. Do something! Perhaps this is the difference between then and now. Who do you know that has actually read the constitution, the federalist and anti federalist papers to understand that the last check and balance of power lies within the state and its people?.
Fellow faithful-Catholics, by supporting one another as with *constructive* comments on this and my subsequent related comment we can help head off another serious USCCB problem plausibly to emerge at their March 2013 Meeting. It will be a *replacement-document* for the deficient November Draft voted down two weeks ago at the USCCB Baltimore Annual Meeting, public session. Several bishops want to make pamphlets from whatever is created for March. Our having experienced consequential past and recent USCCB negligence (practical and not doctrinal) , especially by OMISSIONS, future pamphlets are likely to have omissions that further undermine our Republic which is now more threatened than ever by creeping Socialism, given “we” elected 2nd Term President Obama—in significant measure due to American Episcopal neglect of the proper education of Catholic voters.
.
What was alarmingly omitted in the USCCB widely-advertized single-sheet parish Bulletin Insert for both 2008 and 2012 (same deficient texts!) is the vital society-principle, outlined just below, that helps society maintain ALL its freedoms, not only Religious freedom. That grave concern is now in the courts while bishops are as yet uninclined to publicly tell President Obama that he treats Catholics like insects and lower animals which have no consciences. Trampling human conscience is no small matter and so *your* constructive commenting and working together is what your families’ futures need, given 2nd term Obama shows he disrespects BOTH the unborn AND faithful Catholic adults!
.
The voted-down Draft’s topics included Work, Poverty and the Broken Economy. Sadly there appeared about two weeks ago in a bishop’s comments on the Draft before the vote—continued evidence of USCCB neglect of a vital societal principle called by Popes: “Subsidiarity”. Despite Subsidiarity’s indispensible role as guardian of long-term maintenance of ALL our responsible freedoms through local control of activities and local government, for as extensively as conditions permit, it is not familiar to most Catholic voters who simply are left in ignorance of the following insistence in the Holy See’s Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church:
.
Quoting Compendium #188: “One may also envision the reality of serious social imbalance or injustice where only the intervention of the public authority can create conditions of greater equality, justice and peace. In light of the principle of **Subsidiarity**, however, this institutional substitution must not continue any longer than is absolutely necessary, *since justification for such intervention is found only in the exceptional nature of the situation*. IN ANY CASE, the common good **correctly understood**—the demands of which will *never* in any way be contrary to the defence and promotion of the primacy of the person and the way this is expressed in society—*must remain the criteria for making decisions concerning the application of the principle of subsidiarity*. [Emphases added]
.
Being careful to heed “the common good correctly understood” (i.e., by the Church) and not being fooled by varied secular opinions of the “common good”, INFORMED Catholics recognize that the phrase—“where only the intervention of the public authority can create conditions of greater equality”— can be wrongly seized upon by secularists claiming higher enlightenment such that “equal outcomes” are instead sought, but to society’s ruin—because only ‘equal opportunities’ can be *approximated* in real life. Most far reaching in importance over time and over all technology changes (the latter greatly affecting health care access, effectiveness, costs and allotted budgets) is the Catholic Church’s insistence on the “never” in #188’s last sentence which means no human progress whatsoever can be cited or used to downgrade the role of God-desired “Subsidiarity”, one of three pillars needed by successful societies, alongside sister pillars called “Solidarity” and “Common Good”.
.
If you’ve not been taught about strange-sounding “Subsidiarity”, then you might well be misled with only “Solidarity” and “Common Good” and thereby inclined to vote for people who truly endanger society, as at present.
.
Though not intentionally done, that recent serious OMISSION, two weeks ago, of the most crucial points cited in that *last* sentence of #188 above is Auxiliary Bishop Rosazza’s comment at the Baltimore Meeting that higher-powers must intervene (if qualified under the first two sentences). That much is OK but before moving on to his next comment-topic he did not mention at all the crucial last sentence just discussed. Absent that “last sentence” and absent the “never”, “Subsidiarity’s” role of protecting ALL freedoms can be blurred enough to keep Catholic voters ignorant and not wary of the pre-cancer stages preceding full Socialism.
.
Two Catholic authors who also recently left out the explicit “never” statement during this past Election Cycle are briefly analyzed in my subsequent comment for there are just too many harmful OMISSIONS and blurrings occurring with freedom-protecting “Subsidiarity” since at least 2007. The examination includes the interplay with simultaneously-vital Solidarity. If we Sheep don’t speak up now, mistakes could be repeated this March—further damaging the Republic. Mostly, my next comment will include how laity and Bishops can work together to head off Socialism and other societal evils, fortunately in this very period provided by the Holy Spirit through Benedict XVI who brings us both the “Year of Faith” and his support of “The New Evangelization”. The outlook is positive despite the troubled pathway.
William F Folger:
Thank you for your post. The media, the unions, and the left have twisted the concepts of Subsidiarity and Solidarity for their own agendas. It is my contention that the bishops are ill advised, and might want to modernize their language to suit a society that has advanced beyond the agrarian and industrialization. I believe it is time for Catholic men and women to write to the Archbishop Lori and to include the importance of States rights, nullification, and Compact Theory vs nationalism. (Kevin Gutzman and Tom Woods are the best scholars in this regard)
Since the late 1700’s the rights of the individual vs the collective have been assaulted by the new central government, and the supremacy clause has been taken out of context. Simply consider the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798. Additionally, law schools have taught Constitutional Law within the context of Supreme Court doctrine and specific cases, while avoiding the document text completely. It was believed that modern theory should be used to interpret the Constitution, while in fact the reverse is true. Further, early 19th century arguments over nationalism vs Compact theory have been debated, ignoring common sense. Nationalist had won this debate, sadly. Compact Theory which holds that the Union was created by the sovereign peoples of the states, must confront the Nationalist view. The Nationalist, by contrast, holds that the Union was created by a singular “people”; from there comes the inevitable conclusion that the Union is indestructible, nullification is unthinkable, and Supreme over the nation, etc.
Compact Theory, Jeffersonian thinking, is the only way towards preserving liberty and freedom. And although the arguments have supported the nationalist point of view, one simply has to ask the following questions to make the case for State sovereignty:
1.Where is the proof of this “one people”?
2.Where did it come from?
3.Where is evidence of this “one people” doing anything? (I see zero such evidence)
4.Why would the states have ratified the Constitution one by one?
5.Why did the Declaration speak of free and independent states?
6.Why did the states perform actions we associate with sovereignty?
7.Why did Britain acknowledge the independence of individual states?
8.Why did the Articles of Confederation say the states “retained” their sovereignty? If they “retained” it, didn’t that mean they must have had it to begin with?
These are just a few of the difficulties the nationalists have to overcome. The compact theory of the Union is the most persuasive theories.
This in my opinion, must be included in letters and discussions with the Bishops in addition to anti-soclialist language. Too many Americans believe that the federal government is the Supreme Law of the Land, and the Supreme Court is the last check and balance. As a result the US has operated more like a social democracy than a republic. In reality, it is the Constitution, the Declaration, and Rule of Law, which represents the “Law of the Land”, the States are the last check and balance, and it is these things which distinguish the United States as a Republic vs a democracy.
Please let all us faithful Catholics write to Archbishop Lori and ask that the Bishops learn from the Constitutionalists, such as those mentioned above as well as Yale Law Schools, Michael Stokes Paulsen
How To Interpret the Constitution(and How Not To), and Ahkil Amar’s the Constitution; A Biography.
Thanks again. I will be writing letters.
@ Tricia,
“ALL THINGS CONNECT” said Native American Chief Seattle commenting on the bad things he saw happening to his people even as he felt the impact of their conquerors. I think you and I, to a certain extent, share his feelings, given the substantial list of things you gave to be better understood by both laity and Bishops. However, because so many of those things “connect” in quite different amounts and ways, the *sheer volume* of it all is much too high for this type forum. In contrast, the three pillar-principles of society Subsidiarity, Solidarity and Common Good ARE all about obvious interconnectedness and relationships and so merit taking space to address them because they relate to the Article’s topic “U.S. Bishops Reject Pastoral Statement….” and to the need for the USCCB to present a better Statement in March.
.
As a magisterium-faithful Catholic, I try to keep in mind that Bishops ARE called by Christ, even those that might later harm and depart the Church— while others, being imperfect and *not* having full Magisterial protections (unlike Approved Councils), can and occasionally do make human misjudgments and practical mistakes, seldom doctrinally. Seriously damaging mistakes such as USCCB neglect of Subsidiarity which jeopardizes Responsible Freedom in society MUST be addressed, still with respect. At times it can require *pressing the issue* because of what is at stake nationally and what further delay can mean, as right now in our endangered homeland!
.
I do not agree with your equating Church and government leaders: “We must not *simply* rely on our church leaders and bishops, as that is *just as silly* as relying on government.” [emphases added] “just as silly”? Methinks, Tricia, if indeed you are magisterium-faithful, that you will wish to correct your statement. Jesus protects His Church to the End though that does not mean smooth operation, given free will.
.
My schedule this weekend means my 2nd subsequent comment should be Monday morning. Peace be with you, Tricia.
William Folger:
I do not equate the church with government, not at all. It is not surprising however, as so much information is lost in terms of context in such writings. I do believe that like many Americans some clergy members and bishops are misinformed. In fact, I would argue that most are misinformed regarding our history and the intentions of the founding fathers, and the law of the land. Frankly, I concur with your thoughts. Lastly, I agree with Dorothy Day, Chesterton, proponents of subsidiarity, as well as earlier encyclicals written decades ago. , It is my opinion that during this time we should reframe the concept of subsidiarity as we have moved from an agrarian and industrial society, and the liberal left issue these terms out of context to bolster their campaigns. I am not sure how you made you came to the conclusions about my beliefs regarding the church and government, but it is far from my true thoughts. I found your comments a bit condescending, and unnecessary. I welcome inquiries.
William F. Folger:
Equation Church and Government leaders?......How did you glean that from my post? I absolutely do not equate the two. In fact, I concur with both of your posts regarding subsidiarity.
In reference to the above article and prior conversations in this thread my points are as follows:
1. It is my contention that the left wind campaign strategists use the language of the Church doctrine, taken out of context, to their own advantage. For example; subsidiarity and solidarity have been used as campaign buzz words in support of socialism and big government.
2. The concepts of subsidiarity and solidarity, came about in the early 1900’s. I support these concepts. It emphasis was in alignment with a more agrarian society and industrialized society. It is my suggestion that the Bishops consider modernizing the language to ensure a clear message about the position of the Church regarding socialism.
3. If we do not know our history we are likely to repeat mistakes. As our Archbishop Lori along with Cardinal Dolan and others, have lead the fight for Religious Freedom, from Baltimore, the US Holy See, it is important that the Bishops recognize the actual history of the Union, and the authority within the States so that members of the clergy and laity may have a clear message of right and wrong when it comes to government authority and its enumerated powers. Many feel that if this message was effective and pervasive, the November election results would be different. (I am not one of them per se)
The remainder of my post provides some history and references. These resources reflect original letters, debates, and notes of the founding fathers and others. It is my attempt to offer resources to most of us who have never been exposed to anything but revisionist history.
Jesus does protect His Church, but that does not mean that anyone should sit idly by and do nothing. It is certainly okay to speak the truth and defend one’s liberty as well as their faith.
@ Tricia, in peace, respect and clarity … for the sakes of the Church, our country and forum use:
.
I accept that you do not equate Church and government leaders’ authorities: my point was that we have divine reasons for relying MUCH more on Church leaders (over the Catholic domain) than on government leaders (over *their* oft-assumed-domain) though there are caveats re Church authority depending on whether it’s the Magisterium or, say, National Bishops’ Conferences, or individual bishops, as such, not fully being the Magisterium. I have posted that certain times and circumstances cry out for our speaking up, yet always with deference to the Magisterium.
.
I appreciate your “thank you” (Nov. 30, 6:10 pm) for my Nov. 30 wee-hours Post. You ended with your firm intent to write letters. However, because of some of the things you said, I got concerned: “It is [Tricia’s]*contention* that the bishops are *ill advised* [a much too sweeping a statement applied to all bishops], and might want to modernize their language to suit a society that has advanced beyond the agrarian and industrialization”. And “Please let all us faithful Catholics write to Archbishop Lori and ask that the Bishops *learn from the Constitutionalists* …” [emphases added].
.
One could make a case from the above for your being at risk for a charge of writing in a condescending manner re the Bishops whereas what I said to you (Dec. 1, 10:05 AM) is clearly in a respectful non-accusatory “if, then” format, hence non-condescending: “Methinks, Tricia, if indeed you are magisterium-faithful, that [then] you will wish to correct your statement.” In your response on Dec. 3, at 11:58 am, however, you include strange things like “….lead the fight for Religious Freedom, from Baltimore, the *US Holy See*”.
.
One could fault me over the Chief Seattle quote: his speaking in his dialect led to disagreements as to what exactly he said. I first saw “his words” “All things connect” carved in marble at an International Airport and so the picture of “numerous connections” reflexively flashed to mind when I read the numerous interconnected Founding-related topics you want the bishops to lean about. Of course *ALL* things “connecting” is true from the Divine perspective (e.g., John 1:3 that we say at Sunday Mass: “through Him all things were made”). But for us mortals using parts of His universe, all things being connected would be chaos to handle. Indeed I appreciate the disconnection-benefits with “independent variables” for math, the concept of “mutually exclusive” for thinking, etc.
.
Tricia, the answer to why I said what I said has been outlined. Remember, if you ARE genuinely, magisterium-faithful you will come out and say it and then write so that it encourages real progress in this Year of Faith, in this and similar forums thus to help take back the Republic we both love and, at higher priority, to protect the Mission of Christ. “Magisterium-faithful” gives more information and Witness than “faithful Catholic”, especially in this Age of dissent, lukewarmness and utter deceit, the latter which can take place in forums as a methodology to damage the forum. With doctoring Yesterday et al I must return to my delayed comment, parts of which addresses some of your concerns with perhaps surprising information for you. Blessings!
William Folger;
I respect your opinion, yet think you have judged much too quickly. If you are asking the question as to whether I believe that all bishops are ill advised, vs an alternative option, I can say that I believe that some have been ill advised by laity. I am happy to clarify that statement for you.
I have no doubts when it comes to my faith and commitment to the Church and its leadership. Again, I applaud your earlier post. Please do not attempt to read into something that is not there. I have laid out my positions and reasoning. In my letter, I will ask for the Archbishop’s advisement. I will also ask that the Bishops consider modernizing the terms; subsidiarity, solidarity, and distributism.
I cannot elaborate on the political process and political science, tainted US history, and how DC campaigners have used words of the Church Doctrine to bolster their own agenda. This forum is not the appropriate place.
Lastly, my comments; “As our Archbishop Lori along with Cardinal Dolan and others, have lead the fight for Religious Freedom, from Baltimore, the US Holy See”....this comes from Catholic news sources and the words of my pastor. Kindly read my posts again, if you wish. It seems like you are trying to prove a perception, which does not exist in my mind. Perhaps I have struck a chord with does not resonate with you. This is the unfortunate weakness when it comes to written communications.
Tricia,
The battle ahead is so important to both Church and America that if brief discomfort occurs while interacting without ill-intent and produces greater carefulness in the future, then praise God for the short trouble because such striving will help others be more confident in what they read. At this juncture, it appears that you and I share basic mutual respect and that you are conveying that you are de facto “magisterium-faithful”. My technical background accounts for my occasional “If, then” structure I used; hence I was not at all being judgmental.
.
In another area, it was your choice of the quite strong word “contention” immediately coupled with “the bishops” [unqualified] that made me “concerned” as I noted. Being concerned is not a judgment. Re your use of “from Baltimore, the US Holy See”: again, I could not even consider judging because of insufficient context. But it was confusing to many readers familiar with the Holy See. Your subsequent note that it was used by a Catholic news source could explain the problem; indeed there are some *claimed*-Catholic news sources that do such by their nature, though the context could have been humor used in a magisterium-faithful news-source. Your pastor was likely smiling at least internally for there is no US Holy SEE though an appropriate term for a diocese such as Baltimore would be a premier “episcopal see” or “holy see” of Baltimore
.
If you think-over what I said above, hopefully you will grant that I did not judge you and therefore had no need to “prove a perception, which does not exist in [your] mind.” The importance of the “battle ahead” noted above makes us willing to learn from one another. Feel free to comment on my next well-intended comment, for we are all fallible. Blessings!
William Folger
I accept that you so not intend to judge, yet your statements are based on false assumptions. I assume that we would agree that language is important I also assume that you are astute enough to avoid debates over semantics. When fundamental principles and policy positions are clear and consistent as well as effective, semantics will become a minor point.
What you assume its that I have not fully discussed my thoughts with the office off the Archbishop. What you do not know is that it was after their encouragement a that I"agreed to letter writing, and you assume that I did not resist the idea. Lastly, I read only two Catholic papers, mindful of authors bias, etc.
Lastly, Baltimore is the first archdiocese in the US, Archbishop Joseph Carroll , which serves as the Premiere See. My use of the term US Holy See comes from the Archbishops office itself. I feel comfortable that they are reliable historians in this regard. Your last assumption may be that I have not given this careful time and thought, and come from a place of humility.
Since you are technically focused, the first diocese, in the new world, was established in what we now call Puerto Rico-Archbishop Allonzo Monzo.
Tricia,
Year-round, a modest-sized group of us sing happy, spirit-lifting songs (secular & religious) at Assisted Living facilities, Nursing homes, Senior Citizens groups and other places, on a purely volunteer basis. In the pre-Christmas season, the invitations greatly increase, making December very busy on the home front but for proper reasons. Coincidentally, yesterday, Thursday 12/6, I had to drive before noon to get there and so cautiously saved my draft of a subsequent comment on two Catholic authors – addressing “subsidiarity” and its handling by them and our bishops —in an email-to-myself in case of unexpected pc crash. Its time-stamp is Thursday 12/6 @ 12:29 PM (EDT)
.
Here is an excerpt about you from my email-saved draft made two hours *before* receiving your response datelined Thursday 12/6 @ 2:42 PM (EDT): “Note that “Solidarist”, having human emotion suggested in its very title, clearly not the case for “Subsidiarist”, is not offensive-sounding – which means Tricia’s seeking a better term (and understanding) for “Subsidiarity” has merit. Indeed the excellent interplay of “Subsidiarity” and “Solidarity” reflects God’s greatness. But He likely would accept a better handle for the former, the Church approving of course! But right now we can’t afford waiting for an expected slow-change; we have four rough years ahead”.
.
That was my constructive build upon your own statement of Wednesday, 12/ 5 @ 4:28 PM (EDT): “In my letter, I will ask for the Archbishop’s advisement. I will also ask that the Bishops consider modernizing the terms; subsidiarity, solidarity, and distributism.” Encouraging constructive comments which can charitably be corrective if need be is an important goal in these forums especially since November 6. Truly, Tricia, in my career it was necessary to ask myself what assumptions am I making? In responding to you I find so far that no assumptions need be made. If I must make some I’ll tell you in responding. Re the “US Holy See” matter, we are in agreement about Baltimore historically becoming the Premier See for our country, as approved by the Holy See.
Once again, Americans will feel the impact of what Rep. Nancy Pelosi just days ago gleefully rubbed in: “Elections have consequences”. Wednesday’s & Thursday’s news from the White House & Senate ominously underscores that warning! In 2008 there were not enough Mass-attending Catholics to help stop Mr. Obama and ditto for his second-term run, in considerable measure because American Catholic Bishops (the USCCB, *not* the Church’s Magisterium) had seriously neglected the importance of the **far-reaching**ALL-Freedoms-Protection principle “Subsidiarity” —since 2007 and on through the 2012 campaigns. Such high-level neglect contributed to that principle being improperly treated in Peter Brown’s April 14, 2012 article “The Limits of Subsidiarity” (2nd link below). Brown’s article was too-soon supported, April 17, in a national-exposure blog-article by Msgr. Charles Pope, on the Archdiocese of Washington DC official website (click on “Let Freedom Ring” link just below and scroll to comment with dateline 6/11/12 @ 7:40 PM (EDT) to see the link to Msgr. Pope’s handling of Brown’s article).
.
Before reading Brown’s and then Monsignor’s article, consider scrolling further to the 8:20 PM comment, to see its lowest of three links which gives a brief, very telling September *2009* USCCB-sourced letter with :
.
1) a concrete example of Subsidiarity being unwisely dropped in the 2009 letter’s conclusion after its specific affirmation in the same letter as one of three *fundamental* principles, 2) an Hispanic Bishop’s commenting warningly on sloganeering just before Subsidiarity is dropped at letter’s end (bishop: “in our public discourse, let us not allow anger to suffocate wisdom, nor let slogans replace solutions”) and 3) the 2009-letter’s conclusion itself bravoing Solidarity and the Common Good at the expense of Subsidiarity being quietly dropped as if irrelevant in health care legislation!!: “If there is a country where the means exist to remedy the health care crisis, it is this one. But, is there a will? Solidarity and the common good come at a price”. The two links immediately above the letter-link give direct evidence of how poorly “Subsidiarity”, in two MAJOR documents in place from 2007 thru 2012, is still being treated; that document-pair explains why that 2009 letter could be so naively written, with resistance not expected.
.
The reference to not letting slogans replace solutions is a red herring used to justify dropping Subsidiarity though its origin with the particular bishop might be totally unrelated.
.
http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/let-freedom-ring/
.
http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/the-limits-of-subsidiarity.html
.
There’s no wondering why Peter Brown, while completing a doctorate in Biblical Studies five years after the problematic “Faithful Citizenship” pair began in 2007 could be misled about Subsidiarity as shows in his article. No wonder that the coined term “subsidiarist” is used pejoratively by many critics who don’t read or perhaps don’t accept the *critically informative* sections on Subsidiarity in the “Compendium on the Social Doctrine of the Church”, especially the vital *last sentence* in # 188:
.
#188: “In any case,**the common good correctly understood**, the demands of which will NEVER in any way be contrary to the defence and promotion of the primacy of the person and the way this is expressed in society, **must remain the criteria for making decisions concerning the application of the principle of Subsidiarity**” (emphases added, end quote). The term “never” has consequences: it is THE driver that stimulates solutions for all kinds of new developments in society, science, medicine, finance, risks, mobility, etc.—instead of downgrading Subsidiarity to Catholics.
.
In a recent post-election blog, Dec. 3, Msgr. Pope recommends: “avoid saying never” & “avoid saying always”—which is really not good advice in certain matters in the Catholic Religion. However, it merits further inquiry because of unclear context. Still, neither Mr. Brown nor Msgr. Pope refer, in *their* April articles, to the Compendium or to #188 with its “never”. They seem to shy from #188’s content which is not in harmony with a *puzzlement* atmosphere in Brown’s article over what to do in the modern world with “Subsidiarity” and “Solidarity”. The first step is to explain Subsidiarity in terms of the Compendium and to stop using the oft-pejorative term “Subsidiarist” used Eight times in Brown’s article. Note that “Solidarist”, having human emotion suggested in its very title, clearly not the case for “Subsidiarist”, is not offensive-sounding – which means Tricia’s seeking a better term (and understanding) for “Subsidiarity” has merit.
.
Nor did they convey # 186: the higher level “must adopt attitudes of help (“subsidium”) — therefore of support, promotion, development — with respect to lower-order societies.” The only realistic way in addition to prayer to get higher secular powers “to adopt (helpful) attitudes” is to be more involved politically most especially before elections and to get the USCCB to adopt a “preferential option for the SHEEP” to truly educate us sheep on election-related beliefs and doctrine re “prudential judgment”, “proportionate reasons”, “ non-negotiables”, Catholic meaning of critical terms, especially disputed ones, et al.
.
The obvious solution to the problem of having to accept MORE *ONGOING* higher-level assistance (say beyond SS et al) while fearing eventual “Take Over” is to strive to make sure, by more intelligent voting than we’ve seen in decades, that we don’t let Congress write unacceptable legislation or let ourselves be too meek when we’re told we can’t understand it until it’s passed!! That’s how to prevent Big Gov Takeover; but it requires a much better catechized bunch of Catholics – for starters! After all, we can be sure that the necessary interplay amongst the three principles Subsidiarity, Solidarity & the Common Good will be manageable*provided* we seek to heed psalm 127, verse 1 where God is our Master Builder and we HIRE the right kind of human builders mentioned – especially those on election days! During the 2012 campaign, “127:1” was not preached except here and there. “127:1” tells us we will FAIL if we don’t do things God’s way. We have been dumb downed for much too long and need full-disclosure help!
.
The good news is that there are proven ways the laity can work with the bishops, to give mutual help – to be outlined in subsequent comment.
Mr. Folger,
I believe we are on the same page in many ways, and yet in some ways we disagree. I am discussing these issues now with those close to the archbishop as well a esteemed Catholic authors and Constitutionalists. There its absolutely no reason why anyone should refrain from writing with humility to our Archbishop. It seems we are at an impasse. God bless you during this Holy Season. Thank you for your thoughtful post.
Hi Tricia,
May you have a very blessed Christmas, too. We agree: “There is absolutely no reason why anyone should refrain from writing-with- humility to our Archbishop”. Hopefully we all strive to be humble, when writing to anyone or on any topic; however, when certain facts & factors involved in major controversial problems must be clearly stated, that sometimes will be perceived, by some, as arrogance, albeit unintended.
.
In the case of the two Catholic authors I wrote about above, they are welcome to respond in this forum and so you could forward this forum-link to them; if they point out error I’ll admit it in the forum and say how it modifies my position and thinking which is always to seek truth. If *I* don’t change once informed and unable to counter their points or arguments, I could not respect myself.
.
Tricia, I defer to you on any choice of last word you might wish to say, for it’s now more important to return to the forum topic which links, by cause & effect, to the expected special March-release document to replace the one voted down in November. As soon as possible for me I’ll submit a comment proposing how laity & bishops can work together in this Year of Faith, with the New Evangelization and with the new strategic USCCB Four Year Plan that does include a few key issues of national scope.
.
We must be MUCH better prepared for 2014 & 2016 and insistent on being *hurt no more* by documents improperly and/or hurriedly constructed. See how Benedict XVI – in 2005!—- spoke of psalm 127:1. IF ONLY every Catholic congregation had an explanation of 127:1 given them before the 2008 and 2012 election, using the Holy Father’s words, things would be much better today. In short, God conveys in 127:1 that we will FAIL unless we HIRE-by elections (in modern times) the right kind of builders (e.g., elected officials) and then support them. God conveys very clearly that (for modern times) it doesn’t matter if one Party has a terrific-sounding economic program (remember, economics isn’t exact science): we will FAIL if also that Party otherwise acts cruelly against Him and His children (all ages) due to our careless voting! Godspeed!
.
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2005/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20050831_en.html
Addressing Fellow Catholics loyal to the Church’s Teaching Authority, the Magisterium: To protect Holy Mother Church and America’s children from dark futures, here in Part 1 is how we can begin to strengthen and restore our Republic: first strengthen ourselves in this Year of Faith and in knowledge of America’s Founding while also seeking to increase the numbers of Catholics and other Christians to do likewise. We can and must take back America’s REAL Constitution now temporarily isolated from God *on our watch*—via too-easily Tenured Leftist-educators. Those spawned numerous deistically-oriented teachers, reporters and journalists with biases against biblical revelations from God. Some revelations are absolutely essential to success for societies such as psalm 127, verse 1, previously treated.
.
Deist-like President Obama is already Trampling on sacred human conscience—with few Catholics heard shouting “Obama treats us Catholics like animals without consciences!” And now DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) may well get “heightened-scrutiny” treatment by the SCOTUS in 2013! Given that Bishops need to be focused on this Holy Christmas season, Part 2 in early January will show specific, tested ways how Catholic laity can work with USCCB Bishops to ensure proper street-level understanding of several crucial topics vital to intelligent Catholic thinking and voting – and to head off other problems like serious omissions.
.
The too-easily Tenured misled their students who in turn misled Americans heavily-dependent on or attracted to government subsidies and other benefits thus to encourage bad voting-practices. Even more dangerous, they helped induce a straying away from the legitimate and vital role of the Declaration of Independence (DOI) in its proper *God-included* relationship with the Constitution. Thankfully, the Supreme Court itself in 1897 is on record well before the Tenured Cartel became powerful: “it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence”.
.
Indeed, “always safe” is about protecting our government’s integrity. And “to read … in the spirit of the DOI” is to honor Creator God as the God of nature or “nature’s God” as the DOI expresses it. Had the DOI said, instead, “nature, God” Deists could celebrate because Deism includes a range of god-types, personal and non-personal (nature itself). In contrast, True Christianity teaches about ONE Personal God which fits well with “nature’s God”.
.
Additionally, the spirit of the Declaration includes that Document’s acknowledging the crucial criterion for unalienable rights: the truth that such rights are “self-evident”. With biblically backed, Millennia-old recognition of one-man, one-woman Marriage being necessary for the Common Good of society while some modern interests call for same-sex “marriage” as an “unalienable right”, the spirit of the DOI rejects such proposals. Indeed, to-date there is nothing in balloting results to indicate such proposal are “self-evident”. Since the welfare of society is at stake, the voting bar has to be set quite high, both for per cent of population participating and with super-level of per-cent approval required – as for very highly important legislative proposals. But even successful voting does not make same-sex “marriage” moral; it would sadly reflect society’s radical change toward God.
.
If same-sex “marriage” is proposed as an ‘ordinary right’ “less than unalienable”, the spirit of the DOI defends not those seeking same-sex “marriage” at that level but protects children that could be in it (by several means) from having their unalienable right to seek happiness greatly threatened in a “family-simulated” environment unable to merit the safe label of “self-evident” right. Therefore, society has an obligation to protect children and no obligation to diminish the true meaning reserved for the term Marriage. The spirit of the Declaration rightly wants its spirit be part of the evaluation of crucial items in individual cases – before decisions. It protects the 14th Amendment from abuse, e.g., via mere assertions that some proclaimed “right” exists or via sarcasm-arguments that “some rights are more equal than others”.
.
So, the Left’s claim that the DOI has no effective influence is discredited by its mistaken assumption that the Constitution totally-supersedes the DOI and discredits God by avoiding mentioning God *in its body*. However, the explicit avoiding stems from historical experience: European history being all too familiar to our Founders made them determined to permanently head off, say, some future tyrant-president claiming, perhaps by executive-type order or proclamation made in some crisis, to have to act in God’s Name if God were to be mentioned explicitly in the newly forming Constitution. Hence the little known “unnecessary” DOUBLE-dating of the Constitution (Article VII) provides just the right amount of insulation against such possibility to thus allow God to be discussed together with political/religious matters such as DOMA, for but one example.
.
We’ll shortly see biblical evidence that “God does write straight with crooked lines” which means, over all history, that God gets chunks of the essentials done, often piecemeal and strangely, within a Grand Plan— and often via humans not fully faithful to Him and to moral laws. Thomas Jefferson was picked as principal drafter of the Declaration of Independence because of several skills needed even though he doubted the divinity of Christ and was more of a Deist. Yet the final, approved DOI Draft helps true Christians with their later-to-come Constitution problem of God not being mentioned explicitly. Our problem of today is that not enough insist on the use of the spirit of the Declaration applied to examining accepted Court cases.
.
See this brief summary of the lineage of Jesus with all the crooked lines revealed in His lineage:
.
http://www.jesusourshepherd.org/m090111.php
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.
The time period for commenting on this article has expired.