John Gehring, Faith in Public Life’s Senior Writer and Catholic Outreach Coordinator, joined FPL after three years at Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good. He blogs about Catholics in public life.
The Leadership Conference of Women Religious issued a strong response today to the Vatican’s doctrinal crackdown saying in a statement that the assessment was “based on unsubstantiated accusations and the result of a flawed process that lacked transparency.”
The organization, which represents the majority of Catholic sisters in the United States, warned that Vatican sanctions handed down last month were “disproportionate to the concerns raised and could compromise their ability to fulfill their mission.”
The national board of LCWR acknowledged the groundswell of support Catholic sisters have received across the country and expressed concern that the sanctions “caused scandal and pain throughout the church community, and created greater polarization.”
This is a bold response that shows Catholic sisters are not backing down from their social justice mission and remain courageous leaders even in the face of Vatican pressure. It’s inspiring to see heroes of the Catholic Church who live out Gospel values by caring for the sick and feeding the hungry affirm their vital mission.
Catholic sisters have no reason to apologize, cower in fear or backpedal. At a time when some Catholic bishops are busy fighting the Girl Scouts and comparing the Obama administration to the days of Hitler and Stalin, Catholic sisters embody what’s best about a global church where power politics are always in tension with example of Christ.
add a comment »
It’s not every day (or decade for that matter) the pastor of a Catholic church is willing to stick his neck out and take on the powers that be in his own Church. But the recent Vatican crackdown on Catholic nuns has landed with a thud on the conscience of many faithful Catholics and inspired righteous indignation in unlikely spots.
Writing in the parish bulletin of Blessed Trinity Catholic Church in Cleveland under the simple headline “From the Desk of Fr. Doug,” the pastor unleashes a thunderous defense of Catholic sisters and a withering critique of Vatican power. A parish bulletin has rarely crackled with such scorching prose. Read the whole thing here. I’ve pulled some paragraphs that jump off the page and grab you by the hair.
The Vatican sounded like the Pharisees of the New Testament;—legalistic, paternalistic and orthodox— while “the good sisters” were the ones who were feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, visiting the sick and imprisoned, educating the immigrant, and so on. Nuns also learned that Catholics are intuitively smart about their faith. They prefer dialogue over diatribe, freedom of thought over mind control, biblical study over fundamentalism, development of doctrine over isolated mandates.
Far from being radical feminists or supporters of far-out ideas, religious women realized that the philosophical underpinnings of Catholic teaching are no longer valid. Women are not subservient to men, the natural law is much broader than once thought, the OT is not as important as the NT, love is more powerful than fear. They realized that you can have a conversation with someone on your campus who thinks differently than the church without compromising what the church teaches.
The Vatican is hypocritical and duplicitous. Their belief is always that someone else needs to clean up their act; the divorced, the gays, the media, the US nuns, the Americans who were using the wrong words to pray, the seminaries, etc. It never occurs to the powers that be that the source of the problem is the structure itself.
US nuns work side by side with the person on the street. They are involved in their everyday lives. Most cardinals spent less than five years in a parish, were never pastors, are frequently career diplomats. Religious women in the US refuse to be controlled by abusive authority that seeks to control out of fear. They realize that Jesus taught no doctrines, but that the church, over time, developed what Jesus taught in a systematic way.
This investigation is not about wayward US nuns. It is the last gasp for control by a dying breed, wrapped in its own self-importance. It is a struggle for the very nature of the church; who we are, how we pray, where we live, who belongs, why we believe. The early church endured a similar struggle. The old order died. The Holy Spirit won.
The Leadership Conference of Women Religious is meeting this week to discuss how they will respond to the Vatican’s move. Catholic sisters are true heroes of our church and need little inspiration to firm up their already steely convictions, but they clearly don’t stand alone.
add a comment »
A few weeks ago conservative wunderkind Rep. Paul Ryan faced scrutiny from nearly 90 Georgetown professors for distorting Catholic teaching to justify his draconian budget proposal. Now, Catholic conservatives are outraged that Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius will be speaking at the university on Friday as part of several weekend graduation ceremonies.
Sebelius is at the center of a controversy over an Obama administration policy that requires birth control to be covered at no cost under preventative care provisions of the health care reform law.
The Cardinal Newman Society, which acts as a self-appointed watchdog for Catholic orthodoxy on college campuses, CatholicVote.org and the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty are all circulating petitions urging Georgetown President John DeGioia to withdraw the invitation to Secretary Sebelius.
Since these groups seem more intent on building walls around Catholic campuses and insulating students from the supposed dangers of diverse perspectives, it’s clearly too much to expect them to applaud a Catholic university for inviting two high-profile Catholics from different political parties and ideological perspectives within a few weeks.
Instead of a “scandal,” I think many Catholics who take their faith seriously and believe strongly in the importance of Catholic identity view it as a healthy sign that Georgetown recognizes the real world is about engaging with people who hold different perspectives – not creating a fortress where we hide from them.
A few important facts to help temper the Catholic right tempest. Sec. Sebelius is not the commencement speaker. She will not receive an honorary degree. As Georgetown President John J. DeGoia explained, she was chosen by students and will offer some reflections and encouraging remarks during an awards ceremony. She has not been invited to pontificate about Catholic teaching, abortion or contraception.
Unlike Rep. Paul Ryan, Sec. Sebelius has not been making the rounds defending her policy positions in specifically Catholic terms. Nor does she claim that her views on contraception and abortion are shared by Catholic bishops. In contrast, Ryan argues that cutting food stamps, health care for the poor and an array of safety net programs that Catholic bishops are warning him to protect are policy positions explicitly inspired by his Catholic faith.
Despite this, the Georgetown professors who chided Ryan over his Catholic defense of Darwinian economic policies did not call on the university president to pull the invitation. In fact, unlike the Newman Society and Catholic right activists they welcomed him to campus and used a civil tone that should be a model for how to disagree without descending to personal attacks.
Criticism of Sec. Sebelius’s pro-choice views is certainly legitimate from a Catholic perspective. I understand why some Catholics might disagree with Georgetown’s decision. But elevating the worst of McCarthy-era witch hunts and censorship into a virtue is a poor lesson for students about to enter a world where every bit of their faith and reason will be needed. Defending Catholic identity should not have to mean that intellectual engagement and civil discourse are viewed as signs of weakness that erode our faith.
Photo credit: Eric Bridiers, Fotopedia
add a comment »
Don’t expect Catholic sisters to shrink like delicate flowers in the shadow of the Vatican’s recent crackdown. For centuries, women religious in the Catholic Church have been marginalized and often maligned even as they exemplify what it means to be Christians who bring healing to a wounded world. Full of grace and grit, they still keep living Gospel values– healing the sick, feeding the hungry, sheltering the homeless – as the storms of politics (ecclesial and civil) thunder around them.
Highly educated and fighting for justice in corporate boardrooms and on Capitol Hill, Catholic sisters are not remaining silent as they grapple with the recent scolding from the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. “When you touch a woman, you touch a rock,” a South African proverb reminds us.
Apologies to St. Peter, but the rock of our Catholic Church today would be more like a house built on sand without the enduring witness of Catholic nuns in the United States and around the world. As R. Scott Appleby, a prominent church historian at the University of Notre Dame, notes in an important interview on this subject – “This is not the way to treat other Christians.” Appleby continues:
I don’t think the church intends to attack women or denigrate women. But the church in its wisdom has to recognize the impact of the way it has conducted its affairs. If certain members of the hierarchy of the church are not intending to denigrate women or to subordinate women or to make them think they are second class citizens, they are not doing a very good job of conveying that message. I think we should err in the church on the side of respect, and praise, and support, and gratitude and acknowledgment of what these women have done.
In an eight-page, “doctrinal assessment” based on an investigation that began in April 2008, the Vatican’s doctrine office blasts the Leadership Conference of Women Religious for “promoting “radical feminism” and writes:
While there has been a great deal of work on the part of LCWR promoting issues of social justice in harmony with the church’s social doctrine, it is silent on the right to life from conception to natural death, a question that is part of the lively public debate about abortion and euthanasia in the United States. Further, issues of crucial importance in the life of the church and society, such as the church’s biblical view of family life and human sexuality, are not part of the LCWR agenda in a way that promotes church teaching.
We’ve reached a really dangerous and sweeping definition of what constitutes “dissent” if one can be punished or subject to “reform” solely because of what one is supposedly not doing or saying loud enough. Let’s be clear. The Leadership Conference of Women Religious and NETWORK, a National Catholic Social Justice Lobby (also named in the document) do not make it their business to challenge church teaching on abortion and same-sex marriage. They do not lobby on behalf of pro-choice positions or launch campaigns for same-sex marriage. They are busy defending human dignity and the Catholic notion of a consistent ethic of life by fighting for living wages, quality health care, an end to the death penalty, and laws that treat all immigrants as human beings instead of “aliens.”
By advocating for health care reform and the Pregnant Women Support Act, for example, Catholic sisters strengthen families and in the process help prevent abortions by making sure women have the kind of robust pre-natal and post-natal support they need. This is pro-life advocacy in the fullest sense of the term. In fact, women religious supported health care reform legislation precisely because they view access to quality, affordable medical care as a pro-life position.
Their disagreement with the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops over the bill’s final language was not a challenge to the fundamental moral principle of respecting life, but rather over a different reading of complex legislative language balancing an array of competing goods. They applied the Catholic principle of prudence to come to a conclusion about how to best apply a moral principle to the particulars of public policy (a conclusion shared by many independent experts and many pro-life Christians). This should not be read as a power struggle with bishops or creeping heresy. It’s putting faith and reason to work in a pluralistic democracy.
It’s also important to ask why every Catholic organization must have as its primary mission a focus on abortion and same-sex marriage. Catholicism’s institutional muscles are well-honed on these issues at the national and diocesan level. Significant capital – human, political and financial – are leveraged to fight these battles. I would bet if you were to ask most Americans today (including many Catholics) about what the Catholic Church stands for you would likely get an answer describing what the church stands against (abortion, contraception, same-sex marriage).
Less well known is the Church’s rich social tradition that puts workers’ rights, economic fairness, respect for immigrants, care for the environment and a preference for the poor at the heart of orthodox faith. The perception of a double standard is given when Catholic organizations that ignore or speak in hushed tones about these urgent issues bearing on human life and dignity are given a free pass by church leaders.
Finally, the Vatican move raises enduring questions about “who speaks for the Church?” Explicit in the CDF report is the clear reiteration that bishops are the “authentic teachers.” In one sense, this is undoubtedly true. Bishops have a unique teaching charism and in a hierarchical church they sit atop the organizational pyramid. The Church, we are often reminded, is not a democracy. But institutional leadership is not the same as moral leadership, an attribute that is earned not given. The fact is most bishops are not getting their hands dirty in hospitals, jails, homeless shelters and in blighted communities where titles are less important than leadership by example.
As judged by St. Francis of Assisi’s famous admonition – “Preach the Gospel at all times and when necessary use words” – Catholic sisters are undoubtedly “authentic teachers.” The fundamental question about who “speaks for the Church” is too frequently framed as a simplistic struggle: Bishops v. Catholic Sisters. Bishops v. Theologians. Bishops v. Laity. The reality is many people speak for the church in different capacities and at different times. But that’s a heretical proposition for some conservatives and not a few bishops who seek a smaller, purer church. As a powerful America magazine editorial captured so well in the wake of the Obama-at-Notre Dame controversy:
In the United States today, self-appointed watchdogs of orthodoxy, like Randall Terry and the Cardinal Newman Society, push mightily for a pure church quite unlike the mixed community of saints and sinners—the Catholic Church—that Augustine championed. Like the Circumcellions of old, they thrive on slash-and-burn tactics; and they refuse to allow the church to be contaminated by contact with certain politicians. For today’s sectarians, it is not adherence to the church’s doctrine on the evil of abortion that counts for orthodoxy, but adherence to a particular political program and fierce opposition to any proposal short of that program. They scorn Augustine’s inclusive, forgiving, big-church Catholics, who will not know which of them belongs to the City of God until God himself separates the tares from the wheat. Their tactics, and their attitudes, threaten the unity of the Catholic Church in the United States, the effectiveness of its mission and the credibility of its pro-life activities.
Catholic sisters have been given the back of the hand when they deserve sustained applause. Let’s hope Archbishop Sartain, tasked with overseeing the work of LCWR for the next five years, will seek in whatever way possible to move forward with greater respect for those who are true heroes of our church.
Photo credit: Catholic Courier/Tamara Tirado
add a comment »
Washington Post columnist Marc Thiessen, a former George W. Bush speechwriter who has defended torture as justifiable in Catholic teaching, is now taking a few swipes at Catholic bishops challenging Rep. Paul Ryan’s GOP budget proposal as deeply immoral.
Thiessen’s argument is such partisan boilerplate that it’s almost hard to respond without laughing out loud. It seems that Thiessen thinks the bishop who leads the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ domestic justice committee is in the bag politically for Barack Obama and should just stop picking on poor Paul Ryan, whose budget bullies the poor by slashing food stamps and other vital protections so the wealthiest few can have more tax cuts. He writes:
Using Obama’s campaign rhetoric, Bishop Stephen Blaire, chairman of the bishops’ Committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development, recently wrote to Congress declaring that Ryan’s budget “fails to meet [the Church’s] moral criteria” because it does not require “shared sacrifice,” which Blaire [like Obama] defines as tax increases and cuts to “unnecessary” defense spending. Some of the proposed spending cuts in Ryan’s budget, Blaire said, are “unjust and wrong.” Blaire has it backward. What is “unjust and wrong” is this bishop’s attack on a good Catholic layman. Put aside for a moment the fact that “shared sacrifice” appears nowhere in the catechism of the Catholic Church. It is a reelection slogan for the Democratic Party.
By directly challenging Bishop Blaire, Thiessen adopts Ryan’s latest desperate strategy of seeking to divide Catholic bishops and fuels the perception that only a few lone voices in the hierarchy have problems with the GOP budget. This is absurd. Bishop Blaire was elected by his brother bishops (over 200 of them) at a national meeting. As The Hill newspaper confirmed in a call to the U.S. bishops’ conference, he speaks for the bishops on these matters.
Thiessen’s lazy armchair theology is just as bad. He notes that “shared sacrifice” appears nowhere in the Catechism. It’s interesting that Theiessen of all people now fancies himself an expert on the Catechism given the swift blowback he received from both Catholic across the political spectrum several years ago when he argued that torture was just nifty according to Catholic teaching. Is he now arguing that he can interpret Catholic social teaching better than bishops can? “Shared sacrifice” is simply shorthand for centuries of Catholic teaching that puts the common good before ideology and narrow partisan agendas.
Catholic apologists for trickle-down economics and anti-government zealotry are poor students of history. At least since Pope Leo XIII’s 1891 encyclical Rerum Novarum, the Catholic social tradition has advocated for just tax policies, union rights, a positive role for government and a healthy suspicion of free markets – all fundamental principles of Church teaching that give conservatives heartburn but can’t simply be wished away.
In fact, if Thiessen really wants to get into it, the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, published under that leftist papacy of John Paul II, talks about a far more radical concept that would make the most liberal Democrats in Congress blush. Catholic teaching on the “universal destination of goods” reminds us that public policies should contribute to the welfare of all even if that challenges notions of private wealth and ownership. You’re not about to hear this at the next Religious Right pep rally for Republicans:
Christian tradition has never recognized the right to private property as absolute and untouchable. On the contrary it has always understood this right within the broader context of the right common to all to use the goods of the whole of creation: the right to private property is subordinated to the right to common use, to the fact that goods are meant for everyone.
It’s refreshing to watch Catholic conservatives in Congress and the punditocracy trip all over themselves to rationalize Darwinian economic policies that are an affront to Christian moral teaching. After years of getting away with reducing faith in politics to abortion and same-sex marriage, a real values debate is finally upon us.
add a comment »