Episcopal and ecclesial communion? Not this time.
We Roman Catholics talk an awful lot about being in communion with one another. Whether we are describing the nature of the Church, as in “communion ecclesiology,” or describing what we are doing at eucharist, or describing the collegial relationship of the bishops throughout the world and in each local church, the image of “communion,” being of one mind and of one heart, is often central to these discussions.
We all know the damage political elections do to our communities and to our Church as a whole. Partisan allegiances not only blind us to the motivation behind approaches to politics that differ from our own, but also to the demands of the Gospel. Election-time ugliness—american style—colonizes every moment, every conversation. Take, for instance, the fact that an acquaintance of mine recently sent me a message on Facebook to congratulate my wife and I on the birth of our daughter on Friday, only to punctuate it with a jab about how Obama is intent on killing babies. Is this what we have come to?
Sadly, this is not only a problem for “the faithful.” Our bishops—admittedly, human like the rest of us—are failing us too. Their Faithful Citizenship document indeed was overall an impressive moment of teaching, far more sophisticated than past efforts. As we draw nearer to November 4, we are seeing handfuls of american bishops, though, attempting to retract huge portions of that teaching under the guise of “clarification.” Baffling, isn’t it, that these bishops feel the need to “clarify” the content of FC, a document that is revised and updated every four years in order to be as clear as possible in each election’s political context? If the bishops really intended to say that a Catholic may not vote for a pro-choice candidate if there is a “suitable” “pro-life” candidate available, why wasn’t this said in the document itself? Not only was this not said, it was not even remotely implied. Indeed, the new (and few) “interpretations” of FC cannot in any real sense be connected to passages from the original document at all.
Among these new (and few) “interpretations,” the absolute worst moment so far has got to be the recent heavy handed approach of Scranton bishop Joseph F. Martino who didn’t even try to link his teaching with that of his brother bishops. He expressed his open defiance at a parish discussion on FC recently, saying, “No USCCB document is relevant in this diocese . . . . The USCCB doesn’t speak for me . . . . The only relevant document is my letter. There is one teacher in this diocese, and these points are not debatable.”
And unfortunately the result is that already confused Catholics are now even further entrenched in their own double standards. For years now, Catholic republicans have dismissed the teaching of the USCCB, especially FC, as irrelevant, as nonauthoritative. They continued to hold this view until said “clarifications” (such as that of the Dallas bishops) emerged. Suddenly, FC (or at least its “interpretations”) is seen to be as authoritative as scripture itself. Then, like watching a tennis match, comes Martino who is cheered by republican Catholics for his dismissal of the USCCB.
Such moves are revealing of several realities. First, they reveal another example of what many of us have known for a long time: Church teaching, at whatever level of authority, is used and abused over and over again for partisan political purposes and not for the true illumination they bring on the fullness of our social reality.
Second, they reveal that our bishops, human like us, are not immune from such nonsense.
And third, and most tragically, they reveal the extent to which we kid ourselves with talk of “ecclesial and episcopal communion.” We couldn’t be further from it.
It is interesting watching the US Presidential elections from this side of the Atlantic. The reaction that there is only one issue in town ie abortion is rather worrying. Back in 1997 the Bishops of England &Wales published the Common Good which stressed many other issues that need to be addressed. Whilst I believe that abortion is wrong, it can never be the only issue that a Catholic considers on entering the polling booth. I think we will be seeing this repeated in the next eighteen months in the UK.
Wow, great post!
You got some hisses and claws at the American Papalist:
”
Just got back from the Bat (guano) Cave. Michael Iafrate, Michael Joseph’s Sir Lancelot of the Democratic Dark Knights of the Round Table fulfilled my prediction.
Here is the first thing that popped out of his… keyboard… when given the link to the new statement:
I don’t see much there in terms of clarification, though. They articulate well the positions that Catholics should hold when it comes to Roe v. Wade and assistance for mothers. Nowhere do they directly address the issue of voting and they do not bind the consciences of u.s. Catholics in terms of who to vote for.
Like I said, the statement wasn’t as explicit as it should have been. Sounds like it has the same dizzying effect as Faithful Citizenship.
Joseph | 10.21.08 – 9:41 pm | #
”
I always say a good test of effectiveness is when one shows up on the Thomas Peters or the CNS radar.
Good work.
Got a link?
Never mind. Got it.
Ah sorry. I’m a bad linker.
Most RCs aren’t listening to them anyway: they’re default Democrats, the old immigrant-labour thing, trying to follow social justice, not knowing much about economics. The EWTN types who really do care about the babies and try to follow church teaching get suckered with the Protestant right into voting Republican but they’re a small minority.
This libertarian is staying home.
This isn’t and never has been about whether one is Prolife or not. It’s about whether one is willing to buy into the naive scheme of marrying the Catholic Church to the Republican Party as a logical means of ending (legal) abortion in the US. To be considered a “Faithful” Catholic, one is expected to mindlessly subscribe to the scheme and surrender his vote accordingly, despite that much of the basic dogma of the designated church-party is spectacularly un-Catholic and results on the abortion front range from paltry to nonexistent. Resisters can be scared (You will go to Hell!) or insulted (You’re a Baby Killer!) into voting for the church-party. A winning formula if ever there was one. The frustration we see now with Bp Martino is only to be expected during a year when the church-party marriage of convenience appears to be heading for the rocks. Every election season we are subjected to the luancy of communion wars, the clergy having public meltdowns (Bp Doran of Rockford IL the most notable in 06) and the rank and file at each others throats. Such a touching display of fellowship.
СпаÑибо за поÑÑ‚! Добавил блог в RSS-ридер, теперь читать буду регулÑрно..
I am just curious though I lean toward anarchy myself…catholic as I am…how much you have read concerning catholic social theory….encyclicals especially?
I would like to know purely from curiosity because I would like to see what you know concerning the issue…thank you very much.
Shastat78@yahoo.com
Hello James – I’ve read quite a bit of Catholic social teaching and commentary on it, as that is what I am studying academically. If you have specific questions, feel free to email me.