Wednesday, July 27, 2016

PUBLIC CONDEMNATIONS OF CATHOLIC POLITICIANS BY CATHOLIC BISHOPS

A  NOTE  TO  THE  READER:   THIS  WEBSITE  IS  NOT  A  WEBSITE  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  CHURCH,  OR  PAID  FOR  BY,  OR  SPONSORED  BY,  OR  PRE-APPROVED  BY,  THE  CATHOLIC  CHURCH.

A  few  days  ago,   His  Excellency  Thomas  J.  Tobin,   bishop  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Diocese  of  Providence,  Rhode  Island,  wrote ...

VP Pick, Tim Kaine, a Catholic?
Democratic VP choice, Tim Kaine, has been widely identified as a Roman Catholic. It is also reported that he publicly supports 
“freedom of choice” for abortion, 
same-sex marriage, 
gay adoptions, 
and the ordination of women as priests. 
All of these positions are clearly contrary to well-established Catholic teachings; all of them have been opposed by Pope Francis as well.
Senator Kaine has said, “My faith is central to everything I do.” But apparently, and unfortunately, his faith isn’t central to his public, political life.

I  gave  each  item  in  His  Excellency's  list  of  sex-related  issues  in  his  condemnation  red  coloring,  and  a  separate  line.  You  can  see  the  original  here ...

https://www.facebook.com/bishoptobin/posts/1047348775312425

If  you're  not  in  Facebook,  the  link  may  not  work.

His  Excellency's  words   about  nominally  Catholic  Democratic  Vice  Presidential  candidate  Senator  Tim  Kaine  seem,  at  first  glance,  to  be  a  well-articulated  assertion  of  Catholic  doctrine   in  the  public  forum.

However,  there  is  a  problem.

Even  in  the  act  of  publicly  condemning  a  fallen-away  Catholic  for  his  fallen-away  position,  Bishop  Tobin,  himself,  is  actually  very  subtly,  very  invisibly  doing  something   which  morally  seems  fundamentally  indistinct  from  Senator  Kaine's  assertion  of  positions  against  Catholic  doctrine,   except  that  what  Bishop  Tobin  is  doing  is  an  act  of  careful  nonfeasance,   as  opposed  to  Senator  Kaine's  acts  of  misfeasance.   However,

(a)  because  Bishop  Tobin  is   a  successor  to  the  Apostle  leader/teachers  of  the  Church,

(b)  engaged  in  what  is  very  clearly  an  act  of  leading  and  teaching,

(c)  and  is  publicly  condemning  another  human  being   as  he  does  so,  in  a  fashion  reminiscent  of  King  David  before  the  prophet  Nathan,

I  can't  decide  which  is  the  more  difficult  thing,  morally ...  

a  nominally  Roman  Catholic political  leader  publicly  supporting  positions  against  Church  teaching  in  the  all-important  sexual  arena;  or  

a  modern  Roman  Catholic  Apostle  leader/teacher,  presumably  electable  to  the  Chair  of  Peter,   who  carefully  refrains  from  publicly  supporting  one  portion  of  Roman  Catholic  dogma  in  the  all-important  sexual  arena  --  the  portion  of  dogma  most  massively  disobeyed  by   Catholics,  including,  very  importantly,  a  substantial  majority  of  church-going  Catholics  who  contribute  to  the  support  of  the  Church   --  while  publicly  condemning  the  same  Roman  Catholic  political  leader.

It's  time  for  me  to  come  clean:   What  "one  portion  of  Roman  Catholic  dogma  in  the  all-important  sexual  arena"  am  I  claiming  Bishop  Tobin  is  carefully  refraining  from  supporting,  in  his  condemnation  of  Vice  Presidential  candidate  Kaine  and  his  positions?

Most  Catholic  readers  already  figured  it  out,  when  I  described  it  as  "the  portion  of  dogma  most  massively  disobeyed  by   Catholics,  including,  very  importantly,  a  substantial  majority  of  church-going  Catholics  who  contribute  to  the  support  of  the  Church"  --
the  ban  on  contraceptive  use  in  marriage.

Catholics  are  tuned-into  that  one  issue  like   a  one-station  radio.

A  federally-financed  study   verified  that  even  by  the  mid-1990's,  in  excess  of  72%  of  Sunday  Mass  attending  Catholics  made  regular  use  of  some  means  of  contraception.

The  number  today,  in  2016,  is  probably  significantly  higher.  (Look  around  at  Mass  on  Sunday  for  Catholic  parents  with  5  or  6  kids in  the  pew  between  them,  and  you  will  know  the  truth.)

Bishop  Tobin's  supporters  might  argue,  "Well,  Senator  Kaine  has  probably  had  nothing  to  say   on  the  subject  of  contraception."

Only  two  months  ago,  in  May,  2016,  Senator  Kaine  himself  introduced  in  the  United  States  Senate  the  Access  to  Birth  Control  Act.   
http://www.kaine.senate.gov/press-releases/kaine-introduces-legislation-to-protect-womens-access-to-contraceptives
I  don't  see  how  Bishop  Tobin  could  have    missed  that.  That's  not  exactly  ancient  history.

Bishop  Tobin's  supporters  might  then  argue,  "Well,  it  was  probably  just  an  oversight."

Really?   If  you  think  that,  I  challenge  you  to  simply  apply  to  be  one  of  Bishop  Tobin's  Facebook  Friends  --  you  know  how  utterly  simple  the  process  is  --  and  publicly  post  on-line,  in  his  Facebook  page,  the  following  question:  "Your  Excellency,  do  you  also  condemn  Senator  Kaine's  intoduction  of  the  Access  to  Birth  Control  Act   to  the  United  States  Senate  in  May,    and  his  public  support  for  that  Act?  Further,  do  you  condemn  use  of  contraception  by  married  persons,  including  Mass-attending  Catholic  married  persons,  as  violating  the  moral  law  and  Humanae  Vitae?"

Bishop  Tobin's  supporters  might  respond,  "Well,  suppose  His  Excellency  just  doesn't  want  to   do  what  you  demand  that  he  do?   Who  appointed  you  his  boss?"

The  problem  is  that  there  is  a  reason  why  almost  no  Catholic  leader  in  the  United  States  or  Europe  will   more  than  occasionally  give  whispered  support  to  Humanae  Vitae.  What  reason?

Proposed  answer:  Because  Roman  Catholic  Church  leaders  see  Humanae  Vitae  as  a  quicker  route  to  bankruptcy  and  collapse  of  the  Church   in  the  West  than  even  the  ongoing  sex  scandals  and  lawsuits.

Can  I  prove  this?

Well,  about  2  decades  ago,   my  good  friend,  Monsignor  Edward  Korda,  pastor  of  St.  Gregory's  Roman  Catholic  Church  in  Magnolia,  New  Jersey,   called  me  at  my  home  and  invited  me  to  come  over  to  the  rectory.   When  I  arrived  there,  he  showed  me  a  letter  from  the  Camden  Diocese,  addressed  to  every  priest  in  the  Diocese,  in  which  the  Bishop   expressly  commanded  every  priest  in  the  Diocese  to  devote  the  homily  at  every  Sunday  Mass  on  the  following  Sunday   to  the  Church's  teaching  that  use  of  contraceptives,  even  inside  of  marriage,  is  morally  disordered,  and  so  condemned  as  sinful   by  the   Church.

"What  do  you  think?"   he  asked.

"The  parishioners  are  going  to  hang  you  from  the  rafters,"   I  responded.

"That  was  my  reaction,  Peter,"    he  responded.

The  following  Sunday,    the  priests  at  St.  Gregory's  obeyed  the  Bishop's  express  written  command.

But,  across  the  Diocese,  about  one-third  of  the  priests  simply  disobeyed  the  Bishop.

In  the  other  two-thirds  of  the  cases,     hundreds  of  people  walked-out  on  church  in  the  middle  of   Mass,  and   thousands  of  people  wrote  very  nasty  letters  to  the  Bishop.

And  the  event,  nicknamed  "Contraception  Sunday,"  was  never  repeated.

In  truth,  despite  the  objective  correctness  of  the  teaching  against  use  of  contraceptives  in  marriage,  most  priests  would  probably  rather  eat  ground  glass  for  breakfast  than,  say,  give  a  homily  to  a  church  full  of  Catholics  advising  that  use  of  contraceptives  in  marriage  is  a  sin.

And  that  would  be  why  Bishop  Tobin  dropped  Senator  Kaine's  introduction  of  the  Access  to  Birth  Control  Act   to  the  United  States  Senate  in  May  from  the  Senator's  list  of  sex-related  heretical  positions.

Which  brings  us  to  our  question,  here:


Is  there  a  big  moral  difference  between  

on  the  one  hand,  being  a  Catholic  political  leader,  while  taking  the  public  positions  Senator  Kaine  does  on  sex-related  issues;   and

on  the  other  hand,  being  a  Roman  Catholic  bishop,  engaged  in  the  act  of   leading  and  teaching  Catholics  by  publicly  condemning  Senator  Kaine  for  his  positions  on  sex-related  issues,  but,  in  the  process,  functionally  deceiving  1  billion  Catholics  worldwide  by  dropping   mention  of  Senator  Kaine's  flaunting  of  the  contraceptive  rule   from  the  list  so  that  the  bishop,  even  as  he  condemns  Senator  Kaine,  can  avoid  offending  millions  of  American  Catholics  and  shooting  Sunday  Mass  contributions  in  the  leg?

If  there  is  a  difference,  I  don't  see  it.

As  far  as  I  can  see,  each  man  is  an  important  public  figure  intentionally  deceiving  the  world  about  The  Faith  on  important  sexual  issues.

There  is  on  second  thought  one  difference:   Bishop  Tobin  is  in  The  Truth  Business.

Does  that  mean  that  Bishop  Tobin  has  the  heavier  responsibility  to  articulate  The  Faith?

I  suspect  that  it  does.

I'm  not  trying  to  trap  Bishop  Tobin.

I'm  saying,  "Don't  be  afraid  of  even  the  most  difficult  requirements  of  The  Faith!    Trust  in  the  Holy  Spirit!"


Like  Senator  Kaine,   most  Catholics  aren't  really  Catholic.  Most  Catholics  are  only  nominally  Catholic.

If  priests  reminded  them  on  a  regular  basis  that  they  have  got  to  substitute  Natural  Family  Planning  in  for  The  Pill  or  condoms,   and  stop  taking  The  Pill,  stop  shoving  The  Pill  into  their  dating  daughters'  mouths,   and  stop  getting  tubal  litigations,   the  vast  majority  of  church-going,  money-donating  Catholics   would  leave  God's  Church,  and  the  Church  organization  as  we  know  it  would  die.

Catholic  bishops  must  refrain  from  the  "Bell,  Book  and  Candle  Game"  of  publicly  assassinating  the  reputations  of  nominally  Catholic  political  leaders  if  at  the  same  time  the  bishops  are  going  to  be  hypocritically  "nominally  Catholic,  only,"  by   warping   Catholic  teaching  to  avoid  offending  Catholics  on  the  birth  control  rule.

I.e.,  do  the  hard  thing:  Mention  the  contraception  rule  first,  every  single  time.

No comments:

Post a Comment