Many thoughts are floating around in my head this morning as I think about the reports in the news and on the internet of the flap over Notre Dame's invitation to Pres. Obama. I find a wide gap between Bishop Wuerl's opinion that in the long run education will win out and bishop Burke's bombastic condemnation of the Obama Administration along with Notre Dame. Since both are bishops, and speaking as bishops, I have to wonder which one I should follow, and I find no hard and fast guidelines.
In my own mind bishop Wuerl seems to be acting more like Jesus in his teaching and compassion for his flock, while Burke seems more like the crowd yelling "crucify him." I also have a large problem with Bishop Burke's claim that Notre Dame's invitation is the "greatest scandal." Is asking our president to speak really a greater scandal than the sexual abuse scandal? Never have the bishops ever raised their voices in such protest of that behavior. I can not help but wonder if perhaps they are trying to create a scandal that would overshadow their own behavior in moving abusive priests around to abuse again.
Perhaps the most shocking information to come out of this flap was the Pew report that half of the Catholics had never heard of the controversy over Obama's invitation. I am not sure whether I am more shocked that half of the Catholics don't care enough to follow what is going on in their church, or that the Bishops have so completely failed to communicate with their flock. But then again, I wonder what percentage of the priests are aware of the debate. I have seen some evidence that some priests are so busy in their own parish that they don't have the time or inclination to look outside of it. In either case, I think that the Church has a real disaster on its hands.
There is no doubt in my mind that the US is facing a problem of moral indifference or that respect for life is declining. But I do not believe that the non-Catholic world or the press is anti-Catholic. I believe that for the most part they are pretty indifferent to what we as Catholics believe and practice until we start putting pressure on them to conform to our beliefs. Then we get a defensive response that we claim is an attack on our faith. I have seen this in many political situations. In my view the American bishops have failed to lead us, to set examples for us, to be role models. Now they are trying to find someone to blame rather than take responsibility and move to correct the situations. We certainly saw the same behavior with the sexual abuse scandal. It was the fault of the anti-Catholic news, it was caused by the money hungry lawyers trying to rob the Catholic people, etc. The bishops have yet to take responsibility for that, and I doubt that they will do any different in this case. I do not believe that they will gain any credibility until they change this behavior and publically acknowlege their faults.
Let me put a caveat in here. I believe that there are bishops out there that are trying to lead in a Christ like way, there are some that are good men, and some that are at least good CEOs. The later is not something to be sneered at in this day and age, I am NOT damning with faint praise! But they seem to be silent. Approximately 1/4 of the active bishops have condemned Notre Dame, 2 retired bishops have supported the university, one claiming that he knew of active bishops that agreed with him. But why haven't they spoken? Are they trying to avoid more scandal by not throwing gas on the fire? Are they not speaking because there is an unspoken agreement that a bishops does not disagree with another. If so, then all we will ever hear is the support of the first to speak, right or wrong.
In my mind the Church is a wonderful collection of people, having diverse customs, different languages, varied tastes, and conflicting beliefs. My wife believes priests should be celibate, I don't. The western Church leadership seems to agree with her, the Eastern rite leadership seems to agree with me. Could it be that neither of us is right or wrong? Can we as Catholics tolerate these differences? Some things, like abortion are undeniably wrong, but there are differences of opinion in what is to be proscribed by law. Can we tolerate these differences of opinion? I believe that in a pluralistic and free society such as we have in the United States, that it is far better to convince people then it is to force them.
Mike L
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Great post. Just a couple of caveats. Are we really in moral decline today. Maybe, all things considered, we are more moal today than, say, 1900. Maybe we just are more 'open' today.
ReplyDeleteQuestion. In aids ravished Africa do you think the church preaching abstinence only--no condoms, no abortion is a really viable solution to a big problem? Jack
Maybe, but I believe that in 1945 any US official that supported torture would have had to find a deep hole to hide in when the American people found out about it. But then the Japanese internment camps in the US were not the model human respect so you might be right. Still, I think that there has been a decline in caring about what happens to others and an increase in self interest. I think that there is more greed in the world, or maybe there is just more opportunity to indulge in it. I think that you can find areas where we have bettered ourselves, and areas where we have declined. Just how you average them to determine an overall trend is kind of up to you.
ReplyDeleteI really don't think that abortion has anything to do with aids, in either solving the problem or making it worse. On the other hand, I do not think that the use of condoms is a complete solution either.
As kind of an aside, I note that TB is generally curable, aids is not. But we insist on quarantining TB patients and allowing aids patients free movement. And we thought it was horrible when word came that Cuba was quarantining aids patients. Funny outlook, isn't it? Perhaps that was because here in the US we thought that aids was a problem with homosexuals and not heterosexuals?
To continue, I do not believe that the Church is preaching abstinence only in the case of aids. What I am hearing is that abstinence is best, certainly outside of marriage, but that if you are not able to do that, using a condom is permitted. But if you are infected, and you really don't care whether or not you give it to someone else, then I don't think that you are more likely to use a condom than abstain. This is what I think B16 was trying to say.
We go back to thinking about respect for life. Until you have that respect for life, the availability of condoms is not a solution. Once you have that respect for life, you will find a solution, maybe abstinence, maybe condoms, something that protects others, or perhaps yourself.
There have been some other interesting thought son aids in Africa. I read a fascinating study by an economist that claimed aids and economic conditions were closely tied together. She claimed that if you looked at the economic conditions where aids raged in Africa, you found the same level of infection as you do in the US under the same economic conditions. Made a pretty good case for it. Besides, if you can't afford a condom, and in much of that society the cost is prohibitive, they aren't very useful.
Mike L
What does "respect for life mean?" We've been over this before, but the real issue is respect for persons. "Life" is too vague. Sperm is life. Should I respect it. Of course condoms are not the only answer to aids; but it is the best PRACTICAL solution.
ReplyDeleteNope, think I will stick with respect for life. I have noted that it is easy to kill, but damn difficult to restore life afterward. Not just with people, but all life. Yeah, we set mouse traps in the RV, and we kind of hate killing them, but find that a necessity. On the other hand, I have been known to have stopped the car and chased a snake off the road so it wont get run over. I really do hate killing things, even when I sometimes have too.
ReplyDeleteI do make an exception for mosquitoes and wasp, but Susannah will capture a wast and throw it out the door. No accounting for tastes :).
Nope, I think our world and its ecosystem could use a lot more respect than what we give it.
Mike L
When will you give us another of your nature posts? 6 people here have read it and liked it very much.
ReplyDelete