I think Phil's onto something, here.
They got into this stuff back in the heyday of “peace and justice,” when they were praised by the left for bloviating about nuclear war and parroting leftist social positions. Meanwhile, terrible things were happening in their dioceses and in the Church as a whole because they had failed to teach - or had even taught falsely - on matters of faith and morals and Church doctrine, which is where their teaching authority lies.
Many of the old crop of lefty bishops have passed on to their reward, and the newer ones are better, but there’s still enough of the old guard remaining who remember their glory days as the best friend of the left.
Interesting choice of words “Noise to Signal ratio”
I always saw that phrase as “Signal to Noise ratio” (as in RF or Audio signals, I have an understand of that)
But I guess I always assumed the Signal was larger than the Noise. Today that may no longer be true, at least as far as politics is concerned.
I agree. Also the distinction between teachings which are binding upon the faithful and those in which there is leeway to exercise prudential judgment is lost. For example though the question of health care is subject to our scrutiny based on Catholic teaching the way in which we exercise that teaching may rightfully vary depending on our own well trained judgment and conscience. I may be opposed to Obama Care what I can not do is claim that the poor should not have health care.
Yes, I tend to agree here.
IIRC, the pope spoke on Catholics and politics and listed the non-negotiable areas and issues.
I believe they were: Marriage, sanctity of life, and parents control of children’s education.
If the USCCB limited itself to expressing the Church’s teaching on these political issues, I think that might be a good guideline.
Lawler is the best. I have thought so for many years.