USCCB Statements on Other Political Topics are Harming the Campaign for Religious Freedom

Catholic Culture ^ | 5/4/12 | Phil Lawler

[marshmallow]

In March the US bishops’ conference (USCCB) announced that “we will not rest” until Congress ensures that religious freedom is protected in the federal health-care reform program. The USCCB followed up that clear and forceful message a few week later with a new, statement announcing a major offensive in defense of religious liberty. These powerful statements seemed to indicate clearly that religious freedom would be the focus—the focus—of the bishops’ political efforts this year.

The USCCB issued a clarion call to the Catholic laity, asking for help with this campaign. Cardinal Dolan called out President Obama; Bishop Lori challenged Congress. The bishops signaled that they would not retreat. The battle lines were drawn. The troops were summoned.

Unfortunately, since that time the bishops have lost their focus, and thus complicated things for the active Catholic laity. The USCCB has done what the USCCB always does: muddied the water, by issuing statements on a host of different political issues—including many of which good Catholics have differing opinions, and on which Catholic bishops have no special expertise.

In the past 10 week, the USCCB and its spokesmen have:

* weighed in on the federal budget;

* filed an amicus curiae brief against the Arizona immigration law;

* called for US intervention to prevent new fighting in South Sudan;

* supported a ban on landmines;

* urged comprehensive immigration reform;

* insisted that budget cuts must not harm programs for the poor;

[HiTech RedNeck]

What’s exactly the matter here? Is all the other political commentary from the USCCB drowning out the religious freedom issue and making it look peripheral?

Maybe there should be a subcommittee of the USCCB dedicated to the religious freedom issue, so the rest of it can then opine on everything else from A to Z.

[hinckley buzzard]

The USCCB, like the hierarchy of other religious organizations, is populated by narcissistic careerists who think they can say any damn thing they want and that it will assume some sort of significance just because it's they who are saying it. The Lutheran Church and other mainline churches are small, but full of just such moronic self-defined wizards.

[RitaOK]

What a great article! The USCCB fails utterly to respect the dangers of socialism, Marxism, creeping communism, Islam, and plain bad math, while ignoring American sovereignty and the basic American spirit lit by her work ethic. Instead, the Bishops’ collective statements are meloncholy, sentimental and demanding.

The term “social justice” has been hijacked entirely from the Church, by socialists, both in and out of the Church, and the USCCB is silent, eschewing any effort to extract the term from the clutches of the nefarious Left. Why? Could it be that the Bishops themselves are socialists largely and have no real objection to the use of the term by other socialists, who are applying the aims of social justice EXACTLY as the Bishops would have it applied, but to even broader affect than the USCCB could ever have hoped?

[Jeff Chandler]

Think about it. What is the the USCCB's objection to Obama's Health Control? That is imposes mandates upon Catholics. So their position is:

Mandates for thee, but not for me.

.

.

[gghd]

We are ALL children of the Church. We should learn from the teachings of the Church for a full understanding of our Catholic obligations.

All the Bishops through both >time & >geography have avoided paying taxes to secular-governments whenever legally possible.
Conclusion: We should all work to avoid taxes whenever legally possible. We need to follow in the footsteps of Holy Mother our Church.
Jesus Christ when he set up the Nation of Israel had a 10% flat tax. It was a Theocracy = God centered government. As far as I know, no one has a better idea than Jesus Christ. 10% flat tax & no more; it’s time to starve the beast of government.

Immigration: The Vatican has a wall all the way around it with guarded gates. Does the Vatican allow people to enter the Vatican as illegal immigrants & receive citizenship rights?
The family is God’s smallest church. This was repeatedly said by Pope John Paul II. We do NOT want to >break apart families.
When families are formed in the USA with illegal immigrants & USA citizens, we as good Catholics should NOT advocate breaking apart families. BUT also, we as good Catholics should not advocate a program that encourages families to break apart by allowing illegal immigrants to enter the USA & leave their families behind.

Immigration: as a policy has destroyed the unions & lowered the ‘living’ wage of workers in the USA. Supply & Demand is a basic economic concept. There are so many unemployed people in the USA that the number of potential employees exceeds the number of jobs.
Immigration: The USA Ruling-Class is bringing skilled workers here to the USA & depriving their home countries of human resources. An example: All the medical workers that come to the USA. The other countries in the world do NOT have the medical care of citizens here in the USA. There are many other examples.

God will straighten all this out on Judgment Day.

This link was posted earlier on freerepublic. The budget of the USA can NOT be balanced. There will be a collapse. The USA & the economy is in for a big change. It’s time to prepare for it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EW5IdwltaAc&feature=youtu.be
The YouTube video explains the accounting numbers in the USA budget. It’s only 5&1/2 minutes long.

[Mrs. Don-o]

"Is all the other political commentary from the USCCB drowning out the religious freedom issue and making it look peripheral?"

Yes, that's exactly it, and Phil Lawler (one of the best Catholic writers and thinkers in the U.S.) has nailed them on it more than once.

This is a particularly good example: The Noise-to-Signal Ratio at the USCCB (Link, and it's an incisive, short read.)

The problem is that 99 of the "Bishops' Statements" are largely or entirely outside of their canonical teaching authority. They are matters which do not involve moral absolutes or intrinsic right and wrong, but rather prudential (practical) choices between different ways to do a good thing.

For instance, "Feed the hungry" is a moral absolute (don't let people starve) but the "prudential judgment" is the queston "How you gonna do that?" It is perfectly legitimate to say, for instance, "Let's stop issuing government EBT cards and rely on Church-sponsored Soup Kitchens and Food Banks." "Let's make sure we have full employment so everyone can earn their daily bread." "Let's restrict EBT payments to rice, beans, cornbread and greens, and pay for it out of the Congressional Pension Fund." Things like that.

The USCCB should fire 90% of its staff and restrict itself to faith, morals, and internal discipline. That might be the only way to save what's left.

[Gumdrop]

“Think about it. What is the the USCCB’s objection to Obama’s Health Control? That is imposes mandates upon Catholics. So their position is:

Mandates for thee, but not for me.”

Before you post such a false statement, you ought to go directly to the statements from Cardinal Dolan about the HHS mandate. It is very clear that their objection is against such governmental mandates for every person of conscience; (not just Catholics, and not just the institutions, but all businesses where the owner clearly has a consciencious objection to the mandate.

[Jeff Chandler]

The entire monstrosity is a compendium of mandates, of which the contraceptive mandate is but one. The USCCB is perfectly fine with the government having the power to mandate individuals to purchase state-approved insurance. They only objected to the particular mandate that only affects Catholics, and indeed a tiny portion of Catholics—those that actually follow Catholic teaching. Really, how many non-Catholics or non-devout Catholics give a flying fig about birth control?

[HiTech RedNeck]

They want to invite the monster in, but expect it to mind its manners.

[HiTech RedNeck]

It is not obvious why the bishops feel obliged to speak on all those subjects. Is there a clear “Catholic” position on agricultural policy? No. Are American Catholics united in their views on agricultural policy? No. Do bishops have any special teaching authority regarding agricultural policy? Again, no.

You ain't kidding, ma'am. Classic organizational mission creep. If they were fortunate enough to have, say, a farmers committee actually composed of farmers, then they might be in a position to suggest more. What we hear now sounds like perhaps sincere but still blind guesses. And like you said, even then it's a prudential issue and aren't fundamentals getting skipped?

[HiTech RedNeck]

And... I gladly make the disclaimer that I worship at, and more or less believe the characteristic theology of, an independent evangelical church.

However, to me it’s a fundamentally larger issue than a Roman Catholic thing. It’s a Christian thing. Christians may disagree on approaches to Christian things between families of congregations, but when a church in a position to know better positions itself, instead of a gospel light TO the world, as a maven OF the world, it’s logically a concern to me as a Christian.

[Jeff Chandler]

They want to invite the monster in, but expect it to mind its manners.

Yes, that is the best description of the situation I have heard.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Well, that's true. But it's not "just" contraceptives, it's contraceptives plus sterilization plus abortion-inducing post-coital drugs, which should concern a much bigger circle of people than just Catholics alone. I am somewhat discouraged that most Christian churches other than Catholics are apparently OK ewith funding free abortion drugs for every female resident of the United States.

Your overall point is true. You don't hear a peep from the USCCB about the fact that all of us, like it or not, are being corralled into this damnable system.

[HiTech RedNeck]

The more serious a church (or churchgoers) about practicing religion towards God, the less likely it would be to cheer such social abominations. It’s part of a larger problem of lukewarmness if not utter rejection of a biblical view of life.

[Mrs. Don-o]

‘Zackly.