"Thou art a wimp forever" - bishops meeting

Touchstone Magazine - mere comments ^ | September 9, 2003 | Leon Podles

[american colleen]

THOU ART A WIMP FOREVER:

I went to the meeting with the bishops that Deal Hudson and Russell Shaw arranged. I did not expect much, and I was not disappointed.

The bishops were told 1. that they had to be more direct in dealing with dissenting Catholics, and 2. that they should at the least stop appointing notorious pro-abortion politicians to prominent committees (Leon Panetta at the national Review Board).

The response to 1 : we are family, doing anything might make matters worse and only help pro-abortion politicians

The response to 2 : if his bishop vouches for the orthodoxy of any member of his flock, no other bishop will ever question that decision.

We were asked not to quote people, so I will quote myself:

“We all know that bishops were chosen by the Vatican because they are diplomatic, unifiers, team players, collegial. These are good qualities. However these qualities also lead to a reluctance to confront evil, even when confrontation is necessary. This reluctance led to the scandals. When people who knew the bishop responsible were asked how the bishop could ever let such a thing go on, they invariably replied, 'He hates confrontation more than anything.'

"Bishops have to be willing to go against their personalities and confront evil. We are in a battle, we are losing it. The more Catholic a state (or Canadian province), the more pro-abortion the politicians. Catholic societies have the lowest birth rates in the world. The policy of accommodation of the past 30 years has not worked. Confrontation may not work either, but we have to try it, and at least go down fighting.”

This was the message which almost all the participants gave to the bishops, with various degrees of tact.

But, as was obvious, nothing will change.

Hostility (see Mark Shea’s blog) is generally reserved for those who complain about outrageous goings–on, not the people who perpetrate the outrages. A bad conscience hurts.

Bishop Wilton Gregory, President of the USCCB Theodore Cardinal McCarrick of Washington, D.C. Bishop William Friend of Shreveport, LA Msgr. William Fay, USCCB General Secretary Msgr. Francis Maniscalco, USCCB Communications Director Kathleen McChesney, director of the USCCB’s Office of Child and Youth Protection Raymond Arroyo, EWTN News Director Pat Cipollone, Kirkland & Ellis partner William Donohue, President of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights Greg Erlandson, Publisher of Our Sunday Visitor Elizabeth Fox-Genovese, Professor of History at Emory University Dr. Robert George, Professor of Politics at Princeton University Frank Hanna, III, CEO of HBR Capital, Ltd. Barbara Henkels, Board Member of the Catholic Leadership Conference Paul Henkels, CEO of Henkels & McCoy, Inc. Tom Hoopes, Executive Editor of National Catholic Register Mother Assumpta Long, Dominican Sisters of Mary, Mother of the Eucharist Peggy Noonan, commentator and columnist for the Wall Street Journal Robert Novak, commentator with CNN Kate O’Beirne, Senior Editor of National Review Fr. David O’Connell, President of the Catholic University of America Timothy O’Donnell, President of Christendom College Russell Shaw, co-host of the meeting, writer and editor Gene Zurlo, President of the Catholic Radio Association Denis Coleman, Ambassador for the American Consulate in Bermuda Bernard Dobranski, Dean of Ave Maria School of Law Jeffrey Wallin, President of the American Academy for Liberal Education William Plunkett, Jr., Plunkett & Jaffe partner Leon Suprenant, President of Catholics United for the Faith Sister Joseph Andrew, Dominican Sisters of Mary, Mother of the Eucharist Patrick Madrid, Publisher of Envoy Magazine Father Richard Gill, L.C., Director of Our Lady of Bethesda Retreat Center Gregory Popcak, Director of the Pastoral Solutions Institute Dr. Thomas Dillon, President of Thomas Aquinas College Lt. Gov. Michael Steele, Office of Lt. Governor for the state of Maryland Fr. Terence Henry, President of Franciscan University Fr. Frank Pavone, Priests for Life Carol McKinley, Faithful Voice Rep. Michael Ferguson, U.S. House of Congress Mark Ryland, Vice-President of the Discovery Institute Kathryn Jean Lopez, Associate Editor of National Review John Klink, former Diplomat of the Holy See to the UN Leon Podles, Senior Editor of Touchstone Magazine Cortes DeRussy, former President of Federated Capital Corporation Brian Saint-Paul, Editor of CRISIS Magazine

—Leon Podles 4:33 PM

[BlackElk]

When you ar right yo are right. On this, you are absolutely right!

[k omalley]

Ho hum. So what else is new? Always our bishops, the courageous fence sitters.

[k omalley]

Hey! Don't make fun of those felt banners. They were the only adornment our bare auditorium worship space had. I have a whole collection of them, from every baptism, first communion, and confirmation.:>)

[Kevin Curry]

The good loses far, far more through appeasement and defeatism than it does to evil in a direct assault.

[Gerish]

***Sometimes I think that the bishops reflect us.***

I think you have it right here. What is needed today is not a refutation of the bad arguments of the dissenters, but a change of heart. I believe we can all do our part by following the Blessed Mother's wishes as expressed to the children at Fatima. She advised prayer and fasting. Prayer and fasting on our part will drive out the demons of dissent and fill the Church once more with great hope and optimism. As hard as it may be, we should all pray for our Bishops - even Mahoney (who probably needs prayer more than anyone else)!

[american colleen]

You are so right. The progressives really don't even need to fight.

I think it's also that maybe we have a hard time figuring out what is essential and what is non-essential and therefore we are willing to dispense with what is extraneous... altar boys, kneeling for Communion, statues, votive candles, only priests distributing Communion, kneelers, incense, bells, a celibate priesthood, etc.

But the thing is, where does it end and just who determines what reflects the "early chuch" and what reflects the faith as passed down. It's just a constant chipping away until there is very little left because ideas and actions have consequences and ultimate conclusions.

[american colleen]

[Gregory Popcak]
9/9/2003
I was planning a leisurely report on the day, walking you through step by step as if you were there. I will still do that, but it seems to me I have to lead with the overview since people seem concerned that "nothing happened."

Here's my take.

I didn't expect that the Bishops would say, "AHA! Now I get how the Church is supposed to be! THANK YOU for explaining it so clearly. I will now go fix everything that is wrong."

If I had thought that, I would have been off my meds.

I had much more sober goals for the day, and those goals were achieved. For too long, the Bishops have associated themselves with the loud voices of dissent, not because they necessarily agree with those voices but more because, 1) they are loud (Bishops hate conflict) 2) they are influential (read: "Moneyed and politically connected) and 3) They threaten to tear the Church apart (Threats of schism get attention.)

For the most part, observant Catholics have been content to sit in the pew, serve the church, take care of their families and trust that, in the end, the bishops, guided by the Holy Spirit, will do what's right by the Church.

The scandal was the wake-up call for all observant Catholics.

Now, we are galvanizing. The real point of this meeting was not anything that was said at the meeting (although many good things were said--more later) but that we had the meeting at all. Too often, observant Catholics are not even invited to the table to discuss anything (anybody see Robbie George at the Dallas meeting? Peggy Noonan? Elizabeth Fox-Genovese? No? I didn't think so. How about that meeting in July? Ditto.)

What this meeting accomplished was to say to the bishops that observant Catholics have an organized voice, that we are not afraid to use it, that we are not cranks, that we are university presidents, publishers, academics, business leaders, lay ministers, that we demand our say, and that we demand that our concerns be heard and responded to.

Well, yesterday, not many of our concerns were responded to. But they were heard, loud and clear. And it will not be the last time.

Here is what I learned.

1. Bishops are terrified of conflict. So, if you want fidelity, you have to agitate for it. Alot.

2. Bishops confuse "charity" with "making nice" I did my bit to disabuse them of that notion yesterday. Interestingly, they stopped abusing the word "charity: after I made my comments (of course, they then went to "prudence" but that's another story) more later.

3. The Bishops seem to genuinely believe that when they oppose pro-death Catholic politicians, the public backlash automatically ensures the election of those officials. We attempted to convince them otherswise, but their experience says different. My conclusions? 1) Shame on us for voting for these bastards in the first place (the most Catholic states have the most pro-death politicians. That's the laity's fault. Period). 2) Shame on the bishops for not eschewing wimpy attempts at political solutions formulating an effective pastoral response (good examples of this pastoral approach would be Bishop Weigand's intervention with Gray Davis or the Pa Bishops who barred Former Gov.Tom Ridge from speaking on any Church property or being honored by Catholic orgs in that state.)

4. The bishops seem to think themselves held hostage by the secular press ("We do say things, THEY won't report it.") We reminded them that they have the largest grass roots organzation in the world. If they want to get the word out, they should have priests read their letter (or at least preach on a selected topic) on a particular Sunday. 63 million people (give or take) could be reached in one day with this method, and we wouldn't have to kiss the NY Times anti-Catholic butt to get it done. The bishops seemed unimpressed with any idea that involved getting their own house in order, however. Better to complain about what can't be done than do something within their power I suppose.

5, Bishops are totally insulated from how bad it really is.

For example; every single person in that room knew about the testimony given by Fr. Robert Keenan, SJ of the Weston Theological Seminary to the Mass State Congress stating that there was nothing in Church teaching that opposed Gay marriage. Everyone, that is, except any of the Bishops and the USCCB staff.

(They were visibly shocked when we told them. But they literally had no idea.)

They genuinely, honestly, don't have a clue how bad it is on the front lines of the culture of death. Now, that's a damn shame, but you know what? You know what that means, folks? It just means that we aren't yelling loudly enough. That's what.

Now, throughout the day, I am going to take you through this one step at a time. Then I will make some suggestions. But I want to say this right now. If you ever felt guilty making noise about anything that is wrong in the Church. Don't. Yell loud. LOUDER! Keep yelling until they hear you. Apparently, Bishop's offices are very well insulated for sound.

[american colleen]

More information on yesterday's meeting wtih the bishops. I forgot to post the website: "Heart Mind and Strength weblog."

[american colleen]

Group cites dissent in church
Says celibacy not to blame for abuse
By Alan Cooperman, Washington Post, 9/9/2003

WASHINGTON -- A group of 40 conservative Roman Catholics met behind closed doors yesterday with five US bishops here to press their view of the sexual abuse crisis in the church, which they said has wrongly been linked to celibacy.

ADVERTISEMENT

One of the group's organizers said after the daylong session at the Cosmos Club that the real cause of the scandal was dissent in the church.

"I think that dissent is the major cause of the sexual abuse crisis because it has loosened priests and laity alike from their core beliefs, and particularly the core beliefs about sexual morality," said Deal W. Hudson, editor of Crisis magazine. Others said they urged the bishops, including Cardinal Theodore McCarrick of Washington, to publicly reprimand politicians who call themselves Catholics but vote for abortion rights.

Robert George, a professor of politics at Princeton University, said they particularly objected to the naming of former Clinton White House chief of staff Leon Panetta to the bishops' National Review Board that is monitoring the church's response to the sex abuse scandal.

George said he also raised questions about Catholic politicians who support the death penalty. He maintained the church's teaching against the death penalty, however, is not as clear as its position against abortion. Supporting the death penalty is "problematic, but not as problematic," he said.

Hudson and Russell Shaw, a Catholic writer and former spokesman for the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, organized yesterday's meeting after learning that some of the same bishops had met with Catholic liberals in July. Conservatives were alarmed by reports that "a secret meeting had taken place with Catholics on the left and that people like us had been kept in isolation," Shaw said.

Besides McCarrick, the bishops at yesterday's session were Wilton D. Gregory of Belleville, Ill., president of the bishops' conference; William S. Skylstad of Spokane, Wash., its vice president; William B. Friend of Shreveport, La.; and Robert N. Lynch of St. Petersburg, Fla.

None of the bishops spoke to reporters after the session, which Hudson described as "very positive" in tone. "We said it weakens their leadership when they fail to clearly define and defend the teaching of the church," Hudson said, "and we urged them to defend that teaching."

© Copyright 2003 Globe Newspaper Company.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

Not a single ordinary lay Catholic listed among those meeting.

I dare say any Bishop would learn more from one hour among the unwashed masses than in any meeting of muckety-mucks, left or right.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

Where do you find 200 good episcopali?
I am very pessimistic and getting more so.

Any male Catholic with a modicum of common sense, justice, spirituality, and love for the Church and her faithful people can handle the job.

All four seem to be lacking at times presently.

There is this idea abroad that other things are really the highest qualities of a Bishop (like raising money). Anyone can raise money with a little training. Apparently not everyone has common sense regarding a simple topic like priests fondling young men in the sacristy.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

They love money more than God. They may not say it, but their actions do.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

Sometimes I am strongly tempted to think that what we need now is men with strong natural parenting skills:

1 Tim 3,1 "A faithful saying: if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
2 It behoveth therefore a bishop to be blameless, the husband of one wife, sober, prudent, of good behaviour, chaste, given to hospitality, a teacher,
3 Not given to wine, no striker, but modest, not quarrelsome, not covetous, but
4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all chastity.
5 BUT IF A MAN KNOW NOT HOW TO RULE HIS OWN HOUSE, HOW SHALL HE TAKE CARE OF THE CHURCH OF GOD?
6 Not a neophyte: lest being puffed up with pride, he fall into the judgment of the devil.
7 Moreover he must have a good testimony of them who are without: lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil."

Precisely. I've come to think we'd be better off by consecrating 200 random faithful lay Catholic family-men who've raised 4 or more kids on one income as our new Episcopate. They'd have to commit to celibacy, but I can't see how they could make a bigger mess of things than the present lot has.

[american colleen]

Carol McKinley is a regular lay Catholic. I know her. So there was one ;-)

If all the readers of the NCRegister, First Things, Crisis, The Wanderer, Envoy Magazine, etc. could attend that meeting I think they'd have to hire a stadium!

On the other side of the coin... the list does show that orthodox Catholics are in positions of influence and sort of mirrors the "guests" of the super duper secret bishop meeting of last July.

I'm kind of divided over this... it does allow the bishops to say "see, we meet with everybody" and then go home kind of smug... but on the other hand, it has generated a lot of headlines (Boston Globe: "Group cites dissent in church - Says celibacy not to blame for abuse") that the quiet portion of the laity (99% of us) can read and some will know that they aren't alone out there.

Will it accomplish anything? Probably not. But we are here (and not queer!).

[american colleen]

Catholics denounce dissenter 'rewards'

By Julia Duin
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Roman Catholic leaders should stop rewarding dissenting Catholics with choice committee positions and be more forthcoming about homosexual priests, 39 conservative Catholics told five bishops at a closed-door summit yesterday.

"It doesn't help instruct the faithful when publicly dissenting Catholics are rewarded with positions of participation in official roles in the church, when they're asked to keynote Catholic dinners," said Crisis magazine publisher Deal Hudson, one of the summit conveners. "We asked them to think about what criteria they are using when they invite ... Catholic leaders who are dissenting, especially on the issue of life."

Particularly nettlesome, five of the participants said at a press conference afterward, was the appointment of former White House Chief of Staff Leon Panetta to the National Review Board, a panel to address the clergy's sexual-abuse crisis.

"Panetta's record in Congress and then as chief of staff to President Clinton when President Clinton vetoed the partial-birth abortion ban makes clear that Panetta just fundamentally rejects the teaching of the church on the sanctity of human life," said Robert George, a Princeton University politics professor.

"It sends a message we're not taking this teaching [on abortion] too seriously when we turn around and appoint to a position of great trust, indeed a position with which to advise the church on how to deal with a moral crisis, somebody who publicly, very prominently believes what is incompatible with Catholic teaching."

Also discussed, said John Klink, a former U.S. ambassador to the Vatican, was what he called a "Catholics need not apply" standard in American society in light of recent Senate filibusters of Catholic nominees for judicial positions.

The summit was a response to a July 7 meeting among several bishops and centrist and liberal Catholics. The five bishops at yesterday's gathering, held at the Cosmos Club in the District, were Bishop Wilton Gregory, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops; Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick of the Archdiocese of Washington; Bishop William Friend of the Archdiocese of Shreveport, La.; Bishop William Skylstad of the Archdiocese of Spokane, Wash.; and Bishop Robert Lynch of the Archdiocese of St. Petersburg, Fla.

These bishops showed "no resistance," Mr. George said, to conservatives' pleas to "call the evil by name" in terms of the clergy's sexual-abuse crisis.

[american colleen]

5, Bishops are totally insulated from how bad it really is. For example; every single person in that room knew about the testimony given by Fr. Robert Keenan, SJ of the Weston Theological Seminary to the Mass State Congress stating that there was nothing in Church teaching that opposed Gay marriage. Everyone, that is, except any of the Bishops and the USCCB staff.

(They were visibly shocked when we told them. But they literally had no idea.)

They genuinely, honestly, don't have a clue how bad it is on the front lines of the culture of death. Now, that's a damn shame, but you know what? You know what that means, folks? It just means that we aren't yelling loudly enough. That's what.

Seems to me that this is one area where the vast unwashed can help out. Snail mail news articles or e-mail directly to the bishop and cc: some of the chancery "union" workers.

[Maximilian]

I don't buy the argument the bishops behaved as they did because they "hate confrontation".

This reminds me that I just read Pope Paul VI's letter to Archbishop Lefebvre in the appendix to "The Pope, the Council and the Mass." Paul VI had the exact same reputation, supposedly good and holy but avoiding confrontation. Apparently he only avoided confrontation with liberals, he was more than willing to be confrontational with Lefebvre and other traditionalists. Paul VI's letter is as confrontational as you can get. He is not interested in "dialogue," the only terms he'll discuss are unconditional surrender.

This is the exact same situation with these bishops. They have no trouble being confrontational with traditionalists. Cardinal McCarrick just refused to let the FSSP say a Latin Mass in the Basilica in DC. No hesitation about confrontation there. It's only the liberals with whom they refuse to be confrontational. The reason is obvious -- there's no point in confronting your allies with whom you agree.

Let's face it, there are no good bishops, with 1 or 2 possible exceptions out of 250. You're fooling yourself if you think that your bishop is any better than the rest.

[Terriergal]

Very interesting! Thanks for the ping! I'm not a Catholic but it is good to see the 'laypeople' speaking out on things like this.

this would frustrate me:

The Bishops seem to genuinely believe that when they oppose pro-death Catholic politicians, the public backlash automatically ensures the election of those officials

I mean -- who cares? You still have to stand against evil. Whether the whole world goes running toward it or not! I guess then it would serve to help them make their decision *against* God. "I would that you were either hot or cold!"

[american colleen]

Cardinal McCarrick just refused to let the FSSP say a Latin Mass in the Basilica in DC. No hesitation about confrontation there.

Was there a reason explaining why? This stuff frosts me.

Confrontation... I suspect the bishops cave towards the progressives because they know the progs will do what they want to do anyway, regardless of what the bishop says. But imagine how crummy they (bishop) must feel inside? OK, publicly there was no brouhaha over whatever the issue was, but you know, in your heart and soul, that you - as a Catholic bishop who is supposed to defend and teach the Catholic faith - just let someone cow you into submission. The progs love the media and the media loves them. Georgetown... the media reported on the dissenting voices and why they were all upset, but I don't recall any media outlet contacting George Weigel or Fr. Neuhaus (who are certainly well known orthodox Catholics) for a soundbite to defend Cardinal Arinze and his defense of Catholic teaching.

[american colleen]

Sorry to ping you and you aren't even a Catholic! I have a ping list that someone else sent me quite a while ago and I just blindly use it, figuring it was culled from a list of Catholics who post on the religion threads.

Well, you talk like a Catholic, anyway! ;-)