Where Are the Shepherds? When the Ravenous Wolves Attack
Chicago's Cardinal Francis George in February wrote a blockbuster column in his archdiocesan newspaper. He shared with his readers his shock and dismay upon reading a report by he Archdiocesan Pastoral Council. The council, composed primarily of laymen, had been pondering how homilies at Mass might address "some contested mysteries of faith."
The cardinal lamented that the agenda produced by the council was "historically Protestant" — so much so, he sighed, that "we're back at the Protestant Reformation."
Surrounded by a Protestant culture, Cardinal George wrote, American Catholics face a crisis. What might have caused it? The cardinal lays it on the line:
"Many writers who claim to be Catholic make names for themselves by attacking truths basic to our faith. Without the personal integrity that would bring them to admit they have simply lost the faith that comes to us from the apostles, they reconstruct it on a purely subjective, individualistic basis and call it renewal. The Second Vatican Council wasn't called to turn Catholics into Protestants."
This instructive passage illustrates why Cardinal George is often recognized as the most outstanding intellectual in the American hierarchy. Addressing a profound problem in the laity and the culture, his comments also point to a corresponding collapse in another agenda — the agenda that the cardinal and his brother bishops have put together at the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB).
Change "writers" in George's above paragraph to "politicians," and you have spelled out the crisis that the Church in America faces today. "Many politicians who claim to be Catholic make names for themselves by attacking truths basic to our faith." We all know how many pro-abortion "Catholic" politicians flaunt their faith while they publicly flout its content. In the face of this attack on the Church and on life itself, what is the response of the USCCB?
For years, the orthodox faithful have begged the bishops to end the scandal of "Catholic" pro-abortion politicians receiving the Eucharist. The response of the bishops is well-known. It has been not merely flaccid, but positively encouraging to the most powerful and prominent supporters of abortion in our nation's capital.
Whatever motivates the bishops must remain a mystery. But the facts are clear. At the Memorial Mass for Pope John Paul II, Theodore Cardinal McCarrick, before he was fully vested, went out of his way to embrace pro-abortion Sen. Ted Kennedy. Kennedy received the Eucharist at Mass and McCarrick, far from admonishing him, took him by the arm and walked with him down the aisle at the recessional.
When "Catholic" Nancy Pelosi was named speaker of the House, she had the audacity to schedule an inaugural Mass at Trinity College in Washington. Washington-area Catholic begged McCarrick's successor, Archbishop Donald Wuerl, to intervene, but he did nothing.
Pelosi is the classic San Francisco Democrat. She is a tough, no-nonsense, and adamant supporter of abortion and homosexual marriage. In her home district, she has had only one meeting with Archbishop George Niederauer. Did the good archbishop take the opportunity to instruct the congresswoman on the Church's fundamental moral teaching on abortion? No, the archbishop reported later. They discussed only the "hot button" issue of immigration; he didn't have a chance, he said, to bring up the "life issues."
Like Cardinal George and his pastoral council, the faithful laity in the United States have every right to be perplexed, even dismayed, at the spectacle of "pro-abort Catholics." The wolves are preying on our young, but our shepherds don't appear to hear us. How can we reach them so they can hear, and listen?
A quick glance at the USCCB web site suggests the answer. The list of issues on which the bishops weigh in includes: arms control, debt, environment, housing, Iraq, migrants and refugees, the minimum wage, nonviolence, Social Security, trade preferences for Haiti, and welfare. Not to mention, of course, the pressing issue of the price that McDonald's ought to be paying its tomato suppliers (I am not making this up).
The list is a virtual laundry list codifying the liberal political agenda. Remarkably, Washington's most prominent and powerful pro-abortion "Catholic" politicians happen to be champions of that agenda. Apparently the bishops are much more at their ease in advocating policies that the liberal pro-aborts agree with, than they are in advocating with them the fundamental moral teachings of the Church that are required for salvation.
An interesting feature of all of the topics on the bishops' political agenda emerges clearly: They all address political and economic issues on which believing Catholics can, and do, disagree. The positions advocated by the bishops at the USCCB just happen to be virtually indistinguishable from the agenda of the left wing of the Democratic Party.
That is understandable, in one aspect, at least: After all, most bishops, like most Catholics of their generation, grew up Democrats. When they went off to the seminary, virtually everyone in America agreed that abortion was murder. So perhaps they haven't noticed that the Democratic Party of their youth has, shall we say, changed.
For all their liberal political advocacy, the bishops have never explained one thing: For decades — at least 30 years — the bishops' conference has stridently advocated positions on the liberal left side of the political spectrum. On all these issues, Catholics are free to disagree. But when it comes to the one issue on which the teaching of Holy Mother Church is obligatory, the bishops are silent even when it is supposedly central to their political agenda.
Why?
For instance, Bishop Thomas Wenski, chairman of the USCCB's international policy committee, writes the Congress that "our nation's leaders must ensure that there are adequate resources to protect and enhance the lives and dignity of people who are poor and vulnerable both here at home and around the world." But Bishop Wenski — who is regarded as a solid, pro-life bishop — does not take that particular opportunity to condemn the U.S. Agency for International Development's decades-long and powerful worldwide anti-life agenda. AID exports countless prophylactics, and billions of doses of Depo-Provera, worldwide, telling the "poor and vulnerable" that America wants fewer of them.
When it comes to abortion, America's bishops (with a very few stalwart exceptions) seem to be telling America's "Catholic" pro-abort politicians to act like Protestants. In fact, given the USCCB's extensive political and economic agenda, the bishops appear to indicate that they act like very liberal Protestants.
Use Another Language
Millions of America's faithful have appealed to the bishops regarding the scandal of "Catholic" pro-aborts for years, to no avail. In the light of the USCCB's agenda, perhaps we have been speaking in the wrong language. The USCCB has a small but well-staffed pro-life office. But clearly, the vast majority of the issues on the conference's liberal agenda are political.
Furthermore, in view of the bankruptcies that haunt many dioceses, and the constant fundraising that consumes virtually every chancery, bishops these days are focusing their attention on economic issues. So perhaps we can speak to the bishops in a language that they can understand — the language of economics.
Thirty years ago, New York Cong. Jack Kemp coined a phrase that will be very helpful in this endeavor: "When you tax something," he said, "you will have less of it; when you subsidize something you will have more of it." Perhaps that very sage and simple observation can help us here.
Applying Kemp's insight to the issue of abortion reveals a sad but central fact. Although they surely don't realize it, American bishops are actually subsidizing pro-abortion "Catholic" politicians — to the tune of millions and millions of dollars. So we should not be surprised that there are so many of them. Moreover, if the subsidy continues, there will be even more "pro-abort" Catholic politicians.
Consider: The most prominent prelates in Washington repeatedly embrace and celebrate pro-abortion Catholics. The most orthodox Catholics, even high-dollar donors, do not get that kind of treatment. Such public support and celebration is instant news, and the pro-abortion national media report it in a fashion that allows the pro-aborts to strut across the stage, brandishing the imprimatur of Holy Mother Church's most prominent leaders.
In economic terms, the bishops have subsidized the pro-aborts by allowing them to use their "intellectual property" — the symbols and rituals of a bishop's approval — in what amounts to an ongoing multimillion-dollar national advertising and public relations pro-abortion campaign.
The monetary value of this enterprise is beyond measure. Its cost? Millions of American lives lost to abortion every year.
Of course, this arms-length economic analysis cannot take into account the motivations of the bishops, or, indeed, impute any. In fact, some of the best results of economic analysis come as a surprise to those most involved in the enterprise being studied. A salient example is the now-famous "Laffer Curve" — which explained that lowering the tax rate can actually increase tax revenues (after all, if we were required to turn over 100% of our earnings as taxes to the government, few of us would continue working).
Policymakers were stunned when introduced to this simple formula. But, once they were convinced, policies based on the Laffer Curve led to phenomenal economic growth during the Reagan years and beyond.
Simple economic realities are often not obvious to all. Hence, it might come as a surprise to the bishops that they are actually subsidizing and encouraging pro-abortion Catholics, when they are undoubtedly convinced all along that they have done everything in their power to discourage them.
Cardinal George has put Kemp's observation into theological and historical terms: Many pro-abortion "Catholics" in America, surrounded by a Protestant culture, are acting like Protestants. Unwittingly, the bishops are not only allowing them to do so, but are actually encouraging them. As a result, the bishops have lent the symbols of their authority and moral stature to a multimillion-dollar pro-abortion advertising campaign. That campaign benefits the pro-abort politicians and the pro-abortion media, as well as the virulently anti-Catholic pro-abortion movement.
Thus far the benefits — all of them unanticipated by the bishops, to be sure. But what about the costs?
Not a Suicide Pact
The costs are onerous, and the consequences dire. Millions of American Catholics — and undoubtedly even more non-Catholics — witness this ongoing spectacle and are profoundly, and justifiably, confused. Like Cardinal George, they perceive the success of "Protestant" pro-abort "Catholics," and the harrowing results of the bishops' unwitting "subsidies" given to the pro-abortion movement. Undoubtedly, they must be asking: "What, then, is the difference between Catholics and Protestants with regard to fundamental moral issues?"
Cardinal George's observation clearly applies to pro-abort "Catholics": "Without the personal integrity that would bring them to admit they have simply lost the faith that comes to us from the apostles, they reconstruct it on a purely subjective, individualistic basis and call it renewal. The Second Vatican Council wasn't called to turn Catholics into Protestants."
In more direct language, specifically regarding Catholics and abortion in America, Vatican II was not a suicide pact.
This item 7442 digitally provided courtesy of CatholicCulture.org
