On Health Care, Mrs. Kennedy-Townsend Has Lost Her Way

Here comes another "Kennedy vs. Bishop" fiasco (although in a more subtle tone this time):  apparently, Mrs. Kathleen Kennedy-Townsend has written a piece in Politico on how "real" Catholics should be voting for the healthcare bill, despite the fact that it could support tax-funded abortions! And this time, despite the warning that Bishop Tobin has already given the warning of Communion denial to her relative Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-RI), she is asserting her heterodox views anyways.

But, despite the fact that she thinks the "bishops have lost their way," I have something blunt to say to her. Because Mrs. Kennedy-Townsend is the one who has lost her way -- not the bishops! This comes on three fronts:  abortion, the issue of conservatism in Catholicism, and whether the bishops part of the rich or part of the poor.

First, on abortion. Now, she says this: 

"As a Catholic, I dare say it’s because the Conference of Catholic Bishops has lost its way. For example, in Missouri, the Catholic Conference issued an e-mail alert urging 'those who are opposed to health care reform but are also pro-life' to 'stay focused on the abortion issue and get the Stupak-like amendment adopted in the Senate.'"

Well, I'd like to say this:  whether you support health-care reform or not (I do -- but I'd like it to be more Baucus-y, if you know what I mean), abortion is a grave evil! It doesn't matter whether you're Democrat, Republican, or Independent (like I am):  abortion is the murder of children! And indeed, if it is such a grave evil that it's a mortal sin, wouldn't you want everybody who's on the pro-life side to join in and get the Casey-Nelson-Hatch amendment passed (although it died today -- her article was written yesterday)? Hey, get the pro-life atheists on board too; but just get somebody to ally with you! As they always say:  strength comes in numbers.

But surely, this message was taken out of context to seem like the Missouri bishops are sinister and want to stop healthcare reform just because they're a bunch of conservative hypocrites who don't follow their teachings on the poor. What an old argument:  I've heard about it for years. Yet, what's the bishops' real agenda? They're trying to make sure that if the healthcare bill does pass, it will protect the life of every human, born and unborn:  thus, they're trying to get any support they can. Let's not take it out of context here, Mrs. Kennedy-Townsend.

Second, the issue of conservatism on Catholicism. Now, here's what the former Maryland Lt. Governor had to say: 

"Really? As Catholics, are we so laser focused on the issue of abortion that we are willing to join tea partiers and the like to bring down the health care reform bill? And at the enormous expense of millions of Americans who suffer every day because they can’t afford to get checkups, because they must choose bankruptcy in order to save the life of their loved one?



Not this Catholic. As someone who was raised by a family absolutely committed to public service and to making sure that our nation provides health care to the least among us, I am devastated that the bishops are using their influence to try not to increase access to health care for the millions of people who don’t have insurance. Where is their passion for the families who need health care?"

Firstly, what I'd like to say here is that not all Catholics who oppose this bill are tea partiers. I'd like to say publicly (and I'll say it again) that I am a Centrist Democrat (you know, the one you find in Europe and Latin America) globally speaking, and an Independent domestically speaking. You see, I don't fit into a nice party bloc. However, I don't support the bill for mainly two things:  the cost and the pro-life issue. Otherwise, I'm kinda ambivalent.

So, no -- I'm not a wacko tea-partier. (Don't you hate it when politicans use umbrella terms?) However, the reason why I vote Republican most of the time is because the Democratic party has veered a little too left for me, especially on the social issues and when it comes to subsidarity and solidarity. Truly, it is strange and ironic to me that the Democratic party has gone towards the side of huge government control despite its earlier reputation for supporting union workers -- the people who are at the bottom who decided to unite against "the big man"!

And having said that, it's why a lot of Catholics don't support the healthcare bill! Because they think in the end that even though it is good to have healthcare for everyone, they don't think it's good to just bankrupt everyone else in the process (which will make the US get in the same situation those families are in!). Plus, in the principle of subsidarity, things start at the bottom. Thus, cooperatives or anything arising out to give more healthcare control to the individual would probably be a better way to go for insurance because it gives more freedom in the long run than having an overreaching umbrella called "the public option".

Finally, in the last sentences of the thing, she says that "we have the opportunity to expand health care to millions of Americans — a noble goal the vast majority of American Catholics can stand behind. I want Catholic bishops to heed the Vatican’s call for charity and justice for all, not just for the wealthy and well connected."

Well, for one thing, Catholics are worried that this bill might be actually breaking from Catholic Social Teaching, as I've said earlier. And the principles of Catholic Social Teaching are so that the individual can be free to live the life that God wanted that person to be. Thus, abortion is against Catholic Social Teaching because it denies that opportunity of life to an unborn child -- which is the same for any other person, rich or poor.

So, why would she support this? Because she is clearly against Catholic Social Teaching in this regard:  that we gve dignity to all, rich or poor, born or unborn. And this abortion issue is not helping in terms of equalizing the playing field for all, especially when it comes to healthcare!

I thus warn her that this is not a matter of whether the bishops are well-connected and are rich in political clout. Of course, in a sense, they are. However, it's a matter of whether they're using it fairly. And Mrs. Kennedy-Townsend has stated that, in essence, the bishops are with the rich. But I say that it is not so, for the guys are standing by the poorest of the poor at this time:  the unborn! Indeed, they have no rights in this day and age; they cannot speak up for themselves, but God regards them as human and as individual persons!

So, who's really on the side of the poor? Because, again, in my blunt and humble opinion, this is the reason why you have lost your way and strayed from Christ in this regard:  you have disregarded the poor unborn. And that is an unequality not to be taken lightly.

How to Prevent Priest-Abuse Scandals in Ireland & Beyond: Part Two

Earlier, I had written on how to solve the sex-abuse scandals in Ireland caused by the firm "no-challenge" positions of the Irish bishops and the lack of visibility between the bishop and his children while trying to maintain firm doctrinal ground. However, a viewer whom I know ("DLA")wrote that I had not distinguished enough between my "legislative" views and my "advisory" views.

This is verbatim from the email: 

"The laity have a distinct consultative role in their relationship with the sacred pastors of the Church. This has manifested itself in the various reforms of the Church throughout history, and is upheld in Gaudium et Spes. However, the common fallacy is to confuse a consultative role with a legislative role. ("consilium" as opposed to "concilium"). Your piece could be fleshed out a little by clarifying this distinction. Let that be the subject of "part two." The late Bishop Keating wrote a pastoral letter on the consultative role of the laity in the Church."

So, let me make this clear:

The laity, when monitoring the bishops, must not think that they are acting in a legislative manner!

And why? Let me give you a widespread example of this priest-laity relationship in action:  the parish council. Now, the parish council is the advisory body where the laity assist the pastor in helping to welcome the parishoners, get more people to convert to the Catholic faith, and deal with other minutae in the process of maintaining the spiritual health of a parish.

The former Bishop of Arlington, the late John Keating, put it this way:  "A pastor establishes a council to expand and enhance the decision-making process of 1) pastoral planning and goal-setting; 2) developing and implementing pastoral programs; 3) improving pastoral services; 4) evaluating pastoral effectiveness." But nowhere in here does it say that the council makes the laws that the pastor (as the "president") has to abide by.

Indeed, Keating argues against this most explicitly here:

"The new Canon Law makes very clear what was not very clear before: the parish council is not a legislative body. It is not a policy-making, decree-issuing, statute-formulating council. It does not enact, decree, authorize, or regulate; nor does it prohibit, enjoin, correct, or enforce. It does not "pass bills" for the pastor to sign or veto."

Having said these things, how should we laity, acting as the parish council of the Church (so to speak), use this to our advantage as we keep an eye out for when our bishops stray from the Canon law? First, we must remember that hierarchially speaking, we are inferior to the bishops. We report to the bishops; we obey the bishops; we support the bishops.

Make no mistake -- we laity are not supposed to form a Catholic Congress and veto any doctrinal/administrative laws that we don't like. And indeed, if they stray from Canon Law and the Magisterium, the only thing we can do is sign letters, petitions, and appeal to the higher-ups. But that doesn't mean we can't do anything by ourselves before that happen.

As the laity, we can do these things:  keep ourselves in accordance with the Magisterium, and monitor each public and private step that they take when they try to figure out what to do with us doctrinally or administratively. Now, this doesn't mean that we regulate -- we have no power to do that, as it lies with the bishops themselves.

Instead, when we monitor things, we are auditing. Nowhere in Keating's works does it say that laypeople cannot audit the problems in their own parishes and churches:  indeed, if no one audited the Church for fiscal/spiritual corruption, the Catholic Church would have collapsed during the Protestant Reformation! So, it is essential that the laity remain a strong body of not only advisors but auditors as we track on whether they are going in the right direction or not. For they are sinners as much as us and need the guidance of doctrinal and administrative clarifications when it is needed -- although we cannot enforce it ourselves.

And if we can't centralize and consolidate our advice to the bishops, how else are the bishops going to hear us? Indeed, the more that people speak up, the more that they will see that Catholics aren't "pew potatoes" (as my pastor put it) and that they're being involved! And the more that we're being involved and know our faith, the more that we can tell them that the bishops aren't following their own rules when they do so because they can we see that we actually care about our shepherds wanting to take care of us!

Which is why we need a strong laity to act when our bishops become weak.

Also, as a further clarification, let me explain another need why we need both a centralized clergy and a centralized laity:  balance! Indeed, I said earlier that the bishops need to entertain the laity as an advisory body that must be met with serious consideration. However, there are always going to be heterodox elements in the Church that must be sequestered and dealt with. Now, how do you deal with that?

You do that by becoming a strong bishop. By becoming a strong bishop, you can effectively deal with heterodox organizations by giving incentives for return to the Church and punishments for not following the Magisterium. And actually, that's what a bishop is supposed to do -- but that's not always the case, of course. Indeed, being a strong bishop, you must expect the people to strongly conform to the rulings of the bishops when you conform with Catholic teaching.

However, say you do something against the Church and against the sake of openness (such as what happened with the sex-abuse cases). That's where the strong laity comes in. Indeed, we must strongly oppose them when they aren't in line because in doing so, we are obeying God and His Magisterium -- these two being superior above the individual rulings of bishops when they conflict. Also, when the bishops aren't being open as they should be, corruption will start to fester in like a disease, just like mold confined to a piece of bread. And does anyone remember that God said that what is done for His Truth is done in His Light?

If it's done in God's Light, the people must expect to hear such things from their bishops. If the bishops are to stop corruption in their dioceses, they must tell that in the open and remain faithful and open to their flocks. If there's a problem, they must not deny it but ask for help. In other words, they must have a strong relationship with their laity so that there is no secrecy involved and scandals don't have to come out at the last minute, destroying the Church.

And by remaining accountable to the centralized laity, there will balance for two reasons. For one thing, the weakness of the laity is its position in the hierarchy. We are at the bottom. That being said, we need strong bishops to deal with the doctrinal and administrative problems swiftly and decisively, for they have the upper hand as given to them by God. But the bishops have a weakness too:  they are at the top.

And why is being at the top a weakness? It can cause occasions for pride that the bishop must always keep at bay. Plus, they cannot always see what is going down at the ground level, where the people are. Thus, in order to have a fair and balanced view of things, they need the help of the lower levels in order to maintain power.

Finally, because they are the few who are on the top of things, and the laity are the majority, they need to keep the people in sight, lest the majority fall away and make Christianity elitist. Indeed, in the beginning, Christ intended this religion for all of us and not just the handful few:  therefore, openness to the laity will help the bishops from having bad things happening to them.

Thus, both the bishops and the laity have their own weaknesses. But if they are centralized and work together, they will suit each other in harmony and balance each other to make up for what each sector can't do. Because of this, the model should work well if the bishops and the laity are willing to step up and assume their positions. And due to the newfound openness, there shouldn't as much of a chance for grave scandals to ever happen again before they grow to their worst possible incarnations.

Again, I hope this helps. God bless you through Mary and St. Jean Vianney! Amen.

(This picture is from http://www.louthnewryarchives.ie/graphics/exhib/ww2/guide-for-parish-councils.jpg.)

A Local Story: The Courthouse Holiday Display Ban in Leesburg

Do you remember when you were little, when every year during Advent, they'd put up a small Christmas nativity next to the local courthouse for everyone to see? Well, having lived in Leesburg for a little over a decade now, I've seen this come and go for a while now. However, what I did not realize until I read the Leesburg Today last week that there was a church-state fight going on about whether to put in the Nativity scene (plus a menorah, of all things!) this year on the Courthouse or not! At least it's good to know that the Supervisors soon overturned it and put it back on schedule -- I kinda miss that display.

UPDATE:  Or maybe not. Check this out:  http://mommylife.net/archives/2009/12/loudoun_still_b.html! Apparently, the fight's still going on. Hope they won't take it down -- by doing so, the Board of Supervisors have turned back on their promise towards church-state issues for the Courthouse grounds. Let me explain.

This is because the Board of Supervisors stated thus in November (at least in the words of Kelly Burk): 

"That property is public property owned by the people. The people have the right to use that property for religious displays. We may not agree with every display. We may not like every display that goes up...but the right to have those religious displays is a fundamental right that we should not walk away from."

Having set that precedent, why have you guys at the BoS decide to change your mind? You have set the legal precedent for future church-state cases regarding the Courthouse! But now, in a reversal from this welcoming statement about allowing freedom of religious expression via the 1st Amendment, we have this:

December 4, 2009

Board to Hold Special Meeting on Use of Courthouse Grounds December 10

The Loudoun County Board of Supervisors will hold a special meeting at 5:30 p.m., Thursday, December 10, 2009, on the use of the Loudoun County Courthouse grounds, to include pending applications for use and any rules, regulations or conditions for the use of the grounds.

The meeting will take place in the School Board Meeting Room of the Loudoun County Public Schools Administration Building, 21000 Education Court in Ashburn, Virginia, 20148.

Directions to the Loudoun County Public Schools Administration Building are available on the Loudoun County website.

Seriously? Unless this precedent will go into effect as law (which would be a good thing), this is not going to help anybody. As long as the Walshes want to put up their Christmas display, and the Rotary Club wants to put it up, it can't wait. We don't need an administrative backlog -- we need a definitive display of action now. Now isn't the time to dilly-dally about church-state affairs when we have people waiting to put up their display!

Instead, I have a solution. First, either approve or disapprove the display. I know that this will start a precedent for these types of cases. However, the Board of Supervisors have already made a definitive statement with their vote. They can't just turn back on us now when they have set the record straight for this year. Keep to your promise and allow the Christmas display just for this year.

Afterwards, you can discuss it later among yourselves about whether to make it a definitive law or not. We Loudouners can deal with the issue when we don't have to put displays up -- for these people have been doing it year after year with the displays with no one to stop them. But putting a ban only 2 months before the holiday doesn't make any sense:  it is a matter of procrastination! By doing such things after Christmas, we can actually get to the heart of the issue and set a precedent before people can set up displays again and get caught up in this mess!

Which reminds me of a less divisive church-state issue. This week, on the Feast of the Immaculate Conception, the Leesburg Town Council will have a meeting on whether to give a zoning permit to St. John's Catholic Church so we can start building a new church! Now, if you haven't been to St. John's, we have a large parish that has a church too small:  the Chapel of the Immaculate Conception doesn't have enough capacity for 500 per Mass, so we built a parish center and a multipurpose hall used for worship!

And if that isn't a big problem for you, I don't know what's going on in your head. That's why I urge you to go to the Leesburg Town Hall next to Tally Ho Theatre on Dec. 8 (this Tuesday) so that you can go support us! (Hey, I'm going with my family!) Maybe we Loudouners can show some Catholic solidarity and stand together so that we can get this new church built and under way in this Feast of Our Lady!

Mary, O Immaculately Conceived, we have recourse to thee on this day. May we, through your intercession on your feast day, reach a swift and decisive conclusion for the approval of our new church from the Town Council so that we may be able to spread the Gospel of Christ. And I also pray that on that fateful day that we may gain your favor, as you are the patron of our small chapel: indeed, as you have helped our church grow in faithful, may you help us in helping our church grow bigger in stone! Help us, Mary.

Amen.

May God bless you through Mary and St. Jean Vianney, and I hope you have yourself a good day.

(Photo credit:  Nativity scene by Ian Britton @ www.freefoto.com.)

Weekly Recap

Did you miss the SAAC articles of the week? No fear:  here they are below!

• Monday:  A House Divided Cannot Stand: Spain, the US Bishops, and the Issue of Communion for Pro-Abort Politicians


• Tuesday:  DC Approves Gay Marriage; Catholic Charities Predicted to Drop DC Funding


• Wednesday:  Russia and Rome: The New Frontlines in Ecumenism?


• Thursday:  On Irish and American Priest Abuse: How We Can Remedy "The Tragedy of Irish Catholicism"


• Saturday:  Wuerl and the “Legally Domiciled Adults” Compromise: Could It Be DC’s Underhand Path for Gay Marriage?

Thank you for supporting SAAC, and I hope that you come back for next week's articles! God bless you through Mary and St. Jean Vianney! Amen.

Wuerl and the “Legally Domiciled Adults” Compromise: Could It Be DC’s Underhand Path for Gay Marriage?

In today's Washington Post, the editors have managed to put out a possible so-called "compromise" that could allow for both the DC Council and the Archdiocese of Washington to be happy: "legally domiciled adult"-funding. But what is it actually, and how does it relate to both the Archdiocese and the Council in terms of the gay marriage bill?
In order to answer this question, I'll put up the editorial verbatim and see what's wrong with the Post's argument. (My emphases will be in colored italics.)

The District's same-sex marriage bill continues on its path to passage. So, too, does the battle between the D.C. Council and the Catholic Church over whether and how the Archdiocese of Washington would be able to comply with city law without violating church tenets [check these two SAAC articles on the clergy and the passing first vote to see why this may be impossible]. Council members David A. Catania (I-At Large) and Phil Mendelson (D-At Large) have offered a fair compromise, which the church should accept.

The Religious Freedom [uh, right . . .] and Civil Marriage Equality Amendment of 2009 would not require religious organizations to perform same-sex marriages. But if the bill becomes law, church groups that have city contracts would have to provide spousal benefits to their gay and lesbian employees. Catholic Charities believes this would force it to recognize those relationships. The same concern applies to adoption services for same-sex couples.

Archbishop Donald W. Wuerl has been trying to secure a religious exemption in the bill. The latest attempt came during a meeting on Monday. The language proposed would allow a religious group not to provide, among other things, "privileges, advantages, benefits, or goods for a purpose related to or arising from the solemnization or celebration of a same-sex marriage, or the promotion of same-sex marriage, that is in violation of the religious society's beliefs." [Translation: conservative religious groups would not have to provide anything that could allow them to violate God's law on heterosexual marriage.] This won't do. If Catholic Charities wants to exclude gay and lesbian couples from its adoption services, then it should do so without receiving taxpayer money.

But it is on the issue of spousal benefits [So you don't consider adoption a "benefit" to GLBT couples – just money?] that Catholic Charities' intransigence is mystifying [to a social liberal who doesn't understand Church doctrine, maybe?]. The fight going on in the District today took place 13 years ago in San Francisco.

When that city's Board of Supervisors unanimously passed a law requiring city contractors to provide spousal benefits to domestic partners, Archbishop William J. Levada protested. He raised the same objection we're hearing today. But a compromise was reached after a meeting with then-Mayor Willie Brown and four supervisors. A business or agency with a city contract is in compliance with the law if it "allows each employee to designate a legally domiciled member of the employee's household as being eligible for spousal equivalent benefits [which could include same-sex benefits: using pew money to possibly fund GLBT partnerships!]." Georgetown University provides another model. It provides medical, dental, and vision coverage to an employee's spouse or a "legally domiciled adult" defined as someone 18 or older who has lived with the employee for at least six months. A "Legally Domiciled Adult Certification Form" must be filed. [My full objection to this will be shown after the article – a more detailed reply on Levada and this topic is shown by Crisis's Michael Uhlmann here.]

These two models presented by Mr. Catania and Mr. Mendelson are worthy compromises [?] that should allow the Catholic Charities to be within the law without violating church principles. The final vote on the bill will be Dec. 15. We urge the Archdiocese and the council to come to a resolution that would usher in equality and allow the church to continue contracting with the city to provide the many services on which the District depends.

So, what is wrong with this argument? The Post claims that this argument was all about spousal benefits – as in money – to GLBT couples. However, I disagree with that statement: instead, I think the argument with Catholic Charities was about having to provide anything of marital benefit to same-sex couples! Indeed, it seems odd to me that the Post would say that Catholic Charities must give adoption services to same-sex couples (a marital benefit in itself) while saying that they can have a "compromise" and not have to fund GLBT couples with benefits (at least in overt terms) so that they can stick to church principles.

But it seems interesting why the editors at the Washington Post might have supported this compromise: it would be an underhand way to get gay marriage and gay benefits into not only DC but the Archdiocese of Washington itself! Actually, the Post is guilty of saying this in the last sentence, if I remember correctly: "We urge the Archdiocese and the council to come to a resolution that would usher in equality and allow the church to continue contracting with the city to provide the many services on which the District depends." Let's think about it though: if a sane person wants to usher in true equality, they must assert it in all areas of public life (which is why the GLBTs are very vocal about "discriminatory" marriage).

Thus, if they succeed in introducing this "compromise" to Wuerl's Archdiocese, pew money going to Catholic Charities will then possibly support GLBT marriage via benefits! So, they may not be able to introduce gay marriage into Church doctrine, but they will be able to introduce a complicit funding for gay marriage and other partnerships such as polygamists and cohabitating couples – a grave misuse of Church funds. Isn't this what happened to the CCHD and the pew sitter's monies going to organizations against Church teaching? Surely, it seems as if somebody would have learned this lesson by now – but Wuerl currently has an opportunity to mess it up!

And if Wuerl does end up agreeing to the amendment, not only will it induce a future misuse of church funds, but it will lead Catholics to think that he will be complicit and not protest when the bill passes! This will be not only a bad PR move administratively speaking but doctrinally speaking as well: besides, if this bill is going to force Catholic Charities to provide adoptions to GLBT couples against church teaching, why provide benefit funds (whether under "legally domiciled adults" or by more overt naming)? It will make no difference: a benefit is a benefit is a benefit is a benefit! Benefits shouldn't be used with Church monies to legally sanction things that the Church doesn't believe in.

So, Wuerl should not stand for this compromise given out by Levada and the Washington Post. For by doing so, pew monies from people of good will are going to be placed into funds for not only married couples but other partnerships that they may not accept as part of Church teaching. Plus, this bill will not only force them to give out monetary benefits to GLBT couples using Church funds but family benefits to GLBT couples as well, despite the fact that in the Catholic Church, GLBT "marriages" are illegal in the eyes of God. Thus, this bill will be a way for the state to interfere in Church affairs and must therefore not be supported.

Indeed, how can there be a real compromise between state and church doctrine when they interfere? For the church insists that it must be one way because of a firmly-held doctrine, and the state thinks that it should be another way because the state's job is not supposed to be held to a doctrine of any sort. And in the case where the state wants a church to break ties with firmly-held doctrine, the debate is over: there can be no compromise. The church must stick to its principles, no matter what the state says, and that is the mission of the Church today.

So, the Archdiocese of Washington must not back down! For this bill will attempt to decrease the rights of the Church in DC, and that shouldn't be supported whatsoever. Instead, it must fight for the rights of the Church in the world, and it must start with this bill. And no matter what the state screams at Catholic Charities, they shouldn't use their monies from the pews to support sin whatsoever.

Let's just hope that the DC Council and/or Archbishop Wuerl will recognize this. Amen.