Deal W. Hudson

Hosannas for the USCCB Doctrine Committee

Connie Marshner

A few days ago the Committee on Doctrine of the U. S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) picked up its shepherd's staff and chased away a wolf from the flock.

It read Daniel Maguire off the reservation. 

Maguire, a former Jesuit who still teaches theology at Marquette University, has been widely circulating pamphlets in which he maintains that there is no one position on contraception, abortion, or same-sex 'marriage' that can be considered binding on all members of the Catholic Church.
 
Maguire is, in other words, a major dissenter.   He's the source of much of the mythology that there is a “pro-choice tradition” in the Catholic church.

Not any more.  His pamphlets have been examined by the Committee on Doctrine, which  has declared that they do not present authentic Catholic teaching. 

Listen to these sweet, official, words and raise a hosanna from your own lips: 

“We the Committee on Doctrine of the USCCB concur that, despite his claims to authority as a Catholic theologian, the views of Professor Maguire on contraception, abortion, and same-sex ‘marriage’ are not those of the Catholic Church and indeed are contrary to the Church’s faith. We deplore as irresponsible his public advocacy of his views as authentic Catholic teaching. Lastly, we trust that this statement will clarify the Church’s teaching for all of the Catholic faithful throughout the United  States."

Philip Jenkins on the Future of the Church

My friend Jeremy Lott interviewed Philip Jenkins for the Catholic World Report recently. You can read the interview HERE. In it, the two discuss “demographic trends, American exceptionalism, and the future of the Catholic Church.”

Anglican Re-Union with Rome?

Connie Marshner

The Times of London reports today that senior bishops of both Anglican and Roman Catholic Churches are considering reuniting their churches under the leadership of the Rome.

A 42-page statement prepared by an international commission of both churches is being considered both by the Vatican and by the archbishops of the Anglican Communion who are meeting in Dar es Salaam in a last-ditch effort to avoid schism.

One wonders who leaked it and why today.

Here's my cynical take on it: this is the equivalent of an "October Surprise" in a presidential campaign.

Since the fear of Rome is the ultimate bogeyman to even some Anglicans, having the possibility of union with Rome on the table now  gives the liberals something to wave around to try to break up the conservative/orthodox coalitions that have brought the Anglicans to Dar es Salaam. 

I'll probably never know, but today, if I were there, I'd be on the lookout for a flurry of seeming "concessions" to be offered by liberals, in a last-ditch effort to patch together a "unity" platform, to prevent the walkout of orthodox believers from the Anglican Communion. 

The "concessions" will be cosmetic, and they probably won't be worth the paper they're printed on, but the offering of them may introduce factionalism to such an extent that the result is official  indecision.

How is it going to end up?

Not knowing the players, and hence not able to predict the effects of human politicking, I have no idea. 

However, I do know that Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ is the head of the Church.  The whole drama of reunification -- of any church with the true Church -- will come out however the Holy Spirit wants it to come out. 

In Which Politics Trumps Everything

Mark Tooley writes in the Weekly Standard:

LATE LAST YEAR, dozens of faculty members at Southern Methodist University publicly opposed plans by President Bush to locate his presidential library on SMU's campus in Dallas.

Now, ten bishops of the United Methodist Church, which owns the school, and of which President Bush is a member, are urging SMU to reject the library and are circulating a petition for others to sign.

A chief organizer in stopping the Bush library is a former professor at SMU's Perkins School of Theology, who told the Dallas Morning News that he doesn't want his school to "hitch its future star" to the war and other aspects of President Bush's legacy.

"What moral justification supports SMU's providing a haven for a legacy of environmental predation and denial of global warming, shameful exploitation of gay rights and the most critical erosion of habeas corpus in memory?" asked the Rev. William McElvaney, in an op-ed for an SMU campus publication last Fall.

It gets worse. Just read on.

And it calls to mind Harold Ford Jr.’s tirade earlier in the week, as covered by Mike Allen at The Politico. Ford is the new chairman of the Democratic Leadership Council. He ran unsuccessfully for the U.S. Senate last year in his native Tennessee. At an on-the-record gathering this week, Ford teed off on, I think, religious conservatives:

But business gets done: Everything is on the record. And Ford did not disappoint the sleepy-headed journalists, offering a passionate response when asked about the role of faith in politics. During the question-and-answer period, Ford said candidates should not hesitate to discuss the role religion plays in shaping their positions. But he added that faith "is often used by some to beat up on or whip up on others, and the Bible that I read doesn't suggest that you do that."

"God works in mysterious ways," Ford said. "Some of the nomenclature and jargon that's used by those who invoke faith regularly - compared with some of their actions and behavior and conduct - I think has raised concerns on the part of many that maybe those who preach it the most aren't practicing the most. I pray for all of them, and would hope that they'd be able to find some healing and wholeness in their lives, but that they would also see that maybe they should reflect a little before they go lashing out and attacking others. I think voters get it, too. The hypocrisy on the part of some was so interesting in this last election."

I say I think Ford is teeing off against religious conservatives here because he doesn’t actually say so. Instead he points an accusatory finger at “some” and “those who invoke faith regularly.” Of course, Ford could just as easily be talking about those who agitate for income redistribution but hoard their own personal wealth, I suppose.

But read Ford’s remarks again. What an unserious argument! He provides not a single example of “hypocrisy.” He just launches into a blanket attack on (again, I can only guess) religious conservatives.

Look, I have an abiding love and respect for our Christian brothers and sisters on the political left. But these two examples are fairly clear examples of the left allowing its politics to trump a serious dialogue about faith in public life.

Social Agenda Dead for Now?

Since we’re all gabbing about politics today—something I gab altogether too much about, I’m afraid—I figure I should link up to Joseph Bottum’s observations about last night’s State of the Union message, which is posted over at First Things:

Last night’s State of the Union address didn’t mention faith-based initiatives, which President Bush once claimed would be his great legacy. Of course, it didn’t mention abortion or stem cells, either—in part because such speeches are designed to avoid controversy, and in part because the social-conservative domestic agenda seems dead in the last years of this administration. The White House may hold the line on whatever gains it feels it has already made, but it also signaled last night that it won’t be pushing hard for anything. School choice and judges each got a sentence, the only elements of social conservatism to surface in the speech.

Obviously, the social conservative agenda is dead for the next two years. We will make no progress on anything meaningful. But the failure to follow through on faith-based initiatives mentioned by Bottom is the big disappointment here. It held so much promise in the early years. And now? Nothing, or next to nothing.

With our friends on the Religious Left daily appropriating Scripture to sell slow-motion socialism, I fear the idea that conservatism equals hating the poor will be back in fashion for a long time, despite the considerable research of Arthur Brooks.

On the “Spirit” of Vatican II

Here is a good piece on Benedict’s tiff with French Bishops over the Latin Mass, in which the author, Thomas J. Craughwell points out some of the other significant problems resulting from deliberate misrepresentations of Vatican II.

The Orthodox Moment?

Even though the hubbub regarding his Regensburg speech overshadowed the whole affair, Benedict’s trip to Turkey in late-November was chiefly built around a previously delayed meeting with the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I. As Russell Shaw reported at the time, “[m]ore than anything else, advancing the quest for unity between the churches of the East and the West was what brought the pope to Turkey.”

And now I read (via Rod Dreher) this thoughtful piece by Bradley Nassif from Christianity Today titled, “Will the 21st Be the Orthodox Century?” In it Nassif explores the compatibility between evangelicalism and Orthodoxy.

I have a “Mere Christianity” streak in me, I must confess, so I am delighted by the heightened dialogue on all fronts. There is much upon which Catholics, Orthodox and evangelicals agree. And as I pointed out it in In Defense of the Religious Right conservative (in the non-political sense) ecumenism holds the key for unity in the church. Meanwhile, our friends who ignore Scripture are struggling.

‘Tis the Season

If you are going to be in Milford, New Hampshire on Saturday, you may wants to stop by the Second Annual Yule Festival:

On Saturday, members of the Spiral Scouts - a pagan-based youth organization based loosely on the Boy Scouts - will celebrate the winter solstice, or the yule, as it was known in Celtic circles, at the Unitarian Universalist Church on Elm Street.

Beginning at 9 am, the Second Annual Yule Festival will include crafts for children, music played on a Celtic harp, a drumming circle, a bake sale and lots of stories and songs.

Organizer Jess Baribault, state coordinator of the Spiral Scouts, said the event is open to everyone and will give people who have grown up fearing pagans a chance to experience their culture.

"With the spread of Christianity, paganism took on a negative connotation that has lasted up until now," Baribault said, "but I hope people are finally done burning witches." Baribault said pagan literally means "country dweller," someone who lives close to the land and honors the cycle of life.

Paganism is a spiritual belief system centered on a god and goddess who together create balance in life and nature. Just as Christianity has different subgroups like Catholic or Baptist, paganism has different subsets including wicca and druidism.

Then again, you may not.

Patrick Hynes

Diocese Votes to Secede from Episcopal Church

The Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin in California has voted overwhelmingly to cleave its 48 parishes and 7,000 members from the Episcopal Church and to join the Anglican Communion. It is the first diocese to do so. From From the New York Times:

The San Joaquin diocese, which does not ordain women, has long been one of the most conservative of the church’s 110 dioceses. It is among seven dioceses that were so disturbed by the church’s decision to consecrate a gay bishop that they have refused to accept the authority of the church and its presiding bishop. They have also appealed for “alternative oversight” to the Archbishop of Canterbury, who as head of the Church of England is considered the “first among equals” among the Anglican primates.

“This is the separation,” said Craig Petz, a lay delegate to the diocese’s convention in Fresno, Calif., where the vote took place. “It’s done. There’s no equivocating.”

There will, no doubt, be many more.

Patrick Hynes

Re: Two Americas and Presidential Politics

Deal asks: “How do you see the ‘two Americas’ idea playing out among the GOP hopefuls?”

Answering this question is not as easy as answering the same question of Democrats. Democrats still have a relatively secular political base. There are few black churches in Iowa and none in New Hampshire. Outreach to churchgoers is still largely a General Election exercise for the Democrats.

The GOP base, on the other hand, still consists largely of churchgoing folk; mostly of the evangelical stripe, but many millions of Catholics, as well.

However, as we saw in 2000 evangelicals do not vote in a cluster.  Gary Bauer was supposed to be the candidate of the evangelical wing of the Republican Party. Steve Forbes reached out aggressively to social conservatives. Even Pat Buchanan and Bob Smith (before they bolted from the Republican Party) earned some support from churchgoers. Nevertheless, then-Gov. George W. Bush probably won a plurality of evangelical Christian support in the “pre-primary” primary—and he certainly won a majority of evangelicals in the South Carolina 

primary.

Likewise, every major Republican candidate for president will have an aggressive outreach campaign to evangelicals in 2008. I suspect their will be a great deal of splintering of this important bloc in the primaries, but a great deal of cohesion in the General Election (especially if Sen. Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee).

But what of right-leaning Catholics? That is the question we should be asking. Catholics as a whole—and even churchgoing Catholics—reversed their slow, skeptical march toward the GOP during the 2006 election; choosing instead to give the Democrats another chance. They did so, I believe, because of issues such as corruption, economic fairness, and, it must be said, the Iraq War.

The question then becomes: Which prospective GOP presidential candidate can tap into that Catholics discontent with the GOP in Catholic-heavy, early primary states in which non-Republicans can vote in the Republican primary.  These states are New Hampshire and Michigan. I don’t know the answer. But the smart money is on the first and most appealing candidate even to try.

Patrick Hynes