Print This Post Print This Post

The Catholic Failure

by Christopher Badeaux

Bart Stupak

I am not competent to speak to health care policy. I can tell you the pitfalls of the current system and its strengths from personal experience only; I can talk about economic incentives and disincentives to behavior in the system as it exists and in the system as it will soon exist from my extremely limited grasp of economics; and I can talk about the process of shopping health insurance for an individual or for a small business. But on the merits of the system as it currently stands against the bill that was passed in the Senate months ago and the House last night, I’m unashamedly out of my depth. I leave that to the wiser people who write here.

I can talk about the Catholic Church and its profound failure yesterday.

ADVERTISEMENT


It is not an understatement to say that the American Catholic Church lost the abortion wars for three decades, and only began to dig in and hold ground starting with the election of the extremely Protestant George W. Bush. That loss can be attributed to hundreds of factors — among them, the cultural shifts the Baby Boom’s coming of age set in motion, the liberalization of the Church following Vatican II, and William Brennan (the nominal Catholic on the Supreme Court for decades) being one of the leading hands in crafting the nearly immutable law that contradicts one of his alleged Church’s oldest teachings — but some blame belongs with the deliberate decision of the Church hierarchy to remain allied with the national Democratic Party, long after the majority of its flock had left behind the old urban enclaves.

There is a clear line that runs from treating the Kennedy clan as Catholic royalty for six decades, through ignoring the legions of nominal American Catholic politicians who treat the abortion license with more reverence than they do a consecrated host, to today’s de facto (and, really, de jure) destruction of the decades-old consensus that taxpayer dollars would not directly subsidize abortion (other than the funding Planned Parenthood takes from the government, and the limited Medicaid abortion exceptions).

The reasons for this cataclysmic pastoral failure are as varied as there are and were bishops since Roe v. Wade was handed down: Habit (Catholics had been Democrats for decades, and their priests and bishops frequently more so); reflexive agreement with so much else in the Democratic Party’s platform; a bizarre belief that those wayward Catholic politicians were speaking from a misguided application of their consciences; simple political naivete (surely something like this couldn’t happen); to a thousand other reasons and combinations thereof.

At the most basic possible level, the Catholic Bishops — the men I hold as a matter of faith to be in the direct line of Apostolic Succession — have enabled scandal, and it has finally flowered in full. A bishop has plenary discretion in the manner in which he brings his wayward sheep back into the fold, but by any measure, to put this politely, the American bishops’ exercise of their discretion has been a total embarrassment. Scandal is the act of teaching, from a position of authority, by word or deed, that what is evil is actually good. For essentially my entire lifetime, the Democratic Party has made as one of its governing planks that women have an inherent right to murder their children. Catholic Democrats have not, with a tiny handful of exceptions, bothered to even murmur a protest; the most prominent among them have taken up that position as their own — some without even bothering to run for the Presidency first.

The roster of names is so long that its recitation would be a total rebuke to the authority of any American Catholic bishop now living and many dead. Kennedy, Leahy, Kucinich, Drinan, Durbin, Pelosi, Casey (Jr.), Mitchell, Sebelius, Cuomo, I could go on. These are men and women who have made it the goal of their careers to advocate the abortion license, to preserve it and expand it. The leaders in the fight to keep public funding of abortion were overwhelmingly self-professed Catholics. Last night, they succeeded.

They teach by word and act that abortion is, at worst, an unfortunately necessary convenience, and is more often a good. They create scandal. They do so as Catholics.

Who among them has been publicly remonstrated by his bishop? Who among them has had to stand in public and choose between an honest recitation of the Nicene Creed and Planned Parenthood v. Casey? Who among them has been reminded of Christ’s injunction about scandal and millstones where their audiences and constituencies can hear?

Why would anyone expect Bart Stupak — otherwise a consummate Democrat — to hold up a health care reform bill against his Party and his Party’s President when even the men who are supposed to stand against evil every waking moment of their lives appear more concerned about the environment, about immigrant rights, about the death penalty? What Catholic sitting in the pews or watching on TV would think there’s anything wrong with abortion when Mario Cuomo’s dishonest justification has stood without censure or excommunication for over a quarter of a century?

The blood of millions will now be shed by the public coffers. That blood lies on the hands of the men with mitres.

TNL
  • coco1212
    Cristopher, I went through all the possible moods while reading your article: from anger to denial to silent acceptance. Everybody knows we live in a system corrupt to the bone, and any short term solution is like a faith based drug rehab, it all depends on the people. I am a practical person looking for answers, so far I only found questions, and the deeper I look the more difficult they get. I feel stuck in a loop.
  • jeffreyjleboeuf
    There is no such thing as the "American Catholic Church", folks. There is the Catholic Church, in America. The media portrays, and the USCCB promulgates, a perception that there is a degree of quasi-autonomy, that the "American Catholic Church" can pick and choose what is accepted from the magesterium in Rome. I really get dismayed, when otherwise conservative, orthodox Roman Catholics, refer to our beloved Catholic Church, as the "American Catholic Church". I believe this is the doorway to a schism. Otherwise an excellent article.
  • peterknickerbocker
    The article was excellent. Veronica's first comment was the best. Then this whole string went off the rails between people who are obviously in agreement on the substance, but chose to get hung up on the title. This confusion may be the work of the devil. If the title had been "The Failure of the Catholic Bishops" I hope that we would all agree with the substance of the article. Certainly, there can be no disagreement among us that most of the bishops in the U.S. have allowed scandal to flourish, have allowed or even promoted the faithful to have the false impression that the Magisterium has changed since Vatican II, and have routinely decided to violate Canon 915. Saint Catherine of Siena, pray for our bishops!
  • jeffreyjleboeuf
    Sorry for the duplicate post. Not sure how to remove it.
  • Not to pick, but you do understand that "American Catholic Church" is
    actually the accurate description, and "Roman Catholic Church" is
    actually an old, forgotten slur meant to imply that the Church is not
    catholic, but Roman, yes? We are all part of the same Church, but each
    Bishop is plenary in his diocese, and the Vatican treats us a national
    subdivision of the universal Church.
  • jeffreyjleboeuf
    You've been desensitized, my friend. Just for fun, I searched, using "Bing" on "Mexican Catholic Church." On the first page of results were several results for "Catholic Church in Mexico" and "Roman Catholic Church in Mexico." There was one hit however on the "Mexican National Catholic Church" which is a break away schism. Preview of what's to come? Only in America does the faithful not shudder when we choose to label our Church with a nationalist adjective. I wonder if they say French Catholic Church? I would argue that we're teetering on rebellion and disobedience by saying "American Catholic Church." What's wrong with Catholic Church, in America? The difference is more than symantic; its substantial. If we begin to think as a national subdivision, then we might just be tempted to buck Vatican directives.
  • jeffreyjleboeuf
    I'm wrong....there is an American Catholic Church. Yes, its happened. From Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Catholic_Church_in_the_United_States ;

    Here's a quote: "The American Catholic Church in the United States (ACCUS) is a small Independent Catholic formed in 1999, denomination originating from the Old Catholic Christian denomination. The ACCUS holds some similar theological beliefs and practices to the Roman Catholic Church. However, it is not in communion with the Roman Catholic Church or under Papal jurisdiction."

    You see, words do matter.

  • irenenapier
    I too grieve with the author because so many shepherds appear to have deceived the flock by misled loyalty or cowardice. But I wish he might have mentioned that a few brave souls have been outnumbered. A downstate pastor did refuse the sacrament to Sen. Durbin and that pastor is now a bishop. (But that Senator could receive in Chicago, of course.) Bishops Raymond Burke and Bruskewitz are admired for standing out in their public proclamations. I guess we will always have to deal with the effects of original sin.
  • velmab
    Before you go mud slinging our American Catholic faith you should tune into Catholic Radio. Or, how about ask the American Conference of Catholic Bishops what their stance is, as opposed, to say, Pelosi who doesn't even know what feast day our faith was celebrating. (It was St. Joseph, Jesus' Father, not St. Joseph the Worker.)
    Cafeteria Catholics who pick and choose what they want from our faith aren't true to the church's teachings. ANd those 55 nuns don't speak for the over 15,000 nuns living in the U.S.
    Our Bishops told Obama they would close the door to their hospitals before allowing abortions to take place there.
    We'll see what happens.
    In the meantime, remember that liberal Catholics like the Kennedys are an oxymoron, not true to the faith.
  • CSBadeaux
    Before you go mud slinging our American Catholic faith you should tune into Catholic Radio. Or, how about ask the American Conference of Catholic Bishops what their stance is, as opposed, to say, Pelosi who doesn't even know what feast day our faith was celebrating. (It was St. Joseph, Jesus' Father, not St. Joseph the Worker.)

    I have slung mud at no faith, especially not the Faith. I criticized the Faith's most visible exponents for failing in their pastoral duties. There's a difference.

    As for the rest: I'll believe them when they actually act like they mean what they say.
  • Stances aren't the same as investment. The US Conference of Catholic Bishops knew full well that if they had pushed hard on this six months ago, they probably could've stopped the whole thing. But they spent months dithering about how to approach the issue and rendered themselves completely politically irrelevant in the process, proving once again that most of them still pray to the patron saint of the idle threat.
  • MMGC
    As a Catholic who only recently made the spiritual connection between the horror of abortion and the insidious creep of moral decay into a society that accepts and promotes it as a right, I have been appalled at the lack of leadership from Catholic Bishops. They spoke too softly, too little and too late. A look at the USCCB's website, (www.usccb.org), specifically under the "Social Justice" tab on the left, and it's clear where the politics of this organization (USCCB) lies.

    I just watched a clip of Patrick Kennedy's interview on Good Morning America, voice shaking and on the verge of tears, talking about how proud he was of the unsung hero of health insurance legislation: Nancy Pelosi. In his words, her "ambition is for children in this country," and she provided "moral and political leadership." Ms. Pelosi's ambition is focused like a laser beam solely on her own political career and her insatiable need to be referred to as "an unsung hero." (Unsung is so Kennedy-esque, implying a selflessness to those who work tirelessly for their own glory, and is reserved for those who elevate the Kennedy name along the way.) Children (aborted or alive) are a mere tool for Ms. Pelosi and the Kennedys, Stupak, Durbin, et al. (How else can you explain it?)

    The culture, the press, the government, the education system, the economy are all being devoured by socialism, which devalues the individual. If we lose the public voice of the Catholic Church (ie: the bishops and priests who speak for it) what else is there?
  • I'm in agreement with Libre and should have listened to my gut instinct on the title, Christopher.

    What are we to say about the denominations of the other Reps? You've called out Catholics but fail to mention the other denominations of the pro-socialist healthcare cadre.

    But this is all irrelevant -- why would we be attacking Christianity or the Catholic Church i.e. the tenets of the Faith.

    If there's a failure in the Church, what are we doing to support the Church besides attacking it from within?

    Bad men, period. Not a bad Faith.

  • CSBadeaux
    Just to reply to you both.

    (1) I said nothing about the Faith, except to laud it by implication. Try reading the piece again.
    (2) I said a great deal about the men of whom a Saint of our Church once noted that the road to Hell is paved with their skulls.
    (3) Conflating the men with the Faith, and then defending the men as a proxy for the Faith, is a bizarre form of inverse Donatism. That's not a good thing. You should probably watch that.
    (4) I did not "call out" other faiths because I am a Catholic Christian. I believe only a tiny handful are in the line of Apostolic Succession, and so I largely don't expect better of the rest.
    (5) As for this:

    This is what happens when good people are not part of the system, maybe a little bit more time should have been spent point these hypocrits out and labeling them accordingly (CINO) vs. blamming the Faith that they have scandalized. I wonder where the time has been spent? Politics or Religion.
    Respectfully, you have not clue one what I do with my time other than what I manage to bang out here inconsistently. My temerity in criticizing the episcopate for their colossal, collective failure is neither reflective of insufficient time in Adoration nor too much time immersed in the world of politics.

    You both seem unduly hung up on the title. Putting to the side the fact that I did not say "the failure of the Catholic Faith," or "the failure of Catholic teachings," I have to wonder why you really read no farther than the title before blasting.
  • One quick comment on: "My temerity in criticizing the episcopate for their colossal, collective failure is neither reflective of insufficient time in Adoration nor too much time immersed in the world of politics."

    When LIbre asks where the time has been spent -- politics or relgion -- he is making a reference to conservative activism, not adoration of our God.

    Correct the country or help correct the men of the Church who scandalize us and give voice about these deplorable "Catholic" politicians -- which is what I thought you were writing about to begin with.

    No one has to read or reread your article when you post this in your comments:

    "My temerity in criticizing the episcopate for their colossal, collective failure .. "

    According to who? You?

    What would you/have you done differently within the Church -- again, via conservative activism -- to correct the problems within the Catholic Church?

    Comments such as these are scandalous to the rest of us Catholics because rather than speak with a priest or Bishop about your concerns about "their colossal, collective failure," you put them in a public forum for the rest of society, most of whom don't (as non-Catholics)/won't (as a result of this and other anti-Catholic rhetoric) have the benefit of knowledge or Cateceisis about the Faith to consider and weigh your words accordingly.

    Your article can be considered scandalous, in and of itself, because you call out the Bishops ("the American bishops’ exercise of their discretion has been a total embarrassment") and ask the pointed questions:

    "Who among them has been publicly remonstrated by his bishop? Who among them has had to stand in public and choose between an honest recitation of the Nicene Creed and Planned Parenthood v. Casey? Who among them has been reminded of Christ’s injunction about scandal and millstones where their audiences and constituencies can hear?"

    My question to you: have you gone through proper channels and spoken with a priest or sent letters to your Bishop or the Bishop's Conference? If you have, I commend you and we can go from there.

    But it is interesting to note how you demand an answer from the Bishops, but you yourself cite privacy ("Respectfully, you have not [one] clue what I do with my time") when you assume Libre is asking about your time on your knees as a Catholic -- which, again, he was not.

    You place yourself in a position of Catholic authority with your article, just as the Bishops have placed themselves in a position of authority. I would not ask - Libre did not ask - but it would be legitimate to ask, what have you done in your position of authority to correct these issues, rather than just speak rhetorically?

    You say you "bang out here inconsistly." When my husband brought my initial response (excited over hearing this list of unknown "Catholics") to my attention, he advised me of the Twitter Mentality - wanting to speak quickly, firstly - which I myself am guilty of.

    I didn't stop to consider if your article was scandalous to the Church.

    You should consider how it is.

    Because you and I and my husband -- and any Catholic who speaks out in the public realm -- if we are serious about our Faith, lest we were to cause scandal, have to more properly, deeply align our words and thoughts more with our beliefs.

    Just like for our voting.

    * so much for a quick comment


  • CSBadeaux
    Let me see if I understand this correctly: I have engaged in scandal by
    publicly saying that the American Bishops have failed miserably in their
    shepherding of their flock.

    Ok. I'm game. What sin have I made normative? From what position of
    authority? Criticizing Bishops is a sin? Criticizing their decision-making
    is a sin? A blog is authority?

    Ok, let me give you a bit more leeway. How is what I've said not in keeping
    with the Faith? Citations to the Catechism or the Code of Canon Law would be
    helpful.

    You are no more required to read what I've written -- apparently for the
    first time -- than I am to politely ask my priest, and then, if he feels it
    appropriate, my bishop, why my Church allows some of its nominal Faithful to
    engage in scandal before writing.

    But it is interesting to note how you demand an answer from the
    Bishops, but you yourself cite privacy ("Respectfully, you have not [one]
    clue what I do with my time") when you assume Libre is asking about your
    time on your knees as a Catholic -- which, again, he was not.

    You place yourself in a position of Catholic authority with your article,
    just as the Bishops have placed themselves in a position of authority. I
    would not ask - Libre did not ask - but it would be legitimate to ask, what
    have you done in your position of authority to correct these issues, rather
    than just speak rhetorically?
    A few points are in order here.

    First, I have no position of authority, and I'll be the first to say so. All
    the talk of the Pilgrim People of God notwithstanding, I am a lay Catholic
    with access to a WordPress site.

    Second, my job is not to publicly guide the flock. Definitionally, that job
    belongs to the bishops and cardinals of our Church. So my note that your
    husband does not know anything about my religious practice -- I'll take your
    word for it that he was simply speaking unclearly and elliptically rather
    than saying what his words clearly seem to mean -- is not only not a demand
    for privacy (I don't write elliptically), it is also not relevant to what's
    at issue here.

    Third, "speaking rhetorically" does not mean "speaking without any ability
    to make concrete the remonstrations one makes."

    I would suggest that you are trying, with a good heart, to say something
    noble and decent, and instead saying something that verges on a heresy you
    don't intend. Identifying the Faith with the men who preach it is not only
    an error, it is actually a heresy, one identified over fifteen hundred years
    ago. It's a common error. It's still an error.
  • "Identifying the Faith with the men who preach it is not only an error, it is actually a heresy, one identified over fifteen hundred years ago."

    "It's a common error. It's still an error."

    Then you have no regard for the word “Catholic,” nor for the Faith and should have changed your title to “The 'Catholic' Failure” or “The Failure Among 'Catholic' Men.”

    But this holds no water, as you and I know you meant it as a Catholic Church failure.

    Throughout your piece, you plainly use the phrases “Catholic Church,” “American Catholic Church” to share in the blame.

    This conversation is over, as you and I both know you know what sort of scandal I'm talking about. You have an accurate example with “What Catholic sitting in the pews or watching on TV would think there’s anything wrong with abortion when Mario Cuomo’s dishonest justification has stood without censure or excommunication for over a quarter of a century?”

    You understand scandal.

    This conservation between you and me is over.

    **

    For other Catholics:

    At no time did we claim that Christopher committed a sin. This is a ploy on his part to distract from the argument. A strawman.

    I have been speaking of scandal. Not the contemptuous scandal of "Catholic" politicians, but by the scandal of Christopher in demanding from the Bishops:

    "Who among them has been publicly remonstrated by his bishop? Who among them has had to stand in public and choose between an honest recitation of the Nicene Creed and Planned Parenthood v. Casey? Who among them has been reminded of Christ’s injunction about scandal and millstones where their audiences and constituencies can hear?"

    If he doesn't believe he is speaking from a position of authority, then he should consider all of his writing useless, and New Ledger would find it wise to find another writer who believes what he writes. This isn't the case.

    Publicly guide the flock or not, Christopher is still an example of a believer in the Catholic Church. I am assuming he is a Catholic. He says so when he says "I can talk about the Catholic Church and its profound failure yesterday."

    With this, he is speaking from a position of authority. Especially when he demands an answer from the Bishops on holding "Catholic" politicians accountable.

    Again: "I can talk about the Catholic Church and its profound failure yesterday."

    Emphasis on "can," presented in italics as of this writing. He emphases "can" because he believes as a Catholic, he has a right to openly criticize the Church and its Bishops in an open forum, but this gives rise to scandal for other Catholics in the Church and non-Catholics as well.

    Scandal, as defined from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

    2284 Scandal is an attitude or behavior which leads another to do evil. The person who gives scandal becomes his neighbor's tempter. He damages virtue and integrity; he may even draw his brother into spiritual death. Scandal is a grave offense if by deed or omission another is deliberately led into a grave offense.


    Let's think of some examples:

    I am a catechumen and about to join the Church on Easter. I don't believe this stuff about heirarchy, but I know I have to be baptized. I read Christopher's article and I decide not to go through with my baptism because I gather the Bishops are bad.

    I already dislike the Church. I don't like organized religion. Now I know they and these rotten politicians are advocating for abortion. It's not explicitly written, but this is what I gather. Now I hate the Catholic Church. If I see a priest, I will tell him how I know the Bishops like abortion.

    My sister is trying to bring me back into the Church. No way now. They're hypocrites, the lot of them. Eucharist? I can get that in some other Church. Who cares.

    I was raised Catholic, but drifted away. I know my children need some sort of Faith and I severely dislike Obama and his healthcare. Look at these politicians and Bishops that say nothing! Those are good questions and since the Bishops haven't held those jerks publicly accountable, we'll just go somewhere else.

    **end examples

    See, in his first comment, Christopher says, "I did not "call out" other faiths because I am a Catholic Christian. I believe only a tiny handful are in the line of Apostolic Succession, and so I largely don't expect better of the rest."

    So, while he may believe the Catholic Faith is the One True Faith, he is careless about showing disrespect for Catholic Authority and the Magesterium to the inquiring Chrisitians, inquiring non-Christians, inquiring non-Catholics who may have an interest in the Faith or no Christian faith at all.

    He cares about his opinion, but not about the souls of others that may come across and form an opinion against the Catholic Church, about God.

    This is scandalous.

    29 [An] "intimate and vital bond of man to God" (GS 19 § 1) can be forgotten, overlooked, or even explicitly rejected by man. Such attitudes can have different causes: revolt against evil in the world; religious ignorance or indifference; the cares and riches of this world; the **scandal of bad example on the part of believers**; currents of thought hostile to religion; finally, that attitude of sinful man which makes him hide from God out of fear and flee his call.

    The reason Catholics should not speak publicly against the Bishops to "correct" the Bishops is because it works against the merits of the Magesterium and the Heirarchy.

    If every Catholic were to publicly question their priest or their Bishop, Archbishop and Cardinal, and every Bishop were to publicly question their Archbishop, and Cardinal and every Archbishop were to publicly question their Cardinal .. well, you see where this gets us.

    Disunity. No Catholicism or "universality."

    Another denomination formed maybe..

    PS From me to you, Christopher: your heresy ploy was ridiculous. Ridiculous. I'm wondering now if you're a sede.
  • "Identifying the Faith with the men who preach it is not only an error, it is actually a heresy, one identified over fifteen hundred years ago."

    "It's a common error. It's still an error."

    Then you have no regard for the word “Catholic,” nor for the Faith and should have changed your title to “The 'Catholic' Failure” or “The Failure Among 'Catholic' Men.”

    But this holds no water, as you and I know you meant it as a Catholic Church failure.

    Throughout your piece, you plainly use the phrases “Catholic Church,” “American Catholic Church” to share in the blame.

    This conversation is over, as you and I both know you know what sort of scandal I'm talking about. You have an accurate example with “What Catholic sitting in the pews or watching on TV would think there’s anything wrong with abortion when Mario Cuomo’s dishonest justification has stood without censure or excommunication for over a quarter of a century?”

    You understand scandal.

    This conservation between you and me is over.

    **

    For other Catholics:

    At no time did we claim that Christopher committed a sin. This is a ploy on his part to distract from the argument. A strawman.

    I have been speaking of scandal. Not the contemptuous scandal of "Catholic" politicians, but by the scandal of Christopher in demanding from the Bishops:

    "Who among them has been publicly remonstrated by his bishop? Who among them has had to stand in public and choose between an honest recitation of the Nicene Creed and Planned Parenthood v. Casey? Who among them has been reminded of Christ’s injunction about scandal and millstones where their audiences and constituencies can hear?"

    If he doesn't believe he is speaking from a position of authority, then he should consider all of his writing useless, and New Ledger would find it wise to find another writer who believes what he writes. This isn't the case.

    Publicly guide the flock or not, Christopher is still an example of a believer in the Catholic Church. I am assuming he is a Catholic. He says so when he says "I can talk about the Catholic Church and its profound failure yesterday."

    With this, he is speaking from a position of authority. Especially when he demands an answer from the Bishops on holding "Catholic" politicians accountable.

    Again: "I can talk about the Catholic Church and its profound failure yesterday."

    Emphasis on "can," presented in italics as of this writing. He emphases "can" because he believes as a Catholic, he has a right to openly criticize the Church and its Bishops in an open forum, but this gives rise to scandal for other Catholics in the Church and non-Catholics as well.

    Scandal, as defined from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

    2284 Scandal is an attitude or behavior which leads another to do evil. The person who gives scandal becomes his neighbor's tempter. He damages virtue and integrity; he may even draw his brother into spiritual death. Scandal is a grave offense if by deed or omission another is deliberately led into a grave offense.


    Let's think of some examples:

    I am a catechumen and about to join the Church on Easter. I don't believe this stuff about heirarchy, but I know I have to be baptized. I read Christopher's article and I decide not to go through with my baptism because I gather the Bishops are bad.

    I already dislike the Church. I don't like organized religion. Now I know they and these rotten politicians are advocating for abortion. It's not explicitly written, but this is what I gather. Now I hate the Catholic Church. If I see a priest, I will tell him how I know the Bishops like abortion.

    My sister is trying to bring me back into the Church. No way now. They're hypocrites, the lot of them. Eucharist? I can get that in some other Church. Who cares.

    I was raised Catholic, but drifted away. I know my children need some sort of Faith and I severely dislike Obama and his healthcare. Look at these politicians and Bishops that say nothing! Those are good questions and since the Bishops haven't held those jerks publicly accountable, we'll just go somewhere else.

    **end examples

    See, in his first comment, Christopher says, "I did not "call out" other faiths because I am a Catholic Christian. I believe only a tiny handful are in the line of Apostolic Succession, and so I largely don't expect better of the rest."

    So, while he may believe the Catholic Faith is the One True Faith, he is careless about showing disrespect for Catholic Authority and the Magesterium to the inquiring Chrisitians, inquiring non-Christians, inquiring non-Catholics who may have an interest in the Faith or no Christian faith at all.

    He cares about his opinion, but not about the souls of others that may come across and form an opinion against the Catholic Church, about God.

    This is scandalous.

    29 [An] "intimate and vital bond of man to God" (GS 19 § 1) can be forgotten, overlooked, or even explicitly rejected by man. Such attitudes can have different causes: revolt against evil in the world; religious ignorance or indifference; the cares and riches of this world; the **scandal of bad example on the part of believers**; currents of thought hostile to religion; finally, that attitude of sinful man which makes him hide from God out of fear and flee his call.

    The reason Catholics should not speak publicly against the Bishops to "correct" the Bishops is because it works against the merits of the Magesterium and the Heirarchy.

    If every Catholic were to publicly question their priest or their Bishop, Archbishop and Cardinal, and every Bishop were to publicly question their Archbishop, and Cardinal and every Archbishop were to publicly question their Cardinal .. well, you see where this gets us.

    Disunity. No Catholicism or "universality."

    Another denomination formed maybe..

    PS From me to you, Christopher: your heresy ploy was ridiculous. Ridiculous. I'm wondering now if you're a sede.
  • CSBadeaux
    Then you have no regard for the word “Catholic,” nor for the Faith and should have changed your title to “The 'Catholic' Failure” or “The Failure Among 'Catholic' Men.”

    How does that even remotely follow logically?

    But this holds no water, as you and I know you meant it as a Catholic Church failure.

    That Vatican II thing that you think I reject made it a point to note that the Church is not the Magisterium, it is not the episcopate, it is the Pilgrim People of God seeking the Eschaton and the Second Coming and reunion with the Godhead. So, in other words, you may know I meant what I wrote the way you say, but I surely do not.

    You understand scandal.

    Yes, I do. You, however, do not.

    As to the rest of your comment -- which, incidentally, as theology goes, was almost as advanced as the classes I took the year before I was confirmed in elementary school -- I find your capstone utterly appropriate:

    From me to you, Christopher: your heresy ploy was ridiculous. Ridiculous. I'm wondering now if you're a sede.

    Come back and talk when you understand what I mean by suggesting you're implicating a reverse Donatism.
  • Why not The Failure of The American Conservative?

    Or

    The Failed tactics of the "silent" majority?

    Or

    The Failure that is secularism, socialism & capitalism "without" regard to morality?


    If you want to blame American Bishops & the Catholic Church for Americas immorality, socialism, etc... might as well blame our Forefathers & The Constitution of the United States:

    The Failure of the separation of church & state.


    Did the American Bishops vote our politicians into office?

    Did the American Bishops make abortion legal?

    Did the American Bishops "impose" immorality on the free citizens of the United States?


    My children need to be told what to do... They need to have right & wrong explained to them and be held accountable for their actions.

    If they do not learn to choose between right from wrong as children, under our influence,

    I doubt they will do much better as adults under the "influence" of ANY Bishop.


    You would not blame anyone else for your lack of adherence to your own professed faith. (Rhetorical)

    Then why lay the lions share of the blame on Bishops for the apparent lack of adherence by other people (politicians) to their own professed faith?

    You might as well blame the parents of these pathetic politicians who profess to be Catholic.


    What ever happened to individual responsibility, what ever happened to freedom and free will?

    And what ever happened to the free exercise of ones own faith and moral virtue absent total oppression?

    (Even among extreme circumstances of total oppression there exists such a thing as martyrdom...)


    Remember, even in the secular world, the following remains true: Ignorance of the law excuses no man.

    Are we not intelligent? Are we not free? Are we not capable of being moral and just, with or without Roe v. Wade?


    There is plenty of blame to go around, but first and foremost it lies with WE THE PEOPLE of the United States...

    The genesis AND solution to our problems as a Nation begins at home, within the family, the domestic Church.


    We must never loose focus and abdicate personal responsibility.
  • Why not The Failure of The American Conservative?

    Or

    The Failed tactics of the "silent" majority?

    Or

    The Failure that is secularism, socialism & capitalism "without" regard to
    morality?
    Because those aren't what I chose to write about. Why
    wasn't your comment about the change in the Church's teachings about the
    Order of the Mass since ther Council of Trent?

    If you want to blame American Bishops & the Catholic Church for
    Americas immorality, socialism, etc... might as well blame our Forefathers
    & The Constitution of the United States:
    I'll let you know when
    I get around to doing the first part of that conditional.

    The Failure of the separation of church & state.

    Did the American Bishops vote our politicians into office?

    Did the American Bishops make abortion legal?

    Did the American Bishops "impose" immorality on the free citizens of the
    United States?
    Off-topic; yes, I expect many of them vote; I
    didn't say they did; and your straw man is burning.

    Do you actually have a point, or is this more elliptical free rambling?

    My children need to be told what to do... They need to have
    right & wrong explained to them and be held accountable for their actions.
    If they do not learn to choose between right from wrong as children, under
    our influence, I doubt they will do much better as adults under the
    "influence" of ANY Bishop.
    Ah, just more elliptical free
    rambling.

    You would not blame anyone else for your lack of adherence to
    your own professed faith. (Rhetorical)
    Silly, and sort of
    removing the veneer of elliptical rambling. (Insulting)

    Then why lay the lions share of the blame on Bishops for the
    apparent lack of adherence by other people (politicians) to their own
    professed faith?
    I was way off-base. It's not like
    shepherd-of-men is in the job description. (Note that if you'd actually read
    what I wrote, you'd see I'm not "blaming the bishops for the apparent lack
    of adherence by other people (politicians) to their own professed faith." At
    this point, I've resigned myself to arguing with two people who read a title
    and some comments and nothing more.)

    You might as well blame the parents of these pathetic
    politicians who profess to be Catholic.
    Don't worry, I do.

    What ever happened to individual responsibility, what ever
    happened to freedom and free will? And what ever happened to the free
    exercise of ones own faith and moral virtue absent total oppression? (Even
    among extreme circumstances of total oppression there exists such a thing as
    martyrdom...)
    Was there a point in there?

    Remember, even in the secular world, the following remains
    true: Ignorance of the law excuses no man. Are we not intelligent? Are we
    not free? Are we not capable of being moral and just, with or without Roe
    v. Wade?

    There is plenty of blame to go around, but first and foremost it lies with
    WE THE PEOPLE of the United States... The genesis AND solution to our
    problems as a Nation begins at home, within the family, the domestic Church.
    We must never loose focus and abdicate personal
    responsibility.
    Ah. No, there wasn't a point.
  • Wow, Badeaux, you are a Sede, or a Traditionalist who doubts or quesitons the legitimacy of the Catholic Church since Vatican II.

    No wonder you harbor such ill will toward Catholic Bishops and don't give a second thought about venting what you believe your conscience dictates according to your traditionalist beliefs.

    You should list this as a disclaimer, lest your opinions about the Catholic faith cause more scandal.

    If you doubt this, see a priest. They'll tell you what I'm telling you.




  • CSBadeaux
    Truly this is a special day, for a woman who doesn't even know what a Donatist is has decided, from a handful of blog comments, that I reject the infallible authority of an Ecumenical Council. Not only is that untrue, I cannot even remotely understand how you got there.

    You still have no idea what scandal is, but then again, you don't understand most of what I've talked about here, so no big surprise.

    Have you considered joining the Greek Orthodox?
  • This so called "Catholic Failure" belongs to individuals not the Catholic Faith or Church itself.

    The tenants have not changed, that would be the same as saying the failure of the 10 commandments! Pick another title and point out the culprits but don't label them Catholic or at least give the Catholic Faith the same courtesy that political parties are given (RINO > CINO)...

    "I can talk about the Catholic Church and its profound failure yesterday."

    This is what happens when good people are not part of the system, maybe a little bit more time should have been spent point these hypocrits out and labeling them accordingly (CINO) vs. blamming the Faith that they have scandalized. I wonder where the time has been spent? Politics or Religion. Don't lump the Catholic Faith into the mix just because someone calls themselves Catholic or Conservative and then acts differently.

    1 Jn 2:16 They went out from us, but they were not of us. For if they had been of us, they would no doubt have remained with us...


    Tsk, Tsk (to the wife)
  • Christopher,

    I came here prepared to blast you on your title, but it seems I am the one who's blown away.

    I am STUNNED to find out that Stupak, Leahy, Kucinich, Drinan, Durbin, Casey (Jr.), Mitchell, Sebelius, Cuomo were Catholic. Pelosi and Kenney were common knowledge, but had I known, I would have blogged and spread the word and blogged again.

    As Catholics, we're called to reveal the Truth AND we need to be reminded of the sin of omission -- not saying or doing something when we otherwise should have for goodness's sake.

    Had I known, I would have considered it my OBLIGATION to write up on these jerks.

    I wouldn't feel an idota of embarrassment because they're "catholic."

    They're not Catholic.

    And they're worse than the leftist nun Simone Campbell, who needs to be exposed again and again as well.

    Thanks for this post. It's excellent. Your writing is superb, thoughtful and well argued.
blog comments powered by Disqus
- September 3, 2010 -

MORE LEDGER

ELSEWHERE ON TNL

DAILY READS

MARKETS & POLICY

The WHIP

HEGEMON

CHEQUER BOARD