NEWTON — Catholic bishops are about to begin a series of meetings with leaders of Catholic colleges, hospitals, and social-service agencies to discuss the most effective way to withhold honors from politicians who support abortion rights or have other major doctrinal differences with the church, an influential American cardinal said last night at Boston College. [Source]
Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick, archbishop of Washington, said a task force he heads will seek to ensure that an agreement by the bishops to withhold such honors is enforced consistently and nationally. The plan to withhold the honors followed last year’s decision by the bishops not to take a collective position on whether to allow Catholics who support abortion rights, such as Senator John F. Kerry of Massachusetts, to receive Communion.
In an interview before his speech, McCarrick said he will argue that politicians who disagree with church teachings should be allowed to speak at Catholic colleges but should not receive honorary degrees. He said he decided in his own diocese, where many members of Congress worship, not to attempt to deny Communion to politicians who support abortion rights, because ”I do not believe there is a place for confrontation at the altar."
McCarrick, who is one of 11 American cardinals eligible to vote in the next papal election, said in the interview that he expects the ailing John Paul II to remain pope ”as long as he feels he can continue to serve the church.
It looks like what was already a weak compromise is to be weakened even further. If they now define honoring as just giving an award and will allow politicians who are blatantly pro-abortion, pro-ESCR, or pro same-sex marriage to speak. There was some discussion in the aftermath of what honoring entails and now unsurprisingly it is defined very narrowly. The USCCB previous document stated:
The Catholic community and Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles. They should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions.
So I guess not being given platforms means absolutely nothing. I am sure they would not allow someone like David Duke to speak regardless of how far his speech was from racial hatred. I happen to think that allowing those who hold and support positions that are in fact gravely sinful is in fact scandalous. The Catechism says:
2285 Scandal takes on a particular gravity by reason of the authority of those who cause it or the weakness of those who are scandalized. It prompted our Lord to utter this curse: "Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened round his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea." 86 Scandal is grave when given by those who by nature or office are obliged to teach and educate others. Jesus reproaches the scribes and Pharisees on this account: he likens them to wolves in sheep’s clothing.
When someone who holds these contrary opinions is held up as an appropriate speaker then there appears to be at least some sort of endorsement. That this persons ideas must not be so bad if there is no problem giving them a platform to speak.
On the bright side Cardinal McCarrick has issued a good letter in regards to two bills appearing in the Maryland legislature. Though if these same legislators who are Catholic and vote for ESCR and human cloning appear in front of the Cardinal he would have no problem giving them Communion or allowing them to speak at a Catholic institution. Kind of a mixed message to implore that you vote against these unethical bills, but if you don’t there are zero consequences as a result.
11 comments
I wonder what the Pope was thinking when he made this gutless wonder a cardinal.
I’ve scratched my head over that too. To be given a red hat and New York or DC, is a huge nod for an American bishop. Cardinal McCarrick strikes me like the type who could fit in anywhere and with anybody, which may explain how he made it in under the radar.
I remember reading that the previous Bishop of Arlington, Virginia was expect to be made Archbishop of Washington, D.C., but he died before that can happen. If my memory is accurate, perhaps Cardinal McCarrick is the ecclesiastical equivalent of Anthony Kennedy.
As an orthodox Catholic, I’m not so sure that there is anything wrong with having a pro-choice politician speak at a Catholic college, so long as a) they are not campaigning for office, and b) they are not endorsing “abortion rights” (or anything else un-Catholic) at their particular speech.
Even the most orthodox of Catholic universities has to allow some degree of academic freedom; we can’t just surround ourselves with yes-men who will bobble their heads at any and all Church teachings and policies. So far as the Universitiy continues to be trult Catholic in its orientation, there is nothing wrong with having someone express views that are at express odds with Catholicism.
Otherwise, we’d have to ban the reading of any and all of the Classics and “Great Books” that do not propound a Catholic worldview, or those (like the writings of Voltaire and others) that are expressly anti-Catholic. And that’s just silly.
The only justification I could see for allowing a pro-choice politican to advocate “abortion rights” on a Catholic campus is in the context of an organized debate, with an equal number of people supporting the orthodox Catholic position.
However weak of a man Cardinal McKarrick might be, I do not think, in this instance, he’s off the mark.
He is, however, when he refused to refuse Communion to these same politicians. But that’s a whole other issue . . .
“I wonder what the Pope was thinking when he made this gutless wonder a cardinal.”
In many ways, the Holy Father is himself just as gutless.
He refuses to punish dissident bishops; why are we surpirsed when these bishops in turn refuse to punish dissident laypeople?
What difference does it make to you who is bishop where, when you have no intention of learning anything from any of them?
Tom asks an excellent question, which I frequently ask myself. I answer myself by saying that the bishops really don’t matter that much.
GregK: Our Bishop should be one of the first people we listen to and obey – they were after all chosen by Christ to lead us and teach us.
Publius has it very nearly right. The late and much-missed Bishop Keating, of Arlington, was (according to that infallible source, the rumor mill) slated for Washington when Cardinal Hickey retired.
But I don’t think Card. McCarrick is an ecclesiastical Justice Kennedy. He was 70 when he was appointed to DC, just five years from presumptive retirement. I think he’s a stop-gap; the interesting question is, for whom? Burke? Chaput? Gomez? Carlson? We have a “deep bench”!
Cacciaguida,
Thanks for the clarification/correction. I was surprised to learn that McCarrick will be reaching the retirement age in only a few months. Personally I think Chaput should replace him, but it will be interesting to see who is ultimately chosen regardless.
The installation to DC of any those bishops mentioned by Cacciaguida would be great, as long as one of the others get sent to Detroit. 😉
Comments are closed.