The bishops have named Patricia O’Donnell Ewers as the chairwomen of the National Review Board. She was already a board member and last year Wayne Laugesen of the National Catholic Register wrote:
Patricia O’Donnell Ewers, an educational consultant who served as president of Pace University in New York from 1990 to 2000. She is a lifelong Catholic who attended Catholic schools from kindergarten through college.
On abortion, euthanasia, stem-cell research, cloning and homosexual “marriage,” Ewers said: “One of the questions asked me at my interview (for the board) was where I took public stances in relation to the Church, and I think one of the wisest things for me to do is not to take public stances on issues outside of those with which I will be concerned as a member of the board.
“I would add to that list (of non-negotiables) war and capital punishment — those are all major issues of concern. I think they should be on a list of any issues that Catholics who are thoughtful about moral issues of our time should consider.”
On support of pro-abortion candidates, Ewers declined to comment.
What in the world would be wrong with a Catholic taking a public stance affirming their faith? Go out into the whole world and keep your mouth shut. I guess the martyrs had it all wrong. Though it is all to obvious that this was just a dodge since her beliefs on one or more of these subjects are probably not faithful to the Church.
Leaving the board is New York City attorney Pamela Hayes who had replied.
“I’ve contributed to a lot of pro-choice candidates, and so what? So what?” Hayes told the Register. “What are they going to do about it? If they don’t like it, then don’t put me on the board. If they’ve got a problem with that, you tell them they’ve got a problem.”
So out of the whole Catholic population of the United States they can’t find twelve Catholic faithful to the Church to be on the National Review Board. There Judas ratio is not just one out of twelve. They are more worried about public stances and not whether the person is faithful and understands church teaching. There seems to be more than just a casual relationship between heterodoxy and homosexuality and those who have committed sexual abuses. By putting people on the board that don’t understand the Church’s teaching on sexual morality it just about guarantees that any worthwhile recommendations will never be made. Though it is pointless to argue about the composition of the National Review Board since once again it was created in the first place so that the bishops could punt and give them something to point to that they were actually doing something.
I think Mr. Scott Hahn would be wonderful. Faithful, has children, etc. If not him, then his wife Kim. Either would be great. Now, let’s see if we can come up with a list of names for this board!
In Europe this is called the Rocco Buttiglione Effect (after the Italian who was not allowed to become a member of the EU Commission due to his Catholic beliefs regarding homosexuals). Catholic politicians in Europe are now willing to water down and even reject their faith in order to get ahead in “post-Christian” Europe.
As long as these diseased bishops maintain a majority,there be no progress in many dioceses. When I e-mail to the most diseased ones and I mention homosexuals, I now add [perverts]next to homosexuals.It’s bad enough they do what they do without adopting their own description of themselves as gays or homosexuals.
How comforting that people like her seem to see as much or more moral certainty in a war that is not even fully over yet than in a moral issue like abortion which has existed for thousands of years.
Sounds familiar. But then, I’m from Pittsburgh.
Board directors on many, many non-profits (including Catholic organizations) abound with politicians and political wannabes. They lose focus of the mission of their particular organization, giving in to the temptation to keep large contributors happy, which then in turn often segues to full out corruption. Sometimes the loss of the original mission of a ministry/organization comes about through government restrictions and regulations: give in to the government here… get your grant approval there.
It’s the “Good Ministry Gone Bad” syndrome.
We need Board Directors who will: A) be faithful to Catholic teaching; B) not be tempted by “goodie” packages in the form of high falooting parties, prestige, etc.; and C) not interested in going higher on the political rung using their directorship as part of their campaign packaging.
In any large vocational or professional group, there is excellence and utter incompetency at either end of the spectrum. In the vast middle lies various degrees of mediocrity. With our bishops collectively, we have a huge group of the mediocre and a smaller group of utter incompetents. This leaves also a small group of excellent pastors and shepherds. Let us count our blessings.
I am hopelessly naive, but why can’t it be as simple as “Do you, or don’t you subscribe to the tenets of the Roman Catholic faith, as clearly laid out in the official Catechism?” An answer in the affirmative should be required of all seeking to serve in any capacity with an institution with the name ‘Catholic’ officially attached to it. Okay, wishful thinking — I just finished reading The Battle for the American Church Revisited —
if you’re interested in an excellent summary of how ‘cafeteria Catholicism’ took hold, Msrg. Kelly does a masterful job.
Excellent first question, Linda.
If the “C” word — Catechism– (dreaded in some minds), produces head turning, eye rolling, or heavy disgruntled sighs, the organization’s executive director should make a thumb point gesture to the door umpire-style and say…. “Yer-r-r-r OUT!!”
This goes for Catholic school principals, DRE’s and RCIA instructors.
(Incidentally, 3/4s through an RCIA program one year, one of the instructors smirked when I brought the CCC in and she said, “Oh, THAT thing.”)