 |
| Eugenio Zampighi, "Reading the News" |
As one week ends and another begins, several articles that caught my eye in the past week re: why a broad selection of American Catholics refuse to be atavistic sheep for the bishops as our bishops declare war on the Obama administration over guidelines for contraceptive coverage in health care programs:
Keith Soko's articles in National Catholic Reporter and at the CNN website about how bishops do not speak for most Catholics on the issue of contraception have gained well-deserved attention this week, because they offer a clear and informed breakdown of the issues accessible to a wide range of readers. Soko is an associate professor of religious ethics and moral theology at St. Ambrose University in Davenport, Iowa.
As he notes, it's rather astonishing to see the U.S. Catholic bishops hanging their quarrel with the Obama administration on the peg of conscience, when they and the Vatican have had hardly anything to say about the concept of conscience for some years now, and especially as 90%+ of lay Catholics have chosen conscientiously to dissent from magisterial teaching about birth control. Soko points out that there's a certain, well, danger for the bishops now that they've rediscovered the concept of conscience (I'm citing his CNN article here):
Given the almost universal conscientious dissent of lay Catholics from the magisterial teaching on artificial contraception, Soko wonders who really has most right to speak for "us Catholics" in the discussion about contraceptive coverage and health care--the bishops or the people of God? His conclusion:
Also writing in NCR, Heidi Schlumpf looks at the interface of the HHS discussion and the Komen-Planned Parenthood controversy, and wonders if the prediction of centrist Catholics outraged that the Obama administration dared to cross the bishops that "Catholics" will vote Republican in the 2012 elections is perhaps overstated. Schlumpf concludes,
(My own guess, for what it's worth: the bishops and their Republican and corporate-CEO handlers know that a majority of Catholics will ignore the bishops about the contraceptive issue when they cast votes in the fall. But these folks have calculated that, if they can peel off enough low-information Catholic voters with atavistic urges to do what Father tells them to do politically in heavily Catholic swing states like Ohio and Pennsylvania, as votes of minorities and young people are suppressed, they'll have a good chance of affecting the outcome of the elections--and the future of the planet, which does depend on what Americans choose to do politically, because of our influence in the world.)
And at the Commonweal site today, two fresh new postings on the HHS guidelines controversy, one by Eduardo Peñalver which asks the fascinating question of why liberal Catholics (the folks I call centrists) are so bent out of shape because the Obama administration refused to kowtow to the bishops, and one by Grant Gallicho providing a compendium of links to several recent articles in Catholic publications about the ongoing controversy.
Peñalver's conclusion about Catholic liberals: they think they've stuck their necks out to support Obama against right-trending Catholics, and they now feel betrayed. My gloss to this analysis: if centrist Catholics hadn't permitted themselves to become so mesmerized by political and religious analysts of the right, if they hadn't allowed the right to capture the conversation (and to pull them, as centrists, to the center-right), if they'd kept room in the conversation for their progressive co-religionists who have never been mesmerized by the right, they'd have realized a long time ago that they don't speak for most Catholics. And that they no longer speak for most Catholics to the left of center.
Their infatuation with power and their social location within elite circles of power have blinded them. As a result, they've been blindsided by both the Obama administration's decision and by their growing recognition that a large percentage of their fellow Catholics for whom they have long claimed to speak in the public square do not agree with them, and have minds and consciences of our own. Even though we do live, many of us, in out-of-the-way, nowhere places and don't hobnob with their excellencies the bishops.
And I find Grant Gallicho's posting also fascinating, because it notes something I noted in my posting about these matters yesterday--namely, that Catholic News Service has turned itself into something of a yellow rag outlet, as it reports about the HHS controversy and the Komen-Planned Parenthood kerfuffle. CNS is rapidly transforming itself into Pravda to the USCCB Kremlin, and is churning out one article after another that purports to report on the issues, when all these articles do is toe the party line, and with increasingly shrill hyperbole.
Shame be on the heads of the folks at CNS. Shoddy journalism that perverts truth-telling into parroting official party-line rhetoric: that hardly serves the best interests of the American Catholic conversation, particularly vis-a-vis issues being discussed in the public square, where much hinges on our integrity and credibility as we offer our opinions to a diverse audience that doesn't share our presuppositions.
As he notes, it's rather astonishing to see the U.S. Catholic bishops hanging their quarrel with the Obama administration on the peg of conscience, when they and the Vatican have had hardly anything to say about the concept of conscience for some years now, and especially as 90%+ of lay Catholics have chosen conscientiously to dissent from magisterial teaching about birth control. Soko points out that there's a certain, well, danger for the bishops now that they've rediscovered the concept of conscience (I'm citing his CNN article here):
If they are going to appeal to conscience, then they must also respect the consciences of responsible adults -- Catholic women and men, and non-Catholics who work at Catholic institutions.
Given the almost universal conscientious dissent of lay Catholics from the magisterial teaching on artificial contraception, Soko wonders who really has most right to speak for "us Catholics" in the discussion about contraceptive coverage and health care--the bishops or the people of God? His conclusion:
So here is the question, as I see it, as a Catholic theologian and lifelong Catholic, educated almost entirely at Catholic institutions, and taught to work for human dignity, the common good and social justice: Should the U.S. bishops speak for all Catholics on a matter of national public policy, an issue that most Catholics disagree on within their own church? The bishops have refused to discuss this issue with their fellow Catholics for more than 40 years. And the bishops are all male. What about Catholic theologians, academics, social workers and health care professionals? What about Catholic women? What about the 98%?
Also writing in NCR, Heidi Schlumpf looks at the interface of the HHS discussion and the Komen-Planned Parenthood controversy, and wonders if the prediction of centrist Catholics outraged that the Obama administration dared to cross the bishops that "Catholics" will vote Republican in the 2012 elections is perhaps overstated. Schlumpf concludes,
It's already been established that the majority of Catholics approve of contraception, not to mention the majority of Americans. The bishops have done a good job of framing this as "religious liberty" issue, but even that is a stretch. They're not being asked to provide contraception, just offer what's become the standard in employee insurance.
My guess is that Obama also took the pulse of the church and country before the HHS decision, too.
(My own guess, for what it's worth: the bishops and their Republican and corporate-CEO handlers know that a majority of Catholics will ignore the bishops about the contraceptive issue when they cast votes in the fall. But these folks have calculated that, if they can peel off enough low-information Catholic voters with atavistic urges to do what Father tells them to do politically in heavily Catholic swing states like Ohio and Pennsylvania, as votes of minorities and young people are suppressed, they'll have a good chance of affecting the outcome of the elections--and the future of the planet, which does depend on what Americans choose to do politically, because of our influence in the world.)
And at the Commonweal site today, two fresh new postings on the HHS guidelines controversy, one by Eduardo Peñalver which asks the fascinating question of why liberal Catholics (the folks I call centrists) are so bent out of shape because the Obama administration refused to kowtow to the bishops, and one by Grant Gallicho providing a compendium of links to several recent articles in Catholic publications about the ongoing controversy.
Peñalver's conclusion about Catholic liberals: they think they've stuck their necks out to support Obama against right-trending Catholics, and they now feel betrayed. My gloss to this analysis: if centrist Catholics hadn't permitted themselves to become so mesmerized by political and religious analysts of the right, if they hadn't allowed the right to capture the conversation (and to pull them, as centrists, to the center-right), if they'd kept room in the conversation for their progressive co-religionists who have never been mesmerized by the right, they'd have realized a long time ago that they don't speak for most Catholics. And that they no longer speak for most Catholics to the left of center.
Their infatuation with power and their social location within elite circles of power have blinded them. As a result, they've been blindsided by both the Obama administration's decision and by their growing recognition that a large percentage of their fellow Catholics for whom they have long claimed to speak in the public square do not agree with them, and have minds and consciences of our own. Even though we do live, many of us, in out-of-the-way, nowhere places and don't hobnob with their excellencies the bishops.
And I find Grant Gallicho's posting also fascinating, because it notes something I noted in my posting about these matters yesterday--namely, that Catholic News Service has turned itself into something of a yellow rag outlet, as it reports about the HHS controversy and the Komen-Planned Parenthood kerfuffle. CNS is rapidly transforming itself into Pravda to the USCCB Kremlin, and is churning out one article after another that purports to report on the issues, when all these articles do is toe the party line, and with increasingly shrill hyperbole.
Shame be on the heads of the folks at CNS. Shoddy journalism that perverts truth-telling into parroting official party-line rhetoric: that hardly serves the best interests of the American Catholic conversation, particularly vis-a-vis issues being discussed in the public square, where much hinges on our integrity and credibility as we offer our opinions to a diverse audience that doesn't share our presuppositions.
No comments:
Post a Comment