Prof. Lisa Sowie Cahill has published a critique of the recent bishop’s statements on the election entitled, “U.S. bishops damaging rich Catholic faith tradition.”Prof. Cahill, who teaches at Boston College, is one of several high-profile Catholic academics who have publicly endorsed Barack Obama.
This is her concern:
“The Catholic church has a problem on its hands. Just weeks before the presidential election, a few bishops and prelates have come dangerously close to making implicit political endorsements by telling Catholics that abortion trumps all other moral issues and lashing out against the Democratic Party.”
Cahill’s charge of an “implicit political endorsement” is made, but never explained. She goes on to list several of the bishop’s whose comments concerned her, including Scranton’s Bishop Martino, Cardinal O’Malley of Boston, and Archbishop Burke, now in the Vatican. Both O’Malley and Burke specifically mentioned the Democratic Party, while Martino made no mention of a political party.
Cahill does not mention the other 40+ statements from bishops not referencing one political party or the other. Martino is representative of these statements, while Burke and O'Malley are not.
What is it in Martino's statement that comes is “dangerously close” to an “implicit political endorsement”?
Cahill’s specific complaint in this: “Bishop Joseph Martino ordered priests to read a letter at all Sunday Masses that excoriated pro-choice candidates for supporting "homicide" and named abortion as the most important issue for Catholic voters.”
It's not at all clear why she considers this close to an “implicit political endorsement”? There are pro-abortion politicians, including Catholics, in both major parties. Rudy Giuliani was defeated in the primary, in part, for his support of abortion.
More importantly, Obama’s Catholic supporters, like Prof. Doug Kmiec, have been telling us that he is not “pro-abortion” and that he is committed to “abortion reduction.” If his supporters really believe that why would they be concerned about any bishop who stresses the life issue in this election?
If the Catholic supporters of Obama truly regard Obama as not pro-abortion, then they shouldn't be concerned about the recent deluge of bishop’s statements and homilies on the issue.Perhaps some of Obama’s Catholic supporters are less certain than Prof. Kmiec about their candidates opposition to abortion, at least it appears that way from Prof. Cahill's complaint about the bishops.
While Bishop Martino did not mention any political party, he did pay homage to one Catholic bishop who condemned a political party, i.e., the Nazi Party in 1941.
In 1941, Bishop Gustave von Galen gave a homily condemning Nazi officials for murdering mentally ill people in his diocese of Muenster, Germany. The bishop said:
“Thou shalt not kill!” God wrote this commandment in the conscience of man long before any penal code laid down the penalty for murder, long before there was any prosecutor or any court to investigate and avenge a murder. Cain, who killed his brother Abel, was a murderer long before there were any states or any courts or law. And he confessed his deed, driven by his accusing conscience: “My punishment is greater than I can bear. . . and it shall come to pass, that every one that findeth me the murderer shall slay me” (Genesis 4:13-14)”
I know full well that Prof. Cahill and other Catholic supporters of Obama would applaud any Catholic bishop who spoke out against the scourge of Nazism. I'm also certain she would not accuse Bishop von Galen of being partisan in condemning either the Nazis or their leader.
What Prof. Cahill and other Obama's Catholics need to explain is how the many bishops who are now speaking out in defense of unborn life is different in principle from the example of Bishop von Galen.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Disclaimer
No responsibility or liability shall attach itself to either myself or to the blogspot ‘Clerical Whispers’ for any or all of the articles placed here.
The placing of an article hereupon does not necessarily imply that I agree or accept the contents of the article as being necessarily factual in theology, dogma or otherwise.
Sotto Voce
(Source: CO)
(Posting In Total Thus Far: 10,800)