I'd be surprised if there's a big fight about it, especially from the "conservative" bishops. I'm not sure I see Cardinal McElroy picking a fight on this issue again, and he would certainly lose a vote if he did. I'm not sure I disagree with him, however, that abortion is not a preeminent issue for the Pope. Pope Francis surely has given little indication that he is concerned about abortion, even if he has spoken out against it from time to time. He's allowed pro-abortion members to be appointed to the PAL, has given out awards and praise to pro-abortion politicians and individuals, and has generally avoided speaking about the issue unless in "safe" company.
But while McElroy and Francis might not care much about the issue, I'm not sure it follows that everyone else has to agree with the Pope, especially a Pope who has shown he has a warped understanding of the United States at best, and at worst is downright clueless about anything that goes on here.
I think we should desire the FACE Act to be repealed so that we can return to our national heritage and tradition of getting low-key-arrested for nonviolent civil disobedience. Currently the table stakes are too high for most of us (and here I tentatively include bishops) to play that game.
Their preeminent concern seems to be talking about talking. I suggest the establishment of two bishops for every diocese, one to attend meetings draw flowcharts and the other to be a spiritual leader.
Cardinal McElroy called the bishops’ “preeminent” line about abortion “at least discordant” with the pope's teachings, stating “It is not Catholic that abortion is the preeminent issue that we face as a world in Catholic social teaching. It is not,”
The Cardinal is correct about Pope Francis' teachings; Pope Francis is wrong. This is clearly the most preeminent issue facing Mother Church in the United States today. I would be willing to bet that the Holy Father would personally give the Eucharist to President Biden without a moment's hesitation. I'm certain that Cardinal Gregory would.
The President has already received from the Holy Father and from Cardinal Gregory and from pretty much some bishop, priest or Eucharistic minister every week of his life.
It is not a scandal now, unless one believes in Eucharistic coherence and sacramental discipline. However, those stale notions were tossed out with the Second Vatican Council.
Can you point me to Church teaching that says a politician can openly support abortion and not be in grave sin? Taking Holy Communion while in grave sin is not “coherent devotion to the Blessed Sacrament”.
So, what exactly do you mean by a "coherent devotion" to the Blessed Sacrament, Kurt? I can have a coherent devotion to the Eucharist and *still* be in a state of unworthiness to receive the sacrament - these two are not mutually exclusive. President Biden is unambiguously forbidden from receiving the Blessed Sacrament for being in an obstinate and persistent state of grave error in violation of explicit teachings. The scandal is created by the bishop offering Biden the Holy Eucharist, the sin is Biden accepting the Eucharist.
"[...]Yet this defence of unborn life is closely linked to the defence of each and every other human right. It involves the conviction that a human being is always sacred and inviolable, in any situation and at every stage of development. Human beings are ends in themselves and never a means of resolving other problems. Once this conviction disappears, so do solid and lasting foundations for the defence of human rights, which would always be subject to the passing whims of the powers that be." (Evangelii Gaudium, 213)
Sounds to me like the Pope thinks defense of the unborn is preeminent.
True, but it a democracy made up of a diverse population (especially diverse religions) one must exercise that prudential judgment with great care especially if one holds a public office. One has a duty under those circumstances to exercise that office in accordance with the Constitution-the document to which the office holder has sworn, before God, to support and defend. That does not preclude such an office holder from exercising their freedom of religion and expression work to change the law within the confines of their sworn oath. I have always thought that our Bishops ignore this nuance of the law that public officials face. Full disclosure-I oppose abortion and always thought that Roe was a badly decided law.
Our bishop likes the seamless garment idea where voting is concerned. He certainly was uncharitable in his remarks about trump supporters, and while he speaks to defend life, he doesn’t see it as the preeminent issue for voting Catholics. It isn’t a “deal breaker” in an election.
One critical issue that should be addressed is that people are now not only voting for politicians that may support some “good” things while also supporting abortion. Today, people are voting directly to enshrine abortion and other horrors in their state constitutions. Although I know people make arguments that it isn’t sinful to vote for the politician as long as one isn’t voting for them because of their abortion position, it seems that voting for these referendums and constitutional amendments directly would be gravely sinful, and the bishops should say so.
I'm a Democrat, vote for Democrats, work for Democrats, have 5 children, with 1 more on the way. I'm in no way 'Pro Abortion'. But I also understand coalitions, and that to be a part of one means you need to hold your nose at the things you dislike, while pushing for the things you feel your coalition can deliver on, many of which are in the list of things that are supposedly 'at stake'.
So what is it supposed to mean to me, a lay person, when I read that abortion is 'pre-eminent'? Does it mean I should quit my job? Switch my voting behavior? Do a 180 on any sort of giving or advocacy work I do to be 'pre-eminently' focused on abortion? Or should I stay in my coalition, pray, and hope that I can provide witness to the Gospel to those around me through the way I live my life.
What irks me is that I think many of these Bishops would answer 'yes' to the former, yet they don't have the courage then to say that directly to me. They won't just say in a teaching document "we instruct Catholics that to vote for, support, work for, provide assistance, etc. to any organization or candidate that is pro-choice (regardless of any other consideration or issue) is a serious sin and that if you have you should seek the sacrament of reconciliation, and cease to do so immediately".
I would imagine that would be quite alienating to many Catholic Democrats. It would be painful for me, but I would like to think I would follow suit. I would probably tip my hat to the Bishops. But is it true? Maybe? I don't know. Maybe as a lay person living in the secular world, only I am well suited to discern this? Maybe I'm asking too much of my bishop and too little of my own conscience?
What's off-putting here is that the Bishops that view abortion as the 'pre-eminent' concern- they want to instruct the laity in these documents using the most anodyne language possible,. It feels like they expect lay Catholics who may in fact be conflicted on this, whether personally or professionally, to exhibit super natural courage, while they thread the needle in their actual teachings and come up with language like 'pre-eminent'. As a lay person it just feels like a conference engaged in its own politics as opposed to one that wants to genuinely guide their sheep.
"As a lay person it just feels like a conference engaged in its own politics as opposed to one that wants to genuinely guide their sheep." Agree completely. Thank you for this comment.
The pro-life wing of the Democratic Party was destroyed in November of 2010 when the right-to-life established opposed their re-election simply because they were Democrats.
Only 21 of the House Democrats voted to include the prohibition on the funding of abortion in national health care in the vote taken immediately after the basic health insurance plan passed. My Democratic Representative Joe Donnelly, currently the US Ambassador to the Vatican, was one of them. Right to Life did not oppose his re-election. I presume they didn't attack any of the others, either.
64 not 21 House Democrats voted for the Stupak Amendment. Dahlkemper, Stupak, Mollohan, Driehaus and most of the rest had tens of millions spent against them by the SBA List and the RTL establishment. Driehaus even sued on the false accusation he voted pro-abortion and the SBA List's defense was not that they didn't lie about him, but they had First Amendment rights to say what they wanted.
They others very much were attacked. It was a disgusting action.
That was the first time when the Democrats still had a filibuster proof hold on the Senate. Once they lost that, the House voted on Palm Sunday 2010 to pass the much inferior Senate version which didn't contain the Stupak Amendment. Immediately following that the Stupak Amendment was brought up for a vote. Stupak himself spoke against it. 21 Democrats voted for it. The pro-lifers didn't go after them, but after the others who flipped under pressure.
Yes, the House language was better. The Senate Republicans filibustered the pro-life House bill, as you stated. Hence, it is the Senate Republicans who you should have your ire against. Where are the communion bans for them?
However, while the House language made further advancements than the Senate, neither bill created new funding of abortion. The RTL established lied about this in their service to the GOP and Big Business.
It was falsely claimed that the ACA would fund abortions through the Community Health Centers. Subsequent history has proven that was untrue.
In the Congressional Record for vote 166 of the House of Representatives in book 2 on page 2186 for March 21, 2010, which one can download from guides.loc.gov/congressional-voting-records/1989-to-present Driehaus clearly voted against amending the health care bill to prohibit it from funding abortion. One will note that 21 Democrats voted to amend the health care bill to prohibit such funding. Stupak speaking against prohibiting such funding and 43 Democrats deciding that they didn't need to protect the unborn was truly disgusting.
I used to put together Congressional voting records for the National Committee for a Human Life Amendment. You can trust me on this one. There were really only 21 pro-life Democrats that night.
I tend to vote Republican and have worked professionally in Republican politics, and I would really like to see (help build?) an organized effort to help pro-life Democratic political candidates (because they do exist even if they are rare) run and win. Life shouldn’t be a political issue, and I feel that showing pro-life Democratic candidates a path to electoral success will be key in removing the political power from abortion.
Although I tend to vote for different candidates than you might, I share your frustration with the political piece. Most Republicans these days also don’t have a stance on life that I find morally acceptable now that Dobbs is settled and the candidates are trying to court the political middle. A firm anti-abortion stance is no longer politically expedient. The temptation to skip certain races is there, but I think eventually I’d find myself in a position of abdicating my civic duty because the entire ticket would be unacceptable to me if judged solely on life.
I really appreciate your comment. It has given me more to consider with regard to my own feelings about our bishops and what we should and maybe should not expect of them. It also gives me hope just in general. Peace to you.
Remember, these are the same bishops who can’t muster the courage to clearly and plainly tell the faithful they are canonically required to do penance every Friday of the year, preferably by abstaining from meat. If they can’t even do that, you somehow expect them to have the chutzpah to speak directly on, we’ll, anything of consequence?
What should be done is that the bishops should declare that abortion is such a preeminent priority that Catholics need to support both the proven effective means of minimizing abortions -- robust social insurance programs -- as well as the less effective but still important strategy of legal restrictions on doctors.
From 2011- 2017, the number of abortions fell 20%. So far, the victory in the Dobbs decision has not proven to have any impact on reducing the number of abortions.
That there is disagreement among the bishops on the importance of abortion is disheartening. They need to be a prophetic voice on this issue, especially in the wake of the passage of the Ohio abortion amendment and the negative impact of pro-life in other races.
I don't think they will.
I could be wrong.
I hope the bishops don't just take the attitude of "people already know about the Church's stance on abortion and life issues."
I'd be surprised if there's a big fight about it, especially from the "conservative" bishops. I'm not sure I see Cardinal McElroy picking a fight on this issue again, and he would certainly lose a vote if he did. I'm not sure I disagree with him, however, that abortion is not a preeminent issue for the Pope. Pope Francis surely has given little indication that he is concerned about abortion, even if he has spoken out against it from time to time. He's allowed pro-abortion members to be appointed to the PAL, has given out awards and praise to pro-abortion politicians and individuals, and has generally avoided speaking about the issue unless in "safe" company.
But while McElroy and Francis might not care much about the issue, I'm not sure it follows that everyone else has to agree with the Pope, especially a Pope who has shown he has a warped understanding of the United States at best, and at worst is downright clueless about anything that goes on here.
I think we should desire the FACE Act to be repealed so that we can return to our national heritage and tradition of getting low-key-arrested for nonviolent civil disobedience. Currently the table stakes are too high for most of us (and here I tentatively include bishops) to play that game.
Very good point. Speaking as a Catholic Libertarian I am very troubled by this.
But again, there are those compromisers that don't want a protracted fight on the Conference floor.
"We must preach the Gospel with out compromise." -Servant of God, Catherine de Hueck Doherty
I vote to rename the article “Abortion could be a ‘preeminent’ debate in Baltimore” etc.
HA!!
Good compromise!
“It is not Catholic that abortion is the preeminent issue that we face as a world in Catholic social teaching. It is not,” McElroy said.
I wonder what he thinks the preeminent issue is...
The ordination of women as a "justice" issue is one.
Their preeminent concern seems to be talking about talking. I suggest the establishment of two bishops for every diocese, one to attend meetings draw flowcharts and the other to be a spiritual leader.
Cardinal McElroy called the bishops’ “preeminent” line about abortion “at least discordant” with the pope's teachings, stating “It is not Catholic that abortion is the preeminent issue that we face as a world in Catholic social teaching. It is not,”
The Cardinal is correct about Pope Francis' teachings; Pope Francis is wrong. This is clearly the most preeminent issue facing Mother Church in the United States today. I would be willing to bet that the Holy Father would personally give the Eucharist to President Biden without a moment's hesitation. I'm certain that Cardinal Gregory would.
https://apnews.com/article/pope-francis-joe-biden-g-20-summit-europe-rome-b88497127cc09a79d018cd262b1c41a1
I hope that the sense of the faithful, divided as it is in some people's minds, prevails as it did in history beginning with the Arian heresy.
The President has already received from the Holy Father and from Cardinal Gregory and from pretty much some bishop, priest or Eucharistic minister every week of his life.
Yep, and that wasn't a scandal before Joe Biden took the oath of office as President of the United States.
Nor is it a scandal now.
It is not a scandal now, unless one believes in Eucharistic coherence and sacramental discipline. However, those stale notions were tossed out with the Second Vatican Council.
The President has a fine and coherent devotion to the Blessed Sacrament.
Can you point me to Church teaching that says a politician can openly support abortion and not be in grave sin? Taking Holy Communion while in grave sin is not “coherent devotion to the Blessed Sacrament”.
So, what exactly do you mean by a "coherent devotion" to the Blessed Sacrament, Kurt? I can have a coherent devotion to the Eucharist and *still* be in a state of unworthiness to receive the sacrament - these two are not mutually exclusive. President Biden is unambiguously forbidden from receiving the Blessed Sacrament for being in an obstinate and persistent state of grave error in violation of explicit teachings. The scandal is created by the bishop offering Biden the Holy Eucharist, the sin is Biden accepting the Eucharist.
"[...]Yet this defence of unborn life is closely linked to the defence of each and every other human right. It involves the conviction that a human being is always sacred and inviolable, in any situation and at every stage of development. Human beings are ends in themselves and never a means of resolving other problems. Once this conviction disappears, so do solid and lasting foundations for the defence of human rights, which would always be subject to the passing whims of the powers that be." (Evangelii Gaudium, 213)
Sounds to me like the Pope thinks defense of the unborn is preeminent.
"...and those who want to avoid a protracted fight."
These bishops are the weak link in the chain of the perennial teaching of the Church. Expediency is never a Gospel virtue.
The McElroy contingent is an obvious source of discordant doctrine.
The "expediters" are their acolytes. They fit in the same camp.
Well... I'd raise a question about that on this front, I think:
Is it a repudiation of the Christian Gospel to say that abortion is a preeminent political priority instead of the preeminent political priority?
I think it is not a repudiation of the Gospel. The Gospel is wide and other issues, such as euthanasia can and should be preeminent.
Politics is always a matter of prudential judgment.
True, but it a democracy made up of a diverse population (especially diverse religions) one must exercise that prudential judgment with great care especially if one holds a public office. One has a duty under those circumstances to exercise that office in accordance with the Constitution-the document to which the office holder has sworn, before God, to support and defend. That does not preclude such an office holder from exercising their freedom of religion and expression work to change the law within the confines of their sworn oath. I have always thought that our Bishops ignore this nuance of the law that public officials face. Full disclosure-I oppose abortion and always thought that Roe was a badly decided law.
Our bishop likes the seamless garment idea where voting is concerned. He certainly was uncharitable in his remarks about trump supporters, and while he speaks to defend life, he doesn’t see it as the preeminent issue for voting Catholics. It isn’t a “deal breaker” in an election.
One critical issue that should be addressed is that people are now not only voting for politicians that may support some “good” things while also supporting abortion. Today, people are voting directly to enshrine abortion and other horrors in their state constitutions. Although I know people make arguments that it isn’t sinful to vote for the politician as long as one isn’t voting for them because of their abortion position, it seems that voting for these referendums and constitutional amendments directly would be gravely sinful, and the bishops should say so.
What a tiresome process.
I'm a Democrat, vote for Democrats, work for Democrats, have 5 children, with 1 more on the way. I'm in no way 'Pro Abortion'. But I also understand coalitions, and that to be a part of one means you need to hold your nose at the things you dislike, while pushing for the things you feel your coalition can deliver on, many of which are in the list of things that are supposedly 'at stake'.
So what is it supposed to mean to me, a lay person, when I read that abortion is 'pre-eminent'? Does it mean I should quit my job? Switch my voting behavior? Do a 180 on any sort of giving or advocacy work I do to be 'pre-eminently' focused on abortion? Or should I stay in my coalition, pray, and hope that I can provide witness to the Gospel to those around me through the way I live my life.
What irks me is that I think many of these Bishops would answer 'yes' to the former, yet they don't have the courage then to say that directly to me. They won't just say in a teaching document "we instruct Catholics that to vote for, support, work for, provide assistance, etc. to any organization or candidate that is pro-choice (regardless of any other consideration or issue) is a serious sin and that if you have you should seek the sacrament of reconciliation, and cease to do so immediately".
I would imagine that would be quite alienating to many Catholic Democrats. It would be painful for me, but I would like to think I would follow suit. I would probably tip my hat to the Bishops. But is it true? Maybe? I don't know. Maybe as a lay person living in the secular world, only I am well suited to discern this? Maybe I'm asking too much of my bishop and too little of my own conscience?
What's off-putting here is that the Bishops that view abortion as the 'pre-eminent' concern- they want to instruct the laity in these documents using the most anodyne language possible,. It feels like they expect lay Catholics who may in fact be conflicted on this, whether personally or professionally, to exhibit super natural courage, while they thread the needle in their actual teachings and come up with language like 'pre-eminent'. As a lay person it just feels like a conference engaged in its own politics as opposed to one that wants to genuinely guide their sheep.
This is a really interesting perspective Chris. Thanks for weighing in with it.
"As a lay person it just feels like a conference engaged in its own politics as opposed to one that wants to genuinely guide their sheep." Agree completely. Thank you for this comment.
The pro-life wing of the Democratic Party was destroyed on Palm Sunday 2010. The American Solidarity Party was founded in 2011. Think about it.
The pro-life wing of the Democratic Party was destroyed in November of 2010 when the right-to-life established opposed their re-election simply because they were Democrats.
Only 21 of the House Democrats voted to include the prohibition on the funding of abortion in national health care in the vote taken immediately after the basic health insurance plan passed. My Democratic Representative Joe Donnelly, currently the US Ambassador to the Vatican, was one of them. Right to Life did not oppose his re-election. I presume they didn't attack any of the others, either.
64 not 21 House Democrats voted for the Stupak Amendment. Dahlkemper, Stupak, Mollohan, Driehaus and most of the rest had tens of millions spent against them by the SBA List and the RTL establishment. Driehaus even sued on the false accusation he voted pro-abortion and the SBA List's defense was not that they didn't lie about him, but they had First Amendment rights to say what they wanted.
They others very much were attacked. It was a disgusting action.
That was the first time when the Democrats still had a filibuster proof hold on the Senate. Once they lost that, the House voted on Palm Sunday 2010 to pass the much inferior Senate version which didn't contain the Stupak Amendment. Immediately following that the Stupak Amendment was brought up for a vote. Stupak himself spoke against it. 21 Democrats voted for it. The pro-lifers didn't go after them, but after the others who flipped under pressure.
Yes, the House language was better. The Senate Republicans filibustered the pro-life House bill, as you stated. Hence, it is the Senate Republicans who you should have your ire against. Where are the communion bans for them?
However, while the House language made further advancements than the Senate, neither bill created new funding of abortion. The RTL established lied about this in their service to the GOP and Big Business.
It was falsely claimed that the ACA would fund abortions through the Community Health Centers. Subsequent history has proven that was untrue.
In the Congressional Record for vote 166 of the House of Representatives in book 2 on page 2186 for March 21, 2010, which one can download from guides.loc.gov/congressional-voting-records/1989-to-present Driehaus clearly voted against amending the health care bill to prohibit it from funding abortion. One will note that 21 Democrats voted to amend the health care bill to prohibit such funding. Stupak speaking against prohibiting such funding and 43 Democrats deciding that they didn't need to protect the unborn was truly disgusting.
I used to put together Congressional voting records for the National Committee for a Human Life Amendment. You can trust me on this one. There were really only 21 pro-life Democrats that night.
I tend to vote Republican and have worked professionally in Republican politics, and I would really like to see (help build?) an organized effort to help pro-life Democratic political candidates (because they do exist even if they are rare) run and win. Life shouldn’t be a political issue, and I feel that showing pro-life Democratic candidates a path to electoral success will be key in removing the political power from abortion.
Although I tend to vote for different candidates than you might, I share your frustration with the political piece. Most Republicans these days also don’t have a stance on life that I find morally acceptable now that Dobbs is settled and the candidates are trying to court the political middle. A firm anti-abortion stance is no longer politically expedient. The temptation to skip certain races is there, but I think eventually I’d find myself in a position of abdicating my civic duty because the entire ticket would be unacceptable to me if judged solely on life.
I really appreciate your comment. It has given me more to consider with regard to my own feelings about our bishops and what we should and maybe should not expect of them. It also gives me hope just in general. Peace to you.
Remember, these are the same bishops who can’t muster the courage to clearly and plainly tell the faithful they are canonically required to do penance every Friday of the year, preferably by abstaining from meat. If they can’t even do that, you somehow expect them to have the chutzpah to speak directly on, we’ll, anything of consequence?
What should be done is that the bishops should declare that abortion is such a preeminent priority that Catholics need to support both the proven effective means of minimizing abortions -- robust social insurance programs -- as well as the less effective but still important strategy of legal restrictions on doctors.
From 2011- 2017, the number of abortions fell 20%. So far, the victory in the Dobbs decision has not proven to have any impact on reducing the number of abortions.
https://ihpi.umich.edu/news/access-birth-control-through-aca-drives-down-abortion-rate
That there is disagreement among the bishops on the importance of abortion is disheartening. They need to be a prophetic voice on this issue, especially in the wake of the passage of the Ohio abortion amendment and the negative impact of pro-life in other races.
I am in total agreement with you. It took us a while to get there but I am glad we are in agreement.