"Memo to Bishops: Nobody's Listening" - Washington Post op-ed piece by...a Jesuit
He cites a Pew Foundation poll in the column. The poll says more than he allows. Among Catholics who attend Mass at least once per week, a majority disapprove of the Obama invite.
As to whether attending Mass means those opinions count more, I'll let others weigh in on that. What I'd be interested in is how much the numbers taper off. It's significant, that's for sure, because there's such a dramatic shift when you limit the pool to weekly churchgoers.
Anyway, I know that Canon Law doesn't say that the Church is a democracy or that the majority rules...but he still makes some good points as to the bishops needing a refresher course in how to win friends and influence people. Or maybe the example of Christ who knew a thing or two about teaching and leading a flock.
Link: http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/georgetown/2009/05/memo_to_bishops_no_one_is_listening.html?hpid=talkbox1
Replies to: "Memo to Bishops: Nobody's Listening" - Washington Post op-ed piece by...a Jesuit
To spout ,"Nobody's listening", indicates a real problem with the columnist...
...despite the weak data. The Post still has a major Obama agenda, and that's fine, but it hardly is meaningful for many outside the Beltway where the majority of taxpayors and Catholics live. The Pew poll is meaningful, IMO, as to just how many disapprove. It tells me, au contrare, that most committed Catholics are watching and listening very carefully. As are many paying ND alumni.
From my limited experience in our parish...
I think you're right. I have been to several events where this has been a topic of discussion among people who I would call committed Catholics, i.e. those that attend regularly and are part of parish activities. They appear to side overwhelmingly against particularly the honorary degree. To say no one is listening is way off base and arrogant. There certainly are a significant number of practicing Catholics that agree with the invite and even the degree, but my bet is that there are many more who don't. You can stick your head in the sand and say that they don't count and that no one is listening but that doesn't make it so.
Well, for those not going weekly, they're possibly (or likely) in the state of Serious Sin. And....
As for winning friends and influencing people, Christ also taught that if his Apostles went into town and preached the Gospel and were rejected, that they should shake the dust of the town from their sandals and move on. It's as if the message of eternal life is not enough these days for some, and has to be served up with a universally tasteful garnish.
Christ did not create the Christian Church or lead a flock by easy teachings or friendly speak. Quite the opposite. His following came because he taught with authority. For a prime example of his radical teching, read the Sermon on the Mount again. Virtually all of that was seen as turning the order of things on its head. "Blessed are the poor, for they shall inherit the Earth." The poor were not only seen as NOT blessed by those listening, but actually cursed and suffering because of their or their forefathers' sinful state. Much of the rest of the Sermon would have been heard similarly.
Christ did not say, "if you want people to follow you, be nice to them and let them know that you understand their point of view, but that you respectfully disagree." He did say, however, "If you want to follow me, you must pick up your cross." I think that gives a better indication of the thinking of those that would follow Christ - like the Bishops that this Jesuit chooses to criticize. They openly say that following Christ and his Church, which is his Bride, is not easy and requires sacrifices - sometimes even death. Christ also said to love as he had loved. Sometimes he loved tenderly and with divine mercy, as with the repentent thief crucified beside him. Sometimes he loved more sternly, as when he drove out the money changers in the temple or even with the Apostle Thomas, to whom he said, "You have believed because you saw. Blessed are those who have not seen and still believed."
When his followers had the wrong idea about one of Christ's teachings, Christ almost always corrected them with authority, letting them know that they did not see or hear as God did and that he was from God and was giving them God's view of things - The Truth.
By the way, the Bishops are not necessarily trying to win friends or influence people anyhow. They have a pastoral obligation to tell the truth as the Church sees it, and they are doing it. To hear one of these Bishops describe it, it's "If I fail to say these things, woe is me. If I say them and you fail to heed them, woe is you."
It's very easy to criticize the Bishops for what they have said and how they have said it, when you want the messages directed at you never to make you feel bad. Unfortunately, sometimes someone in authority has to step up and say, "What you are doing is wrong and contrary to the way God sees things." Christ did that 2000 years ago with the Pharisees and Jewish leaders. Pope John Paul II did the same during his papacy. The Church, with the Bishops included, carries on that pastoral obligation. In my opinion, they do so rightly in this case.
It's not a question of welcoming Obama warmly at a meeting at the Vatican or applauding his commencement speech. Those are gestures of etiquette and not a repudiation of these Bishops.
Finally, I am certainly not advocating fire and brimstone at all times by these Bishops. I strongly suspect that God is as Divinely Merciful as he is just, as evidenced by one of his last acts on the Cross in assuring the repentent thief that he would be with him in paradise that very day. Sometimes there is a time for condemnation and other times not. In this case, I don't have a problem with the condemnation and I think it is nonsense to frame it as political sour grapes or being hijacked by those with political sour grapes.
Point of clarification on the "hierarchy's opposition to artificial birth control"
Can we dispense with the revisionist history on this issue?
FACT: On July 25, 1968, Pope Paul VI issued his Humanae Vitae encyclical re-affirming the Churh's position on birth control, but only after a commission of cardinals appointed by Pope Paul VI himself had come back and unanimously recommended a limited endorsement of birth control. Rather than a reaffirmation of the Church's position, Humanae Vitae was in fact a repudiation of the Church hierarchy's support of birth control, and by extension Paul VI's repudiation of Vatican II.
Good column
(no message)
A "Georgetown Jesuit"? Probably tripped over himself trying to cover up the "IHS" for his hero "O".
(no message)
Are we still talking about this?
(no message)
Tremendous piece. Great pull CC. The Jesuits are always the brightest of the bunch, it seems.
(no message)
Why did they crucify Christ if he was so popular?
(no message)
He was so good at leading his flock...
that they were all yelling for a convicted criminal to be released instead of him.
When looking that the numbers of this poll
it becomes clear that there is almost a 180 in views from those who attend mass regularly and those who don't. Of the 96 peolpe (white,non-hisp) surveyed that attend mass weekly (which is not really a good barameter for that population, but lets roll with it), 60 of them said that abortion should be illegal in all/most cases. But, of the 131 people surveyed that attended mass less frequently, only 38 people said it should be illegal in most/all cases. So, 63% of regular church attendees think it should be illegal while 61% of non-regular attendees think it's okay. But, when you think about it, is that really all that suprising? The people that attend mass regularly, the majority tend to be more in tune in following all catholic teachings to the best of their ability. Please note that I said majority, so for others on this board that attend mass weekly and still feel differently, your view is apparently the minority. Is anyone really suprised by that?
