-
The Right of Conscience in the Age of Obama
November 18, 2009 | 44 comments
-
Obama’s Conscience Claws
July 7, 2009 | 32 comments
-
Sebelius and Kmiec Catholicism
March 4, 2009 | 70 comments
-
Obama’s Gift to America
October 2, 2008 | 0 comments
-
Meet the Obama Pro-Lifers
September 12, 2008 | 0 comments
Another Perspective
As Vatican II Turns 50, Liberals Reject It
Thanks to its political commitments, liberal Catholicism has abandoned the principles it once championed.
The 50th anniversary year of the Catholic Church’s Second Vatican Council, celebrated on October 11, is being celebrated in America by something few would have predicted: mass rejection of its core principles by liberal Catholics.
The Council significantly developed the Church’s teachings on such topics as the laity and religious liberty. Like much of the Council, these teachings tended to be championed by liberals. Until 2012.
The left’s revolt arose from partisan politics. Since 2008 liberal Catholics have wedded themselves to the Obama campaign. But in January the president used Obamacare to coerce religious objectors to provide early-abortion inducing drugs and contraception.
Faced with a choice between their Council and their candidate, liberal Catholics chose the latter. After the president’s February 10 press conference attempting to quell public protest, “Catholics for Obama” have not missed a beat. Vice President Biden proudly defended the mandate entirely in last week’s debate. Pundits at venues like Commonweal magazine and the National Catholic Reporter have followed suit, especially in endorsing the requirement that lay Catholics provide abortifacients and contraception.
This stands in stark contrast to Vatican II. The Council not only reiterated the Church’s teaching on sexuality, it also insisted on two principles irreconcilable with the Obamacare HHS Mandate: religious freedom, and the laity’s identity as “the Church.”
There may be no more pervasive teaching in Vatican II than that the “lay faithful” are “established among the People of God” as full members of the Church. As Pope John Paul II summarized, the laity should be aware “not only of belonging to the Church, but of being the Church… [they] are the Church.”
Liberal Catholics once reveled in these teachings and even used them to justify lay dissent and women priests. Now they find the teachings an embarrassment, because their candidate is coercing the lay “Church” to violate Catholic teaching.
The National Catholic Reporter’s Michael Sean Winters derides the bishops for insisting that lay Catholics in business must be protected from the Obamacare mandate to provide abortifacients and contraception. His rationale is that only “the Church” deserves to be accommodated — dioceses, religious orders, and their affiliated charities and schools.
In this view, if a lay person runs a business she is not really “the Church” — because “the Church” deserves protection, but she doesn’t. When a religious business leader asks the government not to coerce her to violate her faith — a faith she formed in accord with Church teaching — Winters claims she is treating conscience individualistically instead of in Catholic “communio.”
Winters’ position is incompatible with Vatican II’s “Declaration on Religious Freedom.” The Council insisted that the religious freedom of “the Church” could in no way be violated by the state. And it specifically explained — consistent with other Council documents — that “the Church’s” religious freedom includes the lay faithful, “as a society of men who have the right to live in society in accordance with the precepts of the Christian faith.” To coerce the lay faithful to provide contraception is to coerce the Church herself.
Winters instead calls a mandate coercing the laity a “due limit” that states may impose. But the Council says that the Church’s freedom not to violate Christian teaching stands “over and above” any “due limits” that government might generally apply.
Winters ironically accuses the bishops of “cherry-picking” the Council, even as he rejects its unified message and its repeated insistence that one cannot sever the lay faithful from the Church, nor from her religious freedom.
When Pope Benedict visited the United States, he condemned the idea that the laity could “profess our beliefs in church on Sunday,” and then Monday through Friday “promote business practices or medical procedures contrary to those beliefs,” including “that contradict the right to life of every human being from conception.” To do so would “treat religion as a private matter.”
Pundits such as Winters insist that the Pope is the one treating religion as a private matter — “feed[ing] the individualistic beast” — by insisting that the laity act as the Church when they wish not to obey the HHS Mandate in their businesses.
Winters’ weak tu quoque encapsulates what has been the most peculiar development in Vatican II’s fiftieth anniversary: its rejection by liberal Catholics, in exchange for partisan pottage.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (40) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Matt Bowman
More Articles From Another Perspective
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/10/15/as-vatican-ii-turns-50-liberal
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Appleby| 10.15.12 @ 7:07AM
It's very clear that Joe Biden and his crowd of Cafeteria Catholics still think they can have it both ways. God doesn't put in loopholes to His laws. There are no Unless, Except and Until clauses in the Ten Commandments. As the doomed protagonist in "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade" said, "It's time to ask yourself what you believe." That includes all us Catholics, from birth to death. And it's also time for us to ask what Obama and his gang believe.
PJ| 10.15.12 @ 7:37AM
Thanks for hitting "the nail right on the head!"
Albert Constantine Jr.| 10.15.12 @ 9:04AM
"God doesn't put in loopholes to His laws"
I would disagree to the extent that His invitation to Salvation can be accepted at any time up to death, which, while technically not a loophole, is what I believe Jesus was speaking to in the parable of the workers in the vineyard.
Joellen| 10.15.12 @ 7:53AM
As we clean out the corruption in government, we must clean out the corruption in the Church. The American Bishops have been playing on the same side as the democrats since Vatican II. In fact, for those who arent aware, Cardinal Dolan will not rescind his invititon to Obama to the annual Al Smith Dinner this month. Even though thousands of Catholics have humbly asked him to do so, and even though his predeccor Cardinal OConnor deny both Clinton & Kerry the invition, and even though the Catholic Church is suing the US Government, Dolan cant see how inappropriate it is to have the most pro-death president attending this event. Also, think of the nuns who actively espouse their consent to Obama care, talk about evil. I've said it before, start going into ChurchMilitant.tv and stay aware of what is going on in the church - it is good to expose all to light.
Joellen| 10.15.12 @ 9:48AM
Please go to ChurchMilitant.tv and listen to Mike Voris's "Tradition Bashers" dated 10/10. Mike says it best.
Kitty | 10.15.12 @ 10:16AM
DITTOS!
Kitty | 10.15.12 @ 10:20AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-tyFK6iBKI
TLP| 10.15.12 @ 10:08AM
I don't understand why these Oxymorons don't just Start their own "Church", or find a bigger building for Jeremiah Wright, that they can all fit into on Sundays.
Nancy Pelosi goes to Church. The Pro Union/Abortion Queen who owns Restaurants and Vineyards where Union Dopes need not apply, and never saw a newborn that she didn't wish she could gut, like a Fish.
Frau Sebelius goes to Church. The Goddess of Death to Millions of Unborn Babies.
The Political Party that has Planted its Flag alongside so many Godless, and Merciless Regimes - The Soviets, Moa's China, Communist Vietnam, Castro's Cuba, Pol Pot's Cambodia, and Hugo Chavez's Venezuela, now wants a Seat at the Table when it comes to deciding Religious Doctrine?
They want Gay Everything. They don't believe that people should be Responsible for their Choices. And, they believe that Giving a Man a Fish is way better than actually Teaching Him to Fish, cause, it's harder to CONTROL HIM if he no longer needs your fish.
They've got their own Messiah. The Black One.
Let them get their own Church as well, and be done with it.
TLP| 10.15.12 @ 2:40PM
If they let their Priests get Married - like they used to - this Sh*t wouldn't happen.
I'm just sayin.
Joellen| 10.15.12 @ 2:52PM
TIM you're wrong on this one. Good priest choose to devote their lives to Christ. Also how do you explain that the wolves disguised as priest are men going after boys?
Doctor Right| 10.15.12 @ 4:30PM
The question is WHY are so many men with this proclivity attracted to the Priesthood in the first place??
Answer that question and you're well on the way to solving the problem.
TLP| 10.15.12 @ 4:48PM
I already answered it.
In the old days, Priests were allowed to Marry.
They were given a Plot of Land, by the Church.
The problem started when their Offspring decided not to join the Priesthood, whereby the Church lost the Land.
Look it up.
Sorry Joellen.
But, that's what happened.
Joellen| 10.15.12 @ 5:37PM
I dont disagree with your answer Tim, tis true. However, again I reiterate, good Priest choose to be 100% devout to Christ and his church. From the moment of its establishment the Church has been compromised - it is run by man. However, when we follow the true doctrine and it's moral teachings, it is infallible. These men who commit inmoral acts would do so whether they are priest, cops, rabbi's, doctors, etc. They chose the Priesthood because they thought they could "hide" there and never be exposed. Of course they were wrong. they have been exposed (the leftist nuns too) and it my duty and every practicing Catholic (not a Joe Biden practicing CINO), to cleanse the Church of these monsters.
You're still the man though.
TLP| 10.15.12 @ 7:19PM
And, you're still the woMAN.
I'm not talking about the Good Priests.
I'm talking about the ones that have brought SHAME to the Catholic Church.
If you're gonna forbid Men, from their God Given Urges to Have a Family?
You're just inviting the problem that the Church has found itself in.
I'm sorry.
JP| 10.15.12 @ 7:16PM
Actually, the land remained with the Bishopric. The Bishop had a choice to pass the properties to his offspring; but, in most cases it remained the property of the Church after his death.
The problem with married Priest was not property but nepotism. The Bishop's son in most cases inherited the episcopal title. This was especially the case with the Borgia family it Italy.
The Original Ted| 10.16.12 @ 12:23PM
That is an inaccurate statement. The proof is in the fact that if you look at religions where their priests or rabbis are allowed to marry, there are still many documented cases of this type of behavior.
Also, many people would be surprised, but if you look at the available data on the scandals in the Catholic Church that came to light in 2002, it is clear that while there were some cases of pedophilia, the vast majority of the cases were homosexual adult male priests going after teenage boys, not children
It was a crisis of homosexual predation. And in regards to Dr. Right's question below, why are many homosexual men attracted to the priesthood, the more important question is how were they allowed to become priests?
Part of the answer is that many orders and may dioceses stopped screening their priest candidates as rigorously as they once did. And priestly formation at the seminaries suffered as well, particularly post Vatican II.
Hardcard| 10.15.12 @ 8:03AM
biden,dead ted,pelosi,cuomo,dodd,kerry WTF
potkas7| 10.15.12 @ 8:09AM
To me, a large part of the problem stems from the fact that the Church has not been firm in defending its catechetical beliefs thus allowing people to become confused. as to what those core beliefs are.
If the Church allows public figures like Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi and Sister Simone Campbell - founder of Nuns on the Bus - to openly defy Church teachings without penalty, why shouldn't ordinary Catholics view Church teaching as a smorgasbord where you can pick and choose according to your personal tastes?
At some point the hierarchy of the Church must either take a stand on doctrine even if that means forcing another Canossa on some contemporary politician, or they must accept their inevitable slide into irrelevance.
Quartermaster| 10.15.12 @ 9:18AM
The RCC is already, by and large, irrelevant. That's why they are in the position they are relative to Obamacare.
JP| 10.15.12 @ 7:18PM
It may be irrelevant from a material standpoint (how many divisions does the Pope have?). But, for a irrelevant instiution the Church sure does cause quite a bit of worry in high places.
The Original Ted| 10.16.12 @ 12:18PM
Irrelevent, eh? If that is so, then why is the Catholic Church in the Obama Administration's gunsights?
Indeed, is has been in the Communist gunsights ever since Communism began. And, for that matter, it was in the gunsights of Obama mentor Frank Marshall Davis.
http://www.crisismagazine.com/.....lic-church
Clara| 10.15.12 @ 12:03PM
This is exactly why I stopped pursuing Catholicism. It is a confused religion. My head was spinning trying to understand the contradictions. How and why should a person go through the efforts of conversion only to realize that moral relativism has negated all of your efforts. Screw that. I'd rather just be free from religion then.
Doctor Right| 10.15.12 @ 4:32PM
If moral relativism has infected the Catholic Church - and I believe it has, among many other problems - then HOW did it happen???
It's a rhetorical question...I know the answer(s)...
Doctor Right| 10.15.12 @ 8:29AM
"Vatican II," councils, edicts, the "laity," schisms, disagreements, etc, etc...
ALL of this could be avoided if faithful, believing Christians would look to the Bible and God's inerrant word instead of the words of men.
Von Mises Jr| 10.15.12 @ 8:40AM
Contraception is a smoke screen. First Amendment liberty is the real issue.
ObamaCare funds abortion. As a conservative Catholic, if I am self-employed or work for a corporation, I must not be forced to fund abortion if I still enjoy the religious liberty of the First Amendment. Even if my Parish is excluded from the mandates, as an American citizen I am protected from infringement of MY First Amendment Rights.
Then there is the issue of freedom in general. As a Christian, I am not permitted to surrender my personal freedoms to government. The IPAB "death panels" once established can cut off proper care for a pregnant woman with complications. Are we to have Kennedy-style "back alley deliveries?"
If Obama and Sebelius decide if a 90 year old gets a pace maker instead of her doctor, family and she deciding; then I am also being forced to pay for her euthanasia.
Walking lists for getting out the vote have your political affiliation and voting frequency. What is to protect us as individuals from an IPAB that decides all Republicans over 55 are not eligible for life saving treatments?
We have seen totalitarians in the USSR, Nazi Germany and Mao's China exterminate 100 million. Am I to believe that we have "kinder and gentler" totalitarians in the U.S.?
So it is about time we stop letting the statist totalitarians soft sell us tyranny in the form of minor concessions for social benefit of the state. This is about your freedom and your life. So speak up and get out and VOTE.
JP| 10.15.12 @ 9:13AM
Another little known mandate of ObamaCare that is quietly being implemented via HHS (whose Director is the Catholic Katheleen Sebelius) is a prohibition on Catholic organizations for teaching the abortion and artificial contraception are Mortal Sins (sins that can lead one to Hell). That is, parochial schools, Catholic Hospitals, even the chancery of Bishops (and all Catholic parishes) will be forbidden to "bad-mouth" any provisions of ObamaCare. This mandate hasn't been officially rolled out (how could it?); but, it will be quietly implemented amongst a slew of other administrative rules in coming months.
And our Bishops will have to study the rules, call for meetings, and eventually do nothing.
TLP| 10.15.12 @ 10:14AM
But it's okay. He's not the Beast. These aren't the End Times. And none of this has anything to do with Revelation, even though everything that is going on in the world RIGHT NOW, is right there, in Black and White.
Even the Beast.
Half Black. Half White.
All EVIL.
wombat1| 10.15.12 @ 10:39AM
The American Catholic powers that be have only themselves to blame.
There was ample reason to know that the welfare state is, in the end, the enemy of the Church.
But no, it was too much fun to be invited to the White House and the Kennedy Center, too convenient to have a piece of all those government social programs.
They figured they could merely sip the Kool-Aid,
instead of guzzle it like Marxist academe, and it wouldn't affect them.
Surprise, Your Eminences! Deals with the devil always come due in brimstone.
Derek Leaberry| 10.15.12 @ 11:56AM
I'm glad that there is something that a liberal and I can agree with. Vatican II was a rotten blunder. Of course, why Vatican II is so terrible is a bone of contention.
Dodd2| 10.15.12 @ 12:24PM
A liberal Catholic is an oxymoron.
spike59| 10.15.12 @ 12:35PM
A liberal Catholic is a moron.
--------------------------
there, fixed it for ya
John Navratil| 10.15.12 @ 1:51PM
spike59,
Why stop there? You are on a roll!
TLP| 10.15.12 @ 2:41PM
Tits.
The Original Ted| 10.15.12 @ 2:20PM
There is no difference between an intoxicated man and one full of his own opinion, and one is no more capable of reasoning than the other.
cicero| 10.15.12 @ 2:36PM
There was a time when the Pope could command respect. If the King ran afoul of the precepts of the Church, he was excommunicated, and denied recognition until he appeared penitent, in sack clothe and ashes, and walked on his knees into the presence of the Holy See. Now, such is not the case.
We now have minor dignitaries flounting the precepts of the Church, and the princes of the Church cannot find the courage even to deny them the sacrements, let alone excomunicate them. Perchance the Church has found its rewards in this world, and cares not about the next.
TLP| 10.15.12 @ 2:46PM
Indeed.
They are their own Worst Enemy.
Slap these Faux Catholics down.
If JESUS could overturn the Moneychanger's Table in the Temple, at the risk of HIS own life?
Can't these 21st Century Pharisees show, at least, a fraction of HIS courage, and take these Batsards to task?
Occam's Tool| 10.16.12 @ 1:08AM
You know, I am but an ignorant Hebrew, but I thought John XXIII was one of the goodies?
The Original Ted| 10.16.12 @ 12:16PM
John XXIII was a good man. And a good Pope. The problem was not with him; it was with those who sought to misinterpret Vatican II willfully to suit their own political ends.
caitlin| 10.16.12 @ 2:13PM
There are so many people who are ignorant about Church teachings it's astounding. Not on this site, but I've come across comments about Catholics and Church rules that were so wrong it made my blood boil. Unfortunately, those anti Catholics don't care where they got/get their information. Some of it has been passed down through generations. So of course you get misinformation entrenched in a section of the public. Now even so called educated Catholics will believe something that's wrong. Or worse, will refuse to hear the truth or take the time to look it up.
Petronius| 10.21.12 @ 3:06PM
It's all form and no substance now. Apostacy and Excommunication carry no sanction except as labels. I spent this passed week in the hospital. And every morning a LEM would knock on my door asking if I wanted to take Holy Communion. I responded each time that I am Not eligible. And my insistence that they leave me alone was met with disbelief, disregard, and disdain that any relation I have with the Almighty is more important than paying court to them. Who I choose to break Bread with or not, and grounding my refusal on doctrinal stricture they view as antique, irrelevant, and redolent of "Going My Way" being gone and should be forgotten, is precisely the point. Having one face is an affront to all who have more, and ultimately defines if and where one belongs.