Back When God Was A Lady

There is a lovely antiphon for the Benedictus at Morning Prayer for Trinity Sunday:

O Holy and Undivided Trinity, Creator and Ruler of all that exists, may all praise be yours now, forever, and for ages unending. 

I am well familiar with it.  Just read it yesterday morning.  But alas, I am lazy, I confess it,  and pray in English; little did I know the theological bombshell the English text was concealing.  That is the trouble with English, or rather with the imprecise, translations pushed by those Liturgiam Authenticam folk who are responsible for the current Liturgical texts and who use the liturgy to push their own sexist ideology.  I should have listened to Archbishop Lefebvre after all and kept to the lingua materna of the Church.  Well no, not actually, as that would be Greek.  But the wicked stepmother tongue.  Latin.

After my posting yesterday about the Maryland Maven rallying the torch and pitchfork crowd against Father Dan Fitzpatrick of Durham in England and his “heresy” of referring to the Holy Spirit in the feminine, a reader sent me an extraordinary comment pointing out that the Benedictus Antiphon for Trinity Sunday Lauds—in the pre-conciliar breviary (and of which our previously cited novus ordo vernacular antiphon is a translation, and a poor and misleading one at that)—is a truly remarkable exposition of the femininity not only of the Holy Spirit, but the Godhead Hims—whoops, Herself.  Get a load o’ this!

Benedícta sit creátrix et gubernátrix ómnium, sancta et indivídua Trínitas, et nunc et semper et per infiníta sæculórum sæcula.

I don’t even know where to begin!  Trust me on this, the Latin text is infinitely superior to the English Translation just on the literary level.  I mean, as Latin goes, it is exquisite. It just cries out to be melodiously chanted by virginal monastics who have been made eunuchs for the sake of the liturgy.  But, that aside, let’s unpack it theologically for a moment.

Trinitas in Latin is feminine.  I knew that.  But I presumed like nauta (sailor) and agricola (farmer) it is a feminine noun referring to a male being and therefore taking adjectives in the masculine form.  All languages have their idiosyncrasies.  But no, I should have remembered that it is a sancta et individua, that is to say, feminine Trinitas. Moreover, whoever composed this antiphon way “back in the day” went way overboard to push the feminine theme using the feminine creatrix rather than the masculine creator and the feminine gubernatrix rather than the masculine gubernator.  This antiphon then refers to God, Creator and Ruler of All –as a lady creator and a lady ruler.  I mean it is just incredible!!!  And Sister Joan Chittester had nothing to do with it!!!!  Neither did Elizabeth Johnson!!!!  In fact, almost certainly it was some guy who did it.   The Krazies will assure me that he was almost certainly gay.  Damn gender-benders!

Pope John XXII established the Feast of the Most Holy Trinity for the universal Church in the 14^th century, but the feast itself and the proper office to it is much older, having been composed by Stephen of Liege in the early 10^th century.  I don’t know that this particular antiphon referring to the Creator and Ruler of the universe in the feminine goes back that far—though as it appears in the Rite of York as well as in the Liege ceremonial, an indication that it is pretty ancient, undoubtedly long before Quo Primum and Pius V— it is certainly pre-12^th century.  Ol’ Steve of Liege and his buddies were way ahead of their time.  Can you imagine if they were to be members of the upcoming Synod???  Why those ol’ battle axes from Les Femmes and Restore DC Catholicism would be joining up with the ladies in lavender  from Rorate Caeli and New Liturgical Movement to bar access to the Synod Hall to these heretics.  Creatrix indeed!!!  I bet ol’God is going to hitch up the coleos divinos and smite a few of these liberal pansies who called him a creatrix et gubernatorix.  

The American Nuns: Collateral Damage in a War of Prelates

The Grand Inquisitor (from the

opera, Don Carlo)

Well Francis finally scored some points with the Katholic Krazies—the American nuns are back on the hotseat.  The only problem is that it isn’t Francis turning up the voltage, but Cardinal Müller, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. 

Everyone had presumed that with Francis’ remarks to the Conference of Latin American Religious (CLARR) last June the Pope had given a clear signal that the Holy See was backing off the harassment of the American Religious Women.  Francis said, rather pointedly:

They will make mistakes, they will make a blunder, this will pass! Perhaps even a letter of the Congregation for the Doctrine (of the Faith) will arrive for you, telling you that you said such or such thing... But do not worry. Explain whatever you have to explain, but move forward... Open the doors, do something there where life calls for it. I would rather have a Church that makes mistakes for doing something than one that gets sick for being closed up...

“Perhaps even a letter form the CDF will arrive for you…but do not worry…move forward.”  Pretty clear message.  So what was this latest fuss about when Cardinal Müller called the LCWR leadership on the carpet last week?  Does this indicate a change in Vatican policy, a renewal of the campaign against the nuns?

By no means.  The nuns are collateral damage to the infighting going on the Roman Curia at this time.  Cardinal Kasper spoke up almost immediately saying that the problem was the conflict between the “more narrow” view of some Vatican officials and the more open policies that the Holy Father is trying to establish in the Church.  It cannot be presumed, of course, that either Cardinal speaks for the Holy Father, but of the two Kasper is certainly the closer collaborator.  Pope Francis has used Cardinal Kasper as a trial balloon for a more open approach to divorced and remarried Catholics and the Cardinal has gotten quite a bit of grief for it from his peers in the Sacred College as well as from various bishops around the world—not to mention the Katholic Krazies and their blogs.  Yet it is clear that, at least in regards to the pastoral care of the divorced and remarried, Kasper speaks for the Pope.  Müller, on the other hand, is part of the camp that is fighting Pope Francis in his efforts to reform the Roman Curia.  Müller is a Benedict XVI appointment as head of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith.  Francis gave Müller the Cardinal’s hat—the CDF Prefect is always a Cardinal and Benedict had not had a chance to name any Cardinals after appointing Müller to the post—but has not paid him much attention since.  Cardinals Burke and Law, both out of favor and sidelined in this papacy, had been the original evil geniuses on the attack on the nuns and when the Congregation for the Institutes of the Consecrated Life and  Societies of the Apostolic Life gave the American nuns a clean bill of health two years ago, Law and Burke pushed the American Cardinal Levada, then head of the CDF, to take up the fight.  Levada did but then retired before the hatchet job was done. Müller took over the CDF and originally didn’t press matters, but despite Francis’ remarks to CLARR renewed the battle in part of the Francis/anti-Francis infighting going on in Rome as the Pope tries to clear out that rats’ nest of pezzi-grossi monsignori and reform the Curia.  So Müller rapped the nuns on the knuckles (we call that karma) for inviting Sister Elizabeth Johnson to receive their annual leadership prize.   Doctor Johnson has angered, nay  infuriated, the Katholic Krazies because her feminist hermeneutic has raised questions that threaten the dominant patriarchy that is woven through not only the Church but our very culture.  Without denying the heritage passed on in the Scriptures or the Patristic Tradition, she has tried to move beyond the frozen confines of dogma to explore the Mystery of God from new perspectives that attempt to transcend the limitations of a culture and tradition that was shaped and articulated by the male mind.  One may or may not like her approach, but one can’t be afraid of what is behind the doors her questions seek to open and explore.  In my own field of history, feminist scholars have made us take a further—and deeper—look at how we understand certain personalities, movements, and events and this hermeneutic has brought out new and more complex understandings of our past.  We do not need to be afraid of new perspectives and the questions they raise about God and God’s plan for us.  If the questions are not sound, our exploration will eventually dismiss them; if they are sound they will lead us to healthy change.  But faith does not permit us to stand frozen, afraid to go further lest our eyes be opened to new and deeper realities and our lives and the structures of our institutions have to change.

In any event, I don’t think this kerfuffle Cardinal Müller has gotten into with the LCWR is about faith.  The good sisters still hold great credibility among the American public—Catholic and non-Catholic.  The moral integrity squandered by the bishops these last thirty years is still borne by the seventy and eighty year olds who once taught us arithmetic and geography and spelling.  If they are asking questions about why women can’t be ordained, we will begin asking questions about why women can’t be ordained.  And God forbid that women ever be ordained, because once women are priests the old boys network will crumble into dust and the rules that have permitted these second-stringers to attain their miters and the perks that go along with the job will be forever changed.

And I think that is what the old guard in the Curia is fighting for—not to advance the Gospel of Jesus Christ but to protect the structures of power which give them their pride of place in the Institutional Church.  The Gospel and its mission is secondary to them.  To refer to Dulles’ Models of the Church, they represent the tenaciousness of the Institution hanging on when so many of us want to move to the kerygmatic and servant models.  Elizabeth Johnson is simply the Joan of Arc in this drama.  The LCWR are the collateral damage of war between men.  And there are too many prelates who want to be the Grand Inquisitor.  

A Void In Leadership

Saint Augustine, Bishop and
Theologian

Well the election is behind us.  As of the time I am writing the results have not yet begun to come in—that will be several  hours from now but until then I want to move away from Church and State issues and look at some other aspects of our Catholic life from a historical perspective.  In fact I am making myself (and my readers) a promise that I will go for a week without dealing with politics unless, of course, an issue arises that merits instantaneous comment.  Like that charming little girl http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjrthOPLAKM “I’m tired of Bronco Bamma and Mitt Romney.”  
So let’s go on to another topic.   How about this one: bishops confusing themselves for theologians.  This is a very significant shift in our Catholic ecclesiology over the last fifteen years or so as American bishops have increasingly taken it upon themselves to evaluate the work of such distinguished theologians as Father Charles Curran, Professor Elizabeth Johnson, Sister Sandra Schneiders, and others who have earned distinction in the academic community.  The view of these pretentious prelates (yes, I know that seems to be redundant these days) is that they, the bishops, are the theologians of the Church and the scholars task is to stand awed before their inspired episcopal intellects before they, the theologians, undertake their humble task of explaining to more popular audiences the profound and august theological insights of the mitered dons.  Boy do they have it wrong.  Bishops are meant to be teachers not theologians.  In that sense they need to rely on the serious academic work of qualified and academically proven scholars just as Sister Sophrinus had to read up on American history before she taught it to us in the seventh grade. 
Well, they protest—look at the great bishops who were doctors of the Church—Augustine, Ambrose, Leo, Chrysostom, Gregory—and one can plainly see that Episcopal ordination confers by grace of the Sacrament Theological competency.  What they have overlooked are the tens of thousands of mitered idiots who were (and are) complete theological nincompoops.  Augustine and company were not theologians by virtue of the fact that they were bishops—they had been elected bishops because they were great theologians. 
Would that bishops today, at least our American bishops, were men chosen for their knowledge of our Catholic Theological heritage, their intelligence and their insight.  Frankly, we have a sorry lot of leaders.  There are exceptions of course—not theologians of proven stature but some intelligent and articulate men.  I remember hearing when I lived in Rome a professor opine:

In Germany the bishops are chosen from among the scholars

In Italy from among the shepherds of souls
And in England from among the gentlemen.
But in America there are no scholars, shepherds of souls, or gentlemen and so they get businessmen.  

Alas, but that seems an all too true insight.

Preparing the Ground for a New Luther?

Are we facing in the wrong

direction?  not only at the

altar but for God's Work in

the world?

I was at Mass Saturday evening and heard the Gospel:

"All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me.  Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you."

What concerns me most about the nonsense right  now with the Vatican’s complaints about the Leadership Conference of Women Religious, the “scandal” with the Pope’s butler leaking confidential documents,  the Vatican Bank and its inability to meet transparency standards set by international conventions, Cardinal Bertone’s alleged coup to consolidate all power in his Secretariat of State, the issues about Caritas Internationalis needing more hierarchical  supervision, Cardinal  Burke parading around thinking he is Louis XIV—and then the nonsense here with the alternative magisterium of Michael Voris and “Real Catholic T.V.,”  Carl Anderson and the mismanagement of the Knights of Columbus, and everything else going on is that—wait a minute: we have a mission and we have taken our eyes off that mission. 

     “Go and make disciples of all nations”—where is that in this current mess? 

     Somewhere in the reign of John Paul II the steersman took his eye off the course of proclaiming the Kingdom of God and the bark of Peter has been foundering in waves of turmoil ever since.  The Second Vatican Council is about more than putting the liturgy into everyday language, turning altars to face the people, (neither of which things the Council itself actually did, mind you); what the Council did do was to set a course for the Church to proclaim the Gospel in the Modern World.  What is going on today is nothing more than a free for all as those with power jockey for more power whether on the level of the Vatican bureaucracy or the American hierarchy.  The political connivance, led by Cardinal Francis George of Chicago in 2010, that kept Vice President of the conference, Bishop Gerald Kicanas of Tucson from becoming president of the conference—the first time that a sitting Vice President did not become President of the USCCB—is only one example of the misdirected energy that is going to infighting rather than carrying out a vision for the Church here in the United States.  The connivance of Archbishop Lori (who owes his Baltimore See to the generosity of Carl Anderson and the Knights of Columbus money which Anderson uses freely for some very  biased agenda items), with Cardinals Burke, Law, and Levada to go after the American Sisters  is yet another.  The transformation of a personal vendetta of an American bishop into a scathing attack on Sister Elizabeth Johnson—a more sound scholar and better theologian than any of the bishops—for her book Quest for the Living God is a third example of wasted energy that should be devoted to bringing Christ to people with profound spiritual hungers.  Richard Rohr has written

      Much of the Western world has given up on the church and is going other places for wisdom.  Unfortunately, in these other places they are sometimes “willingly filling their belly with the husks the pigs are eating” (Luke 15:16) But we in the church must ask ourselves if we have not been the parent who sent them away because there was nothing trustworthy or life-giving at home."  (Richard Rohr, Near Occasions of Grace, Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1993, p. 26)
      This is precisely the situation in which we are finding ourselves as Church—we have a tremendous storehouse of spiritual nourishment to share with a world that suffering in immense distress and hunger of every sort but instead of bringing the Gospel and its life-giving hope, we are squabbling over who holds the keys to the pantry.  And when the internecine squabbling stops long enough for the Church to speak something to the world beyond its doors—it is always a message of negativity.  As I have written before: today everyone can tell you what the Catholic Church is against but very few can tell you what we stand for.  
       From a historical viewpoint this situation is fraught with signs of danger for the Church.  The loss of reputation for moral integrity, the concern with power and wealth by many prelates, the ignoring of advances in scientific knowledge and learning, the alienation of an educated and competent laity, the defense of antique social and political structures in a rapidly evolving society—these are all reminiscent of situation that led up to the Protestant Reformations of the 16^th century.  Vatican II was called to heal the divisions in Christianity but the betrayal of the Council over the last thirty plus years is threatening us with further discord and schism.  We need to refocus on mission and be willing to surrender our personal ambitions for the sake of advancing the Kingdom of God. 

The Nuns Are Still Here and So Is the Vatican

The boys in the Vatican are better dressed,

but God bless the Sisters for the great work

they have done and continue to do--by the
way, the picture is stolen from the NY Times
Thanks, Times. 

Traditionally the religious orders, both of men and of women, have had their independence from the authority of the local bishops.  In times past when communication with Rome was long and difficult, that meant that monks and nuns were virtually a Church within the Church—answerable to no one outside their own monasteries or their Order.  While some small congregations of religious are in only one diocese and therefore  “of diocesan right” and thus do report to the local bishop, most are part of larger organizations with a Superior General who reports directly to the Congregation of Religious in Rome.   Such religious communities need the permission of local bishop to come into a diocese and establish a community there, but once in the bishop has little or no say over them,.  If that community is involved in an apostolic work that is under the bishop—such as religious priests serving in a parish or religious men or women who teach in a diocesan school (note: a diocesan school, not a private school owned by the religious congregation) they are accountable to the bishop for matters that pertain to their ministry but not to matters of their religious life.  In matters of religious life they answer to their own superiors who, in turn, answer to the Congregation for Religious in Rome. In Europe it is even typical for many religious communities of men, and even some of women, to have their own churches where the faithful gather to hear mass.  The friars—the Dominicans, Franciscans, Augustinians, and Carmelites—in particular run many public churches that are not parish churches but offer a full range of Sunday and daily masses.  The liturgy and in particular the preaching is often better in these churches than in the local parishes and often the laity choose a “friary church” as an alternative to their parish.  But even in the United States many bishops are slow to interfere in a parish run by a religious order—even though, if it is a parish, it has to obey the bishop’s guidelines.  Some bishops see a parish run by Benedictines or Franciscans or Dominicans as a “safety valve” that provides a place for people who are disaffected by the more conservative parishes to worship.  During the Civil Rights era or the Vietnam War era the religious priests often were more outspoken than the diocesan clergy felt safe in being.  In some dioceses such as Los Angeles where the Archbishop—then the dreaded Cardinal Francis McIntyre—forbad the clergy to speak about Civil Rights, the religious clergy dared to speak out when the diocesan clergy could not.   

     But this independence gives many bishops agita.   The bishops often get complaints from the laity, especially right-wing ones, who want the nuns in habits or who resent the freedoms that many religious have in the years since Vatican II.  Today many sisters have gone on for graduate degrees and teach and lecture in colleges, do social work, are involved in lobbying on behalf of the poor and minorities, work with immigrants or abused women and engage in works that more conservative Catholics resent.  Those opposed to the nuns’ liberalism appeal to the bishop to rein in the nuns and the bishops are powerless.  While religious men tend to be more conservative than religious women, in many more conservative dioceses, parishes run by religious men are still more progressive than those run by local diocesan clergy.  The religious men often work better with women, give women—both lay and religious—more decision making roles and leadership in ministries, and speak up more on women’s issues.  Religious priests often tend to be less clerically oriented than diocesan clergy, especially the “new crop” currently coming out of seminaries.  The religious priests and brothers are more inclined to wear ordinary clothing when not in the habit of their congregation or order.  They also more often go simply by their name and do not bother with titles.  This too drives many neo-traditionalists crazy, especially when the laity flock to their parishes.   Now I need to make sure that the reader doesn’t let me generalize because I myself can think of many fine diocesan priests who are keeping  Vatican II Catholicism alive and well and I know some religious, even in progressive communities, who are, well for the lack of a better words, nuts.  (For emphasis I would use a Joe Biden expletive here if I could).
      The tradition of religious exemption is nothing new and, in fact, ever since the 1917 Code of Canon Law, is actually more restricted than it had been in times past.  In the Middle Ages some of the great Abbeys of nuns were not only exempt from all authority except that of their own abbess and the far-away-in-Rome (and in the days before  modern communication that was far away indeed), but their abbesses ruled dioceses (called abbeys nullius) where they granted annulments and dispensations, appointed pastors,  wrote letters dimissorial,  convoked clerical synods and all the other things bishops did except for administering the sacraments (for which they had to hire a priest or bishop). 
       Even today many religious houses of women report directly to the Holy See bypassing not only the local bishop but the control of their order.  Among them is Mother Angelica’s Monastery of Our Lady of the Angels in Hanceville Alabama.   The good Lady Abbess (Poor Clares have abbesses) took her monastery outside the jurisdiction of the bishop and of the Franciscan Order and made it directly reportable to Rome. 
       Religious foundresses  such as Saint Mary MacKillop of the Australian Sisters of Saint Joseph and Mary Theresa of Jesus Gerhardinger of the School Sisters of Notre Dame were bound and determined that their communities would be self-governing and not under the authority of the bishops.   But today many bishops want to change that. 
      One of the issues, of course, is that these congregations of sisters sometimes own considerable property  and as the congregations get smaller and will die out, the question is –who will get control of their properties.  Now many of the Sisters’ groups have not planned well for the future and depend on our generosity for the support of the older nuns, but some groups have been very provident.  You can imagine that they are not going to let whatever survives them fall into the hands of the men who have persecuted them.  Part of the agenda of the Holy See and the bishops is to get sufficient control over the sisters that their properties will transfer to the various dioceses in which they stand.   
       A major factor in this  nonsense between the American Sisters and the Vatican now has to do not with their “doctrinal aberrations”  but with their independence.  It is American bishops (and Supreme Knight Carl Anderson of the Knights of Columbus) that are behind the stir up.  Many bishops are frightened of the nuns as today’s nuns are highly educated and articulate women, many of whom have better theological training than most priests, indeed more than most of the bishops themselves.  Sisters such as Sandra Schnieders or Elizabeth Johnson are a theological match for the best educated bishops.  Moreover, at a time when the bishops have lost their moral credibility, the nuns inspire great confidence among the laity.  The powers that be are frightened and that is the hidden issue—or one of them—behind this current nonsense out of Rome.   It will be interesting to see how it plays out. 

Signs of the Times

 The Freedom From Religion Foundation, a national organization of atheists and agnostics headed by Annie Laurie Gaylor and her husband, Dan Barker, ran a full page ad in the New York Times yesterday (March 9) calling on ‘liberal’ and ‘nominal’ Catholics to “Please Exit (the Catholic Church) En Mass” It was a rather blatant piece of anti-Catholicism—neither civil in tone nor cogent in argument.  (Before Dan Barker was an atheist he was an Assemblies of God Pastor with a reputation for anti-Catholic rants).  But that is not to say that the ad doesn’t have merit—it has great merit for us Catholics.  We had better look at how the Church is being perceived by a considerable segment of our society and see what we need to change about our modus operandi if we want to be credible witnesses to the Gospel in our contemporary society. 

     By “change” I don’t mean that we have to “sell out” to our contemporary society and turn a blind eye towards (much less adopt) the thin values offered by a culture that is too often morally shallow and intellectually lazy.  H. Richard Niebuhr was a Professor of Christian Ethics at Yale who in 1951 published Christ and Culture, outlining the different positions that Christians take regarding the culture in which they live. Niebuhr spoke of those Christians who take a stand of radical opposition to their surrounding culture as “Christ against Culture.”  There will always be a need for Christians who expose the lack of substance in the prevailing culture.  In October 2006 when a gunman killed five young girls and wounded five others in a one-room schoolhouse of the Amish community in Nickel Mines Pennsylvania, the world stood in awe of the spirit of generous forgiveness that the members of that community showed towards the murder (who had himself then committed suicide) and his family. Franz Jägerstätter, an Austrian who had been the only person in his village to vote against the Anschluss (the 1938 union with Germany) and who was executed for refusing to fight in the army of the Third Reich is another example; as is Protestant Pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer whose resistance of Hitler led to his execution in 1945).  American Catholic social reformer, Dorothy Day is yet another example.  Such Christians are effective witnesses that make us stop and critique the cultural Kool-Aid which so many drink without thinking.  Niebuhr outlines other positions that people might take—the “Christ of Culture” accommodationist who does not see the conflicts between the demands of the Gospel and the enticements of the culture being at the opposite end of the spectrum from the “Christ against Culture.”  At the Second Vatican Council the Church pretty much embraced the “Christ Transformer of Culture” model as the operative paradigm.  The “Christ Transformer of Culture” model admits the flaws and failures (and sinfulness) of the culture but also believes that the culture contains within it, by God’s goodness, the seeds of transformation out of which can—through processes of conversion empowered by grace—emerge the Kingdom of God.  In other words, the world is redeemed and that redemption is (slowly) becoming visible as the Kingdom takes root in our hearts.  I must admit, as I have admitted before, I am a strong Augustinian and consequently I find myself more sliding towards (though not at) the “Christ against Culture” end of the scale. 

     What stops me from falling into the “Christ against Culture” slot is that those who wish to be the “Christ against Culture” voices in the Church and in the world need to have the moral probity of a Dorothy Day or Helder Camara or the Amish survivors.  You can’t talk about how wicked the culture is and then parade around in red capes with people kissing your hand, not that red capes and hand-kissing are culturally relevant but neither are they prophetic witness.  Our bishops would do well to stop sitting in pharisaic judgment on the culture from which they are benefitting and instead highlight where are appearing already the first buds of the Kingdom of God.  As I have said before, everyone knows what the Catholic Church is against—we need voices that can tell us what it is for.   We need to publicize the good that is being done in the developing world by Catholic Relief Services.  We need to show off the work of the Little Sisters of the Poor.  We need to empower the voices of Joan Chittester and Elizabeth Johnson and Donna Orsuto and Barbara Reid and Mary Ann Glendon and Sandra Schneiders and Margaret O’Brien Stienfels and Lisa Sowle Cahill and Delores Leckey and Mary Lyons and Diane Bergant and Teresa Koernke and M. Theresa Moser and Janet Mock and hundreds of other women to speak out and be heard within the Church and for the Church.  We need to make the Catholic Worker Houses and Marriage Encounter and Cursillo and the Secular Franciscans and Gethsemane Abbey and Catholic Charities USA and Commonweal more visible.  We need to get the insights of Richard Rohr and Ronald Rohlheiser and other contemporary spiritual writers into the hands of spiritual seekers.  We need people to identify the fact that Notre Dame and the College of the Holy Cross and the University of San Diego and Boston College and Georgetown and DePaul University and dozens of other top-rate schools are brought to you by our Catholic Church.  And we need to remind people too that dozens of hospitals named Mercy and Providence and Saint Joseph and Charity and Saint Vincent’s and whatever were built for health care of all people of any and no faith by the Catholic Church and its many agencies.   We have a lot going for us as a Church—we only need the sort of leadership that knows better than to keep singing in a minor key.

Is Rush Limbaugh to be the Next American Cardinal?

Cardinal Joseph Bernardin (1928-1996)
A wise prelate whose advice about 
dialogue should have been heeded

Rush Limbaugh calls a Third-Year Law Student a “slut” because she advocates mandatory contraceptive coverage. What has that to do with contemporary American Catholicism?  Well, plenty actually. Whethr or not we like it, Rush Limbaugh has joined our team, climbed on our bus, and maybe we need to relook at what we are standing for.     

      Of course the whole situation arose in response and consequence to the American Bishops opposing mandatory coverage for contraceptives as part of the Health Care legislation.  Had the bishops limited their argument to exempting Catholic institutions from having to provide coverage for those procedures to which Catholics—on moral grounds—object,  the bishops may have had an argument, By broadening their attack on Health Care to argue that any employer should be exempted from having to provide coverage, however, the Church has lost in the court of public opinion where 83% of Democrats, 62% of Independents, and even 42% of Republicans (a minority of Republicans but a remarkably high minority given this having become a partisan issue) believe that all employers (including Catholic Institutions) should have to provide contraceptives coverage.   In a clumsy attempt to define this as a battle for religious liberty (which is one facet of the conundrum) the Republican controlled House of Representatives convoked a hearing led by Chair of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Darrell Issa (R.CA) and invited a panel of religious leaders to testify.  At the same time Issa refused to accept the credentials of Democratic witness, Sandra Fluke, claiming that she was “unqualified.”  (The excuse was later defended by claiming that her name was submitted “too late” to the panel.)   Just to make sure that injury was not unaccompanied by insult, Representative Issa referred to Ms. Fluke as “a college student.”  Sandra Fluke is, in fact, a Third Year Georgetown University Law Student where she leads the “Law Students for Reproductive Justice.”  Ms. Fluke had done her undergraduate degree at Cornell and before going to Law School she had worked for five years at “Sanctuary for Families,” a non-profit agency that assists victims of domestic violence.  Seeing tapes of her she is extremely articulate, certainly far more articulate than Mr. Limbaugh.  In fact, she is far more articulate than most bishops.   And she is certainly as qualified—if not more so—to speak to the issue of women’s concerns about Reproductive Justice as well as the legal repercussions for women and families of the failure to provide contraceptive coverage as was the all-male panel of bishops, seminary professors, rabbis, and imams.  Note: The all-male panel.  This was the problem.  What were the Republicans thinking when they convoked an all male panel for this issue?  And what was Bridgeport CT Bishop William Lori thinking when he agreed to sit on it.  S-T-U-P-I-D!!!  Was Bishop Lori so struck by the glamor of a national spotlight (a “protégé” <and the quotes are deliberate> of the late Cardinal James Hickey of Washington, Lori is a “climber” <here the quotes are used to denote a colloquialism> of the first degree) that he had no foresight on how this would make the Church look.  The hearing had no sooner begun and the good Bishop prattling away comparing making the Church pay for contraceptives to requiring a Kosher Deli to carry pork, when a Democrat member of the panel, Carolyn Maloney (D. NY) interrupted and asked the fatal question: “Where are the women?”  What a disaster!!!  When will our leadership (aka the Bishops) realize that they need to step out of the spotlight and put lay people—and in this case, women—there as the spokespersons?  If the American Church survives the incompetence of its episcopal leadership it will be only by the grace of God.  Let us hope that God doesn’t become so disgusted with their abysmal leadership that He doesn’t abanon them to their own ineptitude. Their narrow provincialism is  making it increasingly embarrassing to be Catholic.  And now, Rush Limbaugh weighs in adding ballast to their arguments.  This is the last thing we need to have happen.  I have always found a tone of anti-Catholicism in Limbaugh—I think he knows how dangerous the papal magisterium is to his conservative (read neo-nazi) stand on immigration, social justice, human dignity etc) and is no admirer of the Catholic Church.  What a wonderful way to rob it of whatever shreds of credibility it has remaining but to come to its side in attacking a bright and articulate Law Student.  Geez, what hole will we dig to fall into next? 

      Before his 1996 death from pancreatic cancer, the late Cardinal Joseph Bernardin of Chicago had proposed a “Catholic Common Ground Initiative” to open dialogue with those who find themselves at odds with magisterial positions so that we might find the common ground on which we can build consensus. He was viciously attacked by such pillars of self-righteous authoritarianism as Cardinal Bernard Law (whose moral fiber became clear in the sex-abuse cover up scandals) and the omni-phobic Cardinal James Hickey (whose one-time secretary is the same William Lori who was testifying to this Congressional panel). 

      This current debacle only bears witness to the wisdom of Bernardin’s call.  If the Church is not to lose all credibility we need to sit down to open dialogue with a number of groups in our society, foremost among them women.  The bishops need to hear the needs and concerns of women.  Yes the Church has its moral teachings.  We are not disputing that.  But women have legitimate concerns to which we need to be sensitized.  Certainly not all women would agree with “the feminist agenda” nor allow that “radical feminists” speak for them, but our basic ignorance, as a Church, of the needs and concerns of the vast majority of women (not just Limbaugh’s “feminazis,” but of all women and especially of minority women) makes it impossible for us to bear effective witness of the Gospel to them in today’s societies.  Maybe the bishops need to invite Sandra Fluke and listen to her—I am not saying agree, I am saying listen—voice telling them what she does know better than them.  Maybe if the clergy began listening to the faithful, really listening, they would find that the Holy Spirit sings in more than one choir.  And maybe the Church might begin to regain its credibility before it brings down the entire building on itself in one huge act of self-destruction.  But then again, if the bishops are afraid of Elizabeth Johnson, Joan Chittester, and Sandra Schnieders—all nuns in their seventies—they certainly won’t want to be in the same room as a bright and articulate law student who is just over 30.