Bishop-speak

Bishop F. Joseph Gossman of Raleigh, North Carolina, has joined the fray offering his tepid statement on Catholics in political life. Unfortunately, the bishop does not respond as well as some of his brother bishops did to the challenge they face in this election year. In fact, his statement is full of vapidity and double-speak. That may be generous. In fact, it is the height of empty “episcopal-speak.” Sound impressive while saying nothing. He says things like, “There is a growing awareness that the legislative support of abortion is not a political policy with minimal consequences.” A growing awareness? Could any statement be more empty of moral content? All he is saying here is that abortion is a contentious political issue. Well, duh! If someone is only having a “growing” awareness of the fact, he’s either been in a coma for 30 years or daft.

Here is another representative paragraph:

The Church does not engage in political activity. Its primary responsibility in the political arena is one of being educatedole to make a point.

And so I was frustrated that you assumed that by mentioning those three that I was comparing Gossman to them. As I said, I was not and that you could even ask the question tells me you weren’t paying attention to what I was saying.

As for your first point, to say you were supporting their roles as bishops is meaningless to me. You consistently talk as if any criticism of a bishop is out of bounds. Yet, such thinking would never have the questioning that allowed us to root out the Scandal, never mind, for example, the dozens of other problems that Catholic World Report has reported on over the years.

]]>
1

0
0

14308

meep@marypat.org
http://marypat.org
68.173.152.238
2004-08-11 20:51:35
2004-08-12 00:51:35
=Sigh=.  You know, I moved from Raleigh to New York, and I don’t remember Egan saying one thing about this.  Dom - do you know if Egan has made =any= statement on this issue?

I miss O’Connor so much.

]]>
1

0
0

14309

dom@bettnet.com
https://www.bettnet.com
192.168.1.1
2004-08-11 21:03:52
2004-08-12 01:03:52
I have’t seen any statement from Egan.

]]>
1

0
0

14310

lawrence.stich@sbcglobal.net
http://dad29.blogspot.com/
68.254.169.47
2004-08-12 07:41:38
2004-08-12 11:41:38
The Bishop is a Twit.

And people who equate “love” with “trust” are verbally-challenged.  Ask any parent.

]]>
1

0
0

14311

camilam42@gmail.com

10.3.0.101
2004-08-12 09:04:08
2004-08-12 13:04:08
Ya know….for all this rhetoric….it is still up to the bishop, in his See to decide.  Archbishop Burke can approach this one way, Bishop Bruskewicz can approach it another, Cardinal Egan can approach it yet another. 

We may or may not like it, but it is not up to us.  I have not seen one bishop, NOT ONE who has come out and said that abortion is right or good.  I have seen that all bishops are saying that abortion is bad.

The difference is over juridical application.  Talk about meaningless rhetoric.  What we are doing on this is meaningless….do you think that any of this is going to influence a bishop?  You know what will….calling your bishop and voicing your opinion.

You do a disservice to me (if we are going to talk about this, which I think is stupid) to say, “As for your first point, to say you were supporting their roles as bishops is meaningless to me. You consistently talk as if any criticism of a bishop is out of bounds. Yet, such thinking would never have the questioning that allowed us to root out the Scandal, never mind, for example, the dozens of other problems that Catholic World Report has reported on over the years.”

I don’t support doing it in a public forum.  I support doing it in a private forum.  The reason you disagree is because you don’t have anything juicy if you follow what the Church consistently asks.  What would CWR have to report on (apparently) if there was no scandal?  There is a lot.  The Church is HUGE….

If we love the Church, why report the negative?  Why not report the positive?  The Church is not always juicy.  I know that reporting about the Catechism and encyclicals and the latest papal audience is not as glamorous as reporting about Frs. Geoghan and Shanley, and Cardinal Law.

But have you ever thought that bringing this to the forefront could be driving people away from the Church?

I have shown time and time again that this issue is a matter of private forum.  It is not a matter for Catholics to be running around openly questioning their bishops.

Are what some of the bishops have been doing and saying wrong?  Yes.  Should we be reporting, commenting, and protesting that?  No.  The Church is not and should not be treated as another American Institution.  It is not.  It transcends.

While this issue may be great reading and will most certainly sell magazines, should we cowtow to American journalism or should we be better than that and be Catholics in America; rather than American Catholics?  I think so.

We can’t have it both ways….to follow the teaching of the Church on some things and not on others.

I think that CWR does a great service with some of what it does, but I have to treat it like I treat Time.  I have to pick and choose my articles.  That I don’t like.  The funny thing is; I can read Columbia from cover to cover.  I can read L’Osservatore Romano front to back.  And I want to read CWR from cover to cover, but I can’t.  CCC 2477 says that I have to avoid those articles.  That is sad that I have to do that in a Catholic publication.

Cam

]]>
1

0
0

14312

dom@bettnet.com
https://www.bettnet.com
192.168.1.1
2004-08-12 13:08:07
2004-08-12 17:08:07
Why report the negative? Do it in the private forum? People complained for years in the private forum, and nothing ever got done.

But have you ever thought that bringing this to the forefront could be driving people away from the Church?

Wait a minute. What’s driving people away? The fact that bishops allowed priests to abuse kids or the fact that it was brought into the light so that it had to be dealt with?

Listen to yourself: it sounds like you’d rather have kept it all quiet so that people thought everything was hunky-dory rather than bring it into the light so that it finally gets dealt with.

Yes, I would have liked to have dealt with this in-house, among the family, as it were. But for years bishops and others stonewalled those who wanted to deal with it. It wasn’t until it was made public that anything happened.

You can say all you want that we should never speak about this in public. But you’re wrong. I also find your comments insulting to me and my colleagues, because you insinuate that our motives are less than honorable.

For your next point, I don’t want to report negative stories on the Church. I don’t get my jollies from it, contrary to what some people think. I hate that the Church is rife with corruption and sin. But rather than bury my head in the sand or hope that somebody else does something about it, we report on it so that sombody will.

And don’t think that what we write doesn’t make things happen. I happen to know that CWR is read in a lot of chanceries and in very important offices at the Vatican. Articles we’ve written have caused changes to happen in the Church.

As for Columbia vs. CWR, give me a break. Columbia is a PR newsletter. It’s not a newsmagazine.

Also, reporting on the Church doesn’t make it just another American institution. It means we see the Church as an important part of our lives and THE key element in society. Because we value the Church and her mission, we want her to better than she is, more pure.

Go ahead and pretend that covering your eyes and ears will make all the bad men go away. The rest of us will still be here trying to clear up the mess for you.

As for the original point: I’ll repeat it againteubenville at the same time I was there.)

This happened yesterday in Arizona.  Maura didn’t want to tell everyone this - so I’m doing it for her. 

I think you’ll see that she spoke for many of us yesterday.  I guess nothing works so well as simplicity in situations like this…

Maura’s meeting John Kerry on 8/9/04

Maura had Philomena [her 5-month-old daughter]in her arms this morning at LITTLE AMERICA, the motel in Flagstaff, Arizona. After she finished eating, she saw a lot of commotion in the hall and when she asked was told that John Kerry was staying at the motel and would be coming down soon. She stood by the stairway because she could see a lot of Secret Service-types going up and down the stairs. Shortly thereafter, Teresa Kerry came down the stairs, spotted the baby and came over to Maura and made a fuss about the baby. Maura said she was very pleasant and asked if she were breast feeding (the baby is big) and when Maura said “yes” Mrs. Kerry noted that she had breast fed three.