The PR-approved and properly spun covenant

The PR-approved and properly spun covenant

Much was made of Bishop Tod Brown of the Diocese of Orange, California, nailing a 7-point covenant to the door of his cathedral, evoking the image of Martin Luther mailing his 95 theses to the door of the Wittenberg Cathedral. Except in this case, the bishop is nailing them to his own door.

The covenant outlines the diocese’s plans for its response to the Scandal, and it’s written in the typical soothing language of such documents. But what really should grab our attention is that the document was formulated with assistance of public relations firm to whom the diocese paid $90,000. The whole thing is one big act of spin. I’m sure the PR people told Bishop Brown that he had to do somethign dramatic that would garner press attention and that would make it seem like he’s rebelling against the old ways and striking out on a new path of leadership. Except that’s his own cathedral door he’s nailing that document to. Is rebelling against his own authority?

Also, notice that there’s nothing in there about conversion and evangelization. There’s one sop to the actual mission of the Church and it’s not even fully formed: “We will lead the rededication of the Diocese of Orange as an Ambassador of Godn than Republicans, the odds are that more Republican babies are born than Democrat.

Of course, that may break down if you consider socio-economic factors, i.e. poor people having more kids than rich people and so on. But all that says is that Republicans have to do a better job reaching out to poor people, especially poor Catholics, that is the large immigrant Hispanic population.

Written by
Domenico Bettinelli
6 comments
  • Joanne,

    Once again, when I say “snot-nosed 18-year-olds”, I am not referring to all 18-year-olds. I’ve explained that several times. I mean a particular kind of 18-year-old.

    And be careful what you wish for. Remember when everyone said Bush should sign the campaign finance law, even though it massacres our free speech rights, because the Supreme Court would veto it anyway and Bush wouldn’t look like he was protecting special interests? Yeah, that didn’t work out too well.

    The only thing worse than a Kerry presidency would be a Dean presidency. I remember everyone licking their chops at wooden-tree Gore running for president and look how close we came in 2000.

  • The idea that Bush is motivated by oil is an old canard and I won’t even debate it here.

    Suffice to say that I think both George (former Gov. of a state where this is a big topic) and Jeb (who is married to an Hispanic) have concerns about immigration.

  • Addressing your last point first, when I said be careful what you wish for I was referring to your desire that Dean win the nomination. He might seem like easy pickings for Bush right now, but he could still get elected. But it looks like that’s a moot point anyway/

    About your first point: Read everything I wrote carefully. I never said we should apply restrictions on who should be able to vote. I said I am not sad if snot-nosed 18-year-olds don’t vote and don’t think we should be encouraging them in any case. If they aren’t self-motivated to vote, then let’s wait until they’re mature enough to be.

  • Tim,

    Your claim that Bush is not pro-life enough therefore we should support a guy who used to work for Planned Parenthood and supports abortion at all stages of pregnancy is not logical. And it violates the Church’s teachings (as does your support of any kind of artificial contraceptionMarch for Life. He’s the president and has lots of demands on his time. I care what he does. And no Democrat is going to come even close on that score. Not one.

  • God forbid we should worry about terrorists. It’s not like they killed 3,000 Americans on our soil and are dedicated to killing as many more as possible. And where in Catholic teaching or the US Constitution does it say everyone is entitled to free health care? (Not really free anyway, since all end up paying for it and it becomes crappy anyway; Cf. Canadian and British socialized medicine.)

    Creating an economy that lifts all people up rather than one that pits those who provide the most capital to the system (the wealthy) against those who need the benefit of the capital in the system (the poor) seems to benefit more people. But what do I know?

  • Well, I disagree about the Iraq war and that’s going beyond the point. I don’t think the case can be made, and you’re not going to convince me.

    The Catechism only says that people need health care. It doesn’t say how it must be provided. Conservatives say t he free market can provide adequate health care for most with charity providing for the rest. Dean’s plan would bankrupt the economy and the country.

Archives

Categories

Categories