USCCB = RNC = GOP

In an effort to formalize its status as a wholly-owned subsidiary of the GOP, the USCCB has decided to end all funding of ACORN by the Catholic Campaign for Human Development.

It seems like there are, in fact, financial concerns about ACORN which should legitimately raise a concern about how well funding that goes to the organization is being used.

However, the Bishops didn't stop there. They bought in fully to the dishonest GOP political spin:

More recently, the Subcommittee also became concerned about widespread reports of ACORN involvement in alleged voter registration fraud and political partisanship. As a result of the cut-off earlier this year, no CCHD funds were involved in any of these activities. However, the allegations intensified our questions and problems around ACORN's organizational integrity, competence and non-partisanship. Therefore, we extended the cut off of CCHD funding of any ACORN organizations.

These concerns about "political partisanship" are coming from the organization whose members told Catholics that they'd go to Hell if they voted for Barack Obama.

Shall we judge the Bishops as they judge? If so, can we continue our weekly offerings?

Are the Bishops Trying To Have It Both Ways?

You may recall that, in the day leading up the election, several prominent partisan-prelates insisted that the only issue of concern for Catholic voters was abortion.

Last Tuesday, of course, Barack Obama scored an overwhelming electoral-college and popular vote victory. So now the Bishops, in a Statement pushed principally by many of these same partisan-prelates, are channeling Bill Clinton to rationalize that "it's the economy, stupid":

The recent election was principally decided out of concern for the economy, for the loss of jobs and homes and financial security for families, here and around the world. If the election is misinterpreted ideologically as a referendum on abortion, the unity desired by President-elect Obama and all Americans at this moment of crisis will be impossible to achieve.

The Bishops can't have it both ways here. Either the principal issue was abortion, and the clear majority of their flock flatly rejected the Bishops' partisan arguments, or the clear majority of the flock rejected the Bishops' misleading prioritization of abortion as the sole issue for consideration.

Either way, abit more intellectual honesty and self-reflection from the GOPriests would be a welcome change.

USCCB Official Statement On The New Administration

The USCCB has released its Joint Statement, which was drafted after yesterday's debate on Faith & Politics:

STATEMENT of the President of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops"If the Lord does not build the house, in vain do its builders labor; if the Lord does not watch over the city, in vain does the watchman keep vigil." (Psalm 127, vs. 1)
The Bishops of the Catholic Church in the United States welcome this moment of historic transition and look forward to working with President-elect Obama and the members of the new Congress for the common good of all. Because of the Church's history and the scope of her ministries in this country, we want to continue our work for economic justice and opportunity for all; our efforts to reform laws around immigration and the situation of the undocumented; our provision of better education and adequate health care for all, especially for women and children; our desire to safeguard religious freedom and foster peace at home and abroad. The Church is intent on doing good and will continue to cooperate gladly with the government and all others working for these goods.
The fundamental good is life itself, a gift from God and our parents. A good state protects the lives of all. Legal protection for those members of the human family waiting to be born in this country was removed when the Supreme Court decided Roe vs. Wade in 1973. This was bad law. The danger the Bishops see at this moment is that a bad court decision will be enshrined in bad legislation that is more radical than the 1973 Supreme Court decision itself.
In the last Congress, a Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) was introduced that would, if brought forward in the same form today, outlaw any "interference" in providing abortion at will. It would deprive the American people in all fifty states of the freedom they now have to enact modest restraints and regulations on the abortion industry. FOCA would coerce all Americans into subsidizing and promoting abortion with their tax dollars. It would counteract any and all sincere efforts by government and others of good will to reduce the number of abortions in our country.
Parental notification and informed consent precautions would be outlawed, as would be laws banning procedures such as partial-birth abortion and protecting infants born alive after a failed abortion. Abortion clinics would be deregulated. The Hyde Amendment restricting the federal funding of abortions would be abrogated. FOCA would have lethal consequences for prenatal human life.
FOCA would have an equally destructive effect on the freedom of conscience of doctors, nurses and health care workers whose personal convictions do not permit them to cooperate in the private killing of unborn children. It would threaten Catholic health care institutions and Catholic Charities. It would be an evil law that would further divide our country, and the Church should be intent on opposing evil.
On this issue, the legal protection of the unborn, the bishops are of one mind with Catholics and others of good will. They are also pastors who have listened to women whose lives have been diminished because they believed they had no choice but to abort a baby. Abortion is a medical procedure that kills, and the psychological and spiritual consequences are written in the sorrow and depression of many women and men. The bishops are single-minded because they are, first of all, single-hearted.
The recent election was principally decided out of concern for the economy, for the loss of jobs and homes and financial security for families, here and around the world. If the election is misinterpreted ideologically as a referendum on abortion, the unity desired by President-elect Obama and all Americans at this moment of crisis will be impossible to achieve. Abortion kills not only unborn children; it destroys constitutional order and the common good, which is assured only when the life of every human being is legally protected. Aggressively pro-abortion policies, legislation and executive orders will permanently alienate tens of millions of Americans, and would be seen by many as an attack on the free exercise of their religion.
This statement is written at the request and direction of all the Bishops, who also want to thank all those in politics who work with good will to protect the lives of the most vulnerable among us. Those in public life do so, sometimes, at the cost of great sacrifice to themselves and their families; and we are grateful. We express again our great desire to work with all those who cherish the common good of our nation. The common good is not the sum total of individual desires and interests; it is achieved in the working out of a common life based upon good reason and good will for all.
Our prayers accompany President-elect Obama and his family and those who are cooperating with him to assure a smooth transition in government. Many issues demand immediate attention on the part of our elected "watchman." (Psalm 127) May God bless him and our country.

It is interesting that, with respect to abortion, the Bishops focus exclusively on the Freedom of Choice Act which was introduced last year in Congress, as it has been ever since Bill Clinton was President.
To the extent that FOCA would overturn existing State regulations on abortion, it is most likely unconstitutional. Although, ironically, the federal "partial-birth abortion ban" pursued by those in the criminalization caucus set the precent for federal regulation in the are of reproductive rights.
At any rate, it is peculiar that the Bishops chose to focus on an entirely hypothetical issue. The next Congress has not yet even been seated and Barack Obama is still 70-plus days from taking the oath of office. The way legislators draft bills which they know have no chance of either passing or being signed into law is often different from the way they draft bills which they expect to become law.
So we'll have to wait and see.
Notably, no public statement from the Bishops yet on Pro-Choice Catholic politicians and the Eucharist.

According To Some Bishops

These voters did the right thing:

In Arkansas, which had among the nation’s largest concentration of counties increasing their support for the Republican candidate over the 2004 vote, “there’s a clear indication that racial conservatism was a component of that shift away from the Democrat,” said Jay Barth, a political scientist in the state.
Race was a strong subtext in post-election conversations across the socioeconomic spectrum here in Vernon, the small, struggling seat of Lamar County on the Mississippi border.
One white woman said she feared that blacks would now become more “aggressive,” while another volunteered that she was bothered by the idea of a black man “over me” in the White House.
Don Dollar, the administrative assistant at City Hall, said bitterly that anyone not upset with Mr. Obama’s victory should seek religious forgiveness.
“This is a community that’s supposed to be filled with a bunch of Christian folks,” he said. “If they’re not disappointed, they need to be at the altar.”
“I think there are going to be outbreaks from blacks,” she added. “From where I’m from, this is going to give them the right to be more aggressive.”

I Think It's Safe To Say . . .

That the most vocal of the partisan-prelates have lost their sh*t.

The on-again-off-again discussion of Politics & Faith was back on again at today's USCCB annual meeting.

Some of the Bishops' comments were stunning in their level of hysteria:

2:34 p.m.: Bishop Boyea draws applause when he raises the specter of Catholic hospitals being forced to shut down because of their refusal to comply with regulations requiring them to perform abortions.

Presumably Bishop Boyea is referring to the "Freedom of Choice Act", which President-Elect Obama has indicated he would sign. This Act was first circulated during the Clinton Administration, has not even been introduced by Congress and is not pending any scheduled votes. Further, to the extent it seeks (as originally written) to legislate Constitutional Rights, it is most likely unconstitutional and would never been passed in such a form. Ultimately, nothing in the Act as originally drafted would do what the Bishop is threatening.

2:38 p.m.: More applause as bishops recall the link Cardinal George made in his presidential address yesterday tying the Supreme Court’s Dred Scott decision to the current battle for the rights of the unborn.

Can someone explain to the Bishops the difference between state-action and state-permission?

2:53 p.m.: Bishops also concerned about the term “common good” since some Catholic groups tried to use that terminology to justify voting for pro-abortion politicians.

You know, because we wouldn't want anyone to this people who are actually born are included in the "common good".

3:07 p.m.: Bishop Martino of Scranton alludes to Vice President-elect Biden when he comments that no Catholic politician should be able to come into his diocese — Biden was born in Scranton — and erroneously state Catholic teaching on abortion.

Or what? That's the real question here.
And here's where the real paranoia kicks in:

3:15 p.m.: Bishops encouraging other bishops to not be afraid to stand up for life in whatever they do in their home dioceses, even if it means risking their own lives.

I'm not aware of any Priest or layperson who has ever been killed in America for protesting abortion. Several healthcare providers, on the other hand, have been murdered by so-called "pro-life" activists.

Bishops Blink on Abortion & Politics

You may recall that in the aftermath of the 2004 Election in which some Bishops threatened to deny the Democratic nominee John Kerry his right to receive the Eucharist, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops determined that the body of Bishops should speak with a more unified voice.

The result was the Statement on Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship, which garnered a remarkable 98% assent among the body of Bishops who were present, debated and voted on the issue. Unlike prior USCCB Statements which were criticized by CathCons as having been drafted and approved by sub-committees (the implication being sub-committees full of liberal dissidents), the 2008 Statement was drafted, debated and approved directly by the Bishops themselves.

As 2008 progressed and it became apparent that many Catholics were (correctly) reading the Statement to permit their support for pro-choice politicians including Barack Obama, several partisan-prelates became more vocal and more strident in their condemnation of such voters. These GOPriests believed that a politician or party who merely gives lip-service to promising to attempt to overturn Roe v. Wade (as the GOP has for the last several decades, with no success) is to be preferred over a candidate or party who chooses compassion over condemnation and criminalization and who vows to do the hard work of actually trying to reduce the demand for abortions.

In addition, these same partisans insisted that the Statement be revisited at the Bishops' Conference which begins this Monday. Presumably they sought to revise the Statement to clearly preclude the support for pro-choice politicians altogether. Indeed, Denver ArchBishop Charles Chaput, the leading GOPrelate, who sometimes sounds like he gets his talking-points from Karl Rove instead of the Pope, recently said "Faithful Citizenship' didn't and doesn't work because it's been applied by different people in very different ways." Of course, a careful reading of the Statement makes clear that allowing "different people" to apply the Church's teachings "in different ways" was the very point of the Document.

The stridency of these GOPrelates was to no avail, and may in fact have backfired. Last Tuesday a clear majority of Catholics voted to send Barack Obama and Joe Biden to the White House. This represented a dramatic shift from the Catholic vote in 2004. The Obama/Biden ticket even made substantial in-roads amongst the sub-group of Catholics who attend Mass at least once a week, which is the group that has traditionally been the most Republican.

Now, perhaps in response to those Election results, the Bishops late yesterday quietly revealed that they were dropping "plans to discuss the practical and pastoral implications of these serious matters."

This was a complete 180 from earlier in the week, when Newark, New Jersey ArchBishop John Myers described the urgency of the Post-Election debate as "a very big deal".

Is this a capitulation and realization that such partisan stridency has been counter-productive to the cause of life and has divided and diminished the flock rather than built it up? Or is it a "honeymoon" to wait and see what policies the new Administration actually pursues?

Either way, the ball is now in the new Obama/Biden Administration's court to follow through on the very promising positions they staked on the full range of Catholic Social Teaching.