For today's Common Good Forum, we feature an essay from our chairman Dr. Alfred Rotondaro on last week's United States Conference of Catholic Bishops meeting in New Orleans and how the Church in the United States, led by our bishops, can be more responsive to Pope Francis's call to be a "poor Church for the poor."
With the excitement around the still relatively new papacy of Francis, this is an important time for the Church in the United States. There is a deep hope that the Francis Revolution can transform the deep moral crisis our country faces and the current decadence of our national politics.
A leader in this revolution must be the American bishops, but after their summer meeting this past week in New Orleans, it doesn’t appear they’re up to the task yet. It is almost as if the Bishop of Rome and the bishops of the United States are singing from different song sheets. Francis wants a “poor Church for the poor” that meets people on the existential peripheries of society and that isn’t obsessed with an important, but narrow set of social issues. But I’m not convinced the American bishops have gotten the memo.
While some of the meeting focused on the issues at the heart of the Pope Francis agenda, the bishops’ main thrust continued to be the three social issues that have dominated the conference for the better part of a decade: abortion, traditional marriage and religious liberty. Their focus on these three issues to the detriment of others that also affect millions of Americans on a daily basis has hindered their ability to be more effective voices of moral authority.
These issues—in particular, abortion—are important. But remember, life might begin at conception, but it doesn’t end there. To be truly pro-life, we must be willing to look at the total reality of human existence. In particular, the bishops must be willing to address the moral scandal of the economic crisis that is still plaguing working Americans.
My frustration with their unwillingness to speak more boldly on this situation spilled over last month when Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York made the inane decision to work behind the scenes with libertarian economist Larry Kudlow in producing a Wall Street Journal op-ed where Dolan claimed Pope Francis’s economic message isn’t really as radical as we think it is. This is the same Larry Kudlow who wondered out loud last summer if Pope Francis even knew a thing about economics. This might make Cardinal Dolan and Larry Kudlow uncomfortable, but the facts are clear: Pope Francis isn’t a fan of the trickle-down economic system that has dominated the United States for the past thirty-five years.
And neither were his immediate predecessors John Paul II and Benedict XVI. In particular, Benedict’s groundbreaking 2009 encyclical Deus Caritas Est was explicit in its critique of the speculative, free market activities that tanked the American and global economy the previous fall. But as might be true now, the American bishops then did not take the opportunity from the pope to address these issues in a truly meaningful way.
While the bishops’ meeting did not do a good enough job addressing these economic issues, there were a few bright spots. The University of Virginia’s Brad Wilcox gave insightful remarks about the role the current economic crisis is playing in American marriages. He spoke of how economic inequality is affecting the abilities of couples to enter into sustaining and successful marriages. In short, Wilcox argued, the poorer you are, the more likely you are to have a failed marriage.
But these bright spots that percolated throughout various points of the meeting aren’t enough. The American bishops have got to take the Francis agenda more seriously. In particular, the bishops must take his ecclesiology to heart.
He said it well in his September 2013 interview with the Jesuit publications:
I can clearly see that what the Church needs today is the ability to heal wounds and warm the hearts of faithful. It needs to be by their side. I see the Church as a field hospital after a battle. It’s pointless to ask a seriously injured patient whether his cholesterol or blood sugar levels are high! It’s his wounds that need to be healed. The rest we can talk about later. Now we must think about treating those wounds. And we need to start from the bottom.
This too must be the vision of the Church of the United States. Our country is facing an inequality crisis that must be addressed from the bottom up. When the bishops come together this winter, this must be at the forefront of their conversation. And to address these issues in pertinent ways, the bishops must learn more fully how to engage parishioners in the pews. Instead of having academic lectures, the bishops should learn from the experiences of those who today are living the faith of Jesus Christ in the streets. To hear more of the work of women religious like Sisters Simone Campbell and Carol Keehan and labor priests like Father Clete Kiley would be a good starting point.
I love the motto of the state of North Carolina: to be, rather than to seem. The words that express that express the value of authenticity would be a good motto for us as we go forward. The American Church must show that we are truly responding to Pope Francis’s invitation to change, to grow and to become more converted to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this conversion to be real and substantive, it must transform everything. Let’s hope the Church of the United States—beginning with our bishops—responds generously to the invitation.
Thought on what “pro-life” should truly mean is complex, but it seems there are practically four areas deserving our attention: 1. opposition to violence, including both actual activities (e.g. militarist foreign policies, and capital punishment), and cultural attitudes (e.g. the undue heroization of people in the military and law enforcement, and the cult of the “good guy with a gun”); 2. opposition to inequities in standards of living, including the many sad results of poverty (this is what Pope Francis has in mind!), such as inadequate food, shelter, and health care; 3. commitment to environmental ethics, as we have seen NCR is on top of; 4. commitment to animal protection, including especially protecting the countless mammals, birds and fish captured, exploited and made to suffer in the food industry.
As for bringing these issues to the parishes, it depends to a large extent on the interests of parish pastors, and those interests depend on the deep conversations they have with the more thoughtful of their parishioners. Progressive change will start with the laity!
In the past they got started when the USCCB approved for publication “Global Climate Change : A Plea for Dialogue, Prudence and the Common Good” in 2001. It was never adiquitly shared with the parishes.
Recenthy the National Catholice Reporter had an editorial called “Climate change is church’s No. 1 pro-life issue”. It was on page 26, the last page, in the May23-June 5,2014 issue. It is past time to bring the big issue to the parishes
Opponents of Pope Francis give lip service to agree, but say government (and MY taxes) should not be involved. In the real world, thousands die annually with the trillions of taxes are now spent. Private donations will not touch the dollars needed to help the disadvantaged. Millions will die annually due to starvation and health problems. Would Christ be satisfied?
But it is disappointing that he can unironically use that false old slogan “pro-life,” in the context of “To be, rather than to seem.” “Pro-life” is just a kind of seeming, when all it is intended to refer to is human life. True pro-life, the being of that term, not the rhetorical seeming, includes a commitment to environmental ethics and to animal-protection ethics.
If Catholics wish to be true to their anthropocentric heritage, and limit their moral concerns to human beings, then by all means they should do so, but they should stop lying and hiding behind the slogan “pro-life.”
If on the other hand they can find it in their consciences to move beyond te biblical anthropocentric traditions, and come to understand that their place in God’s creation, as empowered rational moral beings, requires them to be profoundly committed to the well-being of all living creatures in this community of life on Earth, then and only then may they accurately refer to themselves as “pro-life.” For then it would truly be being, not seeming.