What Now? Bishops' Edition | National Catholic Reporter

What Now? Bishops' Edition | National Catholic Reporter by MSW.  MGB: Firstly, if the bishops wish to speak for us politically, and some moral issues do have political ramifications, they need to ask us first - bot because some of us have knowledge that they don't have and out of due courtesy. The spirit of prophesy (which is the same thing as self-criticism) should be encouraged in the Church.

Secondly, while only some bishops were outspoken in the media, all seemed to send out messages on Faithful Citizenship, but these often went against the spirit of the document. The document is flawed anyway, because it does not consider the likelihood that the great moral issues that they consider non-negotiable are not political issues at all, but are decided constitutionally out of the hands of legislative officials. Note that judges cannot be disciplined by the bishops, as any bishop so disciplined would be bound to recuse himself from the question before him - which means they can't force the 6 Catholic justices to listen to them on Roe or conscience protection.

Third, as far as traditional marriage where the wife is subject to the husband - let it die. What many bishops and Catholic theologians can't stomach is the loss of subservience within marriage. Hopefully, in a generation, this should die out. What the bishops fear is gay priests demanding the right of themselves and their heterosexual brethren to marry and to bless gay unions - as well they should. Doing so sends a message that being gay is not a license to live promiscuously. 

Fourth, the contraception mandate has been in force for almost 12 years. If it were a big deal, the USCCB would have taken this issue to George W. Bush for rethinking. Now that the election is over, this is not an issue at all. HHS will make the appropriate concessions or the courts will do it for them. The fact that the lawsuit against the mile was filed before it was ripe shows that this issue was entirely a political stunt, as the cases continue to be dismissed until a final rule is issued.

Fifth, the Massachusetts issue was about compassion, not choice. St. Thomas More in Utopia disagrees with you and the Vatican on this issue. It is a moral question, not a religious one. The theological question that IS relevant is whether you believe God will damn those ending their sufferings because he is personally offended at the prospect. It is a key question in Theology and it, not Liberty, is the difference between the Christian Left and the Hierarchy. I cannot believe that God is such an ogre.

Sixth, it is not merely enough to say that the GOP is giving lip service to the cause of life - if this is true we must take active measures to point that out so that the bishops cease all association with a movement that has become a Republican front (and mostly always has been). The fact that the bishops could not rely on unity in the pro-life movement to have the GOP work with the Democrats on perfecting, rather than defeating, the Affordable Care Act speaks volumes. Their one last chance should be seeking a larger refundable Child Tax Credit for every family, regardless of work status. If the pro-life movement disagrees, the bishops should have no further contact with them.

Finally, the New Evangelization must be about preaching the truth of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, not moral conformity within the Church.