Reflections on the USCCB Meeting, Part I | National Catholic Reporter

Reflections on the USCCB Meeting, Part I | National Catholic Reporter by MSW. MGB: The rudeness of DiNardo and cluelessness of Blair are why I believe in local election for bishops - as if that occured they would not likely be in the conference.  I am also not that sanguine with Wuerl, who with Blair and DiNardo essentially blocked any meaningful change in the focus of the USCCB.  I agree that McElroy was a bright spot.  I hope he gets both a red hat and an elected position in the conference.  The reform minded bishops will appreciate him, but may not have the heft to block DiNardo from the Presidency - but Vice President would be lovely.

As to continuity and discontinuity - much of the discontinuity in reform was reversed by both St. John Paul, who fought it at Vatican II, and Benedict, his attack dog - who even in the papacy gave us a translation of the Mass (which is what people mostly notice), that almost word for word reflected the English translation of the Mass of St. John XXIII.  Of course, some changes can't be undone, much to the chagri of Bishop Blair.  The Sisters have found their own path that is not as dependent on the local Ordinary (and some are very Ordinary) as the bishops would like, taking health care reform as an example and their williness to accept the accommodation on birth control offered by Obama.

This brings me to the heresy of Americanism - which is a feature, not a heresy.  It is not a bad thing when doctrine must be bound within our constitutional system.  Our legislature will not simply bend its will to Catholic voters, prompted by Catholic prelates on many of the issues of the day - primarily because they are issues of individual rights - like gay marriage, contraception, gay sex and, yes, abortion.  Only England and English common law nations put rights over the power of the legislature and the institutions (like the Church) who would dictate otherwise. Its a feature, not a flaw, and until the Vatican and the USCCB come to grips with this, they will be spitting in the wind with such documents as Faithful Citizenship.

St. Pius was also wrong about his Condemnation of Modernism - especially as it pertains to biblical and theological scholarship. At least most of the Church, aside from the CDF and some in the USCCB, have granted that the Modernists have won and its a good thing.  Anti-modernism is essentially the stance that doctrine must be protected from the truth as it developed.  Francis seems to understand these dynamics, so it is no shock that some of our bishops are confused, although he does not understand American law and I suspect President Obama did not have the time to explain it to him.  Mores the pity.

Note that the holding of Modernism or Americanism does not block one from being a faithful Catholic.  Indeed, accepting reality is no block to a belief in the Resurrection and all of those doctrines that really matter.  We are for the Church, not against it, even when it errs like the bishops did this week. Those of us who are to the left will vote like we always do, without regard to the latest disasterous document.