Recently in Bishops Category

Oh, dear. My archbishop has committed a bit of a faux pas: starting a blog, and a bit awkwardly.

Good evening.

I’m sure your day has been just as full as mine. I began my day by celebrating mass at the Cathedral Rectory Chapel at 7:30 this morning and had a productive meeting with the Presbyteral Council from 10:30 until 2:00 this afternoon.

Well, at least we know it's authentic, then. (And yes, I checked, the domain name does belong to the Archdiocese.)

Anyway, welcome to the Catholic blogosphere, your M&Ms!

Bp. Braxton wrote a pastoral letter for Pentecost that presents an unusually frank and in some ways clarifying treatment of factionalism in the Church. I haven't finished it yet, but wanted to draw it to your attention.

Thanks to Mark Waterinckx for the tip.

Would you agree that the Catholic Church has an image problem? The causes aren't just third-rate novels like "The Da Vinci Code" or the "discovery" of "The Gospel of Judas," as if spurious ancient writings about Jesus Christ were something new under the sun.

No, the image problem is largely self-imposed these days. The Church's enemies magnify the flaws of her members, to be sure, but they did not instill those flaws, nor do they install those members into positions of power.

Primarily, the Church's reputation has suffered because of the priest sex scandals. I would argue -- I have argued -- that the laity share the blame, for insisting that their clergy be "nice," non-judgmental, and non-dogmatic. But the primary responsibility rests with the bishops who did very little to stop the problem, beyond moving offending priests into therapy or reshuffling them into different jobs.

The scandal, then, stemmed from bad governance. (If you think the problem was because priests can't get married, you came to the wrong blog.) Instead of confronting the problem and causing a temporary disruption, bishops opted for a "soft" approach that would not cause grave scandal to non-Catholics. The result was an even more grave scandal when the facts came to light. To those outside the Church, it looked like bishops were doing what was good for their "tribe" instead of doing what was right. And there was much truth in that assessment.

In light of that, non-Catholics will be forgiven if they think the bishops' defense of illegal immigration is just another cynical ploy. In this case, the prelates want to continue the flow of immigrants so they can increase the size of their flocks and wield more influence in society.

I do not pretend to know what goes on in the heads of the bishops, whether individually or collectively. Personally, I doubt that they are that coldly calculating, and they genuinely believe that legal and illegal immigrants should all be granted citizenship, showered with various forms of public assistance, and receive a gentle kiss on the forehead before going to sleep every night. But you can't blame the public at large for harboring doubts.

During my youth, I worked on a construction site and four different restaurants. A large percentage of my co-workers were immigrants, and I got to know their personal lives -- what it was like growing up in Central America, what their lives were like now. I also think of the kids in the multi-ethnic neighborhood where I grew up. For several years, I played on a league soccer team drawn from our housing development, and only two players had been born in the U.S. (Not me: I was born in Germany.) As you'd expect, we won almost every game.

So when I write about immigrants, I'm not just talking about the guys who cut my lawn. From first-hand experience, I can see how difficult it is for those in the lowest economic strata of our society...working two or three jobs, hoping they won't get sick, trying to survive in a very expensive area of the country.

To those of you who think illegal immigration is no big deal, I ask you this: why do you want to hurt those struggling workers? You may protest that you just want to give immigrants a chance at a better life. But admitting millions of unskilled or low-skill immigrants -- legal or illegal -- depresses wages among the poorest workers.

That point should be so obvious that only a fool or a professor would deny it. When they seek employment, workers don't apply for "a job," they seek jobs for which they are qualified. Employers such as restaurants and construction companies do not need to pay better wages or provide better working conditions, because they know they can replace their workers easily.

It will only get worse over the next decade. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, job growth will be almost exclusively in high-skill sectors. (Click the thumbnail to see the official chart.) Job losses will be in low-skill sectors (read the full article from the BLS.)

Yet if the Senate's immigration "reform" bill is enacted, it will increase, not decrease, the supply of low-end workers, as the number of low-end jobs dries up. We will have more people fighting for fewer jobs at lower wages.

Once again, could someone please explain what is "just" about that?

I have been stewing about the Church's response to the sham immigration "reform" bills percolating in the Senate. This response has been led by Cardinal Mahony of Los Angeles, who has never been noted for any political activism that didn't involve running interference for liberal Democrats.

The cardinal's position boils to this: the United States should abandon its southern border and let everyone in. In Mexico alone, according to a recent survey, something like a quarter of the population would move to the U.S. if given the chance. That means about 28 million people, in addition to the 11 million illegals already here.

This is not a teaching of the Roman Catholic Church. It has little to do with the Gospel. It is the cardinal's personal opinion. Let's go to the Catechism:

The more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin. Public authorities should see to it that the natural right is respected that places a guest under the protection of those who receive him.

Political authorities, for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible, may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions, especially with regard to the immigrants' duties toward their country of adoption. Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens.

How can immigration possibly be a "natural right" in the same sense as the right to life, if it is subject to "various juridical conditions" -- and thus can be denied if the civil authority sees fit? The answer must be that it is a conditional right, based on dire circumstance. Like the classic hypothetical situation where a man takes bread from a store to feed his family, the Catechism presumably means that a person has the right to leave his homeland if the alternative is death (which is the literal reading of "livelihood.")

Mexico is a Third World country, but they are well-off by Third World standards. They have a trillion-dollar economy, which works out to over $10,000 per capita. Compared to regional neighbors Guatemala ($5,200), El Salvador ($5,100), Honduras ($2,800), and Nicaragua ($2,400), Mexico is quite wealthy. Its citizens aren't fleeing north because they are starving, they are trying to improve their economic prospects. Big difference.

The Mexican government wants to keep exporting its poor, mainly so it won't have to undertake necessary social and economic reforms to solve its internal problems. I cannot recall the good cardinal, or any other prelate, calling on Mexico to institute "social justice" measures -- for instance, to insist on honest judges or property rights for all classes, which would help their economy immeasurably.

What about the effect on black people? They are Americans who helped build this country, contributed sons to fight and die in its wars, and have contributed heavily to the cultural life of the nation. Two-thirds of blacks are middle class or richer, but one-third aren't. They deserve prior consideration in any social decision regarding mass low-skill immigration, and their interests should be protected. Same thing with poor whites, or poor Hispanics, or any other poor person.

No matter how rich or powerful it is, the United States is a country like any other, and it has the right to require documentation of immigrants, to refuse entry to criminals, and protect its poorest and most vulnerable citizens against economic calamity. Aiding and abetting a corrupt and dysfunctional government, impoverishing the poor, imperiling our common culture -- how exactly does mass immigration further social justice?

The Italian press agency AGI reports on the Pope's Chrism Mass homily:

POPE REMEMBERS DON SANTORO, MAN OF PRAYER

(AGI) - Vatican City, April 13 - "Being a priest means being a man of prayer". Benedict XVI wanted to remind his listeners of this fact today: all the priests, bishops and cardinals who celebrated at his side the Chrism Mass, the first ritual of Maundy Thursday. "Being a priest", said the Pope, "means being a friend of Jesus Christ, and this ever more so with all of our existence. The world needs God, not just any god, but the God of Jesus Christ, the God who became flesh and blood, who loved us to the point of dying for us, who rose again and found room in himself for man. This God must live in us and we must live in Him".

Stressing that this is "our priestly calling", Pope Ratzinger gave homage to Don Andrea Santoro, murdered last February in Trebisonda, Turkey, while praying, by repeating a phrase Cardinal Marco Ce' said during Spiritual Exercises. "The word", said the Pope, "said 'I am here to live among these people and allow Christ to do so by lending him my flesh. One becomes capable of salvation only by offering up their bodies. The evil in the world needs to be carried and the pain shared, absorbing it in one's bodies completely, as did Jesus".

Pope Ratzinger stressed that every priest needs prayer, "a mount", "an interior height that we must climb". "Only in this way", the Pope noted, "can friendship develop. Only in this way can we carry out our priestly duties, only in this way can we bring Christ and his Gospels to men". Benedict XVI didn't hide the fact that "simple activism can be heroic". But, he warned, "external acting, at the end of the day, doesn't produce fruit and loses effectiveness if it does not arise from the deep, intimate communion with Christ. The time that we use for this is time of pastoral activity, of authentic pastoral activity".
.
131214 APR 06

The homily (in Italian) is online at the Vatican site.

Over the weekend, I transcribed Ed Peters' 1995 HPR essay, "The coming bishop crunch". At the time, Peters observed that two-thirds of America's bishops were scheduled to retire in a twelve-year period and the Church would have to replace them, with the "crunch" years falling now, from 2005 to 2007.

So where can the Church find 15 priests a year "outstanding for their solid faith, good morals, piety, zeal for souls, wisdom, prudence and other virtues and talents, possessing advanced degrees or true expertise in scripture, theology, canon law..." for the work of a bishop in this country? The piece offers bishops and laymen some suggestions on how they can help meet the shortage of candidates. The years of peak demand are upon us now, but the need isn't going away.

AP says:

A priest charged with molesting three boys had been accused years before of having questionable conduct with a minor while he was in the seminary and was still allowed to be ordained, according to a report released Monday that outlines a widespread breakdown in communication at the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Chicago. [...]

McCormack is accused of molesting three boys between September 2001 and January 2005.

Officials at St. Mary of the Lake Seminary in Mundelein were told McCormack acted inappropriately with two adult males and one adult minor in 1992, according to the report. McCormack was ordained in 1994.

Archdiocese spokesman Jim Dwyer said the allegation of questionable behavior with a minor was never fully developed. The report acknowledged that the archdiocese does not review seminary files.

In the whole piece, the name Bernardin (d. 1996) doesn't appear once.

I just deleted a comment, for the second time ever. It was by someone who has been commenting a lot recently, and he shall remain nameless. Here was the comment:

Maybe if those bishops at that worthless synod that Paul VI instituted after Vatican II would have some guts and decided to excommunicate these "Catholic by name only" murders, or at least deny them communion, we would not have this discussion. But you see the Popes after Vatican II and the Bishops themselves are no better than the pharisies of the 1st century who handed our Lord over for crucifixion, only now they are handing our Lord over to baby killers. And you contribute money to this baby killing church?

They are more worried about being Loved by the world like JPII than doing what is right by God, and they are paying the price now.

I can't speak for anyone else here on Catholic Light, but if you want to insult me, go right ahead -- I've got a thick skin, and I can hold my own. But you will not use this space to disparage any pope, or the bishops collectively.

Offering a critique of a pope's governance of the Church, with respect and true charity, is fine. Nobody said any pope is perfect (and any pope would agree with that.) But you simply cannot claim to be a faithful Catholic while throwing around phrases such as "baby killing church."

I'm frustrated that many bishops don't firmly rebuke Catholic politicians for publicly betraying the Faith. Everybody else on Catholic Light thinks the same way, too. If you really want to see the bishops take action, do you think baseless, angry accusations are the best way to accomplish that?

Bishop Robert Vasa of Baker, Oregon, has served notice that he is not going to comply with USCCB policy on "safe-environment" programs for children. While he's willing to offer one in Catholic schools, he's not going to push it on every child in the diocese, out of respect for parents' right to direct the education of their children in sexual matters.

Thanks to Bishop Vasa for his willingness to buck the demands of the bureaucracy.

(via CWN)