" Gilgoff's strategy is to divide and conquer ."
The Roman Catholic bishops who attacked President Obama's recent appearance at Notre Dame and who've called for pro-abortion rights politicians to be denied communion constitute a minority. Most of the roughly 275 U.S. Catholic bishops have kept quiet about both controversies.
Liberal Catholics claim this silent majority disagrees with strident public pronouncements from outspokenly conservative bishops. Most U.S. bishops, they say, think Notre Dame was right to invite the president—and that Catholic elected officials should receive communion regardless of their stance on abortion.
Catholic scholar David O'Brien makes the case in the latest National Catholic Reporter:
As Catholic bishops gather in San Antonio this week, they face some tough questions. Their most recent engagements with politics sharpened divisions within the church and left the bishops shaken, even embarrassed....
The shrill reaction of many bishops to President Obama's election and visit to Notre Dame reflected a grim image of an embattled church hunkered down against hostile enemies....
Only a few seem able to resist. One who does so is retired San Francisco Archbishop Emeritus John Quinn. As the ugly rhetoric heated up this spring, Quinn argued that even "where there are grave divisions as there are on abortion," Catholics should recognize that it is in "the interest of both the church and the nation to work together in civility, honesty, and friendship for the common good."
Here's my question to Catholics, like O'Brien, who allege that outbursts of anti-Obama sentiment by some bishops has left the majority of U.S. bishops " shaken, even embarrassed": Is there any hard evidence for that case?
O'Brien cites one retired bishop who publicly broke ranks with the anti-Obama-at-Notre Dame bishops. That's a thin reed on which to claim that most Catholic bishops reject the hard-line anti-Obama statements coming from some of their ilk. I'd like to see some real evidence for this theory, widely held by liberal Catholics. For me, the silence of most U.S. bishops doesn't suffice.
Dan Gilgoff :
God-o-Meter blogger Dan Gilgoff is Beliefnet's Politics Editor. A former political correspondent for U.S. News & World Report, he is author of The Jesus Machine: How James Dobson, Focus on the Family, and Evangelical America are Winning the Culture War.
Lets say this once and for all....If you are a Catholic that supports Obama, then you are no Catholic. I dont know what you are, maybe you are a Pagan or a Satanist, but you are not a Catholic.
Anyone who supports a President that supports abortion and says they are a good Catholic is a dirty rotten low down sleazy floor flushing dirtbag.
Quinn is evil - or if not evil, so dysfunctional he’s the closest thing to it. He was actually removed because of his problems in SF, and under JPII, this means that he was truly, truly horrible. So I’m puzzled as to why they would use him as a spokesman.
Well, not really. This is the last gasp of the Jadot bishops, the old line “Spirit of Vatican II Uber Alles” guys who destroyed the Church in the US and therefore are the darlings of the journalistic world. They’re dying off, but not fast enough. Unfortunately, there are still enough of them - bishops of dwindling, bankrupt dioceses, but USCCB bishops nonetheless - to outnumber the new crop of good bishops, appointed by BXVI or at the very end of JPII’s reign when the US was given a new nuncio.
There are those who believe the third secret from Fatima that was to be, but never revealed in 1960 as requested by the Blessed Mother, predicted the recent apostasy in the Church.
It certainly appears the liberal clergy, namely the American Bishops, will continue to ignore the politically incorrect beliefs of Roman Catholicism.
We Catholics should take comfort because Christ said the "Gates of Hell" will not prevail against His Church.
Obama speaking at Notre Dame was, without doubt, an abomination of desolation as described in the Bible.