Fr. McBrien and the mythological "one issue bishops"

From the National "Catholic" Reporter, a piece about Fr. Richard McBrien and recent talk he gave at a Unitarian Church in Kansas City, Mo.:

Bishops who make a case for one-issue politics or openly oppose a political candidate are in violation of the guidelines set out repeatedly in their own documents on political responsibility, said noted theologian Fr. Richard McBrien in a recent talk here.

And who are these mysterious bishops who "make a case for one-issue politics..."? This is nonsensical, a straw man made of convenience, not facts. The article does not name a single bishop, suggesting that McBrien also did not name a single bishop. (If he did, I'm sure it would have been Archbishop Charles Chaput, of whom McBrien once said, "He's one of the worst.") Why not? Perhaps because those bishops who have been making statements about abortion (what else could McBrien be referring to?) have been using this sort of language:

It is the rare candidate who will agree with the Church on every issue. But as the U.S. Bishops’ recent document Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship makes clear, not every issue is of equal moral gravity. The inalienable right to life of every innocent human person outweighs other concerns where Catholics may use prudential judgment, such as how best to meet the needs of the poor or to increase access to health care for all.

The right to life is the right through which all others flow. To the extent candidates reject this fundamental right by supporting an objective evil, such as legal abortion, euthanasia or embryonic stem cell research, Catholics should consider them less acceptable for public office. As Faithful Citizenship teaches, “Those who knowingly, willingly, and directly support public policies or legislation that undermine fundamental moral principles cooperate with evil.” (October 1, 2008, Statement from New York State Bishops; emphasis added)

It is self-evident, I think, that saying, "Some issues are more significant and of greater moral weight than others"  is not the same as saying "Only one issue matters!" (Of course, it isn't self-evident to those who want to equate abortion with, say, capital punishment.) And I don't know of a single bishop who has stated the latter. And I don't know of any bishops who have publicly stated, "Don't vote for Mr. Smith!" or "Do vote for Mrs. Jones!" Again, names and specific examples would be helpful, especially since it appears these actions are part of what McBrien is hanging his hat on. But, of course, McBrien has been hanging his hat on this rusty nail for a while.

In his talk, McBrien listed five Catholic principles, taken from Catholic teachings, that he said can be applied to the current political process.

The five principles are general in nature and really don't say much of significance that people on either end of the political spectrum would object to. So what is McBrien's beef? Ah, that's right—the Papacy!—a topic near and dear to his pen:

In a question and answer period, on a different subject, he asked the audience to imagine a scenario in which President Bush “were in office for life and that he had the authority to make appointments to the U.S. Supreme Court and throughout the federal court system at will, without even a U.S. Senate to hold hearings and vote on the nominees.”

“That's exactly what Pope John Paul II -- or any other pope for that matter -- was able to do in his long term of office, and that is why the Catholic church finds itself today -- and especially during the height of the sexual-abuse crisis in the priesthood -- with such a dearth of pastoral leadership.”

McBrien said John Paul’s greatest failing, as pope, were the bishops he named. “Men were appointed bishops or promoted within the hierarchy on the basis of loyalty to the Holy See rather than on the basis of pastoral aptitude, theological sophistication and leadership skills.”

I don't know which is more annoying: McBrien's crude equating of the Papacy with the presidency of the United States (since when did the Church become a democratic nation?), or the fact that he, as a long-time tenured professor, is complaining about a position of power and authority that doesn't have term limits.

To be fair, there were plenty of Catholics along the spectrum who weren't always happy with the bishops selected by John Paul II. Being a pope, after all, does not insure perfect picks or even consistently good picks. But the reference to "pastoral aptitude, theological sophistication and leadership skills" does make one wonder if these are thinly veiled code words for bishops who would defer from pointing out serious theological and doctrinal errors in his opus, Catholicism. Or perhaps bishops who McBrien believes should stop talking about abortion and focus instead on "the seamless garment" approach that he endorses.

I wonder: how many of the Apostles would pass McBrien's litmus test of "pastoral aptitude, theological sophistication and leadership skills"? Very few, I suspect. Paul? Pastorally insensitive. Peter? Theologically naive. John? Not clear how good his leadership skills really are. And so forth.

The perfect bishop? Perhaps Archbishop Rembert Weakland. After all, he wasn't a "one-issue bishop"; on the contrary, he seemed to have a multitude of issues.

The long and rather strange "papacy" of Richard McBrien (isn't that what it really boils down to?) is slowly winding down, marked by a recent attempt to declare anathema sit on Humanae Vitae, angry denunciations of Latin and the "Tridentine Latin Mass," and a gig consulting on one of the most lucrative anti-Catholic movies in history. It appears, however, that he will never be named a bishop. Why? Perhaps because he has long been a one issue sort of guy, fixated on a single topic that consistently comes through in his various writings and talks: himself.

Comments

[charles]

Unbelieveable! You beat me in writing this down! I was going to send a letter to the editor of our local Catholic newspaper this week, warning of the danger of becoming fixated on a specific theological point to the detriment of clear thinking about the faith, and then suggest they stop printing McBrien since he's just a one trick pony, stuck in the same critical mode for the past thirty years. He makes the most cantankerous rad-trads (such as myself) seem moderate and balanced in comparison!

[LJ]

Loyalty to the Holy See is a disqualification for a Bishop?

[joanne]

I find it hard to read after any phrase similar to "..John Paul’s greatest failing, as pope, were.." Already, I'm thinking, "Who does this guy think he is?" Not that popes don't err, but the armchair popes make me nuts.

[The Athenian Stranger]

To paraphrase Mark Steyn, Fr McBrien is still recovering from the non-election of the Catholic Church's first gay black female Pope. Or, to paraphrase Randall "Tex" Cobb, Fr McBrien is way behind on points, late in the 12th (or 15th if you're a Nominalist from the Renaissance - Marcilius Ficino, call your office) round of his fight, but give him another 50 or 60 rounds and I'm sure he'll pull it out.