Catholic reporter defends his support for Obama, stating: "bishops be damned"

UPDATE (Feb. 29, 2008): Joe Feuerherd sent me the following note re: my post: "As the identification in the Post makes clear, I am no longer with the National Catholic Reporter. Haven’t been for about 10 months. The praise, or in this case the blame, resides solely with me." I apologize to both Mr. Feuerherd and the National Catholic Reporter for the error.

Joe Feuerherd, former reporter for the National "Catholic" Reporter, is an angry man, as his February 24th op-rant indicates (ht: Dr. Ed Peters):

To Catholics like me who oppose liberal abortion laws but also think that other issues -- war or peace, health care, just wages, immigration, affordable housing, torture -- actually matter, the idea that abortion trumps everything, all the time, no matter what, is both bad religion and bad civics. It's not, for God's sake, as though we're in Nazi Germany and supporting Hitler.

Is it really "bad religion" and "bad civics"? Not according to Pope John Paul II, whose great encyclical Evangelium vitae provided a very careful and powerful explanation as to why abortion is such a key issue. Here are just a couple of pertinent quotes:

To claim the right to abortion, infanticide and euthanasia, and to recognize that right in law, means to attribute to human freedom a perverse and evil significance: that of an absolute power over others and against others. This is the death of true freedom: "Truly, truly, I say to you, every one who commits sin is a slave to sin" (Jn 8:34). [par 20]

Among all the crimes which can be committed against life, procured abortion has characteristics making it particularly serious and deplorable. The Second Vatican Council defines abortion, together with infanticide, as an "unspeakable crime".

But today, in many people's consciences, the perception of its gravity has become progressively obscured. The acceptance of abortion in the popular mind, in behaviour and even in law itself, is a telling sign of an extremely dangerous crisis of the moral sense, which is becoming more and more incapable of distinguishing between good and evil, even when the fundamental right to life is at stake. Given such a grave situation, we need now more than ever to have the courage to look the truth in the eye and to call things by their proper name, without yielding to convenient compromises or to the temptation of self-deception. In this regard the reproach of the Prophet is extremely straightforward: "Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness" (Is 5:20). Especially in the case of abortion there is a widespread use of ambiguous terminology, such as "interruption of pregnancy", which tends to hide abortion's true nature and to attenuate its seriousness in public opinion. Perhaps this linguistic phenomenon is itself a symptom of an uneasiness of conscience. But no word has the power to change the reality of things: procured abortion is the deliberate and direct killing, by whatever means it is carried out, of a human being in the initial phase of his or her existence, extending from conception to birth. [par 58]

Laws which authorize and promote abortion and euthanasia are therefore radically opposed not only to the good of the individual but also to the common good; as such they are completely lacking in authentic juridical validity. Disregard for the right to life, precisely because it leads to the killing of the person whom society exists to serve, is what most directly conflicts with the possibility of achieving the common good. Consequently, a civil law authorizing abortion or euthanasia ceases by that very fact to be a true, morally binding civil law.

Abortion and euthanasia are thus crimes which no human law can claim to legitimize. There is no obligation in conscience to obey such laws; instead there is a grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection. [pars 72-3]

But, of course, all of this means nothing to Followtheherd:

This fire-and-brimstone approach to the ballot box is the long-term bequest of a conservative pope, John Paul II, enacted by a U.S. hierarchy appointed during his 27-year tenure and now by his successor, Pope Benedict XVI. John Paul's key criterion in choosing the men who lead the United States' 194 dioceses was their vocal support for church teachings that have been rejected in whole (birth control) or in part (women's ordination and abortion) by many Catholics in the pews and the broader American culture. John Paul gave little weight to management or pastoral experience, as evidenced by the bishops' handling of the clergy sex-abuse crisis.

Well, goodness, if the broader American culture is for it, it surely must be the right thing! Anyhow, to cut to the chase, here is the conclusion:

There's little hope, unfortunately, that the bishops will adopt a more pragmatic approach to achieving their aims anytime soon. Younger American priests, the pool from which future bishops will be chosen, overwhelmingly embrace the agenda enunciated by John Paul II.

So what's a pro-life, pro-family, antiwar, pro-immigrant, pro-economic-justice Catholic like me supposed to do in November? That's an easy one. True to my faith, I'll vote for the candidate who offers the best hope of ending an unjust war, who promotes human dignity through universal health care and immigration reform, and whose policies strengthen families and provide alternatives to those in desperate situations. Sounds like I'll be voting for the Democrat -- and the bishops be damned.

There you have it: either be "pragmatic" or follow the Pope, the reality about the Democrats and abortion be, well, dismissed. (For the record, this is not to say that I am thrilled about the Republican Party. I'm not. Not even close. But that'll have to wait for another time.) As for the final sentence, Dr. Ed Peters offers some sobering observations:

Now, Canon 1369 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law states that "a person who . . . in published writing . . . expresses insults or excites hatred or contempt against religion or the Church is to be punished with a just penalty." Canon 1373 states that "a person who publicly incites among subjects animosities or hatred against the Apostolic See or an ordinary because of some act of power or ecclesiastical ministry . . . is to be punished by an interdict or other just penalties."

I believe Feuerherd has gravely violated both of these canons.

Read Dr. Peters' entire post.

Comments

[LJ]

No doubt he would interpret any action under the canons mentioned by Ed Peters to be an attempt to interfere with his Constitutional right of free speech.

Those in charge of the National Catholic Reporter ought to disassociate themselves from the offending remarks and discipline Feuerherd, although I'm not going to hold my breath waiting.

One thing is clear. His assessment of Church teaching based upon the acceptance or rejection by large numbers of Catholics in the pew, ie. Humanae Vitae, is a clear indicator that he does not know or does not accept that the Church is not a democracy, and he seems to hold that principle of democracy above his faith.

Perhaps someone should remind him that it is the Episcopal Ecclesial Communion that votes on faith and morals.

There is an old word for what he has done. Rebellion. That is not unique to America but sadly, it is glorified in the culture of which he is so enamored.

[Jeff Miller]

Ramesh Ponnuru had a good article in reaction to this article here:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MzZiNDRhZDk5NTFmMGRjZWEwOWM5NTE1N2VhNzYzNDg=

My own opinion is that once again the ethic of the seamless garment has been changed into the shameless garment used to cover anything and justify who you want to vote for in the first place. Just plain moral relativism.

Ramesh makes some great points about Joe Feuerherd solutions which just have no evidence as being solutions.

[rd]

To talk "solutions" first, and address the evil later (if at all), would be missing the point, wouldn't it? It would be a concession that the primary issue is not gravely important. But it is gravely important. The right to life of the unborn is not negotiable--at least that's what I've been taught. So in my view a solutions-based debate without mention of the fundamental question is giving in to the pro-abortion cause.

Suppose the Democrats do bring lots of people out of dire poverty and abortion rates do fall at about the same time, for whatever reason. Yet the pro-abortion culture remains. Would the pro-life movement consider such a situation a partial success? I personally would not. Because in such a situation, society still believes that a person's right to be born hangs only on the will of a few. A society like that is doomed to die.

[Leonard Wood Grotenrath Jr.]

I may be mistaken but I don't believe that Feuerherd's deplorable comment should be taken as a literal expression of his desire to see the bishops consigned to eternal damnation. It strikes me as more an expression of "non serviam" than anything else. And while I dislike being in the position of defense counsel for anyone associated with NCR, I think it reasonable that he plead to the lesser offense of defiance of legitimate episcopal authority. In any event, he should have the good grace to retract his statement.

[Ed Peters]

Leonard, the expression "Non serviam" implies noting about what fate one wishes to see for the auhtority figure. Expressions like, "Go to Hell", or "Damn you", or "[May you] be damned" to make such assertion, ps: and for that matter don't necesarily imply Non serviam. Eg. "I'll obey you, but I hope you go to hell."

[Dan Deeny]

Ramesh Ponnuru has indeed written a very good article on the problems Feuerherd has. I was glad to learn, from Feuerherd, that Bishop Doran of Rockford has connected the abortion business to the Nazis. Blackgenocide.org has also made this connection. Carl Olson should interview Feuerherd and Majerus. But be nice. Remember the RSB.

[Ed Peters]

Was anyone able to decipher my botched post above? Here's what I meant to say:

Leonard, the expression "Non serviam" implies nothing about what fate one wishes to see visited upon the authority figure, whereas expressions like, "Go to Hell", or "Damn you", or "[May you] be damned", on the otherhand, do make such an assertion. For that matter, these assertions don't necesarily imply a "Non serviam". Eg, one could say, "I'll obey you, but I hope you go to hell."

Feuerherd makes clear his "Non serviam", I grant, but he ALSO expressly wishes damnation on the bishops for challenging his desires.

[joe]

In the spirit of Lent, I read Feuerherd's Op-Ed. I am pleased to report that as consequence of my doing so and offering up the ensuing (and grave) agony, it seems as if there has been a mass breakout from Purgatory.

I thank Feuerherd for the opportunity to exercise charity toward him.

-J.

[Peter]

Joe, I didn't think anything about this situation could make me laugh. Thanks for proving me wrong. The longer I'm a Catholic the less I understand where people get off thinking we're "so negative" when one can make an honest statement like yours and be on solid theological ground.

[Kevin]

I am so tired of the neo-con political religion. You know religion is more than advocating for life issues, right?
The Catholic Church in America is not a religion, it's a political action committee.

[Leonard Wood Grotenrath Jr.]

Dr. Peters,

I remain unpersuaded, but not unpersuadable. Perhaps my attempt at exegesis is no more than eisegesis, although it strikes me as odd that a NCR writer could be found guilty of damning anyone sensu stricto given that NCR and its coterie
have over the years given little evidence of believing in that aspect of eschatological reality. In any event, I would hope that Mr. Feuerherd would be humble enough to heed your admonitions and retract his comment. One can hope!

[Ed Peters]

nice thoughts, LWG. Interesting to note, F did not publish this in NCRep. In the back of my mind, I'm thinking, NCR would prefer not to go to bat for F on this one. But unless they do something to distance themselves, this is going to invite a scrutiny they shold prefer to avoid. NCR, to my knowledge, has never wished anynone damned.

[LJ]

Kevin,

You know that the Catholic Church as respresented by the Bishops advocate for a wide range of "life issues", against such things as "direct assaults on innocent human life and violations of human dignity, such as racism, torture, genocide, and the targeting of noncombatants in acts of terror or war." (Sister Mary Ann Walsh)
In fact, if you were to examine the Catholic Bishops' position on a wide range of issues quite dear to the left of the political spectrum you would find them in near agreement. (ie. the Iraq war, immigration, etc.) Does that then make them "neo-commies"?
The fact is that you cannot pretend to be on moral high ground on any of the moral issues of this or any election cycle if you do not start from the primary issue of right to life. All the other issues, whether directly or indirectly are life issues and rationally and morally hinge on that basic right. That doesn't have anything to do with right or left. Both parties in this election want to pick and choose their life issues, in my opinion, but the problem is that only one has as a party platform statement that affirms the basic, primary human right to life.

Like it not, abortion is not just one issue among many. It is the one issue that makes sense or makes hypocrisy out of all the other issues, depending on where you stand. Nonchalance is not an option. Not to decide is a decision.

[Ken]

Mocking Mr. Feuerherd's name "Followtheherd" adds nothing to the argument and seems immature.

[joseph]

there seems to be a major problem , and that is the discernment between a life issue and a standard of living issue,, no life ,no standard

[HPL]

Joseph has it precisely right: life must take primacy over quality-of-life. What does an aborted child care about tax reform or health insurance reform? Quality of life matters not at all to the dead.

[David Johnson]

One political candidate is pro-choice and the other is pro-life.
The pro-choice candidate may, however, not have the stomach or clout to thwart, say, a pro-life bill passed by congress.
The pro-life candidate may pay lip-service to protecting human life, but never gets around to doing anything to successfully promote pro-life laws (in the present case having had decades of time to do something).
Is there a good choice here?