South Texas Catholic (Corpus Christi, Tex.), Vol. 31, No. 1, Ed. 1 Friday, January 12, 1996 Page: 5 of 24
twenty four pages : ill.View a full description of this newspaper.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
SOUTH TEXAS CATHOLIC
COMMENTARY
JANUARY 12, 1996—5
Life Issues
Bubba Theologicus
The primordial evil of our time
By Cardinal Bernard Law
*W" t is a privilege to serve for the
I next three years as Chairman of
.A. the Pro-Life Activities Commit-
tee of the National Conference of
Catholic Bishops. The work of this
committee is not strange to me, since
I have served as both a member and a
consultant for many years. I am aware
of the outstanding leadership provided
by Cardinal Mahony, and the contri-
butions of a most effective staff ably
directed by Ms. Gail Quinn.
The Catholic Church in the United
States has been singular in her
consistent voice in support of life—
particularly life when it is most
fragile—notwithstanding persistent
efforts to marginalize the Church in
the public policy debate. It has been
interesting to note the reception of the
recent Statement on Political Respon-
sibility issued by the Administrative
Board of the United States Catholic
Conference. Editorials and Op-ed
pieces in the nation’s leading newspa-
pers have heralded this statement as a
major contribution to the current
public policy debate, particularly as it
relates to welfare reform efforts. To
be sure, much of this praise is not
without its exceptions. The bishops
are praised for their comments on
wide range of issues, but praise is
withheld from what we have to say
concerning abortion.
It is this failure to link abortion to a
broad range of social questions which
is the fundamental flaw in our society
today. All too many people, and
unfortunately, all too many Catholics,
have failed to recognize the essential
link between the right to life and other
social issues. In the Statement on
Political Responsibility, the bishops
say: “Human life is a gift from God
which all of us are called to protect,
nurture, and sustain. The right to life,
the most basic of all human rights,
must be protected by law. Abortion
has become the fundamental human
rights issue of our day because it is the
deliberate destruction of a human
being before birth.”
For the First time in decades, public
attention has been focused on the grim
reality of abortion in the debate
concerning partial-birth abortions. The
determined effort to introduce the
reality of these late-term abortions
into the debate was resisted vehe-
mently. Those who champion the right
to choose abortion recognize that the
truth about abortion is the best
argument against abortion. While we
are heartened that the bill to ban
partial-birth abortions has passed both
Houses of Congress, we are gravely
concerned that some advisors are urging
President Clinton to veto the bill. I have
contacted the President to make my views
known, and 1 urge Catholics and others
who value human life to contact the While
House as well.
As I view the tasks before the Pro-Life
Activities Committee for the next three
years, I know that part of our task will be
to present the facts about abortion to the
public. There is still great ignorance
concerning the awful reality of abortion
and the barbaric statistics charting its
incidence in the United States.
Abortion is the primordial evil of our
time. To fail to understand this is to be
condemned to failure in stemming the tide
of violence in our society, particularly
violence against children, women, the frail
elderly, and whoever is most vulnerable.
These are challenging days for the Pro-
Life movement. The Church is well
positioned to carry the Pro-Life banner,
for our teaching calls us to respect every
human being at whatever stage of life's
journey, and to respond with a compas-
sionate justice to all who are in need.
Cardinal Bernard Law is the Arch-
bishop of Boston, and the newly-elected
Chairman of the National Conference of
Catholic Bishops' Committee for Pro-Life
Activities.
Obstacles on the road to ecumenism
By James Hitchcock
y'”'V ne of the most significant
■ I religious developments of
the past two decades has
been the growing rapprochement
between Catholics and conservative
Protestants. The latter are divided
between Evangelicals and Funda-
mentalists, whose differences are not
always easy for an outsider to
understand.
At least in the United States
official ecumenical initiatives have
been somewhat misleading, because
the so-called “mainstream” of
Protestantism is ceasing to be
mainstream. Baptists in their various
forms are the largest American
Protestant denomination, and only
recently has the Catholic Church
opened formal discussions on that
front.
“Mainstream" ecumenism has
proven to be disappointing in many
ways, because it has been directed
towards liberal Protestantism, that
branch of Christianity which very
self-consciously tries to adapt itself
to the culture of each new age. Thus
liberal Protestantism has few stable
beliefs, since all its beliefs are
subject to change if the times seem
to require it. (Sexual morality is the
most obvious example.)
Hence official agreements are of
limited value, because by the time
such agreements are reached new
issues have arisen. (Women’s
ordination is most obvious here.)
Short of itself simply becoming
liberal Protestant in its teachings, 1
do not think the Catholic Church can
reach a lasting theological understand-
ing with mainstream Protestantism.
Relations with conservative Protes-
tantism have mainly been unofficial,
carried forward by people in the
various denominations who do not
speak for their respective churches.
This “grassroots” ecumenism has,
however, demolished some formidable
obstacles of suspicion, prejudice, and
misunderstanding and has produced
remarkable examples of ecumenical
cooperation.
However, obstacles do remain, as
they must given the fact that both sides
in this discussion take their respective
faiths very seriously. There will be no
miraculous “breakthroughs” on such
teachings as the office of the papacy,
for example, or Marian beliefs.
A few years ago a group of Catho-
lics and Evangelicals signed a public
statement affirming large areas of
unity, while also acknowledging large
areas of disagreement. There was
almost no negative Catholic reaction
to this statement, but several promi-
nent Evangelicals later found it
necessary to remove their names from
the document in the face of strong
criticism from within their own
churches.
It is a basic principle of ecumenism
that it demands frankness, and I think
it is necessary to recognize the
substantial element of anti-Catholi-
cism which still exists in certain
conservative Protestant circles,
something which goes beyond sincere
disagreement and borders on
demonization of the Catholic Church
(literally demonic, in some people’s
view, because they think the Church is
the Antichrist).
Ian Paisley is a Northern Irish
minister who is as virulent an anti-
Catholic as it is possible to find in the
world today, and this Fall the Catholic
League for Religious and Civil Rights
reported that he spoke at Regent
University in Virginia, an institution
under the auspices of the noted televi-
sion evangelist and political figure Pat
Robertson. Paisley was invited by the
student chapter of the Rutherford
Institute, an organization set up to
defend religious freedom from the
numerous assaults to which it is now
subjected in the United States.
When the League protested Paisley’s
visit, the president of Regent University
apologized and said that the lecture was
inappropriate, a notable instance of
sensitivity to Catholic feeling. (Secular
liberals routinely stonewall when
confronted with evidence of blatant
anti-Catholicism.) However, the head of
the Rutherford Institute, John
Whitehead, dodged the issue and
declined to admit that there was
anything inappropriate about Paisley’s
visit.
I have often praised Whitehead and
his institute for its many efforts on
behalf of religious freedom. But his
failure to acknowledge blatant bigotry
when he sees it is extremely disappoint-
ing and raises serious questions whether
Catholics can cooperate in what is in
principle a very worthwhile venture.
(James Hitchcock is a professor of
history at St. Louis University and a
nationally published author.)
“Make the World
Go Away!”
Definitions:
1. “Bubba”— First name given to a country boy
who, although unpolished in theological discourse,
takes swings at folks and institutions prone to
denigrate Catholic moral principles.
2. “Theologicus ”— ImsI name given to
Bubba in an attempt to associate him with loftier
ideas than those found on his bumper stickers.
By Rome D. Smyth
Somewhere I read that the pain of speaking from
the heart is always more endurable than the suffering
that is the price of silence. It’s how we go about
seeking forgiveness that’s at issue here.
What prompts the recent surge on the part of show
biz luminaries and wanna-be’s to tell-all in public
confessions? Might it be cash? It’s now quite trendy
for anyone on whom the spotlight falls, however
briefly, to unload their sins in public. Even members
of European royalty whine for absolution from the
great unwashed. In the process, more than a few
innocents are lambasted too.
As a professional sinnei,
I could make big bucks
relating my transgres-
sions—mega bucks! But
lacking the wherewithall to
write and publish a book,
ordinary folks have
discovered a quicker way
to unload their personal
soap operas—live, talk
radio.
For centuries The
Opposition has hammered
the Catholic Church for
one of it’s fundamental
and very private institu-
tions—the Sacrament of
Penance. Entire counter-
theologies have been
written, crackin’ on
Catholics for our way of
obtaining forgiveness. To
our everlasting credit we’ve persisted in our belief;
we’ve earned respect.
Comes now a real piece of nitwittery—call-in radio
talk shows. Talk to a real live psychologist who’ll
make the world go away! Participation is easy. Just
call Dr. Feelgood and unload your ditzy predicament.
In five minutes—tops, you get a shake-and-bake
solution. One size fits ail.
These aren’t rocket scientists calling in. They’re
plain folks like you and me with two exceptions.
One—they want the whole world to know what a
botch they’ve made of their lives. In babbling their
misery to millions, they hope to shuck their burden
easily and make listeners their scapegoats. Two—
they not only want a kick- start reconciliation now,
but want Dr. Feelgood to "bless” their crumby
lifestyles. At least they hope she will.
Dr. Feelgood usually doesn’t pass on the morality
of caller predicaments, but merely offers practical
solutions. I suspect in most cases, much is left unsaid
by callers who usually paint themselves as victims.
Other listeners, finding they share similar lifestyles
with these callers, are tempted to bend Dr. Feelgood’s
solutions to their own dilemmas.
There’s an old saying that goes: "Good news I like
to hear—bad news I gotta hear.” Most of us tend to
lock onto good news and disregard the bad to our
everlasting peril. Can’t you just picture this eat-outa-
the-can crowd, their ballcaps turned around back-
wards, shouting, “Yes!” and punching their fists into
the air in that annoying, adolescent expression of
enthusiasm when their own dorky lifestyles are
vindicated by Dr. Feelgood?
I wonder what the good radio doctor’s qualifica-
tions are—how balanced his or her lifestyle is. I’m
See DR. FEELGOOD, page 22
There's an
old saying
that goes:
"Good
news I like
to hear—
bad news I
gotta
hear."
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This issue can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Newspaper.
Espitia, Paula. South Texas Catholic (Corpus Christi, Tex.), Vol. 31, No. 1, Ed. 1 Friday, January 12, 1996, newspaper, January 12, 1996; Corpus Christi, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth855873/m1/5/: accessed July 17, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; .