Good News or Fox News, which is it Cardinal Dolan?
Posted on Sunday, June 10, 2012 at 09:51 AM
RSS 
Recent Posts
- Daily Mail unloads on 'drunken young' Paddys with booze-baiting rant - British tabloid continues its anti Irish attitude
- Marco Rubio: 'If immigration bill gives Cubans immigration rights, it kills the bill. I'm done' - VIDEO
- Diaspora should work both ways - time for global Irish to vote
- Ireland needs a new James Joyce - new voice of the Irish people is on the way
- Fox News Lou Dobbs panel: selfish working mothers are destroying the natural order and America
Archives
Nothing hardens hearts like the feeling of being left behind. There appears to be a lot of that feeling about at the moment and it's all rather worrying. The sense of being abandoned, or entirely dismissed, seems to be engulfing our main Christian denominations in particular just now, if their increasing howls of protest are to be believed.
I don't discount the power or influence of the Christian Right, or their sincerity, and so I'm worried by all the saber rattling about the 'war' and 'attacks' on Christianity, the Bible, Catholicism and all other Christian denominations that we keep hearing, from coast to coast.
They've been all over the news for months, these headline grabbing claims: the 'war' on Christmas, the 'war' on marriage, the 'war' on Catholicism. To hear him tell it, Cardinal Dolan was awarded a red hat when what he needed was a helmet.
Cynics might suggest that all of this is just an orchestrated campaign by Christian conservatives to discredit the president in his re-election year. But if that were true, it's a very high stakes and dangerous ploy for such comparatively meagre rewards.
Most concerning to Irish Americans here has been the continuing alignment of the institutional church and its leadership with the political hard right.
We have watched with increasing discomfort as our own Cardinal Dolan has become the biggest cheerleader of them all, the go-to guy with the media ready soundbite, the man who can be depended upon to unleash the most appalling rhetoric with the greatest ease. How did it come to this?
Last month Cardinal Dolan claimed that that the White House was 'strangling' the church over its contraception policies. Yes, he actually said strangling. Public policy makers found themselves re-branded as serial killers. Again, how is this helpful? These do not sound like the words of a spiritual conciliator seeking justice, these sound like the words of a political operative seeking traction.
It's an occupational hazard that disproportionally affects Americas spiritual leaders. They start out preaching the Good News but end up spreading Fox News.
In the past month the Cardinal has attacked the president, the White House, the gay community, the survivors of abuse by priests, The New York Times, and even the nuns. At this point both his supporters and critics could be forgiven for wondering who's not on his black list?
I wonder who is served most by all this divisive language and saber rattling and I doubt if its Jesus. It seems to me the people who most benefit from sowing division are the ones who manipulate our religious faith as a lure to get us into the voting booth.
For decades the religious right here have fixated on contraception, abortion, creationism and the gays. Cynics might say that this is to prevent us all from fixating on Health Care, Social Welfare, Education, Poverty and Equality.
Economic and social justice, the Religious Right teaches, are the goals of socialists, who are the agents of Satan. In that way the Religious Right have been very successful at getting the disadvantaged to vote against their own interests.
Meanwhile as the old guard of the church find their power and influence eroding in one arena they appear to be ratcheting up the rhetoric in another. But they may be overreaching. Even America's nuns have found themselves walloped with a crozier lately as the leadership seem intent to take the fight to literally everyone who might dare to articulate an opposing viewpoint. The thing is that would be most of the nation and the world now.
It would help if Cardinal Dolan could remember who he answers to. Perhaps his congregation need to remind him it's not Roger Ailes.
90 comments
BrianO | Jun 15, 2012, 12:24 PM EDT
Yes, I believe every individual should use his/her talents to achieve the best they can under as few constraints as possible. So I'll settle for government to be restrained by the founding documents, the negative powers of the constitution as the present president likes to term it. And I, and I hope you, can live your life Free and pursue what endeavors make you happy.
Report abuse
eiriamach | Jun 15, 2012, 10:37 AM EDT
Government can do something to protect and encourage equal opportunity. But "We aren't communists!" as that mafioso said in "The Godfather." I have no delusions that we'll get equal results. But wouldn't we like to see everyone get an equal shot and end up with at least enough for a decent life? That's the gist of the social contract.
Report abuse
BrianO | Jun 15, 2012, 10:04 AM EDT
Equal opportunity or equal result?
Report abuse
eiriamach | Jun 15, 2012, 09:03 AM EDT
BrianO, While you're stacking your chips with Locke (and Jefferson, who adopted Locke's individualism), notice that Locke took a social contract approach to the question of who ought to "own" what. See Ch. 5 of his "Second Treatise of Civil Government" (on line) for his famous, ever-problematic formula that property belongs to the one who "mixes his labour with the soil." It's an agriculture-based approach to property rights that focuses on the value of human work and frames the context of "the pursuit of happiness" as economic: "Sec. 27. Though the earth, and all inferior creatures, be common to all men, yet every man has a property in his own person: this no body has any right to but himself. The labour of his body, and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever then he removes out of the state that nature hath provided and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property.... where there is enough, and as good, left in common for others." Locke justifies private property, but only within a fair "contract"-- access must remain equal for all. How we ensure that equal opportunity is THE problem!
Report abuse
BrianO | Jun 14, 2012, 07:31 PM EDT
life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, originally the pursuit of happiness part read property as it was considered that important to ones individual freedom, so I'll stack my chips with locke and jefferson
Report abuse
eiriamach | Jun 14, 2012, 05:04 PM EDT
BrianO, you raise an interesting philosophic question when you say "redistribution of wealth is theft." This is not the place for full discussion, but I must at least reply with Proudhon's famous maxim "Property is theft!" ("La propriété, c'est le vol!"), from "What is Property?" 1840. Unless your property fell from the heavens into your lap and you did not need anyone else's labor to produce it or others' taxes to protect its acquisition or others' accommodation of your entrepreneurial efforts, some of it, at least, "belongs" rightly to the many others whose efforts contributed to your having it.
Report abuse
BrianO | Jun 14, 2012, 04:30 PM EDT
I believe you would be right if life was lived in a vacuum, but freemen do not live in a vacuum, they have the ability to raise themselves out of dire situations. the nanny state provides meager compensation in exchange for dependency, and loss of initiative. There is need for government but it must not be allowed to be master, as it is now.Don't believe me try to open a business. Oh and Eiriamach-- redistribution of wealth is theft, the percentage is only how much. If you believe groups to be immoral why do you support practices to decrease individual freedoms.
Report abuse
eiriamach | Jun 14, 2012, 11:34 AM EDT
BrianO and Andrew007, I saw after I posted that the comment before my recent one was addressed to Andrew. I apologize for jumping in.
Report abuse
eiriamach | Jun 14, 2012, 11:28 AM EDT
BrianO, redistribution of a percentage of private wealth is a universal characteristic of government. Consider: until there are goods and money in people's hands, they do not need the protections of government and have no reason to support one. But under good government, justice is not only of the compensatory (rights and reciprocal duties) kind, but also of the distributive kind. In other words, the poor or weak are as much in need of and as deserving of the protections and benefits of government as the wealthy or powerful. (They also have their fair share of the burdens and duties government imposes.) I have no utopian fantasies. I know how slow and agonizing the pace of change toward more complete justice can be. But I also know, as Martin Luther King put it, "Lamentably, it is an historical fact that privileged groups seldom give up their privileges voluntarily ... as Reinhold Niebuhr has reminded us, groups tend to be more immoral than individuals." So if regulation of finance industries is necessary to protect private wealth and middle-class stability, justice requires us to impose regulation. Ditto for other reforms that the more privileged abhor.
Report abuse
BrianO | Jun 14, 2012, 09:28 AM EDT
Andrew007, I wish to be 6' 4" and forever young, but reality doesn't allow that to be. Alas the promise of a socialist utopia has captured and enslaved many an idealistic person. There will always be imperfection in the world and in the people that inhabit it. The good works you hope for are bastardized when it is done by force, look at who are the most and least charitable. the believers of redistribution tend to be the least charitable and vice versa. An example would be of the current president who wants to do away with the charitable giving tax deduction, this would have a negative effect on private charitable gifts.
Report abuse
eiriamach | Jun 14, 2012, 09:09 AM EDT
Now the American bishops have decided to shift tactics. They are preparing a pre-election pastoral letter on economic concerns (not "social justice"). Will their new themes deepen polarization and help Romney or support infrastructure spending for stimulus and job creation? From CNS: "[T]he committee proposed a 12- to 15-page pastoral message to communicate the bishops' pastoral concerns as well as solidarity with those 'left behind in our economy,' especially workers without jobs and families living in poverty. A message on the economy would 'seek to get beyond some of the ideological and partisan polarization' surrounding economic issues, the document said. It would recognize that personal responsibility and public action, family structure and economic structures and solidarity and subsidiarity are essential." Some bishops want to address the increasing deficit [with austerity measures?], and there's no plan to respond to escalating costs of health care nor loss of workers' union protections.
Report abuse
Andrew007 | Jun 14, 2012, 03:53 AM EDT
@eiriamach and EamonnDublin, re the mistakenly named comms, thanks! @eiriamach, re the references: another thanks! I too am saddened at the loss of consensus and common ground, not just within the US, but also increasingly in the UK, Australia and other Western nations. It seems as if society has become increasingly polarised and intolerant of difference even before 9-11. We focus on what divides us not upon that which unites, but in this divisive "culture war" I wonder if there IS anything to unite us, as there are decreasingly ANY commonly accepted values. To be honest, this culture war seems to be an increasingly intense "civil war" of words; and I fear that if we go down this path for too much longer it won't just be of words, and Oklahoma and Norway may well be just the "opening shots" in a deteriorating situation, if you'll forgive my unintended pun. Some commentators have already begun to talk of something like this in the US, and this includes senior Marine officers. @hollabackgurl: why the question? Relevance?
Report abuse
Andrew007 | Jun 14, 2012, 03:31 AM EDT
@BrianO: I presume you meant to ask me for MY definition of social justice? Well, that would be broadly in line with what the Bible says, here are some things: taking care of the poor and needy, protecting/liberating the oppressed/slaves, ensuring that govt and law is good and just, protecting the innocent/children, and maintaining a morally good society (which req. faith). In the post-Industrial Revolution world, I believe this includes (not in any order): ensuring wages & conditions for workers are fair and safe, for there to be universal health care for the poor and some re-distribution of wealth (to prevent the growth of corrupting entrenched interests), the dignity of all (God-created) races is respected, women be treated with honour and gentleness (and with equal rights to voting, generally employment, &c - I'm opposed to women in combat), trad. family values are upheld and protected, children are protected from abuse (incl. the unborn) and taught faith and morality alongside secular subjects, corruption is extirpated, the political & commercial classes are held to account, the promotion of heinous immorality (like bestiality, by academic Peter Singer) is silenced and harshly punished, violent crime (incl. rape) is harshly punished, religious ldrs lead by example and purged when they don't ... etc. I hope that answers your question. Cheers.
Report abuse
hollabackgurl | Jun 13, 2012, 02:25 PM EDT
Andrew007 you don't live in the United States do you?
Report abuse
90 Comments
Report abuse