What’s Up With the National Catholic Prayer Breakfast?
How far should a Catholic entity embrace an individual who expresses views publicly opposed to the core teachings of the Church? This is certainly an issue of great debate among American Catholics, and yet it seems to really only matter in selective circumstances. How do we deal with the National Catholic Prayer Breakfast? I know nothing of this outfit, other than that it is Catholic (so it proclaims in the title!), that it is moderately high profile, and that it has the support of some prelates. Should it therefore invite people to speak, who express public views that are opposed to core Church teaching on faith and morals? One would think that the answer would be obvious…but is it?
In 2008, they invited George Bush. This is a man who loves the death penalty (really loves it), began a gravely unjust war that led to at least hundreds of thousands dead and a quarter of the population uprooted, and implemented torture as a matter of government policy– torture, of course, is something the Church deems an intrinsic evil, something than can never be supported. Where was the outcry? And this year, they are inviting Antonin Scalia, a man who public dissents from Church teaching on the death penalty (quite sarcastically), and has also expressed public support for the use of torture for consequentialist reasons. Is he appropriate?
Is it so hard to find speakers with a consistent ethic of life, or were they not trying hard enough? And no, before anybody asks, I would not regard Obama as a suitable candidate either. But I do note very differing standards.
Comments are closed.
The National Catholic Prayer Breakfast is exactly the sort of place where we should expect our Catholic leaders (prelates, priests, and lay) to engage in the public discussion with our political leaders.
This is the sort of thing that we mean by “engagement” and discussion. It is a relatively open social function, where people can get to know each other. Some speakers might represent some views that oppose Catholic morality, but other speakers, and certainly the attendees are going to amply represent the Catholic side.
A man who publicly dissent from church teaching about the death penalty?
What, pray tell, exactly was that?
Certainly, you aren’t referring to then Cardinal Ratzinger’s (now Pope Benedict XVI) issued memorandum subsequent to Pope John Paul’s encyclical Evangelium Vitae (in which the late JP II himself did not altogether eliminate) wherein Ratzinger pointed out that presumably because of the ambiguities surrounding this question, there can be legitimate diversity of opinion amongst Catholics regarding when Capital Punishment should be used. In fact, he expressly did not state that he or even the Church was entirely against it.
I’m referring to Scalia’s essay in First Things where he mocks John Paul’s teaching on the death penalty in Evangelium Vitae. The teaching that the death penalty is only licit when there are no other means to defend society is owed religious assent. The “ambiguity” comes with the follow-up, that in John Paul’s view suich circumstances today were rare or practically non-existent. I can’t see how you could possibly argue with the pope’s conclusion, butr Scalia’s argument is not with this, it is with the underlying principle itself.
And anyway, I regard his support for torture to be far more serious.
MM, the root of the problem lies in our Church’s current misunderstanding of government-sponsored violence. While the Magisterium clearly states that violence is evil, that it is a lie, that it destroys what it claims to defend, the combination of Romans 13, double-effect theory, just war theory, and a long history of Church sponsored violence, makes it a slow and painful process of purification regarding this issue. But it is happening. The trick is to articulate out how the total rejection of violence is a development of tradition rather than a rejection of it.
Until our Church (both religious and laity) comes to resolution regarding the evil of all violence, the various governmental leaders will continue to get a (mostly) free pass on their support of death.
While the Magisterium clearly states that violence is evil, that it is a lie, that it destroys what it claims to defend
Nate, do you have a specific text in mind? I don’t think that’s an accurate paraphrase of Catholic doctrine, but if you have something concrete, I’ll reconsider.
For a Church which has a reputation for authoritarianism, we sure have a lot of freelance organizations claiming to represent the Church and forward its agenda–from Catholic Answers to Catholics for Choice. Most of these activist groups these days seem to be of the conservative type (ironic?).
This is part of our great tradition–the Church’s ability to generate these types of groups, thus accomodating diverse energies, while maintaining the formal more-or-less authoritarian structure.
Of course, when we don’t like a certain tendency or party in the Church, we invoke the Church’s authority against it; this is done by all sides, and by MM as well. But what else would one do as a Catholic in criticizing other Catholics, than to say, in one way or another, You are not being truly Catholic?
The thing is to be as charitable as we can about all this, and to avoid consigning your debating opponents to outer darkness, where there is wailing and gnashing of teeth.
Chris,
I believe Nate is referring to the following:
“Violence is a lie, for it goes against the truth of our faith, the truth of our humanity. Violence
destroys what it claims to defend: the dignity, the life, the freedom of human beings.”
Compendium of Social Doctrine of the Church, 496
I beleive Justice Scalia gave a speech at Georgetown University where he said that he dissents from the Church’s teaching on the death penalty. (Th espeech did not attract the protesters who were at yesterday’s speech by the President).
As for the NCPB, I think it is not a secret that it is a a gathering of Catholic political conservatives. They have every right to pray in common (and it need not be “Dear Lord, enlighten our pig-headed minds…” :) ) and other Catholics have every right to note the fact that a good portion of ticket sales are by the Lobbying/Government Relations office of pro-abortion corporations.
Thanks, JB… looks like the original source is a 1979 address of JPII in Ireland… the following sections of the CSDC go on to talk about appropriate defense (just war, on behalf of the innocent, etc.), so I’m wondering if JPII’s usage was more nuanced than it appears; that *seems* to be the only way to make sense of the quote being followed almost immediately by a discussion of just war.
It really depends on how you view an invitation to the National Catholic Prayer Breakfast, which in mind is largely a question of what the NCPB is in the first place.
Whereas Obama’s invite to ND (or more specifically the giving out of a honorary degree) is clearly an honor and therefore not a good idea (as it wouldn’t be for Bush or Scalia), I don’t know if this is as clearly an honor.
The group defines its mission as:
We have created the National Catholic Prayer Breakfast in response to the call of Pope John Paul the Great for a “New Evangelization, new in order, methods and expression.” We gather from across the United States of America for worship and fellowship. We gather to thank Our Lord for his abundant blessings upon this Land. We reaffirm our faith in Him and renew our dedication to this great Republic. We commit ourselves to providing for our brothers and sisters who are the most vulnerable in society, and we commit our country to the protection of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
So if the prayer breakfast is really about dialoguing, about giving bishops like Burke the chance to talk to politicians about issues of their faith in the public life, and such, then I think it’s okay to invite politicians with not so perfect records. However, if it’s merely “here’s the great guest speaker we should all honor” then you’re right, they shouldn’t invite the others.
I particularly agree with you that Scalia’s stubborn dismissal of JPII’s death penalty teaching is scandalous, provoking me to wonder why a bishop hasn’t called him out publicly.
I think Chaput did call Scalia out publicly, if I recall correctly.
As to Scalia lets look at the infamous memo From Ratzinger in 2004 that gets quoted:
““Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion….There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about … applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.”
Now this is very true.
The Pope’s words in Evangelium Vitae: The state “ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity: in other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society. Today, however, as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system, such cases are rare, if not practically nonexistent.”
Now unless one takes an extreme Neo-ultramontanism approach it hard to see why the Pope’s thoughts and words on imporvement in the Penal System especially come under any sort of infalliability.
I think a Catholic can very much dispute that and be in good standing.
One other thought on Scalia. Scalia has been at various Red Masses thoughout the Country and engages Catholic lawyers at events surrounding it.
These are huge events and are often in close consulattion with the Bishops. So far I have never heard a Bishop objecting to Scalia Presence
I particularly agree with you that Scalia’s stubborn dismissal of JPII’s death penalty teaching is scandalous, provoking me to wonder why a bishop hasn’t called him out publicly.
In fact, Cardinal Dulles responded to him as well in First Things.
Is it so hard to find speakers with a consistent ethic of life..
Yes, it is. Can we maybe admit that they nature of these events are not to judge other people’s morality with a teaspoon (and using their public policy views as the major factor in judging their morality)?
How about admitting that among the factors is maybe someone who is interesting?
I remember being at a dinner put on by a Catholic organization (I even put on black tie for it!) where Scalia was a prominent guest but the main speaker was Senator Pete Dominici. DULL AS DISHWATER. God was good to me by putting me close to the cocktail cart but based on the brief and lively exchange I had with Scalia at the pre-dinner reception, I would have SO prefered that he had been the speaker. Am I somehow a bad Catholic for this?
The way folks discuss scandal, I get the feeling I (and near everyone) is a walking scandal. At one time, the sin had to be notorious for it to be scandalous. We need to get back to that time.
Thanks for the follow-up on Chris’s question, JB! To build upon that, I’d add that while there is a nuance to JPII’s teaching on violence, it tends towards the gradual abolition all war (corresponding to our spiritual conversion to the Gospel) rather than outright magisterium condemnation of all war.
Check out JPII’s World Day of Peace messages for more, Chris, especially his last in 2005: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/messages/peace/index.htm
Kurt, as always, you get to the heart of the issue! :)
I’m afraid your reference to the Church’s position on the death penalty is as intentionally misleading as the position of most US bishops. There is no obligation for Catholics to oppose the death penalty. I love JP II, but if you remember the history on the Cathecism on that subject, there was a lot of political game playing going on behind the scenes that led to the revision of the text. I don’t think the pope was much involved in the changes, which in any event does not cite the death penalth as intriniscally evil.
Politically liberal Catholics’ persistent attempts to equate the teaching on abortion as an instrinsic evil with the far more nuanced view of capital punishment have provided cover for the Pelosis, Kennedys and Cuomos of the political world to claim a “Catholicism” the equal of the Henry Hydes of the US political world. I honestly believe that is the liberals’ intention — to provide cover for liberal politicians, since they love the libs’ political positions on economic issues and other things.
Re the torture point, I see a lot of liberal Catholic hand wringing on this, but not much clarity over what “torture” is and isn’t, which is really the issue. Yes, how you get lifesaving information out of bad people matters, but it’s not all just “torture,” and getting this information from terrorists is not the same as the Nazis torturing members of the Resistance. It does matter. You liberals sound just like the moral equivalentists you are becoming.
To the extent people want to “abolish war”, you are approaching absolute silliness. War is often thrust upon peace-loving people. You can write all the egghead papers you want about abolishing it, but when crunch time comes you won’t love the Nazis out of France. You will either kill them, or agree to live as a slave.