Note to readers: this article first appeared on these pages on February 13th but not posted as a general item. It is repeated here both for purposes of providing background information to a May 1st feature column in the Dispatch Argus by John Donald O’Shea, referenced above, and to facilitate our reorganization of our Web site.
This editor has done a comparison of responses by Roman Catholic Bishops from Midwest provinces to the Obama Administration’s diktat requiring organizations employing or providing services to people not exclusively of their faith belief to include funding of contraceptives, sterilizations and abortifacients in their employee health insurance plans. The requirement affects all employers regardless of their moral religious or philosophical objection to such practices including organizations sponsored by religious bodies opposed to such practices. The rule certainly affects Catholic hospitals schools and other affiliated institutions throughout this area. The now final published rule is an assault on the Constitution and religious freedoms. The matter is extremely serious in all of its ramifications.
The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) circulated documentation, a draft letter and talking points to help local Bishops formulate communications to their congregations. Typically those communications took the form of a letter from the local Bishop distributed to parish priests to be read from the pulpit. Whatever requirement the local Bishop placed on their priests regarding the matter, in pursuit of upholding religious freedoms, the Bishops themselves were free to impart whatever they wanted, or did not want, into the communication, including apparently not issuing such a letter at all.
All of the official letters from the various bishops of the seven provinces within the Midwest that I perused for this comparison, and nearly all of the other diocese within the United States, are available online from links provided at the following site: http://www.catholicvote.org/discuss/index.php?p=25591
Bishop Amos of Davenport did issue a letter to be read. To one way of thinking it was arguably more evocative than this writer has observed in Bishop Amos’s occasional communications as posted in his diocesan newspaper, The Catholic Messenger. Understand, that is not a high hurdle. However, by comparison to the majority of his fellow bishops, it was on the anemic side, for lack of expressed grit and determination. It was also shorter than all of his fellow bishops in the province of Dubuque, decidedly not taking advantage of the opportunity for personal embellishment or inclusion of additional points made available by the USCCB organization, whether or not he chose to show a larger measure of deserved outrage. If we were not aware of what he could have said in consort with so many fellow bishops, including the hierarchy within the USCCB, this writer might have heaped some praise.
While I am not aware of Bishop Amos posting long official letters, grandly eloquent or otherwise, all the more reason stylistically to cut to the chase if one had an inclination to, apologizing for my own lack of originality, draw a line in the sand. Bishop Amos declined the opportunity to communicate such steadfastness or to impart typographical, or other emphasis in his communication, guiding his priests, conveying the same degree of seriousness regarding the situation imparted by the majority if his fellow Bishops, including the nearest Cardinal, Francis Cardinal George, O.M.I., of Chicago. Logicians out there may correctly infer that because I used the word majority, there were some bishops as uninspired, arguably weaker, even non-participating as of this writing. But even compared to his fellow Bishops in Iowa, Bishop Amos could not bring himself to even use typographical inflection in the hope his priests might convey some of that emphasis from the pulpit as Archbishop Hanus did.
The metrics used to justify my opinion? Primarily the common (to the majority of Bishops) use of the sentence “We cannot — we will not — comply with this unjust law.” See listing below. Cardinal George, the nearest red capped prefect of the Church was not shy about using it. Nor was Cardinal Designate Dolan, the head of the USCCB. To be sure there are other statements that could be and were made without using those precise words that still express the severity of, and resistance due, this matter. Some of the Midwest bishops studied took that approach. Bishop Jenky in our neighboring diocese of Peoria in particular seems to fit the above categorization of bishops. And Bishop Nickless of Sioux City, also enhanced by his reputation from past statements regarding matters related to abortion and public witness, used rather scathing references to the evil at work and stated: “We must refuse to make false compromises.” Bishop Pates of Des Moines stated that “the rules are unacceptable.”
Province of St Paul (includes all diocese in the states of Minnesota, North Dakota and South Dakota)
Comprised of nine dioceses. Seven bishops used the cannot or will not comply language or the equivalent such as “unacceptable.” Hereinafter these are referred to as “definitive language.” Bishop Hoeppner of Crookston; Bishop Sirba of Duluth; Bishop Swain of Sioux Falls; Bishop Gruss of Rapid City (interestingly, formally a priest of this diocese); Bishop Le Voir of New Ulm; Bishop Kagan of Bismarck and Archbishop Nienstedt of St. Paul who favorably quoted Cardinal DiNardo’s description of the Obama policy as “force(ing) an unacceptable choice” are counted in this group.
Province of Milwaukee (covers the state of Wisconsin)
Comprised of Five dioceses. Four bishops used definitive language. Bishop Ricken of Green Bay; Bishop Callahan of La Crosse; Bishop Christensen of Superior; Archbishop Listecki of Milwaukee used arguably definitive language, to wit “If HHS or the president (sic) himself think that the Bishops will roll over and play dead, they are sadly mistaken.” Bishop Morlino of Madison used the term “This cannot stand” and “unconscionable.”
Province of Chicago (covers the state of Illinois)
Comprised of six dioceses. Bishop Conlon of Joliet; Bishop Doran of Rockford; Cardinal George of Archbishop of Chicago used definitive language. Bishop Jenky of Peoria summoned “spiritual and temporal combat” referred to the edicts as “bigoted” referred to “extremist politicians” and “malice of cultural secularists” referred to “no president having the authority to require cooperation with what we consider intrinsic evil and mortal sin.” Bishop Paprocki of Springfield suggested President Obama was either dishonest, delusional or incompetent. He also provided considerable analysis of the relevant politics and legislation. With three definitive comments and the forceful comments of two other bishops this group rates at least a four, arguably a five.
Province of St. Louis (covers the state of Missouri)
Comprised of four dioceses. Bishop Finn of Kansas City / St Joseph; Bishop Gaydos of Jefferson City; Bishop Johnston of Springfield-Cape Girardeu; used definitive language. Archbishop Carlson of St. Louis used compelling language, however we will call this province a three plus.
Province of Kansas City (covers the state of Kansas)
Three dioceses. Fr. Brinkman (Diocesan Administrator of Salina); Bishop of Wichita: Archbishop Naumann of Kansas Cit, KS all three used definitive language.
Province of Omaha (covers state of Nebraska)
Comprised of three dioceses. Bishop Bruskewitz of Lincoln; Archbishop Lucas of Omaha used definitive language.
Province of Dubuque (covers state of Iowa)
Bishop Pates of Des Moines used definitive language; Bishop Nickless of Sioux City said “we must refuse to make false compromises” and referred to the Obama policy as “unconscionable” and “violence against the Church’s liberty” his strong pro-life reputation precedes him. Two definitive bishops. Archbishop Hanus did provide emphasis in his letter to various strong words of the total 322 word message, a roughly average or low average message in length. Bishop Amos could muster only 260 words to encourage his flock to protect the “fundamental” right to religious liberty.
In summary, of the Midwest Roman Catholic Provinces I surveyed, comprised of 34 dioceses, arguably 26 bishops or roughly three quarters of the bishops used definitive “line in the sand” language in opposition to Obama’s assault on religious liberties. Bishop Amos’ letter to Catholics here did not rise to that level. In this writers opinion this is not the time for pastoral niceties when fundamental religious liberties are being assaulted.
As an additional point of reference Archbishop Schnurr of Cincinnati and Bishop Lennon of Cleveland, where Bishop Amos hales from, both used definitive language in their letters to parishioners.
So am I parsing words? I accept that to some extent the language choices are merely stylistic. Nevertheless on matters of this nature “parsing” is entirely appropriate, indeed called for, as is the practice in evaluating any diplomatic communication, indeed it is the essence of evaluating statements emanating from the black boxes of the chancellery or the cathedral. And so we have Bishop Amos declining to use even strong bargaining language, declining to use the definitive language of the majority of his fellow bishops, failing in his letter even to say that the Obama policy is “unacceptable.”
In fairness it is appropriate to relate the communications I have evaluated to the individual bishops’ prior works. I do not have that extensive familiarity or time, but I can offer that this is a critical and urgent matter, not merely “alarming and serious” as per Bishop Amos. So I caution the reader to more fully evaluate all the bishops I may have impliedly or otherwise short changed regarding their resistance level to this abomination. While this was a critically useful time to stand up and be more assertive in defense of civil and religious liberties, there is also time for bishops to “revise and extend their remarks.”
As for Bishop Amos, as someone very concerned about the implications of giving ground on this matter, I do not know what to expect. Would he direct institutions he has control over to purchase coverage for contraceptives, abortifacients and sterilizations? His letter was mildly surprising to me in a mildly positive way but it was inconclusive. I expected even less from his letter as comparatively perfunctory as it was in that he is the same bishop who declined to correct or even remove himself a few years ago from further participation in the scandal of the award of an honorary doctorate by St Ambrose University to a notorious “pro-choice” Iowa politician. He conferred it in person. That was in spite of his own fellow bishops’ (USCCB) contemporaneous admonition to Catholic institutions not to engage in such scandal. A predecessor bishop from this diocese, years earlier, when the potential for similar scandal was called to his attention, at least declined to personally confer a degree to another notoriously “pro-choice” politician when the same diocesan school practiced celebrity over ethical choices.
My concern is aggravated also by not knowing what to expect from his good offices. In the past his diocesan “point man” on matters of social policy (now departed) reportedly danced into the wee hours at the local Democrat Party inaugural festivities in 2009. The local Republican leadership did not get as much as a condolence call from him. For that and many more reasons it seems legitimate to question whether the bishop gets reinforced or subtly or otherwise dissuaded and in what direction on matters of concern. Bishop Amos also publishes a diocesan paper that in this writers humble opinion has had too many columns devoted over the years to bashing bishops or which served as apologetics for statist “social justice” policies that breed and empower the sort of tyrannical edicts the Church and people who believe in religious liberties are now faced with. RM
