From Lifesite News, we read, and I quote, "Attempting to defend the Catholic hierarchy from accusations of being opposed to the homosexualist political agenda around the world, Archbishop Vincent Nichols of Westminster hastened to assure the BBC’s Huw Edwards, 'That’s not true.'” Right off the bat, we see a problem. Why did the archbishop see a need to "defend the Catholic hierarchy"? The fact is that the Church is vehemently opposed to the gay political agenda that seeks to distort marriage to its own perverted ends. Instead of defense, what would have been appropriate is polite but bold acknowledgment that the Church promotes God's will in all areas of human life, and that it's the gays that must apologize to the world for the harm they are inflicting. Note I said "apologize" instead of "defend", for in reality, the gay agenda is indefensible.
Archbishop Nichols made his remarks during a panel discussion that included a gay Anglican professor and a "catholyc" professor known for her dissent on abortion and marriage. Why did not the archbishop stand and act like, well, a bishop and call these two on the carpet for their destructive advocacies? Now when the dissenter "accused" the Church of interfering in British politics concerning sexual morality, the archbishop gave a response so pathetic that it will be unbelievable unless I again quote verbatum: "“It’s not true. The times we interfere most in British politics are either to do with poverty or to do with education. The media is obsessed with certain questions. But if you want to know what we’re really passionate about, it’s about the fight against poverty and the education of young people.”
If ever you wanted prima facae evidence that the so-called "social gospel" is usurping the proper priority that must be given to moral issues of life and sexuality, and that weak bishops are using such advocacy as a cloak for their vaccilations, well voila!! The gay Anglican and dissenter then responded to the effect of saying to the archbishop, "that was a nice grovveling job! We know you don't take that Benedict fellow seriously! You're okie-dokie!" John Smeaton of the Society for the Protection of the Unborn Child rightly deplored the archbishop's remarks as undermining the Pope's call for Christians to defend Christianity in the public square.
So that's in England. What does that have to do with situations in the US? Plenty! How often have you seen on this blog warnings of the damage done by the so-called "social justice" cabal? Most (not all!) of that bunch are progressives; certainly their leadership is dominated by such.
Two immediate concerns come to mind.
- The November 2nd elections. No doubt some of you are receiving "voter guides" from your states' Catholic conferences. I'd bet that many of them don't differentiate the non-negotiable issues (abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, gay lifestyle) from other issues upon which good people may disagree (death penalty, environmental issues, taxation). Not all issues are the same. If a candidate seems right on most of them, but promotes a "pro-choice" platform, he/she is not worthy of a Catholic's vote - even if that candidate dares to call him/herself a Catholic!
- The in-pew collection for Catholic Campaign for Human Development is almost upon us. I would urge that you boycott it, as the collection proceeds are usually funnelled to organizations that oppose Church teaching. Chicago CCHD is exempted from my recommendation here. As I've explained previously, the Chicago CCHD has taken significant steps to correct its grant-giving process and at this time seem acceptable.