“There are few authentic prophetic voices among us, guiding truth-seekers along the right path. Among them is Fr. Gordon MacRae, a mighty voice in the prison tradition of John the Baptist, Maximilian Kolbe, Alfred Delp, SJ, and Dietrich Bonhoeffer.”
— Deacon David Jones
Biden and the Bishops: Communion and the Care of a Soul
Some bishops fear political fallout if they draft a policy on the Eucharist and pro-abortion politicians but they overlook the most fundamental duty of the Church.
Some bishops fear political fallout if they draft a policy on the Eucharist and pro-abortion politicians but they overlook the most fundamental duty of the Church.
Wednesday, July 7, 2021
There is a lot of misdirected anger toward the Church and its leaders in our culture. For some it is the anger of adolescents who think that shedding the moral authority of parents is in their best interest. Some parents forget that it is not. For others, it is the anger of those who have lived in fidelity to the moral authority of the Church only to see it weakened at every turn in this age of moral relativism and cancel culture. For others still, it is the anger born of seeing too many of the Church’s shepherds in the role sheep, diminishing the Church’s prophetic witness to accommodate the self-serving politics of our time.
In 2018, I wrote a controversial post for the fifth anniversary of the pontificate of Pope Francis entitled, “Pope Francis in a Time of Heresy.” Lots of conservative Catholics were drawn to it because of its title. Many assumed that I was accusing Pope Francis of heresy. Within weeks, that post was shared 25,000 times on Facebook. Then someone actually read it only to find nothing really scandalous. Interest in it just quietly evaporated.
I did not accuse the pope of heresy though the heresy implied therein was in fact his. It was political heresy, however, and not theological. In a series of challenges earlier in his pontificate, Pope Francis was confronted with wayward bishops and priests in various parts of the world. In one notorious case when a bishop was accused of sexual misconduct in Chile, Pope Francis spontaneously said, “Show me some evidence.”
I think the true heart of this pope was laid bare in that spontaneous remark, but he had to walk it back a few days later. It was political heresy. One of his immediate critics was Cardinal Sean O’Malley appointed to oversee the Vatican’s response to sexual abuse. The “woke” among us simply cannot abide any questions that might diminish a claim of victimhood.
The most prevalent heresy in my post cited above, however, was committed by conservative and traditional Catholics, the very people with whom I feel most aligned as a Catholic and as a priest. You may recall all the controversy surrounding the 2018 Synod on the Family and the document, “Amoris Laetitiae” by Pope Francis. They both explored, in part, a question about whether otherwise faithful Catholics in a state of divorce and civil remarriage should be allowed to receive the Eucharist.
The mere question, which never became reality, raised in the Church a loud alarm and protest about weakening the sacramental bond of marriage and the sacramental coherence of Communion. I agreed with these concerns, but I asked some challenging questions which to date no one has attempted to answer.
Where was this concern among the faithful over the last twenty years when “zero tolerance” became the operative agenda and the sacramental bond of Holy Orders was summarily discarded by bishops when priests were accused — merely accused — with little or no due process? Just asking this question is political heresy. Since then, an ongoing stream of concern for politics and political fallout has been allowed to creep into the life of the Church in our time.
President Joe Biden and Communion
Now comes the latest counter-cultural Catholic controversy. Our bishops are wrangling over the potential for political fallout if they move forward with the majority’s intent on drafting a pastoral document on the meaning of the Eucharist and the conditions under which a Catholic would be in communion with Jesus and the Church.
Cardinal Wilton Gregory, Archbishop of Washington, has gone on record to state that he would not deny Communion to President Joe Biden. Cardinal Blase Cupich, Archbishop of Chicago, warned that this discussion could have the effect of aligning the Church to one political party over another. Both prelates signed an unsuccessful petition to remove this whole topic from the agenda of the Bishops’ Conference. In the end, 75 percent of the bishops voted to proceed.
Though this discussion is not about one person, everyone knows that its focal point is President Joe Biden and, to a lesser extent, Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Both are Democrats who describe themselves as devout Catholics. Both have also been proponents of unconditional access to abortion, same-sex marriage, limits on religious liberty, and transgender ideology.
In the current controversy over receiving Communion, President Biden has said that he does not believe the bishops will address this because “it is a private matter.” On several levels, he is wrong about that. He is by no means a private person who would not cause scandal by living a duplicitous life of faith.
He is also wrong for the same reason that all the concern for Communion for Catholics living in an illicit marriage became a public controversy. Marriage is a public state in life and not just a private one. Joe Biden’s longstanding and ever-expanding promotion of abortion is a highly public aspect of his agenda. His living a contrary expression of faith is a very public matter.
President Biden is now described by some media commentators as being singled out by conservatives for his support of “a woman’s right to choose.” The reality is far beyond that. He has also lobbied to expand abortion and to remove it from reconsideration by the Supreme Court by promising to encode in federal law an absolute right to abortion. He has vowed to repeal the Hyde Amendment which for decades has protected conscientious objectors among taxpayers from being forced to fund abortions. He has advocated “packing” the U.S. Supreme Court to diminish the influence of pro-life justices.
This is a dilemma for the Church and the U.S. Bishops Conference. A policy statement which truly reflects the Church’s discipline on worthiness to receive Holy Communion could directly preclude such a publicly known abortion advocate from the Sacrament without signs of repentance. Putting forth that policy statement may, and likely would, also be seen on the practical level as a repudiation of at least some of this president’s political agenda and that of some in his political party who also profess to be Catholic.
This is a painful and difficult position for the bishops to be in, and it is not going to go away. The first and foremost concern of the bishops, however, should not be a fear of political fallout, or of losing the Church’s tax exempt status (which is also highly doubtful). The foremost concern should be something that no one else seems to be raising. It is not concern for Joe Biden’s agenda that should impact our bishops, but concern for Joe Biden’s soul.
Politicians Are Not a Privileged Class of Catholics
The Church’s teaching in this matter is based in part on Sacred Scripture. Among several clear examples is this one from Saint Paul’s First Letter to the Corinthians:
“Whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be answerable for the Body and Blood of the Lord. Examine yourselves and only then eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For all who eat and drink without discerning the body, eat and drink judgment against themselves.”
The Catechism of the Catholic Church addresses this with a clarity that needs no interpretation:
“Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law.”
“Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. ‘A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae’ (Canon 1398). The Church does not, thereby, intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.”
An argument can be made that a politician who promotes legislation that provides the means for abortion may not incur the same penalty as someone who "procures a completed abortion," but this is also splitting hairs. Both the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the Church's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith define the moral obligation to promote legislation that protects life:
“The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation.”
“The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority ... The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil authority ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen ... the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined. As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be assured for the unborn child ... the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child’s rights.”
For any Catholic, the reception of Communion is not just a private matter. It is both a private and public witness to being in communion with both Christ and His Church. Some of the most beautiful and clear commentary on this has come from Bishop Thomas Olmstead of the Diocese of Phoenix who developed an apostolic exhortation on the Eucharist and what it means to be “in Communion”:
“Holy Communion is reserved for those who, with God’s grace, make a sincere effort to live this union with Christ and His Church by adhering to all that the Catholic Church believes and proclaims to be revealed by God.
“For this reason, the Church requires Catholic leaders who have publicly supported gravely immoral laws such as abortion and euthanasia to refrain from receiving Holy Communion until they publicly repent and receive the Sacrament of Penance.”
Bishop Olmstead described the great harm to the soul of a Catholic who receives the Sacrament after allowing belief in the True Presence of Christ in the Eucharist to diminish. A person who truly believes in this Sacrament for the Life of the World could not possibly also embrace and promote a culture of death. Such an unworthy reception of Holy Communion transforms the Sacrament into a sacrilege that continues the betrayal of Christ by Judas Iscariot at the first Institution of the Eucharist.
You may remember an important Holy Week post of mine entitled “Satan at the Last Supper: Hours of Darkness and Light.” It recalls Saint John's account of the Institution of the Eucharist. Satan had entered into Judas who received the bread from Christ with betrayal in his heart. The final words of Saint John’s Gospel account of the scene speak volumes about the state of the soul of the betrayer:
“After receiving the piece of bread, Satan entered into him ... Judas immediately went out. And it was night.”
Avoiding a clear statement on Eucharistic coherence now can do far more damage to the faith and moral sanctity of Catholics than the appearance of taking a political side. It is cheap and easy for those who live to not take a long, hard look at how we may promote, by commission or omission, a denial of the right to life.
How could our bishops possibly expect otherwise faithful Catholics in unrecognized second marriages to accept in good faith the discipline of refraining from Communion while the most pro-abortion Catholic politician in history is given a pass. The path of rightousness in this will not be easy for our bishops. As Father Michael Orsi wrote in a recently published letter to the Wall Street Journal : “This will take courage, but it will separate the shepherds from the hired hands.”
+ + +
Note from Father Gordon MacRae: Please share this post to raise awareness about an important moment for the Church in the modern world. You may also like these related posts from Beyond These Stone Walls:
The Last Full Measure of Devotion: Civil Rights and the Right to Life
Catholics to Fr James Altman: ‘We Are Starving Out Here!’
Fr James Altman was removed from his assignment sparking appeals from the faithful in unprecedented numbers. Does this signal a growing distrust of our bishops?
Fr James Altman was removed from his assignment sparking protests from the faithful in unprecedented numbers. Does this signal a growing distrust of some bishops?
I was recently informed by a reader that her parish priest launched into a tirade against her and other parishioners for their dedicated pro-life activity. He reportedly stooped pointing to the ground shouting, “Of all the issues facing the Church and country right now, abortion is way down here!” In another incident, the same priest launched a tirade at a college-student parishioner in the confessional insisting that her involvement in pro-life causes is badly misguided.
Both incidents, and others like them, resulted in letters of concern to the diocesan bishop. Weeks later, the bishop replied that he has instructed the priest to cease allowing his political views to invade his pastoral ministry. Political views?
The last time I looked, the Church’s pro-life position and activity reflect a moral mandate of grave concern and utmost importance. The pro-life centricity of Catholic moral teaching has been clearly articulated by Popes John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis.
I dread writing any criticism of Catholic bishops. In over 600 posts of the last twelve years, only a few have had such content. Pope Francis has recently spoken against clericalism in the form of careerism in the Church, and he has also spoken recently of a concern for the morale of priests. The concern is well placed, but the former very much impacts the latter. Bishops have nearly ultimate authority in their own dioceses, but bishops who aspire to more prestigious positions sometimes find themselves bending to the will of some other bishops with more clout.
Pro-Catholic, Pro-life, Pushed Out
On Friday, May 21, 2021, Father James Altman was instructed by La Crosse, Wisconsin Bishop William Patrick Callahan to resign from his parish over the Bishop’s concern that the volume and tone of his “political” rhetoric has rendered him divisive and ineffective. Father Altman — who until weeks ago had been pastor of Saint James the Lesser Catholic Church in La Crosse — has said some very challenging things in his preaching on the Gospel but nothing he has said to date contradicts Church teaching.
In his now notorious “Memo to the Bishops of the World,” Father Altman called on the U.S. Bishops to stop issuing guidance for the care of our physical health at the expense of care for our souls. He called for the bishops to present faithful and unapologetic adherence to and promotion of Church teaching.
But volume and tone may not have really been at the heart of Bishop Callahan’s expressed concerns. Though unstated, it seems that a small minority of Catholics dismissing Father Altman’s rhetoric as “dabbling in the political” clearly wanted him silenced, and it seems that his bishop obliged. It is also now widely suspected that pressure came from other bishops who were uncomfortable with Father Altman’s growing fame in his homiletic broadsides against abortion, same-sex marriage, transgender ideology, and, most recently, the shuttering of churches, first by politicians and then by some bishops, during the Covid pandemic.
I admit that I have sometimes grimaced at Father Altman’s tone in his fiery homilies, and thought he could be more effective if he lowered the volume just a bit. Nonetheless, in recent posts, I have said some of the very same things he has said. (See, “The Faithful Departed: Bishops Who Bar Catholics from Mass” and “A Year in the Grip of Earthly Powers.” )
I have written about all of these things, but a small voice from the wilderness of prison is a lot easier to ignore than a YouTube video homily gone viral. Some of Father Altman’s more fiery prophetic witness has drawn the attention of faithful Catholics across the continent and around the world. When he announced his imminent removal during a Pentecost homily this year, there were audible gasps from his congregation. Father Altman explained to them,
“For the record, through my efforts at preaching the truth ... somehow the truth has gone viral over the past eleven months and people all over the globe — as far away as Borneo — have written over 4,000 letters and cards — even more than that in emails — all saying the same thing: ‘We are starving out here!’”
However, something far more interesting than Father Altman’s reaction to his removal has occurred. A crowd funding page was established online to assist in retaining a canon lawyer to appeal his removal to higher ecclesiastical authorities. A funding goal of $20,000 was set. In less than a week, the fund grew to $250,000. A week later, it rose to $650,000. On the day this is posted, the fund is approaching $700,000 while an online petition garnered nearly 100,000 signatures.
The Church, the Bishops, the Eucharist
Instead of silencing Father Altman, the bishops might ask themselves why so many are listening to him so intently. This is a different sort of Sensus Fidelium — the sense of the faithful — than the Church is accustomed to. The bishops would be wise to listen. The setting aside of this one priest over what has been dismissed as “political” activism may signal a far greater concern about the bishops’ collective ability to discern between moral and political issues.
It seems no mere coincidence that Father James Altman was removed from ministry just in time to accommodate those who want the rhetoric on another development lowered to a mere whisper. You likely already know what has transpired regarding a simultaneous embarrassment among our bishops, but here is the short version.
On the day this is posted, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) is scheduled to meet to discuss what is turning out to be a heavily manipulated agenda. The meeting “may” include “the drafting of a formal statement on the meaning of the Eucharist in the life of the Church” and its application to pro-abortion Catholic politicians who receive the Eucharist. That any of our bishops may actually need such clarity on this is alarming in its own right.
That clarity has recently come from two sources, Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone of San Francisco and Bishop Thomas Olmstead of Phoenix. I recently wrote of Archbishop Cordileone and his defense of religious liberty. Since then he has published, Before I Formed You in the Womb I Knew You: A Pastoral Letter on the Human Dignity of the Unborn, Holy Communion, and Catholics in Public Life.
In my post, some readers challenged me in comments stating that I overlooked the fact that this concern should have been raised by the Bishops “when it really mattered” before the 2020 presidential election. I will get back to that in a future post after the results of the USCCB meeting become public. Suffice it to say that it also really matters now.
I wrote above that clarity on the meaning of the Eucharist “may” be on the agenda because a group of 67 U.S. bishops — representing only 15-percent of the USCCB’s voting members — has lobbied USCCB President Archbishop José Luis Gomez to remove this topic from the agenda. All the bishops are careful not to say it, but this entire discussion is about the controversy of a pro-abortion activist who has presented himself as a devout Catholic and now occupies the White House.
Two of the signatories have since asked to have their names redacted from the letter saying they had not fully been informed of its purpose and were manipulated into signing it. Others have since stated that they never agreed to sign this letter and do not even know how or why their names were added.
The protest letter seems to have been spearheaded by Cardinal Wilton Gregory, Archbishop of Washington, DC, who reportedly composed the letter on his letterhead. He has gone on record to insist that he would not deny the Eucharist to pro-abortion Catholic President Joe Biden. The letter was also signed by Cardinal Joseph Tobin of Newark, Cardinal Sean Patrick O’Malley of Boston, and Cardinal Blase Cupich of Chicago. Cardinals Cupich and Tobin met in Rome with Cardinal Luis F. Ladaria, SJ, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, just prior to the letter being sent to the USCCB President.
As this post was being written, it was just announced that Pope Francis planned to meet or otherwise confer with President Joe Biden on the day before the U.S. Bishops’ meeting. This had raised some alarm among many faithful Catholics who support the bishops’ effort to develop a uniform policy on Communion for Catholic politicians who openly promote abortion, legislate to restrict religious freedom, and support same-sex marriage and transgender ideology. President Biden, who professes to be Catholic, has promoted all of these. He has also stated his intent to repeal the Hyde Amendment which since 1974 has protected taxpayers from forced violations of their consciences by using taxpayer funds to promote and provide abortions.
However, in the eleventh hour, there has been a new development. On June 15, the day before we publish this post, Catholic News Agency issued the following statement: “The President’s entourage had originally requested for Biden to attend Mass with the Pope early in the morning, but the proposal was nixed by the Vatican after considering the impact that Biden receiving Holy Communion from the Pope would have on the discussions the USCCB is planning to have during their meeting starting Wednesday, June 16.”
I suggest reading the rest of the brief CNA article. However, it requires a little reading between the lines. It seems that it was President Biden's Administration that requested the meeting with the Holy Father to take place after the G7 Summit while the President is still in Europe. Once the Vatican agreed to the meeting, it seems that President Biden's entourage made a subsequent request for Biden to attend Mass with the Holy Father. The timing of this leads me and many others to believe that the real objective here was for a photo-op of Biden receiving the Eucharist from the Pope on the eve of the U.S. Bishops' meeting on that very subject.
Vatican officials saw through this and declined to allow the Mass to take place. It seems that the Biden Administration then cancelled the meeting because its real objective had been negated.
The Two Father Jameses
Father Dwight Longenecker has written an intriguing post entitled, “The Tale of Two Fr. Jameses.” He contrasts the activism and public statements of Father James Altman and Father James Martin, SJ, two priests on polar ends of the Catholic theological and political spectrum. He contrasts the two priests thusly:
“Both priests have somewhat of a prophetic voice in the Church — Fr. Altman from the conservative side and Fr. Martin from the liberal. Fr. Altman castigates Catholics who voted for Joe Biden. Fr. Martin openly supports Biden. As such, the two Fr. Jameses are poster boys for the two Catholic Churches in America today. Fr. Altman for the traditional, orthodox, strict version of Catholicism. Fr. Martin for the accommodating, relativistic, and subjective version of Catholicism. Fr. Altman: doctrinal. Fr. Martin: pastoral. Fr. Altman: Rational. Fr. Martin: Sentimental.”
The article is brief, but I have a fundamental disagreement with a part of it. Father Longenecker went on to characterize Father Altman as one who “campaigns against a Catholic hierarchy that is in bed with the Democratic Party” while Father Martin, “in manipulative and disingenuous ways has used his media platform to promote the blessing of same-sex unions and to encourage homosexuality.” Father Longenecker asks an important question:
“Fr. Altman ... has fearlessly upheld the traditional Catholic faith and has never come close to preaching anything contrary to the Gospel. His sin? To be ‘divisive.’ Why, may I ask, has no one suggested that New Ways Ministry and Fr. Martin (who have scandalized thousands of Catholics) are divisive?”
Father Longenecker went on to suggest that the clash between the two churches (left and right) in America today recalls the Jansenist-Jesuit conflict in 18th Century France. As the faith came under attack by Protestantism and the Enlightenment, French Catholics lapsed into Jansenism, a kind of “Catholic Calvinism.” He suggests that Fr. Altman’s style is an example of this Catholic Calvinism. I disagree.
The reason I disagree is laid out in a post of mine entitled, “The Once and Future Catholic Church.” It makes a case for why the traditional stress on Catholic orthodoxy and fidelity is the most pastoral approach a priest can take in a society drifting rapidly toward “Cancel Culture” socialism. Father James Martin seems to not want to rest until American Catholicism breaks from Rome and becomes indistinguishable from the Episcopal church and its determination to tear the Worldwide Anglican Communion asunder.
In these pages recently, priest and canon lawyer, Father Stuart MacDonald, wrote “Bishops, Priests, and Weapons of Mass Destruction.” He wrote of the trajectory from the U.S. Bishops adoption of “zero tolerance” in 2002 to a policy emerging now in which bishops may discipline and remove priests for any vague cause whatsoever. And believe me, it will be the Father Altmans, and not the Father Martins, who are subjected to this policy. It is difficult to believe that Pope Francis has allowed this while at the same time speaking of his concern for the morale of priests.
This policy transforms the Holy Father into an Orwellian Big Brother and our bishops into enforcers of Orwell’s progressive GroupThink. Such a policy is beloved of “Cancel Culture” progressivism. It lends itself to the suppression of rights. It promotes witch hunts, and at its heart it is far more Calvinist than Catholic.
+ + +
Note from Father Gordon MacRae: Please visit our Special Events page. You may also like these related posts:
The Once and Future Catholic Church
A Few Bold Bishops in Defense of Religious Liberty
There are hopeful signs that some Catholic bishops are speaking boldly about the erosion of religious rights even while facing criticism for it from other bishops.
There are hopeful signs that some Catholic bishops are speaking boldly about the erosion of religious rights even while facing criticism for it from other bishops.
The Catho1ic World Report is a venerable old publication of Ignatius Press that is now only available as an online magazine. The publication recently posted through its Twitter account that Dr. Rachel Levine, President Biden’s nominee for the post of Assistant Secretary for Health and Human Services, is (or was) “a biological man who [now] identifies as a transgender woman.”
That mere statement of verifiable fact by a Catholic publication resulted in a charge of “hateful conduct” by Twitter and the suspension of its account. After the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights posted this story, I was one of many thousands who emailed Twitter in protest. My protest message charged that Twitter’s response poses a significant threat not only to religious liberty but to freedom of speech and freedom of the press as well, three of the fundamental rights defined in the First Amendment.
I have no delusion that my message to Twitter made a difference, but Twitter rescinded its suspension of CWR ’s account the next day. It nonetheless struck me after this affair that the tyranny of such suppression of rights and civil liberties is the result of two forces working in tandem with each other:
the noise of a few
and the silence of many.
The suspension of the Catholic World Report ’s Twitter account was the result of a single complaint by an LGBTQ activist. The reconsideration came as a result of a multitude of protests on the side of right. I am proud to have been one of them.
We live in a time in which the measure of our self-worth is not determined by our system of values or our moral fiber in living up to them for the greater good. As a culture, we have been lulled into a quest for social media “likes” and approval from those whose mission it is to discard and replace the truths we have long lived by. Any media source that does not uphold the sensitivities of identity politics and the progressive social agenda will find itself parked far outside the public square.
The Catholic World Report simply did what the news media is supposed to do. The news media has traditionally been dubbed, “The Fourth Estate,” its public role being a much needed checks and balance on government. CWR reported no falsehood, nor did it cast any aspersion on President Biden’s appointee to Health and Human Services. The Catholic publication simply pointed out that the nominee has a lifestyle that by implication may lend itself to bias against traditional moral beliefs and practices.
Then Twitter was allowed to do what the Chinese Communist Party does on a daily basis. It eliminated from public view information, regardless of its truth, that the progressive agenda does not want us lesser folks to see or hear. I hope I am not the only one who resents this. As a Catholic, as a writer — even as a condemned prisoner — I resent it with every fiber of my being.
Les Miserables
One of the most visited posts at Beyond These Stone Walls has had an effect that I never intended. It is “Les Miserables: The Bishop and the Redemption of Jean Valjean.” My post has been visited by countless high school students around the world who have used it as a source of “CliffNotes” when assigned a book report on the novel. I am glad to have been some service, but the novel itself is soaring. So is its musical rendition that has appeared on Broadway and in theaters across the globe. Bear with me. There is a point here and I am getting to it.
My post about Les Miserables above tells the story of Bishop Bienvenue (which means “Welcome” in the novel’s original French). Bishop Bienvenue is one of literature’s most noble characters. He seeks out the poor and downtrodden, sees himself primarily as a servant, and has no interest in amassing political clout or Earthly power in any other form. His encounter with ex-convict Jean Valjean sets the latter on a course toward his own noble future. The two are unforgettable literary characters.
Victor Hugo wrote and published Les Miserables in 1862. In the decades after the French Revolution and the rise of Napoleon, France entered a period of anti-clericalism. Bishops and priests were widely regarded with disdain. When Victor Hugo’s son read the manuscript for Les Miserables, he pleaded with his father to change the character of Bishop Bienvenue to someone the French might more easily see as noble. It is one of the ironies of French literature that Victor Hugo’s son wanted Bishop Bienvenue recast as a lawyer.
But Hugo defended his choice. He argued that Bishop Bienvenue may not represent a Catholic bishop that France has in real life, but rather he represents the bishop that France wants to have. I find a sort of parallel in this time of our own cultural revolution. Many Catholics struggle to maintain and nurture an identity as Catholics on a moral course against a more vocal majority speeding toward identity politics and a culture of open disregard for the value of human life.
The United States has now elected the second Catholic president in its history. He has described himself as a devout Catholic who carries a rosary in his pocket everyplace he goes. He has also also openly promoted unlimited and unrestricted access to abortion at any point in a pregnancy and has pledged to repeal the Hyde Amendment which for decades has spared taxpayers from being forced to violate their consciences by providing taxpayer funded abortions.
If such a situation existed in 1862, Victor Hugo’s Bishop Bienvenue would have as the least of his concerns the erosion of his social standing or political clout if he presented an apostate nominally Catholic leader with merciful but truthful fraternal correction. I described the problem that the current President brings to Catholics of conscience in a previous post, “Joe Biden, Cardinal McCarrick and the Betrayal of Life."
The mainstream media has played down this conflict while playing up the President’s Catholic identity. So the media never revealed a statement published by Los Angeles Archbishop Jose Gomez at the time of the President’s inauguration. With inherent charity and true moral leadership, Archbishop Gomez commended this President for his thoughtful concern for the plight of immigrants (a concern that I share after some experience with Immigration and Customs Enforcement).
Archbishop Gomez also spoke, and wrote, of this President’s unapologetic promotion of abortion, his threat against the Hyde Amendment — which he publicly supported until he ran for President — and his stated intent to codify into federal law the 1973 Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade so that it cannot be readdressed by the current or any other future Court. These, according to Archbishop Gomez, are the preeminent Catholic issues of our time.
Accommodations in the Garden of Good and Evil
The Washington Post accused the Archbishop of “assailing” the President over abortion rights. Michael Sean Winters of the National Catholic Reporter described the statement as “churlish.” I had to look up “churlish” since I hardly ever use the word. It means “surly” or “mean spirited,” the absolute opposite of the Archbishop’s demeanor or intent. NCR ’s Winters also wrote that Archbishop Gomez “threw cold water on the most Catholic Inauguration in history.”
Archbishop Gomez went on to add in his statement his “deep concern for the liberty of the Church and the freedom of believers to live according to their consciences.” This latter concern is heightened by some of the nominees our devout Catholic President has put forth. Foremost among these is Xavier Becerra, current Attorney General of California. He is passionate about expanded access to abortion and embyonic stem cell research. Beccera has been awarded One-Hundred percent ratings on reproductive rights by Planned Parenthood and NARAL.
In “Becerra Is a Threat to Life and Liberty” Bill Donohue wrote in the February 2021 issue of Catalyst that “Becerra is one of the cultural warriors” threatening to haul the Little Sisters of the Poor back into court again if they do not comply with a mandate to provide insurance coverage for contraception. In a previous issue of Catalyst, Bill Donohue wrote of the current President, “It is okay for Catholics to bludgeon the Little Sisters of the Poor so long as they carry a rosary.”
Of all the responses to the courageous statement of Archbishop Jose Gomez, however, the one from Chicago’s Cardinal Blase Cupich is the most troubling. As the elected President of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Archbishop Gomez carefully framed his statement in accord with Catholic teaching, inc1uding Catholic social teaching. Using his Twitter account, Cardinal Blase Cupich publicly rebuked the Archbishop describing his statement as “ill considered.” He suggested that the statement should have been vetted before the entire body of bishops for discussion and a vote. I know of no other Catholic bishop who spoke against the statement. I applaud Archbishop Gomez for his fidelity.
And he is not alone. In an equally courageous statement, San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone wrote forcefully against state and local government declarations that Catholic Mass is not an essential activity worthy of consideration.
Writing boldly for The Wall Street Journal, Archbishop Cordileone spoke truth to power in “California’s Unscientific Worship Ban.” The Governors of California and New York have been in lockstep with one another on this, a point I made recently in “A Year in the Grip of Earthly Powers.” Archbishop Cordileone described his long ordeal against civil authority at both the state and local level. He did not mince his words:
"Whether religious services are ‘essential’ isn’t a matter for government to decide ... In lifting California’s blanket ban on indoor worship (in a 6-3 decision), the high court rightly acknowledged the blatant unfairness of treating religious worship differently from secular activities such as shopping ... Such blatant disregard for the Constitution bodes ill for everyone. These next four years will be a time to coalesce around core ideals or continue to divide along ideological lines.”
Even as the pandemic lessened during the summer and many other activities opened up, the City of San Francisco doubled down on its bans for religious gatherings. All indoor worship was banned while even outdoor services were limited to no more than 12 participans. At the same time, the city government had nothing to say about street protests that were openly allowed to continue, and with some in the city’s government participating.
We who have faced this pandemic with a dismal sense of Les Miserables are empowered by the witness of Archbishops Gomez and Cordileone.
Bishop Bienvenue lives on.
+ + +
Note from Father Gordon MacRae: Please share this post, and if you have not already done so, please subscribe. It’s free, and we will only invade your inbox once per week. You may also like the related posts featured in this one:
Les Miserables: The Bishop and the Redemption of Jean Valjean
