Does the Former Holy Inquisitor Refuse to Eat with Torturers?
I have no idea whether Sara’s speculation is correct–that Pope Benedict just declined the invite to the State dinner Bush and Laura are throwing for him because he doesn’t want to break bread with a torturer.
Guess who’s not coming to dinner? Pope Benedict XVI.
President Bush and his wife, Laura, will host a White House dinner in honor of the pontiff Wednesday evening. U.S. Catholic leaders from around the nation will attend. The menu will offer Bavarian-style food in recognition of the pope’s German heritage. It’s even the pope’s 81st birthday. But he won’t be there.
But I sure hope that the media, in the midst of its mad crush to cover the story that the President has admitted he sanctioned torture, will find out.
Consider the optics of such a dinner, after all. Pope Benedict was, until a few years ago, in charge of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith. That’s the office formerly known as "the Inquisition." And the Inquisition, of course, is famous for a number of things, just about all of them unpleasant. Lately, though, the Inquisition has gotten a lot of bad press for inventing water-boarding. There’s a direct tie between the reprehensible actions of the Catholic Church during one of the ugliest moments and what George Bush just admitted–almost flippantly–to have personally approved.
Now, it’s possible that, even if Benedict is blowing off dinner as a protest, that it doesn’t relate to Bush’s admission that he green-lighted water-boarding. The Catholic Church has been critical of a number of things Bush has done–most notably, starting an illegal war in Iraq.
But I can sure imagine that Pope Benedict–who himself gets a lot of bad press for his past as the arbiter of Catholic doctrine–would not want to be associated with a President just after he admits to approving of methods recalling the Inquisition.
Update: Here’s Sara at more length:
Well, it was an interesting week. The German Chancellor, The British Prime Minister and the Secretary General of the UN, among others, found that they had schedule conflicts, and would not be able to attend the opening of the Olympics in Beijing this summer. Bush apparently still intends to attend, and all the presidential candidates are hot to offer him advice regarding formally standing up for Human Rights.
But in the Same Week, the Pope declines at the last minute, an invitation to a State Dinner in his honor at the White House. All during a week when the President admitted that in the Situation Room, under the Oval Office, his closest circle of Associates, with his participation and knowledge, choreographed torture sessions. Could it just be that all the Historical digging and analysis that has raised the question, “What did Pius XII do when the Germans were, in 1943, rounding up the Jews of Rome right under his nose?” finally born fruit? Have these questions finally brought home something of what might be expected of a moral leader? Could be, and the US Press just has, once again, missed the story while being all stressed out over the displacing question of whether Bush will attend the Hoopla in Beijing this summer.
Normally the planning for a State Dinner includes consultation between the Embassy of the visiting country and the Protocal Office at State on the wording of toasts. I am wondering if things fell apart as they tried to negotiate toasts. Oh to be a fly on the wall if such were the case.
The White House should have known better. No one expects the Spanish Inquisition!
In truth, it seems like Benedict’s decision was public before Bush’s admission, so the chances that the Holy Inquisitor is blowing off the torturer is small.
But still, it’s an interesting historical note.
The Pope is opposed to Enhanced Interrogation Techniques!
Hugh stole my line. That’s okay Hugh, but don’t be messin with my franchise on the Filipino Monkey and the Wackiest Ships in the Iranian Navy!
You gotta act quickly to get dibs on that line in the blogosphere, you know.
But if it gets repeated endlessly in the next several days, I wouldn’t complain. Then we can go back to Filipino Monkey.
I think he Holy See’d it coming….
It’s still morning here you know; I don’t warm up as fast as I used to. Was looking for that video I found a couple of days ago, it’s actually kind of funny and appropriate for the subject.
If the good Pope wanted to take a stand, he wouldn’t show for the Rose Garden ceremony either. Our Dear Leader doesn’t understand subtlety. A bat to the forehead wouldn’t be noticed. The Church isn’t renown for taking a strong Christian stand for human rights much less acting, especially with Benedict. I suspect the Church is more interested in its investment portfolio than lecturing Cheney/Bush on the niceties of Christianity.
The Pope’s figured it out. We escalate about Iran’s interference in Iraq and their nuclear threat, then Israel bombs Iran. The Pope just doesn’t want to be involved [again]…
Maybe the Pope was worried about
SkeletorCryptkeeperChertoff looking up his robe with a domestic spy satellite program.Chertoff gave us that lecture in Ottawa earlier this week. Did you know that your fingerprints aren’t personal information? Well, they’re not, according to Michael Chertoff, and he wants to upload Canadian fingerprints to his Server in the Sky as well. (I think that Server in the Sky is original to friend Alison at Creekside.)
Like all servers of significance, I presume this one is hosted by the Republican National Committee as well?
Now, there is an encouraging thought. Everything is going to get lost.
The Pope doesn’t believe in torture, except in regards to children under the care of priests. They could compare notes on how best to cover up criminal activities, or who’s got the most loyal crew of chronies working under them.
No one can become a priest, much less a senior executive or politician, without being able to hold multiple contradictory thoughts in equipoise. The same is true with adults; that’s why they’re no longer teenagers, a growth spurt Mr. Bush seems to have missed. The pope is all those things.
If the Pope snubbed Bush, I’m happy that a world figure made even a passing objection to Bush’s torture regime. Not enough, but a start, especially if it encourages others to join in. Those like China, with greater sins to bury, wouldn’t dream of it, but others might. It doesn’t make me content with his or his church’s other failings, no matter the mea culpas and legal settlements they offer.
Heh, as someone who has been involved in some aspects of this issue regarding priests, their crimes and settlements, let me assure you that the Catholic Diocese does not “offer settlements”; they must be, as Charlton Heston would say, pried from their cold dead hands.
What goes into the Vatican archives, stays in the Vatican archives, whether secrets or treasure. The Church, true to its Roman roots, is first and foremost an institution of power.
One of my favorite lines from Rumpole is from an Anglican canon he was defending against spurious charges of adultery. In reference to the prissy, naive Sam Ballard, adjudicating the question, he said, “I’m afraid he’s in danger of confusing the Christian church with Christianity.”
In response to Sara, from the previous thread:
Agree — those who speak in diplomatic code will get the message very clearly, and perhaps one can expect a few additional messages will come from unexpected places. But the problem remains, how do we get the US Press to get cracking and decode some of what is being “put on the table?”
One of the targets of Ratzinger when he headed the Inquisition Office was the emerging tradition of Liberation Theology, he particularly went after the Priests in Brazil whom he silenced, who were much influenced by British and Dutch Dominican Theologians of the 60’s and 70’s, the same Theologians who found an American Home at the Seminary at the University of Chicago then led by Martin Marty, where in due course Obama’s pastor, The UCC Reverend Wright studied, and became one of the interpretors of “Liberation Theology” to “Black Liberation Theology.” I am wondering if some of Bush’s circle of associates who understand stuff like this, might have thought a nice Bavarian Dinner (Schnitzel anyone?) might have topically centered on Bringing down the Liberation Theologians in all the various forms they have assumed, but that somehow when it got to the justification of torture, things fell apart.
Of note — The Reverend Wright has accepted the invitation to keynote the Michigan NAACP annual dinner. Normally it draws about 10 thousand guests, but they are looking for a larger place, given their speaker. See — some people do accept dinner invitations.
‘One of the targets of Ratzinger when he headed the Inquisition Office was the emerging tradition of Liberation Theology, he particularly went after the Priests in Brazil whom he silenced, who were much influenced by British and Dutch Dominican Theologians’
Umm… Protestant theologians? No surprise the Catholic Church shut down the liberation theology movement, probably reflexively.
Dominican likely refers to the Dominican monastic order.
I think that’s right, as opposed to Benedictine, Franciscan or Jesuit orders of the Catholic Church. I think Ratzinger, as chief enforcer of the faith, preferred the parts of scripture that talk of “giving unto Caesar”, rather than the prophets who criticized authority and suggested that the appropriate response to corruption is disobedience and renewal. What leader of a powerful, worldwide organization ever rises to the top without having first been converted into a company man?
No, what happened in the 60’s in Theology — that in one thread produced Liberation Theology, was Ecumenical. The Dominican House of Study at Oxford was one center, and there were two others in Holland, one Catholic and one Dutch Reformed. Martin Marty (Lutheran) of the U of Chicago, and Editor of Christian Century, was one of three Protestant Theologians invited to participate in Vatican II. At the time of Vatican II Ratzinger was somewhat of a participant in this — it was when he was teaching at Tubingen in the late 60’s and had a run in with the German Student Movement, and in addition with Hans Kung that he reverted to neo-Orthodoxy.
BULLSEYE.
As always, thank you.
Also, second all the other comments from bmaz, eofh, and others about the entrenched evil embodied in the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church. They are fundamentally misogynistic, sub-human, and sub-Christian.
I cannot think of words vile enough to describe their leader, Ratzinger/Benny
and the jets16, but I’ll take his help on torture, because we need all the help we can get.Something hopeful from Scott Horton blogging at Balkinization:
Nice to know where Scott is occasionally hanging his hat, now that he’s no longer a daily blogger at Harper’s.
Glenn Greenwald’s a few days late to the party. His post today is that while Yoo’s memos are bad – and Berkeley would be justified in properly investigating his behavior to determine if it merits revocation of his tenure – he’s a wannabe, the water boy for Cheney/Bush et al. We’ve covered that here for two or three days, but I’ll give him a hall pass: he says it well and was working on other homework.
McClatchy’s story today about the assassination of Muqtada al Sadr’s brother-in-law (link below) is a useful read. Unsurprisingly, speculation abounds about who did it and why; no one has taken credit for it. Some claim it was the US or its mercenaries, in retaliation for his force’s trumping them and al Maliki’s in Basra. Possible, but no details yet to confirm.
Reading it in combination with Bush’s history of petty anger and petulance, and his having “no problem” authorizing his direct reports to authorize others to torture, I began to wonder what other commandments Mr. Bush has decided he needn’t keep.
What new commandments – other than Thou Shalt Keep My Secrets – has this Burning Bush decreed his government should follow? Now that Charleton Heston has left us, who will go up to the mountain and bring back word?
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/iraq/story/33438.html
Apropos of nothing in particular, I’d like to point out that the same day Bush signed the
“Torture’s OK with Me”“Humane Treatment of al Qaeda and Taliban Detainees” memo, he spoke at the National Prayer Breakfast.“Apropos of nothing in particular, I’d like to point out that the same day Bush signed the “Torture’s OK with Me” “Humane Treatment of al Qaeda and Taliban Detainees” memo, he spoke at the National Prayer Breakfast.”
Well it may be appropriate — the National Prayer Breakfast is the one public event sponsored by “The Family” that also sponsors and organizes the private prayer groups on the Hill such as the one Hillary has belonged to since she arrived in DC in 1993. Jeff Sharlett is about to bring out a new book on this quite secret organization, due early next month I think. The group is international, has roots in 1930’s fascism — in the US through the Oxford Movement, and has a long association with a variety of dictators, bloody and otherwise. Once Sharlett’s long awaited book hits the market, I think we will be talking a lot about this group behind the National Prayer Breakfast. But I don’t think Bush has all that close an association with it himself.
Despite his claims to the contrary, when Mr. Bush prays, is he secretly happy that God doesn’t talk back? He must know he wouldn’t like what she says. Which means that in reality, Bush is speaking to himself and pretending it’s God, so that he can stay inside the Bubble. His biography suggests he’s been doing that since he could tell the difference between mummy and daddy.
If this is an example of Scott Horton’s only milder longer pieces, I’m glad he left daily blogging. I think he dissects Boalt Hall’s Dean Edley exactly right. Always depressing when leaders are revealed to be defending their principals instead of their principles.
I’m looking forward to hearing Scott tell us more about the prosecutors he claims have already determined to start formal investigations about some of this.
http://balkin.blogspot.com/200…..edley.html
Pfffftttt…. totally ‘in character’ for GWBush.
The stench of sulphur always make those State dinners a tad awkward.
The pope’s snub is kind of an overlay of Sistani snubbing Bremer. Icons of Christian and Islamic thought will (symbolically) hang together against the “Decider.”
Ain’t followed the Suarezian diagrams thru this for a long time, since the liberation theologians blended politics with pristine proselytism, but times have changed since then, likely a difficult aspect of Ratzinger’s affinity for the upramping populist numbers of members of his sect in central and south America; I suspect he tries to bypass leadership and address the people directly in those two zones in the Americas. But there is a sticking spot in the so called redemptionist branch of his congregation’s theophany which begins with the transmutational effect of torture. I will prescind from waxing imagistic on that topic, but I think it would be almost too profane in Ratzinger’s view of his own conscience, to permit himself to dine with people who in the name of homiletic US religiosity are trying to restore legitimacy to torture American style. Ratzinger may be a regressive, but he has Germanic precision to prevent him from ratifying the Bushco propaganda on the issue of inflicting modern pain. And as a Germanic, has some difficult misgivings about the apostasy and even politically camoflaged legitimacy of the torture regime in late medieval Iberia. Ingmar Bergman, r.i.p., had a more sober view of this, if even through a glass, obscurely.
What troubles me is, does the rest of the world blame us, the country, or will they forgive us when we finally get rid of chimpy?
Best not to worry about that, and just be about our business. If we do, the rest will take care of itself.
The rest of the world is still in shock that the neocons were able to take over America so quickly … getting Bush, Cheney and the torture advocates behind bars and electing that guy from Chicago will do a lot to restore America’s credibility …
That depends on the next president, and the extent to which s/he addresses the war crimes and other disasters of the Bush-Cheney crime syndicate. If s/he decides to “let bygones be bygones,” and continues many of the abominations of Bush & Cheney, our reputation will remain in the tank, and we will be regarded as no better than any other big imperial bully. If, however, the Constitution is restored, criminals brought to justice, the rule of law restored, the Department of Justice restored to its proper role, and the balance of powers restored, then our reputation may be restored.
Bob in HI
As far as the Pope and pedophilia, it was on my mind because there was something on the radio this morning. It’s pretty sick what the Catholic Church has done to cover up and move priests around, instead of just getting rid of them, or even getting them some help.
I’m all for the Pope dissing Bush, but if the Pope boycotts dinner with Bush, it only means something if he says explicitly why he is doing it. Without clear statements, it could just be that he has something else he wants to do. The British PM, Brown, is boycotting the opening ceremony of the games and made a very clear statement as to why he is doing it.
Ratzinger is quite cozy with Bushco. He’s snubbing Shrub (a little) in order to save face in Europe, Asia, Central and South America, et al.
http://www.newsday.com/news/na…..5480.story
don’t you guys get the news ???
we don’t torture like the catholics, dude
we prefer Pol Pot’s methods
there is apparently a BIG difference
it was in all the papers …
and george wouldn’t lie to us …
OT – I just had to bring this laugh from Watertiger here for all the Hot Wheelers:
To reprise WT, Ah-HAHAHAHAHA!
Maybe Ratzinger will break bread with Bush when the statute of limitations runs out.
invisibe link in the above
Thanks for the link.
Hmmm. So we have a Nazi Inquisitor who thinks Bush is too toxic to have dinner with. Maybe it’s just me, but I think they deserve each other. My biggest fantasy is that Bush will be so tarred by his failed Presidency that he’ll be considered “inappropriate” to be baseball commissioner.
Way late to this thread, but as a former drafter of toasts given at official dinners by US dignitaries, I agree that both EW and Sara are absolutely on target.
Benedict’s trip has been in the works for months, with all kinds of details worked out up and down the line. To
cancel out onapologize for missing a state dinner with less than a week to go is a huge, huge nightmare for the protocol people. There is no doubt at all that Benedict and the Vatican view Bush as toxic after the declassification of the Yoo memo and Bush’s confirmation of his approval for the torture. Benedict and JPII before him condemned the invasion of Iraq, and Bush essentially told them to take a hike, pray for peace, and leave the real governing to realists like him. Fast forward five years, and add on the latest revelations, and “I told you so” doesn’t begin to cover the Vatican’s reaction.This was not just a state dinner, but a birthday party — and the guest of honor just gave the host a big diplomatic slap in the face.
As bad as this is, the White House has a bigger nightmare to worry about: what will Benedict say when he addresses the United Nations? If Benedict brings up torture and Iraq in that setting, a failed birthday party will be the least of their worries.
So do you think the MSM might cover it? Or are they too busy parsing Obama’s use of the word “bitter” or the preference for orange juice over coffee?
Somehow I think that even as big as you think this is, Peter, the corporate owned media will give it a yawn. Remeber, IOKIYAR. Now if this happened to Obama or Hillary, well . . . . .
Thanks for the background Peterr – I figure you keep a good eye on these things ;-))
“As bad as this is, the White House has a bigger nightmare to worry about: what will Benedict say when he addresses the United Nations? If Benedict brings up torture and Iraq in that setting, a failed birthday party will be the least of their worries.”
Peterr — Apparently Benedict’s announced topic for the UN is the Politics of Fear, and he is against it. Could that mean he is for the Politics of Hope??? I can see Bush picking up poor little Barney and throwing him through the thick glass in the Oval Office windows. And yes, I think the UN speech will get excellent coverage, unless of course Bush can arrange for a blond white female to get abducted as the proceedings begin. I suspect CNN will arrange for John Allen of the National Catholic Reporter to comment given that this is Benedict’s Maiden UN appearance, and he is about the only American Reporter who covers the Vatican.
Benedict has a gig set for sometime soon with World Islamic Scholars, the planning meeting having just been completed about a month ago. I suspect the UN speech will be a stage setter for that event, and if it is to be successful, something indicating his disapproval of torture orchestrated from the Oval Office is more or less required.
On cutting room floor scraps same article:
…pontiff Wednesday evening…US CatholicLeaders from around nation will attend. Menu will offer Bavarian-style food in recognition of the pope’s German heritage.
Bush.and.wife will, however, go to Andrews Air Force Base on Tuesday to welcome.pope on his arrival for his first visit to the United States since he was elected in 2005. wireservice. Perhaps the leaders will forget the diplomatic slight by adding an Oktoberfest cool beer in outdoor setting, century old traditional tent, though less excellent a graphic than ew woodcut artwork. An equally terse news-summary in the local press on page 6 reported the president’s admission he supervised the crews meetings to select the smorgasbord of torture practices. Maybe a fine moselle from the manicured terraces in Rhein Pfalz 6MB
Maybe the Pope doesn’t like the fact that the Bush family was involved in arming the Nazis, in addition to the current torture and war. He wants no connections to his earlier Nazi actions.
sorry for OT but had to share:
–NYT
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04…..ref=slogin
Maybe there is a slice of justice in this world after all…
Pardon me for jumping in, but here’s that corrected link:
In Searching for New Job, Gonzales Sees No Takers
thank you…having problems with links today
Even if I was more comfortable speaking lashon hara I would not use “subhuman and sub-Christian” even about Father Biondi, whom I have the most information about. I can see comfort in the Catholic Church with their own authority and difficulty giving it up to laypeople, and telling said laypeople that unquestioned authority of the Church is necessary. Now I will go and look at what has to happen in my kitchen next week. The oven hasn’t been cleaned since last year.
Don’t know have any direct knowledge about Fr. Biondi. I’m letting Pius XII (Hitler’s Pope) off easy just calling him sub-human. Benny16 wants to canonize him.
Father Biondi He did all that with an iron fist.
crooks and liars was quoting this line from Olberman in regard to the lie of al queda controlling iraqi oil, but it fits ANY bushbot these days:
gonzo is having trouble getting a job, the Pope wont break bread with george bush, dead eye dick just killed the “Wright” attacks (and he might just have guaranteed an Obama administration in the bargain) the condiliar made a pitch for mccain’s veep slot and got laughed out of town
pretty soon some of these people are gonna be hearing footsteps, if you know what I mean …
Shoot ‘em in the face just killed the Wright attacks?
More from Scott Horton in a comment on his thread on Balkinization:
Looks like Scribe’s insight on this one is right, and may be realized sooner than we thought possible.
A very educational post and blog. ‘Liberation Theology’ in it’s African, South American and USA version are interesting. Don’t agree that MLK Jr was for killing white people as stated in Wikipedia.
The two Popes connections with fascist nazi germany are interesting connections. The need for power to be unchallenged or absolute has a commonality in all authoritarian systems. Bush is on the way out so the Pope won’t waste any political capital on him. His attack on Liberation Theology was a power move as well as theological discipline.The South and Central Americans have long mixed traditional culture with religion and as long as they come to the mass they have the stigmata of the Catholic Church in their respective commumnities, hence politically correct in Catholic society even though they are an under class. The immigration issue may be a problem for the pope and the snub makes the Pope look better to those who are agrieved.
The torture issue is not why the pope is stiffing the Bushco he doen’t give a rats ass about torture. He wants to come down on the politically tenable position in the Middle East is my bet. If he comes of making the Catholic Church looking like a kind institution which it isn’t and syas he is against torture it is a political plum that Bush offerred him. Bush of course hasn’t the moxy to see that.
OT the Ian Welsh post on Isreal’s chances for a permanent state or dual state was most informing as well. The fact that they are treating the palestinians like the Nazis treated them (almost) is not lost. They will not ever have a democratic state as they are soon in the majority. They took all the good land and the water. Thanks for the interesting reading.
OT lastly: By no Impeachment investigation Pelosi has given Bush the keys to the public treasury, the constitutional Monarcy Neocons have been long after that is established by precedent and a free pass for all the crimes the world sees as war crimes. Of course we as American citizens will be held accountable from this time on. We live in an immoral unprincipled society sad to say…materialism has dominated morality.
Some time I would like to see a post on an indviidualistic society that need a modicum of authoritarianism.
Not trying to start anything here, but below is a huge surrender to Ratzinger and it’s wrong:
Perhaps you didn’t understand the theological impact of those words? Ratzinger and a lot of religious leaders throughout history wanted people to think they have an unfettered pipeline to revelation/grace/God. ALL religious symbolism is mediated by history. Humans by definition are mired in space and time. If it’s not “IN” history, we won’t notice it. ALL religious phenomenon need mediation in space and time to be apprehended. Throughout history culture and religion are ALWAYS hand and glove.
Ratzinger is pushing the Latin Mass as an olive branch to Opus Dei. Jesus spoke Aramaic. Since the Romans wiped out most of his followers when they destroyed Jerusalem in 70ce and 125ce, it was the Greek Churches that survived. Of those Greek chruches that survived, the ones that made it into the canon included Paul’s churches, Matthew’s church, John’s church, Luke’s church, and Mark’s church. The New Testament was composed in Greek, not in Aramaic. The Nag Hamadi and Dead Sea Scrolls have helped us understand just how different the Greek churches were from “the Nazareans” who followed Jesus as good, pious Jews. In the Patristic era Rome is the backwoods theologically and culturally.
It’s only with the ascendancy of Europe that the bishop of Rome begins to assert something resembling primacy.
Boff and the liberation theologians were a lot closer imho to the fundamental preaching of Jesus of Nazareth than Ratzinger and the church mice who follow him.
OT,
I’d suggest Native American tribes. Richard Allan Fox, Jr. has done some terrific archeology of the Little Big Horn. The Sioux chief Gaul beat Custer with a group of warriors equipped with Henry repeating rifles. Custer lost for a lot of reasons, but possibly the most important, was because he refused to take into account that his men were equipped with single-shot Springfields. The Springfield was a fine weapon with almost double the range of the Henry. But, once Custer allowed the Sioux and the Cheyenne under Gaul to get inside the Henry’s effective range, the battle was effectively over. Custer’s position on Last Stand Hill was completely untenable. Reno and Benteen had the same Springfields, but their outfits survived the Little Big Horn. Benteen in particular understood the Springfield’s limitations and adopted his tactics accordingly. I say that, because it shows how equal the Sioux and the Cheyene were at the LBH in terms of military technology. The problem for the Native American tribes was that they were not able to unify with each other quickly enough against European Americans.
That’s exactly right. He obstensibly had a conflict in the meeting with Bishops, diminishing the Dinner Dandies’ claims that they chowed down with da Pope.
It’s intriguing that people are urging Bushie to boycot the Olympics, considering that the Chinese torture, bury people in prison, jerry rig their courts with judges, a judicial system, and proseuctors who are puppets and so does the bannana republic called the United States.
Reverend Wright was much more right than wrong, but Americans are often ditz brains who cling to what they say they should be like than what they do and are like.
Voters in Pennsylvania and in every other state, as well as non-voters and people who don’t know who is running, who is on the S.Ct. or a cert. vote from a Cert mint are bitter and clinging to their guns and religion. One could do a Ph.D. thesis on that topic, people will, and many books have already been written about it.
My guess is two-fold. Ratzinger has to stand true to his condemnation of the war. The Vatican tends to remain neutral in their interactions with heads of state during times of war and conflict historically. (A position that has earned the church condemnation historically.)
Second, the NCCB worked with the National Catholic Education Association to lobby Bush heavily during the last two elections and sent a great deal of $$$ the way of Bush, at a time when the money was lean for the Catholic church. In return, Bush promised the national voucher program through the NCLB Act. The voucher program has not taken off because states have fought it as a solution. Consequently, many Catholic schools are closing and those who could just barely afford a Catholic education cannot with the challenges of the economy.
Thus, many political dollars spent by the church with no success. Many Catholic votes lobbied for in regards to the voucher program and right-to-life. Then Bush over promised and under delivered.
Not the environment for state dinner.
More about closing schools here:
http://ap.google.com/article/A…..QD9007E700
“Second, the NCCB worked with the National Catholic Education Association to lobby Bush heavily during the last two elections and sent a great deal of $$$ the way of Bush, at a time when the money was lean for the Catholic church. In return, Bush promised the national voucher program through the NCLB Act. The voucher program has not taken off because states have fought it as a solution. Consequently, many Catholic schools are closing and those who could just barely afford a Catholic education cannot with the challenges of the economy.”
Klynn, the problem for Catholic Parochial Schools has been clear since the late 1960’s. First, beginning in the mid 60’s Catholic Women’s Teaching Orders suffered a huge exodus, and attracted very few new members. Some teaching orders reformed, and changed their missions away from teaching. Thus the near free labor supply simply dried up, and without very low cost labor, the schools could not survive. In the 60’s, orders received about 125 per month per nun for maintence, with no contributions for retirement benefits, health insurance and all. In 66 the laws changed making nuns elegiable for Social Security, but the value of that is tied to “wage” and employers contributions. The Bishops absolutely refused to negotiate a way of bringing the labor value up to market value, and thus provide the orders with secure retirement income — and this just underscored the decision by many orders to abandon their past labor in the Parochial Schools. And without that free-labor, the business plan for parish schools was unworkable.
But in addition to these economic realities, the Bishops faced another one, they had, in the early 1960’s commissioned a set of major studies regarding the impact of Catholic Education on retention as active members of the Church. (Andrew Greeley was a major figure in this research, and much of it was done through NORC at the U of Chicago). Results indicated that standard Parish School education was not related to retention as had long been assumed — in fact it might be a negative variable, but that Higher Value “Academy” style Catholic Education and Catholic Higher Ed. did have a positive influence on retention. Thus — while it was never really announced to members, by about 1968 a decision had been made to phase out the Parish Schools.
Thus you have two sets of decisions — on one hand you have reforms of Religious Orders that resulted in members leaving traditional classroom teaching for other missions, and at the same time, a Bishop’s decision to gradually wind down the traditional parish school, because as an investment it did not contribute toward retention of Catholics as active members in adulthood. The effort by NCCB to lobby for vouchers is more a last minute tip to the right-wing who resisted these changes, but with whom leadership had not been at all honest about economic realities or decisions long since made that resulted in the phase-out of many unsupportable parish schools.
All this before the Clerical Abuse of Children issue hit the fan in 2002, though of course it was there long before, if you read the right publications. But in 2002 it impacted everything — certainly retention of Adult Catholics, financial assets, donations, and any sense of trust Bishops were good personnel managers, let alone asset and business managers. And all this still has more unwinding to do. Diocese by diocese the American Bishops are faced with demands for lay boards with the powers to manage assets and personnel, many of these demands coming from the people who in the past wrote the big checks to the Bishop’s Appeal, and then trusted the Bishop to manage. They want a division of labor — doctrine and teaching to the Bishops, Business management to qualified lay members.
The Pope won’t face this as a huge public matter during his visit, but diocese by diocese it is on the table. By instinct, Benedict cannot agree to devolvement of financial power to laity elected to Parish Councils — but when a diocese declares bankruptcy (and a number have) that’s precisely what the courts impose. To put it mildly, Benedict has a major structural problem.
You are spot on regarding the historical issues at play.
My comments are more in relation to “Why not Bush?” and I admit in my shortness, my take is definitely over-simplified. However, Bush did make tremendous promises to “save” Catholic education through the voucher program at a time when Bush was well aware of the frailty of Catholic education. He had no business doing so. He all out presented himself, despite the effort to lobby Bush was last minute, as the saving grace for the National Catholic Education Association. Bush was quite convincing on this matter. He used it to get votes from Catholics through two Presidential elections and failed on his promise.
I think that “over promise” has left a bit of a mark on the church during a tremendous time of challenges. But the “mark” is small compared to everything facing the Catholic church at large.
Most definitely! Great analysis.
Pius XII wasn’t the only one, or the only religious leader, who did nothing by a long shot. The Catholic Church has made enormous progress in relations with Jews starting from the absolute zero of Pius XII, but I am worried that they will never take full responsibility for it before the last of that generation.
Bennie refusing to eat with SHrub is like the pot calling the kettle balck.
Nonetheless anybody holding shrub up to the ridicule he so justly deserves, gets me to smile
A theologian and scholar such as Pope Benedict would surely see the parallels between Bush’s approval of torture, and his defiant sheltering of his actions behind “legal opinions”, and Pontius Pilate ordering the torture and execution of Jesus, and the account in Matthew’s Gospel of Pilate washing his hands in water in front of the crowd clamoring for Jesus’s execution, saying that he is innocent of Jesus’ blood. Pilate was at least conflicted by his decision, according to the Gospels, but Bush can only say he’d do it again.
So, the Pope is smarter than Abu Reesha?
I think the Pope, as earlier commented, will give Bush a message – for Peace, and against War and Violence – as part of the Rose Garden Ceremony.
Still, if the Pope is smart, he won’t ’smile’ for any photos with Bush – that might come back to haunt him like Hart’s Monkey Business photo with Donna Edwards.
Breaking bread with Bush, however – at this point, with the Torture Admission ‘out there’ – would seem ill-advised.
Nice development of the history regarding structural dilemmas, of which the ‘former holy inquisitor’, as in the post title, has many. Nun flight doubtless afforded more occasion for socialization between male prelates and minors. The tales Sara tells @71 also provide some backround why several former parish nuns I met in the southwest were studying for numerous sequential college degrees, and at a relatively advanced age; and why each was proud to discuss retirement planning as a significant accomplishment. Perhaps the pope will prove to be fallible after all, a difficult subjective moral threshold, and the linchpin to undoing some of the casuistry permeating dogmatic approaches to more modern relativistic interpretations of important things people learn in their lives. I know scholars who refuse to travel in the country which sponsored most of the tortcha variety of inquisition. Perhaps Ratzinger might discuss that part of his own former department’s history from century XV in the UN speech, if he opts to engage the attention of the many middle world countries apalled at the US’ executive detentions treatments of prisoner by rule.