From the Woodstock Report

I've read the Woodstock Report, from the Woodstock Center, D.C., for years, and often profited thereby, and now they offer this re and from the much-discussed Father Reese, S.J., recently appointed Fellow at Woodstock:

The speaker paralleled the pre-Vatican II teaching on religious freedom with Islamic fundamentalism today. “In a sense, Islam is a lot like pre-Vatican II Catholicism – ‘we’re going to have a religious state and it’s going to be Islam.’ And much of what’s going on in the Middle East between Sunnis and Shiites reminds me of the religious wars between Protestants and Catholics in Europe. There are just a few centuries of difference in what we’re talking about.”

As Father Reese explained, the contemporary Catholic vision of religion and politics is projected through Catholic social thought, which extends from Scripture and principles of natural law (for example, human dignity and the common good). He characterized the American bishops as struggling with these questions: “I think the bishops want to be a nonpartisan prophetic voice, where they talk about principles, about values, about concern for the poor and the immigrants, about life issues – without identifying themselves with a particular party.”

Some would argue the bishops muted this nonpartisan message in the 2004, when a furious handful of them stole the election-year stage by denying communion to Catholic politicians (especially liberal Democrats) who take a prochoice stand on abortion.

Although many at the time saw the U.S. hierarchy as stumping for the GOP, Father Reese pointed out that prelates are now making news for condemning the immigration bill recently passed by the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, with some even calling for civil disobedience if necessary. The Jesuit drew laughs from the audience when he asked, “Are these Republican bishops? What happened to the Republican bishops?”

What Father Reese forgot to say is that no teaching of the Church blesses the implementation of "law" that violates the natural law.  "Talk" about "principles, about values," as Father Reese knows, could be the achievement of a garden-variety enemy.  The pluralism sought, and rightly, by the generation Reese celebrates doesn't elide or drop the content of the natural law from the necessary conditions of legitimate rule.  Bernard Lonergan, S.J., whom Reese quotes very aptly from time to time, never doubts, so far as I am aware, that the state cannot make into "law" what is inconsistent with human nature/finality. 

Reflecting on Cardinal McCarrick's recent comment on "partisan politics," one can regret the Woodstock Report's highlighting of "the Jesuit's" pandering "Are these Republican bishops?" humor.  We all know that the bishops have taken a courageous stand on the U.S. immigration questions.   

And to return to Longeran, one of my teachers, steeped in Lonergan, used to say, "Don't say, 'You could argue.' Can YOU argue?  If not, be clear about what you're trying to contribute to the argument."  Can it be "argued," and, if so, to what effect, that the "prochoice" bishops "stole the show" at the last election,"mut[ing]" the bishops' "nonpartisan message?"  What was that message?  Was it consistent with the natural law?