The Smart Daley Says Something Stupid

Rick’s comments on William M. Daley’s Chicago Tribune editorial responding to Cardinal George’s remarks concerning Notre Dame et L’Affaire Obama are right on point.  The really sad thing is that here in Chicago Billy Daley is known as the “smart Daley.”  And, frankly, he is a smart man (as is his older brother “Da’ Mayor”) which makes a statement like the one Rick critiques all the more disappointing.

 

 

                                                             

What is the reason behind fatuous statements like this – statements which suggest that it is somehow improper for a Catholic bishop to say that a Catholic university is not fulfilling its Catholic mission?; statements which suggest that the Church, in voicing her opposition to abortion, is in Daley’s word’s, attempting to establish a “theocracy”?

 

 

 

Does a statement like Daley’s reflect a failure to simply understand the issue?  That would seem to insult the intelligence of the author, something that, as I said, should not be questioned.  Or does it reflect a failure on the part of the Church to clearly articulate her stand on such matters in ways that are accessible to public reason?   In the alternative, does a statement like this represent a failure in catechesis?  Or since Daley was born in 1948 and so may well have been properly catechized (prior to the catechetical implosion that followed the Second Vatican Council) does a scandalously misinformed opinion like this reflect the corrupting influence of an ecclesial atmosphere that sees everything the Church says on matters of public concern as violating the cherished no-establishment of religion principle?  Or does this vigilance on the part of Catholics in manning the wall of separation spring into action only with respect to the Church’s stand on particular issues such as abortion – positions on issues that contradict the orthodoxy of certain political organizations?  As such, is it possible that statements like Daley’s reflect not a failure on the Church’s part, or a sincere lack of comprehension or matter of confusion on the part of the author, but a deliberate strategy of obfuscation borne of political convenience?  If so, then what is the true source of embarrassment?