Bishops' "Faithful Citizenship" undermined by conservative groups???

This is what we are told in yesterday's article by Joe Feuerherd of the National [un]Catholic Distorter...

And just who are these "conservative" groups which undermined the wonderfully confusing and ambiguous "Faithful Citizenship"?

Catholic Answers, primarily, and:

Catholic traditionalists,
conservatives and neoconservatives,
the "radicalized element" of the antiabortion movement,
Republican political partisans and
"evangelicalized Catholics."

Notice that it includes the "Anti-abortion" movement, rather than the "Pro-Life" movement.

Not only this but, in a shameful criticism of Archbishop Burke and others, we are told that "in some dioceses the activists 'were emboldened by the actions of some bishops,' particularly in dioceses where bishops threatened to withhold Communion from pro-choice Catholic politicians".

Catholic University of America associate professor of Religious Studies, William Dinges, who is quoted at length in this article, laments that so many diocesan social action directors around the country were challenged by these "activists".

Dinges notes that previously

disputes between liberal and conservative Catholics centered largely on intra-church issues, such as liturgical practices. (my emphasis)

Unfortunately, this rhetoric of "liberal" and "conservative" only fuels the divisions - as do the all-too-common "Do-it-yourself" liturgical shenanigans "liberals" forced the faithful to endure. What is meant, in objective reality, by the above terms can only be viewed as synonomous with "unfaithful, disobedient, or ignorant" or "faithful to the liturgical laws of the Church".

He continues:

Today's tug-of-war is focused on the "broader culture wars in American society" and liberal Catholics and their conservative brethren are no longer even "pulling on the same rope."

Of course, he is complete wrong here. Those professed Catholics who view all life issues as having equal weight in the theological, moral, and social sphere are, in fact, "pulling on the same rope" as those of us whose views are representative of the Holy Father and the Church.

The problem, and this is what Dinges misses, is that he and others of his persuasion are on the opposing side "pulling on the rope" in one direction while those "pro-life activists" are pulling in the opposite direction.

The reasons for this division among Catholics are not founded on the political terms of "liberal" and "conservative" but on something more fundamental. This division has its roots and genesis in a failure to properly form one's conscience according to the light of Divine Truth which is stated clearly in Catholic teachings. Archbishop Burke reminded us of this in his Pastoral Letter last October:

To the degree that our conscience is not informed by the divine truth, to that degree our conscience is liable to an erroneous judgment. There are times when we make a wrong moral judgment because of ignorance of the truth. Sometimes, we are responsible for the ignorance because we have failed to seek out the truth or have dulled our conscience through repeated sin. In any case, it is always our responsibility to inform our conscience with the truth, especially with the help of our teachers in the faith, the Holy Father, the Bishops in communion with the Holy Father, and our priests, co-workers with the Bishops (Catechism of the Catholic Church, nn. 1790-1794)...[Pastoral Letter, No. 17]

We have witnessed and continue to witness, sadly even in the Church, a blindness with regard to the moral teachings of the Church. The repeated attempts to place all social teachings on the same moral plane continues, despite the fact that the Church, through the Holy Father and the Bishops united with him, clearly indicate that this position is erroneous. Again Archbishop Burke, reflected this in his letter:

In considering “the sum total of social conditions,” there is, however, a certain order of priority, which must be followed. Conditions upon which other conditions depend must receive our first consideration. The first consideration must be given to the protection of human life itself, without which it makes no sense to consider other social conditions. “The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 2273). [Pastoral Letter, No. 20]

Understandably, and to continue to address the position of Catholics who are unable to grasp the teaching of intrnsically evil moral acts and the error of applying equal weight to various social and moral positions, he continues and quotes the Holy Father:

Some Catholics, too, have suggested that a candidate’s position on other issues involving human rights are as important as his or her position on the right to life. Our Holy Father Pope John Paul II has reminded us that, in order to defend all human rights, we must first defend the right to life:

The inviolability of the person which is a reflection of the absolute inviolability of God, finds its primary and fundamental expression in the inviolability of human life. Above all, the common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights—for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture—is false and illusory if the right to life, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition for all other personal rights, is not defended with maximum determination” (Pope John Paul II, Post-synodal Apostolic Exhortation Christifideles laici, “On the Vocation and the Mission of the Lay Faithful in the Church and in the Modern World,” December 30, 1988, n. 38b).

Returning to the NCR article, Dinges laments:

"We do not even know how to talk to each other -- to have responsible adult conversations -- in areas where there is serious disagreement." The structures that are supposed to facilitate communication within the church, says Dinges, are "dysfunctional."

There can be no legitimate disagreement with those things the Church teaches as as matter of faith or morals. To reject the authority of the Church in teaching us about our responsibilites is to reject Our Lord, who in HIs inifinite wisdom, gave us the Church to teach and guide us.

There certainly can be open and legitimate conversations in the Church about issues provided that the dialogue does not reject or call into question the teachings we have received from Jesus Christ and His Church - it is that dialogue which questions Church teaching that is, by its very nature, dysfunctional. To claims otherwise is not "adult" but childish. It is a sign of pride, an indication that one has strayed from the path which Christ wishes us to follow.

We are reminded by Archbishop Burke:

Let us all pray for the wisdom and courage to give a full account of the moral law, taught to us by the Church, to our fellow citizens, and to defend the moral law for the sake of the good of all our brothers and sisters, especially our “least” brothers and sisters, with whom our Lord identifies Himself.