This turbulent priest

A reader, Matthew Butler, sent me this e-mail today:

Obviously I've read the news (over the top) about the actions of Fr. Newman in Greenville, what appears to be NOT over the top is the type of echo chamber that St. Mary's is. This is Fr. Longnecker's, the pastoral associate (and a married priest!), response to the election. I know we're supposed to 'speak truth to power' and sometimes that involves harsh words, but really?

 

http://gkupsidedown.blogspot.com/2008/11/prez-herod.html

 

Just wanted to get your opinion on the matter.

Here's the reply I sent:

St. Mary's is a very conservative parish. I've been to Mass there. I know we're not supposed to make judgments about people based on outward appearances, but I have to admit that that was the most WASPish, Republican-looking, country-club congregation I ever remember seeing in a Catholic church. It gave me a sense of dislocation. Not that any of that should matter.

 

As for Fr. Longnecker (sounds like a guy you'd want to have a beer with, just going by the name)... in his position, as a person who admittedly doesn't think much about politics, I could see having his attitude.

 

I like Obama. But to like anybody, there's always something you have to overlook. With Obama, the biggest thing I have to overlook is his position on abortion (plus the mental gymnastics he goes through to justify his position constitutionally). If I did the opposite, if I looked at Obama primarily through his position on abortion, I would be horrified by him. And being horrified, I could see myself using some pretty strong language to describe him (although I'd probably be more likely to invoke Henry II than Herod). Obama does have a cold-blooded view of the issue that is disturbing, considered in a vacuum.

 

Obviously, Fr. Longnecker's view of Obama is untempered by any consideration of him beyond abortion.

Ironically, that exchange occurred while I was working on my Sunday column, which is all about POSITIVE thoughts I'm having about the president-elect...

Comments

[Ozzie]

It won’t move folks like Bud one inch, but this article by Michael Gerson on George Bush
may help some to view him with more kindness. I think probably his historical legacy, viewed from further down the line, will not be quite as awful and many presently think. Meanwhile, Gerson serves up some good advice for Obama, and I quote a small bit of it, in case one or the other is interested, but has problems with the link:

Political indifference to durable poverty in our midst has long been a scandal; from Obama it would be a tragedy. America does need to "spread the wealth" -- but not in the simply redistributionist sense. The racial divide in our country is widest when it comes to assets. The median net worth of white and Asian Americans in 2004 was $142,700. The median net worth of African Americans was $20,400. There are many reasons for this massive disparity, including what Lincoln called centuries of "unrequited toil." Reparations are a politically self-destructive dead end. But what if President Obama, for example, proposed to set up tax-free savings accounts for every poor child at birth and seeded those accounts with a few thousand dollars? Addressing the wealth gap through the miracle of compound interest would be a lasting contribution to the justice of our country. When it comes to Africa, Obama's roots and popularity on the continent -- evidenced by jubilation at the news of his election -- are a significant foreign policy advantage. Africa is a growing source of trade, energy and voting support in international institutions. Continuing and expanding President Bush's emphasis on Africa would not be narrow but visionary -- and would find a receptive audience among Americans, including religious conservatives, with humanitarian commitments on the continent.

[Doug Ross]

McCain's adultery apparently is okay these days in the Catholic church. It's not what you do, it's what you think.

I went to the funeral of a friend at St. Peters yesterday. Hadn't been in a Catholic church in twenty years. My wife and I both were disappointed that the service seemed to be more about the rituals of the church than about the man who died.

[bud]

Brad, what EXACTLY is your position on abortion? And please, no lectures on the horrors of killing and the immorality of taking life and protecting the unborn. Those arguments are just empty platitudes that get us nowhere. I get the horror stuff. The world is horrible, so what? What's important is defining the limits of ok killing vs not ok killing. Once you open the door to allowing killing under certain circumstance then you have to defend each type of killing that you support. Unless of course you oppose killing under all circumstances. Once you make exceptions to the no killing rule and accept that some killing is ok, then you are left with the task of sorting out which types of killing are ok and which types are not ok. It seems hopelessy inconsistent to be pro-killing in Iraq yet oppose a pregnant woman's right to reach a similar pro-killing philosophy about her fetus. It makes zero sense.

The Catholic Church seems to be very limited in the type of killing it finds ok. Killing that's not ok includes abortion. But it also includes the death penalty for crimes and optional war killing, especially for civilians. I'm not sure but the Catholic Church is probably ok with killing in self-defence when one's life is directly in jeopardy. The Amish even oppose killing in self defense. Then we have people who oppose killing animals. Seems like the Amish and vegitarians are the most consistent on this. (Of course Brad is not only ok with killing animals but is ok with making cruel and disgusting jokes about animal suffering; in effect forfeiting the moral high ground on this issue from the get go).

As for me, I oppose killing my unborn fetus under all circumstances. Yet my own personal view on that is limited to me and me alone. I would NEVER impose that belief on others, even a woman who is pregnant with my child, through the force of government intervention. Since it's their body they and they alone should make that decision. It's the only thing that makes any sense. And the Constitution, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, supports that view.

[Chad]

If he refuses communion for Obama supporters, is he doing the same for McCain or Bush supporters? They support advancing and increasing the use of the death penalty which is also against Catholic doctrine.

Lets be fair, even if we are being hateful. This guy is a joke and a hypocrit, and his higher ups supporting his wacko stand is a joke, considering they work for a system that covered up and helped perpertrate child molestation.

Tell me you don't support Obama, tell me his views are wrong and you recommend I vote for someone else. Just don't tell me I'm going to hell for my vote or that my vote is not moral. To do so means you think of yourself as a god, which is blasphemy in the highest order.

[Jim]

All Catholic Obama supporters in the Greenville area should celebrate Mass at Fr. Newman's church and take communion wearing an Obama/Biden '08 sticker.

[bud]

The Catholic Church is nothing but a gigantic cult complete with mind-numbing, senseless rituals conducted by a bunch of pedophiles. No point in taking any of their idiot leaders seriously.

[Brad Warthen]

There you have it, folks: The Voice of Tolerance, proposing to call the kettle black.

[Birchibald T. Barlow]

The Catholic Church is nothing but a gigantic cult complete with mind-numbing, senseless rituals conducted by a bunch of pedophiles.

Wow, you must really hate the Kennedys.

[Bub]

Statement of Monsignor Martin T. Laughlin
Administrator of the Diocese of Charleston

CHARLESTON, S.C. (November 14, 2008) - This past week, the Catholic Church’s clear, moral teaching on the evil of abortion has been pulled into the partisan political arena. The recent comments of Father Jay Scott Newman, pastor of St. Mary’s Catholic Church in Greenville, S.C., have diverted the focus from the Church’s clear position against abortion. As Administrator of the Diocese of Charleston, let me state with clarity that Father Newman’s statements do not adequately reflect the Catholic Church’s teachings. Any comments or statements to the contrary are repudiated.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states, “Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions.” The Catechism goes on to state: “In the formation of conscience the Word of God is the light for our path; we must assimilate it in faith and prayer and put it into practice. We must also examine our conscience before the Lord’s Cross. We are assisted by the gifts of the Holy Spirit, aided by the witness or advice of others and guided by the authoritative teaching of the Church.”

Christ gives us freedom to explore our own conscience and to make our own decisions while adhering to the law of God and the teachings of the faith. Therefore, if a person has formed his or her conscience well, he or she should not be denied Communion, nor be told to go to confession before receiving Communion.

The pulpit is reserved for the Word of God. Sometimes God’s truth, as is the Church’s teaching on abortion, is unpopular. All Catholics must be aware of and follow the teachings of the Church.

We should all come together to support the President-elect and all elected officials with a view to influencing policy in favor of the protection of the unborn child. Let us pray for them and ask God to guide them as they take the mantle of leadership on January 20, 2009.

I ask also for your continued prayers for me and for the Diocese of Charleston.

[Mattheus Mei]

Bud -- that's quite uncharitable and hopefully a hyperbolic assesment of how you feel about Catholicism. As a fellow supporter of the Public School System and a fellow Progressive, I take offense.

And Jim, that's just escalating the problem. I believe Bub posted the response to Fr. Newman -- though perhaps not Longnecker (who the Administrator is probably not aware of his comments), and I'm confident that both priests have been checked by their boss.

[Brad Warthen]

This is what we get when we don't have a bishop -- anarchy. Next thing you know, somebody's going to be nailing theses to the doors...

[Mattheus Mei]

Brad - now that's just funny. So what's the Modern Tetzel call - An Obama vote a man confessed, from hell a soul won't be oppressed?

[Reader]

Welcome to the

Brad Church of End Justifies the Means.

Parishioners Beware.

[MM=altar boy]

[Jim]

Escalate away, Mattheus. That church should have its tax-exempt status revoked (actually, no church should be tax-exempt, but that's another issue).

[Reader]

Jim, when MM escalates -- he will be given the golden bolden pen...anything you say will be magnified. Beware. You have entered THE CHURCH OF BRAD.

[Mattheus Mei]

Reader it sound's like you've joined in as Churchwarden

[Randy E]

I can't believe that last post was from bud. bud, if that was your post I would like to you to justify your position.

Doug, the Catholic church would focus more on Jesus and faith than on the individual. If the man was Catholic, he likely would want it to be that way. After all, he is now in God's hands and his faith was about God.

Priests are human. This priest, as a human, will have his moments. Even Msgr. Lehocky, as pious and grace filled of a human as there is, probably makes big mistakes.

[Reader]

Yes, MM -- as a counterweight to ChurchWARTHEN. I do my civic duty as I see fit. Do you pay for this crap? I do. And I will certainly swat Brad down a peg or two as the general consensus sees fit.

Give us Cindi -- she has certainly put in her dues. For more years than I can count back. And has the tact befitting someone in the 'go-to' position for public discourse.

[Reader]

1.Fit. 2.Fit. 3.Fitting.

[Rich]

As a non-practicing, non-believing Roman Catholic who cherishes the church for its music, rituals, art, intellectual tradition, and some of its moral stands, I must nevertheless stand firmly against any political role for priests unless they are willing to lose their tax-exempt status.

Actually, I think churches should be taxed. The net effect would salutary for the state treasury (S.C. is a particularly credulous place, so there is much to tax) and would have a dampening effect on the fissiparous, fundamentalist protestant churches that sing their hymns too loudly on Sunday morning and handle a few too many snakes for their own good.

Time to recognize the proper role of religion as the repository of a nation's mythology and the historic, but pre-scientific, attempt of its people to understand the cosmos and touch eternity.

It is also time to stop believing that the myths are literally true. I no more believe in the literal existence of Jesus than I do of Zeus, Allah, Yahweh, or some tribal fetish.

As the posts above show, S.C. is not as conservative as people think; and as the election shows, the U.S. is not really center-right; it's just the undemocratic features of our constitution that make it seem to be the case.

[Ozzie]

It is also time to stop believing that the myths are literally true. I no more believe in the literal existence of Jesus than I do of Zeus, Allah, Yahweh, or some tribal fetish.

Now that is interesting. I wonder if Rich believes that Caesar existed, or Charlemagne, or a lot of other people in antiquity, because there is certainly more documentary evidence and historical evidence for Jesus than a lot of other figures.

But what I think Rich is saying is that there is no unseen, spiritual world beyond what he can see, or science can detect.

That would seem to be pretty myopic. I mean, even science suggests there are many dimensions beyond the four or five we know from experience.

I can understand that Rich doesn't see spiritual reality very well (maybe he doesn't want to?)--but why insist that everyone else should be blind as well? Really?

One of my pet peeves about Brad, whom I know does this with tongue in cheek, but I hope that someday he comes to the realization of the fact that the Protestant reformation was, in many ways (certainly not all), a great step forward in the history of mankind, and in many ways a foundation stone in modern democracy.

I agree with Cindy, Brad does indeed tend toward elitism--a kind of Catholic arrogance towards Protestantism, but then maybe he is reacting against an arrogance of the opposite kind.

[Rich]

Belief without empirical evidence is irrational. Period.

[p.m.]

If belief without empirical evidence is irrational, Rich, then why do you believe people shouldn't believe? There is no empirical evidence we'd be better off without beliefs.

And more than two centuries after the constitution mandated freedom of religion here, with the United States not only the weatlthiest and most powerful country on Earth, but also the world's most effective policeman, why should people quit believing now?

Our nation's founders said we shouldn't recommend people not believe what they want to.

You think you're smarter than they were?

You think life has changed so much in just two centuries that freedom of religion should be chucked so you can tell everybody what to think?

Surely you don't think evolution is that fast, do you?

Our founding fathers knew the government couldn't play the role of religion in society, and it still can't. Funny thing is, in my experience, intelligence and faith apparently have nothing to do with each other. Some of the smartest people I've known have been the most religious. Others have had no faith in faith whatsoever, like you.

And like me. I'm a barely practicing, all-but-agnostic Methodist, but I learned a long time ago to leave people's religion to them, and them to it. You don't win many friends or influence many people by trying to make them shed their core beliefs. And, overall, I've found religious people (surprise, surprise) more reliable and trustworthy than non-believers.

[zachariah]

Prtoestants outnumber Catholics 12-1 in South Carolina:

Christian: 92%
* Protestant: 84%
* Southern Baptist: 45%
* Methodist: 15%
* Presbyterian: 5%
* Other Protestant: 19%
* Roman Catholic: 7%
* Other Christian: 1%
Other Religions: 1%
Non-Religious: 7%

[Michelle]

Considering the Catholic Church's history with child molestation and their enabling of pedophiles.......