A rchive Date
[ 07-02-2005 ]
Category
[ International Relations ]
sub-Categoy
[ Canada ]
|
[A consistent Catholic
By R. CORT KIRKWOOD-- Ottawa Sun
May 7, 2000
On Wednesday, the most important Catholic in the United States went home to God. New York's John Cardinal O'Connor died as one would have expected: Peacefully, awaiting his final moment with prayer and fortitude.
Yet the good Cardinal had barely closed his eyes when the news media rushed to publish the usual liberal boilerplate about Church leaders and doctrine. And once again, the news media disclosed its stupendous ignorance of the difference between political ideology and religious orthodoxy.
Reporters couldn't resist noting the Church stands against modernity, and marvelled that the Cardinal was so "progressive" on some issues but so "conservative" on others; that is, that he was a paradox.
Two stories illustrate the point, one published in the Washington Post, the other in the Boston Globe, two cathedrals of liberalism.
The Post piece included this in its opener: "In a city known for its tolerance, he was an enthusiastic defender of the church's opposition to abortion, contraception, women's ordination, the death penalty and homosexuality." There it is: The Church is "intolerant," and so was its cardinal.
The reporters goofed by including the death penalty in that list, for the Pope takes a liberal position on it, but anyway, orthodoxy could at times turn the Cardinal into an "insulting" man: "He befriended all the important Catholic politicians but ... said those 'who help to multiply abortions . . . are at risk of excommunication.' " Burning in Hell for eternity they can handle. But being insulted? Now that's upsetting.
At the same time, the Cardinal "disarmed" his liberal critics. "He advocated labour rights, from increasing the minimum wage to improving conditions for migrant workers." And although he "led the fight against gay rights and ordered a gay group out of a local parish, prompting gay activists to throw condoms during Mass," he "changed bedpans and bathed patients at an AIDS hospice."
Get the idea? He was against "gay rights" but helped AIDS patients. He supported workers. That's too paradoxical. Perhaps he secretly opposed church teachings.
The Boston Globe took a similar route to the same conclusion. Noting that O'Connor and Boston's Cardinal Bernard F. Law are "ideological allies," much like Ted Kennedy and Bill Clinton, it observed he supported church teachings that were not "uniformly popular positions in the archdiocese ...." (Of course!)
The Globe observed that "Cardinal O'Connor defied stereotypes (a favourite liberal term)," citing his ministry to AIDS patients and his solidarity with workers on the minimum wage. Yet he "conveyed, in dramatic style, the views of Pope John Paul II -- very conservative on issues involving sex and birth control, progressive on issues involving the poor."
Again, he was a paradox: How could a man who opposes abortion "march alongside union workers?"
The confusion among reporters on this point occurs for four reasons: First, most aren't Catholics. Second, those who are barely understand their own faith. Third, both groups abhor Church teachings on the big four: Contraception, abortion, homosexual behavior and ordaining women.
But fourth, and most importantly, reporters can't get through their dense skulls that political beliefs and positions are unrelated to real theological beliefs and church teachings. An orthodox Catholic can be a political liberal, and indeed, Sen. Edward Kennedy once opposed abortion. Many priests believe in welfare, rent control, the minimum wage, and every other silly idea offered on the menu of liberal programs.
But these positions have nothing to do with what they believe, or are supposed to believe, on matters of faith and morals, such as birth control or homosexual behaviour. As well, Church teachings on these matters are not the "views" of the Pope or any man. They are infallible and eternal truths.
The liberals in the news media, and some in the Church, don't understand that, which is why they wrongly believe Cardinal O'Connor was a paradox. He wasn't.
He was a simple and faithful Catholic priest.
Kirkwood writes on U.S. affairs for the Sun. Letters to the editor should be sent to oped@sunpub.com]
|