The New Liberal Clericalism

Should the magisterium of the Church protect all the faithful, or just look out for itself? You would think that after more than a decade of the sex-abuse crisis, Catholics would have learned the answer to this question.

Thankfully the U.S. Bishops are now protecting the religious freedom of their flock. But some Catholics think those bishops are mistaken. After an impressive column on Tuesday where Michael Sean Winters decided to actually read one of the lawsuits against the HHS Mandate, yesterday Winters reverted back to attacking the idea that the Catholic lay faithful possess religious freedom.

Winters chastizes the bishops for seeking to protect anyone from immoral government mandates except for the heirarchy and its own operations. And he again emphasizes that his view is theological, not pragmatic: the religious liberty of the “Church” does not include the laity.

This is nothing more than neo-clericalism. Winters insists the bishops have no business shielding lay Catholics from governmental attacks. Under his view, shepherds are supposed to look out for themselves, not their flocks. This is like insisting that the Church should not really care about all the poor, just the poor who are served by Catholic Charities.

Winters rejects by name the Second Vatican Council’s teaching that religious freedom is a paramount concern that includes the laity. This teaching is a corrolary to the Council’s insistence that the Church is the People of God, including the laity and the magisterium both.

Presently, our national government seeks to purge faithful lay Catholics from massive portions of society by requiring them to provide inherently evil items. But Winters attacks the bishops for seeking to protect those faithful. And this is not just an attack on Catholic women and men who run businesses. Winters even ridicules the idea that lay apostolic efforts such as EWTN enjoy religious freedom.

Winters believes that protecting “individual” consciences will fuel libertarianism. But if subjectivist religion is the concern, one must at least protect people from a mandate that violates official Church teaching. Instead Winters essentially rejects the lay faithful’s status as members of the Church who therefore possess her own religious liberty. His view empties Christ from the life of the believer, even the objectively-taught Christ. To Winters, Catholics aren’t the Church unless they are direct agents of the bishops.

As a result Winters and HHS do not fundamentally disagree about defining religion narrowly. He claims to oppose HHS’ view that only churches who serve themselves are religious. But in exchange Winters maintains that religious freedom belongs only to bishops and their direct extensions, not to their flock faithfully living their vocations in society. They aren’t “churchy” enough.

Denying religious liberty to the lay faithful is completely incompatible with Catholic social teaching and the Second Vatican Council. Nothing justifies a Catholic’s attack on bishops who are trying to protect the laity from being driven out of business and the apostolate due to their faithfulness to Church teaching.

1,801 views

Categories:Uncategorized

11 thoughts on “The New Liberal Clericalism

  1. alice says:

    Utter nonsense. The bishops are protecting our church, the church of all Catholics. More liberal bashing of the church.

  2. Lucy Guzman says:

    Who the hell is Michael Sean Winters??

  3. RAYMOND J RICE says:

    Religous freedom foR all is a basic Human right. “THE UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF hUMAN rIGHTS IS THE FINEST STATEMENT OF CONSCIENCE EVER WRITTEN” That is a quotation from Pope John Paul II, In his address at the United Nations in 1995. That is almost as important as Scripture. Human Rights are a VERY important part of CATHOLIC tHEOLOGY.

  4. Ben Linus says:

    If the church doesn’t stand up for our religious rights, who will?

    Everyone should be against this health mandate. This says the President can determine our coverage. Anything about it. The President *could* force you to accept pig organs for transplants, even if you were Jewish, Muslim, or an animal rights activist.

    Is *that* what they want?

    The President could ban procedures like circumcision, even for Jews.

    Truthfully, health care should *only* be the responsibility of the individual or family. It should not be linked to government, church, or employer. We should only have to buy what we can afford and what we want. If we want birth control covered, then we should be able to pay for it. If we don’t, then we don’t have to buy the coverage.

    1. Andy Rand says:

      Exactly! I couldn’t agree with you more! Like you said, health care “should not be linked to the government, church, or employer.” So please shut down all Catholic hospitals, clinics, counseling centers, hospices, etc. And double whammy when the church is the employer! Ayn Rand for President! Ryan for VP!

  5. Kat says:

    It’s pretty funny that a liberal is arguing that the Church is the hierarchy/institutions in this situation, but in almost all other situations they argue that the Church is the faithful not the hierarchy/institutions.

  6. Mike Crognale says:

    Why do you waste time giving further publicity and credence to someone who is obviously an idiot? The picture that you posted clearly show the hireling running from the wolf to save himself. The bishops are appointed by the Good Shepherd and are willing to lay down their lives to protect their sheep. We are the flock that the Bishops are sworn to protect.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

STAY CONNECTED


DON'T MISS A THING

Receive our updates via email.