Washington D.C., Feb 22, 2010 / 07:19 pm (CNA).- At the American Conservative Union’s recent annual meeting, Deal Hudson, president of the Catholic Advocate, hosted an event with the theme “It’s time for a Catholic Tea Party.”
The annual meeting of the ACU, called the Conservative Political Action Committee (CPAC) took place in Washington D.C. from Feb. 18-20.
Hudson told attendees of the Catholic Advocate event that “it was time for Catholics to realize they don’t need permission from their bishops to become politically active.”
Hudson’s remarks were made in the context of a campaign to “reform the Catholic Campaign for Human Development (CCHD)” that he is helping lead. The CCHD, which is under jurisdiction of the U.S. bishops, has recently come under fire for its alleged connections with a network of community organizations that have promoted abortion and the homosexual agenda.
Clarifying what he means by a “Catholic Tea Party,” Hudson said, “We are not calling for the dismantling of the USCCB, not at all. Episcopal conferences are fully mandated by the documents of Vatican II and the Code of Cannon Law.”
“But,” Hudson continued, “we want the USCCB to be managed in a way that does supplant the role and responsibility of the laity and programs like the Catholic Campaign for Human Development. In the case of USCCB programs like the CCHD a serious overhaul is necessary to prevent Catholic money from being spent on organizations supporting abortion and same-sex marriage.”
“$2,000,000 has been spent this way and it needs to stop,” Hudson claimed.[reference]
I take his point – but don’t care for the term “Catholic Tea Party” I do think there is already too much taking in of political terms within the Church. The terms “right” and “left” are bad enough without bringing in more political parallels.
The historical parallels more apt – though not a perfect match – would be the Catholic response to the Protestant Reformation. The response of the Council of Trent and the so-called “Counter-Reformation” is more in the line of what we need – though I certainly don’t mean calling a new council. The aftermath to the Second Vatican Council (not the Council itself) has parallels to the Protestant Reformation when all of a sudden people perceived some new “freedoms” divorced from the teachings of the path and a culture of do your own thing developed. Just this time the Luthers, Calvins, and Zwinglis stayed within the Church. They too started with the mind of reform in what in fact needed reformed only to split off into contrary theologies that continue to spawn and divide today. The Protestant Reformers all went off in their own directions.
So many in the Social Justice movement perceived that more could be done to help the poor and set about to do this good work, but like Luther sided with the Princes they ended up siding with the government as the tool for this work and soon started to ignore the negative aspects of this alliance all in the name of the poor. The USCCB’s Catholic Campaign for Human Development fell into a similar trap by largely seeing government programs as the answer. So many of the groups they support basically agitate for more government money and intrusion. They quickly became blind to the anti-Christian agendas of the other groups they were working with all in the name of human development. This of course is a common human flaw that people can so concentrate on one aspect of the truth that it soon looses relation to other truths – something we all have to watch out for.
Again I don’t see how the Tea Party model is applicable here. It is effective in the arena of politics where large demonstrations for common cause are useful. Though I would like a Missal Party where we all dressed up as some group and grabbed a bunch of OCP missals to be thrown into the closest harbor (Boston or otherwise). I just don’t see large demonstrations of Catholics outside the USCCB offices for example being very effective. Maybe I am just hung up on the Tea Party metaphor being used – I just think it does not conjure up an actual Catholic reply. Besides Tea Party sounds to Puritan. Sign me up for a Catholic Beer Party, named after all the fine work monks contributed to civilization and true reform throughout the centuries. They preserved knowledge and made beer – showing they got their priorities right.
Seriously though. The Counter-Reformation (what a stupid historical term) was effective because the first reform sought after was personal reform. It was Saints Ignatius, John of the Cross, Teresa of Avila, Francis de Sales, Chales Borromeo, along with many others who led a true reform. Today like every age we need saints. Besides if we don’t take up the cause of personal holiness when we get to Judgment Jesus will ask “Who Dat” (a form of Matthew 7:23).
9 comments
Mmmmm … Chimay
“Tea Party” is too political? And what does the CCHD consist of, other than a subsidy for political activism?
‘Tea party’? Wouldn’t ‘Church Social’ or ‘Potluck’ be truer to the spirit?
“Tea Party” is too political? And what does the CCHD consist of, other than a subsidy for political activism?
Nothing wrong with being political, but “Tea Party” confirms the blathering on the Left that faithul Catholics are just a tool of right-wingers. And Jeff is right on the Purtitan association. As Yoda would say, “Need that, we do not.” 🙂
Interesting. I wonder how Deal Hudson would deal with that “liberal” Ignatius of Antioch who said in a letter to the Magnesians:
“CHAPTER VII.–DO NOTHING WITHOUT THE BISHOP AND PRESBYTERS.
As therefore the Lord did nothing without the Father, being united to Him, neither by Himself nor by the apostles, so neither do ye anything without the bishop and presbyters. Neither endeavour that anything appear reasonable and proper to yourselves apart; but being come together into the same place, let there be one prayer, one supplication, one mind, one hope, in love and in joy undefiled. There is one Jesus Christ, than whom nothing is more excellent. Do ye therefore all run together as into one temple of God, as to one altar, as to one Jesus Christ, who came forth from one Father, and is with and has gone to one.”
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0105.htm
The aftermath to the Second Vatican Council (not the Council itself) has parallels to the Protestant Reformation when all of a sudden people perceived some new “freedoms” divorced from the teachings of the path and a culture of do your own thing developed. Just this time the Luthers, Calvins, and Zwinglis stayed within the Church. They too started with the mind of reform in what in fact needed reformed only to split off into contrary theologies that continue to spawn and divide today. The Protestant Reformers all went off in their own directions.
By the time Trent had been called, the Lutherans, Calvinists, and Anglicans had already left the Church. Protestantism was not a rejection of Trent; Trent was the rejection of Protestantism. Trent was also the result of a generation of struggle with Protestantism.
This observation may seem pedantic, but over and over again I hear people making the claim that the confusion that followed Vatican II was somehow normal in Church history, and the summoning and management of the Council had nothing to do with confusion that followed. I submit that the calling and management of the Council caused, or at least exacerbated, the problems that followed.
A few observations.
I think St. Ignatius of Antioch, in context, is talking about PRAYER that the bishop does not approve of… such prayer having been found to be heretical. In modern terms, St. Ignatius warns: make sure the Eucharist you attend is valid and licit by checking with your ordinary. Ordinarily, that’s enough.
Going somewhat later in Church history, the first ecumenical council, Nicaea, was followed by an explosion of Arian heretical activity. Interestingly, the heretics allied with Imperial power and pushed their agenda to the point that St. Jerome wrote that “the whole world groaned to find itself Arian”. For that matter, there was an ecumenical council a few years before Luther’s theses. Maybe all of these councils were mismanaged to some degree; humans tend to be less than perfect at such tasks.
I don’t think we need a tea party in church? We as catholic
should encourage our bishops. The problem is if you will is moderism or progressism inside and out of church. What did marx say divide and conquer. We who are true Catholic who believe in teachings of Roman Catholic Church in all in it truths and don’t need, or want change Church what ever or personal passion maybe? That been said, We as Roman Catholic been Sleep at Switch in many ways. For example their or twentysix Senators out hundred who say they are Roman Catholic . Then why we then catholics working hard and praying to keep Fed fund abortion out Senate Heath Care Bill ? Why we letting our elect officals take personal property from our neighbors and debt to our Children and grand children. Is It not go against Church teachings and Constition United States ?
Jeff,
I understand Deal’s objection to the CCHD & I object to his way of expressing this so I guess I agree with you. The previous commentor is correct in stating that the last thing the Church USA needs right now is to further divide the bishops from their people & Deal’s rhetoric may unwittingly promote that. Catholics in this country are much more eager to see the Church in terms of USA politics than to see politics in terms of Church teaching.