Sheehan decries loud tactics by fellow bishops
Most Catholic bishops in the United States disagree with the loud tactics of some of their peers in opposing President Barack Obama’s appearance at the University of Notre Dame, but have kept quiet because they do not want to engage in a public battle over the issue, one archbishop has told the National Catholic Reporter.
Archbishop Edwin F. O’Brien of Baltimore was an early opponent of the decision to invite Obama to speak during commencement exercises and receive an honorary degree from the Catholic university. Obama supports legal access to abortion and embryonic stem cell research, which the church opposes.
In March, Baltimore Archbishop Edwin F. O’Brien wrote to Notre Dame President John Jenkins that he was “disappointed and bewildered” by the invitation. But letter-writing doesn’t seem to be the kind of activity that Santa Fe, N.M. Archbishop Michael J. Sheehan is decrying in his interview with NCR.
Rather, Sheehan says that refusing to talk to a politician or refusing communion because of a difference on a single issue – approaches that O’Brien hasn’t discussed publicly – was counterproductive. He describes such actions as a “hysterical” reaction and said the Catholic community risks isolating itself from the rest of the country.
Sheehan tells NCR that he prefers "consultation, collaboration, building bridges not burning them."
At the June meeting of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, NCR’s John Allen reported that some bishops said privately that they were appalled at the conduct of the most vocal opponents and others said the debate had become too narrow and partisan, but the issue was never brought up in public session. The bishops interviewed at the time commented anonymously.
Read the rest of the story at ncronline.org.
Archdiocese of Santa Fe






Comments
Praise God for Archbishop O'Brien. I dont agree with many things in the Catholic church, mainly considering your own traditions (praying to Mary, no meat on Fridays) as important as scripture and the beer and bingo in church, etc. However, what kind of Catholic supports abortion? Someone who really isnt Catholic. If we are supposed to lie down and just applaud a speech by someone who said that America is not a Christian nation and who supports abortion rights, what kind of Christians are we? I believe this is true in the secular arena, let alone in a church function. Mr. O'Brien is someone who encourages Protestants, Baptists, Pentecostals, etc., not discourages them. Thanks.
Posted by: Clay | August 27, 2009 1:41 PM
Clay this is an issue which has already received far more press than it deserved. If we don't work with Federal, State and Local government leaders we do risk isolating ourselves from the rest of the country. At the same time we can't ignore critical moral and spiritual issues simply because they aren't popular in today's world. Notre Dame probably shouldn't have extended the invitation; however, once they did far too much resource was spent protesting it instead of focusing on more important issues. Like him or not Obama is the President and he is correct that the United States in not a Christian nation. If it was the constitution would not guarantee freedom of religion for all. It would limit it to Christianity. As Christians we are called to spread the good news not force it on people who reject it. To be honest I was more bothered by the Georgetown appearance when they agreed to hide all religious symbols to accommodate the President.
Posted by: ravensfan | August 27, 2009 2:19 PM
God's word is always more important than working with government officials. I agree that we are to be kind and to witness to others like those government officials. But where does a church draw the line? They have to get rid of religious symbols in Georgetown and that man is speaking at my church? No way is he speaking at my church, nor should he be allowed to at any other church that calls itself Christian. It is like what I was saying about Hillary Clinton speaking at Saddleback. Did the people in charge there make it clear to others, especially young people, that they dont support abortion? Or did some think that maybe the church was bending a little? We cant bend a little or at all. Yes Hillary is welcome to attend our church, but she isnt getting up to speak unless God touches her heart and she changes her ways. Even then she could speak at the women's conference and not in the main church. Will Mr. Obama change? If he does we could consider it then. Thanks.
Posted by: Clay | August 27, 2009 2:36 PM
Clay I agree that God's word is the most important thing. The Notre Dame issue is a grey area for me as it is not a church but a university. Being Catholic myself I struggled with the issue of having Obama there. In the end I felt he shouldn't have been invited, however, once done I think too much was made in the church over it. That being said those who did object had every right to. I don't know what the school communicated to the students. I agree we can't change to suit the world but we can engage the world and work to find common ground to make what positive changes we can. Just as I think Christians of all denominations need to find the commom ground to work together like the last portion of Mary Stuart's Prayer "Grant that we may realize
That it is the little things of life that create differences,
That in the big things of life we are as one.
And, O Lord, God, let us not forget to be kind!"
Posted by: ravensfan | August 27, 2009 5:29 PM
The fact of the matter is that it is only because we are a Christian Nation that we tolerate all religions. Tolerance is an idea that was born in Christian Europe and has its roots in the Hebrew faith's focus on mercy to the stranger and Jesus' commandment to love even your enemies. It certainly isn't found in the fundamentals of Islam or Hinduism, and although one might see the basis for it in the nihilism of Buddism, true Buddists, concerned as the with escaping existence by detachment from the world, have little religious motivation for promoting the common good or the good of any particular person.
Of course as Ghandi so aptly pointed out Christians often fail to live up to their own ideals sacrificing what is true and good for what is easy and non-controversial. That is percisely the point that true Catholics are making with regards to the abortion debate.
Posted by: FrRon | August 27, 2009 6:04 PM
"the Catholic community risks isolating itself from the rest of the country."
Shouldn't he mean to say "risks NOT isolating itself" (Catholics are called to be unpopular) Our Lord was killed, no?
Posted by: Brian | August 27, 2009 6:21 PM
A bishop who would give Holy Communion, the Body and Blood of Jesus, to a politician who promotes the killing of unborn babies has their blood on his hands.
Posted by: 4unborn | August 27, 2009 6:21 PM
Your Excellency, Since when is abortion just a "single issue." Remember, please,
we are talking about the slaughter of over 50 MILLION innocents.
Debate "too narrow and partisan?" Who is partisan: those who don not seek to use every means necessary to help end the almost unspeakable horror and the gravest of injustices lest they offend a particular party that has embraced this evil? Or, those who speak out trying to end this dark chapter of our history regardless of who they might offend on either side of the political spectrum? What does Canon 915 say, your Excellency? Would it be "hysterical" for me to say that: Those who . . . obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are NOT to be admitted to Holy Communion?
I'm sorry your Excellency, I don't want to burn any bridges or give offense either:
but also I don't want to be like the guard at a death camp who sits idly by without a word as to the evil happening inside and then when faced with judgment says, "I was only following orders." I am proud of the "loud tactics" of your brother Bishop's.
I am proud that I see in them the strength and power of the Apostles whose successors you are.
May Our Lord have Mercy on us all.
Posted by: Fr. William J Kuchinsky | August 27, 2009 6:38 PM
It seems like the Bishop would have fit in well in Nazi Germany.
Posted by: George Kadlec | August 27, 2009 8:09 PM
This bishop is one of the reasons so many Catholics are confused about what the church really stands for. Jesus said those who believe in Him will suffer abuse and scorn. I can't see accepting the actions of those opposed to following the word of God in all it's entirety as being good for our society, certainly it's not good for evangelization of the Word. Come on Bishop, focus on doing God's work, not your own.
Posted by: Vin | August 27, 2009 9:15 PM
With all due respect, Bishop Sheehan's preferred method is what has been tried and sorrowfully has failed miserably over many years. One cannot dialogue with the devil. I thank God for the Bishops that stand up firmly for truth with fires burning in their hearts in the interest of faith, hope and love.
Posted by: Laurie | August 27, 2009 10:12 PM
We need far less of this unsucessful approach of the last 40 years that has encouraged such behaviour. Lord, spare us.
Posted by: Joe | August 27, 2009 10:31 PM
Let us pray for the Bishops that speak up against sin and bring sinners to conversion.
May God protect us from Bishops who are afraid to confront evil.
I wonder who Sheehan voted for?
Posted by: jay | August 27, 2009 11:05 PM
Dear Bishop Sheehan, Please consider the Office of Readings regarding the "woes" that will befall false shepherds and those who do not properly tend the flock the Lord has entrusted to them. Certainly, the following quote summarizes that time in the liturgical cycle when the Church places before us, in the Scriptures and writings of the early Church Fathers, what is expected of Bishops and Priests who have been called to Shepherd those redeemed by the Most Precious Blood of Jesus - who laid down His life for us:
"The words of the Bible and of the Church fathers rang in my ears, those sharp condemnations of shepherds who are like mute dogs; in order to avoid conflicts, that let the poison spread. Peace is not the first civic duty, and a bishop whose only concern is not to have any problems and to gloss over as many conflicts as possible is an image I find repulsive." Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, 1997
And, guess what? It is an image the Lord finds repulsive also. May He have Mercy on us in our stupidity!
Posted by: Fr. William J Kuchinsky | August 27, 2009 11:06 PM
Bishop Sheehan, you need to get some courage and a voice to defend the Church from the ridicule of so-called Catholic politicians and so-called Catholic institutions of higher learning who flaunt their disregard for your authority and confuse the Catholic faithful with their abominable behavior. When will you so-called shepherds of the Church defend the Church and stop being so wishy-washy.
Posted by: Stella | August 28, 2009 12:00 AM
Take a single mother and her child(ren) into your home. Take a developmentally disabled person into your home.
Otherwise, pay the $200.OO/day it takes to care for such unwanted people. Actions speak louder than words, yes talk is very cheap.
Posted by: thomas | August 28, 2009 2:16 AM
If you replace the abortion "issue" with racism, would you still say don't be a single issue christian? How about slavery? Oh sure, I can hear it now, don't be so upset, it's just slavery. That would go over well. Why is it abortion is treated as if it really isn't that bad of a thing?
Posted by: taad | August 28, 2009 4:47 AM
Archbishop O'Brien and the other Archbishops that oppose anyone who is for abortion and embryonic stem cell usage are compelled to do that, by virtue of their office. The Catholic religion and all of Christianity teaches that it is wrong.They would not be true to their position as well as to Jesus Christ if they did not do that.
Posted by: Anita | August 28, 2009 5:26 AM
I respectfully disagree with the sentiments of Archbishop Sheehan.
St. Paul Says:
"Reprimand publicly those who do sin, so that the rest also will be afraid." (1 Tim. 5:20)
"Take no part in the fruitless works of darkness; rather expose them..." (Eph. 5:11)
"I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people, not at all referring to the immoral of this world or the greedy and robbers or idolaters; for you would then have to leave the world. But I now write to you not to associate with anyone named a brother, if he is immoral, greedy, an idolater, a slanderer, a drunkard, or a robber, not even to eat with such a person. For why should I be judging outsiders? Is it not your business to judge those within? God will judge those outside. "Purge the evil person from your midst." (1 Cor. 5:9-13)
So, Archbishop Sheehan prefers "consultation, collaboration, building bridges not burning them" with pro-abort politicians and NOT his brother bishops?
Physician, heal thyself.
Posted by: Kevin | August 28, 2009 7:38 AM
Keep those cards and letters coming in. I do wish some Catholics would stop saying things like, "we are the only true Christian church and the first one that was started by Peter." I believe Constantine, quite a few years later with his vision of a cross, had a lot more to do with starting it. If the Catholic church would just simplify, simplify and get rid of all the pomp and statues, etc. and get down to telling it like it is, it would be a lot better off. And I am not saying that people in the church dont always tell it like it is because they do. I think Catholics get too bogged down in the traditions. You can take all the wine and bread you want and it wont change you unless you have accepted Christ into your heart. You can be sprinkled, dipped (speaking of us Baptists) and it wont matter. That being said, Catholics are my Christian brothers and sisters. There are many Catholics who are more on fire for God than myself and who dedicate their lives to Him a lot more than I do. I love all of you and keep up the good work. God bless.
Posted by: Clay | August 28, 2009 8:58 AM
These other bishops should respect their brother bishop who is Notre Dame's local bishop. Notre Dame's president is also bound to respect the instruction and advice of his local bishop or remain, to the view of fellow Catholics, as one in disobedience and arrogance. This is not the only case of this president's standing outside the Church's authority, giving horrible example to the young people forming their faith under his guidance. He must know that he, in the end, has to answer to God for his decisions. So many to pray for these days - going it alone and building greater and greater division to the Body of Christ.
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=16928
Posted by: Kris | August 28, 2009 9:00 AM
Christ said' You are either for me or against me' You can't pick and choose. You can be 99% for God, but it's that 1% that takes you straight to hell. I would like to point out that a baby is a baby no matter what other name you wish to call this human being.
Posted by: John | August 28, 2009 9:06 AM
Thomas, on the contrary, go into an abortion clinic and look at the remains of the "babies" and see that "talk ,for choice, is cheap".
I worked in a hospital Histopathology lab where I had the dubious daily task of dissecting aborted babies so their little body parts could be put on to a microscope slide for legalities. In my mind, this shattered the cultural lie that this is all for goodness sake. Imagine ,even worse, the late- term murders that these politicians are now advocating as the culture goes from bad to worse. Is there anything more heinous than this?... And now there is talk of harvesting their organs? It is the Bishops duty to speak out and clearly decry these sins against life. Yes, for the babies sake, but moreso for those who advocate for sins against humanity as their souls are in grave danger. Souls are the Bishops responsibility. Catholics who advocate for sins against life or for any other grevious moral abhorrence are more harmful to the Gospel of Christ than athiests. They need clear and firm direction from the Bishops and be uprooted from the flock if they continue facilitating the destruction of human life.
Posted by: Laurie | August 28, 2009 9:46 AM
Clay although I generally like tradition I will grant you the probelm is too often we forget the real significance of them and end up going through the motions. Its true of far to many Catholics myself included. I do think the Church needs to move away from the position that they are the only church. One big step in my opinion is to accept the fact that we (the Catholic Church) hold most of the blame for why there are so many different Christian Churches.
Posted by: ravensfan | August 28, 2009 10:43 AM
The Bishop(s) stance who supported the commencment forum is without merit. The forum was not one of dialogue, nor it was one that allowed an opportunity to respond and reinforce the Catholic Truths. It was scandalous to souls and an apostate to Catholic teaching. The view of the Church as "isolated" and "alienated" is also without merit and usu applied unjustly to the Churchby its enemies.
Posted by: WINKYB | August 28, 2009 11:23 AM
Yes, Ravensfan. I agree with you. Peter, John and Paul, etc may have been part of the first Christian church, but it wasnt Catholic. One could say that John the Baptist was baptizing before Christ started His ministry so Baptists were the first real church, etc. What difference does it make? It is all prideful. Like the late Pat Kelly, a former Oriole and evangelist used to say, "when I was baptized, I went down a dry sinner and came up a wet sinner." And when Christ said that we must eat of His body did He mean it literally? I think He meant we must have Him in our hearts. The bible doesnt say to take that literally and the priest should call Christ down into the wafer. How did that one start? They are church traditions that have become as important as scripture and that isnt good. Doesnt satan like it if we spend time praying to mortal humans rather than Christ? When we stick to the word in the bible we cant go wrong. I pray that the Catholic church can get away from this stuff, take off the robes and get down to it. You know as well as myself it wont happen on a large scale. Catholics were raised this way since birth. However, that doesnt mean that people in any church cant get closer to Christ. It does look nice at Christmas to visit most Catholic churches. But I cannot let that persuade me to look the other way with these problems. I pray that I have been a good witness here to my fellow Christian brothers and sisters. Thats what forming bonds is all about, not bending over for pro abortion advocates. Thanks and God bless.
Posted by: Clay | August 28, 2009 11:28 AM
Clay I will confess I'm not as knowegable on all of our Catholic traditions as I'd like to be. One of my spiritual goals is to work to remedy that. If you have the time and desire you might want to check out the following book "A Biblical Defense of Catholicism" by Dave Armstrong. He's an Evangelical who was reseatching Catholicism prior to some ecumenical discussions. What he learned ended up causing him to convert. I'm not offering to suggest you or anyone else convert, but it may serve to help you, as well as Catholics to understand some of the Catholic Church's teachings and tradition. In my opnion Clay you have been a very good witness to Christians as well as unbelievers such as our mutual friend Robert. Take care my friend and God bless you as well.
Posted by: ravensfan | August 28, 2009 12:03 PM
We need bold and brave bishop . to stand for real teaching of the church. May GOD bless them.
Posted by: mellie berry | August 28, 2009 12:04 PM
Clay, you are just rehashing old baptist wives tales. The Catholic Church is the one, true church established by Jesus Christ. Where in the Bible does it say it is the only rule of faith? No where - in fact, when it speaks about interpretaion, it states it is difficult to understand - the Catholic Church, established by Jesus, is the official interpreter. The Catholic Church is also the body that established the official canon of scripture.
On abortion, may I humbly state, Mother Theresa stated, "If everyone would spend one hour in Eucharistic Adoration, abortion would crumble". Amen!
Posted by: Dan Soderlund | August 28, 2009 12:05 PM
Prayers of thanksgiving for bishops who work conscientiously for the salvation of souls; prayers of petition for bishops who occupy their see, yet allow their vineyard to be uncultivated and the vines to go unpruned. Lord, give them humility to acknowledge their failings. Grant that they find their spines, review the responsibilities of their office, and take action to dilegently repair neglect of souls entrusted to them. Amen.
Posted by: Rosemarie | August 28, 2009 12:24 PM
One is to be in the world but not 'of' it. It is one thing to talk with politicians, but another to invite them to a commencement at a Catholic Univeristy which is supposed to be pro-life.
It requires Catholics to be different from their counterparts in the world and to set a spiritually and morally good example for others. Obviously this is not happening. Shame on bishops who don't understand the concept of being in the world but not of it.
Posted by: Maggie | August 28, 2009 12:35 PM
Dear Bishop Sheehan: Would that all bishops have courage to fulfill their duties as princes of the Catholic Church; would that all bishops had the courage of Sir Thomas More; would that bishops be willing to lay their lives down for flocks entrusted to them. Please, Bishop Sheehan, pray that you may see clearly your responsibilities in caring for souls entrusted to you; be not a scandal; a stumbling block to those who are entitled to proper formation and clear guidance from you. Prayers for the USA, Rosemarie
Posted by: Rosemarie | August 28, 2009 12:46 PM
The writings of many of our founding fathers often included the word “virtue” and “Creator”. They also warned of serious future calamity if America compromised these virtues, some of which happen to be Christian.
They knew early on that evil would pose a threat under false ideologies and abuses, if we did not protect and defend our Declaration and Constitution. Both these documents were to govern as one, not independently (so I am learning).
I have read that they did not intend to prevent religious principles from offering insight and wisdom in our self-governing, but only that "government should never impose one religion upon the people." It was to preserve religious freedom to choose one’s faith. Government was to preserve, foster, and protect her citizens without deceipt, and avoiding corruption.
Can this be done without virtue?
Today our American flag is being lowered and replaced with the flag of MORAL RELATIVISM. Those who hail this flag will flounder eventually under its false righteousness, because EVIL always corrupts! Look at the fruit wrought by those actions.
Evil promises to liberate, but at a great price.
It will produce spiritual blindness.
Posted by: Val | August 28, 2009 12:48 PM
Christ said we are to fight evil till he returns.
Posted by: michael | August 28, 2009 1:31 PM
I must respectfully disagree with Bishop Sheehan. First, Scripture says that anyone who eats the Eucharist in an unworthy state does so to their condemnation. We should not want people to be condemned. Secondly, how many of these so-called Catholics who dissent from the Church's teaching on abortion have come back to the fold through this "patient, tolerant" approach that Bishop Sheehan favors? NONE. Now, in the late 1950s the Archbishop of New Orleans publicly excommunicated several Catholic politicians because they were outspoken in their support of segregation of the schools, which the Church was teaching as being wrong. After trying to meeting with these politicians pastorally, to help them see that we are all made in the image and likeness of God, and their persistent refusal the Archbishop did what Bishop Sheehan would label as "hysterical" and harsh -- he excommunicated the wayward politicians. You know what, within a year, each of the politicians who were excommunicated publicly renounced their un-Christian positions and were received back into full communion with the Church. Humm! Maybe if more bishops had the backbone to be true leaders of their flock, and when discussion became useless, exercised their proper authority and excommunicated the likes of Kennedy, Pelosi, Kerry, etc... maybe some of them would have repented of their errors. Even if they then left the Church, it would be like the rich young man in the Gospel, who went away sad; the Church would not be seen as being wishy-washy on this important moral issue.
Posted by: Fr. JC Garrett | August 28, 2009 2:22 PM
Remember when the last time Bishops worked with the government....England and King Henry VIII. It wasn't very long after that schism and deaths of Thomas More and Bishop John Fisher.
Posted by: Bob Crouse | August 28, 2009 2:44 PM
Just more liberal yip-yap from a wayward bishop who should no longer be in the position to which he was entrusted.
Can't wait until he and other like minded bishops retire or are removed!
We pray for their conversion!
Posted by: Diane | August 28, 2009 2:45 PM
Yet another embarrassing situation for our poor Achdiocese of Santa Fe! How could our bishop give such a scandalous interview to NCP! It isolates you among your own flock, Archbishop Sheehan. Shame on you. One of our children attends Notre Dame and there were over 400 students who gathered for a prolife prayer service on Palm Sunday when they heard that Obama was scheduled to speak. However, none of this was covered in the media. God Bless the shepherds of the Catholic Church who did speak out. Choose life, Archbishop!
Posted by: Catherine | August 31, 2009 3:28 AM
I am so impressed by this group of comments. Kudos to all of you, who placed God and His Word above all else...FIRST! God must be in the forefront of our minds, our thoughts and our actions at all times. If this were so, we would not be having this discussion. When we acknowledge the awesome power and greatness of almighty God, we grow in humbleness. Even though His Love and His Mercy are boundless, my God is a God of JUSTICE!
I ask Bishop Sheehan and all of the silent US Bishops, where do you place God? Beware!
Posted by: Jacqueline Kruger | September 8, 2009 3:46 PM