FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Fr. Pacwa: "organizing" against the Pope and Bishops by politicians
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2

http://pewsitter.com/view_news2_id_21565.php

Fr. Mitch Pacwa on the "Sol Alinsky style of community organizing"


I recently became upset when Newsweek's "Without A Doubt" feature published an article by Kathleen Kennedy Townsend entitled, "Why Barack Obama represents American Catholics better than the pope does." She commend President Obama's "pragmatic approach to divisive policy" and his "social justice agenda." Meanwhile, she claims that the positions of the pope, the bishops and the pro-life activists do not. In fact, Townsend asserts that the Chicago community organizer president could teach the pope a lot about a Catholic approach to politics and the ability to listen to other people's points of view with empathy. Townsend continues her rant against the Church's teachings on various issues regarding human sexuality - contraception, abortion, homosexual unions and women priests, decrying the Church's unwillingness to listen to other points of view while ignoring the various documents on these issues which were written with an intent compassion for the people to whom they were addressed. Townsend shows no indication that she has listened to the Church's teachings on these topics, though the documents are easily acquired in print or on the Internet.

I recognize the community organizer approach that Townsend commends in this piece. I learned Sol Alinsky style of community organizing as a novice in Chicago when President Obama was a little boy living in Jakarta, Indonesia. Mr. Tom Gaudette, an associate of Sol Alinsky, trained a number of us Jesuits. I was the youngest man in the group, and I was certainly not well developed in the practice of organizing, but I tried my best in COUP - the acronym for Community of United People - on Chicago's near West Side. Most of the folks were African Americans trying to get their public housing projects brought up to city codes; I especially made contact with the Mexican community near Racine and Taylor streets, a line of housing between Italian residents and the public housing projects. I was particularly drawn to work with a street gang, which saw a lot of gang fights in the year I worked there. In fact, I eventually had to leave the area after having seen a friend of mine killed: they made him kneel down and shot him through the head; they merely beat me up.

Despite the trauma, I never forgot the lessons I learned about Alinsky's community organizing. The key to starting an organization was to find an issue that united the people. The issue should be small enough to win a victory, but large enough to matter to the folks. Second, after choosing the issue we had to identify an enemy the community could recognize as the personification of the issue. Usually this was some politician or businessman. Third, an action had to be designed by which the people could attack the enemy and force his or her hand on the issue, thereby giving the folks a victory. That would motivate them to take on bigger and more important issues, while the leaders among the people could emerge. This was a means of bringing power to the people.

Townsend certainly understands these tactics, as does President Obama. Notice how she has focused on issues of human sexuality, since these concern the most intimate areas of any person's life. People feel these issues quite strongly, so it would be popular to take them on. Second, she identifies the enemies who personify the problem: the Pope, the bishops and the pro-life activists. She develops the strategy of making popular popes - John Paul II, who motivated Paul VI to promulgate Humani Vitae, which continued the age old Christian rejection of artificial birth control and abortion, and Benedict XVI, whom she portrays as a man sheltered within the Roman Curia who is more concerned with papal power than with love of the people. Her approach reminds me of the battle cries after Humani Vitae: "I don't want the pope in my bedroom." My response is: "You flatter yourself; he does not want to be in there, either. But the pope will insist that God is Lord of the sexual realm, including everyone's bedroom."

Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, President Barack Hussein Obama, and a number of others will arise to make the pope and bishops into our enemies. This will be especially important as the politicians begin pushing the end of life and the prevention of life as money saving programs in the health care proposals. Already Speaker Nancy Pelosi has proposed three hundred million dollars for condoms as a part of this congress' first stimulus bill - a rather odd idea for a bill focused on stimulating the economy. However, her reason was to prevent births as a money saver for the states. That is one of the ways she sees the birth of children. There will be many more proposals for taxpayer funding of abortions and euthanasia, since early infancy and end of life are the most expensive periods in regard to health care. The proposed health care bill in the House of Representatives will require the elderly to consult with their doctors every five years about alternatives to long term care. The doctors may be required to inform the elderly about assisted suicide, or at least the need to refrain from long term, expensive procedures. "Grandma may just need to take a pain pill," President Obama told us in a town meeting recently.

Of course, Kennedy Townsend and Obama want to make the pope and bishops into our enemies. I, however, ask why? Do the politicians fear the Magisterium's authority to teach us the holiness of human sexuality, the sacredness of Matrimony, or the sanctity of the right to life which comes from God our Creator and never from the state? Do they fear the goodness of our popes or the deep joy in Jesus Christ which radiates from their eyes, attracting many people to the Catholic Church? Do they fear a solid Catholic critique of their proposals to use death of the unborn and elderly or the prevention of new life as a solution to their inability to pay for all of the medical care they have promised but cannot deliver without eliminating the most vulnerable people who might need care?
Let us not fall for the Alinsky tricks of letting community organizers set up our enemies. These organizers try to stay in the background, manipulating the folks to go after an enemy. We Catholics will do well to stand shoulder to shoulder with our pope and bishops as we move forward in history to promote life and love, all the way to heaven. Those who sow division between us and our leaders will march to their own chosen destinations.

In Christ Jesus,

Fr. Mitch Pacwa, S.J.
Considering how Fr. Pacwa and others have been using those "Alinsky" methods for decades in turning people away from the traditional belief and practice of the Church.  I find it laughable that Fr. Pacwa seems offended by the President and his cohorts doing the same.

Clean up the Jesuits Father Pacwa, and the Church and the Nation will follow.
Awful, awful truth.
I'm always interested in what would make people say that Obama is a better leader for American Catholics than the Pope.  I mean, I understand their childish thinking, but if one is to use logic regarding this topic the first question that would come up is, "Well, what makes someone Catholic then?"  I mean, if the teachings of the Church (which are so hated) mean nothing to so many of these Catholics then why do they or these journalists even insist on keeping them in that category.  If you hate all the things that the Church stands for, where does this pride to stick with it and want to change it come from?
Fr. Pacwa is a product of Chicago, where the Alinsky methods have been in place since before Cardinal Cody. But if he is decides to go against them he would be a formidable foe. He has the best pulpit from which to preach at EWTN. There is much here in Chicago that some would like to see stay buried, and I think Fr. Pacwa knows where those bodies are buried on Church property, if you get my meaning. If it is the Holy Ghost inspiring him anew, he could become Mother Angelica on steroids. 
tim
(08-03-2009, 10:46 PM)Walty Wrote: [ -> ]I'm always interested in what would make people say that Obama is a better leader for American Catholics than the Pope.  I mean, I understand their childish thinking, but if one is to use logic regarding this topic the first question that would come up is, "Well, what makes someone Catholic then?"  I mean, if the teachings of the Church (which are so hated) mean nothing to so many of these Catholics then why do they or these journalists even insist on keeping them in that category.  If you hate all the things that the Church stands for, where does this pride to stick with it and want to change it come from?

Walty:

I've wondered the same thing for years, but then I'm a convert (Easter,1997, Praise God.) Protestants are great at just moving on--whatever suits their fancy. Liberal Catholics never seem to do that, even when they have a ready-made church already set up and waiting for them. It doesn't require them to believe in God, let alone the Real Presence. It doesn't require them to assist at Mass or even show up on Sunday. In short, you can believe (or not believe) anything you damn well please--and still call yourself a Catholic. I'm referring, of course, to the Episcopal Church of which I used to be a member.

Maybe Catholicism is so culturally ingrained in people like Kathleen Kennedy that they cannot let go, even when they have long since ceased to believe.
I think liberal Catholics feel—perhaps without realizing it—guilty for what they believe. So they try to make everyone else believe and act in the same ways, so that there will be no more Church or faithful to stand up in comparison to them, and they can do as they like with a free conscience. I don't know if that made any sense. I was thinking along the lines of little kids, when bullies sometimes pick on their classmates who do better in school than them.

Great article, Magdalene. It made me think about some things I hadn't before.  Smile
At what point does someone make themselves anathema from the Church?  Does simply publically supporting a heresy or heterodoxy count?
(08-03-2009, 10:46 PM)Walty Wrote: [ -> ]If you hate all the things that the Church stands for, where does this pride to stick with it and want to change it come from?

I wonder that when I hear that Mass attendance among European Catholics has dropped to 10%: why do the other 90% identify themselves as Catholic?

I suspect it's because they actually like a lot of things about being Catholic, just not the dogma and beliefs.  They like the great artworks, just not the stories they tell.  They like the beautiful cathedrals, just not what goes on in them (or used to).  They like the organization and hierarchy when it's used to arrange parish picnics or educate their kids, but not when it puts limits on their actions or teaches any absolutes.  The even like Communion, as long as they can think of it as a "hug from Jesus" that gives without expecting anything from them. They like the culture of Catholicism just fine, in other words, as long as they can have it value-free.
I was out of the Church for over thirty years and never once did I consider a denomination. I wasn't a liberal either but I was rebellious. I would avoid any part of a question asking me to which church do you belong. It's all most as if I was Jewish as if I was born a Catholic and no matter how rebellious I became I could not let go of it in my being, similar to a secular Jew. This is just me but it could be a hint at the reason.
tim
Pages: 1 2