Tuesday, April 2, 2024

Part I

---

Two Bishops Face the Nation: Catholic and Episcopalian Bishops Square Off Over President Joe Biden’s ‘Pick-and-Choose’ Catholicism

I’m Albert Mohler and this is The Briefing, a daily analysis of news and events from a Christian worldview.

 

Yesterday on The Briefing we discussed the fact that the White House had announced the Transgender Day of Visibility for this past Sunday, Resurrection Sunday, known popularly in the culture as Easter Sunday. We talked about the controversy over that, and frankly we talked about the moral tragedy that’s involved in this very declaration of a transgender day of visibility. As I pointed out yesterday, both on The Briefing and at the editorial I published at World Opinions, the reality is that the visibility strategy isn’t working, it’s actually backfiring, and so yesterday we considered why.

 

But in politics, sometimes there are some unusual developments and you only find out about them after they happen, you don’t see them coming. One of those had to do with a media event on Sunday morning. Now, when you look at a major event on the calendar like Easter Sunday, you have a lot of attention given in the media to the fact that something here is going on. And so one of the things you often see, and in this case, when it comes to Easter, less significantly than you do at Christmas, you have a lot of secular news agencies figure out they have to give some attention to this major Christian observance.

 

And so you will often see, for example, major news programming bring in some kind of story, look at some kind of angle. And when it comes to the Sunday morning talk shows on the major networks, the reality is that Easter’s pretty hard to ignore, and so CBS, in its historic program, faced the nation, brought on a couple of guests, both of them bishops. One of them is the Catholic Cardinal Bishop of Washington D.C., Wilton Gregory, known formerly as Wilton Cardinal Gregory, and then Mariann Budde, who is the Episcopal Bishop of Washington, formerly known as the Right Reverend Mariann Budde. Both of them were guests, they appeared together, and unexpectedly it was a really interesting conversation.

 

Revealed in that conversation, which wasn’t at all about the Transgender Day of Visibility, but it was about how religious conviction is translated into public policy or, for that matter, how it’s not translated. And at the center of the conversation were these two bishops, and their subject was none other than the President of the United States, President Joe Biden. And of course Joe Biden famously identifies himself, as he has for decades, as a practicing Catholic. But it turns out that when it comes to the President of the United States as a practicing Catholic, the Catholic Cardinal Archbishop in Washington D.C. has some reservations, but the Episcopal Bishop clearly doesn’t. This got really interesting.

 

Well into the program moderator Ed O’Keefe called on the two bishops, and again, Wilton Cardinal Gregory, Roman Catholic Bishop, and the Right Reverend Mariann Budde, the Episcopal Bishop of Washington D.C., the two of them appeared together. Interestingly, in the conversation, it turns out that they met about a week before the shutdown because of COVID, and yet they maintained contact. But as it turns out what makes them most interesting is not the fact that they shared this program, it’s what they did not share in terms of the outlook of Christianity in the public square, and in particular as it relates to the President of the United States, who famously is a Catholic.

 

O’Keefe really began by asking about the role of religion in general and Christianity specifically in American public life, and the Cardinal Archbishop responded by saying that it used to be in America that the church set the moral terms for the society, it’s no longer that that is the case now. He said, “We’ve switched position. There is a great need, I believe, to place faith in its proper position, which is not necessarily antagonistic to the political arena,” but he said, “to seize the opportunity of being that guiding principle, that moral light for our people to turn to.” The Episcopal Bishop responded by saying, “I’m very concerned about the way the message of Christianity is being distorted in our country right now.”

 

Now let’s just ask a question, what would that distortion look like? Well, one thing to keep in mind is that the Right Reverend Mariann Budde is one of the most liberal theological forces in the Episcopal Church, and for that matter, in American public life today. She’s extremely liberal, take the social issues, just extremely liberal. The very fact that she is the bishop of Washington D.C. says a very great deal not only about Washington D.C., but more about the Episcopal Church, but no real surprise here. So when she says she’s very concerned about the way the message of Christianity is being distorted in our country right now, that’s the quote, what she’s really saying is that her preferred liberal vision is being challenged by another vision.

 

Now, we could bring all kinds of analysis to this situation, but what’s most important is what happened when the moderator of the program brought up the President of the United States. O’Keeffe asked the question, “In the case of the President, do you get a sense that his regular attendance and adherence to the faith resonates with American Catholics?” The Catholic Archbishop responded with this, “I would say that he’s very sincere about his faith, but like a number of Catholics, he picks and chooses dimensions of the faith to highlight while ignoring or even contradicting other parts.”

 

Now wait just a minute, those words are the equivalent of a bomb. The Catholic Cardinal Archbishop of Washington D.C. just said that the President of the United States is what he would term a pick and choose Catholic, he picks and chooses the issues of Catholic doctrine or teaching that he wants to hold to or to affirm, or the ones that he will disagree with and deny. It’s interesting that the Archbishop described Biden as very sincere about his faith but then went on to point to very deep pastoral concerns.

 

The Archbishop went on and said, “There is a phrase that we’ve used in the past, a “cafeteria Catholic.” You choose that which is attractive and dismiss that which is challenging.” So the archbishop got there pretty quickly, and that is a term most of us know, a “cafeteria Catholic.” This is a Catholic who says, okay, here’s the entire setting of Catholic doctrine, I’ll take that dish, I won’t take that dish. I’ll take that doctrine, I’ll reject this doctrine. I will take this particular moral teaching, I’ll reject that moral teaching. Now one of the things to recognize is that the current Pope of the Roman Catholic Church appears to be something of a “cafeteria Catholic” himself, but this is actually the reputation of the very logic of Catholicism, and apparently the Cardinal Archbishop of Washington D.C. is fully aware of that.

 

Alright, now, if you follow the link and go and watch this conversation as it unfolded on Sunday morning, it gets a lot more interesting because at this point it is the Episcopal bishop who intervenes, she intervened by saying about the Catholic president that he is, in her words, “Allowing his conscience to guide him.” He said, “As Thomas Aquinas would say, you allow your conscience to guide you.” The moderator then turned to the Catholic archbishop, “Is there something on the menu,” that means the Catholic menu, “he’s not ordering in your view, so to speak?” And the Cardinal Archbishop shot right back? “Well, I would say there are things, especially in terms of the life issues, there are things that he chooses to ignore or he uses the current situation as a political pawn rather than saying, look, my church believes this.”

 

Okay, fascinating, there you have the Cardinal Archbishop saying, okay, you asked me where does he violate Catholic doctrine? Well, I’ll tell you. What kind of “cafeteria Catholic” is he? Well, he’s the “cafeteria Catholic” who leaves the life issues, in particular abortion, on the table. He chooses to ignore or even to contradict these Catholic teachings.

 

Once again, it’s the Episcopal bishop, very liberal bishop, who intervenes in this situation on the President’s behalf. Bishop Budde said, “It’s also possible to be a practitioner of the faith as a public leader and not require everyone that you lead in your country to be guided by all of the precepts of your faith.” Right? Now, the Cardinal Archbishop eventually doesn’t really say right, but what’s interesting there is that the argument that Bishop Budde, the liberal Episcopalian, used here is the argument used by liberal Catholics such as the late New York governor Andrew Cuomo to say, oh, I’m personally opposed to abortion, but in my public life I don’t believe I should legislate those religious beliefs into public policy.

 

But here’s the thing, that is not what Joe Biden is saying. He does want to play it both ways, as if he somehow has historic concerns about abortion, but when he advocates for abortion rights it clearly is with the full force of his commitment. When it comes to Joe Biden now, and I mean 2020 when he ran, 2024 and now that he’s running again, there is no such split acknowledged, even acknowledged by President Biden, he is pro-abortion, period.

 

Alright, so the Roman Catholic archbishop pointed to the President and said, “There you have a cafeteria Catholic, and I’m going to be clear about the fact that he plays politics when it comes to abortion and he contradicts the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church.” I want to step back as an American Protestant evangelical and say it took real courage for the Catholic Archbishop to make that statement. The Archbishop of Washington DC, whose most famous Catholic citizen is actually the President of the United States, it took enormous courage for Wilton Cardinal Gregory to state this matter so clearly, and here’s what’s important, he wasn’t done.

 

After, once again, the Episcopal Bishop tried to intervene on behalf of the Catholic President, who violates Catholic doctrine, the Catholic Archbishop responded with this, “He,” meaning Biden, “does attend church regularly with great devotion, but he also steps aside some of the most hot button issues or uses the hot button issues as a political tool, which it’s not, it’s not the way I think we would want our faith to be used.” He goes on, raises the intensity, “The issues of life begin at the very beginning and they conclude at natural death and you can’t, you can’t pick and choose. You’re either one who respects life and all of its dimensions or you have to step aside and say, ‘I’m not pro-life, I’m on the side of the equation, I feel that I could support this dimension of life, but in others I would step aside.'” Absolutely amazing candor.

 

I recorded the programs in order to watch them later and when I saw it, quite frankly, I was astounded. Here you have a clash of theological worldviews, and quite honestly, the worldview held by many Episcopalians is basically post-Christian on any number of issues. The position held by the Cardinal Archbishop of the Catholic diocese there in Washington D.C., it is a commitment to Catholicism. And needless to say, Catholics and evangelicals are separated by an enormous theological chasm, especially on issues as basic as the sufficiency and authority of Scripture and justification by faith alone.

 

But when it comes to pastoral courage, I want to tell you, this Archbishop demonstrated pastoral courage. And when it comes, quite frankly, to not giving in to the flow of the conversation encouraged by both the moderator and the other person being interviewed, the archbishop circled around and came right back and made his point for the sanctity of human life as essential to Christian doctrine, he made it even more emphatically.

 

But the Episcopal Bishop representing the liberal position, oh, she was not done. Here’s what she said, “I love the spectrum of life.” What that means, by the way, I have no idea. When you have a bishop say, “I love the spectrum of life,” and then she turns out to be in favor of abortion rights and any number of other things, what in the world does that mean? Sounds like the theme to some kind of Disney song. But she went on to say, “I love the spectrum of life, I think you can be in adherence of the spectrum of life and still respect a woman’s right to choose in reproductive health, and including when to have an abortion in the early stages of pregnancy. So I’ll just say that as a Christian,” said the Episcopal Bishop, “I believe that that’s possible and still hold to the full spectrum of life.” I will just say, as a theologian, that is one of the most incoherent sentences or statements I have ever encountered. If you are trying to achieve incoherence, I don’t think you could do better than this.

 

Well, all that to say, it was a fascinating exchange. Never was a liberal Episcopalian more a liberal Episcopalian. And when it came to the Roman Catholic Archbishop, quite frankly, he was just so clear, even in speaking about the president of the United States as the most famous Catholic in America right now, that did take courage. If only we had that kind of clarity coming from any evangelicals, that would be very refreshing.

 

But I also want to say, just as a matter of accountability, that when you have a Roman Catholic Archbishop talk about “cafeteria Catholics,” Catholics who pick and choose when it comes to doctrine, we as evangelicals have to acknowledge there’s the very real problem of “cafeteria evangelicals” these days. And so while we see the accuracy of the Cardinal Archbishop’s criticism of the President, we need to recognize there are some who call themselves evangelicals who want to pick and choose which doctrines and moral teachings they want to continue to advocate, to believe, and to stand by as well. And we need to recognize as a matter of accountability that it’s not just Catholics who are sometimes tempted to be cafeteria Catholics, it is some evangelicals as well, and we should have courage equal to the Catholic Archbishop here in calling it out for what it is.

Part II

---

Ireland is ‘Out of Love’ with President Joe Biden: Support for Israel Puts Him Out of Step with Pro-Palestinian Ireland

Okay, well this far into The Briefing today I want to turn to another issue related to the president of the United States, Joe Biden, but in this case it is not criticism, it is to acknowledge a pattern in the world that ought to have our attention as well. The New York Times ran a commentary yesterday by Una Mullally, identified as a columnist for The Irish Times, and the headline is “Why Ireland Fell Out of Love with Biden.”

 

Very interesting development here because you’ve had Joe Biden throughout his political life identify himself as very closely tied to Ireland. On St. Patrick’s Day he declares that allegiance, he wears an Irish green tie with shamrocks on it. He very famously cites his Irish Catholic background and the Irish origins of his family, or at least much of his family, and at least early in the Biden administration, the folks in Ireland were pretty supportive of the idea of Joe Biden as president of the United States. You may recall that this has been a very interesting issue in American public life, the first United States president really to identify with his Irish ancestry was the first president of the United States, John F. Kennedy, and now you have the second Catholic President of the United States making the same kind of association, of course there are parallels there, but the point is that the Irish absolutely adored Kennedy. The Irish right now don’t absolutely adore Joe Biden.

 

Now I said I’m not going to be critical about President Biden on this score and I’m not, because the criticism coming from Ireland, the rejection of Biden coming from Ireland right now has to do with American support for Israel. It has to do with the fact that the Irish people are overwhelmingly identified with support for the Palestinians and what they think is the Palestinian cause, and they increasingly see Israel as some kind of crusader imperialist state and they want to see the Palestinian cause vindicated, they want to see Israel called to task, they want to see the United States cut off military aid to Israel and isolate Israel when it comes to diplomacy, and furthermore, there are many who would clearly be glad to see Israel cease to exist.

 

Now, how did that happen? Well, here’s just a history lesson that we need to remember. Go back to the 20th century, we already had major problems. Now, the history when it comes to, say, the relationships between Britain and Ireland, that would require more than we can unpack today. But if you look at the Irish question and you look at the development of the Republic of Ireland, just remember that in World War II, it declared its neutrality even over against the war for its own self existence that Britain was fighting against Nazi Germany. So even against Nazi Germany, Ireland refused to be an ally to Britain.

 

Fast-forward in time and Ireland was not, I’ll just say this, highly supportive of the establishment of Israel as a nation. And furthermore, Ireland has associated itself with the Palestinians, that is to say in popular opinion at least, has associated itself with the Palestinians, as if there is a similarity between the Irish nationalist cause and the Palestinian cause. And thus, you see, so far as Irish popular opinion is concerned, overwhelmingly you have support for the Palestinians and opposition to Israel. And thus Joe Biden, who would like to be everybody’s Irish cousin in the United States in the White House, the Irish people are increasingly, to use this headline, “Out of Love with President Biden.”

 

Mullally writes, “Ireland has long and emotional links to Palestinians, something the world has become steadily more aware of in recent months. The Irish government, for its part, unequivocally condemns the October 7 Hamas attacks and repeatedly calls for the release of Israeli hostages, but it also urges restraint in Israel’s response, making multiple interventions at the European Union level and consistently calling for a ceasefire and a political solution to the carnage,” the next sentence, “Ireland knows all about ceasefires and peace building after all.”

 

The big lesson in all of this is just to remind ourselves that these worldview issues appear just all over the place and in some unexpected places, including the relationship between the President of the United States and those he sees as his Irish relatives. To use Mullally’s term, “His ancestral homeland no longer loves him back.”

 

And that underlines the fact that when it comes to the battle for Israel’s survival here in its victory over Hamas, the map is being revealed right before our eyes. We’re finding out exactly who Israel’s friends are and exactly who Israel’s enemies are, and we’re finding out those who believe themselves to be identified with a Palestinian cause, even though there’s very little acknowledgement of just how complex and difficult that association will turn out to be.

Part III

---

Israel’s Liberal High Court Picks Fight Over Ultra-Orthodox Judaism: Court Rules to Cut Funding to Rabbinical Schools Whose Students Do Not Enlist in Draft

But next, as we’re talking about Israel, let’s look at the fact that there is now a huge controversy in Israel, and at least the catalyst for this was a decision by Israel’s high court. And in this case it has to do with whether or not young men who identify with the Ultra-Orthodox and have given themselves to, in many cases, a lifelong study of the Torah, whether they should be exempt from the military draft in a time when Israel’s very existence is in question. Israel’s high court, its Supreme Court, handed down a ruling just in recent days which cut off basically the money to support the Ultra-Orthodox in this plan, and, as Religion News Service reported, the Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, “Has until Monday,” that’s yesterday, “to present the court with a plan to dismantle what the justice has called a system that privileges the Ultra-Orthodox at the expense of the secular Jewish public.”

 

So Israel’s high court, which by the way, as we’ve already discussed, is really the main liberal or progressive force in that country, leading to massive controversy before the October 7 attack, and we discussed that on The Briefing extensively. The current government under Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has sought to limit the authority and reach of the Supreme Court. One of the problems here, by the way, is that Israel has an unwritten constitution. If it’s not written you don’t have a text to which you can point.

 

The Supreme Court’s decision has exposed the Prime Minister there to a very difficult political position because his coalition includes some parties representing the Ultra-Orthodox, and they do not want to see the draft rule change so to include Ultra-Orthodox young men in the draft. It could lead to a breakup, in the Prime Minister’s coalition there are those who believe that’s exactly what the more liberal forces on the Supreme Court want.

 

But I’m going to leave that for a moment and just say there’s a part here also to history, just as we talked about with Ireland, that many American evangelicals don’t know. The Ultra-Orthodox, many of whom were in the Holy Land, that is to say in what is now the state of Israel at the time that Israel was declared in 1948, and as the original battle for Israel’s existence was being undertaken, they were not pro-Israel. They were not for the establishment of Israel as a Jewish state in terms of the Zionist dream, because they saw that Zionism as far too secular. They saw actually the establishment of Israel as a secular state to be a danger to them and to their vision of Judaism rather than an encouragement, to say the least.

 

The relationship between the state of Israel and the Ultra-Orthodox has been complicated, but it’s also increasingly complicated by another factor, and that factor is, hold for it, babies. What’s the bottom line? Well, it’s this, the Ultra-Orthodox are having lots of them, the more liberal secular Jews are having many fewer of them. And that turning out not to be just in terms of, say, a ratio in the birth rate, it’s turning out to be a very real matter of simple math, which is to say there are a lot more of the Ultra-Orthodox in Israel and they have a lot more political and cultural power and visibility than they ever did going back to a period like 1948. Birth rates have consequences and don’t Christians understand why.

 

Just biblically there’s one thing to think about here, there’s a lot to think about with the military draft, and by the way, there have been three sets of headline stories you’ve just seen a lot of in recent days. Ukraine is having a crisis when it comes to the draft, there are too many people who have left the country, too many young men who appear to be exempt from the draft, they’re trying to figure a way to get them into battle. Russia is having a problem with a draft, too many young men left Russia, too many are not registered for the draft or are not making their way into the military service. And Israel, well, you could just consider the war Israel’s involved in now and understand this is not a problem that’s going to go away just on the military side, the more interesting aspect here is the birth rate angle and the theological angle.

Part IV

---

Here’s a Shocker: The Future Belongs to Those Who Have the Babies

But next, as we’re talking about Israel, let’s look at the fact that there is now a huge controversy in Israel, and at least the catalyst for this was a decision by Israel’s high court. And in this case it has to do with whether or not young men who identify with the Ultra-Orthodox and have given themselves to, in many cases, a lifelong study of the Torah, whether they should be exempt from the military draft in a time when Israel’s very existence is in question. Israel’s high court, its Supreme Court, handed down a ruling just in recent days which cut off basically the money to support the Ultra-Orthodox in this plan, and, as Religion News Service reported, the Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, “Has until Monday,” that’s yesterday, “to present the court with a plan to dismantle what the justice has called a system that privileges the Ultra-Orthodox at the expense of the secular Jewish public.”

 

So Israel’s high court, which by the way, as we’ve already discussed, is really the main liberal or progressive force in that country, leading to massive controversy before the October 7 attack, and we discussed that on The Briefing extensively. The current government under Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has sought to limit the authority and reach of the Supreme Court. One of the problems here, by the way, is that Israel has an unwritten constitution. If it’s not written you don’t have a text to which you can point.

 

The Supreme Court’s decision has exposed the Prime Minister there to a very difficult political position because his coalition includes some parties representing the Ultra-Orthodox, and they do not want to see the draft rule change so to include Ultra-Orthodox young men in the draft. It could lead to a breakup, in the Prime Minister’s coalition there are those who believe that’s exactly what the more liberal forces on the Supreme Court want.

 

But I’m going to leave that for a moment and just say there’s a part here also to history, just as we talked about with Ireland, that many American evangelicals don’t know. The Ultra-Orthodox, many of whom were in the Holy Land, that is to say in what is now the state of Israel at the time that Israel was declared in 1948, and as the original battle for Israel’s existence was being undertaken, they were not pro-Israel. They were not for the establishment of Israel as a Jewish state in terms of the Zionist dream, because they saw that Zionism as far too secular. They saw actually the establishment of Israel as a secular state to be a danger to them and to their vision of Judaism rather than an encouragement, to say the least.

 

The relationship between the state of Israel and the Ultra-Orthodox has been complicated, but it’s also increasingly complicated by another factor, and that factor is, hold for it, babies. What’s the bottom line? Well, it’s this, the Ultra-Orthodox are having lots of them, the more liberal secular Jews are having many fewer of them. And that turning out not to be just in terms of, say, a ratio in the birth rate, it’s turning out to be a very real matter of simple math, which is to say there are a lot more of the Ultra-Orthodox in Israel and they have a lot more political and cultural power and visibility than they ever did going back to a period like 1948. Birth rates have consequences and don’t Christians understand why.

 

Just biblically there’s one thing to think about here, there’s a lot to think about with the military draft, and by the way, there have been three sets of headline stories you’ve just seen a lot of in recent days. Ukraine is having a crisis when it comes to the draft, there are too many people who have left the country, too many young men who appear to be exempt from the draft, they’re trying to figure a way to get them into battle. Russia is having a problem with a draft, too many young men left Russia, too many are not registered for the draft or are not making their way into the military service. And Israel, well, you could just consider the war Israel’s involved in now and understand this is not a problem that’s going to go away just on the military side, the more interesting aspect here is the birth rate angle and the theological angle.

—

So as we come to an end here, and our commitment is to try to think through all these issues from a biblical and Christian worldview, let’s do that, let’s try to do it comprehensively as we tie this up today. So as you think about this story from Israel, and you think about the fact that the politics of all of this and the legal context of all of this is, well, the matter that the birth rate among the Ultra-Orthodox is so much higher. Predictably, by the way. Everywhere you look the more theological have the greater number of babies. But nonetheless, when you look at that, you recognize that the future to a considerable degree is in the hands of those who have the babies.

 

And then just think about this, in Genesis 1, even as God makes human beings male and female in his image, and even as he says, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and exercise dominion,” well, here’s a basic worldview principle which is just a matter of reality as established by this worldview principle, and you just watch it wherever you are, eventually, over time, the people who have the babies have a very good chance of taking dominion.

 

You have to wonder someday if the Left is ever going to wake up and wonder if their voluntary sterility is leading to their inevitable extinction. Right now, of course, let’s face it, they’re gaining adherence by use of college campuses and other means. Quite frankly, many on the Left are happy for conservative evangelicals and Orthodox Jewish folks and conservative Catholics to have the babies because they’ll take them when they’re 18 and shape them in their own image. That’s the other challenge we face. 

 

Nobody said this was going to be easy.