As predicted- Bishops withdraw from so-called alphabet soup civil rights group

The USCCB has left the LCCHR and IMHO AMC is really OK with it. In fact, we are delighted LOL.

We predicted it would be just a matter of time after news of LCCHR's LGBT and NARAL sympathies hit the lay faithful and they had time to communicate upward to the USCCB or to their own bishops. We also said once this became an issue of current discussion at the USCCB, we'd see the obvious follow-thru.

LCCHR support of Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan seems to be the neuralgic point that caused the bishops' conference to finally scratch the itch.

The LCCHR, which calls itself the "nation's premiere civil and human rights coalition", is an umbrella organization that was founded in the years before Brown vs. Board of Education (1954) and the rise of the modern civil rights movement. Like most modern civil rights organizations it has came to be predictably allied with politically liberal advocacy organizations, the vast majority of which, if they opined on Roe v. Wade at all, saw it as an expansion of civil liberties.  

Many Catholics don't understand that the USCCB staff functions like a bureaucracy. Because bureaucracies, like rhinos, are usually large, have thick protective skin, and move slowly, it can frustrate people who have a more idealized conception of how the institutional Catholicism functions.

Bishop Murphy reported that the LCCHR has joined in advocating or opposing nominees for the Supreme Court, a practice which “clearly contradicts” USCCB policy and compromises the bishops’ “principled positions.”  THIS IS NOT NEW HOWEVER.  A quick look at the LCCHR website shows it opposed John Roberts and it was awfully affirming of the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor. It was also aligned with www.SaveOurCourts.org which clearly took stands on court nominees.  Perhaps Bishop Murphy's quote was poorly used in the CNA article. But if he claims to have left the coalition because the LCCHR has just begun advocating or opposing Supreme Court nominees, then, as far as we can see, he is not being forthright.  [See below for his full quote.  The CNA insertion of the quote is a bit misleading although the problem is more than just a few years old.]

There are three instructive points about this withdrawal.

1. Would the USCCB have withdrawn without the lay faithful highlighting the problem?  I doubt it. This should be read as one more reason it is important for the laity to keep respectful but clear communication flowing upward even as we listen carefully to the teaching of our bishops as we form our consciences on issues like immigration, health care, war and peace, religious liberty, et al.

2. Does this equip us to better do the works of service that St. Paul in Ephesians 4:12 says we are called to? In and of itself, no. Withdrawing from an organization might make us feel like someone is listening but it really solves little. Yes, withdrawal means we refuse to give a spiritual legitimacy to an organization whose members frequently work to undermine the Catholic Church in America. This is good. Withdrawing does make our witness to Christ appear more consistent. But it does nothing to really protect the unborn. So while we're delighted, we're also sober about the significance of this event.

3. Does modern communications means information flows faster? Yes, but it doesn't necessarily mean bureaucracies- which prize stability, protocols, and 'going along to get along'- act on that information in a way that is proportionate to the speed with which the information is distributed. 

This last point is a tip for not going crazy wondering when or if rhinos will get up and attack or for not sounding hysterical when they take their own sweet time doing so.  See USCCB statement.