05/25/2004: "Abortion, prelates, and politicians"

The New York Times had a message for Catholic and other clergy yesterday: mind your own business, which has nothing to do with public morality or disciplining your own members:

Things get sticky fast when religious leaders try to dictate public policy to their church members who hold elective office. Earlier this month, 48 Catholic members of Congress protested to ranking church officials in Washington about the "deeply hurtful" threats by some bishops to deny communion to Catholic politicians who support abortion rights.

The lawmakers, including some who are firmly anti-abortion, raised questions that show how shaky the footing becomes when religious leaders start dabbling in politics. They asked, for instance, why there is no comparable controversy over Catholic politicians who support capital punishment and the war in Iraq, despite church teachings.

There is no comparable controversy because Catholicism has no official, binding position on capital punishment and isn't pacifist, whereas opposition to abortion is required of all Catholics.

While most American religious leaders are pleased when members of their flock undertake a life of public service, it is not surprising that they react with chagrin when those same churchgoers start voting for policies that contradict religious tenets. But any attempt to make elected leaders toe a doctrinal line when it comes to their public duties raises multiple risks. Breaching the church-state line that is so necessary to protect religious freedom is one. Figuring out when to stop is another.

When in doubt, haul out your favorite boogeyman. This controversy has nothing to do with church-state separation, other than the fact that politicians and clerics are involved. The bishops have no power to force politicians to act or vote in any particular way. The issue is this: can bishops discipline members of their Church who are acting contrary to the Church's teaching? The Church forbids its members from aiding or abetting abortion, much less having one. Politicians who proclaim their support of the abortion licence place their politics about their faith. It is their privilege to do so. But that doesn't mean the Church must support them in their decision.

In fact, one could argue that it is the aforementioned lawmakers who are breaching the wall of church-state separation, by writing to the Catholic bishops in their capacity as public officials and trying to dictate Church policy to the prelates. Let the Times constitutional experts ponder that religious freedom issue for a while.

Replies: 8 Comments

on Tuesday, May 25th, Little Fly said

While I agree that this situation does not entail a church-state issue, I find the suggestion that these bishops are not motivated politically hard to swallow. I also see no harm in admitting that these bishops are motivated politically. Let's face it, Christians can be political some times. Why deny it in this case?

on Wednesday, May 26th, Athanasius said

I didn't say that at least some of the bishops aren't politically motivated. I only said that the issue at hand is one of church discipline. Whether or not any of the bishops have political motivations strikes me as utterly irrelevant–since when can the state tell churchmen what to do because it doesn't like their motivations?

on Wednesday, May 26th, Little Fly said

When did the state say that the church couldn't act politically? The lawmakers have expressed their disappointment. As far as I know, no one is drawing up charges against the church. So you admit that some of the bishops may be acting politically but then complain that lawmakers are pointing this out?

on Wednesday, May 26th, Phillipa said

The Catholic church as an institution is on shaky ground when they lord their moral authority over people. Is this not the same Catholic Church that has just been through a sex abuse scandal where more than one diocese ignored complaints of pedophilia and continued to re-assign priests who sexually abused children instead of actually doing something about it? God sees sin as sin. One is not more or less heinous than another. I am opposed to abortion, but at the same time I'm opposed to hypocrisy as well, and this sets my bogus meter off. If I were a bishop in the Catholic Church, I'd keep a low profile for a while.

on Wednesday, May 26th, Athanasius said

Phil: The failure of some bishops to act morally regarding sexual abuse doesn't make the Church's moral message any less true, nor does it make the imperative to proclaim that truth and enforce discipline among members any less vital. I mean, how much could you respect bishops who said, "Because some of our colleagues refused to enforce priestly discipline, therefore none of us can enforce moral discipline of any kind"? None of those confronting Catholic politicians have been implicated in the abuse scandal, if I remember correctly.

on Thursday, May 27th, Greg S said

I fall somewhere in between. Sure, none of those speaking out against abortion support amongst politicos were implicated in the sex abuse scandal.

But, a lot of people, perhaps wrongly, see the Catholic Church as 1 united voice. The response to the rampant abuse was entirely lacking at best, and really tragic. There should have been mass public firing and a lot more people going to jail.

It pains me to say it, but the RC is damaged goods right now, and it's all about the response, not the original crimes.

on Thursday, May 27th, Little Fly said

I just don't see any fault in pointing out that certain bishops are carrying out a political action in the name of church discipline. I have no problem with churches carrying out discipline, but I also have no problem with politicians questioning the motives of the discipliners. The discipline defense is not sufficient protect these bishops from being asked the question, "are you trying to set up Kerry for a fall with Catholic voters? Why now, when Catholic politicians have been getting a pass up until now? Why are you not also making clear your dissatisfaction with politicians who support the death penalty and the Iraq conflict, regardless of whether or not this merits witholding communion?"

on Saturday, May 29th, Phillipa said

Little Fly is right. Why now unless the RCC is trying to have an influence on the coming election? And if they deny communion to people who support abortion, then why not people who support the death penalty or the war in Iraq? And why not birth control users and providers? Why do some sins get a pass and others are worthy to be singled out? They are going down a slippery slope and if they follow this course then they will end up with a church full of nuns and monks and no one else. The Catholic church needs a good PR team, because they sure aren't doing a very good job of rehabilitating their image by themselves.