I was raised in an Episcopalian household while my next-door neighbors raised their kids as Catholics, so I had an opportunity to see the similarities and differences. And the two religions are not all that different. Still, I find that I am deeply uncomfortable about things like this:
The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops sent a letter to members of Congress, urging them not to cut federal funding on safety-net programs, including investments in health care, Pell Grants, affordable housing, and food stamps. While Republican lawmakers take the Bishops’ thoughts on contraception very seriously, GOP officials are expected to ignore the Bishops’ appeals in this area.
I don’t like it when religious leaders take political positions and lobby Congress. They are, in effect, speaking for their flock. They are almost trying to coerce their flock as much as they are trying to influence Congress. It’s much too authoritarian for me. In this case, I agree with their political position, but that doesn’t make it any easier to take.
I find it difficult to create any set of standards for when it is appropriate or inappropriate for religious leaders to speak up about political matters, but it seem like arguing about line-items in the budget is far too mundane.
I also think it’s unhealthy for church leaders to take political positions that are not supported by the vast majority of their parishioners. It undermines the moral authority of the Church, for example, to oppose birth control when most Catholics use it. Some might argue that they demonstrate their moral authority by sticking with an unpopular position, but it trains Catholics to take their moral teachings less seriously. There’s even a term for it: Cafeteria Catholics. You take only what you want and leave the rest untouched. When you’re trading in redemption and salvation, this seems like an unwise attitude to cultivate.
Maybe issues of war and peace rise to the level where a transnational Church should have an institutional political opinion, but on most things it seems like a bad idea to me. I find it offensive. It offends me. And I think if I were a Catholic it would offend me a great deal more, because I would constantly have the feeling that the Church did not approve of many of my political beliefs, and that would make me very uncomfortable.
I’m interested to know how practicing Catholics (and others) feel about these issues.
The consensus omnium fidelium, and not the judgment of the bishops, is in the last analysis the basis for the Magisterium — the long history of the Church shows it, and the bishops know it.
The place I get stuck on this one is the role the church played with the African American community on civil rights.
As much as I try to figure out some way that’s different – I can’t do it.
It’s a question of identity – are you first and foremost an American or are you first and foremost a Christian. To whom do you pledge allegiance – the flag or the cross? Jesus said:
We can have many allies but we can have only one master – who is that master? The autonomous self? The American norm? The Bible? Who is that master? John F. Kennedy implied that the master was America, and this is why Rick Santorum said that it made him want to throw up (bad choice of words; bad position for someone running to become the head of America) – for a Christian, there is one and only one master: Christ.
We all know this well-worn passage:
We are to render unto Caesar (America) that which is Caesar’s, but what exactly is Caesar’s? Taxation, obviously, but what about our allegiance? Do we owe Caesar our silence on things that matter to us?
The American government is established (in theory, at least) by, of, and for the people – not some of the people, not just secular people or just religious people or just landed gentry or just peasants, but all of the people. The truth of the matter is that when we fail to register our thoughts, our feelings, and, yes, even our beliefs in the public square we are actually failing to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s inasmuch as the America government is predicated upon the active participation of the governed – we the people. The basis of our thoughts, feelings, and beliefs – be it a transnational church (Catholics), a transnational political party (Greens), enlightened reason, new age crystals, or the flight trajectory of migratory swallows – is irrelevant; every American has the right and, indeed, the duty to participate in the governing decisions that affect us all.
Let me ask this – is there anything or anyone that is more important than the United States of America?
this whole comment strikes me as irrelevant. Even the scripture seems to support my point, not rebut it.
If a priest, bishop, or cardinal wants to express a political opinion they should feel free to do so. But they ought to limit what the Church says as an institution.
And just because you put a “U.S.” in front of it doesn’t make a conference of bishops independent of the Vatican. This isn’t the same as asking JFK or Biden or Kerry if they are independent. The Bishops simply are not.
They should mind their business and leave politics to people who aren’t primarily members of a transnational organization.
The Bishops are Americans. As Americans they have a right to participate in the process. Their views may be wholly-informed by the Vatican, but that in no ways invalidates their right to participate in the process. It is also the right of other Americans to say that they don’t like the bishops positions or the interests that they represent and that they will oppose the bishops at every turn.
Both perspectives are valid in America; that’s my point.
Yes, but they operate like the Chamber of Commerce or the Sierra Club. And I don’t think they should.
There’s an extent to which I agree, although I suppose for different reasons, but if you are going to effectively advance your perspectives and positions then you have to operate within to the system that is in place. To that end an interest group is an interest group, be they unions, trade associations or bishops.
I don’t get it. The Jewish State of Israel can lobby congres but the Catholic Church can’t: it’s called the Catholic State of the Vatican and the US clergy pulls the most punches, toes the line, revels in the folklore: $$$$$$.
Let me paraphrase you for a point of comparison:
On which matters should the church stand firm and on which matters should the church capitulate to popular whim, and on what basis?
you’re comparing slavery to the size of Pell Grants?
I’m saying that the basis is the same, be the issue large or small. There are no mortal or venial issues, just issues.
It may be impossible to draw a clean line, but there is a big difference between slavery as a moral issue and whether or not you expand Pell Grants.
It’s like the difference between invading or not invading Iraq and whether to build an extra F-22 or not.
When it comes to “Love your neighbor as yourself” as a moral imperative it’s pretty clear that invading or not invading Iraq and whether to build an extra F-22 or not are indeed both moral choices – likewise slavery and Pell Grant expansion – something upon which Christians should speak.
I am having trouble reconciling this post with your response to my comment on your post ‘A Dependent Mind’ a couple of weeks ago.
Well, two things.
First, I have a double standard. Second, I make a distinction.
My double standard is that the Catholic Church is a transnational organization that actually has it’s own state with diplomats: Vatican City. Its Bishops and Cardinals are not free to form their own political opinions and then promulgate them as official opinions of the Church. So, they are in a different situation than most religious organizations in this country.
My distinction is that a community of like-minded people who come together to form a congregation can replace a pastor or reverend if he is asking them to act politically in a way they don’t like. If they approve of a political action, and they want to act together politically to say, Save Darfur, then I don’t have a problem. But the U.S. Conference of Bishops isn’t like that at all. They routinely take positions that the majority of American Catholics oppose, and their congregants cannot replace them.
I was about to add a comment in the vein of “but what about…”., but then you calriofied with this:
it is akin to giving Russia, or for that matter any other country, a say in our popular politics. In a way, the USCCB providing an example of the “loyal to Rome” concern that people had with regard to JFK, is it not?
“…and their congregants cannot replace them.”
Instead, they routinely ignore them.
OK, that’s fair. Thanks for the clarification.
.
Teachings of John Henry Newman were part of liberalism characteristic of the Second Vatican Council on matters of religious freedom and the role of conscience. Each person has the duty to search for the truth, however external coercion is disavowed by both the church, bishops and civil government. This balans has been put aside by the very conservative bishops in the US who impose the infallibility of papal bulls and their own moral interpretation of matters in civil society. This is contrary to the moral teachings on religious freedom of the Second Vatican Council. The bishops during this Council were not addressing just their members, rather the Council wished to communicate in openness to the modern world.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."Don’t forget something, the church only really cares about the abortion issue. Why do you think they rarely bust the balls of the GOP for the past 20 years. Are they going to refuse The Frothy One, or Newt, communion if they don’t help the poor?
You won’t find me defending Catholic policy or the Catholic Church itself – there’s a reason why we had a Protestant Reformation – but I will defend their right to speak.
I know, I am just commenting on their sincerity on helping the poor.
What moral authority? What authority do they have over morals, and who gave it to them? It certainly doesn’t arise from the power of example.
Booman – in our pluralist society I think that it’s important that institutions, including religious institutions, protect their interests and those of their members by lobbying politicians. That said, when a church takes positions on public policy issues, then they expose themselves to criticisms by those who disagree. So, as a strategic matter, churches should be very careful when they lobby.
But, I have VERY strong criticisms of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops. I think that they have very little respect for the idea that when you spend public money, you have to play by the public’s rules. That troubles and disturbs me; I feel like they, along with the GOP, have tried to undermine the modern American administrative state in favor of theocracy. It’s not right, and I oppose them strongly. I strongly support their right, and even their obligation to speak, but I disagree strongly with what they have to say.
Public rules? And who determines the public rules? Obviously the democratic process, which includes discursive and other strategies for obtaining power in an open society, such a lobbying in a government arena, and preaching to your members to gain their cooperation as well. While I may not agree with the bishops on everything, as citizens it would seem they have every right to make sure the rules they have to follow as payees of government funds are written with their input as well as the input of other stakeholders.
Bishops have the right to express their opinion, but that does not privilege those opinions in politics.
Where people find their pontificating (er) irritating is their presumption to threaten excommunication of candidates for public office for advocating that women have moral choices in the case of abortion and ignoring completely the enforce of their doctrines on feeding the hungry, bringing justice to the poor, and preferring peace instead of war.
The fact that the Vatican has gotten itself recognized as an independent state is neither here nor there. The Swiss Guards are not likely to invade the US to enforce a Papal decree.
And if you want to worry about foreign states using undue religious influence in US politics, look no further than AIPAC. Look at which politicians they own. Does the US Catholic Conference of Bishops contribute to candidates directly or indirectly? Which politicians do the bishops own through their campaign contributions?
Let’s see if I understand you here, Boo. It offends you that the Catholic Bishops are lobbying congress “not to cut federal funding on safety-net programs, including investments in health care, Pell Grants, affordable housing, and food stamps” — because you disagree with their position on birth control?
I disagree with their position on birth control too — as do most Americans — but then, I criticize them for that position, not for lobbying congress on it. They have the right to lobby congress, in fact, as moral leaders they are a very important voice. I WANT them to lobby congress on moral issues. It’s the particular moral issues that I may disagree with. Or agree with.
Meanwhile, what’s really screwed up is this:
“While Republican lawmakers take the Bishops’ thoughts on contraception very seriously, GOP officials are expected to ignore the Bishops’ appeals [not to cut safety net funding] in this area.”
Even though that’s just what you would expect from the GOP.
I think I understand your argument that it undermines the Church’s moral authority, across the board, to oppose birth control — but I don’t think it’s true. Major support from American Catholics was important in establishing the safety net in the first place, and although I don’t have the figures handy, I am sure that it still has the strongv support of the majority of American Catholics.
I’m a practicing Catholic (whatever “practicing” means, I identify myself as Catholic and take umbrage with others disparage the Church), and I am not in the least offended when bishops lobby the government, essentially speaking for me whether I happen to agree with them or not. I get angry when my bishops advocate things I disagree with, but not because they are advocating anything, just because they’re wrong about something.
What is any different about religious leaders lobbying government than any other type of leaders lobbying government? Is a bishop lobbying government somehow a bad thing while the CEO of AARP lobbying the government is a good thing? Lobbying is what all citizens in a democracy are called to do, and leading means lobbying more effectively with the benefit of followers. Nothing about being religious should exclude anyone from lobbying.
It seems that so far most of the commentary doesn’t directly pertain to the issues you raise. I’ll try to limit my own observations to your points.
We’re talking about two different things here–or more accurately, three. First of all, religious leaders always take political positions: religious institutions are by nature–by definition–political. “Love thy neighbor” is a political value, however else it may be defined.
Aside from the obvious difference between taking a political position and taking it to Congress, there’s also a world of difference between a Conference of Bishops–US or otherwise–writing an open letter to Congress, and having same Conference (or any other religious entity) engage a lobbying firm to represent them to Congress on a given issue. Both are by definition lobbying, but simply writing a letter is more a matter of the Church putting its stand on a particular issue on the public record, addressing it to Congress as a political and rhetorical flourish.
I would say that while an open letter is harmless enough, religious organizations engaging in actual lobbying activity should at the very least lose tax-exempt status, and whatever other exemptions a church is granted from government oversight that other organizations are denied.
Churches tend to be top-down organizations, though. If you’re the sort to go for institutionalized religion, in all likelihood the authoritarianism appeals to you. Denominations vary on how much authority they grant the Church in their personal lives, but there’s an element of submission common among them. On some level, there’s a tacit (usually explicit) acceptance of an avowed set of truths and ideals. The Catholic Church is the very epitome of this authoritarian model–the original, one could say.
Yet you’ve managed to do so. If I understand your position correctly, you say it’s appropriate for individual religious leaders to adopt political positions in accordance with their congregations, while it is inappropriate for the overarching institution of one particular religious sect (like the Roman Catholic Church) to impose a political stance on all the members of its various communities. Is that accurate?
It appears that your real question is not why Catholic Church doctrine doesn’t better comply with the apparent beliefs of its parishioners, but rather, why do so many people choose to remain in the Church despite this obvious disconnect? It’s a theological question, a big damn hypothetical one at that, one that would have to be examined individually on a case-by-case basis in order to reach a conclusion–a practical impossibility, in other words. You might as well try to count the stars in the sky.
Well, of course: you’re not a Catholic. You probably don’t belong to Michelle Bachmann’s church, either, or the Southern Baptist Convention, or the Pentecostals, Lutherans, Anabaptists, Amish, Christian Scientists, Phrenologists, Mennonites, Methodists, or Coptic Christians. You might pass for Bahá’í.
Anyway, the Church, by comparison, is fairly straightforward about its motivations and doctrines, although it occasionally gets hairy, as in explaining the Doctrine of the Trinity, that of transubstantiation, or why the Vatican Observatory kicks so much ass. A rigid top-down power organization like that naturally tends toward more and more explicit definitions of doctrine, to the point where even the line-item veto may be considered fair game. It’s not hard to grasp how it happens.
Of course the Holy Roman Church behaves like a political entity: it is one, it has been since its inception, it started out as a state religion, and it’s been a major political force ever since. Vatican City is an actual country–their security team is a country, for Pete’s sake. How do we expect them to operate in the public sphere?
It didn’t start out as a state religion. Even allowing past the early days, it had at least a century to exist without being a state religion. Reading Peter Heather’s “A New History of Rome and the Barbarians” and it’s amazing how well Christianity was adapted to the existing Roman ideology. But it was adapted.
That’s just being ignorant about how power works in a democratic society, and I think you know that. Leaders are people with followers, and Community Organizing 101 says that if you want to lobby government effectively, do so as the leader of an organization, not as an individual. The bishops are doing nothing any differently than anyone else.
I support and applaud the bishops for their lobbying on behalf of the indigent. It pisses me off when then do so about some other things they have been recently. But there’s nothing wrong with their political activities and strategies themselves. That’s how democracy is supposed to work, and the bishops are engaging in American democracy in a transparent and straightforward way. I think most Catholics are sophisticated enough to decide for themselves when they agree with their bishops’ lobbying organization or not on a given political issue, just like they agree or not with their employer, or day care provider, school superintendent, police chief, or other leader with whom they’ve entrusted some power as being a voluntary member of a larger group.
Heh, frankly it would offend me if they didn’t do stuff like this. It doesn’t make their abortion/gay stuff okay, but it does make it better.
And I think by now everyone knows that Catholic Bishops don’t actually speak for Catholics. Hell, I think by this point we know that no religious leader really speaks for their members so I find it rather harmless.