Bishops at Bay
by
Patricia O'Connell Killen
Election Day left the American Catholic bishops uneasy—just how uneasy
became clear a week afterwards, when the president of the United States
Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), Cardinal Francis George of Chicago,
issued their message to President-elect Barack Obama and the incoming
Congress.
Brief was the bishops’
acknowledgment of the election as a “moment of historic transition.” Brief
too was the reaffirmation of their desire to cooperate with the government
on economic justice and opportunity, on immigration reform and treatment of
the undocumented, on education, health care, peace, and religious freedom.
The central topic, consuming most of the statement’s 830 words, was the
damage that would result to the nation and the church should something
called the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA)—“more radical than the 1973 Supreme
Court decision (Rove v. Wade) itself”—become law.
In terse language, the statement presents a grim scenario: No restraints on
abortion would exist. The “freedom of conscience” of doctors, nurses, and
health-care workers opposed to abortion would be trampled. Catholic
Charities and Catholic health-care institutions would be threatened. And
tens of millions of Americans who oppose abortion would be alienated.
Moreover, FOCA would disrupt social order by upsetting the delicate balance
between majorities and individuals. The free exercise of religion would be
limited, and the proper relationship between government and faith
communities destroyed. FOCA would assault “constitutional order and the
common good, which is assured only when the life of every human being is
legally protected.”
The specter haunting America was, in short, a thoroughly secular and
dehumanized society, devoid of moral values, unable to recognize and respond
to the claims of the weak and vulnerable, and thus unable to conceptualize
and sustain the common good. Writing in the National Catholic Reporter
November 13, John Allen noted the “special sense of urgency—driven by
what many bishops and their pro-life advisors regard as a looming
nightmare.”
Many journalists nonetheless wondered why the bishops chose to lay such
stress on a piece of legislation that most observers deemed dead in the
water.
“FOCA has as much chance of passage as the 0-10 Detroit Lions have of
winning the next Super Bowl,” wrote National Catholic Reporter
columnist Joel Feuerherd November 28. A “strong coalition of both
Republicans and Democrats who either oppose abortion rights or do not want
to see them expanded” largely assured that the bill wouldn’t reach President
Obama’s desk in any form.
Likewise, on December 5, Ben Arnoldy of the Christian Science Monitor
wrote that it was both highly uncertain “that FOCA will move in Congress,
much less get passed in its current form” and “highly unlikely” that Obama
would be “picking an abortion fight early on.”
Was something else going on here?
David Gibson, writing on Commonweal magazine’s blog dotCommonweal
November 12, judged the bishops’ statement on FOCA to be politically savvy
because it constituted “a recognition that any attempt to address the range
of other issues that divided the hierarchy (and the flock) would simply
spill out into more public divisions. Hence, nothing has been settled, but
at least they have a big common enemy in FOCA, and that’s often as useful as
anything, at least in the short term.”
Pursuing the argument a couple of weeks later on Beliefnet, Gibson
contended that FOCA provided a focus for conservative bishops and their
allies while they regrouped after an election that “exposed divisions in the
church and within the pro-life movement.” Agreeing that it was virtually
impossible for FOCA to reach Obama’s desk, he suggested that the bishops had
positioned themselves to “claim ‘credit’ for defeating FOCA when it does not
become law.”
Indeed, John Allen’s own reporting on the USCCB meeting out of which the
statement emerged tends to support an interpretation of the bishops’ FOCA
statement as a cover for division in their ranks. Two bishops “associated
with public challenges to Obama during the campaign” were defeated in races
for committee chairmanships while two “who struck a more Obama-friendly line
by advising Catholics not to be ‘single issue voters’” went one-for-one.
The campaign against FOCA at once provided the bishops with a touchstone of
consensus and cover for conflict over how best to advance their pro-life
agenda. This conflict has to do with more than strategic decisions and
tactical plans. It is about the proper relationship between the authority of
bishops as moral teachers and the authority of the informed consciences of
the American laity. And it all revolves around the issue of abortion.
Is abortion so grave an evil that Catholics are precluded from voting for a
pro-choice candidate under any circumstances? Some bishops believe so.
In a letter read at all Masses in his diocese, Bishop Joseph F. Martino of
Scranton declared that “abortion superseded all other issues for Catholic
voters.” Bishop Robert J. Hermann, interim of St. Louis, likewise asserted
that Catholics were morally obligated to vote for a candidate opposing
abortion.
But as New York Times religion columnist Peter Steinfels noted
November 7, stating this position so starkly to their flocks contradicted
Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship, a document unanimously
adopted by the USCCB in 2007 to serve as the official guide on political
responsibility for Catholics in the election. Even as it makes clear that
abortion is an “intrinsic evil,” Faithful Citizenship teaches that
politically responsible moral reasoning cannot be reduced to single issue
voting. It calls on Catholics to “form their consciences and make prudential
judgments about complex matters of good and evil.”
During the campaign, independent Catholic organizations such as Catholics
United and Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, which appealed to
Faithful Citizenship in supporting Obama on explicitly Catholic grounds,
garnered the ire of prelates such as Cardinal George. These vocal Catholic
laity, many of whom agree with the bishops that abortion is wrong but do not
think it should be re-criminalized, were ready to remind bishops and
Catholic voters alike that reasoning morally in Catholic terms about public
issues is complicated.
Douglas Kmiec, a well-known Catholic law professor who served as White House
counsel to two Republican presidents, endorsed Obama and argued that
“proportionate reason”—a classic Catholic term of moral disputation—made him
a legitimate choice for Catholic voters. Kmiec infuriated conservatives by
taking issue with Denver Archbishop Charles Chaput, a leader among hard-line
bishops, over whether a Catholic can legitimately work to promote life only
by legal means (e.g., by reversing Roe v. Wade) or also
through the option of social and economic policies that could reduce the
number of abortions.
Nor did all bishops abandon Faithful Citizenship. Steinfels reported
that Bishop Howard J. Hubbard of Albany noted that the perception that
“abortion was the only issue that should determine a Catholic’s vote” was
not true to the document.
In line with this view, Bishop Stephen Blaire of Stockton quickly corrected
Fr. Joseph Illo of St. Joseph’s Parish in Modesto who, in a letter to his
parishioners, suggested that anyone who had voted for Obama should go to
confession before receiving the Eucharist. “Our position on pro-life is very
important, but there are other issues,” Blaire told the Modesto Bee
November 29. “No one candidate reflects everything that we stand for.”
Similarly, Monsignor Martin T. Laughlin, administrator of the Diocese of
Charleston, S.C., disciplined Father Jay Scott Newman, pastor of St. Mary’s
Catholic Church in Greenville, for making the same claim. Nor were Hubbard,
Blaire, and Laughlin alone in expressing concern about narrowing the
application of Catholic moral teaching to one social issue.
In the event, the majority of Catholic voters—namely, the 52 percent who
voted for Obama—did not agree with those bishops who consider abortion to
control their choice of candidates. To be sure, there is no way to
determine which Catholics simply ignored the bishops and which, after having
thoughtfully considered their pronouncements and Faithful Citizenship
reached a different, conscience-informed conclusion. The same can be said of
the nearly half of Catholics who, according to an August poll by the Pew
Forum on Religion and Public Life, think that abortion should be legal “in
all or nearly all cases.”
What’s clear, however, is that episcopal authority is limited—and that some
bishops would like to restore it to what it used to be. At the November
USCCB meeting, for example, Bishop Martino urged his fellow bishops to
consider the use of “canonical measures” such as excommunication to deal
with Catholic politicians who do not support their teaching on abortion the
same way some Catholic politicians who opposed integration of parochial
schools were dealt with during the civil rights era.
But the strategy of imposing harsh ecclesial sanctions is likely to work
only with those Catholics who see submission to episcopal authority as an
essential, defining feature of the faith. And between past invocations of
excommunication over integration and the current struggle over how Catholic
teaching promoting life should be enacted sits the Second Vatican Council,
the laity’s embrace of the authority of individual conscience when it comes
to birth control, the ongoing erosion of bishops’ credibility in the wake of
the clergy sexual abuse scandal, and growing concerns over diocesan
finances.
Recognizing this, some bishops prefer reasoned discourse as the most
effective, if not the only viable strategy for exercising their moral
teaching authority in the highly voluntary religious setting of 21st-century
America. Hence, Bishop W. Francis Malooly of Wilmington, in whose diocese
Vice President Biden resides, refused to “politicize the Eucharist” by
telling the pro-choice politician that he should not receive communion. “I
don’t want to alienate people,” Malooly told the Irish Times November
13. “I want to change their hearts and minds.”
Clearly, the bishops are not themselves of a single mind. Those who consider
conformity to a unitary position on abortion as determinative have turned a
critical eye on Faithful Citizenship. They accurately recognize it as
a document in the tradition of the late Cardinal Joseph Bernadin’s
“consistent ethic of life,” first enunciated 25 years ago when the Chicago
prelate became chair of the USCCB’s committee on pro-life activities.
In the wake of the election, these bishops are ready to reframe the
presentation on abortion in different terms. Perhaps with them in mind,
Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio of Brooklyn, who heads the working group charged
with the task of reviewing and revising
Faithful Citizenship, expressed to Steinfels concern that people prefer “black and white
answers” to the whole legacy of moral analysis and reflection that
Catholicism offers.
In their post-election statement, the bishops offered as an alternative to
FOCA’s threat of dehumanization and social chaos the vision of a thriving
community respecting the dignity of all. But real life is much more
complicated than that vision, as the Catholic moral tradition itself
recognizes. The notion that such a community would come about with
re-criminalization of abortion is no easier for thinking Catholics to accept
than is the evangelical notion that all social ills would be erased were all
citizens to accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior.
The USCCB statement and the conflict it masks are best understood as part of
a longstanding, contentious Catholic conversation about what counts as
“authentic” Catholic teaching and practice.
Forty years ago, in a book entitled The Catholic Crisis, sociologist
Thomas F. O’Dea pointed out that Catholicism, like other social
institutions, grows “through conflict between opposing tendencies” and “a
slower, longer-term drift representing an extension of established
positions.” But, O’Dea continued, “because of the great emphasis the Church
has placed upon explicit definition and upon uniformity and authority, such
development often takes place more subtly and more covertly than would be
the case in more democratic and less ideationally oriented institutions.”
To understand change in Catholicism, he noted, one needs to be attuned to
nuance and particularly to how, in the workings of the church, “ideas which
are at least in potential conflict are often presented together as though
the possibilities of conflict did not exist.”
Today, the practice of nuance, the abutting of conflicting ideas in
documents, and a discourse that reflects both, are clearly at play in the
bishops conference. Yet it is impossible not to notice an erosion of
confidence in the church’s traditional way of confronting change. And the
more bishops lose their confidence in that traditional way, the greater the
risk that the USCCB will move toward single-issue teaching and politics—a
disastrous long-term strategy for any religious institution in the United
States.
Astute observers of Catholicism will do well to be attuned to how the USCCB
revises Faithful Citizenship. That, more than the public campaign
against FOCA, will reveal the balance of power among the bishops, and will
signal the future of their teaching authority on moral issues and of their
pastoral influence generally, as well as the vitality of the church in
America.
|