Contents Page,
Vol. 3, No. 2
Quick Links
to other articles
in this issue:
From the Editor: Disestablishing
Football
Two Cheers for the Pilgrimage
What Really Happened in Uganda?
Go Down, Elian
A Religious Right Arrives in Canada
A Cardinal in Full
Mormon Women in the Real World
Peanuts for Christ |
Feeble
Opinions on the House Chaplaincy by Michael McGough
In 1948, Carl M. Saunders, editor of the Jackson (Michigan) Citizen
Patriot, called in an editorial for the establishment of a National Day of Prayer.
Noting that the United States "is generally classified as a Christian nation,"
Saunders asked, "Why then should not America pray as a nation in a time when, as a
nation, we are in dire need of help and guidance?" Giving the lie to the rueful
complaint by editorial writers that no one takes our advice, Saunders was heard, a
National Day of Prayer was established, and in 1950 he won a Pulitzer Prize for a
follow-up editorial.
Normally, however, editorial writers choose discretion over valor when it comes to
religion. Playing on the title of The Naked Public Square, Richard John
Neuhauss 1984 jeremiad against secularism in America, I once suggested that the
editorial column in the typical American newspaper was a naked public rectangle. I was
reconfirmed in that conviction this spring by the response of my fellow editorial writers
to the flap over the initial refusal of the Republican leadership in the U.S. House of
Representatives to appoint a Roman Catholic priest as the Houses official chaplain.
Not that editorial writers were silent about the controversy; most newspapers weighed
in on the affair. How could they not, when it involved an issue that was dominating the
signed opinion pieces that share real estate with masthead editorials, not to mention the
Beltway blabathons on television? But from the beginning of the controversy in December,
when it was reported that Speaker Dennis Hastert and Majority Leader Dick Armey had chosen
the Rev. Robert Wright, a Presbyterian, over the Rev. Timothy OBrien, a Roman
Catholic and reportedly the bipartisan search committees favorite, to its conclusion
in March, when Hastert defused the controversy by appointing another Catholic, the Rev.
Daniel Coughlin, most editorial comment was discreet to the point of superficiality.
For many editorial writers, the controversy was the occasion for word play ("this
unholy mess") and half-facetious comments about the fact that, as the New Orleans
Times-Picayune put it, House members had demonstrated that "they are in need of
prayer." To the extent they did take it seriously, editorials in major newspapers
analyzed the chaplain controversy in earthbound and formulaic terms. Many editorial
writers laid into House Republicans for dividing Americans on the basis of religion and/or
indulging the vestigial anti-Catholicism of evangelical Republicans who were reportedly
sent into culture shock by Father OBriens Roman collar and celibate life
style. The Atlanta Constitution complained that Speaker Hastert and Majority Leader
Dick Armey had "mishandled the routine appointment of a new House chaplain and, even
if a biased thought never entered their heads, they have managed to convey the impression
of being anti-Catholic....Theyve allowed that perception not just among Democrats
hoping to take advantage of the flap but among leaders of Catholic groups as well."
The South Bend (Indiana) Tribune, the local paper for the University of
Notre Dame, had this exasperated comment: "If Catholics and Protestants in Northern
Ireland can set aside their differences to form a government, one would think the U.S.
House of Representatives could select a chaplain without raising the ire of members. But
apparently not." Similar comments came from the Dallas Morning News (the
belated appointment of Father Coughlin was "a good move at last") and the Fort
Lauderdale (Florida) Sun-Sentinel ("Most voters no longer care if their
presidential candidates are Protestant or Catholic. Congress should adopt the same
attitude in its search for a new chaplain"). In the Chattanooga Times,
editorial page editor Harry Austin wrote, "If ever there is a time for coming
together and presenting an inclusive face to the nation, the occasion to appoint a new
chaplain is such a moment. Unfortunately the House GOP leadership has blown this uniquely
symbolic opportunity." The Lancaster (Pennsylvania) Intelligencer Journal
sermonized similarly: "Rejecting a priest, for whatever reason, not only belittles
the work of the committee that selected him, but also sends all sorts of wrong
messages."
The minority view, that Hastert and the Republicans were more sinned against than
sinning, also was heard. The right-leaning Washington Times thundered on February
26 that two Democratic critics of the House leadershipReps. Henry Waxman and Anna
Eshoohad no right to cry "anti-Catholic" because they hadnt
nominated a Catholic priest for the post. In an editorial after Father Coughlins
appointment, the Times praised Speaker Hastert for "ending this sad
affair" but lamented that Mr. Wright, the Presbyterian candidate who withdrew, had
been "the casualty of the ultimate commingling of church and state, victimized by a
rogue collection of Democrats and hung out to dry because of his religious
affiliation."
Pro-Republican or anti-, many editorials focused on the safely secular issues of due
process (Father OBrien was reportedly the most popular with the screening panel),
diversity (its time Catholics had a shot at the chaplains job) and electoral tactics
(why would Republicans want to alienate such a powerful political bloc?). There was
precious little discussion in masthead editorials of two larger and more interesting
issues: the convergence, or lack thereof, of Protestant and Catholic theological views;
and the related question of whether, assuming that Protestant-Catholic tensions have
eased, such a meeting of minds reinvigorates the argument for an official recognition by
Congress (and not only in the form of the chaplaincy) of Supreme Court Justice William O.
Douglass much quoted observation that "we are a religious people whose
institutions presuppose a Supreme Being." Its as if the debate launched by
Neuhaus in the early 1980s, and carried forward by restorationists both Protestant and
Catholic, had never happened.
To be fair, some editorialists confronted the larger issues of whether it was wise (not
to mention consistent with the First Amendment) for politicians to clothe the public
square with official prayer for the reasons championed by the Jackson Citizen-Patriot
half a century ago. The Des Moines Register, for example, asked: "What in the
name of God, or Allah, or the Great Spirit or whatever, is the U.S. House of
Representatives doing employing a sectarian minister in the first place?" My own
newspaper, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, argued that a House chaplaincy should be
trumped by Article VI of the Constitution, which says that "no religious test shall
ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United
States."
But the issue of the propriety of a congressional chaplaincy wasnt addressed with
much urgency. Several editorials got around to the question of whether, in light of all
this fuss, the House chaplains office shouldnt be abolished or replaced with
an ecumenical rotation. Indeed, newspapers that differed on whether Speaker Hastert had
wronged Catholics concurred in that shoulder-shrugging suggestion. Even the Washington
Times, after praising Speaker Hastert for the belated selection of Father Coughlin,
offered this impatient afterthought: "If the next chaplain appointment devolves
similarly, perhaps wed all be better off with no debateor, indeed, no chaplain
at all."
Realistically, a major newspaper with a diverse readership is not about to embrace the
overt religiosity of Carl M. Saunders editorial calling for a National Day of
Prayer. Even the most omniscient editorial column is agnostic about whether God exists,
let alone whether a particular avenue to his attention is especially efficacious. If the
alternative to the naked public rectangle is editorials clothed in the raiment of faith,
readers as well as editors would prefer that editorial writers keep a respectful silence.
I suspect that even devoutly religious readers would cringe if a Post-Gazette
editorial borrowed this sentiment from the Jackson Citizen Patriot: "...a
troubled Christian nation should turn to prayer. Its people should lift their voices from
a single throat in supplication to the Divine Architect of our destinies, remembering
always, Thy will be done."
But for just that reason, editorial writers should have been more forthrightless
discreetin asking whether, in the spirit of William O. Douglas, similar sentiments
might properly be offered in the halls of Congress by a government employee, Protestant or
Catholic. |