News Intelligence Analysis
National Catholic Reporter
The Independent Newsweekly
Joan Chittister: From Where I Stand
Web address: NCRonline.org
April 20, 2004 Vol. 2, No. 3
Church, conscience, constitution and common sense
"The spirit we have, not the work we do, is what makes us
important to the
people around us."
A Benedictine Sister of Erie, Sister Joan is a best-selling
author and
well-known international lecturer. She is founder and executive
director of
Benetvision: A Resource and Research Center for Contemporary
Spirituality, and past
president of the Conference of American Benedictine Prioresses
and the
Leadership Conference of Women Religious. Sister Joan has been
recognized by
universities and national organizations for her work for justice,
peace and equality
for women in the Church and society. She is an active member
of the
International Peace Council.
By Joan Chittister, OSB
John Kerry went to Mass and Communion last week. At one time,
that would have
been considered admirable by Catholics and non-Catholics alike.
Now it stands
on the brink of being a serious political question and, perhaps,
an even more
serious Catholic question.
Call it what you will -- dilemma, muddle, mess or quandary --
but the results
are all the same: We are facing a situation in the American Catholic
church
and American politics that may be more serious than anything
we have dealt with
in years.
You remember the Catholic question. This is the subject that
defeated
Catholic presidential candidate Al Smith in 1928. It's the concern
that plagued John
F. Kennedy's presidential candidacy in 1960. It's the issue we
thought the
election of 1960 resolved, in fact. And now, in 2004, it's back
with a vengeance.
This Catholic question is not about vouchers for Catholic schools,
as in "Can
a state grant them in a country built on the separation of church
and state?"
In that case, the bishops of the church stayed ominously silent
about the
morality of the Vietnam War and chose instead to melt into the
mainstream in the
hope, many argued, of receiving financial aid for the then ailing
Catholic
school system. No public moral questions were asked.
It's also not about the validity of conscientious objection in
the Catholic
tradition, as in "Is it authentic for a Catholic to refuse
military service on
the grounds that being Catholic justifies a citizen's refusal
to fight and
kill for the sake of the state?" In that case, the just
war tradition and the
bishops' peace pastoral of 1983 gave new credence to that position
and called on
Catholics to make conscientious decisions about their participation
in war,
though the document itself did not outlaw war, not even nuclear
war.
It's not about whether Catholic politicians can own slaves or
vote to
maintain segregation, an issue about which the church once theologized
so adroitly.
It's not about the death penalty and the continuing commitment
of the United
States to deter murder by murdering people, which is surely also
a pro-life
question.
And it's not, at least not completely, about "Rum, Romanism
and Rebellion,"
the political slogan that purported to describe the Democratic
Party in 1884 --
the year of the "dirtiest election in U.S. politics"
-- as too Catholic, too
beholden to Vatican directions, to be entrusted with the presidency
of a
pluralistic nation.
But the election of 2004, if we're not careful, could easily
begin to revolve
around the "Catholic question" again, about whether
or not the Catholic
church directs -- controls -- the way Catholic candidates vote
on public issues.
This election is not about whether the church should lead the
discussion of
the moral evaluation of any of these things. On the contrary.
Never have we
needed moral guidance more than we do in a society where science
has now changed
life and changed death, changed family and changed sex, changed
birth and
changed creation.
But this election is about whether or not a Catholic can be a
politician,
exercise a Catholic conscience in a pluralistic world, and stay
a practicing
Catholic at the same time. The implications of those questions
for Catholics, for
Catholic political figures, for the Catholic church and, eventually,
for the
country itself are immeasurable. This one could decide the role
of Catholics in
both church and state for years to come.
John Kennedy's famous answer to the Southern Baptist Convention's
concern
about the relationship between a Catholic candidate and the Vatican
seemed to
answer the question once and for all. "I believe in an America,"
he said, "where
no public official either requests or accepts instructions on
public policy
from the pope, the National Council of Churches or any other
ecclesiastical
source -- where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly
or indirectly
upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials.
…"
Now, with the position of a few bishops that Catholic politicians
who do not
vote in accordance with Catholic teaching cannot receive the
Eucharist, the
dilemma is obvious: Catholic politicians have one of two choices.
They can
either relinquish the political arena to the rest of the body
politic or they can
defy the church. Surely each position is untenable, illogical
and destructive
of both the church and the place of the Catholic vision of life
in the public
arena.
Put in this kind of situation, Catholic politicians -- 150 Catholics
now
serve in Congress and 415 in state legislatures -- will have
to go to their
respective houses and senates with their minds already made up
on current topics.
They will have to refuse to consider alternate arguments about
how to approach
complex issues -- even though many churches are engaged in moral
analysis of
these same issues, as once they were on the very issue of separation
of church
and state.
Echoes of the Middle Ages may well be heard in the land. Catholics
who run
for office will be immediately suspect again and perhaps as unelectable
as they
were in the past.
And, even more serious than that, the discussions of moral alternatives
at
the highest levels of power will include everything but the Catholic
tradition.
Will factor it out. On purpose. Consciously. In general. And
by our own hands.
Surely we have enough indication right now of what could be the
long-term
moral effects of that on a multitude of subjects to cancel any
move in that
direction.
The second option for Catholic politicians in a climate such
as this, if the
trend to excommunication continues, is that they can simply leave
the church.
Then the notion that Catholicism -- the church -- is incompatible
with human
development, discovery and thought will be modeled at the highest
levels for
the whole world to see. Then the real influence of the church
itself on the
human spirit, perhaps on Catholics in general, can only be diminished.
Then we
will lose a great deal more than a few individual politicians.
From where I stand, it seems to me that giving good moral guidance
and
allowing the voting population to make its own decisions at the
polls about whether
or not a given position is moral and a given candidate a worthy
legislator
will have more effect in the long run on the development of the
country -- and
the church -- than selective coercion can possibly have now.
The issue right now
is not the issues themselves. It is how far a tactic like this
will go.
To be honest, I have often wanted bishops to take a stronger
stand on certain
issues: like the women's issue and its effect on half the human
race, or the
nuclear issue and its effect on the life of the planet, or the
war in Iraq and
its effect on the life and safety of civilians -- some of whom
might even
possibly be pregnant. But I don't think excommunication is the
way to do it. Not
if conscience, constitution and even the integrity and development
of the
church really mean anything at all.
Comments or questions about this column may be sent to:
fwis@nationalcatholicreporter.org
Copyright © 2004 The National Catholic Reporter Publishing
Company, 115 E.
Armour Blvd., Kansas City, MO 64111 All rights reserved. TEL:
1-816-531-0538 FAX: 1-816-968-2280
Send a letter
to the editor
about
this article
Important Related Article:
Bishop Denies Communion
to Catholics Who Vote for Kerry
Step by step, day by day the militant churches
of America, both Catholic and Evangelical
unleash their power. This is an important
demonstration of what happens when the
lines between church and state are merged.