Wednesday, June 02, 2004
Communion Politics: Is the Vatican dumping liberal Catholics?
Not since the campaign of John Kennedy in 1960 has Catholicism been such a political issue. Oddly enough, however, rather than any JFK-era fears about the Vatican running the US of A., the main point about pols and their faith this time around is if they're Catholic enough.
Indeed, I can't recall a time since before the 16th century Reformation-era when the threat of withholding communion (and its natural follow-up--excommunication) has been so politically prominent.
The Prelude
A few months ago Cardinal Arinze, a powerful Vatican conservative, said that Catholic politicians with views and votes that were persistently against church teaching should be denied communion, the central sacrament of Catholic practice and faith. The primary emphasis here was on abortion rights, however, that is far from the only concern. This pronouncement followed closely an official teaching promulgated by the Congregation for the Defense of the Faith (the folks who brought you the Inquisition) under uber-powerful Cardinal Ratzinger which outlined Catholic opposition to same-sex marriage. While Arinze's comments were generally read as opinion, the CDFs document is essentially church law and comes with the express blessing of the Pope.
Soon several bishops were quick to attain the public relations victory of issuing orders in their own dioceses denying communion to prominent politicians either directly, in the case of New Jersey Governor McGreevey, or indirectly in the case of putative Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry. Indeed, none of the statements I read that mentioned specific politicians mentioned any Republicans, although there are many GOP Catholics who do support abortion rights in some measure and some version of same-sex union such as NYC icon Rudy Guiliani and New York Guv George Pataki just to name a few.
Most troubling to me, as a member of the activist progressive Catholic wing, were the pronouncements from a few bishops that followed which stated that voting for such a politician was, in itself, manifest of persistent sin, and that such a voter should also be denied communion!!
So here's the devolution of this mess. We have the sinner, the person who has done this individual act (and if you buy in to that philosophy, has erred). Then we have the politician who either makes the act permissible or makes some punishment of the act less strident than Vatican hardliners would have. Then we have those people who vote for such politicians. None of whom are to receive communion. Better start baking a lot less eucharistic bread, I guess.
The Issues
The first issue I see revolves around what it means to be representative in government. What happens when a Catholic politician, or any politician, represents an area where majority opinion favors a stance opposed by their faith or value system? There are very few urban, old-line suburban areas that elect anti-choice pols. Additionally, one must consider the bundle of policy positions of a candidate. Rare is the anti-tax, pro-gun, pro-business Republican who is also pro-choice--indeed it is often the only government intrusion position that such candidates take. Conversely, a candidate who is pro-choice and in favor of some recognized gay union rights is much more likely to support social and educational positions in line with church teachings on social justice, fairness, and equity than the candidate characterized above who spouts the anti-gay, anti-choice agenda of Ratzinger and Arinze.
So where to go? The progressive Catholic magazine Commonweal has published pieces recently on both use of the communion rail as a political tool and support of gay marriage. You can see the weakness of the moderate/liberal Catholic position from the careful tone that the writer of the gay marriage piece takes. While it could be said that the measured reason of his prose is well in line with the established norms of canon law, it also gives the impression that the author is tip-toeing through a haunted minefield. And I fear that this is with good reason. One much greater than the fact that certain conservative bishops are now acting like Seinfeld's proverbial 'Soup Nazi': "Get out of the line! No host for you!!"
Catholic Fundamentalism
Fundamentalist Catholics stand on the brink of snatching all the power of the Holy See and ostracizing, purging, the liberal, less orthodox branches of the faith.
Fundamentalism is at its core a response to modernity. As all faiths have experienced this phenomenon in various degrees during the twentieth century, and we are in the midst of the Catholic transformation. Until the 1960s the Roman church was moribund but familiar. The changes of Vatican II were welcomed by many but vehemently opposed by a radical minority whose ranks have grown in number and influence over the past decades. They strongly opposed the church's dialogue and engagement with modernity, the high-water mark of which was Paul VI's near acceptance of birth control. Although it went their way, conservatives were vehement that they would never come so close to such a break with the past again.
The 1980s saw the stifling of a 'liberation theology' movement in Latin America that was wrongly portrayed as being a dupe of the communists. Dirty Wars in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Nicaragua killed many church people whose only allegiance was to alleviating the misery of that region's poorest people. Assassinated Archbishop Oscar Romero is on the fast track to canonization as a martyr, but his church-based politics of equity and fairness for campesinos died with him. The radical priests of the 60s and 70s who blockaded draft boards and demanded social justice were sidelined, quietly ostracized or defrocked if they refused to obey. The darlings of the church were now on the outs, replaced by conservative elements such as Opus Dei (whose founder actually was canonized recently despite many questions about his qualifications). Anti-communism was again the foundation of Vatican politics under John Paul II, and the broader church increasingly found itself allied with the more conservative protestant elements. Their struggles have continued to merge to the point where they blur almost together.
The strength of these conservative elements can be seen in the muted response to conservative bishop's pronouncements on communion by the National Council of Catholic Bishops. Even though they have a general policy of not influencing politics in this way, the NCCB hasn't said much at all. This is mainly because the council is made up of pragmatists who know the church is in a period of interregnum. The next pope will have a great influence over the direction of the church, and until we know who it is, Bishop Gregory and his crew are staying low and playing respectful. Which is sad, because the conservative bishops and cardinals are out there commanding the field and practically ensuring a future pope not only to the political and religious right of the current pontiff, but one who will take even greater strides to enforce Catholic Fundamentalism.
Still, liberal elements remain strong in the American church. They still do most of the day-to-day work of tending to the poor, and needy, and sick, and imprisoned that the Catholic church engages in. The clergy sexual abuse scandals, while pushing some liberal Catholics out of the fold, saw the rise of strong democratizing forces in the church such as Voices for the Faithful and SNAP. They demanded lay oversight, influence in parish placement decisions, and open books--all things anathema to a church that is in the process of consolidating its power and control.
So it is my belief that strong elements within the Catholic church have decided, in light of the challenges of openness and accountability they face from the left and the persistent drag toward conservatism of the last 30 years, that the church should abandon its liberal members. Or, more correctly, deny them communion with Rome based on their insufficient orthodoxy. Which is a pretty common occurence for groups undergoing a fundamentalist moment, one that invariably is based on pursuing a purer, often golden-age, version of the faith that is by definition more disengaged with the forces of medernity.
On a more personal note, I am greatly conflicted. I am one of those activist, progressive, big-tent Catholics. It is only by geographic accident of a few miles that I am not in a diocese where the bishop plays such communion politics. Perhaps more ominous, one of the few bishops in the nation to suggest that voting patterns were grounds for denial of communion is the successor to our current Archbishop here in Philadelphia. To what extent that they share these beliefs, I have no idea. But I do know that I can't accept church teaching that I know in my heart to be wrong, and I also know that I have too much pride to pretend that I don't disagree with the teachings in order to continue to receive communion.
The church is at a crossroads. In ten years one of the divergent paths outlined in this posting will become the smooth, shiny path of orthodoxy, and the other will become abandonded and overgrown. And by then I'm sure I will have decided whether to stay on the path or trek out through the woods.
Not since the campaign of John Kennedy in 1960 has Catholicism been such a political issue. Oddly enough, however, rather than any JFK-era fears about the Vatican running the US of A., the main point about pols and their faith this time around is if they're Catholic enough.
Indeed, I can't recall a time since before the 16th century Reformation-era when the threat of withholding communion (and its natural follow-up--excommunication) has been so politically prominent.
The Prelude
A few months ago Cardinal Arinze, a powerful Vatican conservative, said that Catholic politicians with views and votes that were persistently against church teaching should be denied communion, the central sacrament of Catholic practice and faith. The primary emphasis here was on abortion rights, however, that is far from the only concern. This pronouncement followed closely an official teaching promulgated by the Congregation for the Defense of the Faith (the folks who brought you the Inquisition) under uber-powerful Cardinal Ratzinger which outlined Catholic opposition to same-sex marriage. While Arinze's comments were generally read as opinion, the CDFs document is essentially church law and comes with the express blessing of the Pope.
Soon several bishops were quick to attain the public relations victory of issuing orders in their own dioceses denying communion to prominent politicians either directly, in the case of New Jersey Governor McGreevey, or indirectly in the case of putative Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry. Indeed, none of the statements I read that mentioned specific politicians mentioned any Republicans, although there are many GOP Catholics who do support abortion rights in some measure and some version of same-sex union such as NYC icon Rudy Guiliani and New York Guv George Pataki just to name a few.
Most troubling to me, as a member of the activist progressive Catholic wing, were the pronouncements from a few bishops that followed which stated that voting for such a politician was, in itself, manifest of persistent sin, and that such a voter should also be denied communion!!
So here's the devolution of this mess. We have the sinner, the person who has done this individual act (and if you buy in to that philosophy, has erred). Then we have the politician who either makes the act permissible or makes some punishment of the act less strident than Vatican hardliners would have. Then we have those people who vote for such politicians. None of whom are to receive communion. Better start baking a lot less eucharistic bread, I guess.
The Issues
The first issue I see revolves around what it means to be representative in government. What happens when a Catholic politician, or any politician, represents an area where majority opinion favors a stance opposed by their faith or value system? There are very few urban, old-line suburban areas that elect anti-choice pols. Additionally, one must consider the bundle of policy positions of a candidate. Rare is the anti-tax, pro-gun, pro-business Republican who is also pro-choice--indeed it is often the only government intrusion position that such candidates take. Conversely, a candidate who is pro-choice and in favor of some recognized gay union rights is much more likely to support social and educational positions in line with church teachings on social justice, fairness, and equity than the candidate characterized above who spouts the anti-gay, anti-choice agenda of Ratzinger and Arinze.
So where to go? The progressive Catholic magazine Commonweal has published pieces recently on both use of the communion rail as a political tool and support of gay marriage. You can see the weakness of the moderate/liberal Catholic position from the careful tone that the writer of the gay marriage piece takes. While it could be said that the measured reason of his prose is well in line with the established norms of canon law, it also gives the impression that the author is tip-toeing through a haunted minefield. And I fear that this is with good reason. One much greater than the fact that certain conservative bishops are now acting like Seinfeld's proverbial 'Soup Nazi': "Get out of the line! No host for you!!"
Catholic Fundamentalism
Fundamentalist Catholics stand on the brink of snatching all the power of the Holy See and ostracizing, purging, the liberal, less orthodox branches of the faith.
Fundamentalism is at its core a response to modernity. As all faiths have experienced this phenomenon in various degrees during the twentieth century, and we are in the midst of the Catholic transformation. Until the 1960s the Roman church was moribund but familiar. The changes of Vatican II were welcomed by many but vehemently opposed by a radical minority whose ranks have grown in number and influence over the past decades. They strongly opposed the church's dialogue and engagement with modernity, the high-water mark of which was Paul VI's near acceptance of birth control. Although it went their way, conservatives were vehement that they would never come so close to such a break with the past again.
The 1980s saw the stifling of a 'liberation theology' movement in Latin America that was wrongly portrayed as being a dupe of the communists. Dirty Wars in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Nicaragua killed many church people whose only allegiance was to alleviating the misery of that region's poorest people. Assassinated Archbishop Oscar Romero is on the fast track to canonization as a martyr, but his church-based politics of equity and fairness for campesinos died with him. The radical priests of the 60s and 70s who blockaded draft boards and demanded social justice were sidelined, quietly ostracized or defrocked if they refused to obey. The darlings of the church were now on the outs, replaced by conservative elements such as Opus Dei (whose founder actually was canonized recently despite many questions about his qualifications). Anti-communism was again the foundation of Vatican politics under John Paul II, and the broader church increasingly found itself allied with the more conservative protestant elements. Their struggles have continued to merge to the point where they blur almost together.
The strength of these conservative elements can be seen in the muted response to conservative bishop's pronouncements on communion by the National Council of Catholic Bishops. Even though they have a general policy of not influencing politics in this way, the NCCB hasn't said much at all. This is mainly because the council is made up of pragmatists who know the church is in a period of interregnum. The next pope will have a great influence over the direction of the church, and until we know who it is, Bishop Gregory and his crew are staying low and playing respectful. Which is sad, because the conservative bishops and cardinals are out there commanding the field and practically ensuring a future pope not only to the political and religious right of the current pontiff, but one who will take even greater strides to enforce Catholic Fundamentalism.
Still, liberal elements remain strong in the American church. They still do most of the day-to-day work of tending to the poor, and needy, and sick, and imprisoned that the Catholic church engages in. The clergy sexual abuse scandals, while pushing some liberal Catholics out of the fold, saw the rise of strong democratizing forces in the church such as Voices for the Faithful and SNAP. They demanded lay oversight, influence in parish placement decisions, and open books--all things anathema to a church that is in the process of consolidating its power and control.
So it is my belief that strong elements within the Catholic church have decided, in light of the challenges of openness and accountability they face from the left and the persistent drag toward conservatism of the last 30 years, that the church should abandon its liberal members. Or, more correctly, deny them communion with Rome based on their insufficient orthodoxy. Which is a pretty common occurence for groups undergoing a fundamentalist moment, one that invariably is based on pursuing a purer, often golden-age, version of the faith that is by definition more disengaged with the forces of medernity.
On a more personal note, I am greatly conflicted. I am one of those activist, progressive, big-tent Catholics. It is only by geographic accident of a few miles that I am not in a diocese where the bishop plays such communion politics. Perhaps more ominous, one of the few bishops in the nation to suggest that voting patterns were grounds for denial of communion is the successor to our current Archbishop here in Philadelphia. To what extent that they share these beliefs, I have no idea. But I do know that I can't accept church teaching that I know in my heart to be wrong, and I also know that I have too much pride to pretend that I don't disagree with the teachings in order to continue to receive communion.
The church is at a crossroads. In ten years one of the divergent paths outlined in this posting will become the smooth, shiny path of orthodoxy, and the other will become abandonded and overgrown. And by then I'm sure I will have decided whether to stay on the path or trek out through the woods.
Comments:
Post a Comment
