Bishops are not pawns

This is not about a chess game, unless it’s an emblematic political one. But it certainly is that.

Let’s take a look at this topic of Catholic bishops, Catholic politicians and Church teaching about abortion, because it’s sure grabbing headlines these days.

First, this summary of the just concluded meeting in Brazil of the Latin American bishops, which Pope Benedict opened with an address in Apareceida. This is more than a story about the Church, or a story in Latin America. The news here has an international impact, and it has strong repercussions here in America.

The bishops lament the negative, homogenizing effects of modern globalization that oftentimes devours the natural faith and culture of a people, recognizing that when technology is put at the service of money-making, society tends to value only “efficiency, profit and functionality”. They also point out that mass communication has introduced a pseudo-vision of happiness that masquerades as authentic culture but which ends with the destruction the natural building process of human culture.

When you take on both the major media and powerful politicians on moral issues, you are going to get it. Look at what the Latin American bishops have just stated:

Emphasizing the role and heavy responsibility of Catholic politicians in Latin American, the bishops continue, “We hope that lawmakers, governments and health professionals, aware of the dignity of human life and of the rootedness of the family in our people, may defend and protect it from the abominable crimes of abortion and of euthanasia; this is their responsibility. Therefore, in matters of law and government decisions that are unjust in light of the faith, one should uphold the right of conscientious objection.”

The bishops fully stand by Pope Benedict XVI on the issue of whether a Catholic who supports unethical practices may receive communion. They state, “We should hold fast to the ‘Eucharistic Coherence’, that is, to be aware that we cannot receive holy communion and at the same time proceed with actions or words against the commandments, especially when it involves procuring an abortion, euthanasia and other grave crimes against life and the family. This responsibility weighs especially on lawmakers, governments and health professions.”

In these words, the bishops refer to Cardinal Ratzinger’s early injunction: “Regarding the grave sin of abortion or euthanasia, when a person’s formal cooperation becomes manifest (understood, in the case of a Catholic politician, as his consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws), his Pastor should meet with him, instructing him about the Church’s teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin, and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist.”

Just to be perfectly clear on that, LifeSite published the guidelines on the worthy general reception of holy communion, written by Joseph Ratzinger.

Follow the logic. That’s the beauty of combining faith and reason and the courage to speak the truth about what they conclude. But the message is criticized as being political…if it doesn’t agree with your politics.

Here’s a really good analysis that breaks that down, with proof. The publicity around a Rhode Island bishop criticisizing Rudy Guiliani for his staunch pro-abortion position heightened awareness of this tense relationshiop.

The issue of how the Catholic hierarchy in the U.S. should deal with the problem of pro-choice Catholic politicians came up last during the 2004 presidential election. Some bishops warned Sen. John Kerry, the Democratic nominee, that he should not take Communion in their dioceses because of his support for legalized abortion.

But this problem has been discussed for decades. Most bishops have resisted calls to excommunicate such politicians or even to impose lesser sanctions, including denying them Communion. The very idea of these actions appalls most liberals, both inside and outside the Church. They consider ecclesiastical punishment undemocratic, an attack on personal conscience and a violation of the separation of church and state. “I believe the church has a role in guiding parishioners and people in public life, but I don’t believe the Church should be using the sacrament of Communion as a political weapon,” Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D., Conn.), a pro-choice Catholic, recently told the Connecticut Post. There was a time, however, when most liberals applauded the bishops for disciplining Catholics, including politicians, who opposed the Church’s teachings.

And that is the kind of proof necessary to show the inconsistency of the political argument against the Church. It’s clearly laid out here, in this WSJ online article, incontrovertible evidence of selective principles.

Some clear case history:

In March 1962, Archbishop Joseph Rummel of New Orleans announced that all Catholic schools in the archdiocese would be integrated starting that fall. At the time, eight years after Brown v. Board of Education, public and private schools throughout Louisiana were segregated. Rummel, who condemned racial segregation as a sin in 1956, found that his plan met organized resistance among Catholic parents. The opposition was led by Leander Perez, the president of the Plaquemines Parish council and one of the most powerful political bosses in the state; Jackson Ricau, the executive director of the South Louisiana Citizens Council, which opposed all integration efforts; and B.J. “Una” Gaillot, the president of Save Our Nation, an organization that asserted that the Bible mandated racial segregation.
On March 31, 1962, the archbishop sent letters to Messrs. Perez and Ricau and Mrs. Gaillot warning that if they continued to oppose his efforts “through word or deed,” he would excommunicate them. Mrs. Gaillot made the ailing 85-year-old prelate’s letter public. On April 16, Rummel carried out his threat and announced the excommunication of all three.

They objected, of course–making arguments that seem familiar today. Mr. Perez invoked democratic principles, stating that “the vast majority of [Catholic] parents” supported racial segregation. He also saw Rummel’s action exclusively in political terms, saying “we cannot recognize any threat of excommunication by any temporary officers of the church on matters especially which have nothing to do with religion, but which are used as threats to impose forced racial integration or communistic regimentation of our children.” Mr. Ricau insisted he was simply following his conscience.

Funny, how interest groups can take the same Church teachings and mold them to fit a political agenda.

Rummel and Archbishop Joseph Ritter of St. Louis had previously used the threat of excommunication to suppress lay Catholic opposition to civil rights. In 1956, Rummel warned Catholic lawmakers in the state legislature that they would face excommunication if they voted to mandate the segregation of all private schools, including Catholic ones. In the same year, he forced the Association of Catholic Laymen, which was established to oppose his initial desegregation efforts, to disband by threatening its members with excommunication. In 1947, when “separate but equal” was still the law of the land, Ritter threatened to excommunicate any Catholic who took legal action to block his plan to desegregate Catholic schools in St. Louis…

How did liberals react to Rummel’s actions? “We salute the Catholic Archbishop,” the New York Times editorialized.

No surprise there, though this stark juxtaposition with today’s reporting on Catholic bishops and politicians shows the inconsistency of the argument and strips it of credibility.

“He has set an example founded on religious principle and response to the social conscience of our times.” An editorial in the Nation applauded Rummel’s initial excommunication threat and cited Ritter’s action in 1947 as a precedent.

Certainly, it seems, liberals don’t really mind mixing religion with politics as long as it’s their political agenda being promoted. (emphasis added)

Rep. DeLauro, Mr. Giuliani and other Catholic politicians may choose to see ecclesiastical punishments as blunt political weapons used to club them into submission on a controversial issue. For the bishops, however, such punishments are imposed as a last effort to be taken against those who, in their judgment, are publicly flouting the laws of the church.

We’re going to be hearing a lot more about this issue in the weeks and months to come. Use this as part of the framework for the picture of each skirmish, because it is an unchanging and transcendent moral framework, no matter how the popular media present it.

This is Corpus Christi Sunday, the feast celebrating the body and blood of Christ, present through the ages in holy communion. There’s so much more to this story than the politics of a particular party. Relative values don’t apply to the sacraments. Politics don’t determine what’s correct, and the bishops have the task of trascending that tension in every place and every age, and to apply eternal truths. The WSJ story shows their consistency, while the LifeSiteNews shows how selective the politicians are in using the bishops – and manipulating their power – to their political advantage.