That other politico-priest…
Since the Pfleger Pfiasco broke people have been sending me links to video of Msgr. Jim Lisante, a Long Island priest, saying some rather mocking things about Barack Obama as well as some other pointed political comments during an invocation at a recent New York State Republican Party dinner. (Rudy Giuliani was also there, and Dick Cheney too.) Msgr. Lisante, like Father Pfleger has done much good work in his priesthood, and is rightly well-regarded. But he’s also gotten into hot water for what some see as politicking. I hesitated to post on either Pfleger or Lisante, but in light of the discussion on Pfleger below, and the lack of any (public) action (or much discussion) about Lisante’s comments, I wonder what are the bounds of political involvement for clergy? There are rules against priests holding political office. But priests are often involved in helping politicos–Archbishop Chaput has confessed to his post-ordination campaign work for Jimmy Carter (until he saw the light–the archbishop, that is). Is Pfleger’s sanction the result of the nature of his awful performance? The content? The context? The publicity? And what, if any, rules did he trangress that Msgr. Lisante did not? Or is Pfleger’s case rendered particular by his longstanding battles with his bishop? (In fact, every bishop of Chicago.)
You can watch the Lisante video here…
“The content? The context?”
His statement was factually correct.
Here’s a measured discussion making essentially the same point made by Fr. Phlegler:
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/5817441.html
It was also intended to be hateful, mocking, sexist, cruel, demeaning and one of the poorest demonstrations of Christian love of neighbor that could possibly be fit onto a youtube video.
The Cardinal’s swift corrective action is appropriate. Obama’s action apologizing to Clinton was also appropriate.
Lisante could hardly be more offensive. As I noted on the Vox Nova post, aside from calling Dick Cheney — the architect of torture and unjust war — “magnificent”, he actually uses the act of prayer to make a Fox News-style partisan quip. He says: “Lord… please tell Sen. Obama that maybe change is a good thing and that maybe he should think about changing his favorite preacher.” At this point, he smirks and waits for the applause line in response to his oh-so-clever quip. He then asks God to “see that the change we embrace comes from Arizona and not Illinois.”
Lisante’s behavior is utterly scandalous. If Pfleger can be removed, then Lisante deserves the same fate. And come to think of it, maybe it’s time to start looking into the plethora of blogging priests who all seem at least as aligned to the Republican party as to Christ. We must expose this hypocrisy.
I tend to agree with MM on this. I found Pfleger’s performance pretty creepy, but Lisante’s is even more troubling since he abuses prayer in order to make a political point. Such behavior makes me wonder just what he thinks prayer is? Indeed, it makes me wonder just who he thinks God is.
Pfleger and Lisante should share a room on the same long silent retreat.
But Lisante does such a good job of acting white that he won’t outrage nearly as many as Pfleger has.
One of the more appalling of Lisante’s appeals was to the Lord that, “President Bush and V-P Cheney would have the courage of their convictions.” Is that a prayer that they should bomb Iran? God, help us!
Wow, I am also very disturbed by this video of Fr. Lisante, which raises a number of theological and pastoral questions and I think probably does merit some conversation with his superiors and colleagues.
However–I am also reminded that you tube can be a dangerous thing…and wonder what others think about how to discern the lines between public and private speech. I was struck by Tom Beaudoin’s comments over at the America blog (http://www.americamagazine.org/blog/entry.cfm?blog_id=2&id=4A3DEAD1-5056-8960-32779ECA5BD6A968) which seem to outline a context for interpreting clips of preachers (whether Wright, Pfleger or Lisante).
That said, neither Rev. Wright or Rev. Pfleger articulated their comments explicitly as prayer, and to do so makes Fr. Lisante’s words more problematic for me. Preaching is one thing, but asking God to act in such a partisan way? While I have compassion for how you tube can take one’s words out of context and open to all sorts of interpretation (and would prefer conversation over any sort of episcopal punishment, at least as a first step) I am deeply disturbed by the theology exhibited by Lisante (and that the crowd cheers when he explicitly states his prayer will be partisan…)
I think the Trappists could find a room for both priests to share at Gethsemani.
“I wonder what are the bounds of political involvement for clergy? There are rules against priests holding political office. But priests are often involved in helping politicos”
It’s a touchy question. A priest (or another member of the clergy) has the same personal right as any other citizen to be involved in politics, but also certain responsibilities as a public official of the church to use his potentially substantial organizational resources in an appropriate way.
As a practical matter, for most pastors and bishops, I believe the question is, “What can be done without endangering the parish’s or diocese’s tax-exempt status?”. Here are some examples from an IRS publication intended to give guidance to clergy on this matter (perhaps not surprisingly, Priests for Life distributes this information to Catholic clergy):
“Example 1: Minister A is the minister of Church J and is well known in the community. With their permission, Candidate T publishes a full-page ad in the local newspaper listing five prominent ministers who have personally endorsed Candidate T, including Minister A. Minister A is identified in the ad as the minister of Church J. The ad states, “Titles and affiliations of each individual are provided for identification purposes only.” The ad is paid for by Candidate T’s campaign committee. Since the ad was not paid for by Church J, the ad is not otherwise in an official publication of Church J, and the endorsement is made by Minister A in a personal capacity, the ad does not constitute campaign intervention by Church J.
“Example 2: Minister B is the minister of Church K. Church K publishes a monthly church newsletter that is distributed to all church members. In each issue, Minister B has a column titled, “My Views”. Ths month before the election, Minister B states in the “My Views” column, “It is my personal opinion that Candidate U should be reelected.” For that one issue, Minister B pays from his personal funds the portion of the cost of hte newsletter attributable to the “My Views” column. Even though he paid part of the cost of the newsletter, the newsletter is an official publication of the church. Since the endorsement appeared in an official publication of Church K, it constitutes campaign intervention attributed to Church K.
“Example 3: Minister C is the minister of Church L and is well known in the community. Three weeks before the election, he attends a press conference at Candidate V’s campaign headquarters and states that Candidate V should be reelected. Minister C does not say he is speaking on behalf of his church. His endorsement is reported on the front page of the local newspaper and he is identified in the article as the minister of Church L. Since Minister C did not make the endorsement at an official church function, in an official church publication or otherwise use the church’s assets, and did not state that he was speaking as a representative of Church L, his actions did not constitute campaign intervention attributable to Church L.
“Example 4: Minister D is the minister of Church M. During regular services of Church M shortly before the election, Minister D preached on a number of issues, including the importance of voting in the upcoming election, and concludes by stating, “It is important that you all do your duty in the election and vote for Candidate W.” Since Minister D’s remarks indicating support of Candidate W were made during an official church service, they constitute political campaign intervention attributable to Church M.”
(Taken from “Internal Revenue Service Tax Exempt and Government Entities Exempt Organizations Tax Guide for Churches and Religious Organizations benefits and liabilities under the Federal tax law”, at http://www.priestsforlife.org/elections/p1828.pdf)
Not that this publication is church policy, but I think it does make some useful distinctions. Of course, bishops are free to issue tighter regulations and policies within these legal constraints.
Thanks, Jim. Canon 287 provides:
“Section 1. Most especially, clerics are always to foster the peace and harmony based on justice which are to be observed among people.
Section 2. They are not to have an active part in political parties and in governing labor unions, unless, in the judgment of competent ecclesiastical authority, the protection of the rights of the Church and the promotion of the common good requires it.”
At what point is a cleric taking “an active part in” a political party?
I’m a non-Catholic who is simply trying to understand the Church’s policy on this matter. I wonder if I might ask a few questions.
In response to the Pfleger incident, Cardinal George reportedly said:
“The Catholic Church does not endorse political candidates. Consequently, while a priest must speak to political issues that are also moral, he may not endorse candidates nor engage in partisan campaigning.
“Racial issues are both political and moral and are also highly charged. Words can be differently interpreted, but Fr. Pfleger’s remarks about Senator Clinton are both partisan and amount to a personal attack. I regret that deeply.
“To avoid months of turmoil in the church, Fr. Pfleger has promised me that he will not enter into campaigning, will not publicly mention any candidate by name and will abide by the discipline common to all catholic priests.”
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/05/archdiocese-of.html
If the Cardinal meant to refer to candidate endorsements and campaigning by a priest in his individual capacity, then this statement goes beyond what the IRS rules require. The IRS rules permit leaders of 501(c)(3)s, including pastors, to endorse candidates and campaign for them, so long as they do so in their personal capacities. Here’s a relevant statement on that matter from the IRS http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=154712,00.html
T”he political campaign intervention prohibition is not intended to restrict free expression on political matters by leaders of organizations speaking for themselves, as individuals. Nor are leaders prohibited from speaking about important issues of public policy. However, for their organizations to remain tax exempt under section 501(c)(3), leaders cannot make partisan comments in official organization publications or at official functions of the organization. To avoid potential attribution of their comments outside of organization functions and publications, organization leaders who speak or write in their individual capacity are encouraged to clearly indicate that their comments are personal and not intended to represent the views of the organization.”
This is part of what Pfleger told a newspaper that Cardinal George has said on this topic:
Cardinal George “has said no priest is allowed to have his name on a [campaign committee] and that this is a bishop’s rule throughout the country. Now, I don’t know because I haven’t done all the research, but he told me there is no other priest in anybody’s campaign listing of support around the country.”
http://www.suntimes.com/news/falsani/983975,CST-NWS-fals03.article#
Of course, it is certainly fine for religious organizations (or other organizations) to take an approach that is stricter than what the law requires.
So, my questions are: 1) Is there a “bishop’s rule” that forbids all American Catholic priests from putting their names on campaign committees? 2) If so, does that same rule, or any other policy, also prohibit priests from otherwise making political endorsements and campaigning in their individual capacities? 3) If so, where is this policy (or policies) set forth (if it is written)?
My apologies for the long comment and thanks in advance for your consideration.
I wrote my previous comment before I saw William Phelps’ comment. Thank you for this citation to canon law.
As Phelps suggests, however, this section of canon law is capable of being interpreted in a variety of ways. Are there further written policies that interpet this section of canon law? Thanks again.
Like Fr. Pflegler, it’s been pointed out here that Fr. Lisante is both a priest who’ has done some wonderful things (I have no experience one way or another on this) but also went “over the top” at the NYS Republican gathering.
I think at least a pertinent question is, given the fallibility of all of us, what should be done when someone goes over the top and, maybe more important, why do we feel this way?
Let me take an example from the issue in the new thread. In discussing Obama and clinton’s speches last night, Jeffrery Toobin let loose with what I considered was a terribly “over the top” barrage at the Clintons in general and Hillary in particular. david Gergen reined him in right away but it was offensive to some degree.
Should he be suspended on CNN? What about the Republican “analyst” who trashed Trinit yChurch the night before?
Toobin’s a terrific commentator on matters of law and the Supreme court personas in my opinion _ I’m not sure why he was there ;last night, but I’d hate to see him go -an apology would suffice as I would hope it would from the priests we’ve talked about.
Of course managers want to show “this will never happen again” so they can not only point to rules and regs but heavy handledly enact them.
As I tried to say elsewhere, there’s lots of complexity and passion in the issues of this campaign and that underscores the sensitivity of the race and gender issues – not to mention the war, the economy, the environment.
Even if clergy are deterred by all this from politicizing the pulpit, I expect to see movement groups staking out partisan positions.Which then ets back to the question of when are they “over the top?” and what do we think should be done then?
“So, my questions are: 1) Is there a “bishop’s rule” that forbids all American Catholic priests from putting their names on campaign committees? 2) If so, does that same rule, or any other policy, also prohibit priests from otherwise making political endorsements and campaigning in their individual capacities? 3) If so, where is this policy (or policies) set forth (if it is written)?”
Hi, Melissa, I can’t speak for what the rules are for priests. Probably the answer would be complicated becaues the Vatican, the national conferences, and individual dioceses would each have their cascading sets of policies.
FWIW, a deacon in the US may hold elective office (and some do), and actively and publicly campain on behalf of candidates, but only with the written permission of his bishop. There is a National Directory for US deacons that spells this out, available here: http://www.usccb.org/deacon/DeaconDirectory.pdf, cf #91. But if there is a comparable directory for priests, my several seconds of Google research didn’t uncover it.
What are the odds Fox news will play this tape 24/7 like the Wright video? 0%
What are the odds it will run once? 10%
What are the odds Licente will be suspended by his bishop? 0%
Many thanks, Jim.
I’ll try to be brief.
Two years ago (June, 2006), Msgr. James Lisante made a similar invocation before Republicans in New York. This is a link to a Daily News blog that has a video clip and below the clip some interesting public comments:
http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dailypolitics/2006/06/mostpartisaninvocationever.html
—-
Here is Monsignor’s own website:
http://msgrlisante.org
Here is the website of his parish:
http://www.stthomasapostle.org/
—-
He knows the right people. Take a look at the photos on this page from the Pave the Way foundation:
http://ptwf.org/Projects/Education/PaveAwards2.htm
He is well-connected, and his bishop, William F. Murphy, will not punish him, were there cause. Both the Bishop and he have addressed Legatus, the association of Catholic businessmen of wealth.
—–
Now, some civic geography. Msgr Lisante grew up in the large St. Thomas the Apostle parish, West Hempstead, Long Island, where he is now pastor and where Msgr. Frank Maniscalo, former director of communications for the USCCB, is now in residence. West Hempstead is an unincorporated neighborhood of the Town of Hempstead, a township of more than 700,000 people. Former senator Al D’Amato was supervisor (highest official) of that town. An efficient Republican “machine” runs it. There are local Republican clubs, and the leader of the West Hempstead Republican club is the town’s Commissioner of Highways. I do not know whether there is any family connection between the club and the parish staff. Of course, our Church includes politicians and tax-collectors.
—-
Just a few years ago, a Padre Pio statue or memorial was dedicated on the church lawn. It was either Renato Martino or the present U.N. nuncio Archbishop Celestino Migliore who was Msgr. Lisante’s guest at the ceremony.
—-
Joe McMahon
The latest on Pfleger …..
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/06/03/cardinal-removes-pfleger-from-chicago-parish/
I will accept my penance from my confessor later for quoting Fixed News on anything.
Ah, yes, Lisante “apologizes”. And when does HIS suspension start? Hmmmmm?
http://www.newsday.com/news/printedition/longisland/ny-lichur045712949jun04,0,1916824.story
A prominent Long Island Roman Catholic priest yesterday issued an apology for endorsing John McCain for president at a Republican fundraiser, but said he’d still do it again – only not during the invocation of an event.
The Rev. James Lisante, a religion commentator for Fox News Network
Many thanks for the comments here, and esp to Jim Pauwels and Melissa Rogerrs and William Phelps and Joe McMahon for the research. Tenure for you all!
At the end of the thread (so far), it seems that there are no hard and fast rules, and that there is a great deal of discretion on the part of the bishop. And that this will make decisions look unbalanced and partisan, e.g., punishing Pfleger and not Lisante.
What is new here is Lisante being caught on tape. Priests and bishops have been doing this for decades here. Cardinal Cushing was practically a member of Kennedy’s staff for all the appearances they made together. Cushing even joked about the fact that Kennedy won West Virginia by bribing the clergy there which the Kennedy campaign did. Cardinal O’connor would not criticize Republicans while he lambasted Geraldine Ferrara. And then there is Benedict Greschel who hailed George W Bush as the Savior of America and mankind in 2000. The same Greschel who, by the way was in charge of the evaluating recruits for the clergy for the Archdiocese of New York at at time when the quality and number of priests declined precipitously. Greschel seems eerily quite on that W now as are other theocons and neocons.
I do not like Catholics for McCain nor Catholics for Obama. Somehow the phrase is an oxymoron to me. The only value might be is to counter other Catholics who are for the other person. I prefer I am for so and so because of these reasons not because I am Catholic.
While both made mistakes, I think the difference is the time and place when they did what they did. Obviously, but felt comfortable with the communities they were a part of and the communities were receptive to their message. Only through 21st century technology do they become an issue. In this age of cell phone pictures and videos and other recording devices, both audio and video, we must learn that nothing is sacred.
“And that this will make decisions look unbalanced and partisan, e.g., punishing Pfleger and not Lisante.”
Receptum est in recipiente per modum recipientis.
To a partisan, everything looks partisan. To someone who thinks of bishops as managers, everything a bishop does looks like a calculated business decision. To someone who has not done enough good, nothing is good enough.
“To someone who thinks of bishops as managers, everything a bishop does looks like a calculated business decision.”
A major key to renewal in the church is the reform of bishops. This website gives ample reason as to why this is true. http://www.bishop-accountability.org/
Despite a thirty year effort by the Vatican the reforms of Vatican II are still in place. The faithful are increasingly demanding an accounting. Yet too many theologians critically go astray on discernment.
The endemic obstacle to understanding this problem is the assumption that discernment is primarily in the bishops and pope. There is abundant church history proving that this is not a good idea. Beginning with the Scribes and Pharisees. If they had discernment then Jesus is nullified and excommunicated.
We need courageous people in the church. Not yes wo/men to whatever contradiction comes out of the Vatican.
I’ve already defended Msgr. Lisante if he truly apologized – though reading other posts make that seem doubtful.
It’s nice to oversimplify by “quid quid recipitur….” as i remmber the phrase, but obviously the characters in play are not one dimensional.
But Bill is absolutely correct that hierarchical reform is needed.
The reaction to the Reese article by Bishop Curtis in the current Commonweal -a reaction to reform that says essentially “over my dead body” shows how the notion of its my discretion that matters more than all else – a common managerial weakness – underscores the point.
Read on in the issue.
John Wilkins superb article with excellent examples shows how JPII top down replaced the notions of Vatican II on “real colllegiality” (his term), vitiated the Bishops and the laity’s role and strengthened the curial hand (which in my mind continues to be a major division source in contemporary Catholicism.)
So the use of discretionary power is at issue here and in the Chaput thread above, as well as many other areas we haven’t touched here of recent events.