Persuasion and Engagement?
The retirement of Cardinal Ted McCarrick as Archbishop of Washington has generated a lot of reflection on how McCarrick and other bishops tried to deal with politicians who reject the Church’s teaching on abortion or other important moral questions. Peter Steinfels most recent column deals with this issue, as do some recent posts in DotCommonweal (click here and here).
Let me just offer a few thoughts for reflection on this without necessarily trying to drive toward a conclusion.
First, those who favored the use of canonical sanctions against pro-choice Catholic politicians ought to concede that the 2004 election year produced some ironies. As far as I can recall, the only politician sanctioned by his own bishop was David Obey (D-WI). Last time I checked, Obey’s lifetime National Right to Life voting score was higher than his lifetime score from NARAL. The issues over which Bishop Burke chose to sanction Obey were 1) his support for embryonic stem cell research and 2) his unwillingness to prevent military hospitals from providing abortions. While I’m not suggesting that these issues are unimportant, neither is really central to the abortion debate in the
That said, those who support what Peter Steinfels calls a “strategy of persuasion and engagement” ought to concede that the outcome of the 2004 election was a real wake-up call to the Democrats with respect to abortion. Does anyone think that Senator Clinton, for example, would have making conciliatory noises on the issue if Bishops Burke, Chaput, Vasa, and
A related point that I think supporters of “engagement” should concede is that many Catholic politicians who have the highest public profiles are not, by and large, wringing their hands in Cuomo-like anguish about abortion. Until relatively recently, most appeared to take their talking points—and significant sums of money—from NARAL. I think Amy Welborn captured this point well a few days ago:
As I said in a comment below, I think, my irritation lies in the fact that in this discussion, from the USCCB side, there is a failure to frankly acknowledge how Catholic abortion-rights advocates play this. We are not, repeat not talking about men and women whose hearts are torn between ideals and lesser evils and such, who agonize in the dark at night before the a crucifix lit only by a flickering candle.
We are talking about politicians who a) determine their stance according to what will curry them party favor (and this is not just a Democratic issue. In certain elements of the GOP – in the Northeast, particularly, pro-life Republicans are almost as rare as pro-life Dems) and votes; b) are shamelessly, forthrightly and vigorously promoting, not some middle way but full-blown, radical abortion rights, who curry the support of NARAL and such, who speak at abortion rights events and fundraisers. People like Nancy Pelosi, who have voting records consistent with abortion rights groups 100% of the time. People like Pataki, Schwarzenegger and Giuliani.
Here’s the issue. Most of the prominent Catholic politicians of both parties – in this country are supporters of abortion rights. Unashamed, unconflicted supporters of abortion rights, whose votes and support are crucial in maintaining protected legal abortion in this country.
So here’s the question I pose: would the Democrats—and Catholic Democratic officeholders in particular—be having a serious discussion about abortion if they hadn’t run into a small, yet vocal episcopal buzz saw in 2004?
Did the “wafer watch” affect Democratic politicians?
It may have affected David Obey, who wrote a sharp and moving rejoinder to Bishops Burke’s letter (America, August, 2004)
Most election data shows that where the ordinary has directly attacked a politician for their pro-choice views the electorate responds by voting for the candidate and against the bishop! A poll by John Green for Pew showed that Catholics were more likely to vote for Kerry in 2004 because of the various episcopal threats to candidates and the electorate (recall that Archbishop Chaput among others suggested that no faithful Catholic could vote for a candidate who held pro-choice views).
So are the Democrats shaping their strategies because of statements by a few Catholic bishops. I doubt it very much.
Chuck Shumer (D.-N.Y.) has made it clear that support for Casey is strictly a pragmatic consideration; he wants Santorum gone from the Senate. I think the Democrats are wanting to win an election and they think that softening their pro-choice views will help. Insofar as this is seen as strictly opportunistic, it probably won’t help. On the other hand, Hillary Clinton made a speech suggesting some modification of her views but she would have won New York with or without that modification. Her views in 2008 remain to be seen.
And as Cynthia Goreny points out in her New Yorker piece about pro-life legislation in South Dakota, pro-life Americans may have serious qualms about a complete ban on abortion. No doubt the Democrats know that too.
As for the Republicans, they know that if they are responsible for the overthrow of Roe v. Wade, they will not win another national elecion–perhaps ever.
Most Democratic politicians–not all–have become intellectually lazy on the abortion issues, ditto embryonic stem cells. They are no Mario Cuomo. Maybe they could use some tuning-up on the philosophical/moral front. I think that’s what McCarrick is suggesting.
I agree the tinkering with political strategies is motivated more by pragmatism than by episcopal influence.
Even though Catholics do not vote as a unified bloc, in national and local elections where the margin of victory can turn on very small percentages, blocs within the Catholic vote (e.g., pro-life) can be important, especially in battleground states with significant Catholic populations–NJ (46%), Wisconsin (34%), PA (30%), MI (28%), and never to be forgotten OH (28%).
Forgot to mention that there’s an interesting article at the NCR website on the Democrats’ efforts to “woo” Catholics back to the fold, including the party’s “delicate dance with the [Catholic] hierarchy.”
The link:
http://www.natcath.com/NCR_Online/archives2/2006b/061606/061606a.php
“Most election data shows that where the ordinary has directly attacked a politician for their pro-choice views the electorate responds by voting for the candidate and against the bishop!”
Peter didn’t ask if this strategy wins elections. He asked if this strategy has got people talking. And I think the answer is “absolutely.” People are talking about life issues much more than in 2002 and we have Burke, Chaput, & Co. to thank for that.
One of the points lost on many bishops and folks who believe as Peggy does is that it is the Church’s job to win elections. Those who prefer engagement–myself included–don’t actually care much about winning elections. Contrary to conventional wisdom, we who prefer engagement are a pretty apolitical bunch. I know that may be hard for this hyper-political crowd to swallow, but it happens to be true.
By contrast, we believe that it is the Church’s job to speak the truth and let the electoral chips fall where they may. Conversion is the Holy Spirit’s job, not ours. Our job is to fulfil our baptismal role and be the prophets God calls us to be. But when we stifle the truth, we block the action of the Spirit. All this fussing about “what approach will ‘work’” (i.e., win elections) strikes most of us who favor engagement as pressing the elevator button repeatedly to make it go faster. It doesn’t matter, and it’s beside the point. That’s why all those charges of “politicizing the Eucharist” end up talking past us. We couldn’t care less who wins and loses. We just want to hear the truth preached. We trust that the Holy Spirit will take care of the rest.
Please see Ezekial 3:18-21 for further thoughts on this.
As for pragmatism being an issue, of course it is. And that’s why making noise about this issue is the best strategy. Every pragmatist knows that the squeeky wheel gets the grease.
And that’s why the Latter-Day culture-war Chamberlains who would coddle the pro-abortions politicians of the right and left are all wet, IMHO. Because, as Christians, we’re not supposed to be concerned with election strategy. We’re supposed to be concerned with being and doing Church.
Unfortunately, Burke, Chaput and Co. are part of the poignant disgrace of the bishops of the US because they did not stand up for the children, who are Jesus’ most prioritized command. They continue to stonewall the issue and seek refuge in the abortion issue which is an absolute “freebie” for them.
Cardinal Law had a ball, a few years ago at Cardinal O”conner’s funeral as he lambasted the pro-choice politicians in the pews. While he continued to send priests out to abuse children.
The unborn is the quintessential political football—much to be gained by it while the truth is besides the point. Exposed adulterers like Henry Hyde keep showing up on righteous street. http://archives.nd.edu/episodes/visitors/cuomo/hyde.html
Pedophilia has been the great equalizer and until the bishops can show they have it right, they will appear as empty symbols.
One should never separate the pedophilia issue from the abortion issue if we are gointg to have a true seamless garment approach.
should I hold my breath waiting for any bishop to sanction or threaten to sanction the Catholic Supreme Court Justices (I believe all five are Catholic) who voted to uphold the Kansas death penalty law?
Could I ask why Mario Cuomo seems to be getting a free pass here?
I dimly recall that Mario Cuomo made a speech at Notre Dame in the 1980s that, at the time, I thought showed a degree of reflection on the issue of abortion and the problems of a Catholic politician. Unfortunately I don’t remember exactly why I was impressed. Most statements by Catholic politicians on this subject who want to have the votes of the “pro-choice” lobby are unimpressive. It is one thing to say that the right to an abortion as defined by the courts is currently the law of the land; another to say that as a Catholic I would not have an abortion–this is especially easy for the males–but I believe that every woman should have a right to choose because in this country we have separation of church and state. Have I caught the spirit? Catholic politicians generally seem to operate like nonCatholic politicians generally. They make alliances and do favors for significant bodies of constituents in the interest of staying in office or rising to higher office. And then there was James Michael Curley. I recently read that FDR proposed sending him as ambassador to Poland on the grounds that there was nothing in Poland he could steal.
Cuomo’s famous speech was given in late September of 84 as was Hyde’s. Hesburgh made a counter to Cuomo’s speech on September 30, presumably the same year. http://archives.nd.edu/episodes/visitors/cuomo/index.html
Cuomo gets praise instead of a pass since he described the realties of living in a pluralistic society. The more the bishops talk the better Cuomo looks.
If one wants to roast Cuomo, the same would have to apply to Moynihan.
The real pass has been given to the bishops. Any true reform starts with them. http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=F10616FF3D5E0C708DDDAC0894DA494D81
Ah yes, if we want to divert attention from any other serious problem, let’s blame it again (and again, and again, and again) on the bishops. Since they are the fons et origo omnium malorum, maybe we should just stop discussing any other problems in the Church and turn this whole blog into dissections of the bishops.
The reality is the bishops are still stonewalling and it is up to the people of God to get them to focus. And for those who contend with Cyprian that the bishops is the church then the bishop is always in play.
This thread is principally about the bishops influencing politics so remarks about bishops are germane and necessary.
What Ann Quindlen wrote in 1992 is true now as well. And Mario Cuomo may be serving his church a lot better than the mitered group.
Obviously, you disagree with McBrien that there is not a level playing field since you imply that bishops are at a disadvantage. Certainly , we can opine away while they destroy the church from Kansas city to Washington D.C.
Bill,
Thanks for the reference. I see now more clearly why I was impressed by Cuomo’s speech. He is the only American Catholic politician that I can remember that made a thoughtful, public attempt to lay out the difficulties in being a politician and a Catholic. This is not to say that I found his views satisfactory, but that I recognize them as both sincere and the product of some thought.
I am very confused by blogs like this and even more so by some of the responses. The question of political influence is interesting, but I think it is safe to say that the bishops involved, like Burke and Chaput, as well as the Holy Father in his letter to the conference before his election, don’t have influencing the political debate as their primary purpose. They are seeking to lead their flock in a manner consistent with the teaching of the Church. As a volunteer catechist, I can tell you that dealing with this issue with teenagers and young adults is very difficult. On the one hand, we implore them not to approach the Eucharist in a state of mortal sin. We tell them abortion is objectively evil and a grave sin as is its promotion and facilitation. Indeed, based on clear Church doctrine those who would not deny Communion may themselves be facilitating grave sin by allowing these recalcitrant politicians to present themselves in this state.
For years we have justified this on based on the logic that we don’t “know” what is in the hearts of these people. In most cases, it is probably wiser to do this – that is, not assume anything about a Communicant. In the case of these politicians, however, we are talking about clearly articulate and intelligent people who repeatedly tell us what is in their hearts. Some of them even brag about their positions. Scores even wrote an open letter specifically detailing why they believe that are not in conflict with Church. Under these circumstances, claiming we don’t “know” what they believe or intend is patently dishonest. This is not a case of seeking not to judge, or giving the benefit of the doubt. There is no doubt.
The bottom line is that I think the bishops who have taken a stand are more concerned about the souls in their flock (including the pro-abortion politicians) than influencing politics.
Some other notes – What in Heaven’s name does the abuse crisis have to do with this issue? Saying that the Church can’t speak on pro-life issues because of this is like saying the US shouldn’t have liberated the Nazi death camps because we had interned the Japanese. Just as two wrongs don’t make a right, one wrong doesn’t justify tolerating another. Also, why do so-called progressives always ultimately engage in ad hominem attacks? Dragging out Henry Hyde in this is silly. Yes, he fathered a child out of wedlock. Does this make him wrong in his position on abortion? If Charles Manson says murder is wrong, it may make him a hypocrite, but it doesn’t make him wrong in his statement. Deal with the issues on their merits, not based on the personalities of those with who you disagree.
Finally, placing the death penalty on a par with issues like abortion and euthanasia is a canard. Abortion is an objective evil, capital punishment must be judged in context. The Holy Father himself, notwithstanding his own statements on the subject, has said that faithful Catholics may disagree on the application of capital punishment. This is not, and never has been the case with abortion.
One of the best, short, treatments of this issue appeared in America and was penned by Dennis O’Brien and entitled “No to Abortion: Posture, not Policy.” It is well-worth a quick read. As many kudos as have been lobbed in the direction of Cardinal McCarrick, his efforts as head of the ad hoc commission have so far resulted in nothing.
In the absence of a united front, and seeking to provide a policy, not a posture, bishops such as Burke, Chaput, Vasa, and Sheridan are at least bringing the issue up and clarifying what the Church teaches. Of course, it seems silly to sanction Catholic politicians, like David Obey, who really do try to bring their consciences to matters of public policy. But, much like arguing about abortion in the cases of rape , incest, and situations in which the life/health of the mother are in serious jeopardy, which constitute somewhere in the neighborhood of 3% of abortions annually, we refuse to engage- as Amy Wellborn points out so well- those Catholic politicians who, with no discernable moral qualms, privilege a woman’s right to choose above a nascent child’s right to life.
This brings me to a question, if a strategy of “persuasion and engagement” is going to be pursued, in what does such a strategy consist? Is it just another posture that allows bishops to coninue to ignore this issue, while seeking to “persuade”? What type of engagement are we looking at, the yearly pro-life editorial in the local Catholic newspaper by the bishop of the variety, “I am opposed to abortion and you should be too, let’s all work together end this practice?”
Pressure can work. The state of Massachusetts forced Catholic Charities of Boston to choose between conscience and being able to continue to provide adoption services. Rightly and despite its unpopularity, Cardinal O’Malley chose conscience. Of course, many blame Cardinal O’Malley for doing so. How many blame the responsible members of the Massachusetts legislature for denying many children two-parent, stable homes just to make an ideological point while legally refusing to allow Catholics to live in accord with their consciences?
It seems to me that Cardinal McCarrick’s hand-wringing, his over-used statement about not having a confrontation in the communion line (despte the USCCB’s own norms of the distribution and reception of communion) are robust endorsements of a status quo that will not hold. While most bishops quietly distanced themselves from Burke, Sheridan, Chaput, and Vasa, how many did so publicly, let alone persuasively? To cut to the chase, there was neither persuasion nor engagement by the vast majority of bishops in 2004, which amounts to yet another knock on hierarchical credibility and, to my mind, yet another reason to further dismiss the USCCB as well-intentioned but ineffectual bureaucracy.
The local Democrats in my area of Michigan are mostly pro-life Catholics. Our last Democratic state rep had the support of pro-choice Democrats because he also supported the social safety nets for women and families.
Our bishop has never applied a “buzz saw” in 2004 or at any other time.
My guess is that, on the national level, most pro-choicers would vote for pro-life Democrats before they’d vote for Republican that supported the current administration.
Re: Cuomo.
Now would be the ideal time to bring up Kenneth Woodward’s elegant dissection of Cuomo’s benchmark speech, here in the very pages of our host magazine.
http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/article.php?id_article=939
What Woodward did was to expose Cuomo’s position as rhetorical cotton candy–it looks good, but there’s really no substance to sink your teeth into.
The money ‘graf:
At this point it is worth noting what Cuomo did not say, as well as what he did. Never once did he say that abortion was evil, intrinsically or otherwise. Never once did he say-as the bishops had, as he himself could have-that opposition to abortion as a matter of public morality is a defense of the human rights of the unborn. Never once did he say the abortion dispute is a disagreement over the scope of social justice. He did not say these things, and never has, I believe, because doing so would make his position difficult if not impossible to defend. He did not say these things, and never has, because, as I think his record makes clear, he does not believe them to be true.
Dale:
Thanks for the reference to Woodward’s piece. I think it is a fair critique, although I still think that Cuomo, however confused he may be, is sincere and has tried to think his way through the matter in question. Perhaps the worse effect of his speech was to give other politiciians the excuse not even to think about the matter?
One evidence of Cuomo’s superficial knowledge of history is his claim that in the early days of Catholicism in the U.S. the bishops did not oppose slavery because Catholics were so small a minority; and he refers to Gregory XVI’s condemnation of the slave trade. It is characteristic of Catholic apologists to confuse slavery as an institution with the slave trade. Gregory never meant to condemn slavery as such, as John Noonan has shown.
The more I read of the comments here, the more unsettled i become.
I don’t know why some display the big anti-Cuomo approach. He. like many others in the rougfh and tumblke world in which few of us have walked, try to put his principles into doing the “art of the posible,” even if he was mistaken.
I don’t think the Bishops are the root of all evel and even the far right ones may be well intentioned. I think Benedict XVI’s point that the message of the gospel (here of life -at all stages) must be presented by leaders who display service, not power is extremely germane. And, as the Bishops displayed in their gathering at los Angeles, they often display the power side( a problem not uncommon upon those who wear their collars differently.)
Much of this problem, as was remartked in an earlier blog, revolves around how we talk about this problem. Easy labelling of groups be they the Bishops or pro-choice Democrats is not going to advance the topic.
Perhaps since I criticize officials often I may appear too negative. If I may let me praise a pro life Catholic official, Theodore Hesburgh president emeritus of Notre Dame.
People give the demonstrations in the South credit for the advancement of Afro-American voting rights and civil rights in general. But it may not have happened without Hesburgh.
His work in ecology is unequalled.
His work with students during the unrest of the 60′s has little parralel.
He is probably the biggest reason that Catholic Universities are real places of learning today.
His work towards world peace and atomic safety is again equal to no one. There is more.
John Tracy Ellis said there is not even a bishop who has been equal to Hesburgh. As Ellis wrote: “Not even close.”
Why do I write this? I just thought everyone should know this.
Joseph:
You’re quite welcome. Make sure to look at the follow-up pieces–Cuomo’s reply, and Woodward’s rejoinder. Sheds more light.
“Perhaps the worse effect of his speech was to give other politiciians the excuse not even to think about the matter?”
I think there’s definitely something to that–the same thing happened to Kennedy’s Houston speech, too. It becomes an autopilot response–cite to Kennedy/Cuomo and move on.
But I’m more willing to go the extra step and say that the substance of Cuomo’s position is problematic, despite the hard thought that went into it. He also tragically blew opportunities to keep Democratic pro-lifers from being kicked to the curb.
Re: Persuasion and Engagement?
Scott’s reference to O’Brien’s article “No Abortion: Principle or Policy?” is helpful. O’Brien would, I believe, have us ask: If one wants to outlaw abortions, what sanctions would one propose placing on those who would be involved in violations of that law? E.g., who goes to jail for how long? Until one answers that question, he or she has no policy.
Robert Nunz wrote,
” I think Benedict XVI’s point that the message of the gospel (here of life -at all stages) must be presented by leaders who display service, not power is extremely germane. And, as the Bishops displayed in their gathering at los Angeles, they often display the power side( a problem not uncommon upon those who wear their collars differently.)”
Service not power. Those are the leaders we must insist on.
There is something puzzling about the strange enthusiasm of some these days for harsh ecclesiastical sanctions. Many who would deplore the use of torture or cruel and unusual punishment even on those for good reason suspected of terrorism, seem quite comfortable with the idea that the Church would use excommunication or deprivation of the Eucharist to punish members and bring them into line .
Remember the practice of Papal Interdict, by which entire nations were deprived of access to the sacraments until their leaders bowed to the will of the Pope? Most people nowadays would judge this barbaric, a cruel and unusual punishment, dealt out without regard either to the state of conscience of those affected by the policy or the ultimate effect on their spiritual welfare. Maybe Interdict sometimes got the desired practical political results, but that didn’t make it right, and it brutalized those who used it.
As to the question about the recent use of the “episcopal buzz-saw,” on Catholic politicians, I don’t think the end justified the brutal means there, either.
What is being missed by so many in this blog is that the punitive nature denying communion to some of these politicians is far less important than two other things.
First, is the scandal that admitting many of them to communion brings. If we Catholics actually believe in the True Presence, how can we admit to communion those who knowingly, repeatedly, and openly defy fundamental moral teachings of the Church? It says more about our actual belief than it does about our political views. I am under no illusions that any Catholic politician will change his or her views on abortion because of what the bishop does. These people long ago stopped caring about what the Church teaches. This avoidance of scandal is far more important to most Catholics than any sort of punishment.
The other, and probably more important aspect of this is that be ignoring the issue we literally add insult to injury by allowing such politicians to blithely take communion in a known, public, state of mortal sin. Certainly, we shouldn’t easily assume people are in a state of mortal sin, but there has to be a point at which we need some sort of explanation as to why someone who has taken certain public stands is not in a state of mortal sin. When we fail to do this, we allow these politician to publicly commit another grave sin – that of receiving communion in such a state. Even if it avoids embarassment, it does little for their immortal souls – which the Church should care about even if they do not.