The other day, Philadelphia Archbishop Charles Chaput was interviewed by the National Catholic Register regarding the U.S. bishops ongoing struggle with the Obama Administration over the definition of a religious employer.  He was asked about the statements of the U.S. bishops in favor of a right to health care.  This was his response:

The bishops really do believe it. Health is a basic human right; we have a right to be healthy. There’s no declaration on the part of the Church that that has to be accomplished through government intervention.  There are many ways of approaching health care, and I think it’s very important for Catholics to understand the fact that the Church, seeing health care as a basic human right, does not mean [to say] there’s a particular method of obtaining that [right that’s] better than another.

With all due respect to the Archbishop and his teaching office, I would argue that this statement seriously distorts Catholic teaching on the subject. Read the rest of this entry »

NCR reports that Charles Chaput, currently of Denver, will take the helm of the troubled Philadelphia archdiocese.

Thoughts? Certainly this will give him a bully pulpit during the 2012 election season.

Yesterday was Memorial Day, so some reflection on the state of the nation is in order. I offer for your review and comment the speech of Archbishop Charles Chaput to the Fellowship of Catholic Scholars last fall.  It is not, in my view,  a jeremiad, but the closely related form of biblical speech, a lamentation. While Chaput’s doctrinal commitments are always in line with Church teaching, his rhetorical style and sensibilities, in my view, are distinctly American–and in particular, deeply indebted to the American Puritans.

In this speech, as he has in other speeches in the past, Chaput invokes the Puritan founders of this nation–in particular, John Winthrop’s “Modell of Christan Charity.” We have, in his view, declined in our religious commitments, our commitment to the common good since that time. Many people would say the same thing. It is sad, but not surprising–it’s been nearly 500 years.

What is surprising, however, is the degree to which the idea of moral (and with it political) decline animated the spirit of religious leaders much closer in time to Winthrop’s “Modell.” The second generation of Puritan divines, distressed at the comparative lack of religious dedication in their peers, devoted a significant part of their sermonizing to castigating those who were falling away and lamenting the loss. For the Puritans, the loss of faith in God meant the loss in success in the country. For this “new Israel,” the twin blessings of fidelity to God and material prosperity were deeply intertwined.

Moreover, how many are there, that were born under the covenant as they grew up to years of discretion, doe not endeavor to prepare themselves to take hold on the Lords Covenant, but are such that if they should be put upon renewing their Covenant, they would but profane the holy Covenant. Some of them are grossly ignorant, others are of a scandalous conversation. Drunkards, Swearers, Sabbath breakers, disobedient to Parents, Lascivious, Theeves, Lyars. Such whilst they so continue be put upon mocking God, by they will be his Covenant Servants?

–Increase Mather, Renewal of Covenant the great Duty incumbent upon decaying or distressed Churches (Boston: J.F., 1677).

In his magisterial writings on the Puritans, Perry Miller calls into question whether the decline was as sharp and steep as the sermonizers made it out to be. He also points out, and I think this is important, that what they see as decline may simply be difference.  The hazy line between medieval thought and modernity can be drawn around the time of the second generation; Winthrop’s “Modell” embodied a medieval, corporatist view of society, whereas by the end of Increase Mather’s long life, that world was gone.

So here are my questions/comments

1. Are Chaput and others constructing their own myth of modern Catholic decline–with the late forties and fifties being  the “Winthrop” generation and he and they being the equivalent of Increase Mather and his cohort? Does that myth reflect reality? Ought one to consider the defects of Catholic intellectual life and culture at that time as well as its benefits (I think about John Tracy Ellis and his article ab9ut Catholic intellectual life)? The Puritans, as it happened, were wrong about both the political and religious decline of the nation.  Scholars of American religious history have shown, for example the great infusion of faith in the country came long after they were dead, in the form of immigrants and revivals. The early Puritans wouldn’t have much liked the later religiosity–but it was religiosity nonetheless.

2.  Are we, like the second generation Puritans, at the end of age, and the beginning of another one?  I think the invention of the computer and the internet is about as big a revolution as the invention of the printing press, myself.

3. The American Puritan notion of decline was connected with New England’s particular “chosenness” by God, and the intertwining of material blessings and spiritual fidelity. While we deeply love our country, it seems to me that Catholics as such cannot endorse the Puritan view of American exceptionalism in an unqualified way. The word “Catholic” means universal.

4. Is there anything specifically “Catholic” about the myth of decline –or the myth of progress, for that matter? Nations may rise, nations may fall.  Individuals may progress or devolve.  But do we have any reason in our theological anthropology to think that human nature is getting better or worse as a whole over time?

The whole issue of what the Pope said on HIV and condoms has put a spotlight on the traditional Catholic framework for analyzing sexual ethics and sexual acts.  The technical moral requirements of that  framework can seem deeply foreign and sometimes even offensive to many people, especially if they’re not familiar with the basic framework.  But sometimes the way sex is rhetorically approached within the traditional framework can give pause to people who are familiar with its requirements.

Consider, for example, this essay by Christian Brugger, who is a professor at the St. John Vianney Seminary in Denver-overseen by Archbishop Charles Chaput.  It is not a scholarly essay, but  is published in LifeSite News, which is a widely read pro-life portal.

I found it rhetorically odd–disconcerting, to say the least- that Brugger seems to be addressing men alone, although the portal is read by both men and women. And it seems to me that his analysis is  largely treating women–wives–as if they are objects, not subjects in the most intimate aspects of their marriage.  It seems as if he’s arguing that men have an obligation –a duty — to DO something to their wives — to create a certain physical reaction in them–for their wives’ own moral and physical good. This seems to me to be too close to treating women as if they are enfleshed pinball machines.

This genre of sexual ethics tends to be written almost exclusively by men  –and for men  –and about women.   I suppose a wife could hand this to her husband.  But how many men would listen to Christian Brugger — or any ethicist — rather than his own wife?  I could be wrong, but  my own suspicion is that many women, married and unmarried,  would find this approach to the matter very off-putting.  Am I wrong? Or does this essay – in tone and content — give some illustration to why many women don’t find the old-style approach to Catholic sexual ethics a place that includes them as subjects, not merely objects, of ethical reflection? It’s not content–it’s rhetorical style and intended audience. What do you all think?

Maybe I am wrong.  But Professor Brugger is training future priests.  Is anyone giving these future priests a married woman’s perspective on all this?  Do seminarians ever talk to married women about these matters?  It seems to me that it might be a good idea if they did.

In a recent talk in Eastern Europe, Archbishop Charles Chaput criticized increasing ant-Christian sentiment in the West. He gave as an example the police raid of the Cardinal’s residence, which he characterized as being conducted without due process.

It seems to me the only question to be asked is whether the Belgian police followed the established procedures they would have followed if investigating any other suspects of child pornography and child abuse.  (Belgian due process applies–not American.)  And that question, it seems to me, should be asked. The procedures seem very rough. But I don’t know the answer–maybe they are always very rough. I’ve only seen FBI raids on television.

If this is the way the police proceed in every case, then it seems to me there is no question of discrimination against Christians–though there may or may not  be separate reasons to call into question police procedures. Law enforcement officials should proceed the same way when investigating bishops, priests, rabbis, imams, and lay people of all stripes. We are all equal under the law. No one is above the law. There is no “benefit of clergy,” so to speak.  (There also should be no “benefit of celebrity, “—but that’s a separate blog post.)

Surely, Archbishop Chaput cannot be saying that members of the hierarchy deserve preferential treatment at the hands of secular law in the matter of investigating child abuse? Can he?

UPDATE:  The search was ruled illegal–but it’s not clear why.

Robby George sounds the alarm. All conservatives — run for the fallout shelters! Or something like that, as he posts at Mirror of Justice, flagging two issues covered at Public Discourse, one of the media outlets he helps oversee. One refers to two of their articles on abortion and healthcare reform, which he says are “responding to an attack launched by the editors of Commonweal.” That “attack” would be the magazine’s editorials on health care reform, and discussions at dotComm posts like this one.

The content and tone of Commonweal’s editorials hardly strike me as an “attack,” and I realize I generally agree with their arguments. But the defensive language of injury and persecution seem to me to be a conservative tic, at least these days. We see repeatedly in threads on dotCommonweal that arguments and criticisms on an issue are answered quite often by conservatives in hurt and angry tones that not surprisingly translate into critiques of a poster or commenter’s character rather than a response to the facts or claims.

Archbishop Chaput, no liberal wallflower, has made an interesting observation about this in several places — the one I found being in this Pew Forum discussion in which he notes that the worst emails and hate mail he gets are from Catholic conservatives:

“Nobody can tone down this group. I don’t know who can tone down the left because they usually just – it’s really interesting, the left mail I get will use terrible words but be less vitriolic. They use the F-word and things like that, call me names like that. But the right is meaner, but they’re not as foul.”

This dynamic seems to play out across the culture, from church to politics. Whence the conservative neuralgia? It always strikes me as an odd response for a group generally associated with toughness of mind and thickness of skin — not to mention charity of spirit.

Cardinal Sean O’Malley, having returned stateside from a trip to Fatima with the pope, on Wednesday wrote a blog post reaffirming the decision by his Boston archdiocese to welcome to a Catholic school the 8-year-old son of lesbian parents. The pastor of a Hingham parish and parochial school, Father James Rafferty, last week had rescinded the boy’s enrollment for the third grade in September, citing the status of his mothers’ relationship, the good of the child, and the difficulty his presence would have created for the school — as detailed in our earlier post.

School and archdiocesan officials, with O’Malley’s long-distance blessing, said the pastor’s decision was not in accord with archdiocesan policy and said they would find another school for the child.

Now back in Boston, O’Malley in his follow-up blog post praised Father Rafferty, saying he was doing what he thought best for the child and that he is “one of our finest pastors.” And he noted that Archbishop Chaput of Denver made a quite different decision of his own under similar circumstances last March, and that the “positions and rationale [of Chaput and the Denver archdiocese] must be seriously considered.”

But he also seemed clear on his own view, which is markedly different:

“Catholic schools exist for the good of the children and our admission standards must reflect that,” he wrote. “We have never had categories of people who were excluded.”

What struck me, however, was the story O’Malley recounted at the top of his column to illustrate his view of the situation — the kind of episode that I have heard him tell on the handful of occasions I have heard him preach:

As a young bishop in the West Indies I once celebrated a memorial Mass for a local “madame” who ran a brothel near my Cathedral. It was said she smuggled women in from other islands in oil barrels for her business. Some women suffocated in the crossing. She herself was murdered by her lover.

At the Mass I met the woman’s daughter, a lovely little girl. I asked her what grade she was in. She replied that she didn’t go to school. I sent a stern glance to her grandmother, who said: “Her name is the same as that of the brothel. The other children were so cruel to her, she left the public school.” I told her grandmother, “Take her to the Catholic school tomorrow.”

Nothing like the power of a story, and a willingness to let such human experience inform one’s decisions.

You’ll recall the controversy over Archbishop Chaput’s decision to bar the children of a lesbian couple from returning to their Catholic school next year. In the course of those conversations on dotCommonweal, several readers asked, “Why would gay parents want to send their kids to Catholic school?” To help answer that question, we’re publishing a piece by a mother who, along with her partner, decided to send her adopted sons to Catholic school.

To be honest, we never expected a welcome. We certainly never expected an invitation. But there we were, five years ago, two women in our pastor’s office, letting him know that we were a couple (in case he hadn’t picked up on that) and that we would in a few weeks be showing up at church not to sit in our separate spots (she in the choir, I in the middle-back) but to sit as a family with our two newly adopted sons in tow.

We didn’t want that reality just sprung on him, a thoughtful and decent man who, we expected, might get an earful from a few parishioners in the ensuing days and weeks. We asked if our coming to church like that was OK with him. Our priest said he appreciated the heads-up. “Just come, just come,” he insisted, expressing considerable relief that we had nothing else to discuss (“When I saw your names in my appointment book, I was afraid you might be asking me to bless your union”). He then inquired as to the boys’ names and ages and, hearing that the eldest would be almost six, asked, “Will you send him here, then, for school?” My partner and I shot a glance at each other. We said we hadn’t figured that was a possibility. We’d been struggling with the school question a bit. Sending the kids to the village public school in the very rural district where we lived was out of the question. We wanted a more demanding education for them. Sending them to our parish school in the small city in which we worked was, we had thought, equally out of the question. The priest raised both eyebrows. “No, not out of the question. Not at all. Send them here. In fact, I don’t even think you’d be the first same-sex couple to do so.” We’d had no idea. He thought a bit, came up with the family’s name, and said he thought all three of the girls were still enrolled and doing fine. We were stunned. Of course we’d want to send our kids there, then. Of course.

Read the rest right here.

NCR‘s Tom Fox has an exclusive interview with the lesbian couple whose children are no longer welcome in the Archdiocese of Denver’s Catholic schools.

What happened? It all began two weeks ago:

“I went in to turn in our daughter’s kindergarten application and was called into the principal’s office. That’s when, she said, she got “blind sided.”

“She sat me down and told me we were no longer accepted here any more. She said it was not going to be a good fit for our child and that she would encourage us to look elsewhere,” Martha went on, explaining the principal said she was worried there could be confusion when the teachers teach about the family unit.

“Her main point was she was concerned about our child, about her well-being. She never came out and said we were not welcomed to stay. But she pretty much told us it was time for us to move on.”

That evening the women discussed what was said adding they were upset and so they decided they wanted clarification because the principal had stopped short of saying their daughter could not enroll, just that it would not be wise to do so.

Mary said she called the principal and asked for clarification. She recalls asking: “Are you just worried about how this is going to be for my child because of the church’s stance on homosexuality?” She said she told the principal that if that was the case the women could handle it. I told her we did not expect any accommodations for our children based on our family situation. She then asked directly: “Are you telling us we are not allowed?”

At that point, Mary said, the principal replied that she needed to call the archdiocese. The next day, with the principal and the pastor of Sacred Heart parish, Fr. William Breslin, on the line, the women were told that their daughters could stay one more year in school and after that they would be out.

That came as a shock because for the past three years the nature of their relationship had never been an issue. “When we first enrolled our daughter in pre-school we told the school administrators our daughter had two moms. We asked if this was going to be a problem. We said that if it was going to be a problem we could go else where. We were very open and they said it would not be a problem.”

Who went to the press? Apparently a Sacred Heart teacher. “It didn’t come from us.”

Are they on a mission to change the church’s teaching on marriage and homosexuality? No. “We did not feel then and we still don’t feel now that pushing the church to change its mind would be in our children’s best interests.” They don’t consider themselves gay activists: “You have never seen us at protests or marching in parades. We never intended to pave the way for gays in the Catholic church. We just wanted to be a normal family.”

Why would a lesbian couple want to send their kids to a Catholic school? They’re Catholic. They were raised Catholic. One of them attended Catholic schools from preschool through high school. The other is a Domer. One of them has a mother who taught in Catholic school for twenty-five years. The other’s aunt was a Catholic-school teacher for decades. “We have a lot of history with the Catholic school system. It is what we are familiar with. It is what we are comfortable with. We value what a Catholic education can do for our kids.”

Why Sacred Heart? They’re Mass-going parishioners. They value the moral foundation provided by a Sacred Heart education. “We want our kids to learn about religion. We feel religion is really important. And they love it. They love God. They love their school. They love their friends. They love their teachers.”

The children were baptized Catholic. They go to Sunday school and Mass. And a local priest suggested they raise the kids Episcopalian. “We are trying to live up to the promises we make to raise our kids as Catholics and now the church we made the promise to is sort of undermining our attempts to do so.”

Their pastor explained that the family could remain in the parish and that the children could still attend CCD. Tom Fox writes: “’Isn’t the doctrine the same?’ they asked. They felt Breslin was not able to provide an understandable answer.”

And so they will find another school for their kids. A non-Catholic one. But they worry what their children will lose as a result of Archbishop Chaput’s decision:

Last week they were driving home from school having just picked up their children in the car. Recalled Martha: “In the car, our older daughter was helping our younger daughter with words from the “Our Father.” They were both trying to get the words right. Then they began the “Hail Mary” and we listened we had tears in our eyes.”

Read all of Tom Fox’s report right here.

As blogged by Paul Moses here, a Catholic school in Boulder, Colorado, has told a lesbian couple that their children cannot re-enroll next year. Yesterday, in a column posted to the Web site of the Archdiocese of Denver, Archbishop Charles Chaput tried to explain that decision.

First, Archbishop Chaput says that the children–one in preschool and the other in kindergarten–are not being sent packing immediately. They’ve been invited not to return next year. So there’s that. And: “the policy applies to all Archdiocese of Denver schools.” Now we know: the children of same-sex couples are not welcome in schools run by the Archdiocese of Denver.

[Update: The archbishop's spokeswoman Jeanette DeMelo has informed me that "The policy doesn’t apply exclusively to homosexual couples. He does say that parents are meant to be partners in faith. 'If parents don’t respect the belief of the Church or live in a manner that openly rejects those beliefs, then partnering with those parents becomes very difficult if not impossible.' That is what the school decision was nothing more, nothing less." I've put some follow-up questions to Ms. DeMelo, and will post her reply.]

Then, after a brief detour into the history of Catholic education and a reminder of the fact that Catholic parents “pay twice” to educate their children in Catholic schools (presumably the archbishop recognizes that all parents who send their kids to private school “pay twice”), Chaput acknowledges that Catholic schools admit the children of divorced parents (even non-Catholics). “These students are always welcome so long as their parents support the Catholic mission of the school and do not offer a serious counter-witness to that mission in their actions.” The archbishop does not explain how he or his Catholic-school administrators are supposed to verify that their students’ parents are tilting the right end of the scale. He continues: “The idea that Catholic schools should require support for Catholic teaching for admission and a serious effort from school families to live their Catholic identity faithfully, is reasonable and just.” Again, he does not define “serious effort.”

The Church never looks for reasons to turn anyone away from a Catholic education.  But the Church can’t change her moral beliefs without undermining her mission and failing to serve the many families who believe in that mission.  If Catholics take their faith seriously, they naturally follow the teachings of the Church in matters of faith and morals; otherwise they take themselves outside the believing community.

No one is confused about church teaching on marriage. (Some Catholics may, however, be lost as to why the seriousness with which they take their faith doesn’t always naturally lead to morally pure behavior.) What many Catholics find perplexing is the way some bishops translate that teaching into policy positions–both internal and external to the church.

Chaput acknowledges that the church does not teach that gays and lesbians are “bad,” or that “their children are less loved by God. Quite the opposite.” (More loved by God?) But the church does teach against divorce and against sex outside of marriage. “The Church cannot change these teachings because, in the faith of Catholics, they are the teachings of Jesus Christ.” A curious observation, given that no one has reported that the parents of these kids had been lobbying the church to change its teachings.

Finally, Archbishop Chaput argues that this policy is really for everyone’s own good–parents and students alike. If parents don’t respect the beliefs of the church, or live in open rejection of them, he writes, they don’t have a place in the Catholic school system. After all, how can Catholic schools fully teach the faith ”if teachers need to worry about wounding the feelings of their students or about alienating students from their parents”?

This is about more than hurt feelings of course. This is about the nature of the church’s educational mission. If the Archbishop of Denver truly believes that the children of parents who fail to adequately support church teaching cannot be educated at Catholic schools, then he has more explaining to do. To the children of parents who  are divorced and remarried (without going through the annulment process–at which point the church needs to explain that process to the children of annulled marriages). To the children of parents who practice and even recommend birth control. To the children of non-Catholic parents–especially those who do not support the central dogmas of Catholicism, such as, say, the Incarnation. Is there no place in Catholic education for the children of those kinds of parents? Or is there no place for the children of gay couples? And if so, why doesn’t the archbishop want such children to encounter the truths of Catholic teaching? If it’s merely to avoid upsetting the children of straight, non-divorced, non-contracepting, non-racist, anti-torture, pro-life parents, then I’m afraid he’ll have to do better.

This September it will be fifty years since John F. Kennedy gave his famous speech on religion and politics to Baptist ministers in Houston. Archbishop Charles Chaput has anticipated the anniversary by giving a speech critical of Kennedy’s at the Baptist University in the same city. You can find it at Sandro Magister’s blog.

Two years ago the Fordham Center on Religion and Culture hosted a symposium on “The Kennedy Moment: Religion and the Race for the Presidency,” which was entirely devoted to Kennedy’s speech and its relevance for the then current presidential campaign. You can find a transcript of the discussion at the Center’s website here.

One of the participants in the Fordham symposium, Shaun Casey has a lengthy study of the 1960 campaign and of Kennedy’s Houston speech in his book The Making of a Catholic President: Kennedy vs. Nixon 1960 (Oxford University Press, 2009).

May I suggest that we read both Chaput’s speech and the transcript of the discussion before commenting on either?

Good piece in today’s New York Times.

As recently as July, the bishops’ conference had largely embraced the president’s goals, although with the caveat that any health care overhaul avoid new federal financing of abortions. But in the last two weeks some leaders of the conference, like Cardinal Justin Rigali, have concluded that Democrats’ efforts to carve out abortion coverage are so inadequate that lawmakers should block the entire effort.

Others, echoing the popular alarms about “rationing,” contend that the proposals could put a premium on efficacy that could penalize the chronically ill.

“No health care reform is better than the wrong sort of health care reform,” Bishop R. Walker Nickless of Sioux City, Iowa, declared in a recent pastoral letter, urging the faithful to call their members of Congress.

In a diocesan newspaper column this week, Archbishop Charles J. Chaput of Denver agreed, saying the proposal was “not only imprudent; it’s also dangerous.”

Here’s Chaput’s column. And you can find Nickless’s right here.

More from Kirkpatrick:

Mr. Obama has said the health care overhaul should preserve the current policy that federal money not pay for elective abortions, and congressional Democrats say they are trying to do that. House health care legislation would allow the secretary of Health and Human Services to decide whether a proposed government insurance program would cover abortions. But any health insurance plan that does cover abortion — whether government-run or private — would be required to segregate its government subsidies from its patients’ premium payments so that no taxpayer money would pay for the procedure. And all patients would have the choice of plans that do and do not cover it.

House Democrats say many states similarly segregate federal money when they cover abortion under Medicaid. But abortion opponents say they take as a model the federal employees benefits program, which excludes health plans that cover abortion.

Kirkpatrick’s kicker is rather astounding:

“The Catholic Church does not teach that government should directly provide health care,” Bishop Nickless of Sioux City wrote, adding, “Any legislation that undermines the vitality of the private sector is suspect.”

Read the rest of this entry »

It’s a common strategy among prophets.  I think it summarizes–though is not a direct quote from–Archbishop Chaput’s remarks in Detroit.

But it’s not the best way to win converts.  I think this article from the interesting blog “Catholic Sensibility” expresses quite well why I found Archbishop Chaput’s latest remarks so offputting and counterproductive.

But then, I am not a big fan of prophetic discourse, overall, though it is necessary in some cases in limited amounts.

Perhaps he doesn’t care if he alienates the Catholic middle–the majority who voted for Obama, mainly because the economy was and is in freefall. Truth is not a popularity contest.  Fine.

But from a strategic perspective, I’m confused–where exactly are the votes he wants going to come from?  The people whose intelligence, faith and good will he is denigrating?

Judie Brown, of the American Life Lobby, cast Sam Brownback–SAM BROWNBACK–into outer darkness because he supported Sebelius for HHS–no doubt for political and strategic reasons.

If I were Senator Brownback, I’d not be inclined to take her calls any more.    Why put up with the personal invective?

So if that’s the case, whom will she call?

I’m not the best Irish politician in the world.  I don’t come from a family with the best Irish politician genes.  (My paternal grandfather, a newspaper writer, turned down the chance to write for the campaign of an up-and-coming Massachusetts politician named John Fitzgerald Kennedy–he didn’t think he’d go anywhere.)

But still, I don’t get the Archbishop’s political strategy.

…At least officially. Dan Burke at Religion News Service has the scoop, that the USCCB has decided to remove from the agenda a discussion about Catholics and politics. They put the item on the agenda in September, and even this week archbishops Chaput of Denver and Myers of Newark (and likely others) were saying the debate was very much needed, as this RNS report shows.

“I think this is something that has evolved since September,” Sister Mary Ann Walsh, the USCCB spokesperson, told RNS. “Many bishops have already addressed the issue (of pro-abortion rights politicians) through pastoral letters, so there’s not the same need they saw in September.”

I don’t know of any other rationales at work, but the decision is probably a good one. Firstly, they can, and most certainly will, have unofficial discussions and sound each other out, which is what they need to do. An “official” discussion could have led to lots of speechifying and no conclusions, or revealed even more disagreements. The election is over, they can afford to think this through, talk it out. As the thread below on Catholics and politics indicates, the church is not of one mind, or may not even know its mind. (Or is out of its mind?!) Secondly, they may want to see what the Obama administration does, what their approach is, what their relationship might be, before issuing declarations.

Point of discussion: I think in all of this, there are three discrete issues that are often conflated but shouldn’t be. One is a response to Catholic pols (or others, I suppose) who start explaining theology on national TV. That would be Biden and Pelosi, now 2 and 3 respectively in the national power structure. Their theologizing really upset many bishops. But correcting them on theology is one thing. A separate issue is whether Catholic politicians should be barred from communion for certain positions, or if and when “ordinary” Catholics should be barred. The final issue concerns their approach to influencing policies and politics. These are interconnected issues but involve different areas and (may) require different answers.

PS: CNS has a story on a letter from Pensacola Bishop John Ricard to Joe Biden regarding news that Biden had attended mass in the diocese. Seems like a constructive approach. Reactions? Letter (PDF) is here…Via Rocco.

Young Thomas Peters, a.k.a. the “American Papist” and one of the more popular bloggers among the conservative Catholic set, has a sit-down with Denver Archbishop Charles Chaput about the election. The Papist’s excerpts from the video indicate that Archbishop Chaput will be one of those seeking a major change in the bishops’ approach when they meet in Baltimore next week:

On vocal bishops: “The bishops are aware … a quieter approach to these things has not been effective … we have to be stronger in what we say. We’ve just had it.”

On Faithful Citizenship: “[It is] not very clear. We either ought to get rid of it, or say things much clearer.”

On claiming Obama is a pro-life candidate: “It would be foolish to say that someone who … runs on a party platform that has no regret at all about abortion … to call that position pro-life is really strange.”

On IRS investigations: “It’s simply bullying. It shouldn’t stop us from talking about the important issues of our time.”

On the separation of Church and State: “We do believe in it. We don’t like the state to tell us what to do. We don’t believe in the separation of faith and politics.”

Despite all the wayward threads this election season, there have been some substantial and useful discussions here on Catholic faith and public life, in particular on the employment of prudential judgments–the lifeblood of politics. That said, a constitutional amendment on the ballot in Colorado offers an interesting story line, in that it seeks to define a ”person” as ”any human being from the moment of fertilization,” with all the constitutional rights that confers.

Sounds like a pro-lifer’s dream. Except the Catholic hierarchy of the state is not backing it, the anti-abortion governor (Bill Ritter, a Catholic) is against it, and national pro-life groups aren’t supporting it either. This AP story is the best overview I’ve found. Apparently the concern is much like that of the NRA with the recent Supreme Court ruling on the Second Amendment (which went their way–phew!), namely, that passing this amendment might provoke an up-or-down decision on the legality of abortion. A June statement from the Colorado bishops explains their thinking, or their strategy, you might say.

“Unfortunately, even if this year’s personhood amendment is passed in Colorado, lower federal courts interpreting this amendment will be required to apply the permissive 1973 Roe v. Wade abortion decision by the U.S. Supreme Court. It is also likely that the Supreme Court, given its current composition, will either decline to review such a case, effectively killing the state amendment, or worse, actively reaffirm the mistaken jurisprudence of. While the Church respects those promoting this personhood amendment, the Catholic Bishops of Colorado decline to support its passage because it does not provide a realistic opportunity for ending or even reducing abortions in Colorado. Constructive alternatives to reduce abortions and advance the ultimate objective of ending abortion, however, do exist at the state level.”

And earlier this month Archbishop Chaput of Denver released a statement (PDF) chiding Ritter over remarks on the personhood question. But it did little (for me) to clarify the church’s thinking here, or why the hierarchy’s prudential (political) savvy in this case (if indeed this is the best move) is not applicable elsewhere. For example, overturning Roe v. Wade under the current climate of opinion and lack of pregnancy support could very likely lead to a stronger affirmation of abortion rights. (Such was the spur to the dreaded FOCA.)

In any case, I’d be interested in thoughts on the prudential and political merits here, from those in the know, or those in Colorado who may have better insights from up close. Which is my way of saying, let’s try to keep the demonizing to a minimum.

Very good posts below, both Peter Nixon’s parsing and Cathleen Kaveny’s essay. Couple of additional reads to suggest–one a very welcome (IMO) piece by Bishop Blase Cupich of Rapid City, S.D in the latest America, titled “Racism and the Election.” It is one of the only pieces I’ve seen from a religious leader addressing the ugliness emerging over the Obama candidacy. Money quote:

Last November the bishops issued Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship, the most recent of the documents we issue every four years during the teachable moment of our most important national elections to acquaint Catholics with their responsibilities in the forum of public policy. In that document we spoke of the things we must never do as individuals or a society because they are always incompatible with the love of God and neighbor. We cite the taking of innocent human life as one example of such intrinsically evil actions. Racism is another.

In any election people have many reasons to support one candidate or to oppose another.  Some of these reasons may be wise and good, some not so good, and others simply wrong. The promotion neither of abortion nor racism can ever be a motivation for one’s vote. Voting for a candidate solely because of that candidate’s support for abortion or against him or her solely on the basis of his or her race is to promote an intrinsic evil. To do so consciously is indeed sinful. That is behavior incompatible with being a Christian. To allow racism to reign in our hearts and to determine our choice in this solemn moment for our nation is to cooperate with one of the great evils that has afflicted our society.

The other item is Denver Archbishop Charles Chaput’s latest take on why a Catholic cannot vote for Obama (which seems to be the bottom line of his argument). He stresses that he is speaking only as a private citizen and author, but his voice obviously carries a weight beyond that. (“Chuck the Archbishop?!”) Archbishop Chaput has been a strong proponent of the intrinsic evil of abortion governing all political choices, but he seems to be tougher than ever here, or perhaps it is the tone, and the fact that he is directly challenging Douglas Kmiec. Money quotes (via ZENIT, which has the text of the Oct. 17 address titled “Little Murders”):

Prof. Kmiec argues that there are defensible motives to support Senator Obama. Speaking for myself, I do not know any proportionate reason that could outweigh more than 40 million unborn children killed by abortion and the many millions of women deeply wounded by the loss and regret abortion creates.

To suggest — as some Catholics do — that Senator Obama is this year’s “real” pro-life candidate requires a peculiar kind of self-hypnosis, or moral confusion, or worse. To portray the 2008 Democratic Party presidential ticket as the preferred “pro-life” option is to subvert what the word “pro-life” means. Anyone interested in Senator Obama’s record on abortion and related issues should simply read Prof. Robert George’s essay of earlier this week, “Obama’s Abortion Extremism,” at thepublicdiscourse.com. It says everything that needs to be said.

Of course, these are simply my personal views as an author and private citizen. But I’m grateful to Prof. Kmiec for quoting me in his book and giving me the reason to speak so clearly about our differences. I think his activism for Senator Obama, and the work of Democratic-friendly groups like Catholics United and Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, have done a disservice to the Church, confused the natural priorities of Catholic social teaching, undermined the progress pro-lifers have made, and provided an excuse for some Catholics to abandon the abortion issue instead of fighting within their parties and at the ballot box to protect the unborn.

While much of the attention yesterday was on Hillary Clinton, Senator Bob Casey (D-PA) may have had the best line of the night.  Observing that Senator John McCain (R-AZ) had voted with President Bush 90 percent of the time, he quipped: “That’s not a maverick, that’s a sidekick!”

As David Gibson and others observed, Casey’s address was notable for its symbolism.  Casey’s father, the former governor of Pennsylvania, was denied the chance to speak at the 1992 Democratic Convention.  While Clinton campaign officials argued that this was because he had refused to endorse the Clinton-Gore ticket, many pro-life Democrats believed-and continue to believe-that Governor Casey was excluded from the podium because of his strong pro-life views.

There was much speculation about what Senator Casey would say last night.  While he mentioned his father, he did not directly mention the 1992 dispute.  With respect to the issue of abortion, Casey mentioned it only briefly:

Barack Obama and I have an honest disagreement on the issue of abortion. But the fact that I’m speaking here tonight is testament to Barack’s ability to show respect for the views of people who may disagree with him.

I will confess to being disappointed that Senator Casey treated the issue with such brevity.  While I recognize the political realities, I think more could have been said.  The issue for many pro-life Democrats is not merely whether Senator Obama respects the views of Senator Casey, but whether the party as a whole is genuinely open to dialogue on this issue.  I would have liked to see Senator Casey explain why he feels that the Democratic Party’s uncompromising defense of abortion on demand is at variance with its historic commitment to those-to use the words of Hubert Humphrey-in the shadows of life, in the dawn of life, and in the twilight of life.

There is no question that making such a statement would have created an awkward moment.  I recently finished Archbishop Chaput’s book Render Unto Caesar: Serving the Nation by Living Our Catholic Beliefs in Public Life.  It will not surprise regular readers to learn that the Archbishop and I are not in accord on all matters.  Nevertheless, I found myself in deep agreement with his argument that to be a member of the Body of Christ is to be called to courageous witness for justice.  Such witness may, at times, demand that we be willing to confront those with whom we share much.  Speaking truth to power may, in fact, be less difficult than speaking the truth to our friends.  This was an opportunity for that kind of witness.  Sadly, I think it was an opportunity missed.

Archbishop Charles Chaput issued a statement today, challenging Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s understanding of the Catholic doctrinal tradition which she had enunciated during yesterday’s “Meet the Press” appearance.

Here is part of the Archbishop’s statement:

Interviewed on Meet the Press August 24, Speaker Pelosi was asked when human life begins. She said
the following:
“I would say that as an ardent, practicing Catholic, this is an issue that I have studied for a long time.
And what I know is over the centuries, the doctors of the church have not been able to make that def-
inition . . . St. Augustine said at three months. We don’t know. The point is, is that it shouldn’t have
an impact on the woman’s right to choose.”
Since Speaker Pelosi has, in her words, studied the issue “for a long time,” she must know very well
one of the premier works on the subject, Jesuit John Connery’s Abortion: The Development of the
Roman Catholic Perspective (Loyola, 1977). Here’s how Connery concludes his study:
“The Christian tradition from the earliest days reveals a firm antiabortion attitude . . . The condemna-
tion of abortion did not depend on and was not limited in any way by theories regarding the time of
fetal animation. Even during the many centuries when Church penal and penitential practice was based
on the theory of delayed animation, the condemnation of abortion was never affected by it. Whatever
one would want to hold about the time of animation, or when the fetus became a human being in the
strict sense of the term, abortion from the time of conception was considered wrong, and the time of
animation was never looked on as a moral dividing line between permissible and impermissible abor-
tion.”

Interestingly, Chaput also cites the Lutheran theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer, whose judgement is categorical:

Or to put it in the blunter words of the great Lutheran pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer:
“Destruction of the embryo in the mother’s womb is a violation of the right to live which God has
bestowed on this nascent life. To raise the question whether we are here concerned already with a
human being or not is merely to confuse the issue. The simple fact is that God certainly intended to
create a human being and that this nascent human being has been deliberately deprived of his life. And
that is nothing but murder.”

The full statement is here:

http://www.archden.org/images/ArchbishopCorner/ByTopic/onseparationofsense%26state_openlettercjc8.25.08.pdf

Amy Welborn posted earlier on the Pelosi interview, with interesting links and some fascinating readers’ comments. One comment is by a Bill Bannon (whom I do not know) on the views of Augustine and Jerome.

[Apologies that the transcription from a pdf file is uneven, but I think the message comes through.]

Update:

Here is a statement released by the Conference of Bishops and posted on their web page:

-Cardinal Justin F. Rigali, chairman of the U.S. Bishops’ Committee on Pro-Life Activities, and Bishop William E. Lori, chairman of the U.S. Bishops’ Committee on Doctrine, have issued the following statement:

In the course of a “Meet the Press” interview on abortion and other public issues on August 24, 2008, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi misrepresented the history and nature of the authentic teaching of the Catholic Church against abortion.

The Church has always taught that human life deserves respect from its very beginning and that procured abortion is a grave moral evil. In the Middle Ages, uninformed and inadequate theories about embryology led some theologians to speculate that specifically human life capable of receiving an immortal soul may not exist until a few weeks into pregnancy. While in canon law these theories led to a distinction in penalties between very early and later abortions, the Church’s moral teaching never justified or permitted abortion at any stage of development.

These mistaken biological theories became obsolete over 150 years ago when scientists discovered that a new human individual comes into being from the union of sperm and egg at fertilization. In keeping with this modern understanding, the Church has long taught that from the time of conception (fertilization), each member of the human species must be given the full respect due to a human person, beginning with respect for the fundamental right to life.

Archbishop Charles Chaput has been reviled by some liberal Catholics, here and elsewhere, for suggesting that Catholics who vote for prochoice politicians will have to answer to the unborn victims of abortion.

But [Catholics who support pro-choice candidates] also need a compelling proportionate reason to justify it. What is a “proportionate” reason when it comes to the abortion issue? It’s the kind of reason we will be able to explain, with a clean heart, to the victims of abortion when we meet them face to face in the next life—which we most certainly will. If we’re confident that these victims will accept our motives as something more than an alibi, then we can proceed.

Some of the archbishop’s critics seem to be put off by the strangeness of this thought experiment; and it is strange, or at least unusual, to find this kind of eschatological speculation in a debate about politics. That does not make it ridiculous—or useless. In a comment about a very different subject, a reader of our blog, Ann Olivier, ventured a similar speculation about how moral responsibility will play out in the life to come. “I have my own personal belief about Purgatory,” she wrote. “It will be right here on this Earth, and we will literally have to face everyone whom we have injured, and if we try to lie or make unjustified excuses Jesus will set off some sort of siren, adding another level of humiliation.” Absurd? I don’t think so, and maybe not so speculative either. The church has always taught that, whatever else the Last Judgment consists of, it will require us to face the hidden or forgotten consequences of our actions. So, while I understand why unbelievers might find the archbishop’s reference to the next life fanciful or sectarian, I think Catholic voters—to and about whom the archbishop was writing—ought to take it seriously.

But as soon as one does take it seriously, one notices some strange features of the archbishop’s argument. First, there is its imprecision. Maybe the archbishop meant that a Catholic who votes for a prochoice candidate will have to face those who were aborted because the candidate he voted for was elected. But that of course is not what he wrote. He wrote, without qualification, that such a voter would have to explain his actions to “the victims of abortion.” Why? In some cases, if not most, a prolife voter may reasonably believe that the election of a particular prolife politician over his prochoice opponent will probably not have the effect of decreasing the number of abortions, or even of changing the laws that permit or encourage abortion. If the voter is wrong about this, then it may make sense to imagine what he would say to the victims of his error. It makes no sense to imagine that he is therefore answerable for every abortion. This lack of rigor turns what might have been a useful thought experiment into little more than a rhetorical conceit.

If the archbishop’s speculation is in one way inadequately specific, it is in another way too specific. Why would the Catholic voter have to answer only to the victims of abortion, and not also to the victims of every other injustice his vote may have facilitated? The U.S. regime of abortion on demand is an especially grave injustice, but it is hardly the only injustice with eschatological implications. To write about it as if it were falsely simplifies the complicated choices Catholic voters have to make.

So what counts as a “compelling, proportionate reason” to vote for a candidate in spite of the fact he or she is prochoice? It is worth noting that the archbishop acknowledges that there could be such reasons, at least in theory. And here he is in agreement with the U.S. Bishops Conference and with Pope Benedict XVI, who has written:

When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favor of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.

Many conservative Catholics brush this off by saying that almost no reason—and certainly no reason available to voters in this election—is proportionate to the evil of abortion. But most of these conservatives happen to agree with the Republican Party about most, if not all, of the big issues that are at stake in this election. It is easier to say that abortion always trumps all other issues when, for you, it never needs to trump anything. This is not the archbishop’s own position: he has spoken often and eloquently about some of the other grave injustices Catholics in this country need to address, including poverty. He simply doesn’t believe that any of these injustices are more serious than abortion. Nor do I. But that doesn’t mean that in a given election other issues may not be as politically important as abortion. It is, after all, possible to believe that the unlimited abortion license is a uniquely grave injustice in our country and to believe, at the same time, that while this presidential election is very unlikely to have much effect on our abortion laws, it is almost certain to have an effect on other important issues. Thoughtful voters may have to make a hard calculation, and they won’t be able to demonstrate conclusively that they’ve made the right calculation until after the fact. Practical judgment almost always involves some uncertainty. But to some prolifers, every disagreement about practical judgments is a disagreement about principles, and one is either a single-issue voter or a squish. The problem with such prolifers is not that they care too much about abortion, but that they care too little about anything else.

In her recent column in Commonweal, Melinda Henneberger recounts an interesting–and disconcerting–interview with Archbishop Charles Chaput from Denver. Apparently, he’s quite astonished about the reaction his foray into presidential politics created in 2004. I quote from the column:

“He insists that all the attention paid to his statements about abortion during the ‘04 presidential campaign was unexpected. “On one level, it was uncomfortable to be called a Republican when I’m not” –and astonishing to receive a more heated and prodigious response than even the clerical sex-abuse scandals had provoked.”

“Do I think there are people in the last election who voted for a prochoice candidate and did so sincerely after reflection and prayer? Yes, I do? Did they do wrong? No, they followed their conscience. But that serious reflection and prayer, that’s really important, and not just being swayed by party sympathies or that’s the way you always vote. It has to be about the issues.”

I have to say, I’m astonished at the Archbishop’s astonishment. With all due respect, I don’t remember him expressing anything at all like the sentiments in the preceding paragraph in 2004. In fact, I remember him expressing very different sentiments indeed.

In a column entitled, “How to Tell a Duck from a Fox: Thinking with the Church as We Look Toward November, we find the following statement from the Archbishop:

Candidates who claim to be “Catholic” but who publicly ignore Catholic teaching about the sanctity of human life are offering a dishonest public witness. They may try to look Catholic and sound Catholic, but unless they act Catholic in their public service and political choices, they’re really a very different kind of creature.

And real Catholics should vote accordingly.

In an interview with the New York Times, Archbishop Chaput indicated that it was sin to vote for a candidate who supports abortion rights. He does not distinguish between voting for a candidate foreseeing, but not intending, the support of abortion rights; nor does he distinguish between formal and material cooperation.

In an interview in his residence here, Archbishop Chaput said a vote for a candidate like Mr. Kerry who supports abortion rights or embryonic stem cell research would be a sin that must be confessed before receiving Communion.

“If you vote this way, are you cooperating in evil?” he asked. “And if you know you are cooperating in evil, should you go to confession? The answer is yes.”

The Archbishop does mention conscience in a column entitled: “Let’s Make a Deal: Catholic Conscience and Compromise.” He does not entertain the possibility that a Catholic could under any circumstances vote for a pro-choice candidate in good conscience. Indeed, the column suggests quite the opposite: The last two paragraphs.

Next month, October, is Respect Life month. It’s a good time to reflect on the meaning of the Kennedy-Cuomo legacy. In brief, it’s OK to be Catholic in public service as long as you’re willing to jettison what’s inconveniently “Catholic.”

That’s not a compromise. That’s a deal with the devil, and it has a balloon payment no nation, no public servant and no voter can afford.

According to their plain meaning, Archbishop Chaput’s comments in 2004 convey that a “real Catholic” wouldn’t vote for a pro-choice candidate under any circumstances; especially a pro-choice Catholic. It’s a “sin”; a “deal with the devil.” His statements from that era leave no room for a good faith difference of opinion about whom to vote for as president –they leave no room for the fact that a Catholic might vote for a pro-choice candidate foreseeing, but not intending his or her stance on abortion.

But maybe he didn’t say everything he meant.  Maybe he meant to leave more room for a difference in practical judgment about who would be the best President of the United States.  If so, the question remains: If Archbishop Chaput’s remarks were so pervasively misinterpreted in 2004, why didn’t he make a straightforward statement like the one in Henneberger’s column at the time? Why did he wait until years later, when the political and ecclesiastical winds have shifted?