By now you’ve likely seen the New York Times story by Sharon Otterman about the push to canonize Dorothy Day: “In Hero of the Catholic Left, a Conservative Cardinal Sees a Saint.” We might discuss the pros and cons (mostly cons, I think) of telling this story this way, lining up the players on either side of a left/right divide. I will say that I think the article is most interesting when it steps outside that framework and visits Maryhouse to talk to Martha Hennessy, Day’s granddaughter, and then St. Joseph House for a discussion with volunteers. The Catholic Worker context of those last few paragraphs makes the struggle over Day’s place in Catholic culture wars seem as petty as it is.

What I really want to talk about, though, is this paragraph, speculating about what might be motivating Cardinal Timothy Dolan to support Day’s cause:

“It is an opportunity for him to demonstrate that conservative Catholics are not uncaring, without accepting liberal principles in how you service the poor,” said William A. Donohue, president of the Catholic League, a conservative antidefamation organization. “She was not, like many liberal Catholics today, a welfare state enthusiast.”

When the bishops won’t speak to the NYT, who will speak for the bishops? Our friend Bill Donohue stands ready as always to step into the breach. Take note, all those who get offended when anyone suggests that the U.S. bishops’ recent forays into public-policy discussions have been self-defeatingly partisan. It is true that most (though not all) of the more vocal U.S. bishops try to avoid sounding overtly partisan when they speak to political issues. Donohue has no such compunctions. Which is just one reason the bishops ought to be concerned about allowing him to position himself as their surrogate in the media.

We’ve been over this before, and whenever Donohue comes in for criticism, someone will surely say, “I think there’s a real need for what he does, but….” By “what he does” I believe such people mean the “antidefamation” work of the Catholic League — protesting insults to and attacks on the Catholic faith and people. I actually would not agree, but let’s set that aside. Is that, in fact, what Donohue does? Is it the principal work of the Catholic League? I don’t think so. Yes, Donohue occasionally finds a legitimate insult to get worked up about. But for the most part, he is a public figure who engages in conservative Catholic identity politics for fun and profit. Read the rest of this entry »

I noted yesterday that the papal nuncio had cited–not approvingly, I hasten to add–a post from DotCommonweal that addressed the issue of religious freedom as well as the relationship between the bishops and the laity with respect to matters of public policy.

It occurred to me later that the Archbishop Viganò might benefit from reading other pieces in the magazine that deal with these issues, particularly Commonweal’s symposium from earlier this year that responded to the U.S. bishops’ statement Our First, Most Cherished Liberty.  The symposium featured comments from Peter Steinfels, William Galston and Cathleen Kaveny just to name a few.

I was thinking of offering some thoughts on the Archbishop’s address, but I don’t think I can improve on what the panel has already written.  So I will refrain.

Last night was not a good night for the nation’s Catholic bishops.  They have spent most of the last year arguing that Catholics–and people of faith generally–should prioritize three key issues in this election: abortion, same-sex marriage, and the conscience rights of Catholic institutions.  These issues were highlighted in a large number of communications from individual bishops as well as a two-week Catholic “teach in” that was described as a “Fortnight for Freedom.”

The bishops have little to show for their efforts.  The “Catholic vote,” to the extent that such a mythical beast exists, voted narrowly for Obama and I suspect the administration now feels little pressure to negotiate further with the bishops over the terms of the HHS mandate.  Despite spending millions in opposition, the bishops were unable to prevent referendums supporting same-sex marriage from passing in Maryland and Washington, nor were they able to mobilize enough support to enact a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage in Minnesota. The one bright spot for the bishops appears to be a narrow win against physician assisted-suicide in Massachusetts.

Earlier in the year, it looked like the outcome might have been different.  While health care reform had divided the bishops and the Catholic health care community, the HHS mandate brought them together with other leaders of Catholic institutions in opposition.  What seems clear in retrospect, however, was that this was an alliance among Catholic “insiders” that had little resonance among the Church’s rank and file, particularly younger Catholics who do not have the same sense of attachment to these institutions as their elders. Read the rest of this entry »

As we approach next week’s election, Catholic voters are being inundated with messages that suggest that it would be gravely sinful to vote for President Obama.

This is not necessarily true.

In saying this, I want to make clear that I am not arguing that one should vote for President Obama or that there are no compelling reasons to vote against him. What I am arguing is that it is incorrect to claim that voting for Obama is necessarily sinful.

Catholic moral theology understands the act of voting as a form of cooperation in the acts of others. As I noted last week in my discussion of the HHS mandate, we generally speak of two types of cooperation, formal and material. Formal cooperation is when we share the intent of the person we are cooperating with, i.e. we want their act to succeed. Formal cooperation in evil is always morally wrong.

Material cooperation, by contrast, exists when our own actions enable an act which we do not directly intend. An example of material cooperation might be a decision to purchase a pair of sneakers made in a factory with substandard working conditions. The purpose of my act is to obtain footwear and not to exploit workers. Nevertheless, my act of purchasing the sneakers does play a small role in perpetuating this injustice.  Read the rest of this entry »

In their dispute with the Obama Administration over the HHS contraception mandate, a number of U.S.bishops have suggested that they will have to close hospitals, schools and Catholic universities if the mandate is not modified or withdrawn.

But would the bishops really be required to do this?  While I’m sympathetic to the bishops’ concerns and support their efforts to broaden the exemption for religious employers, I do not think it is true that a failure in this regard would require the closing of Catholic institutions.  For the moment, I am going to set aside the question of whether closing is the most likely outcome or whether the institutions in question would merely be asked to sever their formal ties with the Church. Clearly, neither is a desirable outcome.

The concept in moral theology that is in play here is known as “cooperation.”  When we facilitate the acts of another person in some way, we are said to be cooperating with them.  If those acts are evil, then we may share some moral culpability for those actions.

In general, Catholics are called to “do good and avoid evil.”  If we share the evil intent of the other person (e.g. driving the getaway car to facilitate a bank robbery), it is said to be formal cooperation with evil and morally blameworthy.  However, if the actor is cooperating but does not share the intent of the other person (e.g. driving the getaway car because you have a gun to your head), their cooperation is said to be material.  Material cooperation may be permissible if the act of cooperation is not itself intrinsically evil (driving a car is, in itself, a neutral act) and there are proportionate reasons for the material cooperation (e.g. fear of death).

A related concept is the degree of proximity between the person cooperating and the original actor.  My moral culpability in the actions of another person may be greater if my actions directly facilitate his act.  If my actions assist the original actor only indirectly and I do not share his evil intent, this is said to be “remote material cooperation” and my moral culpability is reduced still further.

We can assume that some employees of Catholic institutions use contraception, which Catholic teaching holds to be an intrinsically evil act.  To what extent is the Church, as their employer, morally complicit in those acts?  Read the rest of this entry »

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 »

The weblog Democratic Strategist has posted a document entitled “A Letter to a ‘Middle of the Road Moderate’ non-Latino Friend about the Moral Difference Between Democrats and Republicans.” The letter, written by James Vega, is a response to a comment from a friend that “I don’t believe the people who dominate the Republican Party are really any less emphatic toward minorities, the poor, and the disadvantaged than are the people who dominate the Democratic Party.”

To say that Vega disagrees would be an understatement.  His letter is an explosion of rage against the Republican Party’s embrace of policies that, he argues, are explicitly aimed at “making the lives of illegal immigrants so miserable that they leave” (or, as Governor Romney has put it, that they “self-deport”).  Vega notes that the impact of these policies has been felt by Latino immigrants here legally as well as Latinos who have lived in the U.S. all their lives.

This Republican-created strategy of consciously and intentionally “making their lives so miserable they leave”—of deliberately inflicting suffering as a social policy against men, women and children whose only crime is having migrated to America to seek work—is not simply “wrong” or “bad.” It is in every profound sense of the word—evil. It is evil in the same way that racial prejudice is evil. It is evil in the same way that anti-Semitism is evil. It presents the starkest possible moral choice between right and wrong.

As a result I believe your facile equation of Republicans and Democrats is not simply wrong. I believe it is deeply and profoundly immoral and I believe that it is ultimately an act of cowardice. You have clear moral issue of right and wrong staring you directly in the face and, because it is ideologically inconvenient for your “reasonable, middle of the road” self-image, you are acting like a frightened child and covering your eyes to make it go away.

You remember as well as I do the countless times we stood together and watched our two sons play together as they grew up—as toddlers, as kids, as teen-agers and young men. On the walls of our homes and in our photo albums we have dozens of pictures of the two of them side by side. When the time comes to choose who to vote for, ask yourself how you can possibly support a political party that has made it their explicit goal to “make the lives miserable” of children whose only crime is that they look exactly like your own son’s childhood best friend.

The letter, perhaps unavoidably, made me think of how the Catholic bishops have employed this kind of rhetoric.  I’ve certainly read my share of episcopal columns in diocesan newspaper calling for reform of the nation’s immigration policies.  In most cases, their tone is measured and moderate, acknowledging the difficult dilemmas and granting goodwill on both sides.  When it comes to issues such as abortion, same-sex marriage and this year’s favored issue of “religious liberty,”however,  the rhetoric becomes more pointed, more likely to speak of “good” versus “evil” and “death” versus “life.”  The tone sounds very much like Vega’s does here.

I wonder if the tone struck by the bishops would change if more of them had the kind of direct, personal experience with this kind of bigotry that Vega clearly has had.  More than partisan or ideological preferences, I think the bishops’ public voice reflects their roots in a predominantly white Catholic culture.  In that culture, the plight of Latinos subject to racial animus can be acknowledged as a concern, but it’s easier to discount it when compared to issues like abortion. Latino Catholics may not have that luxury.

I think this has implications for how the bishops engage both the public square and their own flock.  I suspect that many of them are going to be disappointed that so many Catholics–particularly Latino Catholics–will have voted to re-elect a man they have painted as the enemy of life, marriage and religious liberty.  Reading Vega’s letter may help them understand why.

On Saturday the New York Times published Mark Oppenheimer’s writeup of the controversy surrounding Duquesne University’s refusal to allow teachers it pays no more than ten grand a year — without health coverage — to form a union. (Paul Moses covered it here.) Oppenheimer nicely summarizes the issue: “Catholic moral theologians say Catholics have a special duty to recognize unions — and Catholic administrators say their university has a special right not to.” Of course, as the piece makes clear, you could just as well substitute “popes” or “bishops” for “Catholic moral theologians.” When Benedict XVI wrote that labor unions “have always been encouraged and supported by the church,” he wasn’t kidding — or innovating.

Still, perhaps Benedict might chortle at one of his priest’s interpretation of church teaching on the right of labor to organize. As is required of all exercises in journalistic coverage of Catholic economic questions, Oppenheimer’s article features a predictable quote from free-market warrior Fr. Robert Sirico. Arguing for a curiously contingent view of Catholic social teaching, Sirico suggests that because Rerum novarum — Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical on labor and capital — was written in 1891, it may not apply to the situation of Duquesne’s adjunct professors. “In the industrial revolution, the church was concerned about communism, and not just capitalism but savage capitalism,” Sirico told Oppenheimer. “People were being brutalized. That’s just not the case in Pittsburgh today.”

Of course, there’s nothing particularly humane about a Catholic university paying half its faculty a wage below the poverty line. Yet that’s not what’s most galling — or laughable — about Sirico’s comment. No, it’s the idea that Rerum novarum had an expiration date. Needless to say, that’s not exactly what Leo XIII had in mind when he wrote it: “We may lay it down as a general and lasting law,” Leo taught, “that working men’s associations should be so organized and governed as to furnish the best and most suitable means for attaining what is aimed at, that is to say, for helping each individual member to better his condition to the utmost in body, soul, and property.” Why “general and lasting”? Because, as Vince Miller ably explains, the church’s support for workers’ right to unionize is rooted in natural law — not merely a reading of the signs of the times. The U.S. bishops of the late 1980s understood this. “No one may deny the right to organize without attacking human dignity itself,” they wrote in Economic Justice for All (1986). A clear, strong statement. But is it one the bishops of today would endorse? Read the rest of this entry »

Leslie Tentler’s take on Catholics and single-issue politics –from the perspective of 1919.For those who haven’t read her book on American Catholics and contraception, I highly recommend it.  It talks, among other things, about the bishops’ fight to keep contraception illegal in the early-to-mid 20th century.