On the megabus to New York City I have had a chance to read from beginning to end the Catholic Bishops
major new statement on religious freedom. It is significant food for thought, filled with some of my favorite historical figures and quotes. What will likely receive the most attention, however, is not the echoes of Richard John Neuhaus that flow through the document but its bold call to organized and determined resistance (or perhaps that too is echoing the feisty Neuhaus?). I can’t think of a document like it in recent American history (I compare it below to Neuhaus’ “End of Democracy?” statement but that did not come from US Bishops), particularly its call to a 14 day “fortnight for freedom”, provocatively scheduled around the 4
th of July and numerous dates on the liturgical calendar celebrating martyred Catholics. I anticipate fascinating debate and dialogue at my own parish and countless other places across the country before, during and after that “fortnight”. I am trying not to jump to hasty conclusions about the document. There is much to commend it as a broad statement about the importance of religious freedom for the common good, and I was very pleased to see the strong statement against the Alabama immigration law. I am also mindful of the fact that the bishops seem uniquely unified in their sense that this is a particularly dangerous time for religious freedom in the United States and around the world, a unity highlighted by the strong quote from the politically liberal Cardinal Mahony, retired archbishop of Los Angeles. As a Christian in communion with Rome I feel a special burden to listen with care to a united voice of bishops. I am pleased that the bishops reached out in the document to bloggers/writers like me and invited us to join the conversation and participate in the discussion. I plan to do so more extensively over the coming months, and while I appreciate some of the points that
Commonweal has raised in their
critical response to the bishops, I am not yet ready to declare myself at odds with the document as a whole like they same to be. I am certainly nowhere near as convinced as the bishops are that the Obama administration’s attempt at a compromise is, as the bishops say, “
resorting to equivocal words and deceptive practices”. And I detect in some of the language a shrillness bordering on hysteria that is unbecoming of the richness of the Catholic Social Teaching (is it really necessary to urge that “the Solemnity of Christ the King—a feast born out of resistance to totalitarian incursions against religious liberty—be a day specifically employed by bishops and priests to preach about religious liberty, both here and abroad”?). But lay Catholics must be careful in how we speak in response to this document. Progressives in particular should remember that the bishops used perhaps intemperate language and simplistic metaphors in their bold resistance to nuclear weapons and economic injustice in the 70s and 80s. Is there a way for us to discern a core of concerns that we can affirm the bishops are making while trying to challenge the belligerent tone and overly provocative plans in the document? Is there a way to assure that the “fortnight of freedom” is not hijacked into a quasi-Republican rally against Obama’s supposed “war on religion”? This is where I most agree with the editors of Commonweal when they say “the tenor of the bishops’ statement runs the risk of making this into a partisan issue during a presidential election”. I can’t help but feeling like the bishops have gone down a dangerous path. I keep feeling like they have published for the issue of religious freedom the equivalent of the infamous First Things “End of Democracy?” statement on abortion and the Judicial Branch—a statement that had much food for thought, but was irresponsible in the types of actions it suggested. I also found the document misleading in the way that it implies continued unified religious support for the bishop’s resistance to the contraception policy. Reading this document one would have no idea that there are numerous religious bodies/alliances that have expressed gratitude for Obama’s flexibility and concern, including Catholic groups like the Catholic Health Association. I think there will be a justifiable backlash against this document from these religious groups and I think this will only serve to weaken the moral authority of the bishops.
There is much to commend this document, but it is a document that seems to demand obedience and action not just partial appreciation and I can not give that to it. I will respectfully participate in the discussion and I will look for ways to agree with different points, but I do not view this is a moment similar to MLK in a Birmingham jail or Thomas More before King Henry. The bishops heavy handed attempt to imply we are at a point similar to these moments raise troubling questions about the motivations and intentions of some of the documents lay and ordained authors.
Yes, Richard John Neuhaus would love this document and therein lies my appreciation and concern for this document.
I applaud the Greg Metzger's intelligent and prudent statement. There is another factor at play here. Since their collossal failure in the sex abuse scandal and consequent loss of credibility and authority the bishops have been trying desperately to regain some sort of control (witness the peremptory imposition of the liturgical translations). The White House has unwittingly provided a sensational rallying point around which the bishops hope to mobilize conservative Catholics who already harbor an irrational hatred of Obama. If only they had been as passionate against the Iraq War or the use of torture. If the bishops are not partisan they are at least power hungry.
ReplyDeleteI hope you are wrong. I certainly don't view this as an attempt to gain control or as an example of being power hungry. My concern is that they have adopted a particular vision of the culture wars and of the First Amendment and of the contemporary challenges that is not prudent or the fullness of Catholic social doctrine.
DeleteNo doubt, Richard John Neuhaus would agree that no State or Government should engage in the promotion of promiscuity and thus the sexual objectification of the human person by mandating that every Insurance Company must provide free contraception for all.
ReplyDeleteNancy, I recognize that in this blog I was not particularly clear about what I meant by Neuhaus' presence in the document, but having said that I don't think your comment indicates that you have clearly read what the bishops have said. You make it sound like the bishops are presenting this as being about contraceptives. They are explicitly saying that it is about religious freedom NOT contraceptives, and that the HHS policy is just one manifestation of a much larger problem. In defining that problem they use Neuhausian frameworks like "naked public square", "civil public square" and "sacred public square" and they quote from a recent statement by the group that Neuhaus helped to found, Evangelicals and Catholics Together. I also specifically mentioned Neuhaus' "End of Democracy?" statement and the controversy that it elicited due to its intemperate and unclear calls for aggressively challenging the judicial branch/political culture. I fear that the bishops statement reflects that kind of bellicose approach. If the bishops merely wanted to protest what you have described, then Neuhaus would hardly be alone in agreeing with them. They have quite clearly done more than that. In so doing they have reflected a good deal of Neuhaus' wisdom, but some of his weakness as well, IMHO.
DeleteGreg, in regards to the HHS Mandate, I suppose if the promotion of promiscuity and thus the sexual objectification of the human person was a Good thing, then there would be no conflict with our freedom to practice our Religion in private and in the Public Square. One cannot mandate that we condone promiscuity and thus the sexual objectification of the human person without violating the Religious Liberty and the moral conscience of all persons who respect the inherent Dignity of the human person.
ReplyDelete"One cannot mandate that we condone promiscuity and thus the sexual objectification of the human person without violating the Religious Liberty and the moral conscience of all persons who respect the inherent Dignity of the human person." I agree. I have been in agreement from the beginning about the HHS mandate, although I am less convinced than the bishops, and more in line with the Catholic Health Association, about the merits of the president's accommodation, but even if I agreed there are is much more in the bishops' statement than just what you have described.
DeleteThere is much more to the Bishops statement in regards to our Catholic Faith and Religious Liberty because the Bishops realize, based on how President Obama's Administration has defined Religious Liberty and the Ministerial Exception, many members of The Royal Priesthood will be denied their inherent Right to practice their Faith in private, and in public, not to mention that there is nothing in our Catholic Faith that precludes us from being Good citizens, to begin with.
ReplyDeleteNancy, I hate to tell you this, but everyone who uses contraception is not, by definition, engaging in "sexual objectification" and promiscuity.
ReplyDelete