Growing Up Catholic in America

There is an interesting new poll from the Pew Research Center that explores the beliefs of various Christians and adherents of other faiths. A couple of findings regarding Catholics are quite revealing. It seems that 79% of Catholics believe that many religions can lead to eternal life. Only 16% of Catholics see their Church as the one true Church. As many as 77% of Catholics believe that there is more than one way to interpret the teachings of their religion. So much for "extra ecclesia nulla salus".

American Catholics may view the world differently than Catholics in countries where Catholicism is the dominant religion. My own history might be helpful in this regard. I grew up in West Virginia which was 5% Catholic. Specifically, the town of Dunbar, West Virginia where I was raised was exactly 2% Catholic. I didn't know many Catholics. All of my close friends were non-Catholic. They accepted me and I them. The notion that the entire town I lived in was going to hell was a difficult notion to accept. When you live with people day in and day out you learn an amazing thing. They are no better or worse than you are. Living in such an environment unequivically demonstrates that the Catholic Church does not have a monopoly on goodness or truth. Will the growing Hispanic community currently entering the American Church alter how Catholics in this country view others? Perhaps the fact that significant numbers of Hispanics both here and in South America have embraced Evangelical Christianity might offer a clue.

One of the strengths of our culture in this country is that we have learned that people are far more alike than different. Any Church that tries to create an exclusive community or suggests that their brand of Christianity or Religion is somehow special or that others ought to be condemned for what they believe fly in the face of shared experience. A future blog entry will address more fully the increasingly prominent topic of Catholic identity.

Imus Explains

I want to take a moment to comment on Don Imus' latest dust-up, because surprisingly I find myself believing his explanation. Hearing his comments for the first time was pretty shocking in light of his earlier statements that resulted in the loss of his job. Asking what color someone is and then saying his skin color explains the situation is pretty disturbing.

Rereading the comments provides at least an alternative explanation. Imus was making light of the kinds of things that happen in bars, and was saying that we shouldn't be surprised that shootings happen there. When he was told that "PacMan" had been arrested six times, his response could be construed as saying that he was probably only arrested so many times because he is black.

I'm not a Don Imus fan, and never liked his show when it was on MSNBC. I do think in this case there is enough room for doubt as to his intentions, that he will probably continue with his radio show until his next gaffe - which will probably happen soon.

Public Financing

After my previous theological treatise it seemed like a good time to return to politics. Barack Obama's decision to forego public financing should certainly come as no surprise to anyone who follows politics. To be hamstrung by public financing when he has one of the greatest fund raising operations in history would make no sense. He would be doing a disservice to his supporters and the party if he did not take advantage of every opportunity to be successful in the campaign. It might have been nice if he had simply said circumstances change, and it no longer makes sense for me to stick with my original plan to accept public financing; but it is clear that if he is a serious candidate and intends to win he has no other reasonable option.

However, it does not take a genius to figure out that there is something wrong with the way we finance political campaigns, especially presidential campaigns. The money spent on the primary campaigns this year is simply astronomical. It cannot be a good thing. I know that the Republicans have taken a strong stand on campaign financing as a freedom of speech issue. I am not a legal scholar so I cannot argue this point. But clearly something must be done. Considering money being spent on wars, natural disasters, health care, filling one's gas tank, etc. etc., the idea that millioms and millions of dollars should be collected and spent to elect a candidate is just wrong. Beyond the presidential campaigns one could take a look at the senatorial, congressional, and gubernatorial races; which makes one wonder just how much of our gross national product is about politics.

I do believe that public financing is an important part of the answer. I would go back to the old days of providing equal time for all serious candidates in media coverage. Also, I believe networks and TV stations should be required to provide a certain amount of free time to candidates as a public service. The campaign also needs to be limited to a much shorter period of time, as in Great Britain. If any of these ideas are unconstitutional then maybe we need an amendment to the constitution.

Church Teaching versus the Legislative Process

I want to continue my series of entries on the use of authority in the Church and what might be an appropriate relationship for the Church in the political sphere. A few members of the clergy and the heirarchy are choosing to deny communion to Catholic politicians who dissent from certain Catholic teachings. Chief among these teachings tends to be that of abortion. The problem however, is that I know of no Catholic politician who has in any public way dissented from the Church's teachings on abortion. The Church teaches that abortion is always wrong, even when done to save the life of the Mother. I have heard no Catholic politician disagree with that position.

I understand that abortion is a hot topic in the Church today and there is an aggressive movement pushing for a strong right to life stance. That is understandable and even laudable, but it does not excuse confusing, sometimes deliberately, Church teaching from public policy or legislation. Some will say that abortion is so serious an issue that drastic measures are needed. Yet another seemingly forgotten teaching of the Church is that the end does not justify the means. The Church has chosen on this issue to blur the very distinctions that have been the hallmark of its scholastic heritage. Perhaps that is because there has been a movement away from intellectual pursuits in the Church, but that is a topic for another day.

Let me give an example of what I mean. The presumed position of Church leaders would be a push for the overturning by the United States Supreme Court of the Roe vs. Wade decision. Yet, if that were to occur it would mean that each state could then decide for itself issues related to abortion. Some would undoubtedly ban abortion and many others would continue to keep it legal. To insist that a Catholic politician endorse such a position would prevent this individual from making any kind of personal legislative judgements, plus he would be forced to advocate for a position that does not represent what Catholics believe. That is, unless Catholics believe that it is O.K. for New York to countenance abortion rights as long as Georgia institutes a ban on it. It is the role of the politician, not the Church or Church leaders to develop specific pieces of legislation. No legislation is likely to conform exactly to the doctrinal positions of the Roman Catholic Church. It is one thing for the Church to define its position on a particular issue, it is another to craft legislation and then insist that this specific legislation must be supported by all Catholics or the Eucharist might be denied them.

A politician, even a Catholic politician, enters the political arena to try to make life better for people based on his understanding of the political system, the art of the possible, and what he believes is in the interest of all his constituents. In this country that task involves a critical sensitivity to the multi-cultural society in which we live. His work is of course informed by his Catholic faith, but the notion that his parish priest is going to be looking over his shoulder, to make sure he toes the line as defined by the Church on each issue is insulting to his intelligence. John Kennedy told us in 1960 that he would not be taking orders from the Vatican.

Religion in the Political Sphere

Continuing our discussion from my previous blog entry I want to take a look at the legitimate role of religion in politics. For religious organizations to enter the world of politics they need to understand the ground rules. The Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and American History would be good places to start. Americans are very independent minded. Their government operates according to the consent of the governed. The notion that a religious leader can impose his or her will or point of view in a democracy is not only wrong, it is offensive.

That is not to say that religious groups cannot express their point of view in the public discourse. They must recognize, however, that their voice is only one of many voices that will be heard. Also, in a pluralistic society we have many religions with widely different positions. In our country the Roman Catholic Church is not the only game in town. Their conviction as to the rightness of their position, even resorting to their own narrow view of natural law does not decide an issue in a democracy. The more insistent the Church may be that no one can morally, or even naturally find a different position defensible only makes many people less likely to acquiesce to such a viewpoint. This is especially true, since amazing as it may be, many people of good will do indeed hold and defend positions that are at variance with that of the Church.

Issues in this country are decided and often redecided not by fiat but by the strength and persuasiveness of one's arguments. The Church in general is not used to participating on these terms, but it cannot be a legitimate player if it chooses not to. Disciplining politicians who hold the Catholic faith, as discussed in my previous blog entry regarding the withholding of the Eucharist, may seem like an easy way to exercise control and foist its positions on its members, but that is not the way it is done here. The Church can only legitimately participate in the political realm on the same terms as every other indeividual or group. That's why we say that all men are created equal. That statement includes women, organizations, and yes, Churches.

For those who may say that denying Communion is not a political issue, but a religious issue based on Catholic teaching, I say stay tuned for my next blog entry.

The Eucharist, Politics, and Authority

In the early 1950's one of the first things I learned about receiving communion was not to judge anyone else's worthiness to receive the sacrament. Being a priest or bishop does not make one better able to discern the worthiness of another. Another early lesson from Catholicism was that we couldn't even be sure if Judas was in hell because he may have turned to God while he was committing suicide. Being non judgemental is something all of us owe to our brothers and sisters in the faith.

Denying communion to politicians only illustrates the mean spiritedness of the cleric who does so. It is also an abuse of authority. In this country respect is not given based on one's position. Leaders must earn respect based on appropriate behavior.

I commend to you the article distributed by Religion News Service (which came to my attention in the Baltimore Sun). It was written by theologians from Holy Cross and Boston College, and is titled "Don't Play Politics with Communion". The salient point is the need and obligation to challenge clerics who make the mistake of denying communion to a member of the faithful. I repeat my contention in an earlier blog entry that as long as we remain silent we allow Church leaders to believe they have unfettered authority to say and do anything they choose. Unfortunately, too many of them seem disposed to do just that. Remember, these are the same leaders who ignored and deceived throughout the sex abuse scandal. These leaders deserve to be followed when they act as true representatives of Christ, they deserve to be challenged when they do not.

Lest one might question why the denial of communion is not a legitimate exercise of authority I will discuss that in a future blog entry. Suffice it to say here that the document on religious liberty from Vatican II requires that each individual, including Catholics, follow the dictates of his or her own conscience. One must tread very lightly in denying communion based on assumptions about the status of that person's conscience.

How to Concede an Election

What did Hillary do on Tuesday night? Fortunately, she has an army of pundits to tell her what she should have done, but what did she actually do?

First of all, she won the South Dakota Primary by 10 points. Secondly, she knew, as Bill Clinton made clear earlier in the day, that this was the last day she would be campaigning for the presidency of the United States. This was the last opportunity she would have as an active candidate to speak to her supporters and offer congratulations to all those who had been part of the campaign for what they had accomplished together. This was her last opportunity to tell all of her supporters to go to Hillary Clinton.com

She took the opportunity to point out the history that was made by the Clinton Campaign, since clearly the media was not interested in acknowledging her achievements. There were plenty of people prepared to acknowledge the legitimate history making achievements of the Obama campaign. I myself have acknowledged these achievements in an earlier blog entry - "Vice President". She did not dwell on what she could have dwelt on - that there might be a weakness in the Obama campaign since he has lost to her in the majority of the primaries that have been held since Ohio. That seems especially pertinent since he lost this primary on the very night that every one knew he would gain the nomination for the presidency. She did say that she would work hard to ensure that the Democratic nominee for president be elected in the fall.

Finally, and most importantly, she spoke about an hour before Barack Obama spoke. She briefly savored her South Dakota victory, and touted her many accomplishments for herself, women and others in this historic campaign. Then she got off the stage and left the spotlight to Barack Obama and his victory. Yet the media begrudges her even this brief moment of satisfaction. I would feel a lot better if the main stream media simply came out and said we want Obama elected president and we will do everything possible to ensure that that happens. It wouldn't make it fair and balanced, but at least it would make it honest. It will be interesting to see how they handle the fall campaign when their choice will be in conflict with another media favorite - John McCain.

Exercising Authority in the Church

Surprisingly, I find myself once again tending to agree with the Vatican. It is difficult to criticize the Vatican's recent general decree to automatically excommunicate anyone ordaining a woman to the priesthood as well as excommunicating the woman being ordained. I have read a number of the comments in the "National Catholic Reporter" about this being an abuse of authority and questioning why such an act is considered a greater offense than the sexual abuse of children by priests. For me though, the institutional position of the Church is and has been clear, and if they cannot sanction such a clear violation of their stated norms then just what would be considered a legitimate exercise of authority by the institutional church? Given current teaching and laws of the institutional church its hard to argue that this general decree does not make sense. I could point to many examples of abuse of authority within the Church, but I don't believe this is one of them.

The real question is, what will it take to get this institution moving again? The Church shut down for four hundred years after the Council of Trent. John XXIII opened the windows ever so briefly, and John Paul II closed them again. They have forgotten the mantra of "ecclesia semper reformanda". Without going into a long list of changes that grew out of Vatican II, it is hard to argue that the Church is not a better institution because of this council. I believe this reflects the value of openness, dialogue, and the ferment of thought and discussion, even if one might argue that at times this ferment needs to be temporarily curtailed or controlled. There is no growth or development without it. Just think what is lost by silencing theologians and shutting down debate.

We need serious and unbiased studies on women in the Church and celibacy in the priesthood. We need model programs in selected countries of ordaining married priests and returning some married priests to active ministry. We need an introduction of women deacons into some communities. Basically, we need to begin to see some forward movement, however limited. How do we get there? The Church must be challenged by all those who believe that it can be more than what it is right now. When we acquiesce to business as usual we enable the heirarchy to continue in the fantasy that all is well. Even the sex abuse crisis has not altered their conviction that their good old boy network can survive unchanged forever. Can it??

Vice President

Within forty eight hours Senator Barrack Obama will be the nominee of the Democratic Party for the Office of President of the United States. Congratulations to Senator Obama. What an accomplishment. What an historical event. You clearly deserved to win. You ran a long, difficult, well managed campaign that brought you to a terrific victory.

However, lest anyone believe that the road to the presidency at this point is an easy one, think again. Although your campaign doesn't talk about it, you had a terrific February, but the last couple of months have not been so impressive. John McCain is a solid alternative, and many who have any kind of a question at all about your candidacy will feel comfortable going with McCain. To win this campaign everything is going to have to be firing on all cylinders. There needs to be not merely a pretense of party unity, but the real thing.

There is no reason to believe that a single person who plans to vote for Senator Obama would decide not to if Senator Clinton were on the ticket. Her addition to the ticket, however, would immediately bring about genuine party unity. She can bring the support of blue collar workers, Hispanics, senior citizens, swing states like Pennsylvania and Ohio, and most importantly, women. These are all constituencies that will be needed in November. As recently as this morning I heard one pundit say that Senator Obama can not win the presidency without them. There really is no political downside for her to be on the ticket. If she doesn't want the job, then the Senator should use his negotiating skills to convince her, because her support will be needed. It will not be enough for her to stand on the stage briefly with hands joined and raised in the air. I would only add that if there is concern about the two being able to work together, then how will the Senator be able to negotiate with Iran, Syria, Russia and China?

By the way, although no longer really relevant, I am wondering why so many pundits are having troble accepting the fact that the Clinton campaign counts Michigan in the popular vote. Did they not watch the procedings on Saturday? The Democratic party chose to seat the entire Michigan delegation and awarded delegates that were in some way based on the Michigan primary. The party has validated the counting of the votes. Why is it wrong to count the votes of people who went to the polls and voted for Hillary Clinton, but it is somehow O.K. to make a decision that everyone who went into the polls and voted not for Senator Obama, but for undecided, should have their votes given to the Senator???