April 2008 Archives

Steve Waldman and Deal Hudson are having a debate about why Clinton is winning the Catholic vote and Obama is not--an interesting development given that the two candidates share most social justice views that might appeal to Catholics, as well as being pro-choice and pro-gay rights and such.

Steve argues that "in the Democratic primaries, the Catholic vote has nothing to do with Catholicism," while Deal argues that Clinton has already branded herself positively in the eyes of Catholic voters, while Obama has not been able to translate "his social justice package into a family issue, as the Clintons have done so successfully"--and may never do so.

I'd have to side with Steve on this one, yet I'd take it a step further: Catholicism doesn't "matter" to Catholic voters in the general election either. This is not to say that Catholicism doesn't matter to Catholics. It's just that it has little connection to politics, a "great divorce" that has been happening for decades, almost since the apex of Catholic solidarity in the 1960 Kennedy campaign. According to surveys (the Pew surveys being the best source), Catholics consistently say that their faith informs their political choices and views to a lesser degree than it does with any other believers. Depending on how the question is posed, the number of Catholics who say religion is important to their political decisions ranges from 12 percent to 26 percent--the latter figure from a 2004 Pew survey. The next lowest figure was for Mainline Protestants, at 32 percent, and then Jews, at 33 percent. Evangelicals and Black Protestants (hence the import of the Obama-Wright story) clocked in at nearly 6 in 10 saying religion informed their political thinking.

Why is this so for Catholics? It's not necessarily because Catholics have been trending Republican, although they have become the archetypal 'swing" vote in recent cycles, one that, like the Holy Spirit, will blow where it will, with unpredictable results. The real reason, I think, is that Catholic voters are political orphans because neither party represents Catholic teachings or Catholic culture or Catholic interests to any consistent degree. Despite the claims of some that the bishops promote a single-issue agenda (that'd be abortion, for those who have been asleep at the switch), the hierarchy's guide on informing Catholic voters (titled "Faithful Citizenship") is in fact--if you are a partisan looking for support--the worst voter guide ever written. (Or the safest, in terms of IRS statutes.) The Christian Coalition would have it mulched.

Even the bishops note that the guide's explanation of Catholic political concerns makes it extremely difficult for a voter to know how to choose. Yes, Catholic voters have much more permissive views than the hierarchy of civil unions for gays and abortion rights and the like. But while abortion is a predominant concern for the bishops, the political reality is that most Catholics feel that even the GOP's "culture of life" sloganeering (a rip-off from John Paul who, were he alive, should consider a plagiarism lawsuit) is empty rhetoric.

So Catholic voters just don't have a political affiliation that matches up well with their church's teachings (though partisans on both sides will dispute that) and in the end they go to the dance with the candidate who makes them the sweetest-sounding promises.

Rudy is at it again. Anyone watching the papal mass at St. Patrick's Cathedral on April 19 must have been surprised to see Giuliani--twice-divorced (once annulled), thrice-married, pro-gay rights, pro-abortion rights--take communion. Rudy hadn't done this before, in my experience--neither at the Central Park Mass in 1995 with John Paul, nor at O'Connor's funeral in 2000. So to take communion in the cathedral at a mass celebrated by the pope was, well, Rudy being Rudy.

Now Cardinal Egan has reacted, with a very measured but direct statement released today:

April 28, 2008

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: April 28, 2008

The following is a statement issued by Edward Cardinal Egan:

“The Catholic Church clearly teaches that abortion is a grave offense against the will of God. Throughout my years as Archbishop of New York, I have repeated this teaching in sermons, articles, addresses, and interviews without hesitation or compromise of any kind. Thus it was that I had an understanding with Mr. Rudolph Giuliani, when I became Archbishop of New York and he was serving as Mayor of New York, that he was not to receive the Eucharist because of his well-known support of abortion. I deeply regret that Mr. Giuliani received the Eucharist during the Papal visit here in New York, and I will be seeking a meeting with him to insist that he abide by our understanding.”

For all of Egan's bad press, he was never one to pick a public fight with public figures. Indeed, he often said he counted people like Giuliani and Hillary Clinton as "friends," an embrace that angered many in the church. But Rudy left him no choice here. He apparently abrogated a very judicious and pastoral private agreement with his bishop, and did so in front of Egan's boss and under the full glare of the media klieg lights.

What was Rudy thinking? Here's all we know, from his spokesperson:

STATEMENT FROM GIULIANI SPOKESWOMAN SUNNY MINDEL ON EDWARD CARDINAL EGAN.

"Mayor Rudy Giuliani is certainly willing to meet with Cardinal Egan. As he has previously said, Mayor's Giuliani's faith is a deeply personal matter and should remain confidential."

"Deeply personal?" Not when you score a coveted invite to St. Patrick's with the pope, and take communion. Then again, it is certainly true that Giuliani might have gone to confession beforehand. He has said that his spiritual confidante is a longtime friend, Alan Placa, a Long Island priest who has been suspended on allegations that he molested children. Giuliani gave Placa a job at his consulting firm.

I don't think this signals any major change of approach by Egan or other bishops in the wake of the pope's visit. Egan, like most bishops, has always played these things quietly, in confidence, and on a case-by-case basis. But you never know. This was a real in-your-face move by Giuliani, in front of the pope.

What is interesting, I think, is that Egan made no mention of Giuliani's apparently irregular marital status as a cause for refraining from communion. Is that because Giuliani has regularized his status? Or perhaps Egan did not want to draw attention to a huge pastoral challenge for the church--namely, the communion ban for divorced and remarried (without benefit of annulment) Catholics, of whom there are so many--and so many of them faithful in every other way. It's a pastoral headache priests, and bishops, generally like to avoid.

The Rev. Jeremiah Wright is back in the news, delivering some fiery (the indispensible adjective with the Rev. Wright) rhetoric yesterday at the close of a meeting of the NAACP's Detroit branch. Wright's unrepentant talk and prophetic style are likely to make you smile if you are a black Christian or Hillary Clinton, and if they make you wince then you may well be Barack Obama or...Roman Catholic.

Yes, many have traced Obama's difficulties in attracting blue-collar Catholic "Reagan Democrats" to his lack of working-class elan (that silver-spoon-fed Hillary can out-maneuver a community organizer from urban Chicago is a tribute to her political machine) or, more disturbingly, his race. The Pew Forum's resident politics-and-religion mandarin, John Green, explores Obama's uphill battle with white Catholics in this Q&A, noting that Obama lost the Catholic vote by more than 2-1 on Pennsylvania, and Indiana next week could be more of the same.

A couple points to make: One is that Obama is having trouble attracting all regular church-goers, which is odd given that he is the only regular church-goer among the three remaining candidates, a man who remains loyal to his congregation (where Wright was pastor until recently) and his denomination, the largely white UCC. But Green also turns the question around, asking whether Clinton has an "African-American problem" or an "unaffiliated problem"--two groups she'll need to win the nomination, and the general election.

In that vein I would also ask whether the Catholic Church has an "African-American problem." In other words, is part of the problem for Catholic voters that the Catholic Church is on the white side of the racial-religious divide--which Wright noted last night, an indisputable point--that marks American Christianity? There are just 2.5 million black Catholics out of more than 65 million American Catholics, and many of those are Caribbean or African immigrants with little in common with the Southern, Protestant, and slave-era heritage African-Americans of Wright's congregation. Indeed, one reason there are so few black Catholics is that the American hierarchy, fearing a schism like those that afflicted other churches during the Civil War, did not speak out with one voice against slavery.

Black Catholics are a remarkable community, and one that could and should inspire the rest of the American church. Yet they are often overlooked in the focus on our enormous Latino growth, and they are often alienated by the shift back toward a more strait-laced, Old World liturgy. It is a shame that Pope Benedict could not have attended a black Catholic liturgy during his visit--now that is the holy rolling Spirit. Among other things, Hurricane Katrina also inflicted a devastating wound on the black Catholic community concentrated in New Orleans, an issue I explored, along with the history of black Catholics in the U.S., in this 2006 Wall Street Journal column.

In short, American Catholics find black Christian rhetoric completely "foreign" for all sorts of cultural and demographic reasons. They never hear this kind of preaching, and one wonders whether they should listen more closely; they might hear some familiar notes. Such as the insistence on communal spirituality and solidarity, one of the principal themes of Benedict's own homilies this month. Or the focus on social justice--a tradition and teaching that has been so crucial to lifting up our own Catholic forebears. Or the powerful laments--jeremiads one might say--that characterize the preaching of our own Catholic leadership, albeit it in a different key.

For a good context, read Father John Kavanaugh's insightful (and powerful) column on the two Jeremiahs (biblical and contemporary) in the April 14 edition of America:

The problem with much preaching in Christian churches is that we apply the prophetic indignation easily to our enemies, but rarely to ourselves, our church, our nation. But if we think Jeremiah and Jesus are not addressing us, we have nothing to learn from either—at our peril. Was the Reverend Wright speaking in this tradition when he gave his infamous talk after the evils of 9/11? I think so. His sermon was a commentary on revenge and the violence that returns to those who do violence, especially against the innocent. Wright recounted our national history of killing children, from the Sioux to the Japanese. All just causes, one might sincerely think. But all horrific. And this is where the preacher talked about the “chickens coming home to roost.” As Wright continued, he pointed out that violence and hatred beget violence and hatred. And then the preacher turned to something that possibly no one is aware of from the YouTube clips. Having been in New Jersey on that September day of “unthinkable acts,” Jeremiah Wright was drawn to examine his own relationship to God, his lack of prayer, his honesty. “Is it real or is it fake? Is it forever or is it for show?”

One needn't agree with Wright, or like him, or his words, or his tone. But every Catholic could ask themselves why it is that so few African-Americans find a lasting spiritual home in our church. Pope Benedict urged the American bishops to continue the church's educational mission to urban areas, where Catholic schools have been a lifeline to many black children. Yet those schools, like all Catholic schools, labor under severe financial strains. Even so, many African-Americans graduate from Catholic schools, and appreciate their education. But they don't become Catholic. Why?

None of these questions will be answered in time to help Barack Obama, I suspect. But perhaps if he is the nominee, and if he wins the general election, Obama could build a bridge to the Catholic community based on the principles they already share. And perhaps Catholics could walk across it.

Two final suggestions for those who want to explore the issue more deeply: Check out this post (and subsequent vigorous discussion) at dotCommonweal by Cathleen Kaveny, a professor of law and theology at Notre Dame, and a member of Obama's National Catholic Advisory Council. Also check out this Bill Moyers interview with Wright, the pastor's first since the brouhaha erupted.

Great headline on a Catholic World News report citing a German study linking religiosity and the number of children:

"Women of faith found more fertile"

Think of all the money you could save on IVF, huh? Well, actually, CWNews is right that the study is a no-brainer: religious observance does correlate to larger families. But I'm not sure it proves prayer is the secret to fertility.

Can't get enough of Benedict? Or was il papa not your taste? You might try this curiosity--a pope made out of pizza dough. Prudence Emma Staite is a British (did I have to add that?) experimental food artist (don't ask me) who recently exhibited various Roman icons made out of pizza crust. As the Daily Mail explains, she used a third of a ton of dough to make Benedict XVI (or something pope-like) as well as the Coliseum and the Spanish Steps. Apparently, Prudence has also created many chocolate paintings and sculptures along with edible life-size rooms and jewelry.