This morning's Washington Post made me choke on my coffee: "Catholic Church Gives D.C. Ultimatum." The Catholic Archdiocese is playing political hardball by threatening to cut off social services to the city's poor--including the homeless, the hungry, the sick, and children--if D.C. expands gay and lesbian civil rights and recognizes same-sex marriage.
That's right. The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Washington is holding poor people hostage in order to keep gay and lesbian persons from getting married. They are willing to trade the indigent for getting their theological way.
I don't like to criticize other people's religious faiths or churches. There's plenty enough to criticize in my own Protestant tradition. In the last year, however, we have witnessed a new authoritarian activism on the part of the Roman Church hierarchy that has an impact well beyond the Catholic Church. This new coercive Catholicism is akin to the development of the Christian Right in evangelical churches in the early 1980s--a religious-political movement that reshaped American culture. This is everybody's business.
In the last year, new Catholic politics emerged in the Prop 8 campaign in California where the church invested vast resources of money and leadership to overturn gay marriage; and then did the same in Maine. Last week, in a political maneuver worthy of Tom DeLay, authoritarian Catholic bishops forced a Democratic Congress to adopt the Stupak Amendment undermining the legal right to choice by threatening to torpedo health reform. Now they threaten the D.C. City Council? Using the lives of poor people as a political tool?
I don't want to be alarmist about this. Nor, in this ecumenical age, do I wish to be seen as a nativist calling for a new anti-Catholic crusade. That would be a terrible misrepresentation of these concerns. Nor do I want to offend Catholic friends and family. But it is profoundly disturbing that the Roman Catholic Church appears to be using threats and fear to manipulate a democratic political process to enforce Catholic doctrine regarding abortion and human sexuality. There seems to be a political pattern developing that should cause broad-minded citizens--Catholics included--to ask some serious questions regarding what is happening within the Catholic hierarchy.
Recently, Congressman Patrick Kennedy did just that. In an argument with his own bishop about health care, Kennedy reminded the Bishop of Rhode Island that American Catholics have a long history of diversity and dissent regarding formal Catholic teaching. Disagreement with the Catholic Church was, Kennedy argued, part of the dynamic of being Catholic in a democratic society. Here's the bishop's answer:
"The fact that I disagree with the hierarchy on some issues does not
make me any less of a Catholic." Well, in fact, Congressman, in a way it does.
Although I wouldn't choose those particular words, when someone rejects the
teachings of the Church, especially on a grave matter, a life-and-death issue
like abortion, it certainly does diminish their ecclesial communion, their
unity with the Church. This principle is based on the Sacred Scripture and
Tradition of the Church and is made more explicit in recent documents.
For example, the "Code of Canon Law" says, "Lay persons are bound by an
obligation and possess the right to acquire a knowledge of Christian doctrine
adapted to their capacity and condition so that they can live in accord with
that doctrine." (Canon 229, #1)
The "Catechism of the Catholic Church" says
this: "Mindful of Christ's words to his apostles, 'He who hears you, hears me,'
the faithful receive with docility the teaching and directives that their
pastors give them in different forms." (#87)
It is worrisome that a Roman Catholic bishop would remind a member of
the Kennedy political family that "docility" is the primary calling of faithful
Catholic laity. What about courage, compassion, and creativity?
Oddly enough, Roman Catholic leaders have adopted a strategy of
authoritarian engagement with the body politic at the very moment at which
their church is declining. One in ten Americans is now an ex-Roman Catholic, with numbers
dwindling, churches closing, a decline in the number of priests and religious,
and with only immigration holding the number of communicants steady. With the
church clearly in crisis, the bishops apparently have chosen to use the sick,
poor, homeless, children, the faithful laity, and marginal as tools to increase
their public power and influence by coercing public policy to fit their
theology. You'd think that they
would be looking inward to see what is eroding Catholic congregations instead
of lobbying Congress and threatening politicians.
This is not what John F. Kennedy would have imagined for his beloved
church when he so courageously broke through the boundaries of anti-Catholic
prejudice to become the nation's first Catholic president. The eternal flame at his grave in
Arlington witnesses to the ancient Catholic vision of universal peace, justice, and love. The new authoritarian Catholicism is not
only playing politics but it is replacing a more generous vision of historic Catholic
faith--the traditional one that sides with the poor, the oppressed, and the outcast--with a vision of political power. For that, I am deeply sad. Coercive religion should have no place
in a church or a pluralistic, democratic nation--much less in City Hall or the
halls of the United States Congress.

Add to Newsvine
Add to StumbleUpon
This “middle ages” mindset of the “First Estates” authority over the “Second Estate” has never worked for the Roman Church post the Renaissance, be it threatening kings and princes in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries or the French and Italian people and politicians in the nineteenth century. If anything this strategy backfires on the church again and again. Leaving the church the loser in regards to its constituents’, property and power. The sin of pride and egotism by the church hierarchy is killing this venerable intuition.
Would Jesus Christ hold the poor hostage like this? I think not.
The Roman Catholic Diocese should be ashamed of themselves. Anyone on here who defends their actions should be ashamed of themselves. You need to repent now of your attitudes, beg God for forgiveness, and start working against this injustice.
"The Roman Catholic Diocese should be ashamed of themselves. Anyone on here who defends their actions should be ashamed of themselves. You need to repent now of your attitudes, beg God for forgiveness, and start working against this injustice."
And how exactly do you know that the Catholic Church is committing an injustice? By what or whose authority do you make this judgement? Is it the larger society which has now decided that something scripture labels sin is now, not just okay, but a positive virtue to be defended with government moneys? And just where does the larger society find its authority?
I am amused by the description box for this blog. It is quite the feat to "stand firmly within" a tradition that shifts with every tectonic movement of society. The biblical prophets called the people back to obedience to the law. Our latter-day prophets call us (authoritatively!) to embrace the prevailing social anomie. Fascinating, but not very convincing, I'm afraid.
And how exactly do you know that the Catholic Church is committing an injustice? By what or whose authority do you make this judgement?
Well, the Bible, for starters. Jesus makes it pretty clear that His priority is the poor and oppressed, not to legislate one narrow sect's sexual morality into civil law. (The early Christians also eschewed temporal and worldly power, seeing that it corrupted. If only the Roman Catholic Church had followed their lead instead of turning to the path of Constantine.)
Is it the larger society which has now decided that something scripture labels sin is now, not just okay, but a positive virtue to be defended with government moneys? And just where does the larger society find its authority?
Please show me exactly where in the Constitution of the United States (which lays out exactly how the United States Government draws its authority from the people) the input of Scripture is sought or given any weight whatsoever. Civil law in a secular society should have absolutely no concern for what one religion's scripture labels sin. And yes, people's right to marry should be defended with government money, just as all other rights should.
It is quite the feat to "stand firmly within" a tradition that shifts with every tectonic movement of society.
It's better to be open to God moving in our society for greater love and acceptance, than to cling obstinately to a "tradition" of bigotry and hatred.
The biblical prophets called the people back to obedience to the law.
The Biblical prophets made it pretty clear that society would be judged by the way it treated its poorest and most needy populations. Given that the Roman Catholic Diocese is holding the poorest and most needy hostage in a political pissing match trying to throw their temporal power around, I have a pretty strong hunch about where the Biblical prophets would side on this one.
Our latter-day prophets call us (authoritatively!) to embrace the prevailing social anomie.
No, our latter-day prophets call us to stand against the consumerism, greed, and selfishness that have gripped American culture as a whole, and to stand against the bigotry, fear, and small-mindedness that have gripped the conservative churches. Our latter-day prophets call us to work for and serve the poor, not to hold them hostage for the sake of a social agenda.
"Civil law in a secular society should have absolutely no concern for what one religion's scripture labels sin. And yes, people's right to marry should be defended with government money, just as all other rights should."
"No, our latter-day prophets call us to stand against the consumerism, greed, and selfishness that have gripped American culture as a whole, and to stand against the bigotry, fear, and small-mindedness that have gripped the conservative churches."
Mr. Gilmore, your own religion appears to assume that consumerism, greed and selfishness are sinful. Given your first statement above, it is unclear that civil law can even address such phenomena. Your religion presumably opposes murder and theft, and yet I assume you would have government act to curb these sins. You'll have to do better than this.
As for the right to marry, everyone has always had an equal right to marry, including those of differing sexual orientations. What they have not had, until recently in some jurisdictions, is the right to redefine whatever relationships they are in as marriage. There is nothing especially bigoted or oppressive in recognizing that marriage has an intrinsic God-given nature that mere human beings are not authorized to tamper with.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.