Recently in Catholics Category

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.

Rev. Donna Schaper is the Senior Pastor at the Judson Memorial Church in New York City.    

William James in his marvelous book, THE VARIETIES OF RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE, speaks of the transition from Catholicism to Protestantism as the transition of the brocaded, artistic, colorful Baroque to one man in a black suit carrying a black book which he places on a plain table in an unornamented meeting house.  His observations are on target.   There is nothing perfect about Protestantism.  Still it has a few values that might make a non-violent approach possible for those of us who spiritually and theologically value the right to choose an abortion.  With Hillary Clinton, many of us think abortion should be safe, legal and rare.  We also think it is a constitutionally guaranteed right.  We also have respect for the constitutional promotion of a brocaded right to the separation of church and state.

When Roman Catholics take up a separate offering to remove abortion from federal funding and send their people home with an experience of the body of Christ - and a postcard to send to their congressional representatives - they violate both the body of Christ and the constitution.  These are not small matters.  Some of us are tempted to do more than growl: our stomachs churn at the deeper issue of one theology dominating another, illegally.  Some of us find ourselves filling up with a kind of hate at injustice, abuse of the constitution, power gone amok.  Some women are wearing T-shirts saying that we are feminists formerly for Obama.  Not me: I see what he is up against. We surely understand the President's dilemma and praise our baroque friends for their protection of immigrants, gays, even women to a point in the new and overall positive health care bill.  We sense ourselves eating different bread but not being part of a different body.

The reason hate is so tempting is that we are in fact so close to our Roman Catholic brothers and sisters.  In the name of all that is good about Jesus and his international body, I spend a good bit of time praying for the hate and anger to subside.  I also pray for the right lawsuit to stop my sisters and brothers from abusing the constitution by handing out post cards and taking up special offerings.   Protestants may be plain but we frown on this sort of imperial moral legislating.  We actually believe in the separation of Church and State and hope no (consenting and believing) Catholic will ever have an abortion.

It is not hateful to call to account. Nor is it hateful to enjoy the right to be different.  While frowning on the temptation to hate a group of unmarried men, namely the bishops, who don't even represent their people, who believe more than not in the right to choose an abortion being protected by the federal government, we who are hurt and we who will be hurt by the lack of funding for abortions have a right to call for strong countervailing action.  A good lawsuit against the postcards would go a long way towards resolving this dilemma.  Then we might go back to living on a fair and even playing field when it comes to politics, theocracies and women's rights.

Aborttion has been part of the healthcare debate from the beginning.  The effort was supposed to be that the healthcare bill would be "abortion neutral" meaning it neither expanded the opportunities for abortion, nor restricted them.  Now it seems that no longer suffices for the US Catholic Bishops who want to impose their view on abortion on all of American citizens and make this an anti-abortion health Care bill.  Sara Posner at Relgion Dispatches explains the current fight over abortion in the health care bill:

As the House of Representatives health care reform bill edges closer to a vote, anti-choice Democrats continue their threats to hijack the bill over abortion funding. These members, and their supporters, are the very constituency Democrats have been urged to placate on abortion-related issues. That strategy, misguided to begin with, seems even more so as the "pro-life" Democrats are trying to bring down their own party's signature legislative initiative.

As part of Democrats' re-tooling in the post-"values voters" election of 2004, they tried to be more "friendly" to religion. A big part of that strategy included making anti-choice Democrats feel more "welcome" in the party by being less doctrinaire on choice, and acknowledging the claimed heartfelt religious belief at the core of these Democrats' position.

But now some of these Democrats, who claim to be pro-life, are playing politics with health care reform, aligning themselves more closely with the anti-choice hard right and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) than their own party. They insist that efforts to ensure that no public funds will be used to cover abortion services are insufficient. This game-playing is not about public funding of abortion, already outlawed in the Hyde Amendment (which bars federal funding from being used to pay for abortions for low-income women under Medicaid and other programs). Indeed, the House bill already incorporates Hyde through its own amendment authored by pro-choice California Democrat, Rep. Lois Capps.

Instead, these Democrats, led by Rep. Bart Stupak of Michigan, are pushing for an amendment to restrict womens' access to abortion. And that's not theology, it's politics.

Even so, says Cecile Richards, president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, those attempting to torpedo health care reform over the abortion issue do not represent mainstream religious views. "Pro-choice religious groups and leaders are very mainstream. They are supporting health care reform in the broadest framework," she said in an interview with RD.

While the USCCB has taken a hard line on opposing health care reform (which it claims to support) if abortion isn't sufficiently restricted, it does not represent the views of most Catholics. A recent poll commissioned by Catholics for Choice found that 68% of Catholics disapproved of the Bishops' opposition to health care reform that includes abortion coverage; 56% believed the Bishops shouldn't even be taking a position on the health care reform legislation. The views of the country's 65 million Catholics, said Jon O'Brien, the group's president, "are not represented by 350 members of the USCCB."

Other pro-choice religious leaders are similarly dismayed. Rev. Debra Haffner, president of the Religious Institute on Sexual Morality, Justice, and Healing, reacting to efforts to restrict abortion coverage in health care reform, wrote on her blog, "It is profoundly unjust when the private moral choices of women... are subject to majority vote and political trading. There can be no common ground when votes are allowed to strip people of their existing rights."

Planned Parenthood, said Richards, wants the Hyde Amendment repealed because low-income women should have equal access to abortion services. But, she added, "we're not taking the position that health care reform is the place to relitigate that issue... unfortunately a handful of people would rather bring down health care reform in its entirety than provide the coverage women already have."

Read the entire article on abortion and health care over at Religion Dispatches:

John Gehring is the Media Director and Senior Writer for Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good

As an urbanite fortunate to live within walking distance of work and trendy restaurants, I rarely drive these days. But running late to a pickup basketball game recently, I was low on gas and quickly pulled into the first station on the road. It wasn't until my tank was nearly full that I looked up and saw a glowing CHEVRON sign. My stomach sank. Last Friday, I attended the premier of "Crude," a powerful documentary that chronicles the 16-year lawsuit waged against the oil company on behalf of nearly 30,000 indigenous people living in the rainforests of Ecuador.

The lawsuit alleges that Texaco (bought by Chevron in 2001) dumped more than 18 billion gallons of toxic waste into the Amazon from 1964 to 1990. Plaintiffs for the indigenous tribes believe the ecological disaster poisoned an area the size of Rhode Island and is at least 30 times larger than the Exxon Valdez spill in Alaska. The once pristine waters that nourished generations of indigenous communities now run black with oil. Infants are born with birth defects, cancer is ravaging villages, and a way of life dating back 500 years has been destroyed. Chevron executives deny responsibility and have used deep pockets to drag out the case. The company, based in San Ramon, Calif., recently reported profits of $3.8 billion and has no shortage of savvy PR consultants or expensive legal minds at their disposal. The non-profit Amazon Watch is leading a coalition of international groups demanding accountability from the oil giant. Rep. James McGovern of Massachusetts, who attended the premier in Washington, DC, visited the affected areas of Ecuador last year and in a letter to President Obama described what he saw as a "terrible humanitarian and environmental crisis" that as an American left him "angry and ashamed." 

The film raises haunting questions for those of us privileged to live in comfort while others suffer from the greed of U.S. corporations. How do we reconcile our call as Christians to live simply and seek justice for the most vulnerable amid a culture of excessive consumerism? How do we avoid becoming indifferent to human rights abuses far from our daily experiences? "Crude" shakes us out of the cocoon of complacency. It forces us to consider how personal choices relate to systemic injustices.

I grew up steeped in the intricate vocabulary of sin. In classes that should have been called Catholic Guilt 101, I learned about mortal sins, venal sins, sins of omission and sins of commission from the good sisters at Immaculate Conception Elementary School. It was also a sin, I was sorry to hear, not to confess all my sins during confession. I suspect most of us still think about sin as personal slights and wrongdoing against another individual. Christian conservatives are particularly fond of railing against sexual sins and could barely contain themselves when Bill Clinton got into trouble in the Oval Office. But we hear much less indignation about "social sins" that include environmental exploitation or the humanitarian impact of war. Consider the potential for progress on some of our most urgent moral challenges if we could channel some of the anger fanning the flames of our ubiquitous "culture wars" into campaigns against global poverty, preventable diseases and ecological disasters.    

While some elected officials like Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma still deny the reality of global climate change and lobbyists for Big Oil engage in what amounts to legalized bribery on Capitol Hill, I'm proud that Christians are on the front lines of a growing movement for environmental justice and corporate accountability. Sister Patricia Daly and her fellow Dominican sisters of Caldwell, N.J. challenge companies like Exxon Mobile, Dow and General Electric at shareholder meetings. The Catholic sisters are part of the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility, an association of 275 faith-based institutional investors that press companies to be socially and environmentally responsible. Each year religious institutional investors sponsor over 200 shareholder resolutions. Pope Benedict XIV has been dubbed the Green Pope for his resolute commitment to environmental justice. The Vatican even became the first "carbon neutral" state in the world. The pope's latest encyclical addressed the need for sustainable development, and the responsibility wealthy nations have to help developing countries escape the deadly traps of debt and poverty. Last spring, the Catholic Coalition Against Climate Change launched A Catholic Climate Covenant: the St. Francis Pledge to Care for Creation and the Poor. As Christians, we recognize that ending the poisoning of our planet is a pro-life issue central to defending human dignity.

Colonialism, in the official sense, is the shameful legacy of a bygone era. But multinational corporations that plunder and exploit the rainforests of South America or the mines of Africa continue this brutal cycle with tragic consequences. If those of us who know the truth fail to speak out, we stand complicit in our silence.