David Gibson: November 2008 Archives

Not the Dream Team some Catholics envisoned, but the President-elect dialed the Pope personally to thank him for the congratulatory telegram. According to CNS:

The Vatican spokesman, Jesuit Father Federico Lombardi, confirmed to Catholic News Service Nov. 12 that the president-elect telephoned the pope Nov. 11 "to thank the pope for his telegram, his congratulations" on winning the U.S. presidential election.

Further details about the call were not known, Father Lombardi said.

Pope Benedict sent his congratulations Nov. 5, referring to the "historic occasion" of the election, marking the first time a black man has been elected president of the United States.

Father Lombardi said Nov. 5 the pope prayed that "the blessing of God would sustain him (Obama) and the American people so that with all people of good will they could build a world of peace, solidarity and justice."

The press office for Obama's presidential transition team said all conversations with world leaders are private and no details would be released on this conversation or any conversation with world leaders.

A positive sign on both sides, and perhaps a nudge to the bishops meeting in Washington, who are trying to strike the right tone in their challenge/welcome to the new Democratic administration.

Then again, maybe they should be worried that Obama is campaigning for higher office. After all, Archbishop Wilton Gregory of Atlanta suggested that Obama's election is a foretaste of what could happen in a conclave one day...Pope Barack I anyone?

If and when the bishops do start talking about a new political strategy, they may want to keep in mind the remarkable victory of Tom ("Common Good Catholic") Perriello over Virgil (Good ol' Boy) Goode in Virginia's fifth CD. Wish I could claim the WWF monikers as my invention, but they're Mark Silk's. Mark notes some of Virgil Goode's major corkers, on Muslims and Mexicans, e.g., but at Slate, Dahlia Lithwick has the full monty--and she's over the moon. Who wouldn't be, given Perriello's remarkable practice-what-you-preach Catholicism?

"A graduate of Yale College and Yale Law School, Perriello worked to end atrocities in Liberia as well as with child soldiers, amputees, and local pro-democracy groups in Sierra Leone. He became special adviser for the international prosecutor during the showdown that forced Liberian dictator Charles Taylor from power. His work as a security analyst has taken him to Afghanistan and Darfur. Perriello has also been a part of a groundswell of young progressives whose religious faith motivates them to seek social change through public service. One of the most startling aspects of his 2008 campaign was his pledge to tithe 10 percent of his campaign volunteers' time to local charities. Time they could have spent stuffing mailers and phone-banking went to building houses for the poor."

Yes, but...he favors efforts to reduce abortion rather than criminalizing it, and he is a co-founder of Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good. So that has made him an enemy of the Church, according to several bishops and conservative Catholic groups. Virginia seems to have produced a few interesting Catholic pols, like Tim Kaine. Could this be the future of Catholic politics?

...At least officially. Dan Burke at Religion News Service has the scoop, that the USCCB has decided to remove from the agenda a discussion about Catholics and politics. They put the item on the agenda in September, and even this week archbishops Chaput of Denver and Myers of Newark (and likely others) were saying the debate was very much needed, as this RNS report shows.

"I think this is something that has evolved since September," Sister Mary Ann Walsh, the USCCB spokesperson, told RNS. "Many bishops have already addressed the issue (of pro-abortion rights politicians) through pastoral letters, so there's not the same need they saw in September."

I don't know the other rationales at work, but the decision is probably a good one. Firstly, they can, and most certainly will, have unofficial discussions and sound each other out, which is what they need to do. An "official" discussion could have led to lots of speechifying and no conclusions, or revealed even more disagreements. The election is over, they can afford to think this through, talk it out. As the thread below on Catholics and politics indicates, the church is not of one mind, or may not even know its mind. (Or is out of its mind?!) Secondly, they may want to see what the Obama administration does, what their approach is, what their relationship might be, before issuing declarations.

Point of discussion: I think in all of this, there are three discrete issues that are often conflated but shouldn't be. One is a response to Catholic pols (or others, I suppose) who start explaining theology on national TV. That would be Biden and Pelosi, now 2 and 3 respectively in the national power structure. Their theologizing really upset many bishops. But correcting them on theology is one thing. A separate issue is whether Catholic politicians should be barred from communion for certain positions, or if and when "ordinary" Catholics should be barred. The final issue concerns their approach to influencing policies and politics. These are interconnected issues but involve different areas and (may) require different answers.

Judging by the headlines this campaign, you might have thought the shepherds were headed one way and the flock in another direction. That's not quite the case, as reports of 50 or 60 or even 100 bishops promoting a "McCain-or-be-damned" approach to abortion and the civil sacrament of voting don't hold up under scrutiny. Still, there's no doubt many more bishops than usual want a more forceful approach to political activity, and that will be an interesting (closed-door) discussion next week when they gather in Baltimore.

The "flock"--some 65 million or so of us lay folk and ordinary religious--also didn't go en masse over the cliff for Obama, though it's pretty clear the bishops didn't have much sway, or if they did, it may have been to push Catholics the other direction. Catholics as a whole went for Obama 54-45, a major swing from 2004, when they went for Bush over (Catholic) John Kerry. But break it down by ethnicity and white Catholics went for McCain 52-47--although, as Mark Silk points out in an excellent analysis (complete with regional breakdowns), Obama did better than Kerry with white Catholics by 8 points. White Catholics also tend to be marginally more Democratic than whites as a whole. (I'd also highly recommend the Mark Silk-Andrew Walsh piece in the Nov. 3 edition of America, on the past and future of the Catholic vote.)

On the other hand, Latinos, who are the future of the church in many respects, went strong for Obama. That's an internal fault line as critical as that within the hierarchy. But, lay people are united in not factoring the abortion issue into their vote very much, as against the advice of the bishops. The economy, war, health care, energy, etc all rated high while "life" issues barely appeared on the radar. That is consistent with past elections. What is also consistent--and what is reflected in the ballot results--is that the bishops get more traction with Catholics (and the public) on gay marriage than on overturning Roe v. Wade. Ballot proposal to limit abortion were defeated in three states, while proposals barring gay marriage and adoption by gay parents passed.

Another warning sign: Young Catholics clearly do not support the political positions of the bishops and others on abortion and gay marriage. It's tough to have a political strategy without voters behind you.

So what now? How does the Catholic Church recover a voice and presence and, to dream, influence, in the public square? Phil Lawler of Catholic World News says, as usual, the problem is dissent, and he vows a "crusade" that he hopes will be joined by outspoken bishops. Tom Reese has a comprehensive analysis at The Washington Post, ending with this:

"A closer look at the exit polls should be as discouraging for left-wing Catholics as for right-wing Catholics. Catholic voters did not embrace either the conservative non-negotiables or the church's preferential option for the poor. They were concerned about themselves and their families. Will the abortion debate rise up again in four years at the next presidential election? A lot depends on President Obama and the Democratic Congress. If they push through the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA), then they will have betrayed their pro-life Catholic supporters. This will make it nearly impossible for these people to support them again. On the other hand, if they make a priority the enactment of an abortion reduction bill, then it will be more difficult for the bishops and the Republicans to portray the Democrats as the pro-abortion party."

Another danger for the bishops, however, was pointed out by Al Mohler, a leading voice of Southern Baptists and the "religious right":

"Will the Republican Party decide that conservative Christians are just too troublesome for the party and see the pro-life movement as a liability?  There is the real danger that the Republicans, stung by this defeat, will adopt a libertarian approach to divisive moral issues and show conservative Christians the door."

That seems to me to be the true risk inherent in the pro-lifers' strategy, in that it is so tied to the GOP that if the party moves toward a more moderate position--that debate is underway--the Catholic leadership could be left without a prayer (not to mention the unborn). "Put not your trust in princes," the Psalmist says. But if you are going to get involved in politics, he might have added, hedge your bets by keeping ties to both parties.

There is much to be said for the thesis that Catholics are "politically homeless." No party will ever represent Catholic teaching completely, of course. But that can also be something of a cop-out. Catholics are in many respects just living in separate houses (or chanceries, as the case may be). Besides, people make politics. So what now?