Quite a while back, I
concluded that it would be a
full-time job trying to
correct the
misrepresentation of
Catholic matters regularly
showing up in the media and
that, reluctantly, I would
have to let most of it pass.
However, "Dead-end
discussion" in the Sept. 21
Crossroads by Brian Smith
demands a reply.
The hint of bishops
"meddling" in politics
always has been red meat in
American history, from the
notorious editorial cartoons
of Thomas Nast in the
Know-Nothing/Nativist era to
those of Pat Oliphant today.
So, Mr. Smith had our
hackles up already as he
opened his piece by
referring to the recent
corrective given by two
American bishops to a couple
of prominent politicians,
both of whom happen to be
Catholic, on the issue of
abortion.
It was not the bishops
who started this rhubarb but
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi
(D-Calif.) and Sen. Joe
Biden (D-Del.), who took it
upon themselves to explain
Catholic teaching on
abortion to the nation - and
blundered badly.
Now, to be sure, church
teaching highly respects the
charism of civic
responsibility and political
leadership as belonging to
the laity, not the clergy, a
tenet especially strong in
the writings of Pope John
Paul II and Benedict XVI,
and defends as well a
properly understood
separation of church and
state, so clear in Pope
Benedict's remarks in France
just two weeks ago.
But church tradition is
equally clear that bishops
are the authentic teachers
of the faith. So, when
prominent Catholics publicly
misrepresent timeless Church
doctrine - as Biden and
Pelosi regrettably did (to
say nothing of erring in
biology!) - a bishop has the
duty to clarify. Cardinal
Justin Rigali and Bishop
William E. Lori were thus
hardly acting as
politicians, "telling people
how to vote," but as
teachers.
Even more significantly,
when all is said and done,
abortion is hardly a
religious issue at all.
Women and men of every
religion, or none at all,
express grave reservations
about our abortion-on-demand
culture, insisting that it
is not a theological matter
but a civil rights one.
Does the baby alive in
the womb (a biological, not
a doctrinal, fact) deserve
the full protection of the
law or not? Does one have
the right to terminate the
life of another at will? Can
we consider one form of life
- that of the innocent,
fragile baby in the womb -
inferior and expendable?
Or does the American
proposition of certain
self-evident truths
mentioned in our
foundational documents, the
first of which is the right
to life, have a say in all
of this? Was Robert Kennedy
correct in observing that
the true test of a society's
mettle is how it treats the
most vulnerable among us,
which has to include the
tiny baby in the womb?
A half-century ago, a
similar civil rights issue
was fracturing our beloved
nation: Do our black
citizens have the right to
full protection of the law,
the freedom to live where
they wish, to vote, to earn
a fair wage, to expect
fairness, justice and
equality? Many argued then
as Mr. Smith does now: This
issue is way too complex! It
deals with morals and
conduct, with virtuous
living. We can hardly
legislate our way out of
this, the Mr. Smiths of the
era wrote. It's too
complicated, too volatile an
issue.
Thankfully, a bold
pastor, who never hid his
religious convictions, the
Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.,
prophetically demanded that
this was indeed an issue of
life and death that had to
be confronted by a nation
committed to justice.
Thankfully, other
religious leaders rose up,
such as when the archbishop
of my hometown of St. Louis,
Joseph Ritter, integrated
all the parochial schools
way before it became law,
such as when the archbishop
of New Orleans, Joseph
Rummel, publicly corrected
prominent Catholic
politicians who
misrepresented Catholic
teaching as approving racial
segregation, and such as
when Lawrence Sheehan, the
archbishop of Baltimore, was
hooted out of a city council
meeting as he called for
fair and open housing.
Mr. Smith is correct that
abortion is a complex issue;
he's on the mark that people
of good will need to work
creatively to create a just
society where the poor have
options to care for their
babies, born and pre-born -
a point powerfully made in
many documents of the
American bishops, including
"Faithful Citizenship," the
U.S. bishops' pastoral
statement on political
responsibility.
He's wrong, though, in
implying that bishops are
out of bounds in clarifying
the truth of their faith on
this issue and that the
powerful arguments of the
growing pro-life movement
hinder helpful conversation
and lead to a political dead
end. We cannot be mute on
this premier civil rights
issue of our day.
