Commonweal’s “Bishops and Religious Liberty”
— by Martin E. Marty
“The Bishops and Religious Liberty,” the cover topic in Commonweal this week, brings together opinion by six Catholics who know their way around and through issues of “church and state.” What prompts the issue is the action by Roman Catholic bishops in the United States to declare war against government proposals and policies which the bishops declare to be a war against liberty. While all the writers find something or other to criticize in administration concepts and actions on the “health care” front, they all are critical of the bishops and ask them to “cool it,” not to exploit the scene for political advantage, and more. Several critics also argue that the bishops are hurting, or likely to hurt, themselves, their church, and their cause, not because they are wholly wrong but because of their stridency and refusal to deal with the government when it adjusts and compromises. It’s “winner take all” for them at the moment.
Let me lift out some summary sentences by the writers and editors. “There are compelling reasons within modern states to carve out a protected space for dissenting moral voices. But in the end, the tensions between the laws of the state and the demands of faith cannot be fully resolved.” Amen. We’ve long argued that there is no way to draw lines between “religion and the civil authorities” (James Madison’s term) in ways that can satisfy all legitimate but necessarily conflicting interests. William A. Galston, Michael P. Moreland, Cathleen Kaveny, Douglas Laycock, Mark Silk, and Peter Steinfels, authors whose names will be familiar to anyone who reads “church-state” arguments, have sympathy for the bishops, but find their present arguments of no help. Thus the “bishops cannot base their teachings on opinion polls, but if they intend to argue effectively for religious liberty, they need to acknowledge the difficult ground on which they stand.”
The ground is difficult partly because the wider public and Catholic faithful are highly aware that the bishops have not convinced their own faithful of their case, certainly as it is, against birth control, less every year on same-sex marriage, though they hold their own against (most cases of) abortion. Many Catholic theologians point out, as the authors in this Commonweal insist, the bishops are not making an argument; they are not even trying to make an argument. They are merely asserting, insisting, and declaring their viewpoint when they should set out to make their case. (Some of the arguments by some of the authors in Commonweal provide some arguments bishops could use).
Since regular readers know that I do not butt in on intra-church arguments, I turn such over to Sightings readers. (You can follow the link provided below and acquire online what take up fifteen pages in Commonweal!) However, in this case—as in so many other church-state issues—the church leaders are engaging in public sector arguments and make no secret of the fact that they want directly to influence the forthcoming election, continuing legislation, and urgent court decisions. Peter Steinfels here reminds readers that Quakers, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and, come to think about it, no other thoughtful and intense religious people will be able to have all their interests satisfied, and their consciences quieted. That’s how things are in a republic, including this one, where there is not, our writers agree, a war against religion. Instead, there are legitimate conflicts which await legitimate argumentation. Commonweal supplies some of that, in an argument without end. An argument which, in a healthy republic, cannot end.
References
“The Bishops and Religious Liberty,” Commonweal, June 15, 2012.
Our General Minister and President recently offered some words about Disciples and LGBTQ persons. Marriage equality, 21st century civil rights, and justice are issues that divide our expression of Christian witness as well as the whole Church. If you have not read her words or watched her remarks use this link to visit her blog to do so. Informed consent or dissent are necessary, more than ever before, in the saturated marketing and information culture in which we live and participate.
How long did it take this nation, and many Christians, to come to the conclusion that breathing humans, though differently pigmented skin color, were fully human, not 3/5ths human, and deserved the same basic protections afforded male citizens of our nation? How long did it take for women to gain the right to vote and earn .77 cents on the dollar to men? Too long and we continue to struggle with gender, race and racism all these years after the Women’s Suffrage movement, all these years after churches were bombed, Jim Crowe laws, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. That act was signed into law the year before I was born. It’s been 48 years. How short is our American memory? How segregated is that memory? It is short enough and segregated enough for Klan style open racism to return to the halls of state capitals and our nation’s legislative branch of government. Our President is, was, working hard to pull our nation into a post-racial political future that white plutocrats and their legislative surrogates, Democrat and Republican, determined was too dangerous to the status quo. Allowing a non white face to govern well would undermine myths about manifest destiny and the preference of white male authority. This would have happened to a woman, even a white woman, that did not follow directions.(1) The backlash is a brand of Republican leader that is governing in state capitals and in the national legislature from a “winner take all” perspective. If I had it this is where I would insert footage of Sen. McConnell noting the agenda of the Senate, “Make President Obama a one term President.” How short and segregated is American memory? It is short enough and segregated enough for modern day robber barons to be to big to fail. How is it that Mormonism can be accepted as Christianity, but LGBTQ persons cannot be accepted as fully human in some religious circles?
This week’s Sightings, which I will post next, explores the response of six Catholics to the US Conference of Catholic Bishops statement, “Our First, Most Cherished Liberty.” This document speaks of a “war on religious freedom.” I contend that there is no war on religious freedom in this nation. If anything, Christianity has maintained a place of preference and it could be argued, when weighed against the backdrop of history, has done as much harm as good in our culture. The last paragraph of the first respondent concludes:
“There is no guarantee that public opinion will converge on what justice requires. The conscience of the community has often erred and will continue to do so. There are compelling reasons within modern states to carve out a protected space for dissenting moral voices. But in the end, the tension between the laws of the state and the demands of faith cannot be fully resolved. It can only be managed, which means that understanding and goodwill on both sides is essential. These are scarce virtues in our shrill and divided times.”(2)
It is this point that I think Rev. Sharon Watkins, our General Minister and President, is addressing with her words. Understanding and good will are in short supply right now. But, also in short supply is the voice of Truth to power. Given our soundbite culture, the Citizens United decision by the Supreme Court has made the voice of Truth to power even more difficult. What does it mean to be at table with one another? Would your congregation welcome a member of the Klan to the table on Sunday alongside your lesbian pastor? For me, it means trying to connect the dots of what a 21st century table of grace and reconciliation means? Right now it looks like it means, “separate but equal” in the way my expression of Christian witness organizes itself systemically and has redefined what being an ordained minister of the Gospel means for the short term 21st century. You have to want table fellowship. I don’t now how many people want it, really want it, right now.
The writers of “The American President,” 1995, offer two insights that are worth considering.
“The American people want leadership.” – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKTqS4bXugg
“America isn’t easy. It’s advanced citizenship.” – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BysLCCLdWKA
Note
1. Oklahoma’s female governor is a good example of a woman taking direction from male culture.
2. William Gaston, “The Bishops and Religious Liberty”, Commonweal, June 15, 2012.