ANTI-PAPIST WEDNESDAY
All of us who are baptized are meant to be missionaries -- in ways appropriate to our vocations, but with no exceptions. Vatican II reminded us that the Church "is the universal sacrament of salvation;" that we each share "the obligation of spreading the faith;" and that "the whole Church is missionary and the work of evangelization [is] the fundamental task of the people of God."
We either preach Jesus Christ in our words and actions, or we lose Him. Throughout the weeks ahead, all of us need to remember that we’re living in a Jubilee Year – a time to re-anchor our hearts in God and to renew our vocation as apostles.
In Crossing the Threshold of Hope, John Paul II reminds us that all Christians are involved in "a struggle for the soul of the contemporary world." In every compartment of our lives -- from our families, to our jobs, and even to the solitude of the voting booth -- God asks us to be His witnesses, His apostles.
Let’s remember that as we consider our political choices.
-Archbishop Charles Chaput, OFM Cap.
Archbishop of Denver
Column, October 18, 2000
I do not speak for my church on public matters -- and the church does not speak for me.
Whatever issue may come before me as President, if I should be elected -- on birth control, divorce, censorship, gambling, or any other subject -- I will make my decision in accordance with these views, in accordance with what my conscience tells me to be in the national interest, and without regard to outside religious pressure or dictate. And no power or threat of punishment could cause me to decide otherwise.
But if the time should ever come -- and I do not concede any conflict to be remotely possible -- when my office would require me to either violate my conscience, or violate the national interest, then I would resign the office, and I hope any other conscientious public servant would do likewise.
-Senator John F. Kennedy
Address to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association.
September 12, 1960
As I mentioned last week, people of faith in politics really, really bother me. I should clarify that. What gets a bug up my ass is people in politics who believe that the state should act as an agent of their faith. Contrary to Archbishop Chaput's position, I am of the firm belief that the public square is not for evangelizing. To me, religious faith is either deeply personal or it is suspiciously hollow.
Furthermore, as a conservative leaning libertarian, I am highly suspicious of the government's ability to do much of anything. It is a truism that government can barely deliver the mail. And the mail has your address on it and everything. If the government can do this with any efficiency, I fail to see how it could successful implement anything as complicated as a spiritual agenda. To even make the attempt would serve only to cheapen both the government and the faith. Few if any observers would point with pride to the successful implementation of the Sharia in post-1979 Iran.
My consuming hatred for the Roman Catholic Church doesn't just arise from having been raised within it. Catholicism is the one major religion with an actual, living leader and a capital. Unlike most Christian denominations, where the dogma comes from no further than the local pulpit, the Catholic Church - in Vatican City - is not only a religion, it is a sovereign state with embassies and ambassadors. Not only is it a foreign power, it is by definition a theocracy.
Furthermore, it is a foreign theocracy that meddles in the domestic political matters of other nations. Imagine for a second the Mullahs of Iran pressuring Muslim members of Congress to change American law. What do you suppose the consequences of that would be? Imagine the Mullahs actively aiding and abetting in the molestation of American children in local mosques for decades. Isn't it reasonable to suggest that the ramifications of that would be enormous? Well, the Catholic Church has done both for centuries with no consequences at all.
Most recently this has been happening in Canada with regard to the passage of same sex marriage (hereafter referred to as C-38.)
The controversey, as it pertained to the Church heated up this past January when Aloysius Cardinal Ambrozic, the Archbishop of Toronto wrote an open letter to Prime Minister Paul Martin. in this letter Ambrozic told Martin that;
The law is a teacher. Does Canadian society as a whole, and do parents in particular, understand what the law will be teaching in this instance? It will be teaching that homosexual activity and heterosexual activity are morally equivalent. Public schools will be required to provide sex education in that light. Many parents, religious and non-religious, would not agree, nor would many, if not the majority, of Canadians. Is it fair to put children in the position of having to reconcile the values and beliefs of their parents with a novel state-sponsored understanding of marriage that may not be truly supported by the majority of Canadians?
Actually, Archbishop, yes it would. It would teach Canadian children that they are to respect the law and the supremacy of Parliament, and that it is not the business of the Church or the government to establish what is "morally equivalent" as it pertains to purely personal conduct. If the Catholic Church insisted on excommunicating its homosexual members, that would be one matter. For the Catholic Church to seek to use the government to impose its demented views of human sexuality (which, given their recent history, they should be the last people to do so) on the people of Canada as a whole.
Ambrozic continued;
I urge you, Prime Minister, to table a Bill that legislatively enacts the traditional opposite-sex definition of marriage, coupled with a clause that provides for the legislation to take effect notwithstanding the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As you know, the so-called “notwithstanding clause” has a five-year life span. A five-year period will allow this national discussion sufficient time to occur and to ripen into a sober and careful decision. It will give time for Canada to observe the social experiments now under way in Belgium and the Netherlands, and in other places where legislation implementing same-sex marriage might occur.
Some will argue that the use of the notwithstanding clause in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is wrong in principle. I must respectfully disagree. The notwithstanding clause was inserted into the Charter to recognize parliamentary supremacy and the need for democratic oversight for courts. No Canadian can say that courts always get things right. Judges are not elected and are ultimately not accountable for their decisions. Fundamental social change should only occur with the consent of the people through their democratic institutions. This understanding of the role of Parliament led to the inclusion of the notwithstanding clause in the Charter. Its use in the context of same-sex marriage would be most appropriate.
Ambrozic is being too cute by half. The Catholic Church is one of the least democratic organizations on Earth. In fact, it has been historically more comfortable with tyrannies than with democracies and have gone so far as to be complicit in genocides committed by those tyrannies. Yet the Church has the temerity to "urge" "the consent of the people through their democratic institutions." Actually, the people have already spoken. C-38 had already been introduced in Parliament before the last federal election and was an issue in the campaign. The Liberals campaign for same-sex marriage and the Conservatives campaigned against. The choice could not have been starker and the Liberals were returned to power, albeit with a minority government. But there has indeed been a debate. The Catholic Church just isn't satisfied with the results of that debate.
For Ambrozic to demand that Martin invoke the notwithstanding clause is not only irrational and undemocratic, it is dangerous to the Church itself.
The notwithstanding clause to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is not only a blight on a free people, it flies in the face of the rule of law. As I write this, it is illegal for a store owner to have more than a specific percentage of their exterior signs in any language other than French. This is despite the fact that the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that this law violates the free speech and equality protections of the Charter. The constitution itself itself allows for any province or the federal government to over-rule the the right of the courts to interpret the law.
Let's assume for a moment that a socialist government were elected in a Canadian province. That government could decide that the Church is violating provincial labour law, the human rights code and the equality provisions of the Charter in disallowing women priests. The Church would certainly take the province to court and win, on the grounds that the province is violating the Charters guarantee to free exercise of religion. That wouldn't stop the province, who would merely invoke the notwithstanding clause and jail any bishop who refused to comply with "the will of the legislature" and there would be nothing that anyone could do about it.
What the Archbishop fails to understand is that the notwithstanding clause can cut both ways and if the Church refuses to recognize the separation of church and state, it frees the government from that obligation as well. And perhaps that isn't such a bad thing. Perhaps conservatives will learn something about the separation of church and state once it ceases to be a one-way street. Ideally, the separation not only saves the religion from government regulation and saves the people from a religious government. You cannot, by definition, have one without the other.
That is now changing in Canada. The Catholic Church is going about punishing Catholic legislators who vote against the interests of the Church.
Charlie Angus and Celina Symmonds had their lives turned upside down when they were told by their parish priests that they could no longer take communion because their stands on social issues conflicted with church teachings.
Angus, a New Democrat MP who represents a northern Ontario riding, ran afoul of the Roman Catholic Church over his support for the federal government's controversial same-sex marriage bill.
(...)
Prime Minister Paul Martin, also a practising Catholic, faced similar flak from a priest in his Montreal riding over the bill. Father Francis Geremia said Martin no longer deserved the sacrament of communion and "I pray that he will lose his riding'' in the next election.
Angry in the Great White North (from whom I ruthlessly stole this link, and whose blog I heartily recommend despite my differences with him sometimes) agrees that this is a fitting and proper position for the Church to take. Since Angry's blog doesn't allow for copy/pasting, you'll have to read it for yourself.
Angry's arguments are also theologically sound. Catholicism is NOT democratic and doesn't pretend to be. This is why I refused confirmation even though I attended a Catholic school at the time. Many Catholics however don't understand that. These faux-Catholics think that you can use condoms and support abortion and gay marriage and still consider yourself a Catholic in good standing. You can't. This is the only thing on which the Church and I agree. What I understood at twelve years old most Catholics (if the polls are to be believed) don't understand in their forties and fifties. The Church is not a democracy and pretend that it is cheapens both the Church AND democracy.
Where I disagree with Angry is in his seeming assessment that Catholic legislators are compelled to serve their religious faith before they serve their constituents and their oath of office. In Canada a Member of Parliament swears an oath to the Crown, not to the Pope. To owe a higher loyalty to the Church than to Queen and country flies in the face of what public service is to mean. Charlie Angus understood this when he said, "As a legislator, I have to represent the Catholics and the non-Catholics. I have to represent the bigger picture and I can't be taking my orders from the pulpit ... Political or religious pressure is not the basis for informing your conscience."
Slightly fewer than half of all Canadians are Catholics, or as I would call them "Catholics." Argus's first duty is not to his Catholic constituents, but to ALL of them. Further, over half of Canadians (a majority, which is often cited as a good thing by Angry) know nothing about the Church and its superstitious nonsense. Moreover, they would probably resent their elected representatives being governed - and by extension, governing them - by said superstitious nonsense.
For 184 years voters in the United States were suspicious of Catholic politicians for precisely this reason. During the 1840's, a nativist movement called the Know-Nothings rose to prominence as a response to heavy Catholic immigration to America.
The fact that many of the new immigrants were Roman Catholic sat poorly with much of the United State’s largely Protestant population. In particular, many Protestants viewed with distrust what they perceived as the strong allegiance of Roman Catholics to the Pope; many Protestants saw this as an allegiance to a foreign prince, thus compromising their newly-acquired American citizenships, and possibly even treasonous. The current pope was Pius IX(still head of state of the Papal States), and increasingly a symbol, after the failed liberal Revolutions of 1848, of intransigent European monarchism.
These concerns spawned widely-held conspiracy theories regarding the Pope's purported plans to subjugate the United States through a continuing influx of his followers. The fact that Popes in the past had in fact wielded significant power and entangled themselves in wars and political disputes was frequently pointed to as evidence that the Pope was simply waiting for the right time to regain his lost temporal power, and served to further cement this notion in the minds of many Americans.
In fact, the Know-Nothings platform of 1856 (the last national election in which they were competetive) mentions the Church no fewer than six times.
Below is the platorm in full. The emphasis within is mine.
(1) Repeal of all Naturalization Laws.
(2) None but Americans for office.
(3) A pure American Common School system. (which neatly gets rid of Catholic schools - skippy)
(4) War to the hilt, on political Romanism.
(5) Opposition to the formation of Military Companies, composed of Foreigners.
(6) The advocacy of a sound, healthy and safe Nationality.
(7) Hostility to all Papal influences, when brought to bear against the Republic.
(8) American Constitutions & American sentiments.
(9) More stringent & effective Emigration Laws.
(10) The amplest protection to Protestant Interests.
(11) The doctrines of the revered Washington.
(12) The sending back of all foreign paupers.
(13) Formation of societies to protect American interests.
(14) Eternal enmity to all those who attempt to carry out the principles of a foreign Church or State.
(15) Our Country, our whole Country, and nothing but our Country.
(16) Finally,-American Laws, and American Legislation, and Death to all foreign influences, whether in high places or low.
While the Know-Nothings disappeared at the presidential level after 1856 with their nominee, former President Millard Fillmore getting 21.6% of the vote, it should be noted that incumbent Republican President William Howard Taft received 23.2% of the vote in 1912 and President George H.W Bush only got 38% when he ran for re-election in 1992. Over one in five Americans supported the Know-Nothings anti-Catholic program enough to vote for a presidential candidate who shared their values.
Even though the Know-Nothings evaporated as an electoral force at the dawn of the Civil War, political anti-Papacy continued in the United States for a century. So strong was the belief that a Catholic president would make America subservient to Rome that the only Catholic nominee between 1788 and 1960, New York governor Alfred Smith recieved only 40.9% of the vote in a two man race in 1928. John Kennedy, the only one of three Catholic nominees (the third being John Kerry) to win the presidency did so only after pledging that he would resign his office if official matters violated his faith.
Angry's essay is firmly grounded in Catholic thinking. However, his position, and that of the Church itself, serves only to validate the position of the Know-Nothings and political anti-Catholic bigotry. If non-Catholic voters have to worry that their office-holders will represent the will of Rome before the represent the will of the people, which can only hurt Catholic representation in government.
If Angry in T.O and the Catholic Church believe that Catholic politicians should allow their religious beliefs to dictate their official positions, then it is not unreasonable for voters to ask those politicians what their position is on the "Kennedy test." Instead of moving further towards the goal of religious tolerance, the Church is insisting that we move back. We are moving ever closer to the point where Catholic office-holders will HAVE to be asked if they would resign their office should a matter of public policy violate their religious beliefs.
Canada allows for dual-citizenship for most naturalized citizens. There are several dual-citizens in the House of Commons. If an MP's native country exerted pressure on an MP to vote in such a way that would favour that country's interests over those of his or her adopted nation, there would be national outrage and demands for that MP to immediately resign. It seems as though it has finally come to that.
What I find most striking is the intellectual inconsistency with which the Church decides to deny communion to politicians who don't vote their way. The Church - and not some putz of a priest in a shithole like Timmins, but Pope John Paul II - stated pretty clearly the Church's opposition to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. And the death penalty. And contraception. Oddly enough, conservative "Catholic" bloggers don't advocate denying communion to those folks.
As a matter of fact, Progressive Conservative Prime Minister Brian Mulouney allowed a free vote in the House of Commons to consider the return of capital punishment in 1987.
I disagree with Angry about the Church's being "political" in this matter. It is being completely political; it is adjusting its doctrinal stands on the issues of the day. And they aren't even being consistent in doing that. Look, let's look at this in practical political terms, okay? Its easy to deny communion in a shithole like Timmmins, only five people have ever lived there. And three of them were Shania Twain. I defy the Church to try it in Toronto where a lot of Catholics actually live.
As sad as it is to say, it may now be time to ask some difficult questions of Catholic candidates for public office. It seems evident that there is a direct conflict for legislators between Crown and country and the Holy See. It may finally have become time to ask candidates where their loyalties lie. Are you a Catholic politician or a politician who happens to be Catholic? Do you represent the Church or the people that elected you?
I'm not thrilled about saying this, but it might just be that the Know-Nothings knew something.
PermalinkLabels: Fun With Politics, O Canada, The Serious Side of skippy
|
