Analysis
Bishops politics: more of the same
By TOM ROBERTS NCR
Staff
Many of the bishops who recently
approved the document Living the Gospel of Life: A Challenge to American
Catholics see it as a bold new initiative in the abortion struggle, one
that brings a certain clarity in the ultimatum it places at the feet of
Catholic legislators. Indeed, the new document is unambiguous: There is no room
anywhere in the political arena for compromise on the question of abortion.
The language used to support the measure during the discussion at
the recent meeting of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops often
strained toward the lofty -- this was performance of a bishops duty, a
pastoral service to the church and the world, a statement upholding life in a
culture of death.
In many ways, the document is all of those things, but in the end,
the statements stinging social analysis and compelling exhortation falls
into the background, overtaken by its ultimate purpose as a political
strategy.
The strategy is very simple: Give no quarter.
Catholic officials who disregard church teaching on the
inviolability of the human person indirectly collude in the taking of innocent
life, the statement warns.
A little further on, the bishops write, We urge those
Catholic officials who choose to depart from church teaching on the
inviolability of human life in the public life to consider the consequences for
their own spiritual well-being, as well as the scandal they risk by leading
others into serious sin. We call on them to reflect on the grave contradiction
of assuming public roles and presenting themselves as credible Catholics when
their actions on fundamental issues of human life are not in agreement with
church teaching.
The original version contained an even more severe judgment,
stating that Catholic public officials who disregard church teaching on
abortion jeopardize their own salvation, erode the community of faith and
give grave scandal to the faithful.
In its condemnation of abortion and its analysis of American
culture the document contains nothing new, as documents from the American
bishops go.
U.S. economic and military power has sometimes led to grave
injustices abroad. At home, it has fueled self-absorption, indifference and
consumerist excess. Overconfidence in our power, made even more pronounced by
advances in science and technology, has created the illusion of a life without
natural boundaries and actions without consequences. The standards of the
marketplace, instead of being guided by sound morality, threaten to displace
it. We are now witnessing the gradual restructuring of American culture
according to ideals of utility, productivity and cost-effectiveness. It is a
culture where moral questions are submerged by a river of goods and services
and where the misuse of marketing and public relations subverts public
life.
Some might, as did one bishop, take the writers to task for not
documenting more diligently their cultural analysis. But that is a minor rub.
One need not be at the cutting edge to see North America as a culture that is
suffocating its soul under the sheer weight of material
success.
The real rub comes when one asks what Catholics in general are
going to get for this latest effort of their bishops. That would not be a fair
question of a document that is setting out moral principle and leaving
Catholics to puzzle out how to effect change in the real world.
It is a fair question, however, when the bishops not only set out
moral principles but prescribe a precise political strategy.
An old strategy
And this strategy, while perhaps bolder than in the past, is
hardly new. It is merely a more explicit and strident version of a strategy
that so far has failed miserably.
In private, conversations, some of those most deeply involved with
the official church antiabortion effort will concede that the investment of
time and money and of political and moral capital in seeking a political
solution to the abortion question has been a monumental flop.
During 12 years of the Reagan-Bush era -- when pro-life forces
were courted by the White House and the bishops adroitly signaled to their
constituencies the candidates they preferred -- the practical political gains
were minimal at best.
Perhaps the most convincing argument against the strategy is that
it failed to persuade Catholics that the answer lies in the political
arena.
Not only did the bishops fail to make any major political gains
against abortion, but those who took up their cause too often were the very
ones who cast the votes that unleashed free-market excesses, reigned in the
states compassion to the poor and immigrants, and were always there to
vote yes on the next defense expenditure and the next overseas arms deal.
There are no perfect politicians. The political arena works on
compromise and consensus. Absolute, all-or-nothing strategies mostly end up
with nothing.
It doesnt take a politician long to grasp the polls
consistently showing that while Catholics may consider abortion repugnant, they
do not want to make it illegal.
The bishops give no models of practical legislation. They
dont say who should be the target of such legislation: women seeking
abortions, men who impregnate them, physicians who perform abortions? Nor do
they specify what penalty would be levied against offenders.
Disconnecting issues
While the document insists that the stand on abortion is connected
to all the other life issues, it just as quickly disconnects abortion from all
other matters:
Catholic officials are obliged to address each of these
issues as they seek to build consistent policies that promote respect for the
human person at all stages of life. But being right in such matters
can never excuse a wrong choice regarding direct attacks on innocent human
life. Indeed, the failure to protect and defend life in its most vulnerable
stages renders suspect any claims to the rightness of positions in
other matters affecting the poorest and least powerful of the human
community.
The point might well be made in reverse: Does being right on one
issue and wrong on all the rest entitle politicians to the full favor of the
Catholic church? All life issues may be connected, but only one matters in the
voting booth, the bishops seem to be saying.
The results of the bishops strategy were evident during the
meeting and immediately after. One bishop told the assembly of his informal
agreement with a local Catholic legislator. The legislator, who votes the wrong
way on abortion, had agreed to stay away from Catholic gatherings.
Immediately after the bishops meeting, Bishop Donald
Trautman of Erie informed Pennsylvania Gov. Thomas Ridge that he was unwelcome
at Catholic functions.
Run to its logical conclusion, such a strategy will effectively
isolate the church from any meaningful political engagement and make it
increasingly difficult for Catholics to win elections.
In previous statements on nuclear weapons and the economy, the
bishops conducted elaborate consultations on all sides. When Cardinal Bernard
Law, chairman of the Committee for Pro-Life Activities, was asked why the
committee did not engage in more dialogue with Catholics before releasing a new
document on abortion, he responded that more dialogue would not change the
conclusions.
Law missed the point. The bishops did not change their conclusions
on matters of war and peace or the economy. But it has been amply shown that
the broad consultations -- the give-and-take required -- and the accompanying
publicity resulted in revisions that contained more nuance and were more
credible to the general public than the originals. And the discussion also had
a significant effect on the way people thought about the subjects.
Archbishop Rembert Weakland of Milwaukee expressed his
disappointment that the document was not more an instruction for bishops
on how to wrestle with this issue in terms not only of our political
leaders who perhaps have bad faith but also those who have good faith and are
trying to reconcile their consciences with the positions they hold.
He wondered how bishops were to deal with imperfect
legislation not only in the area of abortion but also cloning, fetal
experimentation, capital punishment, nuclear armaments and a host of other
social justice issues.
He recalled that in overseeing development of the document
Economic Justice for All, the bishops had to put in a paragraph
talking about contingencies, lack of information, uncertainties, when you go
from the abstract principle to the concrete legislation.
He also called for a better analysis of the voting patterns
of our Catholic constituency. I am tired of picking up the paper and seeing
that Catholics voted only for their pocketbooks. ... I wonder if they are
trying to tell us something far more simple. Are they trying to tell us that
this issue will not be solved in the voting arena at this time?
Weaklands comment aptly raises the core issue: Is a singular
emphasis on the politics of abortion the best way for the bishops to make a
stand in defense of life? Ironically, it seems to offer public figures a free
pass on other defense-of-life concerns, such as disarmament and economic
justice.
The documents all-or-nothing approach sends a new signal to
politicians that, regardless of where they stand on other issues, they have
friends among the U.S. bishops if they say they oppose abortion.
Bishops' statement on the National Conference of Catholic
Bishops' Web site.
- Living the Gospel of Life: A Challenge to American
Catholics http://www.nccbuscc.org/prolife/gospel.htm"
Bishops' document Economic Justice for All. The document
is posted on American University's listserver. Postings on this server are not
necessarily the university's, and a link from the NCR does not imply
endorsment or affiliation. If you would like to explore the AU listserver --
which includes extensive background resources -- further, use the second link.
Use your browsers Back button to return to this page.
- Economic Justice for All
http://listserv.american.edu/catholic/church/us/econ.justice"/
- American University's
listserver
http://listserv.american.edu/
National Catholic Reporter, December 18,
1998
|