Divisive Statements in Parishes: Robert George responds

I apologize for the  variations in size of print. I tried to edit in html without success. Those variations  were not in the e-mail  Professor George sent to me.

Dear Steve:

 

I appreciate the good intention behind your critical comment on Rick Garnett's "Respect Life Sunday" insert in his parish bulletin, but I would like to offer for posting a comment that I hope will show that your criticisms of Rick's insert aren't warranted.  I invite you (and MoJ readers) to consider the parallel case of a pastoral statement issued in the 1950s by New Orleans Archbishop Joseph Rummel calling on Catholics to reject racial segregation.

 

Before abortion became a political issue in the mid to late 1960's, the most important domestic human rights issue in our nation was the struggle against segregation and other forms of racial injustice.  New Orleans was typical of southern cities in its segregationist ordinances and policies.  Most whites in the city, including most white Catholics, supported segregation, believing that blacks, though human, were as a class intellectually and morally inferior to whites.  Of course, many of the misguided individuals who believed this were persons of goodwill.  They were not monsters or haters.  They were personally kind to blacks, including their black domestic workers and other employees, and some even contributed generously to charities that served blacks who were in severe need.  A not insignifcant number thought that the city's racial laws were too severe, and were prepared to support limited reforms.

 

In the early 1950s, Archbishop Joseph Rummel decided in light of the Church teaching on the equality in worth and dignity of all human beings that he would integrate the Catholic schools.  Controversy ensued because a large number of Catholics, including many well-educated people of influence and social standing, did not accept, or accept fully, the Church's teaching on equality.  They respectfully dissented, while regarding themselves as good Catholics.

 

In response to this dissent, Archbishop Rummel ordered a pastoral statement to be read in the parishes informing Catholics that support for racial segregation was incompatible with Catholic teaching on the inherent dignity and equal rights of all human beings.  Rummel said that “racial segregation is morally wrong and sinful because it is a denial of the unity and solidarity of the human race as conceived by God in the creation of Adam and Eve.” He warned Catholics--including public officials--that support for segregation placed their souls in peril .

 

Many dissenting Catholics refused to accept their bishop's teaching.  They formed an "Association of Catholic Laymen of New Orleans" which petitioned the Pope to restrain Rummel and to decree that Catholics were not required to believe that racial segregation is "morally wrong and sinful."  The Vatican rejected their petition, pointedly reminding the dissenters that the Pope himself had "condemned racism as a major evil." 

 

Now here is the rub.  What Steve wrote about Rick's pro-life insert could just as well have been written about Archbishop Rummel's statement.  Here is what it could have said: 

 

 "A statement like this would be unnecessarily polarizing. It is too easy to ignore that the overwhelming majority of New Orleans Catholics do not think that blacks are, strictly speaking, the intellectual and moral equal of whites, though they think that cruel or abusive treatment of black people is never justified.  Many of them might deny that segregation is “morally wrong and sinful.” They might read the statement (I am not saying that it was) as striving for political influence. I recognize that a bishop might think it important to witness to the truth and, if people do not like it, so much the worse for them. But I believe it more constructive for a bishop to encourage dialogue about issues such as these."

 

For his part, Archbishop Rummel did not think that dialogue about the responsibility of Catholics to respect the inherent and equal dignity of every human being was what was needed at the time.  Eventually he took the extraordinary step of publicly excommunicating three prominent dissenting politicians, including Leander Perez, one of the most powerful political figures in  Louisiana. .

 

In what would become an interesting footnote to history, the Archbishop's actions came to the attention of the editors of the New York Times.  Did the Times condemn the Archbishop?  Did the editors accuse him of interfering in politics, fomenting division, or crossing the line separating church and state?  Nope.  The New York Times published an editorial lavishly praising Joseph Rummel for his "unwavering courage" and for "setting an example founded on religious principle." 

 

Best wishes,

Robert George