Religious Freedom for Me but not for Thee

A number of recent posts on the site have addressed religious freedom in the context of the upcoming election. I, along with other MOJ contributors, have expressed concerns about the freedom of the Church to participate in the public square concerning matters that address our life in common in that some voices believe that the Church has no role in the public square. I respectfully submit and contend that their views are flawed. The Church, indeed, has a proper role to exercise in the public square; therefore, its principal teachers have a right to express views, including those based on the moral reasoning of the Church’s teachings, in this milieu.

Last night there was a most interesting post by Lisa Sowle Cahill, the J. Donald Monan, S.J. Professor of the Theology at Boston College, on these matters that appeared in the National Catholic Reporter Online. Amongst her claims in the fields of teaching and research are Christian ethics, the ethics of war and peace, bioethics, ethics of sex and gender, and Catholic social ethics. She is also a member of the Catholic Advisory Committee for Senator Obama and his presidential bid. As Senator Obama has graciously said of their work:

I am deeply honored to have the support and counsel of these committed Catholic leaders, scholars, and advocates. We share many important values, and I have profound respect for how these religious and lay women and men have put their faith into action to promote the common good. They have spent their lives serving others: shaping our public debates, caring for the poor, ministering to those who need our help, and fighting for a more just society. As a committed Christian, I welcome their help as we continue to build the largest grassroots network of people of faith in any campaign in history

She has appeared in at least one national advertisement endorsing the Senator in his bid for the presidency. While I would not engage in the partisanship that she has, I would not argue here about how she has expressed her public views regarding politics until last evening when she challenged other Catholics, specifically bishops, for their public statements which pale in comparison to her open, broadcasted activities in clear support of a political party and its Presidential candidate. Like the scribes and Pharisees of yore, she has placed burdens on others that she would not want to bear herself.

As I have said, on October 16, she published on the website of the National Catholic Reporter a brief article entitled "U.S. Bishops damaging rich Catholic faith tradition" . To cut to the chase, she condemns some bishops for engaging in the activities in which she, herself, has pursued with far greater vigor than they have. In short, she has established a double standard for Catholic participation in public life. This is a problem considering the fact that she self-identifies as a Catholic theologian (although there may be some reasonable dispute about whether the views she expresses in her teachings are, in fact, always consistent with Catholic teachings).

She has asserted that “the Catholic church [sic] has a problem on its hands” because “a few bishops and prelates have come dangerously close to making implicit political endorsements” in the exercise of their proper teaching office of exhorting the faithful to take stock of the moral evil of abortion. In doing so, she seems to think that her own open words and deeds that unambiguously endorse a particular party and its Presidential candidate are above the same reproach she lays on “a few bishops and prelates.” She makes a remarkable claim that their activities represent “a disturbing trend for both religion and democracy” while at the same time she implicitly believes that her own actions “support an essential role for faith in public life.”

I disagree with her contentions.

She publicly rebukes a number of American bishops because of the proper emphasis that they have placed on the abortion issue. Yet, she fails to address that the candidate whom she has publicly endorsed will make as his first priority the passage of the Freedom of Choice Act that I addressed yesterday in a posting at Mirror of Justice. She decries that “when the Catholic church [sic] is perceived to be cheerleaders [sic] for one political party a rich faith tradition is badly damaged and loses its prophetic voice.” I do not recall any of the bishops that she has critiqued having endorsed any candidate or political party; rather, they have spoken clearly on the profound evil of abortion and how the Catholic electorate needs to consider this weighty issue. By contrast, she is the one, from her position as a university teacher, who has been a “cheerleader” of a particular party and its presidential candidate.

Her assertions are mystifying until she reaches the conclusion of her brief essay. Then her double standard of “freedom for me but not for thee” becomes clear, and the mystery disappears. She concludes her posting by stating that, “Catholic clergy should reaffirm their essential role as moral leaders, and leave partisanship behind.” What she does not seem to understand is that they have; however, she is the one who has taken up the cause of partisanship which does not appear to trouble her in the least.

When Pope Paul VI concluded the proceedings of the Second Vatican Council in 1965, he stated to the civil leaders of the world that the Church asked only one thing from them: freedom. Apparently, Professor Cahill expects this freedom for herself, but she is unwillingly to grant it to those whose duty it is to teach and lead the Church to which she professes that she belongs. What she has asserted for herself and denied others, including the Church’s leadership, is the real disturbing trend for both religion and democracy as we approach November 4.

RJA sj