Tuesday, November 30, 2010
"Political" as a pejorative
In the new Commonweal, I weigh in on the controversy surrounding Archbishop Nienstedt's DVDs opposing same-sex marriage, using the episode to draw some tentative lessons about what critics might mean when they accuse the bishops of being "too political." After exploring three other possible meanings of "political" in this context, I address the partisanship charge:
“[P]olitical” as a pejorative may suggest that the bishops have become partisan—that they are not just overreaching, but doing so in a way that reflects their capture by a particular ideological camp or political party. Now, a single DVD does not necessarily constitute evidence of partisanship, and so such a criticism would need to assess the entirety of the bishops’ (or a particular bishop’s) political advocacy. The accusation of partisanship cannot justly be based on a single issue to which the church has given its voice unless that voice is accompanied by a noticeable silence on other issues encompassed by church teaching. Of course, if the bishops believe that we are at a crucial point of social change on same-sex marriage, they may consider their advocacy on this issue particularly urgent.
Yet while one policy issue might be more pressing than others in a given election cycle, keeping the entirety of church social teaching before the public is always a pressing need. The danger exists that the power of advocacy will be weakened by perceptions of partisanship—by the sense, that is, that the underlying goal is to influence a particular election in favor of a particular candidate, rather than to bear witness to the full weight of the church’s social teaching, which defies simplistic political categories. When an election rolls around, we know where labor unions will line up, and we know where the Chamber of Commerce will line up; if voters begin to tune out the bishops’ statements for the same reasons, we have a problem.
I welcome feedback, but it would be most helpful if you read the whole thing before you give me your reaction.
https://mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/mirrorofjustice/2010/11/political-as-a-pejorative.html
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the
comment feed
for this post.
I'm not sure if this is a temptest in a teapot or not. The Archbishop is a citizen who therefore has the complete right to speak out on issues and to encourage political action to resolve them.
There is no issue of his "leadership" on behalf of the Catholic Church. The State of Missesota doesn't care what the Catholic Church thinks or says. That's separation of Church and State. Therefore, there really can't be any such thing as "speaking for the Church." The Church has no standing. What an Archbishop speaks, under the civil law he is speaking only for himself.
Is the problem that when he speaks, many other citizens are inclined to listen? Is it forbidden for any mere citizen to be popular or influential? Does one have to write under a pseudonym? The Archbishop is perfectly free to include in his message information about who he is. It is up to the audience to decide, individually, what that means to them, if anything.
As for who covers the cost of the medium, we do not suppose that any medium of communication is free. If some friends are so inclined, they have every right to chip in on the expense.
The point is this: under the law, the Archbishoip didn't do anything that you or I might be both tempted and entitled to do if we lived in Minnesota. There is no allegation of fraud or of an intent to defraud. This is unquestionably a case of freedom of speech in its purest form. Because of the separation of Church and State, moreover, the fact that he is an Archbishop is completely irrelevant. The Church is just another voluntary association which in permitted to operate in the State of Minnesota. The state cannpt permit itself to suppose that the Archbishp's position signifies anything different from that unless they deem the Church to be a dangerous or subversive organization. Certainly, his position does not signify any endorsement of his ideas by the State of Minnesota.
Any attempt to regulate what the Church says in Minnesota -- and that is the only possible way to interpret criticism of the Archbishop's decision to make and distribute the DVD -- is an attempt to subordinate the Church to the State. That would be the clear implication of a power to censor public statements by Archbishops. This is why I assert that it would be a violation of separation of Church and State.