Rob Vischer’s Political, Not Partisan—The Church in the Public Square

 

Congratulations to Rob in publishing his thoughtful essay entitled Political, Not Partisan—The Church in the Public Square in the December 3 issue of Commonweal magazine! I am not able to upload here his article for interested readers of the Mirror of Justice, but if anyone could help with this task, I would be most grateful.

Rob’s commentary investigates generally the capacity of the Church through the efforts of her bishops to engage the public regarding policies, election year issues, and elections themselves. He focuses his analysis on the distribution of the DVD produced and distributed by Archbishop John Nienstedt. Knowing that the archbishop and the Church have received criticism in recent years for the Church’s participation in the public square on issues before the public, Rob crafts four understandings of the meaning of the word “political.” Moreover, Rob’s definitions demonstrate that there is or should be no prohibition of the Church engaging public policy matters that may be considered “political” under U.S. law with the exception of participating or intervening “in... any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.” In addition, Rob acknowledges that this prohibition should not stop the Church or the bishops from speaking on matters of public interest knowing that one candidate may be in favor of one side of the matter and another opposed. I largely agree with him on his well developed points.

But, I would like to add a few further thoughts on this important subject raised and ably discussed by Rob.

The first is this: should discussion about political issues by the Church and her members be a legitimate objective or enterprise for them to pursue or to engage? Generally, I would say yes, and firstly because the term political is quite broad and has multiple meanings, and we must be clear about which meaning do we have in mind. The term can mean, for example, belonging to or concerned with the form, organization, and administration of the state and with the regulation of other states. [All definitions upon which I rely here in this posting are derived from the Oxford English Dictionary.] It can also mean relating to or forming a part of the civil administration of society. It can also mean having an organized form or structure of the government or society. Further, it can apply to those who are concerned with public life and the authority of the state. In all these contexts, all members of society and all its institutions, including the Church and her members, have legitimate interests that can be and should be properly exercised in the political realm as these definitions apply.

However, if the meaning in mind refers to the taking sides with or promoting or following (or the opposite of these) a party line in a political/public debate rather than focusing on the issues and proposing a position on the issues themselves or the general debate itself, then the Church or its bishops could be deemed “political” in a problematic manner. I think that Rob and I agree on this as his, Rob’s, discussion of Archbishop Nienstedt’s recent activity in making and distributing the DVD on the marriage question was developed by Rob. Of course, could there not be exceptions to this kind of activity in certain kinds of political environments? I think so, but those exceptions could be in very dangerous circumstances such as those surrounding another bishop, i.e., Clemens August von Galen of Germany in the 1930s and ’40s. In this regard, one might also take stock of the careful words of Bishop John Fisher in Rochester, England in the early 16^th century. But recognizing that there could be legitimate exceptions to the Church being political in the context of taking or not taking sides with particular party lines, I think that is why our Federal tax law states what it does. Should the Church be partisan with a party? I think this is ill-advised. Should or can the Church be partisan on the issues themselves which political parties and candidates take sides? I think this is not only permissible but often necessary if the voice of the natural moral law is to be heard on important matters dealing with the res publicae.

Thus, the Church and her bishops and her members have as much right to participate in the political life of society, as I have outlined the term’s various definitions, as much as any other member of society.

The second topic I address today is to comment briefly on Rob’s judicious and important discussion of three positive qualities for which the Church “should strive whenever it works to influence the voting decisions of citizens.” (Italics in Rob’s original text) These positive qualities are: coherence, compassion, and commitment to dialogue. I agree with these principles and the basic manner in which Rob skillfully presents them, but the comment I would add is to his suggestion that comes from previous discussions here at the Mirror of Justice concerning the suicides of gay and lesbian teenagers. It appears that in the minds of some, Archbishop Nienstedt’s DVD, or at least the timing of its release and distribution, displayed little compassion or disregarded compassion entirely. I think we all have to keep in mind that the archbishop’s words did not address the suicides of any group including gay and lesbian teens. I thus wonder if some folks would think that the archbishop should have refrained from sending the DVD because of the proximity of these teen suicides? If so, how could he have addressed the marriage issue in a timely fashion? He was not speaking of gay and lesbian teens or their lifestyles; rather, he was speaking about what is constitutive of marriage and how this important matter was a pressing issue on the Minnesota ballot. This important fact must be in the forefront of our discussion about compassion. If Archbishop Nienstedt is to be criticized for making the remarks on this issue, could we not also claim that the people of Minnesota and their public institutions should also be criticized for insensitivity for having this important matter on the ballot this fall?

 

RJA sj