The right to misinform?

 

On Tuesday, July 5, the National Catholic Reporter (NCR) published an editorial entitled “Gay marriage, bishops and the crisis of leadership.” The editorial was highly critical of U.S. bishops in general but of two New York bishops in particular over the Church’s role in the recent legislation enacted in New York recognizing same-sex unions. I read with great care the NCR’s editorial, which is [HERE]. As it addresses the role of the Church in the public square and the right of all to inform lawmakers about what is good for society and what is not, the editorial, which is misinformed on many fronts, must be challenged.

At the outset, the editorial claims that the role of bishops in the promulgation of the New York legislation “is the latest and most glaring confirmation of some gloomy news for the Catholic church [sic].” This allegation is based on the “disturbing reality” that the bishops have “lost most of [their] credibility with the wider culture on matters of sexuality and personal morality.” If this is the case, then one would have to ask if the bishops, if the Church’s position on the major issues of the day must correlate to whatever the “wider culture” has to say on any issue? If we harken back to the antebellum age of the 1850s, should we say that Justices McLean and Curtis lost their credibility with the “wider culture” when they dissented in Dred Scott? Should we say that Justice John Marshall Harlan lost credibility with the “wider culture” in 1896 when he dissented in Plessy v. Ferguson? Fast-forwarding to the twentieth century, should we say that Justice Pierce Butler lost credibility with the “wider culture” in 1927 when he dissented in Buck v. Bell? And, for good measure, should we say that Justices Roberts, Murphy, and Jackson lost credibility with the “wider culture” in 1944 when they dissented in Korematsu?  History is replete with instances of the objective, moral voice not wining the major discussions of the day in disputes where the “wider culture” thought it convenient to pursue in the making of law in a problematic and unprincipled way. The point is that the “wider culture” may well determine the outcome of what the positive law declares, but this culture does not always operate in a moral fashion that leads to that which is right and just. As I referenced in a previous post [HERE], we have been reminded on a number of occasions that when our democracy loses its proper values, it can morph into a thinly disguised totalitarianism.

Contrary to what the NCR editorial asserts, the bishops who addressed the New York redefinition of marriage did not react hyperbolically in a “wrong-headed” and “counterproductive” fashion. They did what the Church asks of them—to teach with authority, an authority that precedes the wisdom of the “wider culture” in propriety and justice. Well, at least they did what Christ asked and what councils from Trent to the second Vatican Council have taught.

The NCR editorial appears to be swayed by polls and political votes and argues that the Church can learn from them. But the Church must not be so inclined. Once again, human history demonstrates over the millennia that popular opinion and the opinion of public officials are not always right; moreover, they have been often wrong. And it is a further wrong when the reason used to justify these opinions become the basis of norms that are to direct society; then these norms, these laws are also flawed in fact, logic, and objective analysis and moral principle. The Church, through her teachers, the bishops, has a clear responsibility to demonstrate that the foundation of such norms is defective. The editorial seems to conflate these opinions and the views of the “wider culture” with the Gospel, and the teachings of Christ and His Church. But this conflation is also flawed.

The editorial then comments that if the bishops “want laws to reflect Catholic values, they need a new more sophisticated and potent model of legislative engagement.” Does the NCR editorial board propose that the bishops employ the methods that the New York governor purportedly used as discussed by the press to achieve this? Governors may be heavy-handed, but the bishops cannot be nor were they in this case. Stalin was right on one thing, neither the pope—nor for that matter, bishops—has or have military divisions or secular means, like the governor, to attain the objectives that he or they consider moral and proper. All they have are objective reasoned argument and fact. The NCR editorial fails to acknowledge this.

The editorial further offers a second critique of the bishops. It posits that even if the bishops “had a persuasive case to make and the legislative tools [whatever they are] at their disposal,” the use of “wholesale excommunications, railing at politicians, denial of honorary degrees and speaking platforms, using the Eucharist as a political bludgeon, refusing to entertain any questions or dissenting opinions, and engaging in open warfare with the community’s thinkers as well as those, especially women...” has resulted in the mistaken perception of the NCR editorial an “episcopal caricature” in which the NCR editors see only “common scolds” and the “caustic party of ‘no’.” However, the NCR editors again fail to take stock of the canonical, conciliar, and other authority of bishops to speak out against those who in fact contravene the Church and her teachings on the basis of their view of Catholicism.

The NCR editors finally impart their ultimate argument that the bishops have no credibility because of the scandal of clerical sexual abuse of minors. Could not a person also argue that when one considers that the sexual abuse of minors is also a scandal of society at large—and in far greater proportion than in the Church’s clergy—that legislators who go along with the “wider culture” might also have no credibility when we see that the public institutions for which they legislate also perpetrate sexual abuse on a much wider scale?

Somehow the NCR editorial finds need to insult two men who are faithful priests and the heads dioceses in New York. Calling them names and relying on ad hominem ridicule do little to advance the cause of robust debate and providing the public with objective and factual argument on any matter of important public policy.

Finally, the NCR editorial relies on an article published in the NCR on the same date by one who is a friend or colleague to many of us here at the Mirror of Justice, and that is Nick Cafardi. I will not respond to all of what Nick had to say in his article “Civil marriage is for Caesar to decide, not the Church.” [HERE] However, there are two quick observations I’ll make about several of his points.

The first is this: Nick states that, “No legislature can tell the church [sic] who to marry or who not to marry.” But this, in fact, is incorrect. The state—be it the German National Socialist State or the states of the United States—has, in fact, done this on the grounds of race, ethnicity, disease, degrees of consanguinity, age, and the list goes on. A second point that Nick asserts which I dispute is this: “Natural law, despite the church’s [sic] assertion, is not self-evident.” If that is the case, then Thomas Jefferson was wrong when he wrote that the American people held certain truths to be self-evident and our nation is premised on falsehood. But Jefferson has not been the only one in human history to make this claim. Many others have, too.

 

RJA sj