The July 30th issue of America Magazine will have an article entitled “Politics and the Pulpit—Are some bishops putting the church’s tax exempt status at risk?” written by Nicholas Carfardi a law professor and former dean at Duquesne University School of Law who is also an acquaintance, friend, and colleague of many of us at the Mirror of Justice. Unfortunately, one needs a subscription to read the Nick’s article online, but there is one link [HERE] that provides more information about the views expressed in his article. Today I write to convey my disagreement with Nick and to explain why I think he is wrong in criticizing two bishops who have exercised their teaching office on public policy issues with which Nick and others probably hold opinions different from the bishops.
In particular, Nick focuses on the recent activities by two American Catholic bishops which he asserts are causes of concern for the Church (perhaps just the dioceses) in preserving her tax-exempt status under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. His first anxiety is the homily given by Bishop Daniel Jenky (Peoria) in April of this year on the “extreme secularist agenda” of the Administration. Having read the bishop’s homily, to which Nick refers, several times, I disagree with Nick’s conclusion that what the bishop said in any fashion jeopardizes the Church or the diocese because it was somehow an inappropriate crossing of a line that should not be crossed by an ecclesiastical official. The second target presented in Nick’s essay is Archbishop Peter Sartain of Seattle who asked all the parishes in the archdiocese to support the Referendum 74 initiative in support of giving the people of the state of Washington the ballot box right to confirm or seek repeal of the same-sex marriage legislation that was recently approved by the Washington state legislature. Nick concludes that both of these actions by the bishops endanger the Church’s tax exempt status because they constitute electioneering or lobbying that is not permitted by Section 501(c)(3).
If that is the case and Nick is correct, then the actions taken since the mid-1950s (when the first Congressional restrictions on certain policy activities by churches and religious organizations went into effect) by individual bishops and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, and its predecessor the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, urging the faithful’s action on the following matters [this is not an all-inclusive list] would also have put at risk the Church’s teaching the faithful on important and, yes sometimes, conflict-ridden issues:
1963—support for the emerging civil rights legislation before the Congress
1966—the statement on peace in Vietnam; the statement on poverty
1967—the statement on the pending anti-poverty legislation
1969—the statement on state abortion law liberalization and the further statement in protest on the U.S. Government programs against the right-to-life and artificial contraception
1973—the statements (post Roe) on abortion and anti-abortion amendments; the statement on the reform of correctional institutions
1974—the statement against capital punishment; the statement on farm labor legislation
1975—the statements on U.S. domestic food policy; the statement on the crisis in housing
1977—the statement on DNA research; the statement on human sexuality
1978—the statement on the arms race
1980—the statement on the military draft
1983—the statement on reform of social security; the statement on broadening tuition tax credits
1984—the statement on arms control and (un)just war
1985—the statement against the MX missile; the statement on tax reform and the poor; the statement on immigration reform
1986—the statement against military aid to the Contras in Central America; the statement on the budget deficit; the statement “Economic Justice for All”
1987—the statement on welfare reform; the statement on fair housing amendments
1988—the statement on civil rights and new and pending legislation; the statement on immigration reform
1989—the statements on food policy and third world debt
1990—the statement on moral education in public schools
1991—the statement on euthanasia; the statement on the permanent replacement of strikers; the statement on national environmental policy
1993—the statement on comprehensive health care reform
1995—the statement on policy priorities for welfare reform; the statement on arms trade
1997—the statement on capital punishment
and the list goes on…
In addition to Catholic officials speaking out on the important public policy issues of the day, we also have to think about other churches and religious organizations which also have the benefit of Section 501(c)(3) provisions and their activities in elevating consciousness and exhorting action by the faithful. For example the Episcopal Church sponsors the Episcopal Policy Network which urges legislators and citizens to consider the church’s views on sometimes-divisive issues dealing with STDs, refugees, and environmental protection among other policy issues. In this context, Nick’s concerns cannot stop with the Roman Catholic Church. One particular advocacy matter currently pursued by the Episcopal Church is encouraging its members to thank the Senate (i.e., the Democrats) for its lead on poverty-focused assistance programs and to encourage the House (i.e., the Republicans) to do the same. By Nick’s standards this should also be problematic electioneering and lobbying. As Nick states, “…once a church’s advocacy goes beyond issues and, without a legitimizing invitation from the legislature itself, addresses a pending law—urging voters directly (called grassroots lobbying) or urging legislators to act (called direct lobbying)—a line has been crossed.”
It seems that the line which is of concern to Nick has been crossed for a long time when one looks at the long record of the Catholic bishops and our Episcopalian friends on the pressing issues of the day. I would hope that Nick’s concerns are not generated by his agreement with some views or disagreement with differing perspectives on those public policy and legislative initiatives which can and do divide public opinion. If that is the case, then his criticism is all the more weakened. The world of politics and public policy formulation has long been characterized by the division of different views. It would be not only strange but mistaken to insist that only some views on these matters may be expressed by churches and religious organizations but others may not.
RJA sj
As Nina Shea reports, here, the PRC and its "Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association" are moving strongly against Catholic Bishop Thaddeus Ma Daqin, who "has not been publicly seen since July 7, the day he was ordained auxiliary bishop of Shanghai and the day when he dissented from state religious policy. Catholic sources report that the 44-year-old Bishop Ma is now being detained under a form of house arrest, cynically described as a 'retreat' by state religious authorities." God bless him.
Pope Leo XIII -- whose writings and thought are, of course, very important to those of us interested in church-state relations and "Catholic legal theory" -- died on July 20, 1903. On that same day, in 2012, my second son, John Joseph Garnett was born!
St. John Fisher and St. Joseph the Worker, pray for us!
And, though he's not (yet!) recognized as a saint, we are big fans -- and will be hoping for the intercession -- of Bishop "Dagger" John Joseph Hughes. (More about him here.)
Sunday, July 22, 2012
or "The Search for Humanity Continues." I was struck by the contrast between Gary Hart's (remember him?) reflection on the shooting in Colorado with Ross Douthat's reflection.
Hart: "[W]hen one human kills a dozen or more other humans who represent no threat to him, nothing seems to make sense, nothing is reasonable or rational. It causes us to question ... whether there is a dark side to human nature beyond the reach of reason and sanity ..."
In contrast, knowing that there is a dark side to human nature Douthat can name the particular manifestation of evil: "Nolan’s films are ... effective dramatizations of the Way We Fear Now. Their villains are inscrutable, protean, appearing from nowhere to terrorize, seeking no higher end than chaos, no higher thrill than fear. Their hero fights, not for truth, justice and the American Way, but for a more basic form of civilizational order: He knows his society — his Gotham, our America — is decadent and corrupt in many ways, but he also knows that the alternatives are almost infinitely worse."
And, Douthat can offer a response: "the most important defense of civilization takes place only after tragedy has struck, and innocents have perished. And the real heroes are neither police nor politicians nor an imaginary batsuited billionaire, but the people — whether in Columbine or Lower Manhattan or now Aurora, Colo. — who carry one another through the valley of the shadow of death, and by their conduct ensure that the Jokers and James Holmeses of the world win only temporary victories."
Saturday, July 21, 2012
Contributors and readers of the Mirror of Justice may recall that this site has often been the forum in which Catholic identity, especially in the academy, is robustly discussed. These discussions, moreover, have reflected different views on the matter. In the past in my contributions addressing this general topic, I have, on occasion, referred to a theme raised by Archbishop Michael Miller when he was Secretary for the Congregation for Catholic Education. In addresses that he gave in the United States about six years ago, the archbishop raised questions about the Catholic identity of colleges and universities. He essentially indicated that the institution had a choice to make: did it wish to be Catholic or not. He emphasized, though, that whatever election the institution made, competent ecclesiastical authorities had the right and responsibility to make the final determination on whether the institution could use the name Catholic, which is not a mere label but a genuine expression of the institution’s soul and reason for existing. In this context, Archbishop Miller employed the term “evangelical pruning” by which competent authorities might conclude that the moniker “Catholic” would have to be removed from the institution’s name and/or identity if it were, in fact, no longer Catholic.
A few moments ago the Holy See announced that it has, in accordance with the law of the Church, stripped the Pontifical Catholic University of Peru of the right to use the words “Pontifical” and “Catholic” in its title. [HERE] One of the reasons given for doing this was the Holy See’s conclusion that the university, after periodic requests, has failed to adapt its statutes in such a way that they would comply with the Apostolic Constitution Ex Corde Ecclesiae. After extended dialogue on the matter, the university informed the Secretary of State that the university is unable to implement the requirements of the Apostolic Constitution.
While the Holy See has clearly indicated the Church’s hope that the university will reconsider its position and thus comply with the Apostolic Constitution, the ball is now in the court of the university, and the question remains: what does it want to be. When the gardener prunes, there is hope that the living organism will respond affirmatively and eventually become strong once again and bear much fruit. The anticipated fruit of this evangelical pruning involving the ____ ____ University of Peru is that the university may realize that it has a chance to carry the message of Christ to people, to society and culture according to the mission of the Church in the world. But if the institution concludes otherwise, what remains will be a withered branch.
A question emerges from this action taken today: will this decision have a broader impact going beyond the ___ ___ University of Peru? I think so, but time will tell. Nevertheless, the question for other academic institutions who rely on the name Catholic, Jesuit, Dominican, Franciscan, Benedictine, etc. will be the same: what do you want to be? Do you wish to be Catholic or not?
RJA sj
Friday, July 20, 2012
I recommend my friend Charles Camosy's new book, "Peter Singer and Christian Ethics: Beyond Polarization." The book is a creative and helpful reframing of the discourse surrounding Singer's work.
Camosy is, without doubt, going to take some criticism from those who believe that he is working (too) hard to rehabilitate Singer's reputation in the Christian community. He is trying to do that, make no mistake. And while making clear his disagreements with Singer, one will not find much moral outrage in Camosy's tone when confronting some of Singer's truly monstrous (in my view) positions. In Camosy's defense, though, moral outrage is not his motivation here. He is walking a very tricky line, urging the Christian community to step back from the categorical demonization of Singer and discern areas of common interest and shared premises without glossing over foundational and unbridgeable differences. I think he succeeds on that front. He does not hesitate to point out when Singer's arguments fall short on their own terms, though he writes with an optimism -- with some basis, given some of Singer's recent comments -- that Singer is still a work in progress, and that his thought is trending favorably.
Even putting the exploration of Singer's work to the side, the book provides an excellent and accessible analysis of current debates surrounding issues such as euthanasia and abortion. And his chapter on non-human animals makes -- at least for this factory-farm consuming Christian -- for some uncomfortable reading. It also provides a rather jarring experience, as Camosy seems angrier with his fellow Christians for our total disregard of non-human animals than with Singer for his views on infanticide. My guess is that this difference is attributable to two factors: 1) Camosy is angered by Christian hypocrisy, and Singer, for all his morally reprehensible views, is no hypocrite; and 2) there is no shortage of anger surrounding the issue of abortion and infanticide, while anger, at least among the Christian community, is virtually non-existent when it comes to our treatment of non-human animals.
It's a provocative book that should be widely read, and one that is worthy of sustained conversation.
