Yesterday, June 30, the Holy Father issued his Letter to the Church in China that he signed on Pentecost Sunday, May 27 of this year. While containing some careful nuance, the letter is straightforward on vital matters covering two principal issues: (1) the present situation of the Church in China and it the relevant theological issues involving the proper, respective roles of the Church and the state; and, (2) guidelines for pastoral matters in China that have been affected by the parallel existence of the “underground” Church and the “patriotic” Church. The text of the Pope’s letter is [HERE] along with the accompanying Explanatory Note [HERE].
Throughout his letter, Pope Benedict expresses the need for respectful and constructive dialogue with all concerned in the issues involving the existence of the Church in China. In particular, the Holy Father stresses the need for this type of rapport between the political organs of the People’s Republic of China and the Holy See. But he is also clear about his distinct role as Successor of Peter, which he mentions throughout his letter, and his accompanying authority as the Vicar of Christ, Successor of Peter. I believe that the Holy Father’s emphasis of these two points has far greater application than the Church in China since these remarks appear to have universal application.
Since our Mirror of Justice project addresses the development of Catholic legal theory which is often applied in the context of the pressing political, social, economic, and cultural issues of the day (especially within the United States), I would like to offer a few brief thoughts on why I think the Pope’s letter relates to our work within MOJ.
First of all, Pope Benedict relies on his encyclical Deus Caritas Est when he addresses the proper and respective roles of the state and the Church and the relationship that ensues between them. In doing so, he reiterates that it is not the role of the Church by itself to engage in political causes to bring about the “most just society possible.” Benedict acknowledges that this is the proper role of the state; however, the Church cannot remain idle as the state pursuits this objective. The Church in this regard is a teacher who must exercise her maternal and educational responsibility by unceasingly presenting rational argument and spiritual guidance essential to achieving a just society in all parts of the world. A just society, in short, is not achieved solely through political movement but with the continued and complementary assistance of intellectual understanding and caritas that will always remain the proper contributions of the Church.
In light of this initial statement, the Pope raises a second important point that bears on the work of the contributors of MOJ—indeed, on the work of all Americans. The attainment of the most just society, and surely the achievement of a more just society, cannot be expected if there remains constant conflict between the Church and civil authorities. However, while respecting this important principle about respective roles and interchange, the Church neither can remain passive to any situation where any state or official attempts to interfere in the educational and spiritual missions of the Church that pertain to achieving justice for all members of the human family. While the Church must respect that its faithful must be good citizens who are active contributors to of the political community and to the society in which the state is present, the State must respect and guarantee the freedom of the Church, who is both teaching mother and faithful members of the Body of Christ. This is the plea that Pope Paul VI made to all civil leaders when he commented on the adoption of the Declaration of Religious Freedom, Dignitatis Humanae Personae, when he stated that all the Church asks for from governments is freedom. In light of this appeal made at the Second Vatican Council and following the example of Thomas More, the faithful are to be their society’s loyal subjects and God’s first. This mandates both freedom from control by the state and freedom for Christ and His Church.
This brings me to a third important point made by Benedict having global application beyond China. The Pope speaks several times of the universal Church that is present in China. He understands that there is the existence of the local Church—be it in China, France, Italy, the United States, or elsewhere—but there is one Church of Christ which Catholics acknowledge in the Creed, the fundamental articles of faith, when they speak of the “one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church” that is the universal community of the disciples of Jesus Christ who are led by the Successor of Peter, the Roman Pontiff. And it is in his office of Peter’s successor that Benedict serves as the “perpetual and visible source and foundation” of this essential unity. So, when our fellow citizens in the United States speak of the American Church, they would be more accurate in referring to the Church in the United States that is a component of the Church universal united with and through Peter and his successors. As Benedict says in his letter to the Church in China, “It is therefore indispensable, for the unity of the Church in individual nations, that every Bishop should be in communion with the other Bishops, and that all should be in visible and concrete communion with the Pope.”
A fourth point made by Benedict has clear relevance to recent developments in the United States regarding Catholic politicians who, while stating that they remain privately faithful to the Church’s teachings, must remain unencumbered to exercise their conscience so as not to impose their faith on constituents who are not Catholic. In this context, the Holy Father reminds all in his letter to the Church in China that the Church is apostolic, and no civil authority or official can claim to be above this apostolic authority of the Church as represented in its local bishops and national Episcopal conferences in union with the Successor of Peter. When officials representing the civil authority claim this superior role dealing with matters of faith and Church teachings, they usurp apostolic authority which is not properly theirs. No government official, who also claims membership in the Church, can rely on principles of independence and autonomy, self-management and “democracy” to exercise apostolic authority which is solely that of the Church, “one, holy, catholic and apostolic…” Perhaps some Catholics are comfortable in blurring this crucial distinction; however, the Holy Father is not.
My commentary of the Holy Father’s important letter has been all too brief. I am hopeful that his correspondence will be read by most Americans, including contributors and readers of MOJ. This letter merits our conscientious, judicious, and prayerful study. And now, in anticipation of the Fourth of July, I must go off to the parish at which I am assisting this summer to celebrate the Eucharist and deliver my “Let Freedom Ring” homily on this Thirteenth Sunday of Ordinary Time.RJA sj
I would like to thank Prof. Steve Shiffrin for his thoughtful post of June 20 responding to my earlier remarks regarding Bishop Tobin’s Rhode Island Catholic May 31 article entitled My R.S.V.P. to Rudy Giuliani. Steve suggests disagreement with me on some matters. His comments also indicate that I may have been too brief and should have fleshed out more wholly my perspective on the Tobin-Lynn question. Of course, one of the problems that is characteristic of most web log postings is that they are not designed to study in depth any matter or issue. But, Steve does appear to agree with me on one important point. At the end of his post he states that government actions against religious groups (i.e., “the spectre of government bribing leaders of religious organizations to stay out of politics… even when their conscience dictates otherwise”) present problems. To quote a line from the old English cases, I am of the same opinion. As I see the situation, these problems can include using the tax code as a means of pressuring the proper exercise of the Constitutional guarantees pertaining to the free exercise of religion and freedom of expression.
What is presently at issue in the matter on which I previously wrote is the allegation by Barry Lynn and Americans United for Separation of Church and State that Bishop Tobin violated Section 501(c)(3) of Title 26 of the United States Code when he, Tobin, stated in his Rhode Island Catholic article that he would never defend a candidate who supports legalized abortion. Under this provision of the Internal Revenue Code, tax exempt organizations are forbidden from publishing or distributing statements in “any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.” The Rev. Lynn and Americans United are renewing the argument that was essentially made by Abortion Rights Mobilization, Inc. (ARM) against the Catholic Church in the 1980s. ARM sued the U.S. Bishops Conference and the U.S. Treasury that the latter should revoke the Church’s tax exempt status because of the Church’s public teaching on abortion and the political position this teaching conveyed. In this lawsuit, the courts did not disturb the IRS’s findings that the Church was in compliance with Section 501(c)(3). I suggest that the current circumstances surrounding the concerns of Americans United for Separation of Church and State are no different.
The IRS has determined that the Church’s teaching on the abortion issue does not violate the tax code. As one leader of the Church, Bishop Tobin has the responsibility in his teaching office to continue this fundamental instruction. Some may argue that while there are Constitutional protections upon which the Church and Bishop Tobin rely in this regard, there are also statutory provisions, such as the Internal Revenue Code, that must be honored as well. But when there is perceived tension between the Constitution, the supreme law of the land, and a particular statute, the primary way of avoiding any conflict between these two legal authorities is to read the statute in a way that is consistent with the applicable Constitutional provisions. In this case, Section 501(c)(3) is to be interpreted in a manner that is consistent with the First Amendment.
But if this is not possible, it may be argued that the statute which remains in conflict with the Constitution is, in fact, unconstitutional. Steve suggests this possibility in his posting.
In the meantime, I think it is helpful to keep in mind that Americans United for Separation of Church and State is another tax exempt organization that relies on the protection of Section 501(c)(3). While Americans United for Separation asserts that “we are careful to make sure we are always in compliance [with the requirements of 501(c)(3)]… [by not] making any statements supporting or opposing any candidate or party…” its actions indicate otherwise. For example, the website of Americans United for Separation has a menu where the reader can click on the voting records of elected officials including state officials and Members of Congress. By selecting the entry on a particular official, the reader can see if that office holder voted “with us” or “against us.” While this information provided by Americans United for Separation is nuanced, it nevertheless indicates that this tax exempt organization is presenting a position on and the suitability of this office holder and future candidate by indicating whether he or she is “with us” or “against us.” Perhaps Americans United for Separation would disagree with my analysis. But since a part of their mission is to educate the public “about religious freedom issues and organize local chapters all over the country,” their actions speak more clearly than their words. The Rev. Barry Lynn and the organization of which he is executive director understandably want to exercise their Constitutional rights. This is essentially the position of the NAACP, another tax exempt organization, took when President Julian Bond delivered a speech in July of 2004 that made implications about candidates in the then upcoming presidential election. Has Bishop Tobin done anything different? No. He has exercised his Constitutional liberties to protect the unborn and to teach about the evils of abortion and to agree with Mr. Giuliani that abortion is “morally wrong.”RJA sj
Once again, the Rev. Barry Lynn has taken the opportunity to criticize the Catholic Church by taking prominent occasion to highlight Bishop Thomas Tobin’s recent statements in the diocesan newspaper published by his diocese, Providence. Lynn’s organization, Americans for Separation of Church and State, has made a request to the IRS to investigate the diocese as a result of Bishop Tobin’s remarks published in the Catholic journal. [Article HERE] Quoting from the AP article which appears in the major newspaper of Bishop Tobin’s diocese, the Providence Journal:
Americans United for Separation of Church and State, in a news release yesterday, said it took the action because “federal tax law forbids non-profits to use organizational resources to support or oppose candidates for public office.” The Rev. Barry W. Lynn, the group’s executive director, said in the letter that Tobin, “appears to have violated federal tax law by attacking Giuliani.” Tobin made his comments in a piece in the Rhode Island Catholic, questioning Giuliani’s position that abortion is wrong, but that government should not impede a woman’s ability to obtain an abortion. “If the bishop wants to join the political fray, he should do so as an individual without dragging along his tax-exempt diocese,” Lynn said in the news release. “A church is not a political action committee, and it should not act like one.”
I have previously used the analogy of trains headed on a same-track train in a head-on collision to depict contemporary challenges to the proper exercise of religious liberty. Bishop Tobin has acted properly in spite of Rev. Lynn’s commentary and characterization. Since it appears that the trains are once again running toward one another, let us pray for Bishop Tobin, his courage, and his fidelity to his teaching and pastoral office.RJA sj
The bishops of Massachusetts quickly issued a statement [HERE] in response to the Massachusetts legislature's denial of the referendum on the definition of marriage. Will more action follow? In the meantime, we may reflect on the frank words of the bishops:
In the Commonwealth, our state laws provide for the process whereby the citizens have a right to vote on a constitutional amendment. However, the leadership of the Democratic Party refuses to allow citizens and elected officials to vote their conscience on social issues. Their ideological positions undermine the common good. Today, the common good has been sacrificed by the extreme individualism that subordinates what is best for children, families and society... The question for those elected officials who opposed allowing the marriage amendment to be voted on by the people is: do we live in a country where people are free to vote their conscience or are we controlled by what is viewed as politically correct and by powerful special interest groups?
The Massachusetts legislature has just voted to prohibit the citizens of Massachusetts from a referendum on the Constitutional amendment that would define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. The Boston Globe’s characterization of the proposed amendment is flawed, but the Globe reports other relevant issues concerning today's legislative activities. [HERE] As a consequence of this vote by the legislature, the citizens will not be able to have the 2008 referendum on the meaning of marriage. It will be interesting to see what the citizen’s response will be. It will also be interesting to see how the four bishops in Massachusetts respond.RJA sj
Some years ago, Rep. Tip O’Neill suggested that all politics are local. This observation came from a man who was not only a powerful national legislator but also a leader of Congress and Speaker of the House of Representatives. Over the past several weeks several MOJ contributors have discussed a number of issues that involve the important question of church/state relations on the national front. Some of the issues discussed in these postings have addressed abortion, embryonic stem cell research, and marriage. One catalyst for these discussions has been the nationally televised debates of Democratic and Republican candidates for the Presidency.
But tomorrow, Thursday, June 14, politics of great importance will take place on a local level. The General Court of Massachusetts (the state legislature) is scheduled to take up the important question of the state constitutional convention concerning the amendment to the Massachusetts constitution that would define marriage as the union between one many and one woman. [HERE] The four Catholic bishops of Massachusetts have spoken on this issue a number of times including on June 12. [HERE] However, a number of prominent members of the legislature who are either Catholic or represent areas of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts with large Catholic majorities have taken the approach that religious belief cannot trump public duty. An example of their position is reported [HERE].
I am inclined to think that many legislators will look for ways to avoid the vote tomorrow so as to postpone this important matter for another day. But should the vote proceed and thereby allow the issue to go to a popular referendum, the citizens of Massachusetts will most likely decide the matter. But, if the legislature deems the proposed amendment “discriminatory” and refuses the public referendum, the bishops of Massachusetts, who have been exercising their pastoral and teaching duties on this issue, will have another duty to perform: what must they do about the legislators who claim membership in the Church but defy its teachings?
At this late hour there is one thing that those of us who are not Massachusetts legislators (and lobbyists) can do: we can once again pray for courage and wisdom in our bishops as they exercise their pastoral and teaching office. Let us also pray for the fidelity of our Catholic legislators for whom matters of faith may or may not be convenient, depending on the political issue that rests before them. It is interesting that some Catholic legislators can profess strong adherence to the faith when the issues in a debate involve education, poverty, or immigration; however, it is equally interesting when they assert that their faith cannot “interfere” with their public duties when abortion “rights,” the public funding of embryonic stem cell research, or the definition of marriage is at stake. RJA sj
Today The Australian [HERE] reports that a West Australian parliamentary committee will investigate Archbishop Barry Hickey for stating that Catholic public officials who support embryonic stem cell research should not receive holy communion and could face excommunication in the future. Although the archbishop has indicated that his words should not be considered a threat, the Speaker of the state Parliament has reacted otherwise and will commence an investigation of the archbishop. I suspect that most Australians familiar with this development realize that Cardinal George Pell of Sydney made statements similar to Archbishop Hickey within the last several days. My examination of both bishops words indicate that they parallel those made by some American bishops and the Holy Father on the duties of Catholic politicians and receipt of the Eucharist. While the Speaker of the state Parliament, Mr. Fred Riebeling, may believe that a bishop who is mindful of Church teachings and is prepared to enforce them in the exercise of his pastoral responsibilities threatens Catholic public officials, I wonder if the Speaker views his words and actions as threats to the freedom of the Church? Following the Speaker’s position and line of thinking, one could argue, I suppose, that Bishop Clemens August von Galen “threatened” the National Socialists when he exercised his proper pastoral responsibilities and teaching duties among the faithful.RJA sj
A number of recent MOJ postings have prompted me to return to the celebration of Pentecost this past Sunday and to reflect further on the gift of the Holy Spirit that enabled the disciples to proclaim boldly the Good News.
In the times of persecution, it would appear that making this proclamation may not be a prudent thing to do. Yet, the history of the Church demonstrates that there were those disciples who boldly proclaimed the Good News in spite of harsh consequences. But I hasten to add that even in the present day when persecution of the faith and the faithful seems a relic of the past there are some who claim to follow Christ who offer so nuanced a proclamation of the Gospel that it is hard to recognize.
This does not seem to be the case with Archbishop Raymond Burke of St. Louis when we read today’s Washington Post and article written by one of its staff writers, Peter Slevin. [HERE] All things being considered, Mr. Slevin’s article is a rebuke of the archbishop. But Mr. Slevin has misunderstood many things about the archbishop, his duties, and the responsibilities of all Catholics, as is evident from his report. The censure becomes all the more patent when Mr. Slevin questions the archbishop’s words and deeds that are consistent with and geared to promote Church teachings of the issues of the day. Maybe some of his readers of the Washington Post would agree with Mr. Slevin that John Kerry, Claire McCaskill, Geri Redden, Bob Costas, David Obey, Billy Crystal, and Sheryl Crow are right and the archbishop is wrong or is misguided or is too rigid. I, for one, think that Raymond Burke is correct; moreover, I conclude that those whom Mr. Slevin portrays in a favorable light are in error. Mr. Slevin does not grasp that the archbishop is doing precisely what he was asked to do by the Church and by Jesus—to proclaim good news and to do so boldly. I’ll agree with Mr. Slevin on one point that he makes: “[Archbishop Burke] tells his critics that he has ‘no agenda but the church.’” Yes, that is what discipleship is about: it’s not about me, it’s about the Church, the Body of Christ; it’s also about what God asks of each of us through the gift of the Holy Spirit.RJA sj
On May 10, eighteen Members of Congress expressed their dissatisfaction with Pope Benedict’s statement about abortion and the responsibility of Catholics who hold public office. [HERE] On last Friday, May 18, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops exercised their pastoral office and replied to these public office holders. [HERE] I am certain that there will be ongoing development of this question and related issues. In the meantime, let us pray for our brothers and sisters who do not understand very well their responsibilities as Catholics who also hold prominent positions in government office. Let us also pray that our bishops will continue to exercise their pastoral duties with courage, wisdom, and clarity.RJA sj
During the past week, the new Attorney General of the
Commonwealth
of
Massachusetts
, Martha Coakley, was the keynote speaker [speech HERE] at the 22nd annual dinner of the Massachusetts Lesbian and Gay Bar Association. Her office issued a press release [HERE] that confirmed her disposition to challenge the constitution of the Commonwealth that she solemnly swore she would support when she professed the oath of office required of her under Article VI of the
Massachusetts
constitution. Incidentally, the oath states: “I, A.B., do solemnly sear, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the
Commonwealth
of
Massachusetts
, and will support the constitution thereof. So help me God.” To assure her audience of her position, General Coakley stated in her address: “I think we can easily anticipate that if the proposed amendment was [sic] successful, there would be protracted, hard-fought litigation about the constitutionality of such a provision. If that battle is necessary, you have my support.”
This is a remarkable claim. Assuming that the constitutional provisions for amending the constitution are followed (and there is no credible evidence to the contrary), the marriage amendment that General Coakley opposes would be part of the constitution, the document she swore she would uphold. While she confirmed in her speech that she is “charged with the responsibility for upholding the law,” she unambiguously indicated that there are certain laws, namely a constitutional amendment with which she disagrees, that she will not uphold—in fact, she will defy it through litigation. This proposed course of action would lead her to violate her sworn oath. Moreover, this defiance of the constitution would derogate the rule of law. In support of her argument, she referred to dicta of two of the justices of the Supreme Judicial Court who opined in the Goodridge case that the decision to recognize same-sex marriage “may be irreversible because of its holding that no rational basis exists, or can be advanced, to support the definition of marriage proposed by the initiative…” (The italics are mine.) But what if this assertion in Goodridg is wrong and there is a rational basis supporting the definition of marriage as the exclusive union of one man and one woman? Court majorities have been wrong in the past, and there is no reason to conclude, in spite of General Coakley’s assertion, that Goodridge is irreversible considering this context.
General Coakley provides the interested citizen with further insight into her jurisprudential views in her commentary that “hard won protection of civil rights can never be taken for granted.” In elaboration of her point, she referred to the recent decision in Gonzales v. Carhart as “a challenge to choice rights ensured under Roe v. Wade.” But what if Roe is wrong? A mistaken decision cannot ensure the prolongation of error that the rule of law must oppose. It would appear that for General Coakley there are only certain understandings about the law that she is sworn to uphold. It would also seem that other understandings about the law that are unacceptable to her may be surrendered without compromising the integrity of the rule of law.
The
Boston
Globe’s Megan Woolhouse reported on General Coakley’s speech in its May 12 edition. In her article [HERE], Ms. Woolhouse quoted on several occasions a law professor at
Boston
College
Law
School
who thought that General Coakley’s remarks were “wonderful.” Ms. Woolhouse noted that this professor somehow relied on
Boston
College
Law
School
’s being “rooted in Catholic Jesuit tradition” to support and justify his position supportive of General Coakley. As a Catholic and Jesuit, I cannot endorse the Catholic-Jesuit connection that the professor who was quoted attempted to make. Moreover, I think he joins General Coakley in the pursuit of goal that does little to enhance the rule of law but does much to destabilize it. Her approach to the law reflects the caprice of the positivist mind rather than the transcendent and objective moral order essential to Catholic legal theory.RJA sj
