Saturday, August 11, 2012
A recent post of mine led to some correspondence between Morning's Minion, of the Vox Nova blog, and me about the work of the Bishops' Ad Hoc Committee on Religious Liberty (which I serve as a consultant). He called my attention to a post of his, from a few weeks back, in which he outlines his "concerns" with that work, and asked for my thoughts. With his permission, I'm posting an edited version of my response to his request:
. . . With respect to your [concern that the Bishops' statements have been too nationalistic]: On the one hand, I do think there are some aspects of American constitutionalism that are distinctively good, and my sense is that the Church has recognized as much. (In various documents, for example, our separation-of-powers and checks-and-balances structures are praised.) And, I think that the teaching in Dignitatis Humanae owes a lot to the American experience with religious freedom, warts and all. That said, and obviously, religious freedom is a human right, not an American right; it is a gift from God, not from James Madison. Still, I think it’s fine for a document, written by American bishops and addressed to Americans primarily, to highlight the centrality in the American experience – at least in its aspirations – of religious liberty. True, in an academic paper, one would want to complicate the narrative, but the basic point is sound, and worth emphasizing: Religious freedom is protected by modern democracies, true, but it was (at least aspirationally) protected here, first. This something that we can celebrate, and try to live up to.
Your second concern, namely, that the Bishops' campaign sounds too much in a not-really-Catholic individualism is one that several more liberal Catholic bloggers have also voiced. I agree that the Church’s religious-freedom teaching cannot be reduced simply to “conscience." Still, it is clear to me that Dignitatis endorses, *at least for purposes of the juridical order*, the idea that the public authority should respect (to the extent possible, given the needs of public order) the religious conscience of all persons, because they are persons. True, there is more to freedom than negative liberty, but I think Murray was right (and right in his understanding of DH) that, for the *limited* purposes of the juridical order, it is appropriate to “operationalize” religious freedom (in an incomplete way) through negative, constitutional restrictions on state actions that burden religious freedom. I share concerns about excessive or un-situated individualism but, again, would insist that the freedom of the individual’s religious conscience is – even if it’s not the whole story – to be protected in law. Can it be overcome by the needs of the public order and the common good? Of course. But the Bishops and the HHS-lawsuit plaintiffs never suggest otherwise.
You are right that the religious-freedom claims of religious institutions are meaningfully different from those of individuals, or of non-religious entities. (The latter sound in "church autonomy" and "separation", for one thing.) But, it does not follow from this that individuals and non-religious entities don't have religious-freedom rights, or that they should lose if they sue to vindicate those rights. I think the way to think about it is that (a) the nature of the burden is different, when it is imposed on a religious institution, (b) but there can still be a burden in the case of an individual or a non-religious entity, (c) the strength of the *government* interest – the public-order, “compelling interest” interest – might be stronger in the case of a burden applied to an individual or a non-religious entity, and (d) the ease-of-accommodation will almost certainly be different.
So, as you say, the government cannot be expected to give everyone a religion-based-conscience exemption from general taxation duties. We agree. But, the HHS case is different. The mandate is NOT a generally applicable law (there are – to use a technical term – gabillions of exemptions) and it is NOT the extraction of money into the general government coffers. . . .
Finally, with respect to your third concern, i.e., that the campaign risks making the Bishops look partisan. In my view, it just cannot be right that the Church, to avoid looking partisan, has to stand quiet on issues that are politically salient. It is not the Church’s fault that it is Sec. Sebelius, and not Sec. Thompson, who is doing this. (Nor is it the Church's fault that it tends to be Republicans who call for wrongheadedly severe immigration policies.)
We'll have ample time to discuss here the subtantive implications of Governor Romney's selection of Congressman Ryan, but here are two interesting facts about today's announcement (and maybe there's something more profound here about the state of religion and politics today):
1. Paul Ryan is only the second Catholic on a Republican presidential ticket--the first was William Miller, the vice presidential nominee in 1964. (Sarah Palin was baptized a Catholic but left the Church with her parents as a child.)
2. This is the first major party presidential ticket in American history without a Mainline (or its derivations) Protestant on it. Nixon-Agnew in 1968 and 1972--a Quaker and a Greek Orthodox by birth--comes close (depending on how one characterizes Quakerism) but Agnew had converted to Episcopalianism by then.
Friday, August 10, 2012
Is what Christians should have, said Joseph Ratzinger in his 2006 Values in a Time of Upheaval. "It is not the task," he said, "of the state to create man's happiness, nor is it the task of the state to create new men. It is not the task of the state to change the world into a paradise . . . nor can it do so." Two years earlier, in Truth and Tolerance, he had written, "Wherever politics tries to be redemptive, it is promising too much. Where it wishes to do the work of God, it becomes, not divine, but demonic."
I posted yesterday regarding Ed Mechmann's blog post, on the website of the Archdiocese of New York, defending Cardinal Dolan's decision to invite President Obama to be a keynote speaker at this year's Al Smith Dinner. When Mr. Mechmann wrote to me to express some dissatisfaction with my post (which I subsequently revised), I asked him whether he had consulted or received permission before he added his post to the Archdiocese's website. Here, with his permission, is Mr. Mechmann's reply:
"I can in fact tell you that I consulted with nobody about my blog post prior to putting it up online. When I was asked to do the blog several years ago, the understanding was that I could post on whatever I wanted, so long as I did not contradict Church teaching, and that I did not require permission from anyone before posting it."
I am grateful for the clarification.
The problem, then, turns out to be slightly different from the one I had first suspected. An employee of the Archdiocese is using its official website unofficially to communicate unofficial positions on a most contentious matter that the Archdiocese has refused officially to address (or redress). I cannot conclude that it is a good idea for the Archdiocese of New York -- or any diocese -- to pay people to publish through an official diocesan organ matter that the Ordinary does not support. Yes, I would require permission from the competent diocesan authority, for the common good of the Church. The disclaimers in the sidebar do not remedy -- and in some ways exacerbate -- the problem I perceive. The amalgam of silence and quasi-official messages is confusing and disorienting. These are confused times, and what good Catholics need from the hierarchy is clear and consistent teaching and adherence to that teaching, not quasi-official sponsorship of one more voice in the blogosphere.
In any event, and with all due respect, I do not think that Mr. Mechmann's analysis -- according to which the Al Smith Dinner is not, in the relevant sense, "religious" -- is sustainable as a matter of Catholic ecclesiology and theology. Sure, the Al Smith Dinner is not a sacrament or even a sacramental, but the work of Catholic Charities is the work of the Church (see the encyclical Deus Caritas Est Nos. 19-25), which surely is religious. As I explained to Mr. Mechmann in email, the pseudo-logic of compartmentalization is a major part of what got the Church into this trouble in the first place, except that hitherto it was never the Church that said (unofficially, of course) that what the Church doesn't do in the sanctuary or sacristy is not religious, it was, instead, the state. The turning of these tables is a dark sign of the times.
At Vox Nova, Morning's Minion contends that "Obama is acceptable, with some major caveats. Romney is not." My view would be that "the President is not acceptable, but that -- admittedly, with some caveats, having to do with some issues about which I suspect MM and I agree -- Romney is." I don't think there's much point -- and, in any event, this is not the best forum -- in trying to set out my reasons for having concluded this in similar detail to that of MM's post. This strikes me as one of those situations in which two people -- both reasonably engaged and intelligent and both doing their best to be Catholic -- just see the world differently.
That said, I think three particular points of MM's are pretty weak, and have to do with matters that I see as being in the Mirror of Justice portfolio. First, MM says that the President is a "Social Democrat who, in the name of liberal tolerance, is not always respectful of the appropriate role of subsidiary mediating institutions in the social order." I agree entirely, though I think this way of putting things understates the problem. But, this strikes me as a pretty big deal -- and a very strong reason for thinking that another Obama administration, staffed with people and by people who are also "not always respectful" of mediating institutions' role, or the limits on state power -- and not just a regrettable personal characteristic. It is a very bad thing, I think, for the leaders and administration in a political community that aspires to be a constitutional democracy to be disrespectful of this "role."
Second, MM downplays the significance of the President's positions and policies with respect to abortion. It is not new, I realize, to point out that Roe isn't everything, and that electing Republicans will not end abortion. But, the suggestion that it doesn't make a difference -- MM says that the President's "office has extremely little control over policies that affect abortion directly (as opposed to indirectly through economic, social, and health care policies)" -- is misguided. The fact -- yes, it is a fact -- is that GOP legislators are more likely to enact reasonable regulations of abortion; GOP executive-branch officials and administrators are more likely to use their discretion in ways that regulate, rather than subsidize, abortion; and judges appointed by GOP presidents are (dramatically) more likely to uphold reasonable regulations of abortion than are their Democratic counterparts. If one wants to say, given all the givens, that abortion should not matter too much, compared to other issues, that's fine, but the suggestion that it's kind of a wash, when it comes to abortion, which party (at this moment in our history, unlike, say, the 1970s) is in power, is nonsense.
Finally, and related both to the first point (about mediating institutions) and the 7th (about same-sex marriage): I think MM downplays the threats posed to religious freedom -- understood, I suspect, as he and I both understand it -- by certain understandings, which are dominant in this administration's relevant offices, of the role and power of antidiscrimination law. This is not merely a "state and local issue", but one that increasingly involves federal courts and federal agencies.
Again, I suspect that most people pick their teams, and then pick their arguments and facts. I imagine we're all -- including me -- guilty of this sometimes. I am doing my best to act politically in a way that makes progress toward the common good more likely, that makes gross injustices less likely, that realistically evaluates facts and predicts effects, and that reflects my grateful embrace of Christianity. I imagine I'll get it wrong sometimes.
