by Dr. Ken Massey, pastor of First Baptist Church of Greensboro, NC
As a Baptist desirous of defending church state separation and religious liberty, I am troubled by a growing practice among Catholic leaders.
I’m referring to the practice of withholding communion from elected representatives who vote in ways that are not consistent with Catholic teaching. Catholic clergy across the country have either refused to give or have asked officials like Rep. Patrick Kennedy to abstain from communion because their votes are contrary to Catholic dogma. Should any religion use ultimate spiritual leverage to get a vote from our representatives who happen to be adherents of that religion? When does political pressure from religion turn into extortion?
Regardless of the issue or the religion involved, what we are seeing from the Catholic Church is a dangerous precedent that crosses the line into church-state entanglement. We have entered a minefield when ecclesiastical leaders use spiritual coercion on politicians so they vote according to sectarian doctrine.
I am not protesting Catholic discipline in general, only that which is directed at our representatives for the explicit purpose of making their votes line up with Church teaching. And I’m not suggesting that religious groups should not lobby for their causes. Rather, I’m arguing that severing a Catholic politician from their primary means of grace (Communion), leaps far beyond the typical political pressures of money and support. A Catholic should, if they believe the Church’s teaching, consider their immortal souls in danger if they cannot receive communion. A Baptist would just join another church, but for a Catholic politician it might feel like a spiritual gun is being held to their head.
When religious rulers step in between public servants and their sworn ultimate duty to uphold the Constitution, it seems to me that they have crossed a line. Threatening House and Senate members so that they vote with the Church is an unconstitutional goal that effectively creates congressional seats for the Holy See.
The U.S. has avoided the religious wars that entangled the Imperial Roman Church over the centuries. We did this not because we refused to elect religious people, but because we refused to elect men and women as representatives of their religion. Our congressional leaders represent ALL persons of ALL beliefs in their congressional districts. Our founders knew the tragic history of religious politics and rejected it.
This spiritual strong arm on elected officials is bad for the Church because it will create backlash. Many will refuse to elect otherwise capable Catholics if they think these politicians will be obligated or pressured to vote as directed by The Church. The same would be true if Muslim members of Congress were obligated to “vote the Koran” or if Methodist Senators had to check in with their bishop before they voted.
This practice is also a step down the wrong road for a country that values religious liberty. If you think political warfare between secular political factions is hurting our country, just wait for an injection of sectarian religion. There’s nothing quite like a mandate from God to kill compromise and justify any and all means necessary to achieve a goal. We don’t need religious exclusionists taking the mainstream hostage as we see in other countries.
Our country does not need Baptist or Catholic representatives. We need U.S. representatives that vote for the good of the country—a country that has refused to give preference to any religion but instead liberty to all.
Respectfully, I must disagree with your assessment of the situation. Catholic doctrine - not the opinion of particular bishops or priests - is what makes this problematic. In other words, a Catholic priest could not in good conscience or in obedience to Catholic Social Teaching offer communion to someone who openly believes in and supports practices which are contrary to those teachings.
ReplyDeleteMoreover, Catholic priests don't simply deny communion to elected officials only. It's not as though senators, congressmen, etc. are the only ones who are barred from communion because of beliefs or practices which are inconsistent with Catholic doctrine.
It isn't an issue of "freedom of religion" if a person joins a community whose teachings conflict with their own viewpoints on social issues. Catholics who want to support LGBTQ rights or choice ought either to respect the teachings of the church and respectfully accept the ecclesiastical consequences of disobedience toward those teachings or, if they don't like those teachings, they ought to find a different community. Of course, I'm not saying that it's okay for priests or the hierarchy to physically harm or defame others' character. However, as far as religious practices are concerned, the Catholic church is not in violation of religious freedom or separation of church and state when it exercises its freedom to act in accordance with its well-known teachings.
You or I may not like that the Catholics deny communion to people because of stances they take in public but, then again, there's a reason that we're Baptists rather than Catholics. It isn't fair or "free" to try to impose our own ideals on a religious community which are wholly foreign to the structure and doctrine thereof simply because their practices make us uncomfortable.
There is also a question of allegiance. It doesn't seem particularly consistent to hold one set of "spiritual" beliefs and one set of "political" beliefs and expect that the two will never meet one another. No thoughtful person operates in such a manner and to expect Catholic politicians and Catholic religious leaders to simply "stay out of each others' business" is (to say the least) unrealistic.
Thanks for the thought-provoking post!
Grace & peace,
A.T.
Sorry for the long initial comment and for following that up with another one. You wrote,
ReplyDelete"When religious rulers step in between public servants and their sworn ultimate duty to uphold the Constitution, it seems to me that they have crossed a line. Threatening House and Senate members so that they vote with the Church is an unconstitutional goal that effectively creates congressional seats for the Holy See."
Would you say that the goal to "uphold the constitution" ought to trump one's allegiance to the Kingdom of God? Please understand that I'm no fundamentalist arguing that Christians ought to infiltrate the "public sphere" and shape a Christian culture. However, it seems deeply problematic from a faith perspective to say that one's identity as a disciple of Christ and follower of the way of Jesus must take a back seat to one's identity as a resident of the United States. Which form of citizenship is "primary" and how do we make such determinations if we're supposed to keep the two separate?
Again, respectfully,
A.T.
A.T.,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your thoughtful and engaging comments! I would like to say a word about your response to Dr. Massey's article. You said:
"Catholics who want to support LGBTQ rights or choice ought either to respect the teachings of the church and respectfully accept the ecclesiastical consequences of disobedience toward those teachings or, if they don't like those teachings, they ought to find a different community."
This is far from the tradition of dissenters in the past, and far from what I believe is the tradition of Protestant thought [I know we are talking about Catholics, but we both have a Protestant perspective]. There are many Catholics, especially in America who have chosen to stick with the Church because of their great record on poverty issues, though many Catholics don't agree with other aspects of the church [also true of other denominations]. I don't think those Catholics, or any denomination for that matter, should have to believe 100% the man-made doctrines of their denomination in order to participate as a member. In fact, if you press most members of most churches, they probably disagree on a great many things, yet still maintain vibrant relationships with the Church.
Rather, I think some Catholic priests are picking and choosing which of the Church's deemed sins they wants to punish. For instance, a great many Catholics take birth control which is abhorred by the Church, but that is not a major focus of denying communion. Did they deny communion to those who voted for the Iraqi war, though the Church officially denounced it? How about those politicians in favor of the death penalty?
I am not trying to make value-judgments for the entirety of the Catholic Church, which does a great many positive things around the world. Rather, I am highlighting that certain Catholic priests might be prioritizing violations of Catholic doctrine based on their own prejudices. And I would encourage those within the church who believe differently to try to change it for the better and make it more loving and accepting rather than leave it.
Blessings,
Laura
Laura,
ReplyDeletePerhaps it was a bit brash to suggest that some Catholics ought simply to "get in line or get out," so to speak.
You wrote, "I am highlighting that certain Catholic priests might be prioritizing violations of Catholic doctrine based on their own prejudices. And I would encourage those within the church who believe differently to try to change it for the better and make it more loving and accepting rather than leave it."
While it may be the case that some priests may be overtly prioritizing or targeting their denials of the Eucharist based on particular "pet" issues, I suppose my main point was that it isn't a denial of religious freedom for Catholics to "act like Catholics" (i.e. the denial of the sacraments for political ends is not out of the ordinary for Catholics, historically speaking).
It isn't really an issue of which moral perspective the church takes but, rather, of what practices are to be tolerated by a free society for whom freedom of religious is a virtue. I, too, would encourage those within all the churches who believe differently to work for change. That being said, the denial of the Eucharist (as well as excommunication) has been used in other countries and other historical periods to pursue social justice and combat oppression (though so many of today's Catholic leaders - including the Pope - often make such things difficult to remember). Thus, I suppose I simply took issue with the implication in Dr. Massey's post that such "intervention" must always be viewed negatively.
Of course, in America's current political climate there are folks on the far right who are trying to manipulate others into pursuing certain agendas. But, to be fair, I guess I'm just more comfortable than Dr. Massey with the idea that such practices might also be used to subvert government practices of injustice and oppression as well In other words, I wonder if those of us who are more to the left would be so upset about this kind of "intervention" if the church hierarchy shared our passions and acted accordingly (i.e., denied the sacraments to those who pursue war, support the death penalty, etc.)?
Sorry again for the long comment but I just can't help myself when there's a good discussion to be had!
Thanks for your push back as well!
Grace & peace,
Andrew
(by the way, the link to my blog has changed and it may now be found at www.freechurchradical.net).
Andrew,
ReplyDeleteNo apologies--it's a great conversation and your words always stimulate great reflection!
I understand where you are coming from. It would be great if we could just decree no war, no death penalty, etc. from the pulpit. But, I don't think that will really change the hearts and minds of people (as evidenced by Rep. Kennedy and many others who are speaking against this kind of control). Most laity in a post-modern world don't want to be told what to think. Rather, I think pastors, especially in the center and left, should be exhibiting a leadership model that is less controling and manipulative. If we can engage people rather than exclude them, I think we will get a lot further as a Church and as the people of God. I think the hierarchical model has been tried and failed for the last several thousand years. Even if it starts under the banner of social justice, I fear it will end in crusade.
Always wonderful to speak with you and get your take on things! Thanks for your note about the blog and I will set about to change it on my list.
Blessings,
Laura
Laura,
ReplyDeleteThanks to you as well for your thoughtful comments. As a Baptist I would never want to make de facto statements from the pulpit. Again, there are many reasons why I'm a Baptist and the freedom inherent in the Baptist tradition is just one of them.
As you said, "If we can engage people rather than exclude them, I think we will get a lot further as a Church and as the people of God. I think the hierarchical model has been tried and failed for the last several thousand years. Even if it starts under the banner of social justice, I fear it will end in crusade."
Although I agree with that, I do try to play the "devil's advocate" as often as I can! I think it stimulates dialog and helps us to arrive at fruitful conclusion!
Thanks again for engaging!
Andrew