Thursday, January 26, 2006

Catholics in American public life

A news commentator makes the pointed observation that, with the expected confirmation of Judge Samuel Alito, there would be 5 Catholics on the U.S. Supreme Court. Was there any emotion in his words, any hint that he felt either good or bad about this fact? I don’t know; I didn’t actually hear the remark, but only a report about it from a colleague. What difference does it make what religion the respective justices profess? What would prompt the pundit to remark on it in the first place?

According to one theory, it shouldn’t make the slightest difference, any more than his hair or eye color. Aren’t we still free to exercise any religion we choose without any interference from the government? (Isn’t that guaranteed by the First Amendment?) Well, that’s the theory anyway.

But religion is almost universally considered a “hot button” topic, especially in regard to public policy and public behavior (and getting more so every day), and this seems to be true a fortiori with respect to the Catholic religion. Why is this? Most likely because the unique doctrinal claims of the Catholic Church and its firm stand on many moral issues seem to rub some people the wrong way, and perhaps the demands placed on individual Catholics by Church discipline cause some people (both Catholics and non-Catholics) to chafe, and at the same time make faithful Catholics an easy target for derision.

A common assumption seems to be that “the Catholic Church” is monolithic, that the pope wields enormous power over virtually every aspect of the lives of Catholics, and for their part, individual Catholics generally obey the pope without question. In reality, nothing could be further from the truth. While the Church does make a concerted effort to instruct the faithful (and everyone else) unambiguously about doctrine and practice (and the pope is the only individual who can speak officially for the whole Church on his own authority)—and Catholics have a moral obligation to receive such instruction with a degree of reverent assent and obedience—Catholics are still human beings with free will and sinful tendencies, and are therefore free to reject it. (Sadly many Catholics prefer to accommodate themselves to “this world” and so choose to reject Church teaching, and yet insist on retaining the name “Catholic.”)

But I think most people would agree that one of the principal functions of any religion is to inform the consciences of those who allegedly profess it, to teach them what things are right and what are wrong. And the Catholic Church, as everybody knows, has some very strong things to say about right & wrong with respect to a number of specific behaviors that are very much in dispute in American life today (e.g., abortion, homosexuality, euthanasia and the nature of marriage).

Americans who favor (for example) the unrestricted practice of abortion or homosexuality fear that if enough Catholics (who take the teachings of their Church seriously and use them to inform their individual consciences) are elected or appointed to positions of power in the halls of government, that they will try to institutionalize Catholic doctrine in public policy. Consequently, long before the candidacy of John F. Kennedy, it was a common enough opinion that the only good Catholic (i.e. one considered suitable for public office) was a bad Catholic (i.e. one who rejected the authoritative teachings of his Church)—even if people didn’t consciously think about it in those terms. And a lot of people thought that the only way Kennedy could win a national election was for him to stipulate that he would in no way permit his Catholicism to have any effect on his decisions regarding public policy. And so he did, and so he was. Could he have been elected had he not made that promise? Given the attitudes of most Americans—and especially of the “power brokers”—at that time, probably not. And that has been the accepted standard for Catholics seeking public office ever since.

Now back to Judge Alito for the Supreme Court. On the nine-member Court, any 5 justices constitute a majority which can nowadays pretty much have its way with the American legal system. (Of course, it wasn’t supposed to be this way, as the framers of the Constitution considered the judiciary to be the weakest of the 3 branches of government and nothing to worry about—but that’s another story.) This is how the infamous Roe vs. Wade decision became the purported “law of the land” on Jan. 22, 1973.

Actually, I don’t think it’s so much Catholics they’re worried about as social conservatives. After all, it’s “Catholics” like Ted Kennedy who are among the strongest opponents to Alito’s confirmation! And one or two of the “Catholics” already on the Court are on the “liberal” end of the ideological scale. But for them to say in effect “social conservatives need not apply” would only highlight their own social-liberal ideology and agenda, which ordinarily only works when it’s kept “under the radar” and away from intellectual scrutiny.

But since Samuel Alito is (*gasp*) both reportedly a social conservative and a faithful Roman Catholic (not to mention a “strict constructionist” who bases his interpretation of the law on what the Constitution actually says (what a concept!) rather than what he wishes it to mean)—as was John Roberts before him—his opponents feel the safest course of action is to insinuate unspecified fears about his Catholicism (the object of the last “socially acceptable” bigotry at work in America today) into the public discussion in order to rally public opinion against him.

Historically (until fairly recently), this country has looked to its traditional Christian ethos as perhaps its most prominent foundational principle. However, this ethos or philosophical paradigm was not merely “Christian,” but specifically Protestant (Puritan) in nature, which from its roots in the late Middle Ages in Europe had a deep-seated suspicion of & even antagonism against the Church of Rome. Given this native cultural attitude among most Americans, it is understandable that Catholics who conscientiously followed the teachings of their Church would be only just tolerated most of the time in most places, and even at times actively and viciously persecuted (as they were in the mid to late 19th Century).

Many dyed-in-the-wool liberals today are beginning to sense that the “icon” of the left-liberal agenda (the Roe vs. Wade decision & the practice of abortion-on-demand it legally permitted) is hanging by a thread and that its days are numbered, and they are desperate to save it. Their main problem is that because it was cut from the cloth of pure ideology there is no rational argument they can marshal to defend it. So their only hope is to keep principled judges off the Court. And without a Bill Clinton making the nominations, they have to keep emotions high and rely on “smear” campaigns.

Thursday, January 12, 2006

No, I'm not dead.

Nor have I abandoned this blog. I've just been ... well, busy. Either busy or exhausted (I'll spare you the details).

I have lots of ideas about things to post about, but no time to write them down, so they just rattle around in my head, and time marches on, and you folks wonder if I'm still around or what. I hope to write something interesting sometime soon (promises, promises), so stay tuned....