The Bishop and the Politician

I have heard friends lament that the Church is once again in the news this time denying a politician, Representative Patrick Kennedy, communion. They fear that it is more bad press which the Church doesn't need and that it gives the media another opportunity to lambaste the bishops. I, on the other hand, think any opportunity to put the Church's opposition to abortion on the front page is a good thing. At the very least, it gets people talking about this important issue and gives us an opportunity to dispel some persistent myths.

One of the most frequently heard criticisms of the Church's actions over the past years is that it is the role of legislators to represent their constituents, not their personal beliefs and certainly not the mandates of their Church. According to this view, Representative Kennedy is simply upholding the settled law of the land and the wishes of those who elected him to office. For him to go against the wishes of his constituents because of his personally held views would be a violation of his oath of office.

This line of argument was first proposed by Mario Cuomo when he was the governor of New York and has been echoed by every pro-abortion Catholic politician since. However, it does not hold up to scrutiny because it is not at all the way that politicians behave. Politicians routinely support and promote legislation which flies in the face of the values of their constituency. For instance, though the first Gulf War was largely supported by the people of Massachusetts, Senator Ted Kennedy voted against it and was applauded for his courage. He was not representing the opinion of the people of Massachusetts, but his own personally held views. Most recently, the state legislature in Massachusetts enacted a law legalizing same-sex marriage though a majority of Massachusetts residents opposed it at the time. For that reason, the representatives would not allow the legislation to be placed on the ballot knowing it would go down to certain defeat. Again, their actions were not reflecting the interests of their constituents, but their personally held beliefs or the desires of an especially powerful and vindictive special interest.

In the current debate over health-care reform, Representative Kennedy has made it known that he would not support a bill that lacked a public option even though a majority of his constituents oppose it. Neither would he support a bill which did not include coverage for abortions, though his constituents oppose it. It is his personally held view that the public option and coverage for abortions are essential elements of any health-care reform package, and he is more than willing to impose that view on the people who elected him to office. But protections for the most vulnerable in society, the unborn child, he is not willing to either support or promote.

The fact is that Representative Kennedy has the clout because of his family's legacy to enact legislation to protect the unborn child from destruction and perhaps even convince his constituency that such laws are a good thing. He chooses not to whether because he does not agree that abortion is a heinous act or because he is under pressure from special interest groups within his party. Whatever the case, the values and interests of his constituents have nothing to do with it.

It is time for Representative Kennedy to admit that he does not think abortion is wrong and to accept the consequences his support for it has on his relationship with the Church. Of course, there is always hope that he will experience a conversion and become a champion of the rights of the unborn. With prayer and the continued persistence of our Catholic bishops to articulate clearly and forcefully how abortion harms the common good and undermines the future of our country, it is a possibility.

Get ready! It's coming!

As we recommit ourselves to advocating for the rights of the unborn, the question will increasingly be raised: What about the death penalty? The argument will be made that if the Church is willing to publicly upbraid Catholic politicians who promote abortion, it should also be prepared to give the same treatment to those who support the death penalty.

We need to be ready with some answers.

I have to admit at the outset that I am against the death penalty. As I see it, our legal system is simply not perfect enough to ensure that every person who is sentenced to death is really guilty of the crime he or she is being accused of. The likelihood of an innocent person being put to death - no matter how remote - gives me pause. A life sentence in prison can always be reversed, but a death sentence is permanent.

Furthermore, I think Catholics who do support the death penalty should examine their consciences to ensure that their support is not a result of ignorance, prejudice or vengeance.

That being said, I can't say that I find the death penalty to be a morally equivalent evil to abortion. Nor do I think that there should be an equal urgency to end the practice.

First of all, capital punishment is an extension of a government's responsibility to protect its citizens. It can be argued that capital punishment acts as a deterrent, that is, that people are less likely to commit violent crimes when they know that they may be put to death as a result. Just as the police are authorized to use deadly force to protect citizens and the armed forces to protect the nation, so the legal system may be allowed to use the death penalty to protect the public from criminals.

In the case of abortion, the government fails at its responsibility to protect the innocent. Those who are the most vulnerable, who have no voice, are the very ones who are excluded from protection.

Secondly, people do not find themselves on death row for no reason. Police and prosecutors do not randomly pluck people off the street and sentence them to death. Rather, people receive the death penalty because they chose to commit a crime. Furthermore, even in the face of overwhelming evidence, they are presumed to be innocent and are entitled to be represented by an attorney and to be tried by a jury of their peers. The death penalty is not founded on a presumption that the guilty do not have a fundamental right to life. Rather, the lengthy appeals process afforded to them indicates just the opposite. It can be argued that the judicial system is unfair and can inadvertently prosecute innocent persons (I certainly believe it's a possibility). Nonetheless, it does support the basic right to life of the accused by requiring a high threshold of certainty before leveling a sentence of death.

While the death row inmate gets her day in court, the unborn child has no advocate and no appeals process. Until an attorney is appointed to defend the rights of every unborn child, then I cannot agree that the death penalty is an equal violation of human rights.

Finally, the sheer numbers of abortions as compared to capital deaths is staggering. In 2007 there were 42 inmates put to death in the United States while there were approximately 1,370,000 abortions committed. While only one unjust death of an innocent person is too many, the fact that there are so many abortions each year convinces me that it is a moral issue requiring much more urgency than the death penalty. So many more lives are at stake. At current rates, if it took us ten years to end the death penalty, 420 lives would be lost in the interim. However, if it took us ten years to end abortion, 13,700,000 lives would be lost. If over a million inmates were put to death annually in U.S. prisons, then I might agree that it is a morally equivalent issue. But, given the sheer numbers, it is impossible to argue that the death penalty is as urgent or more urgent than abortion.

In his book, Render Unto Caesar, Archbishop Chaput of Denver argues that abortion is the "foundational" moral issue of our time. It challenges us as a society to decide whether we will be a nation in which the rights of all persons are honored or whether we will be a nation in which the powerful can veto the rights of the weak. The death penalty, pre-emptive war, social justice and other moral issues are certainly compelling. All people should examine their consciences and their attitudes regarding these questions. But, like civil rights in the '60's and slavery in the nineteenth century, abortion is the defining moral question of our time. Because it is premised on the denial of a right to life for a class of people and because of the sheer number of its victims, I cannot foresee any rational argument being made that another moral issue demands equal or greater attention or urgency.

More on Conscience

I absolutely understand the unease many Catholics feel whenever the Church discusses who among the faithful may or may not receive Communion, especially when the debate involves politics. It gives the impression that the Church is using the Eucharist as a weapon. Nonetheless, exclusion from the Eucharist is the consequence of a Catholic politician's exercise of conscience. Any exercise of conscience which contradicts an external authority comes with a sanction. The conscientious Catholic when faced with a choice which contradicts the hierarchy must accept that such a choice places him or her outside of the community to some extent. That is why courage is such an important virtue for the development and exercise of conscience. If we are to champion the primacy of conscience, we must be aware of and accept the consequences of its exercise. And, that may include exclusion from the Eucharist.

I would question, however, whether many Catholic politicians are in fact exercising their consciences when they support pro-abortion policy. As many of them explain it, they claim to be personally opposed to abortion but supportive of it because of the wishes of their constituents. If this is true, then they are in fact violating their consciences. That is, they are taking a position which contradicts their personally held views solely because of an external authority - namely, their constituents. I cannot read the human heart, and I am certainly in no position to judge; but when these same politicians also support partial-birth abortion which a majority of their constituents oppose, one wonders whether their loyalties do indeed rest with their constituents or with the powerful pro-abortion lobbying interests.

This leads us to another important point. Taking a position which contradicts an authority does not necessarily make it a decision in conscience. If a person is ill-informed or has a psychological aversion to authority, then that decision is not based on moral principles and values. Likewise, just because a moral choice happens to coincide with the hierarchy does not necessarily mean that it is not a conscientious choice.

In the interests of full disclosure, I am a Catholic currently married outside of the Church. As my wife and I work toward sacramentalizing our marriage, I have decided to fast from the Eucharist. My wife has made the opposite choice. My decision is no less an exercise of conscience because it coincides with the Church's teaching. Neither is my wife's decision necessarily made in conscience because it contradicts Church teaching. Again, I am in no position to judge anyone, whether it be my wife or a Catholic politician. I am simply a man whose conscience compels him to witness to the truth as he understands it in hopes of moving the discussion from antagonism to dialogue.