June 7, 2004

PUBLIC AFFAIRS AND RELIGION

By James Eugene*

We have recently seen various leaders of the Roman Catholic Church criticize elected officials and make statements with respect the efficacy of such leaders receiving communion, a sacrament of importance to all Christians. Locally, Governor James McGreevey of New Jersey has bowed to pressure from two New Jersey diocese bishops and stopped receiving communion. Both McGreevey and the bishops have acted improperly.

The greater wrong is frankly with Church officials. Criticizing and threatening public officials with the ballot box is one thing (everyone has the right to free speech). However, attempting to coerce a change in public policy through the instruments of religion is another matter.

A public official occupies a different trust than a religious leader, especially a public official who is a practicing member of that religion. While that public official's moral dictates may lead him to feel that a certain policy is offensive, he or she must balance such a position with the rights granted by our public laws (whether or not legal or Constitutional in context) and the ethical mores of that portion of the population that do not share that official's religious beliefs. It is a difficult balancing act to maintain, one often underappreciated by religious officials.

The criticism of McGreevey and to a lesser extent John Kerry annoys me from another perspective. The criticism is selective. McGreevey is chastised because of his pro-choice stance and his position on gay marriage, two of many moral issues that face our world. However, I have never seen a Catholic religious leader criticize or threaten by name a political leader who supports cutting funding for the poor and the death penalty, two positions that the Catholic Church vehemently oppose and that contain moral implications as well (at least from that religion's viewpoint). Failure to criticize and threaten those more conservative political Catholics makes the offending bishops nothing more than partisan political players. This in turn lessens their credibility within their own sphere, as the religious leaders fail to provide a clear moral message across the spectrum of issues that they consistently address.

The criticism has other implications as well. The natural outgrowth of the bishops' policy is that in areas of politics where any moral matter is implicated (and trust me, there are even moral implications in managing an economy), such matters need to be decided in accordance with the dictates of the elected official's religion. If an elected official is required (as the bishops seem to imply) to follow the dictates of their religion in the political world, then we might as well end the stop electing laity as public officials. Instead, the electorate might as well only choose from a ballot of religious leaders and avowed atheists, since almost any matter would need to be decided through the prism of religion. Thus, the Senate and the House of Representatives should consist mostly of ministers, priests, rabbis and mullahs with a few atheists around for good measure. And the two-party system? Nixed, in favor of a huge ballot, because how could a Catholic vote for a Baptist and vice versa. (After all, for example, if you are Catholic, your candidate is supposed to reflect your Catholic religion's moral view and if you want the Baptist's moral view then you should leave Catholicism and become a Baptist.)

The fact is separation of Church and State was created not for the protection of the State (as some seem to accuse current U.S. Court decisions), but for the protection of religion. If we create this religious Congress (and Presidency and Supreme Court), we create a State capable of Afghanistan under the Taliban, where all other religions, and even sects of religion, are suppressed in favor of the ruling religious sect.

Now don't be cynical and ask "aren't we in danger of that with George Bush and the religious right?" People have a right to vote for elected officials who share a moral standard and those officials bring that moral standard into an office as part of their judgment. You may not entirely like it, but that is why you have separation of powers and a Bill of Rights that is ingrained within our society. Protections are there to limit the reach. Sometimes protecting that reach is trying, but no one said democracy is easy. People need to take actions in defense of their rights. It is not always pleasant to make such a defense. However, more than an ideal country, America is an ideal that we are striving for, but have yet to reach.

Finally, I fault McGreevey. Rather than take the opportunity to show courage and explain to religious leaders and the public why the bishops were misguided, he capitulated. Such capitulation hurts the Catholic Church in America's eyes and legitimizes a question for all Catholic politicians: how does the public know that if elected, the Catholic politician won't just follow the dictates of his Church rather than his or her own judgment, especially if faced with religious coercion? Would John Kennedy have followed McGreevey's lead? Would Mario Cuomo? I think you know that each would have put together a logical argument outlining the necessities of separation. McGreevey has an opportunity to do this. So far, he has wasted it.

AND KUDOS TO PETER KING

On a lesser scale, one politician took the opportunity to criticize an official at the Vatican for comments the official made regarding the American abuse scandal in Iraq. Congressman Peter King was offended by remarks from the Vatican that seemed to lecture America on the abuse scandal and the failure of American officials to address the problem quickly. King quickly retorted that the Vatican was the last entity, given the Church's recent problems with pedophilia and its own cover-up (which sometimes appears to be continuing) to lecture the United States.

Good for King. He didn't say that the abuse scandal was not wrong, he simply pointed out the hypocrisy of the official's comments given the Church's own current problems. But where were the other Catholic officials to back up King?

The fact is that King recognizes something that other Catholic leaders are loath to recognize for fear of losing votes. Religious leaders are not perfect. Their leadership position does not make an insensitive or incorrect statement either sensitive or correct. King, a Catholic himself, recognized that. Religious leaders are not the only ones who can comment on moral issues and if they decide to do so in the public realm, either are elected officials should respond to them or explain to us, if they have a different position, why they are taking the position that they are.

* James Eugene is the pseudonym of a veteran of NYC government affairs. Inside The Big Apple will appear exclusively on the Empire Page. If you want to send tips or column ideas to James Eugene, email them to jameseugene@empirepage.com.