Everyone who has been following the Kerry and the Catholic Church controversy should take the time to read this 1984 speech on the subject (well, the general subject, not Kerry in particular) by Mario Cuomo, another Catholic politician criticized for his pro-choice votes. Here’s a few snippets:
In fact, Catholic public officials take an oath to preserve the Constitution that guarantees his freedom. And they do so gladly. Not because they love what others do with their freedom, but because they realize that in guaranteeing freedom for all, they guarantee our right to be Catholics: our right to pray, to use the sacraments, to refuse birth control devices, to reject abortion, not to divorce and remarry if we believe it to be wrong.
The Catholic public official lives the political truth most Catholics through most of American history have accepted and insisted on: the truth that to assure our freedom we must allow others the same freedom, even if occasionally it produces conduct by them which we would hold to be sinful.
I protect my right to be a Catholic by preserving your right to believe as a Jew, a Protestant, or nonbeliever, or as anything else you choose.
And more, from later in the speech….
My church and my conscience require me to believe certain things about divorce, birth control, and abortion. My church does not order me—under pain of sin or expulsion—to pursue my salvific mission according to a precisely defined political plan. …
I repeat, there is no church teaching that mandates the best political course for making our belief everyone’s rule, for spreading this part of our Catholicism. There is neither an encyclical nor a catechism that spells out a political strategy for achieving legislative goals. …
The bishops’ pastoral letter, “The Challenge of Peace,” speaks directly to this point. “We recognize,” the bishops wrote, “that the Church’s teaching authority does not carry the same force when it deals with technical solutions involving particular means as it does when it speaks of principles or ends. People may agree in abhorring an injustice, for instance, yet sincerely disagree as to what practical approach will achieve justice. Religious groups are entitled as others to their opinion in such cases, but they should not claim that their opinions are the only ones that people of good will may hold.” …
Respectfully, and after careful consideration of the position and arguments of the bishops, I have concluded that the approach of a constitutional amendment [to ban abortion] is not the best way for us to seek to deal with abortion.
I believe that legal interdicting of all abortions by either the federal government or the individual states is not a plausible possibility and, even if it could be obtained, it wouldn’t work. Given present attitudes, it would be Prohibition revisited, legislating what couldn’t be enforced and in the process creating a disrespect for law in general. …
The hard truth is that abortion isn’t a failure of government. No agency or department of government forces women to have abortions, but abortion goes on.
Catholics, the statistics show, support the right to abortion in equal proportion to the rest of the population. Despite the teaching in our homes and schools and pulpits, despite the sermons and pleadings of parents and priests and prelates, despite all the effort at defining our opposition to the sin of abortion, collectively we Catholics apparently believe—and perhaps act—little differently from those who don’t share our commitment.
Are we asking government to make criminal what we believe to be sinful because we ourselves can’t stop committing the sin?
Damn, I wish Cuomo had run for president.
There’s too much good stuff to quote… if you’re interested in the issue and have a bit of time to spare, I recommend reading the whole thing. Link via e-skojec.com..
Oh yeah. Mario. I remember him. *yawn*
I wonder what he thought of Archbishop Rummel’s excommunication of obstinate segregationist pols back in the early ’60s?
I mean, they were just representing their constituents who wanted to preserve segregation throughout society. And Lord knows, there’s no encyclical or catechism that spells out a political strategy for achieving legislative goals…
So I’m sure Mario was up in arms over that confrontation.
Right.
http://www.loyno.edu/history/journal/1993-4/Smestad.html
I note that you don’t address Cuomo’s substantive arguments at all; you merely attack him personally. But that’s illogical. Cuomo’s arguments aren’t proven wrong because you say he’s a hypocrite; his arguments are either wrong or not depending on themselves, not depending on who said them.
(If the question was one of fact – “is Cuomo lying?” – then looking at his character might make sense. But his arguments here aren’t factual, but theoretical, so his character is logically irrelevant.)
[Edited to remove some material I didn’t like, less than 30 seconds after I initially posted it.]
Pangloss,
The article to which you linked seems to deal with integration in parochial schools. I seriously doubt Mr. Cuomo would have any problems with a bishop enforcing church policy on church matters in his diocese. Similarly, I would guess he would have no objection to a diocese forbidding abortions in church hospitals and then taking measures to ensure that policy was enforced.
He was instead dealing with the issues of deciding on policy for the society at large. It would seem Mr. Cuomo’s position would require that a Catholic politician seek to end racism, but would leave it up to the politician to determine how to best achieve that goal.
[Sigh] I wish he had, too. I miss hearing him speak on a regular basis.
My favorite quote on this topic (in general terms)comes from C. S. Lewis:
“A great many people seem to think, that if you are a Christian yourself you should try to make divorce difficult for everyone. I do not think that. At least I should be very angry if the Mohammedans tried to prevent the rest of us from drinking wine. My own view is that the Churches should frankly recognize that the majority of the British people are not Christians, and, therefore, cannot be expected to live Christian lives.”
Word.
This goes hand in hand with another of my pet peeves . . . the idea that favoring discriminatory laws doesn’t really “count” as discrimination if you’re doing it for religious reasons: “Oh, of course I’m against gay marriage, but I’m no bigot, for you see, I am a Christian!”
Bullshit.
Favoring measures that FORCE non-Christians to adhere to Christian morality is one of the worst sort of discriminations. It doesn’t make you a bad Catholic if you prefer not to force other people to be Catholic, it just makes you a good human.
C. S. Lewis understood that, why is so much of the religious right unable to?
—JRC
Hey Pangloss:
I have been an ardent pro-choicer for as long as I can remember. I have done clinic defense, where threatening to use my football blocking skills has come in handy.
I have publicly renounced Catholicism (apostacy), but if I come back, I will come back as a Reform Roman Catholic (heresy, schism).
Why haven’t I been excommunicated yet? Oh, I’m not a high-profile politician who needs to be told what views are politically correct for a Catholic to hold.
Funny how the conservatives don’t cry about politicial correctness when the Catholic Church is threatening to excommunicate pro-choice politicians or censoring a college newspaper for promoting condom use.
I wonder if FIRE will step in on behalf of the newspaper staff of LaRoche College? I doubt it. Conservatives NEVER are politically correct or stifle academic freedom (cough, McCarthy).
Amp: Since when is highlighting a pol’s outright hypocrisy not a worthwhile endeavor? Or shall we just stipulate that Cuomo’s a hypocrite a move on from there?
Gabriel: No, Rummel excommunicated those legislators for pursuing segregationist ends (i.e., the will of their electorate) via good ol’ fashioned legislative means, which of course included preserving segregation throughout society, in the parochial as well as the public schools. The excomm’d pols were sanctioned for actions that at all times were undertaken in their capacity as the people’s elected representatives and were pursued solely thru the democratic legislative process.
Hello? Senator Kerry??
“Favoring measures that FORCE non-Christians to adhere to Christian morality is one of the worst sort of discriminations.”
Word. That’s why John Brown, Rev. MLK, Sr. Helen Prejean, et al. were/are so completely out of their minds, huh?
Pangloss: There was no indication from the article that they would have been excommunicated merely for pursuing segregation in the public schools. It seemed their transgression involved attempts to prevent the parochial schools from integrating. Just because those attmempts were made through the legislature doesn’t mean it wasn’t direct interference with the Archbishop’s plan to integrate the parochial schools in his diocese. To my knowledge Senator Kerry has never tried to force Catholic hospitals to perform abortions.
While I am pro-choice, I think policy makers should avoid ‘ethical relativist’ arguments to support legistlation. The standard Cuomo applies is pleasing to those of us who support choice. I’m guessing it might not be as pleasing to us when applied to support the death penalty.
Partly true, Gabriel. The bishop was preaching against the sin of segregation for many years and, true, the legislative effort as applied to parochial schools was the event that directly led to the excomms. But your limited abortion analogy doesn’t fit.
The pols in question were pursuing the then popular legislative goal of preserving segregation throughout society. Parochial schools are part of society. They are subject to a degree of regulation even today, like any school. These pols seemed to have rightly recognized that integration of the parochial schools would have an adverse effect on their constituents’ goal of maintaining a fully segregated society.
Sure, segregation was recognized as a bad thing by the church, but integration was unpopular among the electorate. The pols were pursuing a goal about which there’s no encyclical or catechism that spells out the rights legislative means. Perhaps the pols thought a go-slow approach was better for fear of riot and insurrection. Perhaps the pols feared negative effects of one segment of the schools being integrated and not the other. After all, Rummel’s order could have led to a “white flight” from the parochial schools and putting tremendous stress on the public schools.
The bishop obviously was primarily maintaining order in his diocese by taking the steps he did. But can he not be accused of putting pressure on Catholic pols to vote a certain way, to limit the legislative goals they might pursue or the means of pursuing them, to disregard the desires of their constituencies? Of course he can. But these are secondary effects and are perfectly legitimate and tolerable effects in a representative democracy that cherishes the free exercise of religion.
In any event, it seems that you are in agreement that there are legislative efforts that an elected Catholic pol may undertake that could indeed get him in hot water with his bishop and his church.
Mario’s vision is cramped and selfserving. Roxanne’s got it right. Try applying his logic to a “liberal” issue and see if you like the results.
I guess the question in New Orleans is would Archbishop Rummel have still excommunicated the politicians if they had allowed for an exception for parochial schools. As you said, perhaps they thought there would have been a political problem with making such an exception, but I still see the issue as quite different based on that distinction. The idea of Gov. Cuomo’s speech was that the Church sets the goals, but that (even according to the Church) it is up to the politician to decide how to best achieve those goals politically. When it comes to the policy of the parochial schools themselves, though, that matter should be left to the bishop.
And actually Gov. Cuomo did apply his logic to a “liberal” isssue. He wrote:
So I’m fine applying his logic to the death penalty. His goal is to end the death penalty. He must decide how to best achieve that goal. And trying to convince people that it must end because the Pope says so is not likely to be an effective means of achieving that goal.
If you want to return to the parochial school situation. Suppose a law was being debated over whether to require sex ed courses in schools with instructions on the use of contraceptives. Suppose this law would extend to parochial schools as well. I could certainly see the bishop exerting all pressure including the threat of excommunication on any politician who would vote for such a law without an exception for parochial schools.
“Suppose a law was being debated over whether to require sex ed courses in schools with instructions on the use of contraceptives. Suppose this law would extend to parochial schools as well. I could certainly see the bishop exerting all pressure including the threat of excommunication on any politician who would vote for such a law without an exception for parochial schools.”
Well, Gabriel, we’re in agreement, but you’re opening the door far wider than Cuomo ever did. How about another real world example — A common strategy of PPFA, NOW, et al., of late, in which they’ve had some success, has been to work at the state and local levels to enact laws that mandate that private employers include contraceptive coverage in group health plans. The laws in some jurisdictions (such as NY) contain so-called “religious exemptions” that are so narrowly drawn (by intent) as to exclude any religious based endeavor that does not include actual religious inculcation as part of its mission. Now, it has never been the mission of a Catholic hospital, nursing home, group home, etc. to evangelize. The providing of health care itself is understood as part of the Christian mission and is the reason for the founding of so many of these institutions, and many are still operated by the local bishop or a religious order. Yet, these laws would require the religious entity to directly subsidize contraceptive (and abortifacient) coverage for their employees and their dependents.
I trust you’d agree that a bishop who threatens to excommunicate Catholic pols who vote for such proposals, which would impinge upon the religious prerogatives of Catholic entities and compel them to act in a manner inconsistent with their religious mission, is above reproach.
Yes I would agree. I would note one area that I believe raises some difficulties, though. My understanding is that some organizations have separated from the Church so that they may receive government funds. I believe those organizations have made the decision to place themselves in the State sphere. They can’t have it both ways. For those that remain under control of the Church, I certainly agree with you.
Well, we have some common ground there, too, as I think some institutions have come to rely more on the state than the church and are, as you say, more within “the State sphere.”
But I find your line-drawing re Catholic pols and church sanction very interesting. Personally, I don’t agree with where you’ve drawn the line (I think the Kerry situation cries out for some sanction), but I think you’re far beyond Cuomo.
It’s always nice to find some areas of common ground. I can’t speak for Cuomo, but I would note that for all I know he agrees with me. His speech simply didn’t touch on the issues we’ve been discussing. He merely talked about the difficult decisions he faces in balancing his own doctrinal beliefs as a Catholic with his obligation to ensure religious freedom for all. I would think that what he says applies to the clergy as well. Their decisions on these matters are also difficult. On the one hand they have firm convictions on what is right and wrong, what is best for our society, and how individuals should act. On the other hand they also value religious freedom greatly. They also understand that politically taking certain actions could be counterproductive to achieving the goals they have for society. These aren’t easy issues for anyone.
Posted by Aaron V on 28 April:
“I have been an ardent pro-choicer for as long as I can remember. I have done clinic defense, where threatening to use my football blocking skills has come in handy.”
“I have publicly renounced Catholicism (apostacy), but if I come back, I will come back as a Reform Roman Catholic (heresy, schism).”
“Why haven’t I been excommunicated yet?”
Answer: You probably have been. In canon law, there is a type of excommunication termed latae sententiae (“by the very commission of the offense”). It does not depend on any pronouncement by Church authority, since the act in question may not even be known to a bishop. Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes grounds for such. It might be argued that what you have described falls within the bounds.
But in a larger sense: If you have renounced Catholicism, why would you logically even ask the question? Why would you care?
I came across this blog searching out ‘Mario Cuomo’ because I am puzzled and disappointed he has seemingly disappeared from the national scene. In this time of trouble I have no doubt he would have thoughtful and inspiring ideas that would help our national conversation. The visceral response I have toward Kerry is that his approach is weak and muddled. He needs a lot of help.
So I stumble across this blog prefaced by Mr. Cuomo’s speech outlining sectarian and secular boundaries that exist in his mind as a Catholic.
It seems to me the commentary in general is pretty disconnected from Cuomo’s position. Instead it devolves into scapegoating over racism and abortion. At one point a writer has Cuomo’s position at crosspurpose with Martin Luther King. That is just plain silly and misplaced.
Mario Cuomo as a Catholic is pretty much the standard issue. His secular attitude is standard as well. Standard Catholics practice birth control as much as any other group. In spite of the Pope’s edicts they make up their own mind with reference to their community of friends and family.
The direction of the discussion does illustrate the difficult predicament we find ourselves in as factions wishing to empower themselves over the lives of others.
Rigorous logical adherance to rigid religious belief is the thing that is at crosspurposes with a tolerant pluralistic society. The challenge is to manage the dual personality within each of our secular and sectarian selves. No doubt this seems to result in hypocracy but only if you imagine living in matrix of simple arithmetic.
It is so refreshing to hear basic down to earth remarks and what now seems old fashioned ideas and beliefs.
For me it is twice as nice as many of the individuals speaking on these very controversial
subjects happen to be Americans with Italian background.
Mr Cuomo as well as Mr giuliani are my hopes that will turn this great Country of ours back to common sense and stop being concerned over the LOUD few and hurt the SILENT majority.
A PROUD NATURALIZED CITIZEN
Franco
Pingback: Galois
Pingback: Body and Soul
Pingback: The Catholic Factor
Pingback: c u l t u r e k i t c h e n
Pingback: c u l t u r e k i t c h e n
Pingback: c u l t u r e k i t c h e n