Typically averse to direct involvement in the political fray, the Catholic Church in the United States now finds itself fighting in Washington’s policy trenches both on Capitol Hill and at City Hall.
While speaking out publicly on moral issues that intersect with politics is standard for priests and Catholic institutions in America, engaging forcefully in the political scrum — talking tough to the D.C. Council on gay marriage and directly petitioning members of Congress on abortion funding — represents a pugnacity atypical of the American Church.
While Catholic teaching has been consistently clear that abortion is “gravely contrary to the moral law,” and priests and bishops regularly communicate this their congregations, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ letter to members of Congress on abortion subsidies in the health care bill represents an uncharacteristic foray into outright lobbying.
Similarly, the church has been consistent in voicing its opposition to gay marriage, but this week’s direct confrontation with D.C.’s city council over the issue is out of the ordinary.
The church’s newfound political assertiveness likely results from changes in both the nature of the issues at hand and the makeup of the American clergy.
The battles in which the church finds itself embroiled today are not simply about the underlying moral issues — abortion and gay marriage — but about more aggressive policies that might restrict the ability of the church and of individual Catholics to act according to Catholic teachings.
Because the health care bill in Congress would create new subsidies for private health insurance, it would have subsidized abortions if not for the Stupak amendment preventing subsidies for insurance plans that cover abortion. As the U.S. Conference on Catholic Bishops put it in a letter to members of Congress, the bill without the Stupak provision amounts to “requiring people to pay for other people’s abortions with their taxes.” In other words, it would force opponents of legal abortion to act against their conscience simply by paying taxes.
On gay marriage, there is also a conscience question. While the marriage bill is explicit that no religious institution would be forced to approve or conduct gay marriages or other religious services, the church’s charitable activities would be threatened by the institution of gay marriage. For instance, a church-run homeless shelter or adoption program would be forced to recognize a gay marriage as equivalent to a heterosexual marriage. This puts the Archdiocese of Washington in the position of actively supporting homosexual relationships — in violation of its teachings — or abandoning its charitable work in the District.
Another factor in the church’s heightened political engagement, in the view of Jennifer Roback Morse, founder and president of the Ruth Institute, the education branch of the National Organization for Marriage, is a new generation of more orthodox and more spirited Catholic priests — “a crop of John Paul II clergy,” as Morse calls them, referring to the pope who inspired the young priests and ordained the current bishops.
Most strikingly, Bishop Thomas Tobin of the Providence, R.I., diocese accused Rep. Patrick Kennedy, D-R.I., of “false advertising” for publicly touting his Catholicism while voting for taxpayer-subsidized abortions. This public conflict contrasts with the more private, less incendiary tactics bishops used to critique the pro-choice stances of Catholic politicians such as 2004 Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry, and 2008 Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani.
Timothy P. Carney is The Washington Examiner’s lobbying editor, His K Street column appears on Wednesdays.
