.
I hate to mix politics and religion, but — well, someone is mixing politics and religion. From Bishop Thomas John Paprocki of Springfield, Illinois comes a column entitled “Think and pray about your vote in upcoming election,” part of the series “Lex Cordis Caritas – The law of the heart is Love”:
“Do I smell smoke?”
“There are many positive and beneficial planks in the Democratic Party Platform, but I am pointing out those that explicitly endorse intrinsic evils. My job is not to tell you for whom you should vote. But I do have a duty to speak out on moral issues. I would be abdicating this duty if I remained silent out of fear of sounding ‘political’ and didn’t say anything about the morality of these issues. People of faith object to these platform positions that promote serious sins.”
“So what about the Republicans? I have read the Republican Party Platform and there is nothing in it that supports or promotes an intrinsic evil or a serious sin. “One might argue for different methods in the platform to address the needs of the poor, to feed the hungry and to solve the challenges of immigration, but these are prudential judgments about the most effective means of achieving morally desirable ends, not intrinsic evils.”
“Again, I am not telling you which party or which candidates to vote for or against, but I am saying that you need to think and pray very carefully about your vote, because a vote for a candidate who promotes actions or behaviors that are intrinsically evil and gravely sinful makes you morally complicit and places the eternal salvation of your own soul in serious jeopardy.”
There’s also a video here. I’ve decided against embedding it.
Unfashionably enough, by some people’s standards, I’m religious. I fall within the broad bounds of Reform Judaism. My zeal for politics comes from that religious perspective, in which I truly believe that pursuing self-interest and wealth to the exclusion of social justice is, in some way that I intuit but can’t claim to understand, is simply morally wrong. That, and my belief that I am personally charged with acting in accord with those beliefs are the cornerstone of my faith.
I’m happy to use the word “faith” because my belief is exactly the way more traditional self-described “people of faith” describe it: I don’t “know that it’s true”; I can’t prove that it’s true; I simply believe (and choose to believe) that it’s true because that’s how the world makes sense to me; that’s what I “feel.” I’m not at all certain about the positive specifics of my cosmology, though I would be categorized as “universalist” (that to the extent that there is eternal life we all have equal access to it), but I do know what I certainly don’t believe: I don’t believe that there is a God who will punish you with eternal damnation if, say, you vote Democratic.
Opposing that sort of thing is part of my “religious fervor.”
What people do with their religious lives is up to them and I try not to criticize it. When that religious life extends into controlling other people’s political actions, though, I think that it becomes my problem. I think that when you (even implicitly) threaten people with the prospect of eternal damnation if they vote a certain way — not that they’re “telling you which party or which candidates to vote for or against,” of course; Heaven forfend! — it’s a pretty clear sign that you’ve got nothing legitimate to sell. Not “your religion”; just you, personally.
I find this bishop’s little nod of advice to his flock to be unrepresentative of the many wonderful Catholics I have known. Frankly, I find it atrocious. I would be happy to say the same thing if someone from my religion did the same — even in support of the Democratic Party or of something further Left. In all my life I don’t think that I’ve heard anyone from “my side” of the political spectrum do that. Martin Luther King Jr. didn’t single people out and say “if you don’t support my cause then you shall burn in everlasting flame.” He spoke of the arc of justice and the demands of mercy, but he didn’t tell people to vote one way unless they wanted their eyeballs leaking out of their face every five minutes.
My first wife was a (mostly) lapsed Catholic; my second wife and my stepchildren are devout but generously liberal in their beliefs. I know that to some extent people are motivated, at a deep and atavistic level, by a fear of Eternal Damnation. I’m not a cleric, but I would think that when the stakes are at that level a prudent person would take the advice they give with the utmost seriousness and restraint. The bishop failed that test. (I could quote papal bulls to make the point in Catholic theological terms, but I’ll spare everyone that.)
Bishop Paprocki cites the platform’s initially omitting a reference to “God-given potential,” supporting the right to abortion, supporting the equal rights of gays and lesbians to marry the adult of their choice as “intrinsic evils.” This gives them a different moral status than trifles in the Republican platform that seek more mass murder of foreigners, deny science, and favor despoiling the environment, promoting the unbridled accretion of wealth, and leaving the poor to suffer and die needlessly. Evil, maybe — but reasonable people can apparently disagree about them (at least without facing eternal hellfire, I mean.)
I (along with the vast majority of American Catholics, if public opinion surveys on birth control are any guide) disagree with the thought expressed. (If the Bishop wants to fight the scourge of pederasty, for example, plenty of work can keep him busy within the church hierarchy alone.) I will note that my support for separation of church and state comes not simply from the desire to protect the secular government, but from my desire to protect sectarian religion.
I have my own ideas, for example, about whether and how our abilities are “God-given”; what concerned me here is the demand of some politicians that the party force others to speak the religious catechism of the majority. (For me, for example, that’s blasphemy. I try not to force others to blaspheme against their will. I don’t think God wants that.) I have my own ideas about birth control and marriage equality that comport very nicely with my own benign conception of a spiritual font of morality. Here, the Bishop — thanks to his desire (and this is a point I won’t concede) to intervene in politics — has determined that his church’s dogma carries very very much about gay marriage (about which the Bible says almost nothing) but not about divorce (about which Jesus spoke repeatedly and at length.) Damning people for divorce, you see, is a political non-starter. Thus does politics pervert religious teaching.
The above alone would have led me to grumble about the Bishop’s writing but not to respond to it here. What leads me to do that is this: telling people that if they vote a certain way they will go to eternal Hell perverts our political system. That’s not only because it’s refuge for scoundrels surpassing even patriotism; it’s because it is, at base, winning votes through extortion.
Now, you can have extortion through our current system. The main problem I have with Permanent Absentee Ballots and mail-in ballots — both of which I support despite this misgiving — is that one can make someone else fill out their ballot in front of you, make sure that they did it “correctly,” and then you can make sure that it’s mailed. (Yes, they could override that ballot in person — but that leaves a trace.) If you’re saying “vote this way or I’ll break your legs, or I’ll break your kid’s legs,” that truly undermines the foundations of democracy. Now it’s not about who has the best ideas or values, but about who has the most ability to break other people’s legs.
For those who believe in an omniscient God, the notion that “God will see if you vote this way and will damn you to eternal hellfire” is pretty much the same thing. You’re not to consider the merits of candidate, party, or cause; you are solely to consider your self-interest (in not being consumed eternally by eternal flames.) Yes, in this case the Bishop is not doing the extorting himself; he’s just informing you that God is doing the extorting. Simply change the sentence to “you displease God” and it takes away much of the punch. I, you, all of us — we “displease God” (if we have such a belief) every day. We’re frail and we have free will; that’s a certain recipe for displeasure. But it’s not telling believers to cooperate or burn in Hell forever. This simply has no place, at all, in politics.
I hope that politicians of all parties (and none) will reject Bishop Paprocki’s statement. I hope that persons of all religious faiths (and none) will do the same. I hope that the Catholic Church, from the pope through the hierarchy down to the laity, will also pledge that — as a tax-exempt organization — it will not try to win votes for any party through religious extortion.
I wonder why the Bishop doesn’t discuss how each party views immigrants and immigration and then compare them to the Churches position on such?
He’d say that being anti-immigration is not an “intrinsic evil” — as opposed to, say supporting abortion or gay marriage.
When it comes to voting, I’m more concerned with political evils. Extorting votes is surely one of them.
Or aggressive War? Or capital punishment? Or universal health care?
Vern, he actually does discuss capital punishment…
Yet the churches remain tax free, despite their obviously agressive influence peddling in legislation. I remember the Catholic church’s campaign against assisted suicide in 1992, and the Mormons with prop. 8. What a scam.
It seems like many churches are pushing the envelope when it comes to overt political speech and endorsement. The good Father can disclaimer his little speech all he wants, but this is clearly an endorsement for one political party over another.
It’s time for Congress to take another look at the tax-exempt status of churches. Problem is, they’re all too frightened of being accused of waging a “war on religion.”
Thanks for posting the video. Not sure why you did not mention that he started with his reference to the lack of following of rules by the Mayor of LA with the lack of obtaining a two-thirds majority at the DNC….still think that was a major farce and I lost some respect for those who went along with it- I still remember hearing the first vote on TV and then getting up from my desk in shock watching the other two in awe….crazy.
Can someone point to where in the GOP Platform stating that the R’s “seek more mass murder of foreigners” or “leaving the poor to suffer and die needlessly”?
I agreed with him that it was a farce; it was also beside the point. I’ve had that happen to me at various political meetings. I’m no longer surprised by it.
As a minor politico, I have some possibility of eventually being at a dinner with Villaraigosa. If so, I hope to ask people, for example, what they want on the pizza — and then just do whatever I wanted to do no matter what the vote — and then look at him meaningfully.
I don’t think that it’s in the platform itself. But Romney wants to go to war with Iran and slash social spending; in my book, that counts.
You just made me laugh, seriously, the dinner thing with Mayor V is funny…”hey, does anyone want a free dinner tonight, lets do that again…no, OK I guess you guys are on your own”. Part of his point was that rules should be followed if I followed some of what he was saying and the DNC set forth a very poor example of rule following.
Getting back to the point, after watching the video a couple of times and rewatching a few parts, the statement in your last paragraph actually lends itself somewhat to his point…look at the platform for what the party stands for but then make individual voting choices based on the candidates own positions.
… but then make individual voting choices based on the candidates own positions recognizing that voting Democratic under such conditions may well lead to spending eternity in the flames of Hell.
I’m not sure where I lose you — do you not agree that that’s extortion? Do you think that it’s extortion but it’s all right? Do you think that it’s extortion and it’s wrong but it’s still OK be tax-exempt when you do this sort of thing?
Maybe it’s having had young Catholic kids with me for several years, but I take the act of obtaining compliance by threatening someone with hellfire seriously. If you do that to make your kids eat their vegetables, that’s one thing; if you do it to make them vote a certain way, it’s another.
You lose me when you are not using the Bishop’s words but instead your own interpretation of his words…does he actually say “recognizing that voting Democratic under such conditions may well lead to spending eternity in the flames of hell”? The emphasis placing on Democratic versus the candidate. Please provide at what point he says that…
I heard him say that “a vote for a candidate who promotes actions or behaviors that are intrinsically evil and gravely sinful makes you morally complicit…” The emphasis being on the promoted actions and behaviors of the candidate but not the party.
Is it extortion…hard time with that one. He definitely is bringing into focus what is moral and evil in his own eyes and that at some time in the future we will be judged by our maker. I am not Catholic so I am unfamiliar with the ways of the Catholic church, but I hear others talk about “Catholic guilt” and know that the Reformation was brought about party due to some of the changes needed in the church at the time. As such, I presume that this type of discussion is probably not all that uncommon with certain behaviors in the church- voting is obviously an action that is quite important and if ones faith is important to them, I am not quite sure if it would be appropriate to separate the two.
…but I am just a lowly sinner who desires to be fed, though.
Oh c’mon…you’re not gonna shovel that little naivete game at us that you often turn to. You ever heard of reading between the lines?
Tell us, in Catholic doctrine, what are the consequences of engaging in “intrinsic evil” and “grave sin”?
Greg, that reply above was meant for BOUTWELL. But I see no Reply button on his comment.
Anon- I am not a Catholic and not all that familiar with Catholic doctrine, so I am not qualified to answer that question.
I’m sure that repealing Obamacare has to be in the GOP Platform. Hence, leaving the poor to suffer and die needlessly. They’ve got nothing serious to “replace”it with.
“.. social justice ..” nice term – doesn’t mean much.
Greg – Can you please explain to me how social justice compares and squares with equal justice under the law.
TAX THE CHURCH
PS- Isn’t the previous poster, (who’s name I am repeatedly admonished for revealing, but is OK for others?????) the one who said ” FUCK SOCIAL JUSTICE”?
Just looking for a little social Justice here……Fair is Fair, unless the editor(s) decide it;s not….
If you wanted to tax the church, you probably would not get very much tax revenue as their expenses generally equal their revenue, so they would have pretty much zero net income. Obviously, there are a number of exceptions but a lot of churches are not floating in the dough…
Now, if you wanted to take away a charitable contribution, that is another story…
You would get a lot of revenue if you taxed their real estate.
Very true.
Really…..
Take a look at how Santa Ana was able to widen Bristol (HI MT!)
They own more than 100 proprtites that are exempt from taxes in Santa Ana!
Look at where some of the priests live, the lay people, many of whom occupy RCBO homes.
WAKE UP !!!
Most of the time that people talk about “taxing the churches” that I hear, it is in the context of income taxes, so apologies on the misunderstanding. If the property tax exemption were removed, there definitely would be more property taxes available for the state/county.
I don’t know how SA was able to widen Bristol nor what HI MT and RCBO abbreviations are…I presume that churches did not pay for the widening though.
If churches did pay tax on their owned property, I would imagine that they would have less cash available to help those in need. I know that our church would definitely struggle to keep the services we provide to the those who need it up if we had to pay tax on the value of our property.
Yes, they’d have less available for those in need — and for the less charitable things that they do as well (like hiring high-powered legal talent to defend those who abetted molesters.) And if we tax Disney, then Disney can’t make as many charitable contributions either — as well as not having as much profit. I hate that argument, if it’s not clear, but it does point out why we want social services to be a governmental function rather than one of charity — which allows for arguments such as that one.
Maybe we should separate the major problems that the Catholic church has had from the many many other small churches that don’t seem to have a big legal team to employ…not all churches are in the same position as the Catholic church. I understand how one may get tainted by the Catholic church scandal though. Churches all around the world do great good. For example, go down to Civic Center and see who feeds the folks down there.
I am not sure who the “we” you refer to but churches and its members do seem to provide a lot of social services to the public…often a lot more efficient than the government could do it. Going back to the Civic Center feeding of the hungry- they are volunteers and not getting paid such as would be the case if the government was in charge of that particular project. Both government and charity has its place in providing for those in need; I would rather have the money get to the end user the quickest as possible with the least amount of leakage of funds.
If I walked into the State Controller’s office and gave them a $10K check and said that I would like to help the needy out I would venture to guess that the end result/product would be greater if I gave that same check to my church or local charity with the same instructions.
Watch how quickly the scenario in your last sentence can be rationalized so that the poor get none of that $10,000:
(1) We help the poor.
(2) We need money to help pay off (and silence) those molested by our priests or we won’t be around to help the poor.
(3) Our using all of this money for those payoffs “helps the poor,” even if indirectly, by keeping us around.
(The neatest trick is that when you start out with (1) you can justify almost anything in (2) and (3).)
So, you might be right — but it’s hardly a slam dunk. How did it work for Robert Schuller’s flock at the Crystal Cathedral?
With your 3 step ratonalization…are talking about the money to the state or the charity? Seems it can be applied to both. I have a choice if I want to give money to the charity whereas I don’t have that choice when I write a tax check. If a charity is not doing good with my money, I can stop paying yet if the state is not doing good with my money I don’t have the same choice. I can vote but there is no direct and immediate choice. My preference is to still go with the charity. You can of course give your money to the state sice you believe it should be the one providing the services. I wonder which will feed those in need down at SA Civic Center quicker and most efficiently.
Yeah that’s me – and let me say one more time – fuck social justice!
The Bishop’s comments are a perfect example of why my family and I left the Roman Catholic Church several years ago. Its particularly galling for an organization that was itself “morally implicit” in hiding the abuse of children for decades by choosing to turn a blind eye to it, and by in fact enabling that abuse by shuttling offending clergy from diocese to diocese.
What the Bishop is advocating is some kind of passive help for the poor and uninsured, a kind of the clerical version of the trickle down theory. “Gee, if the we let the rich get richer, some of it is bound to percolate down to the lower classes, and that’s the same thing as providing Medicare and universal health coverage, right?” I continue to be a person of faith who has read the New Testament end to end more than once and I’m reasonably sure Jesus was a tad more forthright in his insistence that we take real, direct, and personal action to help one another.
As for abortion and gay marriage, here’s the difference the Bishop refuses to see: If you don’t like abortion, don’t get one. If you’re against gay marriage, don’t get married if you’re gay. Being pro-choice or pro gay marriage doesn’t force anyone to do anything they oppose, and doesn’t leave anyone worse off. But being poor or uninsured is not a choice most people make. It is a sad consequence of the human condition (or the Fall to put it in Biblical terms).And that, most definitely, is something Jesus told us we could and should do something about. The Bishop needs to brush up on his Bible. Shameful.
The Bishop certainly has a right to speak his mind on issues of morality as they relate to politics. But he crossed the line when he said “this party is better than that party”. What could or should he have said?
Well, a universally accepted doctrine of faith is that God gave us free will (that’s how we got ourselves in the mess we’re in, Garden of Eden-wise). God also gave us a brain to think with and spur us to action in His name. So, what the Bishop could have said, is “I’ve read both parties’ platforms. I urge you, as faithful Catholics, to do the same and prayerfully discern which party’s policies are more closely aligned with what Jesus taught us and the Church seeks to continue here on Earth, bearing in mind we can’t expect to totally agree with either party on every issue, whether expressed directly in words or implicit in its policies. Having a deep respect for the Constitution that allows me to express my religious beliefsfs openly, I have no intention of telling you how to vote. Discern, pray, and then vote as the Spirit guides you.”
Now was that so hard?
Much less politically effective though — and that’s the bottom line.
Yes, realizing there’s quite a difference between advocating social justice (e.g. Dr. King) and political campaigning. Is the good Bishop spurring his flock to move toward a more just society or to vote for a certain party (under pain of eternal conscious torment if you choose “poorly)?
Greg, which arguments in this post apply to unions and which do not?
Well, obviously they can condemn people to eternal damnation…. OK, I’ll admit: I don’t know what you are getting at.
“If you’re saying ‘vote this way or I’ll break your legs, or I’ll break your kid’s legs,’ that truly undermines the foundations of democracy. Now it’s not about who has the best ideas or values, but about who has the most ability to break other people’s legs.”
I’m wondering how you’re defining extortion and coercion.
Does taking money out of your paycheck in order to keep your job only to have others spend it on candidates that you abhor or propositions that you vehemently oppose count as extortion?
What’s the fundamental difference between donating to the collection plate and receiving a political lecture that you don’t agree with that threatens your prospects in the afterlife and paying one’s union dues only to receive a similar chastising on your prospects in the current life?
I’m just wondering where you draw the line between extortion and legitimate political speech.
No, neither payroll deduction nor passing the plate counts as extortion in my book.
This is one’s church threatening one with everlasting hellfire for a political action.
Of course, they’d say that they’re just passing along a threat from God, but there’s plenty in Leviticus and Deuteronomy, and beyond, that carries similar penalties but that they don’t say must determine one’s political vote. That picking and choosing is what makes it illegitimate. If they wanted to say “all humans are evil, so voting for any of them is impermissible complicity,” then at least they’d be consistent and impartial (even though I’d think that it was terrible in a different way.)
*Let’s pretend for a moment: Let’s say that the Catholic Church has saved the lives of thousands of people…..then let’s think about the thousands that have been killed in the name of sin. Let’s say that Martin Luther saw a bunch of “Pay-Offs” which the Church took to absolve “Any Sin” with enough cash. Let’s say that saving souls and treating mankind in a loving and caring way….are important edicts by numerous Pope’s over the years. Let’s say that anyone that has not seen “The Borgias” should not say another word about religion. Let’s say that all Institutions are corrupt, but the degree and extent to the various situations vary. Let’s say that Single Sins by Church goers, or Church leaders do not create an Institutional parody, unless it becomes “Systemic”. Let’s just say that “Those without Sin ….cast the first stone!” Let’s just say that Father Flanagan saved alot of kids from the streets. Let’s just say that “Social Justice” means …..helping the downtrodden and not walking by them and discounting them. Let’s just say that Skallywag and anon can live in their “hate filled
world” and discuss heavenly issues at their Sports Clubs…while the rest of us …kind
of feel bad for the plight of others. Let’s just say : “You don’t fool with Sholan Buddist Monk…..that asks you for a hand!” Let’s just say: Creating a better society begins with one great act of kindness to our fellow man….either through deed or action.
Let’s just say: If you don’t try or do…..you will never make a difference!