www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Faith and Patriotism, by Archbishop Charles J. Chaput

Faith and Patriotism

By the Most Reverend Charles J. Chaput, Archbishop of Denver

Published: October 22, 2004

Denver � The theologian Karl Barth once said, "To clasp the hands in prayer is the beginning of an uprising against the disorder of the world."

That saying comes to mind as the election approaches and I hear more lectures about how Catholics must not "impose their beliefs on society" or warnings about the need for "the separation of church and state." These are two of the emptiest slogans in current American politics, intended to discourage serious debate. No one in mainstream American politics wants a theocracy. Nor does anyone doubt the importance of morality in public life. Therefore, we should recognize these slogans for what they are: frequently dishonest and ultimately dangerous sound bites.

Lawmaking inevitably involves some group imposing its beliefs on the rest of us. That's the nature of the democratic process. If we say that we "ought" to do something, we are making a moral judgment. When our legislators turn that judgment into law, somebody's ought becomes a "must" for the whole of society. This is not inherently dangerous; it's how pluralism works.

Democracy depends on people of conviction expressing their views, confidently and without embarrassment. This give-and-take is an American tradition, and religious believers play a vital role in it. We don't serve our country - in fact we weaken it intellectually - if we downplay our principles or fail to speak forcefully out of some misguided sense of good manners.

People who support permissive abortion laws have no qualms about imposing their views on society. Often working against popular opinion, they have tried to block any effort to change permissive abortion laws since the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision in 1973. That's fair. That's their right. But why should the rules of engagement be different for citizens who oppose those laws?

Catholics have an obligation to work for the common good and the dignity of every person. We see abortion as a matter of civil rights and human dignity, not simply as a matter of religious teaching. We are doubly unfaithful - both to our religious convictions and to our democratic responsibilities - if we fail to support the right to life of the unborn child. Our duties to social justice by no means end there. But they do always begin there, because the right to life is foundational.

For Catholics to take a "pro-choice" view toward abortion contradicts our identity and makes us complicit in how the choice plays out. The "choice" in abortion always involves the choice to end the life of an unborn human being. For anyone who sees this fact clearly, neutrality, silence or private disapproval are not options. They are evils almost as grave as abortion itself. If religious believers do not advance their convictions about public morality in public debate, they are demonstrating not tolerance but cowardice.

The civil order has its own sphere of responsibility, and its own proper autonomy, apart from the church or any other religious community. But civil authorities are never exempt from moral engagement and criticism, either from the church or its members. The founders themselves realized this.

The founders sought to prevent the establishment of an official state church. Given America's history of anti-Catholic nativism, Catholics strongly support the Constitution's approach to religious freedom. But the Constitution does not, nor was it ever intended to, prohibit people or communities of faith from playing an active role in public life. Exiling religion from civic debate separates government from morality and citizens from their consciences. That road leads to politics without character, now a national epidemic.

Words are cheap. Actions matter. If we believe in the sanctity of life from conception to natural death, we need to prove that by our actions, including our political choices. Anything less leads to the corruption of our integrity. Patriotism, which is a virtue for people of all faiths, requires that we fight, ethically and nonviolently, for what we believe. Claiming that "we don't want to impose our beliefs on society" is not merely politically convenient; it is morally incoherent and irresponsible.

As James 2:17 reminds us, in a passage quoted in the final presidential debate, "Faith without works is dead." It is a valid point. People should act on what they claim to believe. Otherwise they are violating their own conscience, and lying to themselves and the rest of us.

Website: http://www.archden.org

Article: The New York Times [nytimes.com]

I wish we could interface this with the Sojourner's article in "Townhall". Not that the Sojourner's point is complete but it would extend the discussion to matters of war and peace.

Cowardice has indeed crept into our national debate. We are too often willing to settle for slogans which promise tolerance but only offer dishonesty. God bless this good bishop.

Dan L

I think the Bishop raises some important points, but then again gets needlessly tendentious on others.
Surely, the Bishop understands the difficulties in getting a message out. His speaking out to us, does not occur by means of omprehensive monographs or scholarly articles, but in letters of hundreds of words, which get reduced to headlines and sound bites. Sloganeering is a consequence of a busy public with limited attention. It is wrong, and needlessly edgy IMO, to say that it is simply reflective of emptiness of thought, and a desire to engage in debate. I will stipulate that there is more to Bishop's thoughts than this sloganeering that he is engaging in.

And there is certainly more to the issue of acting on one's faith-based impulses vs. imposing religious beliefs. We discussed this issue previously, after the last debate in which Kerry quoted the same verse from James that the Bishop does. From that thread:
I am sorry Bishop didn't discuss this crucial point instead attacking on the separation of church & state - as though it is taken to mean state exemption from moral criticism, or the prohibition of people of faith from playing an active role in public life.

I think that there is a real breakthrough here: Bishop acknowledges that neutrality and private disapproval are sins of a different nature and not as grave as abortion. This perspective is different than the informal response to inquiries on Kerry's excommunication, where by "piggybacking" on the inherent grave evil of abortion itself, it was suggested that a public posture of neutrality-in-law with private disapproval was equally grave!

Unfortunately even in this latest missive, Bishop shows a continuing unfamiliarity with the American experiment in self-government.
It would be nice if the discussion were engaged with some awareness of the principles of liberal constitutional government. Our laws restrict abortion; it is "permitted" becuase the people have not (yet) given government the authority to forbid it.

Bravo Bishop! I don't support the stand of Kerry or the Democratic party on abortion. It is principled, coherent, and wrong. I cannot support Bush and the Republicans. They are unprincipled, incoherent, and ineffectual. Their words are cheap. Their actions have demonstrated that they use this issues - like gay rights issues - in a strict political calculation. Actions are limited to those acts that will gain more votes than they will cost. Thus a constitutional amendment on gay-marriage, but not on right-to-life. And so on.

Now connect the dots.
If words are cheap, but actions count, then a practical accounting of the difference between the major parties reveals a vanishingly small difference. In which case, most any reason for cating a vote becomes proportionate to this reasons pertaining tho this issue. This connection has not been realized in previous words from Bishop Chaput. But he has taken a significant step here.

No, there is too much bravado - usually from chicken hawks - masquerading as bravery our national debate. And masquerading as courage there is narcissistic passion for gut instinct, and disdain for sober analysis, or second thoughts in the face of contrary facts.

I disagree with DJS.

Planned Parenthood, an organization dedicated to killing children for profit, estimates that President Bush�s prohibition against U.S. federal funds being used for abortion / abortion counseling by worldwide �family planning� agencies has resulted in at least 1.5 million children being born who otherwise would have been aborted. I do not trust organizations like Planned Parenthood to be truthful about anything, (their numbers regarding rising abortion rates during the Bush administration appear to be purposefully facetious). But, if they are complaining about loosing income from 1.5 million babies being born instead of being aborted, then it apparently the Bush policies on funding are indeed effectual. President Bush�s strategy regarding life issues has been to quietly appoint justices to the federal bench who respect the original intent of the founding fathers rather then to legislate from the bench, with hopes that the majority of these will be pro-life. This is quite different from Senator Kerry, who has stated a litmus test that disqualifies Catholics and other pro-life people from serving as judges.

I submit that DJS� logic here is very problematic. While I disagree with DJS� analysis of President Bush�s position, I will suggest to him that �principled, coherent and wrong� is still wrong. �Unprincipled, incoherent and effectual� is still right. It is better to vote for an individual who can change his strategy to be more effective in doing what is right than to support an individual who is dedicated to doing what is wrong.

I will agree with DJS that much more needs to be done. I support a Human Life Amendment to the Constitution, as does President Bush. Unfortunately it stand no chance of passage as long as good people like DJS work to support legalized abortion and a furtherance of the culture of death with their votes.

DJS� words in support of life are cheap in light of his actions against life in the voting booth.

Admin

Well, after the first para, I still haven't quite figured out whether you are accepting the numbers of planned parenthood or not. It seems to be just a matter of convenience.

I haven't heard their numbers, but limited information obtained from reports from sixteen states that has been discussed without facetiousness.

What are the criteria of better? A reasonable expectation, or just the naive triumph of hope over experience. I don't suggest that the duplicity of the Republicans - which is not "right", btw - is a reason to vote for Kerry. I simply submit that the lack of a practical difference - gauged by experience - sufficies to justify as proportionate every other reason under the sun. And if you like Bush on these other issues, fine. But the idea that Bush must be voted for because he is "better" on life issues is, as I've mentioned before, either disingenuous,or irresponsibly naive.

The word support is cheap. Where is Bush's action?

Frankly, it is good people who advance strategies that lead to division and stalemate on the life issues that are inhibiting progress in changing the culture of death. And who often are seeking little more than to achieve a Pharasaical purity in their voting, rather than actually having an impact on this grave issue.

But while I think that many actions and strategies of folks in the pro-life movement inhibt progress in changing the culture of death, I stipulate that this inhibition has to be viewed, in charity, as an unintended consequence. To suggest that they "work to support" the culture of death would be classic rash judgement, and probably, calumny.

Your personal accusation against me crosses that line.

Dear DJS,

I realized a few years ago, after seeing a cruel and viscious battle against a very righteous man, that 'integrity' is very threatening to those that lack it. If it were not so, Saints would not have been calumnized.

Since people that lack integrity are threatened, they cannot possible accept it in others, so they rationalize them as being hypocritical. Is it any wonder then, that you, and others will say that Pres. Bush only does that which will give him the most votes.

It appears that these false perceptions, about our very decent and principled President, can only come from a 'spirit' of dissent...

Zenovia

I accept the numbers only so far as it supports their complaint of loosing business.

The President has not introduced a Human Life Amendment into Congress because it has no chance of being passed. Before an amendment has a chance of passage we must work to elect pro-life people to represent us in Congress. This will not happen until good people like you stop voting to support abortion.

The President has been active in this regard, especially (as I previously noted) in appointing people to the bench who respect the original intent of the Constitution, with the hopes that they are Pro-Life. If the President were as ineffective as you desire him to be then the anti-life forces would not be so eager to defeat him to keep him from appointing Pro-Lifers to the courts.

Electing Senator Kerry to the Presidency will have a grave impact on changing the culture for the worse. Did you forget that he has stated that people with Catholic views are not qualified to serve as federal judges? Did you forget that he has previously voted to attempt to force Catholic hospitals to perform abortions or risk losing reimbursement for treating Medicare / Medicaid patients? Did you forget that in his health care proposal he would force you to pay for abortions?

If Pro-Lifers actions sometimes inhibit the progress in changing the culture of death they are guilty of being inept or ineffective. I agree that it would uncharitable and calumnious to state that they are working to support the culture of death.

I disagree that those who vote for Pro-Abortion candidates deserve the same level of charity. When one knowingly votes for a candidate who promises to further the work of the Evil One by furthering the culture of death then one has the blood of the innocents on his or her hands. Those who support anti-life candidates through ignorance deserve charity. Those who support anti-life candidates after consideration and a false understanding of proportionality deserve fraternal correction.

I disagree. Those who knowingly vote for a pro-abortion candidate only succeed in furthering the cause of evil.

Rubbish. You avoid the point that I made several times already, that the same "because" manifestly applies to the gay-marriage amendment. Yet is was introduced and voted down. Try this: putting the former to a vote was calculated as negative and the latter as a positive to their re-election.

I am intrigued by your perspective on who is deserving of charity; it is of course directly contradicted by the words of our Savior.

You are wrong to accuse me of supporting legalized abortion; you are wrong to accuse me of supporting the culture of death. As such your rash accusation is unmitigated calumny.

This lack of charity is very alienating. It is a attitude that, for many to whom it is applied, leads to a hardening of their hearts. You may be agree with those "Rambo Catholics" who would be happier with a tiny Christian remnant - who are far better sandal dusters than shepherds. But if those people sincerely cared about the unborn they would be working to find common ground with "good people" to advance this cause, rather than making rash and calumnous accusations that misidentify allies as opponents. This attitude cannot be so glibly dismissed as mere ineptness and ineffectuality. It is the attitude, IMO, of a brood of vipers that values its own sanctimony above the cause of saving lives.


btw, over the past several days, there has been reasonable discussion of these issues here:
http://www.mirrorofjustice.com/mirrorofjustice/2004/10/answering_the_q.html

The bottom line is this: Mr. Kerry has made it clear that he supports abortion. Mr. Bush has made it clear that he rejects abortion. Christians don't support murder. I am a Christian. I will vote for Mr. Bush, without hesitation, and hope and pray for the dissolution of Planned Parenthood.

Though quite well educated I like to keep simple things simple.

Dan L

Dear Dan,

Sometimes keeping things simple is simply the best way!

In Christ,
Alice

Occam's razer is somtimes mistakenly thought to mean that the simplest hypothesis is the best. Actually, it is the simplest hypothesis consistent with the facts.

Your logic is valid Dan, but your truth of your propositions is suspect.

More importantly, will your simple approach ever lead to victory in this battle?

Esteemed members of the Forum:

I rarely, if ever, enter into discussions on the forum due to my admitted lack of knowledge of the various topics discussed herein.

In response to queries on which (if either) Presidential candidate would be the better President, many of the anti-Kerry posters simply keep repeating that Mr. Bush is Pro-Life (Anti-Abortion) and Mr. Kerry is pro-Abortion (�Pro Choice).

I wish to remind both sides of this debate that the issues of life are more than abortion. The �Right to Life� only begins with Conception it continues through Natural Death (no euthanasia). I simply request that each of us seek guidance on which candidate seeks to cover the entire spectrum.

Both Mr Kerry and Mr Bush argue that Fetal Stem Cell Research is agreeable. Mr. Kerry would allow further introduction of Fetal Stem Cells, while Mr. Bush approves of the current Stem Cell Lines. Mr Kerry would continue to allow Abortions on demand, Mr. Bush would allow abortions in cases of Incest or Rape, or if the mother's life is in danger (on the last I am not positive, but I stand willing to be corrected).

Yet according to what I understand, both are wrong. The Catholic Church teachings are that Abortion is wrong. Period. No exemptions. So then if we are to base our Presidential vote on the Abortion issue ONLY no major party candidate is acceptable.

So I must by necessity go beyond the Abortion issue to vote my conscience. Where does either candidate stand on Perinatal issues, on Post Natal Issues (IE., Maternal and Child Health). How has the Kingdom of Christ the King been advanced ?

Have we done what he asks: fed the hungry, comforted the sick, the dying and the afflicted, visited prisoners, welcomed strangers to our shores and our doors?

I submit, gentle persons, that the real issues are mor complex than both parties would have us understand in the 30 second sound bites or political rhetoric.

To vote on the basis of one issue is a poor use of the gifts from the Holy Spirit. We are required to seek out the truth and change injustices and to perpetuate God's justice in the �Secular� society.

Pardon me if I have offended any one, such was/is not my intent. Also pardon any (all) my preaching.

I have worked in Public Health for the last 40 years, and Youth Groups (Scouts, Camp Fire, CCD/Sunday School) for 25 years and have strong feelings on social engineering, especially via the ballot box.

John Condon

djs,

Remember that the Lord Himself the overturned the tables of the moneychangers and the benches of those selling doves. There are times when charity demands confrontation. My accusation is not unmitigated calumny. If you support a candidate who supports abortion you support abortion. You, djs, further the culture of death each time you vote for a pro-abortion candidate.

Admin