It is easy enough to see what Rep. Patrick Kennedy, D-R.I., has gained from his very public spat with Bishop Thomas Tobin of Providence over the former’s pro-choice stance and recent comments about the role of the church in public life. Kennedy has refused to buckle under the pressure from his bishop to conform his votes in Congress to the prelate’s wishes and there is no reason to think it will affect his poll numbers negatively. Even in Rhode Island, one of the most heavily Catholic states in the country, people do not like the specter of a hierarch dictating public policy positions to the congressman they elected.
It is less easy to see what the bishop has gained from the imbroglio. But it is easy to fault him for taking his concerns to such forums as MSNBC’s “Hardball” and FOX News’ “The O’Reilly Factor.” If you are going to take your case into the public square, you need to be ready to answer questions from the media, and in both appearances, Tobin appeared unable to depart from the three or four talking points he cribbed from the most recent issue of First Things.
The first point to be made is that none of this has anything to do with church-state separation. Tobin is a citizen of these United States with the same First Amendment rights as all other citizens. The question is not whether he has a right to say what he has said, but whether it is wise, not just for the country but even more so for the church.
We now know that in 2007, Tobin wrote to Kennedy privately, telling him that he should not present himself for Communion. Certainly a pastor has a right and a duty to warn a member of his flock when he thinks that member is straying from the fold.
But the question in Rhode Island is different. It is how and when a legislator’s voting record can be seen as the kind of direct evidence of sinfulness that it warrants such a drastic step as the denial of Communion. There is a difference between performing abortions and believing that in this pluralistic society of ours, any attempt to outlaw abortion is not only doomed to fail but misguided.
“While I detest abortion and agree with Catholic teaching that in most instances it is morally wrong, I decline to force my views into laws that, if adopted, would be unenforceable and would tear this society apart,” Rep. David R. Obey, D-Wis., wrote in a 2004 article after the bishop of La Crosse told him to refrain from receiving Communion. That bishop, Raymond Burke, made headlines later that same year when, newly promoted to St. Louis, he decreed that then Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry would be denied Communion in his archdiocese if he came to Mass.
This was the point on which Tobin got tied up with Chris Matthews on “Hardball.” He was unable to say what kinds of pro-life laws he would like to see in place. If you are going to criticize your congressman for voting for pro-choice laws, you need to be able to explain the kinds of laws you would support. Do you support putting women in prison if they procure an abortion? Doctors? It is one thing to say you are “pro-life” but quite another to figure out a legal regime that enfleshes that commitment. The bishop cannot criticize a lawmaker for bad laws and then demur about his lack of competence to craft good laws.
Of course, Kennedy was 6 years old when Roe v. Wade was decided, so he has never cast any vote on any kind of sweeping return to pre-Roe times. Other votes are more difficult to gauge.
Recently retired Bishop Joseph Martino of Scranton, Pa., tried to bar Sen. Bob Casey from speaking at a Catholic campus because of his vote to confirm Kathleen Sebelius as secretary of Health and Human Services. Of course, some in the pro-life community thought that Sen. Ted Kennedy, Patrick Kennedy’s father, should have been denied a Catholic funeral. Burke accused Cardinals Sean O’Malley of Boston and Theodore McCarrick of Washington of acting at the behest of the “Father of Lies” for participating in the obsequies. If you rely on the “leadership” of some pro-life advocates for your moral compass, you are sure to get lost.
Let us be clear: There are votes that are morally preferable, more reflective of the church’s concern for the protection of human life, more in consonance with the church’s admittedly exalted, and happily exalted, view of human dignity. We think Patrick Kennedy was wrong, for instance, to vote against the Stupak amendment, which barred federal funding of abortion in the health care reform effort. We note, too, that Obey voted in favor of that amendment. Does Burke think Obey now qualifies to get Communion?
Our opposition to Tobin’s telling Kennedy to not present himself for Communion has nothing to do with the merits of Kennedy’s votes. We oppose Tobin’s -- and Burke’s -- stance because we are concerned to defend the Eucharist. The sacrament that Vatican II called “the source and summit” of the Catholic faith should not be turned into a reward or punishment for voting one way or another.
Taking to the airwaves in today’s media culture is bound to result in the kind of trivialization that drives the writers of headlines and the talking heads on cable news. The right to life deserves not to be trivialized. If a bishop and a congressman are busy arguing like playground bullies about who threw the first punch, the church’s commitment to the sanctity of human life will appear as little different from other subjects of political contention. And, when bishops drag the Eucharist into the fray, it is they, not the politicians, who are exercising really bad theology.
“Take the plank out of your own eye before you try and remove the speck from your brother’s eye,” the Master said. They are words all of us should remember when we approach the Eucharist. Humility, not hubris, should be everyone’s watchword before the sacrament of the altar.
