Headlines from bishops' meeting often obscured the message
Print Friendly Version| From Where I Stand by Joan Chittister, OSB | November 21, 2007 |
| Vol. 5, No. 17 |
Headline writers are a very special breed of print journalist. They have three major tasks: 1.) To get the reader's attention and, therefore, interest a person in the material being presented, 2.) To fill the column space allotted to the article with a font that gives design and balance to the page, and 3.) To tell the story by emphasizing its central thesis. If you're keeping score, I suppose two out of three is better than nothing. Nevertheless ...
The Chicago Tribune, for instance, ran a double-decker, four column headline across a front page six column story this week against a picture of Catholic Bishops in session at their annual national conference that fit the space precisely and was sure to get people's attention. Whether it was fundamentally true to the main point of the story is, however, in question.
The headline read: "Catholic bishops say voters' souls at stake." After years of single-issue politics, I watched the people around me frown and then glance past it as they moved on to other front page stories.
Did bishops publish such a document in Fascist Franco's Spain? I wondered as I read it. Did bishops say that to the German people during the rise of Hitler's Third Reich and the holocaust of Jews?
The question is a compelling one. If moral concerns are selective, moral guidance is confusing. And often dismissed.
How many of those readers simply disregarded the announcement of one more story about the electoral concerns of the Catholic church as either unimportant or unacceptable is unclear.
How many of them went back to read the story in its entirety is also anybody's guess.
What they took with them from the headline is even more in doubt. And it is problematic. The fact is that all of them got one more impression from the headline of churches using religion to influence politics by threatening church-goers with eternal damnation if they don't vote the way the church says they must.
In a world reeling from "the war on terror" and in a country debating the devastating results of global warming, the need for universal medical insurance, the deterioration of the educational system, the loss of Social Security benefits for generations to come, the need for a sound and humane immigration policy, the loss of status in a nuclear world and the threat of bankruptcy from an increasingly militaristic foreign policy, the headline was indeed a tease. But it was not the story.
The truth is that the bishops in their latest document, "Faithful Citizenship" -- the church's attempt to teach the importance of civic participation in the political process -- eschewed single issue politics entirely. "As Catholics we are not single-issue voters. A candidate's position on a single issue is not sufficient to guarantee a voter's support," the document says quite directly.
They completely avoided drawing moral comparisons between political parties and candidates on the basis of isolated topics, the more common character of church intervention in recent elections.
Instead, the document sets out to remind people that voting is, indeed, a moral act but that political morality -- social morality -- is made up of more things than sexual issues, all of them morally important, all of them to be seen as the voter's moral obligation to weigh issues and their effects on society at large. "Life is under direct attack from abortion, euthanasia, human cloning, and destruction of human embryos for research. These intrinsic evils must always be opposed," the document reads. But then says, just as clearly, "This teaching also compels us as Catholics to oppose genocide, torture, unjust war, and the use of the death penalty, as well as to pursue peace and help overcome poverty, racism, and other conditions that demean human life."
It is a far more sobering and balanced document than the headline would seem to imply. Yes, abortion is defined as a major social and moral issue but so, the bishops insist in this document in a way they have not in the past, "are church teachings on immigration, just war and poverty."
Given the immediate past history of the U.S. church on electoral guidance, however, and the nature of the headline itself, the real content of the document may well be obscured just when it is needed most.
And that's a pity.
The document is a significant one precisely because it teaches rather than bullies or hectors the faithful.
It does not insist or suggest that Catholics should vote for any particular candidate or political party. "We do not tell Catholics how to vote," it says -- a signal to those clerics who, at very least, flirted with the temptation in the last election.
It recognizes the primacy of the individual conscience.
It stresses the obligation of individuals to form their consciences carefully.
It presents the breadth of Catholic social teaching rather than insist on only isolated elements of it.
It acknowledges, at least implicitly, the complexity of moral decision making in a pluralistic society and the need for 'discernment" and "prudence," in the process.
It calls for informed voting on the part of the entire Catholic community.
It raises Catholicism to the level of adult participation in the political process again.
In short, the document may well do much to restore the credibility of the church's social role and reduce the tendency to stereotype Catholics as single-issue voters, as well. Data reported by the Pew Institute on Religion and Public Life, after all, indicated that as many Catholics voted for John Kerry in 2004 as for President Bush.
The bishops may still, it seems, debate whether or not Catholics and Catholic politicians who refuse to criminalize abortion while working in other ways to eliminate it ought to consider themselves barred from receiving communion.
But then, if they do that, as they did, for instance, during the birth control debates of the late '60's, the effect may simply be the same now as it was then -- alienation from the church entirely or wholesale disregard for all its teachings.
From where I stand, moral suasion, idealism, personal example, and respect for the complexity of moral decision-making are always more effective in bringing people to commitment than punishment, intimidation and excommunication ever are. It's called "catching more flies with a spoonful of honey than with a barrel of vinegar." Sometimes it's even called "Christ-like."
Maybe someone should tell headline writers that.
| Archives | Signup for Weekly E-mail |
... Follow-up headlines in
... Follow-up headlines in the Western press read:
“Anglican Leader Blasts US over Iraq”
“Anglican Head Slams US Foreign Policy”
“Top Anglican Derides ‘Myth’ that America is a ‘Chosen Nation’”
If the Western press got it right, then it seems the Archbishop of Canterbury Dr. Rowan Williams did too. Didn't he?
... The Greatest Of These...
Joe, thank you for your
Joe, thank you for your response.
I take it that when you encourage me to shift my eyes to the left, you mean that the Archbishop of Canterbury represents the left? And that I should be equally critical of him?
But I am and have been critical of Rowan Williams for some time--including, I believe, on NCR cafe threads. To my way of thinking, his very timid stance about the rights of gay and lesbians in the church is too little, too late.
I am not in his shoes, and have the freedom to criticize when I am not experiencing some of the pressures I know he experiences--including incessant threats of well-heeled American Episcopalians to withdraw funding from the Episcopal church if it persists in recognizing the rights of gays and lesbians.
Nonetheless, I tend to be drawn to religious leaders who provide prophetic witness. I find as few of those in the liberal sectors of Christianity today as I do in the so-called conservative sectors.
To my way of thinking, one must often look outside the centers of power in the churches to find such people. In my own tradition, they'd be folks like Dorothy Day, Franz Jaeggerstaetter, Mychal Judge, Ita Ford, Maura Clarke, Jean Donovan, and Dorothy Kazel.
I've met Anglicans and Episcopalians who inspire me just as much. And I know of some whom I haven't met whose words ring powerfully true, in my mind.
One of these is Desmond Tutu, whose voice is not central to the power structures of worldwide Anglicanism, since he is an African bishop. There, in that voice from one of the churches of the global South, I find real prophetic witness.
I suppose I'm not so much concerned to label these voices as left or right. I'm more concerned to find and listen carefully to voices that give prophetic witness in the world today. And in my reading of the gospels, that witness always ends up on the side of justice, especially for the marginalized.
William D. Lindsey
I think Sr. Joan deserves a
I think Sr. Joan deserves a great deal of credit for drawing our attention to the way in which journalistic headlines can sometimes obscure the full significance of stories about religion (particularly when religion intersects with politics).
It will be very interesting to watch how the media attempts to represent "the" Catholic position and "the" Catholic vote in the lead-up to the next election.
Already, a wonderful poster on these threads has sent me a link to a recent op-ed article attempting to argue that "the" Catholic vote is increasingly represented by a JPII Catholic generation that for the first time in a long time recognizes the moral significance of political issues.
When I google the name of this author, I find that he has spent a lot of time in recent years trying to convince his readers that global warming is a myth. I find his wife is in the employ of a right-wing think tank whose major disclosed funding source is a tobacco company.
I take it that "the" Catholic vote is, from the perspective of right-wing in the pocket of major corporations predictably conservative--as in opposing environmental controls, taxation, government sponsorship of universal health care, abortion, gay marriage, and federal prohibition of hate crimes against gay and lesbian people.
Since all of those are areas in which value judgments are very much at stake, and all are areas in which key Catholic principles of morality are involved, I wonder how anyone can assume that those Catholics who try to address the whole range of values issues INCLUDING abortion have overlooked values in making political choices in the past. The term "values" has been so narrowed by journalists--and, sadly, often with the complicity of many bishops--that when the bishops speak of informing our consciences by looking at a multiplicity of issues, many people simply shrug their shoulders.
I would find it easier to believe the bishops' encouragement to inform our consciences and look at a range of issues if they seemed as critical of Blackwater and Erik Prince as they have been of, say, Fr. Charles Curran. A church that makes it very easy for an Erik Prince to represent "the" Catholic political-moral position, while it makes it very hard for a Charles Curran to do so, seems to have lost its moral compass.
William D. Lindsey
The bishops may now be
The bishops may now be beginning to see the light, however, if they actually said "souls are at stake," meaning eternal damnation, the light they see is at the end of the tunnel and they're still far from it. They've spent so much political capital on one issue, abortion, it may take years before anything they say about politics or elections will get the public's or liberal Catholics' attention. Had the bishops advised Catholics to consider other issues besides abortion during the 2004 election, George W. Bush would probably not be in the White House and thousands of innocent lives would not have been lost in Iraq.
And by the way, I don't object to any organization or group attempting to lead its members in any political direction it pleases. Unions do it, gun slingers do it, professional organizations do it. Why not churches? I just wish they'd get it right. The bishops, that is.
I think Sr. Joan is choosing
I think Sr. Joan is choosing to see the glass as half-full. If I read the reports correctly, it seems like there was a move afoot to make sure that the Bishops did move purposefully move away from proclaiming that their should be a one, holy, universal Catholic-approved candidate. And that temptation certainly has been in existence.
I actually think the Catholic church is correct to raise awareness about abortion, stem-cell research, the death penalty, unjust war and in-vitro in asmuch as some of those statements may challenge my own personally held beliefs more than others. The church is forcing us to examine hard things we hold for some reason or another. And I tend to say that if your church is asking something of you that is not hard to give, it may not be asking much of you.
I agree that it is the
I agree that it is the bishop's job to encourage people consider ethics and morality from what is likely to be God's perspective. However, there is some danger in presenting moral issues as if it were up to government to manage all these things. Realistically, there are only a few issues, like executing criminals, funding the destruction of embryos to extract stem-cells, and initiating war, that are totally in control of the government.
Those immoral things that can be successfully carried out clandestinely by individuals and only discovered after the fact, if at all, are not things that political candidates or elected officials have the power to stop. God does not stop people from doing immoral things, so how can anyone's soul be in danger from electing someone who fails to stop his fellow citizens from doing immoral things?
Using the bishops' logic, it might be argued that the souls of those who voted for the individual who chose to initiate a war are in danger if they reelected him because he took this approach to fighting terrorism. In reality (from watching the bishops' meeting, and seeing this admonition proposed and added to the document) it is clear that the reference to the voter's soul pertains only to not making abortion the number one criteria in choosing a candidate--not a big improvement over the last guide in that sense.
Dear Marie R.: If atheists
Dear Marie R.:
If atheists do not have to drop off their atheism at the caucus cloakroom nor secularists their secularism, why should Catholics not be able to take their Catholicism into the political caucus?
And if Catholics want to form their political conscience by what their bishops teach, you say they should not have the freedom to do that?
Joe536
I think the difference is
I think the difference is that atheists decide for themselves, while Catholics either seem to or are required to look to the authority of the Church before they confidently express their beliefs--as if their beliefs are not really integrated into their thinking, but instead being held out of concern for the fate of their souls.
Perhaps this was no longer
Perhaps this was no longer the case in the years since I graduated from high school, but it used to be that one was taught in school--public school--that voting was a civic obligation in a democracy and that voting with an eye toward the common good was proper and voting in one's immediate self-interest was to be evaluated for its effect on the common good. This was presented as being in accord with the intent of the nation's founding fathers.
Therefore, it puzzles me as to why adult Catholics in the United States accept being given civics lessons by their bishops. It is clear that the bishops have an agenda that they wish to have imposed upon the entire citizenry of the United States by means of their influence on those voters who are Catholic which is driven by their preference for illegal abortion over legal abortion.
This document is the document that should have been produced four years ago, if at all, and only because some politicians exploited religion and the Catholic Church. While there is credit to be given to the effort and those involved in making it this time, there is little reason to be happy and grateful about a Church having to give such specific guidance to adults, most of whom presumably have been the recipients of its moral instruction since early childhood.
Sister Chittister: Do you
Sister Chittister:
Do you think our bishops “eschewed single issue politics entirely”? Are you sure about “entirely”?
Yes, they said, “As Catholics we are not single issues voters. A candidate’s position on a single issue is not sufficient to guarantee a voter’s support.”
But then they said, “Yet a candidate’s position on a single issue that involves an intrinsic evil, such as support for legal abortion or the promotion of racism, may legitimately lead a voter to disqualify a candidate from receiving support.”
Our bishops are saying TRUE Catholic morality places more emphasis on some issues than others.
Our bishops (God bless them!) are not cafeteria Catholics.
Joe536
William Lindsey: The
William Lindsey:
The possibility of religious leaders losing “moral compass” is a point well worth making.
A good case in point is Archbishop of Canterbury Dr. Rowan Williams, who two weeks ago gave an interview to Emel (a Muslim lifestyle magazine). Follow-up headlines in the Western press read:
“Anglican Leader Blasts US over Iraq”
“Anglican Head Slams US Foreign Policy”
“Top Anglican Derides ‘Myth’ that America is a ‘Chosen Nation’”
The headline in The Times of India, however, read very differently—and maybe very oddly to Americans:
“Church of England head lauds British Raj”
People over in India were incensed at Williams, while criticizing the USA, saying: “it is one thing to take over a territory and then pour energy and resources into administering it and normalising it. Rightly or wrongly that’s what the British Empire did - in India for example.”
The appropriate riposte, it was decided, would best come from much respected and long-deceased Indian saint Mahatma Gandhi. Once asked what he thought of “British civilisation,” he replied, “That would be nice.”
Thankfully the Archbishop of Canterbury did not laud the British in Africa, else someone there might have made pointed reference to the Atlantic Slave Trade the Brits took over from other Europeans and ran from Liverpool for more than a century.
Everything, William, you see wrong in the USCCB on the right, is in the Archbishop of Canterbury and his sort too. Just shift your eyes to the left.
Joe536