President Obamaâ€™s narrow victory among Catholic voters this week will be seen by many as a political loss for the U.S. Catholic bishops, who appeared to be openly opposing Obama during the presidential campaign.
The Catholic Church was well within its rights to conduct its campaign on religious liberty, but its â€œPreserve Religious Freedomâ€ yard signs were clearly designed to be placed alongside partisan candidate signs. And they were – in very large numbers.
The technically nonpartisan nature of the Churchâ€™s religious liberty campaign was further drowned out by a small chorus of strident bishops who left no doubt about how Catholics ought to vote for president.
In a letter he ordered read at all parishes last Sunday, Bishop Daniel Jenky of Peoria juxtaposed the Obama administration’s new contraception mandate with the scourging and mockery of Jesus. Jenky declared that â€œelectoral supportersâ€ of pro-abortion rights politicians reject â€œJesus as their lord,â€ as did the crowd that roared, “We have no king but Caesar.â€
Such forceful statements were never balanced by significant challenges to the Republican presidential ticket.
There is more at stake here than politics.
Though I agree with the bishops that the exemption for religious employers in the White House contraceptive insurance mandate is too narrow, the bishopsâ€™ posture toward the administration during the election poses a major risk to the Church because it left the impression that there was only one legitimate Catholic choice for president â€“ Mitt Romney.
The result is that half of the Catholic electorate felt it was being judged as voting â€œagainst the Church,â€ even though such voters werenâ€™t actually dissenting from Catholic teaching. They were, instead, making the complex decisions that any serious voter must, weighing their own moral commitments against a candidate’s professed values, the policies they propose and how much is likely to be accomplished on a given issue given the political climate.
Voters must weigh the mix of positions of both candidates, not just the objections against one. This year, they had to weigh, among other things, a new problem with religious liberty against the Republicans’ earnest proposal to replace Medicareâ€™s guaranteed coverage with a subsidy for private insurance.
By putting voters in a â€œwith us or against usâ€ bind, some of Americaâ€™s bishops have risked eroding their own authority. They imply that specific political judgments are matters of Church teaching, when by Catholic tradition, the more they descend into the details of policy, the less certain their judgments become.
Bishops must allow room for and respect believers’ own specific political judgments. The Second Vatican Council taught that it is primarily the responsibility of the laity to undertake the secular work of inscribing â€œthe divine lawâ€¦in the life of the earthly city.â€
The way out of this crisis is for the bishops to carefully respect the necessary limits involved in the task of forming the consciences of lay believers. They must teach moral principles and, yes, argue for their specific application, but always in a way that respects individual judgments about how best to enact these principles. [More]