Catholics, Democrats, Abortion, and Communion

Many political analysts agree that one of the primary reasons George W. Bush won the 2004 presidential election was that he won the Catholic vote--in particular, he won the Catholic vote in Ohio and Florida.

I and many others argue that since Catholics seem to split their allegiance somewhere within the 60-40 range there is no such thing as the Catholic vote yet somehow in recent elections the Catholic vote (or at least the voting patterns of American Catholics) have proved pivotal. This is evidenced by the fact that every candidate who has won the popular vote since 1960 has also won the Catholic vote. The 2004 election seems to be one the first times that the "Catholic vote" had a major impact on the electoral vote. Most commentators and several political scientists I have spoken to or have seen speak attribute Bush’s courting of socially conservative (though economically moderate or liberal) Catholics in Ohio as perhaps what put him over the top in the electoral vote. What makes Bush’s popularity amongst Catholics so shocking is that he was running against a Catholic.

Before John Kerry, the last Catholic to run for president not only won, but John F. Kennedy took 78% of the Catholic vote. (Annoyingly, something tells me that good portion of the 22% that didn’t vote for him lived in Orange County and San Diego and that all four of my grandparents fell into the latter category.) So what was it that caused so many Catholics to vote against another Catholic in a presidential election? The answer lies in the fact that more than in any other presidential election in US history several US bishops and archbishops, led by Archbishop Raymond Burke of St. Louis (the neo-conservative, pre-Vatican II archbishop who excommunicated most of Polish Catholic population after they refused to conform to his conservative policies), publicly stated that John Kerry could not participate in Communion in their diocese, leading many Catholics to ponder if they could vote for him in good conscious. Following the 2004 election, many commentators stated that the Democrats had a Catholic problem.

Unlike the majority of Americans, the majority of Catholic Americans are pro-life. In addition, most Catholic Americans who are “pro-choice” have a “moral objection” to abortion but they feel either it is not the government’s place to legislate on abortion or that their moral standards should not be imposed on others. The latter view is the view of many “pro-choice” non-Catholics as well. However, the Church’s teaching is clear, a Catholic is to be pro-life in all circumstances (with the rare exception of an ectopic pregnancy in which neither the mother nor child has a chance of surviving if the pregnancy is carried to term). Catholic lobby groups lobby for pro-life judges and limits on abortion within the existing laws that allow for abortions. However, to be a Democrat you almost always have to be pro-choice. Certainly to win a democratic primary in a “blue-state” you have to be pro-choice. Granted there several prominent pro-life Democrats but they are the extreme minority (Sen. Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, for example).

On the other hand, the Democratic Party’s platform is far more inline with Catholic Social Teaching than the Republican Party’s platform on just about every issue besides abortion. The Democratic Party is far more likely to be against capital punishment and for just immigration reform that respects the human dignity of the undocumented immigrants already in this country. The welfare policies of the Democratic platform are much more in tune with the Catholic Social Teaching’s emphasis on the preferential option for the poor and vulnerable in society--a Judeo-Christian value with its roots not only in the teachings of Jesus but also in the teachings of the prophets of the Old Testament. The fact that the Democrats are more likely to support the major tenets of Catholic social teaching are evidenced just by the names of the other tenets so I won’t go into or explain them all: Call to Family, Community, and Participation; Dignity of Work and the Rights of Workers; Solidarity; Subsidiarity; and Care of God’s Creation.

That all being said, many good practicing Catholics are also Democrats and some of them are bound to run for office. Yet to win an election as Democrat in this country you almost certainly have to be pro-choice--at least publicly. Until about a month ago, abortion had managed to stay out of the major public debate in this election cycle. Since then, two very prominent Catholic Democrats have given answers on their publicly held pro-choice views. Nancy Pelosi gave a ridiculous answer saying that it is a topic still being debated in the Church and that the Church hasn’t been all that clear on its position until about 50 years ago. Her answer didn’t have an ounce of truth in it and was an embarrassment whether you were a Catholic or a Democrat but especially if you were Catholic Democrat. Joe Biden’s first answer, given to Tom Brokaw, was excellent until he tried to play the role of theologian much like Pelosi had. He explained that he personally opposed abortion and he had voted to limit abortions and to get rid of government funding for abortions. However, he said, he could not in good conscience impose his religious views on others. It was a great answer. Then his tendency to keep talking after he should stop got the better of him and he tried to bring up something about Thomas Aquinas. The next day he was questioned about his reference to Aquinas and gave an even worse explanation than the first time.

Since Burke’s declaration that John Kerry could not receive communion in his archdiocese in 2004 many bishops see it as their role to get involved in presidential politics. This year, it is the Bishop of Denver who encouraged his diocese to pray that the Democrats would change their position on abortion while they held their convention in his diocese and the Bishop of Scranton who declared that Joe Biden could not receive communion in his diocese--odd since Biden made it clear he personally opposed abortion. Luckily, Burke has been transferred to Rome and no longer has a large public microphone at his disposal. But these two bishops I’m sure will do their best to get their brother bishops to be more vocal on the issue of abortion as the election nears.

In my opinion, the fact that bishops are getting involved in presidential politics is bad enough, but the fact that they are doing it by denying Communion to faithful and practicing Catholics is despicable. The celebration of the Eucharist is a celebration of community and communion with one another as the mystical body of Christ as we all receive and partake in the Body and Blood of Christ fully present in the transformed bread and wine. The Eucharist should never be used as a weapon to make political point and it should never be used to create divisions in the Church, the ever present mystical Body of Christ.

Our Differences Make Us One

As weird as it sounds, I have been thinking about language and its relation to liturgy a lot over the past few months. While this coincides with the recent documents regarding a new translation of the English Mass, it’s not the cause of this musing but presents an interesting backdrop to the situation. About two weeks ago I attended a Mass back at my parent’s home parish, St. Edward. During the Mass, I was a little shocked to hear them sing several of the Mass parts in Latin. Anyone who knows me knows that I am not a fan of the Latin Mass and that I think a Latin form of the Mass should have died out long ago with you know the Latin language seeing as how no one has spoken it in everyday life for over a millennium. However it wasn’t the Latin that upset me the most it was the explanation given the priest (let me make it clear quickly that the priest presiding the Mass and offering the explanation was not Fr. Steve, Fr. Joe, or Fr. Avelino and Fr. Loc was not there yet so use the process of elimination to figure it out if you really want to know). He offered the explanation that Vatican II stated the faithful should have a working "Church" knowledge of Latin despite the fact that Mass is now celebrated primarily in the vernacular. He then went on to state something to the effect that with "all the different languages we have in the community" it’s important to have one that we can all have in common. Let me first refute his explanation then offer my own reflection on multicultural liturgy. The first part of his explanation may at first appear to be the more legitimate of the two as he cites Vatican II. However that is not what Vatican II said at all. The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, does state that "Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites." (36.1) However this statement was intended to mean that the official texts of the rites were to be kept in Latin and all translations into various other languages be done from the Latin. This prevents, for example, the texts from being translated into Spanish then into English from the Spanish translations. The text then goes on to state that using the mother tongue (or vernacular) is of great advantage as it allows the people to participate more actively and better understand the liturgy. (36.2-4) No where does it say that the people of the Church should retain a working "Church" knowledge of Latin, in fact it says quite the opposite: that the reason for the vernacular is so many people don’t understand Latin. It basically implies that using Latin discourages active participation as although the people may be able to memorize the Latin words, they may (and probably) don’t know what they mean. The second part of his explanation hardly needs much refutation after looking at why his first argument was ill-based. It’s not hard to recognize that using a language that no one understands is much worse than using a multilingual setting in which everyone offers some of her own culture and receives some of another’s culture. All this is especially interesting in light of the new English translation of the Mass sent down by Rome as it uses a more literal word-word translation of the Latin rather than an American-English translation. The reasoning is that Rome (really, Cardinal Arinze and Pope Benedict--neither of whom speak English as their primary language) feel that the new translation better reflects the theological and catechetical mysteries being communicated. However, to any English speaking American the syntax and diction of the new translations come off as awkward and overly-regal and seemingly does not necessarily promote better or fuller active participation on the part of the assembly or the presider. I feel that if the translation is to be kept in the Spirit of Vatican II they would have consulted the American Bishops more in the process (or at least not have disregarded their suggestions as they did throughout this process).

Now that I have offered my rebuttal to Fr. (fill in the blank)'s comments about Latin in the liturgy, I have to praise him for his homily this past Saturday evening. Going into it I was not expecting much after being so put off by comments about Latin, he offered a beautiful reflection on who all are equal before God and even challenged those in the assembly on an issue that many would find "too sticky" to approach in Orange County. Several weeks after my first encounter with the Latin being sung at St. Edward’s I was forwarded an article in which my friend (and one of my mentors) John Flaherty quoted about the importance of multicultural liturgical music in today’s Church--particularly in the multicultural setting of Southern California. The article stated: "'By our very tradition,'" [Flaherty] said, 'liturgy is based on inculturation. We all surrender a little of what we hold onto so we can become a new creation. It especially applies to those in power. The only way the stranger (the disempowered) is welcomed in our midst is if we stand up and let them have a seat. It's up to the people in power to do the welcoming. When I have to do anything on an archdiocesan scale, I think of language and culture,’ said Flaherty, who believes everyone brings their cultural experiences to the Eucharistic table. Multilingual hymns and multicultural musical rhythms and instrumentation, he asserted, have the ultimate goal of creating a new culture where all ethnicities are woven together in one body of worship." I had this in the back of my mind as the priest eloquently preached on how all are foreigners in the Church, as there is not one chose people but that all were welcome in the Church. He went on to point out that throughout the Gospel, Jesus welcomed strangers, foreigners, and the disempowered to his table. It is in this spirit, he asserted (and I full heartedly agree), that all are welcome to the table at Mass--that all are invited to celebrate the Eucharist as One Body. He even went as far as to challenge the assembly that regardless of their political and legal views on immigration and undocumented immigrants, that they must welcome them into the community and at the Eucharistic table in order to call themselves Catholic. I don’t mean to pontificate on this subject by any means (no pun intended, honestly) but I found it odd extremely odd that such a homily would come from the same priest who just two months earlier had stated why the Latin rights were better than a multilingual setting. Perhaps he will reflect on his own words and realize that he was in many ways saying the same thing John was saying when he stated that what the makes us one is that we all offer a little bit of ourselves and accept the others at the Eucharistic table.