This is all quite fine, even considering the fact that the archbishop hosts his own annual pro-life event, as it is all part of the political process and nobody is violating anyone else's rights. However, the archbishop implied quite a bit more. He went on to say such things as:
For a Catholic governor to host an event of this sort seems a deliberate dissent from the teachings of the Church.
...grave evil of abortion continues to be promoted as a legitimate moral choice by Governor Kulongoski...
I call upon our Catholic people to express their displeasure to the governor and to remind him of the demands of personal integrity as a member of our faith community in the exercise of his office and public activities.
These statements, and especially the last one, indicate that the archbishop thinks of the governor's position as one from which to enforce Catholic moral values. He implies that it is the governor's duty to uphold the teachings of the Church and to enforce it upon the people, which is completely at odds with the First Amendment. He even says that the governor's integrity is at stake.
From what the archbishop said, he seems to almost be advocating a theocracy. I think that it's important to view his beliefs in light of relevant pieces of history, especially Jefferson and Madison's views of separation of church and state. The archbishop's views can be compared to those of Patrick Henry, who wrote a bill establishing public pay for teachers of the Christian religion, and to Angelina Grimke, who published Appeal to the Christian Women of the South, which advocated following the orders of God over those of the government. But because of the barriers that our founding fathers erected, Jefferson and Madison in particular, these particular ideas never caught on, and neither will the archbishop's. Such ideas that advocate a religiously-run state will always be considered relatively extreme, even among this predominantly Christian nation, due to the moderating force of the separation of church and state.
(Reading the comments is also kind of interesting. Obviously the site caters to a particular population, but the commenters' ferocity is still astounding to me.)
Posts
3 comments:
I have to disagree concerning the nature of the archbishop’s position. He isn’t advocating for a theocracy, nor is he asking the governor to force his beliefs upon anyone. The archbishop is criticizing the governor for saying one thing, and then doing another. The governor says he is a Catholic and then does something that is antithetical to Catholic beliefs. The archbishop is simply upset that Catholicism is being demonstrated to the public is a way that is not consistent with Catholic beliefs. Essentially, he is saying that if the governor is going to declare to the public that he is a Catholic, then he ought to set a good example for other Catholics. This doesn’t mean forcing non-Catholics to convert, but rather to follow the Catholic beliefs that he claims to follow. When the archbishop calls for “the Catholic people to express their displeasure to the governor,” the quote that you found problematic, he is simply asking them to feel the same indignation that he feels toward the governor’s actions. You write that the archbishop thinks of the governor’s position as one that should uphold Catholic morals; I think that comment is extremely misleading. I don’t think the archbishop is concerned about making sure that anyone holding the governor’s position upholds Catholic morals, but rather that someone who claims to be a Catholic should demonstrate the Catholic morals by his actions. If Kulongski does not actually agree with Catholic morals and beliefs, then he shouldn’t be advertising himself as a Catholic. The archbishop’s criticism of Kulongski isn’t at odds with the First Amendment, as you suggest, but instead is a perfectly acceptable and legitimate exercise of the archbishop’s First Amendment rights.
I agree with Van, but I'll take the critique a little farther. The original article is not available to us, which means we have to infer what is meant by the governor hosted a pro-choice event. This seems to mean he is doing something extra-ordinary from his executive duties, something that advocates an pro-abortion view not held by the government, but by the governor. The issue for the Catholic faith is that there are not separate spheres of influence. The governor can execute the law that allows for abortion, but promoting abortion is against Catholic teachings. Further, when Pope Benedict XVI was in France on his pastoral visit he explained that a healthy separation of church and state was needed to maintain the legitimacy of both the spiritual and secular needs of society. However, this does not mean they are separate. They depend on eachother. Finally, one must ask themselves if the founding fathers knew that technology would go this far and would our society react this way to their direction. Yes, clearly there is a separation, but how far that separation goes is another story. This story is about the Bishop who is responsible for the spiritual welfare of the constituents of the governor and the governor himself. The Bishop's motives are not to establish a theocracy.
Despite how Van and Josh feel, I think that the Archbishop is in fact overstepping boundaries by demanding that the governor run his office based on Catholic morals just becuase the governor says he is a Catholic. Becuase I can't see the original article I can't know for sure, but just because the governor goes to a pro-choice benefit, or hosts one as governor, it doesnt necesarily mean that he is personally pro-choice. Maybe he just feels that it is better for reelection to run a pro-choice stance when it comes to government policy. Or maybe he just feels that the government doesnt have the right to say women can't have abortions. The Archbishop is criticizing the governor and demanding that he should run his office based off of Catholic morals, which is essentially saying that becuase the governor is Catholic he reports to the Vatican on all issues before he can make a personal decision or take a political stance and that as a Catholic the governor can't take any stance that is in opposition to the Vatican. This is one of the core issues that the public has with having a Catholic in office, everyone is afraid that if they are Catholic then they will feel more responsible to the Vatican than to American, and will do what the Vatican dictates before what they think is best for their population. I think that the governor, by hosting or attending, this pro-choice event, he is making a statement that the Vatican will not dictate his public policy or stances on moral issues, and that he will make his own judgments. I don't think that the Archbishop is violating the First Amendment, but expressing his First Amendment rights, but at the same time he is attempting to cross the wall that is put up between Church and State.
Post a Comment