Sunday July 24, 2005
Churches should influence, not coerce
Let\’s rewind the videotape of life. Roll it all the way back to 1960. John Kennedy and Richard Nixon were battling for the presidency of the United States.
If I had had a vote in that election, I would probably have voted for Nixon.
Because I was afraid of John Kennedy\’s religion. Kennedy was the first Roman Catholic to run for the presidency. I, and many others like me, were afraid he would simply be a puppet of the Catholic hierarchy, unwilling to think for himself.
Kennedy proved me wrong.
Of course, that was back when Pope John XXIII was Pope and a breeze of openness blew through the church.
Fast forward to today.
The spectre that Kennedy laid to rest has risen again. Some prelates in the Roman Catholic Church in Canada have demanded that members of parliament adhere to the official views of the church.
Specifically, Windsor MP Joe Cromartin was publicly rebuked by his bishop, Ronald Fabbro, for voting in favour of the same-sex marriage bill in June.
Charlie Angus, MP for Timmins-North Bay, was denied communion for the same reason.
Mixed responses
Bishop Fabbro sent a letter to all 145 parishes in his diocese, condemning Cromartin\’s stand. Fabbro stripped Cromartin of his church responsibilities, which included teaching marriage preparation classes with his wife.
“The issue,” wrote Bishop Fabbro, “is that a person who does not accept Catholic teaching on fundamental matters is disqualified from acting on behalf of the church in a public capacity.”
The Windsor Star surveyed 51 Roman Catholic MPs of all parties who voted for the Liberal government\’s bill. Four refused to say whether they had been disciplined; 11 said they had not; 34 declined comment.
“My priest said as long as I voted my conscience, that\’s okay,” said Bloc Quebecois MP France Bonsant.
Maria Minna, a Liberal MP, received a letter from Cardinal Ambrozic in Toronto advising her against supporting the gay marriage bill. She ignored that advice – and has heard nothing from the Cardinal since.
Prime Minister Paul Martin, who pushed the bill through parliament before summer recess, is Roman Catholic.
So, clearly, it\’s the exceptions that I\’m taking exception to.
Higher responsibilities
Personally, I\’m torn on this issue.
Should a church have the right to discipline its members? Yes, of course. Set aside the theological mumbo-jumbo — a church is a community of human beings. Every community depends on a level of like-mindedness.
Should a church tell its members what to think? Why not? The church is a teaching community. Through its practices, its publications, its sermons and homilies, it constantly tries to influence the thinking of its members.
In that sense, it is no different from the Masons, the National Rifle Association, and the Sierra Club.
But I believe the church also has a higher responsibility – to encourage its members to think for themselves. As Maria Minna said, “I take into consideration a balance of views and decide what to do for society as a whole.”
Beyond teaching the truths of its tradition, a church should teach its members to assess the situation in the light of the evidence and of their faith. And then to act accordingly, even if that action conflicts with culture or tradition.
Jesus got into trouble with the religious authorities of his time because he refused to conform unthinkingly to his faith\’s established practices. He violated strict rules about the Sabbath; he talked with women and with gentiles; he presumed the right to forgive sins and heal the sick; most of all, he claimed a unity with God.
All of which infuriated the religious heirarchy of his time.
He could have backed off and played it safe. But he didn\’t. He believed so strongly in re-thinking things others took for granted that he went to death on a cross.
Any church that claims to follow his example should not imitate the authorities of his time by demanding conformity.
Four standards
A church can and should help members and adherents explore possibilities they might not otherwise have considered. But it should not behave like a political caucus that requires members to toe the party line.
John Wesley, the founder of Methodism, taught that decisions should be based on four criteria – scripture, tradition, reason, and experience – that subsequent generations have dubbed “Wesley\’s Quadrilateral.”
Unfortunately, most religious doctrines fall short of his criteria. My own United Church may lean too heavily on reason. Evangelicals tend to focus on scripture; feminists on experience; Catholics probably too much on tradition.
“It\’s not easy to get the Catholic hierarchy to move on any issue,” says Joe Cromartin, who admits having had run-ins with that hierarchy before. “Look at Galileo – it took the church almost 500 years to acknowledge that he had been mistreated.”
He also laments what he calls the “almost obsession” of church leaders with sexual issues. “We have spent so much time on these secondary or tertiary issues, and not nearly enough on caring for one another, fighting poverty, fighting war, and any number of other social issues that confront us.”
An end run on the political process To receive this column regularly via e-mail, send a request to [email protected]. E-mail subscribers also get excerpts from correspondence about these columns. Please forward a copy of this column to anyone who might be interested in subscribing.
If you want to order my books, you can call 1-800-663-2775 in Canada, 1-800-328-0200 in the U.S., or order them on-line at the Wood Lake Books website.
For a lighter look at ethics, faith, and life, I recommend Ralph Milton\’s weekly e-newsletter Rumors. You can subscribe to it at the Wood Lake Books home page in Ralph Milton\’s Site, or by sending a note directly to [email protected].
It\’s also worth pursuing Richard Fairchild\’s United Online site. Another site worth visiting is David Keating\’s \”SeemslikeGod\” page.
I accept that a Catholic selected to lead other Catholics should work within a Catholic framework of beliefs.
But members of parliament are not elected only by Roman Catholics. Nor do they legislate only on behalf of Roman Catholics. When they vote, they affect all Canadians.
In Canada as a whole, Roman Catholics make up about 44 per cent of the population, about 31 per cent outside of Quebec. So 69 per cent of Canadians – and perhaps many within the church – feel no obligation to obey Catholic rulings.
When Catholic officials pressure Catholic MPs to vote according to the Catholic party line, they become no better than any other minority group attempting to impose its views on the rest of society.
The church has every right to influence people. It should not have the right to coerce them.
=====================================
Copyright © 2002 by Jim Taylor. Non-profit use in congregations and study groups permitted; all other rights reserved.
=====================================
PROMOTION PLUGS