Skip to main content

In recent years we have seen the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops become not only increasingly political, but increasingly politically aggressive. Led by Conference president, Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York, many bishops have even joined in common cause with the leaders of the Protestant evangelical Christian Right in ways that would have been unthinkable not long ago.  What's more, the generation of bishops appointed by Popes John Paul II and Benedict, have been aggressive in their enforcement of orthodoxy and shutting down of dissent and of reasoned discussion and debate, especially at church-controlled universities.

The spectacle of Roman Catholic leaders denouncing the 2009 decision of the University of Notre Dame to give president Barack Obama an honorary degree and allowing him to speak, illustrated just how extreme the bishops had become. The president ultimately received his honorary doctorate and was allowed to speak -- but the point had been made.

It was not always like this.   There was a time, for example, when Democratic Governor Mario Cuomo of New York spoke to an audience at Notre Dame -- and ultimately to the nation -- and said:  

The American people need no course in philosophy or political science or church history to know that God should not be made into a celestial party chairman.

In in September of 1984, in the middle of the Reagan administration, Notre Dame's Department of Theology invited then-Governor Cuomo to speak on Religious Belief and Public Morality: A Catholic Governor's Perspective. It turned out to be one of the most discussed and influential speeches of the time.  But I suspect would not be allowed today -- unless, of course, it toadied to conservative notions of church orthodoxy.  

Governor Cuomo addressed a number of thorny subjects including, among other things, how a Catholic elected official should approach matters of abortion and contraception; how the Catholic Bishops should relate to Catholic politicians in all of their diversity; and how all of us might find ways to navigate our way in a culture and constitutional system founded on religious pluralism. Cuomo's speech is at least a relevant today as it was then. Here is an excerpt.

Our public morality, then -- the moral standards we maintain for everyone, not just the ones we insist on in our private lives -- depends on a consensus view of right and wrong. The values derived from religious belief will not -- and should not -- be accepted as part of the public morality unless they are shared by the pluralistic community at large, by consensus.

That values happen to be religious values does not deny them acceptability as a part of this consensus. But it does not require their acceptability, either.

The agnostics who joined the civil rights struggle were not deterred because that crusade's values had been nurtured and sustained in black Christian churches. Those on the political left are not perturbed today by the religious basis of the clergy and lay people who join them in the protest against the arms race and hunger and exploitation.

The arguments start when religious values are used to support positions which would impose on other people restrictions they find unacceptable. Some people do object to Catholic demands for an end to abortion, seeing it as a violation of the separation of church and state. And some others, while they have no compunction about invoking the authority of the Catholic bishops in regard to birth control and abortion, might reject out of hand their teaching on war and peace and social policy.

Ultimately, therefore, the question "whether or not we admit religious values into our public affairs" is too broad to yield a single answer. "Yes," we create our public morality through consensus and in this country that consensus reflects to some extent religious values of a great majority of Americans. But "no," all religiously based values don't have an a priori place in our public morality.. The community must decide if what is being proposed would be better left to private discretion than public policy; whether it restricts freedoms, and if so to what end, to whose benefit; whether it will produce a good or bad result; whether overall it will help the community or merely divide it.

The right answers to these questions can be elusive. Some of the wrong answers, on the other hand, are quite clear. For example, there are those who say there is a simple answer to all these questions; they say that by history and practice of our people we were intended to be -- and should be -- a Christian country in law.

But where would that leave the non-believers? And whose Christianity would be law, yours or mine?

This "Christian nation" argument should concern -- even frighten -- two groups: non-Christians and thinking Christians.

I believe it does.

I think it's already apparent that a good part of this Nation understands -- if only instinctively -- that anything which seems to suggest that God favors a political party or the establishment of a state church, is wrong and dangerous.

Way down deep the American people are afraid of an entangling relationship between formal religions -- or whole bodies of religious belief -- and government. Apart from constitutional law and religious doctrine, there is a sense that tells us it's wrong to presume to speak for God or to claim God's sanction of our particular legislation and His rejection of all other positions. Most of us are offended when we see religion being trivialized by its appearance in political throw-away pamphlets.

The American people need no course in philosophy or political science or church history to know that God should not be made into a celestial party chairman.

To most of us, the manipulative invoking of religion to advance a politician or a party is frightening and divisive. The American people will tolerate religious leaders taking positions for or against candidates, although I think the Catholic bishops are right in avoiding that position. But the American people are leery about large religious organizations, powerful churches or synagogue groups engaging in such activities -- again, not as a matter of law or doctrine, but because our innate wisdom and democratic instinct teaches us these things are dangerous.

Crossposted from Talk to Action

Originally posted to Frederick Clarkson on Sun Oct 13, 2013 at 07:12 PM PDT.

Also republished by Street Prophets and Pro Choice.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Mario might want to step up to the microphone and (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Tennessee Dave, ER Doc, sfbob

    have the volume pot turned up to 11 while he gives that address again.  There is clearly a segment of the American population that openly embraces the very concern he was expressing, but what he said 29 years ago needs to be said again, if only to reacquaint the 60-70% of Americans who aren't part of the winger Republican base with the reality of what that base is trying to push on the rest of us...

    "In a nation ruled by swine, all pigs are upward mobile..." - Dr. Hunter S. Thompson

    by Jack K on Sun Oct 13, 2013 at 07:34:28 PM PDT

  •  Mario Cuomo could have been a great president.... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Frederick Clarkson, schumann

    Should have been a progressive anchor in the Supreme Court. As a long time New Yorker am always baffled by why he held himself back from contributing more to this country. One of the most eloquent and persuasive speakers the left has had in the past 50 years.

    Politics is like driving.... (D) forward, (R) reverse.

    by Tribecastan on Sun Oct 13, 2013 at 08:40:28 PM PDT

  •  an alliance between Catholic bishops and Prot. (0+ / 0-)

    Evangelical Right is, as Fred has written about several times warning us, getting more and more of a danger to our democracy than ever before.

    Cuomo's most reasoned explanation of the separation of church and state and yet the inclusion of the values of church as well as other values in the commonweal is truly a standard of sanity against the breathless rewrite of history of this as a Christian nation.  The goal of the Dominionists to subjugate this country to the law of the Ten Commandments would impose nothing short of a sharia fascism.

    The alliance between USCCB and the Protestant Evangelical Community and the astroturf Tea Party (Koch Bros, et al.) is, as Fred says, getting more and more obvious and dangerous.  

    To put it mildly.........

    In recent years we have seen the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops become not only increasingly political, but increasingly politically aggressive.
    Consider this letter from the USCCB to Congresspersons:
    September 26, 2013
    We are writing once again, as Chairmen of the U.S. bishops’ Committee on Pro-Life Activities and Ad Hoc Committee for Religious Liberty, on an increasingly grave concern to our Church and many others: Preserving religious freedom and the right of conscience for all who take part in our health care system.

    We have already urged you to enact the Health Care Conscience Rights Act (H.R. 940/S. 1204). As Congress considers a Continuing Resolution and debt ceiling bill in the days to come, we reaffirm the vital importance of incorporating the policy of this bill into such “must-pass” legislation.

    (my bold/italics)
    Catholic Bishops Letter about Continuing Resolution and Debt Ceiling

    "Must Pass" legislation?  Are you kidding me? The bishops are dictating that their 'legislation' must be included in those measures which the Republicans would insist in their act of political terrorism that MUST BE PASSED/CHANGED before they would release their hostages of the Continuing Resolution and Debt Ceiling.

    Think Progress headlined their article about this letter more succinctly:
    Catholic Bishops To House: Shut Down The Government Unless We Get Our Way On Birth Control

    The Catholic Hierarchy has become a fully functioning political arm of the Radical Right.  The Radical Right, I believe is the front for the Plutocrats.

    I wonder Fred, how you see this?  The Radical Right as I see it is composed of Dominionists who have grabbed center stage from the Protestant Evangelicals and the secretive, but no less authoritarian, Opus Dei, which has grabbed control of the Catholic hierarchy and bishops in the past 40 years.... are at this point not only advancing their form of theocracy but are in league with conservative plutocrats (Kochs, et. al)?  Do you think that, at this point in the game, that there is a plutocratic connection to both these radical religious cults?

    Thanks for bringing this most interesting discussion to DK.

    We Must DISARM THE NRA The next life you save may be ONE OF YOUR OWN!

    by SeaTurtle on Mon Oct 14, 2013 at 07:29:53 AM PDT

    •  let me clarify.... (0+ / 0-)

      this statement :

      The Radical Right, I believe is the front for the Plutocrats.
      should read:
      The Radical Right, I believe is BEING USED by the Plutocrats as a front, as they ally themselves with the Radical Right's agenda for their own purposes.
      The first statement could be read to mean that the Radical Right is JUST a front for the plutocrats, which I definitely do not think.  They have their own history and agenda, as I understand it.  As I said later, 'they are in league'... with each other....

      I do however think that the Tea Party is pretty much a front for the plutocracy.

      That needed clarification.

      We Must DISARM THE NRA The next life you save may be ONE OF YOUR OWN!

      by SeaTurtle on Mon Oct 14, 2013 at 07:42:35 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site