Posted on 04/25/2003 7:47:06 AM PDT by Polycarp
The Weekly Standard is reporting that Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle's bishop has "ordered" him to stop calling himself a Catholic. Bishop Robert Carlson has issued a statement claiming that "I do not believe it is appropriate for me to discuss my pastoral relationship with the senator," but the Catholic Family Association of America is already taking credit for the Bishop's action, citing their campaign of prayer and fasting to change Daschle's mind on the issue of abortion or, failing that, to convince the Bishop to "formally declare Senator Daschle no longer in communion with the Roman Catholic Church."
Hold off on the victory dance there, people. Because this isn't the first time Bishop Carlson has threatened Daschle regarding the "option" to call himself a Catholic. And if recent history is any indication, it's unlikely to be the last.
But first, a little background on the issue: Over the past fifteen years, members of the U.S. Catholic hierarchy (and, yes, I know they don't like that term, but it accurately describes the way they're wielding their power here) have taken a series of actions to coerce Catholic politicians into changing their voting habits on abortion issues. In 1990, the archbishop of Guam threatened to excommunicate any Catholic senator who voted against legislation prohibiting abortion excepted when the life of the mother is threatened -- the most restrictive abortion legislation in any U.S. state or territory. That same year, Bishop Reiss of Trenton barred pro-choice Catholic politicians from speaking at church-sponsored events, and Cardinal O'Connor wrote in diocesan newspapers that these same politicians "must be warned that they are at risk of excommunication." In 1996 the retired archbishop of the Orleans Diocese announced that a vote for the Democratic candidate for Senate -- the Catholic, pro-choice Mary Landrieu -- would be considered a sin. Even Republican Tom Ridge has been denied access to Catholic churches by Bishop Trautman of Erie, Pennsylvania since 1998. And just a few months ago, Gray Davis' Sacramento bishop warned that any Catholic pro-choice politician should "abstain from receiving holy Communion until he has a change of heart."
This latest volley by Carlson represents a long series of conversations between the Bishop and the Minority Leader. It also represents a breach of what was -- and what should remain -- a private dialogue between a parishioner and his priest. And yet, at politically opportune times (Daschle is up for reelection in 2004, remember), the Bishop has violated that trust by taking the issue public.
In 1997 (again, just before Daschle's last campaign for reelection), Carlson and Daschle held a year-long dialogue on the very difficult issue of "partial-birth" abortion. They were unable to arrive at a mutually agreeable legislative solution, but for the most part, their discussions and correspondence were polite and respectful. (A personal disclaimer: at the time I was a member of Daschle's legislative staff working almost exclusively on the abortion issue. You really don't want to get me started. But the Weekly Standard already did. So.) Which is why we were all caught off guard when Bishop Carlson's final reply to a letter from the senator was sent not to Daschle's office, but was faxed to Senator Bob Smith, a main proponent of the "partial-birth abortion ban." Instead of reading the letter from his bishop in private, Daschle had to hear the letter read to him by Smith on the Senate floor while their colleagues and the entire C-SPAN viewing audience listened in.
Daschle issued a statement last week noting that, "I am not going to participate in a debate that is intended to politicize anyone's religious beliefs, especially during Holy Week. . . . I will not discuss our private conversations in the media." With the exception of an uncharacteristic rant after he switched his vote in favor of the "partial-birth" abortion ban in 1997 -- a rant that earned him quiet kudos from Catholic colleagues who wished they had the guts to take on the Church in the same way -- Daschle has consistently held that this is a matter simply between him and his bishop. I respect his decision. But this has made me angry and I'll continue to follow it closely.
Because it's one thing to target someone's political life. But his spiritual life is an entirely different matter. Carlson can't deny Daschle communion because the senator has not taken communion since his divorce and remarriage. The only punishment left is excommunication -- and while the Bishop is currently only ordering Daschle to stop referring to himself as a Catholic, that comes pretty darn close. As does Carlson's original warning seven years ago that Daschle no longer has the "option" of calling himself a Catholic. And excommunication over abortion would be a first, even in this era of threats against Catholic pro-choice politicians.
Amy Sullivan apparently reads Free Republic too. See this link from her column:
but the Catholic Family Association of America is already taking credit for the Bishop's action, citing their campaign of prayer and fasting to change Daschle's mind on the issue of abortion or, failing that, to convince the Bishop to "formally declare Senator Daschle no longer in communion with the Roman Catholic Church."
Pinging.
We stated that 7500 days of prayer and fasting had played a role in all of this, and God had answered these prayers.
I still believe this to be true, regardless of this author's opinion, because I believe in the power of prayer and fasting and I believe in God's Divine Mercy and Divine Providence.
--Dr. Brian Kopp
Vice President, CFAA.
On Catholic Politicians and Faith
Vatican Urges Catholic Politicians to Vote Along Church Lines
Senator Santorum on Being Catholic and a Politician
William E. Simon, Sr. and Jr. Devout Catholics, Philanthropists and Politicians
Deadly Dozen senator taken to task over claims of Catholicism
THE BISHOP AND THE SENATOR [author links to FR thread regarding Daschle in her online column]
This makes the Atkins diet look weak. They sure must be hungry by now.
Disclaimer: this is my opinion only, and I have no way of verifying this:
Most Catholic bishops have a bureacracy they use when "writing" a letter such as this, i.e., a canon law expert (usually a priest but sometimes a layperson), a personal secretary (sometimes a priest, sometimes a layperson), advisers, etc. The bishop tells them what he "wants to say" and they draw up the draft letter, and he signs it.
I feel certain it was one of these ancillary personel that "leaked" this letter, NOT the bishop himself. Either way, I think we would all agree that spiritually it was imprudent, but on the whole it has given pro-life Catholics something for which to be thankful.
Sinkspur,
Any comments from an "insider"?
The one part of this I don't get is that it DOES appear that a member of the Catholic clergy DID violate the confidential relationship he is supposed to have with (shudder) Daschle. I'm not Catholic, but if my LDS bishop did this--aired his opinion about one of my positions on something, so very publically--I'd have a HUGE problem with that. And I think my church would too.Well, how do you address it when the problem is that Daschle is publically claiming to be Catholic as part of his campaign pitch. If he refuses to stop, and refuse to stop endorsing abortion, you are forced to make your disagreement public.
In Catholic theology, Daschle’s actions give what is called scandal. It makes it look like the Church doesn’t mean it when they say they are pro-life, if they allow a notorious pro abort to claim he is a good Catholic to get votes. The faithful are scandalized by that, and are often confused about just what the Church really teaches.
To address that, you have to do it in the public sphere. Daschle’s sin isn’t just a personal act, it is deeply and inextricably intertwined with his public acts of governance and electioneering. The only way to cure that harm, is to do so publicly, as a last resort. Given the length of the dialog it is fair to call this a last resort.
However, I don't think any bishop or stake president in our church could or would go public condemning any particular member like this, or attempt this kind of...extortion.What would happen if, after the excommunication, the man kept claiming to be LDS in good standing, even if he didn’t participate because he was excommunicated? Would they just let those claims stand uncontested?
I'm just uncomfortable with a member of the clergy doing it. There's supposed to be a private relationship there.There is, but one of the explicit purposes for excommunication in the Church has always been to cure public scandal, and to protect the faithful from a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
patent +AMDG
A former Daschle staffer? I think that is a given, isn't it?
To address that, you have to do it in the public sphere. Daschle’s sin isn’t just a personal act, it is deeply and inextricably intertwined with his public acts of governance and electioneering. The only way to cure that harm, is to do so publicly, as a last resort. Given the length of the dialog it is fair to call this a last resort.
Great summary, Patent, thanks.
I'm still not certin that, as Sinkspur noted on another related thread:
"On the surface, Carlson is trying to keep this a private matter, and hopes that Daschle might get the message.
"In reality, however, the bishop has obviously leaked his letter for public consumption."
I'm not sure either way.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.