Sacramento Bishop William Weigand recently admonished Gray Davis, the Democratic governor of California, for his outspoken prochoice position. During a January 22 Mass marking the thirtieth anniversary of the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision, Weigand took the exceptional step of directing remarks to the governor. "I have to say clearly that anyone-politician or otherwise-who thinks it is acceptable for a Catholic to be pro-abortion is in very great error, puts his or her soul at risk, and is not in good standing with the church," Weigand said. "Such a person should have the integrity to acknowledge this and choose of his own volition to abstain from receiving Holy Communion until he has a change of heart."
Davis was unrepentant and unmoved. His spokesman, Russ Lopez, said "The governor is a faithful, practicing Catholic who attends Mass in West Hollywood. We don’t like abortion, but we do like choice on the issue. I’m wondering why the bishop is making a concerted effort to exclude and push away those Catholics who favor women having choice." If this is the best Davis can do in explaining his problematic stance on abortion, then he should be reproved more often by his fellow Catholics.
Before making his criticism public, Weigand said he had tried to meet privately with Davis. According to the bishop, Davis rebuffed his overtures. Some prolife Catholic activists have urged the bishop formally to forbid Davis to receive Communion. Weigand has properly said no to that dubious suggestion. "I did not intimate that we would refuse Communion to someone that approaches. Some people thought that there must inevitably follow a further step, namely to excommunicate Davis. But there are no inevitable consequences to my action." That sounds right.
Weigand’s public remonstrance to Davis came shortly after the release of a "Doctrinal Note" from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) on "The Participation of Catholics in Political Life." Conservative Catholics are championing the Vatican statement as an instruction to bishops to get tough with prochoice Catholic politicians, most of whom are Democrats. The CDF argues that a "well-formed Christian conscience" would not allow an elected official to vote for a "law which contradicts the fundamental contents of faith and morals." More specifically, the Note states that "laws must defend the basic right to life from conception to natural death." Support for euthanasia, research on human embryos, and even the recognition of same-sex marriage are identified as positions contrary to a properly formed Christian conscience. All of these issues are cast in the context of "fundamental and inalienable ethical demands...moral principles that do not admit of exception" and which Catholic politicians must recognize as such. Catholics, the CDF emphasizes, have "a duty to be morally coherent."
That coherence, according to the Note, is not a matter of sectarian or confessional allegiance, but a necessary consequence of the "natural moral law," which is available to all reasoning persons. In other words, it is natural law, not the Catholic Church, that tells us that life begins at conception, that stem-cell research is a violation of human dignity, and that same-sex marriage is an assault on first principles and "the family." That people of good will and impressive powers of reasoning, including many with sincerely held religious views, disagree with the Catholic Church’s reading of natural law does not seem to matter. Profound disagreement is brushed off as "relativism."
"No Catholic can appeal to the principle of pluralism or to the autonomy of lay involvement in political life to support policies affecting the common good which compromise or undermine fundamental ethical requirements." Such language seems more designed to scapegoat than to persuade. The CDF acknowledges traditional Catholic teaching recognizing important distinctions between what morality requires and what the law must forbid; prudential judgment is what politics is all about. We are reminded, for instance, that Catholic politicians can legitimately support legislation that restricts legalized abortion without abolishing it. Yet the Note’s syllogistic premises leave the reader with the impression that the Vatican is more intent on delivering a scolding than an invitation to reason together or help Catholic politicians find some realistic middle ground on tortuous questions like abortion. Consequently, the Note easily lends itself to partisan (mostly Republican) flag-waving.
"Democracy must be based on the true and solid foundation of non-negotiable ethical principles, which are the underpinning of life in society," the CDF asserts. Christians must "reject, as injurious to democratic life, a conception of pluralism that reflects moral relativism." In one sense, of course, this is true. American democracy proceeds from the principles that "all men are created equal" and that governments are formed to protect "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Within that framework, however, it is equally true that in modern democratic society there is no moral consensus about ultimate things or first moral principles. We live in a society where people-even neighbors-hold radically different ideas about the meanings and purposes of life. This sort of freedom is maddening and often, as in the case of abortion, tragically mistaken. Yet democracy is about living with disagreement, not eliminating it. What the Vatican characterizes as "moral incoherence" and "relativism" is more often the democratic fact of pluralism.
Which is not to say that bishops shouldn’t admonish politicians, whether Catholic or not, who seem incapable of grasping the moral horror of abortion on demand. If bishops are free to confront presidents about capital punishment or unjust wars, they should be free to defend the unborn against the shibboleth of "choice." As the CDF reminds us, "Authentic freedom does not exist without the truth." Yet perhaps the first truth of democracy is that we are obliged to listen to those with whom we disagree, no matter how wrong they are. In temporal affairs, listening to a variety of voices is often the best means of discovering the truth about what is possible. It can also reveal aspects of the moral truth neglected by the church. Unfortunately, that is not a model of intellectual inquiry for which the CDF has much tolerance. Still, as participants in the messy business of democracy, bishops must continue to give reasons, not just authoritarian edicts, to those with whom they disagree. How something is said often determines whether it will be heard.
