THE WANDERER, AUGUST 21, 2003
JOSEPH SOBRAN'S
WASHINGTON WATCH
Schumer and the Catholics
Sen. Charles Schumer, the other New York Democrat,
is at the center of a new controversy. Mike Long, of New
York's Conservative Party, says Schumer "has an
anti-Catholic bias when it comes to the principles,
traditions, and beliefs of the Catholic Church. If a
Catholic possesses those views, Chuck Schumer is going to
make sure [he] can't advance in the judicial system."
In the debate over the confirmation of William
Pryor, attorney general of Alabama, to a federal
judgeship, Schumer, noting that the Catholic Pryor
opposes Roe v. Wade, has said, "When it comes to the
separation of church and state, we have to be concerned."
Robert Novak notes that Schumer has taken the argument
over religion in government into previously forbidden
territory. With Pryor and other judicial nominees, he has
made an issue of an individual's "deeply held religious
beliefs."
Schumer's defenders, on the other hand, point out
that most of the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary
Committee, who share Schumer's opposition to Bush
nominees, are also Catholics. In fact this is the real
problem: Some of the most "anti-Catholic" men in politics
are nominal Catholics who call themselves "pro-choice."
There is nothing such Catholics hate more than a
Catholic who lives his faith. They can be counted on to
insist that they merely refrain from "imposing their
views on others" -- which implies (1) that they are
resisting a temptation other, more fanatical Catholics
are prone to; (2) that acting on the truths of natural
law is tantamount to establishing Catholicism as the
state religion; and (3) that their own "views" are
Catholic. All three of these propositions are highly
doubtful. They serve only to give faithless Catholics
superficial excuses for taking anti-Catholic positions.
The second of these propositions is the real nub of
the question. Opposing abortion isn't a specifically
Catholic "view." Not so long ago, even Planned Parenthood
agreed that abortion "kills a baby." It went without
saying that everyone opposed it. There is no specific
revealed truth on which Catholic opposition depends.
What has happened is a case of moral erosion. As
with other moral truths, the Catholic Church has stood
firm while others have defected from a traditional
consensus, until what once appeared universal began to
appear almost a Catholic peculiarity.
Imagine that the consensus against cannibalism began
to dissolve. Imagine that Pope after Pope continued to
insist that it was "intrinsically wrong" for human beings
to eat each other, when even the Episcopal Church had
made reasonable accommodations to the evolving spirit of
the time, until the Catholic Church was the only
prominent institution that still opposed the new dietary
freedom.
In that case, we would be told that opposition to
dietary "choice" was a weird relic of medieval Catholic
theology. Liberals would say they were "not pro-cannibal,
but pro-choice." The rallying cry would be "Keep the
government out of the kitchen!" The alleged principle at
stake would be "the separation of Church and state," a
principle violated by laws telling people what they can
eat, which is, after all, "a deeply personal decision."
Enlightened Catholic politicians would say that they
"disagreed with the Pope on this issue." Many would be
"personally opposed" to cannibalism, but unwilling to
"impose their views on society." I'm reminded of my old
friend Phil Nicolaides' quip about Ted Kennedy: "His
religion is so private he won't even impose it on
himself."
So when the Catholic Church becomes the last
standing champion of a civilized standard, that standard
becomes known as "the Catholic position," and even
supposed Catholics edge away from it, while insisting
that they are still loyal Catholics. Just what they are
being loyal to is the question.
It's of course bad manners to question the sincerity
of people's religious professions, but let's get real.
How many of these liberal Catholics are "personally
opposed" to what they support in law? How would a
Catholic politician who was truly "personally opposed"
talk and act? Wouldn't he forcefully express his moral
horror of abortion, even if he thought it shouldn't be
outlawed? Wouldn't he endorse and personally support
private agencies to discourage abortion and help young
pregnant women find adoptive parents for their babies?
Wouldn't he try to make it clear in every way that he
wished no woman would ever exercise her legal option to
have the child killed?
Sounds like a joke, doesn't it? You can hardly
imagine a "pro-choice" Catholic acting like that. Most of
the breed favor public subsidies for abortion, forcing
even fellow Catholics to pay for what they regard as a
hideous crime. They take the position that abortion is
wrong, but should occur as often as possible.
Above all, if you really do hold the "views" you
don't want to "impose," don't you at least have a duty,
even a passion, to *share* those views?
Shouldn't your most ardent wish be to convert as
many people as possible to your Catholic faith? Shouldn't
you at least explain the Catholic position, and defend
your Church against false and loose accusations?
I have no illusion that such arguments will spur
Senator Kennedy to a new career as a Catholic evangelist.
I make them only to illustrate what a truly sincere
Catholic, who was also "pro-choice," might be like, if he
existed. It's his existence I strongly doubt.
As for the principle of separation of church and
state, just how does that work? How broadly does this
principle apply? Does Schumer think it forbids U.S. aid
to a Jewish state, whose official religion is Judaism and
where Christians are in effect second-class citizens? Is
it fair that American Christians should be taxed to pay
for this? Evidently Schumer has no objection to that. But
then, neither do his nominally Christian colleagues.
Blurred Battle Lines
When the very definition of a Catholic is so
debased, I don't see much point in calling this or that
politician "anti-Catholic." The whole Democratic Party is
arrayed against any serious Christian, especially one who
applies his faith to defending unborn children. The
Democrats' position -- and they can claim the backing of
the U.S. Supreme Court -- is that the Constitution itself
is effectively anti-Christian.
When Schumer speaks of a judicial nominee's "deeply
held religious beliefs," he means that the nominee
actually *believes* in his religion, and therefore
withholds his internal assent from secular humanism.
Since secular humanism doesn't count as a "religion,"
despite its implications for all revealed religion, its
establishment as a virtual state creed doesn't violate
religious neutrality. That's why public schools can teach
evolution, promote fornication, abortion, and sodomy, and
undermine Christianity, but mustn't start the day with
even a brief, bland prayer.
Liberal Catholics do their part for the secular
humanist cause by professing to be on the side of the
Church while constantly serving the interests of its
enemies. They will keep the battle lines blurred as long
as they are allowed to get away with calling themselves
Catholics. If they were exposed for what they are, we
would have little to fear from the Schumers.
--- Joseph Sobran
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Read this column on-line at
"http://www.sobran.com/wanderer/w2003/w030821.shtml".
Copyright (c) 2003 by THE WANDERER,
www.thewandererpress.com. Reprinted with permission.
This column may not be published in print or Internet
publications without express permission of THE WANDERER.
You may forward it to interested individuals if you use
this entire page, including the following disclaimer:
"THE WANDERER is available by subscription. Write
subscription@thewandererpress.com for information.
Subscription price: $50 per year; $30 for six months.
Checks can be sent to The WANDERER, 201 Ohio Street,
Dept. JS, St. Paul, MN 55107.
"SOBRAN'S and Joe Sobran's syndicated columns are
available by e-mail subscription. For details and
samples, see http://www.sobran.com/e-mail.shtml, write
fran@griffnews.com, or call 800-513-5053."