Two cheers for the bishops! On Sept. 10th, the American bishops’ 47-member administrative committee issued a public statement in favor of the efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution to prohibit homosexual marriage.
The committee stated that it firmly opposes “any legislative and judicial attempts, at the state and federal levels, to grant same-sex unions the equivalent status and rights of marriage — by naming them marriage, civil unions or by other means.” No equivocation there.
The bishop’s statement is in line with the July 31 pronouncement from the Vatican, which held that there were “absolutely no grounds” for same-sex marriages and warned Catholic politicians that a vote to legalize them would be “gravely immoral.” Sister Mary Ann Walsh, a spokeswoman for the bishops, said the bishops support the laws in 37 states that “define marriage as between one man and one woman.” No equivocation there either.
Then why do I say only “two cheers” for the bishops? Well, the leaders of the country’s nine Orthodox Christian churches took the position that they “cannot and will not bless same-sex unions” on Aug. 27, almost two weeks before the Catholic bishops spoke out. The Southern Baptist Convention, passed a resolution “steadfastly” opposing efforts to legalize same-sex marriages back in June. My question: Why did the American bishops take so long? This may be unfair, but I can’t help it: The timing of their statement leaves me unsettled. Did they feel a need for the cover of the Protestant groups? Or, worse, were they shamed by the Protestant groups into taking a stand they would have preferred to avoid?
But let us not linger on that question. It is unlikely that we will ever know what motivated the bishops’ timing. There are more important matters at hand. As the political debate on this question moves forward, we are going to be hit with the familiar charge that Catholics who unite behind the Pope and the bishops on this issue are “mixing religion and politics,” thereby violating the First Amendment rights of those who do not share our religious beliefs. We cannot let ourselves get drawn into that thicket. It is a bogus charge.
First of all, the First Amendment does not prohibit us from shaping public policy on the basis of our religious beliefs. That is not what it was all about. Come on: No one questions the legitimacy of laws prohibiting murder, robbery and perjury, even though these behaviors are condemned in the Ten Commandments. (“Thou shalt not kill”; “Thou shalt not steal”; Thou shalt not bear false witness against they neighbor.”)
Moreover, those who scold Catholics for violating the separation of church and state in the debate over legal abortion and homosexual marriage, were singing the praises of Catholics whose religious convictions led them to join marches and demonstrations to advance the cause of civil rights and end the war in Vietnam. Catholics do not get criticized when they repeat passages from the social encyclicals to support poverty programs or labor union militancy; Cesar Chavez’s boycott against grape growers back in the 1960s comes to mind.
When Catholics quote biblical passages in taking a stand against American military intervention in places like Iraq and Nicaragua, they are not taken to task by those who get up in arms when we become activists on abortion and homosexual marriages. You don’t find many ACLU-types rushing to find a camera to reprimand Catholics who back the cause of women’s rights because of their religious convictions about the dignity of women. They think it fine if Catholics organize to save the redwoods and the whales out of respect for God’s creation. They think it fitting when Catholics pray the rosary outside a prison where a convict is about to be put to death. You get my point: Catholics get attacked for violating the separation of church and state only when we take positions that conflict with the views of the leftists in the media and the academy. No hyperbole. That’s how the game is played.
Then what does the First Amendment prohibit? It prohibits the “establishment of religion,” that is the creation of an official church for the United States, just as the Anglican church was (and still is, in a technical sense) the established church in Great Britain, or the Lutheran church was in parts of the old Holy Roman Empire, or Catholicism was in Spain. The American Founding Fathers wanted to cut off at the pass the kind of religious wars that plagued Europe in the 17th century.
The clearest way to think of this question is to focus on the word “sectarian.” The First Amendment prohibits laws that are sectarian. For example, Catholics are not permitted to write laws forcing Protestants to go to Confession or accept the teaching of the Immaculate Conception. Baptists are not to write laws forcing Catholics to go to the river for baptism by full immersion. Jews cannot write laws forcing the rest of us to observe their dietary laws or wear yarmulkes.
But members of all religious groups are entitled to bring their consciences with them when they enter the political arena. The First Amendment does not prohibit that. We are not disenfranchised because our values are rooted in the Bible and 2000 years of Western civilization, while “gay” activists and feminists, with moral convictions formed by reading the deconstructionists or listening to the Beatles’ pronouncements, are left free to pressure their representatives. The First Amendment does not permit us to use the force of law to coerce others into worshipping as we do. But it leaves us as free as secularists to make our voices heard on important questions about the way our society will be organized. Whether we should abandon our civilization’s time-honored understanding of the nature of marriage is one of those questions.
James Fitzpatrick's new novel, The Dead Sea Conspiracy: Teilhard de Chardin and the New American Church, is available from our online store. You can email Mr. Fitzpatrick at fitzpatrijames@sbcglobal.net.
(This article originally appeared in The Wanderer and is reprinted with permission. To subscribe call 651-224-5733.)
