Alan Wolfe is a TNR contributing editor and director of the Boisi Center for Religion and American Public Life at Boston College.
Just before the House of Representatives voted on the Stupak Amendment, designed to stop any public funding of insurance plans that cover abortion, the U. S. Conference on Catholic Bishops (USCCB) weighed in with its endorsement. According to The Hill, their action gave the amendment a “boost,” helping its eventual passage.
Such a series of events is likely to give rise to charges among liberals and feminists that the Catholic Church is exercising all too much influence in American politics. Yet in many ways the events of this past weekend suggest the exact opposite conclusion: Catholic influence is maximized when Catholics are unified--and when it came to the Stupak Amendment, they were anything but.
The idea that the Catholic Church has a malign influence on American politics goes way back to the Know-Nothings of the nineteenth century and continued up to the election of John F. Kennedy as president in 1960. Catholics were widely viewed as bloc voters. Unlike more individualistically inclined Protestants, the theory went, Catholics were more committed to principles of group solidarity and institutional loyalty. Living in geographic proximity, they supported urban political bosses who distributed jobs and favors among their fellow Mass attenders. Catholic members of Congress were invariably Democrats from safe districts comprised of their co-religionists; their longevity allowed them to rise to leadership positions through the committee system. To be sure, JFK was the only Catholic elected president. But if one looked at the state and local level as well as the other branches of the national government, their influence was enormous. Only 25 percent of Americans are Catholic, for example, but five of the nine judges of the U. S. Supreme Court can be considered members of the Church.
If group solidarity was the force that gave the Church its influence, the Stupak amendment reveals deep division. Its support came overwhelmingly from Republicans--and since so many of them are from the South, the positive vote for the amendment says more about Baptists than it does about Catholics. As Willliam Galston points out, the majority of the 64 Democrats who joined them were Catholic. At the same time, however, supporters also included Blue Dog Democrats from the South such as Tennessee’s Lincoln Davis, a member of the First Baptist Church in Byrdstown. It was, in short, not the Catholic Church that passed the Stupak amendment, but all those who are pro-life for political rather than religious reasons.
Similar ecumenicalism existed on the other side of the aisle. Voting against the Stupak Amendment were such prominent Catholic Democrats as Speaker Nancy Pelosi, as well as backbenchers such as Frank Pallone of New Jersey and Carol Shea-Porter of New Hampshire. Even more tellingly, Catholic House members with their eyes on Senate seats--Michael Capuano from Massachusetts and Joe Sestak from Pennsylvania--voted against, as if realizing that election to statewide office required showing independence of mind. Hispanic Congressmen from Texas tended to vote with the Republicans, but Hispanics from California tended to vote with the Democrats. (Region, as Galston also points out, still matters--for as the Catholic politician Tip O’Neill once put it, reflecting the realities of parish life, “All politics is local”). It is true that religion matters as well, but less, I believe, than Galston suggests. After all, an amendment written by a man that would only affect women was strongly opposed by female members of Congress no matter what their faith.
In this sense, the Stupak Amendment mirrored the situation facing Catholics in the whole country. From the 1930s to the 1950s, Catholics tended to agree on the main issues of the day: Most of them were liberal in economic terms and conservative on foreign policy. These days, Catholics are all over the map politically, even on issues on which their Church takes strong stands. According to a March 2009 Gallup poll, there are no significant differences between Catholics and other Americans on either abortion or stem cell research: 40 percent of Catholics find abortion morally acceptable and 63 percent have no problem with stem cells, compared to 41 percent and 62 percent of non-Catholics respectively. In its own way, the Stupak Amendment revealed the single most important truth about American Catholics: their unwillingness to blindly follow Church teachings.
One other aspect of this vote is sure to be subject to discussion as the health care bill reaches the Senate floor. The Stupak Amendment will not prohibit all insurance plans from paying for abortions, but will restrict those held by the less well off. In that sense, Stupak’s amendment violates the commitments to social justice and equality that have become so much part of the worldview of younger Catholics such as those I teach at Boston College. Stupak, a Catholic from Michigan, along with his allies among the U. S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, have taken a step likely to be perceived as blatantly unfair by those who constitute the future of their church. If this is Catholicism muscling its political power, it sure is a strange way to do so.
Intellectual rigor. Honest reporting. Influential analysis. Don't miss another issue of the magazine considered "required reading" by the world's top decision-makers. Subscribe today.
COMMENTS (9)
Devout Catholics reduce the agonies, the ambiguities, the antinomies embedded in the existential nature of unwanted pregnancies [out in the real world] down to Scripture. They say God says No there. Period.
There is no reasoning with them.
Fortunately, more catholic Catholics can be reasoned with. And you can be sure the less abstract these exigencies become the ever more reasonable they will be.
I always pose the same scenario for anti-choice folks:
If the law of the land proscribes abortion.....if it construes abortion to be premeditated murder...what will that mean?
It will mean this: That any woman who opts for a back alley abortion will not only put her life at risk, but will be seen [in th ... view full comment
Devout Catholics reduce the agonies, the ambiguities, the antinomies embedded in the existential nature of unwanted pregnancies [out in the real world] down to Scripture. They say God says No there. Period.
There is no reasoning with them.
Fortunately, more catholic Catholics can be reasoned with. And you can be sure the less abstract these exigencies become the ever more reasonable they will be.
I always pose the same scenario for anti-choice folks:
If the law of the land proscribes abortion.....if it construes abortion to be premeditated murder...what will that mean?
It will mean this: That any woman who opts for a back alley abortion will not only put her life at risk, but will be seen [in the eyes of the law] as someone who can be charged, indicted, tried, convicted and sentenced for murder.
And if she does this in a state like Texas, she will be put on death row with all the other murderers.
And this will be so even if her pregnancy was the result of a rape or of incest. After all, that wasn't the fetus's fault, right? And if life is construed [again, legally] to start at the point of conception then those who work in fertility clinics or in the field of stem cell research may also be arrested for committing murder.
It's amazing how many anti-choice fanatics never really think it through to this. Point it out to them. Note how, in desparation, their daugther, sister, mother, aunt etc. may opt for an abortion in some subterranean office in some subterranean part of town. Note how, should they get caught, they may well be convicted of murder and end up sitting on death row.
Then watch them start stuttering and stammering.
Oh, and ask them why God deems abortion to be a Sin, when no one performs more abortions each year than God Himself.
We call call them miscarriages.
george walton
Obviously the Catholic Church is not a monolith of reactionary views, but it is quite clear that the voice of the Church that we hear all the time in the US is coming loudly and consistently from the right wingers who align more easily with Evangelical and Fundamentalist groups than with those whose views are more liberal.
It strikes me as ridiculous that Wolfe compares critics of the Church to Know Nothings; some of us who bemoan the steady shift of the Church to the far right, and away from the social justice agenda, are in fact Catholics, or lapsed Catholics who can no longer accept an association that might be interpreted as endorsement.
America is a religious nation, and largely a Chri ... view full comment
Obviously the Catholic Church is not a monolith of reactionary views, but it is quite clear that the voice of the Church that we hear all the time in the US is coming loudly and consistently from the right wingers who align more easily with Evangelical and Fundamentalist groups than with those whose views are more liberal.
It strikes me as ridiculous that Wolfe compares critics of the Church to Know Nothings; some of us who bemoan the steady shift of the Church to the far right, and away from the social justice agenda, are in fact Catholics, or lapsed Catholics who can no longer accept an association that might be interpreted as endorsement.
America is a religious nation, and largely a Christian nation. Among those calling themselves Christians, there is a sharp divide between those who define their values in terms of the Old Testament -- heavily oriented towards restriction and punishment of perceived sexual excess and deviance -- and those who think the Gospel's focus on love is the proper focus. The first group sanctioned war in Iraq, torture, the death penalty, tax cuts for the rich, and other evils of the right wing agenda, in order to take their stand proudly among those who would stop gay people from marrying and women from having abortions.
It matters a lot which side of that divide Catholics show up on. There are a lot of Catholics, and they are influential. If they sit quietly in the pews and endorse the agenda of their Glenn Beck bishops and allow that portion of the faithful who attend pro-life / tea party events to speak for them, then legislators will act as the House did on Saturday.
It is meaningless to assert that Catholics are actually divided about the right-wing agenda of their bishops if only one side of that divide is ever heard.
Neil
wow, this posting is chock full of assumptions: "It was, in short, not the Catholic Church that passed the Stupak amendment, but all those who are pro-life for political rather than religious reasons." Nice ability there to see into these individual's consciences.
"After all, an amendment written by a man that would only affect women was strongly opposed by female members of Congress no matter what their faith." One, that is a lie. The 13 Republican women all supported it. And would it made any difference if the Republican party was filled with Michelle Malkin's? Would you then have thought it was OK? I doubt that.
"In its own way, the Stupak Amendment revealed the single most important truth ... view full comment
wow, this posting is chock full of assumptions: "It was, in short, not the Catholic Church that passed the Stupak amendment, but all those who are pro-life for political rather than religious reasons." Nice ability there to see into these individual's consciences.
"After all, an amendment written by a man that would only affect women was strongly opposed by female members of Congress no matter what their faith." One, that is a lie. The 13 Republican women all supported it. And would it made any difference if the Republican party was filled with Michelle Malkin's? Would you then have thought it was OK? I doubt that.
"In its own way, the Stupak Amendment revealed the single most important truth about American Catholics: their unwillingness to blindly follow Church teachings." Yes, because the assumption normally is that Catholics have never been able to think for themselves. So people who support the amendment, by virtue of doing so, are blind? It isn't possible that they came up with their views on their own after careful consideration?
"The Stupak Amendment will not prohibit all insurance plans from paying for abortions, but will restrict those held by the less well off." Um...not exactly: Stupak’s language not only prohibits abortion coverage in the public insurance option included in the House bill. It would also prevent private plans from offering coverage for abortion services if they accept people who are receiving government subsidies.
Essentially, people who are getting government free money can't purchase health care plans that offer abortion. Oh, the horror. Listen, if I give you money I should have a reasonable expectation that it won't be used to kill little babies. You want to kill your baby, do it on your own dime. Amazing how you can write such a long posting without ever once addressing this central issue.
This is the way people feel, and unless you have the balls to address this issue instead of tap dancing away from it, treating abortion as though it were the equivalent of getting a tooth extracted, then the whole post is meaningless.
You know, you can be progressive and pro-life. The future is far, far bleaker towards you than it is for me. Lord knows to what extent we can sustain fetal viability outside of the womb.
Come on Neil. You know better than to label all pro-life people as being the equivalent of Glenn Beck types. In fact, the majority of people fall into Hillary Clinton's definition of support for abortion: safe, legal, and RARE. The rare part is a simple acknowledgment of the moral and ethical issues involved. I have zero problem with people who think women have an absolute right to their own bodies, you can believe that and still feel abortion is a tragedy best avoided if possible.
blackton,
I am not disparaging the pro-life views of Catholics or any other group. I am quite content that people can have all sorts of opinions about the question. I doubt that most Catholics on either side of the question are as extreme as Glenn Beck.
However, let's be clear about the political voice of Catholicism in the US, which is the focus of my commentary above.
Whose voice is it that we all hear? It is the most conservative and even reactionary voices that dominate.
Where are the moderates and liberals of the Church? They are silent, and effectively, they are collaborators.
When we see the Church in motion politically, it is to support the GOP and its agenda, and to virtually e ... view full comment
blackton,
I am not disparaging the pro-life views of Catholics or any other group. I am quite content that people can have all sorts of opinions about the question. I doubt that most Catholics on either side of the question are as extreme as Glenn Beck.
However, let's be clear about the political voice of Catholicism in the US, which is the focus of my commentary above.
Whose voice is it that we all hear? It is the most conservative and even reactionary voices that dominate.
Where are the moderates and liberals of the Church? They are silent, and effectively, they are collaborators.
When we see the Church in motion politically, it is to support the GOP and its agenda, and to virtually excommunicate those who share the view that abortion should be safe, legal, and rare.
Those of us who remember a time when the Catholic Church embraced the causes of civil rights and social justice are rightly concerned that the Church today has aligned with the Tea Party cranks and Glenn Beck 9/12 nutjobs. Look at the recent news stories and see for yourself, the pro-life crazies, the homophobes, the anti-immigration posse, the Tea Partiers, the birthers, and the deathers, are all gathering at the same rallies.
Yeah, I know that many Catholics are nice, reasonable people, who don't really agree with the bishops. Tell that to the House members who blinked when the bishops threatened to oppose the health care bill unless the Stupak amendment was included.
I guess I'd just like to see some Catholics stand up to their bishops. Till that happens on a scale worth mentioning, you can't blame the rest of us for being less than impressed.
Neil
Wolfe observes that 5 of the 9 justices on the Supreme Court are Catholics and fails to observe that they mainly (4 of the 5) comprise the right-wing of the Court (Alito, Thomas, Roberts and Scalia). If this is an argument for Wolfe's point of view, it is lost on me.
Neil
Wolfe observes that 5 of the 9 justices on the Supreme Court are Catholics and fails to observe that they mainly (4 of the 5) comprise the right-wing of the Court (Alito, Thomas, Roberts and Scalia). If this is an argument for Wolfe's point of view, it is lost on me.
Neil
Neil, I don't know what voices you choose to listen to, the Catholic church has, in fact, endorsed the health care bill that recently passed the House. Even with that amendment, only one Republican voted for it. In addition, as a general rule, the Catholic church is anti-death penalty. As to financial reforms, the Catholic church is to the left of even the Democratic party. They are to the left of the Democrats in immigration reform as well. There are two issues where they are outside the Dems. One is abortion and the other is gay marriage. Abortion is an issue without reconciliation. You either believe life begins at conception or you don't. If you do, you really can't criticize people's at ... view full comment
Neil, I don't know what voices you choose to listen to, the Catholic church has, in fact, endorsed the health care bill that recently passed the House. Even with that amendment, only one Republican voted for it. In addition, as a general rule, the Catholic church is anti-death penalty. As to financial reforms, the Catholic church is to the left of even the Democratic party. They are to the left of the Democrats in immigration reform as well. There are two issues where they are outside the Dems. One is abortion and the other is gay marriage. Abortion is an issue without reconciliation. You either believe life begins at conception or you don't. If you do, you really can't criticize people's attitudes about to what extent the government should intervene in protecting that life, you can disagree certainly, but that is not libel. Too often though, it is not simple disagreement, it turns into libel.
As to gay marriage, I think the Church is dead wrong (not in their belief in the sinfulness of homosexuality, I have no idea really about that) because I think the church should separate sin from crime when the sin hurts no one but the sinner. Marriage is a contract between two people, leave it at that. (for that matter, I also think Polygamy should be legal, or, at least, not illegal). In China my wife and I had a Civil Union, it has the same legal rights as marriage, so if you want to leave Marriage to Churchs and Civil Unions to the state, I am fine with that.
"Tell that to the House members who blinked when the bishops threatened to oppose the health care bill unless the Stupak amendment was included." You are making an assumption about what these Congressmen believe. If I were in Congress as a Democrat, I absolutely would have voted for this amendment and the church would have had little to do with my decision, beyond the fact that on this issue we are in agreement. On gay marriage I would vote for it. So does this mean then that when my belief and the church's coincide, I am a blind idiot, but when I go against it, I am a brave, thoughtful soul?
Wolfe writes in closing:
"Stupak’s amendment violates the commitments to social justice and equality that have become so much part of the worldview of younger Catholics such as those I teach at Boston College. Stupak, a Catholic from Michigan, along with his allies among the U. S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, have taken a step likely to be perceived as blatantly unfair by those who constitute the future of their church. If this is Catholicism muscling its political power, it sure is a strange way to do so."
Well, it is only strange if one assumes as Wolfe does that this regressive and unjust policy is an accidental consequence of the Church's political activity -- as if the bishops' thre ... view full comment
Wolfe writes in closing:
"Stupak’s amendment violates the commitments to social justice and equality that have become so much part of the worldview of younger Catholics such as those I teach at Boston College. Stupak, a Catholic from Michigan, along with his allies among the U. S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, have taken a step likely to be perceived as blatantly unfair by those who constitute the future of their church. If this is Catholicism muscling its political power, it sure is a strange way to do so."
Well, it is only strange if one assumes as Wolfe does that this regressive and unjust policy is an accidental consequence of the Church's political activity -- as if the bishops' threat to oppose health care unless the Stupak amendment passed was a mindless error, rather than a considered and deliberate blow to the values he assumes they must embrace.
Does Wolfe believe that the Congressmen who bowed to the bishops were mistaken? Perhaps they should have trusted Wolfe's sharp analysis and told the bishops that they were mistaken. In the real world, Mr Wolfe, one does best to assume that the bishops knew what they were up to, and that the members of Congress are a good judge of the political clout of these clerics.
The Church is as the Church does. It's that simple. In America today, the Church is on the side of those who have opposed health reform for reasons of their own -- whether it is to serve the needs of private insurance companies, or to block the president's agenda, or as a bargaining chip in the battle over abortion. Just as the Church sided with those who invaded Iraq when it served their pro-life agenda (as they defined it), the Church will make any bargain, and sell out any cause, to press its anti-abortion agenda. As the direct consequence of this kind of one-issue thinking, the Church is wedded to the most reactionary forces in America today.
Very strange, indeed, Mr Wolfe. But so it is.
Neil
Neil, actually 6 are Catholic: Kennedy, Sotomayor, Roberts, Alito, Scalia, and Thomas. Breyer and Ginsburg are jewish, and only John Paul Stevens is Protestant.
"Only 25 percent of Americans are Catholic, for example, but five of the nine judges of the U. S. Supreme Court can be considered members of the Church." To be honest, I have no idea what this means. Which of these 6 does he not consider members of the church? It was such a bizarre sentence I really didn't know what to make of it. It would have been helpful if he said which one was a lapsed Catholic.
Neil, actually 6 are Catholic: Kennedy, Sotomayor, Roberts, Alito, Scalia, and Thomas. Breyer and Ginsburg are jewish, and only John Paul Stevens is Protestant.
"Only 25 percent of Americans are Catholic, for example, but five of the nine judges of the U. S. Supreme Court can be considered members of the Church." To be honest, I have no idea what this means. Which of these 6 does he not consider members of the church? It was such a bizarre sentence I really didn't know what to make of it. It would have been helpful if he said which one was a lapsed Catholic.
Yes, I just came back to correct my mistake -- how could I forget our newest justice? I slipped on that banana peel Wolfe laid in my path with that odd sentence about the 5 Catholics. It doesn't alter the fact pattern here, which is clearly contrary to anything Wolfe could have wanted to suggest. I think he was trying to tell us how wonderfully mainstream Catholicism is -- but of course the question is really about the political leanings of the Church. The four horsemen on the far right have to count for more than Sotomayor (and occasionally Kennedy) on the other side.
Neil
Yes, I just came back to correct my mistake -- how could I forget our newest justice? I slipped on that banana peel Wolfe laid in my path with that odd sentence about the 5 Catholics. It doesn't alter the fact pattern here, which is clearly contrary to anything Wolfe could have wanted to suggest. I think he was trying to tell us how wonderfully mainstream Catholicism is -- but of course the question is really about the political leanings of the Church. The four horsemen on the far right have to count for more than Sotomayor (and occasionally Kennedy) on the other side.
Neil