|
“Red” and “Blue” Catholicism? In the recent election it was dismaying to learn that the more regularly people attended church, including Catholics, the more inclined they were to vote “red” (in the now-conventional terminology) for “traditional values,” for President Bush, and endorsing the US occupation of Iraq. Why this was so is not so clear. Certainly, some people (including bishops) claiming to speak for the church said that issues are “non-negotiable” for Catholics (abortion, same-sex union), and there was talk of Catholic politicians being excommunicated or denied communion for their positions. Matters such as the war in Iraq were by implication “negotiable.” Officially church authorities gave no endorsement, but anecdotal information indicates that at the parish level people were told that it was a sin to vote for Kerry. “Father, this is the saddest day in my life,” a woman told a priest in the rectory the morning after the election, “and I hold my church responsible.” But whether many people’s voting behavior was changed by what they heard in church is not clear. Perhaps regular churchgoing and voting “red” are rooted in common attitudes, such as deference to authority. In any case, regular churchgoing Catholics seemed more inclined to accept the worldview presented in the Bush campaign. In terms of foreign affairs that worldview could be summarized like this: “September 11 has changed everything. We are now engaged in a war against terrorism and fundamentalist Islam. The enemies of freedom will stop at nothing, and are willing to use any means, including weapons of mass destruction. This new war, like the Cold War, will require decades of vigilance and sacrifice. With its moral clarity and its power the United States must take the lead; it cannot be hindered by international agreements. Other nations are with us or against us and we will treat them accordingly.” That worldview is profoundly at odds with the spirit of Catholicism, at least as I understand it. Although it was formulated largely by secular neoconservative intellectuals, its absolute all-or-nothing stance gives it “religious” overtones. The righteousness of the United States takes on an absolute quality. A commander told his troops shortly before attacking Fallujah, “This is as pure a fight between good and evil as we are probably going to get in our lifetime.” That many civilians had already died in Fallujah, that almost all of its inhabitants had been forced to flee, and that the likely effect of the US attack would be to fuel the insurgency, was immaterial. Indeed, he was only reflecting his faith-based commander-in-chief. Yet the “red” worldview that divides the world into “enemies” and “friends” and elevates the United States to a privileged position above the other 95% of humankind is profoundly un-Catholic. Certainly, it would be possible to cite papal and episcopal documents (especially Pacem in Terris, Lumen Gentium, Gaudium et Spes), but here I want to focus on the center of Catholic life, the eucharist. As we gather around the table, we pray for those we know, for members of the congregation, for believers in other lands, for those enduring war, natural disasters, violence, poverty. We pray for local, national, and world leaders. The overall image is of all humankind, redeemed by Christ, on a pilgrimage toward fulfillment in the Father. The assumption is that humankind is a family. There is no talk of enemies, nor is there any hint that one of the peoples of the earth—one portion of the “people of God”—is somehow superior to others in moral clarity, or is anointed to be judge, jury, and executioner of the rest. If September 11 has really “changed everything,” why not express this in our prayer? “O God, you who led Moses with your strong right hand, be with us as we do battle with the enemies of freedom.” Why not pray for victory against the forces of evil in Fallujah in the intercessory prayer? Why not an entire eucharistic prayer that would recall Joshua defeating the Canaanites and invoke the warrior Joan of Arc? Absurd? The pre-Vatican II Roman liturgy did have some references to enemies, particularly reflecting the centuries of war between the West and Islam. The language of enemies and calls for war and vengeance are frequent in the psalms. Or consider God’s “terrible swift sword” in the “Battle Hymn of the Republic” “As he died to make men holy let us die to make men free.” Or should it be “let us kill to make men free?” When we are stirred by its martial rhythms today—”Our God is marching on!!”—we forget that it was a battle song for one side in an industrialized slaughter. There are no such sentiments in the prayers of the Vatican II liturgy, which assumes that this prayer unites us with the communion of believers and indeed with all humankind. Is that because the restoration of the liturgy was the work of theologians affected by 1960s utopianism? Should our liturgy express a more muscular “red” Catholicism? I suggest that it represents not liberal softheadedness, but a discovery, or rediscovery, of the implications of Catholicism. Catholic social teaching is itself an expression of something deeper, a Catholic sense of life as expressed in the eucharist. A Catholic sensitivity cannot absolutize a nation, nor can it divide the world into friends and enemies. We should be suspicious of any identification of any nation, including our own, with good, and of others with evil. In fact, the more powerful a nation, the greater is its potential to do evil, and that includes our own nation. A truly Catholic view will take seriously the opinion of others, not simply of governments, but of the world-wide vox populi, which overwhelmingly opposed the Iraq war and does so even more today. No doubt some of my fellow Catholics would see and understand what I am saying here intuitively. However, many others might be puzzled that I see the US war in Iraq as a contradiction of the text and meaning of the eucharist. If I am pointing to a contradiction between the “red” worldview and a Catholic sense of life, I am not saying that Catholicism is simply equated with a “blue” worldview. We are poorly served by a political process that simplifies complex issues into overall ideological packages. Our growing division as a nation is being compounded by the fact that in choosing where to live many Americans seem to be drawn into cultural enclaves where they have fewer and fewer contacts with people whose experience and thinking is different from their own. Polarization into “red” and “blue” neighborhoods, counties, and states may well increase. Although Iraq entered into the election process, it was debated only partially. The Bush campaign successfully harnessed post-9/11 anger and feelings of vulnerability to the war in Iraq. Sen. Kerry was propelled into the lead in the primaries by voters and a party who hoped that a war hero candidate would be immune from attacks on his patriotism. He had voted to authorize the war, and he fluctuated between two messages: “wrong war, wrong time, wrong place” and “do the job right and win.” Now we will never know which of these slogans would have guided his approach to Iraq. However narrow the popular and electoral margin, the Bush administration is claiming a “mandate.” It controls both houses of Congress and Bush’s appointments are placing a premium on loyalty to him. The vote, a de facto endorsement of the war, will make it all the harder for Americans to recognize that the occupation is largely the cause of the insurgency and that all the firepower in the world cannot bring about an effective government in Iraq. We now face an uncertain future. Those of us who opposed the war on principle and out of concern for Iraqis and other people in Middle East will continue to do so. As opposition to the war intensifies, we may find our citizenship or our morality questioned. Over time, opposition to the war may grow from the constituency of conscience to a larger mass movement. Will it take our country a generation to come to terms with what our nation is doing now? Meanwhile, we cannot reasonably expect effective leadership from the hierarchy. Our Catholic sense of life, expressed in the eucharist, will have to be enough.
Phil Berryman
|