ARTICLES

Cardinal Mahony Knocks Democrats

BUT NOT BECAUSE OF ABORTION

By Carlos Bey

The March 2 edition of the Los Angeles Times featured a front-page story about Cardinal Roger Mahony's March 1 address at a Loyola Law School forum criticizing the direction taken by both the Democratic and Republican political parties. The Times article noted that the message was most troublesome for the Democratic Party, "another sign of the growing divide between Catholics and Democrats," with Mahony accusing the Democrats of "losing touch with the most vulnerable and poorest members of society." Archdiocesan spokesman Fr. Gregory Coiro clarified the statement after the meeting, stating that Mahony was criticizing Democrats for their recent support of health and welfare spending cuts.

The Times article describes Mahony as saying, "The church does not expect [Catholic politicians] to always follow church teaching on every issue. But we expect them to bring the values and principles there and hopefully make a positive impact.'"

Yet in his talk Mahony warned Catholics not to get involved with the Catholic Alliance, the newly-formed Catholic arm of the conservative Christian Coalition, saying, "I see in it a great deal of danger because it sounds as if it is Catholic and a lot of people I know are confused and think somehow the church position supports it." Mahony noted that he had sent copies of the United States Catholic Conference's booklet, "Political Responsibility," described in the article as outlining "Catholic moral teaching," to all Los Angeles elected officials.

Increased political activity on the part of American bishops has been the topic of heated discussion among the Catholic laity recently. The bishops' well-organized campaigns against abortion and euthanasia in the past few years were applauded by pro-life activists. But others complain that the U.S. bishops seem to be presenting their views on issues which are less clear-cut morally (such as affirmative action, universal health coverage, and welfare reform) as the official position of the Catholic Church.

"Political Responsibility" presents the USCC Administrative Board's positions on numerous domestic and foreign policy issues, making a vague reference to "subsidiarity and solidarity" without ever defining the terms. Cardinal Ratzinger, in the 1986 Vatican document On Christian Freedom and Liberation, called these principles "the basis of criteria for making judgments on social situations, structures, and systems." (This document also notes, "It is not for the pastors of the Church to intervene directly in the political construction and organization of social life. This task forms part of the vocation of the laity acting on their own initiative with their fellow citizens.")

Unlike the Church's social encyclicals, which outline unchanging social principles (see especially Centesimus Annus and On Social Concern, both by John Paul II, available from St. Paul Book & Media Cen- ter, 5945 Balboa Ave. in Clairemont), the bishops' booklet gives one view (implying each to be "the" Catholic stand) of issues such as nuclear disarmament, telecommunications regulation, education, substance abuse, and agricultural policy.

Regarding the "Political Responsibility" pamphlet and other of the bishops' political activities, Mark Brumley, former director of social ministries for the diocese of San Diego, stated, "While I might actually agree with many of the specific positions taken, issuing detailed policy statements on matters Catholics are free to disagree about risks usurping the judgment of individual Catholics. The impression is given that these questions are settled, when in fact they may be open to differing prudential judgments by Catholics equally committed to the Church's social teaching. There's a real danger of obscuring the difference between those things which are binding on the consciences of Catholics and those which are not.

"Bishops have no special charism in determining whether welfare program A is better than program B. They should point out the risks and implications of changing the system, and they should state the principles by which we can identify a just system, but they ought not preclude your judgment and my judgment about questions of fact -- such as: what are the problems of the current welfare system and how should we repair it, to achieve the common goal of assisting those who are poor and marginalized in society?"

One Sacramento Catholic pro-life lobbyist criticizes the U.S. bishops for appearing to present "big government" as a requirement of Catholic social teachings. He questioned whether support for universal health care, promoted by the bishops' conference, is in fact mandated by Catholic teachings. He also wondered about the situation of a Catholic who might support universal health coverage in theory, but who decides, based on the current state of American society and the agenda of the current administration, to oppose such measures at this time, convinced it would lead to more abortions and other injustices.

The lobbyist opined that Mahony's March 1 statements reveal that he is angry with the Democrats because they seem to be caving into public pressure and are "not toughing it out for the welfare state.

"The bishops have a tremendous vested interest in government social spending themselves, since so much of their operation consists of government subcontracting," he added. "In a way, they're the biggest subcontractor for the welfare state, taking in billions of dollars a year in government money for health care and social welfare programs. Their programs are no longer charity; they are government pass-through programs."