Forty-four years ago John F. Kennedy became the nation's first Roman Catholic president by repeating over and over that his faith would have no effect on how he would govern. Now John F. Kerry is facing resistance to his effort to become the nation's second Roman Catholic president because, in the eyes of some of his Catholic critics, church teaching does not have enough influence on how he would govern -- especially on the matter of abortion.
What's going on here is the result of a perfect storm. There is, first, the frustration of many bishops who lean Democratic on most public issues over how hard it is for even mildly antiabortion Democrats to gain traction or much respect within their party. Second, there has been, to put it charitably, a certain awkwardness in Kerry's own approach to these questions. His reference in early April to a nonexistent pope, "Pius XXIII," was not especially helpful in courting the devout or attentive.
But what may be decisive is a third factor: an active campaign on the part of conservative Catholic Republicans to make abortion the one true litmus test for Catholic politicians. These conservatives are strongly committed to President Bush's reelection and are quite pleased to see Kerry squirm over whether or not he'll be allowed to receive Communion.
The paradox is that the more closely the controversy is linked to this year's presidential campaign, the more reluctant the bishops will be to single out Kerry for a penalty that they have invoked so rarely. "The political reality is that it will be interpreted as favoring Bush over Kerry," the Rev. Joseph Komonchak, a professor of theology at Catholic University, said in an interview. The bishops are aware of the "danger of a backlash."
There is also the theological question. "I don't myself think it a good thing to use the Eucharist as an instrument of public disciplining," Komonchak said in a recent sermon. "It is not a bad thing to have officeholders and candidates reminded of certain duties and commitments that flow out of basic Christian convictions about human life." This "obviously should not be done solely with reference to a single issue such as abortion, but just as obviously neither should any issue, such as abortion, be excluded as a matter of merely private choice."
Trying to get this balance right is the purpose of a committee established by the bishops' conference. It is chaired by Cardinal Theodore McCarrick of Washington, who met with Kerry last month. McCarrick has already signaled that he opposes using the withholding of Communion as a political sanction. He is said to have support for this view from many other bishops. But even the most liberal bishops are said to be concerned over the severity of what they see as an abortion rights litmus test imposed in Democratic politics. "There's a frustration that the Democratic Party doesn't have much room for anyone who dissents from the most unrestricted access to abortion," Komonchak said.
Conservatives with a powerful interest in Bush's reelection are playing to this frustration. One of the leaders in the attack on Kerry's abortion stand is Deal Hudson, publisher of the conservative Catholic magazine Crisis. Hudson has also advised the Bush campaign on winning Catholic support. Hudson is neither the first nor last Catholic whose political interests coincide with the case he is making inside the church. But most Catholic leaders are uneasy with dragging the country's fierce partisan divisions into the church.
The difficulty in achieving "moral purity in politics," as New York Times columnist Peter Steinfels noted over the weekend, was underscored by the case of Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.). A strong foe of abortion, Santorum campaigned hard in Pennsylvania's Republican primary for Sen. Arlen Specter, a supporter of abortion rights. Specter prevailed narrowly over Rep. Pat Toomey, a staunch antiabortion advocate. The question: Why is it acceptable for a committed Catholic abortion opponent such as Santorum to support Specter over an antiabortion candidate, but not Kerry over Bush? Might Specter's party label have something to do with it?
The bishops should be wary of allowing the church to be torn up by this year's rancid electoral campaign. And both parties need to ponder the cost of imposing rigid litmus tests on abortion. Most Americans see abortion as a morally difficult question that deserves more searching treatment than what's usually permitted in 30-second campaign commercials.
postchat@aol.com
