Man's capacity to know the truth is also darkened, and his will to submit to it is weakened. Thus, giving himself over to relativism and skepticism he goes off in search of an illusory freedom apart from truth itself.
Pope John Paul II,
Veritatas splendor, 1993
IT'S A "have it your way" world, one in which people expect to be able to choose their own ring tones, their own screen names, their own social networking images--and their own morality. But when "choice" collides with an authoritarian institution grounded in absolutes, fireworks ensue. Witness a couple of current conflicts involving secular politicians and the Roman Catholic Church.
Rep. Patrick Kennedy, D-R.I., is, like his father, the late Sen. Ted Kennedy, a Roman Catholic and an advocate of easy access to abortions. Miffed that the U.S. Conference of Bishops had lobbied heavily to strip abortion funding from the House health-care reform bill, Mr. Kennedy said he could not understand "how the Catholic Church could be against the biggest social-justice issue of our time."
He went on to reveal that Bishop Thomas Tobin of Providence had asked him not to receive Communion because of his stance on abortion and had instructed diocesan priests not to administer it to the congressman. (A diocesan spokesman told the Boston Globe that the bishop in a private letter had, indeed, asked Mr. Kennedy to refrain from taking Communion more than two years ago, but denied any episcopal discussions with parish priests on the subject.)
The bishop quickly responded, saying he had "no desire to continue the discussion of Congressman Kennedy's spiritual life in public" but that he would "absolutely respond publicly and strongly whenever he attacks the Catholic Church, misrepresents the teachings of the church, or issues inaccurate statements about my pastoral ministry."
Despite the dust-up, the equation seems simple: Mr. Kennedy has chosen to remain a member of the Roman Catholic Church, an organization that, one, accepts the authority of the Pope (and his delegates) and two, enshrines the sanctity of human life, beginning at conception. Mr. Kennedy's political actions flout church teachings. The congressman, it seems, has two moral choices--obey or, if he thinks he's right, leave the church. The Unitarians probably have a pew waiting. But his current path is inconsistent. The Catholic hierarchy is right to deny the body and blood of Christ to someone who supports what the church abominates.
The other confrontation is closer to home: Next week, the D.C. City Council is expected to vote to permit homosexuals to marry. The Catholic Archdiocese has told the city that, unamended, its gay-marriage measure jeopardizes $18 million in social services provided to District residents by Catholic Charities.
The bill before the Council would require the archdiocese to provide adoption services to gay/lesbian couples, employee benefits to gay/lesbian spouses, and the space for gay/lesbian events. The rub is that the church holds to traditional teaching on homosexuality--while not rejecting individuals, it believes such behavior to be sin. Facilitating it contravenes church beliefs. An archdiocese spokeswoman says, "The city is saying in order to provide social services, you need to be secular. For us, that's really a problem."
Council member Mary Cheh called the archdiocese "childish" for its stance. Evidently in Ms. Cheh's view, tolerance is wonderful as long as the "correct" groups are tolerated. A 2,000-year-old moral institution is not on the list.
The right of conscience is precious, but it is threatened by unaccommodating secularists as self-righteous in their own beliefs as any holier-than-thou Bible-thumper. Those who expect the Catholic Church to swing with the winds of social trends--it has buried hundreds of them--are ignoring not only its two-millennia history but also the pluralism central to Americanism.