Archbishop Edwin F. O'Brien of Baltimore and Maryland Gov. Martin J. O'Malley are seen in Annapolis, Md., in a 2009 photo. (CNS)
Illustrating
the Latin proverb that the corruption of the best is the worst, many Catholic
politicians continue to lead the charge against the natural moral law. Having
already defined themselves as champions of “abortion rights,” they now turn
aggressively to the culmination of gay ones.
The
Catholic governor of New York, Andrew Cuomo, has been enjoying a victory lap
after pushing gay marriage through his state’s legislature. Political pundits,
citing Cuomo’s success on this issue, now frequently talk about him as a future
presidential candidate. Envious of his glory, other Catholic politicians seek
to follow in his footsteps. The Catholic governor of Maryland, Martin O’Malley,
wants to be “the next Andrew Cuomo,” says the press. O’Malley has announced
that passage of gay marriage will henceforth be one of his chief legislative
priorities.
“There
are times in Annapolis when a governor’s support can move an issue over the
goal line,” he has said. “I think we can learn from what they did [in New
York].”
Far
from afraid of the Church’s reaction to his enthusiasm for gay marriage,
O’Malley has publicized it. In August, he released to the press letters that he
had exchanged with Baltimore Archbishop Edwin O’Brien about gay marriage.
“Maryland
is not New York,” Archbishop O’Brien wrote to him. “We urge you not to allow
your role as the leader of our state to be used in allowing the debate surrounding
the definition of marriage to be determined by mere political expediency. The
people of Maryland deserve no less.”
“I do not presume, nor would I ever presume as governor,
to question or infringe upon your freedom to define, to preach about, and to administer
the sacraments of the Roman Catholic Church,” O’Malley replied. “But on the
public issue of granting equal civil marital rights to same-sex couples, you
and I disagree…. I look forward to working with you on other issues of mutual
agreement. And I respect your freedom to disagree with me as a citizen and as a
religious leader without questioning your motives.”
This
patronizing pat on the head and easy dismissal illustrates the audacity of
heterodox Catholic pols in contrast to the circumspection and reserve of the
hierarchy. In victory, Andrew Cuomo offered a similar pat on the head to
Archbishop Timothy Dolan, saying that his participation in the gay marriage
debate was “reasonable,” by which Cuomo meant ineffectual.
It
is depressing that even at this late date most Catholic bishops still refuse to
deny Communion to such openly defiant Catholic politicians. This neglect of the
authority available to them reduces them to the level of letter-writers.
Writing
in the Huffington Post, author Julian
Guthrie wonders “how progressive Democrats remain Catholics.” The answer is,
she concludes, that they can define Catholicism on their own terms:
…when I look at
prominent Catholic politicians with liberal social agendas and wonder how they
attend Mass on Sunday and legislate something very different on Monday, I have
my answer. Catholicism, a club with magisterial rituals, good deeds, arcane
teachings, and more than one billion adherents, is far from monolithic. The
house rules that apply are those set by believers themselves. These are the
everyday Catholics who may honor their pope but disagree with papal positions,
and who hold their faith close but have disdain for much of the dogma. The
Catholics who fill the nation’s pews share something with the politicians at
the podium: they believe that resistance and reverence can go together like
bread and wine.
One would think this state of affairs might shock bishops
into a reassertion of their authority under canon law. But for the most part it
doesn’t. Cardinal Raymond Burke’s position remains a lonely one. The head of
the Vatican’s Supreme Court has said repeatedly that bishops have not only the
right but the duty to withhold Communion from defiant Catholic public figures
for the good of souls, the prevention of scandal, and the protection of the
sacraments. To the familiar argument from bishops that withholding Communion is
contrary to proper pastoral practice, Cardinal Burke says, “What would be
profoundly more sorrowful would be the failure of a bishop to call a soul to
conversion, the failure to protect the flock from scandal, and the failure to
safeguard the worthy reception of Communion.”
Whether or not Communion should be given to an Andrew
Cuomo or Martin O’Malley isn’t even a close call. They could not be clearer
about their declaration of independence from the Church and lack of communion
with her teachings. But as long as the Church doesn’t apply canon law to them,
they figure that the political costs of claiming to be Catholic while serving
openly in the anti-Catholic vanguard are manageable.
Had Archbishop O’Brien written to inform O’Malley that
he should no longer present himself for Communion, O’Malley might not have
publicized the exchange so proudly. The irony is that O’Malley couldn’t have objected
to that exercise of authority. After all, as he wrote in his letter, the
archbishop has the “freedom to define, to preach about, and to administer the
sacraments of the Roman Catholic Church.”