Terry Mattingly on Catholic heretics

Many of you may not be aware that the journalist named Terry Mattingly is Eastern Orthodox, and that besides writing columns has also taught courses in places as diverse as Northern Baptist Seminary, Milligan College, etc. He is an astute observer of popular and official religious trends, and an excellent writer. I subscribe to one of his columns, and so should you. Two days ago, he wrote a piece pointing out a dichotomy that exists within Roman Catholicism over pro-life issues. He writes about the slinging of the term heretic back and forth. Let me quote some of what he said in that particular column. His article was titled, “Boehner, Dolan, Catholic heretics?“

Speaker of the House John Bohner gave the commencement speech, but it was not without controversy:

Boehner’s appearance drew a firm, but civil, letter of protest from 80-plus Catholic academics who accused him of dissenting from essential church teachings because of his role in Republican attempts to cut or reshape a number of government safety-net programs.

“From the apostles to the present, the Magisterium of the Church has insisted that those in power are morally obliged to preference the needs of the poor,” stated the letter. “Your record in support of legislation to address the desperate needs of the poor is among the worst in Congress. This fundamental concern should have great urgency for Catholic policy makers. Yet, even now, you work in opposition to it.”

This protest drew clear parallels to an earlier battle, when 80-plus bishops, numerous academics and many Catholic pro-lifers protested the University of Notre Dame’s decision to grant President Barack Obama an honorary doctor of laws degree. This earlier coalition insisted that honoring a strong supporter of abortion rights violated a U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops policy stating: “Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles. They should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions.”

Thus, Catholic progressives were saying that if it was controversial to honor the president, a liberal Protestant who disagrees with many Catholic moral teachings, it also should be controversial to honor Boehner, a Catholic whose approach to economic issues angers many activists and almost certainly some bishops. Meanwhile, it also helps to know that the coalition that protested the Boehner honor included some academics with consistent records of dissent against church teachings on abortion, homosexuality, birth control, the ordination of women and other doctrinal issues. …

Two things are certain in these ongoing debates, noted Stephen Krason, president of the Society of Catholic Social Scientists and a political scientist at Franciscan University in Steubenville, Ohio. The Vatican has repeatedly stated its opposition to abortion in the strongest possible terms. Catholics also live under an urgent mandate to help the poor and needy.

Abortion must be opposed, and the poor and needy must be helped. Note that the Roman Catholic Church considers both of those to be moral imperatives, at USA level and at Vatican level. Neither can be ignored. At the same time, neither specific anti-abortion laws nor specific government programs are supported by the Catholic Church. That is, while the moral imperatives are stated, the legal specifics are left to the realm of the State, while the moral specifics are left to the Church, and the individual.

A similar type of situation exists within the Orthodox in the USA, although we do not tend to statements as specific as those put out by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops. For instance, to the best of my knowledge, every canonical jurisdiction within the USA has come out publicly against abortion. And, while I do not know about every jurisdiction, I do know that in 2009, the Antiochian Church had as the theme of the Archdiocesan convention our work among the poor:

The theme of the upcoming 2009 Archdiocese Convention is charity: “Be mindful, O Lord, of those who bear fruit and do good works in thy holy Churches, and who remember the poor.”

One can also look back in history and see the warnings that Orthodox patriarchs gave the Emperor as to what God would do if they did not take care of the poor and needy. For instance, Athanasius I warned the Emperor in the 13th century that God would surely destroy the Empire if he did not take more care for the poor among them. He also sold some Church property and partially dispossessed some monasteries in order to help the poor. In effect, he saw the taking care of the poor as a joint enterprise between the State and the Church. Each had its responsibility in the matter.

But, as Terry Mattingly points out, today the moral imperatives of abortion and the care of the poor and needy have been split into two camps. Each camp sees one of the two moral imperatives to be the realm of the State and the other one to be the realm of the individual (maybe even the Church). Thus, one camp is certain that the State must pass laws to suppress abortion, while being equally certain that the State should leave social welfare mostly to individuals, organizations, and the Church. The other camp is certain that the State must pass laws to help the poor and needy in multiple ways, while being equally certain that the State must not interfere in choice. It goes farther than that. In certain congregations, it would be difficult for someone to preach an anti-abortion message, while in others one could be run out on a rail if one advocated a strong responsibility of the State in the care of the poor and needy. It goes down even to the level of preaching. Each side considers that the other is inappropriately involved in politicking from the pulpit, while their own side is simply preaching Scriptural morality.

We need to stop doing that to ourselves. There is a place for both Church and State in the fight against abortion. There is a place for both Church and State in helping the poor. It is not interference in private rights for the State to forbid abortion. It is not socialism for the State to help the poor and needy. And, it is our part as the Church to insist that a full pro-life stance is what we have been called to support, from being anti-abortion, to insisting that St. Augustine’s just war theology has something to say to the State on its limits on waging war, to standing with Patriarch Athanasius I in saying that both Church and State must work to help the poor and needy. We need to be fully and unitedly pro-life.