Bishops Should Excommunicate Supporters of Iraq War, Says Sojourners

Christianity Today ^ | Ted Olsen

[xzins]

Executive editor of Sojourners: Catholic bishops "worse than irrelevant"
Sojourners has always been a kind of contrarian magazine in the evangelical world. While its theology is orthodox, its politics are as left as World magazine's are right. But generally the magazine has maintained its evangelical credentials not just through its emphasis on biblicism and evangelism, but also because its social justice values include protection of the unborn.

As such, it represents an important wing of the evangelical Protestantism—though in its social values it sometimes sounds a bit closer to a Roman Catholic magazine.

This week, Sojourners really starts to sound like a Catholic magazine—more of the Commonweal than the Crisis variety—as executive editor David Batstone attacks the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops as inconsistent, "narrow-minded," and "worse than irrelevant." In "An open letter to the Catholic bishops," Batstone writes, "You risk stumbling into hypocrisy."

Batstone isn't talking about the clergy-abuse scandal. He's talking about the Iraq war and abortion.

"I am perplexed why you have chosen the abortion issue as a litmus test for 'full communion with the faith of the church,'" Batstone writes.

Sorry to speak so boldly, but you have no basis for so selectively narrowing your rich moral tradition. … We recently have witnessed in the United States a decision and act by our political leaders to pre-emptively invade a sovereign nation-state. The social teaching of the Church explicitly prohibits and condemns such aggressive behavior. Pope John Paul II certainly understands this fact, as he made clear in an audience with President George W. Bush last month. …

I have not heard one U.S. Bishop even suggest that Holy Communion might be withheld for any politician who enacted, or voted for, the immoral pre-emptive invasion of Iraq. Yet the consequent loss of human lives—both Iraqi and American—and the devastation of Iraqi society have been nothing short of tragic. Furthermore, this act of spiritual arrogance—invoking God's guidance while invading—has deepened historical animosities that surely will lead to more senseless bloodshed in the Middle East and across the globe. …

Why is it that the bishops of the U.S. Catholic Church are unable to see this serious breach of morality? Over 250 of you are gathered in Colorado this week, and you only see fit to make public pronouncements about a sole moral issue.

Friends and brothers, I fear that your narrow-mindedness is turning the voice of the Church into something far worse than irrelevant. You risk stumbling into hypocrisy. I urge you to reclaim the full gospel of life, and announce it prophetically to those who would trample on the rights of the defenseless—those who have already been born as much as those yet unborn.

Batstone notes that he's "tenured professor of ethics and moral theology at a Catholic university" (that would be the Jesuit University of San Francisco, where an openly gay professor teaches marriage and family therapy). "It is precisely because I am so familiar with the tradition that I am perplexed," he says.

But Batstone's reference to authority here sounds a bit less like Avery Dulles than it does Howard Dean's brag, "If you know much about the Bible—which I do," right before he placed Job in the New Testament. That's because many theologians, journalists, bloggers, pundits, and others have been spending the last several months talking about why the Roman Catholic Church teaches that the abortion issue trumps other political concerns. Batstone doesn't even give a sentence to responding to these comments.

It's not like he has to read all of canon law to get the point. Just reading news coverage of what he's writing about—or the very bishops' statement he's criticizing—would have hit the highlights.

"Does the church see the right to life as trumping all its other concerns?" David Van Biema wrote in last week's Time cover package.

Technically speaking, yes. The most useful comparison may be with the church's anti-capital-punishment stance. The Pope has explicitly connected executions with abortion as part of the "culture of death." But church teaching on abortion is "definitive": Catholics must obey it as an act of faith. Teaching on capital punishment is merely "authentic," meaning believers may bring reason to bear on the issue. The church's catechism calls abortion an absolute evil but hedges on the death penalty, quoting the Pope as saying cases necessitating it "are very rare, if not practically nonexistent." And canon law includes a penalty of excommunication for abortion but none for aiding state-sanctioned executions. …

The church allows believers commonsense, or "prudential," latitude in fitting doctrine to political action. That is not license to contradict teaching, but an acknowledgment of the delicacy of its application in the real world. In practice, says the Rev. John Langan of Georgetown University, prudence could translate into supporting Pennsylvania's pro-choice Arlen Specter (as Santorum has) to maintain the Senate majority of the Republican Party, which skews antiabortion.

The specific circumstances surrounding the Iraq war mean prudence plays an even bigger role than it does in capital punishment cases. More on that in a moment, but let's first keep in mind that the debate over abortion and Communion isn't simply because it's an election year. It's largely because the Vatican issued a doctrinal note to the bishops in November 2002 suggesting they weren't taking the matter of rogue Catholic politicians seriously enough. That doctrinal note repeatedly mentions abortion, along with same-sex marriage, divorce, education, drug use, prostitution, religious freedom, and an economy that is at the service of the human person and of the common good. Then it says this:

Finally, the question of peace must be mentioned. Certain pacifistic and ideological visions tend at times to secularize the value of peace, while, in other cases, there is the problem of summary ethical judgments which forget the complexity of the issues involved. Peace is always "the work of justice and the effect of charity." It demands the absolute and radical rejection of violence and terrorism and requires a constant and vigilant commitment on the part of all political leaders.

Most politicians who supported the Iraq war believed they were doing the work of justice and charity. A politician who supports abortion, however, would have a hard time saying he was protecting the unborn. That line about "forget the complexity of the issues involved" is worth noting, because the church radically differs on its teachings of abortion and war. "The killing of an unborn child is always intrinsically evil and can never be justified," the American bishops said in their most recent statement. The Roman Catholic Church has always held that war can be justified. The debate was whether invading Iraq met the qualifications of a just war, and it's worth noting that folks in the Bush camp tended to reference traditionally Catholic doctrine on this issue while folks in the Sojourners camp tended to take a more pacifist view.

"We offer not definitive conclusions, but rather our serious concerns and questions in the hope of helping all of us to reach sound moral judgments," the bishops said about the Iraq war in November 2002.

People of good will may differ on how to apply just war norms in particular cases, especially when events are moving rapidly and the facts are not altogether clear. Based on the facts that are known to us, we continue to find it difficult to justify the resort to war against Iraq, lacking clear and adequate evidence of an imminent attack of a grave nature. With the Holy See and bishops from the Middle East and around the world, we fear that resort to war, under present circumstances and in light of current public information, would not meet the strict conditions in Catholic teaching for overriding the strong presumption against the use of military force. … There are no easy answers. Ultimately, our elected leaders are responsible for decisions about national security, but we hope that our moral concerns and questions will be considered seriously by our leaders and all citizens.

That's a long way from the language the bishops used on abortion. But Batstone says the Pope "made clear in an audience with President George W. Bush last month" (it was this month, but we'll let that slide) that "the social teaching of the Church explicitly prohibits and condemns" the invasion.

The Pope didn't say any such thing, but did call for a "speedy return of Iraq's sovereignty, in conditions of security for all its people." The Pope has always pushed for more United Nations action in Iraq, and has repeatedly called it "a grave matter." But that's a long way from "a grave sin," "a most serious and dangerous crime," and grounds for excommunication—language that the Roman Catholic Church uses for abortion.

Batstone claims to be an expert on Catholic moral teachings, and it's clear that he's long been concerned about the war. So why is he so upset with the bishops? Is he upset about their commitment to abortion? He says no: "I am not among those who would criticize you for taking a strong public moral position on behalf of the rights of the unborn. The Church has for a long time held fast to that conviction; it is consistent with, and an irrevocable thread to, the Church's 'gospel of life.' The word 'consistency' is significant here, for it is your lack of consistency in other grave matters that today undermines your moral authority."

But the bishops are being consistent. No matter how much Batstone wishes otherwise, Catholic teachings have never seen moral equivalence between abortion and the Iraq War. Just because the Pope criticizes something doesn't mean that it gets the same weight when it comes to church discipline.

Today, the Pope himself seems to have destroyed Batstone's case, criticizing "abuses" and "deviations" in the modern sports world. According to the AFP news agency, he lamented "exacerbated commercialism," the "aggressive spirit of competition" among top athletes and their "violence against people and things."

Under Batstone's logic, the bishops would be "worse than irrelevant" and "risk stumbling into hypocrisy" if they didn't immediately issue a statement banning NBA players from Communion. That's just not the way it works.

Enough Catholicism?
Okay, okay. Sojourners is pretty much an evangelical Protestant magazine—and Christianity Today certainly characterizes itself that way. Weblog has probably spent too much time today analyzing Roman Catholic teachings. So let's turn back to the evangelical world.

[A.A. Cunningham]

David Batstone is a founding editor of Business 2.0 Magazine, Executive Editor of Sojourners magazine and professor of social ethics at the University of San Francisco. In his seventh book, "Saving the Corporate Soul", he proposes a model that helps people negotiate the intersection of values and work. Mr. Bastone is a contributor to many business, technology and spirituality outlets and a regular consultant to corporations and organizations in the U.S. and Europe, including BMW Global, The Swedish Trade Ministry, Vivendi Universal, and The Stockholm School of Economics & Business.

Davey, the cure for diarrhea of the mouth is to simply shut up.

[Rutles4Ever]

A fantastic point-by-point clarification of the Catholic POV re: abortion and war, written by an evangelical.

He knows more about Catholocism than most "Catholics".

[Polycarp IV]

Great article, worth a read and a chuckle.

Ping. (As usual, if you would like to be added to or removed from my "conservative Catholics" ping list, please send me a FReepmail. Please note that this is occasionally a high volume ping list and some of my ping posts are long.)

[saradippity]

University of San Francisco? I'd love to see a list of their big benefactors,I bet there would be some very interesting names on it,many not even little (c)atholics,none of them,big (C)atholics.

Half a million for Planned Parenthood,half a million for USF.Ugh!! What's the world coming to anyway?

[Aquinasfan]

This stuff is just so tiresome. How can people be this stupid?

[Terriergal]

This is an old article, but did you know that Jim Wallis loooooves Rick Warren's focus on 'social justice'?

[xzins]

I thought I remembered Wallis being from some evangelical, congregational type denomination. Who is he to be talking about an episcopacy, anyway?

But, he's getting bitter in his old age. He hasn't won any of his wars....not even any battles.

I guess the US Army, overwhelmingly successful, gets him jealous.