#morethanredandblue: Mr. Biden, Mr. Kaine, and Irresponsible Dissent

The past few years have been intriguing and engaging for Catholicism and politics. Reaching back to 2012 when Catholic politician Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) was tapped to run with Mitt Romney on the Republican presidential ticket, opposite the sitting Vice President Joe Biden, also a Catholic, we're now in a campaign season where Ryan has ascended to Speaker of the House, the Democrats have tapped a Catholic for their VP slot on the ticket, and the bishops have been active and outspoken in confronting issues like religious liberty, contraceptive and abortion access, and gun control.

I think a lot of us, myself included, are excited whenever new Late Show host Stephen Colbert wears his Catholicism on his sleeve. I especially enjoyed the candor that Colbert and Biden shared early in the new Late Show's run, which brought the centrality of their faith to the forefront as they discussed tragedy and hope acutely (below).



All along this route, I've been excited. I think the best way to confront issues is to get them out into the open, into the mainstream, and foster activity - get people talking, making suggestions, trying to articulate positions, and work toward deeper, clearer understandings of what is right. I am an agitator at my core, so I love the opportunity to recognize frictions and find ways to respond in faith.

Unfortunately, some of the activity hasn't been positive. As we seek to find better, stronger, clearer ways to live out our faith, some of our leaders have faltered in ways that are significantly damaging and regrettable for the public image of our faith, which needs all the help it can get.

Earlier this year, Vice President Biden openly and publicly officiated a gay marriage. While it's maybe a little debatable whether or not it's ok for a Catholic to officiate at a non-religious marriage ceremony (though I'd discourage Catholics from doing so), it's not really debatable whether or not a Catholic can officiate a same-sex marriage. We believe marriage to be a lifelong bond between a man and a woman for the procreative and unitive creation of a family.

Then a few days ago, Senator Kaine, who has already publicly come out in favor of same-sex marriage, went even further by addressing the Church directly. As reported by America Magazine, Kaine elaborated on his position:

“I think [the Church's position on marriage is] going to change, too,” he said to applause, invoking both the Bible and Pope Francis as reasons why he thinks the church could alter its doctrine on marriage. 

“I think it’s going to change because my church also teaches me about a creator in the first chapter of Genesis who surveys the entire world including mankind and said it is very good, it is very good,” he said. 

“Pope Francis famously said, ‘Who am I to judge?’” Kaine continued, referencing the pope’s 2013 comment when asked about gay priests in the church. 

“To that I want to add, who am I to challenge God for the beautiful diversity of the human family?” Kaine asked. “I think we’re supposed to celebrate it, not challenge it.”

Sometimes Sen. Kaine, though I like him a lot, says things that make me feel squishy #morethanredandblue https://t.co/gpqVbrzdrp

— Dan Masterton (@jesusandchicago) September 11, 2016

Here's a few things I'm not out to do in my writing:

I'm not here to call for Mr. Biden, Mr. Kaine, or other public figures to be denied Eucharist. That is the decision of the Church's local leaders according to their application of Church norms and the discernment of their leadership.

I'm not here to claim that Mr. Biden, Mr. Kaine, or other public figures are not "really Catholic" for acting like this. We are Catholic by our baptism, our membership in the Church and in Christ, and our reception of the Word and Sacraments as celebrated by our Church.

I'm not here to judge the souls of Mr. Biden, Mr. Kaine, or other public figures. I don't know the content of these people's internal character. I do know that discerning a call in complicated, and I hope that these people are in consistent prayer and discernment over how to do what God calls us to do, just as all of us should be as we live out our vocations.

Here's what I am out do to in my writing: make some suggestions on how to dissent responsibly.

For starters, every Catholic - and really even non-Catholics - should presume the good will of the magisterium as teachers. The bishops and priests do not set out to hamper or constrain people. Their intentions and aims are to empower us in our moral lives to live out the faith according to the Gospel of Christ.

There is some extent to which it is awkward for older celibate men to tell us how to live out our sexuality, for example, but their vows and spiritual commitments, in collegiality with their brothers throughout the Church, as well as the authority vested in the bishops from Christ and apostolic succession, give framework and context for the teachings they unpack.

Moreover, I don't know that Mr. Biden or Mr. Kaine is guilty of this but other critics and some Catholics often are - learn the Church teaching thoroughly. Study what the Church actually teaches. I would also add that it's important to distinguish principle from practice.

For example here, the Church does not hate or exclude gays; it teaches that we must be warmly hospitable toward homosexual people with compassion, respect, and sensitivity. However, some communities may ignore this principle and practice inappropriate discriminations or mistreatment of LGBTQ people. We need to be sure to chastise wrongly practiced teachings as deviations from the teaching rather than excoriating the whole Church for those few who ignore her teachings.

Now, when it comes to dissenting actions and public comments, one needs to first evaluate their motivations. What are the sources of your dissent? What leads you to disagree with the Church's positions? One needs to first make sure they are not out to smear the Church for their own gain or satisfaction. It can't be about attention or arrogance for oneself with the Church as the easy target.

Next, dissenting people need to examine one's qualifications for disagreement. Does one have the breadth and depth of formation and study to lodge legitimate criticisms? If your dissent comes from first-hand experience, have you carefully reflected upon it and sought to filter it through natural law and grounded, humble reason?

We need to be careful at claiming personal expertise or overselling experiences; all of our process of reflection must be grounded in the ecclesiology of the Church and its leadership and authority.

Finally, dissenting Catholics need to proceed with humility. I'm not sure how Mr. Biden and Mr. Kaine fared with those previous pieces, but their public actions went quite astray with this last part. One should ask will my public comments hurt the Church? What is the fairest, most compassionate way for me to investigate and share my dissent in dialogue with others and with Church leaders? Dissenting Catholics need to be careful that their actions and comments do not call undue attention to themselves, compel others to dissent, or highlight divergences between themselves and the Church to which they belong.

There's not really a way to square Mr. Biden's and Mr. Kaine's public actions with this last but far-from-least piece of dissent framework.

Mr. Biden's publicly officiating a same-sex marriage might be motivated by humble service of others and their love, but it flies in the face being a humble believer. It actively disrespects the Church teaching. His action made him a personal agent in an action that breaks Church belief in marriage. And his action took place in the most public way possible - in a public building, with certification from a public agency, and broadcast widely on media. I was disappointed to see Joe do this.

Then Mr. Kaine's comments - he is already on record supporting gay marriage - went even further as to publicly put call out Church leadership by predicting that a change in Church teaching was coming. He does his own interpretation of Genesis 1 and then cites the disposition of Francis - including an oft-quoted and misconstrued quote of Francis on gay clergy - as evidence that the teaching will evolve.

Not only is this not humble, but it becomes deeply presumptuous. Mr. Kaine's usage of Genesis 1 does not match that of our Tradition, which upholds it as a bedrock of our marital theology. Then, he presumes a trajectory and agenda for Pope Francis that is reductive and self-serving. Francis is reform-oriented and has worked to reshape the curial offices, streamline bureaucracies like annulment tribunals, and renew Church teachings on issues like ecology and perhaps the diaconate. However, Francis has not and will likely not change any core teachings of the Church, as he is simply the lead bishop steering the magisterium as it discerns the deposit of faith.

I will say that I am sympathetic to those who feel strongly to advocate for LGBTQ people. I have learned a lot as society and culture have grown in the past decade, and I am looking for ways that the Church can respond better.

I think inclusion is key, inviting LGBTQ to engage in Church life Eucharistically. That includes making sure we do not hold LGBTQ people to higher moral standards than we do straight single people or married people; for example, we should not target LGBTQ people by placing tighter scrutiny on their sexual behavior (they may have homosexual activity) than we do single people (who may have premarital sex) or married people (who may use artificial birth control, IVF, or other immoral behaviors). I also wonder if there's a way for us to provide a communal support, perhaps even a blessing or commissioning, for LGBTQ people who may never marry but wish to consecrate themselves to the service of the communion of the Church. On a secular level, too, I support non-discrimination clauses, equality before the law and in hiring, benefits for same-sex partners with hospital visits, information services, and taxes and estates, and more.

However, I cannot fathom taking such public actions, that overtly contradict the Church, as performing a same-sex marriage or calling out the Church to change its teaching. I pray for Catholics to find courage in answering calls to public and civil service. But I cannot celebrate such dissenting actions by these people of faith.

I will continue to admire their courage in tackling the dilemma-laden seas of American politics, but I will also hope that they can act and speak with greater nuance and fidelity, that they can stay grounded in the faith that has sustained them to this point, and that they can choose their words and actions with greater humility.

#morethanredandblue: Mr. Trump on Immigration

This past week, Donald Trump visited Mexico and also made a domestic speech in which he laid out more of the specifics on his immigration proposals. Here's a summary of his main points, via the New York Times:

Mr. Trump offered bits of immigration plan formally this past week - great summary via @nytimes #morethanredandblue pic.twitter.com/67gnqLxk71

— Dan Masterton (@jesusandchicago) September 5, 2016

As I've written on the implications of campaign policies for Catholic Social Teaching, I've tried to explain how different issues prompt difference responses from our tradition. For instance, with respect to specific immoral actions like abortion, physician-assisted suicide, or use of artificial birth control, there is a clear call from our teaching to oppose them directly. On the other hand, more complex issues involve a more complex response.

Take gun control: the bishops generally support the second amendment, even if mildly, but their emphasis is on firm, strict controls and limits. We have a right to defend ourselves but have the responsibility to limit the kinds of guns we own, the who and how of acquisition, and more...

Take universal health-care: we are called to advocate for universal health-care access as a thrival human right. On the one hand, no one has to support ObamaCare explicitly as the path toward achieving that, yet on the other hand, our tradition calls us to actively choose some sort of path toward universal health-care...

Then take immigration: I think the core principle at play here is the dignity and value of human beings as well as the dignity of their work. I think this is another issue where there isn't a cut-and-dry path made clear by our teachings, but there is a basic minimum we have to start from as we approach this issue.

At the root of immigration issues, the people involved must be acknowledged and affirmed for their dignity. One way to start assuring this is to watch our language. Our word choices can often show internal biases for or against someone or something. When it comes to these people, words and phrases like "illegals" and "illegal immigrants" are too depersonalized. I think we ought to remember people-first language or at least people-centric language and use phrases like "people who are undocumented," "undocumented people," or "undocumented immigrants," at least.

From there, it is difficult to pin down an exact Catholic Social Teaching response, beyond our Rights and Responsibilities and Call to Family, Community, and Participation, built on Jesus' call to welcome the stranger. Certainly, acknowledging and responding to this issue is also a form of opting for the poor and marginalized.

We must be hospitable to those who come to us in need from a place of trial and hardship. On the other hand, we do have concerns for our safety and security if people come with violence or malevolence. I tend to want to err on the side of welcome over paranoia, and at the least, think that the dignity of all people must be at the heart of our response. Even amid these greys, my gut says the dignity of all people is absent in all of Mr. Trump's remarks.

He first reiterates the necessity of building the border wall between the US and Mexico. This action goes against so many of the principles of our teaching. It deals a palpably terrible blow to solidarity, blocking off our brothers and sisters to the south from our social consciousness. It scoffs at community and participation by closing off a connection to another culture and people.

I think of the disciples, scared and locked up in the upper room following Jesus' crucifixion. Jesus visits them, passing through the locked doors and breathes peace into them; the Holy Spirit then animates their mission as they spread the Gospel throughout the region. I think of Paul in prison, consoling fellow prisoners, as the locks and walls are destroyed by God's angel. Paul reassures the guard of God's love and goes forth to continue his mission across the world. These separators that try to confine humanity - both in the Bible and in Mr. Trump's policies - are no match for the mission spirit of love that nurtures human solidarity and pushes us to make global connections.

Then from there, Mr. Trump hints at how he would respond to the undocumented people who are here: no more catch-and-release (a phrase usually used for fishing, not people!), zero tolerance for criminals, repealing executive order protections and work permits restricting visas, forcing reacceptance from origin countries, and upping biometrics.

When it comes to those people already here, I again wish to start with their human dignity and acknowledge their humanity. How does our response affirm or belittle their humanity? Mr. Trump is not for amnesty of any kind; however, I would support amnesty as a one-time occurrence that coincided with a reformed entry system and consolidated border patrols. The people here now broke the law by entering, but they are contributing to society, working in our economy, and participating in our communities. Tax or fine them once and then integrate them formally into our economy. I don't think we must be for an amnesty as Catholics, but I believe exercising it is certainly befitting of the dignity of those who are here.

Deportation is justifiable, in my understanding, as people who have broken the law must accept the punishment for what they have done; the nature of civil disobedience is that rule-breakers have to accept the consequences of their crime, even if against an unjust law. Though I don't support it and don't believe our tradition compels us to support it, I understand the argument for it.

From there, I actually support some of the other pieces of Mr. Trump's plan. To affirm the community of the US, to be true to our rights and responsibilities, to support and uphold the balance of work and workers' rights, we do need to be more responsible in our border controls. We do need to have a thorough system of biometrics, identification, and vetting that facilitates legal entry to our country and strives to filter out violent or dangerous people. So here, there is some reasonable consensus ideas buried in his policies.

However, again building on the dignity of people and acknowledging our place in the world, we need to be as liberal as reasonably possible in setting forth this system. We need to have generous maximums in admitting people, attainable processes for prospective immigrants, and efficient systems that don't make people wait so long that they feel compelled to instead break the law. and enter illegally.

Mr. Trump and others who are anti-immigrant hang their hats on citing the violence or crime of a few immigrants, and few would argue that those offenses aren't a tragedy. But Mr. Trump portrays this as being the whole picture of immigration in his remarks to the American people, even while telling Mexico out of the other side of his mouth that Mexicans are a people "beyond reproach." These few bad apples cannot ruin it for the millions who may resemble them physically or metaphorically.

So whether you are for or against deportation, whether you are for or against amnesty and/or fines, whether you are for or against stricter border controls and immigration policies, I think the baseline of our Catholic Social Teaching calls us to engage these challenging issues with the dignity and value of each human life at our core. And then we go from there in discerning a socially just response.

Mr. Trump, when it comes to immigration, as usual, does not give voice to the dignity and value of human life and certainly never in any way opts for the poor and marginalized.