One of my least favorite patterns in contemporary political discourse is our collective fixation on hypocrisy. The controversy that erupted over Sarah Sanders’ ejection from a restaurant provides a convenient and recent example. People on both sides immediately compared the situation to the Masterpiece Cakeshop controversy that was recently settled by the Supreme Court. The Left gloated about someone on the Right being denied service, just as a gay couple had been denied a wedding cake by a baker; meanwhile, the Right gloated about the Left now availing itself of a right (to refuse service) that they had so wholeheartedly opposed in the case of the bakery.
That the analogy between these cases is far from perfect is beside the point.1 Each side gleefully points at the other’s willingness to abandon their standards when circumstances change.
We can see a similar case almost perennially with respect to the filibuster or judicial nominations in the Senate. The majority will often threaten to bypass or abolish the filibuster, while the minority protests that the filibuster is one of our country’s most important checks on the power of the majority. Then, when the party in power changes, each side points to the other party’s previous stance as a justification for their newfound contempt for or love of the filibuster. Now, with the retirement of Justice Kennedy, Senate Democrats seem poised to try to use the upcoming midterm to block any judicial nominee that Trump puts forward, citing Republican obstruction on the Merrick Garland nomination.
Neither side actually knows what they want the rules to be. They only want the rules to favor their side in their pursuit of power. Neither side seeks integrity. Instead, both use the other’s lack of integrity as an excuse to avoid taking responsibility for their own hypocrisies.
This is the opposite of Jesus’ prescription that we should remove the logs from our own eyes before we presume to pluck a splinter from anyone else’s. Others’ hypocrisies are not legitimate excuses for us. The standard which we measure out for others is the standard by which we shall be measured.
I would like to approach the USCCB’s outspokenness on the current immigration situation through this lens. The bishops are speaking out loudly and unanimously against the separation of children from their parents in detention, and the Catholic Left is rightly elated. The Catholic Right, meanwhile, might remember how much the Left sulked when the USCCB was pushing, for example, the Fortnight for Freedom, and take that as an excuse not to join the USCCB in condemning the administration’s actions today. The Left can then take the Right’s current reticence on immigration as an excuse to not join in the next time the Church’s stance on an issue becomes politically useful for conservative politics.
Again, this is the opposite of what we ought to be doing. If the boldness of the bishops’ stance on immigration makes you uneasy, think about what response you would like to see from other Catholics when the bishops speak out on an issue they aren’t comfortable with. On the other hand, if the idea of the bishops joining the Resistance is an exciting one, think about what you would like to see from other Catholics right now, and keep that in mind the next time the bishops speak up on an issue you are not so comfortable with.
If you want Catholics to listen when the bishops speak about abortion, then listen now. If you want Catholics to listen to the bishops now, then make sure you’re willing to listen the next time the bishops speak out. Otherwise, it’s time to start being honest about whether your Catholicism comes before your partisan identity.
 |
| The sign I carried at the Keep Families Together march in Chicago. It'll be just as appropriate at the March for Life in the January cold as it was in the summer heat. |
1 In the case of the bakery, it was not a categorical denial of service, but a refusal to provide a particular kind of product.↩
No comments:
Post a Comment