Biden, Communion, Gay Foster Parents, and You

There are two cases to unpack this week. 

The first was the drafting of a document on the Reception of Communion, especially by Joe Biden and other pro-choice politicians. The Vatican did not want the Church to rush into drafting. The bishops who rammed it through (who, under this Pope, have no chance of ever being Cardinals) want to use it to tell people not to vote Democratic in 2022. 

It had to be done now, because the next plenary after the one in November is after the election. This makes me wonder if the target is not Biden at all, but the ability for the bishops to tell Catholics how they must think on abortion and gay marriage when voting,

The Bishops, at least the ones pushing the document ahead of the election when specifically told not to by Rome, are ignorant regarding Constitutional Law. No matter any President puts on the Court, the result will be the same. Abortion will be considered a right, either of privacy or of bodily integrity. Any judge educated in this era is well aware of how these rights work and why they are essential.

More importantly, state governments do not have the power to change this or to make the unborn legal persons whose deaths must be avenged by the government against the interests of their own mothers. The unborn have the same right to life to not be executed (which is the only right anyone has under the Constitution). They also have a right to justice if they are harmed when their mothers are. 

While Congress could grant the unborn additional rights, they are the only ones who can. The bishops and the Republicans (not distinct sets) are less concerned with the unborn as to whether they can move the faithful to the statehouse and voting booth to get their social agenda passed, This includes not just the unborn, but couples using contraception, gay people getting married or having sex at all. 

The 14th Amendment specifically takes these decisions away from states, putting individual rights over the power of the government if there is no compelling state interest for government action. Having a majority agree with you does not qualify as a compelling state interest. Again, conservatives hate this.

The second example was the Supreme Court case where Catholic Social Services sued the City of Philadelphia as to whether CSS could be denied participation as a foster care provider if they do not allow gays to serve as foster parents. 

Freedom of exercise requires that the City make accommodations. The case was decided using statutory text - there were no constitutional issues raised, although Justice Alito wanted to bring them up (and not in a good way).

I suspect that CSS staff would have privately rather the decision had gone the other way, but they were not a party to the suit. Without their participation, the result was obvious. Under law, the bishop owns the agency and control what the staff must do in such questions. Because Church property is involved, there is no Protestant option to settle the matter (i.e., simply voting with your feet). 

The law is fairly clear. If the rules of the Church says that Medieval arrangements are in force, the people have no right to take control of parishes and organizations.Underlying that question, which is more basic, is who gets to decide issues of Church discipline and ownership. The Courts will not touch this, the Church must settle it internally.

If it had just been the rights of the employees, let us say the right to marry the person you love of the same gender, the question is whether the employee involved is in ministry. On the issue of marriage, if the Church allows employees with a heterosexual civil marriage (remember, the Church frowns on civil marriage) and not gay couples, then the question is not doctrine, it is bigotry. Hosanna Tabor lets the Church itself make that decisions, which is odd. I was not aware that someone can be ordained into ministry involuntarily. 

In essence, the question is not religious liberty, it is religious power. The Court's should keep this question in mind for the future where the interests of Catholic employees are at stake.

The basic question runs deeper. Indeed, it is the basic question of ecclesiology:

Do the bishops serve at our pleasure, or do we serve at the pleasure of the bishop?

This is not just the employment question. It is not just property. It is the question of conscience, as the Communion policy makes clear. This is the most essential question of the day and of all days. Formally, when a bishop is consecrated or assumes control over his diocese, he shows his credentials and the local Church accepts them and consents to his service. This, like the washing of the feet on Holy Thursday, has become an empty gesture.

The question is stark and one would hope that, when asked, the answer would be obvious. For many Catholics, it is not. They actually believe that the bishop has a say into whether they are Catholic or going to Heaven. No wonder the militant atheists think Catholics are less than rational.

More important, many bishops agree with the Fearful Faithful. They certainly think so when it comes to voting Republican.

The answer for many is to simply leave. This is the Protestant solution. It is lame. Staying and fighting is both more fun and it is something we owe to those who we would leave behind.

The answer is for the faithful to engage in that question. If we don't put the question, the Spirit cannot do Her will in helping keep the promise of Christ that the thrones of Hell will not overcome the Church.

I wonder how Francis feels about the answer? I suspect that the conservative bishops know and they don't like it.