I was driving a bishop back to his lodgings, and over the road noise I thought I heard him say it was important to “kick Catholic butts.” I raised my eyebrows and shot a quizzical glance at him. “I don’t mean Catholic posteriors,” he said. “I mean people who say they are ‘Catholic but. . . .’ We need to kick some sense into them.”
We all know the kind of person he had in mind: “I’m Catholic, but I don’t think I should impose my faith on other people.” “I’m Catholic, but I think religion is a purely private matter.” “I’m Catholic, but I don’t have to accept everything the Church teaches.” I’m waiting for one of these people to say, “I’m Catholic, but I have no clue why.”
Patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels, said Dr. Johnson. Today the “Catholic but” position is the first refuge of nominally Catholic politicians who want Catholic votes without having to live up to Catholic principles. (This makes them scoundrels of another sort.) There are “Catholic but” politicians in every part of the country, at every level of government, and in both major parties. Some have achieved national notoriety by running for the House, for the Senate, and even for the presidency. They have become “notorious” (in the sense of “widely talked about”) as Catholics who are at odds with the religion they profess, and that opposition has been the subject of headlines.
Some bishops have spoken out clearly and repeatedly about such politicians, explaining why the “Catholic but” argument is nonsense and why those politicians (who seem uniformly to endorse abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, human cloning, and homosexual “marriage”) should not present themselves for Communion. I applaud those bishops, but by my count they comprise less than 10 percent of the American episcopate. Where are their brethren?
Even some orthodox commentators have opined that the bishops, in admonishing these erring politicians, should not go beyond pointed words. The bishops should not forbid them Communion and certainly should not excommunicate them. The fear is that overt action might lead to schism. I can envision a particular politician, excommunicated because he pushes abortion and these other evils, deciding to join some other church, out of pique if not out of principle. A few Catholics might follow him out of sympathy. So what? Every day we lose Catholics to other churches—it is sad but not unprecedented, and personal apostasy is not the same as schism.
Excommunication is a medicinal remedy, sort of a spiritual chemotherapy. Its purpose is not to reduce the population of the Church by one but to bring a confused soul back to his senses. When applied against a public figure, excommunication can be good for him and good for the public—even good for the Church as a whole, since many people will want to join an institution that is strong in its principles and does not seem to mind taking flak.