Joseph Sobran’s
Washington Watch

The Kerry Menace

(Reprinted from the issue of April 29, 2004)

Little as I care for President Bush, I must say I’m relieved to find him leading John Kerry in the polls. No question, Bush is a disaster for conservatism. That’s bad enough. But Kerry would be a disaster for Catholicism.

The Church in America has enough troubles already. But they would all be compounded if a bad Catholic — one who defies Church teaching on abortion, sodomy, and all the rest — were to win the presidency.

Of course Kerry claims to be a Catholic in good standing. He says he received an annulment of his first marriage and married his super-rich wife in the Church, but there seems to be some doubt even about that. He has recently taken communion in Protestant churches, which tells us all we need to know about his devotion to the faith. His behavior is not only sinful, which might be his own business, but flagrantly scandalous, which is not. Kerry chooses to advertise his Catholicism, which makes his defeat urgent. He recently appealed to the teaching of “Pope Pius XXIII” to justify his stand on abortion.

And what is that? The familiar and flimsy “personally opposed, but” position. This is an insult to the intelligence. What does it mean, really? What form does his “personal” opposition take? Has he ever said publicly that abortion is even, like, wrong?

Of course not. Nor do the other craven Catholic politicians who count on the hierarchy to keep mum about their eager promotion of the culture of death.

Kerry has reportedly made hefty election-year donations to charities, which he can well afford, given his wife’s fortune. I wonder if any of these charities include pro-life groups who really do offer pregnant women alternatives to abortion. Isn’t that the choice a “pro-choice” Catholic should be supporting, if he is really and truly “personally opposed” to abortion, but thinks the law should permit it? Does Kerry really want women to have a “choice”?

Yes, of course, Kerry cites the separation of church and state. But he really seems to mean separation of church and career. A wag once noted that “Senator Kennedy’s religion is so private that he won’t even impose it on himself,” and the same could be said of Kennedy’s pal Kerry.

As a rule one gives a man’s motives the benefit of the doubt. But there comes a point when hypocrisy is too gross to be ignored. Kerry is old enough to know better. When Ted Kennedy is your role model, you can stop asking people to presume that you spend your moments of solitude on your knees, rattling the beads and lighting the candles. Even Pius XXIII might agree.

Some bishops, including Boston’s Archbishop Sean O’Malley, are finally getting ready to fight, warning pro-abortion politicians not to take Communion. Kerry seems to be shopping around for churches where he can take the Body of Christ without making a scene. An uneventful sacrilege makes for a nice campaign photo-op, by his calculation; he doesn’t want some lowly priest messing it up. And of course he should have no trouble finding a good liberal priest to pop him a Host when he wants one.

What sort of interior life must this man have? If he can make a bad Communion for appearance’ sake, his faith must be good and dead. Setting aside the little matter of eternal damnation, it’s not even a good appearance. Doesn’t Kerry realize that countless Catholics are shocked when they see him receiving the Body of Christ with contempt?

Kerry may think he’s picking up Catholic votes just by identifying himself as a Catholic; and he may gain some. But I hope they are fewer than the number he loses by committing a dreadful sin before the world.

There is speculation that Kerry reckons on a backlash of sympathy, from both Catholics and non-Catholics, if he is refused Communion. Even such surmises assume his willingness to swap his soul — to commit mortal sin — for political advantage. So far, nobody seems very impressed by his piety.

Even an atheist should recoil from such empty cynicism. In one of his visits to a Protestant church, as I recently mentioned, Kerry quoted Scripture to attack Bush as a phony Christian. He must have missed the part about the mote and the beam.
 
A Turnaround

A Kerry victory in November would be the reverse of what John Kennedy’s victory was thought to be in 1960. At the time we thought Kennedy’s election showed the vitality of American Catholicism; but Kerry’s election would be a terrible confirmation of its decline.

Kerry’s phony faith may be a buried issue in this campaign; but for Catholics it should be primary. We all know that betraying the Church can be the road to political success; still, does it have to be this insouciant?

What a strange turnaround. In 1960 it seemed imperative to many Catholics to elect a Catholic. Today it seems imperative to defeat one — for the good of Catholics themselves. No enemy of the Church fears a Kerry presidency; but every serious Catholic should.

Catholics are still taken off-balance by loose appeals to Vatican II, especially when such appeals exaggerate the just freedom of the laity. But this freedom can work more than one way. Catholics still wait for cues from their bishops; but there is no reason to wait for the bishops. Even before Vatican II, the laity were free to apply Catholic principles on their own initiative. We can do it now.
 
“Outside the Box”

When a notoriously pro-abortion Catholic politician enters a Catholic church, what is to stop the faithful Catholics present from making him feel unwelcome? What if a modest number of Catholics, finding Kerry among them at Mass, shouted, “Out, murderer!”? It would make a disturbing scene, no doubt, but that would be better than concealing the deeper disturbance of his presence and participation in the sacraments.

Yes, as a rule we should let our priests and bishops identify public sinners. And few Christians enjoy making social disruptions. I myself would hate to do it. The idea of making myself conspicuous at Mass is mortifying. But if I failed to do so, I’d feel I’d failed the Church and our Lord.

Did Christ enjoy making a spectacle at the Temple to protest its desecration? Was it not, in fact, a painful act of pure and courageous charity? It was shocking, rude, bound to be misunderstood by most, and of course, as events showed, fatally dangerous. Christ knew the difference between charity and mere politeness.

Deferring to authority can be a way of passing the buck. Unless commanded otherwise, we have both the right and the duty to act in good conscience to defend the Church against her enemies, including those who use their Catholicism as camouflage for betrayal.

There is no need to blame our bishops. Too many of us abide by the unwritten commandment “Thou shalt wait for somebody else to act.”

Mind you, this is only a suggestion. I hope someone else will come up with a better alternative. But I think we must learn from the tactics of Joe Scheidler, who has found innumerable creative ways to oppose abortion “outside the box.” Catholics must look for methods of telling America, very clearly, that John Kerry is not one of us.

This is not a time for business as usual. It may be a time for bad manners. Who knows? We may even help John Kerry to save his soul.


Every month, SOBRAN’S offers 12 pages (no ads) of light reading on serious subjects — and we need your support! If you have not seen it yet, give my office a call at 800-513-5053 and request a free sample, or better yet, subscribe for two years for just $85. New subscribers get two gifts with their subscription. More details can be found at the Subscription page of my website.

Already a subscriber? Consider a gift subscription for a priest, friend, or relative.

Joseph Sobran