On April 18th of this year a Vatican agency, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) issued a statement calling for a “Doctrinal Assessment of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR).” LCWR is a Vatican-recognized umbrella organization representing the issues and concerns of the 57,000 Sisters (women religious) living and working in the United States. This Vatican initiative is intended to assess the degree to which LCWR is fulfilling its role as an authentic representative of US nuns and sisters as they relate to the American Bishops and the authorities in Rome. I won’t bore you with the details of this situation - other than to note that for Roman Catholics knowledgeable about the relationship between the Church here in the US and the Vatican, this is an extraordinarily controversial initiative that is quickly drawing sides between “traditional” Catholics who support the authority of the Vatican to engage in activities like the Doctrinal Assessment and “progressive” Catholics who argue for greater flexibility in how the Church functions at the local level.
I want to focus on this challenging situation because of the parallels that can be drawn between the current controversies raging around Health-care Reform (a.k.a. “Obamacare”). No sooner was the ink dry on the President’s signature of the Congressional legislation than right-of-center political groups immediately began calling for its repeal and targeting politicians who had supported the initiative. Here’s an example from recent Florida news Blog:
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce announced Wednesday it is pumping big bucks into Florida with its first multimillion-dollar ad blitz of the 2012 cycle, aimed at (Senator Bill) Nelson and a pair of Democrats running for the U.S. House: former Rep. Alan Grayson and longtime state and local politician Lois Frankel.
The complaint: each had voted in favor of Health-care Reform. Now, don’t get me wrong, I am a firm supporter of elections representing the will of the voters; and if a majority of voters are opposed to Health-care Reform, than their will should he heard and implemented. My issue with the Chamber of Commerce is that it is targeting three politicians over a single-issue. While the media may convince us that the only issue is Health-care Reform, we know that every federal, state and local politician must address myriad issues of concern to their constituents. Targeting politicians for a single vote suggests that political orthodoxy - not the complexity of issues and, certainly not the need to compromise in order to balance competing interests - forms the basis of the electoral system. Any High School Junior studying James Madison’s The Federalist Papers will be able cite his famous warning against the development of a “party spirit” in opposition to this approach.
How does this relate to the controversy swirling around the Vatican’s handling of LCWR? Well for starters, the organization refused to make a public comment regarding the April announcement and only this week (three months later) announced that its leadership team will travel to Rome to “discuss their concerns” with respect to the Vatican initiative. Then they will return to the US and conduct regional meetings to confer with their membership. In August, the annual meeting of the LCWR membership will convene to discuss a response to Rome.
I recognize that it is quixotic to expect the rough and tumble nature of American politics to pursue a similar, measured approach; but the LCWR’s cautious response to this controversy raises important concerns about how toxic debate in the public square has become here in the US. Consider this public statement by Franciscan Friars living in the United States:
The rancor and incivility of public conversation in the United States at this time make the possibility of productive dialogue more difficult to achieve. We pray that the future conversation between LCWR and CDF might provide an example to the larger world of respectful, civil dialog. Such dialog will require a degree of mutuality, trust and honesty that is absent from much of our world.
As a Catholic educator, I worry about the negative impact polarized politics is having on the students entrusted to our care. I worry about their ability to take advantage of the intellectual tools we have encouraged them to use when weighing opposing positions on the important issues of our time. I worry that they will be swayed by strident talking heads whose arguments are framed in “ad hominem” ways in order to encourage snap judgments on very complicated issues that rarely admit of easy solutions, much less ones that lend themselves to compromise.
As has been the case for the over 200 years in which religious nuns and sisters have toiled in schools throughout the United States, we are being given an excellent example of how to engage in public dialogue without resorting to “sound bites” and slick slogans to persuade those who don’t agree. Reflecting their female counter-parts’ carefully constructed “big picture” response to the challenge posed by CDF, the Conference of Major Superiors of Men reinforced the importance of listening carefully to both sides of an issue:
As the church and society face tumultuous times, the board (CMSM) believes it is imperative that these matters be addressed by the entire church community in an atmosphere of openness, honesty, and integrity.
I have no idea how things will end with the controversy swirling around Health-care Reform; nor do I have a glimmer of insight as to what will happen to LCWR as it engages in dialogue with the Vatican. I do know that we can learn a lot from their approach that would go a long way towards dialing down the stridency that is poisoning political conversation here in the US.
