I was with you, Father Greeley, until the fourth paragraph

Say what you will about Fr. Andrew Greeley, he knows how to stir the pot. Or roil the water. Or push people's buttons. (Insert your cliché here.) And while I always end up disagreeing with some (or even much) of what he says, I do find myself agreeing with him from time to time. For instance, I rather like how he starts this January 2nd column in The Chicago Sun-Times:

I'm a Catholic. You got a problem with that?     I'm a Christian too. You other guys got a problem with that?

My crowd has been calling themselves ''Catholic'' for 17 centuries. The adjective "Roman" added in the American context is a slur, sometimes unintentionally conveyed in the tone of the one using it. It hints that we are somehow foreign and perhaps subversive. It came into use when the ''publics'' started to recite the Nicene Creed and their leaders had to explain that the ''one, holy, catholic and apostolic church'' of the creed wasn't us.

We've been Christians since the beginning. The claim of the evangelicals to a monopoly on the term is little more than a century old. It excludes Mormons, secularists and Catholics. We don't like being excluded, and we might just begin to make trouble about it. We invented Christianity, guys, and your claim to sole rights is historical nonsense -- and bigotry, too.

Maybe a bit hyperbolic and overstated, but, hey, I kind of like the attitude. Unfortunately, things go downhill. Quickly.

These outbursts are intended as evidence that the rhetoric of the contretemps in Iowa is profoundly offensive to some of us. The United States is not and has never been a Protestant nation or a Christian nation, despite some of the claims made in the course of our history by Protestants ignorant of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

That is quite a claim and one that some prominent Catholics, not just "ignorant Protestants" would dispute. Goodness, if America wasn't founded as a Christian nation—that is, as a nation resting on certain overt and implicit beliefs that are clearly Christian in nature—than what was it founded as? It's a thorny debate that I won't pursue here, because Fr. Greeley is quickly leaving hyperbole in the dust in favor of polemical emoting:

Can a Catholic vote for a Mormon or a Baptist minister for president? There is nothing in canon law to prohibit such votes. Whether they would is another question altogether. Having lived for seven disastrous years with a president who assumes that he has immediate access to the deity, many of us would be uneasy about politics reinforced by religious self-righteousness.

The Catholic imagination inclines us to view the public policy world as intricate, complex, problematic. It is true that some Catholic clergy do match "Christians" in evangelical self-righteousness. But they turn off the rest of us more often than not. We know from our experiences out in the precincts that nothing is simple anymore. It never was.

The separation of church and state as enshrined in the Constitution does not mean that faith has no place in public life. It means rather that a candidate's religious perspective should have a cautious, discrete, nuanced influence on his political orientation.

Ah yes, the Sacred Separation of Church of State "in the Constitution"—of what country, again? Because the Constitution of the United States, last time I checked, doesn't even have the words "church" or "separation" in it, let alone together. (I have, btw, covered similar territory on this blog.) It is rather difficult, it seems to me, for something to be "enshrined" when it doesn't exist where it is said to exist. And for Fr. Greeley to then demand that a candidate exhibit caution, discretion, and nuance in how he addresses his religious beliefs—well, that is a bit embarrassing.

Comments

[Jackson]

Lawyer that I am, I'd recommend to Greeley that he study Hamburger's excellent book, Separation of Church and State. It thoroughly demolishes the "wall of separation" myth.

[Randy]

The trouble is what is exactly is considered "caution, discretion, and nuance." They are fine virtues of prudence. Somehow they became code words for the selling of one's soul for political gain.

[Fr. J.]

Self righteousness among the clergy or Catholics in general is not limited to those who disagree with Fr. Greeley.

Aside from such nonsense, Fr. Greeley's first three paragraphs were right on (with the exception that the Catholic Church does also exclude Mormons from the term Christian as we do not recognize their formula of baptism).

[Bruce]

"Having lived for seven disastrous years with a president who assumes that he has immediate access to the deity"
Will the Bush bashing ever end?

[Dan]

I don't mind when an Anglican calls the Catholic Church "the Roman Catholic Church" but it is a mild irriation when a Catholic does it. The irritation is from the ignorance that it reflects. To distinguish the Catholic Church as being "Roman" is to adopt a Protestant point of view. Yet it is not uncommon to see a Catholic church refer to itself in signs and on websites as a "Roman Catholic Church."

[Robert Miller]

I have been through several "phases" with the term "Roman Catholic".

Growing up Catholic in the 1950s, I never heard the term. A little later, I learned that it was, in Protestants' minds, a more polite form of "Roman Church" or "Popish Church". But that didn't bother me because, like most pre-Vatican II Catholics in my neck of the woods, I was (still am) a fervent ultramontanist.

In the late 1960s -- and until very recently -- I fully embraced "Roman Catholic" both as a description of my faith and of me. Why? Because, post-Vatican II, I came to believe it was (still believe it is) crucial to distinguish the Church from the "American Catholic Church" -- and oneself from "American Catholics".

In the last 5 years or so, I've dropped the "Roman" (but emphatically have not adopted the "American"). Pope Benedict and the CDF have restated most clearly that the Catholic Church is the Roman Church and the Roman Church is the Catholic Church. That's good enough for me: plain old unhyphenated "Catholic".

[RJ]

It seems as if Fr. Greely wants a candidate to exercise caution in stating his beliefs but Fr. Greely has no problem stating his version of "American" Catholicism which often tends to favor the rights of the state over the Church.

[RJ]

It seems as if Fr. Greely wants a candidate to exercise caution in stating his beliefs but Fr. Greely has no problem stating his version of "American" Catholicism which often tends to favor the rights of the state over the Church.

[Brian Schuettler]

I suspect that Father Greeley is conflicted between the vows he took as a priest of Jesus Christ and as a secular personality. At some point, before he dies, he will be asked to make a choice.

[Dan]

For what it's worth, Peter Kreeft uses the term "Roman Catholic Church" one time in his book "Fundamentals of the Faith." I would be the last to say that Mr. Kreeft is uninformed. But he is a former Protestant... might his use of the term be a lingering hangover from his former days?

[Loretta Shalosky]

I thought Roman Catholic referred to the Roman Rite as contrasted with Byzantine, Chaldean, Coptic, Syrian, Maronite, Armenian, and Malabar Uniat Churches. It is not offensive to me but indicates one of the many styles of worship in the one united catholic church.

[Manuel Daugherty Razetto]

Amused as I was with all comments about F.Greely, one has to admit he is always an interesting priest.RJ is right on target about our dear leftist father who got rich with his peculiar books.
Our Church is and always will be Roman, despite it all.BXVI is, as always, right.