Mahony Sees New Reality in Clinton’s Election

Catholics: The cardinal says the church must move in other directions now that it cannot count on the President to back its position on measures related to abortion.

Has the Roman Catholic Church fallen out of the American mainstream? Is it being marginalized politically by its stands on abortion?

In a recent interview, Times Religion Writer Larry B. Stammer asked Cardinal Roger M. Mahony, the Roman Catholic archbishop of Los Angeles, to discuss these and other issues. Mahony was elected last November as chairman of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Pro-Life Activities Committee. Following are excerpts from the interview.

Q:

Last November you released a letter to pro-life Americans stating that it was unlikely a veto could be counted upon from the Clinton White House to turn back the Freedom of Choice Act. I’m wondering now what your plans and those of your committee might be in regards to that act?

A:

Well, let me just say that in a sense, in God’s providence, not having a President who will simply veto things that the pro-life movement doesn’t agree with--not having that luxury in a sense--I think has brought us back to some reality. . . . We have become over-reliant, I think, on the office of the President in dealing with some of these crucial issues. And, therefore, I see my role and that of the Pro-Life Activities Committee now taking on a far broader kind of dimension. So I see us moving in several directions. . . . I think that our primary role is to help form and shape the consciousness of our people, primarily, and also to make sure that the moral, ethical dimension of abortion is part of the debate. And I think by having a President who would veto things that seemed offensive or flew in the face of our pro-life agenda has somehow lulled us into complacency of not really doing that important work. . . .

So that I see our role as now really helping in the whole re-education, reformation process with all of our Catholic community across the country in understanding what are we talking about and what is this issue really all about in respect to God’s revelations, Scriptures, and our tradition that goes back to the 1st Century.

Q:

It sounds as if you’re saying you need to tend to some work in the Catholic vineyard, as it were.

A:

Yes.

Q:

A poll last November by Voter Research Surveys, a consortium of the four networks, showed that voters who identified themselves as Catholics hold about the same views on abortion as the population in general, and that the strong majority want to see abortion available in most cases. The poll went on to note that Clinton received the support of 44% of the Catholic voters, compared to 35% for Bush. Does that bother you?

A:

No, see, the difficulty with any of these polls is in the way they ask what religion you are or if you’re a Catholic. (The question) has nothing to do with the faith life or practice of the person. The bishops in Maryland who actually had an abortion initiative on their ballot . . . contracted with professional polling people. But they did this: They did polls of people who were coming out of Sunday Mass who were obviously involved with the church. Eighty-eight percent of them were totally pro-life and totally against any liberalization of the abortion law. When you just randomly ask people these questions and ask them what faith you are and they say Catholic, you get the kind of statistics you have. . . . So my point is that not everyone who says they’re Catholic in these polls is necessarily what we term Catholic.”

Q:

Are you writing off the President?

A:

No! Not at all. In fact I’m looking forward to having a meeting with the President. The president of our episcopal conference, Archbishop (William H.) Keeler (of Baltimore), and the vice president and the officers (will be meeting with Clinton), and there’s some good assurance that I probably will be going with them. Because we want to talk about this issue.

Q:

Would you say that the Catholic hierarchy may have to walk a fine line here because, obviously, there will be a certain amount of political strain, given your heartfelt feelings about pro-life issues and concerns about gays in the military? Won’t that add a certain amount of strain in trying to work with the President on other issues?

A:

I don’t think so. . . . The President has said some good things. It strikes me that they serve as common ground themes that we can pursue. And I really look forward to pursuing those with him. Because I want to know what he means and how we translate that. For example, in his acceptance speech he said while (he was) pro-choice, (he was) not pro-abortion. . . .. I’d like to know what that “I’m not pro-abortion” means. . . . What does that translate into?

Q:

I gather from your remarks in Washington you where somewhat skeptical about that dichotomy. . . .

A:

Well, sure, exactly. He said abortion should be legal, safe and rare. If he keeps using this terminology, what does this mean? He said on the campaign trail several times he wants to see fewer abortions. How do we do that? We can’t send wrong messages. You can’t say that and then make abortion more available. So I just think that’s something to pursue.

Q:

How would you compare the U.S. Catholic Church’s relations with the White House as opposed to, say, the Protestant right’s? Do you see any differences?

A:

I don’t know what kind of a working relationship they developed with the Congress, the Administration staff, etc. We see ourselves as not only Catholics but as Americans, and there are many issues in which we have a very vital interest and we hope a common agenda with the Administration and with Congress. So we see ourselves as very much participants--active participants--in a lot of these areas. (In) health care reform we have a very vital interest. We have 900 Catholic hospitals. So these are issues which we feel we’re a pretty significant player and we would like always (to be) as close as we can with the Administration and the Congress on these issues. I don’t get the impression that the religious right is interested in that kind of a thing. I think they’re off to the sides denouncing this, that or the other.

Q:

Columnist Michael Novak said recently, “We live in a very rotten, intellectual culture and a very rotten time in history. At such a time, to be a Catholic in America is to be at odds with it, perhaps even to doubt the legitimacy of the regime.” Also the National Catholic Reporter on Jan. 8 said that Catholic leadership during the last half century has been in step with successive U.S. government administrations--until now. Do you see Catholicism as being increasingly at odds with American culture and politics?

A:

Yeah, I do. The church has always been counterculture in every era. There are different cultures to be countered to. But ever since the days of Jesus the church has been counterculture, and that takes on different forms and different shapes and customs. And so the Gospel itself is usually very counterculture. You can point to “Christian nations” and you’re not going to find a whole lot of Gospel values and witnessing taking place there. So, I think it’s a constant process of renewal. Whether we have more of this now than before, I don’t know. . . . You cannot have a country where the moral-ethical level continues to erode. Just the violence. Look at the violence. . . .

Q:

But you’re not concerned that the church, by its consistent stands on abortion, may be marginalized politically?

A:

No. I don’t think so. No. Because I think we have an obligation to proclaim the truth, and the truth about human life is something we hold very sacred. This is a Catholic (belief). This goes back to the 1st Century. From (then) on the church is dealing with abortion. This is nothing new in our time, and so we’re going to find ourselves at odds with some of these issues.”