Anti-Catholic Bigotry or Political Prudence?

Efforts by Roman Catholic leaders to get both politicians and regular voters to more closely adhere to church policy regarding abortion (but not much else) has caused some to become concerned about the possible influence of the Vatican on American politics. Is this a return to anti-Catholic bigotry?

Timothy Sandefur, responding to just such a claim, argues:

I’ve always heard it said that many people refused to vote for Catholics because they feared that the Vatican would use its authority over American Catholics to influence their political views. It was said in the 19th century, for instance, that American public officials who were Catholics might be swayed by the threat of excommunication to support policies that were bad for the Country... With the election of JFK, I had always thought, American Catholics came to be treated as equals because Protestant Americans had finally learned that they need not fear such a thing—that American Catholics could separate their spiritual from their temporal duties, and would not be swayed from their duties as good citizens by the influence of the Catholic church—the Church would never try to manipulate the politics of America.

But now, that is obviously happening: American Catholics are told that they will not be given communion if they vote in a certain way. Now, I have nothing against that. The Catholic church is a private club, and it may excommunicate whomever it wants for whatever reason it wants... [B]ut why should Protestants not be concerned about the political influence of Catholics and the Catholic church now? And if they are, why is that “bigotry,” rather than prudential concern for political stability (long a cherished conservative value)?

Somehow I think that if, say, a foreign country like France were to try to influence American elections (how? I don’t know... refuse entry to anyone who votes Republican?), American conservatives would be outraged. Why? France certainly has the right to refuse entry to anyone they wish and for any reason they wish.

Being outraged need not only be a reaction to someone doing something they have a right to do, however. Being outraged can be a legitimate reaction acting within their rights that is nevertheless inappropriate. Just because you have a right to do something doesn’t mean that you should, and if you go ahead anyway you can’t justly get upset when others react negatively.

The Roman Catholic Church has the right, obviously, to exclude all blacks from positions of power among both the clergy and the laity. No laws can stop them from doing it. Does that mean, therefore, that if anyone gets upset and criticizes the church for doing it, they are just expressing anti-Catholic bigotry? Of course not. Some bigots might latch on to this for convenience, but that doesn’t render all criticisms irrelevant. The same is true when the Catholic Church tries to influence elections in the manner that we are seeing now.

Read More:

• Roman Catholicism
• Vatican Council II
• Secularism 101
• Separation of Church and State 101