The Black Madonna

This entry originally appeared in The Black Republican.

I've discussed before how some of the principles upon which the Republican Party was founded have endured the test of time, and how we've outgrown some prejudices that ought never have been a part of the Party of Lincoln in the first place. One of these positions was the initial anti-Catholic stance of most Republicans early in our history. Thankfully, we have outgrown that, and in fact we have long since reversed the trend with more and more practicing Catholics moving from the Democrat Party.

Note my differentiation by saying: "practicing". A good deal of the "Catholic vote" is still going to the Democratic Party. The problem is those people aren't Catholics as anyone should define them. Unlike many other religious or social affiliations, there actually is a simple litmus test for being Catholic: one must be a member of the Body of Christ, and the outward symbol of that membership (if I dare call it a mere "symbol") is the reception of the Holy Eucharist. What is beyond the understanding of many once-a-week and twice-a-year Catholics is even some of them aren't Catholic either. Without this becoming a long theology lesson, suffice to say there's a lot of faith required behind that act, and a lot more action required behind that faith, before your card is punched.

Especially in America today, we Catholics don't spend a whole lot of time talking about this self-amputation of our members, primarily because it would require us to make judgements about the nature and character of the faith of our brothers. But the Church does have a mechanism to shield the faithful from the most egregious of our erstwhile brethren, lest they drag us down with them: excommunication. By saying publicly that someone is not worthy of receiving the Holy Eucharist at this moment because of the example of his words or actions, the Church can show the faithful a clearly negative example of what it means not to be in union with the Body of Christ.

Here's where we get back to politics. Any political party not run exclusively by practicing Catholics will have policy positions that may run counter to Catholic teachings. And for many years, the Democrat's concentration on social welfare seemed to be as close a fit as one could make with Catholic doctrine. But those days have come and gone. Liberation theology has been repudiated as a serious economic system, leaving bare many of the Democrats' social positions - abortion primary among them - as seriously anti-Catholic in nature. Not to be rebuffed so easily, many Catholic Democrats have insisted that Rome ignore their voting records and rhetoric, trying to separate their public acts from their "private beliefs". (Nevermind for now the hypocritical concept that one should advocate something they personally disagree with.) But recently, bishops and priests have become more vocal in stating that they may need to use excommunication to chastise Catholic politicians who advocate positions contrary to the teachings of Catholic doctrine.

For the fourth time in American history*, the presumptive Democratic nominee for President is Catholic (or, at least, he says he is). But John Kerry has suggested that his Catholic faith is his "bedrock of values, of sureness about who I am," even though he takes the standard anti-Catholic Democratic position on euthanasia, homosexual "rights", and (of course) abortion.

* In reverse order, the previous three Catholic nominees for president were: John Kennedy (1960), Al Smith (1928), and Charles O'Conor (1872).

EDIT: I added a line in the sixth paragraph that completes a thought I left floating in the wind.