A Liberal Mix of Religion and Politics: When Catholic Politicians Face Excommunication

(Hat tip: The Curt Jester)

Some excellent historical perspective from The Wall Street Journal's Opinion Journal:

... But this problem has been discussed for decades. Most bishops have resisted calls to excommunicate such politicians or even to impose lesser sanctions, including denying them Communion. The very idea of these actions appalls most liberals, both inside and outside the Church. They consider ecclesiastical punishment undemocratic, an attack on personal conscience and a violation of the separation of church and state. "I believe the church has a role in guiding parishioners and people in public life, but I don't believe the Church should be using the sacrament of Communion as a political weapon," Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D., Conn.), a pro-choice Catholic, recently told the Connecticut Post. There was a time, however, when most liberals applauded the bishops for disciplining Catholics, including politicians, who opposed the Church's teachings.

In March 1962, Archbishop Joseph Rummel of New Orleans announced that all Catholic schools in the archdiocese would be integrated starting that fall. At the time, eight years after Brown v. Board of Education, public and private schools throughout Louisiana were segregated. Rummel, who condemned racial segregation as a sin in 1956, found that his plan met organized resistance among Catholic parents. The opposition was led by Leander Perez, the president of the Plaquemines Parish council and one of the most powerful political bosses in the state; Jackson Ricau, the executive director of the South Louisiana Citizens Council, which opposed all integration efforts; and B.J. "Una" Gaillot, the president of Save Our Nation, an organization that asserted that the Bible mandated racial segregation.

On March 31, 1962, the archbishop sent letters to Messrs. Perez and Ricau and Mrs. Gaillot warning that if they continued to oppose his efforts "through word or deed," he would excommunicate them. Mrs. Gaillot made the ailing 85-year-old prelate's letter public. On April 16, Rummel carried out his threat and announced the excommunication of all three.

They objected, of course--making arguments that seem familiar today. Mr. Perez invoked democratic principles, stating that "the vast majority of [Catholic] parents" supported racial segregation. He also saw Rummel's action exclusively in political terms, saying "we cannot recognize any threat of excommunication by any temporary officers of the church on matters especially which have nothing to do with religion, but which are used as threats to impose forced racial integration or communistic regimentation of our children." Mr. Ricau insisted he was simply following his conscience. "I have done nothing but fight for racial integrity, as is my prerogative under the Constitution," he said, "and to tell the truth about the controversial compulsory integration movement." Finally, Mrs. Gaillot argued that the excommunication was unjustified because Rummel never "refuted that God demands segregation of the races in His Scriptures."

Rummel and Archbishop Joseph Ritter of St. Louis had previously used the threat of excommunication to suppress lay Catholic opposition to civil rights. In 1956, Rummel warned Catholic lawmakers in the state legislature that they would face excommunication if they voted to mandate the segregation of all private schools, including Catholic ones. In the same year, he forced the Association of Catholic Laymen, which was established to oppose his initial desegregation efforts, to disband by threatening its members with excommunication. In 1947, when "separate but equal" was still the law of the land, Ritter threatened to excommunicate any Catholic who took legal action to block his plan to desegregate Catholic schools in St. Louis.

How did liberals react to Rummel's actions? "We salute the Catholic Archbishop," the New York Times editorialized. "He has set an example founded on religious principle and response to the social conscience of our times." An editorial in the Nation applauded Rummel's initial excommunication threat and cited Ritter's action in 1947 as a precedent. Certainly, it seems, liberals don't really mind mixing religion with politics as long as it's their political agenda being promoted.

[More]

(emphasis added)