For several days, I’ve been stewing over Joe Feuerherd’s WaPo oped on the US bishops and politics.  One of the advantages of waiting to say anything is that you inevitably find that someone else will come along and do the heavy lifting for you.
Ramesh Ponnuru had a good response but even better – also printed in the WaPo as an op-ed –  is from Sr. Mary Ann Walsh, doing her job as director of the USCCB media office.

The bishops never align themselves with any party or any candidate, yet Feuerherd presumptuously declares them for Sen. John McCain. He puts the bishops in the Republican Party despite that fact that on many of their positions, such as immigration and health care, they could be considered in the Democratic camp. He describes Pope John Paul as conservative, despite the fact that the media who heard him in Newark in 1995 said he sounded more liberal than the most liberal Democrat. In 1999, in St. Louis, Pope John Paul personally — and successfully — called upon the governor of Missouri to commute the sentence of a man on death row.
The current campaign shows that politics is too often a contest of powerful interests, partisan attacks, sound bites and media hype. In “Faithful Citizenship,” the Church calls for a different kind of political engagement: one shaped by moral convictions of well-formed consciences and focused on the dignity of every human being, the pursuit of the common good, and the protection of the weak and vulnerable. It stresses that Catholics need to be guided more by their moral convictions than by attachment to a political party or interest group. Catholic participation should help transform the party to which they belong; they should not let the party transform them in such a way that they neglect or deny basic moral truths.
Feuerherd’s incivility is striking. The crude reference to the Eucharist as “the wafer” should be beneath anyone who respects people’s religious sentiments, let alone an acknowledged Catholic. Belief in the Eucharist is sacred to Catholics, yet Feuerherd treats it in a belittling manner.
(from Amy: in Feuerherd’s defense, he was quoting Jon Stewart)
His final salvo, damning the bishops, is unworthy of both Feuerherd and The Post. It’s hard to imagine The Post giving its pages to a writer suggesting the outright damnation of the leaders of any other religious body. Feuerherd’s vitriol might be understandable if the bishops were concerned, like a typical special-interest group, only with what benefits them. However, the bishops’ defense of the right to life of the unborn is a principled commitment in justice to the good of others who are vulnerable and with no voice of their own.
Feuerherd might want to reconsider his words in light of this, and of Christ’s words to his disciples when he calls them blessed for facing insult and rejection on account of the Gospel.

I actually do have a bit more to say. What is it? I think it’s this: for religiously-motivated people in particular, our conversations about politics and the political candidates and programs we support should, it seems to me, be marked by humility, hard realism and the up-front acknowledgement that we live in a fallen world in which we cannot and should not throw ourselves at the feet of any candidate or party uncritically. Our support, when we give it, should always be permeated with an acknowledgment of the limitations of politics and government and the truth that, the chances are, Our Man, at some level, is probably some sort of scoundrel. Cheerleading for any politician -whether it be religiously-tinged rallies or politiking for George Bush or uncritically swooning for Obama (and ignoring his serious problems)   – seems to me something Christians should be wary of, if not reject outright.  It’s actually kind of an  embarrassing sight,  if you ask me.
I also think, with all due respect, Feuerherd is wrong about some things. He’s wrong about the supposed qualities John Paul II was looking for in appointing bishops. I, frankly, doubt that John Paul II had much input into the final nominees for sees that were presented to him, that being, as it always is, filtered through many channels, all rife with politics, from the diocesan through provincial through the Papal Nuncio through  the Curia.  You can’t seriously tell me that Mahony and Lynch of St. Petersburg, for example (just to name two – only two) were named for their strict adherance to some scary conservative Vatican party line.  No, their roads to the episcopacy were via various channels of supporters and episcopal mentors – one through the West Coast, and the other through the Midwest.

Secondly, I’ll just say that from what I discern, that there is not, shall we say, enthusiastic approval among the US episcopacy for the direct challenges that bishops like Burke have taken on. Every Catholic diocese can boast its own bevy of Catholic politicians supporting abortion rights, publicly and often flagrantly. How many Catholic bishops have taken any of these folks on? Two? Three?
Seriously. I’m thinking that if by some amazing miracle, we all woke up tomorrow and the DNC and Obama had done a 180 on the legality of abortion, the cassocks would be flyin from all the bishops doing backflips of joy.  Or at least sighing big huge sighs of relief.