The politicians' response has been predictable. "I can't let my religion take precedence over my duties as legislator," says Lassa. "I'm concerned that the bishop would pressure legislators to vote according to the dictates of the church instead of the wishes of their constituents." "The votes I cast are driven by my own independent judgment and conscience, not by a set of marching orders given by any church hierarchy," said U. S. Rep. David Obey, a Democrat who represents Wisconsin's 7th district. (Obey "stopped short of identifying himself" as the recipient of a letter from Bishop Burke, according to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, but issued a statement nonetheless.) In reply to a chastising letter by Bishop Robert Carlson of Sioux Falls, Sen. Tom Daschle said, "I have been a Catholic all my life and will remain one."
William Bablitch, a former Wisconsin state Supreme Court justice and a Catholic, summarized the liberal argument. "The doctrine regarding the separation of church and state is well-founded in our democracy for a very good reason," he said. "Certainly the bishop has every right to express his own views to an elected official. But to invoke the moral authority of the church in a threatening way to a legislator seems to cross over a line that has been very carefully drawn and is very well respected in this country."
'In a threatening way?' Let's see what exactly what bishops have 'threatened.' Bishop Burke's letter said that if Catholic legislators continued to vote for bills related to abortion rights, he would "ask them not to present themselves to receive the sacraments because they would not be Catholics in good standing."
How 'threatening' is that, politically speaking?
What the legislators and their supporters don't seem to realize is that, precisely because America does have separation of church and state, bishops can't "threaten" legislators at all. What Bishop Burke and others are doing is not telling legislators how to vote, but how they can identify themselves if they vote in certain ways.
If the community at large is going to insist that nominally Catholic legislators should indeed be allowed to have it both ways, then it is the bishops' authority that is being undermined, not the independence of lawmakers. And that is what has been happening in our increasingly secular culture.
What is at stake is the right of the Catholic Church to set its own membership rules. Any organization that is denied that right is under attack. Admittedly, the American bishops have contributed to their own difficulties by failing to insist earlier on their right to demand standards of observance from public figures who claim membership in the Church.
As the years and decades have passed without complaint from the bishops, their own moral standing has grown weaker and weaker (a state of affairs only underlined by the recent crisis of pedophilia in the hierarchy). Politicians have in turn grown accustomed to great laxity and indulgence from the hierarchy, and now the politicians have reached the point where they expect it to continue.
Following a recent instruction from the Vatican on the participation of Catholics in political life, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops is taking steps to remedy this situation. The Vatican document said Catholic lawmakers have a "grave and clear obligation to oppose any law that attacks human life." Last month, the USCCB announced it would develop an agenda along the lines already mapped out by Bishop Burke.
Politicians like Lassa who invoke the "separation of church and state" often quote John F. Kennedy's famous speech of 1960: "I do not speak for my church on public matters, and the church does not speak for me." Kennedy also said: "I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute-where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act."