What Cersei Lannister Can Teach the Catholic Church
In the George R.R. Martin’s grand fantasy, A Song of Ice and Fire, ever-plotting Queen Cersei Lannister schools naïve honor fanboy Eddard Stark on the game of thrones: when you play, you win or you die. In the world of Westeros, losing the game of thrones often literally means death, but the warning speaks analogously to real world political action. When you play the game of politics, exercising power and influence in the public sphere, the other players in the game will respond not only to your ideas and political actions, but also to your power and influence. They’ll attack what you do, but they’ll also seek to weaken or eliminate you as a player. This is a lesson the leaders and the laity of the Catholic Church would do well to understand and appreciate.
Despite its waning influence over the beliefs of its own members, the Catholic Church has continued to loudly voice support or opposition to various pieces of legislation, policies, executive orders, and court decisions its leadership has deemed important. Doing so has made it political friends and political enemies. Sister Mary Ann Walsh, RSM, Director of Media Relations for the USCCB, seems surprised that the Department of Health and Human Services suddenly denied funding to the conference’s Migration and Refugee Services, allegedly on account of its being forbidden by conscience from referring human trafficking victims for abortion, sterilization or contraceptives. She should have expected this move or something like it.
The Obama administration clearly wants to expand access to abortion and contraceptives and otherwise advance a reproductive rights-friendly policy. The Catholic Church (along with the GOP, surprisingly) has been not only an obstacle, but also a counter force to this effort. You don’t push in politics without getting pushed back. You can’t, for example, defund Planned Parenthood and not expect retaliation. You can’t condemn the Affordable Care Act without irking its engineers. You exercise influence to limit reproductive rights, especially rights that have widespread public backing, anticipate that influence to be attacked. As the Catholic Church continues its efforts against the Obama administration’s agenda, it should expect the administration to seek where it can to weaken the Church’s overall political, social, and cultural influence. What else would it do? A Republican administration would do much the same.
None of this is to say that the Catholic Church or any other religious institution should keep quiet and stay out of politics and the affairs of state. On the contrary, religious groups and institutions should be involved in the public sphere, albeit in ways that respect religious freedom. Many of them have centuries of time-tested thought and wisdom to share, not to mention unique perspectives; they can do much to help society realize the common good. However, they ought to realize and appreciate that being a player in the sphere of politics comes with a price. They needn’t act like Cersei Lannister (or, say, Machiavelli), but they cannot hope to win lasting victories without, as the Queen from Casterly Rock (or a skilled chess or poker player) suggests , anticipating and planning for all the possible counter moves of the opposition.
Like this:
Comments are closed.
“None of this is to say that the Catholic Church or any other religious institution should keep quiet and stay out of politics and the affairs of state.”
To the contrary, I’ll say it: if the Church, or any other *religious institution* wants to maintain its tax-exempt status, then it should *as an institution* stay out of politics altogether. Catholics individuals, in the role of citizen, are of course free to vote for policies that conform to their faith, and for politicians who propose and support those policies.
But the institutional issuance of voter guides, and the public condemnation of individual polticians for voting *as the majority of their constituents want them to vote* is deserving of public censure in the form of the revocation of tax-exempt status and the denial of publicly-funded grants, as in the case in question here.
I have no problem with religious leaders getting involved in politics and speaking to their communities about political matters–provided they’re not attempting to impose religious norms upon a non-religious or other-religious populous.
I’ll register a quick dissent to Rodak’s position that the Church should stay out of politics. The “naked public square” (as Fr. Neuhaus described it) is not a positive thing. Society is better off with people and institutions from religious and moral perspectives participating in the public debate.
@Kyle @Thales — But the lobbying against birth control and abortion is exactly the imposition of “religious norms upon non-religious or other-religious” populations. To many a fetus is not a person until it’s viable outside of the woman’s body. The idea that it is, is fundamentally a religious, or theosophical, idea based on the concept of an immortal soul, and/or on a concept of Natural Law which has not been revised to take advances in natural science into account.
I fully agree that society is better off in some ways with people participating from a religious perspective, so long as that perspective is moral/ethical, rather than dogmatic/doctrinal.
I do not agree that religious institutions should become involved in politics. That leads only to division, and even war.
Rodak,
I don’t think this is the place for this argument (we can save it for later), but the belief that before birth, there exists a human entity deserving of certain rights is not a religious belief.
But the lobbying against birth control and abortion is exactly the imposition of “religious norms upon non-religious or other-religious” populations.
There’s a difference between imposing religious practice and seeking to codify moral norms.
Protestant ministers (Rev. Martin Luther King prominent among them) were leaders of the Civil Rights movement. They sought to see the moral norms they drew, in part, from their faith codified in laws that applied to the country as a whole. They were right to do so.
Catholic beliefs in relation to abortion are moral beliefs, not religious practices (like, say keeping Kosher, not eating meat on Fridays, or praying while facing Mecca.)
Indeed, if anything, the science is entirely on the Christian side here. There is no species known as “potential human” — that category is a metaphysical construct.
I’m not really sure how well founded on the merits the allegation of wanting to expand abortion is. While it is certainly possible for abortion rights to be expanded, the current political environment is not conducive to expanding them. This is in one part due to our abortion laws being fairly liberal. The only unfulfilled liberalization would be the funding of abortion for the poor on equity grounds, and presently there is almost no support in this country for doing that. The other part is simple popular support for our current laws, which are slightly more liberal than the mean attitude of Americans, means that the prejudice is toward curtailment, albeit not to the degree I would desire.
Any argument that the health care bill was an expansion of abortion is simply wrong. Since its implementation, not a single abortion can be attributed to the passage of the act. Once the insurance pools are implemented, abortion services become a self funded rider ineligible for government subsidization. This self funded rider is only available in a decreasing number of states that haven’t explicitly excluded it. Given the segregated funding, the odds are that a minority of plans will even offer the rider due to economic reasons. Such isn’t to claim that the Obama administration has done nothing on abortion. Among the significant accomplishments on abortion by the Obama administration was the allowance of organizations to receive funding for services unrelated to abortion counseling or performance if any part of the organization counsels or performs abortions with nonsegregated money, aka the Mexico City policy. According to the hyperbolic ramblings of the right wing Catholic blogosphere, this has made him the most pro-abortion president evah! As much as the USCCB has bought into and advanced this meme they are revealing the present partisan and political makeup of the organization. That this has brought the organization discredit is quite frankly the consequences of their choices. It isn’t like they are being unfairly maligned, although they do know a thing or two about unfairly maligning.
Obama’s on the record supporting FOCA and opposing the Hyde Amendment and parental notification laws. His positions here are far from politically viable, of course, but they nonetheless indicate what he’d like to do and would likely do if given the opportunity.
I think you’re basically right that the USCCB should not be surprised to find itself the subject of the occasional act of beaurocratic revenge for the various stands it’s taken against the Obama administration. That said, it’s worth keeping in mind that two can play at that game. If the USCCB can expect to have the administration try to take things out on it in little ways, the administration can’t really expect to have the USCCB take such petty revenges lying down.
By the same rules of the game you cite, simply ask yourself: Does the USCCB stand to gain more, in getting what it believes to be to the common good done, by simply saying, “Oh well, we play with the big boys so we have to expect to get our lumps,” or by playing the “Oh my goodness how could the hurt refugees just to get a poke at us!!!” card? Clearly, in the game of thrones, the latter is the way to go. Those who are inclined to see the USCCB as a partisan organization out to get them (which, as a side note, is I think a clear mistake. The USCCB is not fully aligned with either party but is willing to object to the actions of either in order to try to support what it believes to be the common good.) are going to be unsympathetic whether the bishops take their lumps quietly or not. But for many people, the idea of the administration doing a disservice to refugees from human trafficking in order to achieve petty revenge is going to turn them off the administration and cause them to sympathize with the USCCB. It might even result in a reversal of the funding decision. As such, from a game of thrones point of view, there’s every reason to ask as they did, and no reason to act otherwise.
Good point. The USCCB may be shrewder here than I gave them credit for.
On the other hand, the very limited degree of influence the USCCB has generally, evening upon Catholics in the U.S., leaves me wondering how well they really play the game of thrones.
True.
Of course, look where it got the characters in the book: They’re still fictional characters in a world that doesn’t even exist!
(Come to that, it would explain a lot if many public figures suffer from this same problem.)
Few, if any, are masters at the game. How many leaders throughout history have really fit the mold of Machiavelli’s Prince?
I think I agree with you Kyle. It’s kind of unrealistic to participate in politics and not expect to be treated the way political participants treat each other all the time.
Exactly.
I guess I find this whole line of thinking of Kyle’s post, and of Agellius and others, a little strange — namely, that if the Church wants to be a political player, it has to be shrewd when playing politics.
The Church isn’t supposed to be a political player; it’s supposed to be an advocate for the Truth and a champion for the down-trodden. I don’t want the Church to make political calculations about which marginalized group it should ignore for the moment in order to curry favor from a fickle and secular government — I don’t want the Church to say “well, let’s not make a fuss about government funding for Planned Parenthood, because we want government funding for trafficking victims.” Or, with a Republican President, the Church to say “let’s not stress our opposition to capital punishment and the mistreatment of illegal aliens, because we don’t want to be a bother to the GOP and we want to gain influence with the government.” I want the Church to stand up for what it believes in, in season and out of season, regardless of the political consequences.
Related is the thinking that goes “Tut, tut, tut, the Church should have expected to be marginalized by the White House, since it didn’t go along with the White House on a different issue earlier.” I find that thinking a little strange. It sounds a little bit like saying “tut, tut, tut, More should have expected to be marginalized by Henry VIII, since he didn’t go along with the King earlier.” Again, the Church should always stand up for justice, regardless of the political consequences. And when the government does something unjust or unfair to the Church and to a worthy initiative that the Church supports, like withdrawing support for trafficking victims, I don’t think the Church has to meekly abide by the decision without speaking up and denouncing the injustice.
(As an aside, I suppose should add that I take the USCCB at its word on the abortion-Affordable Care Act debate — that is, I take their word that it honestly thought that justice required greater safeguards for protection against abortion in the law’s language and that it was important to speak up about the law’s inadequate language. I know M.Z. disagrees on this, which is fine — I’m not interested in debating this issue at the moment.)
Thales writes, “The Church isn’t supposed to be a political player; it’s supposed to be an advocate for the Truth and a champion for the down-trodden.”
As for me, I didn’t say that it should be a political player. Only that if it takes part in politics it shouldn’t be shocked when its political opponents give it the cold shoulder.
“Related is the thinking that goes “Tut, tut, tut, the Church should have expected to be marginalized by the White House, since it didn’t go along with the White House on a different issue earlier.” . . . I don’t think the Church has to meekly abide by the decision without speaking up and denouncing the injustice.”
Again as for me, I didn’t mean to say the Church should not speak up when it is given the political cold shoulder.
I guess my comments were influenced by a book I’ve been reading, about how the papacy reacted to various political events during the 19th century. In a nutshell, it was given the cold shoulder by various republican governments, because it had aligned itself with monarchist factions. I’m not saying it should not have so aligned itself (necessarily), only that when you get involved in politics you should expect to pay a price. Whether the particular price paid is just or unjust is another issue.
In being a voice for a moral and social vision, the Church really can’t help but be a political player. If it says, for example, that abortion should be illegal, that statement has political implications. Saying it brings one into the game of thrones.
Sure, the Church can’t help being a player in the world of politics. But my point is that it shouldn’t act and have motivations and have certain political goals just like any other political player. Generally every other political player acts in order to increase its influence, is motivated to increase its influence — which means that it makes political calculations with that goal in mind, and so will subordinate its principles in order to further its political goals. The Church shouldn’t have political goals of gaining and retaining influence — it should have as its goal the proclaiming of the Truth and the salvation of as many people as possible.
That means that many times, the Church must and should act in a way that will be unpopular — thereby not playing by the rules in the game of thrones — which will lead to its marginalization or loss of influence. It shouldn’t always play, and at times must reject, the game of thrones.
In other words, the Church’s goal and mission is not an earthly one, but a spiritual one — which means that sometimes it must reject the earthly rules of the game of thrones, and act in a way that is foolish when considered by the eyes of the world. Thomas More is the obvious example. From the eyes of the world, it was foolish of him to throw away his life, his position, and his ability to influence the king from the No.2 spot; think of how much good More could have done for years and years in his high influential position — he would have had a chance to have a positive influence on the king and temper him and give the king good advice — but he threw it all away and got his head chopped off for nothing!
The article I posted in the HHS comment thread as an example of summer 2011 de-funding of Catholic groups (that I heard little uproar over) includes this quote:
“The official said that given the current political climate, only a strong response from religious groups like the U.S. bishops’ conference could prevent another round of even deeper cuts in next year’s budget.”
(The official mentioned is a White House official.)
I’d say the USCCB are doing just that. To their credit – they are playing their angle very well in the media.
Source (I know, NCR is considered “liberal” and I know that is a big deal to some of my fellow Catholics but it was simply the first article I could locate referring to these specific cuts and appears fairly reported). http://ncronline.org/news/catholic-volunteers-lose-americorps-funding
FWIW, the USCCB and various Catholic writers (I believe I read about it at Catholic Moral Theology and also here, as well as getting stuff from Commonweal via email) did make a fairly big deal about these when the cuts were passed.
Part of the reason for the difference in the type of coverage is probably that in that case programs were simply being cut. In this case, the program which the USCCB has administered in the past is being maintained, it’s just that their particular program is being shut down and the funding being given to another organization in order to provide the same services — despite the fact that the USCCB grant proposal scored higher. I think many people see that as having a level of unfairness higher than simply “sorry, all these programs are getting cut”. Collateral damage versus a deliberate attack, if you will.
The grant was not renewed based on a rewriting of the grant guidelines. Those guidelines spelled out a strong preference for “full legal” ob/gyn care which we know is not in the line with the Church’s teachings. At that point they should have withdrawn their application in disagreement over the new guidelines. I would have done that exact thing if I thought my program would be accepting monies tied to a viewpoint I found morally wrong.
Instead, they moved ahead and used it as a chance to fight the conscious clause battle (around referral not provision of) when denied the contract and they lost. Or maybe not, as I said, they are using the media well in making their case.
As far as the grant grading – I thought that information was leaked by unnamed staffers … so we do no really know what proposal/application was scored as what.
I have to agree with the Church’s teachings and I actually do defend their right to serve sex trafficking victims without mentioning abortion or contraception (or NFP for the purpose prevention of pregnancy and all other reproductive-related teachings), but they then should not rely heavily on federal money to fund such outreach as it leaves them open to the whims/leanings/machinations of secular government. Ugh, an ugly sentence but time is short, my apologies.
The USCCB and all of should remember this is a bigger fight thean the polices of the Obama administration.
Mr. Obama and friends came to power with an agenda, which they hold with a religious conviction. We will not change anything they do. Even if we win a small victory they will see it as one step back to set up two steps forward.
But there many people in this country who do not buy into that agenda, though they may not be sure what the correct alternative is. The goal is to convince them (even if we can’t actually convert then) that the correct way to run the country is a in a manner that is consistent the Catholic view point. So that when there is change in administration (from what ever party) it will not be supporting that agenda
The actions of the USCCB and other institutions should be aimed at convincing the undecided and reinforcing like minded people of the wrongness and unworkability of the Administrations agenda.
Unfortunately, I think the USCCB and others sees this as a squabble over details. It isn’t. Despite using the similar vocabulary (in very different ways) and to a certain extent similar goals : this is a clash between mutually exclusive religions that do not have enough common ground for any sort of ecumenical approach. They see any serious criticism of their policies is a threat, and we can expect a response appropriate to a threat.
Our biggest problem is ourselves. Most of the issues resolve around basic incompatibility — the Curch teaches that those in office have a grave duty to protect those in its care, they tend to see policies that harm (like abortion) that harm those in its care as matters of expediency in support of a “common good”. But may of our own bishops, perhaps more do to myopia, than intent failed to protect children in their care.
We need to
1) Get our own house in order.
2) Remember we need to convince those open to discussion.
3) Speak out.
4) Take what action we can to oppose.
The other choices are “death” or being co-opted.
Hank’s Eclectic Meanderings
Thales writes, “That means that many times, the Church must and should act in a way that will be unpopular — thereby not playing by the rules in the game of thrones — which will lead to its marginalization or loss of influence. It shouldn’t always play, and at times must reject, the game of thrones.”
Agreed.
What people fail to realize is that the Catholic Church has no power, except on the individual, and only if said individual is receptive. So, if you don’t want to listen to what the Catholic Church has to say, don’t. But don’t, on the other hand, think that silencing them does any good. Just like we ‘can’t’ silence the Occupy crowd, or political candidates, as long as the Catholic Church stays out of endorsing/supporting individual candidates, which it does, there’s nothing you can do to silence it.
Catholic influence has historically been behind the scenes or underground and counter-cultural. She can propose to the membership that they do something, but they really have no power, especially in America, to effect anything that the people don’t want to happen.