Is there anything sexier in American politics than having the Church “come after you?” Hard to think what it would be. Everybody loves a rebel, but it’s just so darned hard to be one these days in America, where authority has been so thoroughly denigrated that there’s just not much left to flaunt. This is where liberal Catholic politicians have a real edge. They actually have somebody to answer to when they say heretical things. And not just any old somebody… the Catholic Church, the most favorite bad guy of all time! Just think how jealous those liberal Protestants must be! Most of them probably dreamed, early in their political careers, of taking on the evil conservative establishment in the name of goodness and rightness. But they’d practically have to start sacrificing children before their flabby denominations would say anything about it (oh, wait…), whereas the Catholics can be rebels merely by voicing completely standard liberal views on civilized talk shows. Some people have all the luck.

Everybody knows the basics of the Nancy Pelosi saga by now. I’ve actually quite enjoyed it; Pelosi’s remarks, while obviously offensive, are pretty standard fare from liberals (though admittedly a bit more outrageous than usual in virtue of her having emphasized so clearly that she was speaking as a Catholic.) But the reaction from the Bishops was fantastic! When did we last see such a swift and forceful response from them on an important issue like this? Would we have seen anything like this twenty, or even ten, years ago? I doubt it. Things are getting better for the Church in America.

They’re getting better, but we still have plenty of high-profile heretics making their merry way in society. Why does it seem that the most visible American Catholics are usually of the heretical kind? For a little perspective on that, look at this quote from Tom Brokaw from Sunday’s Meet the Press interview with Tim Pawlenty. Pawlenty was making the point that, for all the abuse that Republicans get for screening out pro-abortion people from the party ranks, you’d think the Democrats would get more pressure to open the doors to pro-life people. And it doesn’t seem to happen. Brokaw responded with this:

“In the governors race — as a matter of fact, Nancy Pelosi and I talked about this just last week, and she got in a lot of trouble with the Catholic Church because she refused to say when life begins, and when I asked her about it, she then had her own explanation based on what she thought was Church doctrine, and the Church came after her. So we have to put that on the table, I just want to get that on the record if I can.”

Uh… why, Tom? If Pelosi makes asinine statements on public television and draws censure from the religious authorities to whom she is personally answerable, what relevance does that have to the Republican party? The Church never claimed to be a democracy and she isn’t answerable to the GOP. Fr. Z gave his own take a few days ago on the significance of this quote and why it was so anti-Catholic. I never watch Meet the Press, and I’m not that familiar with Brokaw, but I’d guess that the insult to the Church was mostly a fringe benefit. He was trying to make Pelosi (who was, after all, his guest on the show the previous week) look cool. The Church is after her! What strength and leadership that woman must have! If there were any liberal Catholics or Catholic-hating liberals who didn’t already idolize Nancy Pelosi, this episode may have won them over.

In the same way that we love Jesuit martyrs or Christian crusaders, liberals love rebels against authority. These are their heroes, the perverted liberal equivalent of saints. And really, I think this explains a lot. It explains, for example, why ultra-liberal parishes insist that they still want to be Catholic even though they dislike pretty much everything that’s distinctive or good about Catholicism. In my region of the country, for example, we have the infamous St. Joan of Arc parish, whose website (until recently) openly advertised how supportive they are of homosexual adoption, and whose “family Masses” have been known to integrate such delightful features as parades and dancing. In the past they’ve had to be reprimanded for, among other things, changing the baptismal formula. Their heyday is clearly past by now; more and more nowadays they are at loggerheads with the Bishop and other Church authorities and they appear to see themselves as a community under siege. Witnessing this dynamic, people like me scratch our heads and wonder: why do they want to be Catholic at all? They evidently don’t value either authority or tradition, so why not just become liberal Protestants? Then they could dance, and preach heresies, and host gay pride parades, and nobody would give them any trouble. What do they want from Rome anyway?

I think the real answer is: an antagonist. Like teenagers craving attention, they want somebody to be shocked and upset by their antics. Sure they could join the million other Protestant churches with goofy liturgical practices, but it’s only really fun if it makes somebody mad, and the “bigger” the authority, the more fun it is to act out. Rome is pretty big.

What can be done for these people? When children are being bullied by attention-seekers, they’re sometimes told to “ignore it and they’ll go away,” but in a case like this, when so many souls are being led astray, that doesn’t seem like a viable option. The other way to deal with a troublesome teenager is to be clear and firm, and that is what’s called for in this case. The Church needs to make it clear, not only to politicians and academics and the like, but to everybody, that they cannot be Catholics in good standing if they oppose the teachings of the Magisterium. If you support legalized abortion (and “support” need not go so far as actually performing one — deliberately voting for pro-abortion candidates would count too), you are not in good standing with the Church, and for your own sake you shouldn’t be receiving Communion. The truth is, there are lots of people who should not be coming forward at Mass, most of whom have probably never thought about it before. The “for your own sake” part needs to be emphasized more often as well. Exclusion from Communion isn’t the Church’s way of retaliating against people, and it isn’t a petty political ploy. It is a compassionate act, designed to prevent them from “eating and drinking condemnation unto themselves”, with an eye also to preventing them from giving scandal to others.

If we could get that message out in a very general way, the sexiness of having the Church “after” you might diminish. I’d say the Bishops are making a good start.