On November 16 in the Rehm Library, Holy Cross hosted an event called “What has American Politics done to the Catholic Church?” During the event, President Vincent Rougeau led a conversation with Ross Douthat, a conservative writer for the New York Times, and Matthew Sitman, a liberal editor of Commonweal Magazine. The conversation was advertised to touch on “the entanglements of politics and religion, advantages and drawbacks, and whether and how to decouple them.” It attracted many students and professors, nearly filling the library.
After a brief introduction, each guest shared some opening comments and thoughts on the relationship between American politics and the Catholic Church. In these opening comments, Douthat and Sitman shared their best, most organized and fleshed-out points. Sitman spoke first. His main point was that United States politics is unmerciful, and this lack of mercy has made the Catholic Church's presence in the United States similarly unmerciful. He opined that there is an American inability to fully understand Pope Francis' message of mercy. He also said that neither party can fully capture the Catholic belief system. He then included some general remarks about politics, saying that someone's politics are indicative of their worldview, and what they think is "fundamentally at work behind the vale of tears." He also suggested that beyond politics, we share a common humanity that has become evident throughout the pandemic — we are united in our shared human fragility. To conclude, he stated that he wanted to share a "message of mercy."
Some of these points felt tangential, failing to point out specific, identifiable connections between American politics and the Catholic Church. However, Sitman's remarks were very interesting on a philosophical level, suggesting a shift in focus away from rigid party divisions and towards a more general focus on mercy. Amidst severe polarization, I received this message of mercy as an invitation to deal more kindly and respectfully with those of differing political views.
Douthat then followed with his opening remarks. He began by amusing the audience with an anecdote about his first visit to Holy Cross—he was 20 years-old, drank too much, and went sledding, an experience he hoped to relive (at least partly) during his current visit to Holy Cross. He then shifted to a more serious discussion. He respectfully challenged Sitman's comment that neither party fully encompasses Catholic teaching. He called the implications of this idea a "laundry-list" way of looking at Catholicism and politics: a cliché in which the Democrats have Catholic healthcare policies while the Republicans have Catholic abortion policies. He then discussed how Catholicism is a "strong religious culture that divided against itself in the 1960s with the culture war." He explained that this "culture war" raised questions about women, sex, and the liturgy, questions that caused divisive debate within the Church. Catholics began to identify themselves more by their identities within this debate, rather than being identified as Catholics first—some were Pope John Paul II Catholics, others were Georgetown Catholics, and so on. Douthat opined that the Catholics were fighting over very important issues but in such a way that they began to lack a primary identity. He connected this idea of a divided identity among Catholics to the present day; now, people are defining themselves as Republican or Democrat first and Catholic second. He stated that the intense political culture in the United States has made it so that politics is stealing the attention and intensity that Americans should be putting into the life of the Church. He emphasized this idea with an image of the political parties as strong poles that pull people away from a weak center, the Catholic Church. He argued that the United States needs a strong Catholic center so that Catholics will be drawn together by the religion that unites them, rather than pulled apart by the politics that divide them.
After hearing them both speak, it was evident that they had very different styles of speech and thought. While Sitman spoke with an inquisitorial tone as he focused on philosophy and humanity, Douthat spoke more as a political expert, focusing on the history of the United States and the Catholic Church as well as the Church's standing in the United States' current political climate.
After these opening remarks, President Rougeau entered the conversation. His first leading question had to do with the American Church as an outlier in the global church, asking whether American Catholics should think of themselves as outliers rather than models. Behind this question was the suggestion that the American Church is particularly flawed, and that Americans should resist nationalism by belittling their country on the global stage. Sitman agreed that the American Catholic Church should not be a model for anyone. He then raised the questions, “What could withstand polarization? Can anything withstand these trends in American life?” Douthat followed Sitman by posing a question of his own, “What is normative Catholicism?” He looked to Europe, where he claims Catholicism is "exhausted" and that the American Church is healthier. He then looked to the rapid Protestantization of Latin America and the conflicts in sub-Saharan Africa. He concluded by saying that "normative Catholicism" does not exist; therefore, the United States cannot be considered an outlier.
President Rougeau then asked about the role of immigrant churches in the United States, stating that Americans marginalize immigrants while they should be learning from their devoutness. Douthat and Sitman each assented, recalling stories of their experiences with thriving immigrant churches. President Rougeau dwelled on the subject, trying to steer the conversation toward immigration on more than one occasion. While it is an interesting subject to discuss, neither Douthat nor Sitman had anything particularly interesting to say about it each time it was brought up. The repetition of the question came across as an effort by the president to direct the conversation in the way he wanted it to go rather than allowing it to flow naturally. The guests were evidently knowledgeable and ready to speak on various other topics, and the conversation felt somewhat stunted when President Rougeau pressed this issue.
President Rougeau then inquired about their thoughts on the Catholic Church's future in America asking, “Is it doomed?” Sitman gave hope, likening the weakened church to Christ whose "power was made perfect in weakness." However, Douthat challenged him, stating that Americans cannot pretend that the Church has no power— it retains much power and importance, but not so much power that it can still exercise the same authority that it did throughout history.
Then, the conversation shifted. President Rougeau asked, “Since the Church is still connected to power, is it not setting a bad example for the people in the pews that bishops do not take a stand? For example, why did the bishops say nothing when the Capitol was stormed on January 6?” Sitman laughed and remarked that the conversation was edging close to controversial territory. Given their respective political parties, Douthat and Sitman have different views on what happened on January 6. Douthat assented that the event was bad, but he holds that it was an act perpetrated by a group of immature rabble-rousers rather than what Sitman and President Rougeau think it was: a serious act of insurgency. President Rougeau then recalled how in the past, bishops in the South denounced segregation, and he suggested that bishops’ reactions to January 6 should be similar. Douthat pushed back, saying that the denouncement of segregation had a legal basis while speaking out about January 6 would make the Church seem partisan.
What was disappointing about the route this conversation took was that the leader of the conversation made his politics known. There are many questionable, anti-Catholic events and policies that could have been used as an example in American politics; therefore, it was unfortunate that only one event was cited, reflecting badly on only one political party. Douthat was there to represent the Catholic Republicans, and Sitman was there to represent the Catholic Democrats. That means that both parties were already sufficiently spoken for, and President Rougeau sharing his politics made the conversation unbalanced, having now two liberal voices outweighing the one conservative voice. As I imagined it, a third person, especially one in a leadership role, should rise above partisanship and act as an encourager of conversation, posing questions that would promote mutual respect between the parties but also lead interesting conversation and debate.
Despite this show of partisanship, I walked away from this event encouraged by Douthat and Sitman's ability to disagree and still have such a good rapport with one another. Sitman began by saying that Douthat is his "favorite enemy," and both chuckled when a point of contention came up. They hardly debated at all, in fact. It seems like they tried to stay away from going in depth concerning the points on which they disagreed, January 6 being an example. They only briefly described their disagreements instead of getting into a heated debate. Since they did not get distracted by debating topics on which they know they disagree, they had the time to each talk separately and, in the end, found many points on which they agreed. They were building on each other's points rather than tearing each other's arguments apart. Their relationship was very refreshing to see. They accepted their differences in thinking. Neither Douthat nor Sitman ever tried to persuade the other into thinking differently, nor did they treat each other dismissively or condescendingly because of their disagreements. I enjoyed watching them talk, and I hope we can act similarly on our own campus—accepting each other's different views but still being able to have good relationships with one another. One of the best messages I took away from this event was that we should identify ourselves as Catholics first and as politically partisan second. In this new form of self-identification, I suspect we as a student body will find that beyond our differences, we have something more important that we share.