ShareThis Page
Showdown? Conor Lamb v. Bishop David Zubik |
Featured Commentary

Showdown? Conor Lamb v. Bishop David Zubik

Conor Lamb’s remarkable congressional victory will continue to be a national story and political lightning rod. It will do so in a way pundits have thus far missed.

Lamb ran as a moderate in a district unlikely to elect a Democrat. But Lamb is no moderate in his position on abortion. He’s ardently pro-choice. He’s also a practicing Roman Catholic. And it’s here that the Lamb story could again flare up on the national stage.

Lamb attended Central Catholic High School, just down the block from St. Paul’s Cathedral, seat of the Diocese of Pittsburgh.

Lamb actually dismisses the “pro-life” label, in a most curious way: “I just want to say, I don’t use the term ‘pro-life’ to describe what I personally believe, because that’s a political term. It’s not one that you learn in Catholic school or anywhere else in the Church.”

Really? John Paul II, who was pope while Lamb was at Central Catholic, famously coined the term “Culture of Life,” used repeatedly by Pope Benedict XVI and Pope Francis.

Did Lamb not hear this at Central Catholic? That’s quite an indictment of his alma mater.

But Lamb isn’t merely “pro-choice.” He opposed the recent bill banning partial-birth abortion. “I’d have voted against it,” he said of the bill to restrict abortions after 20 weeks, the point at which science affirms that fetuses feel pain.

Well, it was that exact position taken by “pro-choice” Catholic Sen. Dick Durbin that led Durbin’s bishop, Thomas Paprocki, to instruct Durbin to not present himself for communion in his diocese. Paprocki said Durbin is “cooperating in evil,” persisting in “manifest grave sin,” and must “not be admitted to Holy Communion until he repents.”

This will no doubt apply to Lamb and his bishop, David Zubik.

I fully expect Zubik to follow Paprocki. Zubik is one of America’s most faithful pro-life bishops. He was a national leader in battling the unprecedented religious violation that was the Obama Health and Human Services mandate, an executive decree requiring groups as disparate as Hobby Lobby and the Little Sisters of the Poor to forcibly fund abortion drugs.

The Pittsburgh diocese was among the first of 42 Catholic plaintiffs filing 12 federal lawsuits against the Obama administration. As Zubik memorably framed the HHS mandate, the Obama administration effectively told Catholics “to hell with you.”

“At no other time in memory or history has there been such a governmental intrusion on freedom,” stated Zubik. “The mandate would require the Catholic Church as an employer to violate its fundamental beliefs concerning human life and human dignity … . It is really hard to believe that it happened.”

The case went all the way to the Supreme Court. It’s known as “the Zubik Case,” or, formally, Zubik v. Burwell.

Thus, this sets up a potential showdown — Zubik v. Lamb.

The next Congress faces some major abortion legislation, including Planned Parenthood funding. Lamb surely intends to toe the party line and thus blatantly contravene his church on vital matters of the sanctity and dignity of human life.

Lamb and Zubik could be set for a showdown. Lamb may leave his faithful bishop no other choice.

Paul Kengor is professor of political science and executive director of The Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College. His books include “A Pope and a President: John Paul II, Ronald Reagan and the Extraordinary Untold Story of the 20th Century.”

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.