New House Chaplain

Throughout the years, the United States Senate has honored the historic separation of Church and State, but not the separation of God and State. The first Senate, meeting in New York City on April 25, 1789, elected the Right Reverend Samuel Provost, the Episcopal Bishop of New York, as its first Chaplain. During the past two hundred and seven years, all sessions of the Senate have been opened with prayer, strongly affirming the Senate's faith in God as Sovereign Lord of our Nation. The role of the Chaplain as spiritual advisor and counselor has expanded over the years from a part-time position to a full-time job as one of the Officers of the Senate. The Office of the Chaplain is nonpartisan, nonpolitical, and nonsectarian.

U.S. Senate Chaplain's Office

Hmm. "Nonsectarian" you say? The official website continues:

Chaplain Black’s days are filled with meeting Senators about spiritual and moral issues, assisting Senators’ staffs with research on theological and biblical questions, teaching Senate Bible study groups, encouraging such groups as the weekly Senate Prayer Breakfast, and facilitating discussion and reflection small groups among Senators and staff.

Ah yes. The "nonsectarian" Bible study. Reading ten verses from the Bible didn't work as "nonsectarian" accepted practice when public school children were involved. All the same, the Supreme Court accepted legislative chaplains, three justices dissenting in that case involving state legislatures. Madison was concerned, though as a legislator he joined in.

The appointment of legislative chaplains, as with any other officer, was not always without controversy. The latest one somewhat included, though Father Patrick Conroy himself does not seem to be the problem. A group with whom is associated with got entwined in the Roman Catholic abuse troubles. Nancy Pelosi eventually noted that she was satisfied with his appointment.

Overall, such small enmeshments of church and state are basically acceptable (at least, basically de minimis), but not free from controversy. Do we really want members of the clergy in offices like this, one where they have to swear loyalty to the Constitution like any other office of Congress? That is, if a person is to be tasked to concern him or herself (no women yet appointed) with the spiritual well being of members of Congress, I think it best if s/he is independent. Having one "official" person here is also questionable, since there are various faiths. This putting aside the issue of starting governmental affairs with religious prayers, prayers that are inherently sectarian.

If members of Congress wish to have prayer breakfasts or to choose to have someone to be a spiritual counselor, be my guest. And, they can invite people in to give an opening prayer or any such remarks, some humanist doing it now and again, perhaps. It's an important matter to many. But, do not have them pick one person, sworn in, and paid by my tax dollars. They are not isolated prisoners or members of the military. There are quite enough local clergy to do the job, if they wish.

I'm not losing any sleep over it, but so I think.