Finally, bishops with a sense of mission:
Breaking with some colleagues, two Arizona bishops say they won’t deny Communion to Roman Catholic politicians who support abortion rights.
Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted of Phoenix said that instead of refusing to offer Communion, he will attempt to use persuasion to educate politicians about church teachings.
“My job is to get to know the key people in the state and appeal to their consciences,” he said.
I never have been comfortable with the Vatican resorting to blackmail in its battle to influence Catholic politicians. And then, of course, there’s this shameful nonsense:
Several conservative bishops, including Archbishop Raymond Burke of St. Louis and Bishop Michael Sheridan of Colorado Springs, Colo., said in a letter earlier this week said any Catholic who votes for a politician who backs abortion rights cannot receive Communion.
So the Church is entitled to know what each member does in the voting booth? And Catholics are now responsible for the actions of their elected officials? What if the alternative is worse? Are they not supposed to vote at all? Sounds to me like someone’s trying to discourage folks from taking communion to hide the fact that they’ve guzzled all the wine already.
Blackmail Eddie, I believe it is the other way around democratic politicians seeking to silence the bishops on the concept of the dignity of human life.
i’m so glad to know this is happening. Even my conservative sister is completely upset with the church, and she is a real middle america bellwether catholic who is personally not pro-choice. It is especially heartening to hear her speak up about the hypocritical nature of the church to single out abortion when these same bishops don’t combine it with capital punishment and the war in Iraq, both of which the Catholic church disagree with. And yes, she is for all three and still thinks it’s a matter of conscience for her fellow Catholics in the voting booth.
yeah, sure, timmy. how’s the pope’s denunciation of the Iraq war and the death penalty working out forya?
and on the subject of ‘dignity’, where is the dignity of the abused children by Catholic priests when the Bishops of America did everything to protect the molesters and virtually ensure they were transferred to new parishes and could keep up their heinous acts? but i forget, that is yesterdays news. I hardly need lessons in dignity and sanctity from that crowd. they talk one talk and walk another. And they have no business telling me who i can vote for indirectly by refusing to give the Eucharist to a politician, and only Catholic Democrats at that, not Tom Ridge or Gov. Arnold who are pro-choice Republicans. Shame on them. If they do not desist, this Catholic will join the demand for the Catholic Church to lose its tax status.
I’ve been wondering lately if these statements by the bishops have any legal weight, WRT canon law. Can a bishop excommunicate someone, or does that power lie with the pope? Do any Obsidiacs out there know the answer?
“…democratic politicians seeking to silence the bishops on the concept of the dignity of human life.”
I’ve not heard about this. Could you elaborate on the mechanism they’re using to accomplish this, Timmy? It sounds most alarming.
Isn’t it astounding that in the 40 or so years since JFK we’ve gone from the conservatives claiming that if JFK is elected the Pope will run the country to Kerry isn’t a real Catholic and should be excommunicated?
Speaking as a former Catholic the church is a joke lately. I was a firm Catholic from Chicago when Cardinal Bernardin was running the show, he was a truly great man, but today the Church is a joke, run by politicians and frauds.
All I have to say to these joker Bishops is read the first amendment. And shut up. To Mo, I don’t care if the Vatican says they have power, the constitution says the do not.
“I’ve been wondering lately if these statements by the bishops have any legal weight, WRT canon law. Can a bishop excommunicate someone, or does that power lie with the pope? Do any Obsidiacs out there know the answer?”
I’m not clear what the question is. What does excommunication have to do with this?
The issue here is not the private beliefs of the politicians. The issues are their public statements and their voting record. John Paul II has spoken out very clearly on this subject and the bishops are merely following his lead.
I don’t think this story is particularly important politically nor do I think it helps Bush on net. But it is important to the Catholic Church. This is a turf battle. It’s the bishops’ specific responsibility to speak up on what the teachings of the Church actually are. And that’s what they are doing.
If they do not desist, this Catholic will join the demand for the Catholic Church to lose its tax status.
I think this is pretty unlikely. Lots of churches in this country have been telling their communicants how to vote for years. Probably more Democratic than Republican.
Can a bishop excommunicate someone, or does that power lie with the pope? Do any Obsidiacs out there know the answer?
First of all and strangely enough refusing the Eucharist to someone is not excommunication and excommunication has not been mentioned so far. Second, bishops can excommunicate.
To Mo, I don’t care if the Vatican says they have power, the constitution says the do not.
The constitution is mute on this subject. Here’s what would appear to be the relevant clauses i.e. the First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
It’s pretty clear that a sect has the right to determine what its adherents must believe. But, of course, no one has to remain an adherent.
and on the subject of ‘dignity’, where is the dignity of the abused children by Catholic priests when the Bishops of America did everything to protect the molesters and virtually ensure they were transferred to new parishes and could keep up their heinous acts? but i forget, that is yesterdays news. I hardly need lessons in dignity and sanctity from that crowd. they talk one talk and walk another.
This sounds to me like Albigensianism and it’s heretical.
Dave, you are getting back the JFK argument.
It’s pretty clear that a sect has the right to determine what its adherents must believe. But, of course, no one has to remain an adherent.
To me, this means that a person has to choose their higher loyalty, to their Church or to their Country. It’s true that no one has to remain adherent, but the Catholic Church is demanding they do. So where does a voters loyalty lie? That is the question
It’s true that no one has to remain adherent, but the Catholic Church is demanding they do
No, that’s not it at all. The bishops are saying—as is their responsibility—this is what it means to be a Catholic. Senators—even Catholic Senators—don’t define Catholicism. And Catholicism is no democracy.
No, that’s not it at all. The bishops are saying—as is their responsibility—this is what it means to be a Catholic. Senators—even Catholic Senators—don’t define Catholicism. And Catholicism is no democracy.
Thank you Dave, for restating the reasons why I am no longer a Catholic. To me a religion where you are ordered to believe in certain things is not compatible with Democracy. I’m not normally a Catholic basher, but Catholic Bishops don’t normally demand loyalty. Like I stated in my original post, I was a Catholic in the days of Bernardin, when tolerance was the order of the day. No more.
“Lots of churches in this country have been telling their communicants how to vote for years.”
This is actually not true. Churches tend to be extremely careful to keep direct politics, as in telling people how to vote, out of their direct activities. Because if they do, they violate their 501(c)* (I forget the last number) status, which to say, their tax-free status. It’s against the law.
What is traditionally done is to make entirely clear how you should vote by talking about the issue; the person need not be named. That’s acceptable and legal.
“Lots of churches in this country have been telling their communicants how to vote for years.”
This is actually not true. Churches tend to be extremely careful to keep direct politics, as in telling people how to vote, out of their direct activities. Because if they do, they violate their 501(c)* (I forget the last number) status, which to say, their tax-free status. It’s against the law.
What is traditionally done is to make entirely clear how you should vote by talking about the issue; the person need not be named. That’s acceptable and legal.
“Lots of churches in this country have been telling their communicants how to vote for years.”
This is actually not true. Churches tend to be extremely careful to keep direct politics, as in telling people how to vote, out of their direct activities. Because if they do, they violate their 501(c)* (I forget the last number) status, which to say, their tax-free status. It’s against the law.
What is traditionally done is to make entirely clear how you should vote by talking about the issue; the person need not be named. That’s acceptable and legal.
Sigh. I’ve been having tremendous trouble getting through to OW today, on top of my complete lack of connectivity during much of the past day, and highly limited connectivity the rest of the time.
Apologies for multiple posts.
Sigh. I’ve been having tremendous trouble getting through to OW today, on top of my complete lack of connectivity during much of the past day, and highly limited connectivity the rest of the time.
Apologies for multiple posts.
yeah, sure, timmy. how’s the pope’s denunciation of the Iraq war and the death penalty working out forya?
Fine with me praktike, as neither has anything to do with the teachings of the Holy Roman Catholic Church. Surprised?
BTW it was the Curia who spoke out against the Iraq war.
Umm, niucons, the Catholic Church is not a democracy. Catholic bishops can, and do, tell us catlicks what to do.
And, I respond with: Thank you Sir! May I have another?!
Fine with me praktike, as neither has anything to do with the teachings of the Holy Roman Catholic Church. Surprised?
Very startled. Opposing unjust wars and opposing the death penalty has been at least as much part of the teaching of the Holy Roman Catholic Church as the abortion thing for a long, long time.
Beyond this, I’m genuinely startled at your attitude, Timmy. For Catholic bishops to claim that they have the right to blackmail their flock into voting their way is both anti-Catholic and unAmerican. Are you seriously defending this behavior, or just trolling? Your characteristic one-line posts make it impossible to tell.
As long as all the pro-choice Catholics — or pro-choice voting Catholics, to use the broader language — are treated equally, I’ve no legal problem with the Catholic Church declaring “this is what it means to be a Catholic”. [Although I’m a little skeptical of this broad a mandate emerging from the bishops instead of the Pope, I understand the Catholic tradition is somewhat flexible in that regard.] If a particular person is singled out, however… that’s an entirely different question altogether.
Actually, Anarch, the aspect which I would think would disturb most Catholics most is using denial of Communion as a political weapon. The few Catholics with whom I have discussed religion all regard Communion as a very serious event, very central to their religion, and the idea that someone should be denied it because they vote differently from the way their bishops tell them to is utterly anti-Catholic. (If they vote the way their bishops tell them to for fear of being denied Communion, that kind of political/religious blackmail is unAmerican.)
To me a religion where you are ordered to believe in certain things is not compatible with Democracy.
Well, that describes all of them — or at least the Christian denominations — more or less. When you are confirmed or baptised into a religious denomination, you stand before an officiant of that church (and presumably before your deity) and state that you believe and don’t believe certain things. If you don’t believe them, why go through the trouble? Especially if you believe your deity is watching you do it?
The Catholic catechism says, “Abortion is incompatible with being Catholic.” If you don’t believe it, why continue to be a Catholic, you know? Why stand there in public and say, essentially, “I’m Catholic, but I don’t believe in my church’s tenets, and my bishop can get stuffed?” Unless you really don’t belong to the church for religious or spiritual purposes, and just consider it a sort of organizing social mechanism.
Opposing unjust wars and opposing the death penalty has been at least as much part of the teaching of the Holy Roman Catholic Church as the abortion thing for a long, long time.
There’s a difference between “being something the Church regularly talks about” and “being part of the catechism and canon law.” A not-even-a-little-bit-insignificant difference. It’s as significant as the difference between the Pope simply speaking, and speaking ex cathedra on a question of the faith — the difference that most people ignore or don’t know about when they say, “The Pope claims to be infallible.”
A Catholic who votes for an openly pro-choice candidate, aware that his vote, in however small a way, assists the maintainence and advancement of the abortion regime, is thereby implicated in a mortal sin; he or she must repent and receive the Sacrament of Penance before receiving Communion.
This is no innovation, though the negligence of the bishops in nurturing the souls of their flocks, which has persisted for decades, makes it appear an innovation.
Neither the prudential judgment against capital punishment nor the prudential judgment against war in Iraq is comparable; these judgments do not bind the consciences of Catholics.
It is true that the Church merely restating its doctrines raises the whole huge question of loyalty; it is also true that many, many Catholics will be offended and even traumatized by this; but it is most supremely true that a robust leadership will reveal the Church’s enemies, both without and within her.
A Catholic who votes for an openly pro-choice candidate, aware that his vote, in however small a way, assists the maintainence and advancement of the abortion regime, is thereby implicated in a mortal sin; he or she must repent and receive the Sacrament of Penance before receiving Communion.
That presumes, Paul, that a Catholic who votes for an openly pro-choice candidate is doing so in order to increase or maintain the number of abortions carried out in the US*. Which requires mindreading. Which is something that even Catholic bishops, as I understand it, aren’t supposed to practice.
*I’m translating thus your phrase “the maintainence and advancement of the abortion regime” since, while I grant you it’s a resounding phrase, it’s also meaningless in itself.
I don’t think so. Even secular law recognizes homicide without the element of intent, namely, manslaughter*. One does not have to intend for an evil to occur to be implicated in it (although I will concede that it is a lesser offense, so to speak.)
The point is not to accost every Catholic at the doors of the church with imperative questions about abortion (and stem cell research, euthanasia and sex-same marriage), but to make Catholics think very seriously about the teachings of their faith before partaking of its central ritual and sacrament.
Look at it from the Catholic perspective: if endorsing abortion perils a man’s immortal soul, than a bishop, being responsible for the immortal souls of his flock, must teach this doctrine without apology, including illustrating in dramatic ways the consequences of it.
________
* I do not mean to open up the issue of abortion to broader debate here. In the context of this blog-entry, we are assuming, arguendo, the Catholic view of abortion; which, of course, most of the contributors here do not endorse. I am well aware of that.
opposing the death penalty has been at least as much part of the teaching of the Holy Roman Catholic Church as the abortion thing for a long, long time.
A cite Jes would be helpful on the death penalty. And yes,the Pope is opposed to death penalty but he has not changed the church’s teachings on it.
On abortion, well that teaching goes back to the comments of St. Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century. I don’t know when the Church incorporated it into its teachings.
On the Curia’s comments on the Iraqi conflict, I believe they opposed the war, as compared to calling it an unjust war. There is a difference.
Dave, bishops can excommunicate lay people, I believe religious (priests, nuns and brothers) are passed up to the Curia.
I didn’t Cella’s comments which are far moer eloguent than mine as well as being correct.
I do not mean to open up the issue of abortion to broader debate here. In the context of this blog-entry, we are assuming, arguendo, the Catholic view of abortion; which, of course, most of the contributors here do not endorse. I am well aware of that.
Absolutely, on both counts.
My point is simply that one can be a faithful Catholic, in particular holding to the Catholic view on abortion, and yet see a different path to preventing abortions from the simple “Make all abortions illegal again”. Since making abortions illegal doesn’t prevent abortions taking place, simply making it more likely that women will die in the course of an abortion or lose their fertility, it seems to me (and, I may say, to Catholics with whom I have discussed this) that a Catholic can in good conscience choose to vote for a pro-choice candidate, while still holding firmly to the Church view of abortion. I can see a Catholic in good conscience voting for Kerry in the morning in order to prevent women from dying in illegal abortions, then going down to the local women’s clinic in the afternoon and praying for the women who go in that they should change their minds.
In particular, a conscientious Catholic might look at the likelihood (and the fact) that Bush’s policies tend to increase poverty and are therefore likely to increase the number of abortions carried out – and therefore vote against Bush. Equally, a conscientious Catholic might decide that it’s more important to pass laws against abortion and that pregnant women who are considering abortion because they cannot afford to have a baby can be helped in other ways. Both would making a decision in accordance with Catholic doctrine and ought to respect that the other has thought seriously about it and decided to vote according to their conscience. It is this lack of respect for the individual conscience that I do not like: I am not (at least in the context of this post!) challenging Catholic doctrine on abortion.
But it is entirely improper for bishops to decide that they know the correct political course for a Catholic to steer, and no deviations can be permitted. If voting is a matter of conscience (and I don’t disagree with that POV: I take voting very seriously) then it’s a matter for individual conscience.
It would be very wrong for a bishop to assume that he knows what the inner voice of each member of his congregation ought to be telling them, and especially if the bishop thinks that the still small voice is saying “Vote Republican!” (or even 😉 “Vote Democrat!”)
Jes, interesting comments and they are similar to denying an abortion to woman in the cases of rape, incest or saving her life.
You did miss one entity in your comments, the life of the child. The question revolves on the dignity of life and who should be afforded that dignity and when. Once you put the dignity of the infant’s life into the equation it becomes a much more difficult equation.
The current arguements about abortion revolve around the issue of privacy and not around circumstance or the dignity of life.
I oppose Roe v Wade not because of privacy or dignity but because of legislation by the bench, the judiciary overstepping its bounds, is an anathema to me.
Abortion is an issue which should be decided by the states in their legislative bodies. The Church has a role in outlining and seeking legislation which supports its moral positions as well as making those positions clear to its members.
Well, we might as well construe your hypotheticals in the context of some other grave sin. Murder, say. One could talk oneself into rationalizing a vote for a pro-murder candidate, on the grounds that the more anti-murder candidate’s “policies tend to increase poverty and are therefore likely to increase the number of [murders committed].”
The individual conscience must submit to Truth. Being tainted by sin, it too is prone to error. As a friend of mine puts it, “Yes, the Church insists that people act on their conscience, but only if it agrees with the Church and is properly formed. Otherwise, the person stands outside the Truth which the Church teaches. Now you can disagree with the Truth as the RCC claims it to be, but that would mean you no longer wish to belong to that Body.”
Paul, I don’t really want to turn this into an argument about which candidate is going to cause the most number of abortions during his 4-year term in office. We doubtless disagree on this, but it’s not the point under discussion.
I’m merely making the point that according to Catholic doctrine, a person’s conscience is between themselves and God. (Forgive me if I’m not expressing this properly.) You’re arguing that it’s not possible for a Catholic in good conscience to vote for a pro-choice candidate: you are, it appears to me, attempting to stand in the place of God to individual consciences.
“Yes, the Church insists that people act on their conscience, but only if it agrees with the Church and is properly formed. Otherwise, the person stands outside the Truth which the Church teaches. Now you can disagree with the Truth as the RCC claims it to be, but that would mean you no longer wish to belong to that Body.”
But this is not an argument for voting for one candidate over another. Unless your friend is claiming that only Bush represents the Truth, which seems improbable.
Here is how Bishop Sheridan of Colorado Springs put it:
The Church never directs citizens to vote for any specific candidate. The Church does, however, have the right and the obligation to teach clearly and fully the objective truth about the dignity and rights of the human person. These teachings, in turn, must inform the consciences of voters. “By its intervention in this area, the Church’s Magisterium does not wish to exercise political power or eliminate the freedom of opinion of Catholics regarding contingent questions. Instead, it intends — as is its proper function – to instruct and illuminate the consciences of the faithful, particularly those involved in political life, so that their actions may always serve the integral promotion of the human person and the common good.”
Paul Cella: …if endorsing abortion perils a man’s immortal soul…
Just to be clear, failure to legally prohibit does not constitute endorsement. John Kerry has even publicly stated that he personally opposes abortion.
Paul – actually, here’s how Bishop Sheridan puts it:
Any Catholics who vote for candidates who stand for abortion, illicit stem cell research or euthanasia suffer the same fateful consequences. It is for this reason that these Catholics, whether candidates for office or those who would vote for them, may not receive Holy Communion until they have recanted their positions and been reconciled with God and the Church in the Sacrament of Penance. cite
In short, he’s claiming he knows how Catholics should vote, and threatening them with denial of Communion if they don’t vote how he directs. Which is both anti-Catholic (claiming that he stands between them and their conscience) and un-American.
A request for information: how do the bishops who are issuing this edict determine which political positions are “dealbreakers” and which are not? Paul alluded above to a distinction between “mortal sins” and “prudential judgments” — do all the positions that Bishop Sheridan mentions in Jesurgislac’s cite represent support for “mortal sins”? Where would I go to find more information on the hierarchy of sins in Catholic tradition?
Also, what does a Catholic voter do if both major-party candidates in a given election are pro-choice? Is s/he morally obligated to vote for a third-party candidate (or not vote at all), or can s/he vote for what s/he perceives as the lesser of two evils?
…how do the bishops who are issuing this edict determine which political positions are “dealbreakers” and which are not?
Poorly, according to Jesus’ General, which was somewhat the context behind my earlier remarks.
“who stand for abortion”
Well, that clears it up then. I’m unaware of any politicians who ‘stand for abortion’.
“illicit stem cell research”
Illicit is suitably vague here. Illicit according to the Republican Party’s preferred implementation? That would be telling. If a politician advocates opening up more stem cell lines, the result would, presuming victory, no longer be illegal and therefore not illicit. So this one is a bit nonsensical.
“euthanasia”
There probably are politicians who stand for euthanasia under certain circumstances, though I haven’t heard it come up in an election in at least a decade.
Also, there’s an excellent summary of the history of the Catholic relationship with the death penalty as well as current thought in First Things, by Cardinal Dulles.
Joan Chittister of the order of St Benedict writes:
(cite – the whole article is worth reading as a contrast to Bishop Sheridan’s piece.