With Biden pick, America's bishops face a familiar headache
Print Friendly VersionBy JOHN L. ALLEN JR.
Denver
As the Democratic National Convention opens in Denver, here’s an irony worth pondering: Perhaps the most disappointed group in America over the choice of a Roman Catholic as the party’s nominee for Vice-President may well be the country’s Catholic bishops.
That’s not necessarily any reflection on the personal merits of Delaware Senator Joseph Biden, but rather what kind of Catholic he is, and what that means for the American bishops between now and November 4 (and perhaps for four or eight years after that).
As is well known, Biden is solidly pro-choice, which puts him at odds with official Catholic teaching on abortion. In that regard, he is akin to Massachusetts Senator John Kerry, another pro-choice Catholic, whose nomination for president four years ago unleashed what came to be known colloquially as the “Wafer Wars.”
In brief, the issue is whether a Catholic politician with a clear record of opposition to church teaching on “life issues,” with abortion holding pride of place, ought to be denied Communion – the consecrated bread and wine which Catholics believe to be the body and blood of Jesus Christ.
In principle, it’s a question that doesn’t just apply to presidential candidates but to public officials at all levels. In reality, however, the massive visibility of a presidential campaign raises the stakes in a unique fashion.
While the American bishops are compactly pro-life, they’re divided as to whether to rebuff pro-choice politicians at the Communion line. An influential minority of bishops believes that publicly denying Communion is essential to defending church teaching, while a majority believes that Communion should never be politicized, even in the service of a good cause.
The latter group takes the position that during Mass, the priest or other minister of Communion is not in a position to judge the consciences of people who come forward. The burden is therefore on individual Catholics themselves to make sure they’re in what the church has traditionally referred to as a “state of grace" before they take Communion. This was the line quietly taken during Pope Benedict XVI’s recent visit to the United States, when pro-choice Catholic politicians such as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Giuliani received Communion at papal Masses (though not from the pope himself.)
In 2004, following agonizing debate, the U.S. bishops decided that they could not arrive at a uniform national stand on this question, and therefore it would be up to each bishop to set policy in his diocese. That’s fully in keeping with Catholic theology, which regards each bishop as the supreme authority in his diocese, answerable only to the pope. Yet it also means that a national candidate could be treated differently depending upon which diocese he or she happens to be in on any given Sunday. Such disparities in turn fuel perceptions of division in the church, which is something the bishops always abhor.
Heading into the 2008 campaign season, there weren’t any pro-choice Catholics in the top tier of Democratic candidates, but there certainly was on the Republican side in the form of former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani. Many bishops were, therefore, privately relieved when Giuliani’s campaign imploded, because it at least seemed to mean that the “Wafer Wars” would not be back in the headlines – except, perhaps, with much less intensity on the state and local levels.
Biden’s nomination implies that sense of relief may have been premature.
For the record, Catholic sources in Delaware tell me that Biden is a regular communicant at two local parishes, St. Joseph on the Brandywine in Greenville and St. Patrick. (The latter offers a Sunday evening Mass, which Biden sometimes attends when he’s busy doing Sunday morning talk shows.) He attended Archmere Academy in Claymont, Delaware, sponsored by the Norbertines, and has been active in supporting the school over the years.
Bishop Michael Saltarelli of Wilmington is part of that majority of the American bishops reluctant to turn Communion into a political battleground, and thus has never issued instructions to turn away Biden or other pro-choice politicians. Saltarelli recently retired, and his replacement, Bishop William Francis Malooly, will be installed in early September. To date there’s no indication that Malooly, a native of Baltimore, intends to reverse Saltarelli’s approach.
If nothing else, Biden’s nomination means that advance teams for the Democrats have one other complexity to factor into scheduling campaign stops for their VP nominee. If Biden is planning to be in a given town on Sunday, they’re going to have to put out quiet feelers to make sure that if he shows up at a local parish for Mass, he’s not going to be publicly snubbed for Communion. (Kerry advance teams were forced to do the same thing in ’04.)
Though it’s unlikely he knew it at the time, Biden may have caught a small break back in June when Archbishop Raymond Burke of St. Louis was named to a new position in the Vatican. Missouri is likely to be a battleground state, which means that Biden may need to spend some time there, and Burke was among the most vocal proponents among the American bishops of a tough position on denial of Communion to pro-choice candidates. Burke’s replacement may not be named before Election Day, so a Biden visit to St. Louis temporarily may be a slightly less dicey proposition.
It’s difficult to say what political fallout all this may have.
Historically, vice-presidential nominees haven’t had a great deal of impact on how elections turn out, which suggests that whatever turbulence Biden may encounter on the campaign trail – for this or any other reason – may not mean much. Further, American Catholics are hardly monolithic, and their votes tend to reflect the overall national population rather than being driven by marching orders from the bishops or from Rome.
Nonetheless, if a few heavily Catholic counties in Ohio had gone the other way in ’04, pundits might well be handicapping the re-election of President John Kerry today. Republicans made aggressive efforts to court Catholics in 2004, and Bush captured a narrow majority of Catholic votes – a majority that was even higher among Catholics who attend Mass at least once a week.
The 67 million Catholics in the United States represent one-quarter of the national population, and they’re over-represented in “Swing States” such as Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Texas. If something nudges even one or two percent of Catholics one way or the other, that’s potentially a pool of almost a million votes – enough, perhaps, to make a difference in a tight race.
For now, only one thing seems reasonably certain: America’s Catholic bishops found themselves on Saturday suffering anew from a familiar headache.
Of course, if Obama’s narrow lead in most polls holds up through November, that headache may go on for a long time. The bishops' quandary over Kerry more or less died with his campaign, but if Biden is actually sworn in as Vice-President next January, the bishops could face at least four years of awkward debates about to what extent they should shun the second-highest office holder in the country.
That’s probably a prospect few of them would relish, wherever they may stand on other matters.
CAVEAT! This missive is the
CAVEAT!
This missive is the product of the one live and viable brain cell I have left! It is uneducated and not very intelligent. This is how it works. It is known as a "Pong Brain!" This single cell continually carroms off the interior of my scull in random patterns. In certain, as yet undetermined and uncontrolable, trajectories this single cell strikes my brainstem and I have, a thought, a memory, an idea, or a bodily function! My life has become a series of epiphinaies. Of late, however, I seem to be the victim of "cell stuck on stem syndrome", the ominous SSOSS phenomenon!
I realize that I come late to this discussion. I have read, with interest, all of the above posts and have noticed a common thread! This thread is golden and tightly held. Tightly held, for it's intrinsic value to each. Tightly held and immensly valuable in it's origin. This thread was sewn into the fabric of each, by breeding, baptism, education, manipulation and intimidation at the hand of a self proclaimed god.
A discussion of politics in a supposed religious forum seems rather presumptive to this mind, (which resides in a single brain cell and is held so tentatively by it's owner)
We are all pretty much kept aprised of the standing of public personages on "hot" issues. To castigate, no, to condemn, one as a sinner for the way he thinks or a statement he made, might be rather judgemental!
Denial of a Catholic sacrament! Why would "Mother Church" exert such humiliation and intimidation upon a public figure? To my mind, (see above), only to illustrate her power to those following his lead to think outside the word of god (spelled mother church) Somehow the hypocrisy is so terribly obvious. Depending on this "thread" to
guide one in his everyday life is simply an exacerbation of the malady, loosely termed, propagation and preservation of the faith".
The "Golden thread" is now tarnished and black! The thread is Catholicism!
And you are all so..............Catholic!
This issue is simply more of the same.
Criminal clergy, top to bottom, manipulating, intimidating, coercing the laity to support their personal agendas. The laity in submitting, become guilty by association!
Aiding and abetting does not cease to be so just because you are not ordained!
How Catholic is that?
Dear Pong, er, I mean James
Dear Pong, er, I mean James ~ "Your autobiography reminds me of the seminal video game "Pong". I was, briefly, the street champion after starting with the laboriously slow mode and progressing until....well, as I repeat humbly, I wore the crown.
I thought that you underestimated yourself until I read your conclusion that there was a common thread, tightly held, that was traditionally subserviant. Look again, you might see that the common thread is that the pietists are actually fewer in number but massive in their repetitive, stentorian judementalism. The more flexibly minded seem a bit more numerically and maybe more discursive so that the indecisiveness of their positions being ephemeral excapes notice and impact (have I just defined the distinction between Rep. and Dem., conservative and liberal?) Stay with us.
When Jesus was confronted by
When Jesus was confronted by Pilate- Caesar's direct representative in Judea, with life-and-death powers- he said, "My kingdom is no part of this world." So why do Catholics, the Religious Right, and others make themselves so wholly a part of the world, I wonder? When the prayer at Mt 6:9,10 is fulfilled- when God's Kingdom exists "on earth, as it is in heaven"- where will we find those who 'limped along on two opinions'? (1 Ki 18:21) How many at political gatherings are properly "not of the world, as I also am not of the world"? (John 17:16)
The Christian's duty is spelled out by his Leader: Preach the good news of his Father's kingdom TO the world. (Mt 28:19,20; Mt 24:14; Dan 2:44)
Which 'keynote speaker' is it who will be an ambassador for Christ? (2 Cor 5:20)
Regards,
Doug
Thanks John L Allen for
Thanks John L Allen for really watering down the entire US democratic election and the Catholic Democratic VP candidate to this single issue. I guess it is a lot easier to propose the same old rather than admit that we need a real positive change that does not divide or conquer that which is truly Catholic and Christian.
I would like to reply to
I would like to reply to John L Allen: Is communion witheld from pediophile priests? People have choices and they live with them. I remember reading somewhere about trying to remove a speck from an eye and being cautioned to pluck the log out of our own first.
This is a headache that the
This is a headache that the hierarchy of the Church must need to have! The confusion among the faithful concerning basic moral truth astounds me, and the hierarchy constitutes in human form our "teaching authority" on earth! What aspect of their vocation supercedes the ones to teach, and to make disciiples?
What human right supercedes the right to life itself? What social concern should we place above the right to life of the most vulnerable and innocent among us? Who gave mothers or fathers the right to kill their own dependent children? The abortion issue, in this country, itself ought to teach us how close we are to complete dehumanization and fall into barbarism.
And please - let us forever reject that double-speak term, "the right to choose". Should a country secure my "right to choose" to kill whoever inconveniences me, or threatens my "health"? If a person sneezes in my workplace, threatening my "health", has he committed a capital offence? If a government overtaxes us, threatening our financial well-being, is that capital treason? Certainly not. "Pro-choice" means "proabortion" - it's as simple as that. The "right to choose" ends, stops, at the life of an innocent person.
...or invades another
...or invades another country by means of "shock and awe", i.e., kill, discriminately and indiscrminately, men, women and children, born and unborn. Thomas "free will".
No one has the right to
No one has the right to misrepresent our Catholic Faith. I hope the Bishops will continue to correct all public statements that are not consistent with the Doctrine of Faith and I would suggest to everyone that, when in doubt, use your Catechism.
By the grace of God, accept
By the grace of God, accept Love into your heart.
"Let love be genuine; hate what is evil, hold fast to what is good; love one another with mutual affection; outdo one another in showing honor. Do not lag in zeal, be ardent in spirit, serve the Lord. Rejoice in hope, be patient in suffering, persevere in prayer. Contribute to the needs of the saints; extend hospitality to strangers." [Romans 12]
For God's sake, UNCLENCH your heart and take what is offered to you through the Blood of Christ.
The Rev. Dr. E. McCoy
"Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you." (John 20:21)
Why do I need the
Why do I need the catechisms, when I have the scriptures?
Why do I need someone with ruby colored slippers to tell me what to believe?
Why do I need the catechisms, when there are so many living examples of the real meaning of the doctrine of faith and the catechisms right in front of me that I can learn from ... the bishopric, Cardinal Law, Bill Donohue?
Why do I need the catechisms, when I have the guidance of the Holy Spirit and discernment?
I agree with you anne, no one has the right to misrepresent the catholic faith.
Anyone who does, regardless of their status or position should be inmmediately excommunicated. If that were done consistently, the catholic faith would be purified very quickly.
You need the Catechism
You need the Catechism because it is consistent with the Deposit of Faith. We excommunicate ourselves when we turn from the Word of God, Christ.
Thank you Anne for the
Thank you Anne for the clarification, now I understand
If there is a conflict between the guidance of the Holy Spirit
And what the magisterial authority teaches as the deposit of faith
Then we are to ignore the holy spirit completely and follow the book
I understand completely - trust the book, not the Holy Spririt
Dear Anne, Maybe you would
Dear Anne,
Maybe you would apply the chatechetical approach to this senario. A man's son is ill. The child needs a bone marrow transplant, perhaps more than one, to survive. The father is the only possible donor, but he himself has spinal stenosis and is afraid to have marrow harvested from his pelvis. What does the catechism say he must do? What does it say he may do? What does it say we all should do to affect the law in this case?
I know what I would do. I
I know what I would do. I would take the risk simply because I love my child.
That's what Jesus would say
That's what Jesus would say to do, to lay down our lives for others. But that's not the question. Does the government have the right to force the father to make the donation? Would the church excommunicate him for not doing so? Are we able to vote for politicians who refuse to criminalize the father's refusal?
This is exactly right,
This is exactly right, Frannie, the government and the Church do not have the right to force people to self-sacrifice.
Even a pregnant woman?
Even a pregnant woman?
In my opinion, they don't
In my opinion, they don't have a right to force a pregnant woman to self-sacrifice. I don't think that from God's perspective a woman who doesn't freely offer herself to her offspring is anything more than a victim herself.
I find it rather disturbing that for all the talk of our God-given free will, it is felt that in this instance, without regard to circumstances, women are supposed to be deprived of the use of theirs. That is not to say that the Church and government don't have an obligation to try to persuade women to consider self-sacrifice and an obligation to assist them should they accede.
In the "good old days" there was virtually no option to choose, but when choice is an option, it is not sufficient to expect people simply to behave as if it were not.
"when in doubt, use your
"when in doubt, use your Catechism."
When in doubt, pray to God for help and guidence. Go to the source of ALL THAT IS.
The more we discover how much we are Loved by God, the more we want to do God's Will
Seems like some Catholics
Seems like some Catholics have been going to the wrong source and not the source of ALL THAT IS, hence the need for some "correction."
That's too bad Annie. I pray
That's too bad Annie. I pray they trust in God, and compare human's interpretations of God, as in human made doctrines and dogmas like those maintained by the church to their highest understanding of God as they are led by the Spirit of God within them. For example if Jesus says, "And remember that, inasmuch as you minister to one of the least of my brethren, you have done this service to me. ", And the Church as Eucharist Minister decides NOT TO MINISTER to the least of Jesus' brethren, and who could be a lesser brethren of Jesus than our sister who saw no better option than to choose to abort her child or one who supports her?
To me as a practicing God Believing Catholic who would do God's Will before any other if I can help it, God's Will as expressed by Jesus is CLEAR. I must not refuse to minister to her or her supporters. How else can this command of God as taught to us by Jesus be followed in this case? Surely to refuse her or her supporters would be to refuse the least of Jesus' brethren and thus to refuse Jesus. Are you willing to RISK doing that Annie? I can't risk it AnnieD. I have to minister to women who make that choice and their supporters. Period.
I pray for your brethren AnnieD, Those who fail to see God's simple Commands, for the forest of laws that they've created and convoluted trying to make them conform to God's simple commands. And that they find, love and share the simple laws of God and following His Will. You don't fix a person's error by committing a worse error by rejecting them and in so doing rejecting Jesus and the sacrifice he GAVE for us.
The more we discover how much we are Loved by God, the more we want to do God's Will
Joer, how is correcting
Joer, how is correcting their error, so that they will know what is necessary not only for their Salvation but to Love according to the Word of God, rejection?
To manipulate the Truth and encourage another to engage in such a manipulation, is rejection of Christ, The Word Made Flesh.
In order to recieve Christ, we should be in communion with Him. Those who are not in communion are not to present themselves to recieve the Holy Eucharist.
Since there will be some who will not obey the teaching of the Church, which is why they have erred to begin with, rather than disrupt the Holy Communion Line, I like the idea of a correction.
AnnieD, may God bless and be
AnnieD, may God bless and be with you. You ask a very important question:
“How is correcting their error, so that they will know what is necessary not only for their Salvation but to Love according to the Word of God, rejection?�
For some the answer is obvious and simple for others whose perspectives differ it may not be that simple.
Let me explain what I mean. For some, because of the teachings of The Word Made Flesh and His Father, assuming that one could identify and correct the error of another, is an usurpation of the Father’s SOLE prerogative to judge. It is Right and Just for one to share the teachings of The Word Made Flesh of Salvation and Love with another, but not to try to force it upon by judgment of their acts and punishment by attempting to block their communion with The Word Made Flesh and His Father and Spirit.
First of all we CANNOT correct anyone’s error. Because of the sovereignty of their Free Will as they were and are created by Our Father, ONLY THEY can identify and CORRECT their error. We can try to help them by doing as The Word Made Flesh instructed us:
I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you... (Jn13:34)
How is trying to deny them communion with Christ loving them as He loves us? Do you think Christ would deny them AnnieD? Do you really? How could one see Our Loving Lord and Savior that way? He WHO DIED FOR US AND FOR OUR SINS! Did he die for JUST US AND OUR SINS and not for them and their sins? (those who have had to make that terribly difficult choice and those who love and support them as Christ commanded)?
And you ask AnnieD how is that rejection? Don’t you see that by denying them the Eucharist we are rejecting them, whereas CHRIST, THE WORD MADE FLESH, would be embracing them?
What is the Truth AnnieD? You say:
"In order to receive Christ, we should be in communion with Him. Those who are not in communion are not to present themselves to receive the Holy Eucharist."
How can we be in communion with Christ while we are rejecting the least of his Brethren, which HE SAID, is rejecting HIM? How can we commune with The Word Made Flesh while rejecting HIM at the same time?
You continue by saying:
"Since there will be some who will not obey the teaching of the Church, which is why they have erred to begin with, rather than disrupt the Holy Communion Line, I like the idea of a correction."
I hear what you are saying AnnieD. I believe that regarding the issue of abortion most people believe we need correction. But according to THE WORD the correction shouldn’t be one of judgment, punishment and rejection, it should be one of compassion, empathy, loving guidance and embracement.
When you think of Jesus AnnieD, don’t you feel His Love? When I think of Jesus AnnieD, I see Him with His Arms wide open ready to receive me with a loving embrace that is so powerful that it dispels all evil or wrong doing. His very embrace is forgiveness of my sins, and I shrink in humility and embarrassment of my sins and in an instant with Him I am healed.
I see Him as being that way with EVERYONE. I can’t see him rejecting ANYONE. I see many who would not receive Him but I see NO ONE He would not receive. So if you truly believe Jesus is present in the Eucharist, and I do, how could Jesus, with his undenying Love, withhold his Love from even the worst sinner in the world who would present themselves before him willing to receive His Life Giving Healing Embrace?
I just can’t see it AnnieD. Honestly AnnieD. I’m not saying this stuff just to argue with you. That’s really How I see it. My Lord and my Master would reject NO ONE who comes to HIM.
God Bless You AnnieD because you Love and Care for Jesus so much. I only pray that you and I both can learn to Love others as much He LOVES US.
God be with you AnnieD. :-)
The more we discover how much we are Loved by God, the more we want to do God's Will
"The more we discover how
"The more we discover how much we are Loved by God, the more we want to do God's Will."
"If you love Me, you will keep my Commandments."-Christ
Yes Anne, the Church
Yes Anne, the Church hierarchy needs correction, especially when saying it is "infallible" and especially in hiding pedophiles and promoting Bishops who harbored and enabled pedophiles to sexually abuse children!
"infallible" refers to the
"infallible" refers to the Deposit of Faith. The Church is Holy despite some who have brought scandal to it.
The issue raises a host of
The issue raises a host of other issues. Finally (and years too late) the American bishops are asserting their right to articulate the doctrines of the Church to which the laity must assent. It also shows the gap between the bishops and the laity in terms of the ability to understand the issues: Ms. Pelosi was agonizingly inarticulate when she tried to explain the "Church's" policy on abortion and got it wrong. Even Archbishop Wuerl had to stop schoozing with the Washington elites long enough to correct her.
The Catholic Church is not a democracy and is it not based on democratic principles. It is not an adjunct of the Republican Party, as Neuhaus, Weigel, and Novak would have it, nor it is an ajunct of the Democratic Party, as Pelosi and Biden would wish. Dogma is not amenable to change. Everyone is not his own Pope. Some things are right and others are wrong.
And calling this situation the "wafer wars" is sophomoric.
I like the way Obama put it
I like the way Obama put it tonight at the convention "We may not agree on abortion but we can ALL agree to work together to stop unwanted pregnancies." Or something like that.
"Dogma is not amenable to Change"
I'm sorry, "My karma ran over your dogma." ;-)
"And calling this situation the "wafer wars" is sophomoric."
I lost track. Is that worse than "denying communion to the children of God?"
I don't think so!
That wouldn't be sophmoric would it? That would be more like a big spiritual mistake. Right?
"Whatever you do for the least of my brethren you do for me."
The more we discover how much we are Loved by God, the more we want to do God's Will
I ask Mr. Allen and anyone
I ask Mr. Allen and anyone else to avoid using pejorative phrase "wafer wars" in anything they write or say. It is a form of ridicule. Mr. Allen can be forgiven this time if he didn't realize this and was only repeating what others have written to grab attention. I've seen it before and have protested. Ridicule in a professional column quickly negates anything useful or informative the writer has to say and moves him or her down with those who write for tabloids. The rest of his column was well written and appears accurate and speaks to his integrity. I will continue to read what he has to say until he proves himself otherwise.
I'll tell you what Mr.
I'll tell you what Mr. Brown. I'll stop using "wafer wars" when Bishops stop denying communion to "the children of God".
The more we discover how much we are Loved by God, the more we want to do God's Will
How about when they stop
How about when they stop giving communion to pedophiles priests and the criminals who are protecting them/
I think it is also to
I think it is also to remember that criminalization is not always the only way to oppose abortion. As someone who genuinely feels that abortion is wrong, I don't think the solution for our country is necessary to make it a punishable offense; or at the very least, it is not the only moral solution. I think that denying the Host to those who don't necessarily want to send abortion doctors and patients to jail is short-sighted morally; after all, do we deny the Host to those who oppose laws against jailing adulterers or masterbaters (both of which remain major sins in the Church, especially adultery)? Abortion is an important issue, and I don't want to downplay it; but is criminalization the only answer, especially in a culture that is not likely to accept its criminalization anytime soon? Shouldn't we be working against it in another way, and positively encourage our Catholic politicians to do something, and not just state a polemical viewpoint?
Hello mwi8, Criminalization
Hello mwi8,
Criminalization is not the ONLY way to oppose abortion - just as criminalization is not the ONLY way to oppose murder, or the intentional killing of an innocent person (which is what abortion is). But the radical and essential right to life is a right that must be protected by law - as well as nurtured and enabled by other personal and social structures.
If the right to life has no legal protection, what is the point of any legal protection for any right? We will NOT "just all be nice to one another". Sinful man needs law.
Murder isn't illegal because
Murder isn't illegal because it is wrong. This is not a philosophical exercise, this making things illegal. Murder is illegal so that those whose loved ones have been murdered do not take justice into their own hands and escalate violence into clan wars.
When there is no right to
When there is no right to choose, there is no freedom. Beware of what you seek, you might live to suffer the consequence of finding it.
No right to choose---no
No right to choose---no freedom----NO VIRTUE. Sobriety was not a virtue during Prohibition.
No pro abortion candidate has ever been elected. Obama should know this. Is the man stupid? I'm inclined to think so. We can have a stance against abortion and still let the 'mother' and the 'doctor' have the legal right to murder. My God I'd hate to vote for 'I can see Russia from my house' Palin or 'I'm not a typical Republication-I'm a Maverick' McCain
Dennis - one thing you may
Dennis - one thing you may not get about moral education/development is the importance of bare legality to this issue - i.e., if you read the Mexican abortion law debate article in the weekend NYTimes, you would have come across the story of the woman who reported that she was Catholic but that she'd had an abortion because the recent change in the law 'made' her abortion decision a morally acceptable one - "Pro choice" senators, like Biden, who support the legal availability of abortion, don't just give American women an opportunity to exercise their free will but do also instruct them (perhaps to a limited degree), as to the exercise of that free will.
As to Biden, I recommend the analysis of Canon Law Professor, Edward Peters: http://www.canonlaw.info/2008/08/about-biden-lets-ask-right-questions.html
Canon 915 directs ministers of holy Communion to withhold the Eucharist from Catholics "obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin".
While some, such as myself, consider it obvious that Biden is "obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin," I worry about the potential fall-out of some bishops actually implementing the canon against politicians who support the continued legality of abortion: Namely, will other bishops then begin implementing the canon against other politicians up-and-down the US hierarchies of political power - for example, against Catholic politicians who favor frequent exercise of the death penalty or who call for the complete abolition of welfare.
(Note: It is clear to me that there is only one right position on abortion. Other "seamless garment" issues may be distinguished, I would argue, in that the Church can tolerate multiple positions so long as each person holding the position is working for the common good. That being said, I am not convinced that the bishops, to a man, would recognize this distinction, if some significant minority had begun to enforce the canon against those politicians who support the continued legality of abortion.)
Well, Paul, if a woman looks
Well, Paul, if a woman looks to government for her moral guidance, then she is making a grave mistake, is she not? Women, as you might be excused from noticing given this woman's foolishness, are capable of reasoning, and they have a right and responsibility to use their reason in making moral decisions. It is a flat out lie to say that one has chosen abortion because one could.
However, there are women whose circumstances are so unfortunate that they consciously choose not to subject a new human being to the kind of suffering they must endure day to day. Women in such circumstances are the ones who are protected when abortion is legal. However, these women could actually be helped by having government policies that would remedy their situations.
Anyone who claims to be pro-life based on opposing legal abortion instead of promoting policies to help the poor is not genuinely pro-life.
Hello Paul, and thank you
Hello Paul, and thank you for your sane and reasonable post. "Welcome to the trenches!" I say that in light of the list of counter-posts, trying to negate most everything you've said. I've learned to expect them here.
Thomas
Thomas, it doesn't surprise
Thomas, it doesn't surprise me that you would call Paul's post sane, given that you tend not to see women as full individual human beings, but only as something created by God to be companions to men.
Hello Marie, I continue to
Hello Marie,
I continue to be surprised, not (anymore) by people disagreeing with my beliefs - the beliefs of the Church - but I really am surprised by the number here at NCR who merely generalize about me as a person, putting me in categories and boxes and labels that are meant to dismiss me and all my beliefs in one easy fell swoop. Back in the playground it was "name-calling". Now, it is just the old tactic of marginalizing the outsider - replacing real issues with labels that "we the in-people" don't like.
My dear wife would very strongly disagree with your misrepresentation of my views of women.
Ya know, as is often the
Ya know, as is often the case, the reason you feel generalized about may just be because you duck and run from even the simplest of conversations. If you note on the home page of the cafe, this is a cafe, where people talk to each other. My guess is that your dear wife might be better at conversing with others and not trying to control the conversation at every turn. So, why don't you ask her to step inside with us and perhaps she will talk to all of us?
Which is it, Annie - do I
Which is it, Annie - do I duck and run from conversations, as some charge, or do I try to control the conversation at every turn, as some others charge. You charge me with both! Please explain this little trick I apparantly can do.
Thomas, it is possible to do
Thomas, it is possible to do both in that when you find yourself losing the debate, you stop debating rather than ever, ever, conceding even a little on any point. I think this is because you believe that those of us who do debate are completely misguided; that debating on matters addressed by the Catechism is not supposed to be done.
That's simple, thomas. You
That's simple, thomas. You do both.
'Bare legality' has never
'Bare legality' has never been an instruction but, rather, an opportunity to choose. Without choice there is no moral decision; the obstruction of choice results in an infantilized population of moral incompetents.
For Christians choice is an imperative. THE plethora of 'authoritative' answers do NOT comprise a moral imperative; THE CAPACITY TO QUESTION DOES!
Moreover, 'Loyalty' to dicta does NOT constitute faith; the struggle to discern God's will does.
Moral education is, indeed, development but not the development of a Pavlovian response to catechesis. It is, rather, the DEVELOPMENT of a discerning mind and an open-hearted spirit. One wishes not to develop skills of recitation but, rather, the capacity to yearn for God's purpose manifested within one's experience shared within a community of faith.
The Rev. Dr. E. McCoy
"Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you." (John 20:21)
The problem Paul, is that
The problem Paul, is that the leadership applies that rule selectively.
Obviously, by their actions, the magisterium is demonstrating to us that they do not consider a priest sodomizing a child to be a "perservering manifest grave sin". The fact that they continue to allow pedophile priests to receive and give communion is making a mockery of the canon and of their office.
The pope refuses to discipline members of the bishopric for criminal activity, such as protecting pedophiles. That is making a mockery of his office and his responsibility.
If the leadership does not follow the canon laws and the catechisms, what is that telling the rest of us? It is telling us that we have been lied to, that what we have been led to believe is the deposit of faith, in truth is not. If it were, our leadership would be living it. Since they are not, we can only conclude that what they are teaching us is false.
Since they lied before, we can only conclude that their position on abortion is a lie also.
Paul S. wrote: "While some,
Paul S. wrote: "While some, such as myself, consider it obvious that Biden is "obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin,""
My question to you Paul S. and those "such as" you, is when did God appoint you to take His place as Judge of His children?
He forgot to tell me and those such as me, that he had done that.
Sorry Paul, I didn't get the divine memo. Bless you and those "such as" you my brother. May our Father be our guide. Through our brother Christ our Lord and Savior.
The more we discover how much we are Loved by God, the more we want to do God's Will
Paul writes ~ "one thing you
Paul writes ~ "one thing you may not get about moral education/development is the importance of bare legality to this issue...". You might be quite right but I thought I did. That was my point. Help me out further because your post above doesn't. I see the morality and legality of any act as intellectually and sometimes essentially distinct. If I run a red light (traffic) at four in the morning when there is no traffic I am "legally" culpable but am I morally wrong? If same-sex marriage is legal in a state/province one might debate the "morality" but not the legality (same if it is illegal). One might contend that the possibility of Saddam having weapons of mass destruction posed an immanent threat to the United States, though I cannot fathom how. That, I guess speaks to the morality; however, to render the action legal, the President needed congressional approval, right? So...distinct. Once it became clear that Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction, never posed an immanent threat to the United States (nor as a causal factor in 9-11) the morality discussion passed from doubtful/questionable to moral wrong, i.e., evil (the term 'unjust' seems terribly weak). So every and every death of US and coalition troops, every non-combattant woman, man and child, every act of looting,etc took on a moral dimension that transited from 'debatable' to moral evil.
While I appreciate your interpretation of the Mexican example, your contention that legalization morally justified her act or constituted an 'instruction' is hogwash. Legal or otherwise, a person is morally responsible for every act and cannot 'delegate' that responsibility to anyone. If the lady honestly believed that, she was intellectually wrong and it speaks to my point that eductation was sadly lacking. I would contend that the Church failed her and her like because of a fixation on compliance to rule and obeisance to authority without adequate attention to the importance of personal intelligence, personal discernment and moral judgement.
"Pro-choice Senators like Biden, who support the legal availability of abortion, don't just give American women an opportunity to exercise their free will but also instruct them (perhaps to a limited degree), as to the exercise of that free will". Even your bracketed mitigation phrase fails to justify your continued linking of morality and legality. I would not presume to judge whether your failure to delink the two is intellectual dishonesty or lack of discernment or a well-intentioned but misguided impulsion to compensate with dictate for a failute of church, state and family to educate and provide adequate formation of men and women for the persistent and inevitable confrontation with sex, sexuality and its consequences.
Dennis! Thank you for your
Dennis! Thank you for your enlightening reply! My CSOSS has abated slightly and I'm back to my old single celled self. Maybe!... This all without benefit of medication or therapy, so, who knows?
My diatribe was prompted by the condemnation, as "sinner," of an individual to establish a political prerogative! One of the basic tenets of Catholicism (god Mother church) seems: When asked for hope, compassion, tenderness, or justice, reply with threats of eternal damnation!
"Damn that sinner! Count that plate!
In my confused state (the ominous CSOSS) I failed to address the salient topic presented.
That being a "familiar headache" for the Bishops (regional directors for RCC Inc.)
The abortion issue is of no particular concern to the bishops! The quantifying term "Familiar" would indicate to me, that they've been here before. And they will do what Bishops do. Threaten eternal damnation to those who disagree with the corporate line! The bishops care not for a fetus! Well maybe I'm wrong here! One less fetus means one less viable innocent, to be collected and harbored for the enjoyment of their minions (Oh! Priests or "branch managers" for RCC Inc.)
Has it occured to anyone else that, allowing the Bishops to control our political decisions gives them the power to coddle and protect criminals in their "regions" and in effect makes them criminals also? Has there been, in recent memory, any reaction of god Mother Church, to any adverse situation, other than to, call on the power of god mother church, to damn the oposition to the eternal fires of hell?