Posted on 05/09/2004 4:02:12 PM PDT by Coleus
When the state tells the church what its policy should be receive communion, it is the state that is violating the First Amendment, not the church.
I don't see the Church trying to exercise control over the actions of our leaders. I see them trying to exercise control over Roman Catholics, who are obligated to observe certain tenets of the faith. I also see "our leaders" claiming that they get special authority to disregard church teachings (though they are eager to proclaim themselves "former altar boys") because they are legislators. As for the pedophilia scandal, surely you would not suggest that priests are not subject to legal punishment for these crimes, due to separation of church and state? I'm sure we'd agree that would be a ridiculous argument. Yet by the same token, those who violate central issues of the church are not exempt from the religious consequences simply because they are legislators. These politicians have no right to inject their state office into the Catholic church and claim a special privilege to abandon the articles of faith that every other Catholic is required to uphold.
That would be tragic. What does it have to do with the issue at hand?
If you don't get it, you might consider finding yourself another forum.
If you don't get it, you might consider finding yourself another forum.
You have no answer, do you?
Illinois is strong dem anyway, but Penn is home of the "Bob Casey Democrats". Michigan has 2 pro-life DEM congressmen who are Catholic, and one who at least voted against Partial Birth abortion(also Catholic). Ohio is about 4-5% to the right of Michigan because Cleveland/Youngstown/Toledo/Warren/Dayton is smaller than Detroit/Flint/Saginaw.
Sorry, but who does and doesn't get to receive Communion at a Catholic Church is absolutely not a "secular matter".
Politicians who want to call sucking kids' brains out of their skulls a "right" don't get to call themselves "Catholic politicians". Period.
Oh, give me a flippin' break. As though you seriously expect me to believe that a man who supports murdering kids in cold blood approaching the Eucharist doesn't "make baby Jesus cry"?!?
If you're gonna defend baby killers and their accomplices, just keep baby Jesus out of it, 'kay?
Every reception of the Eucharist by a person in unrepented mortal sin is itself a mortal sin of sacrilege. St. Paul makes that crystal clear in 1 Corinthians. What Bishop Myers is doing is an act of charity, by preventing these evil men from digging themselves into a deeper pit in hell.
What these legislators are saying is that their responsibilities to their constituents and to their positions overrides their responsibilities to the Church.
If their faith in God does not come before anything and everything else, they need to get out of the Church.
Procuring or aiding in the procurement of an abortion results in excommunication latae sententiae, and has for a long time.
Politicians who fight to protect baby-killing clearly aid in the procurement of abortions.
The governor, who faces reelection next year, added: "I'm responsible to eight and a half million citizens who represent diverse faiths and backgrounds."
No, Mr. McGreevey. You're responsible to the Lord God Almighty, and it's His election that you should be considering ... If the good people of New Jersey reject you for doing what is right, the sin is theirs. Luke 6:22
Say not "have purged", but rather "are purging". The process is underway, but not complete. It's rather like spring cleaning ... you start throwing out one pile of junk, then realise you have other piles of junk just as repulsive. So they go out the door, too. It's a good thing.
I agree with you that anyone involved in abortion should be denied communion. For obvious reasons, though, it is easier to identify public figures on this point. That doesn't mean that they get to skate by because the church cannot enforce this against everyone. Do you really think the local abortion clinic is going to provide the parish with a list of names? But I think it is the responsibility of the clergy to advise anyone, politician or not, if they are not to receive communion. I can assure you that most priests will be quite direct in advising anyone married outside the Church that this person is not to receive communion. The fact that the Church cannot identify "anyone else involved in abortion" shouldn't be a justification for allowing those that they can identify to violate the tenets of the faith.
A couple of legislators have left the Church, rather than claim special privilege, out of protest. I've not heard anyone proclaim that the Church has no right to do what it's doing.
I see a far greater number of legislators insisting that they will continue to receive communion in defiance of the church. I would say that is tantamount to claiming the "Church has no right to do what it's doing," especially when these legislators cloak their defiance in the mantle of "separation of church and state."
I don't think that anyone is claiming that legislators are exempt from Church law. What these legislators are saying is that their responsibilities to their constituents and to their positions overrides their responsibilities to the Church.
Then I would say that their legislative responsibilities have overriden their faith, and they have decided, based on their legislative role, to leave the church. That is their prerogative. What they are not permitted to do is demand that the church give them an exemption from church teachings due to their "responsiblities to their constituents and to their positions." I believe that position is the true violation of separataion of church and state.
They've not claimed immunity, to the best of my knowledge, nor have they even asked for special treatment.
To the contrary, I think demanding special treatment is exactly what they are doing. Any Catholic who participates in or furthers abortion should not receive communion. I understand your position that this should apply to all equally, but I believe it does. As a practical matter, though, politicians are public figures and their defiance of church teaching is readily apparent and clearly demonstrated. Just because less public figures "get away" with these beliefs doesn't excuse John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, et. al. Perhaps the news attention that has been paid to these individuals will lead more Catholics to examine their own consciences, which would be a good thing. But I understand the crux of your argument to be that "we don't [I would say can't] apply this to everyone, so it isn't fair to deny communion to anyone" and I just can't agree with that. Just because some people get away with murder, doesn't mean that unrepentant murderers should receive communion.
| Sunday, May 9, 2004 |
Governor McGreevey's decision last week to stop receiving Holy Communion publicly handed a victory to a small but growing movement of bishops that is using tough tactics to make its voice heard nationwide.
McGreevey was responding to condemnations from bishops in Trenton and Camden, and a strongly worded pastoral statement from the Newark archbishop declaring that Catholics supporting abortion rights are being "objectively dishonest'' when they seek Communion.
But similar steps are being taken outside New Jersey. In St. Louis, and Lincoln, Neb., bishops have pushed the envelope even further, threatening to deny Communion to Catholics who support abortion.
And that may be just the beginning in an election year in which Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry is poised to become the first Catholic presidential nominee since John F. Kennedy.
"This is a new twist,'' said the Rev. Thomas Reese, a Jesuit priest and editor of America, a Catholic news magazine. "I don't ever remember anyone threatening to deny Mario Cuomo or Geraldine Ferraro Communion.''
Yet it's far from clear whether the tactic will prove successful in rallying the faithful against abortion and reemphasizing the church's core values.
"I think this is going to backfire,'' said Eileen Flynn, a theology professor at St. Peter's College in Jersey City. "I think if anything, this is going to harden the lines that are already dividing people.''
Few observers in Trenton expect Governor McGreevey's conflict with his own church to hurt him politically in this generally liberal state. Indeed, many expect it to boost his sagging political fortunes.
"One of his big problems is that the public doesn't see him as much of a leader," said Stephen Salmore, a political science professor at Fairleigh Dickinson University and a Republican consultant. "This at least gives him the aura of someone who's decisive."
McGreevey has faced more criticism from the state's bishops than most politicians possibly because he has aggressively supported policies that conflict with church doctrine - abortion rights, same-sex domestic partnerships, and embryonic stem-cell research.
The governor put the state on the leading edge of the stem-cell issue by committing $6.5 million in public funds to the controversial field in this year's budget. The state's bishops, outraged, called it "research that requires the destruction of human life."
Even so, a spokesman for Newark Archbishop John J. Myers, said last week's pastoral statement wasn't aimed at McGreevey.
"It's not related to anything with the governor,'' Jim Goodness said. "Had it been directed to politicians or the governor it would been directed that way. This is an issue that is being addressed in the church in general for a greater understanding for Catholics.''
Cuomo, who famously differed with the church during his time as New York's governor, said he thinks McGreevey and the bishops have based their decisions on deep conviction without thought to the political ramifications.
"This is in a different realm - this is your soul," said Cuomo, who was warned by then-Cardinal John O'Connor of New York that his pro-choice positions could lead to his excommunication. "If you take it seriously, this is the biggest question you can answer. ... . I don't know whether the bishop thought about that [politics], or whether it's relevant. I doubt it. And I doubt McGreevey thought about that. And I certainly didn't think about that."
But the dust-up over abortion comes at a defining political moment for Catholics: the rise of John Kerry.
Two weeks ago, Cardinal Francis Arinze, a top Vatican official, said politicians who unambiguously support abortion rights are not fit to receive Communion, and priests should deny them the sacrament. Asked specifically about Kerry, he said it was up to U.S. bishops to decide if the senator's stance was unambiguous.
"This is happening because we have a Catholic running for president who is pro-choice and has never voted restricting abortion, even partial-birth abortion,'' Reese said. "The bishops have a legitimate right to speak out. They don't lose their free speech rights when they become bishops.''
Indeed, over the last year, bishops in Wisconsin, South Dakota, Indiana, and Louisiana have confronted prominent pro-choice politicians with explicit warnings, publicly and privately.
All the politicians have been Democrats, said Frances Kissling, president of Catholics for a Free Choice.
"If they want to have any credibility, they need to apply this in a non-partisan way to all politicians who are pro-choice, rather than just go after major candidates, all of whom happen to be Democrats," Kissling said.
In New Jersey, the recent tough stands by the bishops suggest the state's five dioceses have found a new, assertive voice that is conservative and outspoken.
Myers was essentially reiterating a position he staked out in 1990 as the bishop of Peoria, Ill. Among the most conservative bishops in the nation, Myers was tapped by the Vatican to become the archbishop of Newark in 2001 to replace archbishop Theodore McCarrick. And with the installation last month of Bishop Joseph Galante as leader of the Camden Diocese, New Jersey is now home to two prominent and outspoken conservatives who are said to be rising stars in the church.
Galante, who previously served in Texas, wasted no time in making his voice heard. At a press conference the day before his installation, he said he would deny Communion to McGreevey because the governor had remarried without seeking an annulment from the church. Galante had never met McGreevey.
In an interview Friday, Galante didn't back down, but stressed it was made in response to a reporter's question.
Still, Galante told The Record he would deny Communion to politicians who support abortion rights, but only after meeting with them personally.
"What I have done in the past is meet with politicians,'' he said. "And I say 'Look, because of your public positions, I would ask that you do not accept any invitations to any Catholic functions in the diocese because I don't want to create the impression that I'm indifferent or supportive of your positions.'Ÿ''
But other church officials, while acknowledging their opposition to abortion, said the church is reducing its vast moral code down to one issue.
"We have a whole list of things that politicians are responsible for,'' said the Rev. Raymond Schroth, a Jesuit priest and a professor of humanities at St. Peter's College. "One of those responsibilities is opposing preemptive war, and I don't see anyone denying Communion to all the Republicans who voted for the war.''
Galante, when asked about such issues, replied: "There might be some moral issues that have gradations to them. But abortion is an absolute evil.''
Meanwhile, it's not at all clear whether the majority of the nation's bishops will agree to take similarly tough measures.
McCarrick, now a cardinal who runs the Archdiocese of Washington, D.C., has expressed discomfort with the idea of denying Communion.
"His concern is with using the Eucharist as a political sanction, as a kind of confrontation,'' said Susan Gibbs, a spokeswoman for McCarrick. "His goal is to bring people back to the faith in a pastoral way.''
So far, only two bishops, Raymond Burke of St. Louis and Fabian Bruskewitz, of Lincoln, Neb., have declared that they would refuse Communion to those who favor abortion rights.
Much of this insistence has filtered down from Rome. Last year, the Vatican issued a doctrinal note focusing on abortion and euthanasia that proclaimed, "Those who are directly involved in lawmaking bodies have a grave and clear obligation to oppose any law that attacks human life.''
American bishops responded by forming a task force that will set uniform policy nationwide. Their work isn't expected to be finished until after the November election.
Church critics have their own ideas about what's driving the movement.
Some said the bishops are trying to reassert their authority after the damaging sexual abuse scandal.
"The bishops needs to circle the wagons and start feeling strong again,'' said Maria Cleary, a founding member of the Northern New Jersey chapter of the Voice of the Faithful. "And the areas they feel most confident on are doctrine and dogma.''
Still others said the American church is under pressure from the Vatican and its own conservative wing. Indeed, McCarrick was promptly criticized last week by an antiabortion group after expressing his discomfort with denying Communion.
"It seems to me that those more regular Mass attenders have more sway and pull," said Luis E. Lugo, director of the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. "They have become more active and demanding of the bishops, particularly when other groups, like the evangelicals, have leapfrogged over them."
E-mail: gohlke@northjersey.com or chadwick@northjersey.com
Catholics feel rift in abortion debate
|
Monday, May 10, 2004 |
For some, the choice is considered personal. For others there are no exceptions to the rules.
Catholics in North Jersey weighed in on the growing tension between their church and state politicians on Sunday after Newark Archbishop John J. Myers said Catholics who support abortion rights should not receive Holy Communion.
While Myers' pastoral statement was aimed at all Catholics, it put considerable pressure on politicians such as Governor McGreevey, a lifelong Catholic who is staunchly pro-choice. McGreevey announced last week that he would stop taking Communion in public in response to the archbishop's request.
State Senate Majority Leader Bernard F. Kenny, D-Hoboken, is taking matters even further, deciding on Saturday to leave the Catholic Church altogether after more than 50 years. On Sunday, his wife went to their hometown parish alone.
For Jose and Amparo Nieto of Fort Lee, who attend Madonna Church in the borough every week, everything is secondary to the Catholic faith, whether you are an elected official or not. The couple, who oppose abortion rights, said the governor's political positions should be in accordance with his religion's doctrines.
"If he is a Catholic, he has to follow the rules like everybody else," said Jose Nieto. "We really believe in this."
The Rev. John Ryan, pastor of Madonna Church, said McGreevey can't have it both ways - saying he is a Catholic while supporting abortion rights.
"If you are really a Catholic, you have to be pro-life," Ryan said. "It is a fundamental doctrine of our church."
Ryan said Catholics serving in office should follow the stance that former New York Gov. Mario Cuomo took when he said he personally was against abortion, but as an elected leader was charged to follow the law.
But Cuomo's position wasn't good enough for Kenny, who said he has been at odds with the Catholic doctrine on various issues for some time.
In the past month, bishops in Trenton and Camden had also said they would deny Communion to those who support abortion rights.
But Kenny, who supports abortion rights, stem-cell research, and the death penalty in some cases, said the archbishop's pastoral statement last week was the final straw in his decision to leave the Catholic Church.
"I felt I had to address it," said Kenny, who made his decision after visiting his pastor at the Hoboken church he has attended for 20 years. Kenny said his priest was not willing to offer him the Eucharist in light of the archbishop's statement.
"To go to Mass and not participate fully is not acceptable to me," said Kenny, who will pursue his faith in another Christian religion.
Bonnie Dallara, who has attended Immaculate Conception Church in Hackensack for more than 20 years, said Sunday at church that she did not think a person's position on abortion should dictate whether or not he could accept the Eucharist. She said she was concerned about the blurring of the line between church and state.
"I think that's terrible," said Dallara when asked about McGreevey's choice to bow to the growing pressure from bishops. "To me it is a personal or individual choice."
At Our Lady of the Valley Church in Wayne, parishioners were split on whether the governor and other politicians who support abortion rights should be denied Communion.
"They should give him Communion," said Ed Campanella of Wayne. "He's in a bit of a tough spot, but he's always supported the church and religion."
Those who supported the bishops' decision said politicians all too often claim to lead religious lives when it benefits them, but refuse to take responsibility when their views conflict with those of the church.
"He should hold true to his faith and beliefs," said Don McIver of Wayne. "He's a public figure who's a known Catholic, and at times he's used that to his benefit."
The Rev. Daniel Murphy of Our Lady of the Valley said after the Mass that he agrees with the positions of Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick of the Archdiocese of Washington, D.C., and Bishop Wilton Gregory, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.Our Lady of the Valley
614 Valley Road
Wayne NJ 07470
973-694-4585 Fax: 973-696-5451
"They spoke with wisdom and compassion" on the topic, he said.
McCarrick has said he feels uncomfortable denying Communion to politicians who support abortion rights. Gregory has said that denying Communion should be a "last resort."
Staff Writer Robert Ratish contributed to this article. |E-mail: fasbach@northjersey.com
This is precisely the point that these Catholic politicians should mention when discussing the issue. It's not a matter of their "imposing" Catholic teachings on non-Catholics through law, as if they were violating this "separation of Church & State" mythology that Kerry and the others keep harping on. The legal restrictions on abortion before Roe vs. Wade were not because the USA was run by the Vatican.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.