Posted on 05/14/2004 5:16:53 PM PDT by Salvation
You make some very good points. This is the kind of dilemma which is very common, but which the pastoral letter does not address.
As far as your own choices, I would avoid making pragmatic decisions. That happened in Connecticut a few years back when all the conservative Republicans got together and voted for Joe Lieberman in place of Lowell Weicker, based on the same line of reasoning you mentioned. Well, clearly the pragmatic considerations did not work out quite as planned. Lieberman is still around many years later, and in the meantime, Weicker went on to become governor.
It's wonderful that this can be written in our country at this time, however, that may not last long. I contribute to ADF (Alliance Defense Fund) Christian attorneys out fighting the court battles for all Christians. They sent a newsletter yesterday explaining how things could change rapidly w/the advent of the legal homosexual marriages. Currently, in Canada there is Bill C-250 which is about to pass that seeks to make it a criminal offense to publicly express "hatred" (read: moral disapproval) against people who engage in homosexual behavior.
From their newsletter: An article in the Wall Street Journal by Mary Ann Glendon from Harvard Law School gave a warning: "Religious freedom, too, is at stake. As much as one may wish to live and let live, the experience in other countries reveals that once these (same-sex 'marriage') arrangements become law, there will be no live-and-let-live policy for those who differ. Gay-marriage proponents use the language of openness, tolerance and diversity, yet one foreseeable effect of their success will be to usher in an era of intolerance and discrimination the likes of which we have rarely seen before. Every person and every religion that disagrees will be labeled as bigoted and open discriminated against. The ax will fall most heavily on religious persons and groups that don't go along. Religious institutions will be hit with lawsuites if they refuse to compromise their principles."
Allan Carlson, Distinguished Fellow of Family Studies at the Family Research Council, warns: "If same-sex 'marriage' was deemed a fundamental human right, would churches still be allowed to ban such things and claim a tax exemption? I don't know."
Raymond Flynn, one-time mayor of Boston and a former U.S. ambassador to the Vatican, adds: "The issue of legalizing same-sex marriages in MA and CA raises the question: Does this mean there will be cases brought against the Catholic Church for discrimination? I think it is the next step. I don't think people will stop until the whole sacred institution of marriage crumbles."
I believe we need prayers of numbers this day like no other. Tomorrow is bringing changes in this country like none other in our history.
One more thing from the newsletter: Re Canada's bill - In response to a respectful letter by a Christian concerned about free speech and religious liberty implications of BIll C-250, liberal senator Laurier LaPierre replied, "God! You people are sick. God should strike you dead."
This is a battle that will take those of us in the Christian faith to come together and put up our best fight and God will be on our side. We need to fight and that especially means at the polls.
Where is the usual qualifying mish-mush what lets people pretend this doesn't apply to them? Where is the moral vaguery that lets Catholics pretend voting for a tax-cutting candidate is just as morally bad as voting for a pro-abort?
Too many terrific lines in this letter to attempt excerpting. I think I have a new favorite among American bishops.
Bush barely beat Gore. And, at present, a good percentage of the population considers Bush to be too Conservative for them.
The right judgment of conscience is not a matter of personal preference nor has it anything to do with feelings. It has only to do with objective truth.Alleluia!
There are some practical aspects that actually make his comments even more effective. Namely, there's no way the priests can know whether or not a person has voted for a pro-abort, so it's a matter individual conscience as to whether that person takes Communion, and I think it will turn some hearts.
It is implicit in what the bishop is saying that he is referring to situations where Catholics vote for those very same candidates to whom he is referring in this letter.
Thus, not only Kerry, but all those who vote for him and thereby contribute to the implementation or continuation of a greater evil.
This is tanatmount to saying to Catholics "don't vote for Kerry." I don't have a problem with this. Quite the contrary. But you can bet your life that the secularists and ACLU-types in government will, particularly if this mesage is repeated on a grander scale. It will be spun as Church meddling in political matters and look for questions about tax-status etc., to be raised in order to shut up "the meddlesome priests".
I just found this on Spirit Daily -- live link there----
DAILY NEWS BRIEF FROM CATHOLIC WORLD NEWS
Copyright 2001 Domus Enterprises
Two bishops, two approaches to issue of politics
Boston, May. 14 (CWNews.com) - Several more US bishops have joined with their brother bishops in addressing the newly relevant question of what to do about Catholic politicians who publicly dissent from the Church's teachings.
Archbishop John Vlazny of Portland, Oregon, said in column in his local diocesan newspaper, that Catholics who stand in public opposition to "serious Church teaching" should refrain from receiving Communion. However, he said he will resist efforts to have refuse the sacraments to those who seek them.
"Speaking as a pastor, it is less abrasive to refuse to baptize a child or to marry a couple when the request is made beforehand than it is to refuse Holy Communion during a public liturgical service," he said. "The latter places a questionable burden on all who are ministers of the Eucharist, both ordinary and extraordinary. Public perception will inevitably weigh heavily in favor of the 'victim' of the refusal rather than the church minister trying to be faithful to church policy."
The archbishop also said, "As a pastor, I find it difficult to make a public judgment that any person is 'unfit' or 'unworthy' for the reception of the sacrament." However, he added that he believes every person can make that judgment for themselves.
When asked by The Oregonian newspaper whether artificial birth control is a mortal sin requiring the participant to refrain from Communion, he replied, "Issues about sin are always difficult. But with birth control, you're not taking the life of an innocent human being."
In his column, Archbishop Vlazny also said that Catholics may vote for pro-abortion politicians if they are not doing so because of the pro-abortion stance, but if "other candidates fail significantly in some matters of great importance, for example, war and peace, human rights and economic justice."
Meanwhile, Bishop Michael Sheridan of Colorado Springs, Colorado, also issued a statement on the issue to the faithful of his diocese in which he called on them to "take courage and proclaim the Gospel of Life to those who will stand for elected office this fall." He called on Catholics to act according to their consciences, but also to form their consciences properly "in conformity with the true good willed by the wisdom of the Creator" and according to the truth.
Bishop Sheridan said a false distinction has been made between the realms of faith and politics and that when Catholics enter public office or go to the polls to vote, "they take their consciences with them."
He added, "Anyone who professes the Catholic faith with his lips while at the same time publicly supporting legislation or candidates that defy God's law makes a mockery of that faith and belies his identity as a Catholic."
Addressing the issue of publicly dissenting Catholic politicians, Sheridan did not mince his words: "Any Catholic politicians who advocate for abortion, for illicit stem cell research or for any form of euthanasia ipso facto place themselves outside full communion with the Church and so jeopardize their salvation. Any Catholics who vote for candidates who stand for abortion, illicit stem cell research, or euthanasia suffer the same fateful consequences."
He added that these Catholics "may not receive Holy Communion" until they have recanted and been reconciled with God and the Church.
Not Necessarily,
From Living the Gospel of Life
Certainly there are times when it may be impossible to overturn or prevent passage of a law which allows or promotes a moral evil -- such as a law allowing the destruction of nascent human life. In such cases, an elected official, whose position in favor of life is known, could seek legitimately to limit the harm done by the law.
BTTT!
Over here!
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.