Posted on 01/17/2003 1:55:56 PM PST by Polycarp
Some Very Good News
CRISIS Magazine - e-Letter
January 17, 2003
**********************************************
This is the best news I've heard all year.
No, golf has not been made the national past time (but a fair guess). I'm talking about the Vatican's release of the "Doctrinal Note on Some Questions Regarding the Participation of Catholics in Political Life." And believe me, this is some note.
As Americans, we've all been the unfortunate witnesses of so-called "Catholic" politicians who pander to voters, playing up their church affiliation to gain support, only to conveniently set their religious convictions aside once elected. It's the same tired excuse every time: "Well, I'm personally against X, but as a politician in the public sphere, I have an obligation not to impose my views on others."
Not so, says the Vatican. In fact, this new document says just the opposite. Quoting from John Paul II's Evangelium vitae, it states that "those who are directly involved in lawmaking bodies have a 'grave and clear obligation to oppose' any law that attacks human life. For them, as for every Catholic, it is impossible to promote such laws or to vote for them."
That seems pretty clear to me: Catholic politicians need to act like Catholics.
But the document doesn't stop at the obligation of Catholic lawmakers. The laity is also reproached for not voting their Christian conscience: "a well-formed Christian conscience does not permit one to vote for a political program or an individual law which contradicts the fundamental contents of faith and morals."
Groups like Catholics for a Free Choice will be disappointed to hear that "organizations founded on Catholic principles, in which support has been given to political forces or movements with positions contrary to the moral and social teaching of the Church on fundamental ethical questions...[are] in contradiction to basic principles of Christian conscience [and] are not compatible with membership in organizations or associations which define themselves as Catholic."
(Frances Kissling, call your office.)
Even Catholic publications are given a stern reprimand for "express[ing] perspectives on political choices that have been ambiguous or incorrect." In short, no one is off the hook.
I can already hear the complaints. "But what about my duty to respect my conscience?"
There are a couple of answers to that. First of all, it's true, we're bound to follow our conscience. However -- and this is essential -- our conscience MUST be properly formed. People who disagree with the Church's teachings tend to do so out of hand without first trying to understand those teachings. That's not following your conscience, that's following your will.
But the Vatican has more to say about our obligation to follow our conscience. "[T]he right to freedom of conscience and, in a special way, to religious freedom...is based on the ontological dignity of the human person and not on a non-existent equality among religions or cultural systems of human creation."
In other words, our conscience is free insofar as humans are free, and we must make our own choices. However, that doesn't mean that all choices are equally good, and we're still responsible for weighing these choices very carefully against the teachings of the Church -- accepting the consequences of that decision.
Others may argue that the arena of politics is no place for religion. Senator (and presidential hopeful) John Kerry of Massachusetts seems to think so. In his polite rejection of the Vatican's statement, Kerry has explained that to "'represent all the people' he can't be bound by church doctrine."
Kerry misses the point on so many levels that it's hard to know where to begin. As a Catholic, he IS bound by Church doctrine, not by the laws of a democracy that is only of "human creation." His responsibility to the Faith must always come first, or he simply isn't living that Faith.
And the Vatican makes another important point: This isn't a simple case of religion vs. politics. The Church fully understands the need to keep these institutions separate. However, the Church also teaches absolute truths that have nothing to do with mere denominations or institutions -- the sanctity of human life being one of them:
"Political freedom is not -- and cannot be -- based upon the relativistic idea that all conceptions of the human person's good have the same value and truth, but rather, on the fact that politics are concerned with very concrete realizations of the true human and social good in given historical, geographic, economic, technological and cultural contexts."
And later...
"No Catholic can appeal to the principle of pluralism or to the autonomy of lay involvement in political life to support policies affecting the common good which compromise or undermine fundamental ethical requirements."
In short, moral relativism is no virtue. These are truths that, while taught by the Church, are not exclusive to Catholicism. Nor are they capable of existing independent of our political lives.
Still, others may groan that the Church is simply trying to force some kind of political agenda on its members. But this just isn't so. While the document states very plainly that abortion, euthanasia, and homosexual unions can never be supported, it lists other goals -- education for children, social justice, and peace -- that it doesn't make any prescriptions for. While these are ends we must always work for, the document doesn't force Catholics to accept any one way of achieving those goals.
"It is not the Church's task to set forth specific political solutions -- and even less to propose a single solution as the acceptable one -- to temporal questions that God has left to the free and responsible judgment of each person," the document says. "It is, however, the Church's right and duty to provide a moral judgment on temporal matters when this is required by faith or the moral law."
The Church doesn't force us to accept a particular position on welfare reform, immigration, or education -- the details of these "temporal questions" are left up to us. However, some of these questions are beyond dispute -- such as abortion and euthanasia -- and the Church is right to remind us of our primary duty to the moral law, not just the law of the land.
In a time when both clergy and laity are losing sight of their responsibilities as Catholics, it certainly is refreshing to hear a clear voice give us such an indisputable guide to living -- and voting -- faithfully. I'd really encourage you to read Ratzinger's piece yourself. It's actually pretty short, but it packs a lot of great information. You can see the full document on Zenit's Web site at www.zenit.org.
Let's hope the Governor Granholms and Senator Kerrys of this country will give it a closer look.
About 8000. Might not sound like many, but its certainly a Who's Who list among rank and file conservative/Pro-life Catholic leaderss in the US.
Any indications as to it being presented any time soon?
We're working through our contacts. This part is difficult, hopefully in the next 6 months. (I've always wanted to go to Rome.)
Any of John Paul's potential successors up to the task, if he is unable to continue?
That is the big question. We simply hope JPII is up to the task.
RnMomof7, DrSteveJ, OrthodoxPresbyterian
We could use prayers for this effort! Changing canon law so politicians are automatically excommunicated would greatly advance the pro-life cause, and though it would be met with bitter resistance, it might help restore some legitimacy for Rome among our "separated brethren" in these culture wars.
we will never see full restoration in our lifetimes I suspect... but that does not mean we can not experience a vast reduction in the scope of the separation. It is well known that in severe persecution... the underground church smoothly merges into one.
Too bad we have to experience such immeasurable suffering in order to be one, doncha think?
Count on our prayers to get the rules updated to fit todays religio/political landscape. I recognise of course, the goal should not be excommunication, and damnation... but simple repentence, or honesty...
If they would just come out and say... I am catholic and will no longer support evil... OR I am not catholic and I LOVE to promote abortion rights... makes NO difference. MOST of America supports SOME restrictions on abortion.
You go... and God be with you in your quest...
Out of curiosity, does not Roman Doctrine already technically regard Magistrates who cast a legislative (law-establishing) vote in Favor of child-killing to be "automatically self-excommunicated" (as opposed to Citizens who merely cast a elective Vote in favor of a Pro-Abortion representative -- which I would still regard as a Venial Sin at least, but I guess that perhaps it is more of an "accessory to Crime" against the Decalogue than is the Sin of the actual Magistrate himself -- "those who are directly involved in lawmaking bodies", Evangelium Vitae).
I have heard this Justification more than once before from professing "Roman Catholics" when I have wondered out loud why (many, not all) AmChurch Roman Bishops refuse to formally excommunicate Pro-Abortion magistrates who claim Communicant status. "Well, technically they are already 'self-excommunicated', so kwitcherbitchin, Prot!" (Not from you, I don't think; you'd probably just agree, and respond with an [entirely-fair] criticism of Mainline Presbyterian failure of discipline against Pro-Aborts)
So, what would be the effectual change wrought by this change in Canon Law? Would it require the Actual (not imaginary) Excommunication of self-professed "Roman Catholic" Pro-Abort Magistrates, or at least make their Bishop liable to charges of "dereliction of duty" if the Parish adamantly refused to initiate even some type of preliminary Church Discipline??
Not baiting you, I'd sign your petition myself -- if they'd accept Protestant votes without disqualifying the ballot (grin). Just asking for your understanding of the case, if any; a fast-and-loose summation will do, if you are able to spare the time or have any Canon Lawyer friends who might pass along their opinions. Thanks!!
God bless, OP
Hah!! If (self-professed) Catholic politicians could be constrained to show grudging respect for the Sixth Commandment, it would be kinda nifty if they could likewise be compelled to occasionally pay lip-service to the Eighth. (grin)
But, the journey of a thousand steps (sigh)....
I signed the petition a long time ago. I doubt that the Holy Father will act on it, though I hope he will.
That being said, I think that there is very little chance that canon law would be changed to envisage automatic excommunication for politicians supporting abortion.
Acts which lead to automatic excommunication are usually easily distinguished. Procuring an abortion or consecrating a bishop against the wishes of the Supreme Pontiff are two good examples. There isn't very much open to interpretation. You either get the abortion or you don't. You either pay for it or you don't. As a renegade bishop, you either consecrate after being told not to, or you don't. The line is reasonably bright.
But with regard to politics, the line isn't nearly so bright. Catholic politicians must oppose laws which permit a legal right to obtain an abortion. But, the Holy Father has taught that it is not immoral to support a law which explicitly allows abortion if it is the most restrictive law that can be passed at a given time and place.
Thus, passing a law which explicitly recognizes that a minor may procure an abortion, but requring parental consent or notification, objectively violates the norm. It is a law which permits abortion. But, if it is the most restrictive law that can be passed, it is not only not immoral, but a moral imperative for Catholic politicians to pass the law.
The problem comes when there are multiple possible legal paths which a legislator can follow. Is he supporting the most restrictive law which can pass and be enforced? Or is he compromising too far? In Maryland, our new Republican governor has publicly stated that he is pro-choice. But he has made clear that he opposes partial birth abortion. Perhaps he has decided that for now, naming oneself as opposed in principle to all abortion makes one unelectable (in Maryland, it certainly does). It also is, practically speaking, meaningless.
Even if all the anti-life Democrats in the Assembly in Annapolis dropped dead tonight (now you know the stuff of which my fantasies are made) and were all replaced by pro-life Republicans in the morning, and passed a bill outlawing all abortions by Tuesday afternoon, in time for a newly-converted Gov. Ehrlich to sign by Wed morning, the 30th anniversay of the license to murder the unborn, it would likely be thrown out as unconstitutional by Thursday evening.
But an anti-PBA guy might get elected. Indeed, one did.
Perhaps he then succeeds in getting a PBA-ban enacted. I promise you, that would be quite an achievement in Maryland.
What would we say about Mr. Ehrlich's ostensible pro-choice view at that point? If he were Catholic, would we wish to excommunicate him? Do we believe that he has taken the most restrictive line possible? Are we sure he hasn't? Do we wish to apply the extreme sanction of automatic excommunication in this area?
Until we see a big break in the favor of the unborn, our gains will be incremental. The politicians who will be able to give us those incremental gains will be those who fuzz up the issue, at least a little bit.
Excommunicating Ted Kennedy is easy. Tom Daschle, Tom Harkin, and the rest, they're easy, too. But what about David Bonior? Claims to be pro-life, never achieved a single pro-life anything all those years in the Democrat leadership. How about the deceased Gov. Casey, late of your state, Pennsylvania? How do we interpret his support for the infrastructure of the Party of Death? Excommunicate for supporting the murderers? Or laud for his words against the murders?
If Mr. Ehrlich were Catholic and achieved a PBA ban? Excommunicate for talking pro-choice but achieving the maximum achievable on the fringe?
How about President Bush, if he were Catholic? Excommunicate for using stem cells from previously-murdered embryos? Give a papal Knighthood if he gets through a PBA ban? Excommunicate for saying that he supports abortion rights in cases of rape, incest, and life of the mother? Or papal Knighthood if he appoints three Justices who then vote in a 6-3 decision to overturn Roe v. Wade?
It is possible that the Holy See might excommunicate selected pro-death Catholic politicians. Automatic excommunication, I don't think so.
sitetest
Apologies to both you and Polycarp... I saw the "Crisis Magazine" Link and the "Full Text of the Doctrinal Note" Link, but not your Petition Link in #20. My bad...and thanks!
Petition signed, Mr. "Timothy A. Chichester or his designee to act on my behalf" (whoever that is)
For those who missed it....
I'll pray for you and this cause.
In the midst of the homosexual Church scandals media hype last year many public figures emerged as "Catholics but..." opposed to some or all of the moral teachings of the Church. In addition to it Bp. Wilton Gregory appointed Oklahoma's Gov. Frank Keating and some Catholics plus some morally shadowy "Catholic" figures to the National Review Board.
(It's a shame Bp. Gregory couldn't think of anyone else who could advise the USCCB if raping teenage boys is a good thing or not.)
It became clear that there are many political and massmedia figures, and a bunch of organizations (like VOTF) and publications (like the NCR) posing as "Catholic" but siding with the devil towards the destruction of Christian moral values and destruction of the Church.
In this situation the Church needed to remind her members the very basics of Christian morality -- unconditional sanctity of human life and the sanctity and dignity of marriage. These are the two very keystones of a morally healthy society.
Are there any kind of teeth in this?
Here is what the Catechism of the Catholic Church says about excommunication:
CCC 1463. Certain particularly grave sins incur excommunication, the most severe ecclesiastical penalty, which impedes the reception of the sacraments and the exercise of certain ecclesiastical acts, and for which absolution consequently cannot be granted, according to canon law, except by the Pope, the bishop of the place or priests authorized by them.Lawmakers who legalize abortion are indeed in a formal cooperation in it, not in a specific single act, but in a gruesome, silent, anonymous multitude of "legal" massacres.
CCC 2272. Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life.
Surely, the Church's voice can be ignored by the "Catholic" politicians, but at least they would have to stop posing as Catholic. If one would use the "Catholic" label for himself in the election process it will be clear what values he stands for.
What a concept. I read about this earlier in Zenit and in taking my normally cynical view, thought, "These people are politicians first, Catholics second and nothing will change that." Think Ted Kennedy (or not, if it's too early in the morning to be grossed out).
I'm glad the Vatican is taking a hard line on this but doubt seriously it will make any impact on all of the pro-choice, liberal, CINO politicians and activists. They will continue to rationalize their way through life and be very surprised when, at the end, they have to account for all of their worldly actions.
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.