« Listen to her | Main | PR »
April 26, 2004
Cardinal G. on the Question of the Day
Since support for abortion on the part of Catholic politicians is objectively a scandal, bishops have responded by teaching publicly and speaking privately to Catholic office holders. Because these measures have not been particularly successful, the question now is whether sanctions of some sort should be applied. There are complications. On the part of the Church, the 1983 Code of Canon Law makes it quite difficult to apply public sanctions on individuals; on the part of society, sanctions by bishops against politicians may be pastorally unwise and publicly harmful. In this culture, victims always have the moral upper hand. Blacks can be victims, Jews can be victims, American Indians can be victims, gays can be victims, women can be victims, even Muslims living here in the United States can be victims. By definition, however, Catholics cannot be victims, except for those Catholics who like to portray themselves as “oppressed” by the Church’s teachings. They make the best victims of all.Nonetheless, a response seems called for, and the bishops have a group of their number considering the range of responses possible. Because a line is being crossed in applying public sanctions, it would be pastorally wise for the bishops to act together. Some Catholics who would like to transform the Church into a vehicle for their particular preferences are impatient to have the bishops act exactly as they demand. No matter what the bishops do or don’t do, however, each Catholic voter has to form his or her judgements, even in political issues, according to the faith. This is still a democratic state; voters get the government they elect, not one selected by bishops. In choosing whom to elect, voters should ask how a politician can compartmentalize faith and life and still be a person of integrity.
Posted by Amy Welborn | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451be0d69e200d8342b892b53ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Cardinal G. on the Question of the Day:
Comments
Is it known what if any religious sanctions the Church imposed on Italians who were part of the Savoy government? I believe that for some time the Pope forbid faithful Catholics even from voting within a political system he considered illegitimate.
Posted by: David Kubiak at Apr 26, 2004 7:33:44 PM
Cardinal George hits the nail on the head, as he usually does. We should be very grateful that we can read his thoughts each week over the net even though far away from Chicago.
Posted by: Woody Jones at Apr 26, 2004 8:31:33 PM
A remarkably lucid statement of the situation confronted by American Catholics in general and the American bishops in particular. The Big Unanswered Question: What, if any, public "sanctions of some sort should be applied" by the bishops to aggressively proabortion Catholic politicians? At least the Cardinal seems to be aware the extreme scandal occasioned by the present situation.
But he rightly reminds us that we "voters get the government [we] elect, not one selected by the bishops." American Catholics may get the bishops we deserve. Or maybe not. But we certainly get the Catholic politicians we deserve. In this regard, we have no one to blame but ourselves.
Posted by: T. Marzen at Apr 26, 2004 8:41:38 PM
His Eminence makes perfecr sense. God knows he has had his trials in that snake pit of a diocese of Chicago with it's saturated apostasy. He deserves his purple heart. He is refreshing in his constructive criticisms aimed at the more wide eyed elements he deals with. He knows "Rome" won't be REBUILT in a day.
Posted by: Joe Giardina at Apr 26, 2004 8:52:17 PM
This is the only part that seemed to me to be a little weird:
Some Catholics who would like to transform the Church into a vehicle for their particular preferences are impatient to have the bishops act exactly as they demand.
since it would appear that the very ones who've gotten just that - their way - for the past 40 years haven't been exactly the faithful remnant. Yet, those who wish to remain faithful to Rome would just like some local back-up once in a great while.
Posted by: chris K at Apr 26, 2004 9:00:18 PM
David,
I think it is the memory of failures such as dealing with the victorious House of Savoy (or, going back further but more clearly, the failure of the interdict on the Venetian republic in 1607) that has inspired the cautious approach.
Posted by: Liam at Apr 26, 2004 9:19:27 PM
Why not state that the Church will arrange for additional catechesis and "private" masses or small masses for such politicians and they are to refrain from advertising themselves as Catholic, asking/targeting other Catholics to join them in whatever anti-catholic decisions they have made, avoiding photo's ops of themselves receiving communion. Their faith should be especially "PRIVATE" if they are not willing to live it publically.
Posted by: Therese at Apr 26, 2004 10:13:41 PM
For those who took part in the discussion here a couple of weeks ago about Cardinal George's extemporaneous comments, see this clarification:
http://www.archchicago.org/cardinal/statement/stat_04/stat_041604.htm
Posted by: Mike Benz at Apr 26, 2004 10:58:19 PM
This line seemed to me to signal that some sanctions will be forthcoming:
"Because a line IS BEING crossed in applying public sanctions, it would be pastorally wise for the bishops to act together." (emphasis mine)
Cardinal George more or less acknowledges that the private meetings have not been successful, and that some ground-breaking action will be necessary.
To me, that is significant. Even if it doesn't occur during the election season.
Posted by: Mike Benz at Apr 26, 2004 11:01:47 PM
Wow what leadership! It takes thirty years to determine that maybe action should be taken to show that Catholic enablers of abortion and infanticide are not worthy of communion. What courageous shepherds!
Posted by: Tom Faranda at Apr 26, 2004 11:11:24 PM
Yeah - in general, I like Cardinal George a lot. But I'm not sure how "applying canon law and ending this scandal" morphs into nothing more than the "particular preferences" of "some Catholics." I think that those Catholics who've been arguing for denying communion to pols like Kerry have made it fairly clear that they see reasons for doing so - that this isn't a matter of mere taste or "preferences."
Posted by: Kevin Miller at Apr 27, 2004 5:31:13 AM
Isn't the problem the absence of any effective action over the past thirty-one years? How can any current bishop publicly rebuke a Kerry, when his former mentor Fr. Drinan is a priest in good standing?
Posted by: TomM at Apr 27, 2004 6:20:37 AM
Is it even proper to construe the witholding of communion from some in manifest grave public sin as "sanctions"? Sanctioning someone denotes witholding a good, or applying an evil (punishment). But in this case, what's "removed" is an positive evil, that is, the sacriledge to be committed by grave sinners presenting themselves for communion.
The presentation of this as a sanction by Cdls. McCarrick and George seems to imply that they do not consider Kerry's pro abortion stance gravely sinful for some reason. Is their any possible justification for such a position?
Posted by: al at Apr 27, 2004 6:40:42 AM
Kevin,
Agreed. The Cardinal's statement starts out promising enough, but then it veres off in a direction that seems to indicate that no public action will be taken. I wonder if his remarks were meant more as a response to the statements of Abp. Chaput and Burke, who seemed less inclined to wait for some sort of group response on the part of the Bishops Conference and appear prepared to actually govern the dioceses entrusted to them.
Posted by: Bill at Apr 27, 2004 6:42:04 AM
Let's get these wagons back in a circle.
Posted by: Larry Tierney at Apr 27, 2004 8:26:06 AM
I can't describe how encouraging it is just to see a thought process here. It's nice not to have to assume that the bishops are surprised that they might have to do something about this. My heart actually leapt for a moment at the thought that we got more than a vague, nonconfrontational statement.
We now have a much more specific nonconfrontational statement.
Posted by: Steve Skojec at Apr 27, 2004 8:31:59 AM
Actually, the impression I got was that they _are_ planning to do something confrontational -- they're just trying to figure out what would be the most effective. This made the existence of Cdl. McCarrick's task force a little more understandable to me.
Why not give them a little time and see what happens?
Posted by: Karen H. at Apr 27, 2004 8:40:19 AM
Very nice job by His Eminence. Particularly spiffy when he lists Official Victims, but the Church doesn't qualify. Legitimate dilemma on what to do next. Maybe the best action is none at all, in terms of what the bishops can accomplish. Very clear that these documents, as well as that issued by Cardinal Arinze, are directed at the junior senator from Massachusetts. Who is doing a lovely job of sabatoging his own chances for living at 1600 PA Av. (The John In A Coal Mine picture might be his equivalent of the classic Dukakis In A Tank photo.)
Posted by: Gerard E. at Apr 27, 2004 8:40:32 AM
Despite the qualifiers the Cardinal adds later in his piece, taken as a whole it reads like some sort of preamble to a future action by the bishops.
Posted by: Rich Leonardi at Apr 27, 2004 9:09:28 AM
I agree with Karen.
Posted by: Mike Benz at Apr 27, 2004 9:15:31 AM
And I agree with Karen and Mike.
Posted by: Mike Petrik at Apr 27, 2004 9:34:03 AM
Soemwhat ecouraging comments, but why do I get the feeling that the conference of the bishops will look agonizingly similar to the Council of the Ents, with orthodox Catholics playing the role of Pippin?
Posted by: c matt at Apr 27, 2004 9:52:15 AM
I'm reminded of the Chinese proverb: "He who rides a tiger finds it hard to dismount." If the bishops decide to sanction politicians, they may face demands to sanction journalists, lawyers, doctors, nurses, .... I realize that this is a slippery slope argument. The Cardinal seems to recognize that things will change if the bishops cross the line.
Posted by: Herb Ely at Apr 27, 2004 9:55:53 AM
Karen -
While I would agree that we have no choice but to wait and see what the bishops will now do - and there is a sense in Cardinal George's statements that something will happen - I will reserve any exuberant sense of hope until we see some concrete action.
We cannot change the past. But the political history of this country since 1973 has yielded sufficient catalysts for a USCCB "task force" on this issue that I find it strange we are still waiting for a result. In my opinion, a "task force" should have been formed when Mario Cuomo, at the request of Fr. Richard McBrien, gave a speech at Notre Dame in 1984 entitled, "Religious Belief and Public Morality -- A Catholic Governor's Perspective". This speech asked the questions that should have gotten the ball rolling:
I accept the church’s teaching on abortion. Must I insist you do? By law? By denying you Medicaid funding? By a constitutional amendment? If so, which one? Would that be the best way to avoid abortions or to prevent them?
These questions could easily have been the framework for social teaching on the issue. But Cuomo, in what is perhaps the most dexterous and intelligent articulation of this position I have yet seen, was not finished:
My church and my conscience require me to believe certain things about divorce, birth control, and abortion. My church does not order me—under pain of sin or expulsion—to pursue my salvific mission according to a precisely defined political plan.
And further:
I repeat, there is no church teaching that mandates the best political course for making our belief everyone’s rule, for spreading this part of our Catholicism. There is neither an encyclical nor a catechism that spells out a political strategy for achieving legislative goals.
It seems to me that this begged for just such a Church Teaching or Mandate. At the very least, it should have led to the formation of norms and policies on how to deal with pro-abortion Catholic politicians. But it didn't happen then, and the argument over sanctions is nothing new.
It's been reported that the American Life League has compiled a nationwide list of over five hundred Catholic pro-abortion politicians.
How long do we wait before saying enough?
Posted by: Steve Skojec at Apr 27, 2004 10:02:12 AM
Steve-
I always emphasize to my kids (and to myself) that the most important thing is what we do next. The past can't be changed, but the present and future can.
Mike
Posted by: Mike Benz at Apr 27, 2004 11:02:44 AM
