« Next stop... | Main | Bishop of Grand Rapids »
May 15, 2004
Sheridan interviewed
COOPER: I talked to a lot of Catholics today who are frankly kind of stunned by what you're doing and they said that what you seem to be doing is turning the sacraments into a weapon. Is that what they were meant?SHERIDAN: Well, if you'll read the letter carefully you'll see that nowhere in there do I talk about denying communion, so using the sacrament as a weapon doesn't seem an appropriate characterization.
I'm appealing to Catholic consciences, calling on them to be as well informed as they can and if a Catholic knowingly promotes or encourages through voting what is known to be evil behavior then I believe, I truly believe that we as voters are complicit in that behavior and we must refrain ourselves from approaching the sacrament until we have been reconciled.
COOPER: You picked though certain topics, I mean gay marriage, euthanasia, stem cell research, the pope speaks against the war in Iraq, why these subjects?
SHERIDAN: Well, the issues that I've chosen to speak about in this letter are what we understand to be intrinsically evil in and of themselves. The issues that you think of, while important in having moral consequences and moral dimensions to them, are not and have never been declared by the church to be evil in and of themselves. So, for example, the church has never taught and does not now teach that the imposition of the death penalty is in all circumstance evil.
Posted by Amy Welborn | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/738432
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Sheridan interviewed:
Comments
An honest question. As I understand the reasoning here, since, say, gay marriage/civil unions are intrinsically wrong, one may not vote for a candidate who supports gay marriage/civil unions. Contraception is also intrinsically wrong, is it not? If so, then is voting for a candidate who favors continued/further legalization of contraception (or the public funding thereof) also wrong? What's the difference, if any?
And another question. War and capital punishment are not always/intrinsically wrong. But if one believes with moral certainty that a particular candidate's policy on war or capital punishment is wrong, then isn't it just as wrong for one to vote for that candidate as it would be to vote for a candidate who favors gay marriage/unions or abortion?
Posted by: T. Marzen at May 15, 2004 10:00:19 PM
Bravo for Bishop Sheridan. It's about time we got some leadership from our bishops.
Posted by: michigancatholic at May 15, 2004 11:05:46 PM
I don't think this was a very prudent move on the Bishop's part. Many political races are between candidates who both support abortion to some extent.
Posted by: LP at May 15, 2004 11:45:33 PM
T. Marzen, from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
"1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.
1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man "takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin."59 In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits."
I think Bishop Sheridan's point is that the Church has particularly clear teachings about abortion and describing a same sex union as "marriage". A conscience informed by the Church's teachings will not be as clear about war or capital punishment.
From Bishop Sheridan's letter of 1 May: " The Church never directs citizens to vote for any specific candidate. The Church does, however, have the right and the obligation to teach clearly and fully the objective truth about the dignity and rights of the human person. These teachings, in turn, must inform the consciences of voters. “By its intervention in this area, the Church’s Magisterium does not wish to exercise political power or eliminate the freedom of opinion of Catholics regarding contingent questions. Instead, it intends -- as is its proper function – to instruct and illuminate the consciences of the faithful, particularly those involved in political life, so that their actions may always serve the integral promotion of the human person and the common good.” (Footnote 7: Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, “Doctrinal Notes on Some Questions Regarding the Participation of Catholics in Political Life”, 6. ) "
Posted by: John Lilburne at May 16, 2004 12:04:40 AM
With great -- to me -- irony this discussion in our happily multicultural America is boiling down to one that began in the Enlightenment period and reached a crisis in the nineteenth century -- is the Catholic Church compatible with liberal democracy? Despite all the Jacques Maritain did to revolutionize the thinking of several Popes on this matter, I think the way modern democracies are moving may suggest that Pius IX was right after all.
Was Bishop Bruskewitz ever able to make good on his ultimatum to excommunicate a whole range of people from members of 'Call to Action' to the SSPX?
Posted by: David Kubiak at May 16, 2004 1:45:40 AM
And here I thought it was cool that Bishop Sheridan checkmated Pretty Boy Cooper on these matters. More proof that adherents to the Holy Church of Journalism are remarkably ignorant of religious beliefs beyond their own. Bishop Sheridan was clearly adhering to Jesus' command to be clever as snakes and innocent as doves- while sent out as sheep among wolves.
Posted by: Gerard E. at May 16, 2004 3:56:19 AM
"SHERIDAN: Well, if you'll read the letter carefully you'll see that nowhere in there do I talk about denying communion, so using the sacrament as a weapon doesn't seem an appropriate characterization.
From his Epistle: There must be no confusion in these matters. 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. It is for this reason that these Catholics, whether candidates for office or those who would vote for them, may not receive Holy Communion until they have recanted their positions and been reconciled with God and the Church in the Sacrament of Penance."
Bp. Sheridan is playing semantic games. Indeed, he did not talk about denying people communion. He merely said people who vote counter to his epistle's instruction "may not receive Holy Communion". It is a distinction without a difference as both statements are equivalent to pronouncing a person in a state of mortal sin which requires repentence or else damnation is the inevitable result.
Another semantic game he plays is with the death penalty. The Holy Father has been explicit that the death penalty in the West, especially as it is implement in the US, is immoral and a violation of the fifth commandment.
One wonders why he would expect Catholics to take his epistle any more seriously than he appears to take Evangelium Vitae with his rationalization for ignoring the Holy Father's teaching on the Death Penalty.
Posted by: catholic at May 16, 2004 4:51:44 AM
Another semantic game he plays is with the death penalty. The Holy Father has been explicit that the death penalty in the West, especially as it is implement in the US, is immoral and a violation of the fifth commandment.
It is also clear that from the logic of his position that this judgment is based on a prudential analysis about which Catholics are free to disagree.
Posted by: Charles R. Williams at May 16, 2004 6:17:47 AM
"It is also clear that from the logic of his position that this judgment is based on a prudential analysis about which Catholics are free to disagree."
I'm familiar with that rationalization for not listening to the Holy Father's teaching. I used to use ignore what the Pope said all the time using a similar argument. But, after I was blessed to learn the truth of the Apostolic faith, I converted to Catholicism and started listening to the Pope instead of writing off his teachings as mere opinion.
Posted by: catholic at May 16, 2004 7:19:18 AM
If the bishop is playing a game of semantics, he didn't start it. The interviewer refers to safeguarding the holiness of the Eucharist as "using the sacrament as a weapon."
Abortion and contraception are intrinsically evil and therefore always wrong. The death penalty and war are sometimes wrong and sometimes right. In each case, a prudential judgment is required, a judgment about which reasonable people may differ.
Can I vote for a candidate who wants to make contraception more available than it already is,and/or wants to agressively promote its use? That depends on what his opponent has to offer on the same issue.
Personally, I could vote for a candidate who candidly admitted that he would not have the votes to outlaw contraception. But he would have to do all he could to discourage it legislatively. I would also expect him to promote educational and entertainment endeavors to impact public opinion on this issue.
I certainly wouldn't expect him to show up at Planned Parenthood fund raisers.
Posted by: Marsh Fightlin at May 16, 2004 7:56:29 AM
T. Marzen,
War and capital punishment are not always/intrinsically wrong. But if one believes with moral certainty that a particular candidate's policy on war or capital punishment is wrong, then isn't it just as wrong for one to vote for that candidate as it would be to vote for a candidate who favors gay marriage/unions or abortion?
For sin to be mortal, three things must be present: objectively grave matter, full knowledge, and complete consent. In the case of war or capital punishment, the first condition is not always present. One may believe something to be mortal sin without the act being objectively grave. In this case, one could argue that it is not "just as wrong" as voting for a candidate who advocates for abortion rights.
Your question about artificial contraception is an interesting one. I wonder what Bishop Sheridan would say. On the other hand, I don't know of any candidate who has included a "right to contraception" in his or her platform; there's no political benefit to such a position when society already views contraception as sacrosanct.
Posted by: Clayton at May 16, 2004 8:14:55 AM
Clayton writes "For sin to be mortal, three things must be present: objectively grave matter, full knowledge, and complete consent. In the case of war or capital punishment, the first condition is not always present."
I will note that the teaching of the Church is the instances under which the Death Penalty is permissible in the West are practically nonexistent. That takes away much of the subjectivity.
With respect to war, there are just war criteria which must be satisfied. While the determining the satisfaction of each criterion may be subjective, in the case of the Iraq war, it is clear to the Vatican that not all criteria were met. It should also be clear to anyone who can put their nationalism aside.
Posted by: catholic at May 16, 2004 8:42:42 AM
Catholic,
All I was attempting to do was put the Pope's teaching in context, as the Catechism does:
2267 The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.
"If, instead, bloodless means are sufficient to defend against the aggressor and to protect the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
"Today, in fact, given the means at the State's disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender 'today ... are very rare, if not practically non-existent.'[John Paul II, Evangelium vitae 56.]
In popular discourse, many seem to be putting abortion on a par with capital punishment. The Church does not exclude the possibility of recourse to the death penalty; the Church does exclude the possibility of recourse to abortion.
Posted by: Clayton at May 16, 2004 9:10:43 AM
Catholic wrote:
Another semantic game he plays is with the death penalty. The Holy Father has been explicit that the death penalty in the West, especially as it is implement in the US, is immoral and a violation of the fifth commandment.
Please adduce an example of the Holy Father saying, explicitly and unequivocally, that "the death penalty in the West" as implemented in the US, is always and intrinsically "immoral and a violation of the fifth commandment."
The difference between something which is "almost always" or "practically always" evil (and therefore which, nonetheless, the Church grants the possibility of licitly choosing) and something which is categorically evil (and therefore which may never licitly be chosen) is a difference of kind, not degree. Such things are, morally speaking, as far apart as the Sun and the planet Pluto.
You may want to read my discussion of this subject on my blog Thrown Back over the last couple of weeks. I go into these issues in some depth.
The bishop is not playing "semantic games" at all. The bishop nowhere says that he will refuse anyone communion. He tells people they may not come to communion under certain circumstances. There is a difference between the bishop exhorting the faithful, as is his duty, and exercising his authority to discipline the faithful (as also is within his duty, but which, apparently, he has decided is not yet warranted).
Posted by: Fr. Rob Johansen at May 16, 2004 9:16:38 AM
Does the Church teach definitively that use of a condom in an act of sodomy or nonmarital intercourse is an additional evil to the act itself?
I'm not sure this is a definitive a teaching.
According to JPII's theology of the body, contraception is evil because it changes the self-giving nature of the marital act, through the withholding of fertility.
Thus contraception places a "lie" within the heart of a marriage.
But what about nonmarital sex - particularly between persons who can never marry (such as adulterers or homosexuals) or who have no intention of marrying?
Such nonmarital sex is evil in itself. It also is a lie, because the partners cannot or will not give themselves to each other through the marriage vows. Such acts should be discouraged by public authorities.
But I do not see how the use of a condom in such acts is an additional evil.
And where public health authorities are unable to suppress such acts, do they not have an obligation to mitigate the public health threat such acts pose, by seeing to it that condoms are available?
Posted by: Rick at May 16, 2004 9:36:20 AM
Coming as it does on the heels of the debate over refusing Kerry Communion, it seems to me that Bishop Sheridan's letter confuses the issue.
In the debate about Kerry, we are talking about a man who wishes to be in a position to make public policy promoting abortion. A man who has taken a public position contrary to the Church's moral teaching on a critical issue. A man who will be in a position to make the law of the land that we will then have to abide by.
Bishop Sheridan, on the other hand, is talking about a private vote...a vote that is much less likely to affect public policy, and a private position that is unlikely to sway public opinion.
The debate about Kerry pointed to a difference between the two by stating that Kerry's openly acknowledged support of abortion made him ineligible to receive. Now comes Bishop Sheridan essentially saying they are one and the same issue both having equal weight. He has further expanded the debate beyond the single issue of abortion. This raises some questions.
Does the Church see my vote for a candidate who supports abortion to be the equivalent to a congressman voting to make abortion the law of the land? And if the answer is "yes," does it mean that if both candidates support abortion, I cannot vote for either of them? Likewise, if both candidates support contraception, I cannot vote for either of them? And the same question applies to each of the issues that Bishop Sheridan cites.
Expanding on that, does it mean that if all candidates for office promote an issue that the Church teaches is intrinsically wrong, I must abstain from voting? Or is it reasonable to choose the least offensive platform and vote for that candidate even if one plank violates the Church's teaching on a moral issue?
I think it's obvious where this is leading. Will following Bishop Sheridan's line of reasoning in effect eliminate all Catholics from the electoral process? If the answer is "yes" does this ultimately preclude the Catholic from being salt and light once a culture has reached a certain point?
And on another aspect of the matter, the argument that Communion has become a "weapon" is not entirely illegitimate. We do believe we are the Church militant, so seeing spiritual practices as "weapons" is actually upholding what the faith teaches. In fact, we say a rosary outside of an abortion clinic precisely because we believe the rosary is a "weapon."
Posted by: Carrie at May 16, 2004 10:25:30 AM
Rick:
No. "Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means." (Paul VI, "Humanae Vitae")
"Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural power and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious." (Pius XI, "Casti Connubii")
Posted by: Patrick at May 16, 2004 10:26:49 AM
It appears that by the bishop's reasoning, I may not vote in the upcoming election without putting my soul and my ability to receive communion in jeopardy since there is no perfect candidate. As Carrie said, he would remove Catholics from the electoral process.
Frankly, though, I doubt that people in his own diocese will pay attention, let alone anyone else. Ever since Humanae Vitae, American Catholics have learned to trust their judgment over that of the church. Huffing and puffing from a bishop -- or a group of bishops -- isn't going to change that.
Posted by: andrea at May 16, 2004 10:46:01 AM
With respect to war, there are just war criteria which must be satisfied. While the determining the satisfaction of each criterion may be subjective, in the case of the Iraq war, it is clear to the Vatican that not all criteria were met. It should also be clear to anyone who can put their nationalism aside.
Catholic, this muddies the issue. The decision to go to war is a prudential judgment, exercised by public officials responsible for the common welfare.
Separately, Catholics are free to exercise their own judgment as to whether the (non-Catholic) Bush Administration's decision to make war in Iraq satisfies Catholic just-war doctrine. Evidently you believe it does not, and I do. Catholics are free to disagree about the war.
The Vatican says what it believes about that war, and Catholics are well advised to consider its reasoning. But active support of abortion and active support of this particular war are simply not on the same moral plane.
Posted by: Christopher Rake at May 16, 2004 11:12:28 AM
Fr. Rob Johansen & Christopher Rake:
My question was whether a Catholic who is morally certain that a candidate's policy on a war or capital punishment is wrong is forbidden to vote for that candidate. For such a voter, it would seem that abortion and war/capital punishment ARE on the same "moral plane" regardless whether the voter's judgment on war/capital punishment may be questioned because it involves a "prudential judgment."
Otherwise, the voter must never vote for a candidate who supports abortion for any reason. But the voter is ALWAYS permitted to vote for a competing candidate in favor of war or capital punishment . . . even if the war is an aggressive war of genocidal extermination or the candidate advocates capital punishment of children for stealing bread because war and capital punishment always involve "prudential judgments." Which is absurd. Because a moral matter may involve taking the extra step of making a "prudential judgment" does not mean that the matter carries less moral weight.
Posted by: T. Marzen at May 16, 2004 12:17:36 PM
RE: Capital Punishment
The Holy Father's moral teaching is that it is only to be used in cases of defense (which can be many things). His opinion that it is, given modern conditions, virtually unnecessary, is just that, an opinion on the current civic situation. It's not the Holy Father's job to tell Caesar what the situation is in his state. He tells Caesar under what moral conditions he can use Capital Punishment and war. It's Caesar's job to apply those conditions to his own state, for only he has the proper knowledge (and authority) to do so.
>>>"If the answer is "yes" does this ultimately preclude the Catholic from being salt and light once a culture has reached a certain point?"
There are other and more important ways to change the culture than voting. Really, voting isnt going to change the culture. Only converting hearts to Christ can do that.
>>>"does it mean that if both candidates support abortion, I cannot vote for either of them?"
No. The Church allows a voter to choose a candidate (or a politican to choose a law) that will do more to advance a specific moral good. I don't vote for someone unless they are absolutely pro life, but not because it's not morally licit to do so, but because it just keeps us in a vicious cycle of politicians to sit on the fence while the unborn continue to die.
Posted by: Jason at May 16, 2004 12:18:55 PM
Well, the issues that I've chosen to speak about in this letter are what we understand to be intrinsically evil in and of themselves. The issues that you think of, while important in having moral consequences and moral dimensions to them, are not and have never been declared by the church to be evil in and of themselves.
Based on this rationale, it would seem that there are hardly any candidates that can be voted for:
Serious suggestions have been made to us that communities in certain places, to the divine displeasure and injury of the neighbour, in violation of both divine and human law, approve of usury. By their statutes, sometimes confirmed by oath, they not only grant that usury may be demanded and paid, but deliberately compel debtors to pay it. By these statutes they impose heavy burdens on those claiming the return of usurious payments, employing also various pretexts and ingenious frauds to hinder the return ... If indeed someone has fallen into the error of presuming to affirm pertinaciously that the practice of usury is not sinful, we decree that he is to be punished as a heretic; and we strictly enjoin on local ordinaries and inquisitors of heresy to proceed against those they find suspect of such error as they would against those suspected of heresy. (Ecumenical Council of Vienne)
Posted by: Patrick at May 16, 2004 12:19:09 PM
Patrick,
I don't know what your point was in quoting the Church's (still valid) condemnation of usury. But if it was somehow to "trap" the Magisterium, you should know what you're talking about. Here's a useful article:
http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=646
Posted by: Jason at May 16, 2004 12:38:22 PM
Bishop Sheridenr's letter also doesn't take into account strategic voting. Rod Dreher used a good example from NY state politics: there were two pro-choice senatorial candidates. If one takes the Sheridan line, then pro-life Catholics could vote for neither even though by doing so pro-lifers would assist in getting the much more virulently pro-abort Clinton in office. In a close election, one seat could have been the determining factor as to the controlling party in the Senate. However, I will take it one step further. Usually, in NY elections, there is a pro-life candidate in the Right to Life Party and/or the Conservative party. However, attractive it might be to vote for such a person, he or she is simply unelectable. Are Catholics obliged to only vote for unelectable candidates, or can they work within an imperfect system for as much constructive change as can be obtained? I certainly don't think Dreher or anyone else similarly situated should refrain from receiving communion because they would have voted for Guiliani or Lazio rather than the Right-to-Lifer. Sheridan does not seem to understand that politics and governance is the art of the possible.
As for me, I intend to vote for George Bush and would encourage others to do likewise. However, I am not going to call others "bad Catholics" who vote for John Kerry despite (not because of) his pro-abort views.
Posted by: Patrick Rothwell at May 16, 2004 12:48:18 PM
Jason: It wasn't to "trap" the Magisterium. But I suspect almost all the current candidates for office in the US "approve of usury" and would, in office, "deliberately compel debtors to pay it" (even your article admits that some business transactions are still usurious). The same for the contraception issue mentioned above - many pro-life candidates (Protestants) support it. Also many pro-life candidates still would allow for abortion to "save the mother's life", etc.
It would be better to point out that there are a lot more abortions than death penalty cases, no chance of outlawing usury, contraception, etc. His argument is faulty, though not his conclusion.
Posted by: Patrick at May 16, 2004 12:58:38 PM
Lying is always and intrinsically wrong, so I cannot in good conscience continue to receive the Body of Christ if support an elected official who has already shown himself to be a liar in the past.
Child molestation is always and intrinsically wrong, so I cannot in good conscience support an organization that has already shown itself to be willing to aid and abet child molesters.
So I should pray instead of vote come this November, and send the money that would have gone into my Archbishops' Annual Appeal check to a cloistered commnity I know instead?
Barb
Posted by: Trying to be intrinsically good at May 16, 2004 1:57:45 PM
If all Catholics took Bishop Sheridan's position seriously and the electorate knew that they did, Catholics would not be able to vote at all due to the contraception issue, and
the culture would slide much more quickly down the slippery slope once the Catholic vote was no longer a force to be reckoned with.
Similarly, if Bishop Sheridan's position were taken to heart, the Communion lines at Mass would nearly disappear (making EMs a thing of the past, incidentally), since we no longer have a culture that will permit large numbers of women to leave the workforce in order to stay at home to care for many children.
While I applaud Bishop Sheridan's desire to be faithful to the teachings of the Church, it still does seem that we must set as our objective that which is possible, even though it is not ideal.
Posted by: Carrie at May 16, 2004 3:28:22 PM
Patrick,
Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means." (Paul VI, "Humanae Vitae")
Now, tell me how this is consistent with an act all Catholic moralists agree is licit: Treating a rape victim with spermicide.
Further, I believe many Catholic moralists would say that a sexually inactive woman who faced the prospect of rape (eg, a missionary nun) might preemptively protect herself by precautionary use of contraceptives. In fact, at one point I believe nuns serving in the Belgian Congo were advised to go on the pill, because of the risk of sexual assault.
The theology of the body says that acts against the fertility of the beloved are evil, because they are a rejection of the beloved in what is necessarily a self-donative act.
But acts against the fertility of a sexual aggressor are licit. Again, all Catholic moralists are in agreement here.
Posted by: Rick at May 16, 2004 3:40:31 PM
I think that T Marzen asks the important question: "But if one believes with moral certainty that a particular candidate's policy on war or capital punishment is wrong, then isn't it just as wrong for one to vote for that candidate as it would be to vote for a candidate who favors gay marriage/unions or abortion?"
Before answering with the usual distinctions, one really should carefully compare Bishop Sheridan's reasoning with that of the Romanian Catholic Bishop John Michael Botean on abortion AND participation in the Iraq War, which I have excerpted at length below. Can one disagree - as many presumably have - with Bishop Botean on grounds that cannot be also used to disagree with Bishop Sheridan?
"The Church teaches that good ends do not justify the use of evil means. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states this principle succinctly: 'One may never do evil so that good may result from it.' (1789) One contemporary example of this would be abortion. Abortion is intrinsically evil; hence regardless of the good that may seem to issue from it, a Catholic may never participate in it.
"Paragraph 2309 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church states: 'The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy' (emphasis added). Since war is about the mass infliction of death and suffering on children of God, Christians can enter into it and fight in it only if the war in question strictly meets all the criteria of the just war theory, and only if these same standards are likewise meticulously observed in the course of fighting the war. Vague, loose, freewheeling, conniving, relaxed interpretations of Catholic just war theory and its application are morally illegitimate because of 'the gravity of such a decision.'
"'The evaluation of these conditions of the just war theory for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good,'" states the Catechism. (2309) However, the nation-state is never the final arbiter or authority for the Catholic of what is moral or for what is good for the salvation of his or her soul. What is legal can be evil and often has been. Jesus Christ and his Church, not the state, are the ultimate informers of conscience for the Catholic.
"This is why the Church teaches as a norm of conscience the following: 'If rulers were to enact unjust laws or take measures contrary to the moral order such arrangements would not be binding in conscience.' (Catechism 1903) She also warns 'Blind obedience [to immoral laws] does not suffice to excuse those who carry them out' (Catechism 2313). When a moral conflict arises between Church teaching and secular morality, when contradictory moral demands are made upon a Catholic’s conscience, he or she 'must obey God rather than man' (Acts 5:29).
"Because such a moment of moral crisis has arisen for us, beloved Romanian Catholics, I must now speak to you as your bishop. Please be aware that I am not speaking to you as a theologian or as a private Christian voicing his opinion, nor by any means am I speaking to you as a political partisan. I am speaking to you solely as your bishop with the authority and responsibility I, though a sinner, have been given as a successor to the apostles on your behalf. I am speaking to you from the deepest chambers of my conscience as your bishop, appointed by Jesus Christ in his Body, the Church, to help shepherd you to sanctity and to heaven. Never before have I spoken to you in this manner, explicitly exercising the fullness of authority Jesus Christ has given his Apostles 'to bind and to loose,' (cf. John 20:23), but now 'the love of Christ compels' me to do so (2 Corinthians 5:14). My love for you makes it a moral imperative that I not allow you, by my silence, to fall into grave evil and its incalculable temporal and eternal consequences.
"Humanly speaking, I would much prefer to keep silent. It would be far, far easier for me and my family simply to let events unfold as they will, without commentary or warning on my part. But what kind of shepherd would I be if I, seeing the approach of the wolf, ran away from the sheep (cf. John 10:12-14)? My silence would be cowardly and, indeed, sinful. I believe that Christ, whose flock you are, expects more than silence from me on behalf of the souls committed to my protection and guidance.
"Therefore I, by the grace of God and the favor of the Apostolic See Bishop of the Eparchy of St. George in Canton, must declare to you, my people, for the sake of your salvation as well as my own, that any direct participation and support of this war against the people of Iraq is objectively grave evil, a matter of mortal sin. Beyond a reasonable doubt this war is morally incompatible with the Person and Way of Jesus Christ. With moral certainty I say to you it does not meet even the minimal standards of the Catholic just war theory."
Thank you.
Neil
Posted by: Neil Dhingra at May 16, 2004 4:21:19 PM
Obviously, some of you just aren't listening:
"I'm appealing to Catholic consciences, calling on them to be as well informed as they can and if a Catholic knowingly promotes or encourages through voting what is known to be evil behavior then I believe, I truly believe that we as voters are complicit in that evil". Are you 'knowingly promoting evil' by your voting? Well, STOP!
Posted by: Mike Walsh, MM at May 16, 2004 4:22:53 PM
>>>", that any direct participation and support of this war against the people of Iraq is objectively grave evil, a matter of mortal sin."
Thank God the war wasn't against the people of Iraq, but against their government leaders.
Posted by: Jason at May 16, 2004 4:31:38 PM
Neil, Bishop Botean's words are remarkable. I don't think that even Catholics in Nazi Germany were told that the war was unjust and participating in it objectively a serious sin. In fact I've never heard of similar apostolic pronouncement in any modern war. Could you post the source of your quote so that I can check if it's authentic?
Posted by: jerry at May 16, 2004 6:36:37 PM
Bishop Sheridan has simply stated (and given the state of ignorance among the laity, perhaps stated too simply) the long-held teaching of the Church, and so has faithfully carried out a duty of his vocation. I am distressed, although not particularly surprised, at the number of Catholic commenters on this issue who have publicly stated their intention NOT to faithfully carry out the duties of their vocation.
We, the laity are to live out our lives, with our Faith integrally incorporated, in a way that sanctifies the temporal order. Our first priority must be to put and end to grave and ongoing moral disorders that destroy our fellow men. In a democratic society, the basis for establishing and implementing public policy is the democratic franchise – voting. So we have an OBLIGATION to participate. The attitude that the affairs of the world are beneath us is rightly foreign to the Catholic mindset and Faith. We also have an obligation to see that the effect of our participation results, to maximum degree possible, in the conforming of society to universal moral norms and the freedom for the Church to pursue her mission. The right of all innocents to life and the sanctity of the family (a natural and not a culturally established institution) are universal requirements at all times in all cultures. Thus it follows we may never use our votes with the intention of bring about the moral disorders Bishop Sheridan has specifically mentioned.
Further, it is not morally licit for us to use our votes with callous disregard for the likelihood that these moral evils will be worsened or maintained. A Catholic voter may not simply assess two candidates, one of whom is strongly pro-abortion, and the other mostly pro-life (with admittedly specific defects in the morality of his position) and based on agreement with their positions on a few or all other issues proceed to vote for the pro-abortion candidate. For example, if one candidate sees his pro-abortion stance as part of an otherwise licit and even commendable commitment to protect the environment, and the mostly pro-life candidate consistently pursues policies that are less favorable to environmental protection, a decision to vote for the former candidate is not morally licit. I was guilty of this rationalization in the past, and I now know that it was sinful and a failure on my part.
Now, these calculations of the effects of our votes are just that – calculations, because none of us can know the future of contingent events with certainty. And circumstances can get murkier and murkier. It remains our responsibility as lay faithful citizens to SWEAT IT OUT. THAT’S OUR VOCATION. All these comments to the effect, “Well, I guess that means that the bishop (or the Church) is telling me to – now add a reductio ad absurdum case” – are, in many cases, just whining. GROW UP AND LIVE OUT YOUR VOCATION.
As Catholics in a representative democracy, we must participate and we must use the voting influence we have to overturn or avoid implementing an institutionalized unjust moral order, particularly including the issues Bishop Sheridan listed. The bishop did not elevate any of the issues on that list; the Church has always instructed that they (or their moral antecedents) are grave and universal. To deliberately use your vote to advance any of those moral evils, or to fail to use you vote to block them places you in opposition to God’s will to bring about a just moral order. If you become aware that you are in such a state, you must abstain from Holy Communion until you have received sacramental absolution. Beyond that, judgments and contingent facts become numerous and diverse, even as the moral basis for deciding remains steady. Objecting to the list on the basis that is is not complete is generally confused - even if well meaning, disingenuous, or rationalization of deeply held guilt. It wasn't meant to be exhaustive, it was meant to be an instruction on some relevant points of Catholic morality at a given place and time. That is why we have bishops. If Bishop Sheridan made a mistake, it was in assuming that some Catholics knew more than they are giving evidence of knowing.
Posted by: Glenn Juday at May 16, 2004 7:28:28 PM
This bishop was wrong, and the Vatican has said a statement saying so. Besides, he represents a part of the Catholic population that is politically influenced by what happens in the Middle East. He is representing the political views of his people, and I suppose, should, but that certainly does not reflect Church teaching. What do you think the Italian bishops would have said about Italian Americans figting against Mussulini? Every one of us is a patriot, including bishops.
But, how can we distort the teachings of the Church on these social issues? All war stems out of sin and man's alientation with God, but a nation has the right to defend itself against the greater sin that would destroy our nation without mercy, as was done on 9/11, and that means that we must go to where these terrorists are or ortherwise they will find us and kill us first. We did not declare against militant Islam; they declared war against us, and we are constantly reminded by the silence of their religious leaders, unlike the Pope, who almost NEVER condemn the violence against westerners. If any thing is said, their words only call for a continued jihad.
We never went into Iraq with the purpoose of killing or torturing Iraqis.Was it the right thing to do? Only time will tell, but how dare anyone, including this bishop, even dare to suggest that American soldiers are commiting an immoral act. No even the Pope has suggested such a thing.
Posted by: DJP at May 16, 2004 7:41:45 PM
Fr. Rob, you have a right to play the same semantic games as Bp. Sheridan. I have a duty to see through such games.
The distinction between "denying reception" and "exhorting not to receive" is a distinction without a difference to the lay person. True, there is a formal difference to the Bishop. One requires a formal act of denial on his part while the other does not. For the lay person, however, both involve the declaration of the communicant to be in a state of mortal sin. Both involve declaring the communicant unworthy to receive communion. Both pronounce the communicant at risk of damnation unless they recant their vote. So, there is no difference to the lay person's salvation, the important issue involved here.
On the less important issue of actually receiving communion, there is merely a difference in degree for the communicant. One who is denied in one parish or diocese can receive in another, unless the person is so high profile they would be recognized and news of their excommunication was known to all priests and extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist. Practically speaking, one who has been denied can receive somewhere. I have no doubt that were John Kerry denied communion in one diocese, there would be a priest elsewhere who would not deny him. Though such reception would be illicit, so is reception of the Eucharist while in the state of mortal sin the good Bishop has pronounced the voter. The only difference, therefore, is in the degree of difficulty of obtaining the Eucharist.
So, we see the distinction between "denying reception" and "exhorting not to receive" makes no difference to a person's salvation and, practically speaking, only a difference in degree of difficulty in their ability to actually receive. As I said, it is a distinction without a difference. If that distinction is important to you and the Bishop, know that it makes no difference in theory or practice to those under the Bishop's pastoral care. Thus, it is a semantic game. The Bishop would be far better served by speaking straight.
I appreciate your distinction between the intrinsically evil and that which may not be evil under "very rare, if not practically non-existent" circumstances (as the Catechism says of the Death Penalty). Many use this distinction as a cover to support the Death Penalty by treating the phrase "prudential judgment" as if it means "a matter of personal opinion". It is exactly here, where Catholics either mislead or misunderstand the difference between judgment and opinion, that the good Bishop should be exercising the authority of the Magesterium to teach. Teaching that voting for abortion is a sin is hardly a novel idea in the light of the last 40 years of strong and active opposition of abortion by the Church.
As for your blog... I have read a couple of articles and found your political rhetoric to be uninspired. For instance, your use of scare quotes around the word Catholic in the phrase "'Catholic' Democrat" is reminiscent of the error of the Calvinists who see all who disagree with their views as outside the elect. As expressed, you apparently do not believe one can be pro-life and a Democrat. I hope that isn't true, but is only imprudent rhetoric born out of frustration. In any event, it is neither true, nor intellectually honest.
Posted by: catholic at May 16, 2004 7:45:20 PM
"If all Catholics took Bishop Sheridan's position seriously and the electorate knew that they did, Catholics would not be able to vote at all due to the contraception issue."
This is silly. Contraception is a non-issue. The reason that it's a non-issue (and for that matter, you could probably include support for divorce in the mix) is because in our culture, the legality of contraception is a non-issue. Yes, the Church teaches that it is wrong, and I, for one, believe that the Church is right about that. But there is no candidate who is running on an anti-contraception plank--it would probably not even occur to them. It's simply not a part of the equation. Now, maybe at some future point it will be (like, loooooong after abortion has been recognized to be the evil that it is and outlawed, like slavery) but for now, it's not a factor.
Posted by: Stacey at May 16, 2004 8:13:33 PM
Dear Jerry,
You can find Bishop Botean's letter here, at a website of the Eparchy of Canton:
http://www.stjosephsbyz.org/lent.htm
I am unaware of a Vatican statement directly repudiating Bishop Botean's letter - certainly Archbishop Edwin O'Brien of the Military Archdiocese publicly begged to differ, but, then again, Cardinal Mahony and Archbishop Pilarczyk have disagreed with Bishop Sheridan. The threat and performance of excommunication has been used in modern warfare - for instance, the Anglo-Irish War. You might remember, a few years ago, news reports concerning a possible excommunication of members of the Basque separatist group ETA, which, I believe, never actually took place.
The question remains: Can one disagree with Bishop Botean - as most Catholics would - without finding his language borrowed by those who would disagree with Bishop Sheridan?
Neil
Posted by: Neil Dhingra at May 16, 2004 8:14:51 PM
"Catholic" is right about the intrinsic immorality of the war, wrong about the death penalty.
The Vatican has said the death penalty is "virtually" not practicable in the west. I happen to agree with the Vatican's reasoning. But that seems a prudential assessment.
On the war the Vatican's objections are "in principles" to wars not of self defense (ie. preventative wars, were the threat is not imminent). It has not made this objection explicit as to the Iraq war, so I do not think war suppoerters are in contumatcious rejection of the ordinary magisterium. Nonetheless it is a natural law objection, which should the Vatican choose to pronounce officially on, I believe would be binding under penalty of sin
Posted by: al at May 16, 2004 8:52:11 PM
Marsh, you write "Abortion and contraception are intrinsically evil and therefore always wrong. The death penalty and war are sometimes wrong and sometimes right. In each case, a prudential judgment is required, a judgment about which reasonable people may differ."
What you say is true. But, I would add the clarifying distinction that prudential judgment is not the same thing as freeranging opinion. Prudential judgment is limited to those areas permitted by the teaching of the Church.
The Catechism is specific about the latitude one is given in exercising that judgment with respect to the Death Penalty. Specifically, the judgment is not whether the Death Penalty is right or wrong in general, but whether in a given instance of its imposition it "is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor." It also says "the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically non-existent.""
Thus, the prudential judgment concerning the Death Penalty is limited to determining "for a specific instance, is it absolutely necessary to protect society from the convict." Since the death penalty in our country is not limited by such concerns, but is imposed as punishment, the Death Penalty in this country violates the teachings of the Church. As such, one who uses their "prudential judgment" to support the Death Penalty in general, places themselves at odds with the teaching of the Magesterium.
Likewise the Catechism is specific about the latitude one is given in exercising that judgment with respect to War. Again, the judgment is not a matter of mere opinion. Indeed, the Catechism tells us "The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy." It then lays out four conditions under which a War may be considered morally legitimate or a "Just War".
It is important to note a rigorous evaluation of the criteria shows that the present war in Iraq fails to meet the first two criteria. The first criterion fails because there was no damage inflicted on the US by Iraq and there was no credible threat by Iraq against the US to warrant the belief such was imminent. The second criterion fails because there were other methods available to the US besides war to determine the extent of Saddam's disarmament.
So far, I have not heard a single argument put forward that shows the Iraq war satisfied the "rigorous conditions" laid down in the Catechism. Indeed, most arguments do not try to justify the war by Just War theory. They eschew the rigorous considerations taught by the Church in favor of politically-driven nationalistic rhetoric. Others try to justify the war because of its ends, trying to justify the means by the ends, a clearly erroneous argument.
The only both intellectual honest and consistent arguments I've heard for the Iraq war are those which deny the Church's teaching on War as impractical. While these are honest and consistent, they are also clearly outside Catholic orthodoxy and indicate a moral complicity in an unjust war.
Now, as you say, abortion and contraception are intrinsically evil and always illicit. The church has been clear on both of these issues for the 30 years I have been Catholic. It would seem likely that everyone who is Catholic knows by now. If they do not, then that is a strong condemnation of failure on the part of the Bishops to properly catechize the faithful.
It would seem to me that the more important issues for the Bishop's to speak out about at this point are the ones about which people are most confused. Abortion and contraception are not those issues. The Death Penalty and the Iraq War are.
Posted by: catholic at May 16, 2004 8:58:44 PM
David, Bishop Bruskiewicz did excommunicate the members of CTA and allied groups. He doesn't need a consensus to do that--he can indeed do that on his own because he is a bishop, and he did. So, I don't know what you mean by "make good." If you mean get your consent or something like that, all I can do is laugh at your hubris.
Posted by: michigancatholic at May 16, 2004 9:16:07 PM
And you are not playing semantic games, catholic?
The longstanding teaching of the Catholic church is this:
1. A person guilty of a mortal sin may not receive Holy Communion until they submit to Confession for that mortal sin. You know as well as I do that facilitating the death of another person, no matter how short in stature they are, is a mortal sin.
The Catholic church has also always taught that although capital punishment is not the first choice in the treatment of incorrigible criminals, under certain circumstances it is permitted. There has been some discussion of this as of late, but the Church's teaching cannot be changed on this--it is facile to imagine it can. It is discouraged in the United States at this time, only because other means are available--but not as a moral prohibition, rather as a lesser choice among others currently available. Some would like to overstate that case.....
Posted by: michigancatholic at May 16, 2004 9:25:50 PM
Charles, perhaps you don't understand the difference between:
1. a moral prohibition which is doctrinal and 2. a poor choice among multiple alternatives.
The judgment that capital punishment is probably not necessary in the US at this time belongs in the second case. If it were the case that conditions changed significantly in the US, the option of capital punishment might again be viable.
On the other hand abortion is in the first class. It is doctrinally forbidden and has been for the entire history of the Church. For that matter it is forbidden for the same reason among our forerunners, the Jews!
Posted by: michigancatholic at May 16, 2004 9:31:30 PM
So far, I have not heard a single argument put forward that shows the Iraq war satisfied the "rigorous conditions" laid down in the Catechism.
My goodness, the internet and a variety of Catholic commentary overflows with them. Start here.
Posted by: Christopher Rake at May 16, 2004 9:38:53 PM
michigancatholic, no, I am not playing semantic games.
You say "The Catholic church has also always taught that although capital punishment is not the first choice in the treatment of incorrigible criminals, under certain circumstances it is permitted."
I outlined in the posting immediately prior to yours what the Church says about the Death Penalty. It is not merely a matter of personal opinion. It is a matter of prudential judgment which must adhere to the restriction set forth in the Catechism. Those restrictions assert that it must be "absolutely necessary" for the defense of the population against the criminal. Our current Death Penalty laws DO NOT adhere to this, but prescribe death as retribution. This is against the teaching of the Church. This is not a matter of personal opinion. It is a moral certainty.
If you disagree, I'd be interesting to hear your analysis and dissection of paragraphs 2266 and 2267 of the Catechism. Please show me how to interpret the words there in such a way that it would permit the death penalty as retribution without regard to necessity for legitimate defense.
Posted by: catholic at May 16, 2004 9:47:39 PM
This is silly. Contraception is a non-issue. The reason that it's a non-issue (and for that matter, you could probably include support for divorce in the mix) is because in our culture, the legality of contraception is a non-issue.
The legality of contraception can be called a non-issue because all candidates support the legality of contraception. Let one candidate run on a Catholic platform of opposing contraception, and it would become an issue of the campaign.
But contraception is hardly a non-issue for a Catholic. If we were to conscientiously vote our faith, we could not vote for a candidate who supported the legitimacy and legality of contraception. The fact that the culture has completely abdicated to the opposition is not an excuse a Catholic could use on the topic of abortion even if the culture makes of it a non-issue. Now remember that some forms of contraception are abortifacient.
If we are to vote on the abortion issue interpreted in a strict sense, we cannot vote because all candidates stand behind the legality of abortifacient contraception. On this specific moral issue there is no choice a Catholic can make in good conscience, and hence the Catholic finds himself removed from the electoral process, if a strict interpretation of Catholic morality is used as grounds for determining a vote.
Using Bishop Sheridan's argument, I should not present myself for Communion if I vote in the upcoming election. And yet, as another poster pointed out, we are morally obligated to participate in the electoral process because we are morally obligated to promote the well-being of our fellow man.
There is no way to make a correct moral decision here, unless we conclude that the moral decision is the decision that will work most closely toward the ideal even while falling short.
Posted by: Carrie at May 16, 2004 10:02:54 PM
C. Rake writes "My goodness, the internet and a variety of Catholic commentary overflows with them. Start here."
Read many parts of it. Haven't found anything that shows how the war in Iraq satisfies the criteria for a Just War. Much of that website meanders around expositions of history and political statements to get Catholics to sign a petition for the war and donate money to their organization.
Instead of asserting the war is just giving links which don't support your assertion, why don't you just do it. You can start by showing how the war in Iraq rigorously satisfies the following two necessary conditions:
(1) the damage inflicted by Iraq on the US was lasting, grave, and certain;
(2) all other means of putting an end to Iraq's aggression were shown to be impractical or ineffective;
Good luck. Before showing rigorous satisfaction of (1) you actually have to show that iraq inflicted some damage on the US.
Posted by: catholic at May 16, 2004 10:12:53 PM
All this bishop is doing is stating anciently-held Catholic teaching. It is the business of every catholic to do an examen and avoid receiving Holy Communion with a mortal sin on their soul.
This is in no way a new development!! Now, this may look like an imposition to one who is used to laxity or REALLY likes modern American routines, but it is not an imposition upon you. It is necessary to avoid hell, you know. That is constant Catholic teaching.
Posted by: michigancatholic at May 16, 2004 10:13:08 PM
Rick, you mean that if a person shoplifts, then it's okay always and forever to lie about it because it makes it no worse? That is what you are saying, my friend.
If one commits a sin and then commits another sin, he has committed two sins, not just one. Committing two sins is just that--two instances of sin.
Posted by: michigancatholic at May 16, 2004 10:18:33 PM
Carrie, the equivalence of Kerry's behavior and mine, as a voter, is not what is meant by Bishop Sheridan, unless I miss my guess.
There are really several things involved here, not just one. They're getting conflated into one and that's why it's looking very confused just now in here.
1. Kerry is publicly advocating abortion and at the same time proclaiming his supposed catholicity by showing up in Holy Communion lines. This is understandably being dealt with by our braver bishops. It's wrong and very serious.
2. It has been Catholic teaching since the beginning that one risks hell for receiving Holy Communion with a mortal sin on one's soul. That is true for everyone.
3. The discussion about proportionalism and popular voting is also not new, but a very old discussion among Cahtolics in the US. We do need to take it very seriously. This bishop has come down on the conventional side, teaching that proportionalism is not permissable. He is correct, if what we are doing when we vote is actually proportionalism. Is that what we are doing when we vote? Honest answer. Perhaps a closer analysis among us is in order, eh? I suggest something along the lines of the principle of double effect.
Posted by: michigancatholic at May 16, 2004 10:31:44 PM
Specifically, why do we vote the way we do? What are the reasons for your choices?
Posted by: michigancatholic at May 16, 2004 10:32:35 PM
Honesty is absolutely necesssary in answering these questions, you understand. Otherwise, there is no point in putting forth the effort, you see.
Posted by: michigancatholic at May 16, 2004 10:34:51 PM
Good luck. Before showing rigorous satisfaction of (1) you actually have to show that iraq inflicted some damage on the US.
Catholic, for better or worse, I have commented extensively on Catholic just-war theory pretty much since the idea was seriously considered by the Bush Administration. I do not expect and am not particularly interested in persuading you of the case. The point is that there are extensive arguments which I and many other Catholics find persuasive; it is not as if no arguments have been made.
But as it pertains to this discussion, opposition or support of the war is categorically not of the same quality as Catholic opposition to abortion. This is simply stating facts, and nothing that John Paul II or Cardinal Ratzinger said changes this.
In this instance, it is not only the case that opinions differ; it is that as properly formed Catholics, opinions can differ.
Posted by: Christopher Rake at May 16, 2004 10:35:01 PM
Carrie, are you telling me that people should be able to recieve Holy Communion with a mortal sin, ie. contraception, on their soul merely because it's inconvenient or costly to avoid it? I hope you're not telling me that.....
Posted by: michigancatholic at May 16, 2004 10:42:48 PM
Rick, contraception is not allowed under pain of sin--especially the "pill," which has a complicated hormonal effect, which can cause abortion as a consequence. You are making some huge faulty assumptions. Perhaps you are clutching at straws?
I mean, it looks as if your point is that you can't be reproductively harmed by someone else if you botch yourself up first....
Answer me this--what if the feared attack never occurs? Did you mess up your soul for no reason? How can that be right?
Posted by: michigancatholic at May 16, 2004 10:50:07 PM
Catholic, under certain circumstances, capital punishment is permitted. Perhaps we have better choices at this time in the USA, but if circumstances--ie as you say, the ability to protect the general population, etc--were to change, then capital punishment could again be used.
In contrast, abortion is never licit because it is doctrinally wrong--unlike capital punishment.
In retrospect, I think we need to recall where this idiotic conflation of principles came from. This has been called the "seamless garment" argument and is horribly flawed--a gloss meant to appeal to the common uncritical thinker in the 1980s Chicago suburbs.... It is NOT Catholic, either doctrinally or historically.
To be specific with you, I believe it was the brainchild (if you want to call it that, snicker) of a certain Chicago cardinal with a particular set of personal axes to grind.
Posted by: michigancatholic at May 16, 2004 11:07:29 PM
Catholic, you stated that you thought that:
"It would seem to me that the more important issues for the Bishop's to speak out about at this point are the ones about which people are most confused. Abortion and contraception are not those issues. The Death Penalty and the Iraq War are."
ON THE CONTRARY, I am certain that it is absolutely the case that more people are confused on abortion and contraception. To wit, over 90% of Catholic couples in their child-bearing years are reputed to be using contraceptives at any given time. THAT, my friend is confusion.
Posted by: michigancatholic at May 16, 2004 11:21:09 PM
Carrie, are you telling me that people should be able to recieve Holy Communion with a mortal sin, ie. contraception, on their soul merely because it's inconvenient or costly to avoid it? I hope you're not telling me that.....
Michigan, I'm not sure how you got this opinion. I wasn't intending to give it, but this discussion is convoluted enough for such an interpretation to come out of something I've said, I suppose.
I would add that the majority of younger Catholics probably do receive and contracept. However, that really isn't the issue here, and bringing it up will only complicate the discussion. It's already complicated enough with just trying to determine a moral position on voting.
I do think there has to be a moral difference between running for public office on a platform that includes abortion, and voting for a candidate who supports abortion.
Also, if we are going to throw the war into the decision making process, we are left with no morally acceptable choice at the ballot box unless we write in a candidate. Mostly, write in votes are considered to be votes thrown away.
Posted by: Carrie at May 16, 2004 11:48:21 PM
Catholic writes:
So, we see the distinction between "denying reception" and "exhorting not to receive" makes no difference to a person's salvation...
I understand your point, in that both the Bishop's exhortation and any putative refusal of communion are reflections of the same objective reality: that a politician who promotes the abortion license places his salvation in jeopardy, and a citizen who, when a pro-life candidate is available, nonetheless knowingly votes for a pro-abortion candidate, also places his salvation in jeopardy.
But there is, nonetheless, a difference at a pastoral level. In exhorting the faithful, the Bishop is not making a judgment about any particular person's worthiness to receive communion. He could not, without knowing the person's level of knowledge and deliberation. A bishop could conceivably make such a judgment about a politician, based on his public statements and actions. He could not realistically make such a judgment about most of the faithful, not knowing their attitudes and dispositions.
This is certainly a distinction of a second order to the objective reality, but nonetheless an important one. I can instruct the faithful as to what sorts of actions can endanger their salvation, but, in the absence of public statements and actions, can make no judgments regarding the state of any individual's conscience.
It seems almost as if you believe that the Bishop, by making his statement, or by denying communion, is by that exercise of his authority placing people's salvation at risk. Of course, the bishop isn't the one who saves or damns anyone: he is simply telling people that certain things do endanger their salvation.
Many use this distinction as a cover to support the Death Penalty by treating the phrase "prudential judgment" as if it means "a matter of personal opinion".
Of course, prudential judgments are not a matter of mere opinion. But they are different in kind from definitive judgments of the Church on matters of categorical evil.
And to say "there is a possibility that the death penalty may be licitly chosen" is not to "support" the death penalty. And it isn't a "cover" for anything. It is to recognize objective fact.
Now, as you say, abortion and contraception are intrinsically evil and always illicit. The church has been clear on both of these issues for the 30 years I have been Catholic. It would seem likely that everyone who is Catholic knows by now.
One would hope that most Catholics would know that by now. But given that politicians like John Kerry can advocate the solidification and extension of the abortion license, and still call themselves "good" Catholics, and given that Catholics themselves have abortions at about the same rate as the general population, I'd say our work isn't done yet. And yes, I think that state of affairs is a terrible judgment on the ineffectiveness of our shepherds.
It would seem to me that the more important issues for the Bishop's to speak out about at this point are the ones about which people are most confused. Abortion and contraception are not those issues. The Death Penalty and the Iraq War are.
You are entitled to your opinion on how the Church should direct it's pastoral energies. I would observe, however, that Evangelium Vitae, the "Doctrinal Note" of the CDF, and the US bishop's "Living The Gospel of Life" are all in disagreement with you.
By the way, I'm still waiting for that example of the Holy Father saying, explicitly and unequivocally, that "the death penalty in the West" as implemented in the US, is always and intrinsically "immoral and a violation of the fifth commandment.
As expressed, you apparently do not believe one can be pro-life and a Democrat.
Didn't say it, didn't mean to imply it. Sorry if anyone got that impression. After all, Sen. Zell Miller and a few other Dems are pro-life. But I did imply, and say here, that I do believe it impossible to be pro-life in any meaningful sense and vote for John Kerry. I wish that Kerry was less representative of the Democratic Party than he is.
Finally, since de gustibus non disputandum..., you are entitled also to your opinion that my blog is "uninspired". Of course, I never claimed inspiration (of any variety). But please keep your speculations about my "frustration" to yourself. I haven't tried to psychoanalyze you; I'd appreciate the same consideration.
Posted by: Fr. Rob Johansen at May 17, 2004 12:23:19 AM
When do politicians vote for or against abortion, anyway? The only thing legislators vote on these days are some boundaries on abortion: parental consent, partial birth, government funding. "Support" for abortion means you vote against any and all kinds of limitations.
Posted by: Anna at May 17, 2004 12:32:09 AM
To Michigan Catholic:
Your interpretation of various comments is often quite skewed. I knew that some time ago Bishop Bruskewitz had threated a longish list of people with excommunication if they did not sever their ties to certain groups, and simply wondered whether these people were in fact excommunicated, i.e, is there successful recent precedent for bishops using penal laws to keep the faithful in line. Members of the SSPX were on Bishop B.'s list, and in Hawaii there was a prominent case where the Roman authorities overturned a bishop's excommunication of people with SSPX ties.
It is argued above that what Bishop Sheridan is doing is not imposing a penal law but simply reminding Catholics that they are not supposed to receive Communion in the state of mortal sin -- a concept so little preached in the last forty years that you can hardly blame people for being astonished to hear it. But it would appear that the bishop's definition of what is mortally sinful for a voter would not correspond to what another bishop would teach, which subjects the moral law of the Church to ridicule in my opinion. You cannot have actions that will send you to hell differ from diocese to diocese.
And I have to take exception to Fr. Johansen's assertion that one can hardly imagine bishops' statements of this type are 'placing people's salvation at risk.' Surely the Church's power to do just that is what has historically made excommunications and interdicts effective -- when people had faith, of course. Young people who have been raised during the present Pope's attempt to restore Catholic orthodoxy may grow into adults who are impressed by the point of view that Bishop Sheridan and some others have published. But Catholics of John Kerry's generation are quite immune, I think, since they heard in the 60's and 70's from what they had every reason to believe were authoritative sources things that were radically different. Read all about it in Romano Armerio's 'Iota Unum'.
Posted by: David Kubiak at May 17, 2004 1:05:56 AM
"You are entitled to your opinion on how the Church should direct it's pastoral energies. I would observe, however, that Evangelium Vitae, the "Doctrinal Note" of the CDF, and the US bishop's "Living The Gospel of Life" are all in disagreement with you.
I have read those documents and do not find them in disagreement with me. Indeed, Evangelium Vitae is a well balanced treatment of issues concerning life. I have recommended it wholeheartedly to people interested in issues concerning the right to life.
If you read paragraph 56 of EV and paragraphs 2266 and 2267 of the CCC, you will find the basis for my statements that the death penalty in the United States violates the teaching of the Church. Both of those documents assert that the punishment for a crime "ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity." Or as it is expressed in the CCC, execution can be resorted to "if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor." Violation of this restriction would be a violation of the fifth commandment, as is indicated by its inclusion in the discussion of the fifth commandment in the CCC.
The Death Penalty laws implemented in the states of the US prescribe execution as a punishment in retribution for specific offenses without regard to the defense of human lives. This directly violates the teaching of the CCC and John Paul II in EV.
In closing you say "But please keep your speculations about my "frustration" to yourself."
Your statements were imprudent and I was merely expressing my hope that you had a reason other than intellectual dishonesty for them. I'm sorry that upset you.
Posted by: catholic at May 17, 2004 1:20:30 AM
Carrie,
my point was simply that under the current circumstances, my vote or lack thereof will have no effect whatsoever on the status of contraception. Therefore, I cannot be said to have supported contraception by my vote. (Although Kerry seems to be more pro-contraception than Bush, so maybe that is one more strike against him.) The same is not true, however, of abortion, euthanasia, or same-sex marriage.
Posted by: Stacey at May 17, 2004 6:22:28 AM
Are we surprised that Bp. Sheridan's pronouncement may result in his effectively telling people that they cannot in good conscience vote in the Presidential election this fall? We shouldn't be ....... the hierarchy has never been comfortable with democratic institutions. Someday they will be, just as they came to terms with imperial, feudal and monarchial institutions. For the moment, they are stuck where they are.
Posted by: Jim at May 17, 2004 6:44:04 AM
On the death penalty, I agree that someone who believed that the platform of a politician was immoral compared to the alternatives -- the alternatives specifically on the death penalty - could not vote for that politician. The anathema against proportionalism can be summed up as "you cannot deliberately choose evil, ever".
So the question is always, "am I choosing any specific evil by choosing option A." Often this question goes with it: "Am I attempting to justify choosing an evil because I think it will also achieve an unrelated, but in my opinion proportionally more important, good."
Notice that if you honestly believe that all of your positive options are evil, it is never evil to simply close your eyes, pray, and refuse to participate in the evil. In fact that is the only moral option with which you are left.
Now, one of the tests of the authority of the ordinary magisterium - the catechism, for example - is "is it consistent with what the ordinary magisterium has always and everywhere said before." Recent authoritative statements by the ordinary magisterium on the death penalty and on democratic voting must be understood in a way that is consistent always and everywhere with what the magisterium has said authoritatively throughout the history of the Church.
It seems to me that we Catholics in this discussion have a job ahead of us. It is our responsibility to form, inform, and conform our consciences to the authoritative teaching of the Church - from the catechism and recent documents, yes, but also in its ordinary and extraordinary teaching always and everywhere, on issues like abortion and the death penalty.
So that means, for example, to pray, learn, and obey what the Church has taught always and everywhere about proportionalism. Your intellect may rebel at first, but that is because it has been darkened by this fallen world. If you go into the voting booth without 1) understanding the sin of proportionalism, and 2) insuring despite your own this-worldly reservations that you are not engaging in an act of proportionalism; if you vote without ever a passing thought about the sin of proportionalism, then you are putting your soul in jeopardy.
And on your interpretations of the morality of the death penalty, as part of this exercise in avoiding the sin of proportionalism, the catechism is an important source but it is your responsibility to insure that your understanding of the morality of the death penalty is conformed to what the ordinary magisterium has taught always and everywhere.
Nobody can do these things for you. You can only be pointed in the right direction so as to do the hard work of forming, informing, and conforming your conscience.
Unless you were immaculately conceived though, unlike me, that means that you will almost certainly, like me, go through significate rebellion of the intellect which will require quieting through prayer and fasting in order to get to the point where you have a clean, formed, informed, and conformed conscience on democratic voting. I am not saying that I am there in a perfect sense right now; but I am saying that whether you are democrat or republican, if you are not praying, fasting, and worrying about proportionalism as you approach your civic duties (including voting) then you are pretty much automatically in the wrong.
If you can pull a voting lever in a modern democratic society without any concern that you may be committing a sin that requires confession, absolution, and penance; that you are on the unequivocal side of the good guys and have nothing to worry about morally as you punch out your chad; if you think that but you haven't spent the intellectual effort to understand proportionalism and satisfy your well-formed conscience that you know how to avoid it, well then your vote is probably a serious sin.
Posted by: Zippy at May 17, 2004 9:24:30 AM
Zippy, no intelligent voter--I emphasize the word intelligent--believes he is unequivocally on the side of the "good guys."
Only the most rabid partisans, left or right, believe that.
Posted by: Whitcomb at May 17, 2004 10:30:30 AM
Ah, but if the intelligent voter chooses evil in the belief that a proportionally better good will be the result, he has committed the serious sin of proportionalism. I expect that many intelligent Catholic voters have never worried about that.
Posted by: Zippy at May 17, 2004 11:05:14 AM
So, Zippy and Whitcomb, do we all stay home on election day? Or do we risk the fires of hell and cast a vote for the candidate who is proportionally better than the other in our limited opinion formed on the basis of the campaign promises that frequently turn out to be lies?
Posted by: Carrie at May 17, 2004 11:07:19 AM
One possible guage of how seriously the Catholic voter takes his obligation to avoid proportionalism is, how many times have you brought up your vote in Confession?
Posted by: Zippy at May 17, 2004 11:07:59 AM
Carrie, if you are in doubt as to whether or not a particular action would be a serious sin I would recommend avoiding the action.
Posted by: Zippy at May 17, 2004 11:10:02 AM
Carrie wrote (re: whether Catholics should abstain from voting):
If the answer is "yes" does this ultimately preclude the Catholic from being salt and light once a culture has reached a certain point?
Abstaining from voting does not preclude being salt and light. In fact, it may prove the saltiest and brightest. If Catholics were to abstain or vote "third party" as a block, that would be nearly 1/4 of the population. And lets be realistic - the Dem party would feel the Catholic pinch more than the GOP. Moreover, what political party could overlook a gold mine of votes representing 1/4 of the populace? Like buying a car, your only negotiating power with the salesman is the willingness to walk away from the sale (no offense to car salesman for likening them to politicians).
Posted by: c matt at May 17, 2004 11:14:40 AM
Of course, an abstaining strategy requires something Americans are not used to - patience. The Israelites were under Egyptian slavery for how long?
Posted by: c matt at May 17, 2004 11:18:47 AM
Carrie,
I think you should vote. However, if you find the candidates as hopelessly poor, then don't vote. I've skipped individual races on the ballot many a time.
Zippy and I part company on proportionalism. My post was only to say that neither of our major political parties has a monopoly on virtue.
Short of knowingly voting for a Stalin-like dictator, I see nothing evil about the act of voting. And my vote is none of my cleric's business, either inside the confessional or outside.
Posted by: Whitcomb at May 17, 2004 11:21:46 AM
If someone parts company on proportionalism, it isn't with me. It is with the Catholic Church. It is Catholic moral doctrine that you must never do evil that good may occur. You must never substitute one evil for another, with the pretext that one is proportionally more evil than another. You must never choose evil, period, whatever justification you may think you have.
Whether a particular act -- say, of voting -- is an act of proportionalism amounts to a determination of the facts.
But someone who votes in a knowingly proportionalist way has placed himself outside of the Catholic Church. Such a person hasn't parted company with me; such a person has parted company with the Church, and with its Founder.
Posted by: Zippy at May 17, 2004 12:43:25 PM
In addition to being good strategy, abstaining may be good morality, not just in a particular election but in general. Not only may a specific act of voting be proportionalist, but it wouldn't be unreasonable to conclude that the way modern democracies arrange their politics encourages proportionalism. If someone concluded that modern democratic rituals encourage proportionalism then abstinence could be a moral requirement no matter who was on the ballot; unless there were a way to assert an anathema against proportionalism in addition to voting for a particular candidate or initiative.
Reasonable people can differ in good conscience as to what conclusion is required, because reasonable people can differ as to what are the facts. But where someone parts company with the Church is in affirming proportionalism rather than rejecting it.
Posted by: Zippy at May 17, 2004 12:53:39 PM
Begging everyone's pardon, but SOMEBODY needs to focus on the specific question. Dave K raised it sometime ago -- what is the doctrine on when something is so bad that it is not merely a sin, but must be outlawed, and when is something a sin, but it's morally okay for it to be legal? At his suggestion, I wrote some canon law scholars, and the short answer is: the Church ain't sure.
Why are you?
The closest Ratzinger comes to clarity is to say: "From the specificity of the task at hand and the variety of circumstances, a plurality of morally acceptable policies and solutions arises." But saying 'sometimes you have options' is hardly a moral compass.
The cardinal goes on to contradict himself: "When political activity comes up against moral principles that do not admit of exception, compromise or derogation, the Catholic commitment becomes more evident and laden with responsibility."
When I was a kid, I was taught this sorta thing was a sin of ommission -- a deliberate attempt to mislead. Clarity would require that one, but only one, of these three would be true:
1) Because it is just as sinful to use contraception as it is to abort a child, a Catholic must vote, and if a candidate, must oppose legalized contraception (divorce, homosexuality) just as Catholics must
oppose legalized abortion; OR
2) Because abortion kills a life AFTER conception while contraception merely prevents that life from the start, while a Catholic must vote against
legalized abortion or its advocates, it is NOT required that a Catholic vote to outlaw contraception (divorce, homosexuality); OR
3) Because politics is a practical rather than a purely spiritual business, "the contingent nature of certain choices regarding the ordering of society, the variety of strategies available for accomplishing or guaranteeing the same fundamental value, the possibility of different interpretations of the basic principles of political theory, and the technical complexity of many political problems ... should not be confused, however, with an ambiguous pluralism in the choice of moral principles or essential values." (Quotation only slightly altered by elliipsis to say what it didn't.)
Which last, of course, the Cardinal does not say -- quite. Nor does the doctrine say #1, or #2, neither.
LOL -- the whole thing reminds me of the old political saw, "there comes a time to set aside principle and do what's right" or -- somewhat more cynically -- to wonder if the Vactican is following the late Senator Kerr's advice to be opposed to any deal they're not in on.
Posted by: theAmericanist at May 17, 2004 12:58:36 PM
Begging everyone's pardon, but SOMEBODY needs to focus on the specific question. Dave K raised it sometime ago -- what is the doctrine on when something is so bad that it is not merely a sin, but must be outlawed, and when is something a sin, but it's morally okay for it to be legal? At his suggestion, I wrote some canon law scholars, and the short answer is: the Church ain't sure.
Why are you?
The closest Ratzinger comes to clarity is to say: "From the specificity of the task at hand and the variety of circumstances, a plurality of morally acceptable policies and solutions arises." But saying 'sometimes you have options' is hardly a moral compass.
The cardinal goes on to contradict himself: "When political activity comes up against moral principles that do not admit of exception, compromise or derogation, the Catholic commitment becomes more evident and laden with responsibility."
When I was a kid, I was taught this sorta thing was a sin of ommission -- a deliberate attempt to mislead. Clarity would require that one, but only one, of these three would be true:
1) Because it is just as sinful to use contraception as it is to abort a child, a Catholic must vote, and if a candidate, must oppose legalized contraception (divorce, homosexuality) just as Catholics must
oppose legalized abortion; OR
2) Because abortion kills a life AFTER conception while contraception merely prevents that life from the start, while a Catholic must vote against
legalized abortion or its advocates, it is NOT required that a Catholic vote to outlaw contraception (divorce, homosexuality); OR
3) Because politics is a practical rather than a purely spiritual business, "the contingent nature of certain choices regarding the ordering of society, the variety of strategies available for accomplishing or guaranteeing the same fundamental value, the possibility of different interpretations of the basic principles of political theory, and the technical complexity of many political problems ... should not be confused, however, with an ambiguous pluralism in the choice of moral principles or essential values." (Quotation only slightly altered by elliipsis to say what it didn't.)
Which last, of course, the Cardinal does not say -- quite. Nor does the doctrine say #1, or #2, neither.
LOL -- the whole thing reminds me of the old political saw, "there comes a time to set aside principle and do what's right" or -- somewhat more cynically -- to wonder if the Vatican is following the late Senator Kerr's advice to be opposed to any deal they're not in on.
Posted by: theAmericanist at May 17, 2004 12:59:23 PM
Zippy, if we follow proportionalism, then all Pennsylvania Catholics cannot vote for Rick Santorum, because he endorsed a fellow senator who is pro-choice.
Ain't going to happen, nor should it on those grounds.
Let me give you an example of proportionalism:
When Truman dropped the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it resulted in the evil of incinerating somewhere in the neighborhood of 150,000 people, most of them noncombatants and some of them Catholics.
The good it accomplished was ending the war and preventing perhaps hundreds of thousands more of Allied casualties.
That's the argument anyway; you can certainly debate it.
But please fill me in all the Catholic bishops who, in 1945, objected to Truman dropping the bomb as a most grievous form of proportionalism.
Posted by: Whitcomb at May 17, 2004 2:15:47 PM
At what point does the perfect become the enemy of the good?
Posted by: c matt at May 17, 2004 2:33:36 PM
The point at which you stay home rather than vote. In my opinion, anyway. A person who votes can at least write and/or call her elected representative and say, "I voted for you/your opponent but . . ." Those who don't vote, as they say, shouldn't complain.
Posted by: Barbara at May 17, 2004 2:50:35 PM
Zippy,
Let me try to understand your position with an example. Say there were two candidates to select from in an election. The first one promises to fight to make abortion freely available in all cases. The second one vows to ban abortion in all cases except rape. You're saying that both are evil choices so you should abstain from voting, right?
Is it really that cut and dried in this situation? Wouldn't it be better to vote for the lesser of the two evils to help ensure that the greater evil doesn't win and then continue to fight all abortion with letters, petitions, anti-abortion rallies, and future votes for even better candidates as they come up?
I agree that avoiding a vote can send a message but so can starting a trend in voting for the "most moral" of the choices.
Posted by: John C at May 17, 2004 3:22:55 PM
If the politicians can count on all Catholics abstaining, they can disregard Catholic opinion. Isn't that going to be counter-productive? Right now they are mostly careful to avoid alienating large blocks of Catholic voters. Catholic voters, and thus Catholic opinions, still count. Without them, will abortion become mandatory in cases of disabled fetuses, for example? In questions of euthenasia will induced death become the norm? In cases such as Terri Schiavo's, will the absence of the Catholic vote improve the situation?
We can't simply decide there is no moral choice and so we will abstain because if we do the enemies of Christ will win. There has to be a moral choice that takes this fact into consideration.
Posted by: Carrie at May 17, 2004 4:06:02 PM
"Any American who refuses to vote deserves disenfranchisement or exile!"
- Archbishop John Ireland, first bishop of St. Paul, Minnesota 1888-1918
Posted by: theAmericanist at May 17, 2004 4:16:55 PM
"Let me try to understand your position with an exam