« 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/services/trackback/6a00d83451be0d69e200d834621b4d69e2
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
