Sullivan on Kerry

At TNR

Actually rather interesting:

But is abortion different? Is the contempt for human life that any abortion inherently embodies such a social evil that no politician can be permitted to call himself a Catholic and support the right to choose it? That is indeed a critical question, and conservative Catholics are not wrong to raise it. But there is a distinction between support for the morality of abortion and reluctant support for a woman's right to choose such a moral wrong. It should be possible, if difficult, for a Catholic politician to affirm the evil of abortion but to defer to the political freedoms inherent in a liberal polity--specifically control over one's own body--in most cases. Mario Cuomo tried to define such a position, with mixed success. You can differ with him (as I once did). But it seems an extreme measure to punish such a thoughtful statement with effective ex-communication.

In my view, Kerry's support for partial birth abortion and the absence of any statement I know of in which he speaks of the profound moral cost of abortion certainly puts him on the fringe of legitimate Catholic doctrine. Bill Clinton's belief that abortion should be "safe, legal, and rare" is far more defensible, because it at least concedes the principle that just because something is and should be legal doesn't make it right. But even then, the hierarchy's criticism of such a stance need not degenerate into a policy of purging Catholic politicians from their own church. It should be possible--in fact, there is no long-term alternative to reducing abortion--to make the important public case in defense of unborn human life, while avoiding the painful and dangerous business of denying sacraments and getting embroiled in presidential politics.

"Fringe" is not quite the word. A little further out, I'd say.

And please leave Clinton and safe, legal and rare out of it, unless you are going to analyze it on the level of pure politics, which is all the phrase is.

Now this:

Specter is pro-choice and pro-stem-cell-research. Didn't Santorum effectively urge voters to support someone who favors abortion in some cases against a candidate who opposes it in all circumstances? Shouldn't the Vatican be refusing to grant the sacraments to Santorum because of his deviation from the official all-or-nothing line? Wasn't he giving voters Catholic "cover" for voting for an abortion supporter? Once you realize what the full repercussions of the Novak position would be, you begin to realize why sage princes of the Church do not support it.

Teachable moments continue to pile up.

The first teachable moment is already aging - what is the Eucharist, what does it mean, what do we "say" when we approach Jesus in Eucharist?

No one seems to understand this. At all.

The second teachable moment regards the varying aspects of Catholic teaching. The problem with this is that without nuance, any effort immediately gets boiled down to a checklist. "How far can you go?" becomes the theme. It also becomes an essentially pointless exercise when the discussion turns its back on Point 1 up there. Ignore the core of faith - which is the life and commitment of a disciple of Jesus - and all you've got to fall back on are tests of institutional loyalty, as conceived in 21st century soundbytes.

The third teachable moment regards this whole Santorum business, which is not going to go away. In my mind, Rick Santorum really needs to speak to this himself, and fairly quickly.

And as I've said before, I think the whole thing could be well on its way to being fixed if we could get over the illusion that We Are All Good Catholics Now, and all of that implies.

Are we pharisees or publicans? - that is the question.

Comments

[Tom]

Remember its all relative to Sullivan. He uses the same type arguements to promote his homosexuality. I am not as smart(smug)as Sullivan and do not have the talent to dance around the core portion of the issues but, abortion, slavery and homosexuality, are some of the intrinsic evils in our society and do nothing to make the world a better place or to Glorify Jesus. And Mr. Clinton, abortion in this country is not rare however unfirtunately it is legal but definitely not safe.

[Bill]

What is Santorum's defense for supporting Specter over Toomey? I don't see that he has a valid one.

[ita o'byrne]

Sullivan seems to think Opus Dei controls the Vatican and many American bishops. No evidence to back it up, of course. Perhaps he's been reading The Da Vinci Code?

[c matt]

You have to take anything Sullivan says on this with a grain of salt as Tom points out. The Santorum issue has been hashed out pretty well throughout the blogoshpere. Basically, it comes down to this:

With Kerry, maintaining (if not actively promoting) abortion as a legitimate practice of birth control (or population control and eugenics) is the goal.

With Santorum, ultimately defeating abortion by maintaining a Republican majority in the Senate is the goal. Now, Santorum's position may still open him up to an "end justifying the means" type argument, but his situation is qualitatively different from Kerry, who outright favors abortion. Sulivan, of coure misses the point that for a Catholic, your body is not your own, its God's. Kerry is free to ignore this fact, but then he has to suffer the consequence of being out of communion with the Catholic Church.

How is this different from NAMBLA refusing admittance to someone who claims to be a suuporter of homosexual "rights" but continuously votes and speaks against gay interests? Or NARAL policing its own who don't tow the pro-death line?

[David]

The only official statement of Santorum's that I know of is this:

"As a member of the Senate leadership, Arlen Specter was the key vote, not just in supporting the President’s tax plan that created jobs that has revived this economy, but in getting the votes necessary to make that passage possible. Arlen is with us on the votes that matter to move our agenda forward for this President and for the country. I am proud to endorse Arlen Specter."

http://specter2004.com/

At that web site, there's also a video endorsement from Santorum.

[Bill]

David,

Wow. If it weren't so tragic, it would be laughable. It's like a parody. Seamless Garment, Right-Wing Version. Thanks for the link.

[Tom C]

You could make this argument fit anything you want. . . .

Example:

"But is segregation different? Is the contempt for African Americans that segregation inherently embodies such a social evil that no politician can be permitted to call himself a Catholic and support segregation? That is indeed a critical question, and conservative Catholics are not wrong to raise it. But there is a distinction between support for the morality of segregation and reluctant support for a school district's right to choose such a moral wrong. It should be possible, if difficult, for a Catholic politician to affirm the evil of segregation but to defer to the political freedoms inherent in a liberal polity--specifically control over the education environment of one's children--in most cases."

Sullivan's argument is bunk. The Santorum issue does have me really concerned though.

[al]

Yeah the CDF document on this issue closed the matter: pro-Choice in principle and by definition, qua legislative act, is itself gravely culpable.

This is quite different from the prudential estimation which attaches to political parties and their shenanigans.

'Course, since the same calculus is in play in the CDF's instruction on Civil Unions, perhaps that's why Sullivan chose to ignore it.

Because in both he views them as unfair penalities (de facto excommunications) rather than simple recognitions of fact.

[Patrick Sweeney]

I can't even accept the framework of Sullivan here.

What does it mean to be a Catholic? What does it mean to be in small "c" communion with the Catholic Church. All other considerations aside.

I do not even think it will advance the agenda of Catholics who call for greater fidelity to Catholic teaching, or political conserveratives and I'm in both groups. This may be a disaster for them.

However we, the Catholics of 2004, have to undo the errors of the Catholics of 1973 and boldly declare what it means to be in communion with Church teaching.

Far from consensus, the bishops don't even seem to agree that the public advocates of a legal right to partial birth abortion "obstinately persist in manifest grave sin".

[Gregg the obscure]

Hey Tom C, you beat me to the punch on reiterating his argument WRT a different evil. Just that I was going to use the Matthew Shepard case as that's a little more dear to Sullivan's heart and also points up the murder aspect of abortion, though not the nearly random chance of becoming a victim.

[S.F.]

Look. Mark Shea is right. The only thing Sullivan cares about is homosexuality. All this is is groundwork to justify his all-too-predictable endorsement of Kerry.

Well, I may disagree with him on everything but homosexuality, but you know, he said terrorism is a bad thing, and abortion isn't that bad, compared to supporting the Federal Marriage Amendment.

Andrew Sullivan is a joke, and I will never understand why so many people take the guy seriously, especially conservatives.

[Mike Petrik]

David and Bill,

What would you expect Santorum's public explanation to be? Do you really expect him to articulate with specificity c matt's proffered explanation? The vague "Arlen is with us on the votes that matter ..." can easily be read as consistent with the theory that a Republican majority is the best hope for judicial change, which when it comes to the legality of abortion is where the action is. I am disappointed in Santorum's decision, but we have to be careful when judging motives. If Santorum had supported Toomey, Toomey would have to have won -- which is possible but not quite likely. Specter is the senior Senator of PA. If you attack the king, you better kill the king. If Santorum had failed in such an effort, he would have been relegated to the status of crackpot in Senate and political circles. Just what we pro-lifers need: our most vocal supporter in the US Senate to be rendered ineffectual and inconsequential. High stakes here. Hard to know what is right. One can disagree with Santorum's decision (I do) without necessarily questioning his sincerity.

[David]

Mike,

But I've not criticized Santorum. That's Bill's opinion you read.

I'm still on the fence with regards to what Santorum did.

I've never taken the position that it's never licit to vote for a candidate who happens to be prochoice. (Not even Pat Toomey takes that position. He's endorsed Specter over Hoeffel.)

I do think it's illicit to vote for a prochoice candidate because he or she is prochoice.

[Mike Benz]

Sullivan's own words say it all:

"Sincere politicians who differ on conscientious grounds on some matters of faith are not always being bad Catholics. By carefully weighing the issues, by finding the difficult link between their private faith and their public duties in a secular, multi-faith democracy, they are often being good Catholics in a complex modern world."

Mr. Sullivan is obviously entitled to his opinion about what the "Catholic law" SHOULD BE. However, this statement is not an accurate description of the "Catholic law" as it relates to the abortion issue. Period.

If we don't all start from the right place, we're never going to end up together in the right place.

[Spak]

C Matt asks, rhetorically but tellingly, for the difference between NAMBLA's rejecting a person who says he's a good member but votes against gay rights, and the Church's rejecting a person (Kerry) who says he's a good Catholic but votes against prohibiting abortion.

The difference is that NAMBLA's goal is to change the laws on homosexuality. The Church's goal is to get us into heaven. Kicking a person out of NAMBLA won't do much for a person's soul (it may even help it). But kicking someone out of the Church, and cutting them off from the grace of the sacraments, can have a great effect on their soul. Sure, it might call a person to repent and produce a conversion; but it might also harden a heart that would otherwise, through the grace of the sacraments, change over time. For that reason, the bishops are right to be cautious about kicking people out of the Church. It's supposed to be a big Church: indeed, Christ tells us in Matthew that it's not always our job to separate the weeds from the wheat.

It's one thing to insist that the bishops be firm and uncompromising when they speak on issues like abortion. Thank God, they usually are. It's another thing altogether to insist that the bishops be equally firm and uncompromising when they apply their firm stands to each of us. Thank God, they're usually not.

[T. Marzen]

The reason that Specter is a major prolife problem is that he is the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee in a Republican majority Senate -- thus well-placed to prevent any prolife nominee to the Supreme Court (or any other federal court) from being confirmed. Santorum and Bush cannot be excused for supporting Specter on the grounds that this would possibly help maintain a Republican Senate majority, thereby facilitating Senate approval of prolife judicial nominees, so long as Specter is in charge of this Committee UNLESS the Senate Republicans are committed to getting rid of Specter as Chair of the Committee or Bush/Santorum have gotten a firm commitment from Specter that he will not block prolife judicial nominees. We have no indication that either of these commitments have been made. So the Santorum/Bush support of Specter is seriously problematic from a prolife perspective, to say the least, in view of the fact there reversal of Roe v. Wade through the federal courts is the ONLY realistic means to restore some state authority to prohibit abortion.

So if Kerry is to be denied communion, a good case in equity could be made for Santorum as well. I'm also reminded that the Vatican said that, as with abortion, Catholic politicians cannot support gay marriage or CIVIL UNIONS, contary to the position of many Catholic politicians. As things develop, perhaps ALL Catholic politicians should be denied communion (at least if they are from Massachusetts) unless they prove they are in good Catholic standing. How's that for a solution?

[Clayton]

Philip Lawler was making Point 1 in an article here, and I posted a similar article, from a Theology of the Body perspective, here.

[al]

Spak,
That's exactly my point!!! When you say "But kicking someone out of the Church, and cutting them off from the grace of the sacraments, can have a great effect on their soul."--if they were excommunicating someone who otherwise was taking the benefit of the sacraments you would be right.

But what they would be cutting Kerry off from is his ability to damn himself by committing sacrilege. The sacraments to less than no good to someone in a state of mortal sin, they compound that sin, exponentially.

[al]

Besides, if Kerry were simply to be denied communion, he'd still have access to the one sacrament he needs: Sacramental Confession!!

[Mike Benz]

It's really reckless of Andrew Sullivan to state that denial of Communion is "effectively" ex-communication. That's simply not true. But a lot of readers will assume that it is.

[Bill]

Mike,

I think professinal pro-lifers try to be a little too clever. What's this about killing the king? Why couldn't Santorum say that Specter has cast some important votes for valuable economic programs, but as a matter of conscience I cannot support him in a race against any prolife candidate, since, well, Specter, for all his good points, supports legalized murder. Isn't that the sort of position you would expect a Catholic to annuciate?

[spak]

Al (and anyone else) -

It's clear that "the sacraments do less than no good to someone in a state of mortal sin." Which is why priests and bishops are called to prevent abortionists, those who divorce and remarry, etc. from taking communion.

But it is not clear that failing to make abortion illegal is a mortal sin. Kerry's attitude toward abortion is certainly not in "communion" with the Church's. But I'm not sure it's mortally sinful.

Can anyone provide the needed certainty? Is it a mortal sin to fail to make abortion illegal?

[George]

Denial of communion is not effectively ex-communication? I thought that is what ex-communication means. How would Kerry be different than the ex-wife of Gov. Celeste, who was "ordained" a priest in an illicit ceremony and ex-communicated in record time. (Now that apparently is a real offense against the Church.)

These are interesting discussions, but they lack the perspective of non-Catholic Christians. I also participate in pro-Kerry discussions.

The politically-reminded folks there suggest that conservative Catholics like Deal Hudson and Father McCloskey aside, the real political problem is that denying Kerry the Eucharist will swing Protestant and Evangelical votes to him. How so? Because in the South and Border States (including Arkansas, Missouri, Ohio and West Virginia, all thought to be swing states), an effective endorsement of one candidate by the Catholic Church would cause a boomarang. In those states, more than 70% of practicing non-Catholic Christians who are Caucasians voted for Bush in 2000. Most are not knowledgable of or sympathetic to Catholicism. Be careful what you wish for!

[craig]

Bill, because that tactic doesn't work politically. It may be good Catholic teaching, but sometimes the wise-as-serpents thing to do is to keep one's mouth shut. If there is any valid criticism to be made of Santorum it is this, that he could have hid out until after the primary and did not.

What Mike Petrik was saying about attacking the "king" was this: if one speaks out for any reason whatsoever, during a campaign, against a senior Senator from his own state and party, one can expect to be on the receiving end of a vendetta if that Senator is re-elected anyway.

[David Kubiak]

There must be an official Church document that clarifies what is the base issue here, but I am not aware of what it is. I would appreciate a reference from those who do.

The Church must have a rational way of sorting out things that are morally objectionable but legally tolerable, and those that are morally objectionable but not legally tolerable. I don't think Catholic politicians are required in conscience to wage war on the condom industry, or to agitate for repeal of divorce laws. Abortion is clearly a different question. Theologically what criteria does a Catholic politician use to know where the line is?

[al]

Spak,
Read the CDF document: "John Paul II, continuing the constant teaching of the Church, has reiterated many times that those who are directly involved in lawmaking bodies have a «grave and clear obligation to oppose» any law that attacks human life. For them, as for every Catholic, it is impossible to promote such laws or to vote for them.[19] As John Paul II has taught in his Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae regarding the situation in which it is not possible to overturn or completely repeal a law allowing abortion which is already in force or coming up for a vote, «an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality. . .In this context, it must be noted also that a well-formed Christian conscience does not permit one to vote for a political program or an individual law which contradicts the fundamental contents of faith and morals. "

[David]

Tom of Disputations has pointed me to one Canon law text on the denial of communion issue:

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P39.HTM

This seems relevant:

"Can. 915 Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion."

I hope Mr. Marzen realizes that Mr. Prolife (Pat Toomey) seems dangerously close to being refused communion, on the Marzen criterion.

[David]

In that canon law text I cited, the highlighting was mine.

[Spak]

Al -

Thanks for the document reference. I'd read it before, but it was good to see it again. I feel it just begs the question, though. So Kerry lacks "a well-formed Chrsitian conscience," else he would vote differently than he does. Do we sanction that lack of a well-formed conscience by excluding him from the grace of the Eucharist? Or do we hope that, by keeping him in the Church, his conscience may yet be properly formed?

[Kathleen]

I really haven't made up my mind as to how I feel about the Santorum/Toomey issue. But Santorum received Communion this Sunday. He was right in front of me in line. That for what it is worth.

[Joseph D'Hippolito]

George, the idea that formal Catholic rejection of Kerry at the communion rail will swing evangelical Protestants to his side is asinine. If any group approaches (if not surpasses)Catholic dedication to "pro-life" issues, it's evangelical Protestants. An evangelical voting for Kerry would be a rare sight, indeed.

To everybody else:

1. Sullivan does raise a significant point: "For the Church to start picking political candidates would be a death-knell to its ability to be a trans-political religious organization. Separating the Church from electoral politics is in fact a defense of Catholicism from the depredations of politicized religion that has so infected the Protestant right, which is now a de facto branch of one political party." Substitute the phrase "effective witness to the Gospel" for "trans-political religious organization" to understand the danger. Or, more pointedly, look at the National Council of Churches or (a de facto branch of secular leftist philosophy), let alone the Moral Majority or the Christian Coalition at their height. Christ cannot be put into nice, neat little political boxes, and the attempt to do so is de facto idolatry.

2. Suppose Kerry wins the election. Suppose every bishop orders the priests under their authority to withhold the Eucharist whenever Kerry visits their dioceses. Given Kerry's track record and ideology, does anybody seriously expect him to abandon his base to embrace his faith? Moreover, how would such a stance by the bishops save one unborn child?

[Joseph D'Hippolito]

George, the idea that formal Catholic rejection of Kerry at the communion rail will swing evangelical Protestants to his side is asinine. If any group approaches (if not surpasses)Catholic dedication to "pro-life" issues, it's evangelical Protestants. An evangelical voting for Kerry would be a rare sight, indeed.

To everybody else:

1. Sullivan does raise a significant point: "For the Church to start picking political candidates would be a death-knell to its ability to be a trans-political religious organization. Separating the Church from electoral politics is in fact a defense of Catholicism from the depredations of politicized religion that has so infected the Protestant right, which is now a de facto branch of one political party." Substitute the phrase "effective witness to the Gospel" for "trans-political religious organization" to understand the danger. Or, more pointedly, look at the National Council of Churches or (a de facto branch of secular leftist philosophy), let alone the Moral Majority or the Christian Coalition at their height. Christ cannot be put into nice, neat little political boxes, and the attempt to do so is de facto idolatry.

2. Suppose Kerry wins the election. Suppose every bishop orders the priests under their authority to withhold the Eucharist whenever Kerry visits their dioceses. Given Kerry's track record and ideology, does anybody seriously expect him to abandon his base to embrace his faith? Moreover, how would such a stance by the bishops save one unborn child?

[Bill]

Craig,

But Santorum did not keep his mouth shut. What basis is there to conclude that Santorum is anything other than, at best, a moral coward, supporting an odious candidate in order to avoid a political vendetta?

[Joseph D'Hippolito]

Sorry for the inadvertant double post.

[al]

Spak,
As the document says, the doctrine is clear. Kerry's responsibility in forming his conscience as a Catholic is to submit. If he doesn't that is a grave sin. So he commits a sacrilege if he receives communion in that state. If someone were to deny him communion, they would simply be refusing to be complicit in his sacrilege, as they would with someone outside Catholicism attempting to receive, or a divorced and remarried person.

[Han Ng]

For Spak,

Sen. Kerry has been "in the Church," that is receiveing communion for years, and it seems to have had little effect on forming his conscience well. The problem with "conscience" nowadays is that is has become synonymous with "deeply held belief." This definition is erroneous because morality is objective--it is not a function of what one believes. The proper definition of conscience is "that which one cannot not know." It is that part of man's noetic being that individuals ignore or rationalise away to do what they want to do. Indeed, we see this in the abortion debate. We cannot not know that the child in the womb is a fully human person. However, to make the murder of that child more palitable, we talk about "choice" or "the foetus" or "viability" or what not. This language allows people to ignore their consciences so that they can do what they know to be evil.

Incidentally, I think this language issue is where Mr. Sullivan goes wrong. Mr. Sullivan writes:
"But there is a distinction between support for the morality of abortion and reluctant support for a woman's right to choose such a moral wrong."
Actually there is no difference, because what we are talking about is the deliberate killing of a human being for the convenience of another. This is not analogous to allowing people to consume pornography or to allowing people to sodomise each other or to allowing high interest lenders who prey on people with bad credit to operate. Nobody can honestly argue that one is entitled to take an innocent life for ones own convenience. Perhaps Mr. Sullivan would have been on firmier ground if Sen. Kerry or Sen. Specter had no record at all--that is they abstained whenever an abortion meansure arose and if they had not made any statemests either supporting or condmening abortion. As it is, these senators are not "nuanced" they are not "pragmatic" they are on the other side.

Stay POD,
Han

[jerry]

Amy's "first teachable moment" for Andrew Sullivan is to ask what it means to approach Christ in the Eucharist. I think part of that meaning is found in the word "communion". That is, communion with the mystical body of Christ as represented by the Roman Catholic Church. Those who advocated the denial of the sacrament simply want to manifest the fact that it is impossible to be in communion with the Church while denying the moral reality that a fetus is a life as surely as an infant is a life and must be accorded legal protection.

[Christopher Jones]

Mr D'Hippolito,

It may seem that Sullivan is making some telling points, but in fact he has framed the issue all wrong. The Church may be perceived as "interfering in politics," but any such interference is only incidental to the Church doing her evangelical and pastoral duty.

I made this point in a comment on an earlier post of Amy's, but it bears repeating:

... this is primarily a pastoral matter, not a political one. The bishops have a responsibility both for Kerry's spiritual state, and for the integrity of the Church's proclamation of the Gospel. Kerry's public denial of the Christian faith in this matter - while portraying himself as a faithful Catholic - damages that integrity. In my opinion, that trumps any political or public image considerations.

[Spak]

Al -

The Church's doctine is clear. The consequences of failing to abide by it are not. The document you cite does not say that failing to vote to prohobit abortion is a "grave sin." You may be right to think of it that way. But I've not seen any church documents that classify the failure to vote in a particular way as the kind of "manifest grave sin" that merits refusal of the Eucharist. If you find something more specific, please pass it along, and I'll change my tune. Promise.

Han -

You draw a distinction between prohibiting abortion and prohibiting sodomy that does not, I think, stand up to scrutiny. Both abortion and sodomy are "manifestly grave"; wilful murder of the innocent and sodomy are two of the four sins that, in classical catechisms, "cry out to heaven for vengeance." (Oppressing the poor and witholding wages from workers are the other two). But failing to prohibit abortion and failing to prohibit sodomy are of acts of a very different sort: though bad indeed, they are more passive and do not seem, at least to me, to be as "manifestly grave."

[Will Linden]

Well, those of us who are not Catholic can not really be faulted by being confused by the etymology of "ex-COMMUN-ication". Isn't that the purport of excommunicating someone?

But as far as that goes, I keep asking the "liberals" why, if denying pro-abortion politicians the sacrament is "interfering in politics" and "violating separationofchurchandstate", it was just fine and dany to excommunicate Boss Perez for opposing integration? I did not see any such frothing over THAT. And they say "I'm not talking about that!". Or take refuge in "I never heard of it"... after the Paper of Record covered it on page 1.

[Mike Benz]

An excommunication is the heaviest spiritual sanction the Church can render. So long as it is in force, it bars the excommunicated person from the church community and from receiving most of the sacraments, as well as from all public associations affiliated with the Church.

Being denied communion is different. It would not per se prevent participation in other sacraments and the basis for denial could be removed through absolution.

These things are complicated, but denial of communion and ex-communication are not the same. Sullivan should not refer to them as though they are.

[Mike Benz]

Spak-

This is how I analyze it:

I start with this section out of the Catholic Catechism:

" [Section] 1415
Anyone who desires to receive Christ in Eucharistic communion must be in the state of grace. Anyone aware of having sinned mortally must not receive communion without having received absolution in the sacrament of penance."

See http://www.nccbuscc.org/catechism/text/pt2sect2chpt1art3.htm

Next, I try to determine whether Kerry has "sinned mortally" (according to the catechism).

The Vatican has stated that "those who are directly involved in lawmaking bodies have a grave and clear obligation to oppose any law that attacks human life. For them, as for every Catholic, it is impossible to promote such laws or to vote for them."

See CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH, DOCTRINAL NOTE on some questions regarding The Participation of Catholics in Political Life

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20021124_politica_en.html

The Catechism has this to say about "mortal sin":

"[Section] 1857
For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: "Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent."131

[Section] 1858
Grave matter is specified by the Ten Commandments, corresponding to the answer of Jesus to the rich young man: "Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and your mother."132 The gravity of sins is more or less great: murder is graver than theft. One must also take into account who is wronged: violence against parents is in itself graver than violence against a stranger.

[Section] 1859
Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God's law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.

[Section] 1860
Unintentional ignorance can diminish or even remove the imputability of a grave offense. But no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are written in the conscience of every man. The promptings of feelings and passions can also diminish the voluntary and free character of the offense, as can external pressures or pathological disorders. Sin committed through malice, by deliberate choice of evil, is the gravest.

[Section] 1861
Mortal sin is a radical possibility of human freedom, as is love itself. It results in the loss of charity and the privation of sanctifying grace, that is, of the state of grace. If it is not redeemed by repentance and God's forgiveness, it causes exclusion from Christ's kingdom and the eternal death of hell, for our freedom has the power to make choices for ever, with no turning back. However, although we can judge that an act is in itself a grave offense, we must entrust judgment of persons to the justice and mercy of God."

See http://www.nccbuscc.org/catechism/text/pt3sect1chpt1art8.htm

The way I read this, if you link it all up, Kerry has "sinned mortally" in his support for abortion rights—according to the catechism. I think that if Kerry votes in favor of abortion rights (he does) and does so knowing that it goes against the law of God (he knows), and it is done freely and willingly (sure seems like it), then he is guilty of mortal sin—according to the catechism.

OK, so maybe Kerry should not RECEIVE communion. But should priests and Bishops DENY him communion?

Nigerian Cardinal Arinze, who is said to be in the running to be the next Pope, made this comment last Friday when asked about whether Kerry should be denied communion:

"If the person should not receive it, then it should not be given."

This statement by Arinze isn't binding on the American bishops. Indeed, Arinze's position may not be universally held among American Bishops. Nevertheless, Arinze's statement nicely frames the question.

[Han Ng]

Spak,

I agree with the Church that both murder and sodomy are manifestly grave sins that cry out to God for vengence. The thrust of my second paragraph, however, was to assert that unless we delude ourselves into thinking that the unborn child is not human, there is no principled liberal defence of abortion, whereas there could be a liberal defense of sodomy.

The liberal argument for not criminalising sodomy is more or less: "What goes on between two consenting adults is nobody's business, since sodomy doesn't harm anybody." Now, I have real problems with this argument since sodomy does harm people by degrading our culture and the consentual acts of parties can be other people's business since we are our brothers' keepers. Nevertheless, based upon the liberal criteria, abortion cannot be defended unless we deny the humanity of the unborn child. After all, the child does not consent, the child is not an adult, and the child is definitely harmed (and the mother could be as well, even discounting the harm to her soul). Thus, even if one accepts the Church position that sodomy is a grave sin (because it misuses the gift of human sexuality), one can still defend legal sodomy as a liberal. But if one accepts the Church position that abortion is a grave sin (because it is murder), what can be the liberal defense of it?

Stay POD,
Han

[Ron Belgau]

I realize that this is very peripheral to this thread as a whole, but I should point out that NAMBLA is not a gay rights organization. NAMBLA stands for North American Man-Boy Love Association. It promotes pedophilia and is repudiated by most mainstream gay organizations.

I believe the acronym you were looking for is NGLTF: National Gay/Lesbian Task Force, which is a major gay rights organization.

[jerry]

Check out Bill Buckley's column on National Review Online. He makes the excellent point that all non-Catholics who say that the Church should not deny Kerry communion are the ones violating the separation of Church and State.

[Joseph D'Hippolito]

Christopher Jones: If this were primarily a pastoral matter, as you say, I would agree with you. The reason I don't see it as a pastoral matter is because Catholic politicans who favor abortion on demand have yet to have the same sacramental sanctions applied to them. Where have the bishops -- especially the Massachusetts Episcopal Mafia (Law, McCormack, Daily, et al) -- been concerning the Kennedys, for example?

Moreover, American bishops have allowed all sorts of liturgical, theological and assorted chaos to reign in their respective dioceses. All of a sudden, they get a conscience? I don't think so.

Does anybody seriously believe this would be an issue if Howard Dean, John Edwards or another non-Catholic were the Democratic Party's presumptive nominee?

Now, Christopher, you might be thinking that the bishops are making up for lost time. Perhaps. However, look at my last question and ask yourself whether the idea of "making up for lost time" really applies in this case.

I realize this sounds incredibly cynical. Our bishops have given us sound cause to be so cynical.

[Alex]

Tom C. beat me to my comment - try substituting some grave offense towards another person that is less socially acceptable than abortion and see if the line still works. E.g. try filling in the blank with "rape," "murder," "child abuse/neglect," etc:

"But there is a distinction between support for the morality of ________ and reluctant support for a someone's right to [legally] choose such a moral wrong?"

No. The question is "what is the unborn?" Those who know the answer already know the answer to the other question.

[Stacey]

Spak,
you wrote, "The document you cite does not say that failing to vote to prohobit abortion is a "grave sin." You may be right to think of it that way. But I've not seen any church documents that classify the failure to vote in a particular way as the kind of "manifest grave sin" that merits refusal of the Eucharist."

With Kerry, it's not even a matter of "failing to vote to prohibit abortion." Kerry supports abortion and works to protect a woman's right to murder her unborn child. Though he has been very busy campaigning and has missed much of the voting in the Senate of late, he made a special effort to fly back to DC to vote against the partial-birth abortion ban. From his own website:

"John Kerry believes that women have the right to control their own bodies, their own lives, and their own destinies. He believes that the Constitution protects their right to choose and to make their own decisions in consultation with their doctor, their conscience, and their God. He will defend this right as President. He recently announced he will support only pro-choice judges to the Supreme Court. Kerry also believes that we should promote family planning and health plans should assure women contraceptive coverage."

[James Kabala]

Ron Beglau:
Thank you. I am not at all pro-gay, but I did find it a little disturbing that more than one commenter treated NAMBLA as a gay organization, without further qualification.

[James Kabala]

A question about Leander Perez:

Why exactly was he excommunicated? After all, there were numerous southern Louisiana Catholic politicians who were pro-segregation (nearly all of them, in fact), yet only Perez and a couple of his associates were ever actually excommunicated. What did Perez do that crossed the line?

[John Hetman]

Shall we get nuanced and New York Timish about Dachau, the gulags, Cambodia, Rwanda? And ruminate about the degrees of error in the abortion issue?

Who the hell is Sullivan anyways but a colossal bore?

There is only one point worth while: either abortion is the deliberate murder of an unborn child, or it isn't.

If the former, then there is no argument and simply one moral stand. There can be no other. The support, whether reluctant (cowardly) or open (dastardly) must be considered a crime against heaven itself. Church politics be damned.

The root of the matter is genocide and any prelate who is too cowardly to pitch out the Kerry's, Durbin's, Peolosi's, ad nauseum out of the Church is hell-bound on the fact track.

[Sandra Miesel]

Perez et al weren't just segregationists, they quoted Scripture to justify their stands. Archbishop Rummel then had a justification to discipline them for presuming to interpret the Bible in a heretical way.
It certainly didn't help the cause that the woman of the trio jumped out of the bushes in the frail, half-blind archbishop's garden waving a sign at him and screaming "Repent, False Prophet!"
What Rummel administered was a solemn excommunication and he was able to enforce it. Perez was not permitted to set foot in the church to see his daughter married. Such strictness would never happen today and excommunicated persons wouldn't take the penalty as seriously as those segregationists did.

[Mike Petrik]

Bill,
You are not responding to the concerns raised in my post and amplified by Craig. The problem is not that Santorum's career would be tubed as such, but that tubing his career would have been a major setback to the pro-life movement. If you think that Santorum could back Toomey without almost certain permanent impairment to his effectiveness if Toomey lost, then you are naive. One cannot assume that Santorum's motivations were narrow self-interest; of course one cannot assume they were not either. We just really don't know. It is fair for the pro-life movement to ask for an explanation, but it is also fair for Santorum to be publicly elliptical under the circumstances.
Perhaps pro-lifers are over-thinking -- could be. But sometimes I think that some folks would have been content for Santorum's effectiveness to be eviscerated as long as he remained pure. This is the kind of non-thinking that will cost unborn children lives. We must be smart here. Now, I happen to think that Santorum made the wrong decision, but I'm just not willing to jump on him over it. From a tactical standpoint he may have been right.

[Christopher Jones]

Joseph D'Hippolito:

In point of fact, the sacramental sanction has not yet been applied to Kerry, either. If and when such sanctions are in fact put in place, I would hope and expect that the bishops would do so without respect to party affiliation. So far, this whole thing is just buzz, without any actual application of pastoral discipline.

[Bill]

Mike,

Remember David Duke? Back when he was running for president a few years ago he espoused all sorts of wonderful conservative positions and said that he was no longer involved with the KKK. However, no respectable Republican supported Duke's bid, because Duke's disavowal of his KKK past was not very convincing. Duke was treated (appropriately) as someone who was morally repugnant.

Is it really too much to expect that Catholics regard hard core pro-choicers the same way? Either abortion is non-negotiable or it isn't. Perhaps if there were two pro-choice candidates squaring off, a Catholic may (or may not) be able to enthusiastically endorse one over the other. However, I think it is ridiculous to suggest that Santorum might be the Essential Man whose continued "effectiveness" for the pro-life cause required that he endorse Specter over a pro-life candidate. How is Santorum going to be "effective" when he has announced that a tax cut is more important than the lives of the unborn?

[Frank Elliott]

To Sandra Miesel,

Judge Leander Perez was one of a group of Catholic politicians who tried to have a law passed preventing Catholic schools in Lousiana from opening as integrated.

This state interference in Catholic education precipitated Rummel's response.

[craig]

Bill, the Republicans were free to ostracize Duke because they knew that doing so would neither offend their own base nor alienate swing voters. It was a small risk for them.

For a subset of the Republican party to ostracize pro-aborts within their ranks would carry a large risk of dividing the Republican base and offending a goodly chunk of swing voters under the sway of blue-state news media and anti-Christian paranoia.

The question of how to be moral and effectively political is not a trivial one.

[Bill]

Craig,

So our "non-negotiable" issues are only non-negotiable, if they do not risk alienating swing voters? Is that your point?

There was a pro-abort incumbent running against a pro-life challenger in a Republican primary. This wasn't even a matter of party loyalty in a general election. What would have been so hard about Santorum saying that life issues are a matter of principle for him, if indeed it is a matter of principle (which it seems it is not)?

It is this silly obsession with tactics, which never seem to bear much fruit anyway, that has left so many pro-lifers disgusted with the Republican party. It also leaves the door wide open for seamless garment types to say that they are personally opposed to abortion but they will vote for a pro-choice candidate, who is "good" on other issues, in order to be truly "moral and effectively political".

[craig]

Bill, I won't debate the point further. I never intended to defend expediency as a general principle, or Santorum in particular.

I intended merely to point out that there is a difference between tactical retreats and strategic retreats, and reasonable people can disagree about whether Santorum's action fell into the former or the latter category. Catholics should expect that Catholic politicians will not abandon the strategy of furthering morality in law, but until the voter rolls are populated with saints, they must either forswear Catholics in elective office and seek out "Shabbat goyim" to do their bidding, or expect the occasional tactical incongruity by one of their own.

[Bill]

Craig,

Amy suggested that Santorum needs to address this issue quickly and I agree. Let him explain his tactics and how supporting a pro-life candidate against a pro-choice incumbent would have actually harmed the pro-life cause. To me, at least, such an anticipated explanation appears to be counterintuitive, at best.

[Joseph D'Hippolito]

Christopher Jones, your last comment is the most sensible I've seen on this thread [outside of mine, of course ;) ]. What we're really talking about is nothing because the bishops haven't done anything, yet.

Then again, what else can we expect but talk from this bunch? They love to write "pastoral letters" about such things as the economy and nuclear war (subjects out of their ken) and praise "social justice," "solidarity" and "common good" yet fail to apply such things to themselves.

Then again, they've all been appointed by this Pope, haven't they? And they're not too different from him in this regard, are they?

[Christine]

"Denial of communion is not effectively ex-communication?"

No, George, it is not, it is exactly what it says, the prohibition to receive Holy Communion. That is why Catholics who are divorced and remarried sans annulment are still able to attend Mass and are still considered part of the Catholic community, but cannot receive Holy Communion until their marriages are regularized.

[c matt]

The point of the NAMBLA reference was not to present NAMBLA as a mainstream Gay association (it was the only acronym I could think of). The point was to show that a voluntary group has the right to determine who is or is not a member by its own standards and what the rules for participation are, regardless of what an individual member thinks. Those who say the Church violates separation by denying Kerry communion, or think Kerry can be a good Catholic if he gosh darn really believes he is one in spite of what he says and does are flatly wrong. The Church has every right, and duty, to enforce the rules of participation. As others point out, it would be the state that violates separation if it forced the Church to capitulate to Kerry's sacrilege.

[David Duke is a malignant narcissist.]

David Duke is a malignant narcissist.

He invents and then projects a false, fictitious, self for the world to fear, or to admire. He maintains a tenuous grasp on reality to start with and the trappings of power further exacerbate this. Real life authority and David Duke’s predilection to surround him with obsequious sycophants support David Duke’s grandiose self-delusions and fantasies of omnipotence and omniscience.

David Duke's personality is so precariously balanced that he cannot tolerate even a hint of criticism and disagreement. Most narcissists are paranoid and suffer from ideas of reference (the delusion that they are being mocked or discussed when they are not). Thus, narcissists often regard themselves as "victims of persecution".

Duke fosters and encourages a personality cult with all the hallmarks of an institutional religion: priesthood, rites, rituals, temples, worship, catechism, and mythology. The leader is this religion's ascetic saint. He monastically denies himself earthly pleasures (or so he claims) in order to be able to dedicate himself fully to his calling.
Duke is a monstrously inverted Jesus, sacrificing his life and denying himself so that his people - or humanity at large - should benefit. By surpassing and suppressing his humanity, Duke became a distorted version of Nietzsche's "superman". But being a-human or super-human also means being a-sexual and a-moral.

In this restricted sense, narcissistic leaders are post-modernist and moral relativists. They project to the masses an androgynous figure and enhance it by engendering the adoration of nudity and all things "natural" - or by strongly repressing these feelings. But what they refer to, as "nature" is not natural at all.

Duke invariably proffers an aesthetic of decadence and evil carefully orchestrated and artificial - though it is not perceived this way by him or by his followers. Narcissistic leadership is about reproduced copies, not about originals. It is about the manipulation of symbols - not about veritable atavism or true conservatism.

In short: narcissistic leadership is about theatre, not about life. To enjoy the spectacle (and be subsumed by it), the leader demands the suspension of judgment, depersonalization, and de-realization. Catharsis is tantamount, in this narcissistic dramaturgy, to self-annulment.

Narcissism is nihilistic not only operationally, or ideologically. Its very language and narratives are nihilistic. Narcissism is conspicuous nihilism - and the cult's leader serves as a role model, annihilating the Man, only to re-appear as a pre-ordained and irresistible force of nature.

Narcissistic leadership often poses as a rebellion against the "old ways" - against the hegemonic culture, the upper classes, the established religions, the superpowers, the corrupt order. Narcissistic movements are puerile, a reaction to narcissistic injuries inflicted upon David Duke like (and rather psychopathic) toddler nation-state, or group, or upon the leader.

Minorities or "others" - often arbitrarily selected - constitute a perfect, easily identifiable, embodiment of all that is "wrong". They are accused of being old, they are eerily disembodied, they are cosmopolitan, they are part of the establishment, they are "decadent", they are hated on religious and socio-economic grounds, or because of their race, sexual orientation, origin ... They are different, they are narcissistic (feel and act as morally superior), they are everywhere, they are defenseless, they are credulous, they are adaptable (and thus can be co-opted to collaborate in their own destruction). They are the perfect hate figure. Narcissists thrive on hatred and pathological envy.

This is precisely the source of the fascination with Hitler, diagnosed by Erich Fromm - together with Stalin - as a malignant narcissist. He was an inverted human. His unconscious was his conscious. He acted out our most repressed drives, fantasies, and wishes. He provides us with a glimpse of the horrors that lie beneath the veneer, the barbarians at our personal gates, and what it was like before we invented civilization. Hitler forced us all through a time warp and many did not emerge. He was not the devil. He was one of us. He was what Arendt aptly called the banality of evil. Just an ordinary, mentally disturbed, failure, a member of a mentally disturbed and failing nation, who lived through disturbed and failing times. He was the perfect mirror, a channel, a voice, and the very depth of our souls.

Duke prefers the sparkle and glamour of well-orchestrated illusions to the tedium and method of real accomplishments. His reign is all smoke and mirrors, devoid of substances, consisting of mere appearances and mass delusions. In the aftermath of his regime - Duke having died, been deposed, or voted out of office - it all unravels. The tireless and constant prestidigitation ceases and the entire edifice crumbles. What looked like an economic miracle turns out to have been a fraud-laced bubble. Loosely held empires disintegrate. Laboriously assembled business conglomerates go to pieces. "Earth shattering" and "revolutionary" scientific discoveries and theories are discredited. Social experiments end in mayhem.

It is important to understand that the use of violence must be ego-syntonic. It must accord with the self-image of David Duke. It must abet and sustain his grandiose fantasies and feed his sense of entitlement. It must conform David Duke like narrative. Thus, David Duke who regards himself as the benefactor of the poor, a member of the common folk, the representative of the disenfranchised, the champion of the dispossessed against the corrupt elite - is highly unlikely to use violence at first. The pacific mask crumbles when David Duke has become convinced that the very people he purported to speak for, his constituency, his grassroots fans, and the prime sources of his narcissistic supply - have turned against him. At first, in a desperate effort to maintain the fiction underlying his chaotic personality, David Duke strives to explain away the sudden reversal of sentiment. "The people are being duped by (the media, big industry, the military, the elite, etc.)", "they don't really know what they are doing", "following a rude awakening, they will revert to form", etc. When these flimsy attempts to patch a tattered personal mythology fail, David Duke becomes injured. Narcissistic injury inevitably leads to narcissistic rage and to a terrifying display of unbridled aggression. The pent-up frustration and hurt translate into devaluation. That which was previously idealized - is now discarded with contempt and hatred. This primitive defense mechanism is called "splitting". To David Duke, things and people are either entirely bad (evil) or entirely good. He projects onto others his own shortcomings and negative emotions, thus becoming a totally good object. Duke is likely to justify the butchering of his own people by claiming that they intended to kill him, undo the revolution, devastate the economy, or the country, etc. The "small people", the "rank and file", and the "loyal soldiers" of David Duke - his flock, his nation, and his employees - they pay the price. The disillusionment and disenchantment are agonizing. The process of reconstruction, of rising from the ashes, of overcoming the trauma of having been deceived, exploited and manipulated - is drawn-out. It is difficult to trust again, to have faith, to love, to be led, to collaborate. Feelings of shame and guilt engulf the erstwhile followers of David Duke. This is his sole legacy: a massive post-traumatic stress disorder.