« Sacristy report | Main | Okay, so you're bored with De-Coding »
May 04, 2004
Sullivan on Kerry
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.
Posted by Amy Welborn | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451be0d69e200d83420c1cf53ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Sullivan on Kerry:
» E.J. Dionne. Washington Post: Kerry and His Church from Extreme Catholic
You can add this item to the Mark Shields CNN item which I blogged and the pathetic Andrew Sullivan item which Amy Welborn blogged and I commented on it there.
E.J. Dionne also frames the question wrong. The correct frame: What is truth? What does... [Read More]
Tracked on May 4, 2004 10:44:39 PM
» Morality, Religion, and Politics in Black and White from Dust in the Light
Andrew Sullivan is right about the significance of any American Catholic Church action to make a policy of denying Communion to "pro-choice" politicians: Cutting off people from the sacraments is a drastic step for the church to take; taking on... [Read More]
Tracked on May 6, 2004 2:16:31 PM
Comments
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.
Posted by: Tom at May 4, 2004 11:05:01 AM
What is Santorum's defense for supporting Specter over Toomey? I don't see that he has a valid one.
Posted by: Bill at May 4, 2004 11:10:22 AM
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?
Posted by: ita o'byrne at May 4, 2004 11:10:40 AM
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?
Posted by: c matt at May 4, 2004 11:21:18 AM
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.
Posted by: David at May 4, 2004 11:25:23 AM
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.
Posted by: Bill at May 4, 2004 11:32:30 AM
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.
Posted by: Tom C at May 4, 2004 11:34:41 AM
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.
Posted by: al at May 4, 2004 11:52:25 AM
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".
Posted by: Patrick Sweeney at May 4, 2004 12:36:30 PM
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.
Posted by: Gregg the obscure at May 4, 2004 12:47:19 PM
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.
Posted by: S.F. at May 4, 2004 12:58:56 PM
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.
Posted by: Mike Petrik at May 4, 2004 1:08:23 PM
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.
Posted by: David at May 4, 2004 1:22:10 PM
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.
Posted by: Mike Benz at May 4, 2004 1:52:06 PM
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.
Posted by: Spak at May 4, 2004 1:53:31 PM
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?
Posted by: T. Marzen at May 4, 2004 2:02:21 PM
Philip Lawler was making Point 1 in an article here, and I posted a similar article, from a Theology of the Body perspective, here.
Posted by: Clayton at May 4, 2004 2:03:51 PM
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.
Posted by: al at May 4, 2004 2:10:44 PM
Besides, if Kerry were simply to be denied communion, he'd still have access to the one sacrament he needs: Sacramental Confession!!
Posted by: al at May 4, 2004 2:15:38 PM
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.
Posted by: Mike Benz at May 4, 2004 2:19:59 PM
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?
Posted by: Bill at May 4, 2004 2:22:02 PM
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?
Posted by: spak at May 4, 2004 2:41:43 PM
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!
Posted by: George at May 4, 2004 2:45:05 PM
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.
Posted by: craig at May 4, 2004 2:48:16 PM
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?
Posted by: David Kubiak at May 4, 2004 2:48:24 PM
