« Choosing | Main | DMN, Part Two »
June 20, 2004
What the bishops said
Issue rebuke. Leave the rest up to the ordinaries
Despite the ``polarizing'' nature of election-year politics, the bishops wrote, ``Respect for the holy eucharist, in particular, demands that it be received worthily and that it be seen as the source for our common mission in the world.''
The bishops' statement also calls for withholding signs of public approval from politicians who support legalized abortion.
``They should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions,'' the bishops wrote.
Leslie Tentler, professor of history at the Catholic University of America and director of the university's Center for American Catholic Studies, said in a telephone interview: "It's obviously a compromise statement. The general tenor seems to me very much one of conciliation. Look at the verbs and nouns they use: `teach, persuade, dialogue, engagement' with politicians. On the other hand they don't slap the hands of the bishops who say they would deny politicians communion. They point out what's absolutely true, and that is that bishops can make decisions on matters of this sort in their own dioceses."The statement was drafted, then adopted by a vote of 183 to 6, at a closed-door meeting at the Inverness Hotel and Conference Center in Englewood, Colo. The prelates had been scheduled to gather not to make policy, but to pray and get to know one another, as they do every five years. A task force studying how bishops should relate to Catholic lawmakers was not scheduled to issue recommendations until after the November election.
....One of those who oppose refusing communion, Cardinal Roger Mahony of Los Angeles, reiterated that position in a statement issued last night, saying, "The archdiocese will continue to follow church teaching which places the duty on each Catholic to examine their consciences as to their worthiness to receive holy communion. That is not the role of the person distributing the body and blood of Christ."Bishops on both sides of the divide who visited the Vatican in recent months for routine meetings returned home saying that Vatican officials supported their viewpoint.
Posted by Amy Welborn | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/847515
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference What the bishops said:
Comments
Well, Mahoney and my own Bishop (Fiorenza) in Galveston-Houston can say whatever they want. As Arinze pointed out, Canon 915 is very clear on this. I look at it as we are now able to see which Bishops place their own opinion of tradition above what the Church actually teaches (Which is funny because that is the same thing they accuse SSPX contingent of doing).
As it is I send my money and support to Bishops who will actively defend the Faith, and solid evangelization programs (ewtn, local catholic radio, web blogs) who will spread it.
Posted by: rmichael at Jun 20, 2004 8:29:23 PM
There's an interview with Burke stating that he won't be influenced by what is just an opinion piece by the bishops' conference. He said he knows what is the right thing to do and he will continue to carry out what he said he would. (I think he's thinking of the "hapless bench" reference here too!)
Posted by: chris K at Jun 20, 2004 9:26:38 PM
Well, if Arinze is correct about Canon 915, then why didn't he demand that the American bishops follow it, or ask the Pope to make such a demand?
JPII has been sitting in Peter's Chair for more than a quarter century. He's had ample opportunity to enforce discipline beyond his winsome rhetoric. What has taken him so long?
Or it is because he gave communion to the former mayor of Rome, who said that abortion should be legal in Italy, though he personally opposes it?
It is because the American bishops are following the papal example and are keeping their options open when it comes to maintaining influence with area polticians?
Once again, another example of papal flaccidity when it comes to disciplining bishops -- and in this case, enforcing teaching.
Once again, another example of "collegiality" being a "good ol' boys" club.
Once again, another example of episcopal hypocracy that places the bishops' (and this Pope's) desire for political influence over their pastoral responsibilities.
Posted by: Joseph D'Hippolito at Jun 20, 2004 11:08:04 PM
Question for the crowd: What is the likelihood the Holy Father will find the conference's statement falls short of the mark (and will then do something to rectify it)?
Posted by: Rich Leonardi at Jun 21, 2004 8:16:17 AM
Missed the conversation yesterday, when many of you weighed in on my suggested question above.
Posted by: Rich Leonardi at Jun 21, 2004 10:17:51 AM
Rich
The likelihood that the Holy Father will say the conference statement is not enough, is very low. The statement left the pastoral decision up to the individual Bishops to make, based on their own assessment of the local situation. It's difficult to see how that can be criticized, since that is where the responsibility lies. At least the Bishops (finally) said, no awards, recognition, etc,should go to pro-abortion advocates by Catholic institutions.
Posted by: tom faranda at Jun 21, 2004 3:35:54 PM
Tom: "Recognition" would seem to be open-ended enough to create potential future mischief. Is there recognition when a pro-abortion Catholic politician is allowed merely to speak to Catholic college students?
Posted by: Rich Leonardi at Jun 21, 2004 3:58:13 PM
Greetings!
Canon 915 states: Those upon whom the penalty of excommunication or interdict has been imposed or declared, and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, are not to be admitted to holy communion.
To my knowledge, Kerry has not been placed under any form of excommunication or interdict (none has been imposed or declared).
As far as "persit[ing] in manifest grave sin", we cannot really make that judgment in this case according to GS 28 "God alone is the judge and searcher of hearts; for that reason He forbids us to make judgments about the internal guilt of anyone."
Kerry says he "personally opposes abortion, but...." and he states he believes in separation of Church and state. I hate hearing that from politicians, and I am pro-life, and would love to see abortion made illegal.
However, Kerry's statements affirm that the moral teaching of the Church is right, even if he won't translate this into law.
We cannot know what went into his decision making process to vote for what he personally opposes, but a Catholic politician does have a moral responsibility to represent his or her constituents as well as voting according to Church teaching.
GS 76 even explicitly affirms Kerry's position that the Church and state are distinct, autonomous and independant from one another, though the Bishops are clearly teaching that politicians should not use this as an excuse to fail to support life.
This is a stickier question than most pro-lifers wish to accept.
The pertinent canon is 912, which states Any baptized person who is not forbidden by law may and must be admitted to holy communion.
Denying someone Communion should be an absolute last resort. Afterall, if we take our Eucharistic theology seriously, such action is almost the spiritual equivalent of the death penalty. I believe this is why the document passed by the Bishops tries to offer alternative disciplinary measures.
As pointed out above, the Holy Father's own example is pertinent here. I strongly disagree with Kerry on abortion, but there are better and more charitable ways of handling Kerry than denying him Communion.
Peace!
Posted by: jcecil3 at Jun 21, 2004 4:37:42 PM
I know what you're saying here, jcecil3, but consider this: the Catholic Church doesn't ONLY teach that abortion is a grave wrong for an individual; it ALSO teaches that the government has the duty to protect human life without fatally discriminating against any group (the unborn, the severely disabled and delibilitated, etc.)
In other words, individuals are forbidden to ABORT; governments are forbidden to DISCRIMINATE (in the matter of preventing murder.) Socially disfavored groups --- whether they be Jews, illegal immigrants, gays, prostitutes, or unborn babies --- still have a right to be protected from murder. And any person elected or appointed to exercise civil power, has a strict obligation to provide "equal justice" in preserving their right to simply go on living.
Any government official who does not do this, is guilty of using political power unjustly, i.e. in refusing to use the power of the state to prevent murder.
I don't have the name of the document here, and the chapter and verse. Anyone?
Posted by: Julianne Wiley at Jun 21, 2004 7:01:04 PM
Rich,
re: "Is there recognition when a pro-abortion Catholic politician is allowed merely to speak to Catholic college students?"
Certainly - I think that comes under what appears to be a ban by the Bishops. And as I read it, it applies to any pro-abortion individuals, not just Catholics. Here's what the statement says:
"The Catholic community and Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles. They should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions."
It says "should not honor those..." not just should not honor Catholics...
Posted by: tom faranda at Jun 21, 2004 10:47:55 PM
"As far as 'persit[ing] in manifest grave sin', we cannot really make that judgment in this case according to GS 28 'God alone is the judge and searcher of hearts; for that reason He forbids us to make judgments about the internal guilt of anyone.' "
Then what would be the point of having that in the Canon? This has nothing really to do with whether or not Kerry is in a state of grace, but rather whether by his public (manifest) action, he is engaged in objectively grave matter and has persisted despite correction (which he obviously has.) Support of the murder of unborn children, regardless of the reason for it, is objectively grave matter. The state of Kerry's soul is immaterial, or else there would be no reason to have such a clause in the canon (since it is never possible for anyone to know the state of the soul of another, as you mention.)
On top of that, that Kerry "personally opposes" abortion yet makes very public statements that he will never do anything to threaten a woman's "right" to choose to murder her unborn child (and this to the NARAL types who view even having to consider for more than about five minutes whether or not you really want to get an abortion to be a "threat" to their "rights"). If he said that he was "personally opposed" to some moral evil that everyone agrees upon (like slavery for instance) but that he thought that it was important for it to be legal, no one would think for a minute that he really opposed it at all. They would think that he was just saying that because he thought it would play better in the polls (or maybe in the pew).
Posted by: Stacey at Jun 22, 2004 12:10:19 AM
Canon 915 refers to an objective state, not an interior disposition.
Posted by: Rich Leonardi at Jun 22, 2004 8:38:36 AM
jcecil3:
I can understand your position, but citing Cn 912 does not settle the issue. The way statutory laws are drafted, included Canon law, is that the more general provisions come first, then the clarifying or exception paragraphs come afterward. 912 makes a general proposition that "any baptized person who is not forbidden by law may and must be admitted to holy communion". The following Canons, including 915, explain when the "forbidden by law" condition is met. Thus, you look to 915, not 912, to assess the Pro-Abort Pol's situation.
Posted by: c matt at Jun 22, 2004 8:41:33 AM
rmichael:
Fiorenza is my bishop as well. I have a hard time trying to get a handle on exactly where he sits on the hapless bench. My impression so far is that he falls into the lukewarm category - not openly heterodox, occasional smattering of spine (stiff plastic, not steel) eg, on protection of marriage - although that's not too hard to defend in our neck of the woods, and seems to shy away from any controversy - eg, his "letter" on TPOTC was quite dissappointing - boiled down to "I won't tell you not to see it, but be cautious when viewing it." God forbid he actually show encouragement about bringing Christ's sacrifice to the masses. In other words, a C to C+ (graded on curve). Has your impression been any different?
Posted by: c matt at Jun 22, 2004 8:50:15 AM
