In a recent issue of the Rhode Island Catholic, a diocesan newspaper, Bishop Thomas Tobin condemned Rudy Giuliani’s position on abortion: “As Catholics, we are called, indeed required, to be pro-life, to cherish and protect human life as a precious gift of God from the moment of conception until the time of natural death. As a leader, as a public official, Rudy Giuliani has a special obligation in that regard.”
The issue of how the Catholic hierarchy in the U.S. should deal with the problem of pro-choice Catholic politicians came up last during the 2004 presidential election. Some bishops warned Sen. John Kerry, the Democratic nominee, that he should not take Communion in their dioceses because of his support for legalized abortion.
But this problem has been discussed for decades. Most bishops have resisted calls to excommunicate such politicians or even to impose lesser sanctions, including denying them Communion. The very idea of these actions appalls most liberals, both inside and outside the Church. They consider ecclesiastical punishment undemocratic, an attack on personal conscience and a violation of the separation of church and state. “I believe the church has a role in guiding parishioners and people in public life, but I don’t believe the Church should be using the sacrament of Communion as a political weapon,” Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D., Conn.), a pro-choice Catholic, recently told the Connecticut Post. There was a time, however, when most liberals applauded the bishops for disciplining Catholics, including politicians, who opposed the Church’s teachings.
Isn’t “pro-choice Catholic” a contradiction of terms? I love watching the waffling, and see myself modeling the behavior. Maranatha!
Yes, there is separation between Church and State and the Roman Catholic Church (through its bishops and priests) should not be in the job of determining state policy.
However, the Church is tasked with the cure of souls of her members and should inform her members when they are indangering their relationship with God through their words and actions. The ultimate warning is excommunication.
Abortion is a great evil. Like slavery, it cheapens human life and denies the image of God in all people. To publically support abortion or to encourage (or enact) laws that allow for unrestricted abortion is to participate in that evil. The Church is right to discipline her members. If they do not like the Church’s stance on the issue and are so enraged at the Church, they can always exercise their freedom of religion and find another church that supports their views.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Thank you Phil Snyder. You put into words exactly what I was thinking.
Thank you Lord for Bishops who are not afraid to be true shepherds, would that we had more of them. Your Church cries out to you oh Lord, send us godly men. Give them the grace to uphold your Truth. Remind them that the shepherd’s crook can be used to repel the wof as well as gather in the sheep. Strengthen their hearts to defend you in the Eucharist. Keep them on your path and protect them against the snare of that liar, the devil. In Jesus’ name I pray, amen.
the wof oh right the wicked evil cunning wof. That should be wolf. Bad typo, bad bad typo.
The politicians are right about this being a free country and not a theocracy. They are free to join another church or no church at all. The problem isn’t courageous bishops defending the integrity of the Catholic Faith–the problem is power-hungry politicians who think their lofty position entitles them to follow their own set of morals–like a modern Divine Right of Kings.
In Sept. 1960, John Kennedy said this to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association
“I believe in America where the separation of church and state is absolute; where no Catholic prelate would tell the president — should he be Catholic — how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote… .â€
Lucky for JFK he was running in the era of John XXIII and Vatican II and not the era of Benedict XVI, Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell
So I suppose, Emily, if the Supreme Court makes a decision on some moral issue like abortion –an issue priests,ministers and rabbis have spoken strongly on for thousands of years–and politicians decide to call it a secular issue–then all religious people and their clergy must immediately clamp a hand over their mouths, bend their knees, and burn some incense on the altar of politics through their silence.
Religious people and leaders should be as free to say what they want as politicians, newspaper editors, and Hollywood celebrities. Anything short of that and this is not a free country–except for the anti-religious.
And JFK had only one moral code–what was best to advance himself politically.
Emily,
Is JFK the moral model? If you dislike the Pope speaking out on moral issues, presumably you also deplore TEC’s moral stance as evidenced by lobbying for MDG, as one example?
Dear deaconjohn25 (#8) and Sherri (#9),
Your expectations of those on pro-abortion side of the argument are far, far too high. One of the most salient fallacies of most who consider themselves progressives is their confident self-identification as being on the right (as in moral) side of what they consider important arguments. This is not to say that many who consider themselves conservatives do not evidence a similar conceit, it is simply to observe that believing oneself to be always occupying the moral high ground is a hallmark of arrogation. Further, once someone is convinced of the correctness of that assessment, it becomes a matter of dishonor to admit that one might not be correct.
If you expect aught else from anyone who insists that it is, in virtually all instances, a woman’s right to choose, then you are in for great disappointment.