"For we have
in our hearts a law written by God. To obey
it is the very dignity of the human person; according to it
we
will be judged" (Vatican II Documents: Gaudium et spes).
Link to Catholic News Service -- Vatican
official denial of claim that Kerry is a heretic
Vatican denies it responded to lawyer seeking Kerry's
excommunication (19 October 2004) "No, Kerry is not a heretic," he
[Vatican official contacted
by CNS] said.
"There are three distinct questions involved" in the current U.S. discussion
about support for legalized abortion and the worthiness of Catholic politicians
and voters to receive Communion, he said. The three questions, he said, are:
"Is Kerry a heretic? Is Kerry an 'obstinate sinner' because of his support
for legalized abortion? Can a Catholic vote for Kerry?" Even if one answered "yes"
to the second question, he said, it would not mean the senator is a heretic,
nor would it oblige Catholic voters in all situations to vote against him.
Link to call to action from Martin Sheen and Sister
Joan Chittister
LIFE DOES NOT END AT
BIRTH: Catholics Called to Vote For the Common Good: "Are you frustrated with individuals telling
you that one issue should decide your vote? If you are, join us in sending
a strong message to America that our faith and our commitment to the
common good are not exhausted by any one issue. Click below to add your
name to "Life Does Not End at Birth", a statement that reminds politicians,
church leaders and the media that we are called to vote for candidates
based on the full range of issues that impact the common good."
I believe in an 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; where no church or church
school is granted any public funds or political preference,
and where no man is denied public office merely because his
religion differs from the President who might appoint him, or
the people who might elect him.
I believe in an America that is officially
neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish; where no public official
either requests or accept instructions on public policy from
the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical
source; where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly
or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of
its officials, and where religious liberty is so indivisible
that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.
The real transgression occurs when
religion wants government to tell citizens how to live
uniquely personal parts of their lives. The failure of
Prohibition proves the futility of such an attempt when a majority
or even a substantial minority happens to disagree. Some questions
may be inherently individual ones, or people may be sharply divided
about whether they are. In such cases, like Prohibition and abortion,
the proper role of religion is to appeal to the conscience of
the individual, not the coercive power of the state.
In addition to all the weaknesses, dilemmas, and
temptations that impede every pilgrim"s progress,
the Catholic who holds political office in a pluralistic
democracy"who is elected to serve Jews and Muslims, atheists
and Protestants, as well as Catholics"bears special responsibility.
He or she undertakes to help create conditions under which
all can live with a maximum of dignity and with
a reasonable degree of freedom; where everyone who chooses
may hold beliefs different from specifically Catholic ones,
sometimes contradictory to them; where the laws protect people"s
right to divorce, to use birth control, and even to choose
abortion.
In fact, Catholic public officials
take an oath to preserve the Constitution that guarantees
his freedom. And they do so gladly. Not because they love
what others do with their freedom, but because they realize
that in guaranteeing freedom for all, they guarantee
our right to be Catholics: our
right to pray, to use the sacraments, to refuse birth control
devices, to reject abortion, not to divorce and remarry if
we believe it to be wrong.
When I see people wondering whether they can in conscience vote for Kerry
because of his (rather moderate and unstressed, as a matter of fact) position
on abortion, I am greatly reminded of the Jesus-saying about "straining
out gnats while swallowing camels." Point one (overruling all others) MUST
be that NOT to vote for Kerry is essentially to make a choice to will and
acquiesce in and take responsibility for Bush being re-elected, and for his
continuing, for the next 4 years, to be a disaster for almost everything
that OUGHT to be of fundamental concern to Christians.
Association for the Rights of Catholics in the Church
The Code of Canon Law reflects the
fundamental right to the Eucharist when it says that “any baptized person
who is not prohibited by law must be admitted to Holy Communion.” (Canon
912). This canon is directly related to another (canon 213) which codified
the fundamental right of all Christians to receive help from the spiritual
goods of the church, especially the sacraments: "The Christian faithful have
the right to receive assistance from the sacred pastors out of the spiritual
goods of the Church, especially the Word of God and the sacraments." Both canons 912 and 213 use the word
Christian and not Catholic as the descriptive of the subject of
communion. This reflects the constant theology that the Eucharist is a
fundamental right of all the baptized, not only those who are official members
of the Catholic church. (Cf. Lumen Gentium 37).
Robert Blair Kaiser Com
Dave Myers: Kerry Promoter(August
23, 2004) I am a John Kerry promoter.I am a
Jesuit priest and a lawyer.I believe in truth,
in peace and in the right to life. ... John Kerry says he opposes abortion.George Bush has personally authorized the killing
of over 50,000 men and women in Iraq.Over 1000
of them were Americans.Who supports the right to life?At the Prayers of the Faithful, I make sure we pray not only for
slain Americans, but also slain Iraqis.
I am deeply committed to the right to life: both "innocent" lives and
the lives of the rest of us.Human life before birth
is sacred and human life after birth is more sacred.Killing people in wars is wrong.Starving
people with inhumane economic structures is wrong.Denying
health care is wrong.Using educational deprivation
to create pools of cheap labor is wrong. (This essay was also published in Robert Blair
Kaiser's election
issue)
America Magazine
(some of the articles may only be
accessed by subscribers)
"American Catholics and the State," by
Gregory A. Kalscheur (August 2, 2004).
Much of the current
controversy regarding the exclusion from Communion of
Catholic politicians who espouse pro-choice political
positions displays a lack of the careful moral reasoning
that ought to characterize serious Catholic reflection on
important issues of public policy.
"My Conscience, My
Vote," by David
R. Obey, member of the U.S. House of Representatives. The basic problem is that I remain a John Courtney
Murray kind of Catholic, while Archbishop Burke is not. Murray
was the key American theologian who advised the American
Catholic bishops during the deliberations of the historic
Second Vatican Council convened by Pope John XXIII. Archbishop
Burke and I differ only occasionally on what is moral and
what is not. But we differ significantly about what
requirements the law can be expected to impose in a
democratic society on those who do not share our religious
beliefs.
"Prophecy for Justice:
Catholic Politicians and Bishops,"
by Most Rev. Raymond L. Burke,
archbishop of St. Louis ( June 21-28, 2004).
For a bishop or any
pastor to exclude someone from Communion is always a
source of great sorrow. The sorrow is caused by the care
that a pastor naturally has for a soul who rejects the
teaching of Christ and his church. What would be
profoundly more sorrowful would be the failure of a bishop
to call a soul to conversion, the failure to protect the
flock from scandal and the failure to safeguard the worthy
reception of Communion.
"Holy Communion and Unholy
Politics," by
Rev. John P. Beal, associate professor, school of canon
law, The Catholic University of America (June 21-28,
2004).
By making it difficult for church authorities to refuse
admission to holy Communion to politicians whose public
records arguably cannot be squared with church teaching, a
necessarily strict interpretation of Canon 915 serves as
a brake on the temptation to politicize the Eucharist by
allowing the sacrament that signifies and effects the
union of love between Christ and the church to become a
sacrament that signifies and brings about disunity. Zeal
to protect the Eucharist from profanation by sinners can
unwittingly lead to an even greater profanation by
transforming the eucharistic celebration into a continuation
of politics by liturgical means.
"Caught Between God and
Caesar," by
Joseph A. Califano, Jr. (June 21-28, 2004)
As a citizen I consider it
preposterous and wrong for the political parties to impose
an abortion litmus test on eligibility for their party"s
presidential nomination: pro-choice for Democrats,
pro-life for Republicans. But that is no reason for the bishops
to make the same mistake by imposing a similar litmus test
on the right to receive Communion.
"Christians in the
World," editorial (June 21-28, 2004).
John Courtney Murray,
the Jesuit theologian who was one of the chief architects
of the Second Vatican Council"s "Declaration on Religious
Freedom" (1965), used to point out that the church has two
goals in its relationship to any state: freedom to pursue
its own mission and as much harmony as possible between
its values and laws and those of civil society.
"Catholics and Politics
2004," editorial ( May 24, 2004). When questioned by Catholic News Service,
European and British bishops showed no interest in employing
the denial of Communion as a weapon to control the Catholic
politicians in their countries. The Tablet of London even
reported last year that Pope John Paul II gave Communion
to British Prime Minister Tony Blair, a pro-choice Anglican,
during a private Mass. One Italian bishop identified the
underlying issue with admirable simplicity: "Faith is one
thing. Legislation is another." Legislators who believe that
abortion is immoral may, rightly or wrongly, decide that
legalized abortion is the least of several possible evils
in a pluralistic society.
"Voting Conscience,"
by John F. Kavanaugh (May
17, 2004). The Catholic tradition affirms the supremacy of
conscience, our moral judgment. It also calls for a willingness
to inform that conscience. I am open to evidence and argument.
But I do not accept the dictum that the sole moral issue
of November"s election is either the war or abortion. For
me it is an election, a choice, between two terribly deficient
candidates. With the best evidence I can muster, by
November, I will choose one.
"Abortion, Faith and
Politics," by
John F. Kavanaugh, S.J., (Feb. 16, 2004). If some Catholic
politicians seem unwilling even to talk with you about it
or give their reasons for supporting unrestricted legal
abortion, would you, as a bishop, question whether they
should receive Communion as fully integrated members of
your faith community?
"The Body Politic and the Body
of Christ: Candidates, Communion and the Catholic Church,"
Pew Forum on Religion and
Public Life, June 23, 2004. Speakers: Thomas J. Reese, S.J.,
and George Weigel. Moderator: Luis Lugo
Question by Alan
Cooperman from The
Washington Post: . . . And for Father Tom, John Allen has
been asking all the bishops that he can buttonhole in Rome
during their ad limina
visits a hypothetical question:
Could a Catholic lawmaker in good conscience say that he
or she opposes abortion flatly, but that as a matter of prudential
judgment does not believe that criminalizing abortion is
the best way to try to reduce the number of abortions? How
would you answer that question?
"Who"s a Catholic to Vote For?" by Joseph A.
Califano Jr. (September 9, 2000)
So what"s a Catholic to do? Make up his or her own mind
for whom to vote and, most important, be both informed and
engaged. For information without engagement is the stuff
of impotence in American politics, and engagement without
information is the stuff of demagoguery.
"Ten Building Blocks of Catholic Social
Teaching," by William J. Byron (Oct. 31, 1998).
And if anyone wonders why the Catholic bishops reflect
and write occasionally about war, peace, nuclear weapons,
the economy, abortion, euthanasia, health insurance and a
wide range of other topics that have a clear social and
moral dimension, these principles provide the necessary
interpretative framework for understanding the
significance of the bishops' pastoral letters. They cannot
be dismissed out of hand as political tracts; they must be
held in respect as important instruments for teaching the
Catholic faith.
Articles in other newspapers and
magazines
Kerry's Catholicism by James Carroll (Boston
Globe, September 28 2004)
IN LABELING John Kerry "wrong for Catholics," the Republican National Committee
is lying about the meaning of Catholic faith, insulting Kerry, and moving
the political exploitation of religion to a new low. The Globe's Michael
Kranish reported Sunday on the RNC plot to target Kerry's religious unworthiness
as a Catholic. Not only do the Republicans distort Kerry's positions on complicated
moral questions; they misrepresent the current state of Catholic ethical
thought. General outrage is the proper response to this strategy, but Catholics
in particular should repudiate it.
I worship at the same Catholic church in Boston where John Kerry and
his wife often attend Mass. Across the years I have observed the senator
at prayer, and I have some sense of the seriousness he brings to his devotion.
John Kerry's Catholicism is for real. His faith is informed by the spirit
of the great renewal that occurred with Vatican II. At that council (1962-65),
the Catholic Church finally and fully embraced the principle of religious
liberty that had been pioneered in America.
An election guide for
honest-to-God serious voters by Joan Chittister,OSB
(National Catholic Reporter, September 2, 2004)
It is not the place of political parties to seek to enlist the religious
community as part of its campaign staff. That smells far too much like
collusion to me. It smacks far too much of the kind of theocratic thinking
that preceded both the French and the Russian revolutions. It sounds
too much like the rise of a new Christian Taliban to me. It sounds too
much like this year's election, in fact.
It is not the function of religious figures to condemn specific
politicians. That, as far as I know, is still God's role. It is the
function of religion to teach religious values and criteria that can
then be applied by you and me to the political positions of our politicians.
Religion must form us "to hear the cries of the poor" and then to vote
accordingly.
"Vatican: Be Careful on Denying Communion"
(Beliefnet , Associated Press).
A top Vatican cardinal told visiting
U.S. bishops they should be cautious about denying
Communion to Roman Catholic politicians who support
policies at odds with church teaching, according to a news
report.
"Communion Issue Creates Split Among U.S.
Bishops" (archived and for sale
at NY Times site).
Six months after Archbishop Raymond
L. Burke announced that he would deny communion to Roman
Catholic politicians who support abortion rights, only a
handful of bishops have said they agree and many more have
made it clear that they think he went too
far.
"Does GOP get a free ride?"by Joe
Feuerherd (National Catholic Reporter, July 2, 2004)
On June 2, Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., released a report that compared
the voting records of Senate Catholics with the legislative priorities
of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. The scorecard includes a
total of 48 actions the Senate took on 24 issues in the current Congress,
plus the 2003 Iraq war resolution. The actions were divided into three
categories -- domestic, international and pro-life.
Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry had the highest rating
-- supporting the bishops" positions more than 60 percent of the time,
though his only "pro-life" actions were those related to the death penalty.
Republicans Peter Fitzgerald of Illinois and Sam Brownback of Kansas
voted with the bishops more than half the time, with most of that support
coming on abortion-related issues.
"Bishops spare us Eucharist politics," (National
Catholic Reporter, July 2, 2004)
As this week"s cover story demonstrates " and as we have repeatedly
pointed out in this space " perfect candidates simply don"t exist. Catholics
and the bishops face a genuine dilemma at times in sorting out the obligations
of citizenship and of membership in the church. For too long, however,
the U.S. bishops have been badly used by politicians whose antiabortion rhetoric
is rarely matched by action. Unfortunately, those same politicians know
they need not worry about the rest of the church"s social agenda because
they"ll never be called on it. President Bush is merely the latest and
highest profile politician to benefit from the bishops" single-issue
approach.
"Catholic Teaching: Does abortion trump all other
issues?" by David Van Biema (Time Magazine, June
21, 2004).. When Dick Durbin's
hometown priest slammed the Senator's pro-choice voting
record, Durbin's office did not sit idle. It compiled a
scorecard ranking 24 Catholic Senators by their votes on
issues of concern to the U.S. Conference of Catholic
Bishops. Abortion made the list, but so did the minimum
wage, the death penalty and media ownership, all weighted
equally. Democrats did better than Republicans, and the
test's high scorer was John Kerry.
"Battling the Bishops: Is Kerry Catholic
enough?" by
Karen Tumulty (Time Magazine, June 21, 2004). "For most
Catholic voters, his appeal"and the campaign's appeal"is
around issues that are of importance to the Catholic
faith: social justice, the death penalty, taking care of
the poor," says Kerry campaign manager Mary Beth Cahill.
"Catholics, like most people, take things an issue at a
time, and they'll decide on the entirety of John Kerry's
record and the plan that he puts forward."
On the question of whether
Catholic politicians who support abortion rights should be
barred (or bar themselves) from receiving holy communion, the
statement simply said that bishops can legitimately make
different judgments on the most prudent course of pastoral
action.
When God and Caesar claim
controlling jurisdiction over public policy in America, public
servants who are Catholic can get caught between a religious
rock and a public policy hard place. Sen. John F. Kerry, who
is at the center of a controversy over whether Catholic
politicians should be denied Communion if their political
views contradict church teaching, finds himself there. But he's
not the first. I know. I've been there, too.
"Targeting Democrats Raises Profile of Catholic
League," by Kevin Eckstrom (Religion
News Service Washington,
Aug. 10, 2004).
Bill Donohue, the bombastic head of the Catholic League,
has never met Mara Vanderslice or Brenda Bartella
Peterson, but he knows enough about them to know that he
doesn't like either one. Both women were charged with
overseeing election-year "religious outreach"--Vanderslice
for the Kerry campaign, Peterson for the Democratic
Party--but fiery criticism from Donohue got them both
muzzled.
"Kerry Seeks to Close Democrats' 'Religion
Gap," by
Rolando Garcia (Reuters August 8, 2004).
Kerry regularly attends
Catholic Mass but has often claimed a New Englander's
reserve when it comes to publicly talking about his
religion. In contrast, Bush, a born-again Christian who
openly discusses his conversion, has made his faith a key
part of his public persona.
"The Man Behind the GOP's Catholic Strategy,"
by Deborah Caldwell (Beliefnet).
Deal Hudson publishes
a small-circulation Catholic magazine called
Crisis and
volunteers as a Bush-Cheney campaign adviser on Catholic
matters. This week he announced he would step down from
his volunteer position, after the
National Catholic
Reporter, another
Catholic publication, published the details of a decade-old
sexual harassment case involving Hudson and an 18-year-old
college student.
Were Catholics like me not to talk about the primacy of conscience, we would find it difficult to communicate the message of the Second Vatican Council in its Declaration on Religious Freedom:
In all his activity a man is bound to follow his conscience faithfully, in order that he may come to God, for whom he was created. It follows that he is not to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his conscience. Nor, on the other hand is he to be restrained from acting in accordance with his conscience, especially in matters religious.
The Church teaching on conscience gives no consolation to the uninitiated thinking they can simply do their own thing. But neither does it accord religious authorities the liberty of insisting upon wooden compliance with their instruction or view of the world. Good conscience must always be accorded primacy even by bishops who would act differently in the circumstances, bearing in mind John Henry Newman"s observation that "conscience is not a judgment upon...any abstract doctrine ... but bears immediately on something to be done or not done".
Webpage
Editor: Ingrid H. Shafer,
Ph.D.
Posted 24 August 2004
Last revised 17 May 2007
Copyright " 2004-2007 Ingrid H. Shafer
