Catholic Bishops Discuss Holding Pro-Abortion Politicians Accountable

[Socrates]

by Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com Editor
November 12, 2003
www.lifenews.com/nat204.html

[About time too! That “I'm personally opposed to abortion, but I don't believe my personal views should interfere with a woman's right to choose,” is so much hypocritical crap and makes me sicker than the more overt pro-aborts. The humanists certainly never say, “I'm personally supportive of abortion, but I don't believe my personal views should interfere with an unborn child's right to life.” But for far too long, the Catholic Church has allowed professing Catholics to get away with trashing Catholic (and Christian in general) teachings on the sanctity of life yet still receive communion and speak at Catholic schools. — Soc.]

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- It's a problem that has long plagued the Catholic Church. How can church officials hold Catholic politicians accountable for their votes in favor of abortion on demand?

Earlier this week the nation's Catholic bishops, at their annual meeting, approved a panel that would formulate guidelines for the church.

Some suggested sanctions that are meant as a form of punishment for pro-abortion elected officials. The sanctions range from denying honorary degrees at Catholic universities to refusing to allow them to speak at Catholic institutions, or even excommunicating them.

"I am tired of hearing Catholic politicians say, 'I am personally opposed to whatever, but I can't impose my moral judgment on others,' " said Bishop Joseph A. Galante of Dallas. "That's nonsense. They do it on other issues...That's a weaseling out."

The bishops said that a January document released by Pope John Paul II outlining the responsibilities of Catholic politicians prompted them to seriously consider the problem.

"Some Catholic politicians defy church teaching in their policy advocacy and legislative votes, first and most fundamentally on the defense of unborn life," explained Bishop John Ricard of Pensacola-Tallahassee Florida.

According to the Boston Globe, Ricard accused some lawmakers of choosing "their party over their faith, their ideology over Catholic teaching, the demands of their contributors over the search for the common good."

More than 400 elected officials across the country who are Catholic and pro-abortion have been identified.

The bishops approved a commission to review the issue and asked Galante and several of his colleagues to develop guidelines for the church to follow. No date has been set for them to be completed.

Galante said some dioceses already ban elected officials from church property when they have endorsed abortion verbally or with their voting record.

The bishops did not mention specific politicians they would target with sanctions, though presidential candidate John Kerry, a Massachusetts senator, is one who comes to the minds of many.

Kerry has said: "As a Catholic, I have enormous respect for the words and teachings of the Vatican, but as a public servant I've never forgotten the lasting legacy of President Kennedy, who made clear that in accordance with the separation of church and state, no elected official should be 'limited or conditioned by any religious oath, ritual, or obligation.' "

Congressman Dennis Kucinich, also running for president, is another politician who has draw the ire of Catholics, since he flip-flopped by changing from pro-life to supporting abortion.

The concerns haven't only been with Democratic politicians.

Former Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge, current Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, took a pro-abortion position and was told by the Bishop of Erie, Pennsylvania that he would not allowed to speak at church events.

William Donohue, president of the Catholic League, said churchgoing Catholics have put significant pressure on the bishops over the years that is finally paying off.

There are finally "enough bishops themselves who are up in arms over this thing. It's become a running joke within the Catholic community," Donohue told CNS News.

"It's a constant source of scandal that the most prominent pro-abortion people are Catholics . . . who seem to go unreproved," concluded Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz of Lincoln, Nebraska.

[Bill the Cat]

ummmm... what took them so long??

[elysian]

I am not Catholic but there is a website in which Catholics and pro-life Protestants can petition the Catholic Church to excommunicate politicians who claim to be Catholic yet support abortion.

http://www.cathfam.org/cfexcom/Excom.html

Here's the link for anyone would like to sign it.

[Da Lone-Warrior]

I think it would be more productive overall if the RCChurch emphasized the sinful nature of abortion and called upon Catholics, legislators and non-legislators, to personally seek to prevent abortions, but allowed for some differences to exist in terms of how politically abortion reduction is pursued.

The RCChurch has never been infallible wrt how it spends it political capital and while its leadership undoubtably will tend to promote a particular strategy, it seems reasonable to allow for dissent on the politics of the matter. The complexities of the likely consequences of pursuing particular legal changes and the political compromises that need to be made make it so that, as William Temple, a British Christian Political-Economist(1881-1944), observed, "faithful Christians, though in accord on theological principles, could be deeply divided on political questions because of legitimate disagreement about the "facts of the case." It is therefore "of crucial importance that the Church, acting corporatively[,] should not commit itself to any particular policy. A policy always depends on technical decisions concerning the actual relations of cause and effect in the political and economic world; about these a Christian as such has no more reliable judgement than an atheist"(Temple [1941] 1976, 40).

Taken from A.M.C. Waterman "Social Thinking in Established Protestant Churches" from Religion and Economics:Normative Social Theory.

dlw

[Da Lone-Warrior]

A supplement to the Roman Catholic Church threatening sanctions against pro-choice legislators would be to foster more political creativity/freedom along alternative political approaches to reduce the number of abortions. There are alternative approaches that might be more successful in gaining bipartisan support if the political futility of reversing Roe-V-Wade was
accepted. What if the Roman Catholic Church were to focus on the sinful nature of abortion and call upon all Catholics, legislators and non-legislators, personally to seek to prevent abortions, but also allow for legitimate differences regarding abortion politics? The conflict could then be rechanneled as concerning the range of dissent on the politics of abortion. The basis for political dissent could be attributed to the complexity of politics. Afterall, political activism requires predicting the likely consequences of pursuing various legal changes and consequently reconsidering one's strategy. There also are opportunity costs that must be weighed over the pursuit of a particular legal change and the requisite political compromises for its passage.

The British Christian Political-Economist William Temple, in Christianity and Social Order*, observed that, "…Faithful Christians, though in accord on theological principles, could be deeply divided on political questions because of legitimate disagreement about the 'facts of the case.' It is therefore 'of crucial importance that the Church, acting corporatively
should not commit itself to any particular policy. A policy always depends on technical decisions concerning the actual relations of cause and effect in the political and economic world; about these a Christian as such has no more reliable judgement than an atheist'"(Temple [1941] 1976, 40). While the separation of Church and State should entail their autonomy not their segregation, it is the fallibility of the political judgment of all ecclesiastical organizations that makes permitting political dissent by its members an important check against the church relinquishing its political autonomy.

*As quoted by A.M.C. Waterman in "Social Thinking in Established Protestant Churches" from Religion and Economics: Normative Social Theory.

dlw

[HerodionRomulus]

The article included:
""I am tired of hearing Catholic politicians say, 'I am personally opposed to whatever, but I can't impose my moral judgment on others,' " said Bishop Joseph A. Galante of Dallas. "That's nonsense. They do it on other issues...That's a weaseling out."


Hmmm, but His Eminence is quite willing to impose HIS views on others, not just on Catholics.

And yet they never once called for the excommuncation of Law or any of the others who aided and abetted the child abuses. In fact, most of these mcp's supported Law right up to the bitter end.

But laying aside polemics for a moment, what this demonstrates is the continued and growing disconnect between the hierarchy in their ivory towers and the RCC members that they are allegedly supposed to be serving.

[spl_cadet]

PLEASE let this happen!!! We've waited so long for the AmChurch bishops to get some cojones!

But laying aside polemics for a moment, what this demonstrates is the continued and growing disconnect between the hierarchy in their ivory towers and the RCC members that they are allegedly supposed to be serving.

They don't serve the people. They serve God. The Church is a monarchy, not a democracy.

[Da Lone-Warrior]

spl_cadet:

PLEASE let this happen!!! We've waited so long for the AmChurch bishops to get some cojones!



They don't serve the people. They serve God. The Church is a monarchy, not a democracy.

How best the Church should publically serve/obey God is not apparent and does get worked out by ecclesiastical leadership, irregardless of their decision-making structure.

dlw

[Cowthulu]

You know it seems so wrong that people focus on the procedure itself.

What really needs to be done is the law needs to be more specific to when the unborn child has rights that must be considered. This should not be handled by the courts but by the legislature as it proper.

Once this is set down in writing it will settle a lot of disagreements.

[elysian]

I'm sure you will agree with me then spl_cadet, that as God's servants they are even MORE obligated to root out, expose and sanction those who teach against God's laws and act contrary to God's laws, i.e. sodomites and pedophiles within the priesthood (and this includes some bishops as well!) and the likes of Ted Kennedy and his ideologues who claim to be Catholic but their actions would indicate they are neither Catholic nor Christian.

Cardinal Law has not only been reprobate in failing to reprimand Ted Kennedy and other politicians who claim to be Catholic yet behave in a manner that is against Catholic teaching and against most Christians' understanding of God's laws, but in hiding, aiding, and condoning pedophilia and sodomy within the ranks of his subordinates.

I pray too that these guys will wake up! Here's an article by Fr. Paul Shaughnessy, a Navy chaplain who has spoken out against the sodomite culture that is overtaking the Catholic priesthood:


The Gay Priest Problem

Somehow they will wake up!

[Bob Jenkins]

"They don't serve the people. They serve God. The Church is a monarchy, not a democracy."

One of the greatest things about Protestantism is that there is a direct connect to God. Middlemen (and I emphasis "men") have long stood in the way and even among Ptotestants today.

[Pilgrim]

They serve God? Wasn't it the Apostle Paul himself, quoting Isaiah I believe, who said "And God is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything!"

That is the great distinguishing thing about Christianity: We are served by our God.

[HerodionRomulus]

Today @ 02:52 PM post located here
spl_cadet:

They don't serve the people. They serve God. The Church is a monarchy, not a democracy.

Read GJ13 sometime. Why did Christ wash the feet of his friends? He was demonstrating service.

That's the problem. Clerics act like arrogant autocrats lording over the peons in the pews.

Whatever happened to "love one another?" How did it get replaced with "Do what I say or else ZAP."

[spl_cadet]

elysian:

I'm sure you will agree with me then spl_cadet, that as God's servants they are even MORE obligated to root out, expose and sanction those who teach against God's laws and act contrary to God's laws, i.e. sodomites and pedophiles within the priesthood (and this includes some bishops as well!) and the likes of Ted Kennedy and his ideologues who claim to be Catholic but their actions would indicate they are neither Catholic nor Christian.

Yep.

Cardinal Law has not only been reprobate in failing to reprimand Ted Kennedy and other politicians who claim to be Catholic yet behave in a manner that is against Catholic teaching and against most Christians' understanding of God's laws, but in hiding, aiding, and condoning pedophilia and sodomy within the ranks of his subordinates.

Two problems here though:
1. I'm not sure that Law's actions are actually punishable by excommunication.
2. Only the pope may excommunicate or depose a fellow bishop.

Bob Jenkins:

"They don't serve the people. They serve God. The Church is a monarchy, not a democracy."

One of the greatest things about Protestantism is that there is a direct connect to God. Middlemen (and I emphasis "men") have long stood in the way and even among Ptotestants today.

There's still that direct connection. But, there is a need for those who administer the beauracracy needed with a worldwide, billion member Church, and administer the sacraments.

Pilgrim:

They serve God? Wasn't it the Apostle Paul himself, quoting Isaiah I believe, who said "And God is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything!"

And was it not the same St. Paul who said that we are God's fellow workers?

That is the great distinguishing thing about Christianity: We are served by our God.

That statement is very close to heresy. Rmember: We were created to love and serve the Lord. To assert otherwise is to come perilously close to Modernism.

HerodionRomulus:

Read GJ13 sometime. Why did Christ wash the feet of his friends? He was demonstrating service.

That's the problem. Clerics act like arrogant autocrats lording over the peons in the pews.

Whatever happened to "love one another?" How did it get replaced with "Do what I say or else ZAP."

You seem to be confusing service with doing the will of. I used your definition of service that you had used earlier in my demoncracy (ok, that's twice now that that typo has appeared and I don't know why; but I'm not taking it out this time) remark.

The service that the clerics give to us is that of their function as clerics. They are not beholden to us or our opinions in any other way.

[Da Lone-Warrior]

Two problems here though:
1. I'm not sure that Law's actions are actually punishable by excommunication.
2. Only the pope may excommunicate or depose a fellow bishop.


If you cause people to turn away from their faith then this should be an excommunicable offense. Irregardless of what the rules are.


Bob,
the real issue here is one of the problem of ecclesiastical order. It is not given how churches should organize themselves and it does involve reconciling the ideals of love/freedom and order as well as egalitarianism and hierarchy. We all have access to God, but we also have different gifts that should affect the role we play.

In this case, taking as given the view that abortion is morally wrong, the question is the extent that the Catholic Church should accept dissenting views on how politically a reduction in the number of abortions should be pursued. Apparently, they have decided that the pro-choice position taken by many Democrats are not acceptable and merit consequences. My point of view is that I do not see the pre-Roe-V-Wade abortion law as a stable political outcome and I acknowledge the ambiguity as to questions of when human life begins and so I'd like to see pro-life activism that sought more bipartisan support by accepting the futility of making all abortions illegal again.

Anyways, the main issue is that politics is complicated and both religious and non-religious individuals/groups judgements are fallible, but sometimes religious groups confuse their political strategy with their normative/religious ideals and, thus, fail to adapt to the evolving situation and pursue courses that could have been reasonably altered.

dlw