Sebelius and Kmiec
One of the unexpected bits of news yesterday was Douglas Kmiec’s report that he (a pro-life, conservative, law professor who is supporting Obama) had been barred from Communion. He joins Kathleen Sebelius in the small but growing group: “not at my Communion rail.”
Here is a response by Catholic Democrats.org on these two most recent outcasts.
“So, with the Democratic governor’s political star rising, the registered Republican Archbishop of Kansas City revived the use of Holy Communion as a political weapon to take her down. He publicly called on her to stop taking Communion with her Catholic community, because of her widely-known opposition to the use of criminal law in dealing with abortion. In a Catholic newspaper column, Archbishop Joseph Naumann indicated that he had made the request because he had been angered by her vetoes of several Republican bills restricting abortion in Kansas. In her most recent veto message, Gov Sebelius offered a detailed description of the lengths to which she had gone to address the abortion issue constructively, and lauded the success her administration had achieved in decreasing its incidence.
“Coincidentally, a California law school professor and Constitutional scholar, Douglas Kmiec, who is one of the country’s most outspoken opponents of abortion, found himself denied Communion because of his public support for Senator Obama. Prof Kmiec was attending a Mass prior to giving a speech to a group of Catholic businessmen, and reported on the website CatholicOnline that he was singled out because of his prominence as an Obama supporter. By this standard, anyone who expressed public support for President Bush could be excluded at Communion, given Mr Bush’s support for torture and the Bishops’ recent inclusion of torture (along with abortion) in their Faithful Citizenship document as ‘an intrinsically evil act.’
“The common thread in these two stories is that individual Catholic authorities took it upon themselves to judge that an association with a Democratic presidential candidate was sufficient cause for a subtle form of excommunication from the Catholic community. ”
Catholic dems here:
http://www.catholicdemocrats.org/news/2008/05/conservatives_gear_up_again_to.php#more
Kmiec’s piece here:
on May 16th, 2008 at 11:20 am
Both incidents are disturbing. Niether action on the part of church officials, in my opinion, is in line with a charitable application of the principles contained in “Faithful Citizenship”.
The US bishops as a whole seem to be divided on this question. Unforunately, that lack of a concerted policy seems to have created a vacuum into which individual prelates and pastors are now stepping, apparently in a helter-skelter way.
As far as I can discern, Governor Sebelius did not veto those bills because she supports abortion, but because the bills were defective in other ways. On that basis, she should not be denied communion.
It’s not clear from Kmiec’s brief blog entry whether or not the college chaplain consulted with his bishop, but in my opinion no individual minister should not take it upon her/himself to make a decision like this without crystal-clear guidance from the bishop.
Very disturbing.
on May 16th, 2008 at 11:30 am
This is rather stunning. I think (Boo Obama!) I’d better (Go McCain!) go scrub (GOP=G-o-d!) my earlier (Dems are evil appeasers!) blog postings.
on May 16th, 2008 at 11:51 am
Who said that the screws weren/t tightening after the Pontiff’s visit. As far as i can see, matters are deteriorating and – pardon the expression – blame the bishops!
on May 16th, 2008 at 11:53 am
You should excuse the expression, but doesn’t this seem like a lot of free-lancing?
on May 16th, 2008 at 1:09 pm
Kmiec has publicly made a case, based on pro-life arguments, that Obama is the better candidate to solve the abortion problem. Unless the chaplain who denied him communion maintains Kmiec is being disingenuous, he is in essence saying Kmiec is sinful for supporting Obama, not for supporting abortion. It seems to me the chaplain made more of a political statement than a moral one.
on May 16th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
We’ll see more of this. My local church is already gearing up for the election. Two weeks ago, the celebrant at mass told us during the homily that unless we get our news from FOX, we are being fed a bunch of lies about America. The “Five Non-Negotiables,” brought to you by the local GOP, will be appearing in a few weeks. Our bright red Congressional District (IL-14 formerly owned by Dennis Hastert) went blue so in this election they might start picking on Obama activists personally as well since the bottom has fallen out of the elephant.
on May 16th, 2008 at 1:15 pm
Although I think it is a shame that Kmiec was denied Communion, I am also troubled by the moral-mental gymnastics he willinmgly jumps through: arguing that Obama is not “pro abortion (very, very few pro-choice people would claim to actually be ‘pro’ abortion) but that instead Obama is “of the view that the civil law best leaves this question to the mother in consultation with their own clergyman and doctor?” Likewise, it takes another bit of logical contortionism to pretend that all Sibelius wants to do is avoid “the use of criminal law in dealing with abortion.”
Each of these very educated, very prominent, very well-known Catholic figures has freely chosen to take a very public position that is against the Church’s teachings. They should be equally willing to accept the consequences–indeed to accept that there are such consequences. For when you decide to make a point, you must be prepared to have that point jabbed right back at you. Sibelius, especially, wants to have her cake and eat it too–certainly she relies on some portion of the catholic electorate supporting her because she is a Catholic. But if, as one of the credit card slogans goes, “membership has its privileges”, membership also has a price.
on May 16th, 2008 at 1:43 pm
I do think the “free-lancing” aspect of this is among the most distrubing (and something libs and cons might agree on), and I wonder if it has any connection to Archbishop Burke’s recent call, in the Canon law Review, for priests and eucharistic ministers to make these calls themselves. It was not a call to arms that bishops in other dioceses would take kindly to, I think.
on May 16th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
Hi, Unagidon, I’d change parishes.
Robert Reid, I agree that taking public positions entails consequences, but are these consequences just?
on May 16th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
Robert,
I am unsure what Church teachings you are referring to. Is it the Church teaching that abortion is the taking of innocent human life? I don’t think Kmiec would disagree with that. Or is it the teaching (if there is such a teaching) that it is sinful not to support a legal ban on abortion?
Sean Hannaway (not that he would agree with me here) always makes a distinction between the moral teachings of the Church, on the one hand, and the best way to achieve a desired goal, on the other. Is it really a teaching of the Church that there must be a legal ban on abortions? And if there is a ban, what is the law supposed to say?
How explicit can Catholic teaching be about how the law must deal with abortion? And past a certain point, wouldn’t the Church be in the business of writing legislation? I know there are people who believe that if given a choice between an ineffective legal ban and an effective approach that did not include a ban, the legal ban is still the “Catholic” choice, since it is more important for the law to speak clearly than for the number of abortions to be reduced. But I find it difficult to believe that is the true Catholic position.
on May 16th, 2008 at 1:52 pm
I am uncertain why people who do not live in the diocese in which these actions were taken, feel free to question them. Is it that subsidiarity is a good thing unless it goes against something you like? Is it that full knowledge of the facts is not required? If abortion be between a woman and her doctor [her doctor?], why is not Communion between a person and their confessor?
There is among us Americans a tendency to stick our noses in every dispute. At the same time, there an astonishing ignorance of other parts of the country, and other parts of the world.
on May 16th, 2008 at 2:11 pm
Kmiec is denied communion! Not for being pro-abortion but for supporting Obama! I say this is another sign of a Catholic governance meltdown .. men with a serious lack in the virtues of courage and faith are in charge; obsessed with their ‘outfits’..we should all find a faithfilled niche to worship in.. I’m too old
to see a re-birth I afraid; and the entire Churchy squabble is of no interest to the grandchildren…and those in charge have no generational perspective..=no grandchildren.
on May 16th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
Two weeks ago, the celebrant at mass told us during the homily that unless we get our news from FOX, we are being fed a bunch of lies about America.
Your story isn’t very believable.
on May 16th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
The argument that abortion should be between a mother and her doctor carries an implication that the rights of the unborn child are not proper subjects for the application of civil or criminal law. If the unborn child has no right to exist, has no claim to citizenship, then that argument is true. But if the only rights any of have must be explicitly or implicitly spelled out by the Constitution, then they are nod God-given. That disturbs me.
on May 16th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
That last sentence should read,
But if the only rights any of us have must be explicitly or implicitly spelled out by the Constitution, then they are not God-given.
on May 16th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
NB: The governor’s name is Sebelius; Sibelius wrote the Finnish national anthem (among other pieces of remarkable music).
on May 16th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
I do not believe that the college chaplain, or any bishop, has any right to deny communion to Kmiec, certainly not simply on the basis of his column announcing his support for Obama. The judgments leading to his conclusion are prudential judgments and it is a grave injustice for him to be denied the sacrament. And he should not consider himself bound to refrain from receiving communion.
on May 16th, 2008 at 2:29 pm
Question:
How can a statement be true in one place, e.g. In a diocese, but be false in another place, e.g, another diocese ?
For instance: you ought not vote for Obama.
on May 16th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
“Your story isn’t very believable.”
Father Akan Simon, St Patrick’s Church, St Charles Illinois, 10:30 mass, May 4th 2008.
on May 16th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
A question for clear legal minds: I have the impression that Sebelius vetoed a bill that would allow third-party intervention in an abortion decision, that is, parties who do not necessarily know the woman, parties, such as a local pro-life lawyer, or a diocesan lawyer. Is it correct that that’s what the bill allowed? And then, what or who can act as a third-party intervenor?
on May 16th, 2008 at 2:38 pm
Is this just? No, I don’t think so–I said initially that I thought it was a shame. But it’s also not a surprise to me. The church hierarchy has, I believe, made it very clear that they will tolerate no dissent on abortion. Look at all the examples like this–scholars dsiciplined, editoprs relieved of duties, etc., sometimes just for allowing pro-choice to speak on campuses or appear in publications. THAT is what I mean when I talk about opposing Church teachings (”policy” mioght have been a better word … and I suppose a case can be made that these actions by bishops, etc., are somewhat free-lance, and perhaps the Vatican would not always concur … still, I wouldn’t bet on it)
And my apologies to Sibelius, who is indeed one of my favorite composers (I suppose I was being extra charitable to the Kansas governor by renaming her this way!)
on May 16th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
“… given a choice between an ineffective legal ban and an effective approach that did not include a ban, the legal ban is still the “Catholic” choice …”
I think that’s a false choice–yes, you can reduce the number of abortions by providing poor women and families with certain services, by giving people jobs or laws that protect them better while pregnant, or providing better daycare or more maternity leave, etc., etc., etc. … but there is no GOOD reason why such things cannot be offered while ALSO making abortion illegal. Afterall, you can also reduce burglaries and thefts by creating jobs and offering better social services–but no one would suggest decriminalizing burglary and theft until such social welfare goals are achieved.
Moreover, by working to only reduce the number of abortions WHILE not opposing the legality/morality of abortion, wouldn’t you at least ethically be complicit in the abortions that would still occur?
on May 16th, 2008 at 3:12 pm
I think Joe Komonchak has put it best, at least for me. I fear that this kind of craziness is going to become much more common.
on May 16th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
I believe that the most authoritative discussion of the relationship between the moral law and the civil law is in paragraphs 69-73 of Pope John Paul’s encyclical Evangelium vitae, which can be found at http://www.vatican.va/edocs/ENG0141/__PS.HTM#$2Q . Paragraph 73 is where the issue is most clearly drawn:
“73. Abortion and euthanasia are thus crimes which no human law can claim to legitimize. There is no obligation in conscience to obey such laws; instead there is a grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection. From the very beginnings of the Church, the apostolic preaching reminded Christians of their duty to obey legitimately constituted public authorities (cf. Rom 13:1-7; 1 Pet 2:13-14), but at the same time it firmly warned that “we must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29). In the Old Testament, precisely in regard to threats against life, we find a significant example of resistance to the unjust command of those in authority. After Pharaoh ordered the killing of all newborn males, the Hebrew midwives refused. “They did not do as the king of Egypt commanded them, but let the male children live” (Ex 1:17). But the ultimate reason for their action should be noted: “the midwives feared God” (ibid.). It is precisely from obedience to God-to whom alone is due that fear which is acknowledgment of his absolute sovereignty-that the strength and the courage to resist unjust human laws are born. It is the strength and the courage of those prepared even to be imprisoned or put to the sword, in the certainty that this is what makes for “the endurance and faith of the saints” (Rev 13:10).
“In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to “take part in a propaganda campaign in favour of such a law, or vote for it”.
“A particular problem of conscience can arise in cases where a legislative vote would be decisive for the passage of a more restrictive law, aimed at limiting the number of authorized abortions, in place of a more permissive law already passed or ready to be voted on. Such cases are not infrequent. It is a fact that while in some parts of the world there continue to be campaigns to introduce laws favouring abortion, often supported by powerful international organizations, in other nations-particularly those which have already experienced the bitter fruits of such permissive legislation-there are growing signs of a rethinking in this matter. In a case like the one just mentioned, when it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality. This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects.”
I simply do not see how communion can be denied to a person who believes he finds himself in the position described in the third paragraph of this quote.
on May 16th, 2008 at 3:34 pm
I hope everyone will forgive me for posting something that doesn’t advance the discussion, but … how does one pronounce “Kmiec”?
on May 16th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
It does advance the discussion…when you tell others about this, you’ll pronounce his name correctly! It is kihMECK, quickly passing from the kih (rhymes with kick, minus the final ck) to the MECK.
on May 16th, 2008 at 4:01 pm
Joe: Do you think the third paragraph applies to both Kmiec and Sebelius?
on May 16th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
Regarding pronunciation, applying the same phonetic principles as with T’Paul from Enterprise the Vulcan spelling and pronunciation of Kmiec would be K’Meck.
on May 16th, 2008 at 4:22 pm
Robert,
The reason why–practically speaking–those things may not necessarily be offered while also working to make abortion illegal is that in politics, you have to compromise. If you propose a legislative program that offers “concrete, honorable and possible alternative[s] to abortion,” the pro-choice legislators aren’t going to vote for it if it’s coupled with a legal ban on abortion. And of course the number of people who want an absolute ban on abortions is relatively small. How many pro-life Republicans wouldn’t allow exceptions in the case of rape, incest, and the life of the mother?
As I always say, the true Catholic position on abortion is a combination of ideas from both the left (government assistance) and the right (legal ban), and neither has shown itself interested in compromise.
on May 16th, 2008 at 4:34 pm
See these Catholics, how they love one another!
So long as the “pray, pay and obey” mentality persists among so many church goers (I doubt that too many of the younger generation agree with that …. but, then, a large portion of them don’t go to church anyway) the idiocy of that chaplain will persist. Father locuta, finita est? Bull puckey.
Someone should have stood up and told him to shut the eff up .. all in the spirt of Christian correction, of course.
on May 16th, 2008 at 4:49 pm
Robert Reid said: “For when you decide to make a point, you must be prepared to have that point jabbed right back at you.”
So then, I’m sure you’d agree that this church deserves to have its tax-exempt status repealed, as a consequence of participating in political speech? If the IRS had any teeth, this church would be paying back-taxes out the wazoo.
on May 16th, 2008 at 4:50 pm
While I can see why Jimmy’s angry, I am really sad at how deep the divide continues to grow – not over liberal or conservative, but one issue vs. seamless garment and the ugly political edge beyond it.
on May 16th, 2008 at 6:14 pm
Does anybody think there’s any hope of the Catholic leadership as a whole coming around to accept a more nuanced understanding of the problem of abortion any time soon?
These kind of stories really sadden and depress me about the current state of our Church.
on May 16th, 2008 at 6:55 pm
“Does anybody think there’s any hope of the Catholic leadership as a whole coming around to accept a more nuanced understanding of the problem of abortion any time soon?”
Not a chance.
on May 16th, 2008 at 7:06 pm
Peggy: The third paragraph would certainly apply to Kmiec. I don’t know enough about the Governor to know if it applies to her.
on May 16th, 2008 at 9:31 pm
“Happily, the Catholic Church is now widely recognized as an ardent defender of human rights and religious liberty for all.” –The Editors, Commonweal
Don’t we wish….
Fr. Komonchak’s thoughtful contribution above aside, how many of the clergy do you imagine will have anything decent and sensible to say on this issue–for publication, at least?
on May 16th, 2008 at 9:43 pm
My impression is that most of the clergy do not agree with the measures a few bishops have taken on this matter, and even more of them would disagree with the chaplain in question who should not be given any particular credence nor be thought typical of the clergy.
on May 16th, 2008 at 10:14 pm
info: can anyone post a link to the bill that Gov. Sebelius vetoed. I’ve searced on google and the threads in the link below but I keep coming up with a 2006 bill. Anyone have the 2008 bill? Thanks.
I agree with Joe: “most of the clergy do not agree with measures a few bishops have taken.” I think this is true of both more liberal and most more conservative clergy. The latter who are truly conservatives (and not ersatz), i.e., they are truly knowledgable about the tradition, seem more likely to be able to have a continuing conversation with many people who don’t conform–and not just on abortion, and who don’t think of using the Eucharist as a weapon. They don’t seem to have such a politicized view of their roles, and they seem, many of them, to be truly ardent about the state of souls and not the state of people’s political proclivities.
on May 16th, 2008 at 11:07 pm
It was linked in the earlier thread. It’s #389.
http://www.kslegislature.org/legsrv-bills/vetoedBills.do
It gives third party rights to siblings, parents, and grandparents, even when the woman is an adult.
(i) A cause of action for injunctive relief may be maintained against any person who is reasonably believed to be doing or threatens or is about to do, or is procuring or suffering to be done, some act in violation of this section. Such cause of action may be brought by any person who is:
(1) A woman upon whom an abortion, unlawful under this section, has been performed, is about to be performed or attempted to be performed by the defendant;
(2) a spouse, sibling, parent or grandparent of a woman upon whom an abortion, unlawful under this section, has been performed, is about to be performed or attempted to be performed by the defendant;
(3) a parent or legal guardian of a minor upon whom an abortion, unlawful under this section, has been performed, is about to be performed or attempted to be performed by the defendant; or
(4) a public official with appropriate jurisdiction to prosecute or enforce the laws of this state.
on May 16th, 2008 at 11:26 pm
While granting that clamors for a disciplinary solution to the pro-choice problem can often be bound up with political interests, I have to wonder, whose fault is that? Why aren’t all Catholic politicians putting their considerable clout behind legislation that restricts abortion? (I believe legislation of this kind is what is envisioned in the third paragraph, by the way. It would be analogous to voting for partial abolition in political circumstances in which slavery could not, yet, be entirely outlawed.)
The problem with which some are growing very impatient, speaking at least for myself, is the evident desire among some Catholic leaders and voters to support abortion access without restriction. If this support were withdrawn, the Democratic Party would have to change; in some districts–those in which a pro-choice candidate has no chance–the DNC will support a pro-life Democrat. But generally speaking, where is the pressure? And what degree of complicity, with the act itself, underlies the silence?
If “complicity” sounds like too strong a word in this case, why is that? Would “complicit ” be too strong a word if someone knew that something harmful was being done to someone, had the means to change the situation, but did nothing?
***
Considering the problem of Eucharistic discipline, it seems to me that we are currently in an artificial situation. Nothing at all is usually asked by priests, and nothing is usually said. If the Baptist spouse of a Catholic came for Communion, and the distributing priest knew him to be Baptist, what are the odds he would be allowed to receive? I think in most cases the priest would say nothing; he would not even speak to him privately after Mass.
My overarching question is, have we privatized conscience? Is that a Catholic attitude? For that matter, is it a liberal attitude?
on May 17th, 2008 at 7:14 am
What is the point of speculating about whether an imaginary priest would give Communion to someone he knew to be non-Catholic? Are you trying to make a point about lax priests, priests in general, “liberal” church culture, what?
on May 17th, 2008 at 8:20 am
The fate of the nation is reduced to one issue. The problems we face as a country are legion and we are reduced to bickering (again) about abortion. The choice we are faced with is between two sides where one is pro-choice and the other is anti-abortion. We know what their publicly stated positions on abortion are. But where is the beef. Talking about abortion is easy, but there is no desire to do any thing concrete about abortion other than dealing with some very low hanging fruit. What are the exact plans of the anti-abortion candidate to end abortion during his presidency? If a presidential candidate will detail exactly what they will do if elected to eliminate abortion, I will vote for the person. Otherwise, said candidate is just blowing smoke. If a candidate states that he can magically end the unjust war in Iraq by 2013, surely he can magically end the practice of abortion by 2013.
on May 17th, 2008 at 8:40 am
Grant,
Against the backdrop of the reticence of pastors to address, or even to educate, about Eucharistic discipline,
all such pastoral actions look extreme. Nobody is saying to anyone, “leave and never come back.” But what could be more pastoral than to say, “Go fix this very public problem that weakens your moral witness; do not put a stumbling block in another’s way.”
on May 17th, 2008 at 8:51 am
Stumbling blocks work both ways: the refusal to allow Communion, especially in an arbitrary manner, may be as much a stumbling block to the faithful as the whomever with “this very public problem.”
Bishops and clergy who refuse Communion in an arbitrary and public manner, and with questionable motives are skating on thin ice. We are all, in our own ways, weak moral witnesses; it would be a double irony if this form (denying Communion) public moral witness of priests and bishops proves to be a greater scandal than that of public persons and officials.
on May 17th, 2008 at 9:59 am
Margaret,
Your argument is precisely the kind that makes me wonder where the ideals of liberalism have gone. Concerns about goodness and conscience have yielded to these trivial questions that amount to nothing more than PR.
The scandal I’m talking about is, “If the bishop gives
Communion to John Kerry, I guess abortion is not that big a deal. Heaven forbid, if it comes up as a question in my own life or my kids’, I’ll weigh my options the best I can, as the Senator does in his public policies.”
Whereas I take your scandal to be (correct me if I’m wrong), “What if the press is able to dig up confessional material on the bishop?”
on May 17th, 2008 at 10:00 am
While i’d agree with the comments that the majority of Bishops are sincere and desirous of souls, I see things have not gotten any better here since the Pope’s visit, which was an opportunity to grow and unify.
Goodness does not equal managerial eptitude. Goodness does not always promote effective public communication.
From where I sit, all we’re getting is screw tightening in the name of “discipline.”
on May 17th, 2008 at 10:31 am
Barbara: thank you for the link; somehow I had the wrong number!
Kathy, you miss my point. The scandal of the clergy here is not personal dope, but the very manner in which they bar people from Communion. In the two cases under discussion, this was done in a different manner by the bishop and the priest, and yet the manner of both actions, especially the latter, seem draconian and even arbitrary. That is what I meant by a stumbling block, and stumbling blocks work in both directions–my point.
You mention PR. Isn’t that part of the problem here? Clerics want to use the public “air” waves to make their point but their vehicle–some kind of interdict–is not a mechanism that the “air” waves know how to communicate.
If the bishops really wanted to enter the public square on the abortion issue (or for that matter, the consistent ethic, about which most are equally inarticulate) they should find and foster a vehicle, like discussions, debates, q and a, essays, short stories, poems, (Who knows, maybe even a hymn) etc. that are tools of reflection and persuasion familiar in the public square. A public rebuke of Sebelius in the diocesan newspaper looks like throwing down the political gauntlet; the bishop could have sent a fedex letter (signature required), if he wanted to communicate with the governor. Wasn’t he communicating with the rest of us, and not very persuasively.
on May 17th, 2008 at 11:00 am
I would recommend this post from canonist Dr. Ed Peters. In short, his opinion is that the chaplain was clearly wrong canonically, and owes professor Kmiec an apology.
Sounds about right to me.
on May 17th, 2008 at 11:14 am
“Why aren’t all Catholic politicians putting their considerable clout behind legislation that restricts abortion? ”
Kathy –
Americans are conflicted about abortion. A majority support some restrictions but also support “a woman’s right to decide”. To you and me “a woman’s right to decide” is a euphemism for “a woman’s right to kill her baby”. But you and I are not in the majority, so our consciences are not going to prevail. Why? Because, since a majority of the people don’t want it, politicians who vote against that purported right will lose that clout (maybe even their jobs) if they forced the legislation, and the unborn would have even less protection. In other words, to force the legislation would result in even more abortions.
I say it’s time for the Church to recognize that there is a tremendous moral dilemma involved here: doing what is right (forcing the legislation) would result in even worse wrong. Oh, the Church will say, but the legislators’ consciences will be clear. Oh, I say, and even more babies will be dead.
on May 17th, 2008 at 11:20 am
Thanks, Mr. Muncey; quite straightforward and clarifying. Have you spotted anything canonical about the situation in Kansas?
on May 17th, 2008 at 11:47 am
Thanks.
Well, one could start with Dr. Peters’ previous post: Staunching the wound of Bleeding Kansas. The title does indicate his take on this . . .
Whether you agree with this particular canonist or not, I think you do have to admit that the two situations are rather different, even though the actions taken are somehow similiar. Abp. Naumann is the ordinary in this case and Gov. Sebelius’s own bishop. This was the latest in a long series of contacts between the Archbishop and the Governor on this issue, many of them in private. Refusing Prof. Kmiek appears to be the sudden decision, taken in anger, of a priest who may not have consulted with his bishop first. I just wonder who that bishop is, and what the conversation between him and the chaplain is like today.
on May 17th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
I think it is speeches like the one that John Kerry gave before NARAL in 2003 that frustrate the bishops. See: http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/interestg/naral012103/kerr012103spt.html
Not exactly a “profile in courage’.
on May 17th, 2008 at 5:37 pm
Margaret,
An Orthodox friend of mine likes to tell the story of a lady who sings in his choir. She was refused Communion when she first came to that church as a visitor with her now-husband. Ticked her right off. Six months later she had cooled off enough to ask why: what did the priest think Communion was?
In the long run it was an object lesson for her in the rather grave meaning of the Eucharist. In the short run it just ticked her off.
Because she took it as a slight, her first reaction was “Who does he think he is!” In the long run she thought, “What is this Sacrament?”
on May 17th, 2008 at 6:03 pm
I think it’s ironic that we’ve been scolded for so many years about a “divorce mentality” in our wicked culture, and here is a case of “divorce mentality” right at the altar. 1/3 of American Catholics have already left the Church. If all the Democrats are excommunicated, how many does that leave?
on May 17th, 2008 at 7:40 pm
Kathy, very edifying story.
But the Orthodox have and have had a highly restrictive view about who may receive the Eurcharist, not RCs, not Anglicans, not nobody but them, and not even all of them. They simply have a different view of the Eucharist and its reception. However, I don’t recall an Orthodox bishop making a public spectacle of the matter in the “public” sense in which we have been discussing it.
Good question though, What is the Sacrament?”–a question for all to contemplate. bishops as well as peons, on the eve of the Sabbath.
on May 17th, 2008 at 9:46 pm
“If the bishops really wanted to enter the public square on the abortion issue (or for that matter, the consistent ethic, about which most are equally inarticulate) they should find and foster a vehicle, like discussions, debates, q and a, essays, short stories, poems, (Who knows, maybe even a hymn) etc. that are tools of reflection and persuasion familiar in the public square. A public rebuke of Sebelius in the diocesan newspaper looks like throwing down the political gauntlet; the bishop could have sent a fedex letter (signature required), if he wanted to communicate with the governor. Wasn’t he communicating with the rest of us, and not very persuasively.”
Now if the bishops really wanted a sensus fidelium, they would ask Peggy to give them in-service training. She needs to complete the instructions she gave them on June of 2002. http://www.usccb.org/bishops/steinfels.htm
on May 17th, 2008 at 10:10 pm
The usccb no longer carries this speech on its website So here it is. Not to flatter Peggy. But tonight I reread this speech and probably appreciated it more than I did then. It is not only a historic speech for a lay person constructive criticizing bishops at a conference and a woman to boot. But a marvelous speech in construction, content and relevance.
http://www.bishop-accountability.org/resources/resource-files/timeline/2002-06-13-Steinfels-Lens.htm
on May 17th, 2008 at 10:19 pm
I believe that all life is sacred–from conception to natural death. I am also aware that we live in a nation that believes deeply in separation of Church and State. And this is the very real, pluralistic society that we Catholic-Americans inhabit.
It is my contention that Archbishop Naumann has put Governor Sebelius in a LOSE-LOSE situation. As governor of the State of Kansas, Sebelius took an oath (before God and her fellow citizens) to uphold the laws of the State and the Nation. As much as we hate abortion—it is the law of the land. If she keeps her oath of office—she risks being excommunicated. If she obeys her Archbishop, she risks putting Kansas into a legal battlefield–that she has no right to do, as chief executive officer.
I believe that the Archbishop is wrong in using the Body and Blood of Christ (the Eucharist) as a billy-stick to beat the Governor into submission. Jesus, at the Last Supper, gave of himself to Judas–whom Jesus knew would betray him. Jesus did not refuse Communion to Peter, and Peter denied Jesus. Jesus did not refuse Communion to the other Apostles—and they all ran from Jesus in the Garden. If Jesus did not refuse to give of himself, so that we might all have life—who is the Archbishop to refuse to give her the Body and Blood of Christ. Archbishop Naumann is not God and he is not the Savior!
All life is sacred—all life. Unborn infants’ lives are indeed sacred—but they are no more sacred than the life of any child, teen, or adult.
The Archbishop is trying to make an example of the Governor—with his threats, and his power-play. In doing so, he’s about to make himself as scandalous as Barack Obama’s former pastor, Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr. or John McCain’s supporter Reverend John Hagee (who called the Catholic Church the “great whore” and the “false cult system” among other labels). By the way, Hagee has recanted his name calling of Catholics. But the damage was already done. And if the Archbishop carries out his threat—more damage will be done by his actions than anything else.
Archbishop Naumann also is forgetting that there is a “Declaration on Religious Liberty” in the Vatican II Documents. The main points of that document state that 1) You are obliged to have a well-formed conscience and 2) You must follow your conscience. Catholics are not robots programmed to follow the Vatican or their bishop (especially when he is deliberately thrusting them between a rock and a hard place). People have a right to live out their faith in a real world of many responses—not just one of all black or white choices.
If the Archbishop was REALLY imitating Christ–he would support the Governor in those areas where she has tried to weaken the thrust of abortions. He would be doing more to assist her, supporting her spiritually, in her attempts to decrease abortions in Kansas. He has not given her credit for the good work that she has done. Instead, the Archbishop has “laid a burden on her back and has not lifted one finger to ease it” (from Jesus’ condemnation of the the Pharasees). As far as excommunications go—they never help the Church—they only rip it apart.
on May 18th, 2008 at 1:49 am
The papal visit to Ireland in 1979 was wildly successful and it sparked a period of complacency and arrogance from the Irish Bishops on topics like this one. The way Australian and American Cardinals and Bishops have ganged up on the truth-telling Bishop Robertson is an example of quite vicious arrogance. Needless to say, the result of all this is a depletion of the Church’s vitality.
on May 18th, 2008 at 2:26 am
Although the denial of communion to Kmiec, at least, seems to be a big mistake, excommunication—or, in the cases under consideration here, prohibition from receiving the eucharist—is in principle a legitimate option and that the bishop of a given diocese has the right and duty to do so when warranted.
Such prohibition seems unthinkable to many today partly because we have effectively removed any conditions for receiving eucharist in the Catholic Church. Like the Orthodox, we uphold fasting and confession of grave sin as conditions for receiving the Eucharist. But the attenuation of the Eucharistic fast, the raising of the bar for grave-mortal sin, and the effective disappearance of confession, mean that it can be awkward to remain in the pew at communion time. The assumption—especially in a parish where one is known—is, “What whopper did s/he commit?”, rather than, “S/he had something to eat before Mass, or isn’t Catholic, or didn’t go to confession like everyone else did.” Not receiving communion in a Catholic church today can be tantamount to self-incrimination in front of family and friends when few others are refraining. I have felt that pressure. I also wonder if Catholics in general have become too comfortable approaching the sanctuary. Perhaps a bit more “mysterium tremendum et fascinans” would be helpful for all, not just Catholic politicians.
Bill Cavanaugh, my colleague at the University of St. Thomas, wrote a book, Torture and Eucharist, that argued for the necessity of excommunication under certain conditions. Based on his experience of living three years in Pinochet-led Chile, he saw the damage and scandal that was done by a Church that too often failed to oppose a dictatorship guilty of torture and murder. I don’t know at all what Bill C. would make of these recent cases in the U.S., but he holds that excommunication can in principle be an effective, Christian thing to do when faced with scandal and sin.
And, in the United States, I haven’t encountered many Catholics upset with the late New Orleans Archbishop Rummel’s excommunication in 1962—during Holy Week, no less!—of three Catholics who opposed his order to desegregate Catholic schools in his archdiocese; I would imagine that those three supported segregation as a matter of conscience. Rummel did so even though he faced the loss of significant state funds for Catholic schools. My mother’s family comes from New Orleans, and a number of my older relatives have told me that the Archbishop’s decision was both shocking and necessary. It lanced the boil of school segregation (even if segregation’s effects remain to this day).
That said, many contemporary communion controversies could be avoided if a politician’s personal opposition to abortion were truly “absolute” and “well-known,” in the words of Evangelium vitae #73. (Interestingly, that particular paragraph was inserted at the personal request of Cardinal John O’Connor, who was concerned about maintaining the political viability of the pro-life movement in the U.S.) Joe Komonchak noted earlier that this is the case with Kmiec. I’d like to see Catholic politicians both affirm their opposition to abortion and—perhaps more importantly—give reasons for why they oppose it. My guess is that having to answer that second question would make political support of abortion rights more difficult. Apropos Joe K.’s link to John Kerry’s 2003 NARAL speech, the Senator said during his campaign that he believed life began at conception, but never said—or wasn’t asked—why he thought abortion was wrong.
I write all of this mindful that legislative-judicial-executive efforts to restrict or end legal abortion cannot substitute for broader ecclesial, societal, and governmental initiatives that address the causes of abortion and offer plausible alternatives to abortion. But, to borrow a favorite Catholic slogan, it’s a both/and, not an either/or.
on May 18th, 2008 at 7:32 am
It seems to me that what Archbishop Joseph F. Rummel did in 1962 is not particularly relevant to the current situation. He excommunicated people who were challenging his decision to integrate the Catholic schools of the Archdiocese of New Orleans (eight years after Brown v Board of Education and two years after the beginning of integration in the New Orleans public schools).
on May 18th, 2008 at 8:33 am
Christopher Ruddy said: The assumption—especially in a parish where one is known—is, “What whopper did s/he commit?”, rather than, “S/he had something to eat before Mass, or isn’t Catholic, or didn’t go to confession like everyone else did.” Not receiving communion in a Catholic church today can be tantamount to self-incrimination in front of family and friends when few others are refraining. I have felt that pressure. I also wonder if Catholics in general have become too comfortable approaching the sanctuary. Perhaps a bit more “mysterium tremendum et fascinans” would be helpful for all, not just Catholic politicians.
Jean replies: I was never asked NOT to receive, but I’ve always felt that one’s fitness to receive was an awful crap shoot, and depends less on what you’ve done and the level of contrition you feel than on how your priest or bishop feels about what you’ve done (or failed to do).
Some time ago, I determined that, based on strictest orthodox interpretation of Catholic teaching, I had no business receiving, so I don’t in order to avoid adding insult to injury. I haven’t stopped trying to be better, to live in a Catholic way. And I continue to hope that God considers me “at the table” in some way, even if I am not physically partaking.
I never found not receiving embarrassing, since I think conscience matters more than social pressure. But in the tiny local parish, not receiving does make others feel awkward. I didn’t expect to be tapped for lector duty or help with the CCD after I stopped receiving, but I’m no longer invited on retreats, to participate in social activities or asked to help with funeral lunches.
I think not receiving is more awkward for your family. When I do attend Mass (without receiving), I go to another town where it’s easy to get lost in the crowd, and where a fair number of people remain in the pew.
on May 18th, 2008 at 8:35 am
Rita,
I would think that not all Democratic Catholics would or could make the speech that John Kerry did, or pledge to support evil acts. In fact, I would think that the Democratic Party must be full of people who hate NARAL’s heavy hand. I would think many of them are Catholics.
So, where is the pressure? Where is the protest? Yesterday, while we were talking about it, there were 4,000 abortions in the United States. Probably more, actually, on a Saturday, and that’s not counting RU-486 and the like.
30% of the mothers were Catholics.
on May 18th, 2008 at 9:07 am
If 30 percent of the mothers were Catholics, doesn’t this bespeak a failure of the Church as well as the Democratic Party?
In the parishes I attend, there’s lots of protest organization.
But I have NEVER seen in the church bulletin or heard an announcement about where to go if you’re facing a crisis pregnancy, who will help you, or what services are offered at pro-life clinics–of which there are several in the area.
I hope it’s different other places, but if Catholics are really serious about doing something to stop abortions, especially among Catholics, oughtn’t these announcements be made every week?
on May 18th, 2008 at 10:01 am
Re: Jean Raber’s 8:33 post. What with all of our sins of omission and comission, maybe we should all stop receiving Communion. Perhaps a subject for another post. Joe K.?
And then Kathy’a 8:35: 30 percent! Easier to preach to the media and the politicians, than to the sinners!
on May 18th, 2008 at 10:35 am
First, while I do not judge, I make an educated assumption that there is no reason why Jean may not receive.
Perhaps the charism as a theologian can be used more appropriately if one wondered why so many bishops still received communion after sending predators repeatedly out to abuse children and continually lying about it and covering up. Why Egan in New York insists that the people of the church cannot know what the finances are and the treatment of clergy sex abusers, while his Wall Street friends can know. Etc.
The second thing is we might explain why auricular confession was non-existent in at least the first six centuries of the church. While no one should receive without discerning, it is a gross misstatement to assume that people are receiving improperly. We are a church of sinners and it is great testimony to the mercy and goodness of God that all are invited to the table. This is so much better than when the celebrant was so far away and hidden that bells had to be used to indicate what part of the service was on.
Finally, in today’s paper there are photos of Filipinos holding their numbered cards as they wait for needed rice to assuage hunger. There is still fratricide and daily blood in the Middle East and Iraq. People are eating garbage in Haiti and India and now Somalia. Christians are getting more and more hostile towards Muslims.
Yet abortion is the topic 24/7 because all it takes are words and back to fattening ourselves and “eating like Americans” which the third world cannot do.
on May 18th, 2008 at 10:55 am
Kathy, you’re right of course that not all Catholics in the Democratic party would make John Kerry’s speech. I certainly wouldn’t. What I was reacting to is the idea that by supporting the (probable) Democratic nominee, Kmiec had forfeited his place at the eucharistic table. I suspect most Democrats will support the nominee of their party, and I will be chagrined if they are made to feel unwelcome in our churches as a result. Most of the posts above have condemned this wrong-headed approach.
I have observed this mindset growing, however, in some quarters. Wasn’t it the bishop of Rockford who called the Democratic Party the “party of death”? This isn’t a nuanced stand. And there were priests and bishops who, in the last election (I know some stories from friends, others from the press) who told their people they were not welcome to receive communion if they voted for Kerry, and/or that they were going to hell. This helped to get us 4 more disastrous years of Bush, and not an inch closer to ending abortion, in fact an increase in the incidence thereof. After the last presidential election, my husband and I happened into a different church (not our own parish) as visitors, and the priest enjoined us all to give thanks because “Our values have triumphed” in the Bush election. We walked out.
on May 18th, 2008 at 12:06 pm
Another incident from the history of scandalous Catholic priests meddling in politics:
One of the earliest towns in the South to desegregate was Hoxie, Arkansas: http://www.encyclopediaofarkansas.net/encyclopedia/entry-detail.aspx?entryID=731 Last year I went to an event about the history of desegregation in Arkansas; part of it included watching a short documentary on Hoxie. During a Q&A period afterwards, an elderly woman stood up and said that when she was growing up in Hoxie during that time period, she was a Catholic. At the local church, the priest — a Rev. Joseph King — told the parishioners that “if he caught anyone going to the White Citizen’s Council meetings, it would be a matter for confession and they wouldn’t be able to come to communion.”
on May 18th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
Jean,
My parish has a strong Gabriel Project chapter. Last week they were loading dozens of donated (by parishioners) layettes, etc into somebodys’ minivans. There’s an ongoing clothing drive for pregnant mothers and children, lots of pamphlets for Gabriel Project and Project Rachel in the lobby, a notice in the bulletin often. As it happens, the parish sign fell down months ago so the only sign on the corner says, PREGNANT? NEED HELP? (phone number) It’s a huge sign, right on the main drag–the only indication there of our parish.
Rita,
I’ve said this before, but it’s not the first time I’ve been a broken record: I think that the Democratic Party could be the much better party for accomplishing the majority of Catholic goals. The Republicans have done so badly by so many. These last 8 years have been catastrophic and their effects are just beginning. However, I cannot see how any of the wealth & privilege favoring policies of the Bush administration, even the most blatant and disgusting, can possibly compare to the direct killing of even a single child. A doctor literally rips a child apart in the womb of its mother. Its mother. With her consent. This is an impossible wrong and the Democratic Party, as a party, supports it. How can this be acceptable to you?
on May 18th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
First, Dr. Peters. I’d like a canonical cite from him on “yaddah-yaddah-yaddah” Catholics. How incisive. I wonder how many of us would fit his category?
I do think he establisged the Right of the Bishop toi act as he did, but as in so many questions, it’s not the matter of one’s right but is it the right thing to do? Barbara’s point way above continues to be germane.
Of course there are some here that think using Comunion as a weapon (with maybe slight anecdotal support) accheives the “canonical” solution of being “medicinal.”
I’d put my money- with odds – on the opposite effect.
What this underscores is the problem of canonists providing pastoral theology – as previously noted they’re into order, whic has some place, but so does pastoral care and over the years they’ve had lots of tension.
Some of the discussion here tips its hat to political motivation which is imbedded in the events discussed. We’re only at the beginning of the election cycle, it seems to me, and there’s going to be lots more of this.
I’ve already noted my respect for someone like Bill Collier who is deply committed to the seamles garment approach and says – not for others- but on his own, he’ll only vote a certain way.
This is far different from the political posturing some have displayed here and which I continue to expect to see.
Oh, and once more, post BXVI, what are our hierarchical folk doing to listen and unite us????
on May 18th, 2008 at 12:35 pm
Perhaps the Democratic Party is going to become a more nuanced party–at least on abortion–contending as it will have to at least in the House with more conservative Democrats from more conservative districts. Of course, the pro-gun, anti-tax, probably pro-war views will up the ante on other issues.
Sunday’a (May 18) NYTimes:
“By prevailing in conservative districts where they ordinarily would not have a chance, Democrats are widening the ideological divide in their own ranks and complicating their ability to find internal consensus. It is a nice problem to have, but it is one that can bedevil party leaders. As their numbers expand, they have to juggle the competing interests of Travis Childers, the newly elected pro-gun, anti-abortion, anti-tax representative from northern Mississippi and someone like, say, Nancy Pelosi, a pro-gun control, liberal abortion-rights advocate from San Francisco who sees government as a solution.”
Whole story here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/18/washington/18cong.html?ref=us
on May 18th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
Late into this discussion. Two quick points.
First, I think David Gibson is right. I think now, and thought at the time, that Archbishop Burke’s article was a thinly veiled invitation to sacramental free lance operatives to operate in precisely the way they did in Kmiec’s case.
Second, as to the governor, the situation with Cardinal Pell in Australia about a year ago is instructive. He was much milder than Naumann, and was brought up on charges of threatening a member of Parliament. We don’t have such a broad law here in the United States, but it seems to me there is no reason we couldn’t enact a law prohibiting all people from threatening or bribing public officials (the first amendment should not protect bribes and threats), if the common good seems to demand it. Here’s the column I wrote on the Australian situation.
http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/article.php3?id_article=2012
on May 18th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
The Church leadership is eurocentric, and as a result it reflexively sees the downside of pro-life policies as nothing more than inconvenience to child bearing women. What if that were not the case, as it is not in much of the developing world? What if being pro-life equates to being “pro-misery”? Where are the Church leaders excoriating Catholic men for making unreasonable demands on their wives and impeding natural family planning? We see abortion through our lens of absolute and mind bendingly relative wealth.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/20/AR2008042001930.html
Aggressive Family Planning in Thailand
In recent weeks, public alarm in the Philippines over the soaring price of rice has focused attention on the fast-growing population and its dependence on rice imports.
Despite steadily increasing rice harvests, farmers here have been unable to keep pace with domestic demand. Economists here have calculated, though, that the Philippines would not need imported rice if it had managed to control population growth — like its neighbor Thailand.
In 1970, the population of each country was about 36 million people and growing at about 3 percent a year. But with an aggressive family planning program that provides the poor with free contraceptives, Thailand has since reduced its population growth rate to 0.9 percent. In the Philippines, the rate has declined sluggishly to about 2.1 percent.
There are now about 26 million more people in the Philippines than in Thailand.
“It’s a no-brainer,” said Ernesto M. Pernia, professor of economics at the University of the Philippines.
The Philippines now produces 16 million metric tons of rice a year — and needs to import 2 million tons more to meet local demand.
“If the Philippines had pursued what Thailand has done, the Philippines would be only consuming 13 metric tons of rice per annum,” Pernia said. “We could be a net exporter of 3 million metric tons.”
Besides increased food security, the Philippines could have lifted 3.6 million more people out of poverty if it had followed Thailand’s population growth trajectory, according to Pernia’s analysis.
“Even when there is widespread corruption, insurgent violence and other powerful reasons for poverty, the evidence from across Asia is that good population policy by itself contributes to significant poverty reduction,” he said.
on May 18th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
“However, I cannot see how any of the wealth & privilege favoring policies of the Bush administration, even the most blatant and disgusting, can possibly compare to the direct killing of even a single child.”
Oh I see. over a hundred thousand Iraqis dead, five thousand Americans, millions of injuries. Goodness!
When it comes to conscience the act of a bunch of women in Erie Pennsylvania will go down as classic Christian living in contrast to those who seek to dominate than to serve. We should be reminded of this at least once a month. It would be quite difficult to find other than this statement by that community is Spirit filled and in the best tradition of the church.
http://www.cta-usa.org/watch08-01/benedictines.html
on May 18th, 2008 at 1:54 pm
Barbara,
Pardon me if Ernesto M. Pernia’s no-brainer sounds draconian. Unless I’m quite mistaken, he is saying that there would be more food to go around if we had been able to enforce a policy that would include not only voluntary but coerced abortions.
on May 18th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
Who’s talking about coerced abortions? It’s more like coerced child bearing.
on May 18th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
“Coerced child bearing”? It takes two to tango.
Or is it “I just had a roll in sack; she’s the one who got pregnant”.
There’s an interesting comment on Catholics for Obama and the question of infanticide [his opposition to the bill protecting children that survive the first efforts of abortion] on INSIDE CATHOLIC of 18 May 2008.
Barbara, if you believe that there are few or no coerced abortions, you should check with the people at Pregnancy Help.
on May 18th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
Gabriel,
Anyone who would coerce someone to have a legal abortion would probably coerce someone to have an illegal abortion.
on May 18th, 2008 at 3:15 pm
Last comment for me: It never ceases to amaze me that people who are sure that women are routinely coerced into having abortions cannot wrap their minds around the idea that women are also coerced into having sex.
on May 18th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
Protesting abortion and ramping up the rhetoric so as to equate it with infanticide, genocide, murder, and the Nazis really does nothing to persuade those who make the laws, particularly on the international scene. (Though that rhetoric usually is a pretty good indication that it’s an election year in the U.S.!)
If the Church were doing a better job feeding and caring for children once they were born in places like the Philippines, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Haiti and any number of other predominantly Catholic countries, think outsiders might be more interested in its pro-life stance.
Enforced abortions may look good to Ernesto Pernia (though I think his comments can be construed other ways), not because he thinks abortion is such a great solution, but because he’s seen one too many kids who’ve died trying to make a living in the thriving sex trade or starved to death in a dump.
on May 18th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
Barbara,
I was assuming that the article talked about a more extensive family planning program; I was reading into the article. My apologies.
on May 18th, 2008 at 4:14 pm
Are you seriously suggesting that the United States should imitate a policy by which Pell was prosecuted (or threatened with prosecution) for taking a position on a moral issue? I’m baffled that anyone with the slightest sympathy for religion could suggest such a horrifying prospect.
on May 18th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
I don’t know if the Bishop of that Diocese issued the denial of Communion or did the chaplain of the Catholic community at the University decide on his own to deny communion to Kmiec, but people are being singled out and ‘punished’ for their political views.
Once again, the Eucharist—the Body and Blood of Christ, is being used as a political stick to intimidate Catholics who are in the public eye. Is this what the Sacrament is now about?
Secondly, because our Bishops do not have a unified position in dealing with America’s political landscape, each Arch(bishop) deals with his arch(diocese) like a medieval lord dealing with his fifedom. In this instance, as in so many others, a lack of a well meditated, a well worked out–united approach to issues that all American Catholics face, is non-existent. And more than that, people are facing excommunication because they are exercising their civil rights under American Constitutional law.
Church officials are making judgments of individuals’ motives, indeed, the movements of their consciences, and punitive actions are being imposed. Sadly, a ‘postmodern American’ version of the Inquisition is alive and well.
on May 18th, 2008 at 4:33 pm
Well, I suppose they could unite Catholic America by putting us all under an interdict–nobody can go to Communion.
on May 18th, 2008 at 4:45 pm
Stuart, I don’t think it’s consistent with the political common good for ANYONE-religious or not– to put a public official into a position where he or she has to choose between their own private good (as they understand it0 and the public good (as they understand it) in the course of conducting their office. I think there should be stronger laws against threatening and bribing public officials, period. And in a pluralistic society, I don’t think bribery and threat laws need make special exception for religiously based threats or bribes. (I would be equally opposed to a non-Catholic organization promising a politician a bishop’s office if he voted a certain way.)
on May 18th, 2008 at 4:54 pm
Or, the bishops could unite Catholic America by allowing everyone to go to communion indiscriminately and ignoring the problem of Catholic politicians who don’t pay even lip service to church teaching on a serious matter.
on May 18th, 2008 at 4:56 pm
Who is talking about bribery or threats? A better analogy would be if some politician who claimed to be a member of the National Organization for Women brought up a bill to give abortionists the death penalty, NOW would be perfectly within their rights to say, “That contravenes our fundamental values, and we’re going to revoke your membership.” That’s not a “threat” or a “bribe,” and I think it would be ludicrous to charge NOW with violating the “common good” (whatever that means) by forcing the politician to choose between his “own private good and the public good.”
Instead, it’s merely common sense — if organizations are going to be able to have any associational identity at all, they have to have the right and ability to draw up rules for membership, and to exclude people who attack the fundamental values of the organization. You haven’t articulated a reason to apply a different standard to the Catholic Church (nor do you have a plausible basis for distinguishing the cases of Catholic priests/bishops in the 1950s who equally threatened religious consequences for public officials).
on May 18th, 2008 at 5:08 pm
“Are you seriously suggesting that the United States should imitate a policy by which Pell was prosecuted (or threatened with prosecution) for taking a position on a moral issue? I’m baffled that anyone with the slightest sympathy for religion could suggest such a horrifying prospect.”
Well, the article didn’t suggest Cardinal Pell be prosecuted for for taking positions on moral issues. The article carefully distinguished between advocating moral postions and threatening legislators. Cardinal Pell should also be careful to make this distinction.
I don’t have any sympathy for religion per se. There are FLDS child rapists, snake handlers, those who blame God’s wrath of homsexuals for natural disasters and satan worhippers. Religions are hotbeds of quacks, frauds and loonies. No, religion, per se, is not deserving of sympathy.
If Cardinal Pell, or any other cleric, wishes to be heard with respect and deference, then he will distance himself from the religious loonies. If there is a solid moral basis for a particular piece of legislation, then that should be easy to articulate. If the religious official feels the need to “enforce” his argument with threats of eternal damnation or other manifestation of God’s wrath, then the positions is not as clear cut as he may assume or he is deficient in his articulation of the moral principle.
I don’t suggest Cardinal Pell’s comments actually amounted to coercion, but they were percieved that way, and the entirely predictable parliamentary backlash assured the passage of a stem cell law deemed contrary to Catholic teaching.
I’d surely ridicule, condemn and mock any Moslem cleric who issued a fatwa against a moslem legislator. I am not sympathetic to any Catholic bishops who attempt to issue their version of a fatwa.
on May 18th, 2008 at 5:14 pm
What I’m articulating is not an original point. I’ve seen it made many times. It’s all just instrumental and self-interested reasoning by people who are in the tank for pro-choice politicians; at least I’ve never seen this standard articulated by anyone else as to any other group’s position on any other issue.
No one ever says that politicians have a right to vote to subsidize SUVs in their peculiar view of the common good and yet to retain the full privileges of membership in environmental organizations. No one says that politicians have the right to vote for gun control and yet to retain the privileges of membership in the NRA. And so forth. Everyone realizes that if you vote in a way that is contrary to a group’s fundamental values, you can’t very well claim a “right” to have the leaders of that group treat you as having the same status as any other group member.
on May 18th, 2008 at 5:32 pm
I am not sympathetic to any Catholic bishops who attempt to issue their version of a fatwa.
Just so long as you’re clear that you’re including the Catholic “fatwas” on the racial segregation issue, then at least you’re taking an intellectually honest position.
on May 18th, 2008 at 5:38 pm
Stuart,
I think your analogy is inapt. This is about right and wrong, not about membership requirements, which can be made for any reason including the corrupt and the trivial.
Jean,
Obviously pro-choice politicians are not directly killing. But they are engaging in very helpful legal and moral collusion with those who are. Some misdeeds are worse than others and leaders who involve themselves in them (like Pelosi, Kennedy and Kerry) are doing wrong in an unusually big way. Avoiding an equally public censure easily gives the impression that this is an okay way to think and behave in the Catholic Church. It’s not like they have a moral weakness, either, that keeps them wondering about the state of their souls. It’s a matter of policy!
on May 18th, 2008 at 6:51 pm
Kathy, you’ve explained this to me before. We continue to disagree, and since individual bishops respond to individual Catholic politicians in such radically different ways, I have no idea which of us is correct. So I’ve stopped receiving and events will unfold as God wills.
Thanks for the Project Gabriel info. There is a clinic just 10 miles from my house that is recommended by PG (no pun intended) as well as the one I have donated maternity clothes to that is further away, and the one which I prefer because it provides parenting support for those adopting out or keeping children as single parents.
I will write the church sec to see if she will give them a plug in the bulletin.
on May 18th, 2008 at 7:00 pm
Threats and bribes have this in common: they are attempts to overwhelm the will without convincing the judgment. The interesting things about both bribes and blackmail: it’s perfectly appropriate to a) give someone money; and b) to expose the unsavory truth about them. So the underlying act, unlike a threat to commit assault, is not problematic. It’s the intention that’s problematic.
It’s not appropriate to bribe or blackmail public officials: why: because you are asking them to prefer their private good to their conception of the public good. The Bishop would like the governor to believe what he says about the law. But as a second best option, he is perfectly happy to protect her good standing in the church by acting against her own version of what counts for the public good.
So he is saying to her. . . “even if you think the veto is the best thing to do for the community (given that the law is not likely to be upheld, etc.) I want you to prefer your private good to the common good.”
on May 18th, 2008 at 7:08 pm
I’m not a consequentialist, Stewart. I don’t think a threat of excommunication can be justified against a public official on political consequentialist grounds. So I wouldn’t use it against Catholic federalist society lawyers who support Yoo’s Torture Memos–and in fact, caused rather than permitted an intrinsically evil act to be committed, and committed by the government, rather than by an individual actor.
The task of a bishop is to convince a public official not to threaten her.
on May 18th, 2008 at 7:54 pm
Coercion only has effect if it is tolerated! Over time many loyal Catholics have assented to being silenced (Congar, de Chardin, etc.) They obeyed higher earthly authority, but did they do any good to and for the church in the short run? How many people suffered because it took a long time for the silenced to gain favor? Catholics have placed, and continue to place, way too much value on obedience to earthly authority and not enough value in righteous resistance. A clerical mentality loves it when the sheep don’t even bleat.
“Vigorous minds will not suffer compulsion. To exercise compulsion is typical of tyrants; to suffer it, typical of asses.” Erasmus
“You don’t lead by hitting people over the head-that’s assault, not leadership.” Dwight D. Eisernhower
“In my experience, all nuns are Democrats and all bishops are Republicans” John F. Kennedy
“I never knew a man who had better motives for all the trouble he caused.” Graham Greene
on May 18th, 2008 at 8:09 pm
What you’re saying equally condemns:
1) the priests and bishops who made “threats” against racial segregationists. After all, there were many racial segregationists who sincerely thought (such is the capacity of the human heart for self-deception) that segregation was in the “common good.” So bishops or priests who told segregationists or KKK members not to come to communion were “asking them to prefer their private good to their conception of the public good.”
2) the hypothetical NOW leaders who tell a pro-life politician that he can’t go around claiming to be a NOW member if he’s going to vote against their fundamental values. Again, the pro-lifer might be sincere in thinking pro-life legislation to be in the “common good,” and the NOW leaders are asking him to prefer his private good (i.e., being able to campaign as a feminist) to his conception of the public good.
on May 18th, 2008 at 9:26 pm
I go out for a couple of hours and all hell breaks loose!
But to Chris Ruddy: We both know the bishops can’t say, “okay, everybody go to Communion indiscrimnately,” because so many Catholics, (not politicians, not pro-choice, not bad people) already don’t go to Communion, as I was reminded at Mass tonight. (Excuse me, but Jean Raber would feel right at home.)
I think we must face up to the fact that the bishops have relatively little control over the whole mishaga, and they should husband what little authority and credibility they have by sitting down and thinking long and hard about how to convince people, especially their own, that they should not choose abortion, even when they can. Short of those convincing arguments, passionate appeals, and compassionate treatment, they will loose the battle (and everybody will stop going to Communion, even without an interdict).
And then: Somehow, I detect that John Kerry and Kathleen Sebelius have been conflated in this
argument. John Kerry and all the other Democratic presidential candidates in 2004 pulled their forelock and K A at NARAL. He was not alone, thought Joe K. is right his behavior and his statement were a disgrace to the Catholic education he never had.
When I said above that the argument has gotten more complicated and nuanced, I think Sebelius (and obviously Kmiec) have moved beyond 2004; and I think you hardliners should go into revision mode (also Herr Doktor Peters was certainly kinder to Kmiec and more professional, than he was to Sebelius [yadayadayada--really!]). Not that it matters for Sebelius; she is damaged goods and anyone would be a fool to bring her on board only to have her trashed by her bishop (Geraldine Feraro all over again, though Sebelius is vastly better prepared to make her point).
Amen. Amen.
on May 18th, 2008 at 10:31 pm
Stuart,
I hate to ruin a good story, but the Hoxie sitation appears to be a model of how the bishop should handle a problem, at least acoording to the Bishop’s own version of events.
http://www.catholic.org/diocese/diocese_story.php?id=25433
The story of Catholic school integration is fascinating and seems to have all of the introspection some of us are urging (and none of the threats). How previous generations of Catholics addressed moral aspects of integration is certainly worth examining today.
on May 18th, 2008 at 10:33 pm
I’ve read through the vast majority of the above comments and I am amazed that no one has suggested that it is time for politicians to stand up and publically tell the bishops or whomever to take a hike. (that is putting it in polite terms…there is a two word phrase which says it with more umph!)
When bishops north of the border tried to emulate their American ‘cousins’ Catholic politicians within all of the Parties told them in no uncertain terms to mind their own business. The issue was more about same-sex marriage but the tactic has more or less stopped. The exceptions are a couple of newbies, ironically in the Ottawa area.
There is an interesting piece in the most recent issue of Harper’s by Mark Slouka titled “Democracy and Deference” by and large comparing America’s penchant for deference in comparison to the Brits eg. “Brits act as though the government is their business and they have every right to meddle in it. Americans, by and large, display no such self assurance. To the contrary…
Deference to Bishops using their so called religious authority to meddle in politics needs to be challenged not only by politicians but by all Catholics. It is time Commonweal came out and told them so.
on May 18th, 2008 at 11:02 pm
Mr. McFaul — nothing in your story contradicts what I heard from an eyewitness. The bishop of Arkansas apparently didn’t threaten people; but the local priest in Hoxie did.
The story of Catholic school integration is fascinating and seems to have all of the introspection some of us are urging (and none of the threats).
None of the threats? That’s not true at all. Not only was there the Hoxie, Ark. priest that I mentioned, but Archbishop Rummel of New Orleans had three politicians excommunicated, which is quite a bit beyond what any bishops have done today w/r/t abortion-promoting politicians (right? Have there been any excommunications that I’ve missed?)
on May 18th, 2008 at 11:11 pm
When bishops north of the border tried to emulate their American ‘cousins’ Catholic politicians within all of the Parties told them in no uncertain terms to mind their own business.
I presume you think that politicians should similarly flick off the Church if it ever mentions issues like torture, immigration, the death penalty, health care, etc.
It’s a bit odd, by the way, that you don’t notice the contradiction between your third paragraph (praising British people for “meddling” in government rather than deferring to it) and everything else (damning religious people for “meddling” in government rather than deferring to it).
on May 19th, 2008 at 12:07 am
“The second thing is we might explain why auricular confession was non-existent in at least the first six centuries of the church. While no one should receive without discerning, it is a gross misstatement to assume that people are receiving improperly. We are a church of sinners and it is great testimony to the mercy and goodness of God that all are invited to the table. This is so much better than when the celebrant was so far away and hidden that bells had to be used to indicate what part of the service was on.”
Yes. What is forgotten is that the Eucharist itself confers the forgiveness of sins. The regulations about prior confession are merely a matter of church discipline. This discipline has clearly changed.
Andrew Sullivan comments: “When some priests deny communion because of support for a presidential candidate, the conflation of politics and religion is hideously complete. And that is the goal of the theocons: to erase any space for private conscience or any distinction between public and private.”
Let us not forget that but for the intervention of Cardinal Ratzinger and the Catholic Bishops the world would have had four years of President Kerry.
on May 19th, 2008 at 4:44 am
Whenever this debate comes up, I like to ask the question of those offended by the practice of denying communion these questions.
Do you object to a person ever being denied communion? That is, is there anything one could do to justify the denial?
Do you believe that a person who receives communion not in a state of grace commits a serious sin just be receiving the sacrament?
on May 19th, 2008 at 6:26 am
Yes, Stuart. I am saying that in a representative democracy such as our own (different rules may apply in other systems) NO ONE should threaten a public official in such a manner as to try to make them choose between their own private good as they see it and the public good as they see it. We need to have rules that everyone can live with. I’m sure many people threatening or bribing politicians over the years think they are doing it for a good cause. We can’t have one rule for us and one rule for them. So I think persuasion, education, a conference, etc., explaining the position and the prudential consequences are all good.
By the way, I think your analogy of religion to a “voluntary membership group” is sociologically quite inapt. But, I’m happy to go along with the analogy. If the Friendly Sons of St. Patrick say to Congressman O’Reilley, “If you don’t make St. Patrick’s Day a national holiday and make St. Joseph’s Day an ordinary workday,” we’re going to expell you publicly–and we don’t care what you think this will do to ethnic tensions in the region,” and the Friendly Sons of St. Patrick were a comprehensive and powerful social organization,” I’d say that’s an improper threat.
on May 19th, 2008 at 6:27 am
Sean,
I don’t have objections to people being denied communion if it’s not done in a way that violates the political common good, and other norms of fairness and charity.
Cathy
on May 19th, 2008 at 6:40 am
On another, related point, could someone explain this to me: B16 was here, his visit was spectacularly successful, he made people see love and hope (caritas et spes) at the heart of the Catholic Christian faith, and it looked like we were all encouraged to move forward together, as one body in Christ. If he wanted to, he could have taken a hard line on these issues–he didn’t.
Did he even use the language “culture of life v. culture of death” while he was here?
In terms of style, the approach of the communion warriors seems much more consonant with that of JPII–so what’s going on in terms of ecclesiastical politics?
on May 19th, 2008 at 6:49 am
CK: Everybody waited for him to come and go before the few did their thing?
Or, BXVI charmed the media, but Catholics went right on doing their thing.
Or, we overrate the capacity of the papacy to dampen down our enthusiasms.
Or, his visit never really played west of the Hudson………
on May 19th, 2008 at 8:43 am
Stuart,
As I pointed out above, Archbishop Rummel excommunicated three legislators for attempting to interfere with his desegregation of Catholic schools. They were working against the archbishop himself, staging protests, urging people to withhold contributions from the Church, and threatening to pass legislation that would deny the Catholic schools funding they had previously received from the state.
I don’t think Rummel’s actions are relevant to this discussion. If he had excommunicated them for trying to hinder integration in the public schools, that would be quite a different matter. But he excommunicated them for interfering with his handling of the Catholic schools.
on May 19th, 2008 at 8:45 am
IMO, Kmiec was punished because he made a good argument. It is going to be harder this election to use abortion as a means of getting people to vote for the GOP. McCain himself only discovered that he was “pro-life” in the last few months.
Meanwhile, The Washington Monthly looks at the House GOP’s newly released “American Families Agenda” (title “Down the Memory Hole” and finds… nothing?
“Unless my code word radar is on the blink, there aren’t even any oblique references to abortion, gays, sex-ed, prayer, vouchers, or any of the other usual crowd favorites. You wouldn’t know there had ever even been a day when the GOP considered that stuff part of a family agenda.”
http://washingtonmonthly.com/
on May 19th, 2008 at 9:24 am
Though related this might need a separate thread.
http://votf.org/robinson_tour.html
Bishop Geoffrey Robinson, author of Confronting Power and Sex in the Catholic Church: Reclaiming the Power of Jesus, is forbidden by Mahoney to speak at church sites.
on May 19th, 2008 at 9:27 am
Fr. O’Leary,
The question here is not about penitent sinners receiving Communion.
It’s about obdurate, public, manifest, effective cooperation with a grave evil.
on May 19th, 2008 at 9:37 am
David Nickol — I was answering McFaul’s false claim that Catholic leaders in the 1950s/1960s handled the integration issue without ever making any “threats.” So it’s not really relevant to point out that the people excommunicated by Rummel deserved it; the point is that at least the occasional bishop was willing to use “threats” rather than just insipid attempts to “persuade” (as if such persuasion ever works).
on May 19th, 2008 at 9:42 am
OK, Prof. Kaveny, it’s clear that you think Catholic leaders shouldn’t impart any religious consequences to anyone, not even KKK members in the 1950s. Your stated reasons are 1) prudential, in that such religious consequences will “backfire” in some fashion; and 2) a vague and inexplicable reference to the “common good.”
Reason 1 is itself a prudential judgment — maybe some threats of religious consequences will backfire, but maybe others will prevent scandal among the faithful who care whether their Church has any moral backbone at all. Reason 2 is completely opaque to me; I can’t even conceive of a reason why the “common good” (typically shorthand for “whatever helps my party”) demands that the Catholic Church accept KKK members as full fledged parishioners just like anyone else.
on May 19th, 2008 at 9:43 am
Stuart, I thought I made myself clear. I am defending the narrow proposition that no one, including religious leaders, should threaten PUBLIC OFFICIALS (i.e., holders of public office) in such a manner that would put them in a position of choosing their private good over their conception of public well-being in matters having to do with the exercise of their official functions.
I am not defending the proposition that no one should ever threaten anyone with moral sanctions. So if a bishop threatened a notorious abortionist with excommunication, that’s a different matter. So is threatening the head of the Klan with excommunication. They are not public officials engaged in exercising public trust.
on May 19th, 2008 at 9:43 am
Cathy
That’s kind of a squishy standard. What exactly is the “political common good”? Does that mean that politicians shouldn’t be denied communion for anything that they do in their political capacity?
I ask the questions because it seems to me that the issues are confused. It is my experience that most people who object to this do so not because they don’t like the bishops using this as a “weapon,” but because they don’t think what politicians like Sebelius do regarding abortion is even sinful. These, I think, are two different issues.
If, for example, a legislator proposed a law to permit and regulate infanticide of disabled babies, would a bishop be out of line in denying him communion?
Finally, does the priest or bishop bear absolutely no responsibility for providing communion to those they have strong evidence are not in a state of grace? As for charity, St Paul tells us, “Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.” Is it charitable to permit this to happen?
on May 19th, 2008 at 9:48 am
NO ONE should threaten a public official in such a manner as to try to make them choose between their own private good as they see it and the public good as they see it.
If that principle were fairly and consistently applied, it would mean that NARAL couldn’t “threaten” to endorse a pro-choice candidate over a pro-life candidate. I think such a result is ludicrous. Democratic politics could never get off the ground if people weren’t allowed to affiliate with like-minded people — which necessarily means NOT affiliating with and supporting people who have set themselves in opposition to your own goals.
on May 19th, 2008 at 9:49 am
I am defending the narrow proposition that no one, including religious leaders, should threaten PUBLIC OFFICIALS (i.e., holders of public office) in such a manner that would put them in a position of choosing their private good over their conception of public well-being in matters having to do with the exercise of their official functions.
OK, so all you’re saying is that if the KKK member is a public office holder who has opposed any laws that would punish racial lynching, the fact that he holds public office makes him immune to Church sanction. Gotcha.
on May 19th, 2008 at 9:55 am
Stuart,
The point is not whether the legislators excommunicated by Rummel deserved it or not (although I think they did). The point is that he excommunicated them for challenging his authority to deal with the Catholic schools as archbishop, not for their political positions on segregation. If Kmiec or Sebelius were interfering in an archdiocese and an archbishop ordered them to back off or else, that would be one thing. But they weren’t interfering in Church affairs. It’s apples and oranges.
on May 19th, 2008 at 9:56 am
Stuart, there is a distinction — NARAL’s endorsement means, presumably, that its PAC might support your candidacy, that its membership is more likely to vote for you, and so on. But it would be slightly different if NARAL, for instance, informed a politician that if he didn’t vote in such and such a way, it would do everything in its power to ensure his spouse didn’t receive adequate gynecological care. There is a generic kind of threat — as in, I’m not going to do everything I can to help you and I might help your opponent — and there is a personal kind of threat. This is the kind of threat that was made by the Texas Medical Association when it tried to enlist its members in a boycott to refuse to provide services to lawyers and lawmakers and their family members who were on the “wrong side” of medical malpractice or medical malpractice reform. Those threats were widely condemned.
Anyway, I actually would rather that this kind of debate occur in public because otherwise the public doesn’t necessarily understand what it will mean to vote for Catholic candidates, which, of course, is exactly what is feared.
Just FYI, it’s almost the same kind of conflict that caused John Donne to abandon Catholicism in the late 16th century, when he considered the price of allegiance to be too high.
on May 19th, 2008 at 9:59 am
I haven’t seen anything that is remotely comparable to a threat to do “everything in its power to ensure his spouse didn’t receive adequate gynecological care.”
on May 19th, 2008 at 10:00 am
Stuart, hard cases make bad law. Particularly anachronistic hard cases. I’m not a consequentialist about this, in part because I think the long-term consequences of encouraging it are disastrous for a representative democracy. I don’t think the Unitarian Universalists should threaten excommunication (if they have such a thing) to devout politicians who oppose hate crimes legislation, either.
I think you make the argument. You invite the politicians to hear the point. You make the point about the evil you oppose. You don’t threaten public officials.
Now, the only thing that needs careful consideration is your NARAL example. My guiding principle is that no one should threaten or bribe a public official in such a manner that they prefer their private good to the public good. I don’t think being an office holder can be considered one’s private good. So threats not to help reelect–or to vote for a person– don’t count as threats that place one’s private good in conflict with the public good. The threat of not voting. . . and the promise of voting. . . are implicit in the concept of a representative democracy.
I think it’s perfectly permissible to say,”I’m not going to vote for you . . . or work for your election. .. . and I don’t think other people should vote for you and here’s why.” (I realize that can create a problem with 501c3 status, but that’s a separate issue.)
on May 19th, 2008 at 10:01 am
David — you’re still misunderstanding the point. Let’s stipulate that desegregation and abortion are “apples and oranges,” but the fact still remains that it was incorrect to describe the history of desegregation (as McFaul did) as one in which no bishops or priests ever made any “threats.”
on May 19th, 2008 at 10:03 am
I was just trying to illustrate the distinction between threatening a candidate qua candidate — I and everyone who agrees with me will never vote for you — versus I am going to take some action that affects you in a personal rather than a political way.
I guess whether you consider receiving gyn care to be more or less important than receiving communion is a matter of personal belief.
on May 19th, 2008 at 10:04 am
I don’t think the Unitarian Universalists should threaten excommunication (if they have such a thing) to devout politicians who oppose hate crimes legislation, either.
That’s fine, if that’s your personal intuition, but you haven’t come within miles of giving a reason why church officials who behave like that should be subject to criminal prosecution. (Which was suggested by the earlier post that seemed to approve of an Australian bishop being “brought up on charges.”)
on May 19th, 2008 at 10:06 am
I was just trying to illustrate the distinction between threatening a candidate qua candidate — I and everyone who agrees with me will never vote for you — versus I am going to take some action that affects you in a personal rather than a political way.
I don’t recognize that distinction — between the “personal” and the “political” — at least not in the case of politicians. For the vast majority of politicians, being defeated in a campaign would be the most dire and serious “personal” harm they could ever experience, compared to which the denial of communion would be a mere trifle.
on May 19th, 2008 at 10:15 am
Stuart,
I am not misunderstanding. We just disagree. The apples and oranges are not desegregation and abortion. They are excommunicating legislators because they are leading a campaign against the authority of an archbishop to run his archdiocese, on the one hand, and excommunicating legislators because they are segregationists or because they support segregation in the public schools, on the other. If you think Rummel is an example of the Church threatening people over segregation, then I can’t convince you otherwise. But I see segregation as a secondary issue in Rummel’s case, and I don’t see a precedent there for the Sebelius or Kmiec cases.
on May 19th, 2008 at 10:17 am
With Ns. Steinfels, Mr. O’Leary, Mazzella and other yaddah-yaddah-yaddah Catholics, including yours truly, I think the issue of judgement (”There is only ONE Judge…”)and, jumping ahead to Bishop Robinson, the exercise of power and control that requires s great prudence is central.
Beyond that, the further issue that continues to be raised here as to the effectiveness of using the Eucharist as a weapon, particularly in our pluralistic and brcoming more so society.
I don’t know about the Arkansas threat debate here, but I think it’s reasonable to ask if threats were the efficient cause of movement forward.
Even more so today, whereEpiscopal authority has so declined – and probably for good reasons – folks will do what their conscience dictates. If you don’t lile what they beleive, you have to convince them otherwise. Good teaching and governing would seem to necessitate that.
And many(not Jean) will approach the altar no matter what Father tells them (like watch Fox News or as in my paris,don’t read the Times and/or remove Commonweal from the parish library) or the Bishops says, often enough because it is perceived as so politicized.
on May 19th, 2008 at 10:22 am
Let’s say that I’m a politician. For reasons due to family history, I consider it very important to be part of the Sierra Club. I like the Sierra Club. It gives me warm feelings when I see their logo on my baseball caps, and when I print “Sierra Club, Lifetime Member,” on all my campaign literature.
But let’s say that I also become persuaded, in my view of the “common good” as expressed by a conservative electorate in my district, that it would be a great thing for the economy to amend federal environmental law such that no wetlands were protected anywhere. Indeed, I also attempt to fund a new major highway to be build straight through a formerly-protected wetland in my district.
The Sierra Club is outraged. Not just by my plan, but by the fact that I am simultaneously campaigning as a Sierra Club member.
So the Sierra Club sends me a letter: “Dear Stuart,” they say, “If you continue to support a legislative plan that so thoroughly opposes everything that we stand for as an organization, we will have to revoke your lifetime membership, of which you make so much in your campaign literature. This is not an action that we take lightly, but it would be too disheartening to our many faithful supporters if we allowed someone who is working to undermine such key environmental protections to also brag of his affiliation with the Sierra Club.”
Now, the hypothetical me responds, “This is an unconscionable threat! It’s of deep personal importance to me that I remain a member of the Sierra Club. True, I don’t really agree with the Sierra Club’s actual positions, but the very name has a deep emotional attachment to me, and I would feel mortally wounded in my soul if the Sierra Club rejected my membership. The Sierra Club has no right to threaten such personal consequences when I’ve simply taken a different view of the common good. I should have a right both to attack the environment and to remain a full-fledged member of the Sierra Club.”
Back to the real me: I think that what the Sierra Club has “threatened” here is eminently reasonable, and that it’s silly for the hypothetical me to expect to have my cake and eat it too. But some people actually seem to think that such a letter from the Sierra Club would be improper or that it should even be illegal! I continue to find that staggering.
on May 19th, 2008 at 10:38 am
Dear Peggy,
I agree with you that 2008 is different in some aspects from 2004, and that Governor Sebelius and some others are different from Senator Kerry et al. That’s one reason why I never said anywhere in my postings that Sebelius or any other particular politician should be denied communion. It would be groundless to lump me among the “hardliners”—a term which is as constructive as “accommodationist” in these discussions (i.e., it is evaluative rather than descriptive.).
I said only that excommunication or the denial of communion can be valid in principle. Application is another matter, and I do agree that some are itching for a fight. I am not one of them.
Four years ago, after the U.S. Bishops adopted their “Denver” policy on Catholic in public life, my wife, Deborah, and I wrote an article, “Handing on the Faith to the ‘New Athenians’ in the American Catholic Church.” It was published in Handing on the Faith: The Church’s Mission and Challenge, edited by Bob Imbelli (Herder & Herder, 2006). We argued that the U.S. Church’s response to abortion has to work primarily at the level of imagination and culture-formation, rather than at the level of public policy; this approach resonates with some of your previous musings on the place of hymns and artwork in this whole discussion. Our essay drew upon John Courtney Murray, Cardinal Bernardin, Phil Murnion, Charles Taylor, Rowan Williams, e.e. cummings—even Peter Steinfels. I’d be glad to e-mail you or anyone else interested a copy; my e-mail is cjruddy–at–stthomas.edu
on May 19th, 2008 at 11:09 am
Sorry Chris, I didn’t have you in mind as a hard-liner. It’s getting a bit complicated to remember who said what and when on this thread.
on May 19th, 2008 at 11:20 am
I should add that I’m not defending the chaplain who refused communion to Kmiec; his actions do seem wrong. I’m reacting to the infinitely more insidious threat — which Cathy seemed to mention approvingly! — of government officials who threaten legal action against church leaders because they expressed a view on what constitutes good behavior in their religion.
on May 19th, 2008 at 11:49 am
It sure appears to me that it is the Democratic Party that is coercing it’s members to accept abortion. If this were not true, than the Catholic Advisory Board would not be afraid to speak out.
on May 19th, 2008 at 11:58 am
Lurking mostly, but couldn’t resist jumping back in to state categorically that Unitarian Universalists have no communion, hence no excommunication, nor even a creed which would give them leverage to throw people out of the fellowship, though a friend says she wishes they DID have something because her fellowship has become a haven for a small but strident bunch of Wiccans, who (or witch?) are trying everybody’s patience.
Imagine not being able to kick people out of your church, but having to figure out where you can work together profitably for the betterment of mankind!
Horrors!
Just thought this thread could use a laff.
on May 19th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
Stuart, it’s not “expressing a view” that is the problem. It’s not denying communion per se that’s the problem. It’ using communion as part of a scheme to threaten or bribe public officials in such a fashion that the clear intent is that they choose their private good (e.g., eternal salvation) over the public good.
I gave you an argument. The argument looks like this:
1. The public good requires representatives to act on its behalf, and for no private good.
2. All threats and bribes made with the purpose of encouraging a public official to prefer his private good to the public good are inconsistent with the public good.
3. In terms of their moral status of such threats or bribes, the religious basis or motive of such a threat or bribe does not save it from being objectionable.
4. Cardinal Pell and Apb. Naumann acted inconsistently with the public good by threatening public officials.
5. I am open to broader legislation against threatening and bribing public officials–across the board. I don’t think criminal penalties are necessarily in order, however.
on May 19th, 2008 at 12:14 pm
“It’s about obdurate, public, manifest, effective cooperation with a grave evil.”
Right. Like the war in Iraq and paying US farmers which makes it harder to get food to the starving. Those children, of course, can die. No problem.
on May 19th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
Cathy,
I think your argument is circular.
Your reasons for saying the influence is improper assumes it is improper in the first place.
For example, individuals and groups may vote for or against a politician, or may contribute money to a politician or his opponent in order to influence his decisions, but this isn’t a problem because they are doing something they are permitted to do – that we agree is not wrongful. Making a political contribution to show support and therefore influence a legislator isn’t a bribe. And it seems to me that a threat is only wrongful if it is a threat to withhold something to which the person is otherwise entitled.
Following your reasoning I could equate voting or political contributions with bribery and threats.
A politician must prefer the public good over his private good (being re-elected and keeping her influence and income).
When I withhold my vote or contributions to influence her decisions, I am encouraging her to prefer her private good.
Following your reasoning, how is Bishop Naumann’s action any more wrongful than the tens of thousands in contributions that Gov Sebelius gets from pro-abortion groups and abortionists themselves?
on May 19th, 2008 at 1:09 pm
I grasp the argument, Cathy, but I think it inexorably leads to absurd conclusions, i.e., that the Church would have been wrong to ask segregationist politicians to vote differently, or that the Sierra Club would be wrong in the lengthy example above. You still don’t offer any explanation as to why churches and private groups should be powerless to deal with any member who wants to have his cake and eat it too (i.e., who wants to fight against the group’s objectives on one hand and yet retain a right to be a member in good standing).
I think where you’re getting tripped up is, as Sean points out, in the circular and question-begging portions of your argument:
It’ using communion as part of a scheme to threaten or bribe public officials in such a fashion that the clear intent is that they choose their private good (e.g., eternal salvation) over the public good.
1. You haven’t proven that anything here is an improper threat or bribe; those are just pejorative labels.
2. You haven’t proven that anyone is being asked to choose between their private good and the REAL public good. Instead, at most, what you’re claiming is that politicians might be asked to choose between their private good and their BIASED AND SELF-SERVING views of the public good. In other words, you’re not considering the fact that politicians aren’t always right in their view of what constitutes the public good, and you’re certainly not providing any rationale for this radical relativism in which any politician has the right to judge for himself what the “public good” is without dissent from church officials.
on May 19th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
Of course, good old Augie started all this. In his letter to Marcellinus he wrote: “For the person from whom is taken away the freedom which he abuses in doing wrong is vanquished with benefit to himself; since nothing is more truly a misfortune than that good fortune of offenders, by which pernicious impunity is maintained, and the evil disposition, like an enemy within the man, is strengthened.” http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1102138.htm
When you are that almighty I guess you can correct anybody. However, as we know it did not always work out that way. Probably no one took church power more seriously and excessively than Boniface VIII who was finally imprisoned by the king of France. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1102138.htm
I especially am fascinated by these above words of Augustine:”nothing is more truly a misfortune than that good fortune of offenders.” So, you can love your enemies but remember the state must coerce, imprison or kill them, when they get so cocky that they are doing spiritual harm. Especially if they are having a good time of it. Why wait for the last judgment?
I especially am fascinated by these above words of Augustine: “
on May 19th, 2008 at 1:38 pm
Cathleen, I find it hard to believe that as a Catholic, you believe that the Light, the Truth and the Way to Love, God, Eternal Salvation, could in any way conflict with the public good.
on May 19th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
Stuart wrote
I presume you think that politicians should similarly flick off the Church if it ever mentions issues like torture, immigration, the death penalty, health care, etc.:
John replies:
That is not what I implied and I would suggest you know it. The politicians were not denying the bishops their say on same-sex marriage. They had been and continue to express their position in spades. What they did say was do not use religious “Authority” with a capital A card in regard to our support or non-support of the Church’s position on same-sex marriage in a way that calls into question our own practice of the faith.
There is also no contradiction in the British and American issue of deference. The Harper’s article is about deference to the “Authority” of a President vs. a Prime Minister, particularly when comparing the current Bush and Blair. What Bishop’s like Burke and the one in Kansas are saying is defer to my religious Authority.
The problem is their religious Authority is being superimposed upon the political domain, a place it should not be. That is what happened to Kerry. It is different than meddling in politics.
As I see it, bishops are not just moving to a pre-Vatican II definition of Authority, they are desirous of a medieval view of Authority and Power. Others have said the majority of Catholic politicians are not moving strongly enough in the Bishops opinion to ban abortion. By attempting to use the Religious Authority card by denying communion, are they NOT just demonstrating the extent to which are really powerless. The reality is it doesn’t work and I would suggest they ultimately alienate more Catholics than they gain. They make little gain because those who support their position are already with them.
Seems to me it is a lose-lose situation for the Church.
on May 19th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
Bill Mazzella,
When reading your quotation from St. Augustine, the first thing that came to my mind was the case of Cardinal Law, who was given by the Vatican authorities a secure position for life in one of the most beautiful and honored venues of the Christian world as a response to his role in the sex abuse crisis. Such rewards do encourage “pernicious impunity.”
on May 19th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
John Borst, the Catholic Church’s mission is to speak the Truth without compromise. Do you really believe that Christ approves of abortion?
on May 19th, 2008 at 2:35 pm
on May 19th, 2008 at 2:55 pm
I don’t think the issue is properly posed as between an office-holder’s private good and his public office. The argument is that as public officials acting in a public way that goes against Catholic moral obligations they are causing public scandal, that is, leading others to think that the issue is not a matter of consequence for the Christian life and for worthiness to receive the eucharist.
on May 19th, 2008 at 3:27 pm
I don’t know to what extent Sebelius was elected based on her Catholic identity, but I doubt it was the focus of her appeal to voters. I realize that the Bishop can sanction her using whatever degree of authority he possesses, but it seems unlikely to advance an agenda that is really not political in nature. Having staked that agenda on achieving a particular political result, however, the Church appears to have difficulty accepting that like all other supplicants in the political arena, it can achieve a political result only through political means. What is bothersome is the extent to which the Bishop believes that he can call upon shared Catholic identity as a trump card to the electoral process.
on May 19th, 2008 at 3:42 pm
“Presumably the Catholic Church would say the public good requires no divorce and remarriage, no artificial contraception, no artificial insemination, no in vitro fertilization, little or no capital punishment, some kind of amnesty for illegal aliens, no war in Iraq, and so on. How much of this are Catholic elected officials expected to put into legislation?”
This is the whole point. There is no seamless garment. The bishops might affect an important 5 to 10 percent to keep their wealthy Republican contributors happy. And that is the truth. Sorry. Not that the Republicans care about the abortion issue but it keeps them in power without the law being changed so that even the majority of Republicans will not object.
This remains an issue racked with fraud and deceit by the bishops. Remember, Dante placed Boniface VIII in hell.
Oh I forgot. Abortion is the only issue that is without doubt……..
on May 19th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
Bill,
Abortion is the directly intended killing of the innocent. All of the matters you are concerned with are of vital concern to a properly formed Catholic conscience. Of course they are. But none is the direct killing of the innocent and so none warrants the same grave attention.
on May 19th, 2008 at 5:19 pm
Kathy,
Bill is responding to me responding (at 2:35) to Nancy responding (at 1:38) to Cathleen, questioning how Cathleen could ever doubt, as a Catholic, that Church teachings would conflict with the common good.
I understand the reasoning behind considering abortion to be the most grave or most urgent public issue, but if you search the web for opinions about Canon 915, you will find many saying it should be applied when the issue is stem-cell research. That is also considered by Catholics to be a life issue, but then there are also those saying Canon 915 should be used against those favoring same-sex marriage or gay rights. So one begins to wonder just where the line should be drawn when Catholic public officials are considered to be in conflict with teachings of the Church.
I am usually under the influence of the last opinion I have read, so I am wavering on this. But I do have to say I read the Kerry speech Fr. Komonchak linked to, and I found myself wondering why Kerry wasn’t excommunicated for it. It seems to me no one could have been more pro-abortion. The idea of “personally opposed, but . . .” wasn’t to be found in the speech. So sometimes I wonder why the bishops are injecting themselves into public-policy issues, and other times I can’t understand why they are doing almost nothing.
on May 19th, 2008 at 6:27 pm
Nancy D. wrote:
John Borst, the Catholic Church’s mission is to speak the Truth without compromise. Do you really believe that Christ approves of abortion?
John replies:
Nancy the very fact that you can draw two such statements/conclusions from what I have written both astounds me and explains precisely what is wrong with American Catholic political discourse and I fear the uncivil tone that it portends in the forth-coming election.
You appear to equate “speaking the Truth without compromise” and the action of withholding communion or declaring excommunication upon a politician. A Bishop can be most uncompromising in speaking to the Church’s perception of the Truth before, during and after an election. However, I reject the idea that withholding communion or excommunication is part of “speaking the Truth without compromise”. Even if I were to accept as you do a Bishop’s Authority to issue such an edict, to do so during an election campaign moves it outside the realm his religious authority and into the realm of patrician politics as in the case under discussion. When a Bishop does this the Church under his jurisdiction should lose both its tax free and charitable status. I do not care what the issue is.
Your question about abortion with respect to Jesus’ approval is beneath contempt. There is nothing which I wrote by which you could or should have drawn such an implied conclusion. It is plain and simple, an insult. But is does illustrate the depth of pain, in you zealousness to end abortion, to which you will stoop, in order inflict guilt on another person in pursuit of your cause.
Again it is cause for a non-American to fear for the ever increasing lack of civility in American political discourse particularly when if turns on the hot button issues of abortion, stem cell research and gay-rights.
on May 19th, 2008 at 7:03 pm
Posted by Sean Hannaway
on May 19th, 2008 at 4:44 am
“Do you object to a person ever being denied communion? That is, is there anything one could do to justify the denial?
Do you believe that a person who receives communion not in a state of grace commits a serious sin just be receiving the sacrament?”
I believe that the sin occurs when one person presumes to know the state of the soul of another and whether or not that person is in a state of grace. Even a confessor only knows what he has been told, not the subsequent relationship to and with God that a penitent may or may not have. “A firm amendment not to sin again” is a private matter.
There is no requirement to make a public disclosure of such to an allegedly interested public, nor the Catholic clergy for that matter.
One should hope that someone presenting her/himself for communion is “right with God” and not endangering their soul. To presume otherwise is not a prudential judgment but, rather, an unwarranted action.
on May 19th, 2008 at 8:08 pm
” But none is the direct killing of the innocent and so none warrants the same grave attention.”
Kathy,
By your logic God “kills” more innocents than anyone since there are almost as many miscarriages as births.
on May 19th, 2008 at 8:58 pm
“I don’t think the issue is properly posed as between an office-holder’s private good and his public office. The argument is that as public officials acting in a public way that goes against Catholic moral obligations they are causing public scandal, that is, leading others to think that the issue is not a matter of consequence for the Christian life and for worthiness to receive the Eucharist.”
True enough perhaps. But it also looks like an explicit endorsement of the candidate of the other party, when this is done in the context of a presidential election and when the other candidate is also notorious for his public pro-choice views. Perhaps as Alasdair Macintyre said in the last election that sometimes the ethical thing to do is to just sit the whole thing out. But the bishop is not being consistent, and in not being consistent, he is looking very partisan.
on May 19th, 2008 at 9:23 pm
David,
To tell the truth, I sometimes have the same equivocation. The quick fix for me is to think about what an abortion actually is. It happens invisibly, so it’s hard to imagine, but it has a very serious physicality.
The other thing I think about is the doctor, and his/ her intention, which is a 180 degree reversal of a doctor’s normal intention.
It’s not a little enough evil to ignore, and it’s not really dubious. There’s a grave injustice and blood.
on May 20th, 2008 at 6:35 am
Joe, I think an act can be looked at from a number of angles. The theological angle is one, but it’s not the only angle. It can also be looked at from the perspective of ethics and political philosophy. It’s clear that the threat to deny communion is a threat made to influence a public office holder to vote in a particular way in the political sphere. That motive or purpose makes political ethical analysis, not merely sacramental analysis, relevant to the discussion.
Sean and Stuart, a circular argument is one in which a conclusion is smuggled into the premises. I am not doing that. I am defining a “threat” in a generic way, and defining and defending my definition of an “improper” threat by reference to the political common good.
Generically, a threat is a conditional promise made by agent A to agent B; that conditional promise is to do Act C (which Agent A knows or believes to be unwelcome to agent B), in the event that agent B does or refrains from doing Act D, which agent A has an interest in bringing about or avoiding.
So. the generic definition of a threat includes my saying to a five-year old child “If you don’t stop writing on the wall I’m going to take the crayons away from you.”
Not all threats are improper. For my purposes, what makes a threat improper? The conjunction of several specifying features:
1. If Agent B is a political office holder, and
2. If threatened Act C is an act that pertains to Agent B’s private good (familial good, financial good, religious good, associative good), and.
3. If desired or feared Act D is an act that Agent B would commit in the course of of carrying out his official duties.
All three features are necessary to make a threat improper. If Agent B is a political office holder, and Agent A, his wife, threatens to leave him if he doesn’t do the dishes, it’s not an improper threat. If his wife threatens to leave him if he doesn’t vote extra money for her pet project, it’s an improper threat.
Why is it an improper threat? In my view, because the common good of a representative democracy in a pluralistic society requires that our elected officials make their judgment according to THEIR best lights of what the common good requires. More specifically, we do not want them preferring aspects of their private good (their health or safety, their financial well being, their social status) to the public good. We do not want politicians thinking: “According to my best lights, Law A is best for the community. But I’m not going to pass it because if I do, I will suffer personal consequences I don’t want to suffer.”
Now, you might argue that an improper threat must be defined as a “threat of something improper.” In other words, you might say that threatened act D must be immoral or illegal– such as an assault or theft. I think that’s defensible, but ultimately false. Sometimes the content of an act can make something wrong (in scholastic terms, its object). Sometimes, however, the circumstances of an act can make it wrong (e.g., it’s motive). The obvious counterexample is blackmail, and on the positive side, bribery. It’s not illicit to tell the unsavory truth about someone. But if I threaten to tell the unsavory truth about a politician in order to get money, or a particular vote, I’m engaged in the act of blackmail.
So these are my definitions, each of which is defended. I apply them to the situation of situation of APB Naumann is that he made a morally improper threat against the governor.
That’s it for me, all. I need to write a column now.
on May 20th, 2008 at 7:56 am
Cathy,
I still see this as circular. Any threat, to withhold support, money, anything made against a politician will affect his private interest as well as his public position. Does the common good require that politicians make their judgments free of any outside pressure? What is the difference between a bishop doing what Naumann did, and a Union Leader threatening to have his organization work for an opponent if a politician doesn’t support his pet legislation? How are we to tell the difference? It seems you have to assume something improper in the action in the first place to get there.
Isn’t there a difference between blackmailing with a secret unrelated to the politician’s public positions and persons, including Catholic Bishops, recognizing the consequences of public positions taken?
Jimmy,
So the only sin, again, is the sin of judgment. So if a priest sees a man slit the throat of a child in the aisle as he makes his way to communion, to deny him communion would be a sin because he does not know the man’s heart?
Finally – I have long thought this whole “bishop’s threatneing with communion is wrong” argument is a red herring. Almost everyone who makes it doesn’t think what politicians like Sebelius are doing, or even abortion, is sinful in the first place. This is why I asked my first question. Is there anyone out there who thinks active political support for abortion is itself a grave sin, but that denying communion is nonetheless improper? I am simply trying to distinguish whether the objection is to what Naumann did or that he did it for this reason.
on May 20th, 2008 at 8:30 am
Sean,
Suppose a bishop decides that an upcoming execution goes against what the Church teaches about capital punishment. Would you find it acceptable for him to tell the governor (a Catholic, who resides in the bishop’s diocese) that if he signs the death warrant, he will not be permitted to receive communion? May the bishop tell the warden of the prison not to permit the execution? In a state where minors may obtain abortions without parental consent by going before a judge, may a bishop tell a judge he must turn down all such requests or else be barred from communion? My basic question is who has “official duties” that they must perform free from purely personal considerations? I know you believe Supreme Court justices do, but don’t other people have “roles”?
on May 20th, 2008 at 8:33 am
It seems to me that the so-called “pro-life” political movement in the United States has failed, because it tends to demand not only that one oppose abortion but that one do it in a particular way.
The particular way, which is to support politicians who claim to be pro-life and vote against politicians who will not make this claim in this way, has gotten us nowhere.
So we have one side that says “we oppose abortion, but we can’t support a total legal ban on it as a political platform because of politics, you know.” But then on the other side, when their “pro-life” politicians come to dominate the entire federal government (as they did from 2000 to 2006) we hear “we oppose abortion, but we can’t support a total legal ban on it as a practical matter because of politics, you know.”
While it might be pleasant to believe that a federal law against abortion, with strict punishments for doctors or mothers or both would solve the problem, the current law and lines of people at the “clinics” is a reflection of something else that I fear we are not adequately addressing.
And for a disclosure, I am against abortion in all of its forms, including “rape and incest” and moreover, I don’t think it matters whether life “begins at conception” or not. And perhaps I am too biased as a businessman, but if the pro-life movement were a business, it would be bankrupt.
on May 20th, 2008 at 8:54 am
I think Prof. Kaveny has made it clear where she stands. According to her, we do not want politicians thinking: “According to my best lights, racial lynchings are a good thing to keep the black population in line, but I’m going to have to vote against my best judgment to punish racial lynchings, because otherwise I will suffer personal consequences I don’t want to suffer.”
on May 20th, 2008 at 9:11 am
Stuart, would you please get real. Cathy is not arguing for lynching.
She is arguing against freedom of religion.
on May 20th, 2008 at 9:19 am
Stuart Buck you are out of line.
on May 20th, 2008 at 9:26 am
Cathy is not arguing against freedom of religion. She is perhaps noticing that freedom of religion (and speech) rests on an assumption that freedom is an individual commodity and that when one person attempts to claim primacy over the conscience of another, you start to dig away at the foundations of a pluralistic political system. You only have to look at areas where tribalism rules to understand how politically destructive it is when the preferment of individual groups becomes an overriding concern. The Bishop is asking the governor to vote with the Catholic tribe no matter what her view of the common good is. Like all tribal leaders, he has his weapons. Unlike Cathy, I don’t think it’s necessarily improper to wield them, just stupid. The real result will be political parties less and less inclined to promote Catholic politicians. So be it.
on May 20th, 2008 at 9:46 am
As I see it, Cathy is arguing that there are legitimate ways to influence a politician–for example, campaign contributions, editorials, letters from constituents–and illegitimate ways to influence a politician–for example, bribes, kickbacks, and personal threats (of which withholding communion would be one). There are laws that insulate politicians from being influenced illegitimately, and politicians themselves do things (like put their investments in a blind trust) in order not to be illegitimately influenced to do things for their own personal benefit. To be consistent, if she is to be held responsible for all potential situations where an evil politician could possibly be influenced by a threat of withholding communion, it should also be possible to hold her responsible for all potential situations where a bribe would influence the evil politician to do good. What she is saying is that it is not permissible to use illegitimate means to achieve a desirable outcome.
on May 20th, 2008 at 10:30 am
To impute bad faith is to end discussion — even as it’s a good bet to get the comment count up. If someone tells me I am not merely wrong, but malicious, what is left for me to say?
In this case, the imputation of bad faith begins with the quotation from CatholicDemocrats.org.
on May 20th, 2008 at 10:39 am
David Nickol an interesting point, which reminds me that last week the Supreme Court had to pass on a case concerning U.S. corporations being sued for doing business with apartheid South Africa. They couldn’t get a quorum because enough judges (5 I believe) had to recuse themselves, 4 because they held stock in the companies and 1 because a relative worked for one of the companies. I guess the Justices are recused from blind trusts!
on May 20th, 2008 at 11:07 am
Unagidon said: It seems to me that the so-called “pro-life” political movement in the United States has failed, because it tends to demand not only that one oppose abortion but that one do it in a particular way.
Jean notes: There’s an interesting story–apocryphal as far as I know–that illustrates this point. When the Nazis (often invoked in abortion debates) rolled into Denmark, they announced that Jews were to wear the yellow Star of David.
Knowing that their responses to what was the first step to genocide were limited, Danes reportedly showed up the day after the announcement ALL wearing yellow stars.
The Danes, who, as Aryans, were allowed to maintain some local governmental control, were told to start moving Jews into ghettos. The locals replied, “Oh, yes, right away, but first …” and proceeded to stonewall with so much bureaucratic red tape that most of the Jews were able to be spirited away to neutral Sweden on fishing boats.
It’s not a perfect analogy. Our legislative resources are not limited.
But we do live in a country where there is considerable disagreement about the morality of abortion. We can continue to push for legislation that is likely not to occur or be agreed upon by everyone. Or we can look for ways to make the “freedom” to have an abortion seem less desirable.
The incremental approach seems not good enough for some Catholics and bishops. At least that’s how I see the crux of the biscuit here.
on May 20th, 2008 at 11:22 am
David,
Suppose a bishop decides that an upcoming execution goes against what the Church teaches about capital punishment. Would you find it acceptable for him to tell the governor (a Catholic, who resides in the bishop’s diocese) that if he signs the death warrant, he will not be permitted to receive communion?
Maybe, but not likely. It would depend on the facts. However, the Church’s teaching on capital punishment, with which I agree completely, says that the death penalty is almost always wrong. That is “almost” always. There is some room for prudential judgment. In fact the Holy Father when he was CDF said as much.
May the bishop tell the warden of the prison not to permit the execution?
No, he shouldn’t. Just like a policeman or health inspector couldn’t use his power to shut down an abortion clinic. He may have the power, but not the authority.
In a state where minors may obtain abortions without parental consent by going before a judge, may a bishop tell a judge he must turn down all such requests or else be barred from communion?
Ditto
My basic question is who has “official duties” that they must perform free from purely personal considerations? I know you believe Supreme Court justices do, but don’t other people have “roles”?
No one is ever “free from” “purely personal considerations.” If by that, you mean the moral obligations they have as Catholics. That’s the whole point. I can’t declare that I accept the Church’s teaching on a subject, and then doing anything – personal, professional, official, public or private contrary to it and still declare myself faithful to that teaching so long as I have the power, authority, and right to do what is consistent with the teaching.
Again, I think this is all so much wind since the real complaint is not that bishops may never use discipline against politicians or public officails, but they may not use it against them for this particular position – abortion. Unless you are willing to say that a bishop could not impose discipline against a politician for proposing legalized slavery for example, or name your outrage, then this isn’t a principled position.
Jean,
I appreciate your sentiment, but it has been almost 40 years of the wild west as far as abortion is concerned. I wouldn’t say the Catholic Church hasn’t been patient. What kind of incrementalism? When I hear that, it is code for bigger social welfare programs. First, there is absolutely no evidence that this has or would help. If you look at history the growth in abortions and the growth in programs like AFDC and medicare are parallel, not opposite. These programs should be judged on their own merit and not traded as anti-abortion lite. Moreover, if we are looking for incrementalism that everyone can agree on, why not things like parental notification, waiting periods, etc. that receive overwhelming support by the public, but which are routinely thwarted by politicians like Sebelius.
Most importantly, this approach treats the unborn not as persons, or ends with value, but a symptom of societal ills – objects. It is that mentality that is precisely the problem.
on May 20th, 2008 at 11:34 am
Jean,
I don’t think that any bishop is likely to discipline any politician who is working incrementally towards outlawing abortion. The problem is wholehearted public support for legal abortion. Condoning or seeming to accept that kind of leadership among public Catholics is not something bishops ought to do. It’s very confusing to the faithful.
Speaking of confusing: why would we have to choose between outlawing abortion and providing social services to poor women. Is there some dichotomy that I am not grasping?
on May 20th, 2008 at 11:39 am
“Moreover, if we are looking for incrementalism that everyone can agree on, why not things like parental notification, waiting periods, etc. that receive overwhelming support by the public, but which are routinely thwarted by politicians like Sebelius.”
Sorry, Sean, but if you looked at any right wing blog or political website from 2000 to 2006, you saw maps of America colored almost entirely red with reports of joyful celebration in the background. Your guys did nothing in fact, when they could have shut Congress down if they had wanted to to even get the minor traction that you suggest. The whole thing is a scam. The people that were scammed (i.e. the rank and file on the right) are now waking up. I think you need to go to Plan B. This is not to say that you need to go to the Democratic Plan B. But you are just arguing for the same old same old.
on May 20th, 2008 at 11:56 am
The beat goes on. I thought the issue here was how to effectively, at this time in history, promote the Gospel of Life in a pluralistic society without being politically partisan?
Once more, there is a tension between freedom of religion and the negatives of religious imposition or trying to ban religious voice from the public square.
Much of the fault line here lies between the legislators and the convincing arguers. I suspect the beat will go on here on those line, but i wish more emphasis would be devoted to the issue of effectiveness of how one procedes today.
on May 20th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
Jean said: “The incremental approach seems not good enough for some Catholics and bishops. At least that’s how I see the crux of the biscuit here.”
Unagi (Patrick) says: I think there is something else. I have seen it argued here by some that we can use abortion as a litmus test because although there may be other things that are important to us as Christians, abortion, because of its nature, is by far the most important. Therefore it follows that as a good Catholic I am obliged to use abortion as a litmus test.
However, I would respond that if this is true (and I am not going to say that it is not true), in order for it to be consistent, a “pro-life” person would therefore only be able to vote for someone who also thought that abortion was the number one issue. If it is the number one issue for a voter and a number twenty issue for the candidate, we are back to a simple discussion of relative means. My point here is that 1) the litmus test voter in fact is not doing what she says she is trying to do if the candidate does not oppose abortion IN THE SAME WAY that the voter does. And 2) this means that the so-called “pro-life” candidate can continue to rely on a certain block of Catholic voters without ever having to do much to maintain their support. So when we talk about the moral cowardice of Democratic Catholics on this issue, maybe we should also talk about the moral cowardice of Republican Catholics, who would seem to have much less to lose.
on May 20th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
“Much of the fault line here lies between the legislators and the convincing arguers. I suspect the beat will go on here on those line, but i wish more emphasis would be devoted to the issue of effectiveness of how one procedes today.”
I have personally only seen one successful approach to stopping abortion.
Friend’s father to teenaged daughter: “Honey, I am sorry that you got pregnant and will have to drop out of high school. But don’t have an abortion. I love you. You can live here and I will help you bring the baby up.”
on May 20th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
Kathy — I know Prof. Kaveny isn’t herself arguing in favor of lynching. That’s spectacularly missing the point, which is that her logic would apply equally to that issue.
Margaret — no, what’s out of line is people who aren’t willing to think logically and honestly about the consequences of their beliefs. If someone says (as Prof. Kaveny has) that the Church is not entitled to assess any religious penalties on a legislator for voting the wrong way, then that equally applies to the lynching issue as to abortion.
on May 20th, 2008 at 12:59 pm
Reductio ad absurdum passes the bounds of logic. If you want to keep commenting here stop the absurdum!
on May 20th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
By referring to people who don’t think logically, I wasn’t referring to Prof. Kaveny herself — she has had several chances in this thread to try to create an exception to her principle, such that the Church would indeed have been allowed to punish KKK members or segregationists. She never did so. I disagree with her position, of course, but I applaud her consistency. In any event, it’s hardly “out of line” for me now to point out the logical consequences of the consistent position that she took here.
on May 20th, 2008 at 1:09 pm
Is there another Stuart Buck?
Posted by Stuart Buck ( Edit )
on May 20th, 2008 at 8:54 am
I think Prof. Kaveny has made it clear where she stands. According to her, we do not want politicians thinking: “According to my best lights, racial lynchings are a good thing to keep the black population in line, but I’m going to have to vote against my best judgment to punish racial lynchings, because otherwise I will suffer personal consequences I don’t want to suffer.”
You mention Prof. Kaveny’s name; you put words in her mouth; and thoughts in her head. But that is not “Prof. Kaveny herself?”
on May 20th, 2008 at 1:22 pm
To elaborate, as I was writing too quickly . . . . I said, “If the result of [argument] X is absurd, then that means that X itself is absurd.” Well, that’s not quite the only possibility. It might be that argument X doesn’t in fact lead to the absurd result (because argument X has been misapplied). No such response is in evidence here, nor is any such response possible. All you have to do to Prof. Kaveny’s argument to make it apply to racial lynchings is substitute the term “racial lynchings” for “Law A,” a generic term that would apply to any law whatsoever. I haven’t misinterpreted or misapplied Prof. Kaveny’s argument in any way whatsoever; I’ve just applied her generic argument to a specific case.
Another possibility is that argument X should be tempered by another principle such that it wouldn’t lead to the absurd result after all. But again, no such limiting principle is in evidence here.
on May 20th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
Robert Rubin recently said that one of the reasons he didn’t pursue certain reform measures at the CFTC was because the head of the CFTC told him that he would personally make sure Goldman Sachs was drummed out of the CFTC if he did so. Is this illegal? I don’t know — Is it improper? Hmmm. Most likely it is — it’s trading on personal loyalty and allegiance to leverage political advantage in a very concrete way. (It also would have been impossible to pull off, something that Rubin is smart enough to realize, so I think Rubin is likely misstating in order to excuse his own failure to seek the reforms, but never mind that.)
Here is the distinction that I think Cathy is missing: the church is and always will be a voluntary association. This particular form of coercion is nothing more than the right to set the terms of membership. It cannot be illegal, its discriminatory application and its likely ineffectiveness notwithstanding.
on May 20th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
Someone seems to have deleted a comment of mine, explaining what a reductio ad absurdum argument does, and what doesn’t count as a logical response.
on May 20th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
You mention Prof. Kaveny’s name; you put words in her mouth; and thoughts in her head. But that is not “Prof. Kaveny herself?”
This is buried in a comment that may not make much sense now that someone has deleted two of my comments. My response is this: I simply applied Prof. Kaveny’s generic argument (about “Law A”) to a specific case. That’s not unfair or illogical, and if Prof. Kaveny or anyone else doesn’t agree that her argument would apply to that specific case, it is incumbent on them to explain why.
on May 20th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
John Borst wrote: “Your question about abortion with respect to Jesus’ approval is beneath contempt.”
John Borst, I asked a simple question. Do you really believe that Christ approves of abortion? How is this question beneath contempt? Either abortion is consistent with Christ’s Truth and Catholic Doctrine or it is not consistent with Christ’s Truth and Catholic Doctrine. To claim that abortion is consistent with Christ’s Truth would be a denial of Christ’s Truth.
on May 20th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
P.S. I have never heard Christ refered to as the Great Compromiser.
on May 20th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
Stuart,
I’m not going to defend Cathy’s thin argument, nor would I suggest that bishops should listen to the sophistry of ethicists instead of thinking theologically for themselves.
But I really think you should take back that ridiculously irrelevant and inflammatory comparison and make your point without it.
on May 20th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
Bill, using your logic of May 19th at 8:08, I just wanted to remind you that all of us eventually do die. Thank God that all of us have the Hope of Eternal Salvation.
on May 20th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
Kathy — I brought up the KKK issue several times upthread. Prof. Kaveny never denied that her argument applies with equal force to that issue, and she even wrote up a new version of her argument in completely generic terms (i.e., referring to whether a legislator supports “Law A”). It is therefore anything but irrelevant to point out that her generic argument encompasses the very KKK issue that I had mentioned several times.
I see reductios all the time in the law. For example, anytime someone says that he is an originalist, one response will be, “But if you take originalism seriously, the Supreme Court could never have struck down segregation.” Originalists then have to deal with that reductio argument head-on, not by dismissing it as “absurd” or “inflammatory” to mention segregation.
on May 20th, 2008 at 2:44 pm
What is the record for postings on a topic? At this writing, there will have been 185.
Can we go for a “personal best” of 200?
on May 20th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
And with that, perhaps we should move on to other arguments, such as, Would you lynch a walrus? Do they have necks?