Lessons from the past?
The Vaughan Monroe generation will remember what follows, gathered from reports in the NY Times.
On October 21, 1960, three weeks before the presidential election in the U.S., the bishops of Puerto Rico issued a pastoral letter in which they prohibited Catholics from voting in favor of the party of Governor Muñoz Marin. They had earlier helped organize a new political party, the Christian Action party,” which the NY Times said was “a coalition of statehood and independence advocates backed by the church hierarchy.”
According to the Times, “the church says it is entering island politics in assertion of its right to oppose political programs that ‘negate Christian morality.’ It has long feuded with the Governor’s party over his advocacy of birth control and sterilization and his party’s refusal to allow the island’s 500,000 public school pupils time off for religious instruction.”
Bishop James E. McManus, originally from Brooklyn, who went to Puerto Rico as a Redemptorist missionary and later became bishop of Ponce, said: “Those who knowingly violate the injunction commit sin–the sin of disobedience,” even if there is no ecclesiastical penalty. He said that ‘the “whole issue is whether the Bishops may use their spiritual authority to prohibit something that is considered a civil right.’ He maintained that the Church had such a right, just as it had the power to forbid other civil rights such as divorce, sterilization and abortion. ‘If a party puts heresy in its platform the church has the right to forbid the people from participating in that heresy,’ he declared. ‘Voting for a heresy is the same as participating in a heresy–in an evil.’”
The chancellor of the diocese of Ponce said later that “anyone who publicly supported the party could be excommunicated.” Any Catholic commits a grave sin if he votes for the Popular party because the prohibition of the Bishops is based on grave matters of conscience. Any Catholic who preaches or publicly supports the program of the Popular Democratic party with its heretical content, not only commits a mortal sin, but also can be excommunicated according to Canon 2316. Let the leader of the Popular Democratic party take note of that.” Bishop McManus later said that excommunication was not envisaged.
Cardinal Cushing “said that to ‘dictate the political voting of citizens’ in the U.S. would be ‘totally out of step with the American tradition.” Cardinal Spellman said that he did not think any sin would be involved if a Catholic were to ignore the bishops’ directive. The archbishop of San Juan, James P. Davis, said that the Bishops’ statement “was not a political document, but one dealing with a moral question, because ‘voting is a moral and human act.’” He did not think that their action should have any implications for the presidential election in the US, because US democracy was much more mature than Puerto Rican. Archbishop Egidio Vagnozzi, Apostolic Delegate to the U.S. “expressed confidence that the Catholic bishops of the United States would never take a position similar to that of the Puerto Rican bishops.”
A second pastoral letter from the bishops of Puerto Rico defended the first one and said that its prohibition extended to voting for any party that backed “godless morality.”
Muñoz Marin won the election by 58% of the vote, down from 62% in 1956; the bishops’ Christian Action party received only 6.5% of the vote, not enough to qualify it as a recognized political party. Continuing the quarrel, the rector of the cathedral in San Juan requested that anyone who had publicly disobeyed the bishops’ letters refrain from receiving communion. “‘If you sin, you have to confess–it’s as simple as that,’” the priest said.” In response the woman Mayor of San Juan “said she would contest her pastor’s right to deny her Holy Communion because of the way she had voted in the Nov. 8 election.” A circular letter from the archdiocese of San Juan then threatened canonical sanctions against those who had disobeyed the bishops, but Archbishop Davis said that the letter had gone out without his authorization and that no canonical penalties or sanctions would be imposed and no one was to be refused the sacraments.
Here is how Time wrote up the last act: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,895098,00.html
And to think this “defiance” in a U.S. territory occurred before Vatican II!!
Those (read: hierarchs) who fail to heed the lessons of history…………
Just goes to show that most laity are not going to let their bishops lead them by the nose.
No way!!!
(And such bishops will continue to lose what little credibility or moral authority they may still have.)
Whata fascinating piece of political history! It would be also intersting to know Vatican reaction to that episode as well as the musings of the other American bishops who were sorting out their own messages — and ambivalences — about Kennedy! It will be likewise fascinating in the next 55 days to see the bishops collective and individual pronouncements about this election. If the abortion issue looms as large as it might with the discussions with Pelosi and the public rebuke already given to Biden, I think we can expect the American episcopacy to skate very close to similar pronouncements — even if we have a different tradition and laws that prohibit formal endorsements. I expect that certain groups will challenge them to weigh in in a single issue approach again which could have considerable effect in the Northeast.
While the parallel is interesting, the cases are different. Bishop McManus named the sin of “disobedience,” and the chancellor of Ponce named it heresy (referring Canon 2316 of the 1917 code). But Archbishop Burke, for example, is speaking not of interecclesial relationships to superiors or to the truth, but of manifest, public grave sin.
I take it he means that a politician’s support of abortion rights is tantamount to implicit formal cooperation with acts of abortion.
I’ve never heard of this before – very interesting! I’d think Fr. Komonchak’s post could be developed into a good article for a Catholic publication interested in public affairs …
I have a question that is tangential to Fr. Komonchak’s post, but is I think relevant to much that has been going on in this bolg site concerning bishops and the election. Though my question may seem facetious, I intend it seriously.
When a bishop says that the abortion issue is not a faith issue but rather a natural law issue, are we to understand that IT IS INDEED a matter of faith that the abortion issue is not a matter of of faith? Is this something that is taught by the magisterium?
I do hope that either Fr. Komonchak or Fr. Imbelli or both and some other theologically trainde scholars have to say about this.
In advance, thanks.
Take thy pick …..
“Vigorous minds will not suffer compulsion. To exercise compulsion is typical of tyrants; to suffer it, typical of asses.” Erasmus
“Conviction without experience makes for harshness” Flannery O’Connor
“As nightfall does not come at once, neither does oppression. In both instances there is a twilight where everything remains seemingly unchanged, and it is in such a twilight that we must be aware of the change in the air, however slight, lest we become unwitting victims of the darkness”. Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas
“To see what is in front of one’s nose needs a constant struggle.” George Orwell
I may have missed something in my RCIA classes but I don’t believe that bishops can come into the voting booth and see how you vote. If I vote my conscience and feel that illegal wars, poverty, death penalty,
lack of health care, bombing babies and women are a greater wrong than abortion, then it is between me and God, not me and the Church how I vote.
Fr. K – have a masters in American History and have taught at the college level. Unfortunately, my church history is not very comprehensive. Your story is very illuminating and gives us a window into the past which impacts the present. Wish that there were more comprehensive histories of national conferences and events such as this that give us insights into historical, dogmatic, and church-state developments.
Also, on an earlier post, Paul Moses provided two links comparing the 1980′s Notre Dame speech by Mario Cuomo to the current USCCB statement on abortion and response to Pelosi and Biden. My comment is that the current bishops continue to sound defensive rather than teach; compared to Cuomo’s well thought out talk, the USCCB statement sounds like an 8th grade teacher correcting her students.
Some have asked about relevant books, treatises on this subject – one area that needs more reflection and study is the statement that all life begins at conception (this is a fairly new concept in our history). Bishops state that science proves this; and then deduce from that statement that natural law reflects this. If you study genetics and micro biology you will find that the potential for life exists in sperm and ovum; that it exists when they unite to form a zygote, but that until it is successfully implanted into the womb, it will not grow into a human being. Geneticts believe that this process takes an estimated 5-7 days; estimated 50% do not survive this process. This has implications on natural law and thus on the statement that life begins at conception. It also has ramifications on the stem cell issue. This is part of the approach of Charles Curran in his newest book on Moral Theology especially when he focuses on US developments.
Interesting piece of news that was just released by the steering committee for the November USCCB meeeting (after national elections) – see below:
“With the conference’s top leadership wrapping up this week’s traditional pre-November prep session in DC, the following announcement emerged from the Mothership moments ago:
The Administrative Committee of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops said the full body of U.S. bishops will discuss the practical and pastoral implications of political support for abortion during their annual assembly, November 10-13, in Baltimore.
At the conclusion of its September 9-10 meeting in Washington, the Administrative Committee, which is the highest authority of the USCCB outside the conference’s plenary assemblies in November and June, cited concern for recent misleading remarks about Catholic teaching by Catholic politicians. The statement follows:
In light of recent comments by Catholic politicians misrepresenting Catholic teaching, the Administrative Committee of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops affirms the statements that have been issued by Cardinal Justin F. Rigali, chairman of the U.S. Bishops’ Committee on Pro-Life Activities, and Bishop William E. Lori, chairman of the U.S. Bishops’ Committee on Doctrine. We confirm the Catholic Church’s constant teaching about the sanctity of all human life from the moment of conception and the intrinsic evil of abortion. As the teachers of the faith, we also point out the connectedness between the evil of abortion and political support for abortion. We plan to discuss the practical and pastoral implications of these serious matters at the U.S. bishops’ November 10-13, 2008 general meeting in Baltimore.
Bundled with the above release were the conference’s prior statements on Sen. Biden and Speaker Pelosi.”
Bill, I think it more accurate to state that there is short-term life in sperm and egg unless/until they unite (the word ‘potential’ doesn’t seem on the mark in this context). Upon fertilization, there is actual human life that then has the “potential” to eventually live outside the womb if it survives gestation and birth. As you’ve suggested, many zygotes (remember: each of us passed through this stage of development) for natural reasons do not implant in the womb. I myself avoid using the term ‘human being’ because it has taken on such loaded meanings during the past 30+ years. I think ‘human offspring’ (singular or plural) is more accurate if we keep our focus on the reproductive science in our discussion. Once we introduce terms such as ‘human being’ or ‘personhood,’ we are entering the realm of theology, philosophy, and law.