Tweet
So, the Catholic Bishop of Providence wrote a letter to Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-RI) in 2007 telling Kennedy that it was "inappropriate" for him to receive communion and "respectfully" asking that Kennedy "refrain" from doing so. The Bishop did this because of Kennedy’s support of abortion rights. The Bishop has said that "obstinate" opposition to church doctrine on abortion should cause a Catholic public official to reconsider his or her membership in the church.
Catholic doctrine touches on a number of hot button political issues–including waging war, applying the death penalty, and abortion. It’s funny that the only one of these that may cause a Catholic politician (or voter, as we’ll see) trouble with the church is support for abortion rights.
When Pope Benedict was still a cardinal, he specifically addressed the question of when Catholic politicians should be deemed unfit for communion: "Regarding the grave sin of abortion or euthanasia, when a person’s formal cooperation becomes manifest (understood, in the case of a Catholic politician, as his consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws), his Pastor should meet with him, instructing him about the Church’s teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin, and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist." Voting for a politician who supports abortion rights can be a problem too–then Cardinal Ratzinger noted that "A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia…."
One might ask: what about politicians who support the death penalty or advocate for wars of aggression–both positions that the Catholic church also rejects? The Pope said these are to be treated differently: "Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia."
I had always thought the Catholic church was a last bastion of moral absolutes, but I guess even the church can embrace relativism when it comes to war or the death penalty. That is entirely their prerogative, if they applied their doctrine only outside the realm of politics. But the Catholic church is a political player. It speaks out against marriage for same-sex couples. It tells Catholic politicians and voters that they may be ineligible for communion if they support abortion rights. It inserts itself into presidential campaigns by suggesting candidates who support abortion rights are not good Catholics.
I’d be uncomfortable about this even if the church applied the same standard to politicians and voters who run afoul of church doctrine by supporting aggressive, non-defensive war or the death penalty (which the church opposes in "nearly all circumstances"). It makes you wonder, however, when the church issues a statement that promises consequences only for politicians and voters who run afoul of doctrinal positions that happen to correspond with right wing political positions.
The Kennedy situation is not the first time the church has inserted itself into American politics by suggesting supporters of abortion rights are unfit to receive communion. In 2004, a few months before the presidential election, a top cardinal said politicians who support abortion rights should be denied communion. The Catholic archbishop of St. Louis warned Democratic candidate John Kerry not to present himself for communion at any church in the city. Political commentators spoke of Kerry’s "Catholic problem", solemnly observing that "American Catholics now find themselves having to think about…[whether] Kerry can be a good Catholic and yet take positions as a lawmaker that contradict the teachings of the church on…abortion and stem cell research." Happily, American Catholics have been spared the trouble if having to think about whether Republican politicians can be good Catholics and still take positions that contradict the Catholic church on war and the death penalty.
I’m sure this is all just a coincidence. But it might be nice if the Catholic church would reconsider whether it is appropriate to insert itself into politics in this way by effectively telling voters that politicians who support abortion rights are not good Catholics.
9 Comments
On the bright side of this issue, American Catholics have consistently declined to allow the priest to make their voting decisions for them. Americans are prickly that way.
The Catholic church is an autocratic institution. It always has been. Church leaders would be horrified at the idea that it should be democratized. This has always been a tension in religion and most other human enterprises whether to be grassroots and bottom-up or hierarchical and top-down. The Catholic church made that decision 17 centuries ago. It saw the path for its survival not in the toleration of diversity but in the enforcement of orthodoxy and has behaved so ever since.
I have absolutely zero issue with that. The Catholic church, and all religions, have the right to conduct their religious practices however they like. What concerns me is when they do something like this, which sure looks like an attempt to tell voters which politicians are and aren’t good Catholics based on specific political views while giving a pass to other politicians whose right wing views also clash with church doctrine.
you have to see mathiews tear into the bishop, great stuff http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/34116440#34116440” rel=”nofollow”>here
Jeez, I saw that on the teevee yesterday and couldn’t believe it! Tweety ripped that guy’s head off.
Actually, it was a good example of how many American Catholics view the church leadership. They take seriously what the church leaders say about social issues, but they don’t want the priests making the laws.
I’m glad to hear that, though I still don’t like this selective application of church doctrine that happens to favor politicians on the right. It also makes me wonder if it could affect religious voters who aren’t Catholic. I don’t know, but would be interested to find out. Of course, it’s also possible there’s a backlash–as you and others have pointed out here, it’s possible that voters will react against the Catholic church’s politicking.
Look at who the Pope is, look at his family and political background. The church is an institution completely dependent on right-wing politicians and the wealthy, old European wealth. The explicit hypocrisy on seemingly near-identical moral issues — the death penalty vs. euthanasia, for example — makes the church a joke; how much more exposed can a right-wing institution be?
Besides, of course, that a Catholic politician must make political choices — we’re not talking about personal choices here! — that represent the will of the people and not what the Catholic church wants. We’re not talking about a politician having an abortion or telling his wife to get one, ferchrissake, this stuff is obvious!
So the church is coercing politicians on their votes, sending paid lobbyists to Washington and so on…
Is the IRS looking into their tax exempt status? Seems like they must be crossing that line.
yeah, you might think so. I doubt it, of course.