Statements by Bishops -
on Catholics and Political Responsibility
Updated May 28, 2008
"To claim the right to abortion, infanticide and euthanasia, and to recognize that right in law, means to attribute to human freedom a perverse and evil significance: that of an absolute power over others and against others. This is the death of true freedom..." [Pope John Paul II - Evangelium Vitae 20]
Bishops in the United States have individually expressed concern about Catholics who publicly oppose fundamental Catholic doctrine -- especially politicians. This section includes excerpts from published statements or columns by the bishops, or interviews, with links. (Unless otherwise indicated, click title to go to the complete version on this site, or to access on the site where it originally appeared.)
The items on this page are arranged chronologically, beginning with the latest. This section is updated regularly.
This page are statements between 2008 and the Present, Click here for Statements between 2005-2007, Click here for Statements between 1990 and 2004
|
Chronological Order |
Alphabetical Order |
| Archbishop Charles Chaput - January 16, 2008 Catholic Conference of Kentucky- January 22, 2008 Cardinal Edward Egan - April 28, 2008 Archbishop Donald Wuerl - April 30, 2008 Archbishop Joseph Naumann - May 9, 2008 Archbishop Charles Chaput - May 19, 2008 Archbishop Joseph Naumann - May 23, 2008 Bishop Edward U. Kmiec - January 28, 2005 Statements between 1990 and 2004 Archbishop John Myers - June 1990 |
Bishop Joseph V. Adamec - May 3, 2004 Bishop Kenneth A. Angell - October 23, 2004 Bishop Samuel Aquila - April 25, 2004 Bishop Samuel Aquila - May 23-29, 2004 Bishop Samuel Aquila - November 30, 2004 Cardinal Francis Arinze - April 23, 2004 Cardinal Francis Arinze - May 26, 2004 Arizona Catholic Conference - September 2006 Arizona Catholic Conference - October 2006 Bishop Gregory Aymond - June 11, 2004 Bishop Gregory Aymond - September 2004 Bishop Robert Baker - June 2004 Bishop Robert Baker - August 4, 2004 Bishop Victor Balke - June 24, 2004 Bishop Gerald Barbarito - August 5, 2004 Bishop Leonard Blair - September 2, 3, 2004 Bishop Raymond Boland - October 7, 2004 Bishop Lawrence E. Brandt- August 10, 2004 Bishop Edward K. Braxton - October 11, 2004 Archbishop Alexander Brunett - July 19, 2004 Archbishop Raymond Burke - November 23, 2003 Archbishop Raymond Burke - June 21-28, 2004 Archbishop Raymond Burke - September 24, 2004 Archbishop Raymond Burke - October 1, 2004 Archbishop Raymond Burke - October 5, 2004 Bishop Robert Carlson - August 2004 Archbishop Charles Chaput - April 14, 2004 Archbishop Charles Chaput - May 26, 2004 Archbishop Charles Chaput - September 22, 2004 Archbishop Charles Chaput - October 22, 2004 Archbishop Charles Chaput - January 16, 2008 Archbishop Charles Chaput - May 19, 2008 Bishop Paul S. Coakley - August 15, 2006 Bishop Paul S. Coakley - January 31, 2007 Bishop George Coleman - October 29, 2004 Archbishop Elden Curtiss - May 7, 2004 Bishop John M. D'Arcy - April 28, 2004 Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio - September 18, 2004 Archbishop John F. Donoghue - July 22, 2004 Archbishop John F. Donoghue - August 4, 2004 Archbishop John F. Donoghue - September 16, 2004 Cardinal Avery Dulles - June 29, 2004 Cardinal Edward Egan - April 28, 2008 Bishop Robert Finn - October 7, 2004 Bishop Joseph A. Fiorenza - June 11, 2004 Florida Bishop's Conference - October 1, 2004 Archbishop Harry J. Flynn - September 9,2004 Bishop Ronald Gainer- January 18, 2004 Bishop Ronald Gainer - June 24, 2004 Bishop Joseph Galante - April 29, 2004; May 5, 2004 Bishop Joseph A. Galante - October 27, 2006 Bishop Victor Galeone - July/August 2004 Cardinal Francis George - October 10, 2004 Bishop Ronald M. Gilmore - August 15, 2006 Bishop Joseph Gossman - July 8, 2004 Bishop Joseph Gossman - October 3, 2004 Bishop Rene H. Gracida - August 10, 2004 Bishop Rene H. Gracida - September 19, 2004 Bishop Rene H. Gracida - October 5, 2004 Bishop Charles Grahmann - July 2, 2004 Bishop Wilton Gregory - April 23, 2004 Bishop Thomas Gumbleton - October 20, 2004 Bishop Bernard Harrington - July 8, 2004 Bishop Howard Hubbard - September-October 2004 Archbishop Alfred Hughes - January 14. 2004 Archbishop Albert Hughes - September 20, 2004 Illinois Catholic Conference - October 2006 Bishop Michael O. Jackels - August 15, 2006 Bishop Peter Jugis - August 4, 2004 Bishop Peter Jugis - August 14, 2004 Cardinal William H. Keeler - May 28, 2004 Bishop Gerald Kicanas - June 2, 2004 Bishop John Kinney - May 27, 2004 Bishop Edward U. Kmiec - January 28, 2005 Archbishop William Levada - June 13, 2004 Archbishop William Levada - July 31, 2004 Bishop William Lori - July 2004 Bishop William Lori - October 2004 Bishop Paul S. Loverde - October 31, 2004 Cardinal Roger Mahony - May 13, 2004 Cardinal Oscar Andres Rodriguez Maradiaga - February 15, 2006 Catholic Conference of Kentucky- (January 22, 2008) Massachusetts Bishops - October 29, 2004 Cardinal Theodore McCarrick - April 29, 2004 Cardinal Theodore McCarrick - May 13, 2004 Cardinal Theodore McCarrick - June 1, 2004 Cardinal Theodore McCarrick - July 6, 2004 Cardinal Theodore McCarrick - June 15, 2006 Bishop Timothy McDonnell - October 29, 2004 Bishop Robert McManus - April 27, 2004 Bishop Robert McManus - May 21, 2004 Bishop Robert McManus - June (?) 2004 Bishop Robert McManus - October 29, 2004 Bishop Carl Mengeling - May 2, 2004 Bishop Robert C. Morlino - January 22, 2004 Bishop Robert Mulvee - April 27, 2004 Archbishop John Myers - June 1990 Archbishop John Myers - May 5, 2004 Archbishop John Myers - September 17, 2004 Archbishop Joseph F. Naumann - August 15, 2006 Archbishop Joseph Naumann - May 9, 2008 Archbishop Joseph Naumann - May 23, 2008 Archbishop Nzeki of Kenya - May 30-31, 2004 Bishop Thomas Olmsted - March 18, 2004 Bishop Thomas Olmsted - May 21 & 24, 2004 Bishop Thomas Olmsted - September 22, 2004 Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted - October 2006 Archbishop Sean O'Malley - October 29, 2004 Cardinal George Pell - June 12, 2007 Bishop Raymundo J. Peña - June 2004 Archbishop Daniel Pilarczyk - May 7, 2004 Bishop Anthony Pilla - July 2004 (Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger - July 4-9, 2004) Bishop David Ricken - August, 2004 Bishop David Ricken - October 2004 Cardinal Justin Rigali - October 28, 2004 Bishop Michael Saltarelli - July 5, 2004 Bishop Michael Saltarelli - September 30. 2004 Bishop Bernard Schmitt - July 13, 2004 Bishop Bernard Schmitt - August 11, 2004 Bishop Bernard W. Schmitt - October 20, 2004 Bishop Dennis M. Schnurr - July (?) 2004 Archbishop Michael Sheehan - May 21, 2004 Bishop Michael Sheridan - May 1, 2004 Bishop Michael Sheridan - May 27 & 29, 2004 Bishop Michael Sheridan - June 2004 Bishop William Skylstad - June 10, 2004 Bishop John Smith - April 29, 2004 Bishop John Steinbock - July 2004 Bishop Phillip F. Straling - October 2004 Bishop George L. Thomas - August 2004 Bishop George L. Thomas - October 2004 Bishop Thomas Tobin - May 31, 2007 (USCCB - June Meeting 2004) (USCCB - November Meeting 2007) Bishop Robert Vasa - June 25, 2004 Bishop Robert Vasa - March 1, 2007 Virginia Catholic Conference - October 2007 Archbishop John Vlazny - May 6, 2004 Bishop William Weigand - January 22, 2003 Bishop Thomas Wenski - May 3, 2004 Bishop Thomas Wenski - October 21 2004 Bishop Donald Wuerl - May 25, 2004 Bishop Donald Wuerl - August 18, 2005 Archbishop Donald Wuerl - April 30, 2008 Bishop David Zubik - October 29, 2004 |
| May 2008 |
Posted May 28, 2008
Archbishop addresses questions that earlier column raised - by Archbishop Joseph Naumann, May 23, 2008
published in The Leaven
My May 9 column, making public my request to Gov. Kathleen Sebelius not to present herself for reception of holy Communion until she had sought to repair the public scandal of her long-standing support for legalized abortion, not surprisingly has initiated quite a bit of discussion in secular newspapers, local talk radio shows and coffee-break conversations.
I have personally received a significant number of pro and con communications. While I attempt to acknowledge every letter I receive, it is not possible for me to make an in-depth response to each one. Similarly, it is not possible for me to respond to every newspaper editorial, letter to the editor or radio caller.
In this column, I want to provide you with my responses to some of the more common questions and misunderstandings regarding my pastoral action. I hope this is helpful for your own personal understanding. However, I also hope that it makes you feel more confident and better informed so that you can explain to others who have questions and concerns.
Q. Why was the governor singled out for this pastoral discipline? Are there not others in elective office who hold similar positions?
A. Governor Sebelius holds the highest elective office in the state of Kansas, making her the most prominent Catholic in public life. It is a time-intensive process to enter into verbal and written dialogue, as is necessary, to insure a person is aware of the spiritual and moral consequences of their actions, as well as to understand the scandal their actions cause for others. It is my intention eventually, as much as the limitations of my own time permit, to have similar pastoral dialogues with other Catholics in elective office who support legalized abortion.
Q. When should a Catholic refrain from receiving holy Communion?
A. In November 2006, the bishops of the United States issued a pastoral document entitled “Happy Are Those Who Are Called to His Supper” which addressed this question as follows: “In order to receive Holy Communion we must be in communion with God and with the Church. Mortal sin constitutes a rejection of communion with God and destroys the life of grace within us. Mortal sin is an act violating God’s law that involves grave matter and that is performed with both full knowledge and complete consent of the will. If we are no longer in the state of grace because of mortal sin, we are seriously obliged to refrain from receiving Holy Communion until we are reconciled with God and the Church” (no. 4).
Q. Is it not the responsibility of the individual Catholic to judge their worthiness to receive holy Communion? Why would a bishop ask someone to refrain from presenting himself for reception of holy Communion?
A. Normally, it is the responsibility of the individual Catholic to make the judgment of whether he or she is able to receive holy Communion. It is also the responsibility of the individual Catholic to have a well-formed conscience that is informed by the teachings of the church. However, if an individual persistently acts publicly in a manner that is inconsistent with fundamental moral teachings of the church and continues to receive holy Communion, a bishop may feel obliged to intervene for the good of the individual and to protect others from being misled. “Happy Are Those Called to His Supper” addresses this issue: “If a Catholic in his or her personal or professional life were knowingly and obstinately to reject the defined doctrines of the Church, or knowingly and obstinately to repudiate her definitive teachings on moral issues, however, he or she would seriously diminish his or her communion with the Church. Reception of Holy Communion, in such a situation, would not accord with the nature of the Eucharistic celebration, so that he or she should refrain.” [4]
Q. Is a priest or another minister of Communion ever required to deny someone Communion?
A. Canon 915 of the church’s law states: “Those upon whom the penalty of excommunication or interdict has been imposed or declared, and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, are not to be admitted to holy communion.” In my request to Gov. Sebelius, I have made clear that it is her responsibility not to present herself for reception of holy Communion. I am hopeful that she will comply with this request.
Pastorally, it is certainly preferable not to burden ministers of the Eucharist with the responsibility to refuse Communion to someone. Ministers of Communion do have an obligation to protect the sacrament from misuse or abuse. I have, at this moment, not asked the ministers of the Eucharist not to give holy Communion to the governor.
Q. What is meant when it is said that Gov. Sebelius’ actions were scandalous?
A. To answer this question, I again refer to “Happy Are Those Who Are Called to His Supper,” which references the Catechism of the Catholic Church: “To give scandal means more than to cause other people to be shocked or upset by what one does. Rather, one’s action leads someone else to sin. Scandal is an attitude or behavior which leads another to do evil. The person who gives scandal becomes his neighbor’s tempter. To lead others into sin is indeed a very serious matter. Anyone who uses the power at his disposal in such a way that it leads others to do wrong becomes guilty of scandal and responsible for the evil that he has directly or indirectly encouraged” (no. 4).
Governor Sebelius’ public support for legalized abortion, as a Catholic, naturally leads others to question the moral gravity of abortion. In effect, her actions and advocacy for legalized abortion, coupled with her reception of holy Communion, have said to other Catholics: “I am a good Catholic and I support legalized abortion. You can be a good Catholic and support legalized abortion.”
Q. How can the church require the governor to fail to uphold her oath of office to enforce the laws and court decisions of the state and federal government?
A. No one has asked the governor not to uphold her oath of office. However, the governor does have an obligation, as a Catholic, to express her opposition to laws and judicial decisions that fail to protect the lives of the innocent and to do all in her power to work to change the law. She has a responsibility to use her exceptional leadership abilities to extend the maximum protection possible under the current limitations imposed by the Supreme Court.
Q. The governor claims that the Comprehensive Abortion Reform Act that she vetoed was unconstitutional and would jeopardize the privacy rights of women. Is it fair for the church to attempt to force her to sign bad laws by requesting she not receive Communion?
A. My initial request for the governor not to present herself for Communion was before her veto of the Comprehensive Abortion Reform Act. I challenged the governor to produce a single instance in her legislative or executive career where she has supported any effort to limit abortions. In the 1980s and 1990s, as a state representative, she voted to weaken or eliminate even such modest measures as parental notification for teens, waiting periods, or informed consent protections for women before an abortion. When Gov. Sebelius was running for reelection in 2006, she was profiled on Emily’s List Web site and quoted as saying: “I have always led the fight to ensure that abortion is safe, legal and rare.” Emily’s List is a political action committee that only supports women candidates who support legalized abortion. On that same Web site it stated: “As governor she (Kathleen Sebelius) has vetoed legislation to severely limit women’s choices.” My request for the governor not to present herself for Communion, was not about any one action, but a 30-year history of advocating and acting in support of legalized abortion.
Q. Is it not wrong for the church to attempt to impose its religious beliefs on others?
A. While one can be a faithful Catholic and support a wide diversity of strategies on the vast majority of issues, it is not possible to compromise on the sanctity of human life.
For the Catholic in public life, the unequivocal defense of such a fundamental human right is not imposing one’s Catholic faith upon others. The fact that the church addresses the morality of such a basic right does not make this an exclusively religious issue. Just as supporting public policies that prohibit stealing, racism, or murder — moral issues also very clearly addressed by the church — is not an imposition of Catholic doctrine, neither is advocating for policies that protect human life in its earliest stages.
Q. Governor Sebelius says that she is personally opposed to abortion, but she supports the law protecting the right of others to choose an abortion. Why is this not a morally acceptable position?
A. Freedom of choice is not an absolute value. All of our laws limit our choices. I am not free to drive while intoxicated or to take another’s property or to assault someone else. My freedom ends when I infringe on the more basic rights of another. On a similarly grave moral issue 150 years ago, Stephen Douglas, in his famous debates with the future President Abraham Lincoln, attempted to craft his position as not favoring slavery but of the right of people in new states and territories, such as Kansas, to choose to sanction slavery. Being pro-choice on a fundamental matter of human rights was not a morally coherent argument in the 1850s, nor is it today. No one has the right to choose to enslave another human being, just as no one has the right to kill another human being. No law or public policy has the authority to give legal protection to such an injustice.
Q. Is it not wrong for the church to deny Communion to someone because they support the law of the land?
A. First of all, it is important to recall our own history. We do not have permissive abortion public policies in our country because of a vote of the people. In fact, the 1973 Supreme Court decisions struck down all state laws prohibiting and/or restricting abortion. It is the court that has imposed its doctrine on the entire nation, prohibiting the people or their elective representatives from meaningfully limiting abortion. The recent decision of the California Supreme Court striking down the state ban on same-sex marriages is yet another illustration of the arrogance of the courts. Those who suggest that the church should alter its teaching and discipline on the issue of abortion because of our current public policy, in effect, want to extend the court’s authority to alter also the doctrine of church.
Q. The law does not force anyone to have an abortion. Why not just try to convince people not to have an abortion rather than work to change the law?
A. We must do both. We should do everything possible to persuade and influence others not to have an abortion. We must support crisis pregnancy centers that assist those experiencing an untimely pregnancy. However, the law does not just permit abortion, it “teaches” abortion. Our laws do not permit us, in any other instance, to take the life of an innocent person. The fact that the law permits abortion communicates, especially to the young, that abortion does not really destroy another human life. The number of abortions dramatically increased after the court struck down the state laws restricting abortions. One of the fundamental responsibilities of government is to protect the innocent and the vulnerable.
Q. Are not the actions of the church requesting Catholic politicians who support legalized abortion not to receive Communion really an attack on Democrats?
A. No. Cardinal Edward Egan of New York has made a similar request of former Republican presidential candidate and former mayor Rudy Giuliani. I encourage Catholics who are Democrats to remain Democrats, but to change the extremist position of the party on abortion. If the majority of Catholic Democrats objected to the platform of the party supporting legalized abortion, it would change tomorrow. In the end, to create an enduring public policy that will protect the right to life of innocent unborn children, we need to build a consensus that includes both Democrats and Republicans.
Q. Why does the church allow for legitimate disagreement among Catholics on other public issues, but not abortion?
A. The bishops of Kansas addressed this issue in our August 2006 statement, “Moral Principles for Catholic Voters,” in which we said:
“A correct conscience recognizes that there are some choices that always involve doing evil and which can never be done even as a means to a good end. These choices include elective abortion, euthanasia, physician-assisted suicide, the destruction of embryonic human beings in stem-cell research, human cloning and same-sex marriage. Such acts are judged to be intrinsically evil, that is, evil in and of themselves, regardless of our motives or the circumstances. They constitute an attack against innocent human life, as well as marriage and family. Pope John Paul II warned that concern for the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture is false and illusory if the right to life, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition for all other personal rights, is not defended with the maximum determination (“Christifidelis Laici,” no. 38).
“Other examples of choices that always involve doing evil would be racial discrimination and the production and use of pornography. These actions offend the fundamental dignity of the human person.
“Concerning choices that are intrinsically evil, Catholics may not promote or even remain indifferent to them.”
Q. Are there other issues in American history when the church has taken similar pastoral actions?
A. Yes. In St. Louis, for example, in 1946, then-Archbishop Joseph Ritter ordered the desegregation of the Catholic schools. A group of laity attempted to organize in order to oppose his decision. Archbishop Ritter threatened excommunication, which resulted in this opposition group disbanding. The archbishop of New Orleans actually did excommunicate some Catholics for their opposition to racial integration.
Q. Does the sexual abuse scandal within the Catholic Church discredit it from being able to address moral social issues like abortion?
A. In logic, this type of argument is termed “ad hominem.” It is an attempt to attack personally one’s opponent in a debate, rather than make substantive arguments about the issue being debated. It is usually an indication of a weak position by the person making the “ad hominem” argument. What is needed is a substantive discussion of this important social and moral issue, not personal attacks!
Posted May 23, 2008
Thoughts on "Roman Catholics for Obama" by Archbishop Charles Chaput, May 19,2008
Click title for the pdf statement.
Posted May 28, 2008
Governor's Veto Prompts Pastoral Action -- Archbishop Joseph Naumann, May 9, 2008
published in The Leaven
On the day of my return (Monday, April 21) from the exhilarating experience of participating in Pope Benedict’s pastoral visit to the United States, I learned that Governor Kathleen Sebelius had vetoed the Comprehensive Abortion Reform Act (HS SB 389), which had been passed by significant majorities in both chambers of the Kansas Legislature. Last week, an attempt to override the governor’s veto failed in the Senate by two votes.
Governor Sebelius in her veto message claimed: “For years, the people of Kansas have asked their elected officials to move beyond legislative debates on issues like abortion.” From her veto message, I received the impression the governor considered it a waste of the Legislature’s time to pass a statute that attempts to protect some women by making certain they have the opportunity to be well-informed: 1) about the development of their unborn child; and 2) about abortion alternatives available to them. Evidently, the governor does not approve of legislators devoting energy to protecting children and women by making it possible to enforce existing Kansas laws regulating late-term abortions.
The governor’s veto message demonstrated a lack of respect to the members of the Kansas General Assembly who had carefully crafted and resoundingly passed the Comprehensive Abortion Reform Act, as well as to the many Kansans who find it more than an embarrassment, in no small part due to several previous vetoes by Governor Sebelius of earlier legislative efforts to regulate abortion clinics, that Kansas has become infamous for being the late-term abortion center for the Midwest.
What makes the governor’s rhetoric and actions even more troubling has been her acceptance of campaign contributions from Wichita’s Dr. George Tiller, perhaps the most notorious late-term abortionist in the nation. In addition to Dr. Tiller’s direct donations to her campaign, the governor has benefited from the Political Action Committees funded by Dr. Tiller to support pro-abortion candidates in Kansas.
In her veto message, the governor took credit for lower abortion rates in Kansas, citing her support for “adoption incentives, extended health services for pregnant women, providing sex education and offering a variety of support services for families.” Indeed, the governor and her administration should be commended for supporting adoption incentives and health services for pregnant women.
However, the governor overreaches by assuming credit for declining abortion rates in Kansas. Actually, lower abortion rates are part of a national trend. Our neighboring state of Missouri has actually had a steeper and longer decline in its abortion rate.
Governor Sebelius’ inclusion of public school sex education programs as a factor in the abortion rate decline is absurd. Actually, valueless sex education programs in public schools have been around for years, coinciding with increased sexual activity among adolescents, as well as increases in teen pregnancy and abortion. On the other hand, the governor does not acknowledge the significant impact of mass media education programs, such as those sponsored by the Vitae Caring Foundation, or the remarkable practical assistance provided by Crisis Pregnancy Centers which are funded through the generosity of pro-life Kansans.
What makes the governor’s actions and advocacy for legalized abortion, throughout her public career, even more painful for me is that she is Catholic. Sadly, Governor Sebelius is not unique in being a Catholic politician supporting legalized abortion.
Since becoming archbishop, I have met with Governor Sebelius several times over many months to discuss with her the grave spiritual and moral consequences of her public actions by which she has cooperated in the procurement of abortions performed in Kansas. My concern has been, as a pastor, both for the spiritual well-being of the governor but also for those who have been misled (scandalized) by her very public support for legalized abortion.
It has been my hope that through this dialogue the governor would come to understand her obligation: 1) to take the difficult political step, but necessary moral step, of repudiating her past actions in support of legalized abortion; and 2) in the future would use her exceptional leadership abilities to develop public policies extending the maximum legal protection possible to the unborn children of Kansas.
Having made every effort to inform and to persuade Governor Sebelius and after consultation with Bishop Ron Gilmore (Dodge City), Bishop Paul Coakley (Salina) and Bishop Michael Jackels (Wichita), I wrote the governor last August requesting that she refrain from presenting herself for reception of the Eucharist until she had acknowledged the error of her past positions, made a worthy sacramental confession and taken the necessary steps for amendment of her life which would include a public repudiation of her previous efforts and actions in support of laws and policies sanctioning abortion.
Recently, it came to my attention that the governor had received holy Communion at one of our parishes. I have written to her again, asking her to respect my previous request and not require from me any additional pastoral actions.
The governor has spoken to me on more than one occasion about her obligation to uphold state and federal laws and court decisions. I have asked her to show a similar sense of obligation to honor divine law and the laws, teaching and legitimate authority within the church.
I have not made lightly this request of Governor Sebelius, but only after much prayer and reflection. The spiritually lethal message, communicated by our governor, as well as many other high profile Catholics in public life, has been in effect: “The church’s teaching on abortion is optional!”
I reissue my request of the faithful of the archdiocese to pray for Governor Sebelius. I hope that my request of the governor, not to present herself for holy Communion, will provoke her to reconsider the serious spiritual and moral consequences of her past and present actions. At the same time, I pray this pastoral action on my part will help alert other Catholics to the moral gravity of participating in and/or cooperating with the performance of abortions.
| April 2008 |
Posted May 27, 2008
Reflections Again on Faith and Public Life
THE TEACHING OF CHRIST
By Archbishop Donald W. Wuerl
April 30, 2008
Click title for Archbishop Wuerl's column
Posted May 23, 2008
April 28, 2008
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: April 28, 2008
The following is a statement issued by Edward Cardinal Egan:
“ The Catholic Church clearly teaches that abortion is a grave offense against the will of God. Throughout my years as Archbishop of New York, I have repeated this teaching in sermons, articles, addresses, and interviews without hesitation or compromise of any kind. Thus it was that I had an understanding with Mr. Rudolph Giuliani, when I became Archbishop of New York and he was serving as Mayor of New York, that he was not to receive the Eucharist because of his well-known support of abortion. I deeply regret that Mr. Giuliani received the Eucharist during the Papal visit here in New York, and I will be seeking a meeting with him to insist that he abide by our understanding.”
http://www.ny-archdiocese.org/news-events/news-press-releases/index.cfm?i=7945
| January 2008 |
Reverence for Life Conscience and Faithful Citizenship Statement, January 22, 2008, Catholic Conference of Kentucky
Excerpt: "What we profess in defense of the sacredness of unborn human life harmonizes with our historic legal tradition founded on the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Abortion on demand does not.
We claim the historical freedom enjoyed by churches to exercies the freedom of expression to teach social doctrine."
Click on title to read the complete statement.
Archbishop Charles Chaput, January 16, 2008
10 points for Catholic citizens to remember
Personal witness is always the best proof of what we claim to believe. And this year, like every other year, with or without an election, we need to apply the idea of Catholic witness in a special way to our public life as citizens. We might find it useful to remember 10 simple points as we move toward November.
1. George Orwell said that one of the biggest dangers for modern democratic life is dishonest political language. Dishonest language leads to dishonest politics — which then leads to bad public policy and bad law. So we need to speak and act in a spirit of truth.
2. “Catholic” is a word that has real meaning. We don’t control or invent that meaning as individuals. We inherit it from the Gospel and the experience of the Church over the centuries. We can choose to be something else, but if we choose to call ourselves Catholic, than that word has consequences for what we believe and how we act. We can’t truthfully claim to be Catholic and then act like we’re not.
3. Being a Catholic is a bit like being married. We have a relationship with the Church and with Jesus Christ that’s very similar to being a spouse. And that has consequences. If a man says he loves his wife, his wife will want to see the evidence in his love and fidelity. The same applies to our relationship with God. If we say we’re Catholic, we need to show that by our love for the Church and our fidelity to what she teaches and believes. Otherwise we’re just fooling ourselves, because God certainly won’t be fooled.
4. The Church is not a political organism. She has no interest in partisanship because getting power or running governments is not what she’s about, and the more closely she identifies herself with any single party, the fewer people she can effectively reach.
5. However, Scripture and Catholic teaching do have public consequences because they guide us in how we should act in relation to one another. Loving God requires that we also love the people He created, which means we need to treat them with justice, charity and mercy. Being a Catholic involves solidarity with other people. The Catholic faith has social justice implications — and that means it also has cultural, economic and political implications. The Catholic faith is never primarily about politics; but Catholic social action — including political action — is a natural byproduct of the Church’s moral message. We can’t call ourselves Catholic, and then simply stand by while immigrants get mistreated, or the poor get robbed, or unborn children get killed. The Catholic faith is always personal, but never private. If our faith is real, then it will bear fruit in our public decisions and behaviors, including our political choices.
6. Each of us needs to follow his or her own properly formed conscience. But conscience doesn’t emerge from a vacuum. It’s not a matter of personal opinion or preference. If our conscience has the habit of telling us what we want to hear on difficult issues, then it’s probably badly formed. A healthy conscience is the voice of God’s truth in our hearts, and it should usually make us uncomfortable, because none of us is yet a saint. The way we get a healthy conscience is by submitting it and shaping it to the will of God; and the way we find God’s will is by opening our hearts to the counsel and guidance of the Church that Jesus left us. If we find ourselves disagreeing as Catholics with the Catholic teaching of our Church on a serious matter, it’s probably not the Church that’s wrong. The problem is much more likely with us.
7. But how do we make good political choices when so many different issues are so important and complex? The first principle of Christian social thought is: Don’t deliberately kill the innocent, and don’t collude in allowing somebody else to do it. The right to life is the foundation of every other human right. The reason the abortion issue is so foundational is not because Catholics love little babies — although we certainly do — but because revoking the personhood of unborn children makes every other definition of personhood and human rights politically contingent.
8. So can a Catholic in good conscience support a “pro-choice” candidate? The answer is: I can’t and I won’t. But I do know some serious Catholics — people whom I admire — who will. I think their reasoning is mistaken. But at the very least they do sincerely struggle with the abortion issue, and it causes them real pain. And even more importantly: They don’t keep quiet about it; they don’t give up their efforts to end permissive abortion; they keep lobbying their party and their elected representatives to change their pro-abortion views and protect the unborn. Catholics can support “pro-choice” candidates if they support them despite — not because of — their “pro-choice” views. But they also need a compelling proportionate reason to justify it.
9. What is a “proportionate” reason when it comes to the abortion issue? It’s the kind of reason we will be able to explain, with a clean heart, to the victims of abortion when we meet them face to face in the next life — which we most certainly will. If we’re confident that these victims will accept our motives as something more than an alibi, then we can proceed.
10. Lastly, the heart of truly “faithful” citizenship is this: We’re better citizens when we’re more faithful Catholics. The more authentically Catholic we are in our lives, choices, actions and convictions, the more truly we will contribute to the moral and political life of our nation.
Archbishop Chaput’s forthcoming book on American Catholics and public life, “Render Unto Caesar,” will be published by Doubleday later this year.
* * *
Vatican Statements & Canon Law - Documents - Cardinal Ratzinger's memorandum
Women for Faith & Family operates solely on your generous donations. See Join Page or for credit card donations see Network for Good instructions page.
Voices copyright © 1999-Present Women for Faith & Family. All rights reserved.
PERMISSION GUIDELINES
All material on this web site is copyrighted and may not be copied or reproduced without prior written permission from Women for Faith & Family,except as specified below.
Personal use
Permission is granted to download and/or print out articles for personal use only.
Quotations
Brief quotations (ca 500 words) may be made from the material on this site, in accordance with the “fair use” provisions of copyright law, without prior permission. For these quotations proper attribution must be made of author and WFF + URL (i.e., “Women for Faith & Family – www.wf-f.org.)
Attribution
Generally, all signed articles or graphics must also have the permission of the author. If a text does not have an author byline, Women for Faith & Family should be listed as the author. For example: Women for Faith & Family (St Louis: Women for Faith & Family, 2005 + URL)
Link to Women for Faith & Family web site.
Other web sites are welcome to establish links to www.wf-f.org or to individual pages within our site.
Back to top -- Home -- Back to Catholics & Political Responsibility
Women for Faith & Family
PO Box 300411
St. Louis, MO 63130
Ph: 314-863-8385 - Fax: 314-863-5858 Fax - Email