Bishop Thomas Tobin is publishing a letter to the congressman in the diocesan newspaper this week.
It reads in part:
Your rejection of the Church's teaching on abortion falls into a different category - it's a deliberate and obstinate act of the will; a conscious decision that you've re-affirmed on many occasions. Sorry, you can't chalk it up to an "imperfect humanity." Your position is unacceptable to the Church and scandalous to many of our members. It absolutely diminishes your communion with the Church.The complete letter can be read right here.
Congressman Kennedy, I write these words not to embarrass you or to judge the state of your conscience or soul. That's ultimately between you and God. But your description of your relationship with the Church is now a matter of public record, and it needs to be challenged. I invite you, as your bishop and brother in Christ, to enter into a sincere process of discernment, conversion and repentance. It's not too late for you to repair your relationship with the Church, redeem your public image, and emerge as an authentic "profile in courage," especially by defending the sanctity of human life for all people, including unborn children. And if I can ever be of assistance as you travel the road of faith, I would be honored and happy to do so
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
There's a big difference between a disagreement over the morality of abortion and a disagreement over what the correct public policy toward abortion should be.
Does a law banning abortion make abortion go away? (Experience from the past says no.) Does refusing to spend public money on abortion make abortion to away? (Experience from the past says no.) Would effectively eliminating health insurance coverage of abortion make abortion go away? (Based on the above two experiences, a dubious proposition.)
Where the bishop does have the member of Congress on, however, is any sense of the public approbation of abortion. But public policy changes when public opinion changes, as the civil rights movement in our lifetime demonstrates. Loud, authoritarian assertions of the supremacy of the church's teachings will not change anyone's mind.
While I'm glad to see this, I truly hope that this message was delivered in person first .. and months ago.
There seems to be two camps among the bishops. There are those who endorse dialogue. They want to talk to pro-choice politicians and teach them the wrongness of their position. Then there are those who endorse consequences. They want to tell pro-choice politicians that they should not receive Communion or even deny them of it.
There are of course nuances to both camps and intermediate positions, but what I think we need is a true fusion of the two. The horse is out of the barn - there are already a lot of pro-choice Catholic politicians, and it has been tolerated for a long time - so we are going to have to lead it back.
I think that bishops need to go to these politicians .. literally go to their offices or homes, go meet them rather than calling them into the diocesan offices. (If the politician won't receive them, then they need to summon them.) Our bishops need to begin with shepherding, with the approach of the dialogue camp. They need to teach and correct. They need to be persistent and be patient. They need to make it clear that as long as they reject Catholic teaching, they have removed themselves from Communion with the faithful and therefore should not present themselves for Communion. And they should keep it all private. It is fine to let people know that the pastoral process is going on, but not the details.
If the politician refuses to engage in this kind of process, or the pastoral approach does not lead to their conversion then the bishop should follow the more "consequences" camp. They should announce that they have tried to do. And they should make it clear that the politician has removed themselves from Communion, and since it has been done in such a public way, the bishop must respond publicly. I think that only then should the bishop deny the politician Communion until they reform.
I don't think endless dialogue works. If there is no consequence for its failure, there is not as much motivation to make it succeed. But I think pastoral care requires that private correction and teaching must precede public consequences. It is not only more pastoral, compassionate and effective, it gives the consequences more legitimacy in the public square .. something we shouldn't have to worry about, but do have to worry about.
In addition to RP's sensible comments, I'd like to point out the oft-cited problem of thinking of Catholics as poor dumb sheep blindly following the Kennedys. Or some other leader.
If it's an error when criticizing Bishop Trautman, it's certainly an error here to suggest that it's because of politicians that 40% of Catholics, who, though they might not procure an abortion themselves, do not have a problem with lifting a prohibition for others, and are therefore, stupid, as George Weigle puts it.
It might be suggested that rigorists themselves are partly to blame for the US having pretty much the most libertarian approach to abortion in the free world. With neighbors like anti-abortion extremists, why would anyone want to fuss with walking on their sidewalks?
While it is reprehensible that Mr Kennedy doesn't seem to have a bad thing to say about abortion (just rolling on the commentariat's momentum on that one) and no doubt many of his political opponents might wish for a smackdown on the soapbox of scandal, one must also consider the likely result of this public communication. We all know the representative can stick his tongue out, waggle his fingers near his ears, and generally tell anti-abortion folks to stuff it while blowing raspberries. He won't lose his wealth, house, or freedom. He likely won't lose his House seat. He might still even go to Communion. And the abortions will roll on down his street and ours. What will be accomplished? What little life will be saved?
As to the 40% of Catholics who support abortion, further polling shows that a very large majority of these catholics do not attend church once a week or more either. So they do not attend mass on Sundays and do not support the non negotiable position on abortion. Most also do not support marriage by their support of another non negotiable issue which is gay marriage. So why do they bother to pretend to be catholics? There are thousands of religions waiting for them. As to the USCCB, it is still a left wing liberal conference. The good news, as with the left wing women relgious groups is that they are getting old and dying out to be replaced by strong traditional priests, bishops, and nuns who will reform the reform errors from the spirtit of vatican II that were never ever there. The left wants to change the rules of the game without having the authority. They invented reforms not in Vatican II and invented the right of privacy and abortion rights out of the constitution when the words are not there.
Bishop Tobin's letter should be on the syllabus for How to Be a Bishop 101, which should be mandatory training for every member of the USCCB.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.