Washington – Last November, the nation’s Roman Catholic bishops overwhelmingly approved a set of guidelines for Catholics to consider before they went to the voting booth.
Only four bishops voted against the 36-page document, called “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship.”
Then came the 2008 election.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Sen. Joe Biden both openly challenged church teaching on abortion, which says the procedure is evil in all circumstances. A new wave of scholars and activists argued that the church’s effort to criminalize abortion is hopeless and urged Catholics to consider other issues before voting.
And on Tuesday, Democrat Barack Obama won 54 percent of the Catholic vote, according to exit polls, making Biden, his running mate and a supporter of abortion rights, the nation’s first Catholic vice president.
Now, as nearly 200 Catholic bishops prepare to gather in Baltimore next week for their annual meeting (Nov. 10-13), some say “Faithful Citizenship” must be scrapped, or at least overhauled.
“We need a new approach to conscience formation in the public square,” said Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver, one of a handful of prelates who take a get-tough approach to Catholics who support abortion rights.
“‘Faithful Citizenship’ didn’t and doesn’t work because it’s been applied by different people in very different ways.”
Indeed, Catholic scholars like Nicholas Cafardi, whom the bishops appointed to a board investigating clergy sexual abuse, used “Faithful Citizenship” to buttress his argument that anti-abortion Catholics could back Obama in good conscience.
But it was Biden and Pelosi using “Meet the Press” to openly “misrepresent Catholic teaching” that put abortion and politics on next week’s agenda, according to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.
“As the teachers of the faith,” the USCCB wrote in a September statement, “we also point out the connectedness between the evil of abortion and political support for abortion. We plan to discuss the practical implications of these serious matters.”
Biden’s elevation to the nation’s No. 2 job on Tuesday adds an element of urgency to the bishops’ discussion, said Archbishop John J.
Myers of Newark, N.J.
“It’s a very big deal,” Myers said. However, the archbishop said, his fellow prelates do not agree about how to handle the situation.
“We need to come closer to being of one mind on this matter,” Myers said.
In all, about 50 of the approximately 220 active Catholic prelates strongly suggested that Catholics should not vote for a candidate who supports abortion rights this year. One, Bishop Robert Finn of Kansas City-St. Joseph, Mo., said voters’ “eternal salvation is tied up with that important choice.”
Russell Shaw, former director of communications for the USSCB, said the bishops could basically be divided into three camps: the “hardliners,” who want to deny Communion to Catholic politicians who support abortion rights, and possibly those who vote for them; the “compromisers” who want to reach an agreement with politicians; and a large majority in the middle who “don’t like messy unpleasant situations like this and are just hoping it will go away.”
The bishops should have agreed on a policy when Catholic Sen. John Kerry, who also supports abortion rights, made a serious run at the presidency four years ago, said Shaw, author of the recent book “Nothing to Hide: Secrecy, Communication and Communion in the Catholic Church.”
Instead, the bishops decided to let each prelate determine his own policy.
“The failure to face up to serious questions has come home to roost,” Shaw said.
Deal Hudson, a conservative Catholic activist and author, is among those pushing for the prelates to amend “Faithful Citizenship.”
“Catholic supporters of Obama have cherry-picked it for loopholes”
said Hudson. “The bishops should have anticipated the kinds of abuse a complex document like that would undergo.”
Myers said the problem lies not with “Faithful Citizenship” but with its interpreters.
“It’s kind of like Vatican II,” the archbishop said, referring to the seminal conclave of the 1960s that lead to wide reforms in the church. “Very clearly there are some, like Senator Biden, who are saying the church for centuries did not have a clear position on abortion and have gone all over the ballpark in making up their own positions.”
Now the bishops will have Biden, a lifelong Catholic, living in the Vice President’s Residence — directly across the street from the Vatican embassy in Washington.
“I don’t think it will be all that bad,” said the Rev. Thomas Reese, a political scientist with the Woodstock Theological Center at Georgetown University. “The Catholic Church has dealt with Catholic politicians of varying stripes for over a thousand years.”
By Daniel Burke
Religion News Service
Copyright 2008 Religion News Service. All rights reserved. No part of this transmission may be distributed or reproduced without written permission.
Beliefnet
Advertisement
posted November 6, 2008 at 6:27 pm
The bishops have arbitrarily decided to claim one issue is more important than all the others when most of us, happily including a lot of Catholics, clearly see it is not.
Vice President Elect Biden is correct that for centuries Catholic teachings on abortion varied while some bishops falsely claim he was wrong.
We can hope the RCC is starting to hemorrhage people who used to do what the leaders said, perhaps because the leaders have shown themselves to lack basic morality in the child abuse era, perhaps because they are coming to doubt the fantastical claims of a desperate religion. In either case it would be good news.
posted November 6, 2008 at 6:34 pm
IMO, the RCC should just stay out of politics!!!!!! The percentage (54%)of Catholics that voted for Obama/Biden were smart enough to think for themselves. Sorry all you RCC leaders…but I think your influence is waning…IS GOOD!!
posted November 6, 2008 at 7:39 pm
The RCC should have the right to guide its people in a large issue such as voting. And probably the reason that abortion never had a strict ruling on abortion because it wasn’t happening so publicly and so large of numbers. The RCC is just being targeted because it is more outspoken about these issues. Of course if it wasn’t being public, it’d be targeted for being “secretive” and the like.
posted November 6, 2008 at 8:24 pm
LadyoftheNorth, there is a large difference in “guiding” the people and threatening them with no communion if they don’t agree. Biden, Kerry, and others in public life have been told basicly to “shape up” or no communion….that’s not guidence, but blackmail. In the RCC it’s their way or the highway.
The RCC or Methodists, or Muslims or anyone else’s leaders should be telling their members WHO to vote for because of religious beliefs.
posted November 6, 2008 at 9:46 pm
‘Bishop Robert Finn of Kansas City-St. Joseph, Mo., said voters’ “eternal salvation is tied up with that important choice.”‘
I’m no RC or expert in the RCC but I understood a Pope said people’s morality could trump the Church’s edicts. If that’s true no doubt the RCC is looking into nullifying it. But in any case this is vilest blackmail to play the fear card this blatantly.
posted November 6, 2008 at 9:55 pm
But clearly this is really about the power of the RCC. A majority of its enrolled victims rebelled and ignored it on what it calls its most important issue. That’s a clear sign their product is circling the toilet of world mythologies and they are mobilizing to try to pull it back out.
I don’t know the numbers for Evangelicals in the election but let’s hope the same thing is happening to them.
posted November 7, 2008 at 6:10 am
As someone who has for years leaned in the direction of RCC, I’m very disappointed by the leaders’ discussion of this issue. I for one think that abortion is wrong, but I also believe that those who have abortions cannot be demonized or dehumanized any more validly than the unborn children they abort. I’ve known several women who have had abortions who regretted it later, and a few who never regretted it, but if abortions were illegal some of them may have died in the process of trying to obtain one. Anyone else remember back-alley abortions? To top that off, I’m not sure I could ever look a fellow woman who is the victim of rape or incest in the eyes directly and tell her she must carry the product of that horrific experience to full tern if she didn’t think she had the strength.
What happened to compassion in Christianity? What happened to working within the culture first, then the law? Making abortion illegal will be the same kind of colossal failure that making drugs illegal has been. It just makes it cooler, and adds incentive for the person partaking to not talk to anyone about it lest they end up in jail. (I’m not likening women who have abortions to drug addicts here intentionally–just trying to look at our recent legal history with banning things.) If we participate any further in turning this into a war of ideology, we will lose. Again. And the people that lose out are those same people we’re trying to reach.
I’m disenchanted, to say the least.
posted November 7, 2008 at 12:37 pm
I think that the many of the bishops who spoke out about abortion and voting are either trying to garner brownie points with Rome or believe that they can gain back some of the moral authority they have lost in the sexual abuse scandal.
What they fail to realize is that much of the Catholic community has changed. Catholics no longer feel cowed by heavy handed authority and well understand that human motivation is complex and above all that there is always room for compassion and understanding whatever the issue. Jesus always took the human condition into consideration.
posted November 7, 2008 at 2:24 pm
Well said, erin.
posted November 7, 2008 at 8:04 pm
“Biden, Kerry, and others in public life have been told basicly to “shape up” or no communion….that’s not guidence, but blackmail.”
Those ‘Catholics’ who disagree with Church teaching on issues as fundamental as abortion are not in communion to begin with; thus, it is illusory to present one’s self as being in communion.
“…but I also believe that those who have abortions cannot be demonized or dehumanized any more validly than the unborn children they abort.”
No one is advocating that these troubled souls be ‘dehumanized’ or ‘demonized’. If anything, we’re taught to treat these women with compassion, which most of us do to the best of our ability, yet we still must acknowledge the ingregiousness of the act.
posted November 7, 2008 at 9:35 pm
“Those ‘Catholics’ who disagree with the Church teaching on issues as fundamental as abortion are not in communion to begin with; thus,it is illusory to present one’s self as being in communion.” Tom
Those ‘Catholics’ Tom, are ones who feel it isn’t their “religious duty” to tell women, non-Catholic women, what to do! Guess they can try and tell a Catholic woman what to do. Anyhow, they are taking care of their business, but aren’t interfering with what is truly NOT THEIR business. Simple really. So they shouldn’t be denied communion. In fact, some priests have enough sense to know that it is up to the person to know if they are qualified (if you will) to take communion or not on a particular Sunday or Saturday afternoon after 4:00.
posted November 7, 2008 at 9:46 pm
‘Those ‘Catholics’ who disagree with Church teaching on issues as fundamental as abortion are not in communion to begin with’
That doesn’t seem to be the standard interpretation, based on the article. And I suspect the RCC has been taking their money all these years.
posted November 7, 2008 at 10:17 pm
If the Church teaches that abortion is the taking of an innocent human life, that means one of two things for a Catholic politician:
1) If he/she doesn’t agree with this teaching, then he/she is not in communion with the Church
2) If he/she agrees with the teaching and doesn’t advocate legislation making it illegal to take innocent human life, then that would be the same as saying homicide should be legal, in which case they’re DEFINITELY not in communion with the Church; therefore, the sacrament doesn’t benefit them in any way.
It is true that there are different schools of thought among priests and bishops as to whether or not to deny these ‘Catholic’ politicians communion. Therefore, it should be left up to the ministers of Holy communion whether to deny them or not, rather than people unfamiliar with the Church or their teaching telling these bishops they should allow everyone to receive communion! Simple really.
posted November 8, 2008 at 3:21 pm
In #2 you stated that if a taking of life, understood by RCC, as being abortion of any type, as a political person who accepts RoevsWade would not be in communion with the Church, therefore, the sacrament doesn’t benefit them in any way. Euchrist is between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, in my understanding and training in the Lutheran Church it’s not a sacrament of being in communion with the Church. I didn’t know that RC’s divided their Euchrist in this manner.
posted November 8, 2008 at 4:26 pm
I don’t think I made myself clear enough on my last post. Communion to me is between Christ, God, and the Holy Spirit. Not between me and the Church I’m receiving it in.
posted November 8, 2008 at 4:58 pm
“…as a political person who accepts RoevsWade would not be in communion with the Church…”
In a certain sense you’re correct in the way you phrased it. Back when the decision was made in Roe v. Wade to overturn state laws prohibiting abortion we didn’t have the technology we do now to study fetal development in the womb. Therefore, a Catholic politician would be more contingent on acting on ‘an article of faith’ as Sen. Biden phrased it in his interview with Tom Brokaw on “Meet the Press” to uphold the rights of an unborn child. Currently, though, we have corroborating scientific evidence that would seem to verify the life of an unborn child, as 7 1/2 weeks into pregnancy a child exhibits many manuerisms typical of a post-natal child. It is conceivable, however, that were Biden to take over the office of President, he could appoint Supreme Court nominees unwilling to overturn Roe V. Wade based on their interpretations of the founding fathers’ original intent in drafting the Constitution, yet still remain in communion with the Catholic Church. This could potentially offend many pro-lifers; yet it is still conceivable.
posted November 8, 2008 at 5:06 pm
“Communion to me is between Christ, God, and the Holy Spirit. Not between me and the Church I’m receiving it in.”
I totally respect your opinion, Henrietta, as you are following your concept of communion as it was dictated to you in the faith you grew up in. It does take on a different connotation in the Catholic Church however. Were Speaker Pelosi or Senator Biden to leave the Catholic Church and join another one more flexible in their interpretation of the sacrament, I defintitely would not hold it against them.
posted November 8, 2008 at 7:16 pm
In my opinion “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship.” was not explicit enough. Whatever document is derived in the future, must be no longer than 2 pages and it must define mortal sin as mortal sin with direct stated eternal consequences. Forget about weasel words like “place their salvation in danger” or “grave matter”.
If the document needs to be longer it can say whatever needs to be said in support of and defense of the Catholic position after the position is clearly stated.
Secondly, I have long held that the Church needs to preach from the pulpit at Mass each week on moral issues like abortion, homosexuality, co habitation, divorce etc. If the priest is unable or unwilling to preach, then a substitute should be found even if the Bishop needs to record a teaching and demand that it be played at each Mass. If some people leave then that is their choice just as it is their choice to accept Church doctrine or not. However, they should be told not to come to Holy Communion until they have reconciled themselves to the teachings of the Church.
All teachers in Catholic schools must be told that it is not permissible to support or teach our children ideas that are in conflict with our FAITH. For example a teacher supporting a politician who is in favor of abortion is not be allowed and should loose their job if they do so.
posted November 8, 2008 at 10:27 pm
EdT:
I spent 10 years teaching in a Catholic school…am not Catholic…and was never told what NOT to teach. Of course, I was teaching 5 year olds. We had some intersting discussions on different religions at times, as all our kids were not Catholic..in fact had a Buddist child at one time as well as some Protestant children.
You sound like you’d like to return to the days of Catholic fear teaching. Fortunately many have come to realize that the priests, bishops, cardinals, and even Benny are not perfect, or in some cases, not even trustworthy. They are just people and life isn’t black and white when it comes to decisions on whether or not to carry to term, to live together before marriage, to use “artificial” birth control or not ( I know many Catholics who have only 1 or 2 children…that’s not a god depriving them of kids),or that homosexuality is “BAD” (voice of God here). Thinking Catholics like I taught with in school are on the rise. Is very good. BTW, they took communion because they were not in conflict with their church. No one lost their job when thinking for themselves, unlike some molesting priests who should have over the last 40 years, but got passed to different parishes to molest even more. That has definately taught some Catholics about their leaders.
posted November 9, 2008 at 5:36 am
Almost half a century ago, anti-Catholic bigots warned that if John F. Kennedy were elected president, the Vatican would control our government. It was a stupid argument, assuming lay Catholics to be weak, servile, dim. Fortunately, America got over that particular prejudice decades ago.
Now if only we can convince those bishops to show lay Catholics the proper respect, as non-Catholic voters now do.