As I begin writing here, I'm
streaming and listening to EWTN's "Sunday Night Live With Father Benedict Groeschel". This
man is a living saint: loving, compassionate, deeply intelligent, intensely
spiritual, beautifully humble, and supremely hard-working on the side of the
weakest, neediest, and most neglected. On this particular episode, he and his
guest are discussing abortion.
Most folks who've read a
posting or three here know that I am a solid Catholic who is rather left of
center both politically and socially (feminist, Zionist, etc.), even while
lockstep-obedient with the Church itself. This is not contradictory; I follow
(adhere to, in fact) the Church's teaching and Catechism in morals and values, in religion and tradition.
In minor issues I do not
always agree, of course – though I stress again that it's little things that
are non-faith, non-religion items; and I do find myself at odds,
at times, with some individuals in the Church… but again in just fiddlin'
little things. When in doubt, I assume I'm clueless and full of crap, and turn
to what the Church has to say, though I do dig further and try to understand
what lies behind the answer I find. The knowledge and understanding gleaned can
help me to help out other confused folks, including the non-Catholic.
Other demands permitting, I
plan to set aside several blogs in January to look at abortion itself, and the
genuine horrors involved (including to the women, not just the infants), and
the idiotic positions/stances held by too many of my fellow left-wingers.
Tonight, though, my focus is even more narrow.
I mentioned last Thursday that I do differ
with Father Groeschel (and many others) quite distinctly in his focus on the
current presidential election as a single-issue choice: thumb-up/-down, based
on whether the candidate favors or disfavors abortion. Let me state again that
I do not feel that my disagreement there is from a position of any kind of
superiority in faith, politics, intellect, or experience. I cannot concede or even
assume any differently; if I am wrong come Judgment Day, I may plea ignorance
and seek mercy for my stupidity… but here, and for now, I remain adamant.
Even this may change as I
continue in my own spiritual growth, but at present I simply cannot vote into
office a candidate whose cronies thrive on corruption, greed, violence, and
intractability… simply because s/he is opposed to abortion. This I want to get
back to – or will at least reiterate in various contexts, over the next thirty
days.
Right now, though, I want to
quote in full and verbatim (once more without permission) an article from the
Baltimore Sun this past June (6/9/2008), clipped out and saved for me by
my mother – who continues to
improve wonderfully.
The issue here is the
determination of some of the Church's clergy (there is no narrow, close-defined
position – that I know of – in the Church) to withhold the Eucharist –
Communion – from "Catholic" politicians known to stand in favor of
abortion.
I cannot countenance that.
(And to my relief, Father Groeschel seems to agree… I think.) The Eucharist is
utter source and summit of the Catholic
(indeed, all Christian) life, in that what once was bread and wine is now the
body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus himself, creator and Messiah, Who
created, loves, and sustains me, and each of us.
It is both judgmental cruelty
and spiritually erroneous for our shepherds to withhold this from the
believers. Besides slamming the door on physically receiving our Lord, it
scandalizes the intended recipient as boldly and blatantly and cruelly as
putting him/her into the stocks in the public
square.
Nor does it take at all into
account the fruit of compassion, grace, and mercy that is the penitence, the
turning away, of such a (formerly) misdirected person from his/her previous
support for wholesale (and retail) baby-slaughter. I.e., what if the communicant
went to Confession the previous day, say, and has abandoned those tenets the
Church justifiably opposes (and refutes), and been absolved? The
priest/deacon/minister giving Communion ordinarily will not know that.
God is mercy,
compassion, and forgiveness; we have to allow for the very real (remote as in
some instances it may seem to some of us in our inflexibilities) possibility
that said communicant is no longer separated from the Church giving him/her the
Bread of Life. Let it be between the communicant and God; the rest of us are
woefully underqualified.
(PS: The following text
reproduces the full Sun article, which I still have in hardcopy. But the
hyperlink takes you to its copy at a very awesome site, Catholics for Obama-Biden, that I've just now discovered. Awesome,
and amen!)
by David
O'Brien and Lisa Sowle Cahill
Baltimore Sun:
Monday, June 9, 2008
What do a
former legal counsel for Ronald Reagan and a Democratic governor have in
common? As you might expect, it's not the same politics. Douglas W. Kmiec, an
esteemed constitutional law professor at Pepperdine University, is a pro-life
Republican. Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius is a moderate known for
consensus-building. But these prominent Catholics are both the most recent
targets of clergy who use Communion as a political weapon and effectively
blacklist respected Catholic leaders. It's time for Catholics and all Americans
to speak out against this spiritual McCarthyism.
When Mr. Kmiec
endorsed Sen. Barack Obama for president, conservative Catholic blogs buzzed
with outrage. How could a conservative known for his public opposition to
abortion rights support a pro-choice liberal? In a recent Catholic Online
column, Mr. Kmiec describes how he was declared "self-excommunicated"
by many fellow Catholics. He writes that at a recent Mass, an angry college
chaplain denounced his "Obama heresy" from the pulpit and denied him
Communion.
In Kansas
City, Kan., Archbishop Joseph F. Naumann has ordered Ms. Sebelius, also an
Obama supporter, not to receive Communion after she vetoed abortion legislation
riddled with constitutional red flags. The bill in question made it easier for
prosecutors to search private medical records, allowed family members to seek
court orders to stop abortions, and failed to include exceptions to save the
life of the mother. Along with many public officials, Ms. Sebelius recognizes
the profound moral gravity of abortion. She has supported prudent public
policies that have reduced abortions in Kansas by investing in adoption
services, prenatal health care, and social safety nets for families. But in his
diocesan newspaper, the archbishop blasted the governor over her
"spiritually lethal" message and her obligation to recognize the
"legitimate authority within the Church."
The archbishop
has a right and indeed an obligation to speak out against abortion. But he is
on dangerous ground telling a democratically elected official – accountable to
federal laws and a diverse citizenry – how to govern when it comes to the
particulars of specific legislation. The proper application of moral principles
in a pluralistic society rarely allows for absolutes.
Using a holy
sacrament to punish Catholics has troubling political implications during an
election year. St. Louis Archbishop Raymond L. Burke warned Sen. John Kerry – a
Catholic whose record reflects his faith's commitment to economic justice,
universal health care, and concern for the poor – not to receive Communion
during the 2004 presidential race because of his support for abortion rights.
In a New York Times interview just a month before the election,
Archbishop Charles J. Chaput of Denver gave signals that Catholics who voted
for a pro-choice candidate were cooperating in evil. Mr. Kerry narrowly lost
the Catholic vote to President Bush.
Catholics make
up a quarter of the American electorate, and are swing voters in key
battleground states that will play a decisive role in electing our next
president. It's essential that these voters recognize Catholicism defies easy
partisan labels and is not a single-issue faith.
The U.S.
Conference of Catholic Bishops warns in an election-year guide that particular
issues must not be misused as a way of ignoring "other serious threats to
human life and dignity". These threats identified by the bishops include
racism, the death penalty, war, torture, lack of health care, and an unjust
immigration policy. These broad Catholic values challenge Democrats and
Republicans alike to put the common good before narrow partisan agendas.
If we remain
silent when respected Catholic leaders are publicly attacked and denied
Communion, the proper role of faith in our public square is grossly distorted.
This election year, let's have a better debate about faith and political
responsibility that reclaims the vital role religion has often played in
renewing our most cherished democratic values.
David O'Brien,
the Loyola professor of Catholic studies at the College of the Holy Cross, has
written books about the history of American Catholicism. Lisa Sowle Cahill is a
professor of theology at Boston College and a former president of
the Catholic Theological Society of America.
No comments:
Post a Comment