I am not entirely sure I want to do this, but it was a significant part of the discussion Sunday night at Calvert House. I am assuming that people have read the Bishop's document on Politicians in Public Life.
This is not a political blog, and I am loath to discuss politics here. So nothing here can be construed as support for any candidate for political office.
The thing that troubles me: the discuss of an individual's conscience in the public arena. Refusing communion to anyone should not be part of public discussion. A pastor has an obligation to address the conscience of any Catholic who public professes erroneous views, but I am not entirely sure that the public arena is the best place to address that conscience. It is not good pastoral practice to declare someone in error, if I as a pastor have not addressed that person individually first.
The following is a comment from Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger. I find it the best thing I have read on the subject recent ly. It is balanced and clear.
The line that intrigues me:
When a Catholic does not share a candidate's stand in favour of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.
Here is the whole document:
Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion. General Principles
by Joseph Ratzinger
1. Presenting oneself to receive Holy Communion should be a conscious
decision, based on a reasoned judgement regarding one's worthiness to
do so, according to the Church's objective criteria, asking such questions as: "Am I in full communion with the Catholic Church? Am I guilty of grave sin? Have I incurred a penalty (e.g. excommunication, interdict) that forbids me to receive Holy Communion? Have I prepared myself by fasting for at least an hour?" The practice of indiscriminately presenting oneself to receive Holy Communion, merely as a consequence of being present at Mass, is an abuse that must be corrected (cf. Instruction "Redemptionis Sacramentum," nos. 81, 83).
2. The Church teaches that abortion or euthanasia is a grave sin. The Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae, with reference to judicial decisions or civil laws that authorise or promote abortion or euthanasia, states that there is a "grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection. [...] In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to `take part in a propoganda campaign in favour of such a law or vote for it'" (no. 73). Christians have a "grave obligation of conscience not to cooperate formally in practices which, even if permitted by civil legislation, are contrary to God's law. Indeed, from the moral standpoint, it is never licit to cooperate formally in evil. [...] This cooperation can never be justified either by invoking respect for the freedom of others or by appealing to the fact that civil law permits it or requires it" (no. 74).
3. 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 iscretion 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.
4. Apart from an individuals's judgement about his worthiness to present himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, the minister of Holy Communion may find himself in the situation where he must refuse to distribute Holy Communion to someone, such as in cases of a declared excommunication, a declared interdict, or an obstinate persistence in manifest grave sin (cf. can. 915).
5. 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.
6. When "these precautionary measures have not had their effect or in which they were not possible," and the person in question, with obstinate persistence, still presents himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, "the minister of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute it" (cf. Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts Declaration "Holy Communion and Divorced, Civilly Remarried Catholics" [2002], nos. 3- 4). This decision, properly speaking, is not a sanction or a penalty. Nor is the minister of Holy Communion passing judgement on the
person's subjective guilt, but rather is reacting to the person's public unworthiness to receive Holy Communion due to an objective situation of sin.
[N.B. 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. When a Catholic does not share a candidate's stand in favour of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in
the presence of proportionate reasons.]
I assume that Cdl. Ratzinger means that one may vote for a pro-abortion candidate if he is the lesser of two evils, which is not a departure from Church teachings, e.g., two candidates BOTH of whom are in favor of abortion. One may make a choice as to which candidate is the best-even though neither is perfect.
Anna Quindlen recently wrote a column for Newsweek that has been much discussed. As an educated Catholic, she had the temerity to point out that the idea that a good civil law must be enforceable goes back to Aquinas.
The president of the United States is not a legislator. We don't have a parliamentary system. As executive, what the president can do is limited. OK, the president can provide leadership, but cannot simply declare certain things illegal.
Also, when are we going to stop making abortion the only life issue that brings about these discussions?
Father Jeff is right that, all things being equal, “it is not good pastoral practice to declare someone in error, if I as a pastor have not addressed that person individually first.”
However, the question of refusing communion under canon 915 is not related to a discussion of “an individual’s conscience.” As the letter attributed to Cardinal Ratzinger says, “Nor is the minister of Holy Communion passing judgment on the person's subjective guilt, but rather is reacting to the person's public unworthiness to receive Holy Communion due to an objective situation of sin.”
Regarding the “lesser of two evils” comment, I would respectfully disagree with that characterization. The letter relates explicitly to the classical moral concepts of “double effect” and “remote material cooperation.”
Regarding the idea that a good civil law be enforceable (which Quindlen did not specifically attribute to Aquinas), the fact that many people would break the law does not negate its value (many people break speed laws). Besides, it is one thing to say that a specific law may be unenforceable, but quite another thing to loudly proclaim “a right to choose” abortion.
The letter also addressed the “abortion the only life issue” complaint: “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 iscretion 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.”
What, exactly, is the the official weight of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger's "general principles" document?
He gives no justification for his assertion that Catholics are allowed to disagree on some life issues but not on others. My hunch is that he is be relying on the length of time teachings have been definitively held. A poor argument, IMO.
The Catechism's teaching on the death penalty rests heavily on Evangelium Vitae, which is a development of moral teaching in light of 1. changing circumstances and 2. developing understanding of the dignity of the human person.
The supporting evidence for abortion in the Catechism and Evangelium Vitae goes further back. (All this can easily be traced in the footnote links in the on-line version.)
So, the question is, when did the teaching in Evangelium Vitae on the death penalty become true? 1995, when the encyclical was published? Or was it already true way before that?
It's really frustrating to Cardinal Ratzinger to read Evangelium Vitae in completely different ways depending on the issue at hand.
How can he justify "a legitimate diversity of opinion" among Catholics about the death penalty? He admits that those who practice capital punishment contradict a papal encyclical, the same one he himself quotes in his general principles.
Catechism 2267 (in full)
Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.
If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity with the dignity of the human person.
Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm—without definitively taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself—the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically non-existent." (quote from John Paul II's encyclical Evangelium Vitae, paragraph 56)
Cardinal Ratzinger's document was a confidential communication and has not been published by the Holy See and so has little if any official weight at this time, other than indicating something of His Eminence's respectable opinions.
The difference between abortion and euthanasia on the one hand and many of the other "life issues" on the other is not so much how long they've been addressed by the Church (pacifism has a long and glorious tradition), but whether Church teaching holds the door open for exceptions.
Regarding active and intentional abortion or euthanasia, there are no exceptions. Regarding war and capital pubishment, the Church has always conceded that, under the right conditions, society may be justified in using deadly force to protect itself against the unjust. That is the Church's official teaching, as exemplified in the Catechism.
Whether the conditions that would justify war or execution exist in a particular case is a prudential judgement that ultimately rests with those in authority (see Catechism 2265 and 2309 - keep in mind that this does not negate the role of the people regarding that authority in a democratic system). Popes and bishops can and do make prudential judgements regarding particular cases and express opinions that are worthy of respect but cannot be held as definitive (prudential judgements don't work that way).
sorry, I don't find the distinction between some exceptions allowed in theory and no exceptions allowed persuasive or compelling.
the Catechism has to honor the tradition. the teaching on capital punishment, like the teaching on slavery, to name just one other instance, has changed as our understanding has grown. I think "authority will limit itself" to life without parole whenever possible is as clear as any other definitive teaching.
it's unfortunate that war and capital punishment are linked, since I don't think the situations are all that parallel.
thank God for the reasonable statement from the US bishops, and for the tiny seed of church as community in Cardinal Arinze's refusal to comment and acknowledging the US bishops' role.
time to hark back to Centissimus Annus and the other encyclicals on issues that affect our choices in this election.
If one chooses to be not compelled, so be it.
Capital punishment and just war are inextricably associated because both involve self-defense against unjust aggression.
By their own nature, prudential judgements regarding such things as whether "non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor" cannot be definitive in the same way that the Church "defines" doctrine. Interestingly enough, that is one of the underlying concepts in Centesimus Annus as well as Lumen Gentium.
Cardinal Arinze's comments were very consistent with Cardinal Ratzinger's (taken together with what Cardinal McCarrick implied was in the unpublished cover letter).
Centesimus Annus is a great encyclical, which speaks of the "scandal of abortion" and reiterated Sollicitudo Rei Socialis' denunciation of "systematic anti-childbearing campaigns."
I'm unhappy about the statements attributed to John Kerry about stem cell research...Another area, albeit a difficult one for which to ferret out information and Catholic background. One that I'd like to see headed off before it gets off the ground.
We're never going to agree on the validity of the agrument that seems to say "diversity of opinion" is allowed on the death penalty teaching but not on abortion. As I see it, both teachings are definitive, as definitive as moral teachings can be. Yes, for the death penalty, there is a condition clause under which we cover ourselves for the failures of our past and allow for future and current emergencies. But can one honestly say that the federal execution of Timothy McVeigh was necessary in the way the teaching describes? Or that the executions in the states that have the death penalty (not all do) after the conditions of the Supreme Court's moratorium were met are necessary and in accord with Catholic teaching? We've experienced several Catholic candidates here in California, Democrats, even, running in favor of the death penalty, so it's a salient issue for me.
Most executions, as I see it, are revenge, not defense of society, given the option of life imprisonment without parole, even if we judged it likely that the person would kill again. Most of the world doesn't have the death penalty.
"Most executions, as I see it, are revenge, not defense of society"
Indeed, and thus indefensible.
"stem cell research...Another area, albeit a difficult one for which to ferret out information and Catholic background."
Why haven't the pro-life forces made this a moot point, one wonders.
Why have Catholic scientists, Catholic universities, Catholic doctors not developed stem cell lines that were usable in good conscience?
A friend who was delivered of her child recently at a Catholic hospital asked ahead of time how she would go about donating (unbilical cord blood, etc.) and was told the hospital, though a research and teaching hospital, had no such program. I wonder why not?
Perhaps I do not understand the nature of the differences between various sorts of stem cells, I know they are more differentiated in adults and thus presumed to be of less interest in research, but surely all avenues that definitely do not involve murder ought be explored before the morally ambiguous one of taking them of murdered (in the opinion of many,) embryos.
No argument from me that many people see executions as revenge and that such a motive does not justify one human killing another.
Justifying McVeigh's execution as society's self-defense is a bit tricky, at best. Coincidentally, another man was executed about that same time, who had been instigating murders while he was in prison! It would been much easier to argue that imprisonment was insufficient to protect people from that fellow.
Catholic insitutions and many others are indeed researching the possible use of ethical stem cells (adult, etc.).
Individual hospitals and birthing centers may not have their own cord blood programs, but there are cord blood banks for that purpose.
http://www.marrow.org/FAQS/cord_blood_faqs.html