www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Rites and Wrongs - from the WSJ

I found this article interesting in light of the topic of whether Kerry should receive Communion:

-------

Rites and Wrongs
Why John Kerry should not take communion.

BY PHILIP F. LAWLER
Friday, April 30, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT

Forty years after John F. Kennedy became the first Catholic elected to the White House, another Democratic senator from Massachusetts finds himself caught up in a controversy over his Catholic faith. But there is a revealing difference between the cases. In 1960, the first JFK sought to neutralize the effects of anti-Catholic prejudice. This year, John F. Kerry seems intent upon exploiting anti-Catholic sentiment to his own political advantage.

Despite repeated admonitions from American bishops (first private, then public), Mr. Kerry insists that he will continue to receive communion when he attends Mass. Thus he puts himself in direct conflict with the Catholic hierarchy, which teaches that the senator's outspoken support for legal abortion renders him unfit to receive the Eucharist. Mr. Kerry may gain a few votes by casting himself as a man of conscience, at odds with bishops whose bungling of a sex-abuse scandal has made them unpopular. But a dispassionate observer--even one who rejects Catholic teachings--should recognize Mr. Kerry's posture for what it is: an assault on the faith he claims to revere.

More at: http://www.opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=110005022

Summary: Mr. John Kerry D'Heinz considers himself above the law. Maybe he should go back to those evangelical churches with Bible under arm for more photo-ops?

Joe

Lawler's article is interesting.

The situtation he himself points out is ambiguous. He states (without quotation)that Kerry's bishop (among others) states that
Bishop Burke is more direct " with his announcement that politicians who support abortion should be denied communion." Lawler states that "Mr. Kerry 'shot back' with his own announcement that he would continue receiving communion 'regardless of the prelate's stance'. Again I would like to see more of a quote and less of Lawler's spin.

I read Bishop Burke's letter when it was brough up on the board. It's great failure is the lack of definition given to "support". Similalry Bishop O'Malley's remark is unclear on the criteria by which one assesses "reject[ion] church teachings on the dignity of life.

I doubt that few if any Catholic politicians "reject church teachings on the dignity of life".
They apparently do, however, have a different understanding of politics and of government. Does this dissent warrant excommunication? Would dissent from Bishop's ideas on economics and social policy warrant similarly draconian punishment?

In the words of Rogers & Hammerstein, it is "a puzzlement" when one's faith and morals conflict with the civil law that one has sworn to uphold.

Should our political leaders' faith determine how they govern? Many would most likely say that this would set a dangerous precedent.

In this case, the state of US law is such that it conflicts with the Church's teachings on abortion. One may disagree with Roe v. Wade from a moral and/or faith-based perspective, but it is (at least for now) the law and, presumably, there is a legitimate basis for the decision under our Consitutional framework.

So what does one do? Even among us here on this forum are those who have sworn to uphold the Consitution of the United States. Mr. Kerry did that when he took his seat in the Senate and will do so again if he is elected President.

Indeed, as djs says, does an elected official's doing his job warrant excommunication?

Should the Church use its most severe sanction against one of its own flock to support a political agenda?

Give unto God what is God's and unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's.

I have talked about this before, but there is a very poignant West Wing episode where the President does not pardon a prisoner senteced to death even though he believes his faith demands it. Bartlett the President does what he must as President (i.e. follows the law of the land), but then Bartlett the man confesses his sin to his priest.

There are no easy answers. Should every Catholic be afraid to run for office for fear of excommunication if he does something not in line with the Church's teachings? Should we stop going to law school and swearing to uphold the Consitution when that Consitution has been interpreted to conflict with what the Church teaches?

Is puzzlement.

Yours,

hal

Hal and Djs, hang on a second!

An unjust law is no law at all. The whole basis for the Nuremburg trials was that, even though the Nazi doctors and scientists and concentration camp officials were following civil law, "doing their jobs," as Hal says, they were responsible to know the natural law. They were not allowed to hide behind civil law and say that it was okay for them to incinerate Jews. They were CONDEMNED BY THAT MOST JUST TRIBUNAL FOR THEIR CIVILLY "LEGAL" ACTIONS, i.e. the murder of innocent human beings.

If it applies to Nazis who incinerate Jews, it applies to Americans who murder children. The American politicians who "do their job" by defending the murder of children, and actively promoting it as a human right, are no better, I repeat NO BETTER than the Nazi politicians who "did their job" by promoting the incineration of "inferior races."

They are the Nazis of our day. They reject the Scriptures and the Fathers, they reject the calls from today's Pope that they seek an end to the slaughter, they ACTUALLY SEEK TO MAKE ABORTION MORE ACCESSIBLE. HOW DARE THEY RECEIVE HOLY COMMUNION! HOW DARE ANYONE RAISE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE BISHOPS WHO SEEK TO BAR THESE NAZIS FROM THE EUCHARIST!

It is bull**** that they are somehow "doing their jobs" by being pro-abortion. The laws that allow abortion are no more just than the laws that allowed concentration camps and genocide.

I am sick of seeing this [expletive deleted] on a Christian forum.

ABORTION IS MURDER.

I have a different view concerning the solution to the problem.

First, I don't think the court was exactly unanimous in Roe. I don't think all constitutional scholars believe that this understanding is trully the law of the land, whether it is currently viewed as such or not.

Second, I'm also unconvinced that a change in the interpretation of law or a change in the law itself will have any affect on abortion. No offense intended, but in America if it's not popular it's not done.

If a politician opposes abortion and tries to make it illegal, what good will come of it? If a politician opposes abortion and works to educate people about what it does and what it is and to make it very unpopular, this may well have a much greater impact on the problem than the solution proposed by the politician working to make it illegal.

I remember when I was 17 I went to the doctor to have a wart removed from my hand. The doctor refused to do it because I didn't have the parental consent required by state law. If I had been a 14-year-old girl seeking an abortion I wouldn't have needed it. Why?

I'm not allowed to have any medical procedure without getting all kinds of documents about what's being done and the risks. Why isn't the same true for abortion?

The answer is fear. Those who gain from the issue are afraid people will see it for what it is and that it will become unpopular, even more damaging in our culture than if it became illegal.

I'm not saying that making it illegal wouldn't be a great thing. It just wouldn't solve the problem. Only a change in Americans' hearts will do that. That change can't come if Americans can't see murder for what it is.

For those Pres. Bush and Sen. Kerry lovers out there, they support what their parties support. That's the way our system generally works. I hate to be cynical, but that's what I think is behind the positions. I think if Pres. Bush or Sen. Kerry knew they could win the election by changing positions, they would.

Latin Trad:

Why on earth is your post addressed to me.
Are you reading or just projecting?

DJS,

You claim that it is "draconian" for bishops to bar virulently pro-abortion politicians from the Eucharist.

You claim that pro-abortion politicians do not reject Church teaching on the dignity of life, but merely have different opinions on politics and government. Such a light offence, in your opinion, is similar to having a difference of opinion over social policy.

If I read you correctly, then I was right to address my post to you.

Would it be "draconian" to bar Hitler & co. from the Eucharist? After all, they just have different views of "social policy". No big deal. Meanwhile, BLOOD IS SPILLED AND CRIES TO HEAVEN FOR VENGEANCE.

Sorry if I misread you, but I doubt that I did.

In Christ,

LatinTrad

Latin Trad:

No one is arguing with you that abortion is murder. Honestly, I wish sometime I could be like you and see things in black and white (your recent post about outlawing Jehovah's Witnesses becasue they "preach error" is a good example).

The fact of the matter is that things are not simple. We live in a pluralistic society where people have various views on various issues.

About 215 years ago a system of civil laws was put in place that was concerned with protecting the rights of the individual. That system of civil laws has, through 200+ years of jurisprudence and development, come to stand for something different than the moral teachings of the Catholic Church.

Whether it is by act of Congress, within the powers of the Executive or through judicial interpretation, we have the civil laws that we have.

Arguments that Roe is suspect becasue it was "far from unanimous" are certainly grounds upon which one may question it and scholars may argue that the Supreme Courrt should correct itself (much like it did in Brown v. Board of Education), but it is still the law and it is still seen as being based upon the system of justice that we have in this country.

If we go down the road of allowing our elected leaders (especially the Executive who wields the power of the sword) to ignore laws that they think are "unjust," "unwise," or "immoral" based upon personal beliefs, then the entire system becomes a farce.

Therein lies the problem. What is the greater good? Preserving a stable governmental structure that is based upon laws and a mandate from the people (hardly something the Nazi's stood for, BTW) or adhering to one's morality.

There are no simple answers and, therefore, it is natural to question the Church's treating politicians with a heavy hand.

Yours,

hal

I have not and do not make any such claim.

Again I make no such claim. I only recognize the possibility of such a view. And therefore see that some due diligence is required before one leaps to the conclusion that dignity of life is being rejected. Such a leap is unwarranted. I appreciate the difficulty of the bishops' task, and connot understand why any layperson with a sparse collection of observations would be clamoring for excommunications.

Yes, this I will say: opinions on politics and govenrment PER SE are similar to opinions on economics social policy.

You did not. Not even close.

Wrong again.

Your allusion to Hitler leads to a nice point.

Many holocaust survivors feel that the allies were derelict in not attacking the rail lines to the concentration camps directly, or launching missions to detroy the camps. many lives could have been saved.

Allied military leaders, however, felt the military objectives had to be focussed on ending, as fast as possible, the war - which in turn would liberate the concetration camp prisoners.

Were the allied military leaders complicit in the holocaust for not focussing more on the camps?

Hal & DJS Thanks for the clear and eloquent posts. It is nice to see that all Christians are not black-or-white, but can see the whole picture.

Lord, Grant us Peace!

Dear MKE:

Thank you for the thank you.

Yours,

hal

Dear djs,

Actually, many holocaust commentators affirm that the West was derelict in rejecting entire boat-loads of Jews fleeing for their lives.

Western politicans at first refused to believe that Jews were being exterminated by Hitler.

Even when Allied forces landed in Germany and saw the ovens in the camps, fully 25 % of all Allied soldiers said they thought Hitler had "some reason" to hate the Jews.

And, following the defeat of Germany, when interrogating Jews about their experiences under Hitler, Allied commanders, we know from letters and memos, ordered their underlings to "be careful with the Jews as they tend to exaggerate the circumstances of the camps."

In short, I think that comparisons with the Nazis are simply unfair in this discussion. Please tell LT I said so!

Alex

Dear Hal,

I"m just trying to get some moral understanding straight here.

As I said, I condemn no one and can only condemn myself.

Could I, in good conscience, vote for John Kerry or someone like him, even though he supports an abortion policy (O.K. for others)?

How do you think this COULD impact on my spiritual state?

Do you think this impacts in any way?

This whole thing is disturbing.

Am I wrong to feel that way?

You tell me. I'll listen to what you have to say as you are a member of the UGCC!

Alex

Dear Alex:

...assuming, of course, that you were a citizen of the United States of America (Royal Subjects Need Not Apply :p ).

Seriously, it is indeed disturbing. On one hand Mr. Kerry supports a morally objectionable view with regard to abortion, while, on the other hand, Mr. Bush is fighting a morally suspect war in Iraq.

There are no simple answers. If we were to follow the Vatican's teachings to the letter , we could not vote for eiether candidate.

I wonder what the Green Party's position is on these issues?

Yours,

hal