Dear Friend of Catholic Answers:
Today is the feast of St. Justin Martyr, patron of apologists and of
Catholic Answers. The son of pagans, he lived from 100-165 and was martyred
in Rome. His chief writing was "Dialogue with Trypho the Jew," a defense of
Christian beliefs. Justin is commonly considered the Church's first
"professional" apologist.
Hundreds of Justin wannabes (they wannabe apologists but not necessarily
martyrs!) can be found at our new discussion forums. In a bit over two
weeks, more than 2,600 people have registered at the forums. They have
written 13,000 messages on 1,000 topics and have made our site the
fastest-growing and most active Catholic discussion site in the
English-speaking world.
Why not stop by and see who's having all the fun? Use your browser to go to:
http://forums.catholic.com
TED'S WIFE STANDS UP FOR HER MAN
Last week the "Washington Post" published an op-ed piece by Victoria
Kennedy, the wife of Sen. Ted Kennedy. She is an attorney who "works with
non-profit groups to reduce violence and improve the quality of life for
women, children, and families," according to her biographical squib. Now
she is expanding her areas of concern to include instructing the Catholic
bishops on canon law and on the real meaning of Vatican II.
Mrs. Kennedy says that the denial of Communion to pro-abortion (she calls
them "pro-choice") politicians such as her husband is a "harsh penalty"
that is the result of a "flawed and intellectually dishonest argument" that
sees "a vote not to criminalize abortion" as the "equivalent of the act of
abortion itself." She says those who advocate the denial of Communion are
misusing canon law and misinterpret "Dignitatis Humanae," Vatican II's
declaration on religious liberty.
There indeed is a "flawed and intellectually dishonest argument," but it is
Mrs. Kennedy's, not the bishops'. They and the Church they lead have not
made the puerile argument that refusing to outlaw abortion is equivalent to
abortion itself. They have said that the promotion of abortion by
politicians--and this is what we really are talking about--is a grave sin
that leads others to commit the grave sin of abortion. The sin of promoting
abortion is enough to keep one away from Communion, if that sin is
"manifest," which is to say public, and if it is persisted in.
Not good enough, says Mrs. Kennedy. This "completely ignores the
freedom-of-conscience provisions that are integral to the practice of our
Catholic faith." She says "Pro-choice politicians ... do not support
legislation to require or even encourage women to have abortions; they
simply refuse to make abortion a crime punishable under non-church law."
Their consciences lead them to this position, and their conscientious
decision should be respected.
The Church nowhere says that freedom of conscience gives one carte blanche.
You cannot be a good Catholic and endorse an intrinsic evil. If such an
endorsement doesn't prick your conscience, then your conscience is
malfunctioning and needs to go to the repair shop.
Besides, we're not talking here about an especially convoluted question or
one that only recently has come to the attention of moral theologians.
Abortion is an easy issue to deal with at the moral level. There is no
reason to scratch one's head and wonder, "Is abortion morally permissible?
Is it something that I, as a Catholic, can endorse? Is it something that I,
as a Catholic politician, can foster?" Freedom of conscience just doesn't
enter into the equation.
I appreciate what I suspect to be Mrs. Kennedy's chief motive, spousal
loyalty. She's watching out for her husband, whom many consider to be the
chief Catholic proponent of abortion in the federal government. No doubt
Mrs. Kennedy's essay was vetted by the Senator's staff--perhaps was written
by his staff--and surely was intended to deflect criticism away from him
and from other pro-abortion politicians and onto the bishops themselves.
The bishops, you see, are the real problem. They are intruding their
beliefs into the public square. They are not respecting the tender
consciences of other Catholics. In fact, they are trying to impose their
own consciences on other people, as though they had a hotline to God. The
effrontery!
MANIFESTING MORAL PRINCIPLES IN COLORADO SPRINGS
One bishop who is taking a lot of heat is Michael Sheridan of Colorado
Springs. In a recent pastoral letter he instructed politicians who support
abortion, euthanasia, and homosexual marriage not to receive Communion. He
named no names. He just spelled out a principle: If you are a Catholic who
persists in public and grave sin, you aren't eligible to be in the
Communion line.
His reasoning was simple: Someone who persists in a public and grave sin is
not in the state of grace, and you must be in the state of grace to receive
Communion worthily (see 1 Cor. 11:27-29). If you are not in the state of
grace, for this or any other reason, remain seated in the pew at Communion
time.
Mrs. Kennedy must know, if she is as conversant with canon law as she
implies she is, that what Bishop Sheridan wrote falls under canon 915 of
the Code of Canon Law. That canon states that "Those who ... obstinately
persist in manifest [that is, public] grave sin are not to be admitted to
Holy Communion."
Abortion is a grave sin, which means promoting abortion is a grave sin.
Promoting abortion publicly is a public (or manifest) grave sin. Doing so
repeatedly is to persist in a manifest grave sin. Refusing to stop
promoting abortion after having become aware of the sinfulness of abortion
is to "obstinately persist in manifest grave sin."
"SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE" OR "SEPARATION OF STATE AND CHURCH"?
Barry Lynn is the head of Americans United for Separation of Church and
State. The organization was founded by Paul Blanshard more than half a
century ago, and it originally was called Protestants and Others United for
Separation of Church and State. It began as an anti-Catholic organization
and essentially remains one.
Lynn sent a letter to the IRS, asking it to investigate "electioneering" by
the Diocese of Colorado Springs. He says that Bishop Sheridan's pastoral
letter amounts to saying "vote Republican." The diocese should lose its tax
exemption, thinks Lynn.
I wonder why those who say the Church should stay out of politics do not
hesitate to say that politics should intrude itself into the Church. If the
Church isn't supposed to tell the government what to do, why should the
government be at liberty to tell the Church what to do? Is "separation" a
one-way street?
Now I don't think much of the principle however it is phrased. But if
you're going to squawk "Separation!" each time a bishop has the temerity to
issue a statement on morals, shouldn't you refrain from yelling "Let's have
a government crackdown"?
WHO NEEDS TAX EXEMPTIONS ANYWAY?
I wouldn't mind seeing the Church being taken to court over something like
this. Let's bring in all the dioceses as defendants. Let's have a big
brouhaha. Either way, the Church wins.
If the court throws out the case, that's one threat that disappears, and
people such as Barry Lynn have that much less clout.
If the court removes the dioceses' tax exemptions, the Church is freed from
the fear of what the IRS might do. That fear has been responsible, in part,
for the timidity of many bishops. Ask their staffs why they have not taken
hardline positions in public, and you're told that "we can't risk losing
our tax exemption."
Why not? The only thing a tax exemption provides is more money. In theory,
if you have a tax exemption, donors will donate more because the tax bite
to them is lessened. This is true so far as it goes, but it doesn't go far
enough.
If American dioceses had their tax exemptions yanked, if they were
perceived as being persecuted by the government, Catholics would rush to
their aid. The people in the pews would show their loyalty to the Church
through their pocketbooks.
I think donations would soar, far more than offsetting the value of the tax
exemption. Lay Catholics would not worry much about whether their donations
were deductible. They would give because they would be defending their
Church from government intrusion.
Of course, I'd prefer to have it both ways. I'd like Lynn's letter to be
ignored by the IRS. I'd like the Church to maintain its tax-exempt status.
And I'd like the bishops to take a hardline approach, even harder than that
taken by Bishop Sheridan. I'd like them to name names.
p.s., If you have a comment about anything appearing in this E-Letter, please do
not hit your Reply button, and please do not send an e-mail directly to me.
Instead, go to Catholic Answers' discussion forums at:
http://forums.catholic.com
You may post your comment in the forum dedicated to the E-Letter, or you may use
the General forum if that seems more appropriate.
p.p.s., Catholic Answers' third annual apologetics cruise will take you from
Montreal to Boston by way of the Canadian maritime provinces. Our voyage is
from October 2-9. Find out more at:
www.catholicanswerscruise.com
|
Catholic Answers
Discuss
Index
Prior issue
Next issue
Sign up