Ed Stoddard of Reuters’ religion blog Faithworld carries a roundup of the skirmish between Congressman Patrick Kennedy, the son of the late Senator Edward Kennedy, has claimed that Rhode Island Bishop Thomas Tobin.
In conclusion, Stoddard asks:
This leads to a question about the consistency of views in the U.S. Catholic Church leadership. The Church opposes abortion and therefore liberal politicians who support abortion rights risk being refused communion. The Church supports a healthcare overhaul that would make the system more equitable. So does a conservative Catholic politician who opposes this reform risk being denied communion for ignoring the Catholic social teaching that justifies it?
How about support for capital punishment, which the Vatican says is unjustified in almost all possible cases, or for war? In the build-up to the Iraq war, Pope John Paul was so opposed to the plan that he sent a personal envoy to Washington to argue against it. Did bishops threaten any measures against Catholic politicians who energetically supported that war despite Vatican opposition?
The author’s questions reveal an elementary ignorance concerning the moral issues in question and their relationship to varying levels of Church teaching. While I am disappointed by his answer (Faithworld is generally one of the better and more educational “religion blogs” in the secular media), it is understandable — as even many Catholics find themselves confused on this matter.
The basic difference between abortion and capital punishment (or the waging of armed force) is that the Church has firmly and explicitly taught that the former is an intrinsic evil: the direct taking of innocent human life to be opposed everywhere and at all times, while the moral worth of the latter two measures are contigent upon specific criteria and circumstance.
In the case of capital punishment, see the Catechism of the Catholic Church’s discussion of the fifth commandment, specifically the matter of “legitimate defense” (sections #2263-2267); on the matter of the waging of armed force, the Catholic tradition’s criteria for a “just war” (sections #2307-2317).
But is it not true that the Church has explicitly opposed contemporary instances of capital punishment or war? If so, why have the Bishops not sought to impose similar restrictions on communion on those officials in public life favoring the use of capital punishment, or expressing their support of U.S. foreign policy in Iraq—a conflict on which both Pope John Paul II and even our present Pope (then-Cardinal Ratzinger) made their opposition known? Aren’t such figures not in open dissent and in a state of obstinate sin against the Church as well?
It seems to me that the response lies in the following teaching of the Catechism on the delineation of responsibility:
With regards to the determination of moral criteria, the Catechism maintains “The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.”
As to the nature of “prudential judgement,” Russell Shaw—himself a vehement critic and opponent of the Iraq War—provided the following explanation in “Iraq, Weigel and the Pope” (Catholic Exchange. March 31, 2003—defending the ‘Catholic neocons’ legitimate right to disagree with John Paul II):
The notion of prudential judgment may need explaining. “Prudential” refers to prudence, and prudence these days has a bad name with people for whom it signifies lack of courage and failure of nerve. In the tradition, however, prudence is one of the cardinal virtues upon which other virtues depend. The function of prudence in this sense is to keep us in touch with morally relevant facts.
Given the limits of human knowledge, even prudential judgments by prudent people can be mistaken. In the present instance, the pope and Catholics who differed with him — conscientious and informed people like Novak, Weigel and Hudson — based their stands on an assessment of likely consequences of different courses of action. Since the assessments of what was more or less likely to happen in the future were different, so were the conclusions about what course of action to take.
To disagree with the pope in this manner is not dissent. It’s not as if Pope John Paul II had taught a definitive moral principle (e.g., direct attacks on noncombatants are ruled out) which the disagreeing Catholics rejected. They agreed with the principle. They disagreed about something contingent and by no means certain: what the future outcome of complex, competing scenarios was likely to be.
I believe that such an exercise of prudential judgement could equally be made in the exercise of capital punishment—where, for example, a Catholic public prosecutor might be compelled to respectfully disagree with a bishop on the means required in legitimate defense of society.
It is presumed that in such cases those who disagreed with the Pope on the justness of the Iraq war or the exercise of capital punishment were not disputing Catholic principles governing the dispute. George Weigel or the late Fr. Neuhaus, for example, while differing with the U.S. Bishops’ reading and application of just war criteria, could not be described as seeking to challenge or dismiss the criteria altogether. Likewise, as Avery Cardinal Dulles pointed out in his response to Justice Scalia, John Paul II’s opposition to capital punishment was prudential in nature and should not be construed as an overturning of 2,000 years of Catholic tradition.
Contrast this with Rep. Kennedy’s disparaging remarks about the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops for their recent letter to the House of Representatives, reminding them of the Catholic Church’s opposition to any legislation in health-care reform that would include funding for abortions or fail to include conscience-protections for health-care providers—a position which he explicitly ridiculed (warranting Bishop Tobin’s response). In such a case, the words and oftentimes legislative actions of Kennedy (or like-minded figures as Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden or Kathleen Sebelius, to name a few) stand in clear and direct opposition, in what is aptly described by Tobin as an obstinate rejection of Church teaching on abortion.
As then-Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict, put it succinctly in a 2004 letter to the U.S. Bishops articulating “general principles” on the distribution of communion:
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 discretion 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.
In light of which, it would appear that Thomas Tobin was fulfilling his obligations as a Bishop of the Catholic Church in responding to Senator Kennedy in such a manner.
Addendum
- The criteria for distribution of communion is spelled out at greater length by Archbishop Raymond Burke’s (now Prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura, a position equivalent to that of Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court) magisterial study of the matter: “Canon 915: The Discipline Regarding the Denial of Holy Communion to Those Obstinately Persevering in Manifest Grave Sin”.
- A valuable explanation of the development of the Church’s teaching on the death penalty (and the place of prudential judgement) can be found in Dr. Jeff Mirus’ Capital Punishment: Drawing the Line Between Doctrine and Opinion (CatholicCulture.org June 7, 2004).
November 27th, 2009 | 4:17 pm
Indeed, but after recognizing these important differences, is it wrong for a Catholic who has a devotion to the social teaching of the Church still to be concerned with public approbation (say, at a graduation ceremony?) for Catholic thinkers who seem to differ from the longstanding perspectives of modern popes on things like the death penalty, war, economics, the state, etc.?
November 27th, 2009 | 8:54 pm
Here’s something to consider when politicians/media compare abortion to the death penalty: in 2008 there were 37 executions in the U.S., and since 1976 there have never been more than 100 in a given year. In 2005 (the most recent year for which I could find numbers) there were 1.21 million abortions. Between 1973 and 2005 there have been 45 million abortions. Yes, a life is a life, but the scale of the abortion problem alone suggests a need to treat the issues differently.
November 27th, 2009 | 9:54 pm
But it is false that all abortions of pregnancies are considered to be intrinsically evil…one can terminate, for instance, to save the life of the mother. And therefore if the death penalty in the United States is a ‘prudential judgment’ (despite the catechism claiming that the instances of it being justified are ‘practically nonexistent’) then so is abortion.
But this gets even more complicated when one is thinking about a Roman Catholic politician supporting a public policy. Suppose they believed that abortion (when not used to save the life of the mother) was indeed an intrinsic evil. They now need to make a prudential judgment about what policy best mitigates against abortion. Suppose also the Catholic politician believed that banning abortion would not stop abortions from happening and would also result in the death and injury of many women. The might have a pro-choice voting record for this reason. And they might disagree with their local bishop about this prudential judgment.
Now, I think this prudential judgment would, in fact, be incorrect…but once you open up the prudential judgment door for these complicated situations (and I think you should) you can’t just apply it to the death penalty and war. It applies to abortion as well.
November 27th, 2009 | 11:09 pm
Unfortunately, Patrick Kennedy happens to be my Congressman. He will continue to be elected every two years because the Kennedy mystique is very strong around here. We also have another embarrassing mediocrity named Chafee who has been elected or appointed to office solely because of his name. In any event, I commend Bishop Tobin for trying to “educate” Patrick Kennedy.
November 27th, 2009 | 11:25 pm
The statement that abortion is a matter of prudential judgment needs clarification, Charlie. ‘Direct abortion’ (where the death of the child is immediately and deliberately willed) is always and everywhere immoral – voiced in JP2’s Evangelium Vitae but reflecting 2,000+ years of Tradition. ‘Indirect abortion’ (where the death of the child is not immediately or deliberately willed, but is an unintended side effect of a distinct procedure, say, an ectopic pregnancy) is not intrinsically immoral, and hence are justified in cases where ‘prudential judgment’ discerns adequate reasons. These cases are extremely rare, hardly enough to play a factor in national statistics. Other than these cases, abortion is never justified, even when the life of the mother is endangered (say, when serious hemorrhaging is expected).
As for legislation, yes, you are right – the question of what policies best reduce abortion is a difficult one, and one not considered frequently enough. I think we can all agree that a carte blanche on unrestricted abortion is not the best way to reduce abortions. I think most sensible people would agree that an outlawing of the procedure would, at least, not increase abortions. Financial and other assistance to mothers would certainly help, as well, but this is not an ‘either/or’ question – there is no reason why a policy outlawing abortion could not be combined with policies providing assistance to mothers.
November 28th, 2009 | 3:16 am
And if one accepts the teaching of the Church on the death penalty, the cases where it can be justified are ALSO ‘extremely rare’…and ‘hardly enough to play a factor in the national statistics.’ But if this tiny amount is enough to allow a Catholic politician to licitly counteract his bishop on the death penalty, then it is enough to do the same with regard to abortion.
Indeed, with abortion there are almost no politicians who say that it is a ‘good’ or ‘just’…but the same cannot be said of those who support the death penalty who, in fact, due refer to it as ‘justice’…in direct contradiction of Church teaching.
November 28th, 2009 | 9:34 am
What will be interesting to watch as we go forward in time will be the economic impact on abortion, capital punishment issues.
I will leave the Iraq war for another time, except for one point, neither Bush, the Pope, Putin, Mubarak or others had all the facts. The decision AT THE TIME, was made, I believe, for the protection of our country. Hindsight is always better.
As far as abortion and capital punishment, in the original Hebrew, the 5th commandment says “not shall you murder”, note murder, not kill. Murder, the taking of innocent life. So as this country goes farther into hock, how long will we be able to support medical care, room and board, exercise rooms, etc. for those who have been convicted of terrible crimes, to sit it out?
November 28th, 2009 | 9:51 am
Bishop Tobin did not say that Kennedy could not be a representative. He did not say that he could not be a Catholic.He said that Kennedy should not receive Holy Communion given that he has consistently and always supported abortion rights, he is an advocate for the right to private killing.He espouses this position from a public platform therefore giving scandal as a professed Catholic (sic). He knows all of this and furthers the scandal by intentionally undermining the Churches position in the public eye.He and his fellow travelers do this by making it seem as though the Church is confused in its beliefs and they deepen their offense by promoting and or letting stand the charge of hypocracy via the faux moral equivalency of abortion, war and capital punishment.They are nuanced and subtle enough to play that game but not enough to understand the distinctions. I don’t think so.
November 28th, 2009 | 2:58 pm
I have not read the comments on this post yet but I must say at this time that I believe no one as the right to refuse communion to anyone who truly thinks that he or she deserves The Body of Christ.
Having said the above, I must also say that I would hope that Our Catholic Church keeps telling people what is right and wrong as often as they can.
Again I say that at this time, I honestly believe that after having educated these people which would even include our Prime Minister of Canada and if he still wants to receive The Body of Christ, no one has a right to deny him that right cause “IT” is between him and God.
I will go as far as to say that even if we went back in time and Henry The Eight wanted also The Body of Christ, even after having taken the heads of his five wives, “IT” is his business and of course “The Blessed Trinity” will deal with him in His Own Way.
All we should do is try and make sure that they truly know what they are doing and of course keep praying for their souls.
I’ll close by saying that what will be will be.
God will never become greater no matter what we might do for HIM.
God Bless,
Peace
Merry Christmas to “ONE” and “All”
November 28th, 2009 | 3:41 pm
There is another very important thing that makes abortion “not like the others.” The waging of war and the execution of capital punishment are actions the government explicitly and purposefully takes. Abortion is an action that individuals take. The US government allows those individuals the freedom to take that action but it does not mandate the action and it does not decide whether or not that action is taken. Therefore it is a different matter altogether. In a liberal democracy a society struggles with its laws and what it considers criminal behavior. Abortion is a difficult matter because while it does involve the taking of a human life, that action takes place (in the vast majority of cases) inside the body of a US citizen who is guaranteed certain rights regarding over happenings inside her own body.
The government of the US is not taking these lives. Free citizens are taking these lives.
I am not a big fan of Patrick Kennedy (the above bloggers adjective of mediocre is probably generous), the Church has no reason to believe that he has participated in an abortion. Therefore, he is not guillty of abortion.
November 28th, 2009 | 4:01 pm
Are you saying then that the church does not value all life equally but that some lives are considered more valuable than others?
November 28th, 2009 | 6:10 pm
It is proposed that Catholic legislators might legitimately make “prudential” judgements about abortion — for example the might agree that it is a grave evil, but disagree on the public course taken to prohibit that evil and thus may consequently embrace a “pro-choice” position with respect to abortion in the context of public administration.
The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith — in its — explicitly teaches the following:
“The Church recognizes that while democracy is the best expression of the direct participation of citizens in political choices, it succeeds only to the extent that it is based on a correct understanding of the human person. Catholic involvement in political life cannot compromise on this principle”
“… legislative proposals are put forward which, heedless of the consequences for the existence and future of human beings with regard to the formation of culture and social behaviour, attack the very inviolability of human life. Catholics, in this difficult situation, have the right and the duty to recall society to a deeper understanding of human life and to the responsibility of everyone in this regard. John Paul II, continuing the constant teaching of the Church, has reiterated many times that those who are directly involved in lawmaking bodies have a «grave and clear obligation to oppose» any law that attacks human life. For them, as for every Catholic, it is impossible to promote such laws or to vote for them.”
“… As John Paul II has taught in his Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae regarding the situation in which it is not possible to overturn or completely repeal a law allowing abortion which is already in force or coming up for a vote, ‘an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at LIMITING the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality.’”
[end quote]
Consequently, for example, a legislator might support imperfect legislation which established limits on abortion but made notable exceptions (“rape or incest”).
That said, the above would, it would seem to me, prohibit a politician such as Patrick Kennedy lending his legislative support for any law which seeks to advance, preserve or maintain a so-called ‘right’ to elective abortion (such as ‘Roe v. Wade’).
And as Justin Cardinal Rigali made clear this past week, the same would apply to a health care reform that provides for tax-dollars funding abortion coverage.
Victor — I couldn’t help but notice your first and second assertions in your comment seem to be at odds with each other, inasmuch as it is the Church’s specific teaching that under certain circumstances, communion can and OUGHT to be refused.
Crystal — “Are you saying then that the church does not value all life equally but that some lives are considered more valuable than others?”
As my post sought to clarify, it depends on the nature of the act and the circumstance. The Catechism — and Catholic tradition — has consistently taught that lethal force may be used in specific circumstances, and has never embraced a position of absolute pacifism with respect to all life.
November 28th, 2009 | 7:09 pm
>>>Victor — I couldn’t help but notice your first and second assertions in your comment seem to be at odds with each other, inasmuch as it is the Church’s specific teaching that under certain circumstances, communion can and OUGHT to be refused.<<S (usual sinner) accordingly.
Now unless an issue is black and white and we know that the person really truly only wants to de-sanctify The Body of Christ then for his soul’s protection, Christian Catholics certainly have a duty to do something about “IT”.
I’m not going to get into a debate here cause as you probably know, we could debate this issue, as some might say, until the cows come home and still probably not change too many minds
I’ll close by saying that if a human has a Sincere Heart and wants to receive The Holy Communion and needless to say, he or she, as a Catholics, will have passed all requirement of “The Bride of Christ” which are now put in place. If all requirements have been met then
I suggest that we let our Lord deal with him/her if they still truly believe they’ve done nothing wrong.
I hope that helps a bit!
Peace
November 28th, 2009 | 7:13 pm
Christopher, as far as I’m concern, God is the only one who can and should look into our hearts to judge U>S (usual sinner) accordingly.
November 28th, 2009 | 11:49 pm
Christopher, I’m not sure why you’d limit it to situations of laws which permit abortion in rape and incest. If someone honestly believed that banning any kind of abortion wouldn’t reduce abortions but kill more women along with fetuses then then one could argue that legal abortion protects human life overall.
In addition, St. Thomas Aquinas said that it was bad to have a law that was unenforceable or that people would ignore because it would lessen the respect for the law in general.
Now, I disagree with this prudential judgment…but it hard to understand why a Catholic politician couldn’t make it about abortion and dissent from their local bishop if they are allowed to do it with regard to the death penalty and war.
November 29th, 2009 | 7:27 pm
[...] Abortion, Capital Punishment, and War | A First Things Blog. [...]
November 30th, 2009 | 2:19 am
Victor,
Thanks for replying. Of course we can debate this “until the cows come home”, but I think it might help to clarify or give an illustration of where the Church is coming from in its reasoning. As indicated, the general principle is that:
“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.”
Communion — reception of the Eucharist — is an outward sign of our unity with the Church and Christ. With that in mind, the Church is obviously concerned about the public scandal presented by a Catholic legislator whose public pronoucements or legislative actions seek to promote a false “right” to abortion, in disobedience to Catholic moral teaching.
What the Church is saying here is that it is by virtue of this act of disobedience, in clear and direct violation of Catholic moral teaching, that said legislator is placing himself outside of communion.
The Church’s response (per canon 915) is not to “look into the heart” but to judge the outward, public actions — as long as the subject continues to willfully fail to conform to the Church’s teaching, reception of the Eucharist will constitute a source of scandal.
Charlie — “If someone honestly believed that banning any kind of abortion wouldn’t reduce abortions but kill more women along with [babies] then then one could argue that legal abortion protects human life overall.”
Perhaps, but as a self-professed Catholic legislator, were they to publicly, after admonition, continue to support legislation favoring procured abortion, they would be guilty of obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin.
“it hard to understand why a Catholic politician couldn’t make it about abortion and dissent from their local bishop if they are allowed to do it with regard to the death penalty and war.”
The Church has explicitly taught that with regards to procured abortion (and legislation supporting such), and likewise with embryonic stem cell research, human cloning or euthanasia, that these are intrinsic evils which cannot be supported.
That said, I think you (or the Catholic politician) is illustrating my very point, in drawing an erroneous equation between abortion, capital punishment and war.
As noted in my post above — the criteria for distribution of communion is spelled out at greater length by Archbishop Raymond Burke’s (now Prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura, a position equivalent to that of Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court) magisterial study of the matter: “Canon 915: The Discipline Regarding the Denial of Holy Communion to Those Obstinately Persevering in Manifest Grave Sin”.
As Burke points out:
The long-standing discipline of the Church requires that the minister of Holy Communion exercise discretion regarding the distribution of Holy Communion to those who persist in manifest and grievous sin. The exercise of such discretion is not a judgment on the subjective state of the soul of the person approaching to receive Holy Communion, but a judgment regarding the objective condition of serious sin in a person who, after due admonition from his pastor, persists in cooperating formally with intrinsically evil acts like procured abortion. In the Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae, Pope John Paul II made clear the Church’s teaching regarding the obligation of a Catholic legislator, when he declared:
Abortion and euthanasia, therefore, are crimes which no human law can make ratified. Laws of this kind not only do not bind the conscience; truly they gravely and expressly compel that the same be opposed because of repugnance to conscience.
The fifth principle of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger’s memorandum, “Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion”, makes it clear that a Catholic politician’s formal cooperation in abortion or euthanasia, that is, <>, constitutes an < >, and that, therefore, < > [89].
November 30th, 2009 | 6:36 am
[...] known as Pope Benedict XVI. Here’s what he wrote about the “consistency” question (H/T to First Things) in 2004: Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, [...]
November 30th, 2009 | 8:09 am
OK, Chris, you make my point for me. One could (and this doesn’t describe me) be a pro-choice Catholic politician…not because they support abortion…but because they make a prudential judgment about the public policy about how best or protect human life. That prudential judgment would obviously be at odds with the local bishop in the United States.
Now, WHY would that person be denied communion…while other ‘Catholic’ politicians make prudential judgments about the death penalty and war, also in conflict with their local bishops, and are able to get the sacrament?
November 30th, 2009 | 9:38 am
Charlie,
Respectfuly, I think you need to go back and read my post.
November 30th, 2009 | 11:08 am
Chris,
Respectfully, I did. Twice. Actually, your post was non-responsive because it dealt with a situation which the Catholic politician ’supported’ intrinsic evils. As I point out, the situation I propose involves no such thing. The politician agrees that abortion is intrinsically evil, and refuses to support it, but makes a prudential judgment about what kind of public policy regarding abortion best defends human life…and decides that a pro-choice policy is the best one given that (again in his view, not mine) banning abortion will not stop any abortions, result in the death of more women, and will (as Aquinas worried) contribute to a disrespect for law.
I’ll ask again and, respectfully, I hope to get an answer: given that this politician AGREES that abortion is intrinsically evil, and does NOT support it, why is his prudential judgment worthy of communion denial whereas other prudential judgments about life and death (war/death penalty/etc.) are not?
November 30th, 2009 | 3:44 pm
For any of us worrying about Charlie and Victor, I think invincible ignorance is still a defense.
November 30th, 2009 | 7:25 pm
Charlie says,
“The politician agrees that abortion is intrinsically evil, and refuses to support it, but makes a prudential judgment about what kind of public policy regarding abortion best defends human life…and decides that a pro-choice policy is the best one given that (again in his view, not mine) banning abortion will not stop any abortions, result in the death of more women, and will (as Aquinas worried) contribute to a disrespect for law…why is his prudential judgment worthy of communion denial whereas other prudential judgments about life and death (war/death penalty/etc.) are not?”
As a Catholic state legislator, I have a public record of promoting legislation that would restrict the judicially-created right to kill innocent unborn children. I have also defended the state’s prerogative to prudentially impose capital punishment.
Killing innocent unborn children is intrinsically and always evil. This natural moral law (infallibly upheld by the Magisterium) has been inscribed on every human heart.
Thus, abortion can never be justified on prudential grounds. When human law (public policy) contravenes the natural law, the immoral law (policy) must be opposed. I think that Thomas Aquinas and Martin Luther King would both agree with this conclusion.
So even if a Catholic legislator could rationalize, as Charlie suggests, that “banning abortion will not stop any abortions,” the lawmaker would nevertheless be morally bound to oppose any public policy or human law that would permit the intrinsically evil act.”
Accordingly, there is no valid prudential judgment reserved to the Catholic legislator on whether to oppose human laws permitting abortion. In fact, Pope John Paul II reminded Catholic legislators that we have a moral obligation to clearly and publicly oppose all abortion rights even as we enact laws that would restrict some of them.
On the other hand, the Catholic Church teaches that the state holds ultimate authority to impose capital punishment and to engage in war as prudentially determined under the circumstances of each individual case.
If these views of my moral duties and prerogatives as a Catholic legislator are flawed, please correct me.
November 30th, 2009 | 8:38 pm
For starters, not all abortions of pregnancy are intrinsically evil. What constitutes an IE act is very complex, but Church teaching is currently that indirect abortions for a proportionate reason (like saving the life of the mother) can be licit. So, right there, you have a prudential judgment with regard to the act itself.
Second, there is a distinction to be made between between the act itself and the public policy surrounding an act. For instance, we all know that abandoning of the poor is one of the worst things any person can do…Jesus claims that you end up in hell if you do it…the Church fathers call it indirect homicide…Aquinas says that the poor are actually owed our resources…etc. But it doesn’t follow that this moral duty must be legislated. A Roman Catholic law maker must make a prudential judgment about how best to enact this value into law…making it mandatory to give resources to the poor might actually not be the best way to achieve this goal. Public policy over has unintended consequences and thus a prudential judgment must be made (which often seems counter-intuitive) about how best to achieve the value in question. Now, with abortion, a Catholic legislator would necessarily have to agree that (at least most) abortions are an intrinsic evil…but they could very easily come to the reasonable (though I think false) prudential judgment that the pro-choice position best defends human life for the reasons I already mentioned.
Now, I’ll just ask again: why would this legislator be denied communion over a disagreement with the local bishop over a prudential judgment when a pro-death penalty Catholic legislator would not be for his prudential judgment?
November 30th, 2009 | 9:40 pm
OK, Chris, you make my point for me.
Whenever a person says this, you can lay pretty good odds that, in fact, the person has not made the person’s argument, but it is a cute rhetorical ploy that permits a person to avoid having to proffer a counter-argument.
Respectfully, I did. Twice.
Respectfully, you probably ought to take a reading course. Christopher and Legislator have both laid down that you are quite mistaken about the prudential aspect of abortion, offering quotes from the catechism and other Church teaching, and you have blithely blown past it without much thought or effort.
Now, I’ll just ask again: why would this legislator be denied communion over a disagreement with the local bishop over a prudential judgment when a pro-death penalty Catholic legislator would not be for his prudential judgment?
And you’ll probably just ignore the response again, but the matter of abortion is not a prudential judgment, it is clearly prohibited. You can twist this beyond all recognition, but it does not change the reality. Sorry.
November 30th, 2009 | 10:05 pm
Paul, you mean like when Chris said “I think you (or the Catholic politician) is illustrating my very point,”? I don’t think you should say such nasty things about him like that.
Oh, and speaking of arguments…I’m still trying to find one in your post. You assert that ‘the issue of abortion’ (I’m not sure what aspect of this issue you are talking about) is not a prudential judgment, but because I know you are a good Catholic I know you can’t mean this because Church teaching is that one can have an indirect abortion for a proportionate reason…by definition a prudential judgment. And one of the quotes offered by Chris from JPII claims that a Catholic legislator can support laws limiting the harm done by abortion (say, banning abortion in all cases but life and rape)…but this would require, you guessed it, a prudential judgment.
Now, because I know you are a good Catholic, I know you will want to restate your point about ‘the matter of abortion’ and prudence.
November 30th, 2009 | 10:17 pm
Now, because I know you are a good Catholic, I know you will want to restate your point about ‘the matter of abortion’ and prudence.
No, not really, having stated it pretty clearly the first time. But thanks for playing.
December 1st, 2009 | 10:14 am
Charlie says,
“For starters, not all abortions of pregnancy are intrinsically evil. What constitutes an IE act is very complex, but Church teaching is currently that indirect abortions for a proportionate reason (like saving the life of the mother) can be licit. So, right there, you have a prudential judgment with regard to the act itself.”
An abortion, by definition, is the direct killing of an unborn child. This act is intrinsically evil. It is hardly a complex moral concept.
An “indirect abortion” is not an abortion at all. Thus, if an unborn child dies as an unintended and indirect consequence of an attempt to save the life of the mother, no abortion has been committed.
Accordingly, there is no prudential judgment involved with respect to the act itself. If the homicide is direct and intentional, it is abortion. If the homicide is indirect and unintentional, it is not abortion.
This is the natural law. Catholic politicians who advocate public policies and human laws that permit intrinsically evil acts such as abortion and thus contravene the natural law (as upheld by the Magisterium) are not in communion with Catholic moral teachings.
Catholic politicians who publically oppose human laws that permit intrinsically evil acts (even if they may differ with the Church regarding issues subject to prudential judgment) remain in communion with the Church.
I still fail to recognize the flaw in my position.
December 1st, 2009 | 11:04 am
No. An abortion, by definition, is anytime a pregnancy is, well, aborted. There are spontaneous abortions. There are direction abortions. There are indirect abortions.
“Catholic politicians who advocate public policies and human laws that permit intrinsically evil acts such as abortion and thus contravene the natural law (as upheld by the Magisterium) are not in communion with Catholic moral teachings.”
This is not Church Teaching as has already been explained above. Advocating for public policy is far more complex than this…both in reality and in the Roman Catholic moral tradition which reflects this reality.
December 1st, 2009 | 12:02 pm
Charlie says,
“No. An abortion, by definition, is anytime a pregnancy is, well, aborted. There are spontaneous abortions. There are direction abortions. There are indirect abortions.”
My point is that the direct and intentional killing of innocent unborn human life is the only definition of abortion that has moral implications. Spontaneous/indirect abortions, though sad and tragic, have no relevance to the natural moral law.
“Catholic politicians who advocate public policies and human laws that permit intrinsically evil acts such as abortion and thus contravene the natural law (as upheld by the Magisterium) are not in communion with Catholic moral teachings.”
Charlie further says,
“This is not Church Teaching as has already been explained above. Advocating for public policy is far more complex than this…both in reality and in the Roman Catholic moral tradition which reflects this reality.”
Yes, Charlie, this is Church Teaching as outlined above. I cannot state the Church’s position any more clearly than Cardinal Ratzinger did in 2004:
“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.”
December 1st, 2009 | 1:19 pm
Surely you don’t mean to imply that I can have an indirect abortion for any reason without violating the natural law? Not every violation of the natural law is also an intrinsic evil. Indeed, if I have an indirect abortion because I want to go the beach next week (and I foresee but don’t intend that the child will die) that is just as against the natural law as having a direct abortion for that reason.
Voting for pro-choice legislation, because one believes that the alternative wouldn’t stop abortion and would result in the deaths of thousands of women (though one does believe abortion is an intrinsic evil), is hardly formal cooperation with evil. Indeed, as I’ve shown above, Church teaching claims quite the opposite.
December 1st, 2009 | 2:31 pm
Charlie says,
“Surely you don’t mean to imply that I can have an indirect abortion for any reason without violating the natural law?”
If you define an indirect abortion as the unintended and indirect death of an unborn child resulting from an attempt to save the life of the mother, then you have not violated the natural moral law.
January 21st, 2010 | 10:48 am
As I understand it, the Church continues to hold the position that the use of contraception is intrinsically evil. From the Vatican’s Pontifical Council for the Family (1997):
The Church has always taught the intrinsic evil of contraception, that is, of every marital act intentionally rendered unfruitful. This teaching is to be held as definitive and irreformable. Contraception is gravely opposed to marital chastity; it is contrary to the good of the transmission of life (the procreative aspect of matrimony), and to the reciprocal self-giving of the spouses (the unitive aspect of matrimony); it harms true love and denies the sovereign role of God in the transmission of human life.
Presumably, Catholic politicians who take no action to outlaw the use of contraceptives should be subject to the same treatment as those who don’t act to outlaw abortion. With this in mind, why wasn’t contraception mentioned in the articulation of “general principles” on the distribution of communion?
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact