The Consistency of Our Bishops

In recent days, I’ve been an active reader and poster on the CatholicVote blog (www.catholicvote.com). Another regular poster there questioned the consistency of the U.S. Bishops in teaching about the “life issues”, e.g. abortion, unjust war, etc. In one of his postings, he said:

I’m still waiting for an explanation of why the unborn child is given precedence over the already born child, and again, I’m still waiting for just one example of a bishop declaring that a Catholic politician should be denied Communion because of their voting/judicial record on unjust war, the death penalty, torture and unfettered access to guns. Antonin Scalia thinks it’s perfectly ok to torture human beings and to execute the mentally retarded. When I hear a Catholic bishop declare that Scalia should not receive Communion unless he revises his stance on these issues, then I’ll believe the Catholic church is consistent on its teachings and is willing to address more than one grave moral issue at one time. That is the clearest example I can give you of what amounts to hypocrisy and partisan politics rather than a moral compass.

What follows is my response.

First, a little context. It’s important to first have a basic understanding of why the church opts to discipline her members. I think the analogy that works best is that of a parent-child relationship.

• Reasonable, well-balanced parents set rules and expectations for their children, and when the rules aren’t followed, there are consequences for the actions. We probably all can name a parent or two who hasn’t set boundaries for their children, and the results are rather predictable.
• A parent will ensure that the consequences are appropriate for the offense. Parents who use extreme measures for the smallest offenses are in real trouble when a major offense comes along, first because they’ve essentially run out of viable options, and second, they’ve confused the child who will have trouble distinguishing between a small offense and a big offense, because the consequences were the same.
• A parent typically will not punish a child for something they didn’t know was wrong, but rather will use the opportunity as a teachable moment. If my young child plays with matches, I don’t discipline the first time; rather I explain why matches are dangerous.
• A parent will also be likely to cut some slack for a first offense, but will show an increased lack of tolerance for subsequent offenses. After I’ve explained once or twice about the dangers of playing with fire, and the child persists in the behavior, then perhaps a slap on the hand or a timeout is in order.
• Parents don’t punish their kids simply to see them suffer, but rather to see them learn and grow. I don’t ground my child because I take great pleasure in seeing them sit inside the house on a nice summer day. In fact, I know that it’s very good for them to be outside playing with their friends, but my hope is that by depriving them of that privilege, they will learn from their mistakes (or, even better, the threat of the punishment will prevent them from misbehaving).
• A respectful parent will typically discipline in private, so as to not unnecessarily embarrass their child. However, the parent may want to make sure the other children in the family don’t make the same mistake, in which case the parent would offer warnings or corrections publicly.

And so it is with our bishops. They are our spiritual fathers, and they have an obligation to form us in matters of faith and morals. Their first concern is for the salvation of our souls, and so they teach us in the ways of Christ and his Church. But, if we choose to stray, then the bishop, like the good father he is, will lovingly guide us back to the family of believers. If we persist in our ways, the bishop is obligated, just as a good parent is obligated, to discipline the child using appropriate measures as outlined above. The bishop doesn’t take great pleasure in denying Holy Communion, because he recognizes that the sacramental graces that are received through the reception of communion are exactly what are needed to effect a conversion. But, if the individual does not show that he or she shares the “common union” with the rest of the Church, then the bishop recognizes that the situation invites scandal.

The church’s authority to withhold Holy Communion from someone not in communion with the church’s teachings comes from Canon Law #915, which I quote in its entirety:

Can. 915 Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to Holy Communion.

The key phrase here is “others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin”. Withholding of Holy Communion is reserved as a discipline where serious grave matters are involved. It’s applied to those who are persistent in their behavior, which implies that over time, the individual has remained on a steady course of rejecting church teaching. And the person has been obstinate; that is, has stubbornly refused to follow the teachings of those in authority over them. In other words, the individual knows about the seriousness of his actions, and yet the individual has consistently thumbed his nose at church teaching.

Against this backdrop, I can now address the specific question as it applies to current issues.

• Euthanasia and embryonic stem cell research: You’d be hard-pressed to find a Catholic politician that supports euthanasia and/or embryonic stem cell research, but not abortion. Politicians would tend to support these together with abortion, and thus they are already being corrected for their position on abortion. If there are isolated instances of Catholic politicians supporting euthanasia or embryonic stem cell research (and not supporting abortion), I would expect that the respective Bishops are addressing the matter privately, and it’s not necessarily going to make national news.

• Unfettered access to guns: Again, I think it would be difficult to find a Catholic politician – or any politician, for that matter – that supports unfettered access to guns. More importantly, the church doesn’t have a position on specific gun control measures. The church does have a position on murder, whether caused by legal or illegal guns. He who murders has committed a mortal sin, and those not in a state of grace cannot be admitted to Holy Communion in accordance with Canon 916. But since there is no Church teaching which would require a politician to enact particular gun control laws, this is a moot point.

• Health Care/Economic policy: Once again, I think you’d be hard-pressed to find any politician that is going to deny basic health care to anyone, or is not going to enact policies to address economic situations. And, not surprisingly, the church doesn’t have a position on what sort of health care a government must provide for its citizens, or whether or not a nation’s government should bail out failed businesses. Yes, our Catholic faith demands social justice, but it doesn’t mandate how the government does that, if at all, or if it should be left to the generosity of individuals (or some combination). You’re not hearing the bishops condemn candidates on their health care or economic policies because it’s a moot point.

• Capital Punishment: On this issue, I was surprised to learn that Church teaching does permit the possibility for governments to use capital punishment. See the Catechism of the Catholic Church, numbers 2266, 2267, and 2321. At the same time, the Church requires that the use of capital punishment be rare, the guilty party's identity and responsibility must be fully determined, and is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor. Having said all that, you’d have to find a Catholic legislator who is voting for permissive and open-ended capital punishment laws, or Catholic prosecuting authorities who are abusing the application of the death penalty, in order for the Bishops to have someone to correct. Such instances are likely relatively isolated, and like the case of euthanasia or embryonic stem cell research, not likely to have gained national attention.

• Unjust war: I will address this assuming the question is specifically referring to the ongoing Iraqi war. Forget everything you know now about the Iraqi war and the non-existence of weapons of mass destruction, and rewind back to the beginning of 2003. The Bush administration was making the case for invading Iraq, and popular opinion both inside the government and outside, was much divided. Even within the Catholic Church there was division. Pope John Paul advised against an Iraqi invasion, as did some US bishops. But many US Bishops felt that an invasion of Iraq met the conditions for a just war. Archbishop O’Brien, who headed the military archdiocese at the time, issued a statement affirming that Catholic soldiers could participate in the war in good conscience. The problem, we now know, is that the intelligence that was used to make these decisions and assessments was flawed, perhaps even intentionally (that’s another debate for another blog!). I would guess that many of those that voted for the war (which included significant bi-partisan support) would vote differently today, and I’m sure if Archbishop O’Brien knew then what he knows now, he might have come to a different conclusion. I think the Bishops are responding like a good, reasonable parent would when a child acts either out of ignorance, or because they were tricked into doing something they might not otherwise do. I don’t think one could make a convincing case that those politicians who voted for the war in 2003 were being “obstinate”, nor is it 100% absolute that at the time there was any sort of agreement as to the existence of “manifest grave sin.”

So, what about those politicians that have continued to support the war, even once the knowledge about Iraq’s lack of WMDs came to light? Are they, by their votes, allowing a grave evil to continue? One could reasonably conclude that since we bear a large responsibility for the mess in Iraq, we also bear a large moral responsibility to clean up that mess. To simply pull out of Iraq, and let anarchy reign, would be irresponsible. So, lacking any concrete evidence of anyone “obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin”, I think the Bishops are correct in not withholding communion from those politicians who supported (or continue to support) the war, much in the same way that a good and reasonable parent would give their child the benefit of the doubt when it wasn’t absolutely clear that the child knowingly violated one of the parent’s rules.

• Justice Antonin Scalia: I must admit that I’m not personally familiar with Justice Scalia’s specific positions on the issues mentioned, but I will take your word for it. I could only assume that the Justice’s pastor and/or bishop would be talking with him privately.

I think it’s quite clear that the Bishops have been acting consistently. Regarding abortion, the Bishops have taken a vocal, public stand, because the obstinate actions of so many politicians has had widespread repercussions, from the deaths of thousands of babies each day, to the leading of the faithful astray with actions and words contrary to Church teaching. Regarding the other issues, we cannot automatically assume that perceived silence equates to inaction on the part of the Bishops.

Truth, Freedom, and Abortion

As published in the 10/10/2008 issue of Today’s Catholic Newspaper
by The Most Rev. José H. Gomez, S.T.D. Archbishop of San Antonio

Abortion is not a “Catholic” issue. It is a matter of fundamental human rights. In fact, I believe it is the foundational issue of our time. Because it is so important, the Church has spoken clearly about it and believes it is an essential aspect of the Catholic faith. Unfortunately, however, in the last few months some of our leading Catholic politicians have chosen very public platforms to make misleading statements about it.

One of the misleading arguments is that the question of when life begins is “a matter of faith.” I think that modern biology clearly shows us that human life begins at conception. Embryologists can show us that within just a few weeks the embryo has developed recognizable features, including his or her face, arms, and legs. And the Servant of God John Paul II in his encyclical Evangelium Vitae (No. 60), very accurately quoted from a declaration of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: “from the time that the ovum is fertilized, a life is begun which is neither that of the father nor the mother; it is rather the life of a new human being with his own growth. It would never be made human if it were not human already. This has always been clear, and ... modern genetic science offers clear confirmation. It has demonstrated that from the first instant there is established the program of what this living being will be: a person, this individual person with his characteristic aspects already well determined. Right from fertilization the adventure of a human life begins, and each of its capacities requires time-a rather lengthy time-to find its place and to be in a position to act.”

It is confusing then, that Senator Joseph Biden, who is Catholic, said in an interview recently that while he was “prepared to accept the teachings of my Church,” he refuses to “impose” his views on others by seeking to “criminalize” abortion. This opinion both ducks the hard business of governing in a democracy and reveals a blindness to the gravity of the abortion issue.

Let me be clear. I’m not questioning Mr. Biden’s character or public service. But I am challenging his moral reasoning on a grave matter of our life together as American citizens—the routine and ongoing destruction of more than a million innocent human lives each year, a destruction permitted by our laws and carried out with the complicity of many sectors of our society, from politicians and judges to doctors and nurses, and members of the media.

I repeat: Abortion is not only a Catholic issue or a “matter of faith.” It concerns the most fundamental questions in any human civilization: Who gets to live and who doesn’t—and who gets to decide this question? Can one’s rights or freedoms include the right and freedom to extinguish the life of one who is weaker?

The Catholic Church’s position on these questions is clear. Our Savior chose to come among us as each one of us came into this world, by spending nine months in a mother’s womb. Blessed Mother Teresa used to talk about this a lot. She reminded us that our religion begins with the story of two pregnant women and their unborn children. And it was an unborn child, John the Baptist, who was the first to proclaim Christ’s presence— when he leapt in his mother’s womb at the Visitation (see Luke 1:39–45).

And the rejection of abortion has been a basic element of Catholic identity since the Church’s earliest days. The , a manual of Church morals written even earlier than the later writings of the New Testament, condemns abortion as infanticide. Athenagoras, a catechist, wrote to the Roman Emperor in 177 A.D. that the Church considers abortion “murder” because “the fetus in the womb is a created being and therefore an object of God’s care.” This tells us that opposition to the abomination of abortion is more than a partisan political position. For the Catholic, this belief goes to the heart of the mystery that Christ came into this world to reveal to us. This mystery is reflected in our country’s founding document, which speaks of our being endowed by our Creator with rights that no one can take away from us or pretend that we don’t have—the first of these being the right to life.

All of this has implications for our participation in the political process. A Catholic must be prepared to live and defend the truths that Christ came into this world to die for. A Catholic is duty-bound to ask: Is a candidate fit to hold office if he or she believes it should be legal to kill even a fully developed child in the last weeks of a pregnancy for undefined “health” reasons? And again, can we accept candidates who support experimentation with the stem cells of human embryos, or cloning, or euthanasia? Can we make real progress on any of the critical issues that we face as a nation if we can’t agree to protect the smallest and most defenseless among us?

To ask these questions isn’t to impose Catholic beliefs on other Americans. This is the political contribution that a morally mature people must make in a democracy. This is a bearing witness to the truths that Jesus has revealed to us—truths that, again, are enshrined in our country’s founding document.

Catholics are obliged to seek leaders who have the courage to stand up for these truths. Leaders who aren’t ashamed or afraid to pursue peaceful and democratic means to persuade our fellow citizens of this essential natural truth that it is also a foundational aspect of the teachings of the Catholic faith.

May Mary, the Mother of God and our Mother, continue to intercede for us that we will be “people of life” bringing the “Gospel of life” to our world.

A National Tragedy?

In the Oct 2nd Vice Presidental debate, Joe Biden said that if Barack Obama were to die in office, that would be a “national tragedy of historic proportion.” Really? I suppose that might be true if you were a self-appointed messiah, sent to save the helpless citizens of this great country of ours. But let’s get real.

Hurricane Katrina was a national tragedy of historic proportion.

Pearl Harbor was a national tragedy of historic proportion.

The September, 2001 terrorist attacks against our country was a national tragedy of historic proportion.

The killing of 4,000 babies each and every day continues to be a national tragedy of historic proportion.

But the death of a sitting President? Sure, it would be a sad, unfortunate event. But to call it a “national tragedy of historic proportion” only serves to illuminate the self-centered opinion Obama and Biden have of themselves. If Obama gets elected, I’m afraid the first thing he would do is spend millions of dollars enlarging the Oval Office to fit his ego.

We certainly could use just a bit more humility from our leaders.

A PASTORAL LETTER FROM BISHOP MARTINO

The following is a pastoral letter from Archbishop Martino of Scranton, PA. The letter is to be read at all Masses during the weekend of Respect Life Sunday, Oct 5, 2088. I present it here in its entirity for your prayerful consideration and reflection.

My brothers and sisters in Christ,

The American Catholic bishops initiated Respect Life Sunday in 1972, the year before the Supreme Court legalized abortion in the United States. Since that time, Catholics across the country observe the month of October with devotions and pro-life activities in order to advance the culture of life. This October, our efforts have more significance than ever. Never have we seen such abusive criticism directed toward those who believe that life begins at conception and ends at natural death.

As Catholics, we should not be surprised by these developments. Forty years ago, Pope Paul VI predicted that widespread use of artificial contraceptives would lead to increased marital infidelity, lessened regard for women, and a general lowering of moral standards especially among the young. Forty years later, social scientists, not necessarily Catholics, attest to the accuracy of his predictions. As if following some bizarre script, the sexual revolution has produced widespread marital breakdown, weakened family ties, legalized abortion, sexually transmitted diseases, pornography, same-sex unions, euthanasia, destruction of human embryos for research purposes and a host of other ills.

It is impossible for me to answer all of the objections to the Church’s teaching on life that we hear every day in the media. Nevertheless, let me address a few. To begin, laws that protect abortion constitute injustice of the worst kind. They rest on several false claims including that there is no certainty regarding when life begins, that there is no certainty about when a fetus becomes a person, and that some human beings may be killed to advance the interests or convenience of others. With regard to the first, reason and science have answered the question. The life of a human being begins at conception. The Church has long taught this simple truth, and science confirms it. Biologists can now show you the delicate and beautiful development of the human embryo in its first days of existence. This is simply a fact that reasonable people accept. Regarding the second, the embryo and the fetus have the potential to do all that an adult person does. Finally, the claim that the human fetus may be sacrificed to the interests or convenience of his mother or someone else is grievously wrong. All three claims have the same result: the weakest and most vulnerable are denied, because of their age, the most basic protection that we demand for ourselves. This is discrimination at its worst, and no person of conscience should support it.

Another argument goes like this: “As wrong as abortion is, I don't think it is the only relevant ‘life’ issue that should be considered when deciding for whom to vote.” This reasoning is sound only if other issues carry the same moral weight as abortion does, such as in the case of euthanasia and destruction of embryos for research purposes. Health care, education, economic security, immigration, and taxes are very important concerns. Neglect of any one of them has dire consequences as the recent financial crisis demonstrates. However, the solutions to problems in these areas do not usually involve a rejection of the sanctity of human life in the way that abortion does. Being “right” on taxes, education, health care, immigration, and the economy fails to make up for the error of disregarding the value of a human life. Consider this: the finest health and education systems, the fairest immigration laws, and the soundest economy do nothing for the child who never sees the light of day. It is a tragic irony that “pro-choice” candidates have come to support homicide – the gravest injustice a society can tolerate – in the name of “social justice.”

Even the Church’s just war theory has moral force because it is grounded in the principle that innocent human life must be protected and defended. Now, a person may, in good faith, misapply just war criteria leading him to mistakenly believe that an unjust war is just, but he or she still knows that innocent human life may not be harmed on purpose. A person who supports permissive abortion laws, however, rejects the truth that innocent human life may never be destroyed. This profound moral failure runs deeper and is more corrupting of the individual, and of the society, than any error in applying just war criteria to particular cases.

Furthermore, National Right to Life reports that 48.5 million abortions have been performed since 1973. One would be too many. No war, no natural disaster, no illness or disability has claimed so great a price.

In saying these things in an election year, I am in very good company. My predecessor, Bishop Timlin, writing his pastoral letter on Respect Life Sunday 2000, stated the case eloquently:

Abortion is the issue this year and every year in every campaign. Catholics may not turn away from the moral challenge that abortion poses for those who seek to
obey God’s commands. They are wrong when they assert that abortion does not concern them, or that it is only one of a multitude of issues of equal importance. No, the taking of innocent human life is so heinous, so horribly evil, and so absolutely opposite to the law of Almighty God that abortion must take precedence over every other issue. I repeat. It is the single most important issue confronting not only Catholics, but the entire electorate.

My fellow bishops, writing ten years ago, explained why some evils – abortion and euthanasia in particular – take precedence over other forms of violence and abuse.

The failure to protect life in its most vulnerable stages renders suspect any claims to the ‘rightness’ of positions in other matters affecting the poorest and least powerful of the human community. If we understand the human person as
‘the temple of the Holy Spirit’ – the living house of God – then these latter issues fall logically into place as the crossbeams and walls of that house. All direct attacks on innocent human life, such as abortion and euthanasia, strike at the house’s foundation [emphasis in the original]. These directly and
immediately violate the human person’s most fundamental right – the right to life. Neglect of these issues is the equivalent of building our house on sand.
Living the Gospel of Life: A Challenge to
American Catholics, 23.

While the Church assists the State in the promotion of a just society, its primary concern is to assist men and women in achieving salvation. For this reason, it is incumbent upon bishops to correct Catholics who are in error regarding these matters. Furthermore, public officials who are Catholic and who persist in public support for abortion and other intrinsic evils should not partake in or be admitted to the sacrament of Holy Communion. As I have said before, I will be vigilant on this subject.

It is the Church’s role now to be a prophet in our own country, reminding all citizens of what our founders meant when they said that “. . . all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.” The Church’s teaching that all life from conception to natural death should be protected by law is founded on religious belief to be sure, but it is also a profoundly American principle founded on reason. Whenever a society asks its citizens to violate its own foundational principles – as well as their moral consciences – citizens have a right, indeed an obligation, to refuse.

In 1941, Bishop Gustave von Galen gave a homily condemning Nazi officials for murdering mentally ill people in his diocese of Muenster, Germany. The bishop said:

“Thou shalt not kill!” God wrote this commandment in the conscience of man long before any penal code laid down the penalty for murder, long before there was any prosecutor or any court to investigate and avenge a murder. Cain, who killed his brother Abel, was a murderer long before there were any states or any courts or law. And he confessed his deed, driven by his accusing conscience: “My punishment is greater than I can bear. . . and it shall come to pass, that every one that findeth me the murderer shall slay me” (Genesis 4:13-14)

Should he have opposed the war and remained silent about the murder of the mentally ill? No person of conscience can fail to understand why Bishop von Galen spoke as he did.

My dear friends, I beg you not to be misled by confusion and lies. Our Lord, Jesus Christ, does not ask us to follow him to Calvary only for us to be afraid of contradicting a few bystanders along the way. He does not ask us to take up his Cross only to have us leave it at the voting booth door. Recently, Pope Benedict XVI said that “God is so humble that he uses us to spread his Word.” The gospel of life, which we have the privilege of proclaiming, resonates in the heart of every person – believer and non-believer – because it fulfills the heart’s most profound desire. Let us with one voice continue to speak the language of love and affirm the right of every human being to have the value of his or her life, from conception to natural death, respected to the highest degree.

October is traditionally the month of the Rosary. Let us pray the Rosary for the strength and fortitude to uphold the truths of our faith and the requirements of our law to all who deny them. And, let us ask Our Lady to bless our nation and the weakest among us.

May Mary, the mother of Jesus, the Lord of Life, pray for us.

Sincerely yours in Christ,

Most Reverend Joseph F. Martino, D.D., Hist. E.D.

Bishop of Scranton

The Role of the Well-Formed Conscience

Election day will soon be here. What role does one's faith play in determining how to vote? The Catholic Church teaches that we all have a moral resonsibility to be active participants in the political process. This means, as a minimum, that we responsibly exercise our right to vote.

Before we step into the voting booth, though, we must have a well-formed conscience, to ensure that we make good decisions, for the good of the entire community. Frequently this may mean putting aside any personal preferences, to sacrifice "what's in it for me", to achieve the greater good for one's society.

What does it mean to have a well-formed conscience? It means that we objectively study and reflect upon the teachings of our Church. We don't put our own spin on things, and we don't take teachings out of context to satisfy our own personal agendas; to do so would result in an ill-formed conscience.

And the fruits of a well-formed conscience? Quite simply put, it means that our actions are guided by truth, and not by personal opinions or feelings. However, the problem in our world today is that everyone thinks that they can have their own version of the truth. But "truth" is an absolute, not relative. Abortion is either evil, or it's not. It can't be both at the same time.

How are we to determine the truth? The moral relavatism that permeates our society is a result of everyone trying to determine truth on their own. The result is confusion and conflict of ideas. Fortunately, Christ assured us that he would not leave us alone to figure this stuff out. Rather, he assured us that the Holy Spirit would guide his apostles, and their successors, to teach us in matters of faith and morals. We don't have to go it alone! We can know the truth with 100% certainty, and the truth can set us free!

What Does the Catholic Church Really Teach About Abortion?

Recently, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, was interviewed for a national news program. When asked to explain the teachings of the Catholic Church regarding when life begins, she so badly mangled the true teachings of the Church that there was an instant and strong response from several U.S. Bishops, who sought to set the record straight. Of course, they didn't have the advantage of a Sunday morning news program to get the word out, so the extent to which they have been able to correct the misstatements of Speaker Pelosi is unknown.

As a convenience to you, the reader, here are links to the Bishop's statements in response to Speaker Pelosi's comments:

Archbishop Wuerl, Washington D.C.
Archbishop Chaput, Denver, CO
U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops

There are plenty more, I'm sure....