A Catholic Priest (AP) in South Carolina is refusing communion to those who voted for Barrack Obama because “the Democratic president-elect supports abortion, and supporting him "constitutes material cooperation with intrinsic evil." This should come as no surprise to those in the press, or the general public for that matter. The Church has intensified its remarks on abortion in this past general election cycle. The opposition to pro-abortion candidates by the Church Bishops is clear - it is simply unacceptable. From refusing communion to John Kerry in 2004, to recent admonitions against Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden from American Bishops, the Church is firming up its stance on the abortion issue and those who support the practice.
The Catholic opposition to abortion is known by parishioners - as are the consequences – although Bishops have become more vocal in the past few elections regarding politician’s who support abortion - that message does not necessarily trickle down to the parishes within a diocese. It was this general election, where Obama was so closely tied to abortion rights (NARAL endorsed Obama over Clinton early in the primary process) and had a solid record of support for the process, including partial-birth abortion (See Saddleback Forum) that prompted the Catholic Church to act more aggressively on this issue. The South Carolina priest is acting in good faith. One may disagree with the process, or the penalty, however,as a Catholic one has to understand that there is a choice to be made between ones faith and ones actions in the world – and should the choice be a political party over faith, then there are consequences. The Church doctrine is what it is – penalties have always been part and parcel of this process. The problem is that most of the parishioners have no idea that they acted out of faith because of the “politically correct” language that is used vis a vis abortion – “pro-choice” sounds benign, and is taken as such – understanding that there is a “choice”, but not clear about what that choice might be. It is understood by those who are involved in abortion issue, either pro or con – but not necessarily by those sitting in the pews. When asked why one would support a candidate that is pro-choice, the answer is simply that the candidate is either of the same political affiliation, or would end a war – however, if the question is worded, would you support a candidate that supports abortion – the answer changes to a flat no. In most cases, the connect is not made between pro-choice and pro-abortion.
Should the Church continue to take a firm stand on this issue, they should take care to use plain language when speaking to parishioners regarding any candidate, regardless of party. To those who would cry separation of church and state, keep in mind that politicians from both sides of the aisle, use the Church as a means to reach constituents during the campaign cycle. John Kerry (D-MA), made sure camera crews were at the ready when he visited local churches in this last election – those sitting at home watching the evening news, see this as the church condoning a particular candidate – it is calculated on the part of the candidate and one can be sure that this example is the norm. There are issues voters, and there are values voters – and then there are the uninformed voters - Many of those who are also value voters chose a candidate in this general election, based not on their religious doctrine, but on a lack of information coming from the Church. Therefore, the Church should take care to educate their parishioners, not two weeks before a general election, but immediately and consistently, should they insist that doctrine be followed to the letter.
For additional information on the Catholic Church and its anti-abortion stand – visit: Priests for Life.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I believe the church should make this stand. It is their policy and if politicians want to wrap themselves in the Catholic label, they should adhere to the church's teachings. I feel though that this is just the usual posturing of the Catholic church. They make these stands every once in awhile but never follow through with it.
That's the problem ... far too many want a cafe style religion ... a buffet (if you will) on which Commandments to follow and which beliefs fit "my life."
This is my first time at your blog, and I find it to be really sensible. Looking over your other entries, I find them well-written and thoughtful - am linking to you promptly.
"When asked why one would support a candidate that is pro-choice, the answer is simply that the candidate is either of the same political affiliation, or would end a war"
I find this a crassly simplistic formulation of Catholic pro-Obama supporters. It's much more likely that Catholics supported Obama because he is more likely to help the poorer classes- something that Christ would have whole-heartily approved. I understand that this offends some single-issue voters, but it's not fair to misrepresent those who are not.
As far as abortion is concerned, instead of following the orders of priests, one may instead read the words of God in the bible:
"And if men struggle and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise."
Exodus 21:22-25
Hello Chuck, Jimmy, Ashok (thank you!) and Merge. Merge, on the Catholic Church, it is based in Christianity - Christ, followers of: it is easy to pull out a snippet of scripture, specifically from the "old testament" and argue for abortion, however, that said, the emphasis is on Christ - now, here is the thing: miscarriage and abortion are two separate causes - one is by nature the other by man - the one by man, for a social conservative such as myself, is the problem - what you will find is that most Catholics are not single issue, not unlike any Christian denomination - evangelical or otherwise - one picks their battles. As to the poor, churches do more than any governments, and that should not be expected to change. On the contrary - Obama received the Catholic Vote and also Baptist votes from those who have always voted Democrat - there were, of course, cross-overs, those are the same people that voted for Bush, not due to the abortion issue, rather, Kerry was a weaker candidate. It is what it is: I am, for one, as a Catholic, proud of the church for taking this stand, and the power of the priest? The priest is a church leader, offering suggestions based on doctrine, which comes from the Bishops - the rules of the Church are fairly clear-cut on abortion, Merge, and have been all along - however, this is the first time they have taken a stand - it is most likely because politician’s use the church as a political pulpit, (see John Kerry), and it is only fair, in that instance, that the church responds accordingly. When a priest has a directive from the Bishops (who trump that silly monsignor (spelling) in SC, by the way), it is their responsibility to get the message out to the flock - what I felt was in appropriate, was that it was done after the fact, and should go further than it did - but now that the cat is out of the bag, so to speak, look for more from the church on this subject as well as others it has been most open and vocal about (Iraq conflict, Darfur, a host of issues and stands can be found on the Vatican's website).
Post a Comment