Catholic bishops and Democratic Party headed for a political collision

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/28/opinion/28WOOD.html


A Political Sacrament
By KENNETH L. WOODWARD

Published: May 28, 2004



Abortion was not expected to be a major issue in this election year beyond its usual function as a rallying point for each party's core constituencies. But now the nation's Roman Catholic bishops and the Democratic Party appear to be headed for a politically charged collision over abortion.

The point of contention is whether Catholic politicians — notably the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, John Kerry — can claim to be Catholics in good standing, and therefore worthy of the eucharist, while vigorously pursuing a policy of "choice" that is tantamount to unrestricted abortion.

Like all emotional issues, this one requires some perspective. Last November, in response to a document from the Vatican, the bishops created a task force on Catholics in public life, headed by Cardinal Theodore McCarrick of Washington. To avoid any appearance of political meddling or favoritism, the task force planned to publish its recommendations after the November election. Coincidentally, the bishops are preparing another document on the eucharist, including the conditions under which holy communion is to be administered and received.

But as is their prerogative, a few bishops recently issued statements of their own, yoking one subject to the other. The most provocative came from Archbishop Raymond Burke of St. Louis, who declared that Mr. Kerry was not welcome to receive communion when campaigning in Missouri. The most eccentric statement was issued by Bishop Michael J. Sheridan of Colorado Springs, who said in a pastoral letter that Catholics who vote for candidates who support gay marriage, euthanasia or abortion rights must confess that sin before receiving communion. In New Jersey, Archbishop John J. Myers issued a pastoral letter advising pro-choice Catholic officeholders not to seek communion. Two other New Jersey bishops specifically mentioned Gov. James E. McGreevey, saying they would deny him communion for his support of abortion rights.

-more

I'll be honest, I don't like abortion. I wish nobody ever needed or wanted to have one.

But despite my personal opinions I still am pro-choice because I realise that other people have a right to their opinion. And that my opinion does not trump theirs.

That's how I feel as well.

I do think our party could do a better job of compromising on this issue though.

Al Gore and Dennis Kucinich used to vote against abortion, and they are great Dems.

And it infuriates me as a Catholic that the Church wants to deny communion to politicians who support the right (not the action) to abortion, same-sex marriage, etc., but not the death penalty.

take the high moral ground on this issue. They should be forced to pay child support to every woman they deny an abortion, that wanted one.

this will be a very unpopular opinion to some, but I think it's time for the Roman Catholic Church to step into the 21st Century. A group of very old men have taken it upon themselves to demean women for centuries and tell them what they can and can't do with their bodies,among many other barbaric, outdated beliefs.

I won't go any further with my opinion, lest I get another reprimand from the Mods and be made to atone by signing yet another agreement that I will not share my thoughts on this subject. It seems it upsets some people too much. If I've hurt anyone's feelings, sorry.

I've stopped mine.

I LEFT the Church in part over its sexist ways, when I was in 7th grade, late 50s. I didn't have the words for it back then, but when they told me in religion class that any pregnant woman having a crisis in her pregnancy would have HER life sacrificed over the baby's if a choice between them had to be made, NO QUESTIONS ASKED, I bolted.

My attitude was, "Whoa, let me outta here, this is no place for women." LOL, I can still remember that conversation well, to this day. "She wouldn't get a voice in the matter? Nor her husband? Nor parents? Nor other children? No one would even be asked about it, the decision would be made auotmatically if she was brought to a Catholic hospital? Even if she weren't Catholic herself?"

No was the answer to ALL those questions. Final straw for me who'd already noted that the Catholic Church didn't really want me thinking for myself anyway (no offense to practicing Catholics, but that's how *I* saw it then and see it now). As of that moment I no longer considered myself Catholic. And never looked back.

The Church's misogynist teachings and "theology" have ruined the lives -- and taken the lives!! -- of millions of women around the world. The spiritual abuse is monumental and sin enough, IMO, and includes as only a part (tho a very big part) the Church's refusal to ordain women as priests.

It's been prophesied that there is one more Pope after this one, and he'll be the last. I hope I live long enough to see that.

Now, having said all that, let me also say that I have no problem with those who find Catholicism valuable and of spiritual comfort to them. More power to them and I'm glad that it serves them well. But I don't want it waved in my face, either. And I DO want ALL religions OUT of my government, and out of partisan politics. Else they should lose their 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status.

It is a clear case of trying to blackmail and intimidate catholics
into voting for *.If the church is stating that catholic politician
are to follow in their public service the churchs teachings then
they should also not serve communion to repigs that support
capital punishment.What about the politicians that supported the iraq war? The pope came out strongly against the war.
They wanted to push abortion back into the limelight hoping that it
would get the attention as a wedge issue.
I personally would not chose the option of abortion.However I would
take the the streets to fight for the right for it to be available
for anyone that wanted one.I would never judge anyone who does not share my view.This doesnt mean that I am open to religious blackmail.
This has shaken me to the core.I think there is going to be a big voter backlash against the catholic churchs intimidation.

The powerful and the privileged who have little connections or brains or heart for real politics(most were chosen for their unimaginative qualities) have been lead like sheep into this mess. They broke through the wise reticence of the general synod and found their tools.

The Vatican knows this both a political attack and payback for opposing Bush's unjust war. The Vatican chooses conservative schmoes like these because in Europe it feared the forces of atheistic socialism and distrusts the American giant who might turn schismatic as well as troublesome in regards to issues. So they soften the Church's stand against the war but are roused by the people giving them trouble to take a stand on abortion from almost a purely partisan political standpoint.

There are not enough bland, loyal, humble, safely pastoral, conservative on selected issues, WISE, non-parochial, semi-charismatic, able administrators, clerics in the shrinking talent pool(who can handle power and prestige!) to continue trying to have it all ways. The less moral underside of politics was something the Italian Vatican was quite good at however much one despised the effect upon its moral authority. The current Pope, a reformer with an understandable anti-Communist background was a door of opportunity for purely hypocritical neocons here. It would be nice if he or his successor got the moral teaching house back in order and restored the political smarts to the hierarchical apparatus.

The problem is much broader than old celibates ruling the organization
but it can certainly contribute an awful lot to blindness a world organization cannot afford. The damage is done once the unwise break ranks and start throwing their political weight around though it used to be easy for the Church to isolate the occasional liberal, not the rabidly bitter conservatives or those steeped in vice and power.

I did note in other posts that the Vatican is trying in its own way to mitigate this foolery by having a retired Colorado bishop complain about the narrowness of choosing certain issues while neglecting the war. That will not be enough but it further divides these bishops from the majority. Who is to say that some of them are not being subtly blackmailed to doing this for God's GOP?

is because the majority of Catholics are for these policies...
The church is taking on their own parishoners.

Oh, silly me forgets that Republicans can get away with murder and that's OK.

Ask Pickles, Janklow or Scarborough!

After all, the church is also opposed to capital punishment. Oh, that would offend the conservatives and their money....
Hypocrites.

needs to gently remove itself from the political arena, since it has no business there in the first place. the church/state separation wall hasn't crumbled yet...

The church/state wall will be intact if Kerry gets to appoint the next SC justices.

If Bush appoints the next two or three justices, it's hello totalitarian theocracy!

I'm not catholic but I always thought they were more dem than repug.

Lately, I'm picking my jaw off the floor with all their edicts directed toward our politicians--Kerry in this case.

What nerve! Faith is supposed to be a PERSONAL thing between a person and their God of choice. The catholic church needs to stay the fig out of politics--just like all the other religious sects should.

I hope that pro-choice Catholics do not reward this behavior by changing their stance on abortion rights. If these bishops are successful in pressuring pro-choice candidates and voters into changing their stance on abortion rights, what is to stop them from trying this tactic on those individuals who support allowing women to have access to birth control? Other churches may follow the Catholic Church's example and may deny communion to those members who disagree on any issue.

These bishops may also being harming their own church in the long run. It was not that long ago that many Americans would not vote for a Catholic politician out of fear that he would be a puppet for the pope. Fortunately, JFK's presidency disproved this theory. However, if pro-choice candidates start giving in to these bishops' demands, Americans might again start to worry about the Catholic Church having too much control over Catholic politicians.

It's NOT an emotional issue when the Church gets involved. It's a clear Church/State issue. Butt out, Bishops. Or if you refuse to do that, keep your pontifications and ex-communication decisions personal and private, instead of politicized.

Something else to make me steaming mad tonight.

If Kerry and any others affected by this shit had any guts they'd pull out John Kennedy's famous response on the issue, something to the effect he wouldn't tell the Pope how to run his business and wouldn't look to Rome for advice about running the U.S. Govt (wild paraphrase -- anyone got the exact quote?)