www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Bishop Sheridan's Pastoral on the Duties of Catholic Politicians & Voters

The Most Reverend Michael J. Sheridan, Bishop of Colorado Springs, issued a pastoral letter to the Catholic Faithful in his diocese entitled, "On the Duties of Catholic Politicians and Voters". Dated May 1, 2004, Bishop Sheridan has raised the bar not only for Catholic politicians in his diocese but also for Catholic voters who vote for candidates who support abortion, embryonic stem cell research, euthanasia, or same sex marriage. For Colorado Springs Catholics who vote for these candidates, Bishop Sheridan admonishes them to refrain from Communion until they repent and are "reconciled to God and the Church in the Sacrament of Penance."

The full text of the pastoral letter may be found here:

Bishop Sheridan\'s Pastoral Letter [diocesecs.org]

You will need Acrobat Reader to open the pdf file.

It has been stated many times that this makes it impossible for Catholics in his jurisdiction to vote for democrats (or mostly impossible). Yet does this not also include Republicans, including GW Bush?

Will we forget GW Bush supports stem cell research -- with funding? He gave funds to support research on cells developed by abortions. If you give material support to somoene who has done wrong, for the wrong they did, you have also given your approval.

So Bush and Kerry are out. Although I doubt anyone will say Bush is out, even though he fails just as much.

I would also encourage other aspects of Evangelium Vitae to be put into the discussion. Like the death penalty.

Or, we should also include the issue of war -- and can you support someone who supports a war which fails just war requirements?

Thank goodness for Bishop Sheridan's courage to speak the truth.

Yesterday (Sunday, May 16th), my parish priest mentioned Bishop Sheridan's letter in his homily, compared +Sheridan to Saint John the Baptist, because both of them had the courage to speak the truth no matter what the personal consequences. Hopefully Bishop Sheridan won' be beheaded.

Anyway, good for Bishop Sheridan!

Logos Teen

Henry,

In reading Bishop Sheridan's letter as it applies to the (Roman)Catholic voters of Colorado Springs, he states, "Any Catholics who vote for candidates who stand for abortion, illicit stem cell research or euthanasia suffer the same fateful consequences." (emphasis added) The consequences being that the Catholic voters place themselves outside full communion of the Church.

The operative phrase is "who stand for..." IMHO, it is the candidates who campaign as the "pro-choice", etc, candidate are the ones Sheridan is instructing Catholics to avoid.

I suppose that's what he means.

"Standing for" abortion as a not intrinsically gravely immoral action ISTM is rather different than "standing for" the legality in a pluralistic, liberal democracy of an action that many, including many sincere religious people, do not view as intrinsically immoral.

The bishop gives no clear remarks on this distinction.

And on the issue of black-and-whiteness of labelling, please see the thoughful comments of Mrs. Heinz-Kerry posted on another thread.

https://www.byzcath.org/cgibin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=001350;p=5#000074
http://newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/4/25/141223.

I believe it is sacrilegious to use the Holy Eucharist as a political tool, no matter who does it. That is what this is, nothing more. Moe

Dear djs and Moe,

A group of German theologians once wrote the "Common Catechism" and perhaps you remember it.

On the issue of abortion, they said that while they are against it, they acknowledge that the function of the state is about keeping the peace.

They therefore support the state's endeavours to provide facilities for abortions for women who find they must have them.

Is this position close to your own? What do you think?

Alex

To keep things accurate, in August 2001 President Bush issued an executive order limiting federal funds for embryonic stem cell research to the small number of lines already in existence. He prohibited the use of government funds to destroy new embryos for the creation of new lines.

I disagree with using already destroyed human embryos for research. I don�t think, however, that it can be put on the same moral level as those who advocate new and ongoing killing of embryos for research.

Regarding the death penalty, the Church does not offer a definitive teaching. Officially, it recognizes the right of countries to use capital punishment at the same time it states that in today�s society it should never be necessary.

The prohibitions apply to all Catholics, not just politicians. There are things that are right and things that are wrong. If we reject official Church teaching on things about which the Church has spoken definitively, then we should not pretend to be Catholic and should refrain from taking the Eucharist. If my family members who are married outside the Church respect the Church�s prohibition on them receiving the Eucharist, then politicians who reject Church teaching regarding abortion and other definitively taught issues should also have enough respect not to approach the Chalice. The sin is not on the part of the bishops. The sin is on the part of the individual who has so little regard for Jesus Christ that he openly rejects His teachings and works against them in public life.

Dear Alex:

No.

I think that the mission of a Bishop totally preculdes such position. I expect uncompromising spritual leadership on the immorality of abortion to come from Bishops.

I also think that political leaders are not Bishops. I expect compromise and "tacking" from politicians. I expect them to be responsive to contituents in a liberal democracy. I expect campaigns conducted not at a serious idea level, but at a level of sound bite, bumper-sticker sloganeering, because the electorate demands it. Because of this situation, I expect that it is not always easy to distinguish posture from philosophy.

And as to the view of Bishops on politics: Perhaps their experience in this business is just limited; like their ideas on market economics. On the other hand, I get the sense that the real bottom-line here is that liberal democracy is an error, in and of itself. And maybe that is right, but that too, is, for me, still a hard teaching.

P.S. Hope that Paris was fun and that you ate and drank extremely well.

"The prohibitions apply to all Catholics, not just politicians. There are things that are right and things that are wrong. If we reject official Church teaching on things about which the Church has spoken definitively, then we should not pretend to be Catholic and should refrain from taking the Eucharist. If my family members who are married outside the Church respect the Church�s prohibition on them receiving the Eucharist, then politicians who reject Church teaching regarding abortion and other definitively taught issues should also have enough respect not to approach the Chalice. The sin is not on the part of the bishops. The sin is on the part of the individual who has so little regard for Jesus Christ that he openly rejects His teachings and works against them in public life."

Administrator, I could not agree with you (and the Church) more. I'm going to venture the opinion that this should be about more than politics... it should affect every aspect of our lives. Are we doing our best to avoid supporting institutions and companies that contribute to the causes outlined above? I realize that it's inevitable to some extent, but other things ARE avoidable. For example:

I spent the weekend in Richland hunting for a summer job so I can finance my education next year and I returned to find a giant "Sex Toy Night" banner hanging in my residence hall's lobby. "Come learn about the fun, toys and demonstrations provided." The same hall council that denied my application to have a weekly Rosary in the TV lounge allows this kind of filth. I went to the Hall Office to voice my complaint and asked how much of my tuition money was going to support this. Then I noticed a giant pitcher of condoms and asked about that... My answer? "Why should you care? Besides, it's not your place to tell us how your money should be spent. This is beneficial for a lot of people even if you don't support it." Since I cannot obtain a figure of how much of my money is going to support EWU's "birth control" policy (I know that at a small amount is going to the new Planned Parenthood clinic down the street), I am simply going to leave. I would rather be out of school and appear to be a religious zealot than openly support abortion and contraception. I feel guilty enough that my money has been used to further the crusade of the Evil One already.

The same thing happened earlier this year when I was offered a rather prestigious organ position at a UCC parish. At first I was thrilled. 180 dollars a Sunday... not bad for a college freshman. Then I found out that the UCC is the largest supporter of abortion and homosexual unions that claims to be Christian. I promptly turned the job down and have not been able to find steady work all year.

Bishop Sheridan's letter to his flock has been a real wakeup call to me. I cannot go about turning a blind eye to evil in order to further my own happiness, financial security, education, what have you. Catholics have come under a lot of fire around here because of the Church's stance on the issues mentioned above. I just thought I'd post all of this to be a word of encouragement to all of you who are facing the same trials in your daily lives. Despite the fact that I'm dirt poor and will shortly be dropping out of school (just for the remainder of this year. I'm going to be a little more agressive about transferring to Gonzaga), I'm eerily happy about it all. Just my 20 cents. I'm not attempting to boast about any of this. Just encourage others. Don't be afraid to take a stand for our faith.

While one can make the claim Bush supports less stem-cell research than others, this does not mean he is not a supporter. By giving the funds, it also demonstrated that he did not think killing embryos is a bad thing. Let me explain.

If some criminal mastermind, say Dr. Crazy, went around killing people, harvesting organs and using those organs to save 10 people per one person killed, despite the people he saved, and despite the corpses he has already made, it would be unethical to say "he just killed some people already, can't stop it, but we will give him the funds he needs to transfer the organs." If it was done, everyone would see it was material support for the crime that had been done. Only someone who did not think it was wrong could support someone who did that.

The same problem lies with Bush's support to stem-cell research. I think he knows it is a tricky political situation, but if he believed as he said, he could not support the crime. He supported it, despite protests, and he even said he would leave it open whether or not to harvest more babies in the future.

So, Bush is a supporter of stem-cell research. Perhaps less so than others, but still a supporter. This alone STILL makes him verbotem according to His Grace's rules. He didn't say "It's ok if they support it only a little."

Now, the death penalty -- the Church is quite clear on many points about its use. IT has been outspoken against the abuse of its use in the US. Therefore, it is a proper issue to point out.

More to the point, and clearer cut, is the unjust war Bush has brought the US into. The question I asked has remained unanswered. How can any good Catholic elect anyone who would support unjust wars?

Catholics begin to say, as was said here, "Ah, but we have the lesser of two evils here. Got to choose someone." But again, that is the point. There are many issues, not just abortion, to worry about. And being anti-abortion is not the same as pro-life; policies I see from Bush are not pro-life.


/QUOTE]To keep things accurate, in August 2001 President Bush issued an executive order limiting federal funds for embryonic stem cell research to the small number of lines already in existence. He prohibited the use of government funds to destroy new embryos for the creation of new lines.

I disagree with using already destroyed human embryos for research. I don�t think, however, that it can be put on the same moral level as those who advocate new and ongoing killing of embryos for research.

Regarding the death penalty, the Church does not offer a definitive teaching. Officially, it recognizes the right of countries to use capital punishment at the same time it states that in today�s society it should never be necessary. [/QB][/QUOTE]

As I am not an American, I will not comment over all on this thread but what puzzles me is why the Catholic Church does not equate abortion with capital punishment.

It seems to me that you cannot argue for officially punishing people for supporting abortion if the same is not applied for capital punishment. So the Church recognises the need for some societies to have capital punishment...then for it not to appear hypocritical, then perhaps it should also recognsied the need for some societies to have abortion?

I am not making a point either way...

Anton

Dear djs,

Yes, Paris was a fulfilling experience all around!

Thank you for your post.

Alex

A recent (May 7) "mere comments" daily "blog" entry on Touchstone Magazine's web site contained the following quite perceptive observation:

"As a general rule, when normally intelligent people think badly, or fail to see the obvious, they do so because their will and therefore their minds have been corrupted by a sin they indulge."

As a solid working hypothesis, it seems to explain a great deal of otherwise inexplicable human "reasoning."