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

Abortion is and alway has been very different from capital punishment throughout Church history and the Magesterium of the Church. An excellent theological and historical explanation of the death penalty by Avery Cardinal Dulles can be found at http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0104/articles/dulles.html .

It is true that there is a fundamental distinction here between abortion, which is intrinsically evil, and capital punishment, which may not be evil under what the catechism terms "very rare, if not practically non-existent" circumstances. But let's realize that there is objective moral truth to which one must adhere in thinking about the Death Penalty. It is not a simply a matter of private judgment, in the sense of just casting a vote. There is a clear moral - not political - teaching here (notwithstanding the fundamental distinction), and a responsibility to direct one's opinions to adhere to this teaching.

Consider Bush's executions. There is no possibility of mere posturing to rally constituencies, no possibility of mere electioneering. No possibility of an oblique "tacking" that is not without direct consequences. There were well over one hundred executions under Bush in Texas - a number that is simply impossible to rationalize as adhereing to the idea of "very rare, if not practically non-existent". Bush's storied mockery of woman's plea for clemency is jarring. (Gary Bauer termed it nothing short of unbelievable). His direct and immediately consequential actions very are in very clear, very public defiance of objective moral truth. Bishop Sheridan's instruction are clear.

[/QUOTE]

Although I will not respond directly to anyone who hides their identity, let alone a poor woefully misguided soul deserving only of our sincere prayers who so objectively scandalously, persistently, and energetically does Satan's bidding by publicly jumping through endless rhetorical hoops ("for they love the praise of men more than the praise of God" John 12: 43) to justify and thereby facilitate the election of self-acknowledged public abortion supporters, I nevertheless provide for the benefit of others evidence that Bishop Sheridan's instructions are quite clear indeed:

"Sheridan said some Catholics have challenged him to extend his list of positions out of step with church teaching to include the death penalty or the war with Iraq. But Sheridan said he doesn't believe those matters carry the same weight."

Here is the entire associated press story from which the quote was taken:

Bishop Issues Strong Anti-Abortion Edict
Associated Press
Friday, May 14, 2004

DENVER���Catholics�who vote for politicians in favor of abortion rights, stem-cell research, euthanasia or gay marriage may not receive Communion until they recant and repent in the confessional, the Roman Catholic Bishop of Colorado Springs said.

Bishop Michael Sheridan's�pronouncement was the strongest yet from a U.S. bishop in the debate over how faith should influence Catholics in this election year.

The discussion of withholding Holy Communion had previously been limited to politicians themselves.

Sheridan made his remarks in a May 1 pastoral letter published in the diocese's newspaper. He said he singled out abortion,�stem-cell research, euthanasia and gay marriage for criticism because they are "intrinsically evil."

The letter was sent to each parish in the diocese, including 125,000 Catholics in 10 counties.

Formal Vatican pronouncements last year specified Catholic politicians' duty to uphold church teaching as they set policy on matters such as abortion and preventing the legalization of same-sex unions.

Last month, Cardinal Francis Arinze said a Catholic politician who supports abortion rights "is not fit" to receive the Eucharist. The debate was spurred by Catholic presidential candidate John Kerry's support of abortion rights.

Sheridan said some Catholics have challenged him to extend his list of positions out of step with church teaching to include the death penalty or the war with Iraq. But Sheridan said he doesn't believe those matters carry the same weight.

Denver District Attorney Bill Ritter, a Catholic, criticized Sheridan's letter.

"I just think this is a tragic direction for the bishop to take," Ritter said. "My great fear is that it will drive Catholics away from the church, Catholics who abide by the church teaching in everything they do but look at candidates and vote on a range of issues."

Michael,

Can you spell 'pompous arrogance'?

The most basic rule of this Forum is of respect for others - it seems to me that includes not passing judgment on others and, most especially, on their soul.

djs is a respected member of this Community and that status ('respected') accords to him and everyone here not because of who they are, but because they are here.

The nature of the internet is that it is essentially an anonymous venue; each of us is basically a faceless entity behind a nick that may or may not have any relationship to who we are in the real world. Some choose to use their given names, others initials, yet others pseudonyms that maybe convey some descriptive attributes of who they are in their public, everyday life.

I post as "Irish Melkite", indicate that I'm from MA, and sign my posts with the name "Neil". For all most anyone here knows, I could as easily be a member of THEOCACNA, of Turkish Cypriot ethnicity, be posting from Ban Me Thuot, VN, and be named "Drusilla". That I can convincingly speak of the Melkite Eparchy and its Cathedral parish means nothing; with no one else here from that parish (as far as I know), I could have used a few easily obtainable facts and have fabricated the rest from whole cloth.

Because you utilize a Christian name and Irish surname, describe yourself as a Ruthenian, and locate yourself in AZ, tells most of us - other than some individual here who may know you personally - only who you say you are, not that you are that person. And that is true of probably half the members here. Why anyone chooses to post here anonymously is their business. It may be for a sound reason; it may be because they value one of the few remaining vestiges of privacy in an increasingly obtrusive society; it may be nothing more than a personal predeliction; it may be because it gives them a freedom to speak their mind that would otherwise not be available or comfortable for them. But, as the rules of this Forum don't require that members be publically identifiable, the choice belongs to each of us and isn't yours to denigrate.

I suggest that, however much you may disagree with what djs has posted, you owe him (or her) an apology.

Many years,

Neil

Neil,

I fully agree with you that Michael Sullivan's criticism were unjust, and purely an ad hominem.

But, I thought I would tackle a couple issues, which he brought forth.

1) The issue of trying to remove politicians who support abortion.

I think any faithful, honest Catholic wants abortion to end. But, is this really what the Republicans are after? Unless they change the platform, in the 2000 election, the platform was clear that they did not want to make it a crime to have an abortion. They rhetorically criticize abortion, but then in point of fact, work to keep it still legalized.

Which is worse? Someone who says they are pro-choice, or someone who says they are pro-life but will not criminalize abortion? Sounds like to me, both are of the same position ("I am not for abortion, I would never have one, but it is not my choice" is what many who are pro-choice say).

2) The issue of the war. Is it as serious as the abortion issue? One Eastern Bishop thinks so. If the war is unjust, support of it he says, is equal to supporting abortion.

"Therefore I, by the grace of God and the favor of the Apostolic See Bishop
of the Eparchy of St. George in Canton, must declare to you, my people, for
the sake of your salvation as well as my own, that any direct participation
and support of this war against the people of Iraq is objectively grave
evil, a matter of mortal sin. Beyond a reasonable doubt this war is morally
incompatible with the Person and Way of Jesus Christ. With moral certainty I
say to you it does not meet even the minimal standards of the Catholic just
war theory.

Thus, any killing associated with it is unjustified and, in consequence,
unequivocally murder. Direct participation in this war is the moral
equivalent of direct participation in an abortion."

http://www.al-bushra.org/hedchrch/bishop1.html

In case anyone has not yet read his grace's letter in full.

He has, however, gone on record discussing the issue more, in a depth which I applaud.

http://www.nd.edu/~mbaxter/cpf/sopII4/sop10.htm

The Iraq war and abortion are linked, because they are both connected to a culture of death. Unjust wars, based upon lies from the start, and means which are considered morally reprehensible (show and awe; use of bombs filled with radiation causing decades of destruction; cluster bombs; prisoner abuse scandal...) cannot be justified.

Yet, there is more than just the issue of abortion, or gay rights, or the death penalty, or euthanasia, or stem cell research.

There is also the question of social justice policies, which also determine where one stands in relation to the Gospel of Life. Do we work to create standards of living which promote life? Do we dismiss our poor, and complain when they keep having children (like so many conservatives do)?

The Gospel of Life says we must see life as the gift of God. All life, in every circumstance. We must seek to work to improve the situation, in just means, to help that life shine. What is one to do when the policies of a group do not support this aspect of the Gospel of Life?

To highlight some, and not all, of the implications and demands of Catholic theology and morality, is that not the very definition of "cafeteria Catholic"?

Well stated! While this discussion is very much about politics all of us who proclaim Jesus Christ as Lord should adhere to His teachings, even when they are not popular in society. Not only should we call politicians to account, we should also call each other to account.

Thank you for you excellent witness of Jesus Christ. You put all of us to shame. Most of us would seek to find excuses to justify the acceptance of such a position. Your example is one worth following.

Dear Administrator,

Bonjour, Monsieur!

If the case can be made that if BOTH your political parties are pro-abortion (the Democrats directly and the Republicans in terms of a "laissez-faire" approach), then Christians should perhaps avoid politics in the U.S. altogether and not even vote?

Our Democrat supporters here are making the argument that the Republicans are just as guilty of sin as anyone.

And while I was never offered a job with the UCC in the music field (or by any church or other organization anywhere in the world, given the state of my singing voice, to which Sharon Mech can readily attest ), I did come by a former EC who was a choir director with one parish - and promptly got to work to bring him back to us.

On the way, he got side-tracked and is now with the OCA.

Oh well, I tried my best!!

Alex

For the purposes of this discussion I am posting an accurate summary of President Bush�s position on stem cell research from the White House website (the following is a summary from his executive order in 2001):

On March 11, 2004 President Bush affirmed many of his pro-life positions in a talk:

There is plenty of information regarding the President�s position on these issues at www.whitehouse.gov. [whitehouse.gov.]

Henry,

Thank you for the link to Bishop John Michael's speech. I hadn't read it previously and found it very enlightening.

Many years,

Neil

Alex,

I reject such a suggestion. The appropriate thing for Christians to do is to support and vote for pro-life candidates. Most Catholics tend to vote for Democrats. If the Catholics would unite together and refuse to support pro-abortion Democrats there would be a huge shift in the Democrat party. Currently, believing Catholics are not allowed to speak at many national Democrat party activities because a pro-life message is censored (remember when Pennsylvania Governor Casey was prohibited from speaking at a Democrat convention because he was pro-life?).

All of us are sinners, including those of us who are politically affiliated with the Republican, Democrat and other parties. There is no question about that.

Admin

The war is not unjust. The war is very just and I support it 100%.

Keep in mind that the Church has not spoken with authority to the issue of the War as it has to abortion, embryonic stem cell research, euthanasia, or same sex marriage. One can argue that Bishop Sheridan�s pastoral letter was unwise. One cannot argue that these issues themselves are open for debate.

I saw a news story last fall (I think on the EWTN website) in gave an account of the new Chaldean Catholic Patriarch of Baghdad personally thanking the American ambassador to the Vatican for freeing the Iraqi people. One may still argue that the war was unjustified, but one cannot claim the authority of the Church to support one�s position as one can when speaking about the Church�s teaching on abortion, embryonic stem cell research, euthanasia, and same sex marriage.

Dear Administrator,

"Reject?"

Isn't it a bit early to be using such hard and fast terms? How about "I'm happy to see you back, Alex, how was Pari, but I have another view on this, hope you don't mind . . . ?"

As I understand your post, a Catholic may support an individual political candidate and vote for him or her WITHOUT that support translating into support for any pro-abortion policies or tendencies characteristic of that candidate's political party as a whole.

And it should be incumbent upon Catholics to be politically active with their consciences to influence the overall party via withdrawal of support for pro-abortion candidates and the like.

Is this not something that Catholic bishops should be promoting as well, if they are not?

Have Catholics in U.S. political life EVER tried to do as you have suggested?

As for the war, has not the Pope openly decried it and the U.S. involvement in it? Is he not going to scold President Bush for it?

How are His Holiness' actions NOT a condemnation of that "just war?"

I think it is His Holiness who would issue a categorical "I reject" to your position, Sir!

Alex

It sounds more like, "This bishop says what I want, therefore it is wise and must be followed; this other bishop says what I don't like, so it is unwise."

The rules for just war are not new; I have already indicated areas where they have failed to be taken into the situation.

As I have stated, and continue to state, it is better to follow the culture of life, the Evangelium Vitae, in the full. Not be a cafeteria Catholic and think abortion is the only category.

Alex,

Thanks for your post. Fast terms? I�m not sure what you are upset about. What I reject is the idea you posted about Christians avoiding politics altogether and refraining from voting.

Christians have a responsibility to be very involved in the political life of any country and to influence society for the good. We have a responsibility to support politicians who support life and to vote against politicians who work against life. There are few politicians who accept the Church�s teaching on all issues. But the Church has taught that the right to life is the preeminent right. All other rights pale next to it.

Admin

Henry,

Thanks for your post. The Church has always put the right to life before all other considerations. Unless the right to life is respected none of the other rights matter. All of the other rights are predicated upon the right to life. Evangelium Vitae and other Church teachings are clear in this. To dismiss the right to life as just one of many issues is to do nothing but to pretend. It is worse than being a cafeteria Catholic. If one supports a candidate who is pro-abortion when there is a pro-life candidate available, then one is supporting abortion and serving the culture of death.

Admin


It should be noted that abortion, because it is the most severe offense, carries with it an automatic excommunication for those women having abortions, those directly involved in conducting abortions, and those who may cajole a woman into having an abortion. None of the other offenses, as bad as they may be, carry with them the penalty of excommunication.