April 19, 2005

THERE'S A REASON THEY ALL WEAR RED:

New pope intervened against Kerry in US 2004 election campaign (AFP, 4/19/05)

German Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the Vatican theologian who was elected Pope Benedict XVI, intervened in the 2004 US election campaign ordering bishops to deny communion to abortion rights supporters including presidential candidate John Kerry.

In a June 2004 letter to US bishops enunciating principles of worthiness for communion recipients, Ratzinger specified that strong and open supporters of abortion should be denied the Catholic sacrament, for being guilty of a "grave sin."

He specifically mentioned "the case of a Catholic politician consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws," a reference widely understood to mean Democratic candidate Kerry, a Catholic who has defended abortion rights.

The letter said a priest confronted with such a person seeking communion "must refuse to distribute it."

A footnote to the letter also condemned any Catholic who votes specifically for a candidate because the candidate holds a pro-abortion position. Such a voter "would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for holy communion," the letter read.


The Other Catholic Issues (James K. Fitzpatrick, 09/22/04, Catholic Exchange)
A letter that Ratzinger wrote in June to the US Conference of Catholic Bishops has recently been made public. The letter makes clear the difference between the way a Catholic must respond to the pope’s pronouncements on abortion and the way we must respond to his positions on issues such as capital punishment and the war in Iraq. (The existence of this letter was reported by the Italian daily La Repubblica, and subsequently confirmed by informed sources at the Vatican.)

The central theme of Ratzinger’s letter was whether Communion should be withheld from pro-abortion politicians. But in the course of dealing with that issue, Ratzinger also explained why the Church’s teaching on abortion is different from its position on capital punishment and Iraq. Said Ratzinger,Not all moral issues have the same weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to go to war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.Ratzinger saw no need to go into detail about why it is not inherently immoral to “be at odds with the Holy Father” on capital punishment and the war in Iraq. He was speaking to bishops. One can assume that they understand why room must be left for the application of prudential judgment on these matters, but not on abortion. But, judging from the letters I receive, there is a need to say more on this topic for many ordinary Catholics who cannot see the difference.

Here is the key: On the question of abortion, there is no possible way for a Catholic politician to say that he is following the teachings of the Church, while at the same time defending legal abortion. If you admit that you are committed to keeping abortion legal, you are saying that you intend to do nothing to stop the killing of millions of unborn children.

In contrast, on the question of capital punishment, it is possible for a person to maintain that he accepts the pope’s teaching that capital punishment should be applied rarely and only when absolutely necessary to protect society — while at the same time calling for it in a certain case. In other words, a Catholic who sincerely ponders the pope’s guidelines on capital punishment, but nonetheless comes to the conclusion that the death penalty is appropriate for a particular crime and a particular criminal, is not ignoring the Church’s teachings. He is applying them. There is no reason to assume otherwise. Where does one draw the line on “rare” and “absolutely necessary”? It is a question that can be debated in good faith.

The same logic holds on the war in Iraq. Catholics are obliged to accept the just war theory: that war should be a last resort, waged with proportionate means, against an identifiable evil and with great care to protect the lives of non-combatants. That is a matter of faith and morals. It is not debatable for a Catholic. But we are free to use prudential judgment to conclude that the Bush administration is doing all those things, to conclude that the United States is proceeding within these guidelines in Iraq; i.e., to conclude that Saddam Hussein was a genuine threat to world peace, that we gave him more than enough time to comply with the United Nations’ mandate, and that American forces are going to the proper lengths to minimize civilian casualties.


Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion. General Principles (Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, July 2004)
1. Presenting oneself to receive Holy Communion should be a conscious decision, based on a reasoned judgement regarding one’s worthiness to do so, according to the Church’s objective criteria, asking such questions as: "Am I in full communion with the Catholic Church? Am I guilty of grave sin? Have I incurred a penalty (e.g. excommunication, interdict) that forbids me to receive Holy Communion? Have I prepared myself by fasting for at least an hour?" The practice of indiscriminately presenting oneself to receive Holy Communion, merely as a consequence of being present at Mass, is an abuse that must be corrected (cf. Instruction "Redemptionis Sacramentum," nos. 81, 83).

2. The Church teaches that abortion or euthanasia is a grave sin. The Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae, with reference to judicial decisions or civil laws that authorise or promote abortion or euthanasia, states that there is a "grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection. [...] In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to ‘take part in a propoganda campaign in favour of such a law or vote for it’" (no. 73). Christians have a "grave obligation of conscience not to cooperate formally in practices which, even if permitted by civil legislation, are contrary to God’s law. Indeed, from the moral standpoint, it is never licit to cooperate formally in evil. [...] This cooperation can never be justified either by invoking respect for the freedom of others or by appealing to the fact that civil law permits it or requires it" (no. 74).

3. Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.

4. Apart from an individuals’s judgement about his worthiness to present himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, the minister of Holy Communion may find himself in the situation where he must refuse to distribute Holy Communion to someone, such as in cases of a declared excommunication, a declared interdict, or an obstinate persistence in manifest grave sin (cf. can. 915).

5. Regarding the grave sin of abortion or euthanasia, when a person’s formal cooperation becomes manifest (understood, in the case of a Catholic politician, as his consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws), his Pastor should meet with him, instructing him about the Church’s teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin, and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist.

6. When "these precautionary measures have not had their effect or in which they were not possible," and the person in question, with obstinate persistence, still presents himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, "the minister of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute it" (cf. Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts Declaration "Holy Communion and Divorced, Civilly Remarried Catholics" [2002], nos. 3-4). This decision, properly speaking, is not a sanction or a penalty. Nor is the minister of Holy Communion passing judgement on the person’s subjective guilt, but rather is reacting to the person’s public unworthiness to receive Holy Communion due to an objective situation of sin.

[N.B. A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favour of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.]

Posted by Orrin Judd at April 19, 2005 11:25 PM
Comments

This is a somewhat exaggerated account. Ratzinger's letter was a private one to the U.S. bishops, who had asked for guidance after contrary statements by various U.S. bishops. The letter became public only after Cardinal McCarrick mis-stated its contents, and probably not with Ratzinger's consent. Thus, there was no intention to "intervene in the U.S. election," only to settle a point of doctrinal confusion.

Also, Ratzinger's letter said it was permissible to vote for a pro-abortion politician if the pro-abortion stance was not the reason the Catholic was voting for him, and there were proportionate reasons for supporting the candidate that outweighed the evil of promoting abortion. The story neglects to mention this, quoting only the statements condemning pro-abortion politicking.

Posted by: pj at April 19, 2005 11:56 PM

I knew there was a good reason why I liked Pope Benedict.

Posted by: Mike Morley at April 20, 2005 9:01 AM
« JACK KEVORKIAN WASN'T IN IT FOR THE MONEY EITHER: | Main | OWNERS OR OWNED?: »