Bishops Issue Statement on 'Catholics in Political Life'
Catholics in Political Life
We speak as bishops, as teachers of the Catholic faith and of the moral law. We have the duty to teach about human life and dignity, marriage and family, war and peace, the needs of the poor and the demands of justice. Today we continue our efforts to teach on a uniquely important matter that has recently been a source of concern for Catholics and others.
It is the teaching of the Catholic Church from the very beginning, founded on her understanding of her Lord's own witness to the sacredness of human life, that the killing of an unborn child is always intrinsically evil and can never be justified. If those who perform an abortion and those who cooperate willingly in the action are fully aware of the objective evil of what they do, they are guilty of grave sin and thereby separate themselves from God's grace. This is the constant and received teaching of the Church. It is, as well, the conviction of many other people of good will.
To make such intrinsically evil actions legal is itself wrong. This is the point most recently highlighted in official Catholic teaching. The legal system as such can be said to cooperate in evil when it fails to protect the lives of those who have no protection except the law. In the United States of America, abortion on demand has been made a constitutional right by a decision of the Supreme Court. Failing to protect the lives of innocent and defenseless members of the human race is to sin against justice. Those who formulate law therefore have an obligation in conscience to work toward correcting morally defective laws, lest they be guilty of cooperating in evil and in sinning against the common good.
As our conference has insisted in Faithful Citizenship, Catholics who bring their moral convictions into public life do not threaten democracy or pluralism but enrich them and the nation. The separation of church and state does not require division between belief and public action, between moral principles and political choices, but protects the right of believers and religious groups to practice their faith and act on their values in public life.
Our obligation as bishops at this time is to teach clearly. It is with pastoral solicitude for everyone involved in the political process that we will also counsel Catholic public officials that their acting consistently to support abortion on demand risks making them cooperators in evil in a public manner. We will persist in this duty to counsel, in the hope that the scandal of their cooperating in evil can be resolved by the proper formation of their consciences.
Having received an extensive interim report from the Task Force on Catholic Bishops and Catholic Politicians, and looking forward to the full report, we highlight several points from the interim report that suggest some directions for our efforts:
--We need to continue to teach
clearly and help other Catholic leaders to teach clearly on our unequivocal
commitment to the legal protection of human life from the moment of conception
until natural death. Our teaching on human life and dignity should be reflected
in our parishes and our educational, health care and human service ministries.
-- We need to do more to
persuade all people that human life is precious and human dignity must be defended.
This requires more effective dialogue and engagement with all public officials,
especially Catholic public officials. We welcome conversation initiated by
political leaders themselves.
-- Catholics need to act in
support of these principles and policies in public life. It is the particular
vocation of the laity to transform the world. We have to encourage this
vocation and do more to bring all believers to this mission. As bishops, we do
not endorse or oppose candidates. Rather, we seek to form the consciences of
our people so that they can examine the positions of candidates and make
choices based on Catholic moral and social teaching.
-- The Catholic community and
Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our
fundamental moral principles. They should not be given awards, honors or
platforms which would suggest support for their actions.
-- We commit ourselves to
maintain communication with public officials who make decisions every day that
touch issues of human life and dignity.
The Eucharist is the source and summit of Catholic life. Therefore, like every Catholic generation before us, we must be guided by the words of St. Paul, "Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the Body and Blood of the Lord" (1 Cor 11:27). This means that all must examine their consciences as to their worthiness to receive the Body and Blood of our Lord. This examination includes fidelity to the moral teaching of the Church in personal and public life.
The question has been raised as to whether the denial of Holy Communion to some Catholics in political life is necessary because of their public support for abortion on demand. Given the wide range of circumstances involved in arriving at a prudential judgment on a matter of this seriousness, we recognize that such decisions rest with the individual bishop in accord with the established canonical and pastoral principles. Bishops can legitimately make different judgments on the most prudent course of pastoral action. Nevertheless, we all share an unequivocal commitment to protect human life and dignity and to preach the Gospel in difficult times.
The polarizing tendencies of election-year politics can lead to circumstances in which Catholic teaching and sacramental practice can be misused for political ends. Respect for the Holy Eucharist, in particular, demands that it be received worthily and that it be seen as the source for our common mission in the world.
June 18, 2004 Copyright © by United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
Press Release
Bishops Issue Statement on 'Catholics in Political Life'
Washington (June 21, 2004) -- Saying that "those who formulate law" are obliged in conscience "to work toward correcting morally defective laws," the United States of Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) called on Catholics in public life to protect the unborn and oppose legal abortion "lest they be guilty of cooperating in evil and in sinning against the common good."
The bishops also pledged to counsel Catholic public officials who act "consistently to support abortion on demand" that this support "risks making them cooperators in evil in a public manner."
The statement, "Catholics in Political Life," was adopted by a vote of 183-6. It came after the Task Force on Catholic Bishops and Catholic Politicians made an extensive interim report at the USCCB's special assembly, held in Denver, June 14-19, 2004.
In the statement, the bishops highlight:
-- the need "to continue to teach clearly" and help other Catholic leaders to do so about their "unequivocal commitment to the legal protection of human life from the moment of conception until natural death." The statement notes that Catholic "teaching on human life and dignity should be reflected" in all parishes and all "educational, health care and human service ministries."
-- the need to do more "to persuade all people that human life is precious and human dignity must be defended." The bishops also welcome "conversation initiated by political leaders themselves
-- the need for Catholics "to act in support of these principles and policies in public life."
The statement also says that:
-- "the Catholic community and Catholic institutions" should not honor those "who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles" with awards, honors, or "platforms which would suggest support for their actions."
-- the bishops are committed to maintaining communication with public officials "who make decisions every day that touch issues of human life and dignity."
Recalling the words of St. Paul in the First Letter to the Corinthians about the unworthy reception of the body and blood of the Lord, the bishops state that "all must examine their consciences" about their worthiness to receive Holy Communion, including with regard to "fidelity to the moral teaching of the Church in personal and public life."
The statement notes that "the question has been raised" whether it is necessary to deny Holy Communion to Catholics in public life who support abortion on demand.
"Given the wide range of circumstances involved in arriving at a prudential judgment" in this serious matter, the bishops state that they "recognize that such decisions rest with the individual bishop in accord with established canonical and pastoral principles."
Noting that "bishops can legitimately make different judgments on the most prudent course of pastoral action," they express their shared "unequivocal commitment to protect human life and dignity."
The bishops conclude their statement by saying that respect for the Holy Eucharist "demands that it be received worthily and that it be seen as the source for our common mission in the world."
Washington archbishop, Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick, chairman of the Task Force, said, on the release of the statement, that "it reflects the bishop's role as teacher, pastor, and center of unity. We address the moral issues that our society faces without endorsing parties or candidates."
Cardinal McCarrick added that "last September, the USCCB's Administrative Committee outlined the principles for moral participation in political life and described the USCCB positions on numerous issues in its statement `Faithful Citizenship: A Catholic Call to Political Responsibility.'"
NEW YORK TIMES - 6/26/04
BELIEFS
Documents Add to Abortion Debate
By PETER STEINFELS
Documents posted this week on the Web site of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops provide fresh light on the struggle of the bishops to address the question of politicians who publicly identify themselves as Roman Catholics but consistently disagree with church teaching concerning abortion.
A week ago, after a lengthy debate behind closed doors, the bishops issued a statement emphasizing the need for church leaders to teach clearly and persuasively the church's position that human life deserves legal protection from "the moment of conception until natural death.''
On the question of whether Catholic politicians who support abortion rights should be barred (or bar themselves) from receiving holy communion, the statement simply said that bishops can legitimately make different judgments on the most prudent course of pastoral action.
This studied neutrality was not only in keeping with church law, which ultimately leaves such decisions in the hands of individual bishops, but it also gave cover to the half-dozen bishops who have called for such bans - even as it affirmed the fidelity of others whose objections to denying communion had provoked strong denunciations from some anti-abortion Catholics.
Last week's conference statement was meant, the document said, to "highlight several points from the interim report'' of a task force of seven leading prelates who were appointed last fall to develop a full document for the bishops to consider this November.
It is that interim report that has become available on the Web site (www.usccb.org). The material on the Web site, it should be emphasized, does not contradict what the bishops voted 183 to 6 to highlight a week ago. But the interim report has much information that the brief statement excluded and goes much further in its conclusions.
The summary of the task force's consultations, for example, presented by Cardinal William H. Keeler of Baltimore, confirmed what many observers had surmised: the overwhelming weight of opinion was against public sanctions involving communion. That was the view of three-quarters of the bishops offering the task force their opinion. Theologians, experts in church law and the Catholic officials who interact directly with politicians on the state and national levels told the task force the same thing.
When the task force raised the question with bishops' conferences in other countries, it found that none had felt obliged to develop policies regarding Catholic politicians, especially about their reception of communion.
Cardinal Theodore McCarrick of Washington, D.C., reported on the views of Vatican officials and specifically of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, whose role in safeguarding Catholic teaching has made him the object of speculation.
Cardinal Ratzinger, according to Cardinal McCarrick, held that consistent campaigning for permissive laws on abortion could in principle constitute grounds for denial of communion, but that it remained up to the American bishops to decide, as Cardinal McCarrick put it, "not simply whether denial of communion is possible, but whether it is pastorally wise and prudent.''
Cardinal Ratzinger also drew a sharp distinction between Catholic public officials and Catholic voters. Specifically, he found no problem with church members who might vote for a candidate who strongly endorsed access to abortion for other political reasons.
The task force, like the conference's eventual statement, restated the church's clear position that "every bishop has the right and duty to address these realities in his own diocese.''
But the task force did not stop there. "We were asked to consult broadly and offer advice and so we will,'' it said. That advice began with the emphasis on teaching and persuading and encouraging Catholics to act on their principles without seeking to endorse or oppose candidates - all points incorporated into the conference statement.
A key piece of that advice was: "Our task force does not advocate the denial of communion for Catholic politicians or Catholic voters in these circumstances.''
The task force spelled out its reasons for this conclusion. "The sacred nature of the eucharist could be trivialized and might be turned into a partisan political battleground.'' The floodgates would be opened to debates about "what other issues might lead to denial of holy communion.'' Catholics upholding church teaching in public life might be perceived not as representing their own moral convictions but merely "as under pressure from the hierarchy.''
On the other hand, Catholics "who bend to the political winds'' could pose "as courageous resistors of episcopal authority.'' The lesson of the past, it said, was that "such actions have often been counterproductive.'' They "could push many people farther from the church and its teaching, rather than bringing them closer.''
"No one should mistake our task force's reservations about refusing communion or public calls to refrain from communion as ignoring or excusing those who clearly contradict Catholic teaching in their public roles,'' the interim report said. Still, the task force urged "not penalties'' but renewed efforts "to teach clearly, advocate effectively, organize and mobilize Catholic laity and to engage, persuade and challenge Catholic politicians to act on the moral teaching of our church.''
The fact that these documents were so quickly posted on the Web site suggests that the task force did not want the difference in emphasis and detail between their interim report and the conference's official statement to go unnoticed. That leaves unexplained, however, exactly why the bishops as a whole chose to include and exclude what they did.
Two factors apparently played important roles in shaping the statement. One was brevity. There was strong pressure to distill the interim documents to the length of an op-ed article.
The second was unity, the desire not to challenge the sincerity and fidelity of either those few bishops who have made the reception of communion a public marker in their opposition to legalized abortion or the larger number who disagree with that approach.
Given the shadow of the sexual abuse scandal that already burdens the bishops' public standing, is this whole exercise somewhat beside the point? In fact, by highlighting the hierarchy's responsibility not only to teach clearly and authoritatively but also to persuade, to welcome dialogue, to engage in real conversation with Catholics in political life and with those, Catholic or not, who are unconvinced of the church's teaching, both the interim report and the conference's statement imply a distinctly different way of being a bishop.
Archbishop William J. Levada of San Francisco, whose theological reflections for the task force include a thoughtful response to the 48 Catholic members of Congress voicing concerns about the withholding of communion on the basis of voting records, made a similar observation yesterday.
The current situation, Archbishop Levada said, "shows not only that Catholic politicians need an opportunity to look at church teaching in a deeper way, but that we bishops have a lot to learn about the practicalities and the steps involved in political judgments, including political platforms and party relationships.
"We have to envision a dialogue that is not just one way,'' he said.