Archbishop John J. Myers of the Archdiocese of Newark has released a pastoral letter titled A Time For Honesty, in which he takes on the subject of abortion and the role it needs to have in Catholics’ political positions.
He is right on target. Go Archbishop Myers!
Some pertinent excerpts:
There is no right more fundamental than the right to be born and reared with all the dignity the human person deserves. On this grave issue, public officials cannot hold themselves excused from their duties, especially if they claim to be Catholic. Every faithful Catholic must be not only “personally opposed” to abortion, but also must live that opposition in his or her actions.
As voters, Catholics are under an obligation to avoid implicating themselves in abortion, which is one of the gravest of injustices. Certainly, there are other injustices, which must be addressed, but the unjust killing of the innocent is foremost among them.
Catholics who publicly dissent from the Church’s teaching on the right to life of all unborn children should recognize that they have freely chosen by their own actions to separate themselves from what the Church believes and teaches.
One who practices such dissent, even in the mistaken belief that it is permissible, may remain a Catholic in some sense, but has abandoned the full Catholic faith. For such a person to express ‘communion’ with Christ and His Church by the reception of the Sacrament of the Eucharist is objectively dishonest.
To receive unworthily or without proper dispositions is a very serious sin against the Lord. St. Paul explicitly teaches this in his letter to the Church at Corinth when he wrote, “This means that whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily sins against the body and blood of the Lord. A man should examine himself first; only then should he eat of the bread and drink of the cup. He who eats and drinks without recognizing the body eats and drinks a judgment on himself” (1 Cor 11: 27-29).
To receive communion when one has, through public or private action, separated oneself from unity with Christ and His Church, is objectively dishonest. It is an expression of communion by one’s action that is objectively not in accordance with one’s heart, mind, and choices.
That some Catholics, who claim to believe what the Church believes, are willing to allow others to continue directly to kill the innocent is a grave scandal. The situation is much much worse when these same leaders receive the Eucharist when they are not objectively in communion with Christ and His Church. Their objective dishonesty serves to compound the scandal.
Some might argue that the Church has many social teachings and the teaching on abortion is only one of them. This is, of course, correct. The Church’s social teaching is a diverse and rich tradition of moral truths and biblical insights applied to the political, economic, and cultural aspects of our society. All Catholics should form and inform their conscience in accordance with these teachings. But reasonable Catholics can (and do) disagree about how to apply these teachings in various situations.
For example, our preferential option for the poor is a fundamental aspect of this teaching. But, there are legitimate disagreements about the best way or ways truly to help the poor in our society. No Catholic can legitimately say, “I do not care about the poor.” If he or she did so this person would not be objectively in communion with Christ and His Church. But, both those who propose welfare increases and those who propose tax cuts to stimulate the economy may in all sincerity believe that their way is the best method really to help the poor. This is a matter of prudential judgment made by those entrusted with the care of the common good. It is a matter of conscience in the proper sense.
But with abortion (and for example slavery, racism, euthanasia and trafficking in human persons) there can be no legitimate diversity of opinion. The direct killing of the innocent is always a grave injustice. One should not permit unjust killing any more than one should permit slave-holding, racist actions, or other grave injustices. From the perspective of justice, to say “I am personally opposed to abortion but…” is like saying “I personally am against slavery, but I can not impose my personal beliefs on my neighbor.” Obviously, recognizing the grave injustice of slavery requires one to ensure that no one suffers such degradation. Similarly recognizing that abortion is unjust killing requires one—in love and justice—to work to overcome the injustice.
This is really good stuff by the bishop.
By the way Jimmy…I really like how you’ve improved your site.
That’s MY archbishop! 😀
Perhaps instead of listing who is in hell, maybe we could list people who are PROBABLY going to hell unless they repent. http://www.highwaytohell.com? Maybe seeing their names in black and white (or in burning flames) would cause them to think twice about eternal life and damnation.
I really like the new web site as well.
Opps… I commented in the wrong post.
My apologies.
Interesting. “There is no right more fundamental than the right to be born AND REARED with all the dignity the human person deserves.”
But the means for assuring that every human person is REARED with all the dignity the deserve are open to “prudential judgment”, while the means for assuring that every human person is BORN are not.
It’s also interesting that his Excellence fails to mention Stem-cell research, which must be considered on par with abortion in terms of life-issues and cannot be so blithely dismisses as a “social justice issue”. Yet I haven’t heard call for HHS head Tommy Thompson to be denied the Eucharist for carrying out the administration’s plan to permit research on unborn humans.
Bishops, politicians, theologians, and the rest of us our fooling ourselves if we think that criminalizing abortion will prevent the deaths of the unborn anymore than the criminalization of other gravely sinful conduct, like prostitution and, perhaps less grave, illicit drug use, has reduced the occurence of these crimes.
Who is more culpable, the politician who refuses to erect barriers to the voluntary behavior of individuals who bear the moral responsibility for their own conduct, or the politician who actively seeks to deprive humans, once born, of the rights and dignity which we all deserve?
This raises a bigger issue which I’m detecting among the more right-wing theologians and even hierarchy who obviously seek to make the Church into a de facto wing of the Republican party, and vice versa. They take bold stands on issues with which that political party is in agreement with Church teaching, but issues on which the party blatantly disregards the Church’s position are dismissed as “subject to prudential judgment”.
I’ve seen this with the application of the “just war” doctrine vis a vis Iraq. Query: can the decision to lie the country into an unnecessary war ever be considered “prudential”; and also with the death penalty, although the Catechism makes clear that the CONDITION necessary for state to exercise the CONDITIONAL RIGHT to execute criminals simply DOES NOT EXIST in the developed world, and especially in George Bush’s Texas.
Can Mr. Bush’s mockery of Carla Faye Tucker as she pled for clemency after converting to Mr. Bush’s “favorite philospher”, our Lord Jesus Christ, be considered “prudential judgment”.
I’m not one to bang the “separation of church and state” drum, but the Bishops’ Conference has been pretty clear in trying to keep the debate of this issue above the political fray.
I think it would be wise for church leaders like Myers to prohibit pro-abortion protestant clergy from speaking at Catholic churches, or Catholic clergy from attending interfaith events with people who are not pro-life.
I don’t imagine Meyers would be happy if Jack Chick spoke at a Catholic Church. Isn’t it equally scandelous when some pro-abort epsicopal priestess speaks at one?
*YAWN!*
Where’s the directve, on the part of this bishop, that his priests are not to give communion to pro-baby-murder politicians? Or his own declaration of refusal to give said Sacrament?
Sounds like more hot air to me . . .
Esquire is funny.
Fascinating and funny.