STATEMENTS ON POLITICS

Catholics and Political Responsibility
Vatican Statements - US Bishops' Conference Statements - Diocesan Bishops - Selected articles

"To claim the right to abortion, infanticide and euthanasia, and to recognize that right in law, means to attribute to human freedom a perverse and evil significance: that of an absolute power over others and against others. This is the death of true freedom..." [Evangelium Vitae 20]

Vatican Statements

Pope John Paul II
Evangelium Vitae - The Gospel of Life

In this encyclical, dated March 25, 1995, Pope John Paul II gives a "pressing appeal addressed to each and every person, in the name of God: respect, protect, love and serve life, every human life!" This affirmation of the Gospel of Life, which is part of and inseparable from the entire Gospel of Christ, is fundamental to the Church's mission to the world, and part of the necessary witness of every Christian - especially in our present culture where the very meaning and value of human life is under grave threat: "Only in this direction will you find justice, development, true freedom, peace and happiness!" [EV 5]

The encyclical consists of four chapters, and begins by outlining the present grave situation where assaults against human life lead the Pope to characterize society today as a "culture of death". (Click title above for complete version on this site.)

Selected quotes on freedom democracy and political action:
19 ... Feedom negates and destroys itself, and becomes a factor leading to the destruction of others, when it no longer recognizes and respects its essential link with the truth. When freedom, out of a desire to emancipate itself from all forms of tradition and authority, shuts out even the most obvious evidence of an objective and universal truth, which is the foundation of personal and social life, then the person ends up by no longer taking as the sole and indisputable point of reference for his own choices the truth about good and evil, but only his subjective and changeable opinion or, indeed, his selfish interest and whim.

20. This view of freedom leads to a serious distortion of life in society. If the promotion of the self is understood in terms of absolute autonomy, people inevitably reach the point of rejecting one another ... In this way, any reference to common values and to a truth absolutely binding on everyone is lost, and social life ventures on to the shifting sands of complete relativism. At that point, everything is negotiable, everything is open to bargaining: even the first of the fundamental rights, the right to life.

This is what is happening also at the level of politics and government: the original and inalienable right to life is questioned or denied on the basis of a parliamentary vote or the will of one part of the people-even if it is the majority. This is the sinister result of a relativism which reigns unopposed: the "right" ceases to be such, because it is no longer firmly founded on the inviolable dignity of the person, but is made subject to the will of the stronger part. In this way democracy, contradicting its own principles, effectively moves towards a form of totalitarianism. ... The appearance of the strictest respect for legality is maintained, at least when the laws permitting abortion and euthanasia are the result of a ballot in accordance with what are generally seen as the rules of democracy. Really, what we have here is only the tragic caricature of legality; the democratic ideal, which is only truly such when it acknowledges and safeguards the dignity of every human person, is betrayed in its very foundations: "How is it still possible to speak of the dignity of every human person when the killing of the weakest and most innocent is permitted? In the name of what justice is the most unjust of discriminations practised: some individuals are held to be deserving of defence and others are denied that dignity?" When this happens, the process leading to the breakdown of a genuinely human co-existence and the disintegration of the State itself has already begun.

To claim the right to abortion, infanticide and euthanasia, and to recognize that right in law, means to attribute to human freedom a perverse and evil significance: that of an absolute power over others and against others. This is the death of true freedom: "Truly, truly, I say to you, every one who commits sin is a slave to sin" (Jn 8:34).

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
Doctrinal Note on Some Questions Regarding the Participation of Catholics in Political Life

Issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on November 24, 2002, the Solemnity of Christ the King, and expressly approved by Pope John Paul II, this is the most recent and concise statement on the subject from the Church's highest authority.

The Doctrinal Note summarizes Church teaching on issues of freedom of conscience, pluralism and political activity. It stresses that "that a well-formed Christian conscience does not permit one to vote for a political program or an individual law which contradicts the fundamental contents of faith and morals."

It states emphatically, "John Paul II, continuing the constant teaching of the Church, has reiterated many times that those who are directly involved in lawmaking bodies have a "grave and clear obligation to oppose" any law that attacks human life. For them, as for every Catholic, it is impossible to promote such laws or to vote for them."

The Doctrinal Note refers to existing Church teaching documents, notably the Second Vatican Council's Gaudiam et spes, and Pope John Paul II's encyclical, Evangelium Vitae - The Gospel of Life (March 25, 1995).
(Links are to documents on this web site.)

United States Conference of Catholic Bishops

US bishops "Task Force" on the implementation of the Holy See's "Doctrinal Note"

The US bishops' conference has appointed a "task force" to implement the Vatican's Doctrinal Note. At their November 2003 meeting, a report from this "task force" was presented by Bishop John Ricard. (The "task force" chairman, Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, of Washington DC, said that because of his location in the nation's capitol, he preferred not to present the report himself.) The other members of this task force, according to the November report, are Archbishop Charles Chaput; Bishop Joseph Galante; Bishop Thomas G.Wenski; Bishop Donald Trautman; and Bishop Bernard Harrington.
The "task force" plans to consult with the Holy See and other bishops' conferences "to bring back a set of general guidelines to help shape the prudential judgments we will make", Bishop Ricard reported.
(Click title above to access the November 2003 "Task Force" statement on this site.)

NOTE: See Statements of Bishops below for individual statements by original"task force" members, Cardinal McCarrick, Archbishop Chaput, Bishop Galante, and Bishop Wenski.

USCCB Questions and Answers on the Doctrinal Note on Catholics' participation in political life

The US bishops' Committee on Doctrine issued a brief series of questions and answers on the Holy See's Doctrinal Note, from which the following are excerpts. (Click title above to go to complete document on USCCB web site.)

What about the separation of "church and state"?

The Note fully supports the rightful autonomy of the political or civil sphere from that of religion or the Church. It points out that the identification of religious law with civil law can stifle religious freedom and restrict or deny other inalienable rights. Also, the state does not have the right to interfere in specifically religious activities.

However this does not mean that there is an autonomy from morality. Christians and all citizens must defend, by legitimate means, moral truths concerning society including respect for human life and other rights of the person, justice and freedom.

The fact that some of these truths may also be taught by the Church does not lessen the political legitimacy or the rightful "autonomy" of the contribution of those citizens who are committed to them.

Some may have come to these truths through reasoned inquiry or from their being taught by the Christian faith or both. In whatever way a person has come to these fundamental moral truths, in a democratic society all proposals are freely discussed and examined. To disqualify Christians from political life for acting in accord with their consciences amounts to a form of intolerant secularism.

What are the responsibilities of the lay faithful in civil and political life?

This is an arena that is worthy and appropriate for the baptized faithful as they fulfill their mission in the Church to the world. Their legitimate autonomy to deal with many matters and issues which do not involve fundamental moral principles is fully respected. However, the well-informed Christian conscience does not permit one to vote for a political policy or an individual law which contradicts the fundamental contents of faith and morals. The Christian faith is an integral unity, and one cannot support one of these teachings to the neglect of the others or to omit support for one of them while supporting others. Christians should collaborate in the shaping of a culture that is informed by the true dignity of the human person and the common good.

Living the Gospel of Life: A Challenge to American Catholics
(This document was issued by the US bishops in 1998. Quotes from relevant paragraphs on responsibility of Catholic politicians follow. Click title above to link to access complete document on USCCB web site)

31.Catholics who are privileged to serve in public leadership positions have an obligation to place their faith at the heart of their public service, particularly on issues regarding the sanctity and dignity of human life. Thomas More, the former chancellor of England who preferred to give his life rather than betray his Catholic convictions, went to his execution with the words, "I die the king's good servant, but God's first." In the United States in the late 1990s, elected officials safely keep their heads. But some will face a political penalty for living their public office in accord with their pro-life convictions. To those who choose this path, we assure them that their course is just, they save lives through their witness, and God and history will not forget them. Moreover, the risk of witness should not be exaggerated, and the power of witness should not be underestimated. In an age of artifice, many voters are hungry for substance. They admire and support political figures who speak out sincerely for their moral convictions. For our part we commend Catholic and other public officials who, with courage and determination, use their positions of leadership to promote respect for all human life.

32. We urge those Catholic officials who choose to depart from Church teaching on the inviolability of human life in their public life to consider the consequences for their own spiritual well being, as well as the scandal they risk by leading others into serious sin. We call on them to reflect on the grave contradiction of assuming public roles and presenting themselves as credible Catholics when their actions on fundamental issues of human life are not in agreement with Church teaching. No public official, especially one claiming to be a faithful and serious Catholic, can responsibly advocate for or actively support direct attacks on innocent human life. Certainly there are times when it may be impossible to overturn or prevent passage of a law which allows or promotes a moral evil -- such as a law allowing the destruction of nascent human life. In such cases, an elected official, whose position in favor of life is known, could seek legitimately to limit the harm done by the law. However, no appeal to policy, procedure, majority will or pluralism ever excuses a public official from defending life to the greatest extent possible. As is true of leaders in all walks of life, no political leader can evade accountability for his or her exercise of power (Evangelium Vitae, 73-4). Those who justify their inaction on the grounds that abortion is the law of the land need to recognize that there is a higher law, the law of God. No human law can validly contradict the Commandment: "Thou shalt not kill."

33.The Gospel of Life must be proclaimed, and human life defended, in all places and all times. The arena for moral responsibility includes not only the halls of government, but the voting booth as well. Laws that permit abortion, euthanasia and assisted suicide are profoundly unjust, and we should work peacefully and tirelessly to oppose and change them. Because they are unjust they cannot bind citizens in conscience, be supported, acquiesced in, or recognized as valid. Our nation cannot countenance the continued existence in our society of such fundamental violations of human rights.

34.We encourage all citizens, particularly Catholics, to embrace their citizenship not merely as a duty and privilege, but as an opportunity meaningfully to participate in building the culture of life. Every voice matters in the public forum. Every vote counts. Every act of responsible citizenship is an exercise of significant individual power. We must exercise that power in ways that defend human life, especially those of God's children who are unborn, disabled or otherwise vulnerable. We get the public officials we deserve. Their virtue -- or lack thereof -- is a judgment not only on them, but on us. Because of this, we urge our fellow citizens to see beyond party politics, to analyze campaign rhetoric critically, and to choose their political leaders according to principle, not party affiliation or mere self-interest.

Faithful Citizenship: A Catholic Call to Political Responsibility

In September 2003, the USCCB Administrative Committee prepared and approved the "Faithful Citizenship" statement, to prepare Catholics for the 2004 elections. It now appears on the USCCB web site. The document is intended to inform voters on a wide range of issues -- from human life and family issues to war and relations with the United Nations -- listing various social policies endorsed by the committees of the US bishops' conference. (Click on title above to access the statement on the USCCB web site.)
With the release of the statement, the USCCB has also launched a web site section with the statement and various other materials (including suggestions for homilies, liturgies, prayers) related to the political campaign. Link to this section of the USCCB web site: http://www.usccb.org/faithfulcitizenship/introduction.html

Statements by Bishops on Catholics and Political Responsibility

 January 22, 2003

Bishop William Weigand - Homily on 30th Anniversary of Roe v Wade

On January 22, 2003, Sacramento Bishop William K. Weigand, leader of 500,000 Catholics in Northern California, called on then-Governor Gray Davis to renounce his support of abortion rights or stop taking Holy Communion .

In his homily at Mass at the Cathedral of the Blessed Sacrament on the 30th anniversary of the landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion, Bishop Weigand quoted the USCCB's Living the Gospel of Life, and said that Davis should refrain from receiving Communion while he continues to support abortion rights.

"No public official, especially one claiming to be a faithful and serious Catholic, can responsibly advocate for or actively support direct attacks on innocent human life. No appeal to policy, procedure, majority will or pluralism ever excuses a public official from defending life to the greatest extent possible. Those who justify their inaction on the grounds that abortion is the law of the land need to recognize that there is a higher law, the law of God....

"As your bishop, I have to say clearly that anyone -- politician or otherwise -- who thinks it is acceptable for a Catholic to be pro-abortion is in very great error, puts his or her soul at risk, and is not in good standing with the Church,. Such a person should have the integrity to acknowledge this and choose of his own volition to abstain from receiving Holy Communion until he has a change of heart."

Bishop Weigand said afterward that "in general, we do not refuse Communion to anyone; we try to instruct people as to when it would not be appropriate", according to a news story in The Sacramento Bee, January 23, 2003.

Click title or highlighted text above to access the bishop's homily on the Sacramento diocesan web site.

 November 2003

Archbishop Raymond Burke - Pastoral Letter On the Dignity of Human Life and Political Responsibility (click title for complete version on this site)

A pastoral letter, dated November 23, 2003, was written when Archbishop Burke was bishop of La Crosse, Wisconsin. He had been forced by recalcitrant pro-abortion Catholic politicians to inhibit them from receiving Communion. His action was widely publicized after the likelihood of a pro-abortion Catholic as presidential candidate seemed almost certain.
The letter amply cites recent papal teaching,and the US Bishops "Living the Gospel of Life" (quoted above). Following are two quotes:

"Sadly, many Catholics misunderstand the meaning of the so-called "separation of Church and state" in our nation and believe that the Word of God, handed on to us in the Church, has no application to political life. Certainly, our government does not endorse or fund a particular Christian denomination or religion. But, at the same time, we, as Roman Catholics, have the right and, indeed, the obligation to inform our consciences and political judgments from the teachings of our faith, especially in what pertains to the natural moral law, that is the order established by God in creation." ...

"Our faith and our political judgments cannot be separate compartments of our lives; they must relate to each other in a life which is lived with integrity. This is especially true with respect to safeguarding the right to life, the foundation of all other rights. "

 January 2004

Archbishop Alfred Hughes - Co-responsibility for Public Policy

In his column in the diocesan paper January 14, 2004, "Co-responsibility for Public Policy", New Orleans Archbishop Alfred Hughes spoke specifically about Catholic officials who support policies inimical to Catholic teaching receiving Holy Communion:

"A recent Vatican document, A Doctrinal Note on Some Questions Regarding the Participation of Catholics in Political Life, [see above] offers valuable guidance in the above issues for public figures. This document does not propose a Catholic agenda, but clarifies for Catholics those truths that are rooted in nature. The Louisiana bishops are sending a copy of this document to each of our elected Catholic public officials in Baton Rouge and Washington. When Catholic officials openly support the taking of human life in abortion, euthanasia or the destruction of human embryos, they are no longer faithful members in the Church and should not partake of Holy Communion. Moreover, citizens who promote this unjust taking of human life by their vote or support of such candidates share in responsibility for this grave evil.

(For complete version, click title above to link to Archbishop Hughes's statement on the New Orleans archdiocesan web site.)

Bishop Robert C. Morlino - "Mind of Christ: Must not be set aside in public office

In a statement issued January 22, 2004, Bishop Robert Morlino expressed his and other Wisconsin bishops' support of Archbishop Raymond Burke's action. It was published in the diocesan paper, the Catholic Herald and on the Madison diocesan web site. The statement said, in part,

"Archbishop Burke is on target as he spells out the principles of the Church's teaching, and his brother bishops stand with him in episcopal communion and collegiality. All are aware that Archbishop Burke has come under fire lately from certain public office holders, and reports of this difficult situation have enjoyed more than ample attention in the mass media", Bishop Morlino wrote.

"It is indeed the case that Catholics who are public office holders enjoy the blessing of only one conscience - they do not have one conscience for their private lives and one for their public responsibility, one for Church matters and another for State matters. ... it is clearly not possible for a Catholic public office holder to leave the mind of Christ aside as he or she enters a Senate or House chamber".

(Click title above to go to complete statement on Madison Catholic Herald web site.)

March 2004

Bishop Olmsted: Rebutting the "Catholic but..."

Phoenix Bishop Thomas Olmsted, in his column March 18 in his diocesan paper, the Catholic Sun, warned against the compromising "Catholic, but..." stance -- not only for politicians:

"The 'Catholic but' syndrome stands in direct contradiction to Jesus' clear and unequivocal demand (Mk 8:34-36), 'Whoever wishes to come after me must deny himself, take up his cross, and follow me. For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake and that of the Gospel will save it. What profit is there for one to gain the whole world and forfeit his life?'"

"Now is the time to say 'yes' when we mean yes, and to say 'no' when we mean no", he said in his Lenten column.
(He did not comment explicitly on administering Communion to pro-abortion politicians or voters.)

(Click title above to go to complete version on the Catholic Sun web site.)

 April 2004

Archbishop Charles Chaput: How to tell a duck from a fox - Thinking with the Church as We Look Toward November

Denver Archbishop Charles Chaput wrote about Catholics and political responsibility in his column posted the week of April 14, 2004. (Click title to read entire column on the Denver archdiocesan web site).
Archbishop Chaput spoke strongly on the lack of integrity of some Catholic politicians, and emphasiszed the requirement that one's actions be consistent with one's beliefs. He concluded,

"We've come a long way from John F. Kennedy, who merely locked his faith in the closet. Now we have Catholic senators who take pride in arguing for legislation that threatens and destroys life -- and who then also take Communion.
"The kindest explanation for this sort of behavior is that a lot of Catholic candidates don't know their own faith."

Question to Cardinal Arinze Sparks Flurry

Cardinal Francis Arinze, prefect of the Vatican Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments, was interviewed on April 23, after he presented a disciplinary Instruction on the Eucharist, Redemptionis sacramentum [link on Adoremus site]. The Instruction's 185 paragraphs on correcting liturgical abuses included a brief paragraph (82) simply citing the Church's existing norms on "objective conditions under which Communion may not be given".

At a press conference following the presentation of the Instruction, a reporter asked the cardinal whether Senator John Kerry should be denied Communion because his position on abortion and other issues that conflict with Church doctrine. Cardinal Arinze replied that "the norm of the Church is clear", and that American bishop should determine its application. When asked if a priest should refuse Communion to a Catholic politician who supports abortion, Cardinal Arinze said, "Yes. If he should not receive, he should not be given."

Cardinal Arinze's comments were widely reported in the US media, and later the same day, Bishop Wilton Gregory, president of the US Conference of Catholic bishops, issued a statement (published on the USCCB web site April 23) which said that "Cardinal Arinze stated, it is the responsibility of the bishops of the United States to deal pastorally with such situations as they exist here. Each diocesan bishop has the right and duty to address such issues of serious pastoral concern", and he mentioned the USCCB "task force" that is studying the matter.

On April 27, the two Providence bishops, Bishop Robert Mulvee and Bishop Robert McManus also issued a clarification of Cardinal Arinze's comment, in a statement posted on the Providence diocesan web site. "The document, The Sacrament of Redemption, as approved by the Holy Father, does not specifically address any criteria for excluding Catholic politicians from the reception of the Eucharist based upon their position on life issues", the bishops stated. Bishops Mulvee and McManus also stressed that "The American Bishops have set up a committee to study this very question. Their conclusions have as yet not been presented to the Bishops of our country for consideration". (Note: Bishop McManus became bishop of the Diocese of Worcester on May 15.)

Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, of Washington, heads this "task force". His spokeswoman, Susan Gibbs, told reporters that his committee would be unlikely to reach any decision on the issue before the November presidential election. Cardinal McCarrick, according to numerous reports, said that he does not "feel comfortable" denying Communion to anyone, nor with "using" the Eucharist as a "sanction" against pro-abortion Catholic politicians.

Cardinal McCarrick spoke further on Cardinal Arinze's responses in an April 29 interview by National Catholic Reporter's Rome correspondent, John Allen. When asked if Cardinal Arinze was right in saying that a politician who is unambiguously pro-abortion should be denied Communion, Cardinal McCarrick responded,

"I don't think it was his eminence's official opinion. I did speak to the cardinal while I was here in Rome, and I think the cardinal would say that what he wanted to say is what was in the document. In it, it's clear as the church has always taught that to receive communion you have to have the proper disposition, you have to be in communion with the church, and not conscious of serious sin. All those things that are part of our teaching. That's in the document. Then, his official statement that was part of what he read is that all these documents present general norms that the bishops of a country have to put into practice. When he reported to me what had happened, this was not something that he reported as an official or even a personal statement, whatever he might personally believe, and whatever I may even personally believe. The cardinal's position was that this is the teaching of the church, and the bishops of the United States should figure out what they ought to do." [sic, NCR]

(Compiled from various news sources. Click highlighted links to go to statements and interviews.)

Bishop Samuel Aquila, Fargo, North Dakota in his homily presented at his cathedral on April 25, 2004. said that denying Communion to pro-abortion politicians is part of Catholic teaching. His homily is posted on the Fargo diocesan web site <http://www.fargodiocese.org/Bishop/Homilies/homily4-24-04.pdf>

Bishop Aquila said:

"In the light of the last few days and all of the media coverage regarding John Kerry's unambiguous support of abortion rights, his personal opposition to abortion, and his insistence on the separation of his Catholic faith from his professional life, I, as a successor of the apostles, cannot remain silent. I, as an apostle, must speak with the apostles and obey God rather than man, and present to you the teaching of the Church on the proper relationship between our faith and professional life. Neither the media nor the theologians who support the separation will present the clear teaching of the Church. I have the responsibility and duty before God to teach and to present to you the teaching of the Church on the matter of living one's faith in the world".

Concerning sanctions for Catholics who are pro-abortion, Bishop Aquila cited the words of St. Justin Martyr, who said: "No one may share the Eucharist with us unless he believes that what we teach is true, unless he is washed in the regenerating waters of baptism for the remission of his sins, and unless he lives in accordance with the principles given us by Christ.

"I would remind Catholic politicians, clergy and all of the faithful of the words of St. Paul when he reminds the people who are not living their lives according to the Gospel of Jesus Christ and yet still receive the Eucharist that they bring judgment on themselves," he said. "They bring judgment on themselves. Let those words sink in."

Bishop John M. D'Arcy of Fort Wayne-South Bend, issued a statement April 28, explaining his decision not to accept an honorary degree at the University of St. Francis because a pro-abortion speaker had been invited to give the Commencement address. (The school later withdrew the invitation. The speaker was not Catholic.)
Bishop D'Arcy's statement, posted on the diocesan web site (http://www.diocesefwsb.org), said, in part:

"Why did I choose to decline the honorary degree? A bishop is bound to preach the truth, not only in words, but also by his actions. The Church's position on unborn life is well known, and the Church's position is my position. It is my obligation to all the faithful and especially to the young graduates to make sure there is no confusion on this matter. I made the same decision, not to attend the graduation, in 1992 when Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan was awarded the Laetare Medal at the University of Notre Dame. In neither case, did I request that the invitation be withdrawn. As I said then and repeat now, I am simply following my solemn responsibilities as a pastor to avoid any confusion on truths so essential to the life of the Church and society, and always to make clear, in season and out of season, those eternal values for which the Church has always stood and for which she stands today".

On April 30, Bishop D'Arcy told South Bend St. Joseph High School to withdraw its invitation to Indiana Governor Joe Kernan to address its commencement. The governor, a Catholic, says he is "personally opposed" to abortion. St. Joseph is a diocesan school. (Story link South Bend Tribune)

On April 29, the day before Bishop Joseph Galante, was installed as the new bishop of Camden, New Jersey, on April 30, told reporters that Governor James McGreevey could not receive Communion, because the governor, a Catholic, is divorced and remarried -- but Bishop Galante also made a point of citing MdGreevey's support for abortion "rights" and embronic stem-cell research, which conflict with Catholic doctrine.

Bishop Galante told reporters he felt duty bound to take a hard-line stance because "he said the public becomes confused about Church teachings when bishops fail to challenge Catholic politicians on their voting records". Bishop Galante is the former co-adjutor bishop of Dallas.
(Source: AP wire story "Bishop: Gov. McGreevey cannot receive Communion" - April 30, 2004)

Bishop John Smith - Faithful Citizenship

In his column April 29, "Faithful Citizenship", Trenton Bishop John Smith wrote that "The First Amendment protects the free exercise of religion. Separation of church and state does not mean that the Church and its members should not voice or advocate for their positions. ... the Church, its leaders and faithful, should speak up and they should speak loudly on public policy issues affecting our society. By so doing, we answer the call to 'faithful citizenship'.

"The Church's positions on issues may not always be the popular or easy road to take for those in public life. Politicians and elected officials often speak of their faith, the faith that guides their lives. They also say, sometimes in the same breath, that public and private beliefs are separate. But isnít that an attempt to justify going against the very faith one professes to believe? Catholic social teaching is being misrepresented in this way. The Gospel of Life places the dignity of all living persons first, for without life there would be nothing. Oneís faith cannot be separated between public and private. Our faith is lived in every moment. People are chosen to represent their constituencies because of what they profess as their values, their vision, and their ability to bring positive solutions to difficult problems. As people of faith, we too have a responsibility to our elected representatives to stand up for our beliefs and make sure that they are represented in public life. Always remember, it is our votes that place them in public office".

(Click title above to go to complete version on Trenton diocesan web site.)

May 2004

Bishop Michael Sheridan - A Pastoral Letter On the Duties of Catholic Politicians and Voters

On May 1, Colorado Springs Bishop Michael Sheridan instructed the Catholics in his care by a Pastoral Letter in which he said, "There must be no confusion in these matters. Anyone who professes the Catholic faith with his lips while at the same time publicly supporting legislation or candidates that defy God's law makes a mockery of that faith and belies his identity as a Catholic."

Bishop Sheridan strongly affirmed Church teaching not only on abortion and related life issues (illicit stem cell research and euthanasia) which, he said "trumps all other issues", but on other critical issues as well, such as "same-sex marriage"/

He states clearly that the so-called "wall of separation" between Church and state does not mean, as some claim, that religion is to refrain from "influencing" society:

"In fact, the wall that separates church and state is the safeguard against both the establishment of a state religion and the imposition of sectarian religious beliefs and practices, such as particular denominational forms of worship or theological tenets. In no way does the American doctrine of separation of church and state even suggest that the well-formed consciences of religious people should not be brought to bear on their political choices.

Bishop Sheridan is emphatic in stating the consequences for all Catholics of supporting immoral legislation:

Any Catholic politicians who advocate for abortion, for illicit stem cell research or for any form of euthanasia ipso facto place themselves outside full communion with the Church and so jeopardize their salvation. Any Catholics who vote for candidates who stand for abortion, illicit stem cell research or euthanasia suffer the same fateful consequences. It is for this reason that these Catholics, whether candidates for office or those who would vote for them, may not receive Holy Communion until they have recanted their positions and been reconciled with God and the Church in the Sacrament of Penance.

Bishop Sheridan, a native St. Louisan, was auxiliary bishop of St. Louis from 1997 until his appointment as co-adjutor bishop of Colorado Springs in 2001. He became bishop of Colorado Springs in January 2003.

Click title above or HERE to read Bishop Sheridan's complete pastoral letter on this site.

In a May 14 interview with Laurie Goodstein, of the New York Times, Bishop Sheridan said, "I'm not making
a political statement. I'm making a statement about Church teaching." See story: "Bishop Would Deny Rite for Defiant Catholic Voters on New York Times web site (http://www.nytimes.com)

Bishop Carl Mengeling - Catholics must decide

Bishop Carl Mengeling, of Lansing, said individual Catholics are obligated to determine if they are fit for Communion, not priests, bishops or cardinals, according to an article that appeared in the Lansing State Journal published May 2, 2004.

"All Catholics, that includes myself, must examine themselves extremely carefully before they approach the Eucharist," Mengeling said. "Our Catholics are adults. We can't treat them like children."

The State Journal also interviewed Bishop Mengeling on the topic on May 2. In the interview, Bishop Mengeling said that Catholics should support policies consistent with Catholic teaching:

Q: Should Catholic politicians be required to support the Vatican's directives?

Bishop Mengeling: Yes, because I think all people that are elected to Congress in Washington or the state Legislature, they come from all different kinds of backgrounds and each one of them brings with them their particular convictions: personal, their particular experiences of life, their faith and all the rest of it.

And all of that plays into what they offer as they deliberate about issues. And I think that's rich.

Sure, they should. I would assume they would, just like I would assume that people from all other walks of life or different backgrounds would present their cherished values and profound insight. Why should they be silent?

Q: Why are pro-choice Catholic politicians being targeted? Why not Catholic pro-choice actors or Catholic newspaper editors who write opinion pieces or the average pro-choice Catholic?

Bishop Mengeling: Particularly the people that we elect, the people that make the laws, are determining the direction of this country. And there's where the real issues have to be dealt with, and especially if it's a Catholic who is legislating the right to kill, abortion.

Click highlighted text above to go to article and interview in Lansing State Journal web site.

Bishop ThomasWenski - "Politicians and Communion"

In his column of May 3, 2004, published on the Orlando diocesan web site, Bishop Thomas Wenski, co-adjutor bishop of Orlando, wrote that "practicing" Catholics must "practice until we get it right." But "getting it right", he stressed, "means conforming oneself to the will of God as revealed to us through Scripture and Tradition and as definitely set forth by the teaching authority of the Church.

"A practicing Catholic cannot invoke 'conscience' to defy or disregard what the Church definitely holds as true ­ for a practicing Catholic doesn't create his own truth but forms his conscience according to the Truth. ...

"Serious sin breaks our communion with God and his Church as does refusing by one's dissent obedience to Church definitive teachings in matters of faith and morals. Before participating in the sacramental expression of that communion ­ by partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ in Holy Communion - 'practicing Catholics' must be restored to spiritual union with God and with their fellow believers through Sacramental Confession in which they repent for the serious sin and express a firm purpose of amendment. Our admission to Holy Communion depends on our prior "visible" communion with the community of faith (i.e. that we are in fact Catholics) and of our prior "invisible" communion with the Lord (i.e. that we are not in the state of serious (mortal) sin. To insist on partaking in Communion in the first case would be, on the face of it, boorish behavior, (equivalent to a guest who behaves badly in his host's home) and in the latter ­ at least objectively speaking ­ sacrilegious (for as St. Paul says, unworthy reception brings judgment, cf. 1 Cor 11: 23ff).

"Bishops as teachers of the faith have no special competencies in the world of business or politics ­ and in those worlds we have no regulatory or legal powers. We don't want such power ­ nor should we. But precisely as teachers of the Catholic faith we do have competence to tell businessmen or politicians or anyone else for that matter what is required to be a Catholic. ...

"But to fail to rebuke when necessary is to fail in the charity we owe our brethren. (And we bishops will be apologizing for a long time for the failure to rebuke and apply sanctions to those wayward priests who criminally sinned against young people and children.)

Bishop Wenski points out that St. Thomas More is a "role model" for Catholic politicians:

"He did not draw any false distinction between his personal morality and his public responsibilities: he was his king's good servant, but God's first. Today, some self-identified Catholic politicians prefer to emulate Pontius Pilate's 'personally opposed but unwilling to impose' stance. Perhaps, they are baiting the Church, daring an 'official sanction' making them 'bad Catholics', so as to gain favor among up their secularist, 'blue state' constituencies. Such a sanction might turn their lack of coherent Catholic convictions into a badge of courage for people who hold such convictions in contempt. ..."

"You cannot have your 'waffle' and your 'wafer' too", Bishop Wenski concluded. "Those pro-abortion politicians who insist on calling themselves Catholics without seeing the contradiction between what they say they believe and their anti-life stance have to do a lot more of 'practicing'. They need to get it right before they approach the Eucharistic table.

Click title above or HERE to go to Bishop Wenski's complete statement on this site, reprinted here with the bishop's permission.

Archbishop John J. Myers -"A Time for Honesty"
On May 5, 2004, Newark Archbishop John Myers issued a Pastoral Statement that supported and amplified the earlier statements of his suffragan bishops, Bishop Joseph Smith, Trenton, and Bishop Galante (above).

"Our times demand honesty", the archbishop began, and he included quotations from his pastoral letter of 1990 on the issue of Catholics in political life. Following are some excerpts:

"Communion is Not Private
"Because the Eucharist is the source and summit of our faith, the most sacred action of our Church, to misuse the Eucharistic symbol by reducing it to one's private "feeling" of communion with Christ and His Church while objectively not being in such union is gravely disordered.

"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. They have also separated themselves in a significant way from the Catholic community.

"The Church cannot force such people to change their position; but she can and does ask them honestly to admit in the public forum that they are not in full union with the Church.

"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."

Archbishop Myers also said, "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."...

"Among my most important responsibilities is that of pastor and teacher. In light of recent developments in our nation, I wish once again to affirm the teaching of the Church. Human life is a gift from God and as Catholics we have a most grave obligation to defend all human life from the moment of conception until natural death. God help us if we fail in this most fundamental obligation."

Click title above or go to Newark web site: http://www.rcan.org/archbish/jjm_letters/ATimeforHonesty.htm

On May 6, Archbishop John Vlazny, of Portland, Oregon published "Public Dissenters Should Themselves Refrain from Communion" in his diocesan paper, The Catholic Sentinel. He explained that receiving the Church's sacraments, including Holy Communion, "is a sign that a person not only seeks union with God, but also desires to live in communion with the Church". Thus,

"Such communion is clearly violated when one publicly opposes serious Church teaching. Reception of Holy Communion by such public dissenters betrays a blatant disregard for the serious meaning and purpose of the reception of the Eucharist.

"We pastors, as teachers of the faith, must make this matter clear. Catholics who are not in communion with the Church (for example, divorced and remarried Catholics who have not received annulments from previous Catholic marriages) must similarly refrain from receiving the Eucharist. All Catholics in the state of mortal sin who are unrepentant also should refrain from the reception of the Eucharist. This does not mean that these people should refrain from a life of prayer, even in the company of the rest of the Church community. But the prayer of the Church will be for their conversion, not for the acceptance of their dissent.

"As a pastor, I find it difficult to make a public judgment that any person is "unfit" or "unworthy" for the reception of the sacrament. But I know I can make that judgment about myself and I believe every person can do the same. As a teacher, on the other hand, I can clearly state that, when individuals choose not to be in communion with the Church by their public dissent in serious matters, they should refrain from the reception of Holy Communion.

"This will be a matter of scrutiny in Catholic communities across the nation during this election year and beyond. I recognize that there is serious disagreement among Catholics about the pro-choice positions of some Catholic politicians. Should Catholics who choose to vote for pro-choice politicians refrain from reception of the Holy Communion? If they vote for them precisely because they are pro-choice, I believe they too should refrain from the reception of Holy Communion because they are not in communion with the Church on a serious matter. But if they are voting for that particular politician because, in their judgment, other candidates fail significantly in some matters of great importance, for example, war and peace, human rights and economic justice, then there is no evident stance of opposition to Church teaching and reception of Holy Communion seems both appropriate and beneficial.

"Catholics who do support pro-choice politicians still have serious responsibilities with regard to their stance on this matter. They must make it very clear to these politicians and governmental leaders that their support is in no way based on the pro-choice advocacy of these political leaders. ..."

To read Archbishop Vlazny's complete statement, click title above or this link to the Catholic Sentinel http://www.sentinel.org/articles/2004-18/12632.html.

On May 7, Cincinnatti Archbishop Daniel Pilarczyk said there is a "justice issue" that bishops have to consider in deciding about giving the Eucharist to Catholic politicians who are open advocates of abortion and oppose other crucial moral teachings of the Church. The archbishop make these comments in an interview by National Catholic Reporter's John Allen, posted on the NCR web site May 11. (Mr. Allen describes Archbishop Pilarczyk as an influential "moderate". The NCR is known for challenging Church teaching.)

The archbishop, former president of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops,was in Rome for his ad limina visit with the Pope. In the interview Archbishop Pilarczyk also commented on the controversy over the sex-abuse scandal, though the fact that the archbishop had elected contempt-of-court rather than to turn over archdiocesan records on abusive priests was not mentioned.

Following are brief excerpts from the NCR's Interview with Archbishop Daniel Pilarczyk (Click title to access complete interview on NCR web site):

Mr. Allen: One curial official did enter it a couple of weeks ago, Cardinal Francis Arinze. In response to my question about Kerry, he said it's for the American bishops to interpret, but in response to a more general question he said pro-abortion Catholic politicians should not be given the Eucharist. What was your reaction?

Abp. Pilarczyk: I guess I wasn't really ecstatic about it. Then when I got here, I found out that this second question came almost on his way out, over his shoulder as he left the room. Now, you were there and I wasn't

Mr. Allen: That's not completely accurate, though it did come towards the end of a press conference largely on a different subject.

Abp. Pilarczyk: Often American media are very naïve about the Holy See. 'The Vatican said ' I guess I would say this: It is my understanding and my impression that Cardinal Arinze did not intend to solve an extremely complex theological and sacramental question with a one-liner at the end of a press conference.
...

Mr. Allen: Granted the complexities involved, the practical reality is that you're going to have candidates crossing the state over the next few months. What do you do?

Abp: Pilarczyk: Well, the first thing I'm going to do is to wait to see what Cardinal McCarrick's committee comes up with. Secondly, it seems to me we need to be very cautious about denying people the sacraments on the basis of what they say they believe, especially when those are political beliefs. So Kerry believes abortion is a good thing for our society, let's say. Do you refuse him communion on the basis of his opinions? What about people who don't like "Humanae Vitae"? What about people who don't like the church's teaching on the death penalty, or on homosexual marriages? Are we going to refuse them?

Mr. Allen: There's a swath of Catholic opinion that would say yes to that question.

Abp. Pilarczyk: I know there is. But there's also a justice issue here. It seems to me that the last thing any church, or any representative or agent of the church wants to do, is to deny the sacraments to anybody unjustly. It seems to me at this point that it makes a lot more sense to presume people's good will, presume erroneous conscience or perplexed conscience and give them Communion, rather than say, 'I think you think such-and-such.' ...

On May 13, Cardinal Roger Mahony stated his view that no Catholics should be denied Communion for their beliefs on abortion in an interview in Rome by John Allen of the National Catholic Reporter, in which the cardinal also responded to questions about the sex-abuse scandal in the United States. Concerning the Catholic politicians and Communion issue, the cardinal said that only after a formal excommunication procedure could someone be denied Communion.

Mr. Allen: You had a private meeting recently with Sen. John Kerry. I know the bishops are waiting for the McCarrick Commission to report, but in the meantime, what do you do if Kerry comes to Los Angeles and wants to take communion?

Cardinal Mahony: This is a bigger issue than just Sen. Kerry and right now, because there's a presidential election. Since Roe v. Wade, there have been a lot of Catholic politicians doing and saying things that would not be in line with the church's teaching. Over that period of time, there was very little action taken. I personally believe, as church law sets out, that sanctions are an absolute last resort, particularly penal sanctions of depriving people of the sacraments. In fact, canonically, somebody has to be publicly found guilty of something that merits excommunication, or interdict, or some public crime.

Mr Allen: You mean there ought to be a judicial process?

Cardinal Mahony: That's right. There has to be some process that leads to formal guilt, that then leads to sanctions. Obviously we don't have that situation. Moreover, in Evangelium Vitae, our Holy Father expressed many areas of concern with life issues, not just this one. In fact, he hit the death penalty as hard as many of the others. You have Catholic politicians who may be in favor of one but not the other. They're following their own different lights on these issues. With respect to Holy Communion, it is up to the communicant to decide whether they are in a state of grace and worthy to receive the Eucharist. Each one of us makes that decision. The church never has the minister of communion make that decision, except in that rare case of public sinners who have been so found guilty. I'm puzzled by people rattling sanctions at the moment. That has not been our tradition over the years.

Mr. Allen: Bottom line: You are not prepared to withhold communion from Sen. Kerry or anyone else?

Cardinal Mahony: Or anyone else, exactly. Our priests know that. This has come up before, and I've said this is not our role. I also believe we will do far better in changing hearts and minds to sit down with our Catholics who are running for office. I found out that many of our Catholics simply don't know what the church teaches, and why, on a lot of issues, and therefore are saying things that they think are okay. They simply don't know, because we haven't taken the effort to meet with them informally and to dialogue. I think we'd find a lot more success.

To a question about whether a politician could be pro-life and also not oppose banning of abortion, Cardinal Mahony responded, affirmatively:

"The value of the church's tradition, scripture, teaching, etc., is to help illuminate the contemporary social issues, to look at them through the lens of a faith tradition that has a moral and ethical basis. That's what I think is at the heart of what we should be doing, rather than getting involved in questions of sanctions."

(To read entire interview with Cardinal Mahony, go to NCR online: http://ncronline.org/mainpage/specialdocuments/mahony.htm )

Cardinal Theodore McCarrick - "If the world loves you"

In his May 13 column in the Catholic Standard, "If the world loves you", Washington's Cardinal McCarrick wrote, ", I have had a consistent position on the obligations of every member of our Catholic family to follow the teaching of the Church on the gravely important issues of our time", but, he said,

The disagreement that I have with the folks who are annoyed at me is that I disagree that in this instance we should use denial of the Eucharist as a public sanction. As a priest and bishop, I do not favor a confrontation at the altar rail with the Sacred Body of the Lord Jesus in my hand. There are apparently those who would welcome such a conflict, for good reasons, I am sure, or for political ones, but I would not.

Though the cardinal did not explain what he meant by "in this instance", presumably he refers to the fact that several prominent Catholic politicians are publicly opposing fundamental Church teachings but continue to receive Communion -- such as Senator John Kerry, the likely candidate for president from the Democratic party, a Catholic who has vigorously and consistently advocated abortion "rights".

Cardinal McCarrick suggested that relaxing certain rules concerning Communion has led to mistakes,

. I realize that in modern times, perhaps even more since the '60's, some Catholics have fallen into a new and false understanding of the Blessed Sacrament, one that does not recognize the awesome nature of the Eucharist and our need for great respect in the way we approach it. In the days when we had to fast from all food and drink from the previous midnight in order to receive Holy Communion, our sense of the wonder of the Eucharist was enhanced. When the Church, in order to encourage us to partake of the sacrament, relaxed those rules, some people may have incorrectly concluded that the rule about being in the state of grace was relaxed as well. Maybe the presence of this controversy is itself a special grace to give us a chance to clarify what our personal dispositions must be in order to receive the Eucharist worthily.

He said that the commandment to "love God and neighbor" means that "This would exclude from Communion anyone who would hate his neighbor or harm his neighbor, in particular when that neighbor is a little unborn baby in its mother's womb".

Cardinal McCarrick said he would ask the Catholic Standard to publish the rule about worthy reception of Communion that "appears in the 'missallettes'", that one should not be conscious of serious sin. "Therefore", Cardinal McCarrick said, "each one of us must not presume to approach Holy Communion if we are not, in our informed conscience, already with the Lord and in communion with the teachings of His Church".

Click title above to go to Cardinal McCarrick's May 13, 2004, column on the Catholic Standard web site, www.cathstan.org.