A reader sent me a link to a Maggie Gallagher article.
…This week, for example, according to news accounts, 18 Catholic House Democrats, including Reps. Rosa DeLauro (Conn.), Patrick J. Kennedy (R.I.) and Carolyn McCarthy (N.Y.) publicly rebuked Pope Benedict XVI for reaffirming during a recent Mexico City trip that legislators who vote to permit the killing of the unborn have excommunicated themselves and may be refused communion during Mass.
…Back in D.C., the gang of 18 went apoplectic. Catholic popes, bishops or clergy who withhold communion to politicians, they said, are engaging in essentially un-American activities: "Religious sanction in the political arena directly conflicts with our fundamental beliefs about the role of democratic representatives in a pluralistic America — it clashes with freedoms guaranteed in our Constitution. Such notions offend the very nature of the American experiment and do a great disservice to the centuries of good work the church has done."
Par for the course for Catholic Democrats in the House. First reacting to initial news reports that had been somewhat clarified latter is the typical level of fact checking you would expect. But there statement is silly on so many levels it is hard to know where to dig in.
One question I have is that in Canon law there is no dispute that those who procure and abortion or are formally involved in carrying it out do incur an automatic excommunication. Have you ever heard a Catholic Democrat complain about this? But if the same Canon is said to apply to them then there indignation explodes. This bit of all-about-me-ism is not exactly surprising in a politician though.
Often we will also get an appeal to conscience, but somehow if a bishop or someone else acts on their conscience and conflicts with theirs then that is somehow wrong. It is also funny to invoke a pluralistic society and then to condemn someone’s comments. Pluralism is much narrower than I supposed. Plus wouldn’t these religious freedoms they mention also apply to religious leaders themselves. Again their conception is distinctly one sided. Their wall of separation between church and state seems to be permeable on their side but inviolable on the other.
This is of course what Mark Shea calls Catholic tribalism in that many like these politicians seem to like to belong to the Catholic Church, but deeply disagree with what she teaches. Tribalism is the most charitable way to explain this. They would belong to no organizations or clubs that lobbied against what they vote for, but somehow they don’t think membership in the Church is not hypocritical or problematic and then they get all huffy when a bishop or the Pope speak out about this schism between her teaching and their actions.
Nobody would see a problem with members of the ACLU getting the can because they joined the KKK, but if the Church speaks out about an even worse crime such as the murder of innocents that is beyond the pale. Any organization where its members are doing something contrary to its mission has duty to speak out, unless it is the Catholic Church I guess.
These Culture of Death politicians do not automatically receiving the ecclesiastical penalty of excommunication, but they also are not in communion with the Church and should admit it by not receiving Communion. If their conscience is so at odds with the Church exactly why do they want to belong to it? Politicians have often revoked their membership with some such organization or club for much lighter disputes, yet continuing membership in the Catholic Church does not invoke the same reaction. Though in tribal Catholicism it of course follows that what they believe the Church to be in the first place is greatly flawed. Bad ecclesiology necessarily follows. Then again though if the Church is just a human institution then it is just on par with other organizations and clubs that they would not be involved in. So this is just a intellectual case of having it both way; the Church is more than just a human institution, but that fact doesn’t matter when it comes to vote. I am not in favor of them leaving the Church, but that they learn what she is in the first place.
Update: One commenter makes a good point:
What is really funny, these Democrats are complaining that the ROMAN Pontiff addressing BRAZILIANS about MEXICAN POLITICIANS is un-American and not Constitutional…
9 comments
Pluralism is doomed to fail– as is multiculturalism. Both stem from relativism and a rejection of absolute truth. They work as long as there is homogeneity in society– but when there are significant differences in culture, philosophy, and beliefs–they are doomed to fail.
This is the same mindset as people who confuse censorship with boycotting a movie. Short answer to their idea of “religious sanction” being unAmerican:
1. Freedom of Expression is a right guaranteed in the Constitution.
2. So are the freedoms to assemble peaceably and to practice one’s religion without the Government interfering.
3. However, there is no Constitutional right to the Holy Eucharist.
The problem is not with pluralism, but with the absurd definition provided by the House Democrats. In fact, it’s a complete non sequiter in this context. What a bunch of maroons.
What is really funny, these Democrats are complaining that the ROMAN Pontiff addressing BRAZILIANS about MEXICAN POLITICIANS is un-American and not Constitutional…wonder when they’ll issue a statement condemning the Chinese government for trying to enslave their people (again) in the service of the American Free Market? That at least has SOMETHING to do with the US.
My initial thought? If you don’t like it, don’t be Catholic. If you don’t agree with Catholic teaching, and have no intention of obeying the Pope, then go be an Episcopalian. Stop giving us a black eye by claiming to be a Catholic.
Mama Says
Related to this situation, from “On conscience” by J. Ratzinger: “It is strange that some theologians [?politicians?] have difficulty accepting the precise and limited doctrine of papal infallibility, but see no problem in granting de facto infallibility to everyone who has a conscience.”
The gang of 18 objects to religious sanction? Wouldn’t denial of communion to pro-abortion politicians be a denial of sanction, if anything? While this is a minor point, it is telling. The deviants on the left do not so much object to active persecution. They object to the refusal of approval. It is not enough that you stay out of politics – for separation of church & state to be in line with leftist expectations, the Church must actively support & condone the leftists. Anything less than this is judged as “tacit interference” by the Church.
“Ve are za tolerant vuns. Ve are za compassionate vuns. Und ve vill fight to za death for your right to agree vit uss. Ve, za tolerant vuns, haff spoken!”
MissJean, you set me to thinking more deeply on this subject: When cafeteria-Catholic politicians assume it is their right to receive Holy Communion, methinks they are forgetting the other half of any “rights”-sort of discussion: responsibility/ies.
Hmmmmm…
The idea of Patrick Kennedy rebuking Pope Benedict would be funny if Kennedy didn’t have a soul. And if he didn’t represent my state.