U.S. bishops to discuss abortion & politics November 10-13
The American bishops have added another topic to their bi-annual November meeting: abortion and politics.
WASHINGTON-The Administrative Committee of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops said the full body of U.S. bishops will discuss the practical and pastoral implications of political support for abortion during their annual assembly, November 10-13, in Baltimore.
At the conclusion of its September 9-10 meeting in Washington, the Administrative Committee, which is the highest authority of the USCCB outside the conference’s plenary assemblies in November and June, cited concern for recent misleading remarks about Catholic teaching by Catholic politicians. The statement follows:
“In light of recent comments by Catholic politicians misrepresenting Catholic teaching, the Administrative Committee of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops affirms the statements that have been issued by Cardinal Justin F. Rigali, chairman of the U.S. Bishops’ Committee on Pro-Life Activities, and Bishop William E. Lori, chairman of the U.S. Bishops’ Committee on Doctrine.
“We confirm the Catholic Church’s constant teaching about the sanctity of all human life from the moment of conception and the intrinsic evil of abortion. As the teachers of the faith, we also point out the connectedness between the evil of abortion and political support for abortion.
“We plan to discuss the practical and pastoral implications of these serious matters at the U.S. bishops’ November 10-13, 2008 general meeting in Baltimore…..”
Meanwhile, Kansas City, Kansas Archbishop Joseph F. Naumann and Kansas City - St. Joseph Bishop Robert W. Finn affirmed yesterday that pro-life issues like abortion and euthanasia must be the top priority for Catholic voters.
Here are some quotes from their joint pastoral letter released Thursday:
“With the approaching general election this November, we believe this to be an important moment for us to address together the responsibility of Catholics to be well informed and well formed voters.”
When it comes to pro-life issues, the Church strongly believes a pro-life policy is necessary without compromise, they say:
“There are … some issues that always involve doing evil, such as legalized abortion … as well as public policies permitting euthanasia … or destructive human embryonic stem cell research.
“A properly formed conscience must give such issues priority even over other matters with important moral dimensions.
“To vote for a candidate who supports these intrinsic evils because he or she supports these evils is to participate in a grave moral evil. It can never be justified.”
Fr. James Schall, S.J., suggests, tongue-in-cheek, that Nancy Pelosi be given a medal for starting all this:
As I sat at my desk on August 26, one e-mail after another appeared about yet another bishop’s statement on the Nancy Pelosi’s TV Interview in which she explained Catholic doctrine on when human life begins.
The leader, as he usually is, was Archbishop Chaput. I had wondered to some friends whether we would hear from the Archbishops of Washington and San Francisco who were the bishops with more immediate jurisdiction. Of course, with the Democratic Convention in Denver, Chaput was dealing with something that was taking place in his back yard.
Then, in rapid succession, Archbishop Wuerl, the US Conference of Bishops, Cardinals Rigali and Egan, and Bishop Lori made their own responses.
I am sure we will hear from others. Clearly something momentous was happening. Suddenly, bishops, as they say, were “speaking out.”
Every priest in the country will now be implicitly authorized to address this topic.
Official Catholic teaching is erroneously stated in the public forum by the highest-ranking elected Catholic politician. The challenge could not be avoided.
But I have a good word for the Speaker. Unintentionally, she did something no one else has been able to do. She provided exactly the right occasion at the right time for bishops to speak in the public order. They could speak in a way that emphasizes their office’s basic obligation to teach and rule within the context of liberty of speech and accuracy of truth. This is why I think she should receive a medal…..”
Sandro Magister, a reporter from Rome (Chiesa), reminds us of a similar brouhaha in 2004 that erupted over then-presidential candidate John Kerry and Holy Communion. Magister explains what is different now:
…..Senator Biden’s case nonetheless presents new aspects compared to the case of Kerry four years ago.
First of all, Ratzinger was a cardinal back then, and has now become pope. And an important part of his magisterium is focused on the theme of the memorandum that he sent to the United States bishops in 2004: how one becomes “worthy of receiving holy communion,” or unworthy.
Secondly, the bishop of Denver, Chaput, is becoming increasingly prominent among the United States bishops. Just recently, he published a book on how act in politics in keeping with the Catholic faith, with a clear statement that communion should be withheld from those who promote abortion.
And the book - entitled “Render Unto Caesar. Serving the Nation by Living Our Catholic Beliefs in Political Life” - recently received a positive review in “L’Osservatore Romano,” which recommended that it be read “in the United States and elsewhere.”
In the third place, there is the interview with Burke. Until last June 27, he was the archbishop of St. Louis. After this, he was called to Rome as the new prefect of the supreme tribunal of the apostolic signatura. In this capacity, he therefore spoke as a representative of the Church’s central government, in close connection with the pope.
Finally, it must be noted that the prevailing tendency among the American bishops on giving communion to pro-abortion Catholic politicians is more rigorous than in the past…..”
Yes, the dynamics have changed, the bishops are more rigorous and there is no sign of a letup.
Watch this space.
Sherry Tyree, 66, a graduate of John Burroughs School and Washington University, is a founding member (1984) and Vice President of Women for Faith & Family, a national Catholic women's organization that supports and defends traditional church teachings. Sherry is married to Dr. Donald A. Tyree, professor emeritus, School of Business, St. Louis University. 
I pray that Catholics will embrace postdenominationalism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postdenominationalism
Ms. Tyree continues to mix the two most volatile subjects known to mankind: religion and politics.
Actually, I think what Sherry Tyree likes to mix is religion and hate. She is a one-issue zealot, a propagandist, who is a hate monger pimping a right-wing wedge issue. Expect some rant on abortion with a nice anti-Obama or anti-Democrat slant several times a week until the election. Then it will virtually disappear. I guess that also makes her a hypocrite as well. A few centuries ago, Sherry Tyree would be burning witches and heretics, and really believing she was doing God’s work.
I have one question for the pro-life Republicans:
What, exactly, has the Republican Party ACTUALLY ACCOMPLISHED in the war to end abortion by law? By my count, since 1972 (36 years), REPUBLICANS have been in the white house for 24 years (2/3 of the time). Social Conservatives, including yellow dog democrats, have been running Congress for most of that time as well.
Has the ‘Right to life’ amendment ever come to a vote in Congress?
Has there been any honest poll taken of the American People supporting anything close to a ‘no exceptions’ anti abortion policy?
Have these vaunted strict constructionist SCOTUS appointments done anything suggesting their willingness to actually overturn Rove V Wade on the merits of an actual case?
I would suggest that the pro-life lobby is a political minority (albeit a very vocal one) that is being used by the Republican Party to gain and hold on to power by using all the right words with no willingness at all to actually address the question.
How does it feel to be used?
davel-what does that have to do with the topic?
willys-religion and politics is why we’re here. Why are you here?
beenethere-i read your response last time. The word zealot does not come close to your extremist views.
hs-good question. ever heard of the evil practice of partial birth abortion? you won’t anymore because it’s been banned by both the lawmakers, and the highest court. I would say that yes, there has not been enough done. I think your ‘minority’ comment is uneducated at best. If you don’t think so let’s put it up to popular vote in this country. I’m not so sure that pro-choice people would like the outcome.
Mike, I keep hoping that a rational conversation on this topic will break out somewhere, where the sound bites are ignored and the real moral and ethical struggle of real people gets discussed.
For example, I usually get lumped with the pro-abortion crowd…and I’m really not. I’ve thought about this a lot (and I’ve raised daughters to adulthood), and here’s my nuanced response:
I would suggest that every woman who presents herself for an abortion should have to answer a few simple questions. The questions should be designed to answer the basic “why do you want an abortion?” question. If the answer comes down to birth control, then no abortion is allowed.
This, from what I understand, would eliminate something like 80-90% of elective abortions.
I would expand the exceptions, where abortion would be legal, to include a number of medical indicators. Beyond the classic ‘health of the mother’ exception (which, by the way, would probably apply to very young incest and rape survivors), I’d include some very strict birth defect guidelines. Some examples might include ‘brain stem babies’, genetic diseases like Tay-Sachs, etc. In these cases, I would demand a serious counseling session with both the physicians involved, the parents, and a well-trained therapist to help understand the various issues. By the way, this decision would be ultimately up to the parents and their doctor…which is exactly where this kind of decision belongs.
hs,
I hope for the same thing you do. Instead we usually get smokescreen side-issues. The views are either too faith based or too focused on privacy birth control blah blah. How about life? Let’s answer that and let the scientific answer guide us. Does anybody think that’s a bad idea? The issue is regarding when a human becomes a human in the eyes of the law, and then applying the same laws to that human as we do to all humans. This is the only reason that I care about abortion. If they’re not human, do what you will; if they are, treat them as such.
I like the no abortion for birth control stance. It would indeed take care of the worst of the worst. But, I have a very hard time with any taking of a fetal life if you would not do the same with a 1-day old. Birth defect guidelines to me are a slippery slope – just kind of scary to decide whose human enough. Kill it before it grows seems like a pretty bad policy for the severly disabled doesn’t it?
Mike, my birth defect stance comes from a personal experience. I saw with my own eyes a family where, after a number of miscarriages, the mother was found to be carrying a brain-stem baby. When she went to her minister (mine too, by the way) to discuss the possibility of an abortion, it all got out in public. She was told, among other things, that she would be guilty of murder if she aborted her baby. In the end, she went to term, delivered a baby that lived less than 24 hours, watched it die, and was shunned by her church where she turned for care and comfort.
Oh, by the way, there were those in the church who told them to their face that the baby wasn’t healed because they didn’t have enough faith.
This is one of the reasons I’m no longer a fundamentalist.
Mike,
The Catholic hierarchy may be skewing up the Republican party by encouraging parishiners, who would otherwise vote Democrat, to vote against abortion (Republican). The effect is to skew the Republican party further to the left than it otherwise would be. For example, that may be why McCain won in the Missouri Primary, rather than Huckabee or Romney. If Catholics were postdenominationalists, they would be free from worrying about communion and more free to vote their conscience. We would more likely have a more conservative Republican party and probably a better choice among presidential candidates than the two shaky ones whe have now.