Cardinal Dulles on Communion and Pro-Abortion Politicians
Outlines What Actions Should Be Taken
NEW YORK, JUNE 29, 2004 (Zenit.org).- Cardinal Avery Dulles is
encouraging U.S. bishops to dialogue with dissenting Catholic
politicians about their moral responsibilities before advising them to
not receive Communion.
Cardinal Dulles, the Laurence J. McGinley Professor of Religion and
Society at Fordham University, shared with ZENIT what important steps
need to be taken to defend human life, protect the sacraments, uphold
the teachings of the Church and respond to pro-abortion politicians.
Q: What are the practical steps a bishop could or should take to
encourage a Catholic politician to forgo support for abortion,
euthanasia and embryonic stem-cell research?
Cardinal Dulles: The first step should probably be to make sure that
the politicians understand the doctrine of the Church and the reasons
for it. Many politicians, like much of the American public, seem to be
unaware that abortion and euthanasia are serious violations of the
inalienable right to life.
These are not just "Church" issues but are governed by the natural law
of God, which is binding upon all human beings. The right to life is
the most fundamental of all rights, since a person deprived of life
has no other rights.
The Church does not herself frame civil laws, but she admonishes
lawmakers that the laws must be designed to support justice, including
the rights of the unborn child. Bishops should try to get into
dialogue with politicians and other persons in public life to remind
them of their moral responsibilities.
If, after dialogue, the bishop finds the politician incorrigibly
opposed to Catholic teaching on this matter, he may have to advise or
order the politician not to receive holy Communion, which is by its
very nature a sign of solidarity with the Church.
Other steps might also be considered. For instance, the bishop could
instruct Catholic parishes and institutions not to invite such
politicians to speak on Church premises, not to give them roles in the
liturgy and not to honor them with rewards and honorary degrees.
Q: Some have questioned the insistence on the abortion question when
there are other matters -- such as the conflict in Iraq and the death
penalty -- in which there are contrasts between some politicians and
the Church position. Why is abortion being singled out?
Cardinal Dulles: The three cases you mention are quite different. The
Church recognizes that there are occasions when war and the death
penalty are justified, even though such measures are undesirable and
should be kept to the necessary minimum.
The present Holy Father has made it clear that he thinks that certain,
particular wars and executions are wrong and unnecessary. Catholics
will respect this as the prudential judgment of a wise and holy
pastor.
But Catholics who fully accept the doctrine of the Church can
sometimes disagree about whether a given war or death sentence is
morally defensible.
Abortion is in a different class. As the deliberate taking of innocent
human life, direct abortion can never be justified. About the moral
principle, there can be no debate in the Church. The teaching has been
constant and emphatic.
The civil law should not authorize, let alone encourage, such moral
evils. It should protect human life and dignity to the maximum degree
possible. But in assessing how to proceed, there may be differences of
opinion. If it is impossible to obtain passage of a law banning all
abortions, or if such a law would be unenforceable, it might be best
to work for a law that restricts access to abortion as much as
possible, while continuing to work for full justice.
Politics, after all, is the sphere of the possible, not the ideal.
Provided that the moral principles are kept clearly in view, bishops
and politicians will do well to keep in dialogue about matters of
strategy.
Q: What are the risks the Church faces if it enforces stricter
penalties against politicians?
Cardinal Dulles: In imposing penalties, the Church is trying to
protect the sacraments against the profanation that occurs when they
are received by people without the proper dispositions. Dissenting
politicians often want to receive Communion as a way of showing that
they are still "good Catholics," when in fact they are choosing their
political party over their faith. But the imposition of penalties
involves at least three risks.
In the first place, the bishop may be accused, however unfairly, of
trying to coerce the politician's conscience.
Secondly, people can easily accuse the Church of trying to meddle in
the political process, which in this country depends on the free
consent of the governed.
And finally, the Church incurs a danger of alienating judges,
legislators and public administrators whose good will is needed for
other good programs, such as the support of Catholic education and the
care of the poor.
For all these reasons, the Church is reluctant to discipline
politicians in a public way, even when it is clear that their
positions are morally indefensible.
The Church's prime responsibility is to teach and to persuade. She
tries to convince citizens to engage in the political process with a
well-informed conscience.
The bishops hope that the electorate and the government will strive
for a society in which every human life is protected by law from
conception to natural death.
Q: A corollary: Is the Church risking its tax-exempt status if it
pushes this issue? Could bishops' actions be construed as political?
Should that be a consideration at all?
Cardinal Dulles: Since the United States prides itself on its
tradition of religious freedom, the country will probably continue to
recognize the Church's right to speak out on the moral aspects of
civil law and public policy.
The Catholic Church has generally tried to avoid endorsing any
particular party or candidate for office. Churches that uphold moral
principles in political life do not forfeit their status as religious
institutions and their entitlement to tax exemption.
To be sure, some people misunderstand the non-establishment of
religion in the Bill of Rights as though it meant the exclusion of
religion from public life. In point of fact, this clause was intended
to secure the freedom of the church from interference by the state.
It goes with the second clause, which guarantees the freedom of
churches to teach and worship in accordance with their beliefs. In
carrying out her God-given mandate to labor for morality and justice,
the Church renders an inestimable benefit to civil society.
Christians should do their utmost to rectify misconstructions of the
non-establishment principle and to safeguard the right of churches to
teach and bear witness to what they see as pertaining to the faith.
Q: What should a priest do when confronted with a publicly dissenting
politician who appears in the Communion line?
Cardinal Dulles: In that situation, the priest has limited options.
Often, to avoid an ugly scene that would disrupt the ceremony, the
priest will feel obliged not to refuse Communion. In the absence of
some formal decree excluding a person from the sacraments, most
priests will be very cautious about turning Catholics away at the
altar.
The primary responsibility rests on those asking for Communion to
examine themselves regarding their dispositions, as Paul says in 1
Corinthians 11:27-29. Only God can know with certitude the state of
the communicant's soul at the moment.
Q: Some observers wonder why canon law stipulates excommunication for
a woman who has an abortion -- under certain conditions -- yet doesn't
apply the same penalty to a politician whose votes might help to
finance thousands of abortions. Is there a loophole in canon law?
Cardinal Dulles: In moral theology an important distinction is made
between ordering or performing an action and cooperating in the action
of another. Where the cooperation is remote, its influence on the
effect may be very slight.
To vote for an appropriations bill that includes some provisions for
funding abortions would not be so gravely sinful as to warrant
excommunication under Canon 1398. The vote might arguably be licit if
the funding for abortion were only incidental and could not be removed
from a bill that was otherwise very desirable.
The legal problem about abortion in the United States does not come
primarily from legislators but from the judiciary, which interprets
the Constitution as giving a civil entitlement to abortion practically
on demand. This interpretation of the Constitution, we believe, is
erroneous and should be corrected.
Q: How should the politicians and the public at large view the penalty
of excommunication? What is the Church's intention with the penalty?
Cardinal Dulles: Excommunication is not expulsion from the Church. The
excommunicated person remains a Catholic but is barred from access to
the sacraments until the penalty has been lifted by competent Church
authority. This spiritual penalty, the most serious that the Church
can inflict, is, so to speak, a last resort.
In extreme cases, the Church finds herself obliged to declare that a
given person is no longer in communion with the Church. The purpose of
such an excommunication is to protect the sacraments from profanation,
to prevent the faithful from being confused about the force of
Catholic teachings, and to assist the excommunicated person to
reconsider, to repent and to be healed.
____________________________________________________________________________________
1 Corinthians 11:27-32 (NRSV)
Partaking of the Supper Unworthily
27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in
an unworthy manner will be answerable for the body and blood of the
Lord. 28 Examine yourselves, and only then eat of the bread and drink
of the cup. 29 For all who eat and drink without discerning the
body,eat and drink judgment against themselves. 30 For this reason
many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. 31 But if we judged
ourselves, we would not be judged. 32 But when we are judged by the
Lord, we are disciplined so that we may not be condemned along with
the world.
End
times:
http://www.geocities.com/mart1963/
.
|
