"Beyond" Right To Life? A Cardinal speaks

  • Thread starter Thread starter Caveman
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Caveman

Guest
From The California Catholic

Beyond the right to life
Cardinal McCarrick addresses San Bernardino vicariate meeting on the duties of citizenship

Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, archbishop-emeritus of Washington, D.C., addressed the annual meeting of the San Bernardino diocese’s six vicariates on Feb. 13. McCarrick, said an announcement on the San Bernardino diocesan web site, is “considered one of the Church’s foremost experts on socio-political issues.”

Though the diocese was hosting the event featuring McCarrick, the web site announcement was hesitant to say what the cardinal would address. “He is expected to speak about ‘Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship,’ a document released late last year by the United States Catholic Conference of Bishops that details core Gospel values that Catholics should use in making personal, social or political choices,” said the announcement. “In an election year, Cardinal McCarrick is expected to offer unique insights on the relationship between Church teachings and high profile political issues of the day.”

According to a Feb. 14 Riverside Press Enterprise article covering the vicariate meeting, McCarrick told his audience that the bishops’ document does not tell Catholics how to vote but urges them to vote for the candidates who best support Church teaching. “The first and most essential right has to be the right to life,” said the cardinal; still, “we are not a single-issue church. You start with the right to life. You have to. But you have to go beyond it. You cannot be authentically Catholic unless you go beyond it.”

The Press Enterprise noted that McCarrick “was in the thick of political controversy in 2004 when he opposed proposals by several fellow bishops to deny communion to Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry because of Kerry’s support for legal abortion.”

McCarrick was the president of a task force that had been meeting in 2004 to offer recommendations on the question of denying communion to Catholic pro-abortion politicians, or even to Catholics who vote for pro-abortion politicians. It was McCarrick who consulted Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, then head of the Holy See’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, on the matter, and Ratzinger replied with a memorandum.

The memorandum said pastors should meet with anyone guilty of formal cooperation in abortion or euthanasia (such as a Catholic politician “consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws”), “instructing him about the Church’s teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin, and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist.”

Ratzinger, citing a 2002 Vatican ruling on divorced and remarried Catholics, then said: “When ‘these precautionary measures have not had their effect or in which they were not possible,’ and the person in question, with obstinate persistence, still presents himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, ‘the minister of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute it’ [Emphasis added.] … This decision, properly speaking, is not a sanction or a penalty. Nor is the minister of Holy Communion passing judgement on the person’s subjective guilt, but rather is reacting to the person’s public unworthiness to receive Holy Communion due to an objective situation of sin.”

In a June 15, 2004 address to the U.S. bishops, Cardinal McCarrick seemed to soften Ratzinger’s words. Relaying Ratzinger’s communications (received, said McCarrick, both by memorandum and in telephone conversations), McCarrick said that Ratzinger “recognizes that there are circumstances in which Holy Communion may be denied.” [Emphasis added.] McCarrick added that “Cardinal Ratzinger clearly leaves to us as teachers, pastors and leaders ***WHETHER ***to pursue this path.” [Double emphasis in original.]
 
I don’t know why people blink when someone cries, “Single issue!” If a candidate endorses reinstituting chattel slavery, I don’t care how good his views on heathcare are, I wouldn’t vote for him for dog-catcher. Same goes for abortion.
 
I don’t know why people blink when someone cries, “Single issue!” If a candidate endorses reinstituting chattel slavery, I don’t care how good his views on heathcare are, I wouldn’t vote for him for dog-catcher. Same goes for abortion.
I freely admit that I am a single issue voter when it comes to abortion. I simply will not vote for a pro-abortion candidate regardless of their other views if there is a pro-life candidate running.

The cardinal is not being a very good shepherd by doing this. I really wish more of the bishops were like Archbishop Burke and Bishop Vasa.

In Christ,
Rand
 
I am constrained by board rules (#19) from freely stating what I would in direct response to this article.

I would simply encourage folks to look at the following:
Humanae Vitae (particularly paragraphs 68-74)
Christifidelis Laici
Doctrinal Note on some questions regarding The Participation of Catholics in Political Life
Cardinal Ratzinger’s Letter, Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion (particularly the note at the end)

While it is true, we are not supposed to be a single-issue group, it is unimaginable that there could potentially be enough good supported by a politician that was pro-infanticide to outweigh the bad of supporting infanticide (or conversely, that a politician who was pro-life could be so bad in other areas as to justify a vote for a pro-infanticide politician).

We are supposed to form our consciences on the Magesterium of the Church, not on feel-good warm and fuzzy socialism.
 
That is like saying vote for Hitler because he was good for the environment and economy, even though he killed millions of people.
 
I think this issue is weighty enough that I cannot personally get beyond that issue. When we are given a choice of two parties, one that supports abortion and one that is pro-life, the only rational, catholic, and christian thing to do imo is support the pro-life party. Unless that party was completely anti-christian in every other issue.
 
The Cardinal is correct. We must be pro-life first. We rule out the canidates that are not pro-life.

And then, and only then, do we examine them on other issues.
 
I am constrained by board rules (#19) from freely stating what I would in direct response to this article.

I would simply encourage folks to look at the following:
Humanae Vitae (particularly paragraphs 68-74)
Christifidelis Laici
Doctrinal Note on some questions regarding The Participation of Catholics in Political Life
Cardinal Ratzinger’s Letter, Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion (particularly the note at the end)

While it is true, we are not supposed to be a single-issue group, it is unimaginable that there could potentially be enough good supported by a politician that was pro-infanticide to outweigh the bad of supporting infanticide (or conversely, that a politician who was pro-life could be so bad in other areas as to justify a vote for a pro-infanticide politician).

We are supposed to form our consciences on the Magesterium of the Church, not on feel-good warm and fuzzy socialism.
I too am limited by the same rule. I can say nothing more than to echo your recommended reading.
 
Children should be seen but not heard. I am not sure if retired bishops should be seen that often. :rolleyes:
 
Cardinal McCarrick seems to have strenghtened his own position on life.

In 2004, he created major controversy when he softened Cardinal Ratzigers position on life. There were a number of forums on this but I think they got erased in the “crash of 06”.
 
If Cardinal McCarrick beomes Pope and speaks ex-cathedra I will listen to him and follow him, until then his words are just his opinion. Which he is entitled to, as I am mine.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top