Cdl McCarrick on Faith & Civility in Politics

[HagiaSophia]

During a recent conference both Fr. John Neuhaus and Cardinal McCarrick addressed the isues of how Catholics of faith relate it to their politics. Some of Cardinal McCarrick’s remarks follow.

"…Cardinal McCarrick agreed. “I think there is a role for every citizen to be proactive in his or her political life,” he said, “and I would encourage Catholics to become involved in the political system.”

"But how should Catholics be involved in politics? Cardinal McCarrick recognized that neither political party corresponds completely to the Catholic platform. Though there are exceptions, the politicians who support pro-life causes often don’t support peace and social justice issues, and vice versa. This split means Catholics often have an excruciatingly difficult choice in the ballot box.

Last year, presidential candidate John Kerry, a Catholic, prompted concern about Catholic politicians who publicly support abortion but say they disapprove of it in private. After a number of bishops decided to withhold Communion from those politicians, interest groups on both sides of the debate weighed in, and exchanges within the church became heated. Cardinal McCarrick called some of the exchanges during last year’s campaign “shallow, shrill and disingenuous,” and he warned that some groups continue to cater to religious people simply to use them to further their political cause."

“They have used the language of faith to advance partisan agendas,” he said, “sometimes finding the best biblical soundbites to justify their political positions.”Though their stance is complex and still somewhat controversial, the U.S. bishops have generally recognized that faithful Catholics can vote for a pro-choice candidate who supports other issues they believe are important, such as education or social justice, as long as they aren’t voting specifically because the candidate supports abortion.The case of withholding Communion from politicians is even more difficult because different bishops may make different pastoral decisions for their dioceses. In an article published last month, Pittsburgh Bishop Donald Wuerl suggested that bishops defer making individual decisions until the conference as a whole reaches consensus…"

pittsburghcatholic.org/newsarticles_more.phtml?id=1511

 

[Guar_Fan]

]Pittsburgh Bishop Donald Wuerl suggested that bishops defer making individual decisions until the conference as a whole reaches consensus

This seems a sensible road to protect unity in the Church. We shouldn’t have a patchwork of policies regarding the Eucharist.

Perhaps the Synod in Rome will have something to say on this matter.

 

[KathleenElsie]

HagiaSophia:

During a recent conference both Fr. John Neuhaus and Cardinal McCarrick addressed the isues of how Catholics of faith relate it to their politics. Some of Cardinal McCarrick’s remarks follow…

"But how should Catholics be involved in politics? Cardinal McCarrick recognized that neither political party corresponds completely to the Catholic platform. Though there are exceptions, the politicians who support pro-life causes often don’t support peace and social justice issues, and vice versa. This split means Catholics often have an excruciatingly difficult choice in the ballot box.

Last year, presidential candidate John Kerry, a Catholic, prompted concern about Catholic politicians who publicly support abortion but say they disapprove of it in private. After a number of bishops decided to withhold Communion from those politicians, interest groups on both sides of the debate weighed in, and exchanges within the church became heated. Cardinal McCarrick called some of the exchanges during last year’s campaign “shallow, shrill and disingenuous,” and he warned that some groups continue to cater to religious people simply to use them to further their political cause."

“They have used the language of faith to advance partisan agendas,” he said, “sometimes finding the best biblical soundbites to justify their political positions.”Though their stance is complex and still somewhat controversial, the U.S. bishops have generally recognized that faithful Catholics can vote for a pro-choice candidate who supports other issues they believe are important, such as education or social justice, as long as they aren’t voting specifically because the candidate supports abortion.The case of withholding Communion from politicians is even more difficult because different bishops may make different pastoral decisions for their dioceses. In an article published last month, Pittsburgh Bishop Donald Wuerl suggested that bishops defer making individual decisions until the conference as a whole reaches consensus…"

pittsburghcatholic.org/newsarticles_more.phtml?id=1511

It pains me to disagree with this stance. See the red part of the quote. The right to life IMO is the most important issue on the plate for a voter to choose. The respect for life ,if truly held, is the foundation of social issues including the environment, poverty and education. Words are cheap but actions are sometimes very expensive.

 

[MJE]

I disagree w/ the old tired argument that modern conservatives/republicans are deficient in their support for the “peace and justice issues” of the R.C. church. Cdl McCarrick and other heirarchy are really often just ignorant of the arguments put forth by moral clear thinking and often very serious Catholics who are conservative. Nor do I buy the silly argument that RC have a difficult time at the ballot box because the pro-life party does not support the “social justice” issues of the pro-abort party. The whole premise is based on ignorance.

 

[mdzialo1]

Cdl McCarrick has exposed himself as a real dud. Kennedy, Dodd, Durbin, etc… never met an abortion that they couldn’t abide.

If a thing is wrong, what’s worst than saying so but doing nothing about it (the attitude of plenty of church “leaders”)?

 

[Vincent_N]

KathleenElsie:

It pains me to disagree with this stance. See the red part of the quote. The right to life IMO is the most important issue on the plate for a voter to choose. The respect for life ,if truly held, is the foundation of social issues including the environment, poverty and education. Words are cheap but actions are sometimes very expensive.

If you follow the link to the article, you will find that the part you rendered in red was indeed not expressed by Cdl McCarrick. Look at the quotation marks carefully. This is an opinion of the Pittsburg Catholic, not that of Cdl McCarrick.

Now, look again at the remarks prior:

But how should Catholics be involved in politics? Cardinal McCarrick recognized that neither political party corresponds completely to the Catholic platform. Though there are exceptions, the politicians who support pro-life causes often don’t support peace and social justice issues, and vice versa. This split means Catholics often have an excruciatingly difficult choice in the ballot box.

Again, not something that McCarrick said.

One of the problems we face today is the perception that the USCCB is liberal. It is quite the opposite.

The Pittsburg Catholic misleads Catholics. Catholics can also mislead themselves when they misread…and I’m not saying it’s you, Kathleen. This happens all the time and alot more often to “liberal” Catholics that I know.

Cheers!

 

[KathleenElsie]

Vincent N:

…USCCB is liberal. It is quite the opposite.
The Pittsburg Catholic misleads Catholics. Catholics can also mislead themselves when they misread…and I’m not saying it’s you, Kathleen. This happens all the time and alot more often to “liberal” Catholics that I know.

Cheers!

As I stated in my other post. Words are cheap and actions can be very expensive. You think that I misread the position held by the article. But, I firmly follow one rule Life before anything else. If we respect life in all its stages then things will get better. If we forget to respect the most helpless then nothing will get better.

GOD BLESS

 

[Vincent_N]

KathleenElsie:

You think that I misread the position held by the article.

Nothing of the sort. My post is not directed at you personally. I’m sorry if you’re taking it that way.

God Bless!

 

[Confiteor]

Even if those words were not those of Cardinal McCarrick, his handling of the issue before, during and after the June 2004 U.S. bishops meeting was horrendous if not downright deceitful. (see the link below for a summary of some of the events around that time). That’s the part that really distresses me. Look back at the Cardinal Ratzinger letter, the remarks made by various bishops as to not having received this information, etc. compare the position he took to that of Archbishop Burke of St. Louis. In fairness, Cardinal McCarrrick, located in DC, does have a tougher decision to make than those bishops out in the hinterlands. He is actually likely to have prominent pols in the pews from time to time…Also, keep in mind that U.S. Catholic politicians are not the only ones who sometimes support abortion. The Europeans (and the Pope) will have to addresst his universally; it isn’t just an American issue.

catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=1066

 

[koda]

MJE:

I disagree w/ the old tired argument that modern conservatives/republicans are deficient in their support for the “peace and justice issues” of the R.C. church. Cdl McCarrick and other heirarchy are really often just ignorant of the arguments put forth by moral clear thinking and often very serious Catholics who are conservative. Nor do I buy the silly argument that RC have a difficult time at the ballot box because the pro-life party does not support the “social justice” issues of the pro-abort party. The whole premise is based on ignorance.

Well, I disagree with you there. Just giving lip service to the pro-life policy means nothing if actions don’t follow - and IMO, the Reps fall far short in the action category. Their policies generally cut aid to the poor across the board. How can you expect a woman to want to have her baby when she has no health care, no decent housing, no access to a decent education for her or her child. Chances are she will lose her job if she has to miss work because of her pregnancy. You can’t just tell people they can’t have an abortion and then just toss them out with the garbage. When the argument about abortion is based on religion and no help is offered to the mother it is sheer hypocrisy. There is a rash of people in this country (poor, sick, elderly and/or disabled) that feel they are forced into doctor assisted suicide (not where it’s legal but where it is done covertly) because they are too much trouble and too expensive to keep. The problem here is that these poor folks are on medicare/medicade which really doesn’t pay for decent care. This type of program is a constant target of the Republicans. And I won’t even start with the death penalty or our military actions overseas in which innocent civilians (children, infants, women, the elderly and sick) are often killed or maimed. Just how is that pro-life?

 

[MJE]

koda, please give me the name of the legislation in the recent past where the republicans have cut the monies to the poor.

 

[Maranatha]

koda:

Well, I disagree with you there. Just giving lip service to the pro-life policy means nothing if actions don’t follow - and IMO, the Reps fall far short in the action category. Their policies generally cut aid to the poor across the board. How can you expect a woman to want to have her baby when she has no health care, no decent housing, no access to a decent education for her or her child. Chances are she will lose her job if she has to miss work because of her pregnancy. You can’t just tell people they can’t have an abortion and then just toss them out with the garbage. When the argument about abortion is based on religion and no help is offered to the mother it is sheer hypocrisy. There is a rash of people in this country (poor, sick, elderly and/or disabled) that feel they are forced into doctor assisted suicide (not where it’s legal but where it is done covertly) because they are too much trouble and too expensive to keep. The problem here is that these poor folks are on medicare/medicade which really doesn’t pay for decent care. This type of program is a constant target of the Republicans. And I won’t even start with the death penalty or our military actions overseas in which innocent civilians (children, infants, women, the elderly and sick) are often killed or maimed. Just how is that pro-life?

The best way the government can help the poor is to lower taxes, eliminate over-regulation and get out of the way The private sector has done more to help move people our of poverty then the government. When the government has tried to implement an anti-poverty program, more often then not it makes the problem worse.

 

[koda]

MJE:

koda, please give me the name of the legislation in the recent past where the republicans have cut the monies to the poor.

I’m not talking about one or two bills or just the recent past. I’m 47 and I’ve been award of this all my life. The Republican platform does not support social programs - they are against big government. Here’s an example: Remember Hoover during the Depression? He truly felt for the people who were suffering but he did not believe that it was the government’s place to step in. It wasn’t until FDR was elected that things began to change (thank God - people, some in my family, we starving). But ever since FDR left us the Republicans have waged a constant war on social legislation. The Bush plan on Social Security is an excellent example. The original idea was that it would be a government program that would be there no matter what happened in the private sector. Investing it in the stock market makes no sense - it was founded when the stock market crashed. Cutting social programs to fund the military has also been a constant. No (real) medicare prescription benefit. And heaven forbid we should look at the environmental policies. Give you a few references? I could write you a book. Lest you think I know not of what I speak, I have a BS in history and am working on my MA in secondary ed - will be teaching high school history next year and this is one of my pet subjects.

Just curious, what makes you think the Reps do support peace and justice?

 

[Maranatha]

koda:

I’m not talking about one or two bills or just the recent past. I’m 47 and I’ve been award of this all my life. The Republican platform does not support social programs - they are against big government. Here’s an example: Remember Hoover during the Depression? He truly felt for the people who were suffering but he did not believe that it was the government’s place to step in. It wasn’t until FDR was elected that things began to change (thank God - people, some in my family, we starving). But ever since FDR left us the Republicans have waged a constant war on social legislation. The Bush plan on Social Security is an excellent example. The original idea was that it would be a government program that would be there no matter what happened in the private sector. Investing it in the stock market makes no sense - it was founded when the stock market crashed. Cutting social programs to fund the military has also been a constant. No (real) medicare prescription benefit. And heaven forbid we should look at the environmental policies. Give you a few references? I could write you a book. Lest you think I know not of what I speak, I have a BS in history and am working on my MA in secondary ed - will be teaching high school history next year and this is one of my pet subjects.

Just curious, what makes you think the Reps do support peace and justice?

While I sure the New Deal provided some immediate help, it in no way worked toward solving the long term, endemic, economic problems. The real improvements did not start until the US engaged in WWII and the government let the private sector organize the resources needed to win the war.

 

[MJE]

one point at a time. Social Security reform is about VOLUNTARY investment of some small percentage of ones SS monies into stock market. I am so excited about this for the younger generation. However, if taking some 4-5% of your money and investing it into the market is too risky an idea for you then you simply opt out and keep all of your $ into the SS kettle. What is so wildly dangerous about that? or even mildly dangerous?

 

[koda]

Maranatha:

While I sure the New Deal provided some immediate help, it in no way worked toward solving the long term, endemic, economic problems. The real improvements did not start until the US engaged in WWII and the government let the private sector organize the resources needed to win the war.

I’m not suggesting by any stretch of the imagination that a politcal party other than the Republican has done all that was needed or possible to win the war on poverty. However, I do think there is ample historical evidence that they (Rep) are not the party of the poor or needy. Please feel free to offer Rep. examples to the contrary.

 

[MJE]

I am confident you will address the SS issue soon. The Rep. party has been promoting, educating, and advancing all sorts of methods to allow the poor to enroll their children in the same quality of schools that the more affluent americans send their children, be it a private or public institution. Why should parents, because of a low income, be forbidden to enroll their children in a school that is safe and has high academic standards? Why not, for the sake of the child, offer school vouchers or other methods of school choice? The Dem. party has consistently refused such options; one of the country’s biggest lobbying groups is the NEA, teachers union, and the $$ they poor into Dem. coffers to maintain the status quo is huge. Moral justification?