Letter from my bishop re: voting

[Atrocitous]

Why even ask this ? If one considers themself a devote Catholic, or a church militant , or completely agrees with anything any Pope has ever said or done, an completely accepts church teaching, there is zero reason to even ask if a Bishops directive is valid. Yes the Bishops directive is valid.

So gold star for me for only answering the bold and not going any further.

Am I going to stop there ?

of course not, no one else has, so why should I.

Having a political opinion, and not engaging in a sinful act, versus voting for a political party that goes against Church Teaching, is a giant mess to start dancing into. Which for me, is why I think the Roman Catholic Church should stick to promoting only the Gospel, an leave the political world alone. All this is doing now to me, is setting those Democrat Party voters who are practicing catholics at any level, on the path to start walking right out the door and not look back.

But I do think, if this Bishop felt it necessary to say as much as he said in his letter to his i imagine diocese not just a single parish, to me, he should have included a reminder for those who are living together out of wedlock, have children out of wedlock within the church, haven’t had their child baptised, have not been to confession with in so many days, months or years, have engaged in pornography before going to mass but after confession or an same for any other mortal sins, and visitors that are not confirmed in the church,that all those people as well need to remain seated during communion. I mean at least be fair . An then have someone read that letter at the beginning of every mass and before communion from here on out, and then hopefully the Bishop will do a survey with in say 3 or 6 months of doing that continuously to see exactly how attendance has changed through out his diocese and how many people if any are coming up for communion and what attendance is like for reconciliation.

Again, if you are going to do something , put everything you got into it, don’t go into something and do something all wishy washy.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

But I do think, if this Bishop felt it necessary to say as much as he said in his letter to his i imagine diocese not just a single parish, to me, he should have included a reminder for those who are living together out of wedlock, have children out of wedlock within the church, haven’t had their child baptised, have not been to confession with in so many days, months or years, have engaged in pornography before going to mass but after confession or an same for any other mortal sins, and visitors that are not confirmed in the church,that all those people as well need to remain seated during communion. I mean at least be fair . An then have someone read that letter at the beginning of every mass and before communion from here on out, and then hopefully the Bishop will do a survey with in say 3 or 6 months of doing that continuously to see exactly how attendance has changed through out his diocese and how many people if any are coming up for communion and what attendance is like for reconciliation.

Again, if you are going to do something , put everything you got into it, don’t go into something and do something all wishy washy.

Good point.

 

[Lucy_1]

Why even ask this ? If one considers themself a devote Catholic, or a church militant , or completely agrees with anything any Pope has ever said or done, an completely accepts church teaching, there is zero reason to even ask if a Bishops directive is valid. Yes the Bishops directive is valid.

I ask because I was unclear about whether I would have to give up my vote or give up communion, if push comes to shove. I’m glad it’s crystal clear to you. It wasn’t to me. Which is why I asked.

 

[Atrocitous]

Well looks like your Bishop has clearly drawn a line in the sand, and has pushed and shoved. It wasn’t an attack on you, I just felt like it was rather clear as to if one who follows Catholic Teaching and etc, should be required to be obedient to ones Bishop instructions. I mean if anything, the question shouldn’t of been posed to the public, but to said Bishops superior. Which I am not sure is ( or a Canon Lawyer might be able to answer if you know how to find one ), an Arch Bishop, dunno if they are over a bishop though, a Cardinal or the Pope. All anyone here can give is ones personal opinion.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Lucy, I did some research on this business, since I was not practicing my Catholicism in 2004 and was not aware of this past situation. Apparently your bishop is Bishop Sheridan who allegedly wrote the letter directed at Catholics voting for John Kerry and there was a big controversy about it.

Bishop Sheridan ended up writing a follow-up column in the Catholic Herald where he basically said Catholics should vote their conscience, but he wrote the letter because in his opinion, a lot of Catholics didn’t have a well-formed conscience. It is worth noting that many Catholics who responded to him pointed out, correctly, that no one candidate embraces all the Church’s pro-life positions which would include positions not only on abortion and euthanasia, but also on capital punishment and war. This is a constant problem we have with choosing candidates to vote for in USA, and some people would also include human rights issues such as treatment of the poor and immigrants in the “pro life” category.

Here is his follow-up column:
http://archive.wf-f.org/Sheridan-6-4-04.html

Since the issue here would appear to be the formation of your individual conscience so you can make good Catholic voting decisions, the document we linked from the USCCB would help you in that regard - that’s what it’s for.

My impression is that Bishop Sheridan has not written any further letters like this since 2004. Perhaps he realized after doing this that it was not a good idea. Or for all we know, his superior may have had a word with him about it, since apparently this caused quite a dust-up. Or maybe the bishops’ document is a better way of addressing this perceived lack of conscience formation.

 

[Lucy_1]

Thanks so much for looking into this, that’s very helpful! And for linking the usccb doc as well! God bless!

 

[kapp19]

There are just so many distinctions to make.

The basic question is WHY are you voting for such-and-such an item? What goal are you trying to reach, and is it the best way to do so given the circumstances - both within the voting paradigm, and outside of it? Then it can be evaluated in terms of justice and prudence.

Voting is an unbelievably complicated action - even in relatively simple things. There are various paradoxes, all of which can normally be manipulated, and then considerations of what actual effects are foreseen from bringing an item to being elected must be factored in, on top of the potential for scandal or other external factors which are relevant to consider.

All of this, with some special exceptions, would not be a matter for the Church “per se” to be directing. In some cases, voting for a bad candidate actually helps the good candidate be elected… If you don’t believe me, think/read about how McMullin was actually a serious contender for US president in 2016… and how if it had come down to a certain swing state, it would have been important to make sure the “correct” candidate was given the electoral college votes to guarantee that it went to congress…

 

[pnewton]

The USCCB says something similar to this bishop, except it is not the same. Therefore, without the exact wording, the quote in full context, the original question cannot be answered. Also, the question would need to be clarified what constitutes “support.”

Also, I would stick to your own conscience and ignore the rather snide and partisan campaigning on this website. Listen to the Church, not people who claim to speak for the Church.

 

[otjm]

Would the Catholic parishioners in my diocese be bound to obey the Bishop’s directive not to receive Holy Communion?

As the bishop is only reiterating what the Church teaches, people are bound by the teaching of the Church on these matters. So I don’t address being “bound by the bishop”, as the true binding is by the Church which he reiterates.

His comment is a bit less subtle than what the Church actually says, as on occasion, one might be confronted with a “lesser of two evils” choice, and the USCCB has put out a brochure in the past covering the matter.

Having said that, I have sometimes been confronted by an SJW who puts their own spin on the matter. I leave judgement of them to God, and I am not God. I say that because I have found all too often in dealing with an SJW that they are operating so much on an emotional level of response that any cogent discussion of the matter is impossible. I may judge their comments as irrational, or illogical, but I cannot and will not judge their souls, or whether or not they should receive Communion.

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

that many Catholics who responded to him pointed out, correctly, that no one candidate embraces all the Church’s pro-life positions which would include positions not only on abortion and euthanasia, but also on capital punishment and war. This is a constant problem we have with choosing candidates to vote for in USA, and some people would also include human rights issues such as treatment of the poor and immigrants in the “pro life” category.

I mean, it can be difficult, but only because of the vehemently anti-third party attitude many have when it really comes down to it. There are a few places one can look to find candidates truly following Catholic social teaching. They’re just not Democrats or Republicans. Hard to get people to vote for them because of that.

 

[TheLittleLady]

Read the updated USCCB document Forming Consiounces for Faithful Citizenship

 

[Lucy_1]

Voting is an unbelievably complicated action - even in relatively simple things.

You can say that again. It makes my head spin.

If you don’t believe me, think/read about how McMullin was actually a serious contender for US president in 2016…

That’s who I voted for in 2016, so sadly, Im well aware.

If you don’t mind my asking, who are you voting for?

 

[Atrocitous]

my opinion, was taking that particular Bishops letter to a much fairer over blown an stricter view. If the letter of the law in regards to receiving communion where to actually be followed, there would probably be only 4-10 people on Sundays going to receive communion and 4 people through out daily mass; not counting the elderly who have no idea what in the world is going on at any given moment.

At some point the Roman Catholic Church should consider which is more important, being pure as the driven snow to receive the Eucharist, or receiving the Eucharist. An I am not even tossing in open communion, i am just talking about Communion for those with in the Church.

It just isn’t practical to read out a warning list before mass and before communion which is why it is only done usually on Easter and Christmas when it is fairly easy to assume that people visiting family that are outside the Church are present . I mean if the Bishop felt it necessary to make that letter, he could have also put in an emphasis on the need to be silent before, during, and after mass. but there really is no point to be reverent before during or after mass, considering that liturgical dancing and music is acceptable along with the charismatic movement which is another tanget i could spin off into. An then also the Bishop would need to consider not shaking down the congregation after homilies or after communion to have a video played of him giving a sales pitch on why everyone needs to cough up money.

Again my point was, if one is going to be bananas, go full bananas or don’t go bananas at all.

 

[Lucy_1]

As the bishop is only reiterating what the Church teaches, people are bound by the teaching of the Church on these matters. So I don’t address being “bound by the bishop”, as the true binding is by the Church which he reiterates.

The Church teaches that only those who vote for candidates who uphold Church teaching may receive communion? Link, please?

 

[kapp19]

Anyone who wants to start talking about c. 915 should first understand that it binds the MINISTER, not the communicant. It’s pretty much impossible for someone who votes secretly for some item to bring themselves under the canon’s scope anyway, as it regards primarily and fundamentally the giving of serious scandal, either by teaching people to imitate a sin or, on the other hand, go inquiring about what sin someone did… so it works in both directions.

 

[Anesti33]

Anyone who wants to start talking about c. 915 should first understand that it binds the MINISTER, not the communicant. It’s pretty much impossible for someone who votes secretly for some item to bring themselves under the canon’s scope anyway, as it regards primarily and fundamentally the giving of serious scandal, either by teaching people to imitate a sin or, on the other hand, go inquiring about what sin someone did… so it works in both directions.

Yes, canon 916 is the one that binds the communicant in the same way.

 

[otjm]

The Church teaches that only those who vote for candidates who uphold Church teaching may receive communion? Link, please?

Perhaps my reply was too subtle.

The bishop made a blank statement, it would appear. As I noted, the USCCB produced a brochure on voting. It was a number of years ago, and it set forth the moral issues concerning voting and was focused in particular to the issue of a politician holding a position, for example as pro abortion. I no longer have a copy but I suspect that your diocese or archdiocese may still have a copy or can give guidance as to where the matter can be found.

The brochure set out the matters of evil and the issue of the lesser of two evils. I doubt that you are going to find a better analysis, and it requires a fair amount of critical thinking.

I am not trying to side-step you; I don’t have a link (as it was a piece of paper distributed by our Archdiocese) nor do I any longer have the brochure. The bishop’s comment gets into the area of moral law and moral law is unlikely to be reduced to a simple link.

But to answer your question, no, that is not what the Church teaches; the matter is far more complex than that as reality is far more complex than that.

In the last election, my favorite candidate was Mike Huckabee. If the Church had said (and it doesn’t say) that only those who vote for a candidate who upholds Church teaching may receive communion, then would voting for a Baptist minister allow one to receive? That is a rabbit hold of major proportions.

It is fairly simple for me. I vote pro life, and simply will not vote for a candidate who is less than pro life. I am also aware that short of a Constitutional convention, Roe vs, Wade is unlikely in my lifetime to be overturned; so I look for candidates who will work for pro life and work to chip away at the edges of that case and subsequent cases.

But back to your question: it is not simply a black and white issue; the concept of the lesser of two evils is part of the moral consideration in voting.

 

[phil19034]

Also, to twist the pretzel a bit more… since I’ve just discovered this letter from 2004, and I’ve already voted for candidates who aren’t in line with church teaching, does that mean that retroactively I should not now receive communion?

When I returned to my Catholic faith, during my confession, I listed as one of my grave sins voting for pro-choice candidates.

My suggestion: confess it.

 

[Rau]

Would the Catholic parishioners in my diocese be bound to obey the Bishop’s directive not to receive Holy Communion?

No the Bishop’s opinion on the nature and implication of a voting choice is just that.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

The brochure set out the matters of evil and the issue of the lesser of two evils. I doubt that you are going to find a better analysis, and it requires a fair amount of critical thinking.

I am not trying to side-step you; I don’t have a link (as it was a piece of paper distributed by our Archdiocese) nor do I any longer have the brochure.

We’ve linked the applicable USCCB document already in this thread, and several people have referred Lucy to it.