I’ve never really understood why it is so important to publically call out those politicians who advocate issues that oppose Catholic teaching by the USCCB. However, I fully support those parish priests or others within the clergy in doing this or clergy who speak privately with the individuals who are in violation. However, the teachings in question are out there. Those, regardless of profession, who oppose these dogmas, will answer to God. They will be held accountable. If the Church denounces a politician in an official capacity, it risks alienating not only the politician but all those that support him/her. In today’s society, She also risks alienating Herself from those who may be considering looking to the Church as a home. The media at such an announcement would have a field day by painting the Church as some sort of fringe self-important moral extremist institution and those that may have one day stopped to consider Her as a home, might now close the door of ever doing so. If a politician receives the Host unworthily, he/she is not getting away with anything. God doesn’t go back and check to see whether the USCCB publicly rebuked the politician. He (God) knows all the circumstances and a fair judgment will be rendered whether or not the individual was publically criticized by the USCCB. As far as the bans on receiving, they are automatically imposed on the hearts of the faithful. If those that are guilty of receiving the Host do so knowing that they are unworthy, they will answer for it.I feel that the American bishops in the USCCB (United States’ Conference of Catholic Bishops) are silent on the denouncing those in the political arena. We see politicians who profess the Catholic faith, and then advocate beleifs on issues that are obviously contrary to the teachings of the Church and her magisterium. Can’t they impose some bans on receiving the Eucharist? Excommunication? Where are out bishops?
I think there is a big sifference between trying to influence how a politician votes and setting standards for membership in one’s own organization.Also, and I am sure I am going to get a lot of upset people for saying this, the leaders of the Church could really get us in hot water if it appears as if we are trying to use our Church to control elected politicians. We are a tax exempt organization, and if we cross the line into politics, we could loose that status.
Yes, I agree something should be done and no I do not think that abortion is okay. All I am saying is we need to be careful how we go things like this.
Pax
I’m not sure what you mean publically calling out, but many of these “Catholic” politicians seem to use their Catholicism as a selling point at election time and they great scandal by supporting immoral activites like the killing of children in their mothers’ wombs. They not only do this pubically, some of them even make a big deal out of it, confusing many Catholics and people who might otherwise consider converting to the Faith.
One thing we often forget is that the shepherds will be held accountable for the sins of their flocks to the extent that the shepherds did not protect them.
Just how far are we to go down this path? We should fail to be who we are for fear of alienating potential converts? What will they think when they find out who we really are?
I heartily agree!…I’m more concerned actually for those “regular” people who attend mass each week at local parishes who never hear from their parish priests on issues such as ABC and other “socially accepted” practices which violate God’s law. A few bad Catholic politicians does not compare to the amount of everyday people who find themselves going to Holy Communion after having just participated in ABC the night before. Just my thoughts.
As I said in my post, there are problems at the episcopal level and you’ve brought some to light. There are bullies out there. The greatest problem at the episcopal level is that the bishops don’t agree on how to deal with the bullies. They agree that these people are bullies. There is no question there. How to respond is where they disagree. The attitude among bishops ranges from, “Ignore the behavior and they will stop, give them too much attention and you’re feeding their egos,” to “Burn them alive at sunrise” and everything in between.Thanks so much for your reply, Brother JR
WRT your second point, I understand what you are saying, esp with the addition of the information about confession… my main (current?) question is, what should or could be done about these politicians and others, like the “‘Catholics’ for Choice”? It just seems like such an awful situation, causing such confusion and scandal, and sometimes it seems like we are doormats, iyswim. I just feel like the Church is allowing Herself to be pushed around by these bullies re issues that we should be standing firm on.
I think we lay people see excommunication as being a way to stand firm, but you are saying there are problems with that as a solution. Is there a solution?
Well, if nothing else, we can hope it will bring about an awareness of the need for prayer for all involved.
What I mean by calling out, as it relates to the situation presented, is that I do not believe it to be beneficial for the bishops to publically denounce ANY individual. Whether that individual be a political figure or John Q Public. If a bishop wishes to address an issue with one of these politicians, let him do so privately. You and I would expect the same discretion if we were to find ourselves outside of Church teaching on a given issue. As for the Catholics confused by what they THINK is a silence on the part of the USCCB… I agree at least partially. Again this goes back to parish priests that need to stop all the “feel good” homilies and get back to basics. Additionally, RCIA instruction needs to be monitored ensuring that Church teachings are what is being taught and NOT an instructor’s opinion. CCD classes for children need to be supervised similarly. All this can be done, without a bishop excommunicating a politician.
I agree with that in so far as it relates to the sin(s) itself and the focus is not directed against the politician him/her self. The Church is to lead the flock down the correct path, not to beat the sheep down the path or to separate an individual sheep from the rest of the flock to fend for himself or herself.
Agreed; however what are the shepherds supposed to be protecting their flocks from and how they go about the protecting is important. It’s not the shepherd’s job to protect the flock from the politician. The shepherds protect their flocks by instructing their flocks on dogma NOT by kicking one of the sheep to the curb (excommunication) as suggested in the OP.
Who are we then? Are we as Catholics people who when we encounter someone who is either ignorant of dogma or refuses to accept dogma, the kind of people that excommunicates them? I grew up in the 60s and 70s and I saw first-hand poor catechesis on the part of individual parishes. I’m not going to debate the why’s of the situation but most people will acknowledge that during this time, the Church “dropped the ball” when it came to overseeing proper instruction on Church teaching. As a result, we have many people (both inside the Church and outside) that have little understanding of some doctrines of the Church. I used to be one of those and as a result left for several decades because of misunderstandings I had with some dogmas. Thankfully, I came back, sat down with a patient priest and aired my concerns. I can tell you that had I been formally excommunicated or ridiculed publically, I never would have come back home.
I think that we support the same solution… clear teaching. I want the Church to provide clear teaching to the entire laity continuously. I just don’t think that the answer is to start throwing the threat of excommunication around.
Thank you for the insight.
First of all, I suggest that you should post more charitably regarding our bishops. They are due full respect for their position and, while, both of us can cite specific examples of issues we don’t agree with, broad-brush statements like yours are utterly inappropriate.
Your comment was made in public. Therefore, a PM would not work. As far as comments regarding prudence and humility, that was made in context of general recommendations for dealing with a questionable report that appeared in the media.
