Bishop Burke, the new Bishop of St. Lewis, has issued a notification to Catholic politicians in his current diocese that they will not receive communion until they renounce abortion.  Bishop Burke's pastoral letter, "On the Dignity of Human Life and Civic Responsibility," is now in print form. You can access the document here. Also, Bishop Burke has issued a notification for Catholic Politicians, available by clicking here.

In Christ
Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), January 09, 2004

Answers

I hope more Bishops follow his lead.

Dano

-- Dan Garon (boethius61@yahoo.com), January 09, 2004.

Dear Bill,

Several questions: 1. Does this ruling include voting for (or not opposing) the death penalty and/or material support (budgets, prisons, prosecutors, etc.) for state and federal death penalty laws?

2. While U.S. politicians are encouraged not to do anything immoral in their own lives – their installation in office does not recognize natural or divine law as binding upon their executive or legislative duties. Rather they are bound by their duty to uphold the Constitution and laws of the United States of America and the constitution and laws of their particular state if they are in a state office. They are also to reflect the needs and direction of their constituents. If politicians who are Catholic submit to this Vatican instruction and bishop’s notification, should they:

a. Recuse themselves in all issues where the Vatican has made a specific doctrine and ruling to the faithful as being under the influence/coercion (withholding Communion) of a foreign state (the Vatican) and unable to give primary civil allegiance to the Constitution and enacted laws, as they represent their constituents (unless he/she ran specifically on those platform issues)?

b. In the future, should all Catholic politicians clearly identify themselves as Catholic and obligated to implement Catholic doctrine and dogma in their executive and legislative duties? Should these politicians simply form a separate “Catholic” political party (or caucus)?

c. Should the USCCB create a mandatory “Catholic” platform so Catholics and non-Catholics are clear as to what they should expect from U.S. Catholic politicians and vote accordingly?

d. Should members of the USCCB become registered foreign agents with the U.S. government in the same way American companies have to register when they represent the interests of a foreign government (the sovereign state of the Vatican)?

I think these are some of the future implications by the action of the Bishop of La Crosse.

-- Robert Fretz (pastorfretz@oldstonechurchonlnie.org), January 13, 2004.

Recuse themselves in all issues where the Vatican has made a specific doctrine and ruling to the faithful as being under the influence/coercion (withholding Communion) of a foreign state (the Vatican) and unable to give primary civil allegiance to the Constitution and enacted laws, as they represent their constituents (unless he/she ran specifically on those platform issues)?

Nonsense. Catholic politicians have, as any other politician, a sworn duty to uphold the constitution. As Catholics, they have a moral duty and obligation to uphold Catholic social teaching. The two duties are not impossible to fulfill simultaneously. In the future, should all Catholic politicians clearly identify themselves as Catholic and obligated to implement Catholic doctrine and dogma in their executive and legislative duties? Should these politicians simply form a separate “Catholic” political party (or caucus)?

How about armbands with little cricifixes on them? Separate drinking fountains in the Capitol building?

c. Should the USCCB create a mandatory “Catholic” platform so Catholics and non-Catholics are clear as to what they should expect from U.S. Catholic politicians and vote accordingly?

Such a "platform" already exists. It's called the Magesterium of the Roman Catholic Church.

d. Should members of the USCCB become registered foreign agents with the U.S. government in the same way American companies have to register when they represent the interests of a foreign government (the sovereign state of the Vatican)?

Now you're just being silly.

I think these are some of the future implications by the action of the Bishop of La Crosse.

You hold your breath and I'll count.

-- jake (j@k.e), January 13, 2004.

Dear Bill,

Several questions: 1. Does this ruling include voting for (or not opposing) the death penalty and/or material support (budgets, prisons, prosecutors, etc.) for state and federal death penalty laws?

It only addresses those advocating abortion and euthanasia.  We need to remember the murder of millions of innocent children overshadows any other good works a person would do.

2. While U.S. politicians are encouraged not to do anything immoral in their own lives – their installation in office does not recognize natural or divine law as binding upon their executive or legislative duties. Rather they are bound by their duty to uphold the Constitution and laws of the United States of America and the constitution and laws of their particular state if they are in a state office. They are also to reflect the needs and direction of their constituents. If politicians who are Catholic submit to this Vatican instruction and bishop’s notification, should they:

You are wrong here.  The Constitution of the US does not exempt someone from their moral duty to God.  Someone who assists in murder is committing a mortal sin. 

As the good bishop said: “no one would consider Christian opposition to slavery a “religious” issue. Rather, Christians who oppose slavery and other similar evils are acting according to the standard of right and wrong, which has its foundation in our common human nature.”  I would highly recommend you read: "On the Dignity of Human Life and Civic Responsibility," You can access the document here.

a. Recuse themselves in all issues where the Vatican has made a specific doctrine and ruling to the faithful as being under the influence/coercion (withholding Communion) of a foreign state (the Vatican) and unable to give primary civil allegiance to the Constitution and enacted laws, as they represent their constituents (unless he/she ran specifically on those platform issues)?

I think in this case the bishop is recognizing the sin of promoting murder.

b. In the future, should all Catholic politicians clearly identify themselves as Catholic and obligated to implement Catholic doctrine and dogma in their executive and legislative duties? Should these politicians simply form a separate “Catholic” political party (or caucus)?

Possibly, or reform a current party’s moral platforms to reflect natural law.

c. Should the USCCB create a mandatory “Catholic” platform so Catholics and non- Catholics are clear as to what they should expect from U.S. Catholic politicians and vote accordingly?

The USCCB is simply a group of Bishops.  The body you are looking for in this area is the Vatican.  And they have already written a number of documents addressing this.  Politicians can start by reading the Catechism.

d. Should members of the USCCB become registered foreign agents with the U.S. government in the same way American companies have to register when they represent the interests of a foreign government (the sovereign state of the Vatican)?

Again, the USCCB is not such an organization.  They are simply bishops of the Church.  I am not sure why registration would be necessary.

I think these are some of the future implications by the action of the Bishop of La Crosse.

Politicians need to realize they do not resign from the human race when they run for office.  Their immortal souls are still at risk.

take care,

Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), January 13, 2004.

Dear Bill: Thanks for the response. I appreciate your desire to focus on the issue of abortion. However, I was looking at the larger implications of the bishop’s act. And his action seems consistent with Vatican policy. In the Catholic documents I have read, there seems to be a willingness for a disconnect between the politician, once elected, and his constituents. While he does need to take on a leadership role, he is also the people’s representative. Since the government has the power to coerce behavior and action, it should reflect the will of those who will be coerced.

The slavery comparison is interesting. I will start with a disclaimer – while I sometimes kid around on this site – I am curious as a Civil War semi-enthusiast. Did any of the southern Catholic bishops condemn slavery or censure slave owners. I know the major split between north and south in the Baptist and Presbyterian churches was over slavery. What did the southern Catholic bishops do?

and

Dear Jake;

I actually think the whole situation is counter- productive. It is not clear if you think that Catholic teaching is guiding or binding for Catholic politicians on civil policies – can they make a decision that is acceptable to the greater community but not necessarily in accordance with Catholic doctrine without fear of censure? (Bill seemed to answer that but can one of the priests that follow this site help out?)

While there is nothing wrong – indeed I think it is needed and prophetic – for religious communities (in this case the bishop) to speak to the moral effect of civil law, it is quite another to threaten politicians who are Catholic, when they fulfill their civil obligations that may not coincide with Catholic doctrine.

In our democratic setting, it is perfectly appropriate for the bishop to say to the faithful, “I’m not going to vote for and I don’t think you should vote for politicians who support issue Z because it is against Catholic teaching.” It is another thing for the bishop to call or write politician M and say, “If you vote for issue Z, I am not going to allow you to take Communion.” Assuming the Catholic politician accepts the teaching of the Catholic Church regarding the Eucharist, that would be the same kind of coercion the president of a utilities company would make by saying – “If you vote against our bill, I am going to turn off the gas to your house.” It is an influence that cries out to recuse.

The first action is one of political persuasion in a democratic society. The second is one of spiritual coercion in a theocratic society. In our democratic society, the First Amendment prevents government incursion into religious matters of the Church and it protects the civil government from sectarian coercion. It also protects politicians who are Catholic (or Islamic, Buddhist, Mormon, atheists, etc.) from those who want to limit their free exercise of faith and civil participation by making them wear armbands, have separate drinking fountains, etc.. At the same time it protects the citizen who is not Catholic and does not share the Catholic Church’s sectarian world view from making decisions about his life in an undemocratic method.

Our democracy provides a level of personal religious freedom only dreamed of in most of the world. But, for it to survive, we (the religious communities) need to have a level of religious respectful restraint and tolerance in the public square. The religious communities are not to be silent, but in our national community, we need to recognize that we do not share the same absolutes and persuasion is our best tool.

And you are right, I was not being serious about the foreign agents registration of bishops. However, check out this web site regarding the Foreign Agents Registration Act. http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/Pre_96/October95/555.txt.html If the organization that represents His Holiness the Dalai Lama has to register, why not the organization (Who else besides the USCCB) that represents His Holiness the Pope? I believe Saudi Arabia (which constantly equates itself with the Vatican) also has to register its agents. Go figure. Have a nice night, I’m going home.

-- Robert Fretz (pastorfretz@oldstonechurchonline.org), January 13, 2004.

Pastor Fritz,

Again, the politician does not divorce himself from natural law.  He is still a human being.  If he encourages murder, he is sinning.  That is also Church teaching.  In his encyclical Evangelium vitae (To the Bishops Priests and Deacons Men and Women religious lay Faithful and all People of Good Will on the Value and Inviolability

of Human Life), Pope John Paul II discusses the degrees of responsibility for abortion. 

 

On slavery: It depended upon the individual bishop.  Bishops in the Catholic Church take their instructions directly from Rome.  The papacy condemned racial slavery from the very inception of colonialism. As early as 1435 Pope Eugene IV ordered the liberation of Blacks who had been enslaved in the newly colonized Canary Islands, writing that "these peoples are to be totally and perpetually free." He imposed excommunication on those slave holders who would refuse to comply.

 

In 1537, Pope Paul III condemned New World slavery, writing that "the Indians and all other peoples ... who shall hereafter come to the attention of Christians ... are not to be deprived of their liberty and their possessions." Thus, even though these words were occasioned bythe mistreatment of Native Americans, the condemnation of slavery they contain applies to "all peoples."

 

Many subsequent popes repeated this teaching. One of them was Gregory XVI, who wrote in 1839 that no one is to "dare to bother unjustly, despoil of their possessions, or enslave Indians, Blacks, or other such peoples." He called those engaged in such practices "shamefully blinded by the desire of sordid gain." He found particularly harsh words for the slave trade, calling it an "inhuman traffic."

 

In spite of this clear teaching, the American antebellum episcopate, meeting in Baltimore the following year (1840), misinterpreted the Pope's words as condemning only the slave trade, not, however, domestic slavery as it was practiced at the time in the United States. This is the position that John England, Bishop of Charlestown, communicated to President Van Buren's secretary of state John Forsyth in a series of letters.

 

Catholics can rightly be proud of the papacy's stand on slavery.  It is an example where the Catholic Church taught with clarity, regardless of whether what she was teaching was convenient or inconvenient.

In Christ,
Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), January 13, 2004.

Hey Bill, the St. Louis Diocese is my neighboring diocese. I have been anxiously awaiting this announcement, and am EVER SO PLEASED!!

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), January 13, 2004.