St. Louis prelate says voting for candidate who backs abortion a sin

By Catholic News Service

ST. LOUIS (CNS) -- St. Louis Archbishop Raymond L. Burke will issue a pastoral letter following his comments in a radio interview that Catholics commit a mortal sin by knowingly voting for a candidate who advocates abortion.

"It is a serious sin," Archbishop Burke told The St. Louis Review, newspaper of the St. Louis Archdiocese. He added that a person who voted that way could receive Communion only after a "true repentance" and obtaining absolution by going to confession. "It's not right to support candidates who are for abortion," he added.

The archbishop was in Rome to receive the pallium June 29. The pallium is a circular white band of wool that symbolizes an archbishop's authority and his unity with the pope.

Issuing a pastoral letter will fulfill an earlier promise to address the voting issue, Archbishop Burke said.

"It is not a matter -- as in the case of politicians whose positions are public -- of denying Communion to voters who support pro-abortion candidates," the archbishop said. "But Catholics who support such pro-abortion candidates participate in a grave evil. They must show a change of heart and be sacramentally reconciled or refrain from receiving holy Communion."

Archbishop Burke publicly stated that Catholics sin by voting for candidates who favor abortion during an interview June 24 with St. Louis radio station KMOX-AM. It was in response to one of many questions he was asked about a variety of subjects.

He said later that his answer to the question on voting for candidates who favor abortion merely reiterated what the church teaches.

"I didn't say anything novel or extraordinary," the archbishop said. He added that Pope John Paul II has touched on such matters in writings such as his 2003 encyclical, "Eucharistia de Ecclesia," on the Eucharist and its relation to the church.

The archbishop recently wrote in an article for America magazine that church law supports a bishop's right to refuse Communion to a Catholic politician who gives "serious scandal" by supporting abortion. He also said that church law "imposes a responsibility on the local bishop to address this grave error."

He said that his recent statements were not so much influenced by a recent pastoral letter by Bishop Michael J. Sheridan of Colorado Springs, Colo., which warned that Catholics who vote for politicians who support legal abortion commit a mortal sin, though the archbishop added that he agreed, in substance, with Bishop Sheridan's statement.

"To support such candidates is clearly to participate in their support of abortion," the archbishop said. "We must never do that."

Archbishop Burke said that in the KMOX interview he avoided commenting on specific candidates and political races.

"I am not a Democrat or a Republican," he said. He added that people who charge that bishops favor the Republican Party or are trying to influence the election by their pro-life pronouncements "are trying to silence the bishops."

The archbishop repeated his earlier statements that the abortion issue takes priority over other issues in a candidate's campaign.

"The Holy Father has written in 'Evangelium Vitae' ('The Gospel of Life') that abortion has characteristics making it particularly serious and deplorable," the archbishop said.

Archbishop Burke said that those who have voted for a candidate who supports legal abortion would have to "confess the sin with sincere contrition."

"Confession is not a mechanical thing," he said. "Our Lord calls us to a true change of heart."

END

Copyright (c) 2004 Catholic News Service/U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. The CNS news report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed, including but not limited to such means as framing or any other digital copying or distribution method, in whole or in part without the prior written authority of Catholic News Service.

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), July 04, 2004

Answers

Bump to New Answers to invite comment

-- (bump@bump.bump), July 11, 2004.

He then added: Vote for Bush or you will go to hell.

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), July 12, 2004.

Actually, he is saying vote for Kerry and you will go to hell, without directly saying it.

In Christ,
Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@Hotmail.com), July 12, 2004.

What does he say about pro-big-tobacco voters (and there are a lot of them). Name me a Senator or Congressman and he's probably in big tobacco's pocket. Do those people still get to take communion?

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), July 12, 2004.

All of this equivocating selling cigarettes, guns etc. with abortion on this and other threads is very annoying. You are being disingenuous. Abortion is the direct taking of an innocent life. Selling guns, or cigarettes, or Big Mac's is not. I'm sure you know the difference yet you continue to spout off. If you would like to criminalize cigarette sales, please say so. I would have more respect for that position. Instead, most anti-smoking nazis prefer to tax it to death, or sue it to death, or make sure you can't smoke ANYWHERE. And no, I'm not a smoker, only the occasional cigar (which is pretty enjoyable though).

There are alot of big tobacco voters? Where? In North Carolina, Tennessee maybe? Once again, you are not letting facts get in the way of your speeches.

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), July 13, 2004.

there is a fundamental difference between cigarettes and abortion and those who support them.

with cigarettes a person CHOOSES to smoke, knowing the risks and social climate/cost.

with an abortion, a baby does NOT choose to be vacuumed out of its mother (or worse, have its body chopped to pieces slowly by a scalpal) and thrown away in a garbage can.

-- paul h (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), July 13, 2004.

But one often does not know the full cost to their health from smoking, as big tobacco continues to add more cancer-causing agents to their products, and they still remain one of the only products in the country that isn't required to list their ingredients. Why is that? Because big tobacco has most Senators and Congressmen in their pockets. Probably your Senator or Congressmen. They've sure as hell got all the politicians here in Virginia (who I will never vote for).

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), July 13, 2004.

But one often does not know the full cost to their health from smoking

But one does know that abortion is meant to kill babies. Nothing can be so morally clear as that. Period.

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

We;ve agreed on that point. But you seem to think that it's ok for a cigarette company to put new and different deadly chemicals in their cigarettes with no oversight from the government. If I'm a tobacco executive, and I put a bunch of cianide in my cigarettes, use marketing techniques specialy designed to attract kids, and not tell anyone, I am not also a murderer? If I knowingly let a few million tons of benzene into your water supply because it's cheaper than disposing of it properly, am I not a murderer? Stop with the double standards.

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), July 13, 2004.

Anti-Bush,

There's a difference though between someone who MAY kill someone and who IS killing someone. For example, someone who is speeding MAY kill someone, and a tobacco exec MAY kill someone, but putting a gun to someone's head IS killing someone, just like aborting someone IS killing someone. There's a difference between the two actions.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), July 13, 2004.

Anti,

You are mixing apples and oranges and lemons here.

In the first instance, someone sells a potentially dangerous product, with appropriate warnings clearly visible on the package. No-one is harmed by it unless they freely choose to purchase it and use it anyway. If anyone dies as a result of such use, it is more akin to suicide than murder.

In the second instance, the poisoning of the water supply, the victims have no choice whatsoever about consuming the dangerous product, because they have no way of knowing that it is dangerous. Those who surreptitiously dumped the chemicals are certainly guilty of negligent homicide, even though the deaths of other people was not their direct intent.

And finally, in the case of abortion, the violent death of another human being is always the specific, conscious, purposeful, premeditated intent. The victim has no choice, and the killers are not merely criminally negligent, but are the direct agents of the victim's murder (and usually the permanent injury of the other victim, the child's mother, as well).

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), July 13, 2004.

Furthermore, he is trying to say that people vote for "pro-polluter" or "pro-tobacco" politicians in the same way that people vote for pro-choice (pro-abortion) politicians. He is saying that such people would be committing a sin as great as voting for a pro-choice candidate. Ludicrous! on more than one level.

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), July 13, 2004.

I agree and its quite clear that abortion is a pre-meditated assult, resulting in the death of the unborn child. Also, most everyone is aware of the serious health problems including premature death that results from smoking. Smokers are to some extent "voluntary" participants in their own ill health. The unborn child is not.

Still I think Anti brings up a good point that may work as a "new" thread. Tobacco companies have manipulated the ingrediants to enhance the addictive qualities of their products. They have purposely marketed to young people, and are now working on the third world. Their product does kill. After a person is addicted, many find it almost impossible to quit thus extending profitability for the tobacco industry long after its customer truely wants to use the product.

Its true that the abortion/tobacco-death comparison is apples and oranges. But apples and oranges are still fruit. Its seems that that issues involving the morality of backing and marketing a product that retains its customer/victim through addiction and then kills slowly, while not necessarily belonging in this thread, may deserve one of its own.

-- Jim Furst (furst@flash.net), July 13, 2004.

We;ve agreed on that point. But you seem to think that it's ok for a cigarette company to put new and different deadly chemicals in their cigarettes with no oversight from the government.

Nope, I haven't talked about that at all. This is something the congress should address. As well as to cut all subsidies (if there still are any) to tobacco farmers.

But unless you were born in a cave some place you know smoking is harmful to your health. This is completely different than encouraging the mass murder of children.

Bill

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

The case of Koch industries is a blur. Benzene makes up at least 4% of auto gas and 2% of aviation fuel. Cars have cat-converters, jets don't. Military jets are inefficient during reheat. Furthermore, taxiing, take-off, and landing, are inefficient operation cycles. Unburned fuel emits benzene into the atmosphere and groundwater via the water cycle. In addition, refueling cycles for both autos, planes, gas stations, etc. incur loss from evaporation and spillage. Benzene is volatile. All of this adds up to a wishy-washy case against Koch Industries where there is no proof anyone got cancer from their supposed "dumping" of benzene which was not "dumping" at all but release over a number of years. There are lots of carcinogens floating around. Even sunlight causes cancer from UV exposure.

Unless someone can show that

a) there has been a significantly higher trend in terminal cancer from the affected area of Koch Industries

b) those cases were a direct result of benzene and not some other carcinogen

c) Koch Industries is solely responsible and not some other company or entity - such as spillage, exhaust pollution, general water-cycle effect etc.

then there is no case to build against them. Hope that helps.

God bless!

-- Vincent (love@noemail.net), July 13, 2004.

"For example, someone who is speeding MAY kill someone, and a tobacco exec MAY kill someone, but putting a gun to someone's head IS killing someone, just like aborting someone IS killing someone. There's a difference between the two actions."

It's a little more than "may kill someone". The fact is that their product WILL kill one third of it's users, and the percentage is steadily increasing, as they add more and more chemicals to their cigarettes, chemicals that they are not required to tell anyone about.

"You are mixing apples and oranges and lemons here."

And in this case, it makes one big, deadly fruit punch. It all adds up to death, and all you people want to argue is which ingredient is the deadliest.

"In the first instance, someone sells a potentially dangerous product, with appropriate warnings clearly visible on the package."

There is one warning from the surgeon general. There is no list of ingredients. There is nothing telling you how much arsenic, amonia, cyanide, benzene, or any other of the dozens of deadly chemicals they put in their products. Then they market their products to children, add more and more chemicals to make it increasingly addictive so that the kids they peddle their products to will get hooked, and they use the Senators and Congressmen they buy to make sure that no one can hold then accountable for their abuses. That sounds like murder to me.

"Furthermore, he is trying to say that people vote for "pro- polluter" or "pro-tobacco" politicians in the same way that people vote for pro-choice (pro-abortion) politicians. He is saying that such people would be committing a sin as great as voting for a pro- choice candidate. Ludicrous! on more than one level."

Why is that ludicrous? If I kill one person and you kill two, is one of us committing a greater sin?

"Nope, I haven't talked about that at all. This is something the congress should address. As well as to cut all subsidies (if there still are any) to tobacco farmers."

Have your Congressmen adressed it? Mine sure haven't. I've written letters, but nobody gives a crap. I live in Virginia. Big tobacco's fingers might not be so deep in the subburbs in the north, just outside of D.C., where I live, but the rest of the state might is one big tobacco farm. Richmond might as well be called "Morrisville". There's probably a bill on the floor to do just that.

Aside from that, I'm only 16, so they don't care no matter what. I can't vote them out of office, so why should they listen to me? My parents voted against them in every election, but we're a HUGE minority in Virginia. Not a very liberal state, in case you haven't noticed. When I turn 18, I will vote against every senator and congressman in our state. When I go to college, I'm going somewhere far away from here.

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), July 13, 2004.

Anti-bush,

It's a little more than "may kill someone". The fact is that their product WILL kill one third of it's users, and the percentage is steadily increasing, as they add more and more chemicals to their cigarettes, chemicals that they are not required to tell anyone about.

Can you show YOUR figures on this from an unbiased source? People who are anti-smoking will tell you a smoker who gets hit by a brick died from tobacco, but it's not necessarily the case. If you truly believe what you are saying, there are a few more industries to target: The automobile industry, as many people die in car accidents, the bathtub industry, many people die there too, small plane makers (try getting life insurance, it's easier for a smoker), lots of things made can kill the people who use them, adults are supposed to be able to decide what risks they want to take for themselves. The big difference with abortion is that the baby is not given the same choice.

Remember, the majority of smokers smoke their whole lives without dying from smoking, whereas every baby aborted is killed.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), July 14, 2004.

"There is nothing telling you how much arsenic, amonia, cyanide, benzene, or any other of the dozens of deadly chemicals they put in their products."

A: What posssible reason would they have for putting such substances into their product? Nicotine is the addictive substance. Arsenic, amonia, cyanide and benzene are not. The tobacco companies would have nothing to gain and everything to lose by making their product more harmful without making it more addictive. It is true that traces of such substances can be present as normal products of combustion (you didn't mention carbon monoxide), or as trace remnants of pesticides used in growing the crop. But it is ridiculous to suggest that tobacco companies intentionally add such substances to their products. Besides, the combined potential damage from all such trace substances is miniscule compared to the carcinogenic tar residues that are present in thousands of times the volume.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), July 14, 2004.

: What does he say about pro-big-tobacco voters (and there are a lot of them). Name me a Senator or Congressman and he's probably in big tobacco's pocket. Do those people still get to take communion?

There's nothing wrong w/"Big Tobacco." In fact, we should be subsidizing the tobacco industry, because it saves us money in social security payments.

-- Inquisitor Generalis (mrwreckingball@budweiser.com), July 15, 2004.