A Twelve Step Program for Bishops written by Bishop Rene Henry Gracida should be distributed to each of the U.S. bishops repeatedly until they "get" it. You should write your bishop with evidence (e.g., newspaper articles) about any Catholic pro-abortion politicians residing or working in your diocese, and remind your bishop of his need to take action and avoid scandal. Fraternal correction is not optional. It is
demanded by authentic charity.
Over and above fraternal correction, the bishop has a serious and binding obligation:
But there is another correction which is an act of justice purposing the common good, which is procured not only by warning one's brother, but also, sometimes, by punishing him, that others may, through fear, desist from sin. Such a correction belongs only to prelates, whose business it is not only to admonish, but also to correct by means of punishments.
6 comments:
Wouldn't the same thing hold for any politicians who did or do support to war in Iraq, given that he Pope has clarified that it is a crime against humanity and goes against the Church's doctrine of just war?
The twelve-step program states that "All other grave social issues, such as war, poverty, health, economic justice, immigration, etc. are of secondary importance and indeed pale in comparison to innocent human life under systematic annihilation."
But "innocent human life under systematic annihilation" is exactly what the present war effort concerns, especially since it involves admitted (an admission then quickly backpedaled) acts of deliberate kidnapping and torture.
However misguided or even malicious it might be, it is hyperbolic to describe the current U.S. and allied military operations as "systematic annihilation of innocent human life"--such language does not recognize the rather large distinction between what is going on now and, say, the Holocaust. Also, the Pope has not clarified that the Iraq war is a crime against humanity. Instead, prior to the initiation of hostilities, John Paul the Great indicated that in his prudential judgment, the preemptive invasion did not meet just war criteria. That's rather different. The issue of the procedure of U.S. withdrawal from Iraq and whether it should be immediate or gradual has not been addressed by any Vatican official to our knowledge.
The critical distinction between abortion and war is that abortion is ALWAYS wrong, whereas waging war is only USUALLY wrong. Since prudential judgments about war and peace are the proper responsibility of the government, bishops do not, generally speaking, have a duty to intervene, particularly by the imposition of canonical penalties. Reasonable persons of good will can honestly come to different conclusions regarding the justice of a particular war.
But with abortion, since it is evil in itself, there can never be a question of a politician simply "making a mistake," as might be the case regarding a particular military conflict. That's why the bishop has a particular duty to use his canonical powers to punish pro-abortion politicians who publicly claim to be Catholic and who persist in supporting abortion.
The pro-war politician, fool though he may be, is not endorsing a heresy and is not supporting something that is intrinsically evil. Canon law simply does not allow for the imposition of a canonical penalty on such a person--no matter how wrong he actually is.
Bush's people consulted American bishops on the 'just war' policy before Iraq. Anyone (even a pope) can say anything afterward.
Dear "Lepanto League Information Service" (the person who responded to my post):
I thank you for your reasoned response. I do think, however, that part of my argument's thrust has not yet been addressed. Let's just for the sake of discussion leave out politicians who merely support the war (though I think you admitted that the Pope stated it was an unjust war) and merely look to those who either do not oppose or positively support the United States' use of torture. Cannot a Christian say, in a way similar to your formulation ("The critical distinction between abortion and war is that abortion is ALWAYS wrong, whereas waging war is only USUALLY wrong."), that 'The critical distinction between torture and war is that torture is ALWAYS wrong, whereas waging war is only USUALLY wrong'?
If the state is allowed to torture (even to death) anyone it perceives to be an enemy, for example, then there would be no reason to oppose the crucifixion of Jesus by the Roman State, should it so choose. But my understanding of Christian doctrine is that torture can in no way be seen as expressing our love for the torture victim.
One might object that the people being tortured are not innocent, but--
first, none of the people the US is torturing have been proven to be guilty of a crime by a court of law before they were tortured (so, how exactly one could legitimately claim that they are not innocent, I am not sure),
secondly, torture is not a legally sanctioned punishment for any crime , and
thirdly, innocent people are being knowingly pulled into the torture system we have constructed (for example, the family members of people on the United States' 'most wanted' list, or, even worse, people collected by warlords for a bounty or captured in random sweeps.
Finally, I would think that even the torture of someone who wasn't innocent would ALWAYS be wrong, from a Christian perspective, would it not?
Any bishop, therefore, encountering a politician in their congregation who has allowed or supported our torture of prisoners, should, therefore be denied communion, no? Or is the question of torturing innocent people merely a "prudential judgment"? (Again, if it were, we would have nothing to say to Pilate: it was simply his administrative decision.)
PS As for the "making a mistake," if the US admitted that "mistakes had been made," the mistake in their eyes was presumably that they kidnapped and sent for torture the wrong man--not (in their eyes) in kidnapping and sending people to be tortured.
Thanks for writing this.
Post a Comment