You are viewing an archived page on our old website. Click here to visit our new website.

Home | Join/Donate | Current Voices | Liturgical Calendar | What's New | Affirmation | James Hitchcock's Column | Church Documents | Search


Catholics and Political Responsibility

Statements by Bishops -
on Catholics and Political Responsibility
Updated June 27, 2013

"To claim the right to abortion, infanticide and euthanasia, and to recognize that right in law, means to attribute to human freedom a perverse and evil significance: that of an absolute power over others and against others. This is the death of true freedom..." [Pope John Paul II - Evangelium Vitae 20]

Bishops in the United States have individually expressed concern about Catholics who publicly oppose fundamental Catholic doctrine -- especially politicians. This section includes excerpts from published statements or columns by the bishops, or interviews, with links. (Unless otherwise indicated, click title to go to the complete version on this site, or to access on the site where it originally appeared.)

The items on this page are arranged chronologically, beginning with the earliest -- so that the history of the question can be understood as it developed. This section is updated regularly.

This page are statements between 1990 and 2004

Statements between 1990-2004 | Statements between 2005-2007 | Statements between January 2008- September 2008 | Statements between October 2008-December 2008 | Statements between 2009 - Present

Bishop Statements on President Barack Obama and Notre Dame, May, 2009

Index of Bishops' Statements

Chronological Order

  Alphabetical Order

Archbishop John Myers - June 1990
Bishop William Weigand
- January 22, 2003
Archbishop Raymond Burke - November 23, 2003
Archbishop Alfred Hughes - January 14. 2004
Bishop Ronald Gainer- January 18, 2004
Bishop Robert C. Morlino - January 22, 2004
Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio - March 6, 2004
Bishop Thomas Olmsted - March 18, 2004
Archbishop Charles Chaput - April 14, 2004
Cardinal Francis Arinze - April 23, 2004
Bishop Wilton Gregory - April 23, 2004
Bishop Samuel Aquila - April 25, 2004
Bishop Robert Mulvee - April 27, 2004
Bishop Robert McManus - April 27, 2004
Bishop John M. D'Arcy - April 28, 2004
Cardinal Theodore McCarrick - April 29, 2004
Bishop Joseph Galante - April 29, 2004
Bishop John Smith - April 29, 2004
Bishop Michael Sheridan - May 1, 2004
Bishop Carl Mengeling - May 2, 2004
Bishop Joseph V. Adamec - May 3, 2004
Bishop Thomas Wenski - May 3, 2004
Archbishop John Myers - May 5, 2004
Archbishop John Vlazny - May 6, 2004
Archbishop Elden Curtiss - May 7, 2004
Archbishop Daniel Pilarczyk - May 7, 2004
Cardinal Roger Mahony - May 13, 2004
Cardinal Theodore McCarrick - May 13, 2004
Bishop Robert J. McManus - May 21, 2004
Archbishop Michael Sheehan - May 21, 2004
Bishop Thomas Olmsted - May 21 & 24, 2004
Bishop Samuel Aquila - May 23-29, 2004
Bishop Donald Wuerl - May 25, 2004
Archbishop Charles Chaput - May 26, 2004
Cardinal Francis Arinze - May 26, 2004
Bishop John Kinney - May 27, 2004
Bishop Michael Sheridan - May 27 & 29, 2004
Cardinal William H. Keeler - May 28, 2004
Archbishop Nzeki of Kenya - May 30-31, 2004
(
USCCB - June Meeting)
Bishop Robert Baker - June 2004
Bishop Robert McManus - June (?) 2004
Bishop Raymundo J. Peña - June 2004
Bishop Michael Sheridan - June 2004
Cardinal Theodore McCarrick - June 1, 2004
Bishop Gerald Kicanas - June 2, 2004
Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio - June 5, 2004
Bishop William Skylstad - June 10, 2004
Bishop Joseph A. Fiorenza - June 11, 2004
Bishop Gregory Aymond - June 11, 2004
Archbishop William Levada - June 13, 2004
Archbishop Raymond Burke - June 21-28, 2004
Bishop Victor Balke - June 24, 2004
Bishop Ronald Gainer - June 24, 2004
Bishop Robert Vasa - June 25, 2004
Cardinal Avery Dulles - June 29, 2004
Bishop Anthony Pilla - July 2004
Bishop Charles Grahmann - July 2, 2004
Bishop William Lori - July 2004
Bishop John Steinbock - July 2004
Bishop Dennis M. Schnurr -July (?) 2004
Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio - July 3, 2004
(Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger - July 4-9, 2004)
Bishop Michael Saltarelli - July 5, 2004
Cardinal Theodore McCarrick - July 6, 2004
Bishop Bernard Harrington - July 8, 2004
Bishop Joseph Gossman - July 8, 2004
Bishop Victor Galeone - July/August 2004
Bishop Bernard Schmitt - July 13, 2004
Archbishop Alexander Brunett - July 19, 2004
Archbishop John F. Donoghue - July 22, 2004
Archbishop William Levada - July 31, 2004
Bishop George L. Thomas - August 2004
Bishop David Ricken - August, 2004
Archbishop John F. Donoghue - August 4, 2004
Bishop Robert Baker - August 4, 2004
Bishop Peter Jugis - August 4, 2004
Bishop Robert Carlson - August 2004
Bishop Gerald Barbarito - August 5, 2004
Bishop Rene Gracida - August 10, 2004
Bishop Lawrence E. Brandt - August 10, 2004
Bishop Bernard Schmitt - August 11, 2004
Bishop Peter Jugis - August 14, 2004
Bishop Howard Hubbard - September-October 2004

Bishop Gregory Aymond - September 2004
Bishop Leonard Blair - September 2, 3, 2004
Archbishop Harry J. Flynn - September 9,2004
Archbishop John F. Donoghue - September 16, 2004
Archbishop John Myers - September 17, 2004
Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio - September 18, 2004
Bishop Rene H. Gracida - September 19, 2004
Archbishop AlfredHughes - September 20, 2004
Archbishop Charles Chaput - September 22, 2004
Bishop Thomas Olmsted - September 22, 2004
Archbishop Raymond Burke - September 24, 2004
Bishop Michael Saltarelli - September 30. 2004
Bishop Phillip F. Straling - October 2004
Florida Bishop's Conference - October 1, 2004
Archbishop Raymond Burke - October 1, 2004
Bishop Joseph Gossman - October 3, 2004
Bishop Rene H. Gracida - October 5, 2004
Bishop William Lori - October 2004
Archbishop Raymond Burke - October 5, 2004
Bishops Raymond Boland & Robert Finn - October 7, 2004
Cardinal Francis George - October 10, 2004
Bishop Edward K. Braxton - October 11, 2004
Bishop Bernard W. Schmitt - October 20, 2004
Bishop Thomas Gumbleton - October 20, 2004
Bishop Thomas Wenski - October 21, 2004
Archbishop Charles Chaput - October 22, 2004
Bishop Kenneth A. Angell - October 23, 2004
Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio - October 23, 2004
Bishop Paul S. Loverde - October 31, 2004
Bishop David Ricken - October 2004
Massachusetts Bishops - October 29, 2004
Cardinal Justin Rigali - October 28, 2004
Bishop George L. Thomas - October 2004
Bishop George Coleman - October 29, 2004
Bishop Timothy McDonnell - October 29, 2004
Bishop Robert McManus - October 29, 2004
Archbishop Sean O'Malley - October 29, 2004
Bishop David Zubik - October 29, 2004
Bishop Samuel Aquila - November 30, 2004

Statements between 2005-2007

Bishop Edward U. Kmiec - January 28, 2005
Cardinal Oscar Andres Rodriguez Maradiaga - February 15, 2006
Cardinal Theodore McCarrick - June 15, 2006
Archbishop Joseph F. Naumann - August 15, 2006
Bishop
Ronald M. Gilmore - August 15, 2006
Bishop Paul S. Coakley - August 15, 2006
Bishop Michael O. Jackels - August 15, 2006
Arizona Catholic Conference - September 2006
Arizona Catholic Conference - October 2006
Illinois Catholic Conference - October 2006
Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted - October 2006
Bishop Joseph A. Galante - October 27, 2006
Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio - October 28, 2006
Bishop Paul S. Coakley - January 31, 2007
Bishop Robert Vasa - March 1, 2007
Bishop Thomas Tobin
- May 31, 2007
Cardinal George Pell - June 12, 2007
Virginia Catholic Conference - October 2007
Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio - October 27, 2007
(USCCB - November Meeting 2007)

Statements between Jan 2008- Sept 2008

Bishop William E. Lori - ?-2008
Archbishop Charles Chaput - January 16, 2008
Catholic Conference of Kentucky- (January 22, 2008)
Cardinal Edward Egan - April 28, 2008
Archbishop Donald Wuerl - April 30, 2008
Archbishop Joseph Naumann - May 9, 2008
Archbishop Charles Chaput - May 19, 2008
Archbishop Joseph Naumann - May 23, 2008
Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio - June 21, 2008
Archbishop Raymond Burke - August 2008
Bishop Oscar Cantu - August 2008
Archbishop Charles Chaput - August 2008
Bishop James D. Conley - August 2008
Bishop Kevin F. Farrell - August 2008
Archbishop Jose Gomez - August 2008
Bishop David A. Zubik - August 2008
Archbishop Donald Wuerl - August 25, 2008
Bishop Samuel Aquila - August 26, 2008
Cardinal Edward Egan - August 26, 2008
Archbishop John C. Nienstedt - August 26, 2008
Bishop Michael Sheridan - August 26, 2008
Bishop William F. Murphy - August 27, 2008
Bishop Jerome E. Listecki - August 28, 2008
Cardinal Sean P. O'Malley - August 29, 2008
Bishop Gregory Aymond - September 2008
Bishop Thomas G. Wenski - September 2008
Cardinal Francis George - September 3, 2008
Bishop Gerald F. Kicanas - September 4, 2008
Bishop R. Walker Nickless - September 4, 2008
Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted - September 4, 2008
Archbishop George H. Niederauer - September 5, 2008
Bishop Robert Vasa - September 5, 2008
Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio - September 6, 2008
Bishop Robert C. Morlino - September 7, 2008
Archbishop Charles J. Chaput - September 8, 2008
Bishop James D. Conley - September 8, 2008
Bishop W. Francis Malooly - September 8, 2008
Bishop Edward J. Slattery - September 9, 2008
Archbishop Donald Wuerl - September 9, 2008
Bishop W. Francis Malooly - September 10, 2008
Bishop John F. Kinney - September 11, 2008
Archbishop Joseph F. Naumann - September 12, 2008
Bishop Robert W. Finn - September 12, 2008
Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio - September 19, 2008
Bishop William Murphy - September 19, 2008
Bishop George L. Thomas - September 19, 2008
Catholic Conference of Illinois - September 22, 2008
Cardinal Daniel DiNardo - September 26, 2008
Bishop James Vann Johnston - September 26, 2008
Bishop Paul Swain - September 26, 2008
Archbishop Timothy Dolan - September 27, 2008
Bishop Joseph F. Martino - September 30, 2008
Archbishop John G. Vlazny - September 30, 2008

Statements between Oct 2008-Dec 2008

Bishop Earl Boyea - October 2008
Bishop Dennis M. Schnurr - October 2008
Virginia Catholic Conference - October 2008
Bishop David A. Zubik - October 2008
Catholic Bishops of New York State - October 1, 2008
Bishop Robert Hermann - October 3, 10, 24, 31. 2008
Bishop Robert Finn - October 3, 2008
Bishop James Vann Johnston - October 3, 2008
Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio - October 4, 2008
Bishop Kevin J. Farrell - October 8, 2008
Bishop Kevin W. Vann - October 8, 2008
Archbishop Alfred C. Hughes - October 11, 2008
Bishop Arthur Serratelli - October 13, 2008
Archbishop Donald W. Wuerl - October 15, 2008
Bishop Paul S. Coakley - October 16, 2008
Archbishop Edwin O'Brien - October 16, 2008
Bishop Robert Finn - October 17, 2008
Bishop Michael O. Jackels - October 17, 2008
Bishop Larry Silva - October 19, 2008
Cardinal Edward Egan - October 23, 2008
Archbishop Edwin O'Brien - October 23, 2008
Bishop J. Terry Steib - October 23, 2008
Bishop Robert Finn - October 24, 2008
Bishop Kevin Rhoades - October 25, 2008
Bishop Blase Cupich - October 27, 2008
Bishop Earl Boyea - October 27, 2008
Bishop Robert J. Carlson - October 28, 2008
Bishop Ronald W. Gainer - October 28, 2008
Archbishop José H. Gomez - October 29, 2008
Archbishop John Myers - October 29, 2008
Bishop Thomas J. Tobin - October 29, 2008
Archbishop Edwin O'Brien - October 30, 2008
Archbishop Wilton D. Gregory - October 30, 2008
Bishop Elden F. Curtiss - November 1, 2008
Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio - November 1, 2008
Bishop Anthony B. Taylor - November 1, 2008
Bishop Samuel Aquila - November 3, 2008
Archbishop Raymond Burke - November 3, 2008
Bishop Robert Finn - November 3, 2008
Bishop Armando X. Ochoa - November 3, 2008
Bishop John Ricard - November 4, 2008
Bishop Robert Hermann - November 7 & 14, 2008
Archbishop Edwin O'Brien - November 11, 2008
Bishop Samuel Aquila - November 14, 2008

Statements between January 2009 - Present

Archbishop Charles Chaput - January 21, 2009
Bishop Robert Hermann - January 23, 2009
Archbishop Charles Chaput - January 28, 2009
Archbishop Charles Chaput - February 23, 2009
Archbishop Charles Chaput - March 4, 2009
Archbishop Joseph F. Naumann - March 6, 2009
Michigan Catholic Conference - June 15, 2010
Bishop Thomas Paprocki - December 1, 2010
Bishop Samuel Aquila - March 18, 2011
Archbishop Charles J. Chaput - January 22, 2012

Bishop Joseph V. Adamec - May 3, 2004
Bishop Kenneth A. Angell - October 23, 2004
Bishop Samuel Aquila
- April 25, 2004
Bishop Samuel Aquila - May 23-29, 2004
Bishop Samuel Aquila - November 30, 2004
Bishop Samuel Aquila - August 26, 2008
Bishop Samuel Aquila - November 3, 2008
Bishop Samuel Aquila - November 14, 2008
Bishop Samuel Aquila - March 18, 2011
Cardinal Francis Arinze - April 23, 2004
Cardinal Francis Arinze - May 26, 2004
Arizona Catholic Conference - September 2006
Arizona Catholic Conference - October 2006
Bishop Gregory Aymond - June 11, 2004
Bishop Gregory Aymond - September 2004
Bishop Gregory Aymond - September 2008
Bishop Robert Baker - June 2004
Bishop Robert Baker - August 4, 2004
Bishop Victor Balke - June 24, 2004
Bishop Gerald Barbarito - August 5, 2004
Bishop Leonard Blair - September 2, 3, 2004
Bishop Raymond Boland - October 7, 2004
Bishop Earl Boyea - October 2008
Bishop Earl Boyea - October 27, 2008
Bishop Lawrence E. Brandt- August 10, 2004
Bishop Edward K. Braxton - October 11, 2004
Archbishop Alexander Brunett - July 19, 2004
Archbishop Raymond Burke - November 23, 2003
Archbishop Raymond Burke - June 21-28, 2004
Archbishop Raymond Burke - September 24, 2004
Archbishop Raymond Burke - October 1, 2004
Archbishop Raymond Burke - October 5, 2004
Archbishop Raymond Burke - August 2008
Archbishop Raymond Burke - November 3, 2008
Bishop Oscar Cantu - August 2008
Bishop Robert Carlson - August 2004
Bishop Robert J. Carlson - October 28, 2008
Archbishop Charles Chaput - April 14, 2004
Archbishop Charles Chaput - May 26, 2004
Archbishop Charles Chaput - September 22, 2004
Archbishop Charles Chaput - October 22, 2004
Archbishop Charles Chaput - January 16, 2008
Archbishop Charles Chaput - May 19, 2008
Archbishop Charles Chaput - August 2008
Archbishop Charles J. Chaput - September 8, 2008
Archbishop Charles Chaput - January 21, 2009
Archbishop Charles Chaput - January 28, 2009
Archbishop Charles Chaput - February 23, 2009
Archbishop Charles Chaput - March 4, 2009
Archbishop Charles J. Chaput - January 22, 2012
Bishop Paul S. Coakley - August 15, 2006
Bishop Paul S. Coakley - January 31, 2007
Bishop Paul S. Coakley - October 16, 2008
Bishop George Coleman - October 29, 2004
Bishop James D. Conley - August 2008
Bishop James D. Conley - September 8, 2008
Bishop Blase Cupich - October 27, 2008
Archbishop Elden Curtiss - May 7, 2004
Bishop Elden F. Curtiss - November 1, 2008
Bishop John M. D'Arcy - April 28, 2004
Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio - March 6, 2004
Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio - June 5, 2004
Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio - July 3, 2004
Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio - September 18, 2004
Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio - October 23, 2004
Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio - October 28, 2006
Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio - October 27, 2007
Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio - June 21, 2008
Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio - September 6, 2008
Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio - September 19, 2008
Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio - October 4, 2008
Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio - November 1, 2008
Cardinal Daniel DiNardo - September 26, 2008
Archbishop Timothy Dolan - September 27, 2008
Archbishop John F. Donoghue - July 22, 2004
Archbishop John F. Donoghue - August 4, 2004
Archbishop John F. Donoghue - September 16, 2004
Cardinal Avery Dulles - June 29, 2004
Cardinal Edward Egan - April 28, 2008
Cardinal Edward Egan - August 26, 2008
Cardinal Edward Egan - October 23, 2008
Bishop Kevin F. Farrell - August 2008
Bishop Kevin J. Farrell - October 8, 2008
Bishop Robert Finn - October 7, 2004
Bishop Robert W. Finn - September 12, 2008
Bishop Robert Finn - October 3, 2008
Bishop Robert Finn - October 17, 2008
Bishop Robert Finn - October 24, 2008
Bishop Robert Finn - November 3, 2008
Bishop Joseph A. Fiorenza - June 11, 2004
Florida Bishop's Conference - October 1, 2004
Archbishop Harry J. Flynn - September 9,2004
Bishop Ronald Gainer- January 18, 2004
Bishop Ronald Gainer - June 24, 2004
Bishop Ronald W. Gainer - October 28, 2008
Bishop Joseph Galante - April 29, 2004; May 5, 2004
Bishop Joseph A. Galante - October 27, 2006
Bishop Victor Galeone - July/August 2004
Cardinal Francis George - October 10, 2004
Cardinal Francis George - September 3, 2008
Bishop Ronald M. Gilmore - August 15, 2006
Archbishop Jose Gomez - August 2008
Archbishop José H. Gomez - October 29, 2008
Bishop Joseph Gossman - July 8, 2004
Bishop Joseph Gossman - October 3, 2004
Bishop Rene H. Gracida - August 10, 2004
Bishop Rene H. Gracida - September 19, 2004
Bishop Rene H. Gracida - October 5, 2004
Bishop Charles Grahmann - July 2, 2004
Bishop Wilton Gregory - April 23, 2004
Archbishop Wilton D. Gregory - October 30, 2008
Bishop Thomas Gumbleton - October 20, 2004
Bishop Bernard Harrington - July 8, 2004
Bishop Robert Hermann - October 3, 10, 24, 31, 2008
Bishop Robert Hermann - November 7 & 14, 2008
Bishop Robert Hermann - January 23, 2009
Bishop Howard Hubbard - September-October 2004

Archbishop Alfred Hughes - January 14. 2004
Archbishop Alfred Hughes - September 20, 2004
Archbishop Alfred C. Hughes - October 11, 2008
Illinois Catholic Conference - October 2006
Catholic Conference of Illinois - September 22, 2008
Bishop Michael O. Jackels - August 15, 2006
Bishop Michael O. Jackels - October 17, 2008
Bishop James Vann Johnston - September 26, 2008
Bishop James Vann Johnston - October 3, 2008
Bishop Peter Jugis - August 4, 2004
Bishop Peter Jugis - August 14, 2004
Cardinal William H. Keeler - May 28, 2004
Bishop Gerald Kicanas - June 2, 2004
Bishop Gerald F. Kicanas - September 4, 2008
Bishop John Kinney - May 27, 2004
Bishop John F. Kinney - September 11, 2008
Bishop Edward U. Kmiec - January 28, 2005
Archbishop William Levada - June 13, 2004
Archbishop William Levada - July 31, 2004
Bishop Jerome E. Listecki - August 28, 2008
Bishop William Lori - July 2004
Bishop William Lori - October 2004
Bishop William E. Lori - ?-2008
Bishop Paul S. Loverde - October 31, 2004
Cardinal Roger Mahony - May 13, 2004
Bishop W. Francis Malooly - September 8, 2008
Bishop W. Francis Malooly - September 10, 2008
Cardinal Oscar Andres Rodriguez Maradiaga - February 15, 2006
Bishop Joseph F. Martino - September 30, 2008
Massachusetts Bishops - October 29, 2004
Cardinal Theodore McCarrick - April 29, 2004
Cardinal Theodore McCarrick - May 13, 2004
Cardinal Theodore McCarrick - June 1, 2004
Cardinal Theodore McCarrick - July 6, 2004
Cardinal Theodore McCarrick - June 15, 2006
Bishop Timothy McDonnell - October 29, 2004
Bishop Robert McManus - April 27, 2004
Bishop Robert McManus - May 21, 2004
Bishop Robert McManus - June (?) 2004
Bishop Robert McManus - October 29, 2004
Bishop Carl Mengeling - May 2, 2004
Bishop Robert C. Morlino - January 22, 2004
Bishop Robert C. Morlino - September 7, 2008
Bishop Robert Mulvee - April 27, 2004
Bishop William F. Murphy - August 27, 2008
Bishop William Murphy - September 19, 2008
Archbishop John Myers - June 1990
Archbishop John Myers - May 5, 2004
Archbishop John Myers - September 17, 2004
Archbishop John Myers - October 29, 2008
Archbishop Joseph F. Naumann - August 15, 2006
Archbishop Joseph Naumann - May 9, 2008
Archbishop Joseph Naumann - May 23, 2008
Archbishop Joseph F. Naumann - September 12, 2008
Archbishop Joseph F. Naumann - March 6, 2009
Catholic Bishops of New York State - October 1, 2008
Bishop R. Walker Nickless - September 4, 2008
Archbishop George H. Niederauer - September 5, 2008
Archbishop John C. Nienstedt - August 26, 2008
Archbishop Nzeki of Kenya - May 30-31, 2004
Archbishop Edwin O'Brien - October 16, 2008
Archbishop Edwin O'Brien - October 23, 2008
Archbishop Edwin O'Brien - October 30, 2008
Archbishop Edwin O'Brien - November 11, 2008
Bishop Armando X. Ochoa - November 3, 2008
Bishop Thomas Olmsted - March 18, 2004
Bishop Thomas Olmsted - May 21 & 24, 2004
Bishop Thomas Olmsted - September 22, 2004
Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted - October 2006
Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted - September 4, 2008
Archbishop Sean O'Malley - October 29, 2004
Cardinal Sean P. O'Malley - August 29, 2008
Bishop Thomas Paprocki - December 1, 2010
Cardinal George Pell - June 12, 2007
Bishop Raymundo J. Peña - June 2004
Archbishop Daniel Pilarczyk - May 7, 2004
Bishop Anthony Pilla - July 2004
(
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger - July 4-9, 2004)
Bishop Kevin Rhoades - October 25, 2008
Bishop John Ricard - November 4, 2008
Bishop David Ricken - August, 2004
Bishop David Ricken - October 2004
Cardinal Justin Rigali - October 28, 2004
Bishop Michael Saltarelli - July 5, 2004
Bishop Michael Saltarelli - September 30. 2004
Bishop Bernard Schmitt - July 13, 2004
Bishop Bernard Schmitt - August 11, 2004
Bishop Bernard W. Schmitt - October 20, 2004
Bishop Dennis M. Schnurr - July (?) 2004
Bishop Dennis M. Schnurr - October 2008
Bishop Arthur Serratelli - October 13, 2008
Archbishop Michael Sheehan - May 21, 2004
Bishop Michael Sheridan - May 1, 2004
Bishop Michael Sheridan - May 27 & 29, 2004
Bishop Michael Sheridan - June 2004
Bishop Michael Sheridan - August 26, 2008
Bishop Larry Silva - October 19, 2008
Bishop William Skylstad - June 10, 2004
Bishop Edward J. Slattery - September 9, 2008
Bishop John Smith - April 29, 2004
Bishop J. Terry Steib - October 23, 2008
Bishop John Steinbock - July 2004
Bishop Phillip F. Straling - October 2004
Bishop Paul Swain - September 26, 2008
Bishop Anthony B. Taylor - November 1, 2008
Bishop George L. Thomas - August 2004
Bishop George L. Thomas - October 2004
Bishop George L. Thomas - September 19, 2008
Bishop Thomas Tobin - May 31, 2007
Bishop Thomas J. Tobin - October 29, 2008
(USCCB - June Meeting 2004)
(USCCB - November Meeting 2007)
Bishop Kevin W. Vann - October 8, 2008
Bishop Robert Vasa - June 25, 2004
Bishop Robert Vasa - March 1, 2007
Bishop Robert Vasa - September 5, 2008
Virginia Catholic Conference - October 2007
Virginia Catholic Conference - October 2008
Archbishop John Vlazny - May 6, 2004
Archbishop John G. Vlazny - September 30, 2008
Bishop William Weigand - January 22, 2003
Bishop Thomas Wenski - May 3, 2004
Bishop Thomas Wenski - October 21 2004
Bishop Thomas G. Wenski - September 2008
Bishop Donald Wuerl - May 25, 2004
Bishop Donald Wuerl - August 18, 2005
Archbishop Donald Wuerl - April 30, 2008
Archbishop Donald Wuerl - August 25, 2008
Archbishop Donald Wuerl - September 9, 2008
Archbishop Donald W. Wuerl - October 15, 2008
Bishop David Zubik - October 29, 2004
Bishop David A. Zubik - August 2008
Bishop David A. Zubik - October 2008
Michigan Catholic Conference - June 15, 2010
 June 1990

Archbishop John Myers - The Obligations of Catholics and the Rights of Unborn Children
This June 1990 Pastoral Statement by Archbishop John Myers, then bishop of Peoria, contains, a clear and very useful description of the meaning of "cooperation" in abortion, including "formal" and "material" cooperation., and the very limited circumstances where "remote material cooperation" can be morally permissible -- such as a "legislator who votes for legislation permitting some abortions in order to prevent the enactment of legislation permitting even more".

This explanation is helpful in understanding the meaning of Cardinal Ratzinger's June 2004 letter to Cardinal McCarrick which refers to "formal cooperation" and "remote material cooperation".

(Click title to go to complete Statement on this site.)

 January 22, 2003

Bishop William Weigand - Homily on 30th Anniversary of Roe v Wade

On January 22, 2003, Sacramento Bishop William K. Weigand, leader of 500,000 Catholics in Northern California, called on then-Governor Gray Davis to renounce his support of abortion rights or stop taking Holy Communion .

In his homily at Mass at the Cathedral of the Blessed Sacrament on the 30th anniversary of the landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion, Bishop Weigand quoted the USCCB's Living the Gospel of Life, and said that Davis should refrain from receiving Communion while he continues to support abortion rights.

"No public official, especially one claiming to be a faithful and serious Catholic, can responsibly advocate for or actively support direct attacks on innocent human life. No appeal to policy, procedure, majority will or pluralism ever excuses a public official from defending life to the greatest extent possible. Those who justify their inaction on the grounds that abortion is the law of the land need to recognize that there is a higher law, the law of God....

"As your bishop, I have to say clearly that anyone -- politician or otherwise -- who thinks it is acceptable for a Catholic to be pro-abortion is in very great error, puts his or her soul at risk, and is not in good standing with the Church,. Such a person should have the integrity to acknowledge this and choose of his own volition to abstain from receiving Holy Communion until he has a change of heart."

Bishop Weigand said afterward that "in general, we do not refuse Communion to anyone; we try to instruct people as to when it would not be appropriate", according to a news story in The Sacramento Bee, January 23, 2003.

Click title or highlighted text above to access the bishop's homily on the Sacramento diocesan web site. (Links broken)

 November 2003

Archbishop Raymond Burke - Pastoral Letter On the Dignity of Human Life and Political Responsibility (click title for complete version on this site)

A pastoral letter, dated November 23, 2003, was written when Archbishop Burke was bishop of La Crosse, Wisconsin. He had been forced by recalcitrant pro-abortion Catholic politicians to inhibit them from receiving Communion. His action was widely publicized after the likelihood of a pro-abortion Catholic as presidential candidate seemed almost certain.
The letter amply cites recent papal teaching,and the US Bishops "Living the Gospel of Life" (quoted above). Following are two quotes:

"Sadly, many Catholics misunderstand the meaning of the so-called "separation of Church and state" in our nation and believe that the Word of God, handed on to us in the Church, has no application to political life. Certainly, our government does not endorse or fund a particular Christian denomination or religion. But, at the same time, we, as Roman Catholics, have the right and, indeed, the obligation to inform our consciences and political judgments from the teachings of our faith, especially in what pertains to the natural moral law, that is the order established by God in creation." ...

"Our faith and our political judgments cannot be separate compartments of our lives; they must relate to each other in a life which is lived with integrity. This is especially true with respect to safeguarding the right to life, the foundation of all other rights. "

 January 2004

Archbishop Alfred Hughes - Co-responsibility for Public Policy

In his column in the diocesan paper January 14, 2004, "Co-responsibility for Public Policy", New Orleans Archbishop Alfred Hughes spoke specifically about Catholic officials who support policies inimical to Catholic teaching receiving Holy Communion:

"A recent Vatican document, A Doctrinal Note on Some Questions Regarding the Participation of Catholics in Political Life, [see above] offers valuable guidance in the above issues for public figures. This document does not propose a Catholic agenda, but clarifies for Catholics those truths that are rooted in nature. The Louisiana bishops are sending a copy of this document to each of our elected Catholic public officials in Baton Rouge and Washington. When Catholic officials openly support the taking of human life in abortion, euthanasia or the destruction of human embryos, they are no longer faithful members in the Church and should not partake of Holy Communion. Moreover, citizens who promote this unjust taking of human life by their vote or support of such candidates share in responsibility for this grave evil.

(For complete version, click title above to link to Archbishop Hughes's statement on the New Orleans archdiocesan web site.) - link broken


Bishop Ronald Gainer Warns Catholic Politicians of "False Dichotomy"- January 18, 2004

In a "Bishop's Forum" statement published January 18, 2004 in the Lexington diocesan newspaper, Crossroads, Bishop Ronald Gainer announced the day of penance to be observed on January 22, the anniversary of Roe v. Wade. The bishop stressed the obligation of all Catholics ­ politicians and voters ­ to uphold the right to life. He wrote, in part:

"A cause of particular sadness and concern are those in public service who claim to be serious Catholics and advocate for or actively support direct attacks on innocent human life. These individuals have fallen victim to thinking that there can be a dichotomy between personal conscience and public practice. That is false. I am certainly grateful for those Catholics in public life (and all politicians) who work diligently to promote the Gospel of Life.

"I take this opportunity to warn Catholic politicians within this diocese who in their public careers choose to depart from Church teaching regarding the inviolability of all human life. They need to consider the consequences of their position for their own spiritual well being, as well as the scandal they cause by leading others into serious moral danger. I urge all Catholics who hold public office to examine your consciences in light of the Gospel duty to protect all human life. Hear this as the Lord Himself calling you to do your part."

Bishop Gainer's complete message in Crossroads is reprinted on this site, with permission.
(Click title above to go to complete statement )


Bishop Robert C. Morlino - "Mind of Christ: Must not be set aside in public office"

In a statement issued January 22, 2004, Bishop Robert Morlino expressed his and other Wisconsin bishops' support of Archbishop Raymond Burke's action. It was published in the diocesan paper, the Catholic Herald and on the Madison diocesan web site. The statement said, in part,

"Archbishop Burke is on target as he spells out the principles of the Church's teaching, and his brother bishops stand with him in episcopal communion and collegiality. All are aware that Archbishop Burke has come under fire lately from certain public office holders, and reports of this difficult situation have enjoyed more than ample attention in the mass media", Bishop Morlino wrote.

"It is indeed the case that Catholics who are public office holders enjoy the blessing of only one conscience - they do not have one conscience for their private lives and one for their public responsibility, one for Church matters and another for State matters. ... it is clearly not possible for a Catholic public office holder to leave the mind of Christ aside as he or she enters a Senate or House chamber".

(Click title above to go to complete statement on Madison Catholic Herald web site.)

 March 2004

Bishop Olmsted: Rebutting the "Catholic but..."

Phoenix Bishop Thomas Olmsted, in his column March 18 in his diocesan paper, the Catholic Sun, warned against the compromising "Catholic, but..." stance -- not only for politicians:

"The 'Catholic but' syndrome stands in direct contradiction to Jesus' clear and unequivocal demand (Mk 8:34-36), 'Whoever wishes to come after me must deny himself, take up his cross, and follow me. For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake and that of the Gospel will save it. What profit is there for one to gain the whole world and forfeit his life?'"

"Now is the time to say 'yes' when we mean yes, and to say 'no' when we mean no", he said in his Lenten column.

(He did not comment explicitly on administering Communion to pro-abortion politicians or voters.)

(Click title above to go to complete version on the Catholic Culture web site.)

See BELOW for Bishop Olmsted's May 24 correction of a news story that reported he would not deny Communion to pro-abortion Catholic politicians.


Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio

Put Out Into the Deep
Bishop DiMarzio's weekly column

The Tablet March 6, 2004
Catholics Role in Political Life

My dear brothers and sisters in Christ,

In November we will be going to the polls to vote in the elections. Participation in the political life of our country is a basic obligation of all Catholics and in a special way for the laity themselves who may run for political office. The Holy See, through the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, issued a statement in 2002 called a "Doctrinal Note regarding the participation of Catholics in political life." The purpose of this statement is to recall the fundamental principles that govern Christian conscience, especially in regard to social and political involvement of Catholics in pluralistic and democratic societies. It stresses the primary obligation of citizens and politicians in democracies to uphold fundamental human dignity in all democratic activities. It also emphasizes the importance of informing one's conscience properly, not by current trends or by the media, but rather by sound Catholic doctrine.

Respect for the human person and commitment to the common good are two fundamental principles on which Catholic social teaching is based. Respect for human life and protection of the family, which is founded on the union of a man and woman, are very important fundamental rights that must be defended. At the same time, education, protection of minors, political freedoms, especially religious freedoms, fostering a just economy, and working for world peace are also values that should be upheld within democratic societies. Whatever violates the dignity of the human person, including abortion and euthanasia, or violates the rights of the embryo, especially in stem-cell research, as well as modern forms of slavery such as drug abuse and prostitution, also should be the concern of Catholics holding political office and those who vote for them.

The Church recognizes that democracy perhaps is the best expression of the direct participation of citizens in political choices. Democracy only succeeds, however, to the extent that it is based on a correct understanding of the human person. In fact, it is respect for the truth about the human person that makes democratic participation possible. Our Holy Father, Pope John Paul II, in his encyclical, "The Splendor of Truth,"outlines for us the basic principles of moral thinking. He states that modern society has "detach[ed] human freedom from its essential and constitutive relation to truth" in a way that individuals make decisions and life choices independently of the natural law and the Church's teachings ("Veritatis Splendor," 4). Unfortunately, in our country today we find moral and cultural relativism, which causes some citizens to claim complete autonomy in their moral choices and which allows politicians to enact laws which ignore the principle of natural ethics, as if every possible outlook on life were of equal value. Much of the Church's moral teaching is not a matter of faith or belief, but rather is based on natural ethical principles and a proper philosophical understanding of the nature of man. For example, the Church's opposition to abortion is not a tenet of faith, but rather a long-standing tradition of understanding that the human person's life begins at conception, since what is conceived -- although passing through various stages of human development -- is always the human person and never less than a human person.

The Catholic Church has long upheld the primacy of conscience and freedom in making decisions which have moral ramifications. "[Man] must not be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, n.1782). Yet, before one can act, and because an unformed conscience can lead one to errors of judgment, the conscience must be properly formed in accord with the true good willed by God and aided by the authoritative teaching of the Church. Given this freedom of conscience, Catholics may choose among political parties and may choose strategies for promoting the common good, but may never promote laws which are incompatible with the faith and with natural law, including those which lead to attacks on human life. The American principle of the separation of Church and State when misunderstood has perhaps led some to avoid forming their consciences properly as the basis for their political participation. In modern times, the Church has never argued that Church and State should not be separate entities. It is impossible, however, to separate religion and morality from our actions as citizens. Indeed, we are fortunate in a democratic society that we are able to vote for those who reflect our moral values. However, with this vote comes the responsibility to exercise it in a way that is compatible with Christian values.

Perhaps most importantly the "Doctrinal Note" from the Holy See is aimed at reminding Catholics involved in political life that they must follow a properly formed conscience in their political activities. The document cites the many saints that the Church venerates who have generously committed themselves to politics and government. Most notably is St. Thomas More, who was proclaimed patron of statesmen and politicians and who gave witness by martyrdom to the inalienable dignity of the human conscience. St. Thomas More refused to put the wishes of his king before the law of his God. And so, too, we remind our Catholic politicians today, who have a tremendous burden on their shoulders, and who many times must go against the tide, of the need to properly form their consciences regarding the moral issues on which they legislate. They are not asked to serve as proxies for the institutional Church, but they are expected to bring a properly informed conscience -- enlightened by their faith -- and a proper understanding of the human person to bear on their political activities and votes. The fact that we live in a pluralistic society, which must accommodate various points of view, remains for some politicians just a convenient excuse for avoiding the moral implications of their civic actions, since in democratic societies we are free to try to convince others of the correctness of our position. Democracy should not be reduced to a series of compromises which in the end becomes a substitute for moral decision making rooted in truth.

In light of these observations, I am always troubled when a Church institution or group grants a place of prominence, or accords an honor, to an individual in public life whose record shows opposition to the Church's clear and consistent teaching on human life and other moral issues. I say this mindful of concerns I have heard expressed by members of the faithful not only in our Diocese but elsewhere as well. In order to avoid confusion in their thinking as to the Church's commitment to these issues, an obligation which I as Bishop view profoundly, I ask parishes, schools, agencies and organizations in our Diocese to respect this concern and review carefully the records of public officials, especially Catholics, before extending invitations to them to Church events.

Political participation is incumbent upon us as Catholic citizens. We must support those in political life who foster a constant and comprehensive support for the dignity of human life. Being a good citizen and a good Catholic are one and the same. As we fulfill our civic obligations, we put out into the deep to transform the world with values that are rooted in the truth.

Source: http://www.dioceseofbrooklyn.org/dimarzio/030604.html (broken link)

 April 2004

Archbishop Charles Chaput: How to tell a duck from a fox - Thinking with the Church as We Look Toward November

Denver Archbishop Charles Chaput wrote about Catholics and political responsibility in his column posted the week of April 14, 2004. .

Archbishop Chaput spoke strongly on the lack of integrity of some Catholic politicians, and emphasiszed the requirement that one's actions be consistent with one's beliefs. He concluded,

"We've come a long way from John F. Kennedy, who merely locked his faith in the closet. Now we have Catholic senators who take pride in arguing for legislation that threatens and destroys life -- and who then also take Communion.

"The kindest explanation for this sort of behavior is that a lot of Catholic candidates don't know their own faith."

The very next week, April 21, Archbishop Chaput's column, "What Vatican II did -- and didn't -- teach about conscience", explained Vatican II's teaching on conscience -- and stressed that "elections and voting booths are not 'faith-free' zones". He wrote, in part:

Vatican II can never be invoked as an alibi for Catholics ignoring grave public evil or failing to act on their faith in the political sphere. That's a distortion of the council's message. It also misreads the U.S. Constitution. America's Founding Fathers did not say, and never intended, that religious faith should be excluded from civic debate. They intended one thing only: to prevent the establishment of an official state church. A purely secular interpretation of the "separation of church and state" would actually result in the "separation of state and morality." And that would be a catastrophe for real pluralism and the democratic process.

If we're sincere about our faith, "conscience" can never be used as an excuse for dismissing what the Church teaches by pointing to her theological critics, voter surveys or public opinion polls, and then doing what we find more convenient. That's dishonest. And God made us for something better than that.

(Click highlighted titles to read columns on the EWTN & Catholic online web site)
See below for Archbishop Chaput's
May 26 column on this topic, or click It's a Matter of Honesty and check index above for other statements, columns of Archbishop Chaput on this topic.

For a list of Archbishop Chaput's Faith and Public Life writings go to http://www.archden.org/index.cfm/ID/384


Question to Cardinal Arinze Sparks Flurry

Cardinal Francis Arinze, prefect of the Vatican Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments, was interviewed on April 23, after he presented a disciplinary Instruction on the Eucharist, Redemptionis sacramentum [link on Adoremus site]. The Instruction's 185 paragraphs on correcting liturgical abuses included a brief paragraph (82) simply citing the Church's existing norms on "objective conditions under which Communion may not be given".

At a press conference following the presentation of the Instruction, a reporter asked the cardinal whether Senator John Kerry should be denied Communion because his position on abortion and other issues that conflict with Church doctrine. Cardinal Arinze replied that "the norm of the Church is clear", and that American bishop should determine its application. When asked if a priest should refuse Communion to a Catholic politician who supports abortion, Cardinal Arinze said, "Yes. If he should not receive, he should not be given."

Cardinal Arinze's comments were widely reported in the US media, and later the same day, Bishop Wilton Gregory, president of the US Conference of Catholic bishops, issued a statement (published on the USCCB web site April 23) which said that "as Cardinal Arinze stated, it is the responsibility of the bishops of the United States to deal pastorally with such situations as they exist here. Each diocesan bishop has the right and duty to address such issues of serious pastoral concern", and he mentioned the USCCB "task force" that is studying the matter.

On April 27, the two Providence bishops, Bishop Robert Mulvee and Bishop Robert McManus also issued a clarification of Cardinal Arinze's comment, in a statement posted on the Providence diocesan web site (broken link). "The document, The Sacrament of Redemption, as approved by the Holy Father, does not specifically address any criteria for excluding Catholic politicians from the reception of the Eucharist based upon their position on life issues", the bishops stated. Bishops Mulvee and McManus also stressed that "The American Bishops have set up a committee to study this very question. Their conclusions have as yet not been presented to the Bishops of our country for consideration". (Note: Bishop McManus became bishop of the Diocese of Worcester on May 15.)

Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, of Washington, heads this "task force". His spokeswoman, Susan Gibbs, told reporters that his committee would be unlikely to reach any decision on the issue before the November presidential election. Cardinal McCarrick, according to numerous reports, said that he does not "feel comfortable" denying Communion to anyone, nor with "using" the Eucharist as a "sanction" against pro-abortion Catholic politicians.

Cardinal McCarrick spoke further on Cardinal Arinze's responses in an April 29 interview by National Catholic Reporter's Rome correspondent, John Allen. When asked if Cardinal Arinze was right in saying that a politician who is unambiguously pro-abortion should be denied Communion, Cardinal McCarrick responded,

"I don't think it was his eminence's official opinion. I did speak to the cardinal while I was here in Rome, and I think the cardinal would say that what he wanted to say is what was in the document. In it, it's clear as the church has always taught that to receive communion you have to have the proper disposition, you have to be in communion with the church, and not conscious of serious sin. All those things that are part of our teaching. That's in the document. Then, his official statement that was part of what he read is that all these documents present general norms that the bishops of a country have to put into practice. When he reported to me what had happened, this was not something that he reported as an official or even a personal statement, whatever he might personally believe, and whatever I may even personally believe. The cardinal's position was that this is the teaching of the church, and the bishops of the United States should figure out what they ought to do." [sic, NCR]

(Compiled from various news sources. Click highlighted links to go to statements and interviews.)


Bishop Samuel Aquila, Fargo, North Dakota in his homily presented at his cathedral on April 25, 2004. said that denying Communion to pro-abortion politicians is part of Catholic teaching. His homily is posted on the Fargo diocesan web site (Adobe Acrobat Reader required) http://www.fargodiocese.org/Bishop/Homilies/homily4-25-04.pdf (link broken)

Bishop Aquila said:

"In the light of the last few days and all of the media coverage regarding John Kerry's unambiguous support of abortion rights, his personal opposition to abortion, and his insistence on the separation of his Catholic faith from his professional life, I, as a successor of the apostles, cannot remain silent. I, as an apostle, must speak with the apostles and obey God rather than man, and present to you the teaching of the Church on the proper relationship between our faith and professional life. Neither the media nor the theologians who support the separation will present the clear teaching of the Church. I have the responsibility and duty before God to teach and to present to you the teaching of the Church on the matter of living one's faith in the world".

Concerning sanctions for Catholics who are pro-abortion, Bishop Aquila cited the words of St. Justin Martyr, who said: "No one may share the Eucharist with us unless he believes that what we teach is true, unless he is washed in the regenerating waters of baptism for the remission of his sins, and unless he lives in accordance with the principles given us by Christ.

"I would remind Catholic politicians, clergy and all of the faithful of the words of St. Paul when he reminds the people who are not living their lives according to the Gospel of Jesus Christ and yet still receive the Eucharist that they bring judgment on themselves," he said. "They bring judgment on themselves. Let those words sink in."

(See below for Bishop Aquila's interview with National Catholic Register, May 23-29 edition.)


Bishop John M. D'Arcy of Fort Wayne-South Bend, issued a statement April 28, explaining his decision not to accept an honorary degree at the University of St. Francis because a pro-abortion speaker had been invited to give the Commencement address. (The school later withdrew the invitation. The speaker was not Catholic.)

Bishop D'Arcy's statement, posted on the diocesan web site (link broken), said, in part:

"Why did I choose to decline the honorary degree? A bishop is bound to preach the truth, not only in words, but also by his actions. The Church's position on unborn life is well known, and the Church's position is my position. It is my obligation to all the faithful and especially to the young graduates to make sure there is no confusion on this matter. I made the same decision, not to attend the graduation, in 1992 when Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan was awarded the Laetare Medal at the University of Notre Dame. In neither case, did I request that the invitation be withdrawn. As I said then and repeat now, I am simply following my solemn responsibilities as a pastor to avoid any confusion on truths so essential to the life of the Church and society, and always to make clear, in season and out of season, those eternal values for which the Church has always stood and for which she stands today".

On April 30, Bishop D'Arcy told South Bend St. Joseph High School to withdraw its invitation to Indiana Governor Joe Kernan to address its commencement. The governor, a Catholic, says he is "personally opposed" to abortion. St. Joseph is a diocesan school. (Story link to South Bend Tribune - broken.)


Bishop Joseph Galante "Faith and Life Cannot be Separate" (link broken)

On April 29, the day before Bishop Joseph Galante, was installed as the new bishop of Camden, New Jersey, on April 30, told reporters that Governor James McGreevey could not receive Communion, because the governor, a Catholic, is divorced and remarried -- but Bishop Galante also made a point of citing MdGreevey's support for abortion "rights" and embronic stem-cell research, which conflict with Catholic doctrine.

Bishop Galante told reporters he felt duty bound to take a hard-line stance because "he said the public becomes confused about Church teachings when bishops fail to challenge Catholic politicians on their voting records". Bishop Galante is the former co-adjutor bishop of Dallas.
(Source: AP wire story "Bishop: Gov. McGreevey cannot receive Communion" - April 30, 2004)

Bishop Galante confirmed his statements in an official diocesan news release issued May 5. (link broken)
"A politician can make a decision and say, I'm going to distrgard the values I get from my faith life because they won't get me elected. Well say it. Don't pretend [that the views are compatible with the Catholic faith]" , the news release said. In response to a reporter's question about Governor McGreevy, Bishop Galante said, "He really can't go to communion." Pressed by a reporter who asked wht if the governor presented himself for Commnion, Bishop Galante said, "I'd give him a blessing".

The Camden diocesan news release also referred to the Vatican "Doctrinal Note on the Participation of Catholics in Political Life", which said that Catholics have a duty to be "morally coherent".


Bishop John Smith - Faithful Citizenship

In his column April 29, "Faithful Citizenship", Trenton Bishop John Smith wrote that "The First Amendment protects the free exercise of religion. Separation of church and state does not mean that the Church and its members should not voice or advocate for their positions. ... the Church, its leaders and faithful, should speak up and they should speak loudly on public policy issues affecting our society. By so doing, we answer the call to 'faithful citizenship'.

"The Church's positions on issues may not always be the popular or easy road to take for those in public life. Politicians and elected officials often speak of their faith, the faith that guides their lives. They also say, sometimes in the same breath, that public and private beliefs are separate. But isnít that an attempt to justify going against the very faith one professes to believe? Catholic social teaching is being misrepresented in this way. The Gospel of Life places the dignity of all living persons first, for without life there would be nothing. One's faith cannot be separated between public and private. Our faith is lived in every moment. People are chosen to represent their constituencies because of what they profess as their values, their vision, and their ability to bring positive solutions to difficult problems. As people of faith, we too have a responsibility to our elected representatives to stand up for our beliefs and make sure that they are represented in public life. Always remember, it is our votes that place them in public office".

(Click title above to go to complete version on Trenton diocesan web site.- Link broken)

 May 2004

Bishop Michael Sheridan - A Pastoral Letter On the Duties of Catholic Politicians and Voters

On May 1, Colorado Springs Bishop Michael Sheridan instructed the Catholics in his care by a Pastoral Letter in which he said, "There must be no confusion in these matters. Anyone who professes the Catholic faith with his lips while at the same time publicly supporting legislation or candidates that defy God's law makes a mockery of that faith and belies his identity as a Catholic."

Bishop Sheridan strongly affirmed Church teaching not only on abortion and related life issues (illicit stem cell research and euthanasia) which, he said "trumps all other issues", but on other critical issues as well, such as "same-sex marriage".

He states clearly that the so-called "wall of separation" between Church and state does not mean, as some claim, that religion is to refrain from "influencing" society:

"In fact, the wall that separates church and state is the safeguard against both the establishment of a state religion and the imposition of sectarian religious beliefs and practices, such as particular denominational forms of worship or theological tenets. In no way does the American doctrine of separation of church and state even suggest that the well-formed consciences of religious people should not be brought to bear on their political choices.

Bishop Sheridan is emphatic in stating the consequences for all Catholics of supporting immoral legislation:

Any Catholic politicians who advocate for abortion, for illicit stem cell research or for any form of euthanasia ipso facto place themselves outside full communion with the Church and so jeopardize their salvation. Any Catholics who vote for candidates who stand for abortion, illicit stem cell research or euthanasia suffer the same fateful consequences. It is for this reason that these Catholics, whether candidates for office or those who would vote for them, may not receive Holy Communion until they have recanted their positions and been reconciled with God and the Church in the Sacrament of Penance.

Bishop Sheridan, a native St. Louisan, was auxiliary bishop of St. Louis from 1997 until his appointment as co-adjutor bishop of Colorado Springs in 2001. He became bishop of Colorado Springs in January 2003.

Click title above or HERE to read Bishop Sheridan's complete pastoral letter on this site.

In a May 14 interview with Laurie Goodstein, of the New York Times, Bishop Sheridan said, "I'm not making
a political statement. I'm making a statement about Church teaching." See story: "Bishop Would Deny Rite for Defiant Catholic Voters on New York Times web site (registration required).

See also Bishop Sheridan's Column in June Herald


Bishop Carl Mengeling - Catholics must decide

Bishop Carl Mengeling, of Lansing, said individual Catholics are obligated to determine if they are fit for Communion, not priests, bishops or cardinals, according to an article that appeared in the Lansing State Journal published May 2, 2004.

"All Catholics, that includes myself, must examine themselves extremely carefully before they approach the Eucharist," Mengeling said. "Our Catholics are adults. We can't treat them like children."

The State Journal also interviewed Bishop Mengeling on the topic on May 2. In the interview, Bishop Mengeling said that Catholics should support policies consistent with Catholic teaching:

Q: Should Catholic politicians be required to support the Vatican's directives?

Bishop Mengeling: Yes, because I think all people that are elected to Congress in Washington or the state Legislature, they come from all different kinds of backgrounds and each one of them brings with them their particular convictions: personal, their particular experiences of life, their faith and all the rest of it.

And all of that plays into what they offer as they deliberate about issues. And I think that's rich.

Sure, they should. I would assume they would, just like I would assume that people from all other walks of life or different backgrounds would present their cherished values and profound insight. Why should they be silent?

Q: Why are pro-choice Catholic politicians being targeted? Why not Catholic pro-choice actors or Catholic newspaper editors who write opinion pieces or the average pro-choice Catholic?

Bishop Mengeling: Particularly the people that we elect, the people that make the laws, are determining the direction of this country. And there's where the real issues have to be dealt with, and especially if it's a Catholic who is legislating the right to kill, abortion.

Click highlighted text above to go to article and interview in Lansing State Journal web site. -- links broken


Bishop Thomas Wenski - "Politicians and Communion"

In his column of May 3, 2004, published on the Orlando diocesan web site, Bishop Thomas Wenski, co-adjutor bishop of Orlando, wrote that "practicing" Catholics must "practice until we get it right." But "getting it right", he stressed, "means conforming oneself to the will of God as revealed to us through Scripture and Tradition and as definitely set forth by the teaching authority of the Church.

"A practicing Catholic cannot invoke 'conscience' to defy or disregard what the Church definitely holds as true ­ for a practicing Catholic doesn't create his own truth but forms his conscience according to the Truth. ...

"Serious sin breaks our communion with God and his Church as does refusing by one's dissent obedience to Church definitive teachings in matters of faith and morals. Before participating in the sacramental expression of that communion ­ by partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ in Holy Communion - 'practicing Catholics' must be restored to spiritual union with God and with their fellow believers through Sacramental Confession in which they repent for the serious sin and express a firm purpose of amendment. Our admission to Holy Communion depends on our prior "visible" communion with the community of faith (i.e. that we are in fact Catholics) and of our prior "invisible" communion with the Lord (i.e. that we are not in the state of serious (mortal) sin. To insist on partaking in Communion in the first case would be, on the face of it, boorish behavior, (equivalent to a guest who behaves badly in his host's home) and in the latter ­ at least objectively speaking ­ sacrilegious (for as St. Paul says, unworthy reception brings judgment, cf. 1 Cor 11: 23ff).

"Bishops as teachers of the faith have no special competencies in the world of business or politics ­ and in those worlds we have no regulatory or legal powers. We don't want such power ­ nor should we. But precisely as teachers of the Catholic faith we do have competence to tell businessmen or politicians or anyone else for that matter what is required to be a Catholic. ...

"But to fail to rebuke when necessary is to fail in the charity we owe our brethren. (And we bishops will be apologizing for a long time for the failure to rebuke and apply sanctions to those wayward priests who criminally sinned against young people and children.)

Bishop Wenski points out that St. Thomas More is a "role model" for Catholic politicians:

"He did not draw any false distinction between his personal morality and his public responsibilities: he was his king's good servant, but God's first. Today, some self-identified Catholic politicians prefer to emulate Pontius Pilate's 'personally opposed but unwilling to impose' stance. Perhaps, they are baiting the Church, daring an 'official sanction' making them 'bad Catholics', so as to gain favor among up their secularist, 'blue state' constituencies. Such a sanction might turn their lack of coherent Catholic convictions into a badge of courage for people who hold such convictions in contempt. ..."

"You cannot have your 'waffle' and your 'wafer' too", Bishop Wenski concluded. "Those pro-abortion politicians who insist on calling themselves Catholics without seeing the contradiction between what they say they believe and their anti-life stance have to do a lot more of 'practicing'. They need to get it right before they approach the Eucharistic table.

Click title above or HERE to go to Bishop Wenski's complete statement on this site, reprinted here with the bishop's permission.


May 3, 2004
Bishop Joseph V. Adamec - Faithful Citizenship
Bishop Adamec's column in the Altoona-Johnstown Catholic Register
Click title to read the column on the Catholic Register website (link broken).

Archbishop John J. Myers -"A Time for Honesty"
On May 5, 2004, Newark Archbishop John Myers issued a Pastoral Statement that supported and amplified the earlier statements of his suffragan bishops, Bishop Joseph Smith
, Trenton, and Bishop Galante (above).

"Our times demand honesty", the archbishop began, and he included quotations from his pastoral letter of 1990 on the issue of Catholics in political life. Following are some excerpts:

"Communion is Not Private
"Because the Eucharist is the source and summit of our faith, the most sacred action of our Church, to misuse the Eucharistic symbol by reducing it to one's private "feeling" of communion with Christ and His Church while objectively not being in such union is gravely disordered.

"Catholics who publicly dissent from the Church's teaching on the right to life of all unborn children should recognize that they have freely chosen by their own actions to separate themselves from what the Church believes and teaches. They have also separated themselves in a significant way from the Catholic community.

"The Church cannot force such people to change their position; but she can and does ask them honestly to admit in the public forum that they are not in full union with the Church.

"One who practices such dissent, even in the mistaken belief that it is permissible, may remain a Catholic in some sense, but has abandoned the full Catholic faith. For such a person to express 'communion' with Christ and His Church by the reception of the Sacrament of the Eucharist is objectively dishonest."

Archbishop Myers also said, "As voters, Catholics are under an obligation to avoid implicating themselves in abortion, which is one of the gravest of injustices. Certainly, there are other injustices, which must be addressed, but the unjust killing of the innocent is foremost among them."...

"Among my most important responsibilities is that of pastor and teacher. In light of recent developments in our nation, I wish once again to affirm the teaching of the Church. Human life is a gift from God and as Catholics we have a most grave obligation to defend all human life from the moment of conception until natural death. God help us if we fail in this most fundamental obligation."

Click title above or go to Newark web site: http://www.rcan.org/archbish/jjm_letters/ATimeforHonesty.htm

SEE ALSO Archbishop Myers' important June 1990 Statement, The Obligations of Catholics and the Rights of Unborn Children,(on this site) which includes a clear and useful description of the meaning of "cooperation" in abortion, including "formal" and "material" cooperation., and the very limited circumstances where "remote material cooperation" can be morally permissible.


Archbishop Elden Curtiss - "The candidacy of John Kerry: A dilemma for Catholics in Nebraska and the nation" broken link 6/27/05

On May 7, Omaha Archbishop Elden Curtiss published a column in his archdiocesan newspaper The Catholic Voice, that observed,
"John Kerry claims that he accepts the teaching of the Church about the sacredness of all human life ­ this is his personal belief and stance. But he thinks that, in a pluralistic society like ours, public policy should support the right of women to make their own decisions about whether to have an abortion or not. Therefore he supports legislation and laws supporting abortion, even the barbarism of late-term abortion. Somehow the Catholic conscience about supporting the rights of pre-born infants to life does not register in his public persona. It is fundamentally dishonest to claim one's conscience is opposed to abortion and then support abortion as public policy".

The archbishop said that,"If a Catholic politician in this archdiocese is reported to me as being publicly supportive of abortion (or not supportive of other human life issues) then I will visit with that person and explain the position of the Church. Individual pastors should be willing to do the same. Public dissent against Church teaching is a serious matter for Catholics and a serious matter for the one who dissents...."

"I regret that John Kerry insists on giving public support to the abortion industry that promotes a culture of death in this country", the archbishop wrote. "He needs to be challenged by Catholics everywhere in this country. Because of the scandal his position is causing for the Church, he should refrain from receiving the Eucharist in public liturgies."

Click title above to go to Archbishop Curtiss's column dated May 7, 2004 on Omaha web site.


On May 6, Archbishop John Vlazny, of Portland, Oregon published "Public Dissenters Should Themselves Refrain from Communion" in his diocesan paper, The Catholic Sentinel. He explained that receiving the Church's sacraments, including Holy Communion, "is a sign that a person not only seeks union with God, but also desires to live in communion with the Church". Thus,

"Such communion is clearly violated when one publicly opposes serious Church teaching. Reception of Holy Communion by such public dissenters betrays a blatant disregard for the serious meaning and purpose of the reception of the Eucharist.

"We pastors, as teachers of the faith, must make this matter clear. Catholics who are not in communion with the Church (for example, divorced and remarried Catholics who have not received annulments from previous Catholic marriages) must similarly refrain from receiving the Eucharist. All Catholics in the state of mortal sin who are unrepentant also should refrain from the reception of the Eucharist. This does not mean that these people should refrain from a life of prayer, even in the company of the rest of the Church community. But the prayer of the Church will be for their conversion, not for the acceptance of their dissent.

"As a pastor, I find it difficult to make a public judgment that any person is "unfit" or "unworthy" for the reception of the sacrament. But I know I can make that judgment about myself and I believe every person can do the same. As a teacher, on the other hand, I can clearly state that, when individuals choose not to be in communion with the Church by their public dissent in serious matters, they should refrain from the reception of Holy Communion.

"This will be a matter of scrutiny in Catholic communities across the nation during this election year and beyond. I recognize that there is serious disagreement among Catholics about the pro-choice positions of some Catholic politicians. Should Catholics who choose to vote for pro-choice politicians refrain from reception of the Holy Communion? If they vote for them precisely because they are pro-choice, I believe they too should refrain from the reception of Holy Communion because they are not in communion with the Church on a serious matter. But if they are voting for that particular politician because, in their judgment, other candidates fail significantly in some matters of great importance, for example, war and peace, human rights and economic justice, then there is no evident stance of opposition to Church teaching and reception of Holy Communion seems both appropriate and beneficial.

"Catholics who do support pro-choice politicians still have serious responsibilities with regard to their stance on this matter. They must make it very clear to these politicians and governmental leaders that their support is in no way based on the pro-choice advocacy of these political leaders. ..."

To read Archbishop Vlazny's complete statement, click title above (Link Broken).


On May 7, Cincinnatti Archbishop Daniel Pilarczyk said there is a "justice issue" that bishops have to consider in deciding about giving the Eucharist to Catholic politicians who are open advocates of abortion and oppose other crucial moral teachings of the Church. The archbishop make these comments in an interview by National Catholic Reporter's John Allen, posted on the NCR web site May 11. (Mr. Allen describes Archbishop Pilarczyk as an influential "moderate". The NCR is known for challenging Church teaching.)

The archbishop, former president of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops,was in Rome for his ad limina visit with the Pope. In the interview Archbishop Pilarczyk also commented on the controversy over the sex-abuse scandal, though the fact that the archbishop had elected contempt-of-court rather than to turn over archdiocesan records on abusive priests was not mentioned.

Following are brief excerpts from the NCR's Interview with Archbishop Daniel Pilarczyk (Click title to access complete interview on NCR web site):

Mr. Allen: One curial official did enter it a couple of weeks ago, Cardinal Francis Arinze. In response to my question about Kerry, he said it's for the American bishops to interpret, but in response to a more general question he said pro-abortion Catholic politicians should not be given the Eucharist. What was your reaction?

Abp. Pilarczyk: I guess I wasn't really ecstatic about it. Then when I got here, I found out that this second question came almost on his way out, over his shoulder as he left the room. Now, you were there and I wasn't

Mr. Allen: That's not completely accurate, though it did come towards the end of a press conference largely on a different subject.

Abp. Pilarczyk: Often American media are very naïve about the Holy See. 'The Vatican said ' I guess I would say this: It is my understanding and my impression that Cardinal Arinze did not intend to solve an extremely complex theological and sacramental question with a one-liner at the end of a press conference.
...

Mr. Allen: Granted the complexities involved, the practical reality is that you're going to have candidates crossing the state over the next few months. What do you do?

Abp: Pilarczyk: Well, the first thing I'm going to do is to wait to see what Cardinal McCarrick's committee comes up with. Secondly, it seems to me we need to be very cautious about denying people the sacraments on the basis of what they say they believe, especially when those are political beliefs. So Kerry believes abortion is a good thing for our society, let's say. Do you refuse him communion on the basis of his opinions? What about people who don't like Humanae Vitae? What about people who don't like the church's teaching on the death penalty, or on homosexual marriages? Are we going to refuse them?

Mr. Allen: There's a swath of Catholic opinion that would say yes to that question.

Abp. Pilarczyk: I know there is. But there's also a justice issue here. It seems to me that the last thing any church, or any representative or agent of the church wants to do, is to deny the sacraments to anybody unjustly. It seems to me at this point that it makes a lot more sense to presume people's good will, presume erroneous conscience or perplexed conscience and give them Communion, rather than say, 'I think you think such-and-such.' ...

On May 13, Cardinal Roger Mahony stated his view that no Catholics should be denied Communion for their beliefs on abortion in an interview in Rome by John Allen of the National Catholic Reporter, in which the cardinal also responded to questions about the sex-abuse scandal in the United States. Concerning the Catholic politicians and Communion issue, the cardinal said that only after a formal excommunication procedure could someone be denied Communion.

Mr. Allen: You had a private meeting recently with Sen. John Kerry. I know the bishops are waiting for the McCarrick Commission to report, but in the meantime, what do you do if Kerry comes to Los Angeles and wants to take communion?

Cardinal Mahony: This is a bigger issue than just Sen. Kerry and right now, because there's a presidential election. Since Roe v. Wade, there have been a lot of Catholic politicians doing and saying things that would not be in line with the church's teaching. Over that period of time, there was very little action taken. I personally believe, as church law sets out, that sanctions are an absolute last resort, particularly penal sanctions of depriving people of the sacraments. In fact, canonically, somebody has to be publicly found guilty of something that merits excommunication, or interdict, or some public crime.

Mr Allen: You mean there ought to be a judicial process?

Cardinal Mahony: That's right. There has to be some process that leads to formal guilt, that then leads to sanctions. Obviously we don't have that situation. Moreover, in Evangelium Vitae, our Holy Father expressed many areas of concern with life issues, not just this one. In fact, he hit the death penalty as hard as many of the others. You have Catholic politicians who may be in favor of one but not the other. They're following their own different lights on these issues. With respect to Holy Communion, it is up to the communicant to decide whether they are in a state of grace and worthy to receive the Eucharist. Each one of us makes that decision. The church never has the minister of communion make that decision, except in that rare case of public sinners who have been so found guilty. I'm puzzled by people rattling sanctions at the moment. That has not been our tradition over the years.

Mr. Allen: Bottom line: You are not prepared to withhold communion from Sen. Kerry or anyone else?

Cardinal Mahony: Or anyone else, exactly. Our priests know that. This has come up before, and I've said this is not our role. I also believe we will do far better in changing hearts and minds to sit down with our Catholics who are running for office. I found out that many of our Catholics simply don't know what the church teaches, and why, on a lot of issues, and therefore are saying things that they think are okay. They simply don't know, because we haven't taken the effort to meet with them informally and to dialogue. I think we'd find a lot more success.

To a question about whether a politician could be pro-life and also not oppose banning of abortion, Cardinal Mahony responded, affirmatively:

"The value of the church's tradition, scripture, teaching, etc., is to help illuminate the contemporary social issues, to look at them through the lens of a faith tradition that has a moral and ethical basis. That's what I think is at the heart of what we should be doing, rather than getting involved in questions of sanctions."

(To read entire interview with Cardinal Mahony, go to NCR online: Broken Link )

Cardinal Theodore McCarrick - "If the world loves you"

In his May 13 column in the Catholic Standard, "If the world loves you", Washington's Cardinal McCarrick wrote, ", I have had a consistent position on the obligations of every member of our Catholic family to follow the teaching of the Church on the gravely important issues of our time", but, he said,

The disagreement that I have with the folks who are annoyed at me is that I disagree that in this instance we should use denial of the Eucharist as a public sanction. As a priest and bishop, I do not favor a confrontation at the altar rail with the Sacred Body of the Lord Jesus in my hand. There are apparently those who would welcome such a conflict, for good reasons, I am sure, or for political ones, but I would not.

Though the cardinal did not explain what he meant by "in this instance", presumably he refers to the fact that several prominent Catholic politicians are publicly opposing fundamental Church teachings but continue to receive Communion -- such as Senator John Kerry, the likely candidate for president from the Democratic party, a Catholic who has vigorously and consistently advocated abortion "rights".

Cardinal McCarrick suggested that relaxing certain rules concerning Communion has led to mistakes,

I realize that in modern times, perhaps even more since the '60's, some Catholics have fallen into a new and false understanding of the Blessed Sacrament, one that does not recognize the awesome nature of the Eucharist and our need for great respect in the way we approach it. In the days when we had to fast from all food and drink from the previous midnight in order to receive Holy Communion, our sense of the wonder of the Eucharist was enhanced. When the Church, in order to encourage us to partake of the sacrament, relaxed those rules, some people may have incorrectly concluded that the rule about being in the state of grace was relaxed as well. Maybe the presence of this controversy is itself a special grace to give us a chance to clarify what our personal dispositions must be in order to receive the Eucharist worthily.

He said that the commandment to "love God and neighbor" means that "This would exclude from Communion anyone who would hate his neighbor or harm his neighbor, in particular when that neighbor is a little unborn baby in its mother's womb".

Cardinal McCarrick said he would ask the Catholic Standard to publish the rule about worthy reception of Communion that "appears in the 'missallettes'", that one should not be conscious of serious sin. "Therefore", Cardinal McCarrick said, "each one of us must not presume to approach Holy Communion if we are not, in our informed conscience, already with the Lord and in communion with the teachings of His Church".

Click title above to go to Cardinal McCarrick's May 13, 2004, column on the Catholic Standard web site -- link broken.

-----------

Letter from 48 Democratic Congressmen to Cardinal McCarrick as task force chairman, dated May 10, 2004.
The Congressmen state that "We also do not believe that it is the obligation of legislators to prohibit all conduct which we may, as a matter of personal morality, believe is wrong"; but also that "For any of us to be singled out by any bishop by the refusal of communion or other public criticism because we vote in what we believe are the requirements of the United States Constitution and laws of our country, which we are sworn to uphold. is deeply hurtful."
(Click title to go to complete TEXT of the letter on this site, and a link to a PDF file of letter.)

Bishop Robert J. McManus - "Pastoral Note of Clarification" - May 21, 2004

On May 21, Bishop Robert McManus, installed as bishop of Worcester on May 14, published a "pastoral clarification" in response to a report in the Sunday Telegram of May 16, that David J. Rushford, Worcester City Clerk, believes that "allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry is in line with Catholic teaching which emphasizes 'inclusivity, universality, and respect for the dignity of each individual."

"As chief teacher of faith and morals in the Diocese of Worcester, it is incumbent upon me to point out that Mr. Rushford's opinion, as stated, is morally incorrect and pastorally misleading", Bishop McManus wrote in the Catholic Free Press, May 21, 2004 edition. Following are quotes:

Same-sex unions are clear and serious violations of the law of God and moral teaching of the Roman Catholic Church. In no way can they be "in line with Catholic teaching," as Mr. Rushford mistakenly thinks. Same-sex unions contradict the moral wisdom of natural human reason and the cultural patrimony of the thousands of years of civilization. The judicial decision of a court can never make morally right what is by nature morally wrong.

The teaching of the Catholic Church on the moral unacceptability of same-sex unions is not an exercise of unjust discrimination against people with a homosexual orientation. The Catholic Church recognizes and embraces people with homosexual orientations as brothers and sisters in the human family. In the case of baptized Christians, they are, indeed, brothers and sisters in Christ. Yet this acceptance of our brothers and sisters with homosexual orientations cannot morally justify a situation like same-sex unions that are morally flawed.

Moreover, it must be pointed out that Catholics, especially public officials, who willingly and with approval facilitate the legal sanctioning of same-sex unions are involving themselves in cooperation with evil. Such cooperation is not free from serious moral and spiritual harm.

(Click title above to go to the original on Catholic Free Press web site. -- Broken link)

Archbishop Michael Sheehan - Politicians, Voters and Withholding Communion

In a press release reproduced in its entirety below, Santa Fe Archbishop Michael Sheehan said that there are "other issues" besides the right to life to be considered, and cautioned against "sanctions", such as denying Communion to a pro-abortion Catholic politician.

ALBUQUERQUE- Friday, May 21, 2004- IMMEDIATE RELEASE

The Church teaches that abortion is morally wrong as it takes innocent human life. The most basic human right is the right to life. Abortion is never allowed. The 2002 Roman Document on the participation of Roman Catholics in political life says that Catholic politicians have a grave and clear obligation to oppose any law that attacks human life.

The Document, however, is silent on sanctions such as the denial of Communion to pro-abortion Catholic politicians or those who would vote for them. It is left to their consciences to decide whether or not to approach Holy Communion. Catholics must examine their conscience on a variety of moral issues before receiving Jesus Christ in the Eucharist. The Church must be careful to keep the reception of Holy Communion separate from politics.

The Church will continue to teach about the immorality of abortion. But there are other issues of public policy that must also be considered in the political process. The United States Bishops' statement, Faithful Citizenship calls Catholics to political responsibility. We speak to the issues but do not endorse particular candidates or parties.

Go to original:
http://www.archdiocesesantafe.org/Offices/Communications/PressReleases/04.05.24.Withholding.html - Broken Link

Bishop Thomas Olmsted Responds to Arizona Republic Article Printed May 21, 2004

On May 21, 2004, the Arizona Republic published a story, "Bishops won't link politics, Communion", which said that both Bishop Gerald Kicanas, of Tucson, and Bishop Thomas Olmsted of Phoenix were opposed to denying Communion to Catholics who are actively pro-abortion.

On May 24, Bishop Olmsted issued a clarification, which follows.
(Clink title for Statement originally on the diocese website and now on Priest for Life web site. See above for link to Bishop Olmsted's March 18 column on being "Catholic...but")
--------------

The headline in the Arizona Republic (5/21/04), "Bishops won't link politics, Communion", misrepresents my position. Abortion is the killing of a completely innocent life and thus bad news for both unborn children and their mothers. It is a horrible wrong. It is intrinsically evil. We have a serious obligation to protect human life, and especially the most innocent and vulnerable. Whoever fails to do this, especially when they are able to do so, commit serious sins of omission. They jeopardize their own spiritual wellbeing and they are a source of scandal for others. Should they be Catholics, they should not receive Holy Communion.

No one who is conscious of having committed a serious sin should receive Holy Communion. For the Eucharist is the very Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, our most precious gift in the Church. And St. Paul warns us (I Cor 11:27-29): "Whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself."

I call upon all Catholics, especially those in public life, to examine their consciences, and to refrain from receiving Holy Communion if they are unambiguously pro-abortion. As a bishop, I shall continue to pray for an end to abortion and other sins against life; I shall stand up for the life and dignity of every human person and I urge all people of good will to do the same. Should some Catholic politicians who are presently pro-abortion obstinately persist in this contradiction to our faith, this becomes a source of scandal and measures beyond those of moral persuasion would be needed. As God tells us in the Book of Leviticus (19:16), "You shall not stand by idly when your neighbor's life is at stake."

Bishop Donald Wuerl - Faith, Personal Conviction and Political Life

On May 25, Pittsburgh Bishop Donald Wuerl presented the annual St. Thomas More Society Loebig Lecture, on the impact of faith on political action. Bishop Wuerl emphasized that it is important that legislation be in line with the moral law, and stressed that some issues are more important than others. He explained the purpose of the Holy See's 2002 Doctrinal Note:

"Its purpose is to help everyone but particularly Catholic politicians understand the relationship between abortion itself and the legislative support of it. The Doctrinal Note reminds us that it is wrong not only to perform an abortion but also to support legislation that enables an abortion. While the Vatican document does not seem to ascribe to both the procuring and performing of an abortion and the voting for abortion legislation the same level of moral turpitude, it does state that the legislator has a 'clear and grave obligation to oppose such legislation.'"

Besides teaching consistently what the Church teaches about moral law, what further action are bishops to take, Bishop Wuerl asks.

"In considering sanctions, which has always been the last response of the Church, other very serious questions arise. Even when we recognize the special level of moral gravity attached to the taking of innocent human life, once we start down the road of disciplinary action where does it lead? Should the same actions be taken against those politicians who support or do not oppose legislation undermining other fundamental human values?...

"Should people, any and all persons, who are not living in conformity with the Church's moral teaching and/or who reject it come forward to receive Communion?

Bishop Wuerl does not believe that not receiving Communion "necessarily follows" from rejection of Church teaching. He explains:

"The statement of the Doctrinal Note that one has a 'clear and grave obligation' to vote against abortion legislation is not a declaration of or confirmation that such a person voting in this manner is in personal grave sin. The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that "for a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: 'mortal sin' is sin whose object is grave sin and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent' (CCC 1859).

"Given the long standing practice of not making a public judgment about the state of the soul of those who present themselves for Holy Communion, it does not seem that it is sufficiently clear that in the matter of voting for legislation that supports abortion such a judgment necessarily follows. The pastoral tradition of the Church places the responsibility of such a judgment first on those presenting themselves for Holy Communion."

Rather than attempting to judge "grave sin" by the person's active support of abortion, then, bishops should make the Church's teaching clearer, perhaps have private conversations with pro-abortion politicians who are not convinced that abortion is sinful. Bishop Wuerl concludes:

"All of us have an obligation to be informed on how critical the life-death issue of abortion is, and how profoundly and intrinsically evil is the destruction of unborn human life. Our political actions, out of which come the laws of this country, must be based on the natural moral law and the most basic of all human rights - the right to life."

(Click title above to go to the bishop's complete address on the Pittsburgh diocesan web site. -- broken link)

See also Catholic News Service news brief May 27 (on CNS site) - Bishop says denying Eucharist not part of church's pastoral tradition (broken link)

Archbishop Charles Chaput - It's a Matter of Honesty: to Receive Communion we need to be in Communion

On May 26, Denver Archbishop Charles' Chaput published a statement in the Catholic Register, subtitled "If we claim to be Catholic, we need to act like it -- all the way, all the time, without excuses". (See also Archbishop Chaput's April 14 column above.)

"We're at a time for the Church in our country when some Catholics - too many - are discovering that they've gradually become non-Catholics who happen to go to Mass. That's sad and difficult, and a judgment on a generation of Catholic leadership. But it may be exactly the moment of truth the Church needs."

(Click title above for complete statement on this site)

For a list of Archbishop Chaput's Faith and Public Life writings go to http://www.archden.org/index.cfm/ID/384

Cardinal Arinze Explains Reasons for Instruction on Eucharist "The Greatest Treasure the Church Has"

On May 26, Rome-based Zenit news agency published an interview with Cardinal Francis Arinze, prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship, who responded to questions on the Instruction, Redemptionis Sacramentum. An excerpt appears below. (Click title above to go to complete interview on Zenit's web site (broken link). The Instruction is on Adoremus web site.)

Q: In the United States, but also in Europe, a great debate erupted over the consistency of Catholic politicians. There are several cases in which politicians declare themselves Catholics and then vote on laws and make statements in clear contrast with Church teachings, as is obvious in the case of the support of laws that facilitate abortion, euthanasia, homosexual marriages, and the spread of anti-life contraceptive schemes. Access by these public personages to the Eucharist creates scandal among the faithful. Does the instruction address this problem? What are the indications furnished on this matter by the dicastery over which you preside?

CARDINAL ARINZE: Moral theology and canon law explain which Catholics may and which may not receive holy Communion.
The instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum mentions some of these details in paragraphs 81 and 82 [see Vatican section], but does not examine the question you pose in a direct way. It is for the bishops in each diocese and country to explain to their people this discipline and the doctrine that gives origin to it.

Q: More than on the errors, Redemptionis Sacramentum emphasizes the central importance of the Eucharist. How much does the Eucharist count in the life of the Church and of the Christian community?

CARDINAL ARINZE: The Eucharistic sacrifice is "the fount and apex of the whole Christian life." The Eucharist is at the center of the life of the Church. The holy Eucharist is the greatest treasure that the Church has on earth: It is Christ himself.
Is it any wonder if the Church is careful to protect and guard the celebration of this august mystery and to promote the worship of it?

Bishop Samuel Aquila - Interview by National Catholic Register

In the May 23-29, 2004, National Catholic Register, an interview with Bishop Sam Aquila by Tim Drake gave the Fargo bishop an opportunity to revisit his April 25 homily (see above). Following is an excerpt from the interview:
-----

Q: Do you support the idea of sanctions, such as the denial of Communion, for pro-abortion Catholic politicians?

Bishop Aquila: I believe, in terms of Catholics who support the right of abortion, that they really should not be receiving holy Communion. The Eucharist is a sign of our unity with Jesus Christ and with the Church and the Church's teachings.

The separation, especially on such an essential issue of the faith as the dignity of human life as clearly presented in The Gospel of Life, is one of those foundational principles that one cannot deny and still be in communion with Christ and the Church.

If a lay Catholic is truly informed and still holds that position publicly and then receives holy Communion, he or she is causing scandal to other Catholics and therefore should be denied holy Communion.

Q: Is abortion such a social evil that no politician can be permitted to call himself a Catholic and support the right to choose it?

Bishop Aquila: Yes, that is the definitive and consistent teaching of the Church thoroughly explained in Evangelium Vitae.

Q: Do you think the confusion surrounding this issue stems in part from a misunderstanding of what the Eucharist is?

Bishop Aquila: There is a misunderstanding about the meaning of receiving the Eucharist. When one receives holy Communion, one is entering into communion with Jesus Christ, who is truly present in the Eucharist, and one is also in communion with the Church and is identifying himself as being in union with the one holy, apostolic Catholic Church and with the Holy Father and bishops. ...

(Click title above to go to complete version on the Catholic.net web site. link broken.)

Bishop John Kinney - "Holy Communion Must Not Be Used As A Weapon"

St. Cloud Bishop John Kinney said he disagrees with bishops who would deny Communion to pro-abortion politicians or those who vote for them in a statement of May 27, 2004, published on his diocesan web site. Bishop Kinney said, in part,

I want you to know that I refuse to allow the Eucharistic liturgy to become politicized. What I mean is that I will not allow Holy Communion to be used as a weapon in ongoing political and ideological battles. For this reason, it is not my intention to reject anyone who comes forward in a respectful manner to receive the Body and Blood of Christ.

At the same time, I uphold Church law which states that a Catholic who is conscious of grave sin may not receive Communion without previous sacramental confession, unless there is no opportunity to confess. The Church recognizes that it is for each individual to examine his or her own conscience in this regard, and I assume that those who come forward to receive the Body and Blood of Christ have done so and honestly believe they are not in a state of grave sin.

I want to emphasize that no human is capable of judging someone else's relationship with God. While I admire efforts to preserve the integrity of Holy Communion, I caution against allowing the Communion procession to become an occasion for pointing out the supposed sins of others.

Bishop Kinney did not refer, in his statement, to Canon 915 or other Church laws that apply to public dissent from Church teachings, or the reason why abortion is in a separate category from many other issues. He said he is thankful that "the task force will not conclude its work until after the general election in November and the synod [on the Eucharist] does not convene until 2005, thereby avoiding accusations of political partisanship."

Click title above to go to complete statement on the St. Cloud diocesan web site (broken link).

Anti-Christian Group asks IRS to investigate Colorado Springs diocese

On May 29, The Denver Post reported that Americans United for Separation of Church and State has complained the Internal Revenue Service that Bishop Michael Sheridan's Pastoral Letter On the Duties of Catholic Politicians and Voters violates federal tax law that forbids tax-exempt status to religious institutions that engage in partisan politicking.

In a letter to the IRS, the militant organization stated that Bishop Sheridan's letter "is little more than a thinly veiled effort to steer voters toward candidates like President George W. Bush and other Republicans who agree with the church on certain issues, mainly abortion.

The Post story reports that Donald Alexander, a former IRS commissioner, said the IRS has been reluctant to wade into religion, and that Bishop Sheridan would likely be safe as long as he doesn't name candidates. "He's getting close to the line," Alexander said. "Has he stepped over the line? Probably not."

Leaving aside that the AUSCS complaint assumes that the Democratic Party is rigidly pro-abortion, it is truly amazing that a bishop who calls on Catholics to adhere to essential Catholic teaching on the value of human life could be considered "close to the line" of violating federal law.

(Click title at top to access story on The Denver Post web site-- broken link.)

A statement sent to Catholic News Service on May 27 by a Colorado Springs diocesan attorney said that the militant AUSCS group "has distorted both the teaching and the role of [Bishop Sheridan]." The group "does not seem to understand that a Catholic bishop is called upon to preach the Gospel and instruct the faithful regarding moral issues," said the statement from attorney L. Martin Nussbaum. (Click highlighted text to go to CNS News Briefs for May 28, 2004- broken link)

Cardinal Keeler - Keep politics out of Communion - It's between a Catholic and his conscience

On May 28, the Baltimore Sun reported that Cardinal William H. Keeler opposes some bishops who would deny Communion to Catholic politicians who support abortion "rights". According to the story, the Baltimore cardinal said in an interview that it was not the business of bishops to choose who receives Communion. The Sun quoted him as having said in an interview that week:

"Our position is ... Catholics have a responsibility to examine their own conscience and see if they are in a state that is appropriate for the reception of the sacrament. We don't need bishops to get into the act."

"We have said again and again as bishops, we are not in partisan politics," Keeler said. "We dare not be pulled into a dispute between one party and another."

 

Note: Cardinal Keeler was elected chairman of the USCCB Pro-Life Activities Committee at the in November, 2003, meeting of the US bishops' conference. (Archbishop Charles Chaput had been serving as chairman after Philadelphia Cardinal Anthony Bevilacqua retired in August 2003. )

Meanwhile, in Africa: Kenyans should not elect abortion supporters, say bishops

In a May 30 homily, Archbishop Raphael Ndingi Mwana'a Nzeki of Nairobi, Kenya said that the bishops will appeal to Catholics to vote against political candidates who support abortion, reported the Catholic News Service on June 2 (broken link).

"In the next general election, we are going to appeal to our people not to vote in anybody who supports abortion," the archbishop said. His homily followed the recent discovery of several garbage bags filled with fetuses.

On May 31, the Kenyan bishops' conference announced would hold a Mass and burial June 3 for the 15 fetuses stuffed in garbage bags. The bags, along with medical records and discarded medical supplies, were found May 26 on the edge of a road next to the Nairobi River. Two days after the discovery, the bishops issued a statement condemning abortion.

 June 2004

Statement by Bishop Raymundo J. Peña
June 2004

"...The Bishops of 13 Texas dioceses have decided in our prudential judgment that we will not direct our parishes and institutions to deny Holy Communion to politicians who support litigation that favors abortion. However, we ask Catholic politicians to examine their consciences in the light of the clear and certain teaching of the Church, which has always condemned abortion as the killing of innocent human life, and to reflect on their grave moral obligation to do whatever they can to promote legal protection of human life from conception to natural death. To fail to protect the lives of the innocent and defenseless members of the human race is to sin against justice. This is not only a religious belief but the common good of society requires that human life be defended and have legal protection."

Click link for the complete statement.
http://www.cdob.org/pressrelease/011603-political-life.htm (broken link)

Bishop Robert Baker - Reflections on Communion, politicians June 2004

In his column following the USCCB meeting in June, Charleston Bishop Robert Baker summarized the conclusion of the bishops' discussion, that "by failing to correct morally defective laws, government officials have sinned against the common good.... Justice is undermined; the common good is not fostered; and the legal systm is morally corrupted."

Bishop Baker said that the Catholic teaching that human life must be legally protected from the moment of conception until natural death "needs to be disseminated in all our parishes, educational, health care and human service ministries -- and especially [to] Catholic public officials."

Click title above to go to Bishop Baker's complete statement on the Charleston web site (link broken).

NOTE: See his joint statement dated August 4, with Atlanta Archbishop Donoghue and Charlotte Bishop Jurgis.



Bishop Michael Sheridan - Column - June 2004 Herald

"The reactions to my recent [May 1] pastoral letter on the duties of Catholic politicians and voters were overwhelming in many more ways than one. I was edified by the many messages of support for what I wrote. I was distressed by those who misread and misrepresented what I wrote. I was deeply saddened by those who said that they understood very well what the Church teaches, but had chosen to disregard it".

Click highlighted title above to go to complete column on this site.


Denial of Eucharist a 'slippery slope,' Cardinal McCarrick tells journalists
On June 1, 2004 Catholic News Service reported that, Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick of Washington, told a group of Catholic journalists that denying Communion to dissenting politicians is a "slippery slope." At a Theology on Tap session held May 27, in conjunction with the Catholic Press Association convention in Washington, Cardinal McCarrick told about 40 Catholic journalists,"When you begin to do that [denying the Eucharist to politicians who take positions opposed to Church teaching, then to Catholics who vote for those politicians] you go on a slippery slope".

"I'm not going to do it. I'm not going to ask my priests to do it", Cardinal McCarrick said, and repeated the quip in his May 13 column in the Catholic Standard (see above): "We should have no confrontation at the altar. I'm not going to have a fight with someone holding the sacred body and blood (of Christ) in my hand", he said.

(Click highlighted title to go to the Catholic News Service report.- Broken link)

Bishop Kicanas reports on CDF meeting on June 2.

Tucson Bishop Gerald Kicanas has posted a "diary" of his ad limina visit on the diocesan web site. Following is an excerpt from his June 2 entry, about meeting with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith that is referenced in a June 6 New York Times story on bishops and pro-abortion politicians. In a story in the Arizona Republic, Bishop Kicanas reportedly said that Cardinal Ratzinger asked to meet with the "task force".

Bishop Kicanas's diaries are found at http://www.diocesetucson.org/adlimina.html -- broken links
---------

"Bishop Moreno and I will join the group from the Diocese this evening for dinner. I look forward to hearing their thoughts and feelings about the audience with Pope John Paul II.

"Later today we met with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. We discussed the identity of Catholic Hospitals and I shared with Cardinal Ratzinger my appreciation for the presence of three Catholic Hospitals in our Diocese, two in Tucson and one in Nogales. Their care especially of the poor is important.

"We also discussed Catholic politicians and how to respond to those who obstinately resist Catholic teaching. The Congregation indicated that their 2002 document did not suggest refusing Communion to such politicians. That was not its intent. The purpose of that document, on the participation of Catholics in political life, was meant to make clear that life issues are not secterian concerns only for Catholics but flow out of the natural law and are the foundation of law for all societies.

"There was an encouragment for thorough study and reflection on this issue leading to a more unified voice among the bishops. The Congregation is aware that Cardinal McCarrick chairs a committee of the Bishops' Conference that is presently working on the issue.

"We discussed the sexual abuse crisis. The Congregation understands the seriousness of the situation and wants to assist the bishops in restoring trust. This Congregation is responsible to respond canonically to priests accused of misconduct. They assured me that they are progressing with their review of the Diocese of Tucson cases.

"Again the conversations in the Congregations were friendly, pertinent and very helpful. These are exciting and challenging times for the Church. It is encouraging to know the thoroughness by which the Congregations treats our concerns."

Most Rev. Gerald F. Kicanas


Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio

Put Out Into the Deep
Bishop DiMarzio's weekly column

The Tablet June 5, 2004

The Catholic Politicians Conscience

My dear brothers and sisters in Christ,

What do the reception of Holy Communion and the voting record of elected politicians have to do with one another? Nothing, some would argue, but unfortunately the separation of conscience and society is not the same as the separation of Church and state, which is a founding principle of our democracy.

The general concept of communion in our theology refers to the union of people of faith with the Father through Jesus Christ and in the Spirit. Our communion with God is modeled on the union of the Divine Persons in the Trinity, and comes about through the hearing of the Word of God and the reception of the sacraments, especially the Holy Eucharist.

In his recent encyclical on the Eucharist, our Holy Father, Pope John Paul II, makes it clear:

"The celebration of the Eucharist…cannot be a starting point for communion. It presupposes that communion already exists, a communion which it seeks to bring to perfection."1

But how can we know that we are in communion with God and His Church, which celebrates the Eucharist and offers the Body and Blood of Christ to the faithful? The Church has always taught that the inviolate human conscience, properly formed, ultimately determines the subjective morality of one's actions. Conscience can be likened to the warning lights on the dashboard of a car. Some lights clearly indicate what is wrong; others just give a general signal of danger. Many times a mechanic must be consulted to determine what is wrong with the car if the signal does not correctly reveal what is wrong. Unfortunately, some people never look at the dashboard or consult a mechanic and consequently ruin their cars. It is the same with the human conscience. Individuals sometimes need help in knowing right from wrong, so that their conscience will or can be a proper moral compass. Some people say, "My conscience is clear so I can do what I see fit." Without consultation with the moral teaching of the Church they can be wrong.

How can we ensure that our conscience is well formed? The formation of an informed Christian conscience begins with a vibrant faith and prayer life that helps to open our mind to the light of Christ's Truth. We need to guard against all pride and egoism, and be receptive to both the Word of God and the teachings of the Church. We are also helped to form our consciences correctly by the gifts of the Holy Spirit, given to us in Baptism and Confirmation, by the Christian witness of our neighbors and friends and the teaching authority of the Church and its bishops. Finally, we can never forget that the formation of our conscience is a lifetime process that demands constant prayer and reflection.

A unique issue of morality and conscience today is the support for, "or " the supposed "right" to, an abortion, and a person's involvement in the act of an abortion in our society. The teaching of the Church from its earliest days has clearly affirmed the right to life for the unborn child. Abortion is not just another moral issue; it is the most important one because the right to life is the first right of the human person. Other human rights include a right to an education, protection of minors, an economy at the service of the human person and the common good, as well as peace among nations.

These rights are not "political issues" but rather fundamental, inalienable and ethical demands flowing from the dignity of the person.2 But to go against the first and most important of these rights - the right to life - is to directly undermine the defining truth of the United States as a democracy. "The democratic structures on which the modern state is based would be quite fragile were its foundation not the centrality of the human person. It is respect for the human person that makes democratic participation possible."3

There are many ethical and moral issues confronting our society today, such as euthanasia, fetal stem-cell research, human cloning and homosexual marriage, which some relegate to personal choice in a pluralistic society. As Catholics, however, we cannot fall prey to cultural relativism or ethical pluralism, since we have a deposit of faith and morality to guide our consciences.

This is an election year, and not for the first time, the issue of Catholic politicians and their ethical responsibilities has become a political football. Beginning in 1960 with John F. Kennedy, continuing with Governor Mario Cuomo and Congresswoman Geraldine Ferraro, and now in 2004 with Senator John Kerry, we see the tremendous burden which Catholics who are politicians and those who vote for them must bear. All politicians and voters must be accountable to their properly formed consciences. We as Catholics are called to heroism and sacrifice in our society that needs witnesses to the ethical truths of humanity.

What can we do? We should discern the truth and act together. We should vote for those who support the fundamental right to life in our society. We should support those who reflect our ethical principles as others in our society do, such as ethically based political action committees.

Should Bishops excommunicate and/or instruct priests and ministers of Holy Communion to deny the Eucharist to these Catholic politicians who do not adhere to Catholic moral principles?

This would entail, according to canon law, a warning and some type of process in order to insure that the person being barred from Communion understands carefully what the consequences are of his or her persisting obstinately in a gravely sinful act, such as supporting so-called "abortion rights." A bishop could undertake such a process only for politicians who were members of his particular diocese. In fact, the same standards applied to politicians would also apply to all baptized Catholics.

There are innumerable practical difficulties even if this were to be done. For example, how can we instruct all priests and ministers of Holy Communion to deny the Eucharist to Catholic politicians whom they may not even recognize? I would hope that this type of process would be unnecessary because in many ways it would be misunderstood. In a certain sense it would make victims of the politicians. It would seem that Church authority in this case would not be at the service of conscience, but rather would be seeking to dictate political outcomes. It might even insure the election of those who we feel are acting against Catholic moral principles by energizing voters who do not accept what the Church believes.

There is another way to view this issue. Perhaps a better question is, "Should Catholic politicians who are not in communion with the moral teaching of the Church approach the Eucharist?" This question can only be answered by their individually well-formed conscience, enlightened by Church teaching. It is my hope that this instruction will help form the consciences of all men and women of good will who seek moral and ethical truth. And, as a pastor, I am open to discussing the issue with any politician living in our Diocese.

The recent letter by Catholic members of Congress to Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, Archbishop of Washington, which was reported in last week's Tablet and characterized as a complaint against sanctions, is a perfect example of ill-formed consciences and a misunderstanding of basic ethical and moral principles. The danger of scandal to the faithful by Catholic politicians who obstinately refuse to understand and accept Catholic ethical and moral teaching is enormous and is being witnessed in our present day.

Putting out into the deep of ethical judgment and conscience formation is a very complicated and necessary journey these days.

1 John Paul II, Ecclesia de Eucharistia, April 17, 2003.

2 Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, "Doctrinal Note on some questions regarding the participation of Catholics in political life," January 16, 2003.

3 Ibid.

Source: http://www.dioceseofbrooklyn.org/dimarzio/060504.html (broken link)

Bishop William Skylstad - "Engaging the Culture"

In his June 10 column in the Spokane diocesan newspaper, the Inland Register, Bishop William Skylstad stated that to deny Holy Communion to openly pro-abortion politicians is "taking God's great gift to our Church (Communion) and using it as a weapon of divisiveness and destruction". The bishop believes only dialogue and persuasion can be employed, and he sharply criticizes bishops who, he says, "use the Eucharist as a weapon":

"Some bishops have stated that they will deny Eucharist to Catholic politicians who have supported abortion legislation. Eucharist is God's gift to us, God's presence among us. It is a most precious part of our Catholic heritage. I strongly oppose using Eucharist as a weapon.

"I am not alone in this opinion. Similar views have been voiced by Bishop Wilton Gregory, the president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops; Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, Archbishop of Washington, D.C.; Bishop Donald Wuerl, Bishop of Pittsburgh and co-editor of The Teaching of Christ: A Catholic Catechism for Adults; and other bishops, both nationally and globally.

"As a bishop, I believe we are called to persuade, not to bludgeon. We have at our disposal so many opportunities and means for sharing the Gospel of Christ. We have neither need nor call to take God's gifts ­ God's plowshares, if you will ­ and turn them into weapons of divisiveness and anger.

Bishop Skylstad wrote, "we must be clear about our teaching, but civil as well. We can be firm without being unkind or cruel. We can be clear without being blunt. And we can persuade without drawing lines in the sand and daring others to cross. ... we must act with a sense of responsibility, a sense of compassion, with the love of God ­ not with a club."

Click title above to go to Spokane website for complete column -- broken link.


Bishop Joseph Fiorenza - "Catholics Politicians and Holy Communion"

June 11 - Bishop Joseph A. Fiorenza, of Galveston-Houston, in a pastoral message to his diocese said he wished that bishops had not made statements that dissenting Catholic politicians might be denied Communion. The bishop, former president of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops (1998-2001) said that denying the Eucharist to a publicly pro-abortion Catholic politician is a "sanction" that amounts to excommunication. (The bishop, apparently incompletely informed about Church law, made the same error as many have news paper reporters ) His pastoral message said, in part:

"As you know, a few bishops have made public statements in which they favor the denial of Holy Communion to Catholic politicians who are consistently in opposition to the teaching of the Church on the most fundamental human rights issue, the right to be born.  I really wish these bishops had waited for the report of the task force.  They didn't, and now many people are asking their own diocesan bishop to speak on the issue.
 
"Without going into detail on the pastoral and canonical issues involved in this issue, I believe that the tradition of the Church does not favor denying the Eucharist as a sanction for Catholic pro-abortion politicians.  In fact, I believe that such a sanction would be counter-productive and at the end of the day, would harm the pro-life movement.  However, besides this pragmatic reason, to deny Communion to someone is effectively to excommunicate that person.  An excommunication is a very serious sanction which must follow strict criteria before it can be imposed.       

"The tradition of the Church does not make a public judgement on those who wish to receive Holy Communion". 

Click title above for Bishop Fiorenza's complete statement on his diocesan web site - http://www.diocese-gal-hou.org/BishopPastorals/bishops_fiorenza_recent.asp -- broken link

Bishop Gregory Aymond - Interview, New Document re-emphasizes the Eucharist (June 11, 2004) broken link 6/28/2005

Catholic Spirit, the official publication of the Diocese of Austin interviewed Bishop Gregory Aymond, Bishop of Austin on the New Vatican Document, "Redemptionis Sacramentum". Below is an excerpt from the interviewrelating to Catholic politicians. (Click title above for the complete interview on the Diocese of Austin's web site)

Editor: When the document was issued, it created some controversy regarding Catholic politicians. Could you explain?

Bishop Aymond: The issue is whether or not politicians and others who do not believe in the teachings of the Catholic Church should be given communion by the priest, deacon or the extraordinary minister of holy Communion. I would like to pose another question.

Anyone who seriously disagrees with the teachings of the church has chosen for their own personal reasons not to be in communion with the church. The real question, it seems to me, is "should a person who is not in communion with the teachings of the church present himself or herself for holy Communion?" That question makes a great deal more sense than placing the bishop, priest or extraordinary minister of holy Communion in the position of refusing the Body and Blood of Christ to someone or having to make a public spectacle of the situation.

In such a situation, the minister of Communion should first speak privately to the person and exhort them not to present themselves because of scandal. If the person persists and protests, then it could be cause to give them a blessing instead of Communion. All of this needs to be done in a spirit of charity. As I have said before, conversations behind closed doors are ways in which we can help people change their heart and have a clearer understanding of what God expects of us as the followers of Jesus. God never gives up on anyone and we should do our best to help people change their heart.

Bishop Robert McManus Statement after the June Bishop Meeting (exact date unknown - after June 19th - broken link)

Bishop Robert McManus writes his introduction to the USCCB Document "Catholics in Politicial Life".
"The following statement of the bishops of the United States is yet another attempt for us bishops to teach with one, undivided voice that all human life is sacred and demands legal protection from the moment of conception until natural death. Any aw that legislates otherwise is morally flawed and must be overturned or at the very least, limited in its lethal effect to the greatest extent possible. Catholic public officials have a grave politicial and moral responsibility to work in the public realm toward achieving this moral end. Not to do so or, even worse, to promote vigorously the so-called "pro-choice position" is to involve themselves in grave sin and to weaken seriously their communion with the Roman Catholic Church.

Click title to go to the complete Statement on the Diocese of Worcester's website (broken link)


Archbishop Raymond Burke - Catholic Politicians and Bishops - America

St. Louis Archbishop Burke has been frequently targeted in the media in recent weeks because of his stand on this issue. His response and further clarification appeared in America, the Jesuit weekly, June 21-28, 2004 edition, along with other articles justifying Catholic politicians' pro-abortion stance.
In his article, "Catholic Politicians and Bishops", Archbishop Burke stressed the obligation of a bishop to the errant politician, as an individual, as well as to other Catholics, society, and in particular to the unborn children threatened by abortion:

"In proclaiming the Church's moral teaching, the bishop faces a challenge before the situation of a member of the flock who is engaged in political life and supports a position contrary to the moral law. The situation is especially serious when the position in question is contrary to the first precept of the natural and divinely revealed moral law, which requires us to safeguard and foster human life. It is made even more serious when the position espoused condones the taking of the innocent and defenseless life of the unborn child, a crime which 'has characteristics making it particularly serious and deplorable' ..."

The article, which appeared online June 16, cites Church documents in a clear and concise way that will be instructive to all who read it.

Click highlighted title above to access Archbishop Burke's and other related articles, editorials, etc., on America's web site - http://www.americamagazine.org. - Broken link

Update - June 29 - Archbishop Burke announced that he will write a pastoral letter on the subject of dissenting politicians, including the responsibilty of Catholic voters to uphold Catholic teaching, after he returns from Rome, where he received the pallium today.

Update - October 1 - Archbishop Burke issues Pastoral Letter


Archbishop William Levada - Reflections on Catholics in Political Life and the Reception of Holy Communion - June 13, 2004

In a statement posted on the USCCB web site June 23, Archbishop William Levada, a member of the USCCB Task Force on Catholics in Political Life, addressed the letter of 48 members of Congress to Archbishop McCarrick, and explained the many points bishops would have to consider, including the canonical status of a pro-abortion politician. An excerpt from the final section of the archbishop's statement follows:

Political Life in the United States
Americans consider the right to vote according to their conscience a precious, indeed "inalienable," right. The independence of voters from government coercion extends in the minds of most Americans also to the pressures of influence from other institutions. Hence penalties imposed on voters for their exercise of their voting privileges, and also upon politicians for exercising their political judgment in the conduct of their affairs, will seem to many Americans an interference in the constitutional rights to political freedom.

Bishops, on the other hand, are primarily concerned for the good order of the Church. If members of the Church are misled by scandalous behavior by their elected or appointed leaders, it seems imperative that the bishops act to clarify the confusion of the situation. This conflict in perceptions calls for us bishops to exercise our leadership as shepherds with reliance on the virtue of prudence. As teachers and preachers of the Gospel, how will our teaching about the Gospel of life best be heard? How can we best be persuasive for the rights of our brothers and sisters from conception to the grave?

In our desire to reach out with clarity and compassion to all the members of our flock, we bishops must also remember that we are called to shepherd the unity of the Church, in all its diversity. Thus the application of restrictive practices regarding the reception of Holy Communion in one diocese necessarily has implications for all. In this matter, we bishops owe it to our people to achieve a reasonable consensus among ourselves on issues affecting the common status of Catholics in American culture and political life.

The challenge we face in teaching and preaching in contemporary American culture is formidable. But our task is not ours alone. We are called as bishops to shepherd our Catholic people in order to help them inculcate the values of the dignity of every human person, both in American society and throughout the world of today. To do so we must always be apostles of truth and charity toward all those whom we are called to serve.

Click title above to go to complete statement on USCCB web site.

Bishop Ronald Gainer Warns Catholic Politicians

On June 24, Bishop Ronald W. Gainer of Lexington, Kentucky, told the Lexington Herald-Leader, through his spokesman, Thomas Shaughnessy,

"A professing Catholic who has taken public stands against what the church teaches should disqualify himself or herself from receiving the Eucharist, because they cannot receive in good faith. Were there to be such a person under his pastoral care, (the bishop) would ask to meet with them privately as a pastor and attempt to challenge them to change their public position before he would take any public action."

The same news story quoted from a January, 2004, column in Cross Roads, the Lexington diocesan newspaper. In this column, Bishop Gainer wrote in part:

"I take this opportunity to warn Catholic politicians within this diocese who in their public careers choose to depart from Church teaching regarding the inviolability of all human life. They need to consider the consequences of their position for their own spiritual well-being, as well as the scandal they cause by leading others into serious moral danger."

Click title above to go to Lexington Herald-Leader story posted June 24. http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky/news/8998376.htm - Link Broken

Bishop Victor Balke, June 24, 2004 column in "A Voice from the Valley" on Political Life.

Bishop Victor Balke writes, "...if Sen. Kerry came to our Cathedral for Mass, I would speak to him beforehand to make sure that his position on abortion is still as extreme as Commonweal says it is. If it is, I would certainly tell him that out of respect for the Body of Christ, the Eucharist, and out of respect for the Body of Christ, the Church, he should not receive Holy Communion."

Bishop Balke went on to give his options should Sen. Kerry came up to receive anyway. One to refuse and two not to refuse. In both cases he would explain it to the congregation at dismissal time.

Click title to go to the whole article on the Crookston Diocese website - broken link.


Bishop Robert Vasa - Bishops' Decisions at Denver Meeting - June 25

In his June 25 "Heart and Mind"column, Bishop Robert Vasa of Baker (Oregon) describedthe bishops discussion and decision on the matter of pro-abortion Catholic politicians:

"Very specifically the question was asked whether the denial of Holy Communion is 'necessary because of their public support for abortion on demand.'

"The view ultimately accepted by the body of Bishops was that such a denial was not necessarily 'necessary' but such a denial was certainly possible and permissible, if, in the judgment of the local ordinary, it was deemed 'the most prudent course of pastoral action.' The Conference found itself in a delicate situation. On one hand there was an obvious desire to support those Bishops who have made the pastoral judgment that further dialogue with certain pro-abortion and pro-choice politicians was ineffective and that their continued reception of Holy Communion was incompatible with the teachings of the Church as well as scandalous to the faithful. On the other hand there was a desire and a necessity of respecting the episcopal authority and responsibility of the local Bishop who prudentially determines that such a denial would be counterproductive in his particular case."

Bishop Vasa noted the "divergence" within the conference on the subject, and commented,

"Denying Holy Communion to a pro-abortion Catholic politician may seem like effective action. I wish it were an effective method of achieving conversion and change of heart, but unless there is a change of heart that politician continues to act in a way which supports and cooperates with the evil of abortion. Thus while denial of Holy Communion, and the preceding dialogue, is an action I would prefer, I must recognize that there are other, perhaps even more effective, ways of achieving a suitable protection of pre-born human life in our country.

"It seems to me that the most effective way to end abortion is to vote for Pro-Life candidates".

(Click title to go to Bishop Vasa's "Heart and Mind" column; scroll to June 25 - broken link.)

Cardinal Avery Dulles - Zenit Interview June 29

Cardinal Avery Dulles urged dialogue with dissenting politicians before denying them Communion in an interview with the internet news agency, Zenit, published June 29, 2004, following the USCCB June meeting, at which the bishops issued a statement on the topic (See , Cardinal Dulles, emeritus theologian from Fordham Universty, frequently advises US bishops.

An excerpt from the interview follows (emphasis added). Click title above to go to Zenit web site for complete interview.

----------------

Q: What are the risks the Church faces if it enforces stricter penalties against politicians?

Cardinal Dulles: In imposing penalties, the Church is trying to protect the sacraments against the profanation that occurs when they are received by people without the proper dispositions. Dissenting politicians often want to receive Communion as a way of showing that they are still "good Catholics," when in fact they are choosing their political party over their faith. But the imposition of penalties involves at least three risks.

In the first place, the bishop may be accused, however unfairly, of trying to coerce the politician's conscience.

Secondly, people can easily accuse the Church of trying to meddle in the political process, which in this country depends on the free consent of the governed.

And finally, the Church incurs a danger of alienating judges, legislators and public administrators whose good will is needed for other good programs, such as the support of Catholic education and the care of the poor.

For all these reasons, the Church is reluctant to discipline politicians in a public way, even when it is clear that their positions are morally indefensible.

The Church's prime responsibility is to teach and to persuade. She tries to convince citizens to engage in the political process with a well-informed conscience.

The bishops hope that the electorate and the government will strive for a society in which every human life is protected by law from conception to natural death.


 July 2004

In the aftermath of the June USCCB meeting (see US Bishops' Conference Statements , Cardinal Ratzinger's memorandum, and Cardinal Dulles's observations (immediately above). several more bishops were quoted in news media concerning the dissenting politicians dilemma.

Some who had not made public statements before indicated strong hesitation to interfere with pro-abortion politicians, seeming to agree with the National Catholic Reporter editorial July 2, "Bishops spare us Eucharist politics", that expressed relief that the bishops adopted "elastic" policies, and did not agree to prohibit abortion-advocates from receiving Communion:

"That is as it should be, and we're grateful that common sense prevailed over the extreme views of a tiny minority intent on making impossible demands of the political arena. On one level, the bishops had little choice. Even if so inclined, the bishops' conference has no power to instruct a member on how he should teach, discipline or educate the faithful in his diocese. The most a conference can do is recommend and suggest.

"Still, it is reassuring that the vast majority of U.S. bishops (only six voted against the statement) clearly did not want to make the Eucharist a political football. Some of us feared a closer vote behind closed doors."


Bishop Anthony M. Pilla - To the People of the Diocese of Cleveland

In early July, Cleveland Bishop Anthony Pilla issued a statement, published on the Ckevekabd diocesan web site, making it clear that he would not withhold Communion from dissenting politicians. Quotes follow (emphasis added). (Click title above to go to the bishop's complete statement on his web site.- broken link)

----------

"The view of refusing Communion to politicians who support keeping abortion legal is not part of the pastoral tradition of the Church. Given the longstanding practice of not making a public judgment about the state of the soul of those who present themselves for Communion, the pastoral tradition of the Church places the responsibility of such a judgment first on those presenting themselves for Holy Communion. I firmly believe that clear and honest dialogue about moral teaching is always preferred over arbitrary judgments, condemnation or punitive actions. The altar is a place of unity, healing, nourishment and grace. It is not a place for confrontation.

"No one should mistake reservations about refusing Communion or public calls to refrain from Communion as ignoring or excusing those who clearly contradict Catholic teaching in their public roles. Those who take positions or act in ways that are contrary to fundamental moral principles should not underestimate the seriousness of this situation. They must study Catholic teaching, recognize their grave responsibility to protect human life from conception to natural death, and adopt positions consistent with these principles. However, in my view the battles for human life and dignity and for the weak and vulnerable should be fought not at the Communion rail, but in the public square, in hearts and minds, in our pulpits and public advocacy, in our consciences and communities. ...

"I offer these reflections in hope that there can be greater dialogue, understanding and civility on significant matters affecting the common good of our nation. May we always seek to understand before we judge. May our political discourse be one that is respectful of others. ..."

Bishop Dennis M. Schnurr - Catholics and Political Life

Soon after the June meeting of the US bishops, where the matter of denying Communion to pro-abortion politicians was discussed, Bishop Dennis Scnurr of Duluth posted an article on the Duluth web site, from which the following excerpts are taken.

"On the matter of denying Communion to politicians on the grounds that they are guilty of formal cooperation with evil, it is important to keep in mind three things.

"First, we have to be very careful about coming to the conclusion too quickly that a politician would be guilty of formal cooperation with evil in the same way that could be said of a woman who has an abortion, the person urging her to have one or the doctor and medical aides who perform it. However, IF the politician expressly intends to promote the killing of innocent life, then this would be a formal cooperation. Again, I turn to Archbishop [William] Levada's comments: "If such an intention were present, even a voter could be guilty of such cooperation. But this seems unlikely as a general rule." (Note: Archbishop Levada's statement June 13, above.)

"As a result, we, as pastors, will always need to be careful about moving too quickly to such a conclusion. In such circumstances, a bishop "will need to inquire of his fellow Catholics about their intentions, about their understanding of their faith obligations, about their concept of their role in living out their faith in political life, about how they recognize their duty to uphold the 'law of nature and of nature's God' through the legislation of just laws and the avoidance of unjust ones."

"Secondly, it may be that a particular bishop might feel constrained to deny Communion to a Catholic who publicly advocates abortion on demand. At the same time, the bishops as a body agreed that we must approach this issue as pastors. As the Task Force noted in the Interim Report: "In our view, the battles for human life and dignity and for the weak and vulnerable should be fought not at the Communion rail, but in the public square, in hearts and minds, in our pulpits and public advocacy, in our consciences and communities."

"Finally, the bishops agreed that we have to be concerned about the effect of our individual actions on the good of the Church's unity. Archbishop Levada reminded us, "We are called to shepherd the unity of the Church, in all its diversity. Thus the application of restrictive practices regarding the reception of Holy Communion in one diocese necessarily has implications for all."

Click title above for the complete letter on the Duluth diocesan web site - broken link.


Bishop Charles Grahmann - "Would our Founding Fathers recognize the nation today?"

On July 2, Dallas Bishop Charles Grahmann wrote that the nation's survival is threatened by religious controversy. Even though "this 'City upon a Hill' was to be without religion" he wrote, "This grandiose notion had problems because many of the arriving immigrants were Christians" -- and religion-based views caused problems He continued:

"The above reality has taken on a confrontational form in the right-to-life guarantee and politicians who use their position to vote against such a right. Specifically there have been calls to deny the Eucharist to these politicians. ...
"Such decisions rest with each local bishop in accord with established canonical and pastoral principles. The accused separates himself/herself from God's teachings and from the unity of the Church... They should know that they should not present themselves for the Eucharist. Only after extensive conversation, enlightment [sic] and persuasion would one resort to public excommunication."

Bishop Grahmann did not distinguish how "public excommunication" differs from simple withholding of Communion from a Catholic who publicly rejects key moral teachings of the Church.

"Our country has changed some basics rooted in its founding. And the direction it is going doesn't look good", Bishop Grahmann concluded.

Click title above to go to the column on the Dallas web site - broken link.

Bishop William Lori - "Six Days in Denver"

Bridgeport Bishop William Lori reported on the events of the Denver bishops' meeting in his July, 2004 column published on the diocesan web site, including the following summary of the bishops' action on dissenting Catholic politicians:

The bishops also developed a statement on the reception of Holy Communion by Catholic politicians who do not accept the Church's teaching on abortion. A summary of the statement is printed on page 6, and the statement in its entirety is posted on our diocesan website (www.bridgeportdiocese.com). It restates the changeless teaching of the Church on the humanity of the unborn child and the bedrock commitment of the Church to create what Pope John Paul II calls "a culture of life" ­ a culture in which human life is respected and protected from conception until natural death. The bishops of the United States commit themselves to proclaim the Gospel of Life ever more clearly and insistently; to continue efforts to persuade those who reject that teaching; to refrain from honoring Catholic politicians who support abortion; and to challenge such politicians regarding the appropriateness of their receiving Holy Communion. The bishops also took note of the differing pastoral situations in dioceses around the country and recognized that Church law envisions a number of possible responses on the part of diocesan bishops.

Bishop Lori did not announce a policy for his diocese on the matter.

Click title above to go to the complete article on the Bridgeport diocesan web site - broken link.

Bishop Michael A. Saltarelli - Statement on Catholics and Politics

In an early July statement on the US bishops' "Catholics and Political Life", Wilmington Bishop Michael Saltarelli compared the current issue of abortion with that of the mistaken Dred Scott decision that permitted slavery to continue:

Legislative issues pertaining to the sanctity of human life from conception to natural death are the great civil rights issues of this generation:
The judiciary's mistaken judgment in Roe vs. Wade (1973) continues to have a comparable corrosive effect on public life, politics and society. But once again we believe that the deepest truths about human nature and human life will be victorious in the end. All people of good will - regardless of religious affiliation, ethnic background or political party - are called to be vibrant instruments in society to effect this victory in the near future.1   Until that day comes, we must work diligently and valiantly to defend and promote the sanctity of human life at every stage of life."

Bishop Saltarelli's statement continued,

No one today would accept this statement from any public servant: "I am personally opposed to human slavery and racism but will not impose my personal conviction in the legislative arena." Likewise, none of us should accept this statement from any public servant: "I am personally opposed to abortion but will not impose my personal conviction in the legislative arena.

The bishop's statement, published on the Wilmington diocesan web site the week ending July 3, emphasized the obligation of Catholic politicians to be faithful to Catholic moral teaching, and to "have the integrity to respect" the Church's teaching and sacrsments, and other Catholics:

The promotion of abortion by any Catholic is a grave and serious matter. Objectively, according to the constant teaching of the Scriptures and the Church, it would be more spiritually beneficial for such a person to refrain from receiving the Body and Blood of Christ.  I ask Catholics in this position to have the integrity to respect the Eucharist, Catholic teaching and the Catholic faithful.
In a spirit of pastoral charity, I strongly remind all Catholics - both highly visible public officials and the everyday parishioner --  that they must examine their consciences about their worthiness to receive communion, including with regard to 'fidelity to the moral teaching of the Church in personal and public life'.
It is not my expectation that individual priests, deacons and extraordinary ministers of Communion will make judgments on their own as to the worthiness of individual Catholic public servants to receive Communion.   That is ultimately my responsibility in light of Catholic moral theology and the Code of Canon Law".

(Click title above to go to the complete statement on the Wilmington diocesan web site.)

Bishop Saltarelli's statement drew favorable response from parishioners interviewed July 5 by The News Journal. http://www.delawareonline.com/newsjournal/local/2004/07/05catholicssuppor.html (Broken link)


Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio

Put Out Into the Deep
Bishop DiMarzio's weekly column

THE TABLET JULY 03, 2004
THE CHURCH AND THE STATE

My dear brothers and sisters in Christ,

The funeral of our former president, Ronald Reagan, highlighted for our Nation our religious beliefs and foundation in a graphic way. Again, the principle of the separation of church and state has often been misunderstood. Our Constitution endeavored to protect the church against and state and not vice versa. The state is not to formerly establish any religion but to assure the free practice of religion in society. President Reagan's funeral, in what is known as the National Cathedral in Washington, perhaps shows our Founding Fathers' intention that religion not be removed from society, although the separation of church and state is clearly one of our principles.

Two weeks ago, the U.S. Supreme Court decided on a technicality that the Pledge of Allegiance with the words "one Nation under God" can be recited and is constitutional. This debate, however, is not over. The court did not clearly face all of the issues involved, however interesting its outcome. Can we banish religion from society? Unfortunately, this is the cry of many today. Recently, the National Baptist Convention almost decided to withdraw their children from public schools, declaring them "officially Godless." This vote failed; however, the sentiment was clearly expressed in the discussion of such a matter. Making our society and our schools Godless also will make them valueless.

Martin Luther King, Jr., the prophet of the civil rights movement that sought to abolish racial discrimination in our country, once said, "The church must be reminded that it is not the master or the servant of the state, but rather the conscience of the state. It must be the guide and the critic of the state, and never its tool. If the church does not recapture its prophetic zeal, it will become an irrelevant social club without moral or spiritual authority." This statement in many ways needs to be repeated in our own generation. The church, indeed, is the servant of conscience and must clearly enlighten consciences. Several weeks ago I made this clear in my weekly article regarding politicians and the reception of the Eucharist.

Two weeks ago at the United States bishops' annual spring meeting in Denver, the body of bishops issued a statement entitled "Catholics in Political Life" that underlined the responsibilities of bishops in regard to society and its citizens and, in particular, to its elected officials. First, the Church must teach clearly not only matters of faith and doctrine, but also issues of ethics that are commonly held by all people of good will. Second, the bishops must do more to persuade society that human life is the most precious gift which cannot be subjugated to individual claims. Third, as bishops we must mobilize to support the principles and policies in public life that reflect our teaching. To this end, I have recently appointed Father Kieran Harrington as the coordinator of the Legislative Network in the Diocese of Brooklyn. Previously, this responsibility was assigned to the Office of Family Life, which is directed by Mrs. Catherine Bala. As a component of the New York State-wide Legislative Network, coordinated by the New York State Catholic Conference, this diocesan initiative will be developed in Brooklyn and Queens in collaboration with Catholic Charities. It is my hope that we will be able to convince our legislators that a constituency exists that reflects our moral values. Fourth, as I stated several months ago, our Catholic community and all our institutions and those closely related to them should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles. They should not receive awards, special honors or prestigious platforms which would suggest that we support them for their actions. Finally, the bishops committed themselves to maintain communications with public officials who make difficult decisions every day that affect "issues of human life and dignity." As important as it is to dialogue, in the final analysis, it is more important to make decisions that support innocent life.

As we celebrate this Fourth of July weekend, we recognize our responsibilities as citizens to have properly formed consciences and to follow them when we vote and support legislative initiatives which become the law of the land. It is a grave responsibility for each one of us to form our consciences forthrightly and act accordingly, especially as we approach the Eucharist, which is not only the sign of communion with the body and blood of Jesus Christ, but also our union with the Church who is responsible for making the Eucharist present to God's people.

Again, on this Fourth of July weekend, we put out into the deep, ever wishing to perfect our democracy, so that it reflects the highest and best values with which it has been endowed by the Creator.

Source: http://www.dioceseofbrooklyn.org/dimarzio/07-03-04.html (broken link)

Cardinal McCarrick: Statement on Cardinal Ratzinger's memorandum

In a July 6 statement, Cardinal McCarrick says a leaked memo from Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger to the US bishops is not whole story. In the statement issued through his spokeswoman, Susan Gibbs, Cardinal McCarrick (who was in Rome July 6) said that the leaked text of a recent memo he received from Cardinal Ratzinger on Catholic politicians and abortion appeared to be "an incomplete and partial leak" not reflecting "the full message I received."

Cardinal McCarrick's brief statement said he had not he yet seen the report in L'Espresso, but "from what I have heard, it may represent an incomplete and partial leak of a private communication from Cardinal Ratzinger and it may not accurately reflect the full message I received."

Cardinal McCarrick's statement was reported by the Washington Times: http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20040707-122623-1092r.htm [broken link 12/3/2007] and the Catholic News Service (CNS): http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0403723.htm


Bishop Bernard Harrington - "Catholic Politicians are called to be "Pro-Life"!

"It is time that we recognize that morality and ethics determines what we believe and not our political party. Are we Catholic first or are we adherents to a political party and then Catholic? ", writes Bishop Bernard Harrington, of Winona in a statement published July 8 on the diocesan web site as his July message in the Courier: http://www.dow.org/courier.htm - broken link

Bishop Harrington, as chairman of the US bishops' Committee on Education, is a member of the task force on implementing the Vatican Doctrinal Note headed by Cardinal Theodore McCarrick.

Speaking of the bishops' decisions at their Denver meeting in June, the bishop wrote that the"Catholic bishops of the United States took a strong stand that Catholic politicians who have the responsibility to formulate law are obliged 'to work toward correcting morally defective laws'. The often used excuses that 'abortion is the law of the land' or that 'I am personally opposed to abortion but I can't thrust my opinion on others' does not free the politician 'from moral guilt of cooperating in evil and in sinning against the common good'.

The bishops in their teaching were emphatic regarding the moral evil of abortion. Catholics in all walks of life are called to have an "unequivocal commitment to the legal protection of human life from the moment of conception until natural birth." In the light of this teaching of the U. S. Bishops no Catholic can support abortion rights and believe that he or she has a correctly formed conscience. Any Catholic who would believe that they are morally justified in supporting abortion has to know that they are in opposition to natural law and the official teachings of their Catholic faith. To do so, places them in bad faith and with a mal-formed conscience.

Bishop Harrington noted that "a survey of the bishops indicated that the majority of bishops (3 to 1) do not favor denying Holy Communion to an individual", but that "[t]he bishops' statement acknowledges that such an action is within the right of an individual bishop to do so".

In a section,"Catholics who support abortion should not receive Communion", Bishop Harrington writes:

Respect for the Eucharist "demands that it be received worthily and that it be seen as the source for our common mission in the world". The citation from the First Letter of Paul to the Corinthians puts the obligation squarely upon the Catholic politician. "Whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord". In light of this statement, any Catholic who steadfastly holds forth in support of abortion should not approach the communion rail. The teaching is very clear; they should judge themselves unworthy to receive the Body and Blood of the Lord. I believe that the Eucharist should not be politicized. It is a question about "worthiness" to receive the Body and Blood of the Lord. It is the responsibility of both the individual politician to take the steps necessary to form a correct conscience as well as it is the responsibility of both the bishop or individual pastor of the person to counsel, to assist and if necessary to confront the individual who errs in this way. There is no question that those who are in serious sin should not receive the Eucharist until they have turned away from sin and been reconciled within the Sacrament of Reconciliation.

The bishop's statement concludes with a strong summary:

I believe that the document on Catholic Politicians states clearly the teaching of our Catholic Church and puts responsibility on the Catholic politician to be faithful to the teachings of natural law and the Church. It is time that we recognize that morality and ethics determines what we believe and not our political party. Are we Catholic first or are we adherents to a political party and then Catholic?

(Click title above to go to the Courier site, and a link to the bishop's complete column. Broken link)


Bishop John Steinbock - "Denying Holy Communion"

In his July 2004 editorial, "Denying Holy Communion" Bishop John Steinbock wrote that in an earlier letter "I reminded our priests and deacons that "rightly disposed" [to receive Communion] can only be judged by external actions, as no one can be the judge of another person's conscience and relationship with the Lord. If someone approaches to receive Communion who is obviously intoxicated or someone comes up who has no idea how to behave, that person is certainly not rightly disposed and may be denied Communion, but this should be done in a loving and pastoral way."

"The Doctrine of the Faith has declared that even those who are not in full communion with the teaching of the Church, as long as there is not a denial of what is proposed by the Church as divinely revealed, may not be denied the Sacraments", Bishop Steinbock wrote.

He did not explain what he meant by "not in full communion with the teaching of the Church", nor did he cite a source for this puzzling statement attributed to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

"Let us not judge the consciences of others and be so presumptuous as to say who is and who is not worthy to receive Communion", the bishop stressed. "Even those who are prevented by law from receiving Communion may be in God's grace, and closer to God than we may ever hope to be."

KNXT EDITORIAL, JULY 2004 - posted on the Fresno diocesan web site,
(Click title above to go to the KNXT site, and a link to the bishop's complete column - link broken)


Bishop Joseph Gossman - Statement on Catholics in Political Life

On July 8, Bishop Joseph Gossman of Raleigh issued a Statement on Catholics in Political Life. The bishop pointed out that the right to life is the "most fundamental of all human rights", and that this is not just a Catholic teaching. He also stressed that

"The Church does not engage in political activity. Its primary responsibility in the political arena is one of being educated - of being aware of the moral implications of political issues in order to provide guidance concerning the rightness or wrongness of a specific issue to those who will listen. "

Bishop Gossman states,

"It is also been the long- standing practice in the Church not to make a public judgment about the state of the soul of those who present themselves for Holy Communion. The pastoral tradition of the Church places the responsibility for such a judgment on those who come forward to receive Holy Communion. For the present this will continue to be my position. Since no human being can know or judge another's relationship to God, I am persuaded that my position responds both pastorally and adequately to the present situation. I believe it would truly be tragic if in our sincere efforts to protect the integrity of the Eucharist, 'the sacrament that signifies and effects the union of love between Christ and His Church became instead a sacrament that signifies and brings about disunity'".

(Click title above to go to Bishop Gossman's complete Statement on the Raleigh diocesan web site.- broken link)

Bishop Victor Galeone - Can A Catholic Politician Be Pro-Choice?

In the July/August 2004 issue of The Saint Augustine Catholic Bishop Victor Galeone noted the striking contrast between the media response to Archbishop Rummel's excommunication of a Catholic segregationist in 1962 with today's "scurrilous editorial cartoons and commentaries, castigating those bishops for breaching the wall between church and state".

In 1962 Archbishop Joseph Rummel of New Orleans excommunicated Judge Leander Perez for attempting to block the desegregation of the school system in the archdiocese. The mainstream and liberal media applauded the archbishop,s action. Racists and segregationists attacked him vehemently. How dare he try to impose his sectarian views on those who held a different opinion on how the schools should be integrated?

Now, however, the question is,"How dare they [bishops] try to impose their sectarian morality on the rest of the nation?". Bishop Galeone provides answers to a list of common questions; two examples follow.

"Can an avid proponent of abortion-on-demand be at the same time a Catholic in good standing with the church?"
I answer that question by asking another:
Can an avowed racist be a member in good standing of the NAACP? For similar reasons, there are some positions so extreme that they would bar one from being considered a good Catholic, not because a specifically Catholic teaching is being denied, but because a basic tenet of the natural law is being trashed. As members of the human family, we must obey the natural law, written on our hearts: "You shall not take an innocent life."

"Are you implying that Holy Communion should be denied to Catholic candidates who espouse abortion-on-demand?"
I would hope that those candidates who consistently vote in support of abortion have enough integrity to willingly exclude themselves from receiving the Eucharist.

After all, they are supporting a procedure for which the Church reserves the penalty of excommunication for those directly involved. Besides, consider what St. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 11:27: "Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in any unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord."

(Click title above to go to the site, and a link to the The Saint Augustine Catholic bishop's complete column - Broken link.)


Bishop Bernard W. Schmitt - Letter to West Virginia Catholics on Catholics in Political Life

With the July 13 press release reproduced in full below, Bishop Bernard Schmitt of Wheeling-Charleston issued a Letter on Catholics in Political Life (Click title above to go to the complete Letter on the diocesan web site- broken link).

July 13, 2004 - WHEELING, W.Va.-Bishop Bernard W. Schmitt made public today a letter addressed to all West Virginia Catholics regarding Catholics in political life and whether or not Holy Communion should be denied to Catholic politicians who seem to reject Church teachings.
Bishop Schmitt reasserted forcefully the duty of all Catholics to defend all innocent human life, from conception to natural death. "No citizen, whether in private life or in public service, can neglect the profound responsibility to defend all human life and to oppose abortion and euthanasia, no matter what the law or opinion polls may say," the bishop said.
The bishop said that elected leaders and civil servants who do not actively oppose abortion participate in "grave evil." "Failure to at least curtail abortion, if not to bring it to an end, involves these persons in a serious failure in their duty and makes them cooperators in grave evil," he said.
Bishop Schmitt joined the majority of his brother bishops from the United States in recognizing that the sacramental practice of receiving Holy Communion could be misused for political ends given the polarizing tendencies of election-year politics. He said:
"Many of the faithful called for a statement excluding from Holy Communion those Catholic politicians whose voting records or public statements are opposed to the Gospel of Life. To do so puts the burden in the wrong place and obscures the truth that such individuals by their acts--and voting is a moral act--have made themselves unworthy of receiving the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. The Bishop's statement, Catholics in Political Life, places the burden where it should be, on the individual to discern his or her own state of conscience before receiving Communion."
The Bishop reminded all Catholics, not just politicians, that they should examine their beliefs and actions to see if they are able to receive Communion with a clear conscience. "Those who are aware of serious personal sin, disordered living, or infidelity to the Church's teachings ought to refrain from receiving Holy Communion until they have made use of the Sacrament of Reconciliation and removed the obstacle to their full participation in the Mass."

Click title above for complete statement on the Wheeling-Charleston web site - broken link.

Archbishop Alexander Brunett - Sign of Faith...Bread of Life: A Statement on Catholic Participation in Political Life

In a statement released July 19, Archbishop Alexander Brunett of Seattle, observed that "As we approach the 2004 elections, the bread of life we share at the altar stands at the center of a growing controversy over a host of Church teachings, primarily those on the sanctity of life and the application of this teaching in the public square."

He pointed out that Catholic politicians "cannot on the one hand profess to be in communion with the Church and on the other hand support abortions".

"Catholic politicians who unambiguously reject Catholic moral values, even if giving them lip service, are adopting a morally untenable position and are choosing a path that leads away from the Church and inhibits their ability to gather honestly with the Catholic faith community to celebrate the Eucharist, the sign of unity and communion with the Lord and His Church."

Though he does not mention which bishops he believes to be in error, the archbishop sees a "fundamental misunderstanting" about the "relationship between faith and political responsbility" if an openly dissenting Catholic is denied Communion.

"Catholic Church teaching on the sanctity and dignity of all life has led some within our faith community to suggest that those who vocally and publicly assume pro-choice positions on abortion should be expelled from the Catholic community and the Eucharist. That would have the result of denying Eucharistic participation without formal, canonical due process. This due process requires dialogue and an opportunity for the accused to explain why they feel they can publicly and politically support a position that is patently contrary to the moral principles of our Catholic faith."

Although Archbishop Brunett thinks those who reject Church teaching should "voluntarily withdraw from Eucharistic sharing", he says that "Ministers of the Eucharist should not take it upon themselves to deny Holy Communion to anyone who presents themselves. ... Because it is the source of our communion with God and each other, the Eucharist must never become and instrument of division".

"It is the role of the bishop and his priests to help every believer form a mature and compelling conscience", the archbishop writes, but, "This is not accomplished by mandate or fiat, but by preaching and teaching."

Click title to go to the complete statement on the Seattle archdiocesan web site. - broken link

Archbishop John Donoghue Urges Faithful Citizenship

In his column of July 22, 2004 in the Atlanta diocesan newspaper, The Georgia Bulletin, Archbishop John Donoghue briefly outlined his plan to address "further implications of Catholic teaching with regard to the [political] choices we make". He announced that there will be two "Faithful Citizen" workshops to discuss "the questions Catholics should ask when voting and engagine in civic life" that will be held in August.

Click title above to go to Georgia Bulletin for the original column.

Archbishop William Levada. Dialogue and Dogmatism by Mary Adamski, published in the Honolulu-Star Bulletin, Saturday July 31, 2004 includes quotes from San Francisco Archbishop William Levada:

"Many of us as bishops are newly committed to seeking a path of dialogue in these areas," said Archbishop William Levada of San Francisco. "You don't start that path of dialogue by telling people you are going to refuse them Communion."

Click title above to go to the Star Bulletin for the complete story.

 August 2004

Bishop George L. Thomas Light of the Gospel must enhance vision of Catholic voters

Bishop George Thomas of Helena, addressed political issues in his monthly column published in The Montana Catholic, Vol. 20, No. 8, August 13, 2004.

..."Indeed, we are facing a political season which promises to be both difficult and challenging. We are also entering a political process that can strengthen our society, relieve the plight of the poor and transform our culture through the light of the Gospel. This vision of Catholic social teaching and some of the values it contains offers the voter a lens through which to see society with an eye toward the unborn, the sick, the widow, the orphan, and the poor. Catholic social teaching flows from a rich tradition that sees the good and inherent worth in all, and seeks to build up conditions that support family life, human rights and religious freedom."...


Click title above to go to the Diocese of Helena website for the complete column.


Bishop David Ricken ­ "Letter to Catholic Politicians and Public Officials on the Subject of Abortion and the Law"

In his August 2004 "Letter to Catholic Politicians and Public Officials on the Subject of Abortion and the Law", Cheyenne Bishop David Ricken, a canon lawyer, presented a forceful and carefully reasoned moral and legal argument against the constitutionality of legalized destruction of unborn children, and why Catholic lawmakers must oppose the "right" to abortion.

Click title above to go to Bishop Ricken's complete pastoral letter on this site (or go to the Diocese of Cheyenne website to access it in PDF format.)


Archbishop John Donoghue; Bishops Robert Baker and Peter Jugis:
"Worthy to Receive the Lamb: Catholics in Political Life and the Reception of Holy Communion"

On August 4, three bishops in the Southeast United States issued a joint statement on Catholics and political life, Atlanta Archbishop John Donoghue, Charleston Bishop Robert Baker, and Bishop Peter Jugis of Charlotte.

"A fundamental teaching of our Church is respect for the sacred gift of life. This teaching flows from the Natural Law and from Divine Revelation" the bishops wrote.

"Catholic public officials who consistently support abortion on demand are cooperating with evil in a public manner. By supporting pro-abortion legislation they participate in manifest gave sin, a condition which excludes them from admission to Holy Communion as long as they persist in the pro-abortion stance (cf. Canon 95)".

The bishops point out that "[p]articipation in Holy Communion requires certain dispositions on the part of the communicant", referring to Pope John Paul II's encyclical Ecclesia de Eucharistia, and that "there is a manifest lack of proper dispostion for Holy Communion...in those who consistently support pro-abortion legislation. Because support for pro-abortion legislation is gravely sinful, such persons should not be admitted to Holy Communion."

The statement also emphasizes that "[o]nly after reconciliation with the Church has occurred, with the knowledge and consent of the local bishop, and public disavowal of former support for procured abortion, will the individual be permitted to approach the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist."

The brief statement concludes: "We undertake this action to safeguard the sacred dignity of the Most Holy Sacrament of the Altar, to reassure the faithful, and to save sinners." (Emphasis added)

Complete statement on Atlanta web site: http//www.archatl.com/archbishops/donoghue/20040804.html - broken link
Also see Bishop Robert Baker June Statement
Also see Archbishop John Donoghue July Statement
See below for Bishop Peter Jugis's sermon August 14.


Bishop Robert Carlson - The Responsibility to Have a Well-formed Faith Life

Sioux Falls Bishop Robert Carlson, in his August 2004 "Bishop's Bulletin", said he found it necessary to respond to letters published in newspapers that present "flawed thinking" about Church teaching and political action.

"The teaching of the Church is in opposition to the culture of death and therefore the Church is attacked by agents of the culture", Bishop Carlson wrote. "Actually, if we follow Jesus, we should expect to carry the cross of misunderstanding, attack and even hate. As St. Peter said to the Sanhedrin, 'We must obey God rather than men.'

"In light of the letters to the editor, I want to present the Church teaching in a straightforward manner: You cannot on the one hand support abortion rights and on the other be a Catholic in good standing. Likewise, you cannot offer personal opposition to abortion and then act differently in your professional life. (emphasis added)

Bishop Carlson stressed that

"The Catholic Church has taught from the beginning that the killing of the unborn (burning them with a solution the doctor injects into the womb, cutting them up while still alive in the womb like so much meat, or sucking out the brain in partial birth abortion) is intrinsically evil, murder and can never be justified.
"Those who perform an abortion and those who cooperate willingly in the action, if fully aware of the grave evil, cut themselves off from the Church and separate themselves from God's grace. This is and has been the constant teaching of the Catholic Church."

The bishop noted that transmitting the Church's moral teaching is not "political activity", but is the basic duty of pastors, and that all political issues are not the same. He warned against relativism in the culture, which distorts the truth, making it subject to personal desires or opinions:

"There is a faulty thinking today that all life issues are equal or the same. Even some priests and religious and a few politicians try to promote this. The philosophical fallacy that underpins this argument is called relativism. It teaches that all things and issues are relative and up to the individual to decide which is of greater importance. Some elements in the media favor it as it 'squares' in their minds with the sense of strong individualism fostered by the culture. It goes hand-in-hand with the attitude, 'whatever I think or believe, whatever I value or want, whatever I feel or desire must be correct.'"

Instead, Bishop Carlson points out, "The right judgment of conscience is not a matter of personal preference nor has it anything to do with feelings. It has only to do with objective truth."

He concludes with strong advice and a warning to the people of his diocese:

"In all honesty, how could a person oppose Catholic teaching or claim to be right if they have never read what the Church teaches? I urge all Catholics to properly inform their conscience by reading the relevant Church documents before stating what is believed or not believed!
"I join the bishops of the United States in committing myself to teaching clearly, persuading and mobilizing Catholics and all people of good will to defend human life and support policies that protect human life from conception to natural death.
"In the Diocese of Sioux Falls, those who act in defiance of these fundamental principles of life should not be honored or invited to speak at Catholic colleges, schools or parishes, or hold any office such as lector, Eucharist Minister, usher, parish council member or religious education teacher.
"While we commit ourselves to maintain communication with public officials who make decisions every day that touch human life and dignity, we also remember that the Eucharist is the source and summit of Catholic life. As we read in the Scriptures, 'Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the Body and Blood of the Lord.' (1 Cor. 11:27) This means that all must examine their consciences as to their worthiness to receive the Body and Blood of our Lord. This examination includes fidelity to the moral teaching of the Church and how we live our personal and public lives.
"I think we all have some work to do."

(Click title above to go to the complete statement on the Sioux Falls diocesan web site.- broken link)


Bishop Gerald Barbarito - "Back to Basics"

"The Founding Fathers of our nation would cringe if they saw what is being protected by the Constitution today", said Palm Beach Bishop Gerald Barbarito, in his column, "Back to Basics", in The Florida Catholic August 5. The basic institution of marriage is under attack, he said, and "our young people are given the impression that almost anything is permissible. Following are quotes:

"The attention that has been focused on the moral incongruity of Catholics involved in government who support abortion puts in the forefront another basic, the right to life of every individual.

"As Catholics, we are unequivocally committed to the legal protection of human life from the moment of conception until natural death. However, the matter of the protection of life is not a Catholic issue, it is a basic one. This is why it is hard to fathom how a Catholic involved in public life can promote legislation against this basic issue and still consider himself or herself a good Catholic.

"Abortion is truly a fundamental evil and a threshold issue in regard to all life issues. When it is conceded that it is morally acceptable to take the life of an unborn child, at any stage, the door is wide open to conceding the same at any stage after birth. In our society, we have already seen the logic of this concession take hold in various forms of legislation. It is frightening to realize that the right to life of every person is at risk, including our own."

(Click highlighted title above to go to complete column - Broken Link)

In an earlier column (July 22) honoring St. Thomas More, patron of politicians, Bishop Barbarito, stressed that politicians should follow the saint's example of refusal to bow to "the state" or sacrifice the defense of truth to political expedience. Bishop Barbarito, former bishop of Ogdensburg (NY) was installed a year ago to head the troubled Palm Beach diocese where two previous bishops (Symons and O'Connell) were removed because of sex abuse.


Bishop Lawrence E. Brandt - Integrity and the Political Arena

On August 10, the Statement of Bishop Lawrence E. Brandt of Greensburg "Integrity and the Political Arena" was published on the web site of the Diocese of Greensburg (Pennsylvania).

"An established pattern of voting in favor of abortion legislation and an established pattern of public rejection of a core teaching of the Church amount to being a person who is engaged in public cooperation with a grave moral evil", Bishop Brandt wrote. It means, furthermore, also having separated oneself in a fundamental way from the Catholic Church because one is no longer sharing the covenant of core beliefs and values which identify a person as Catholic". ...

"What sense then does receiving the effective sigh of that oneness in a communion of faith, which is the Eucharist, have in such a situation? None, because it is a contradiction in terms"....

"Should such a public official...be denied Holy Commuion? ... Such public officials who have notoriously cooperated in enabling a grave moral evil to become a fixture of our ethical environment, should, of their own accord, refrain from preseniting themselves to receive Holy Communion. If they nonetheless do [receive it] they should be challenged to take ownership of the consequences of a lack of integrity by publicly acknowledging that what they do contradicts who they say they are."

Bishop Brandt stressed that "this is not just a Catholic problem about Holy Communion. It is a problem with much deeper and wider implications", and he stressed that the lack of integrity has consequences for society.

"In view of the seriousness of this situation, as well as the false witness and the misunderstanding it can cause, it is pastorally appropriate that the Catholic community, its organizations, and institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of the fundamental tenets of our faith.... Furthermore...such public officials should voluntarily refrain from presenting themselves as candidates for the positions of lector, extraordinary minister of Holy Communion or other public functions in the life of the Church, including being a godparent at baptism or a sponsor at confirmation....

When we vote, said Bishop Brandt, "we use our right [to vote] to help renew the moral landscape in which we must make our home."

Bishop Brandt, a native of Erie, Pennsylvania, and former chancellor of that diocese, was in the Holy See's diplomatic service for some years. He was ordained bishop of Greensburg on March 3.

Click title above for complete statement on Diocese of Greensburg web site -- broken link


Bishop Rene Gracida - On the 2004 Presidential Questionnaire - August 10

Following is the August 10 statement of Bishop Rene Gracida, emeritus bishop of Corpus Christi, on the "Presidential Questionnaire" sent by the US bishops' conference to presidential candidates, President George W. Bush and Senator John Kerry. The statement is reproduced here in its entirety.

"I have had an opportunity to review a copy of the 2004 Presidential Questionnaire submitted by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops to President George Bush and Senator John Kerry. I am disappointed that the Questionnaire is so broad and covers so many issues that are before the American public today that its value in helping to show the differences between the positions of the two candidates on the really important issues will be minimal.

"While certainly there could be and should be a "Catholic" position on most, if not all, of the issues covered by the Questionnaire, from the perspective of the Church's teaching some issues far outweigh others in importance. For instance, there is no moral equivalence between the issue of abortion-on-demand and farm subsidies. The Questionnaire should have been much shorter and should have been limited to questions on those issues on which there is a clear unequivocal teaching of the Church, e.g., abortion, cloning, assisted suicide, embryonic stem-cell research and marriage.

"There is no clear unequivocal position of the Church on such issues as the minimum wage, immigration, farm subsidies, etc. The inclusion of questions in the Questionnaire can only result in confusion in the minds of Catholic voters who do not understand that there is no moral equivalence between these two groups of issues. I can only hope that both presidential candidates will refuse to reply to the Questionnaire, or, if they do reply, that the leadership of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops will recognize the danger to Catholic voters and will publish those replies with a clear teaching on the greater importance which should be attached to the replies to the first group of questions I have listed above that have far greater moral implications for the Nation."

+Rene Henry Gracida
Bishop Emeritus of Corpus Christi

10 August 2004



Bishop Bernard Schmitt - "There is no softening of this stand"

Bishop Bernard Schmitt of Wheeling-Charleston, in a commentary published August 11, corrected an earlier press report (August 2) that said the bishop had "softened his stand" in his July 13 Letter to West Virginia Catholics on Catholics in Political Life , and had approved a diocesan priest giving the invocation at a Kerry-Edwards political rally. In his article, published in the Daily Mail (Charleston, West Virginia), Bishop Schmitt said he had not "softened his stand". He wrote, in part:

"I join with Pope John Paul II, who has reiterated the constant teaching of the church that all legislators have a "grave and clear obligation to oppose" any law that attacks human life.

"It is morally inconsistent for them, as for any Catholic, to promote such laws or to vote for them; it is a grave, objective evil for them to vote against laws that would restrict abortion and other attacks on innocent human life."

Bishop Schmitt's complete statement on Charleston Daily Mail web site, click title above, or http://www.dailymail.com/news/Opinion/2004081123/ (Links Broken)


Bishop Peter Jugis - A Sermon

On August 14, the Charlotte Observer published excerpts from a sermon by Bishop Peter Jugis, in which he explained the focus on abortion of his joint statement with Bishop Robert Baker and Archbishop John Donoghue last week, and emphasized that Catholic politicians who support abortion, euthanasia and embryonic stem-cell research may not receive Communion.

Click title above to go to Bishop Jugis's comments on this site.

 September 2004

Bishop Howard Hubbard
Homilies on Faithful Citizenship - Link Broken

 Bishop Gregory Aymond - Politics and religion do mix - Link Broken

Bishop Gregory Aymond, Austin, published a letter to his flock in The Catholic Spirit, September 2004.

The bishop wrote, in part, "When you and I go to the voting polls, we go as the person that we are. When I press the buttons on the voting machine I cannot and should not forget that I am a Catholic and that I stand for certain moral values. To do less than that would be dishonest and unfair to the good of our country."

Click title for the complete letter (Broken Link)


Bishop Leonard Blair - Freedom Served Well by Religion - Broken link

Speaking to about 160 people at the Toledo diocese's First Thursday Luncheon Series at the Toledo Club September 2, Bishop Leonard Blair said that participation in politics in an obligation for U.S. Catholics, as "an active and faith-filled exercise of good citizenship based on a properly formed conscience." The bishop's address was reported in the Toledo Blade September 3.(broken link)

"If there is no respect for human life, if the weak are at the mercy of the strong, if some are given to luxury and the masses are crushed by poverty, if instead of honesty one finds treachery and corruption, if there is no spirit of public service and magnanimity but only selfishness, if there is no piety, only scorn, skepticism, and cynicism, how can one expect such a society to endure?" Bishop Blair asked.

"But even while it endures, would any one of us want to be part of it? I think not." Decisions at the polls should be influenced by the Bible, Catholic teaching, and "the light of human reason," he told the Toledo Club.

Bishop Blair, former auxiliary of Detroit, was appointed bishop of Toledo October 7, 2003, and installed December 4.

In a statement, Freedom Served Well by Religion on the Toledo diocesan web site September 3, Bishop Blair wrote that bishops are being vilified for teaching what the Church teaches. He said that "every Bishop has a solemn duty to ensure the integrity of Church teaching and to uphold it, especially within the Church." An excerpt from his statement appears below (click title to go to original statement on Toledo diocesan web site - broken link) :

For simply teaching what the Catholic Church has always taught--and expecting Catholics to abide by the teachings of the faith they claim to profess--the Catholic Bishops of the United States are not only attacked but vilified. I am thinking in particular of teachings on ordination, abortion, artificial contraception, divorce, homosexual acts, etc.. These doctrines are denounced, even though most, if not all Christian churches (and many other religions too) upheld these same teachings for centuries.

When I say that the Bishops are "vilified," I use the term advisedly. Earlier this year an op-ed piece in The Blade stated among other things that "our nation is measled (sic) with bishops fixated, lockstep, on the crotch politics of abortion and gay marriage." Bishops are "men who suppress their sexuality" and "bigots for denying women ordination."

The immediate source of the writer's wrath was the Bishops' insistence that politicians who claim to be Roman Catholic adhere to Catholic teaching by not ignoring, misrepresenting or contradicting that teaching. It remains to be seen what the wisest course of action might be in dealing with this problem, but every Bishop has a solemn duty to ensure the integrity of Church teaching and to uphold it, especially within the Church.

Granted, many people, even some who call themselves Catholic, do not accept those teachings. But have we come to the point where political candidates or an opinion poll or dissenters can rewrite the Catechism of the Catholic Church, or the teachings of any other religious body? Or prevent Catholic Bishops or other religious leaders from exercising their religious authority over their community's members in accordance with the fundamental beliefs and laws of that community?

As a Roman Catholic I believe in the truth of what my Church teaches as a source of virtue, morality and authentic human freedom for all people. As a religious leader I therefore bring those beliefs to the "public square" on the difficult moral and social issues of our day, and I fully expect others who call themselves Roman Catholic to do the same.


Archbishop Harry J. Flynn - Eucharist: A source of healing and unity, not political judgments

In his column in The Catholic Spirit September 9, 2004, Archbishop Harry Flynn of St. Paul - Minneapolis, urged that Catholics "consider man important values" as they prepare to vote.

"The Catholic bishops of this country have published a guide for Catholics who are considering the issues and candidates that are central to the upcoming election. This document, entitled "Faithful Citizenship: A Catholic Call to Political Responsibility," clearly focuses on four areas of concern: protecting human life, promoting family life, pursuing social justice and practicing global solidarity. Within those broad areas, we urge faithful citizens to consider many important values and issues as they prepare themselves to go to the voting booth...."

Click title for the complete column - Broken Link


Archbishop John F. Donoghue - "On Conscientious Voting"

On September 16, 2004, Atlanta Archbishop John Donoghue published a letter "On Conscientious Voting", urging Catholics to form their consciences according to Church teaching. His letter concluded,

Dear friends, as a Bishop of the Church, I cannot tell you for whom to vote. It would be to misuse authority given me to exercise with humility and prudence. But I can teach you, on behalf of the Church, the manner in which you must decide for whom to vote, and I hope that in this letter I have given you clear and helpful instruction. If I have failed in this effort, then as usual, I will count heavily on the mercy and understanding of God. But if I have succeeded in giving you a foothold in which to begin your preparations for the upcoming election, then I am content. For us all, our responsibility to our Faith and to our country requires that we consider these issues, and that we do what is right. For only action that is right and true will in the end rescue our country. This is a critical moment - and to do nothing would be a great tragedy. Therefore, let us implore the Holy Spirit to enlighten us, to enlighten our country, and if not even the middle or the finish, may He reveal to us, as we live, at least the beginning of our country's journey back to living the rights endowed by our Creator, rights once happily acknowledged and protected, by all citizens, for all citizens: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness - but most of all, Life.

Click title for the complete statement on the Archdiocese of Atlanta web site - broken link


Archbishop John J. Myers - A Voter's Guide: Pro-choice candidates and church teaching

Newark Archbishop John Myers, who has made several statements on the issue of Catholic moral teaching and political responsibility (see above), wrote a detailed "Voter's Guide" that was published in the Wall Street Journal, September 17, 2004.

The archbishop wrote, in part,
"Abortion and embryo-destructive research are different. They are intrinsic and grave evils; no Catholic may legitimately support them. In the context of contemporary American social life, abortion and embryo-destructive
research are disproportionate evils. They are the gravest human rights abuses of our domestic politics and what slavery was to the time of Lincoln. Catholics are called by the Gospel of Life to protect the victims of these human rights abuses. They may not legitimately abandon the victims by supporting those who would further their victimization."

Click title for the complete article - Broken link


The Tablet September 18, 2004
Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio

MAKING OUR VOTES COUNT

"This year important legislation that promotes respect for human life is before the state legislature. We add our voices to those who support stem- cell research that offers hope to myriads of people in need, but oppose embryonic stem- cell research and the callous destruction of human life. We support the right of parents and guardians to be involved in the health care decisions of their children and oppose laws that would permit children to have abortions without their parents? knowledge or consent. We oppose any law that permits partial-birth abortions, a barbaric procedure of inducing labor only to destroy the newborn child. The New York State Catholic Conference is committed to the life of the unborn child and to the protection and health of women and children, as well as to strengthening and protecting families in our state.

"In November, our country will voice its opinion on who should be the next president of the United States. It is my hope that in your own deliberation regarding the candidate who best can lead our nation, you will consider a hierarchy of moral choices made by the candidates that reflect our own consistent ethic of life. We need to vote in order to make our vote count. We need to vote for the candidate who truly expresses our own moral view regarding the sanctity of life from conception to natural death, as well as other moral values and concerns that we consider essential for the well being of our society.

"It is always an exercise of putting out into the deep to cast a vote. Make your vote count and consider in conscience the candidate who best reflects our moral stance."


Click link below for complete column
http://www.dioceseofbrooklyn.org/news/09_18_04.html - broken link


Bishop Rene Henry Gracida, Bishop Emeritus of Corpus Christi, in a Letter to the Editor of The Brownsville Herald, Catholics can choose lesser of two evils, published September 19, 2004, wrote,

"It is never permissible for a Catholic to vote for a pro-abortion candidate because the candidate is pro-abortion. Such a vote would be formal cooperation in the serious sin of the candidate who, upon being elected, would vote for legislation making possible the taking of innocent human life through procured abortion."

Click title for the complete letter - broken link


Archbishop Alfred Hughes - "The Respective Claims of Caesar and God"

In a Pastoral Letter dated September 20, 2004, "The Respective Claims of Caesar and God", New Orleans Archbishop Alfred Hughes wrote, in part:

"Catholic officials, regardless of political affiliation, who openly support the taking of innocent human life in abortion, euthanasia, or the destruction of human embryos, or the re-definition of marriage beyond one man and one woman, cannot call themselves practicing Catholics, and as such should not present themselves for the reception of Holy Communion.  Moreover, citizens who want to promote this unjust taking of human life by their support of such candidates or measures share a proportional responsibility for these grave evils.  The degree or extent of proportional responsibility will vary from situation to situation."

Click title for the complete Pastoral Letter. - Broken link


Archbishop Charles Chaput - Let's make a deal: Catholic conscience and compromise
Two September anniversaries give us plenty to think about, this year and every year

Column from the Denver Catholic Register, week of September 22, 2004, reprinted below with permission from Archbishop Chaput.

"If you sup with the devil, you'd better bring a long spoon."
- American folk saying

September is the month when election campaigns get serious. So it's also the traditional season for Catholic politicians to explain why their faith won't "dictate" their public actions.

Forty-four years ago this month (Sept. 12, 1960), John F. Kennedy delivered remarks to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association wherein he effectively severed his Catholic identity from his public service. It's OK to elect me president, he argued to a wary Protestant audience, because I won't let the pope tell me what to do.

In pledging to put the "national interest" above "religious pressures or dictates," Kennedy created a template for a generation of Catholic candidates: Be American first; be Catholic second. This was an easy calculus for Kennedy, who wore his faith loosely anyway. And it was certainly what the American public square, with its historic anti-Catholic prejudice, wanted to hear.

The Kennedy compromise seemed to work pretty well as long as the "religious pressures" faced by Catholic elected officials involved issues like divorce, federal aid to Catholic schools or diplomatic relations with the Holy See. Each of these issues was important, surely, but none involved life and death. None was jugular.

In 1973, by legalizing abortion on demand, the U.S. Supreme Court changed everything. The reason is simple: Abortion is different. Abortion kills. The great Lutheran pastor and theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer spoke for the whole Christian tradition when he wrote:
"Destruction of the embryo in the mother's womb is a violation of the right to live which God has bestowed upon this nascent life. To raise the question whether we are here concerned already with a human being or not is merely to confuse the issue. The simple fact is that God certainly intended to create a human being and that this nascent human being has been deliberately deprived of his life. And that is nothing but murder."

Resistance to abortion cuts across all religions. It's not a "Catholic" issue. In fact, it's finally not a religious issue at all, but a matter of human rights, reinforced by the irrefutable scientific fact that life begins at conception.

After 1973, because of Roe v. Wade, Catholic elected officials faced a choice. They could either work to change or at least mitigate permissive abortion laws, while at the same time trying to repopulate the courts with pro-life judges. Or they could abandon the unborn and look for a way to morally sanitize their decision. For those who chose the latter course, the leading Catholic political figure of the day stepped in to help them out.

Twenty years ago this month (Sept. 13, 1984), then-New York Governor Mario Cuomo delivered a speech at the University of Notre Dame that sought to give intellectual muscle to the Kennedy compromise. Cuomo, unlike Kennedy, was more educated about his faith. Cuomo, unlike Kennedy, had the benefit of seeing where Kennedy's Houston speech had finally led. But Cuomo, like Kennedy, was a man with presidential prospects. To what degree those prospects shaped the talk he gave - "Religious belief and public morality: a Catholic governor's perspective" - is unclear. But the results remain with us still.

Cuomo argued that "in our attempt to find a political answer to abortion - an answer beyond our private observance of Catholic morality" - he had concluded that "legal interdicting of abortion by either the federal government or the individual states is not a plausible possibility, and even if it could be obtained, it wouldn't work." He might privately oppose abortion but, in his view, he had no right to "impose" that belief on others.

In hindsight, Cuomo's speech is a tour de force of articulate misdirection. It refuses to acknowledge the teaching and formative power of the law. It implicitly equates unequal types of issues. It misuses the "seamless garment" metaphor. It effectively blames Catholics themselves for the abortion problem. It selectively misreads history.

In the end, Cuomo argued that "approval or rejection of legal restrictions on abortion should not be the exclusive litmus test of Catholic loyalty." With those words, he wrote the alibi for every "pro-choice" Catholic who has held public office since.

In deference to his understanding of pluralistic democracy, Governor Cuomo - despite his personal opposition to abortion - went on to resist repeated attempts to restrict abortion in his own state of New York. He also supported public funding of abortion for poor women.

His Catholic conscience apparently did kick in on selective issues though, whether "pluralism" liked it or not. Governor Cuomo vetoed legislative efforts to re-institute the death penalty - 12 times.

Next month, October, is Respect Life month. It's a good time to reflect on the meaning of the Kennedy-Cuomo legacy. In brief, it's OK to be Catholic in public service as long as you're willing to jettison what's inconveniently "Catholic."

That's not a compromise. That's a deal with the devil, and it has a balloon payment no nation, no public servant and no voter can afford.

copyright © 2004 Denver Catholic Register - reprinted with permssion

For a list of Archbishop Chaput's Faith and Public Life writings go to http://www.archden.org/index.cfm/ID/384


Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted - The most fundamental right: to life

Bishop Thomas Olmsted, Wichita, published the following column in The Catholic Sun on September 22. His complete column appears here, reprinted with permission.

The upcoming elections provide a great opportunity for all Catholics to reflect upon the importance that faith has in their lives. Through Baptism, we are called to practice our faith not just at Mass or in the privacy of our homes, but in all our everyday activities. The Lord calls us to live our entire life in a manner consistent with objective truth, which finds its fullness in Christ.

The Catholic Church gratefully embraces persons of very diverse cultures and points of view. With the help of the Holy Spirit and the teachings of the Church, we are united in the one mission of Christ. These teachings continually refine and correct our own viewpoints and purify and strengthen our various cultures, helping us to act in accord with the mind and heart of Christ.

Lay people have a particular calling to engage in the political process as a means of promoting the common good. This should always be done in a manner consistent with the teachings of the Church, while living in the midst of the world.

Last year the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued a document entitled "Doctrinal Note on Some Questions Regarding Participation of Catholics in Political Life." This document acknowledges that there are many serious social issues upon which Catholics may legitimately differ. (Note, #17) Conversely, it adds that other issues are intrinsically evil and can never legitimately be supported. For example, Catholics may never legitimately promote or vote for any law that attacks human life. (Note, #19)

The Catholic Church is actively engaged in a wide variety of important public policy issues including immigration, education, affordable housing, health and welfare, to name just a few. On each of these issues we should do our best to be informed and to support those proposed solutions that seem most likely to be effective. However, when it comes to direct attacks on innocent human life, being right on all the other issues can never justify a wrong choice on this most serious matter. As Pope John Paul II has written, "Above all, the common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights - for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture - is false and illusory if the right to life, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition for all other personal rights, is not defended with the maximum determination." (Christifideles Laici, 1988)

Sad to say, many people, even many Catholics, misunderstand the role of conscience in these key issues of society. Consequently, some mistakenly think that following one's conscience means believing in whatever one wants, without regard to objective truth. They fail to recognize the need to form one's conscience accurately through prayer and a genuine search for what is right and true, on the basis of objective standards beyond oneself.

A properly formed conscience increases our personal dignity and our inner freedom, enabling us to be better citizens and to contribute more effectively to the common good.

While abortion, euthanasia, and physician-assisted suicide are always evil and never justifiable choices, medical research has recently made possible other attacks on human life and dignity, namely cloning and embryonic stem cell research. These, because they involve the creation and intentional destruction of innocent human life, are also intrinsically evil in all cases. As laypersons exercise their duty to vote and to engage in political life for the sake of the common good, these intrinsically evil attacks on human life must not be forgotten.

Although not a direct attack on human life, I cannot fail to mention one other key issue in society today, the so-called "same-sex marriages," which debilitate family life, the basic unit of society and the sanctuary of human life. Real marriage is a lifelong vocation and institution designed by God, in which one man and one woman commit themselves to one another for life for the benefit of their children and of society. Government and public officials have an obligation to promote and protect marriage and family life according to the laws of nature and of nature's Creator.

As we approach the 40th anniversary of Vatican II's conclusion, it is worth remembering the Council's teaching that "every citizen ought to be mindful of his right and his duty to promote the common good by using his vote." (Gaudium et Spes, #75) Regardless of one's political persuasion, appropriate weight must be given to all the issues, recalling that some issues are more important than others. Direct attacks on innocent human life can never be justified by members of any political party. In exercising our political freedoms and responsibilities, let us weigh all the issues, pray for discernment and prepare to vote as loyal American citizens and as faithful followers of Christ.

© 2004 The Catholic Sun. Reprinted with permission.



Archbishop Raymond Burke Pastoral letter seen as teaching aide

Archbishop Burke prepares letter on voting, reported the St. Louis Review on September 24, 2004.

"When [St. Louis] Archbishop Raymond Burke publishes a pastoral letter on voting in the Review next week, he will be exercising a primary role of his office - teaching the faith. .....
"The pastoral letter is needed, Archbishop Burke wrote in his column in the Review earlier this month, because local media reports have generated confusion and frustration. He said he is writing the pastoral to present clearly the Church's teaching and to clear up the confusion. ....
"He added then 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.'"

Click title for article on the St. Louis Review website. -- Broken link


Bishop Michael Saltarelli - Litany of St Thomas More

On September 30, Wilmington Bishop Michael Saltarelli asked that Catholics in his diocese "consider praying this short litany [of St. Thomas More] every day during Respect Life Month, October 2004".
The bishop issued a brochure of the litany to Thomas More, martyred in 1535 and patron saint of statesmen, politicians and lawyers, he said, quoting Pope John Paul II, because social structures and technological advances in biotechnology "underline the need to defend human life at all its different stages...[and] urgently demand clear political decisions in favor of the family, young people, the eldrly and the marginalized".

Bishop Saltarelli said,
"I share this Litany of St. Thomas More, Martyr and Patron Saint of Staesmen Politicians and Lawyers in a true spirit of compassion for all politicians who sincerely strive to serve the nation and the world with good will. I ask you to pray especially for politicians who take public anti-life positions. It is my belief that if we pray for them in a spirit of Gospel and Eucharistic charity, we may begin to see some substantial changes in their public positions."

Click title above to go to the Litany on this web site.

Click HERE to go to PDF copy of Bishop Saltarelli's brochure on the Wilmington diocese web site.


 October 2004


I Am Called to Bear Witness"The Word of God is not Chained" (2 Tim 2:9)
Bishop Phillip F. Straling

"
THE CHURCH DOES NOT TELL US HOW TO VOTE. But the Church can help us to look at the ethical and moral issues we face and how to consider candidates and issues that we face on the ballot."

Click title for complete statement - broken link


The Florida Catholic Conference
Be Faithful Citizens! Vote on November 2

"We urge all Catholics to register, vote and become more involved in public life, to protect human life and dignity, and to advance the common good."

This nine point statement can be found on the Florida Catholic Conference's website (www.flacathconf.org) - link broken. It was also published in Origins, October 14, 2004, Vol. 34: No. 18.

Archbishop John C. Favalora  and Auxiliary Bishop Felipe J.  Estevez Archdiocese of Miami                             

Bishop John J. Nevins    
Diocese of Venice      
    
Bishop Norbert M. Dorsey, CP and Coadjutor Bishop Thomas G. Wenski    Diocese of Orlando                       
 
Bishop John H. Ricard, SSJ       
Diocese of Pensacola/Tallahassee

Bishop Victor Galeone     
Diocese of St. Augustine 
                               
Bishop Robert N. Lynch   
Diocese of St. Petersburg   

Bishop Gerald M. Barbarito, JCL   
Diocese of Palm Beach                          

                                



Archbishop Raymond Burke, On Our Civic Responsibility for the Common Good (October 1)

To clarify the Church's moral law (including the technical terminology: "formal" and "material cooperation" with immoral practices) and dispel confusion surrounding the issue, St. Louis Archbishop Raymond Burke issued a Pastoral Letter "On Civic Responsibility for the Common Good" on October 1, published in the St. Louis Review and on the archdiocesan web site. The 23 page letter is followed by ten summary points, including the following (original emphasis):

6. We are morally bound in conscience to choose government leaders who will serve the common good. The first priority of the common good is the protection of human life, the basis of all other social conditions.

There can never be justification for directly and deliberately taking innocent human life: abortion, destrucion of human embryos, euthanasia, human cloning. ...

10. As Catholics we cannot remain silent. We have a serious obligation to bring the moral law to bear upon our life in society, so that the good of all will be served.

Click title to access the complete Pastoral Letter on the St. Louis Archdiocesan web site. -- Broken link
----------------

In an October 5 interview by Inside the Vatican, Archbishop Burke comments on implications of his pastoral letter, and his views on the authority and responsibility of bishops and bishops' conferences. Click link to read the complete interview on this site.



Bishop F. Joseph Gossman - Respect Life Homily

In a homily October 3, Raleigh Bishop Joseph Gossman emphasized the importance of the defense of life in political actions, and decried the "personally opposed, but..." stance. But he said he could not make a "public judgment" about the state of anyone's soul:

No one should mistake my decision not to make a public judgment about the state of the soul of those presenting themselves for Holy Communion as ignoring or excusing those who clearly contradict Catholic teaching in their public roles. Catholics who support policies or act in ways that are contrary to fundamental moral principles should not dismiss or take lightly the seriousness of their actions. They must study Catholic teaching, recognize their grave responsibility to protect life from conception to natural death, and adopt positions and work for policies that are consistent with these principles. I believe that as a Bishop, I must renew my efforts to persuade rather than to penalize. To teach more clearly, advocate more effectively, and to engage and challenge Catholic politicians to act on the moral teachings of the Church.
Along with many of my brother bishops, expressed in the statements of the Bishops' Task Force, and reflected throughout this talk, I too believe that "our battle for human life and dignity, for the weak and the vulnerable should be fought not at the communion rail but in hearts and minds, in pulpits and public advocacy, in our consciences and our communitiesthat disciplinary action should be applied only when efforts at dialogue, persuasion and conversion have been fully exhausted."

Click the above link to read the Homily on the Diocese of Raleigh website



Bishop Rene H. Gracida - A Twelve Step Program For Bishops

On October 5, a program outlined by Bishop Rene Gracida, emeritus bishop of Corpus Christi, was published by Catholic News Agency The article explained a suggested course of action for bishops confronted with a pro-abortion Catholic politician.
Bishop Gracida, followed up on his recent essay "Denying Holy Communion, A Case Study" responding to criticisms that the procedure he followed to issue an interdiction against a pro-abortion Catholic politician receiving Communion is "outdated," and he has drawn up a "12-step program" to help bishops discern a course of action.
Click Catholic News Agency to read this introductory article.

Click title above to link to Bishop Gracida's complete outline of procedures, on the Catholic News Agency website -- broken link.



Bishop Raymond J. Boland and Bishop Robert W. Finn - Pastoral Letter on Election 2004
October 7, 2004

Following in an excerpt from the pastoral letter of the bishops of Kansa City-St. Joseph issued October 7:

"...As your pastors in this Diocese of Kansas City-St. Joseph, we stand united with the U. S. Bishops as they have written, in solidarity with the Pope's great encyclical on the Gospel of Life, that "Catholic public officials are obliged to address each of these issues [racism, poverty, hunger, etc.] as they seek to build consistent policies which promote respect for the human person at all stages of life." But it must be understood clearly: "Being 'right' in such matters can never excuse a wrong choice regarding the attacks on innocent human life" ("Living the Gospel of Life," USCCB. n. 22). Life is the most fundamental right. Without it there can be no liberty, no justice, no pursuit of happiness.

Direct attacks on innocent life gravely offend the natural law as well as God's law. They are intrinsic evils and are always wrong. The question of the personal responsibility of Catholic politicians who maintain a permissive stand on abortion, euthanasia, and illicit embryonic research has been frequently -- and rightly -- discussed in these past months. Each Catholic voter must similarly examine his or her own participation in these grave evils when they go to the polls. We are the ones, after all, who vote these elected officials into power, or we do not. ..."

Click title above or HERE to read the entire Pastoral Letter on this web site. Reprinted with permission.

Bishop William Lori - Church and State (Part II )

In his October 2004 column in the Fairfield Catholic, Bridgeport Bishop William Lori continued his two-part essay "Church and State", in which he explains Catholics' responsibility to support Catholic moral teaching. Following are excerpts from this column.

What about the Catholic voter who disagrees with a candidate's pro-abortion stance but wants to vote for that candidate because of his or her stance on the war in Iraq, the economy, or any of the other important issues facing our nation? The "Doctrinal Note" answers that the Catholic voter may do so only when there are "proportionate reasons." Here is where we have to do some hard thinking and reflecting.

We cannot determine whether "proportionate reasons" exist so long as we think of abortion in the abstract, or imagine that unborn human lives are less valuable than other human lives. Our moral calculations must include how many abortions occur, coupled with an understanding that abortion really is the destruction of human life. Seen in that light, the proportions are staggering: 1.3 million abortions take place in our country each year.

Thus, as other bishops and moral theologians have observed, the Catholic voter may vote for a pro-abortion politician 1) if both candidates are equally pro-abortion; or 2) if the candidate who is pro-life supports something that is objectively more evil than the yearly destruction of 1.3 million human lives. In addition, a Catholic may legitimately vote for a candidate who supports imperfect legislation; that is, legislation that would reduce the number of abortions but not eliminate them altogether ­ for example, a candidate who supports the ban on partialbirth abortions."

(Click title above to access this column on the Bridgeport diocesan web site - and click HERE to link to Part I. -- links broken)



Francis Cardinal George - Catholic participation in political life, revisited


On October 10, Cardinal George published his column "Catholic participation in political life, revisited", in the Catholic New World, the newspaper of the Archdiocese of Chicago. Excerpts from the column appear below.

Cardinal's Column - October 10, 2004

...It is easy to become cynical about a political process which lends itself to manipulation on all sides. But God is not mocked. Nor is his Church. Because receiving Holy Communion is a public profession that one holds the Catholic faith, the question of "pro-choice" politicians receiving Communion is disputed these days. Not all the talk is itself free of partisan politics in an election year, nor is this election simply a referendum on abortion; but the objective "disconnect" between professing the faith and voting "pro-choice" creates tension in the community of faith, even at the altar. Only if one is in good faith can one receive Communion, and the judgement on
one's preparedness for receiving the Body of the Lord rests normally with each believer, as it should. If one's sin is manifest and obstinate, however, the minister of Holy Communion may and sometimes must refuse to give Communion.

Should Catholic "pro-choice" politicians receive Holy Communion? Objectively, no; but subjectively a politician may have convinced himself he is in good conscience. The burden of helping politicians form their consciences falls back upon their pastors. Such a conversation about personal conversion is hard to have in the midst of the pressures of electioneering. As the conversations, both public and private, go on, however, "pro-choice" politicians will inevitably find themselves ever more estranged from their own community of faith. This is tragic, not only for politicians, most of whom went into public service for generous motives, but for the faith community itself....

Click title above for the complete column on catholicnewworld.com - Link broken



Bishop Edward K. Braxton - Why Should You Vote?

Bishop Edward Braxton of Lake Charles, Louisiana, wrote two columns in his diocesan paper in October, "Why Should You Vote". The following quote is from the column of October 11, 2004


"In the 2004 elections as always, we bishops are called by the gospel to be political but not partisan. The Church cannot be a chaplain for any one party or cheerleader for any specific candidate. We dare not and should not tell our people for whom to vote. This is a solemn decision of informed personal conscience that can only be made after studying all of the important issues before us and quietly reflecting upon the ability, character and integrity of each candidate apart from the glare of partisan publicity."

Click links below for complete columns on the Lake Charles web site
http://lcdiocese.org/news/newsview.asp?NewsID=118
http://lcdiocese.org/news/newsview.asp?NewsID=117 --
Links broken


Bishop Bernard W. Schmitt - Abortion 'Greatest Evil of Our Age' - October 20, 2004

On October 20, 2004, Bishop Bernard Schmitt (Wheelington-Charleston) published a letter to his people on his diocesan web site. Excerpts follow:

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ:

What is perhaps the saddest exchange between God and man occurred very early in Salvation History: "The LORD asked Cain, 'Where is your brother Abel?' He answered, 'I do not know. Am I my brother's keeper?' The LORD then said, 'What have you done! Listen: your brother's blood calls out to me from the soil!'" (Gen 4: 9-10). Cain's response to God is certainly meant to cover up his murderous action. But, Cain serves as a spokesman for much of humanity when he asks, "Am I my brother's keeper?" ....As a brother among you and a Bishop for you, I have been made the keeper of you, my brothers and sisters in Christ, in a very special way. It is my sacred duty to celebrate for you the Sacraments of Salvation and teach you the Truth of faith and morals. Where I fail to do these, I have failed to fulfill my God-given responsibility to you and to all those in the world who are searching for the Truth.

These thoughts have been on my mind since I read data that indicate that Catholics are no different than the general population in their opinion on abortion or in their voting behavior. At the same time, I discovered that most Catholic legislators are no different from others in their lack of support for Pro-Life legislation; in fact, some Catholic legislators vote against any attempt to limit abortion on demand, and the culture of death it has created, with such regularity as to have a perfect record of opposition to this most innocent of all human life. I began informally asking members of the laity whether their pastors regularly preach the Gospel of Life and the Church's opposition to abortion. Many told me that even on Respect Life Sunday this year (October 3, 2004), they had not heard a single word from the pulpit.

As my brother's keeper, I feel guilty that I have said nothing to the priests of our Diocese to encourage them to preach the Gospel of Life each Sunday and to make the defense of innocent human life a pastoral priority. I would hate to come before the Lord our God and say that I was a Shepherd but that I did nothing to teach the people about the evils of abortion. Because I am my brother's keeper, I never want it to be said that I was willing to tolerate evil or any cooperation in it.

Therefore, I want to say, clearly and distinctly, as your brother and your Bishop, that abortion is the greatest moral evil of our age. As the deliberate killing of an innocent human being, there is "no circumstance, no purpose, no law whatsoever" that can justify or excuse abortion. "It is contrary to the Law of God which is written in every human heart, knowable by reason itself, and proclaimed by the Church" (Evangelium vitae, 62)....

All evils are not equal. Abortion, representing as it does an attack on the most innocent of all human life and the most sacred of all human relationships, is so grave and profound an evil that it calls all men and women of good will to action. Abortion is an evil we can do something about, not only by prohibiting this cruel practice once and for all but by assuring that each and every child is welcomed in life, protected in law, and cared for in society. As a nation, we are wealthy enough, blessed enough, and compassionate enough to achieve this goal and to achieve it right now. If, however, we choose to stand idly by while abortion continues, we risk the fate of the rich man who refused to lift a single finger to help the starving Lazarus.

And so, I want to reiterate what I have said: abortion is the greatest moral evil of our age. In light of that truth, a Catholic who deliberately votes for a candidate precisely because of the candidate's permissive stand on abortion is guilty of formal cooperation in grave evil. When a Catholic does not share a candidate's stand in favor of abortion, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, such an action can only be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons. I cannot think of a value to put on innocent human life and the right to life; others, in conscience, may be able to. However, I ask each of you to give serious consideration to the Truth that is Gospel of Life as you prepare to vote and I ask each of you to remember that we are, all of us, our brothers' keepers......"

Click title above for link to the complete Press Release on diocesan web site: http://www.dwc.org/news/oct2104.shtml - Broken link


Bishop Thomas Gumbleton - Bush's Policies Are In Opposition To A Culture Of Life

Detroit auxiliary Bishop Thomas J. Gumbelton published a Commentary "Bush's Policies are in Opposition to a Culture of Life", in the October 20, 2004, edition of the Detroit Free Press.

Bishop Gumbleton is best known as a "peace activist", an advocate of "gay rights", and a regular columnist for the National Catholic Reporter. The bishop states that
"When Bush travels the country, he often says that he stands 'for a culture of life in which every person counts and every being matters.' These words resonate deeply with Catholics. But is Bush's agenda really the Catholic agenda? Does he really stand for a 'culture of life' that recognizes and celebrates the worth of every human being?"

(Bishop Gumbleton's column does not mention Senator Kerry, the Democratic presidential candidate who is a Catholic and a pro-abortion advocate.)

Click title above to go to the bishop's complete commentary on the Detroit Free Press web site (www.freep.com) -- broken link


Bishop Thomas Wenski - Faithful Citizenship - October 2004

In his October column, "Faithful Citizenship", Bishop Thomas Wenski, co-adjutor bishop of Orlando, reminded his diocese of the November 2 presidential election, and that "as citizens or as elected officials, if we are to be faithful to the truth about the human person, we must oppose uncompromisingly policies and laws that undermine the common good precisely because they originate in a defective understanding of the human person. For this reason, the Church ­clergy and laity ­ while agreeing to disagree on other matters of prudential judgment cannot but oppose the evils of abortion, euthanasia, fetal stem cell research, human cloning and so called same sex "marriage". In these areas, there can be no other legitimate Catholic position."

Bishop Wenski repeated this message in a homily in Philadelphia on October 21, at the closing Mass of the Catholic Leadership Conference.

Click title above to go to Bishop Wenski's complete column on this site, or view it on the Orlando diocesan site: http://www.orlandodiocese.org/our_diocese/wenski/columns/FaithfulcitizenshipOCT2004.htm -- link broken


Archbishop Charles Chaput - Faith and Patriotism - October 22

In an op-ed column published in the New York Times October 22, 2004, Denver Archbishop Charles Chaput said that statements about "imposing" religious beliefs on society or "separation of Church and state" are intended to discourage serious debate.
To claim this, he said, "is not merely politically convenient; it is morally incoherent and irresponsible".

Click title above to go to his complete op-ed on this site -- or go to the NYT site (membership required): http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/22/opinion/22chaput.html?pagewanted=all
NYT:

For a list of Archbishop Chaput's Faith and Public Life writings go to http://www.archden.org/index.cfm/ID/384


Most Reverend Kenneth A. Angell
Bishop of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Burlington

October 23, 2004

Burlington Bishop Kenneth Angell published a pastoral letter, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life", to his people the
week [October 23, 2004] before the presidential election. The bishop wrote, in part:

"As we invite everybody to join us at the Table of Life, and indeed fight for their right to be at that Table of Life, we must also live The Way ourselves.  How can we profess the sanctity of life and yet refuse to support it at the polls?  How can we support politicians who profess to the sanctity of life but refuse to support it in public debate?  How can we award Catholic politicians our votes when they refuse to support life with their votes when they leave their informed consciences at the Statehouse doors and on the steps of the Capitol?    Separation of church and state should not include abandonment of conscience and values.not in a country that professes to be "One Nation under God."  ...

"Prominent figures who profess the Catholic faith must be particularly cautious in the way they publicly represent their beliefs on the value of human life.  We hope they will take great care to lead, not mislead the faithful on any and all respect life issues.  Public statements and opinions which distort Catholic Church teachings can confuse the faithful, cause them
great pain, and promote disunity within the Church."

Click the title for link to the complete Pastoral Statement. -- broken link

 

Also see http://www.vermontcatholic.org/FaithfulCitizen/index.html -- The Challenge of Faithful Citizenship. -- broken link


Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio

Put Out Into the Deep
Bishop DiMarzio's weekly column

The Tablet October 23, 2004

Conscience Guides Your Vote

My dear brothers and sisters in Christ,

With the Presidential election ten days away, I feel that it is imperative to share some reflections on the current political climate and our responsibilities as Catholic citizens in the United States. First, it is so important that we vote. In our last national election, only 51 percent of the eligible electorate cast votes. We might compare this to the European nations where over 70 percent of the electorate vote, and the recent election in Afghanistan where over 70 percent of the people voted; some were women who were voting for the first time and who could cast their vote for the beginnings of democracy.

The Catholic bishops in their statement, "Faithful Citizenship," have urged Catholics to be involved in the public forum, especially in making critical decisions regarding those who govern us and support the common good, which is the ultimate determinant of Catholic participation in a society.

I remember the first time I, myself, was eligible to vote at the age of eighteen. My grandfather, an Italian immigrant who was very proud of his United States citizenship, gave me my first lesson on voting. He told me to go into the booth and pull down the lever when I saw an Italian name. I loved my grandfather very much; his sophistication, however, was determined by the situation of the 1960s where few Italian politicians were able to be elected to office. Party affiliation did not mean much, ethnicity was all-important.

Just last week, a major daily newspaper in our city had an interesting headline on the Op-Ed page which caught my attention. The article was entitled "Voting Our Conscience, Not Our Religion." How true that headline is that we must vote our conscience, the ultimate determinant of our moral behavior, even above religion. Just as my grandfather used ethnicity as the ultimate determining factor in voting, not understanding issues of conscience, so also today many make party or other factors what determines their vote. Unfortunately, the Op-Ed piece, written by the dean of a major Catholic university, confused the issue of conscience and, in fact, told people how to vote.

This is something that none of us particularly likes, especially when we are signaled out as a religion and told to vote for a particular party, as the Op-Ed piece did. As a bishop, however, I am charged with the responsibility of forming the consciences of the faithful of Brooklyn and Queens. Conscience, as I have described in my past letters to you, is not some type of freewheeling optional determinant of our action. Rather, conscience is well formed when we understand the issues and bring our understanding of human nature and divine law to bear on our decisions.

In the last of the three presidential debates, the issue of legislating articles of faith was raised, specifically in regard to abortion. As a teacher of the Catholic faith, I must state that, because it is the deliberate killing of an innocent human life, the prohibition against abortion is doctrine that has been consistently taught by the Church. In fact, from its earliest days, Christianity prohibited abortion. However, as has often been expressed in recent times, abortion is an evil, not because the Catholic Church teaches it to be so; instead, the Church teaches it to be so because it is an evil. The Church has arrived at that conclusion by using human reason and by understanding human nature. Clearly, our Holy Father, Pope John Paul II, in his encyclical, "The Gospel of Life" ("Evangelium Vitae") par. 62, clarified the position of the Church when he said, "No circumstance, no purpose, no law whatsoever can ever make licit an act which is intrinsically illicit, since it is contrary to the Law of God which is written in every human heart, knowable by reason itself and proclaimed by the Church."

Our Holy Father has said time and time again that the Church proposes and does not impose. We propose what we believe and what we know from human reason and natural law to be the truth and hope and pray that others will accept the truth that we stand for as a Church.

In his encyclical, "Veritatis Splendor" (No. 50), the Holy Father says, "The true meaning of the natural law can be understood; It refers to man's proper and primordial nature, the 'nature of the human person' ("Gaudium et Spes," No. 51), which is the person himself in the unity of soul and body, in the unity of his spiritual and biological inclinations…."

Further on in this document, John Paul II says, "Inasmuch as the natural law expresses the dignity of the human person and lays the foundation for his fundamental rights and duties, it is universal in its precepts and its authority extends to all mankind" (No. 51).

The Holy Father then explains that "Faced with the progressive weakening in individual consciences and in society of the sense of the absolute and grave moral illicitness of the direct taking of all innocent human life, especially at its beginning and at its end, the Church's magisterium has spoken out with increasing frequency in defense of the sacredness and inviolability of human life" ("Evangelium Vitae") par. 57.

Hence, if any politician opposed abortion he or she would not be imposing an article of faith, but rather would be reaffirming the naturally available truth of the dignity of the human person. It is a self-evident truth found in the principles that guide our country.

It is unfortunate that the current political climate has confused many voters with rhetoric regarding the real issues at stake. Let there be no doubt that there is a hierarchy of values regarding life just as there is a seamless garment of life issues. Some stand out above others because they are the direct taking of innocent human life such as abortion and euthanasia. Others involve the manipulation of life, such as embryonic stem-cell research---which has abortive implications---and cloning. Life issues regarding the quality of life, the care of the poor and the waging of war also are important issues.

As I have said before, no one likes to be told how to vote. It is our own individual conscience, well formed, that will give us the direction that we need to cast an intelligent vote for democracy in our nation. It is never easy to instruct and give direction. My humble attempts as bishop and teacher of the faith, however, are demanded by the present situation. It is my hope that together as a nation we will put out into the deep of reclaiming the basic human values so integral to our democracy. Use your vote and make it count.

Source: http://www.dioceseofbrooklyn.org/dimarzio/10_23_04.html - broken link


Bishop Paul S. Loverde - Pre-Election Letter to the People of Arlington

Special to the Arlington Catholic Herald - Issue dated 10/28/04

In a statement dated October 31, 2004, Arlington Bishop Paul Loverde wrote, in part:

"As my brother bishops and I have stated in "Faithful Citizenship: Civic Responsibility for a New Millennium," the critical principles by which we should judge those who run for elected office are the protection of human life, the promotion of family life, the pursuit of social justice and the practice of global solidarity....

'As citizens and Catholics, we must be involved in the political process and in the electing of our local, state and national leaders. "The arena for moral responsibility includes not only the halls of government but the voting booth as well" (Living the Gospel of Life, 33). Once again, I urge you to weigh carefully the issues and the candidates from the perspective of the four moral priorities I outlined above, especially the priority to protect the life of all persons, pre-born and born....

"In these days preceding the elections on Nov. 2, please pray and fast that the citizens of our nation will elect those leaders who will renew our communities, our state and our society by enabling all citizens to restore the culture of life....

Complete statement can be accessed on Arlington Catholic Herald site by clicking the title above. -- broken link.


Cardinal Justin Rigali - The Gravest of all Issues - Catholic participation in the political process (released 10-29-04)

Philadelphia's Cardinal Justin Rigali, in a Statement dated October 28, 2004, urged Catholics to prioritize social and moral issues in casting their votes, as in the following quote:

As Catholics we revere life and find the destruction of innocent human life abhorrent. Abortion is an act evil in itself because a fetus in the womb is a complete human being in the process of development. The person is innocent and defenseless from attack. Since abortion destroys this life, it is intrinsically evil. In a similar way embryonic stem cell research by its nature destroys a fertilized egg ­ an embryo ­ that would otherwise mature until birth. Regardless of putative benefits to medical science, the cost is the destruction of innocent human life.

Assisted suicide and euthanasia, also known as "mercy killing," violate the gift of life by destroying it instead of permitting it to pass through its natural course. Cloning also violates the natural order by attempting to create life by scientific means divorced from the natural process of generation: the conjugal union of two persons married for life.

Click title to go to Cardinal Rigali's complete statement on this site.


Massachusetts Bishops - Statement on the Election of 2004

On October 29, the four bishops of Massachusetts, Archbishop Seán P. O'Malley (Boston,) Bishops George W. Coleman (Fall River),
Timothy A. McDonnell (Springfield), and Robert J. McManus (Worcester), issued a joint statement on Catholics and political responsibility, in which they mentioned a range of social issues -- capital punishmene, war, poverty -- but said that the Right to Life is basic:

The Right to Life: This is the basic human right upon which all our rights are contingent. While the right to life must be protected and promoted throughout the spectrum of life, it is uniquely life in its beginning and its final stages, which confronts our society with its greatest challenge.
As we have stated before, we must assert the basic moral conviction that every human life is sacred from conception to natural death. We must, therefore, oppose on both moral and legal grounds, abortion, assisted suicide and euthanasia....

The bishops' statement (pdf format) can be accessed Massachusetts Catholic Conference web site by clicking title above or the following: http://www.macathconf.org/04-Bishops%20Statement%20Elections%20Text%20FINAL%20Oct.pdf -- broken links


Bishop David Ricken - October 2004 message on Catholics and voting

Cheyenne Bishop David Ricken's October message to his diocese urged Catholics to study the critical issues in making their decision to vote. He referred to his earlier columns in which he explained fundamental Church teachings, grounded in moral law.

In his August 2004 "Letter to Catholic Politicians and Public Officials on the Subject of Abortion and the Law", Bishop Ricken, a canon lawyer, presented a forceful and carefully reasoned moral and legal argument against the constitutionality of legalized destruction of unborn children, and why Catholic lawmakers must oppose the "right" to abortion.

In his October column, he reminded Catholics that

As a Catholic Church, we are called to share the gift of our social teaching with the world. We bring a unique look at issues which face the modern world through our immersion and rootedness in Scripture and in the teachings of the Church. This is a great service that the Catholic Church gives to society which is so often in need of some guiding principles which our country and our world need so desperately.

Along with the other Bishops, I encourage all citizens of Wyoming to look beyond party politics and to examine critically the positions of various people who are running for office, both local and national. It is not my purpose, nor my role to endorse or oppose candidates. I hope that you will examine the issues and the candidates on the range of issues, and on their political integrity, philosophy and other important issues.

I have spoken very clearly about several topics throughout my columns in the Wyoming Catholic Register. I hope you will refer to these as you also consider your choices for the election.

To access the Cheyenne diocesan web site for this and other columns by Bishop Ricken, click here: http://www.dioceseofcheyenne.org/


Bishop George L. Thomas - Political year offers opportunity to renew our efforts to build a Culture of Life

Excerpts from Bishop Thomas's October 2004 column:

The perception of the seriousness of abortion has become obscured in our day. The widespread use of ambiguous terminology ­ "freedom of choice," "interruption of pregnancy" or other euphemisms ­ tend to hide its true nature. Pope John Paul II, in his encyclical "The Gospel of Life," uses direct and unadorned language: "We are dealing with the murder of a human being at the very beginning of life, lacking even that minimal form of defense consisting of the cries and tears of a newborn baby." E.V. 58

As a Catholic community, we face a vast ocean of unfinished business. At a time when 1.3 million abortions take place annually within the confines of our nation, I ask you to join me in the intentional promotion of a Culture of Life.

· The Catholic community must do all in its power to promote the value of human life and the theology of the common good. This is vitally important even in our own household, since secular pollsters tout figures demonstrating that Catholic attitudes towards abortion on demand are scarcely different from the remainder of society. I encourage pastors, teachers and parents to promote a vision of human life that underscores the inherent value and worth of every person, particularly the unborn and the vulnerable.

· The Church and community must call forth viable political candidates who are steeped in the conviction that human life is sacred, and who are willing to demonstrate the moral courage to uphold this vision of human life in the public forum.

· We implore Catholic politicians and candidates to embrace the Culture of Life and avoid the fiction that their public posture and private morality can be separated. Acknowledging that you face untold societal and political pressure, we ask you to remain in communion with the Church and help transform society in the light of the Gospel.

Click title above to read the entire column and other columns on the Helena diosecan web site - broken link.


October 29, 2004
Issue  of The Compas
s
Official Newspaper of the Catholic Diocese of Green Bay, Wisconsin

Bridging the Gap: All in the Family
Well all have a special interest in 'domestic church'

By Bishop David Zubik

...."As you and I make our way toward Election Day, Nov. 2, I urge you: FOR GOD'S SAKE: VOTE!

· When you go to your local polls, don't leave God outside. Take with you a renewed understanding of how God views life; "God created male and female, in the divine image He created them" and "found them to be very good." (Gen 1:27, 31)

· When you go to your local polls, don't leave God outside Take with you the belief that God is the Creator of all life and not some scientist who promises to create life, only in the end to kill life.

· When you go to your local polls, don't leave God outside. Remember that God created marriage and "that is why a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife, and the two of them become one body" (Gen 2:24) and not a lifestyle choice that seeks to make marriage by law something God never intended marriage to be.

· When you go to your local polls, don't leave God outside. Know what our beliefs as Catholics are and vote with an educated conscience.

FOR GOD'S SAKE: VOTE!"

Click the title for the complete article - broken link


 November 2004

Bishop Samuel Aquila - November 30th - "You will know the truth and the truth will set you free", A Pastoral Letter on Deepening our Understanding of the Truths of the Catholic Faith.

Bishop Aquila in his introduction states, "This pastoral letter will address five areas of confusion in the hearts and minds of some of the faithful, in the hope that as a Catholic people we will come to a deeper understanding of the truth that sets us free".

Below is a list of the five areas:

I. We must clearly present the deposit of faith entrusted to us by Jesus Christ in Scripture and Tradition.

II. We must become more deeply convinced that we can find the truth that sets us free only in Jesus Christ.

III. We must develop a mature understanding of the meaning of conscience.

IV. We must deepen our appreciation of the inalienable dignity of human life.

V. We must deepen our understanding of what it means to live out our faith in the world.

Click title for the Pastoral Letter on the Fargo Diocese Website -- broken link

* * *

Vatican Statements & Canon Law - Documents - Cardinal Ratzinger's memorandum

US Bishops' Conference Statements

Diocesan Bishops' Statements

Selected articles, commentary


Women for Faith & Family operates solely on your generous donations.

WFF is a registered 501(c)(3) non-profit organization. Donations are tax deductible.

Voices copyright © 1999-Present Women for Faith & Family. All rights reserved.

PERMISSION GUIDELINES

All material on this web site is copyrighted and may not be copied or reproduced without prior written permission from Women for Faith & Family,except as specified below.

Personal use
Permission is granted to download and/or print out articles for personal use only.

Quotations
Brief quotations (ca 500 words) may be made from the material on this site, in accordance with the “fair use” provisions of copyright law, without prior permission. For these quotations proper attribution must be made of author and WFF + URL (i.e., “Women for Faith & Family – www.wf-f.org.)

Attribution
Generally, all signed articles or graphics must also have the permission of the author. If a text does not have an author byline, Women for Faith & Family should be listed as the author. For example: Women for Faith & Family (St Louis: Women for Faith & Family, 2005 + URL)

Link to Women for Faith & Family web site.
Other web sites are welcome to establish links to www.wf-f.org or to individual pages within our site.


Back to top -- Home -- Back to Catholics & Political Responsibility
Women for Faith & Family
PO Box 300411
St. Louis, MO 63130
Ph: 314-863-8385 - Fax: 314-863-5858 Fax - Email

You are viewing an archived page on our old website. Click here to visit our new website.