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 2005 - 2007
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
|
Chronological Order |
Alphabetical Order |
| 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 January 2009 - Present Archbishop Charles Chaput - January 21, 2009 Statements between Jan 2008- Sept 2008 Bishop William E. Lori - ?-2008 Statements between Oct 2008-Dec 2008
Bishop Earl Boyea - October 2008 Statements between 1990 and 2004 Archbishop John Myers - June 1990 |
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 |
| January 2005 |
Bishop Edward U. Kmiec's statement on Senator Clinton's appearance at Canisius College
As bishop of the Diocese of Buffalo, I wish to inform the faithful and the community that the Diocese of Buffalo is not associated with the planning or promotion of the lecture of Senator Hillary Clinton at Canisius College on Monday, January 31, 2005. This event has been arranged under the auspices of Canisius College without previous consultation.
Although Catholic Charities was listed as a sponsor, this was without the knowledge that Senator Clinton would be one of the presenters of the lecture series. They have since withdrawn their sponsorship, as has the diocesan office of Church Ministry.
We have communicated our displeasure and have discussed the situation with Canisius College officials.
We certainly subscribe to the statement on "Catholics in Political Life" issued last June by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops that "the Catholic community and Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles with awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions." However, it also states that we are "committed to maintaining communication with public officials who make decisions every day that touch issues of human life and dignity."
It is for that reason, despite calls for the cancellation of the event, that it was thought best to allow it to proceed, though reluctantly, in order to maintain channels of communication with Senator Clinton and others who hold her views. In regard to Senator Clinton, I believe she will be well aware of the depth of our beliefs on life issues in this very Catholic region of New York State. We trust that she will respect and be sensitive to those sentiments.
We hope and pray for the understanding of our community of faith and that the outcome will be a positive one.
Most Rev. Edward U. Kmiec
Bishop of Buffalo
January 28, 2005
Source: http://www.buffalodiocese.org/
| August 2005 |
Posted August 26, 2005
Bishop cites "national impact" of denying politicians Communion
By Jerry Filteau
Catholic News Service
August 18, 2005
WASHINGTON (CNS) -- Anytime a local bishop denies Communion to a politician because of his stand on abortion, the decision can have "national ramifications," Bishop Donald W. Wuerl of Pittsburgh said in a statement exploring ways the U.S. bishops could reach a more united approach to such decisions.
...Click title above for the complete article.
| February 2006 |
In an interview with the St. Louis Post-Dispatch February 15, Honduras Cardinal Oscar Andres Rodriguez Maradiaga called attention to poverty and politics. Tim Townsend, of the Post-Dispatch wrote:
Politicians are a special concern for Rodriguez Maradiaga. "Politics have become an industry in our nation," he said. "People want to become president in order to get rich. We have to recover the dignity of politics, we have to work as Christians to give politicians their ethics back."
In an interview, Rodriguez Maradiaga said an issue recently in the news in the U.S. - bishops in favor of denying Holy Communion to Catholic politicians who support abortion rights - is not relevant in Honduras "because those people never come to church."
But, he said, "personally, I could never deny Holy Communion to a person. It would be a public scandal. Those who know they shouldn't be accepting the Eucharist have their own consciences. In my capacity as a pastor, I would never decide that for someone else."
Cardinal Rodriguez Maridiaga, 63, is archbishop of Tegucigalpa. His name was often mentioned last year as a possible candidate for the papacy. The cardinal was in St. Louis for a lecture February 14 at St. Louis University on the effect of globalization on Latin America.
St. Louis P-D: http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/religion/story/632506C57587241D8625711600228679?OpenDocument - broken link
| June 2006 |
Posted June 20, 2006 - ORAL REPORT to the USCCB June 2006 Meeting
TASK FORCE ON CATHOLIC BISHOPS AND CATHOLIC POLITICIANS by Cardinal Theodore McCarrick -- June 15, 2006, USCCB Meeting in Los Angeles
| August 2006 |
Posted September 1, 2006
On August 15th the Bishops of Kansas released a statement, Moral Principles for Catholic Voters. In a joint letter signed by the Bishops to every pastor in the State of Kansas they stressed the importance that Catholics not only realize their right and duty to vote but also of being informed voters who make their decisions based on moral principles.
They asked each pastor to provide a copy of the statement to their parishioners and to encourage them to read the statement and become knowledgeable about the positions of candidates on a variety of issues. They also asked the pastors to exhort their parishioners not only to vote, but also to be well informed voters.
Links to this statement at http://kansas.nasccd.org/
Posted May 28, 2008
Pastoral Statement on the 2006 General Election -- Sept 20, 2006
Click title for the pdf document on the Arizona Catholic Conference's website
| October 2006 |
Posted May 28, 2008
Arizona Catholic Conference
2006 Voter's Guide -- Links to the Arizona Catholic Conference's website - Link broken
October 2006
Elections can be difficult for Catholics as we consider our choice of leaders and policies that will guide our nation and our state. In our effort to make elections more about fundamental moral choices than partisan bickering, we offer this brief statement urging Catholics to become more aware of Catholic moral and social teaching and to become more involved in the political process.
Catholic Conference of Illinois
Guidelines on Political Activities for Parish and Catholic Church Organizations
Posted October 25, 2006
Catholics in the Public Square, Most Reverend Thomas J. Olmsted, Retail Price: US $4.95 (Steep Volume Discounts), 45 pages, October 7, 2006 -- summarizes the obligations , and political responsibilities of Catholics.
Excerpts:
• Are there any “non-negotiable” issues for Catholics involved in politics?
There are several issues that are “not negotiable” for Catholics in political life, because they involve matters that are intrinsically evil. In an address to European politicians on March 30, 2006, Pope Benedict XVI stated: “ As far as the Catholic Church is concerned, the principal focus of her interventions in the public arena is the protection and promotion of the dignity of the person, and she is thereby consciously drawing particular attention to principles which are not negotiable. Among these the following emerge clearly today:
• Protection of life in all its stages, from the first moment of conception until natural death;
• Recognition and promotion of the natural structure of the family – as a union between a man and a woman based on marriage – and its defense from attempts to make it juridically equivalent to radically different forms of union which in reality harm it and contribute to its destabilization, obscuring its particular character and its irreplaceable social role;
• The protection of the rights of parents to educate their children.”
The issues mentioned by Pope Benedict are all “non-negotiable” and are some of the most contemporary issues in the political arena. I should note, however, that other issues, while not intrinsically evil, deserve prayerful consideration, such as questions of war and capital punishment, poverty issues and matters relating to illegal immigration.
• What are the causes that can ban Catholics from 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 ."
All Catholics should examine their consciences, and refrain from receiving Holy Communion if they are not living in a proper state of grace. Should some Catholic politicians who are presently pro-abortion obstinately persist in this contradiction to our faith, this becomes a source of scandal. In these and similar cases, measures beyond those of moral persuasion may need to be taken by those in leadership in the Church . 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."
If a politician is actively supporting and furthering the culture of death, he is not only causing scandal; he is sinning. Similarly, when a politician performs actions (like voting) that allow for abortions and even promote abortions, or that mandate the distribution of contraceptives by pharmacists and others, that politician is materially cooperating in grave sin. When this occurs, then the politician cannot receive Holy Communion without previously making a good confession. A good confession would require sincere sorrow for such sin and a firm purpose of making amendment. Since the harm done would be public in nature, the amendment should also be public.
See articles:
Bishop promotes faith in society, Q&A booklet addresses Catholics’ responsibility in the public arena
By Andrew Junker, The Catholic Sun. October, 19, 2006
Code: ZE06101528
Date: 2006-10-15
Giving Politics a Faith Lift, Interview With Bishop Olmsted of Phoenix
Links Broken
Put Out Into the Deep
Bishop DiMarzio's weekly column
THE TABLET October 28, 2006
Preparing for Election Day
My dear brothers and sisters in Christ,
In ten days we as a nation will be asked to exercise a civic responsibility and vote in midterm elections to elect governors, members of Congress and state legislators. Casting a vote, in accordance with a well-formed conscience, is incumbent upon all Catholics. Conscience is that right reason which guides our moral and ethical activity.
How do we form a conscience ready to make important choices about the selection of legislators? A conscience to be well formed must take into account the teachings of the Church and act in conformity with the virtue of prudence. Prudence allows us to make judgments in often complex and difficult situations, such as the election of public officials, so that we can act justly and in charity.
Pope Benedict XVI, in his first encyclical, “God Is Love,” treated the relationship between justice and charity and gave us important insights into the position of the Church in society and its influence over the affairs of state. It also provided practical guidance to individual Catholics. He wrote:
“The Church’s social teaching argues on the basis of reason and natural law, namely, on the basis of what is in accord with the nature of every human being. It recognizes that it is not the Church’s responsibility to make this teaching prevail in political life. Rather, the Church wishes to help form consciences in political life and to stimulate greater insight into the authentic requirements of justice as well as greater readiness to act accordingly, even when this might involve conflict with situations of personal interest.”
Oftentimes, our voting habits do follow personal interest, party loyalty and sometimes even ethnic affiliations. The well-formed conscience for a Catholic permits us to use our reason to understand the conflicts and realities before us and choose representatives that can reflect our understanding of our political responsibility. The Holy Father went on to say:
“The Church cannot and must not take upon herself the political battle to bring about the most just society possible. . . .she cannot and must not remain on the sidelines … A just society must be the achievement of politics, not of the Church. Yet the promotion of justice through efforts to bring about openness of mind and will to the demands of the common good is something which concerns the Church deeply.”
The Church must never involve itself in politics, to the point that it becomes an actor in the arena or simply another interest group. The Church acts in concert with what justice and charity demand and, it is hoped, does so with one mind in regard to enunciating the truth in a world that has long lost the understanding that truth is absolute and is not just what any one person demands.
Many issues face us in the upcoming elections, among them, partial-birth abortion, embryonic stem-cell research and same-sex marriages, which are non-negotiable. Support for these violate the foundation of Catholic social teaching in a just society governed by the law of charity. We are called upon to make prudential judgments concerning other issues, using our well-formed consciences to guide us in our decision-making, especially in selecting elected officials.
Our prudential judgments, however, can never go against the dignity of every human person from the moment of conception to natural death. Respect for human life is the basis for those things needed to live with dignity: productive work, fair wages, food and shelter, education, health care, protection from harm, the right to move from one country to another when conditions at home require it. As Catholics these principles should guide our decision-making and afford us a clear and balanced path for making our electoral decisions.
Every political election can be compared to putting out into the deep. Although we vote for a candidate who we think reflects our point of view, we are never sure where our vote or the candidate will eventually take us. Perhaps, in exercising the virtue of prudence, we might take care to recognize the true direction in which the ship of state is headed and take precautions to assure that it goes in the direction of right reason in accord with the natural law and the common good.
Join me in praying for an election season where those who uphold the basic dignity of human life are successful. Join me in praying that the law of love be written on the hearts of each of our elected officials.
Source: http://www.dioceseofbrooklyn.org/dimarzio/10-28-06-PreparingforElectionDay.html -- Link Broken
| November 2006 |
Posted November 8, 2006
10/27/06 -- Faithful Citizenship: A Concern for the Common Good
Most Reverend Joseph A. Galante, D.D., J.C.D.
Bishop of Camden
Link broken
| January 2007 |
Salina diocese, Bishop Paul Coakley.
“Bishop: Denying Communion to Obstinant Pro-Abortion Catholic Politicians - in many cases becomes the right decision and the only choice": http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/jan/07013109.html
Quote from his January 31 interview:
LifeSiteNews: A few bishops – one in Canada and a few in the US – have said that it has come to a point now where they would deny them Communion because of the severity of the situation and how it hasn’t gotten any better – in fact it seems to have become worse. Also Cardinal Ratzinger, just prior to becoming pope, did make a very definitive statement that, in such cases where it is obstinate and persistent… they must be denied Communion. What is your response to that?
Bishop: I agree. I think, one has to determine yet at what point it can be determined that they have come to that state of obstinate refusal to desist from that condition of manifest, grave sin. I think we have an obligation as bishops, as pastors, to try to work with them to bring them to a change of heart and refusing them Communion would be, not the first, but more than likely, the last stage in a serious of steps.
LifeSiteNews: So, it is not something that you would rule out?
Bishop: Oh, absolutely not. I think it is something that Canon Law sanctions and that I think many bishops find themselves with no other choice but to make that decision. I think in many cases it becomes the right decision and the only choice.
| March 2007 |
Vasa on Catholic responsibility
Bishop Robert Vasa spoke of the personal commitment of Candidates for the Sacraments in a column in the Sentinal March 1, 2007 -- http://www.sentinel.org/articles/2007-9/15257.html (Broken Link) -- following are his concluding comments.
Thus, if someone were to say to me in response to a question about the need to protect the Most Blessed Sacrament from profanation: “To me it is not even a question. God has given us a free will. We are all responsible for our actions. If you do not want to scatter Consecrated Hosts throughout the Church, you do not believe in doing that, then do not do it. But do not tell somebody else what they can do in terms of honoring their religious convictions. After all, they are just choices.” Clearly, such a position would belie one’s authentic belief in the Real Presence of our Lord. At very least such a position would contradict one’s attestation that they “believe and profess all that the Holy Catholic Church teaches, believes and proclaims to be revealed by God.”
Some months ago a prominent Catholic public person, described as faithful to the church, was asked if being pro-choice or pro-abortion was an issue which conflicted with the Catholic Faith. Here is what was said: “To me it isn’t even a question. God has given us a free will. We’re all responsible for our actions. If you don’t want an abortion, you don’t believe in it, then don’t have one. But don’t tell somebody else what they can do in terms of honoring their responsibilities.” According to a close relative the choice to have an abortion or not to have an abortion had no moral component whatsoever. “They were just choices.”
It seems to me that there are just choices and there are unjust choices. Choices would be the preference for chocolate ice cream over vanilla ice cream or sherbet instead of ice cream. That is just a choice.
A just choice would be to choose to pay a fair and living wage to employees as opposed to simply meeting the mandatory standard of minimum wage laws. An unjust choice would be to choose to terminate the life of another human being. This is not just a choice and it is not a just choice; it is an unjust choice.
Furthermore it is an unjust choice which is diametrically opposed to the clear and consistent teaching of the Catholic Church as well as to the clear and consistent teaching of God Himself in the Ten Commandments. The direct, intentional taking of the life of an innocent human being is inhumane and unjust. It is not just a choice!
It is categorically impossible for the same person to state that he or she believes simultaneously both what the Catholic Church teaches and that abortion is just a choice. What we believe must inform what we do.
| May 2007 |
Bishop Thomas Tobin, sharply criticized the "personally opposed, but..." stance of Catholic politicians, in his column, "My RSVP to Rudy Giuliani" in the May 31, 2007, edition the diocesan paper, The Rhode Island Catholic. Bishop Tobin said, in part,
“Rudy’s explanation is a classic expression of the position on abortion we’ve heard from weak-kneed politicians so frequently in recent years: 'I’m personally opposed to but don’t want to impose my views on other people'. The incongruity of that position has been exposed many times now.
“As I’ve asked previously, would we let any politician get away with the same pathetic cop-out on other issues: “I’m personally opposed to - Racial discrimination, sexual abuse, prostitution, drug abuse, polygamy, incest - but don’t want to impose my beliefs on others?”
“Why is it that when I hear someone explaining this position, I think of the sad figure of Pontius Pilate in the Gospels, who personally found no guilt in Jesus, but for fear of the crowd, washed his hands of the whole affair and handed Jesus over to be crucified. I can just hear Pilate saying, ‘You know, I’m personally opposed to crucifixion but I don’t want to impose my belief on others’”.
Bishop Tobin’s complete column is in the online edition of The Rhode Island Catholic - http://www.thericatholic.com/rudy.html - Link broken
| June 2007 |
Posted June 12, 2007
Stem cell debate a question of conscience
By Cardinal George Pell
June 10, 2007 01:00am
Article from: News.com.au
"The Catholic Church supports adult stem cell research and remains opposed to the destruction of human life at any stage after conception.
"Embryonic stem cell research requires such destruction.
"While I regret the Legislative Assembly passed the cloning bill and hope the Legislative Council will decide differently, we all accept the parliament makes the laws.
"Some supporters of the cloning bill made little attempt to argue that it was right to create and then destroy human embryos, but claimed that this evil was outweighed by the cures for diseases which would follow.
"This is not a justifiable line of argumentation, but the promised cures have nowhere materialised from embryos.
"Seventy-two diseases and conditions have been helped by stem cells, but they were all adult stem cells.
...
"A few intolerant politicians want to ban religious argument in public life, so that the only permissible reasoning will be irreligious or anti-religious.
"A few politicians, trumpeted their Catholicity as they publicly rejected Catholic teachings; this is not good logic.
...
"All Catholics who continue to reject important Catholic teachings - even in areas such as sexuality, family, marriage, abortion, euthanasia, cloning where "liberals" claim the primacy of conscience rules - should expect to be confronted, gently and consistently, rather than comforted and encouraged in their wrongdoing.
"Certainly, every Catholic politician who voted for this bill should think twice and examine his or her conscience before next receiving Communion.
Click title for the complete article
| October 2007 |
Posted May 27, 2008
Virginia Catholic Conference - Pre-Election Statement - October 2007
Click title for the pdf statement on the Virginia Catholic Conference's website.
Put Out Into the Deep
Bishop DiMarzio's weekly column
THE TABLET
Oct. 27, 2007
Caesar's Coin
(Following is the homily delivered at the Red Mass of the Kings County Catholic Lawyers Guild held at St. James Cathedral Basilica Oct. 17.)
My dear brothers and sisters in Christ,
When Jesus was confronted with the legal question, whether “as Jews, could they pay taxes to the Roman conquerors,” He asked for a coin and said: “Whose image is here?” Then He said: “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s.” This enigmatic saying perhaps needs some explanation. It can be the basis on which we can address issues today that you, as a legal community, confront daily: issues of the relationship between Church and State, issues between morality and law, between individual conscience and politics.
If we were to interpret Jesus’ saying, perhaps clearly the simplest interpretation is that since Caesar’s image is on the coin it belongs to him and there is no more need to discuss the question; however, a deeper understanding of the Jewish reluctance to pay tribute is that they were not supposed to carry or look at coins with images of any kind. More importantly, however, is Jesus’ emphasis that the things of God must be given to God, as He emphasizes in His proclamation about the Kingdom; it is the Kingdom of God that we must seek. The Kingdom of God is not the kingdoms of this earth or the dominion of earthly powers. Rather, our emphasis in the long run must be establishing the kingdom that has no earthly form, but rather one that recognizes God as the almighty and all powerful.
The second reading also provides us with a view of how we must look at the structures of governmental authority. St. Paul speaks in various places in Scripture regarding the divine origins of civil authority. This, however, applies only to legitimate civil authorities, not one that is despotic or does not support the human dignity of every individual.
So then, what conclusions can we draw for your profession, either as lawyers, judges, legal assistants, or anyone enjoined in the works of justice? Yes, it is justice that is your vocation in life, to seek justice for someone who somehow was wronged and to instill justice in our society which desperately needs it. Justice perhaps is not so difficult to define. It comes from the point of view that we see justice when each person in society is given their due and their rights are not violated. It is, however, more difficult to see in our society when the relationships between individual and society are on a collision course. Where can justice be found?
In the Catholic tradition, the human dignity of the individual is the starting point of all moral and ethical reasoning. At the same time, however, the rights that an individual has because of his personal dignity cannot be asserted above the common good of the society in which we live. Our citizenship is a matter of shared relationships and responsibilities of persons working for the common good. Individuality cannot exist outside of the person and prior to our social relationships with one another. It is a delicate balancing act that we must perform in order to find justice for individuals, but also for our society and for the effects of one man’s rights on the rights of another. You have dedicated your life to this principle of justice.
The law, however, is the servant of justice in our land. Laws are not always made with the intention of carrying out justice, but rather are influenced by all sorts of extraneous influences. That our democracy has survived for over 200 years is because we are able to change our laws. The democratic process produces them but the democratic process also changes our laws. Of course, we base ourselves on the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence, all of which in their essence derive their understanding from the common good. To quote the Declaration of Independence, “each man is endowed with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
What makes these rights of man “self-evident” if it were not recourse to the common good, which can be discerned by all men of good will by what is called the natural law. Natural law is that law which exists in the hearts of men, which allows them to be in relationship with others in an equitable way. Hopefully, our society can continue to recognize that the common good is what we pursue when seeking justice. Never violating the rights of the individual, while at the same time never forcing society to abandon its responsibilities to its members because of the desire of an individual.
There are many inconsistencies that appear when we look more closely at the pursuit of justice, especially when we seek to inject the issue of religion. From the time we are young, our parents admonished us not to speak about politics or religion in polite company. The fact is that politics and religion are the life’s blood of society. Both of these relational entities deal with our relationship with one another; politics and religion are intertwined. Relationship is key to understanding our pursuit of justice.
How true it is that the separation of Church and State is a fundamental principle of our democracy and that no religion should be established by the State. The “invisible wall” that Thomas Jefferson espoused was intended to protect the believer and the unbeliever from the tyranny of the State, so that all churches, all religions in our democracy could have an equal opportunity to seek justice in the greater entity, which is society itself.
The Government is merely the operational modality of the State that serves the greater society. So, we must assert that religion has a place in society, for religion and society truly are inseparable.
As you know, it is not the “Establishment Clause” that impedes the Church’s ability to influence the political process but rather Internal Revenue Service regulations, a byproduct of our laws, that threaten our “tax-exempt” status.
So churches have every right to be involved in the political process but operate under regulatory oversight as opposed to Constitutional constraints. We as official representatives of the Church choose not to be involved in the election and defeat of candidates for public office, but that does not mean that we cede our “rights” to be involved in public discourse on policy matters important to Catholics and people of faith. Indeed, it is impossible that religion and politics not interface with one another.
Perhaps the best example of how they do interface is the example of how laws are made. There are those who assert incorrectly that religion and morality are inseparable and therefore without religion there can be no set laws, which can regulate interaction with another. However, it is the natural law and not religion that is the fundamental building block of morality. It is the conscience of man, which always seeks the good, although many times not achieving it, which generates morality.
The late Doctor Martin Luther King reminded us of the primacy of conscience when he said in his l963 “Letter from a Birmingham Jail”: “One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I agree with St. Augustine ‘an unjust law is no law at all.’ ”
Had not people of faith, like the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., led and collectively opposed unjust laws, neither the Abolitionist Movement of the 19th century nor the Civil Rights Movement of the 20th century would have been successful. And in this 21st century, will people of faith free undocumented immigrant workers from unjust and unworkable laws?
I would like to interject a small anecdote, which perhaps illustrates my point about conscience formation. As a young priest, I visited a juvenile detention center for a program of catechetical instruction and counseling for juvenile delinquents, as we called them in those days. Doing one such program, after we had the catechetical session, or teaching session, one of the young men asked to go to Confession. This was also part of my responsibility, so I obliged him. He had not been to Confession in a long time and asked if I could help. So, I began with what I thought was the most basic question, I asked him what he was sorry for. He thought for a moment and then responded, “I’m sorry I’m here.”
Clearly, his conscience was not one that was formed to take into account either the Ten Commandments or civil law, and this is the problem that we clearly face today in our society. What will be the basis on which morality and respect for law can be communicated, if we banish the place of religion to the sidelines? What will be the way that we communicate laws which are meant to serve as guide markers for moral conduct? Who will tell the people that murder is wrong and that stealing is not acceptable? There must be a place for education in morality and education in the law. But where will it be? Can it take place in our public schools where guidance seems to be the only curriculum that can deal with these issues? If there is no religion to influence our society and form consciences, where do we go to find the means to teach the fundamentals of our relationships with one another?
Another difficulty we face is the correct place of religious professionals in politics. The principle of the separation of Church and State does not preclude a religious leader from seeking to influence political decisions. In recent years there is an unfortunate distinction being made between private or personal morality and public morality. Moreover, the popular culture makes sacrosanct the claim of individual freedom, for example, abortion-on-demand at public expense.
We ought to ask ourselves, is it possible to divorce an individual’s private moral convictions from decisions about public policy. Does the same also hold true for persons with non-religious values? Is one value more important than another? Are religious values of less importance than the value of personal freedom? These are the questions that confront us today and they offer a challenge to you whose vocation is to seek justice which consumes your lives. How can we find a way to enunciate moral principles in our society today?
Political and legal strategies to codify moral principles or value principles are the work of not only legislators, but also of those whom they represent. We must “put out into the deep” so we can return to where we began. How can we render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God? Certainly, it is by engaging ourselves in the things that belong to Caesar, society and law, so that truly we can render to God the things that belong to God.
Source: http://www.dioceseofbrooklyn.org/CaesarsCoin.html - link broken
| November 2007 |
Posted November 15, 2007
Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship: A Call to Political Responsibility from the Catholic Bishops of the United States long statement
November 14, 2007 (links to USCCB site)
The Challenge of Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship summary statement, November 14, 2007 (links to USCCB site) - broken link
* * *
Vatican Statements & Canon Law - Documents - Cardinal Ratzinger's memorandum
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