HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
May 18, 2004 Andrew Sullivan recently wrote a column for Time.com concerning the Catholic Church’s recent moves towards denying Communion to public officials who are pro-abortion. He basically takes the position that the Church is wrong both in principle and in practical terms. Here’s the meat of his argument: It is one thing for the church to preach what it believes — the sanctity of unborn human life. It is another thing to use the sacraments of the church to enforce political uniformity on the matter. How many of us Catholics are completely worthy every Sunday of receiving what we believe to be the body and blood of Jesus? The church understands this and has long left it up to the individual to wrestle with his or her conscience as to whether going to Communion is appropriate. To turn the tables and make the giving of Communion contingent on a public, political litmus test would politicize a sacred ritual that is and always should be beyond politics. To a certain extent I understand his point. I am uncomfortable with the idea that of the Church denying holy sacraments to individuals based on their beliefs. It strikes me as somewhat odd that Communion would be denied someone based on his or her professed believes, and not to an individual who had actually, and unrepentantly, had/performed an abortion. Regardless, this is a serious issue both from the standpoint of first principle morals and considering the very fact that the Church is (by fits and starts) moving towards effectively excommunicating people because of their professed beliefs. That being said, let’s consider just what Mr. Sullivan is saying here. For starters, he claims that it’s ok for the Church to “preach what it believes” but it is apparently not ok to demand that only the “worthy” receive Communion. I will readily concede that most people are probably not ready to receive Communion as proscribed by Church doctrine (i.e., most people no longer go to Confession prior to receiving Communion). That, however, is not really the important point. The true issue here is not whether a given parishioner is “worthy” of Communion on Sunday morning, but rather whether or not a particular individual is actively working against the teachings of the Church (as the former is unverifiable while the latter is obvious for all to see). Fr. Rob deals extensively with the primacy (and resulting necessity) of the Church’s opposition to abortion, and I will not belabor the point here (see also here and here.) The fact is that abortion is, in the eyes of the Church, literally the greatest possible evil as it is seen as the murder of the most innocent human beings. The final point that Sullivan makes in this paragraph is perhaps the most misleading. He goes from speaking of moral issues and, without warning, morphs the discussion into one of politics. It is simply not the case that the Church sees abortion as a political issue; it is absolutely and completely a matter of absolute morals, no more, no less. So, the question remains: Should the Catholic Church refuse Communion to pro-choice Catholic public officials? Given the Church’s stance on the nature of abortion (i.e., abortion = murder), the question could be just as easily: Should/Would the Catholic Church deny Communion to a known and unrepentant murder? I think the answer is yes. You see, the Catholic Church (and Christianity in general) makes enormous allowances for forgiveness. Jesus taught that literally your worst enemy and the most egregious evil are forgivable…but the guilty must repent before God grants forgiveness. While it is impossible for one human being to see into another’s soul to judge whether an act of repentance is sincere, it is certainly possible (and quite easy, actually) to determine that John Kerry, for example, is an unrepentant supporter of abortion. Therefore, in the eyes of the Church, he is tantamount to an unrepentant supporter of murder (if not an actual murder himself). So, in that sense, the Church seems really to be under an obligation to refuse him Communion, given that he actively supports the worst sin imaginable. Sullivan closes with: You only have to look around the world to see what happens when politics and religion become fused. Politics suffers; faith is corrupted; the space for personal conscience is erased. In this case, the most sacred sacrament of Catholic faith would have a partisan tinge. "My kingdom is not of this world," Jesus said. It is up to the bishops to keep it that way. Yes, Jesus said that. However, he also said (and I’m paraphrasing): What you do to the least of my children you do to me. Well, Mr. Sullivan, do you suppose that he was referring to only the good things? Or, perhaps, did he also mean the bad things we do to each other are directly insulting and injuring Him? I think the answer is obvious. From a moral point of view, the Church has little choice but to deny Communion, etc. to those who are verifiably unrepentant in their sin. In the particle realm, there may very well be repercussions from which the Church will never recover. Although I find this hard to believe, it is possible. Regardless, the Church’s final decision must come down to the answer to this question: Are they willing to compromise on this most absolute and fundamental moral issue for the sake of not angering people who disagree with the Church’s Teachings? I am realistic enough to know that the Church has changed over time in response to many pressures. However, the issue of abortion is not one that can be reconciled with the established Catholic faith. If the answer is that an entire political party is excluded from the Church, I fail to see how that impacts to underlying morals. The apparent political aspects to the Church’s decision are but a byproduct of a far more fundamental moral distinction. In the end Sullivan’s argument rings hollow in its failure to address the underlying amorality of abortion and appears to be yet another attempt to mutate the Church into something 180 degrees from where it should be. I hope that people will see abortion for what it is and support the Church in its efforts to remove this wholesale murder of the most innocent from our national conscience. ------------ About the author: Tom is a conservative medical student in liberal New England who probably spends too much time paying attention to politics and never lacks topics for friendly discussions. Check out his blog MuD&PHuD. Email Thomas Carroll: carroll@student.uchc.edu Tell a friend about this site! ------------ |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
