Cardinal McCarrick--what to make of it?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

On Thursday, Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick of Washington, who is chairman of a committee of bishops studying the relations between church teachings and Catholic politicians, warned that the hierarchy should not appear to be telling Catholics how to vote by singling out politicians for church sanctions during election campaigns. He was reacting to the impression given by Cardinal Francis Arinze, a high Vatican official, a week ago and by earlier statements from several American bishops that the hierarchy was charging headlong into the presidential election. Catholics should "look at the questions of life that are primary," Cardinal McCarrick told the National Catholic Reporter in Rome on Wednesday, "but look at everything."

What heresy is this?

-- Harold Zielski (tenesul@msu.edu), May 02, 2004

Answers

bump

-- (bump@bump.bump), May 02, 2004.

No religious or other non-profit organization is supposed to be telling people who to vote for because they will lose their tax-free non-profit status.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), May 03, 2004.

No religious or other non-profit organization is supposed to be telling people who to vote for because they will lose their tax-free non-profit status.

True, which is probably why he is treading lightly here. Also, a lot of Bishops believe they should not embarris anyone in their flock. A good guide for what is or is not legal for a church to do is in the guide: Permissible and Impermissible Activities of Non- Profit Organizations and Public Charities Under Federal Campaign Finance and Tax Laws. Put out by the Protestant American Center for Law and Justice.



-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), May 03, 2004.


Let me get this straight> (1) Catholics are supposed to vote only on abortion because nothing else is as important. (2) Catholics are to vote for the self described pro life candidate who shows his true colors by campaigning for a proabort senate candidate whose nomination will supposedly will help him politically. (3) Catholics are advised by their clergy to "look at everything", but that's only to assure tax exempt status for the church.

Cynical is too mild a word to describe this farce.

-- Al (christiansearth@christian.net), May 03, 2004.


No, there's a difference between a representative of a religious or other non-profit telling people to look at the issues and vote their conscience, and telling people exactly who to vote for--ever see those fake ballots with the particular candidates' names checked for you sent through the mail by this or that campaign group?

There have been cases in the past of this or that "church" (haven't heard of any Catholic churches doing this) actually handing this sort of thing out to their congregations--that sort of thing is against the law in the US.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), May 03, 2004.



Let ME get this straight: You folk are telling us that in the USA, a church's leaders are not allowed to state publically which candidate/s in an election they think people should vote for, otherwise the state will tax the church as if it was a profit-making corporation!?

And this is the country which brags that it is more Christian than any other, and which lectures (and occasionally makes war on) other countries which, it deems, do not allow sufficient freedom of speech or freedom of religion or free elections???

-- Peter K (ronkpken@yahoo.com.au), May 04, 2004.


These are two separate issues. The Catholic Church has every right to impose sanctions on any member of the Catholic Church it chooses. If all Bishops decide that any Catholic who publically supports abortion will be prohibited from the sacraments, it is their right to do so. If that Catholic happens to be a politician..oh well. It is also the Church's right to point out to their members that on voting day, the MOST important issue is that of preserving LIFE and that one needs to vote for candidates who are against abortion. This is not rocket science. ANY church has the right to regulate it's own affairs, AND the right under the tax laws to discuss public issues of grave concern with its' members. It violates no tax laws to have the Church state that the MOST important voter issue is abortion, because the use of the word "MOST" already implies that there ARE other issues at hand. Whenever I read anything lately quoting the Church leaders from either Washington or Boston,it makes me so incredibly sad.

-- lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), May 04, 2004.

Unfortunately, the Cardinals and Bishops have lost control over its people - some of the people.

The sexual scandal may have died down now, but people are not so quick to forget what a terrible job the Church has done in handling its own affairs. I think all decent Catholic people will make up their own minds when it comes to voting and will make the right decision, based on their own beliefs, not on what the hierarchy has to say.

It is very sad, indeed, but I do believe it will take a long time for many Catholic people to put their faith and trust in the hierachy of the Church.

Althouogh the sexual scandal has quieted down now, people of the Catholic Church have not forgotten.

-- MaryLu (mlc327@juno.com), May 04, 2004.


Hi Peter,

It is because of "the separation of Church and state" in the US. ISSUES can always be discussed/promoted in churches--but not voting for particular INDIVIDUALS. If these laws were not in effect, sad to say there are some pastoral types that would accept campaign contributions in exchange for using the the tax-exempt resources of churches (also leveraging the discounts they often get from merchants, etc.) to campaign for them. NO THANKS.

No one tells me who to vote for, I can make up my own mind, thank you very much!!!!

Also the unions have this problem--they are not supposed to be using union dues for political activism that is not directly job-related, but they do. Although I scratch my head seeing teachers at pro-abortion rallies--how stupid is that, when every other statement is "we're doing this for the kids"?

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), May 04, 2004.


Al,
It isn't that we are only focused on abortion. You need to read this voters guide very carefully.

thanks
bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), May 04, 2004.



GT, now you have me even more worried. You're telling us that church leaders must be gagged from expressing their views on political candidates, because otherwise they would promote whichever candidate had bribed them even if they disagreed with his views?

This is not "separation of church and state", it's the opposite, it's State control of churches. The principle of "Separation of church and state" means merely that the state does not endorse one denomination as the official state religion and bar people from certain state offices unless they are of that denomination (as in England).

"No one tells me who to vote for"? - Surely lots of people tell you, then you make up your own mind. Surely you take into consideration the views of many people including the leaders of your religion. Except that apparently this bizarre law prevents them from telling you.

Mary Lu, this has been repeated ad nauseam but you still don't get it. The fact that a bishop or priest has been personally immoral doesn't mean that the Catholic faith and principles he teaches are wrong. History is full of priests, bishops and even Popes, especially in the Middle Ages, who were personally immoral. They didn't practice what they preached. That doesn't mean that what they preach is wrong. Just as Jesus told the Jews to follow what the Pharisees taught "because they hold the seat of Moses", but not to imitate what they did.

-- Peter K (ronkpken@yahoo.com.au), May 04, 2004.


No Peter, you misunderstand somewhat. If you want to support a candidate, you give to the candidate's organization. Most people do not go to church to hear about politics, I know I don't. Issues such as human rights, abortion, for example, I expect those to be discussed during sermons. Particular people to vote for, no.

Normally (maybe not in your neck of the woods), one gives money to churches and other non-profits for feeding the homeless, helping the abused, etc. For churches in the US to spend time campaigning for individuals running for public office it would be equivalent to you specifically donating money to oh, say, a charity for purposes of helping the homeless only to find out they were blowing the money on fancy cars or something else totally unrelated to their mission. A breach of trust. That would be wrong here, and it should be.

Oh, I expect people to try to persuade me to vote one way or another, but I don't vote the way I do because it is expected that as a good (say, union member, fill in the blank here) I should. I usually tell the telemarketers that now I'm going to vote the other way because they woke me (or the baby) up....lol.

What you say about separation of Church and State is how it is supposed to be, but it has unhappily been interpreted as more of allowing everything EXCEPT Christianity to be broadcast everywhere.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), May 04, 2004.


When it comes to social justice for those who have safely exited the womb, the Republican record is rather dismal. Thus, they are occasionally forced to violate their conservative ideology by making incremental moves toward helping those in distress (i.e. the expensive and worthless senior drug plan) as a means of "buying" votes from a necessary bloc of voters, while at the same time closing off their access to cheaper Canadian drugs and looking the other way while the pharmaceutical companies rip off American consumers. This is one example of many and a likely reason the Catholic hierarchy is less than enthusiastic when it comes to endorsing politicians or parties. There is plenty of hypocrisy to go around on both sides.

-- Realist (Creole56@hotmail.com), May 04, 2004.

I wouldn't want to see my church actually RUNNING a political campaign and I certainly don't expect the homily at Mass to be primarily about politics, but we are taking about what a Cardinal said in a press interview. The posters here appear to be saying that it is ILLEGAL for him to say which candidate he prefers, even if one candidate's policies were clearly in conflict with Catholic belief.

Of course I understand it is not usually that simple, and even if he is simply asked "who will you be voting for?" he may decline to answer because he doesn't want to imply that the candidate he votes for is officially endorsed by the Church.

But to say that the law PREVENTS him from answering is quite different and very disturbing. Shouldn't the law allow everyone freedom of political comment and all religions freedom to promote their beliefs, and allow voters free access to all political views which they wish to listen to?

-- Peter K (ronkpken@yahoo.com.au), May 04, 2004.


In the US, that is what it is, just like you are not supposed to be doing political campaigning during worktime, especially if you are a government employee, and everyone knows that up front.

No one's speech is being restricted, in your sense of the word--if someone wants to say something they are perfectly free to do so on their own time and their own dime, as we say here. Unlike other churches, I think that Catholic priests, bishops, etc. feel that there is never a time when they are not representing the Church, so that is why they prudently refrain from commenting on political candidates.

Most churches (99.9%, anyway), are set up as non-profits and are exempt from taxes. If it was "such and such church COMPANY, paying normal taxes, they could do what they want. Can you just imagine the "church of any candidate" set up for the sole purpose of tax exemptions? I can. And no, as a taxpayer I don't want my money going to such bogus churches, even indirectly in the form of exemptions from taxes. That is why the law is as it is. Also, political donations are not tax-deductible for the donor, because they are not chairitable in nature. Please note that the Catholic Voter's Guide comes from a dot com, not a dot org.

And I don't even hear Catholic sermons saying vote "only on abortion and this one issue alone". People do have to weigh all the issues, and abortion is only one issue.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), May 04, 2004.



I have no problem with priests and bishops "prudently refraining" from comment, only with them being told that they are not allowed to comment or else their church will be taxed.

Churches are exempt from tax, not because they are non-profit organisations, but because the state acknowledges that religion is a great benefit to society. Yes, charitable works such as feeding the homeless and helping the abused are a vitally important part of the church's work, but the primary purpose of the church is to teach and spread the gospel. Are you implying that the church tells the US govt that it is spending ALL its resources on works of charity, otherwise it would be taxed?

-- Peter K (ronkpken@yahoo.com.au), May 04, 2004.


The churches are not to be used for political purposes, because they are not supposed to be about politics. You can spread the Gospel without getting into politics at all.

I honestly don't understand why you think this is a problem....There are plenty of places and ways I can hear about candidates, just that churches shouldn't be one of them--I'm sure that some churches do say "vote for so-and-so", but that is the exception rather than the rule, usually the small independent churches, not the mainstream denominations.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), May 05, 2004.


The churches are not to be used for political purposes, because they are not supposed to be about politics. You can spread the Gospel without getting into politics at all.

Not really. Theology and politics are intertwined and intermixed. Politics determines civil rules, responsibilities, and discourse. So does theology.

"A patriot without religions is as great a paradox as an honest man without the fear of God...The scriptures tell us 'righteousness exalts a nation.'" --- Abigail Adams

"The highest glory of the American Revolution was this: it connected in one indissoluble bond, the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity." --- John Quincy Adams

"Here is my Creed. I believe in one God, the Creator of the Universe. That He governs it by His Providence. That He ought to be worshipped...As to Jesus of Nazareth...I think the System of Morals and his Religion, as he left them to us, is the best the World ever saw, or is likely to see." ---Benjamin Franklin

"We have forgotten God. We have forgotten the gracious hand which preserved us in peace and multiplied and enriched and strengthened us, and we have vainly imagined, in the deceitfulness of our hearts, that all these blessings were produced by some superior wisdom and virtue of our own. Intoxicated with unbroken success, we have become too self-sufficient to feel the necessity of redeeming and preserving grace, too proud to pray to the God that made us." --- Abraham Lincoln's 1863 Thanksgiving Proclamation

"Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."---George Washington, in his farewell address

"And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever . . . ." -- Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, on Jefferson Memorial



-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), May 05, 2004.


I most certainly do get it, Peter - maybe it is you that doesn't get it.

-- MaryLu (mlc327@juno.com), May 05, 2004.

Bill, I was mostly addressing the problem with churches being campaign arms of candidates, if you will. I agree with the laws, imho no church should be specifically telling people who to vote for.

In none of your quotes is there a "vote for this person", which was (or at least seemed to me to be) the focus of this discussion.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), May 05, 2004.


In the US a church cannot say to vote for or against someone, because of tax laws. Outside the US, it is done by Catholic churches all the time.



-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), May 05, 2004.


Bill, that was what I was trying to explain to Peter, but he seemed to feel that it was an unreasonable restriction on free speech.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), May 05, 2004.

Thanks Bill and GT, I do understand it now; I was just trying to clarify that this is actually the law in the USA. I think you need to look at changing it, as it is an unfair restriction not only on free speech, but also on freedom of religion and free elections. Even if a Nazi or a Communist is standing for election, a priest can't say "don't vote for him." That's wrong. I guess related problems you need to address are your first-past-the-post voting system and the enormous amounts of money required to win a US election.

Mary Lu, what don't I get? Bishops and priests don't (or shouldn't) say "Do as I say because I am good and holy." They say "Do as I say because Christ through His Church called and sent me as His unworthy messenger to you." Of course priests and bishops SHOULD be exemplary in their personal behaviour. But whether we should listen to their preaching does not depend in this.

-- Peter K (ronkpken@yahoo.com.au), May 05, 2004.


Peter, you are absolutely correct in what you said. I must 'let it go.' (my judgements, I mean, and may God forgive me.)

MaryLu

-- MaryLu (mlc327@juno.com), May 05, 2004.


God bless you Mary Lu. I hope your Christian humility catches on around here.

-- Peter K (ronkpken@yahoo.com.au), May 05, 2004.

"Even if a Nazi or a Communist is standing for election, a priest can't say "don't vote for him."

Well, there would be plenty of other people around to say "don't vote for him", for one thing, so we're not missing anything there. We do have fringe parties running people for president, but only Ralph Nader has managed to make a business out of it, getting enough votes to just get his matching funds.

Elections are free in the US--I would venture to say that the biggest issue is people not exercising their civic duty and voting, not that we don't have enough information from different perspectives to make a decision with.

All non-profits in the US are regulated by the government, as I said before, if the same church were organized as a company, the non-profit rules wouldn't apply. No church "must" be a non-profit--they choose to organize that way. That there are restrictions on non-profits is not necessarily the bad thing that you make it out to be.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), May 06, 2004.


"Even if a Nazi or a Communist is standing for election, a priest can't say "don't vote for him."

Sure he can. The issue is whether the ACLU will bring him to court over the tax exemption of his church.



-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), May 06, 2004.


Thanks Bill and GT, I do understand it now; I was just trying to clarify that this is actually the law in the USA. I think you need to look at changing it, ...

We have a concept in the US called separation of church and state. It is a delecate balance we hold, and we don't want the government involved in church matters. We spend many hours in this country fretting over this issue.



-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), May 06, 2004.


A priest cannot say, in an official capacity such as preaching from the pulpit, "vote for candidate X" or "don't vote for candidate X". But he certainly can offer general instruction such as "Catholics cannot in good conscience vote for a candidate who .........". And he can fill in the blank with all of the unacceptable positions held by candidate X. Also, a priest is as free as any other citizen to express his views about specific candidates in any informal, non-official setting.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), May 06, 2004.

What is the point of the first amendment (political free speech) if members of a free non-profit association can't discuss politics?

Anyone see the hypocrisy? How many times did we see "the Reverend" Jesse Jackson preach and promote the Democratic Party view of the world at HIS CHURCHES? How many times did Bill Clinton and others take to the pulpit and fulminate for or against political causes? Where was the ACLU there?

Fact is, if priests can't mention any political theory, idea, cause, or moral position, then they have no free speech.

The founders didn't enshine the right to freedom of speech to promote pornography! It was always seen as POLITICAL SPEECH - how else would the electorate know and decide what direction the republic should go in?

Besides, abortion is a human rights issue and a Catholic moral teaching issue...long before it's a "political" only issue.

The "separation of Church and state" doesn't mean that the Church has no rights to discuss politics! It just means that the STATE - i.e. Federal government has no right to establish an official Church. But individual states (like Massachusetts) DID have official state Churches until the mid-1800's. I find it highly revealing that once Catholics gained a good percentage of MA's population they joined the Protestant club who pushed for no state churches (obviously fearing that those darn papists would get to play the game too....so they changed the rules and began using the public schools to push Protestantism!).

No, in the end, what's going on is this: on what grounds does the government forbid Churches from preaching on matters of faith and morals? When Black Baptists preach against Republicans and take up a collection for Democrats... on what grounds do they get to do this?

I say, all power to them. But turn about is fair play.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), May 06, 2004.


New Jersey Governor James McGreevey announced yesterday that he would no longer receive Holy Communion at Mass.



-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), May 06, 2004.


I'm Baptist and I've never been to a service in a white or black church service where the plate was passed to raise money for a candidate.

Also, I've never been to a service in which parishoners were exhorted to vote for (or against) a candidate (whether named or implied) on the threat of damnation- which is what I understand Catholics believe when one is out of communion.

So if I, as your conduit to God, said vote a certain way or you will go to hell (a credible threat to the devout)- should the state endorse that threat by allowing the priviledge of tax-exempt status.

Also, churches are taxed in many other countries which allow them such a direct role in politics.

-- Peter Noordijk (noordijk@pdx.edu), May 21, 2004.


Peter,
You will never go into such a Church in the US either, because they will loose their tax exemption. That doesn't mean you should vote for someone who advocates mass murder of innocent children.

For a voters guide on these matters go here.

In Christ,
Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), May 21, 2004.


Catholic bishops dip toes in election waters By Barney Zwartz Religion Editor June 7, 2004

Australia's Roman Catholic bishops have entered the election debate in an unprecedented move.

They have identified health-care, immigration and the widening gap between rich and poor as the key issues.

The Australian Catholic Bishops Conference this week set out what it considers the crucial challenges facing the nation - matters that will dominate the federal election this year.

The bishops emphasised that they did not wish to be politically partisan, nor to compromise the freedom of Catholic voters.

The conference chairman, Canberra-Goulburn's Archbishop Francis Carroll, said he did not think the bishops had ever put out such a statement before.

"We believe we have something worthwhile to remind people about, and probably too a sense that the churches voice has been rather marginalised," he said. "We want to encourage people - not only Catholics - to reflect a little beyond the superficiality of political rhetoric, and to look beyond narrow self-interest to the genuine good of the people of Australia."

The statement outlines issues under the rubrics of life, love, knowledge, health, care, reconciliation, hospitality, peace and creation.

It repeats last year's call for a national forum on poverty.

Archbishop Carroll conceded that some people might resent the church's contribution.

"Some people see anyone speaking from a religious conviction as interfering, and that is to be strenuously rejected," he said.

"We have every right as citizens and as a substantial institutional voice in a democracy to have our say.

"If people think it's interference, that's their problem, not ours."

The church has generally avoided direct political debate. After the Labor Party split of 1955, many bishops directed Catholics not to vote for Labor - but bishops in NSW and South Australia endorsed it.

In the conscription debate during World War I, many bishops urged people to vote no.

-- Peter K (ronkpken@yahoo.com.au), June 11, 2004.


Peter, nice to see you back. A statement such as this, as I see it, could certainly be put out here in the states. The Bishops are merely stating the Catholic Church's position on certain issues so that conscientious voters may choose wisely according to their faith. Right? I did not see anywhere in your post that they are saying vote for X or vote for Y.

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), June 11, 2004.

I heard a suggestion on EWTN that I thought was superb; that is that the politician himself/herself "voluntarily" recuse him/herself from communion! At least these guys should be warned, quietly, by the Bishops that they are jeopardizing their immortal souls and heaping judgment upon their heads by continuing to eat at the Lord's table with blood on their hands.

Fat chance they would do this, but you never know. It would be better for them in the longrun if they don't "push the envelope" so- to-speak.

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), June 11, 2004.


I heard a suggestion on EWTN that I thought was superb; that is that the politician himself/herself "voluntarily" recuse him/herself from communion!

Well if you are in a state of mortal sin (and I think it is pretty clear these guys are), then your not suppose to be taking communion. This isn't rocket science folks, these people were taught this is grade school!



-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), June 11, 2004.


Hi Brian, I've missed our banter too but unfortunately I don't get much time for it now. I see our friend Eugene is still "flogging a dead horse" as we say here.

Another interesting snippet from Aus:

Catholic Media Watch

Steady as she goes

by Michael Mullins

Federal Health Minister Tony Abbott risked scoring an own goal last month. He made a preemptive strike against possible disqualification from the Eucharist for presiding over a department that funds 75,000 abortions a year.

"I wish that my department didn't do this," he said, going on to explain what must be obvious to every bishop and Catholic politician in the land.

He said: "Tony Abbott the person has a whole series of views which Tony Abbott the Minister can't always have, because there is a sense in which as a Minister you are obliged by your office to carry out certain functions."

He needn't have bothered, for even some of the country's most conservative bishops were on side.

Melbourne's Archbishop Denis Hart was protecting Victorian Premier Steve Bracks, another Catholic politician forced by political circumstance to support abortion. Hart told The Sunday Age that the Premier's disagreement with Catholic teaching would have to be "public and notorious" for him to withhold the sacrament.

By contrast, across the Pacific some US bishops have been holding torches to the bellies of Catholic politicians whose political allegiance requires them to support abortion. At least four bishops have explicitly forbidden the distribution of communion to particular pro-choice Catholic politicians. 48 Catholic members of Congress have signed a letter to the Cardinal Archbishop of Washington, Theodore McCarrick, deploring any ban. One bishop - Michael Sheridan of Colorado Springs - has gone further by stating that Catholics who vote for pro-choice politicians are themselves ineligible to take communion.

So far, Australia's bishops have displayed a characteristic mix of common sense and "she'll be right" reluctance to stir the pot. One journalist managed to extract some advice for Catholic politicans from Bishops Conference President Archbishop Francis Carroll. There was no urging them to rebel against their party's pro-choice policies. Instead the message was simply to avoid presenting themselves for communion if their public statements or actions contradicted church teaching.

It seems like another triumph of pragmatism over passion. Leadership in the Australian Catholic Church is more about fire prevention than it is fanning the flames of religious fervour. It's true that individuals like Bishop Pat Power have confronted the PM when there've been important values at stake. But the majority of public interventions from the Bishops have taken the form of comparatively benign commentary, which admittedly has occasionally hit a raw nerve.

It's interesting that the Bishops failed to hit back last August after Foreign Minister Alexander Downer's stinging criticisms. He accused them of hypocrisy in their "intemperate denunciations of Australia's participation in the coalition of the willing in Iraq" while at the same time calling for humanitarian intervention in Rwanda, the Balkans and East Timor. Strangely enough, then Archbishop Pell suggested Downer had given "an excellent talk worth studying".

During the past six months, the Howard Government has delivered a range of policies and legislation that has no doubt pleased the Bishops, including a huge $362 million funding boost for schools in February, and a pro-family Budget and legislation to prevent gay marriage in May. It's not exactly outlawing abortion, but the "steady as she goes" approach to dealing with pro-choice Catholic politicians can't be all bad.

-- Peter K (ronkpken@yahoo.com.au), June 13, 2004.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ