Emphasis added:

Challenging Those "Personally Opposed but Politically for"

Father Michael Hull's Address at Videoconference on "Church and State"

NEW YORK, OCT. 29, 2004 ( http://zenit.org/ ).- Here is the text prepared by Father Michael Hull, a professor at St. Joseph's Seminary of New York, for today's theological videoconference organized by the Congregation for Clergy, on "Church and State."

* * *

The Politician and Faith Professor Michael Hull

The application of Christian morality in public service is no different from the application of Christian morality in private life. There is no disparity between a Catholic's moral obligations when he is in public service and when he is not. Unfortunately, a persistent and pervasive error -- often disseminated by misinformed or mistaken Catholics and others, and not infrequently encapsulated in vacuous phraseology such as "personally opposed but politically for" -- insists that one can publicly support and propagate evil while claiming to remain privately against such evil.

Today many politicians, who claim to be good Catholics, actively back policies that are contrary to the natural moral law and teaching of the Church, for example, the murder of unborn children in abortion and infanticide ("partial-birth" abortion). Can a Catholic politician who advocates and promotes an intrinsic moral evil licitly receive holy Communion? The answer is, of course, "no."

Why? Because Catholics are obliged to promote the common good. Currently, the best articulation of Catholic teaching on this point is proffered by the Most Reverend Raymond L. Burke (archbishop of St. Louis) in his Oct. 1, 2004, pastoral letter "On Our Civic Responsibility for the Common Good."

Archbishop Burke notes that Catholics must vote in such wise as to eventually achieve the "total conformity of the civil law with the moral law," to fulfill their responsibility to the common good as best they can. That obligation is not mitigated but intensified when a Catholic holds public office. It is sadly the case that some Catholic politicians believe they can uphold an unjust law, for example, the Roe v. Wade (1973) "right to choose," and at the same time remain good Catholics and receive holy Communion.

During a conference at the National Press Club (Washington, D.C.; Sept. 16, 2004) entitled "Public Witness/Public Scandal: Faith, Politics, and Life Issues in the Catholic Church," sponsored by the Ave Maria School of Law (Ann Arbor, Michigan), the Reverend John J. Coughlin, OFM, a professor of law at Notre Dame University, articulated clearly and cogently the Code of Canon Law in regard to the illicit reception of holy Communion by a pro-abortion Catholic, who is not to be admitted to holy Communion because he continues to "persist in manifest grave sin" (Canon 915).

At the same conference, Dr. Robert P. George, a professor of law at Princeton University, explained the inanity of those who claim that the Church does not have the right -- never mind the duty, in season and out of season -- to bar those who "persist in manifest grave sin" from holy Communion. In the United States of America, where the issue is especially salient during this presidential election year, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops discussed it at their June 2004 meeting in Denver (Colorado). The USCCB stated clearly that "decisions rest with the individual [diocesan] bishop."

Fortunately, some diocesan bishops have been courageous in publicly forbidding pro-abortion Catholic politicians from approaching the altar rail. Their courageousness not only highlights the folly of "personally opposed but politically for" but also strengthens the body of believers.

We, like St. Paul, need to remind ourselves that "God did not give us a spirit of timidity but a spirit of power and love and self-control" with which we are to guard the truth that has been entrusted to us by the Holy Spirit (2 Timothy 1:7,14).

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), October 31, 2004

Answers

bump

-- (bump@bump.bump), October 31, 2004.

-oops; link:

Challenging Those "Personally Opposed but Politically for"

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), October 31, 2004.

There is only one option if one is personally opposed one has to be politically opposed. Unfortunately the way organisations like church, politics, armies work is that one is supposed to follow the leader and in the end do as told. Given the example of abortion as above, I am against abortion, but I am also against killing people in a war. I have not yet heard the church speak out that catholics should reject joining an army.(Indeed difficult to do looking at its history). My view is that As a follower of Jesus belonging to the Catholic church we can not delegate our responsibility to priest, bishop cardinal or pope, each of us is only answerable to God. It is like claiming that if a superior in an army commands you to do something immoral and do it that you are not personally responsible. You may not be responsible in the legal sense but you are for God.

Given the history of the church I believe that I am entitled to differ at times with the official teaching of the church.

-- louis paulussen (paulussen@xtra.co.nz), November 06, 2004.

I like your point, but one statement you make is incorrect:

You may not be responsible in the legal sense but you are for God

in regards to the military, as your example says, all officers are trained in what wartime morality constitutes. there are legal orders and illegal orders. an immoral action commanded by a superior is an illegal order and therefore NOT binding. In that case the subordinate is to refuse the order. if the superior continues to attempt the illegal/immoral action the subordinate is obligated to place that officer under arrest and assume command until another of higher rank arrives to take command, or another is appointed above him/her.

while you may not agree with wartime death, we recognize that there are just and unjust wars, and much the same there is just and unjust death in war. in the US military our goal has and will remain to prevent as many unjust deaths as possible. while preventing 100% is impossible, we do a better job than any other nation in history of preventing undue civilian casualties. this is in no small part because of the moral obligation that most officers feel to do what is right, even when ordered by the very small percent who don't feel a moral obligation.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), November 06, 2004.