One thing that makes E.J. Dionne one of the most irreplaceable columnists is that he may be the only liberal on a major opinion page who can write about religion without sounding like an anthropologist. Today's column deals with a man named Douglas Kmeic, a Reagan-era Justice Department official who was denied communion because he supports Barack Obama, who is pro-life.
The practice of denying communion for political reasons is abusive, subjective, illogical, and hypocritical. After all, why does it always focus on abortion? Why doesn't the church say anything about supporters of the divorced McCain? Why not take this to a logical conclusion and deny communion to all Catholic voters, since both Obama and McCain have expressed support for the death penalty (though Obama more selectively than McCain)? Why not subject candidates and voters to a litmus test based on every issue where the church takes a position?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Evidently, niether you nor Dionne understands the religious issues.
Abortion is considered a grievous sin.
The death penalty is amtter of personal prudential judgement and is, most certainly not a sin.
Big difference and quite basic.
Hi Dudley,
Thanks for the comment. I concede that I probably don't understand the religious issue, though I'd hesitate to say that about Dionne. In any event, I think that's a false distinction between grievous sin and personal prudential judgment. Even if it's supported by religious doctrine, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. If the basic Catholic case boils down to a fetus a human life and taking a human life is wrong, I don't think you can logically say that the death penalty is then merely a matter of personal judgment. I think that applies even more when politics come into play. If I am anti-death penalty and anti-abortion on the basis that I don't think the government should support the taking of life, why is it OK to support candidates who disagree with me in one arena or not the other?
In any event, even if you find my logic faulty (and it wouldn't surprise me if you did), I don't think you can deny the fact that using communion to reward or punish political views opens up a huge can of worms.
Patrick:
This is really not in dispute. Abortion is a sin and the death penalty is a matter of prudential judgement.
2004, Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, with guidance to the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, stated succinctly, emphatically and unambiguously as follows: June, 2004 "Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia." http://www.catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=1125
Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick: More Concerned with 'Comfort' than Christ?, Catholic Online, 7/11/2004
Hi Dudley, thanks again for the comment.
I'm not disputing the religious justification of the distinction (nor was I ever), I'm just saying I find it wholly unconvincing. It it indeed emphatic and unambiguous, but it does nothing to address the logical disconnect that is at the heart of my criticism. The comment, "Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia," seems really arbitrary to me. Why don't they have the same weight? Why can there be legitimate disagreement for one and not the other?
Patrick:
Note, the same moral weight distinction is based upon bilical and theological considerations, which are easy to find with a GOOGLE search.
If you don't abide by any of those considerations, then the moral weight issue would mean little to you.
However, outside of that contex, it is easy to see some difference. For example, some view abortion as killing an innocent and some view execution as the proper legal sanction for guilty murderers.
In that context, it is easy to see differnt moral weights. For you, it may not be. That is what difference of opinion is.
Post a Comment