US election: more on voting for Barack Obama

Following up yesterday's links to Radical Catholic Mom, I have been led to the following (from a post at Young Fogeys).

Associated Press are carrying a news report of a Roman Catholic parish priest in America who has asked his parishioners not to approach to receive Holy Communion, without first receiving the Sacrament of Penance, if they voted for Barack Obama in the recent Presidential election. The parish priest's grounds for this are that a vote for Barack Obama was a material co-operation in grave evil, namely the promotion of abortion.

The Rev. Jay Scott Newman said in a letter distributed Sunday to parishioners at St. Mary's Catholic Church in Greenville that they are putting their souls at risk if they take Holy Communion before doing penance for their vote.

"Our nation has chosen for its chief executive the most radical pro-abortion politician ever to serve in the United States Senate or to run for president," Newman wrote, referring to Obama by his full name, including his middle name of Hussein.

"Voting for a pro-abortion politician when a plausible pro-life alternative exists constitutes material cooperation with intrinsic evil, and those Catholics who do so place themselves outside of the full communion of Christ's Church and under the judgment of divine law. Persons in this condition should not receive Holy Communion until and unless they are reconciled to God in the Sacrament of Penance, lest they eat and drink their own condemnation."

This position has been repudiated by the administrator of the Diocese concerned.

Statement of Monsignor Martin T. Laughlin
Administrator of the Diocese of Charleston

CHARLESTON, S.C. (November 14, 2008) - This past week, the Catholic Church’s clear, moral teaching on the evil of abortion has been pulled into the partisan political arena. The recent comments of Father Jay Scott Newman, pastor of St. Mary’s Catholic Church in Greenville, S.C., have diverted the focus from the Church’s clear position against abortion. As Administrator of the Diocese of Charleston, let me state with clarity that Father Newman’s statements do not adequately reflect the Catholic Church’s teachings. Any comments or statements to the contrary are repudiated.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states, "Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions." The Catechism goes on to state: "In the formation of conscience the Word of God is the light for our path; we must assimilate it in faith and prayer and put it into practice. We must also examine our conscience before the Lord’s Cross. We are assisted by the gifts of the Holy Spirit, aided by the witness or advice of others and guided by the authoritative teaching of the Church."

Christ gives us freedom to explore our own conscience and to make our own decisions while adhering to the law of God and the teachings of the faith. Therefore, if a person has formed his or her conscience well, he or she should not be denied Communion, nor be told to go to confession before receiving Communion.

The pulpit is reserved for the Word of God. Sometimes God’s truth, as is the Church’s teaching on abortion, is unpopular. All Catholics must be aware of and follow the teachings of the Church. We should all come together to support the President-elect and all elected officials with a view to influencing policy in favor of the protection
of the unborn child. Let us pray for them and ask God to guide them as they take the mantle of leadership on January 20, 2009.

I ask also for your continued prayers for me and for the Diocese of Charleston.

What I find interesting in the Administrator's statement is the suggestion that we should "examine our consciences before the Lord's Cross". This would seem to me to be quite a reasonable suggestion for a parish priest to make to his parishioners. It should be remembered that, when the Catechism talks about freedom of conscience, it is not presenting an argument that a Catholic conscience is not obliged by the moral teaching of the Church; it is presenting an argument in a broader context.

I am a little uncomfortable with the suggestion that, if you have formed your conscience well there is no requirement to receive the Sacrament of Penance. This will, I suspect, simply communicate a message that "if you think you did the right thing, you do not need to go to Confession", and it can be extrapolated to many other situations. I think there is an entitlement of the Church to say that there are certain actions that constitute grave matter and require reception of the Sacrament of Penance before receiving Holy Communion, so this is not I think a strong argument.

The difficulty of Fr Newman's position is, I think, that it is not absolutely clear that a vote for Barack Obama is a vote for abortion - that may or may not be the case when drilled down to the level of the individual casting their individual vote. However, an examination of conscience by someone who voted for Barack Obama might prompt them to express to him or to the Democratic Party in their locality that they do not support his publicly stated position on abortion. This would be a reasonable suggestion to make to such voters, and would involve a complete dissociation of their vote from support for abortion.

Democrat activists who are Catholics, and who have a publicly recorded pro-abortion position, it would seem to me fall into the category of those of whom "Eucharistic consistency" might be expected. But ordinary voters would not meet this condition. The call to an examination of conscience as suggested in the Diocesan administrator's statment seems sufficient for them.

US election: four links to Radical Catholic Mom

I am afraid I am unable to resist linking to this.

What I really was going to link to whas this, where Radical Catholic Mom gives some idea of what a pro-life Democrat thinks in the wake of the recent American presidential election. I think this post - and dialogue in the comments - does shed some light on the nature of pro-life politics in the United States. Pro-life politics does need to keep a certain distance from the political right - at the end of the day, it is a politics that is open to those of both left and right. And it seems quite right to me to now point out that those who have a chance, though perhaps a small one, of influencing on behalf of unborn children are pro-lifers within the Democrat party. It should also be borne in mind that Radical Catholic Mom is active and loyal to the Church.

Radical Catholic Mom has also posted on "working the polls" on election day. I expect this is a job similar to that of those who work in polling stations in the UK for elections. It is quite fascinating how, for whatever reason, the Americans seem to have committed to voting in this election in a quite unprecedented way. This is a moving post to read. And here, Radical Catholic Mom has posted on some of the reaction she got as a pro-lifer who indicated that she would be voting for Barack Obama.

Voting in any election involves an element of prudential judgement. One might not agree with everything that is in a particular party's electoral position, but one can come to the judgement that it is the correct way to vote. In that case, the vote is cast in support of what is morally acceptable in the party's position, and one should perhaps look for a way to witness against that which one cannot support in its position. At heart, this involves a judgement of conscience - conscience that should, for a Catholic, be informed by the teaching of the Church and careful enquiry about the electoral positions of those standing for election. And it may well be that different people in the same situation will come to different judgements as to how it is prudent to vote - but it is the judgement of prudence that is the object of the act of conscience, not a judgement that a policy proposal contrary to what is known through Catholic teaching is morally permissible.

Bishops clearly have a teaching role in this sort of context, and some of the American bishops exercised that role very vigorously in the run up to the election. I wonder whether their interventions were experienced more as an attempt to direct Catholics how to vote rather than as a part of a forming of conscience of voters?

From the Parish Newsletter

These two extracts are from the parish newsletter of a nearby parish (not my home parish). My commenting on them might appear that I am being critical of the priest involved - though I am doing my best to keep him anonymous unless you have seen the original newsletter. In some ways I try not to have a "critical blog". But, on the other hand, I feel that lay people are entitled to engage in a dialogue with their clergy. It is not fair, I think, to have a position that the clerical status of a parish priest means that they are in some way immune from or exempt from lay people responding to their pronouncements; and, if their statements are in the public arena, they cannot expect to be immune from response in the public arena. The obligation of charity is observed, I think, by focussing on the content, and not attacking the individual.

The first extract is from last week's newsletter, commenting on the election of Barack Obama as the next President of the United States.

Unlike the ordinary American, the people of God have no say in those who are supposedly "elected" to lead them. There is a "so-called" process of consultation but nobody knows what it is. In 1970, the Council of Priests of the diocese of Brentwood, authorised a survey among all the priests of the diocese about what kind of bishop we wanted. It was for the most part ignored. Instead of getting a bishop with vision, we got a kind, holy man who couldn't make a decision without phoning Cardinal Heenan first! One priest writing in the "Brentwood Survey" wrote the problem with the church is we have a "self perpetuating" system. Is it any wonder then that the young and not so young feel there is little they can do to bring about change. This is a sobering thought as we celebrate the Dedication of the Cathedral church of the Diocese of Rome, St John Lateran.

In one sense, it is quite right to see the Church as a self perpetuating system - in one aspect we might call it the Apostolic Succession, in another aspect it is the handing on of the tradition received from Christ himself, particularly in catechesis. However, it would be better expressed as saying that it is a God-sustained system - it is the action of the Holy Spirit that keeps the Church in faithfulness to its founder, Christ. It might also be better to refer to a life rather than a system. So the Church is a Spirit sustained life - a life that is the same now as it was in the past.

The reference to changing reminds me of the story a bishop told during a catechesis at the 2005 World Youth Day. His punchline was to refer to a young pilgrim in Cologne who, interviewed on television, observed that, no, it wasn't for the Church to change its teaching. It was us who needed to change, to live up to that teaching, so that we would therefore become more true to Christ. In this sense, there is everything we can do to bring about the change that we need, whether we are young, not so young, lay person or priest.

Now, is this really the sort of change that is implied or hinted at in this extract? [The bishop being referred to is not, I think, the present incumbent!]

In this week's newsletter, we have a story about two mountaineers in Peru. One of them fell and was injured. His friend did not leave him on the mountain, but helped him down the mountain. Part way down, a second accident happened and the uninjured climber then had to cut the rope supporting his injured friend in order to save himself. It would appear both survived, but the parish priest asks whether or not the two remained friends.

What a moral dilemma? What would you have done in the circumstances? I'm always suspicious of moral theologians who have clear cut solutions to every moral problem. Human beings are very complicated and, like my golf swing, there are so many variables that every set of circumstances needs looking at with the greatest of care.

I do think you can look at this paragraph and find no fault with its strictly expressed content. I do not think that any of us know for sure what we would do in a particular situation - we can only hope that we will act in a morally right way, in accordance with Catholic teaching, when we are put to the test. I doubt that any individual moral theologian has a clear cut solution to every moral problem, just as a matter of academic common sense; suspicion of a moral theologian who does claim that is probably quite justified! But (see below) that is not really to the point. Human beings are very complicated and each circumstance does need to be looked at carefully - my post today about Hannah Jones, for example, shows how characterising her choice as a "choosing to die rather than have a transplant" is to ignore a number of aspects of her case that alter one's judgement of her case. It is a truism - a statement of the obvious - so it doesn't move the argument forward.

So, it is not in the form of words themselves, but exactly what message is being communicated in this extract?

Is there a suggestion that, rather than there being objective moral absolutes, everything depends on the situation? One could certainly be forgiven for taking away from these remarks a certain hesitation about there being absolute rights and wrongs in our lives.

Pope John Paul II addressed precisely this question in his encyclical Veritatis Splendor. There he clearly teaches that there are some actions that are always morally wrong, of their very nature, because of the way in which the go against the good of the human person. The deliberate and directly intended killing of another innocent person would be an example of one such action.

In all likelihood, there was no deliberately intended killing on the part of the uninjured climber in the story told in the newsletter. But that does not provide a ground for suggesting that there are no actions that are, of their nature, always morally wrong.

Reactions to Sarah

Go here for Radical Catholic Mom's account of Reactions to Sarah.

And here is Diakonia's Sarah Palin - the greatest fear of the Democrats ....

Or, if you are looking for the political dirt, you might prefer the "Saradise Lost" posts at Progressive Alaska ....

Update 5th September:
Today's Times captions a photo of Sarah thus: "Sarah the Impaler: she eviscerated Obama without dropping her smile."

An opinion article also includes a riposte to Sarah's: "What is the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull terrier? Lipstick".

It goes thus: "What's the difference between Sarah Palin and Barack Obama? One is a well turned out, good looking, and let's be honest, pretty sexy piece of eye candy. The other kills her own food".

Teenage pregnancy in the US

The BBC News site is carrying a report on the teenage pregnancy rate in the United States, in the light of Bristol Palin's pregnancy. Extracts from the BBC report, which can be found here:

According to America's leading health agency, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC): "About one-third of girls in the United States get pregnant before age 20."

More than 80% of births in this group "were unintended, meaning they occurred sooner than desired or were not wanted at any time", the CDC said.

Separately, in a report on 2002 data, the CDC said: "Despite the continuous declines, the US teenage pregnancy rate is still among the highest among industrialised nations. The costs of teenage childbearing in the United States are substantial.

"The National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy recently estimated that $9.1bn in public funding was expended on teenage childbearing in 2004. These costs include public assistance, healthcare, child welfare and other expenses."

Whether the figures being cited here are statistically robust, I have no idea. I suspect that those with a specialist interest in these figures will first of all want to go an look at the statistics to check them out.

But there are some interesting agendas revealed in the extracts.

1. Why should the Centre for Disease Control and Prevention be taking an interest in pregnancy, which, after all, is not a disease?

2. Why is teenage pregancy seen as a bad thing? Ah, the financial cost ... But do we really want to measure the value of people just financially?

3. There is a number sitting between the "one third of girls who become pregnant before age 20" and the "80% of births in this age group that are unintended" .... and that is the number of abortions experienced by girls in this age group. Whew, that missing number looks to be huge ... (but see my comment above about the statistics).

As an aside, these three points could all be examined from the point of view of the relationship between state and civil society. The Centre for Disease Control and Prevention, for example, can be clearly seen as a way in which the state meets its duty to assure the common good of civil society by coordinating activity to control disease. But does it overstep its correct relation to the common good of civil society by undertaking activity that relates to a condition that is not a disease at all?

Here in the UK exactly parallel considerations can be applied to the governments Teenage Pregnancy Strategy.

Piper Palin - a rebel in the making?

Amidst the coverage of the family of Sarah Palin in recent days, the Times have printed a couple of photographs that suggest that the real rebel in the family is not the expecting Miss Bristol Palin, but little sister Piper.

In the family photographs, she always seems to mis-match her demeanour to that of the other family members. This is from p.29 of today's Times:

And this was from Saturday's issue:

It has been interesting to see how the media and the public have reacted to the admission of teen daughter's pregnancy. I have thought for some time that it is not good enough to wait until a pregnancy occurs to an unmarried or school age girl before a family, parish community or (Catholic) school work out how they will respond. At that point it is too late to be able to effectively and compassionately argue the Church's teaching on charity and forgiveness, and on human life. This needs to have been taught and lived already by these communities, so that what happens when the need arises is the living out of what has already been recognised as true. Sign posting of services that provide an alternative to abortion also needs to be readily available ahead of any specific need.

Parents need to work out ahead of time what they will say and do if their children - and I think here of the boys as well as the girls - are involved in a teen or school age pregnancy. And the children need to have confidence of the warmth of charity that they will receive from their parents and the surrounding community if they need it. Parishes and schools also need to work out their responses. What can a parish do, for example, so that a pregnant teen will still feel able to attend Mass on Sunday, rather than dropping out from the practice of their faith?

This is the text of the announcement by Sarah and Todd Palin of their daughter's pregnancy:

"We have been blessed with five wonderful children who we love with all our heart and mean everything to us. Our beautiful daughter Bristol came to us with news that as parents we knew would make her grow up faster than we had ever planned. We're proud of Bristol's decision to have her baby and even prouder to become grandparents. As Bristol faces the responsibilities of adulthood, she knows she has our unconditional love and support.

"Bristol and the young man she will marry are going to realize very quickly the difficulties of raising a child, which is why they will have the love and support of our entire family. We ask the media to respect our daughter and Levi's privacy as has always been the tradition of children of candidates."

John Smeaton has a relevant post headed "Let's rally round Sarah Palin's family".

The US Presidential election just got interesting ....

It can be quite difficult to follow a US Presidential election campaign from over the pond. The subtleties of state/national politics and of the different personalities can be quite confusing when you aren't able to follow it all day-to-day.

As far as the Presidential nominees go, Diakonia has a useful post comparing Senator McCain and Senator Obama on a range of issues of interest to Catholic voters. I think Senator McCain, the Republican candidate, scores best ...

Senator Nancy Pelosi's comments, which suggested that the Catholic Church was not clear in teaching the moral wrong of all procured abortion, also drew a strong comment from Diakonia, criticising her misrepresentation of Catholic teaching. Fr Ray provides a list of links to the reactions- pleasingly hostile - of Catholic bishops in the United States. Senator Pelosi is a Democrat, speaker of the House of Representatives and a Roman Catholic (well, sort of?).

And then we come to the Vice-Presidential candidates. Senator Obama has chosen Senator Joe Biden. Senator Biden is a Catholic who is "personally opposed to abortion" but has supported it in the US legislature. As I understand the situation, he is someone to whom a policy of "Eucharistic consistency" means that he should not approach to receive Holy Communion.

And today's bombshell. Senator McCain, the Republican candidate, has chosen the governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin, as his Vice-Presidential running mate. The BBC News site has a profile of her here. And one of the bloggers on my blog roll is so cock a hoop that Sarah Palin's choice as running mate might well lead her to vote Republican instead of Democrat later this year ... Go here and look around the blog for Radical Catholic Mom's several posts on Sarah Palin. Thanks to her blog, I recognised the implications of Sarah Palin's being chosen as soon as I heard the name (I am very proud of that!) and before hearing any further explanation.

Oh, by the way, Sarah Palin is not a Catholic - according to Radical Catholic Mom, "she is a good Christian gal, but not one of our own" - and she is "strongly opposed to abortion". In other respects she is politically strongly conservative, which may not be everyone's cup of tea. But, as I say, the Presidential election just got interesting for American Catholics ...

PS: Go here for some of the US Catholic reaction ....