# Catholic politicians and the RC Church **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 21, 2004, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-politicians-and-the-rc-church/281009 "2004-12-21T18:19:39Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2004, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-politicians-and-the-rc-church/281009/1 "2004-12-21T18:19:39Z")
Background: My mother is a Roman Catholic Republican. Pro-life. I am an atheist and a member of no party. Pro-choice. We were driving together to Chicago and we started discussing politics and religion. I mentioned that it seemed strange to me that Catholics would vote for Bush because Catholics and Evangelicals tend not to come at religion from the same place. She argued that it was the choice between an Evengelical and a bastardized Catholic because of Kerry’s stance on abortion. I asked her, and now am asking the Dope at large, what responsibility toward the Church and toward non-Catholics does a Catholic in politics have? She argued that he was pro-choice and since he’s pro-choice he isn’t a good Catholic. I argued that if he has to promote all RC positions at all times even on non-Catholics in order to be a good Catholic, he would have to support silly bills like one that forbade meat on Fridays during Lent, should such a bill come up to a vote. She argued that I was being goofy. I argued that she was being theocratic. I suspect neither of us is entirely correct. But where is the line? When does supporting a position of the RC Church (any church will do, and I welcome any argument based on another church or religion) become attempted theocracy, if ever? ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2004, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-politicians-and-the-rc-church/281009/2 "2004-12-21T18:38:30Z")
Well, it might be a good idea to determine what the Church’s policy actually is before we determine whether it is appropriate. To that end, I’m posting this release from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops: > [@](#): > > We speak as bishops, as teachers of the Catholic faith and of the moral law. We have the duty to teach about human life and dignity, marriage and family, war and peace, the needs of the poor and the demands of justice. Today we continue our efforts to teach on a uniquely important matter that has recently been a source of concern for Catholics and others. > > It is the teaching of the Catholic Church from the very beginning, founded on her understanding of her Lord’s own witness to the sacredness of human life, that the killing of an unborn child is always intrinsically evil and can never be justified. If those who perform an abortion and those who cooperate willingly in the action are fully aware of the objective evil of what they do, they are guilty of grave sin and thereby separate themselves from God’s grace. This is the constant and received teaching of the Church. It is, as well, the conviction of many other people of good will. > > To make such intrinsically evil actions legal is itself wrong. This is the point most recently highlighted in official Catholic teaching. The legal system as such can be said to cooperate in evil when it fails to protect the lives of those who have no protection except the law. In the United States of America, abortion on demand has been made a constitutional right by a decision of the Supreme Court. Failing to protect the lives of innocent and defenseless members of the human race is to sin against justice. Those who formulate law therefore have an obligation in conscience to work toward correcting morally defective laws, lest they be guilty of cooperating in evil and in sinning against the common good. > > As our conference has insisted in Faithful Citizenship, Catholics who bring their moral convictions into public life do not threaten democracy or pluralism but enrich them and the nation. The separation of church and state does not require division between belief and public action, between moral principles and political choices, but protects the right of believers and religious groups to practice their faith and act on their values in public life. > > Our obligation as bishops at this time is to teach clearly. It is with pastoral solicitude for everyone involved in the political process that we will also counsel Catholic public officials that their acting consistently to support abortion on demand risks making them cooperators in evil in a public manner. We will persist in this duty to counsel, in the hope that the scandal of their cooperating in evil can be resolved by the proper formation of their consciences. > > Having received an extensive interim report from the Task Force on Catholic Bishops and Catholic Politicians, and looking forward to the full report, we highlight several points from the interim report that suggest some directions for our efforts: > > We need to continue to teach clearly and help other Catholic leaders to teach clearly on our unequivocal commitment to the legal protection of human life from the moment of conception until natural death. Our teaching on human life and dignity should be reflected in our parishes and our educational, health care and human service ministries. > We need to do more to persuade all people that human life is precious and human dignity must be defended. This requires more effective dialogue and engagement with all public officials, especially Catholic public officials. We welcome conversation initiated by political leaders themselves. > Catholics need to act in support of these principles and policies in public life. It is the particular vocation of the laity to transform the world. We have to encourage this vocation and do more to bring all believers to this mission. As bishops, we do not endorse or oppose candidates. Rather, we seek to form the consciences of our people so that they can examine the positions of candidates and make choices based on Catholic moral and social teaching. > The Catholic community and Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles. They should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions. > We commit ourselves to maintain communication with public officials who make decisions every day that touch issues of human life and dignity. > The Eucharist is the source and summit of Catholic life. Therefore, like every Catholic generation before us, we must be guided by the words of St. Paul, “Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the Body and Blood of the Lord” (1 Cor 11:27). This means that all must examine their consciences as to their worthiness to receive the Body and Blood of our Lord. This examination includes fidelity to the moral teaching of the Church in personal and public life. > > The question has been raised as to whether the denial of Holy Communion to some Catholics in political life is necessary because of their public support for abortion on demand. Given the wide range of circumstances involved in arriving at a prudential judgment on a matter of this seriousness, we recognize that such decisions rest with the individual bishop in accord with the established canonical and pastoral principles. Bishops can legitimately make different judgments on the most prudent course of pastoral action. Nevertheless, we all share an unequivocal commitment to protect human life and dignity and to preach the Gospel in difficult times. > > The polarizing tendencies of election-year politics can lead to circumstances in which Catholic teaching and sacramental practice can be misused for political ends. Respect for the Holy Eucharist, in particular, demands that it be received worthily and that it be seen as the source for our common mission in the world. > > Catholics in Political Life was developed by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) Task Force on Catholic Bishops and Catholic Politicians in collaboration with Francis Cardinal George, OMI, Archbishop Charles J. Chaput, OFMCap, and Bishop Donald W. Wuerl. It was approved for publication by the full body of bishops at their June 2004 General Meeting and has been authorized for publication by the undersigned. > > Msgr. William P. Fay > General Secretary, USCCB From this, we determine that abortion is the only issue that carries such a risk for the Catholic officeholder - a reflection of the importance the Church places on the protection of human life. In other issues, a politician is expected to be guided by his faith, but the Church recognizes that people of goodwill may then arrive at different honorable viewpoints. What it boils down to is that the Church doesn’t regard a pro-choice position as one that can be morally held. And, since they control the sacraments, they may deny them to people they regard as lapsed in this way. Is it pressure? Sure. But the Church is fully within its rights to apply it. The politicians in question then have the choice to obey their conscience or remain at outs with the Church. I don’t think it’s a violation of church-state separation any more than denial of the sacraments to Jim Crow politicians by the Archbishop of New Orleans was in the 1960’s. ---
**Author:** ![Loopydude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e56c9b/32.png) [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2004, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-politicians-and-the-rc-church/281009/3 "2004-12-21T18:46:31Z")
> [@Mr. Moto](#): > > The politicians in question then have the choice to obey their conscience or remain at outs with the Church. Figures you’d see these as mutually exclusive. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2004, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-politicians-and-the-rc-church/281009/4 "2004-12-21T18:53:22Z")
By obey their conscience, I mean act on their pro-life beliefs. I’m just assuming that those politicians are in fact pro-life because they’re Catholic, and Catholic doctrine is pro-life. Besides, even ardent pro-choicers invariably say they find abortion troubling, but wouldn’t deny the practice to others. Seems circular, I know. But that’s just a reflection of the importance of the issue to the Church. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2004, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-politicians-and-the-rc-church/281009/5 "2004-12-21T18:54:54Z")
> [@Mr. Moto](#): > > Well, it might be a good idea to determine what the Church’s policy actually is before we determine whether it is appropriate. We weren’t arguing about the Church’s policy. What the Church wants is irrelevant. I want to hear what people think is an acceptable level of deference to religious teachings. To use my same goofy analogy: Would it be acceptable if John Kerry were to vote to outlaw meat consumption on Fridays during Lent? ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2004, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-politicians-and-the-rc-church/281009/6 "2004-12-21T19:06:12Z")
Let’s stay with the concrete rather than the ephemeral. You asked what deference Catholic politicians should show. This documents shows that it is only expected that a Catholic would protect unborn children through changes in the law. No other issues are spelled out for the Catholic in quite this explicit a manner. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2004, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-politicians-and-the-rc-church/281009/7 "2004-12-21T19:11:39Z")
In some cases, the motive for adopting legislation is relevant. In First Amendment cases, for example, in order to restrict someone’s constitutionally protected speech (which can be done), the government must (among other things) demonstrate that the restriction substantially advances a compelling government interest. Until now, I don’t believe that furthering religious doctrine has been accepted as a compelling government interest. ---
**Author:** ![rfgdxm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c0e974/32.png) [@rfgdxm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rfgdxm)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2004, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-politicians-and-the-rc-church/281009/8 "2004-12-21T19:16:50Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > When does supporting a position of the RC Church (any church will do, and I welcome any argument based on another church or religion) become attempted theocracy, if ever? Theocracy? The US is mostly Protestant. At best they only can agree abortion is wrong. Beyond that, the disagreements are wide. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2004, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-politicians-and-the-rc-church/281009/9 "2004-12-21T19:17:40Z")
> [@Mr. Moto](#): > > From this, we determine that abortion is the only issue that carries such a risk for the Catholic officeholder - a reflection of the importance the Church places on the protection of human life. Can you quote the place where they say this is uniquely important? And can you reconcile this with Europe, including Italy, where Catholic politicians are routinely pro-choice and the local church looks with bafflement on the US? Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2004, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-politicians-and-the-rc-church/281009/10 "2004-12-21T19:25:23Z")
[Perhaps a cite is in order](http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0405680.htm) > [@Catholic News Service](#): > > VATICAN CITY (CNS) – When more than 1,000 of Italy’s most politically active Catholics met in early October, Pope John Paul II sent them a message urging greater church influence on such issues as the family, the media, economic justice and globalization. > > Reflecting the political priorities of the church in Italy, the pope did not mention abortion. The article suggests that this is a political, not a theological, decision on the church’s part. Is the Italian church just savvier than the US church? Is the US church less willing to make compromises in the face of reality? Or is there actually some chance that the US church will be effective? The article doesn’t really explore another possibility: perhaps Italian Catholic leaders place a greater emphasis on issues such as eradicating poverty and ending war. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2004, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-politicians-and-the-rc-church/281009/11 "2004-12-21T19:29:01Z")
From the quoted statement: > [@](#): > > Today we continue our efforts to teach on a uniquely important matter that has recently been a source of concern for Catholics and others. As far as Italy goes, I can tell you from having lived there that the society is nearly entirely secular. The only people that habitually go to church seem to be the old ladies. Everyone else seemed to me to use the Church for the important transitions in life (baptism, marriage, funeral) rather than as a constant source of inspiration and guidance. That seems to be why the Church treads softly on the issue there. Your own cite shows that they regard intervention on the issue to be counterproductive there. ---
**Author:** ![MMI](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/53a042/32.png) [@MMI](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MMI)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2004, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-politicians-and-the-rc-church/281009/12 "2004-12-21T19:31:43Z")
I think that the Vatican has also made public their view that one should not/need not be a single-issue voter. If you feel that an alternate candidate’s positions on topics other than abortion (war, social justice and human rights, death penalty, euthanasia, whatever) are more in line with your faith then it is hunky-dory to vote for a pro choice candidate. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2004, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-politicians-and-the-rc-church/281009/13 "2004-12-21T19:38:06Z")
That’s different, though, than saying Catholic _politicians_ can be pro-choice. The bishops seem to think they can not morally take this position. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2004, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-politicians-and-the-rc-church/281009/14 "2004-12-21T19:56:43Z")
> [@Mr. Moto](#): > > That’s different, though, than saying Catholic _politicians_ can be pro-choice. The bishops seem to think they can not morally take this position. Well, that’s also different from saying what The Catholic Church believes: what you quoted was a document of American bishops. My point is that the church as a whole has not, to my knowledge, taken the stance that you impute to them. And I’m having trouble seeing that the adverb “uniquely” can bear the load that you’re wanting it to bear. Even if they are using it to say that the issue under consideration is abortion, not the sanctity of human life, it’s not clear that they mean it’s the “only issue that carries such a risk for the Catholic officeholder.” Perhaps they mean that the issue is the only one important in a particular fashion–perhaps they mean it’s an especially timely issue. Again: I’ve not seen a declaration from the head of the church that abortion is a more important issue than war or poverty, that politicians can get away with voting in favor of an unjust war but can never vote in favor of legalizing abortion. Can you provide me a cite to this effect? Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2004, 1:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-politicians-and-the-rc-church/281009/15 "2004-12-22T13:59:18Z")
Sure. Catholic doctrine on all of these issues is found in the Catechism. The Catechism was last revised during John Paul II’s papacy, so it can be shown to be a document that reflects church teaching during his era. The Catechism is promulgated in Latin, and then translated for the church worldwide. It is a reflection of the values and beliefs of the universal Church, not just the American branch of it. About abortion, the Catechism instructs the following: > [@](#): > > 2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life. > Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you. > My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth. > > 2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law: > You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish. > God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes. > > 2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. “A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,” “by the very commission of the offense,” and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law. The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society. > > 2273 The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a _constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation:_ (italics in original) > > “The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority. These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin. Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being’s right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death.” > > “The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined. . . . As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child’s rights.” > > 2274 Since it must be treated from conception as a person, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being. > > Prenatal diagnosis is morally licit, “if it respects the life and integrity of the embryo and the human fetus and is directed toward its safe guarding or healing as an individual. . . . It is gravely opposed to the moral law when this is done with the thought of possibly inducing an abortion, depending upon the results: a diagnosis must not be the equivalent of a death sentence.” > > 2275 “One must hold as licit procedures carried out on the human embryo which respect the life and integrity of the embryo and do not involve disproportionate risks for it, but are directed toward its healing the improvement of its condition of health, or its individual survival.” > > “It is immoral to produce human embryos intended for exploitation as disposable biological material.” > > “Certain attempts to influence chromosomic or genetic inheritance are not therapeutic but are aimed at producing human beings selected according to sex or other predetermined qualities. Such manipulations are contrary to the personal dignity of the human being and his integrity and identity” which are unique and unrepeatable. The Church’s teaching on this subject cannot be clearer. Abortion is always an unmitigated evil. The Church also believes that allowing abortions makes a society less moral and just. On war, the Catechism instructs Catholics always to work for peace. But it says this as well: > [@](#): > > 2308 All citizens and all governments are obliged to work for the avoidance of war. > > However, “as long as the danger of war persists and there is no international authority with the necessary competence and power, governments cannot be denied the right of lawful self-defense, once all peace efforts have failed.” > > 2309 The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time: > > - the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain; > > - all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective; > > - there must be serious prospects of success; > > - the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition. > > These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the “just war” doctrine. > The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good. > > 2310 Public authorities, in this case, have the right and duty to impose on citizens the obligations necessary for national defense. > > Those who are sworn to serve their country in the armed forces are servants of the security and freedom of nations. If they carry out their duty honorably, they truly contribute to the common good of the nation and the maintenance of peace. It is obvious that there is a gray area in the case of war. What one person regards as just and necessary, another may judge differently. Abortion, on the other hand, is always seen as an unmitigated evil and a danger not only to the souls that practice it, but to civil society as well. This confirms what everybody already knows, BTW. Many American Catholics get upset with their church because they focus so strongly on abortion. If you have evidence that they shortchange this issue and give other issues higher priority, I’d dearly love to see it. My old parish, Our Lady Queen of Peace in Arlington, VA, had a reputation as a rather left-wing church, and very active in social justice work. This parish was stridently anti-war and fought hard for living wage and affordable housing legislation locally. It also had a strong and vibrant pro-life committee. If you have evidence to the contrary, that Catholics regard abortion as secondary to other issues, I’d love to see _that_. ---
**Author:** ![MMI](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/53a042/32.png) [@MMI](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MMI)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2004, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-politicians-and-the-rc-church/281009/16 "2004-12-22T15:58:27Z")
The issue was on following RC guidelines for voting (and how does it become theocracy, if ever). There isn’t much grey area about the death penalty either, Mr. Moto. Bush’s stand is unambiguous here. While he is not a Catholic and therefore not against the teachings of his church, that should make not a lick of difference to a Catholic voter. And while obviously one must use personal judgement about a war, the Vatican had pretty strong feelings about the justness of the Iraq war - certainly about the way it was/is handled. War aside, given a choice between a politician who opposes abortion but can/will do nothing to stop it and one who (occasionally/usually) opposes abortion but can/will do nothing to stop it and who enthusiastically endorses executions, the latter is the one that Catholics should vote for? Catholics in the US cannot generally vote all of their beliefs at once, as the anti-abortion, anti-euthanasia, anti-stem cell research party is also the more-pro-death-penalty-than thou, anti-social justice party. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2004, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-politicians-and-the-rc-church/281009/17 "2004-12-22T16:08:09Z")
> [@Mr. Moto](#): > > Sure. Neither of your quotes directly address what I was saying, although they come close. > [@](#): > > About abortion, the Catechism instructs the following: What it does NOT instruct, and what was made clear that it did NOT instruct in the recent brouhaha re: whether Kerry should be denied communion, was that “can never vote in favor of legalizing abortion.” Now, it comes pretty close. It more or less says that such a vote is a violation of the child’s right. However, unlike the previous paragraph that mandates excommunication for someone who participates in an abortion, this paragraph prescribes no penalties for those who create laws legalizing abortion. > [@](#): > > This confirms what everybody already knows, BTW. Many American Catholics get upset with their church because they focus so strongly on abortion. If you have evidence that they shortchange this issue and give other issues higher priority, I’d dearly love to see it. Huh? Is “they” the church in the last sentence above? If so, I’m saying just the opposite: the American Church focuses too strongly on abortion, shortchanging other issues. Or did I somehow miss the to-do last election where prominent church leaders were threatening to withhold communion from Kerry on account of his support for the Iraq War? > [@](#): > > If you have evidence to the contrary, that Catholics regard abortion as secondary to other issues, I’d love to see _that_. Italian Catholics seem to regard it as secondary; see my previous citation. Note that the citation is from a very pro-life source, and accordingly doesn’t interview any of those Catholics whom it talks about (i.e., the ones who regard abortion as a non-issue), even though they’re the focus of the article. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2004, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-politicians-and-the-rc-church/281009/18 "2004-12-22T16:24:06Z")
> [@MMI](#): > > There isn’t much grey area about the death penalty either, Mr. Moto. Bush’s stand is unambiguous here. While he is not a Catholic and therefore not against the teachings of his church, that should make not a lick of difference to a Catholic voter. Nope, there’s some ambiguity here as well. From the Catechism: > [@](#): > > 2267 Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor. > If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person. > > Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity “are very rare, if not practically non-existent.” And in fact, the death penalty for crimes in the United States measured against the totality of crimes committed is indeed very rare. It is true that the Pope believes as a practical matter that all executions can morally be stopped. It is also true that Catholics with influence in this area are not being pressured by the Church as vigorously as those with influence over abortion policy. > [@MMI](#): > > Catholics in the US cannot generally vote all of their beliefs at once, as the anti-abortion, anti-euthanasia, anti-stem cell research party is also the more-pro-death-penalty-than thou, anti-social justice party. Well, that’s true to a point. You do have to pick your battles. The instructions from the bishops this year framed for their parishioners where they thought the battlegrounds were, and where intervention could actually bring about social change. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2004, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-politicians-and-the-rc-church/281009/19 "2004-12-22T16:32:25Z")
> [@Mr. Moto](#): > > And in fact, the death penalty for crimes in the United States measured against the totality of crimes committed is indeed very rare. It is true that the Pope believes as a practical matter that all executions can morally be stopped. It is also true that Catholics with influence in this area are not being pressured by the Church as vigorously as those with influence over abortion policy. I strongly disagree that the death penalty is very rare in the US, in the sense that the Catechism intends. It’s not “practically nonexistent.” And the standard used is nothing like “authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.” I don’t see the wiggle room you describe. > [@](#): > > The instructions from the bishops this year framed for their parishioners where they thought the battlegrounds were, and where intervention could actually bring about social change. Yes–and Italian bishops framed a completely different set of issues. Which was my original point: you can’t take declarations from an American council of bishops as indicative of what the Church as a whole espouses. The American church seems to be a good deal more conservative than the church as a whole. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2004, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-politicians-and-the-rc-church/281009/20 "2004-12-22T16:55:43Z")
Actually, the American Church is one of the more liberal ones worldwide. That is one of the reasons you’ll likely never see an American pope. The Church in Africa, Latin America and much of the Pacific is considerably more conservative than most American parishes. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-politicians-and-the-rc-church/281009.md?page=2)