Catholics: Voting for a Pro-Choice candidate is a "grave sin"

[Munch]

This past weekend I was in my college roommate’s wedding. In the vestibule (the foyer of the church) was a stack of pamphlets detailing that particular diocese’s stance on abortion and abortion-related election issues. Specifically, it detailed the condemnation the Church had for pro-choice candidates as well as those who vote for them.

What struck me was that these pamphlet would refer to voting pro-choice as a “grave sin”, but the only evidence or citation they provided was of another bishop saying what the consequences of committing a grave sin were (not receiving communion, etc.). At no point in the pamphlet did they make the argument or provide evidence that voting pro-choice was, in fact, a “grave sin”.

I could understand how performing or receiving an abortion would be seen as a “grave sin” by the Church. I have a hard time believing enacting pro-abortion legislation would be a “grave sin”. I completely disagree with the fact that *voting * for a pro-choice candidate would be a “grave sin”.

So:

1. Am I correct in equating “grave sin” with “mortal sin” (of which most of us learned about in Catholic grade school)?
2. Is the argument I summarized sufficient?
3. If not, iss there a sufficient argument that *wasn’t * provided in the pamphlet equating voting pro-choice with “grave sin”?

I wish I would have kept a copy of it. I’ll keep searching online for the text of the pamphlet.

FWIW, there was also a paragraph devoted to the question “Well, wouldn’t voting for a pro-death penalty or pro-war candidate also be a grave sin?”. The answer was “no”, but also exhibited a not-so-shocking lack of support.

[John_Mace]

The problem here is that every candidate supports something that is against Catholic doctrine-- if not abortion, then the death penalty. Etc. Unless the Catholic Church is telling people not to vote at all, this is just ridiculous.

[JohnM]

Munch, do you know what diocese you were in? To the best of my knowledge, only a couple of bishops (Colorado Springs being the most widely reported) have made statements such as this. I believe the majority view of the American hierarchy is quite a bit more nuanced. This editorial puts things in a bit more context.

Archbishop John Vlazny of Portland wrote in the Catholic Sentinel that while he believes public dissenters from church teachings ought to refrain from reception of Communion of their own volition, "As a pastor, I find it difficult to make a public judgment that any person is ‘unfit’ or ‘unworthy’ … of the sacrament. Should Catholics who choose to vote for pro-choice politicians refrain from reception of the Holy Communion? If they vote for them precisely because they are pro-choice, I believe they should refrain from reception of Holy Communion … but if they are voting for that particular politician because, in their judgment, other candidates fail significantly in some matters of great importance, for example, war and peace, human rights and economic justice … then reception of Holy Communion seems both appropriate and beneficial.’’

[Munch]

I was in Jacksonville, Florida, which I believe is the Diocese of St. Augustine. That’s a great quote from Vlazny - he needs to put the smack down on the rest of his brethren.

[JohnM]

I can’t find a thing on the web where Bishop Galeone of the Diocese of St. Augustine has made a public statement similar to that by the Bishop of Colorado Springs, so I think it likely that the brochures you saw were not sanctioned by the diocese.

[JohnM]

Also, back to your question in the OP as to whether “grave sin” and “mortal sin” are synonomous. I’m not a moral theologian, but I think the answer is “not quite”, but it is usually safe to assume so. There are some circumstances where a sin involving grave matter, and thus by definition a grave sin, is not considered to be mortal but only venial. E.g., the Ten Commandments involve grave matter, so theft is a grave sin and would usually be classed as a mortal sin. But if you pilfer a couple of grapes at the supermarket that would be classed as venial.

And for all you non-Catholics, hey, don’t laugh. The Church has had 2,000 years of lawyering to get to this kind of nuance!

[C_K_Dexter_Haven]

I wonder how these bishops would react if the Protestant Churches started admonishing their congregants not to vote for Catholic candidates, on the grounds that Catholics obviously owe their allegiance to the Pope rather than to the country?

[Qadgop_the_Mercotan]

Well, I’m glad my faith of choice advocates The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process within our congregations and in society at large.

But I am rather surprised by the commotion over the OP’s issue. In my understanding, that is the way the Catholic (and many other) churches work. It is hierarchical in nature, and said hierarchy informs the lay members of the church on many particular matters of Right and Wrong. It is then the duty of the members to conform to these teachings. Failure to do so may lead to loss of certain privileges normally given to members.

Is this not so?

[tomndebb]

Qadgop, you have outlined the general principles pretty much correctly, but the particulars get a lot more nuanced. A particular bishop ordering a particular congregation to support a particular political position has certainly occurred, however, that is not the way things are “supposed” to work (which is why the bishops of Colorado Springs, CO and Lincoln, NE have been pretty much ignored by the rest of the U.S. (with a number of comments from theologians (and even other bishops) that they have overextended their reach with their proclamations).

The general principle is that the whole church discerns the word of God and then makes that clear to the individual members through the voice of the bishops and pastors, with new teachings arising to address new situations from councils of bishops supported by theologians.

As even the church has slowly begun to recognize the efficacy of democratic institutions, the church has moved steadily away from the notion that the bishops or pastors have a right to dictate the actions of the individual members–particularly in the realm of politics. (See the comments by Archbishop John Vlazny quoted above.)

Dex, the irony of that situation is that the very people who campaigned against Al Smith and John Kennedy with those arguments are the predecessors of the people (Robertson, Falwell, etc.) who now insist on dictating to their congregations from their views of the bible.
As to the current bishops, they would merely need to point out that only about four of their wayward brethren have actually engaged in those sorts of proclamations, (and that they have been opposed within the church), to refute that charge. (Those few, of course, would have to deal with those charges on their own.)

[David_Simmons]

@C K Dexter Haven

I wonder how these bishops would react if the Protestant Churches started admonishing their congregants not to vote for Catholic candidates, on the grounds that Catholics obviously owe their allegiance to the Pope rather than to the country?

I’m not a Roman Catholic, but I sometimes wonder about some of their leaders. One of the historic arguments against Catholic politicians has been the “owing allegiance” thing. When Catholic Al Smith ran for president in 1928 one of the stories used agains him was that if he was president the Pope would be living the the White House. When Smith lost the to Herbert Hoover one comedian (It might have been Eddie Cantor) remarked that Smith has sent the Pope a telegram. It had just one word: “Unpack.”

And so the public announcement by a couple of Bishops that voters who vote the wrong way will be sanctioned plays right into the hands of the Catholic bashers.

Maybe it’s a death wish.

[Fish]

@tomndebb

…(which is why the bishops of Colorado Springs, CO and Lincoln, NE have been pretty much ignored by the rest of the U.S. (with a number of comments from theologians (and even other bishops) that they have overextended their reach with their proclamations).

Those Catholic clerics should have instead just declared jihad on John Kerry. And we say other countries are backward for letting religious figures meddle in politics?

[Suburban_Plankton]

@David Simmons

I’m not a Roman Catholic, but I sometimes wonder about some of their leaders. One of the historic arguments against Catholic politicians has been the “owing allegiance” thing. When Catholic Al Smith ran for president in 1928 one of the stories used agains him was that if he was president the Pope would be living the the White House. When Smith lost the to Herbert Hoover one comedian (It might have been Eddie Cantor) remarked that Smith has sent the Pope a telegram. It had just one word: “Unpack.”

And so the public announcement by a couple of Bishops that voters who vote the wrong way will be sanctioned plays right into the hands of the Catholic bashers.

Maybe it’s a death wish.

I am a Roman Catholic, and I also wonder about some of these people. I suppose they mean well, but they do wind up doing more harm to the Catholic Church than good. One must remember that the Catholic Church is a worldwide organization made up of thousands of individuals. The fact that a Bishop makes a public statement about what “Catholics” believe does not make it so. The Catholic Church does have “official positions” on a number of issues, but I don’t believe that there is one regarding voting for pro-choice candidates. (sorry, no cite)

Furthermore, just because the Church itself has an “opinion” does not mean that every Catholic person must share that opinion or risk excommunication. There is a difference between “the beliefs of the Catholic Church” and “the positions of the Catholic Church on a variety of subjects”. “What Catholics believe” was codified at the First Council of Nicaea in the year 325, and has remained essentially unchanged up to the present day: (The Nicene Creed). Everything else is a “position” of the Church, not a “belief” of the Church.

[Apos]

Snore. When bishops start saying the same things about the death penalty, wak me up. The church must have been mad that the child abuse thing wasn’t destryoing it’s moral credibility fast enough, so they nudged this guy to start up.

[Guinastasia]

@David Simmons

I’m not a Roman Catholic, but I sometimes wonder about some of their leaders. One of the historic arguments against Catholic politicians has been the “owing allegiance” thing. When Catholic Al Smith ran for president in 1928 one of the stories used agains him was that if he was president the Pope would be living the the White House. When Smith lost the to Herbert Hoover one comedian (It might have been Eddie Cantor) remarked that Smith has sent the Pope a telegram. It had just one word: “Unpack.”

And so the public announcement by a couple of Bishops that voters who vote the wrong way will be sanctioned plays right into the hands of the Catholic bashers.

Maybe it’s a death wish.

True, but then again, Catholic bashing isn’t as common now as it was back then.

Most of those who were bashing Catholics are now those we see as the fringe, Jack Chick types.

Or else they’re people who are against all religions, but then, they wouldn’t contain their arguments to Catholics alone.

[rfgdxm]

@John Mace

The problem here is that every candidate supports something that is against Catholic doctrine-- if not abortion, then the death penalty. Etc. Unless the Catholic Church is telling people not to vote at all, this is just ridiculous.

At the highest levels of the Catholic Church, the position is that they strongly oppose abortion and the death penalty. Basically, on the same logic: all human life is sacred. If anyone is arguing in the Church that abortion is somehow worse than the death penalty, then they aren’t following the the Vatican position. Note that in the US, for a long time all presidential candidates have been anti-abortion, but pro-death penalty. As such, voting for a Republican presidential candidate would be a grave sin.

Short of these life/death issues, I wouldn’t think that voting for a candidate that opposed some other issue against Catholic doctrine would be at the grave sin level. And, the general position of Catholics is such that neither Republicans or Democrats are ideal in the US. As an example, Catholics generally oppose school prayer. How to pray is something that it is the church leadership should decide, not the politicians. And, with the Religious Right in the Republican Party being Protestant, that is not the flavor of Christianity Catholics follow.

[BrainGlutton]

The ballot is secret. If a Catholic votes for a pro-choice candidate, has moral qualms afterwards, and discusses it with a priest in the confessional, that is also secret. Unless a Catholic loudly trumpets his or her pro-choice views, how could any priest deny him or her communion? Come to think of it, has any Catholic ever been denied communion for this reason? Or excommunicated?

[beagledave]

I’ve found this stance nauseating as well (and I self identfy as pro life fwiw).

John Myers, archbishop of Newark (formerly of Peoria, Illinois, where I had some personal knowledge of him) has issued a similar statement regarding communion for people who have publically expressed a pro choice view (I don’t think it specifically address voters of pro choice candidates).

http://www.ewtn.com/library/BISHOPS/honesty.htm

In the above link and sunsequent interviews, he’s tried to dance around politicians who don’t follow OTHER social teachings…he claims that there can be a “legitimate diversity of opinion” on those magical topics. Notice that he does NOT address the specific teachings about the death penalty or the war in Iraq, but uses welfare policies…where the bishops and pontiff have not expressed a specific policy in how to address that particular problem. Myers is a fucking coward to avoid addressing THOSE issues.

He’s also flat out ignorant.

The Catholic bishops of the U.S. have condemned the use of the death penalty. The pontiff has condemned the use of the death penalty in all countries (like the U.S.) where there are plenty of other legitimate options to address safety concerns.

Here is the pontiffs statement on the death penalty

In his encyclical “Evangelium Vitae” (The Gospel of Life) issued March 25, 1995 after four years of consultations with the world’s Roman Catholic bishops, John Paul II wrote that execution is only appropriate “in cases of absolute necessity, in other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society. Today, however, as a result of steady immprovement in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically nonexistent.”

In other words, in the Archdiocese of Newark, the death penalty is inappropriate…ergo Myers is a fucking liar on this score.

The Catholic bishops of the U.S have specifically stated that the war in Iraq does not meet the necessary conditions for a “Just War” action. The pontiff has said similar things (and indeed told President Bush that on his Vatican visit this week).

Hey John Myers? Where exactly is the “legitimate diversity of opinion” on the Iraq war from the pontiff’s point of view?

John Paul spoke out publicly against the war more than any other world leader and in the months leading up to the conflict the Vatican became a diplomatic stage for all the parties involved.

and http://www.americancatholic.org/News/JustWar/Iraq/papalstatement.asp

U.S. Catholic bishops’ position here

With the Holy See and bishops from the Middle East and around the world, we fear that resort to war, under present circumstances and in light of current public information, would not meet the strict conditions in Catholic teaching for overriding the strong presumption against the use of military force.*

Again, Myers and his ilk deliberately choose to ignore the specific condemnations of these social policies by the bishops and the pontiff when it comes to politicians who hold those points of views.

As a pro life Catholic, Myers and his ilk disgust me. If he was an honest man, he would issue a similar appeal to pro death penalty/pro Iraq war politicians to abstain from communion.

[beagledave]

To clarify the previous post…I think banning communion based on public stands on abortion, death penalty or other social issues is a dumb idea…but if you’re going to do it…you better be fucking consistent.

FWIW, I’m of a mixed mind on a similar event. In Chicago (I think) there were Catholics who were rainbow sashes and pink shirts to Mass, making a political statement about the churches statements regarding homsexuality. In that instance, they were denied communion when approaching the altar.

On the one hand…I’m not a big fan of denying communion to Catholics in good stand. On the other hand, I’m not a fan at all of using a Mass to make a directed specific political stance in the fashion that occured in Chicago…it’s the wrong time and place (IMHO).

[David_Simmons]

@Guinastasia

True, but then again, Catholic bashing isn’t as common now as it was back then.

Of course not but unfortunately you know, that could change.

It just seems to me that the Bishops would be better off helping priests persuade parishoners to follow rather than making public threats that alienate some Catholics and give support to the bashers’ arguments.

The church, or at least the US bishops as in the Boston Diocese, don’t need any more detractors right now.

[matt_mcl]

In a slightly similar vein, last year the Archbishop of Ottawa warned Prime Minister Jean Chrétien that he’d end up in purgatory if he continued to support same-sex marriage, and ended up pretty much laughed off the stage.