Here in the United States abortion always seems to be a big sticking point when it comes to Catholicism and politics. Some priests and bishops refuse to give communion to politicians who support abortion rights, some even go as far as to say you shouldn’t vote for pro-choice politicians. There was even a kerfuffle when some suggested that Obama appoint Caroline Kennedy, who is pro-choice, as ambassador to the Vatican. He ended up appointing someone who is pro-life.
My question is do these sorts of rifts exist in other other countries that have large Catholic populations and also fairly liberal abortion policies like Spain, France and Germany. Do priests and bishops in those countries and others ever speak out against pro-choice politicians or refuse to give communion to those who support abortion rights.
What sort of noise does the Church make in countries where abortion isn’t seen as that big an issue?
And does the Vatican raise a big stink when other countries appoint ambassadors who are at least nominally pro-choice?
Here in Peru, aboprtion is never an election-year issue, but it comes about every 2 or 3 years when a special case happens.
It those cases the pro-life stance is unanimous (at least in public).
In Britain abortion tends to be what’s known as a “Free Vote” issue, meaning that political parties won’t expect their members to vote in a certain way in relation to it. On the whole the governments secular (with the exception of the current monarch, who’s technically the head of the church), religion won’t come into things much since being to overt about ones beliefs isn’t how it’s done here.
For this reason, I doubt any member of the clergy will openly criticise a politition, since there’s no way anyone can tell how a given MP voted. Even if one gave a speech which was pro choice or life, it would be a political matter which the church would be expected to stay out of, although it happens once in a blue moon. Of course some fellow in Italy with a funny hat doesn’t seem to realise this…
I’m pretty sure that Ireland would fit your case.
Are votes on bills not public information in the UK?
In Spain the Council of Bishops periodically reminds Catholics to “vote according to their conscience” and some political parties periodically take offense - which specific parties has got nothing to do with whether the party is “pro choice” or “pro SSM” or “pro divorce” or any of that; it’s much more basic, about “pro religion” and “anti religion”. Election periods are often a time when some priests whip out pet peeves, others give the reminder to vote according to your conscience but that’s it - without telling you what should your conscience say.
IME, the priests who are likely to go on about abortion, divorce, homosexuality and the evils of TV (dude, you’re like 10 years out of date) during election periods are the same ones who do it during other times.
Captain Amazing, I don’t know about the UK, but in Spain even though it is a matter of public record, nobody scrutinizes it too closely beyond knowing which parties have “vote discipline” (if you don’t vote like the party says you can get expelled) and which don’t. But then, we also can choose individual politicians only for the Senate: for everything else, it’s “closed lists,” so who is the person from Party XYZ who is more likely to be elected has been pre-decided by that Party.
As far as I know; only the results. Basically when MPs vote they walk into one of two rooms representing yes or no (they’re given an 8 minute warning when the vote begins). Each room typically has a party whip outside to remind MPs which way their party is voting (unless its a free vote, or they’re planning to resign or part of a back bench rebellion). When the vote begins, the room’s doors are shut (no latecomers are allowed in). The MP basically casts their vote by being in the room at the time. They leave through a second set of doors and have their names ticked off, and the two lists of voters from each room are compared to make sure there’s no funny business. The only people who really know who voted in what way are the party whips. Even if it is public record, no one seems to bother looking at it (I rarely hear anyone say “X MP voted yes” or suchlike).
We have a complicated system.
Actually, I did some searching, and the Parliament’s Public Whip’s office does list votes by members, although I’m willing to accept that nobody bothers looking at it:
I’m sure the Catholic Church hierarchy in Canada is opposed to abortion, but I must say that I don’t hear them talk much about it. Our major Catholic leaders, namely the cardinal archbishops of Montreal and Quebec, do make pronouncements from time to time on a few subjects, which are usually reported in the media and sometimes raise discussion, but they don’t seem to be taken especially seriously. On the other hand, maybe some parish priests try to “guide” their parishioners’ conscience during election times, but I wouldn’t know about it.
I should point out that there was at least one politician who was given an ultimatum by the Church, probably because of his political positions. Raymond Gravel, an openly gay, pro-same-sex marriage Catholic priest who was also MP, was asked by the Vatican to choose between the priesthood and politics, and he chose not to run for reelection. I’ve heard that the Vatican was responding to a petition from Gravel’s political opponents.
It was actually because of his positions on abortion. Gravel had publicly supported Henry Morgentaler for the Order of Canada. For those people who don’t know, Morgentaler was (he’s retired now), a physician from Montreal who was arrested in both 1970 and 1983 for performing illegal abortions. That second case, R. v Morgentaler, got to the Supreme Court, which ruled that laws restricting a woman’s right to have an abortion are against the Charter.
So, because of his support for that, and his opposition to a law that would have punished injury to a fetus (under the proposed law, if someone were to beat up a pregnant woman and cause a miscarriage, for instance, they could be charged for the death of the fetus), the Vatican told him he should resign.
It’s sort of interesting to compare his case to that of the US Congressman Robert Drinan, who was also a Catholic priest, also upset the Vatican by being prochoice, and also left his political career at the orders of the Vatican (although in his case, it was a 1980 decision by the Pope that priests shouldn’t run for or hold political office, which was probably directed mostly against the Sandanistas.)
To the OP, Italy would certainly fit your bill. The Vatican frequently criticises Italian politicians for voting in favour of abortion choice, SSM and the like. I seem to recall some being threatened with excommunication by the Pope.
Oh, here (sorry, don’t know how to create a snazzy link)
No, it wouldn’t. The question was about countries with large Catholic populations and liberal abortion laws. Ireland only fits one of these criteria.
But to answer the question, pro-choice politicians aren’t really criticised here because there aren’t enough of them to make a difference anyway. Not a single one of the parties currently represented in the parliament has a pro-choice position*; there are maybe five or six openly pro-choice politicians among them. One of them recently ran as a candidate in a by-election but she didn’t make an issue of her position on this issue and neither, as far as I can tell, did the Church.
As for Britain, it is of course possible to find out how a particular MP voted. Abortion is a free vote, but it’s notable that the last time any such vote was taken only a tiny number of Labour MPs took an anti-choice position - and they were all Catholic.
*In the Northern Assembly there is one pro-choice party, the Progressive Unionist Party. But it only has one seat.
You’re not allowed to know how your elected representative voted? Are you serious?
The code is {url=linkyouhavepasted}words you want to show{/url}
You can write the words first, then highlight them and click on the earth-and-chainlink icon.
Cardinal, in general the vote of Spanish parliamentaries (both chambers) is visible, but depending on the issue it can be secret. Their right to secrecy (and to vote against party discipline if that’s what they consider the right thing to do) is considered more important than the right of the individual voters to know how their elected officers voted. Plus as I said, it’s not as if I can vote “party A, but I don’t want their number two cos he’s an ass.”
Eh? Spanish clergy didn’t wait for abortion to be legalized before speaking against it. And it was pretty clear, ever since Juan Carlos I chose Suárez to “lead us to democracy” which parties wanted “free-for-all abortion,” which wanted “limited abortion” and which wanted “sorry, you got the fetus, you have the baby.”
American clergy never talks about laws that are being prepared or that may be prepared? Really?
Proposition 8 et al, for example
The OP specified “in those countries (with large Catholic populations and liberal abortion laws) and others.” I think Ireland falls under “others.”
I didn’t say they don’t speak against it. But they don’t speak against particular politicians who want it legalised, because there are too few of them to bother and they don’t have enough influence over the issue.
The OP can clarify for himself, but my reading of “others” is that it meant countries with large Catholic populations and liberal abortion laws other than those already mentioned.