Fr. Roger J. Landry
The Anchor
Editorial
June 6, 2008
After the Supreme Court in its 1973 Roe v. Wade decision judicially legalized abortion throughout the country, a few famous Catholic politicians sought to separate their faith from their life, their duties to God from what they said were their duties to their supporters, by trial-ballooning a “personally opposed, but publicly tolerant” position with regard to abortion. This position was immediately exposed as sophistry by Church and pro-life leaders, but it largely did not lead to negative consequences for them either at the ballot box on election day or at Church on Sunday. Eventually more Catholic politicians — some Republicans but mainly Democrats hopeful for advancement in an increasingly pro-abortion post-McGovern Democratic party — began to parrot the same pseudo-distinction. With a wink to the Church’s teachings and a perfunctory note of their personal opposition, they then acted at a practical level indistinguishably from the most rabid abortion supporters; and for the most part, Church leaders treated them indistinguishably from faithful Catholics whose actions accord with the faith they profess. Over time, many of these practically pro-abortion Catholic politicians have just gotten bolder, with large numbers of them no longer thinking that they even have to give lip service to being personally opposed.
Such is the case with many prominent Democratic Catholic politicians in the Commonwealth who recently sent a letter to the head of National Abortion Rights Action League Pro-Choice America, protesting the endorsement of Barack Obama by the Massachusetts Chapter of NARAL (see our front page story). The principal co-signers of the letter were all Catholics: Speaker of the House Sal DiMasi, State Senate President Therese Murray, and Boston Mayor Thomas Menino. They wrote in protest not of Senator Obama’s support of partial-birth abortion or because of his recent statements equating pregnancy to “punishment,” but because they did not think that even with this track record he was pro-abortion enough. They argued, with extensive evidence, why they believed Hillary Clinton would be an even better choice to advance and secure abortion “rights.” Their letter — which was also signed by Sen. Joan Menard and Representatives Lou Kafka, Sarah Peak and Bill Strauss, all of whom represent citizens within the Diocese of Fall River— concludes: “It is imperative that we have a pro-choice President in the White House again.”
In our editorial two weeks ago, we mentioned Kansas City Archbishop Joseph Naumann’s column in which he stated that many Catholic politicians are now behaving as if the Catholic Church’s teaching on abortion is optional. He could have easily been talking the authors of this letter, but he singled out his own Kansas governor, Kathleen Sebelius, who he says has established an unambiguous 30-year public record in favor of abortion. After meeting with her privately on many occasions — in which he tried to persuade her to abandon her public support for abortion and informed her that if she did not, she should not present herself to receive holy Communion — and after learning that she had ignored that advice and continued to receive holy Communion, the Archbishop wrote a public letter calling on her to refrain. That action led to a deluge of letters and op-eds and much talk show banter.
To reply to the many questions that were raised by his actions, Archbishop Naumann wrote a lengthy question-and-answer column in his Archdiocesan newspaper, The Leaven. In it, he provided very concise and clear teaching about the necessary integrity between faith and life that is a precondition for worthy reception of Holy Communion. Because of the scandal caused by so many Catholic politicians over the past 35 years — which has not only led some to be confused about the binding aspect of the Church’s teaching on abortion but also about the proper conditions to receive holy Communion — it is a much needed catechesis, which deserves to be read in full (theleaven.com/V29N39ColumnistNaumann.htm). He responds forthrightly to questions that faithful Catholics have, both in Kansas and in Massachusetts, and he also exposes several of the flawed arguments that pro-abortion Catholic politicians have used in the past. It is clear that he wants to bring to an end the double-scandal of their support for abortion and their receiving holy Communion while supporting abortion. Here is his answer to four commonly-asked questions:
Is it not the responsibility of individual Catholics to judge their worthiness to receive holy Communion? “Normally, it is the responsibility of the individual Catholic to make the judgment of whether he or she is able to receive holy Communion. It is also the responsibility of the individual Catholic to have a well-formed conscience that is informed by the teachings of the church. However, if an individual persistently acts publicly in a manner that is inconsistent with fundamental moral teachings of the church and continues to receive holy Communion, a bishop may feel obliged to intervene for the good of the individual and to protect others from being misled.”
What is meant when it is said that a pro-abortion Catholic politician’s actions are scandalous? “Governor Sebelius’ public support for legalized abortion, as a Catholic, naturally leads others to question the moral gravity of abortion. In effect, her actions and advocacy for legalized abortion, coupled with her reception of holy Communion, have said to other Catholics: ‘I am a good Catholic and I support legalized abortion. You can be a good Catholic and support legalized abortion.’”
Are not the actions of the church requesting Catholic politicians who support legalized abortion not to receive Communion really an attack on Democrats? “No. Cardinal Edward Egan of New York has made a similar request of former Republican presidential candidate and former mayor Rudy Giuliani. I encourage Catholics who are Democrats to remain Democrats, but to change the extremist position of the party on abortion. If the majority of Catholic Democrats objected to the platform of the party supporting legalized abortion, it would change tomorrow.”
Why is it morally unacceptable to be personally opposed to abortion but politically in favor of a woman’s “right” to choose to have one? “Freedom of choice is not an absolute value. All of our laws limit our choices. I am not free to drive while intoxicated or to take another’s property or to assault someone else. My freedom ends when I infringe on the more basic rights of another. On a similarly grave moral issue 150 years ago, Stephen Douglas, in his famous debates with the future President Abraham Lincoln, attempted to craft his position as not favoring slavery but of the right of people in new states and territories, such as Kansas, to choose to sanction slavery. Being pro-choice on a fundamental matter of human rights was not a morally coherent argument in the 1850s, nor is it today. No one has the right to choose to enslave another human being, just as no one has the right to kill another human being. No law or public policy has the authority to give legal protection to such an injustice.”
By his principled actions and approach — which are bound to be replicated by other ordinaries who have likewise had enough of the duplicity of paradigmatic pro-abortion Catholic politicians — Archbishop Naumann is forcing these elected officials to make a choice between communion with Christ and communion with the grisly practice of the destruction of those made in his image and likeness. He is saying that the choice is “either-or,” not “both-and.” Let’s pray that those who have up to this point consistently supported the pseudo-right to choose abortion may recognize that doing so is just another name for choosing Barabbas, and to choose this Barabbas is to crucify Christ in the distressing disguise of the unborn.