What of Catholic politicians who support the death penalty? Should Catholics who practice birth control using devices or pills be excommunicated?

Numerous conservative Catholics called the Pope an appeaser for opposing the invasion of Iraq. In this area, of course, we aren't talking about doctrine. However, since it isn't clear to me that the invasion of Iraq meets the just war criteria, it seems to me that support for the war could be grounds for ex-communication.

These questions are for Catholics to decide. I'm simply pointing out that the principles do, indeed, extend far beyond the question of abortion. Do you favor excommunicating Catholics who vote for civil union legislation? For state domestic partnership benefits?

In many Protestant churches, excommunication means being removed from the membership roll and being banned from attending church or fellowshipping with other believers. I need to go back and read more of exactly what excommunication means for Catholics. (In my own denomination, being excommunicated would result in loss of church membership and being asked not to attend church.)

Justin, I fear you've missed the point. Several other bright folks have missed it on first reading, so I suppose I could have posed the argument better. Allow me to consume some of your server space here with a further explication.

The foundation of Christian moral thought is moral individualism: Smith's sins cannot be laid on Jones's shoulders, ever, for any reason. (In legal terms, incitement to riot cannot be used to exonerate the rioters.) In terms germane to the Kerry / Arinze controversy, no woman who had an abortion could shift the moral burden onto the shoulders of Justice Harry Blackmun or the members of the United States Senate simply because those parties had made -- or kept -- abortion legal.

It is what Kerry himself has done that determines his standing in God's eyes, and by extension, must determine his standing as a Catholic.

1. Has John Kerry had an abortion?
2. Has John Kerry facilitated an abortion? That is, has he assisted a woman in obtaining one?
3. Has John Kerry exhorted a woman to abort her baby?

Let's assume the answers to all three questions are "no." (I think we can be pretty sure of #1.) Under those circumstances, John Kerry is innocent of the sin of abortion, or any of the sins that pertain to it. That he believes that, as terrible as it is, it must nevertheless remain legal, does not indict him of any theological offense.

To claim that Kerry is guilty of the sin of abortion, or facilitating or exhorting others' abortions, one would have to have a "yes" answer to one of the three questions above. If all three can honestly be answered "no," then, while anyone can argue with his stance on political or legal grounds, no one can attack his moral standing.

Kerry's posture that, while abortion is morally wrong, it must remain legal for political reasons does not pollute his moral standing. It's his pronouncement as a legislator on what is legally and politically best -- or least costly -- for his nation. As long as he is personally unstained by the sin of abortion, then if he truly believes that criminalizing abortion would bring about worse consequences than allowing it to remain legal, then he's done his duty both as a good legislator and as a good Catholic. Moreover, there are many other Catholics who hold similar positions.

(Ick! I hate to defend that waste of flesh, but it's a moral duty to defend those who are attacked unjustly, even if they're personally unworthy for other reasons.)

For the Church to deny the sacraments to a man for his political posture, rather than for his personal behavior, is an indirect stab at theocracy. It also implies that a Catholic legislator must agitate to have everything the Church condemns made illegal, and everything the Church commands made obligatory, or be excommunicated. Who will be the first to argue that a Catholic legislator must agitate for taking God's name in vain or envying one's neighbor to be made illegal, or for Sunday Mass attendance and the corporal works of mercy to be made mandatory?

Let it not be forgotten that when John F. Kennedy ran for President, one of the objections raised by his opponents and detractors was that "he'd take his orders from Rome." What the Arinze pronouncement does is to solidify that thesis, by providing evidence of theological coercion to bend the postures of Catholic legislators.

"Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's." -- Jesus of Nazareth.

Joel,

You write: "I'm simply pointing out that the principles do, indeed, extend far beyond the question of abortion." I'd correct you by suggesting that the "principles" can extend far beyond abortion. I suppose to some degree it depends which principles you mean, specifically, but there are a variety of factors involved, from the ethical balances of a particular issue, to the activity and influence of a particular person. My point is that a strategy or practice needn't been universally applicable to be valid in individual circumstances.

Regarding civil union legislation, I'd respond to your question: no. Firstly, there are a wide range of policies that could be termed "civil union." Secondly, the harm of such legislation is much less direct and immediately dire than abortion. Thirdly, I'm of the opinion that there's much more basis to believe that Christian ends can be reached by allowing civil unions than by allowing abortion.

As for excommunication, I have to confess to not being thoroughly versed in it. However, I do know that it is considered a "medicinal" action, rather than a punitive one. In other words, the expectation and hope is that the excommunicated person will overcome whatever is pulling him or her out of communion.

Francis,

I responded, in part, to your clarification when you left it as a comment on Michael Williams's blog.

"The foundation of Christian moral thought is moral individualism: Smith's sins cannot be laid on Jones's shoulders, ever, for any reason."

I'd say the entire doctrine of the Fall contradicts this notion.

In any event, your argument is a good one. My problem with it Kerry's particular case is simply that it doesn't fully describe his actions. We aren't talking, first of al,, about someone who casts the occasional vote on the subject. No, Kerry is a dogged, active, indeed craven campaigner for a woman's "right" to abortion. He gives speeches for, makes appearances to, accepts money from, and otherwise lends moral and political support to people whose enitr mission in life is not less than the exhortation of women to abortion.

Not only is his claim to be "personally opposed" a complete fabrication unsupported by any evidence in anything he has ever said or done, it is entirely without content. One is compelled to ask, if Kerry is opposed to abortion, why he has never explicitly laid out his reasons? Name one instance when he actually said "I am opposed to abortion BECAUSE..."

The fact is, his opposition to abortion is nonexistent in any morally or politically relevant way. This goes, of course, for ALL such politicians. One wonders why it is that no politician has ever, on any issue, similarly claimed their personal opposition to something they vehemently defend, on principle and in fact. If a woman has an inaliable "right" to abortion, then what possible reason could he have for being personally opposed to it?

The only reason to oppose abortion at all is because it involves the taking of a life. If a person has a "right" to take the life of a baby, then it isn't clear why this stops at the edge of the birth canal. My point is that for a man so famous for his ability to take nuanced positions, Kerry has been curiously silent when it comes to parsing the particulars of his personal opposition to abortion.

Ultimately, my point is simply that if you believe Kerry when he makes such a claim, you're not less than an utterly gullible automaton.

A Catholic politician or any Catholic for that matter who subordinates his beliefs to the "law of the land." Or says something like, "I believe that this is wrong but I cannot force my will upon someone else (the pro-choice catholic position)" violates the teachings of our Lord himself. A true Catholic cannot sublimate his beliefs and still be Catholic as illustrated in the scripture verses below:

(Matthew 5:14-16) "You are the light of the world. A city seated on a mountain cannot be hid. Neither do men light a candle and put it under a bushel, but upon a candlestick, that it may shine to all that are in the house. So let your light shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven."

It is grave error for people like Kerry and Pelosi to profess to be Catholic or "devout Catholic" in Nancy Pelosi's case and allow, let alone support, the notion of Choice when it comes to abortion.

I firmly agree with you that our representatives can and, more empatically stated, must use their personal beliefs in how they vote. The system is set up so that if a majority of people believe something to be wrong it is therefore wrong. The whole notion of "I think its wrong, but someone else may not, their viewpoint must not be offended, and therefore I must leave that option and therefore I cannot oppress someone with my own beliefs" (morally relative) is anathema to our founding father's vision. By doing this our politicians are tipping the scale to the least common denominator. We are prohibiting moral debate from actually happening. If someone believes that abortion is okay, then let them vote that way. If someone believes it to be wrong, vote that way. The issue then gets decided how it was meant to be decided, not by being individually influenced by someone else's potential beliefs.

This notion will be and is quickly becoming the slippery slope from which our society will fall.

Rick Paul

Crucial Distinctions:

By consistently and at every opportunity voting for any bill that will increase the availability of abortions and against any bill that would in any way restrict the practice of abortion, Kerry has greatly facilitated (made easier) the practice of abortion. To understand the seriousness of this, remember that the Catholic Church teaches that abortion is not simply wrong, it is MURDER. Kerry's guilt is no less than if he had refused to vote against laws to restrict lynching of Blacks in the South in the thirties, or had voted to decriminalize the murder of Jews.

Excommunication
Excommunication in the Catholic Church is not so much a penalty as a recognition that an individual has by his or her actions so greviously offended God that they can no longer be considered a member of the Catholic Church. When excommunicated, a person is no longer eligible to recieve any of the Sacraments. Of course that person can still attend Mass, and would in fact be encouraged to do so, unless they were using the Church to try to gain notoriety or personal advantage at the expense of the Church. There is no Catholic equivalent to the practice of "disfellowship" used by some Protestant groups. An excommunication can only be lifted by a bishop, and usually only by the penitent's own bishop.

The purpose of excommunication is fourfold,

1 To (hopefully) wake the conscience of the sinner to gravity of his actions.

2 To protect the faithful from scandal, that is to clearly point out the sin and discourage other from doing the same.
3 To protect the sinner himself from sacrilege, by recieving the Eucharist when he is in a state of grave sin.
4 To protect the honor of our Lord, Jesus. The Catholic Eucharist is "the body, blood, soul and divinity of Our Lord" who is profaned by anyone recieving Him unworthily.

The debate is not about punishing anyone for his or her vote. It is about sin and repentance.

error in 1st paragraph.

refused to vote against laws to restrict lynching of Blacks
should be

refused to vote for laws to restrict lynching of Blacks