Voting for Pro-Choice Politicians Not Sinful

The debate over whether it is appropriate for Catholic bishops to threaten withholding communion from pro-choice politicians and maybe even those who vote for them has tended to ignore whether there is even a good reason to do such a thing. Conservatives act like it’s obvious, but the Vatican disagrees.

  According to the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops:

Vatican officials offered both principles and advised caution and pastoral prudence in the use of sanctions. ... Cardinal Ratzinger speaks about WHAT constitutes “manifest grave sin” and “obstinate persistence” in public life, stating that consistently campaigning for and voting for permissive laws on abortion and euthanasia could meet these criteria. ... Cardinal Ratzinger suggests informing such persons that if they reject Catholic moral teaching in their public actions, they should not present themselves for Holy Communion until their situation has ended. Using the precedent of our teaching and practice in the case of a person in an invalid marriage, the Cardinal recognizes that there are circumstances in which Holy Communion may be denied.

I would emphasize that Cardinal Ratzinger clearly leaves to us as teachers, pastors and leaders WHETHER to pursue this path. The Holy See has repeatedly expressed its confidence in our roles as bishops and pastors. ... It is important to note that Cardinal Ratzinger makes a clear distinction between public officials and voters, explaining that a Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil only if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion. However, when a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favor of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted if there are proportionate reasons.

[O]ur Task Force does not advocate the denial of Communion for Catholic politicians or Catholic voters in these circumstances. ... [I]n our view the battles for human life and dignity and for the weak and vulnerable should be fought not at the Communion rail, but in the public square, in hearts and minds, in our pulpits and public advocacy, in our consciences and communities. Based on our consultation process, there is significant concern about the perception that the sacred nature of the Eucharist could be trivialized and might be turned into a partisan political battleground. Expecting a minister of Holy Communion to make these judgments would create great pastoral difficulties. We do not want to encourage confrontations at the altar rail with the Sacred Body of the Lord Jesus in our hands. This could create unmanageable burdens for our priests and those who assist them and could turn the Eucharist into a perceived source of political combat.

The USCCB is taken what is ironically a very pro-choice position with respect to whether someone should be denied communion if they support legalized abortion. The above language, however, very strongly suggests that the USCCB and the Vatican both discourage any such reprisals. First, they don’t think that it is warranted by church law. Second, they think that there are other and better ways to deal with the problem. Finally, they recognize that taking this path could have very negative consequences in terms of bad publicity.

It’s interesting to watch conservative Catholics reject all of this, acting as if they knew better than the bishops. That’s not necessarily a bad thing — liberals do that all the time. The ironic thing is that conservative complain when liberals do that. They have a lot more in common than they would admit

Read More:

• Roman Catholicism
• Catholicism & Homosexuality
• Popes