Apparently there's some new news from the bishops. Not to your liking, I'm afraid. "Let sleeping dogs li" is the message I got from them.
June 26, 2004
BELIEFS
Documents Add to Abortion Debate
By PETER STEINFELS
Documents posted this week on the Web site of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops provide fresh light on the struggle of the bishops to address the question of politicians who publicly identify themselves as Roman Catholics but consistently disagree with church teaching concerning abortion.
A week ago, after a lengthy debate behind closed doors, the bishops issued a statement emphasizing the need for church leaders to teach clearly and persuasively the church's position that human life deserves legal protection from "the moment of conception until natural death.''
On the question of whether Catholic politicians who support abortion rights should be barred (or bar themselves) from receiving holy communion, the statement simply said that bishops can legitimately make different judgments on the most prudent course of pastoral action.
This studied neutrality was not only in keeping with church law, which ultimately leaves such decisions in the hands of individual bishops, but it also gave cover to the half-dozen bishops who have called for such bans - even as it affirmed the fidelity of others whose objections to denying communion had provoked strong denunciations from some anti-abortion Catholics.
Last week's conference statement was meant, the document said, to "highlight several points from the interim report'' of a task force of seven leading prelates who were appointed last fall to develop a full document for the bishops to consider this November.
It is that interim report that has become available on the Web site (www.usccb.org). The material on the Web site, it should be emphasized, does not contradict what the bishops voted 183 to 6 to highlight a week ago. But the interim report has much information that the brief statement excluded and goes much further in its conclusions.
The summary of the task force's consultations, for example, presented by Cardinal William H. Keeler of Baltimore, confirmed what many observers had surmised: the overwhelming weight of opinion was against public sanctions involving communion. That was the view of three-quarters of the bishops offering the task force their opinion. Theologians, experts in church law and the Catholic officials who interact directly with politicians on the state and national levels told the task force the same thing.
When the task force raised the question with bishops' conferences in other countries, it found that none had felt obliged to develop policies regarding Catholic politicians, especially about their reception of communion.
Cardinal Theodore McCarrick of Washington, D.C., reported on the views of Vatican officials and specifically of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, whose role in safeguarding Catholic teaching has made him the object of speculation.
Cardinal Ratzinger, according to Cardinal McCarrick, held that consistent campaigning for permissive laws on abortion could in principle constitute grounds for denial of communion, but that it remained up to the American bishops to decide, as Cardinal McCarrick put it, "not simply whether denial of communion is possible, but whether it is pastorally wise and prudent.''
Cardinal Ratzinger also drew a sharp distinction between Catholic public officials and Catholic voters. Specifically, he found no problem with church members who might vote for a candidate who strongly endorsed access to abortion for other political reasons.
The task force, like the conference's eventual statement, restated the church's clear position that "every bishop has the right and duty to address these realities in his own diocese.''
But the task force did not stop there. "We were asked to consult broadly and offer advice and so we will,'' it said. That advice began with the emphasis on teaching and persuading and encouraging Catholics to act on their principles without seeking to endorse or oppose candidates - all points incorporated into the conference statement.
A key piece of that advice was: "Our task force does not advocate the denial of communion for Catholic politicians or Catholic voters in these circumstances.''
The task force spelled out its reasons for this conclusion. "The sacred nature of the eucharist could be trivialized and might be turned into a partisan political battleground.'' The floodgates would be opened to debates about "what other issues might lead to denial of holy communion.'' Catholics upholding church teaching in public life might be perceived not as representing their own moral convictions but merely "as under pressure from the hierarchy.''
On the other hand, Catholics "who bend to the political winds'' could pose "as courageous resistors of episcopal authority.'' The lesson of the past, it said, was that "such actions have often been counterproductive.'' They "could push many people farther from the church and its teaching, rather than bringing them closer.''
"No one should mistake our task force's reservations about refusing communion or public calls to refrain from communion as ignoring or excusing those who clearly contradict Catholic teaching in their public roles,'' the interim report said. Still, the task force urged "not penalties'' but renewed efforts "to teach clearly, advocate effectively, organize and mobilize Catholic laity and to engage, persuade and challenge Catholic politicians to act on the moral teaching of our church.''
The fact that these documents were so quickly posted on the Web site suggests that the task force did not want the difference in emphasis and detail between their interim report and the conference's official statement to go unnoticed. That leaves unexplained, however, exactly why the bishops as a whole chose to include and exclude what they did.
Two factors apparently played important roles in shaping the statement. One was brevity. There was strong pressure to distill the interim documents to the length of an op-ed article.
The second was unity, the desire not to challenge the sincerity and fidelity of either those few bishops who have made the reception of communion a public marker in their opposition to legalized abortion or the larger number who disagree with that approach.
Given the shadow of the sexual abuse scandal that already burdens the bishops' public standing, is this whole exercise somewhat beside the point? In fact, by highlighting the hierarchy's responsibility not only to teach clearly and authoritatively but also to persuade, to welcome dialogue, to engage in real conversation with Catholics in political life and with those, Catholic or not, who are unconvinced of the church's teaching, both the interim report and the conference's statement imply a distinctly different way of being a bishop.
Archbishop William J. Levada of San Francisco, whose theological reflections for the task force include a thoughtful response to the 48 Catholic members of Congress voicing concerns about the withholding of communion on the basis of voting records, made a similar observation yesterday.
The current situation, Archbishop Levada said, "shows not only that Catholic politicians need an opportunity to look at church teaching in a deeper way, but that we bishops have a lot to learn about the practicalities and the steps involved in political judgments, including political platforms and party relationships.
"We have to envision a dialogue that is not just one way,'' he said.
Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company
Here's the link to the "interim report."
usccb.org |
