Posts
Father Jay Scott Newman, a Catholic priest in Greenville, South Carolina, has a controversial take on Barack Obama's Presidential victory: he asks his parishioners to repent for voting for Obama before they receive Holy Communion.
For any non-Catholics reading, the rite of Communion is the most important part of the Catholic Mass. In eating the host (a small piece of unleavened bread), Catholics believe through faith that they are consuming the body of Christ. By the letter of the law, one should undergo the Sacrament of Confession (admitting your sins to the priest, and having them absolved) before receiving the Host. It seems Father Newman counts voting for Barack Obama as a sin that must be addressed before undergoing the holy rite.
Of course, Father Newman's stated basis for this position is Barack Obama's pro-choice philosophy; since the Catholic church's position is that abortion is murder, voting for Obama---at least according to Father Newman--is therefore a sin. No word on whether Newman's diocese backs him up on that.
Here's the thing, though. We have a separation of church and state, and though that only means that the state does not endorse any particular religion, and not that churches can't have political opinions, I have a real problem with clergy addressing politics during their religious ceremonies. Church---at least Catholic church--is the place to which you go to worship your God and commune with Christ. It is meant to be an ideal place, a spiritual refuge from a troubled secular world. The political choices of his parishioners---the choices they make when dealing with the state and the messy and often unpleasant problems the state has to deal with--shouldn't be assailed by Father Newman when they come to him for solace.
Father Newman's position on abortion, and therefore Obama, is black-and-white...since he lives entirely within the realm of religion and faith, it can be. Barack Obama's position---and the position of some in Father Newman's flock, who have to live in the real world---must by necessity be far more complex. And to endure the times in which we live, many choices which were once labelled "sins" might be more appropriately called "necessary evils".
Speech is Free...but not free from consequences.
9 years ago
2 comments:
"Cafeteria Catholics" such as myself can find solace in such organizations as http://catholicsforobama.org/. Martin Sheen supports him, he's Catholic and he played a Catholic President on TV.
All jokes aside, perhaps catholicsforobama.org can help us during this time of struggle. I want to believe that all of the good that President Elect Obama can possibly do for our nation and the world will make up for the abortion issue.
I think you are mistaken when you say that it is not Father Newman's place to ask for his congregation to repent. His job as a priest is to help guide his church toward life EVERLASTING. He wants to help guide as many souls as possible toward that life, which, according to the doctrine he follows, requires that we confess and repent for the acts that we commit which go against the teachings of the church (termed sins). According to Catholic doctrine it is not only his duty to do so, but the duty of all Catholics. The following is part of a letter that the Bishops of Dallas and Fort Worth released to their dioceses prior to the election:
----------------------------------
"As Catholics we are faced with a number of issues that are of concern and should be addressed, such as immigration reform, healthcare, the economy and its solvency, care and concern for the poor, and the war on terror. As Catholics we must be concerned about these issues and work to see that just solutions are brought about. There are many possible solutions to these issues and there can be reasonable debate among Catholics on how to best approach and solve them. These are matters of "prudential judgment." But let us be clear: issues of prudential judgment are not morally equivalent to issues involving intrinsic evils. No matter how right a given candidate is on any of these issues, it does not outweigh a candidate's unacceptable position in favor of an intrinsic evil such as abortion or the protection of "abortion rights."
As Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship states:
"The direct and intentional destruction of innocent human life from the moment of conception until natural death is always wrong and is not just one issue among many. It must always be opposed." (28)
5. Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship, in paragraphs 34-37, addresses the question of whether it is morally permissible for a Catholic to vote for a candidate who supports an intrinsic evil – even when the voter does not agree with the candidate's position on that evil. The only moral possibilities for a Catholic to be able to vote in good conscience for a candidate who supports this intrinsic evil are the following:
a. If both candidates running for office support abortion or "abortion rights," a Catholic would be forced to then look at the other important issues and through their vote try to limit the evil done; or,
b. If another intrinsic evil outweighs the evil of abortion. While this is sound moral reasoning, there are no "truly grave moral" or "proportionate" reasons, singularly or combined, that could outweigh the millions of innocent human lives that are directly killed by legal abortion each year.
To vote for a candidate who supports the intrinsic evil of abortion or "abortion rights" when there is a morally acceptable alternative would be to cooperate in the evil – and, therefore, morally impermissible. "
-------------------------------
The problem we have here is that while Father Newman's congregation may be willing to repent for ignoring the abortion issue when choosing their presidential candidate, he is not going to get them to truly be sorry for voting for Barack Obama. Catholics as a whole, came to a crossroad on November 4th, where they had to decide which life was more important to them, the one they are living here on earth, or the everlasting life they are trying to attain. Catholic Faith came into play here, and it did not win out. At least that is the way I saw it when I cast my ballot and voted for Barack Obama. I was not voting FOR ABORTION but if I had voted for John McCain it would have ONLY been a vote AGAINST ABORTION. I voted for the candidate that I felt offered the best chance of mine and my family's survival on this planet. I voted for the here and now, which shows a lack of Catholic faith on my part. I voted for my own survival and the survival of my loved ones, over the survival of the million unborn babies who are aborted each year.
I think our Catholic Priests do need to find a way to help us come to terms with our standing in the church. Perhaps there is a better way to go about it than the tactics of Father Newman. I for one welcome such guidance.
"Hello Janine". Your points are incredibly valid. No doubt it is the position of the Catholic church that supporting Obama is, in fact, sinful. I'm glad that you seem to agree with my end argument, that members of the clergy live in an insular world that their flock don't have the pleasure of enjoying. Therefore some of them have weighed, as you did, the relative value of Barack Obama despite his position on abortion. Your response was very perceptive and engaging. You might consider a blog of your own...
Post a Comment