On a previous post, I said (on my way to eventually agreeing with him) that Pope Frances’ description of a church “obsessed” with gays and abortion doesn’t match my own experience in the church. And it doesn’t.
But that doesn’t mean he’s not describing a reality that’s out there — some of it pretty close to him in Rome.
The same day the Pope was saying those conciliatory words, there appeared an interview with Cardinal Raymond Burke, who heads the Vatican’s Apostolic Signatura and is America’s most senior prelate. This was brought to my attention by Jennifer Sheheen via Facebook.
Cardinal Burke advocated getting tough with wayward public pro-choice Catholics, such as Nancy Pelosi, and went on at some length about “the homosexual agenda.” An excerpt from a story about the interview:
“This is a person who obstinately, after repeated admonitions, persists in a grave sin — cooperating with the crime of procured abortion — and still professes to be a devout Catholic,” the cardinal said. “I fear for Congresswoman Pelosi if she does not come to understand how gravely in error she is. I invite her to reflect upon the example of St. Thomas More who acted rightly in a similar situation even at the cost of his life.”
The cardinal also urged the faithful to practice “much prayer and fasting” to counter the growing threat of the homosexual agenda.
“The alarming rapidity of the realization of the homosexual agenda ought to awaken all of us and frighten us with regard to the future of our nation,” he said. “This is a work of deceit, a lie about the most fundamental aspect of our human nature, our human sexuality, which after life itself defines us. There is only one place these types of lies come from, namely Satan. It is a diabolical situation which is aimed at destroying individuals, families, and eventually our nation.”
Yeah, OK, so I see what the Pope’s on about. I wonder whether Cardinal Burke sees what the Pope is on about.
As y’all probably know, I’m a member of the Cardinal Joseph Bernardin lectureship committee. Remember, we brought E. J. Dionne here a couple of years back. Anyway, back in his day Cardinal Bernardin was the most prominent American in the Catholic hierarchy, and he had a very different approach from Cardinal Burke. He was about reaching out. He was about Common Ground.
I find myself focusing on Cardinal Burke’s assertion that “Canon 915 must be applied” in the Pelosi case. Personally, I had never heard of “Canon 915,” but he made it sound like Orwell’s “Room 101.” I read on to see that it says, those who are “obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to Holy Communion.”
Cardinal Burke, the pope and I are together in being opposed to abortion on demand (as the pope affirmed over the weekend). But when it comes to what you do next, Burke and Francis seem to be on opposite poles.
Which brings me to the heart of what the Pope said the other day. What I heard was that he prefers that the church talk less about doctrine, and more about the love of Christ. As he Tweeted this morning, “The Church has no other meaning and finality than to witness to Jesus. May we not forget this.”
Before that, he Tweeted, “True charity requires courage: let us overcome the fear of getting our hands dirty so as to help those in need.” And before that: “Christ is always faithful. Let us pray to be always faithful to him.” And before that, “We are all sinners, but we experience the joy of God’s forgiveness and we walk forward trusting in his mercy.” And so on. Follow him on Twitter, and you start understanding where his head’s at, as the less grammatical members of my generation used to say.
No mention of canons, 915 or otherwise. His focus is on the teachings of Christ.
And at the risk of sounding like a raging Protestant or something, it’s kind of hard for me to imagine Jesus of Nazareth having a positive reaction to someone invoking something called “Canon 915” in his name. If you had interrupted the original communion, barging into that upper room and talking about Canon 915, the Apostles would likely have looked at you as though they thought you were barking mad. Canons? 915 of them? Really? It just wouldn’t have made any sense to them. I can imagine Peter, or someone, muttering something about “small-minded rules,” and about certain people insisting on missing the point…
But perhaps I’m getting far afield…
Related Posts
Isn’t Cardinal Burke saying exactly what I said – you cannot call yourself a Catholic AND be pro-choice and for gay rights? It’s like a vegetarian working in a slaughterhouse. When a politician does it, one is left to assume that it is just typical political hypocrisy: playing both sides to get votes. Would the Church allow Pelosi to present her views on abortion inside the church? If not, why shouldn’t the Church condemn and reject those who openly defy the teachings in public?
Yeah, I know. As I said before (and you seemed to think it was gross understatement on my part), it’s a problem.
Maybe something dramatic, such as excommunication of these highly visible Catholics embracing abortion, is what’s needed. Maybe the Church needs to disassociate from them. But even saying that — the idea of the church pushing people away — bothers me. It’s not an easy question…
If it is just a problem, someone would do something about it. By not taking a firm stand on these fundamental issues, it gives the appearance that the Catholic Church is more interested in keeping famous and powerful people in the flock than standing firm on principles.
What’s the penance for supporting abortion legislation? Two Hail Mary’s?
“What’s the penance for supporting abortion legislation? Two Hail Mary’s?”
Hidden impacts of abortion legislation will assure we will all make the penances for it:
1- Assures a gradual dumbing down of public school children versus a sudden, inevitable slump that would already have occured due to too few qualified teachers. Consequently, abortion assures the support of teachers’ unions by making incompetence easier to hide and jobs for the unqualified more secure. In NYC charter schools there are “DIrectors” without certificates who teach. At least one of them is from S.C., which he disparages to other teachers.
2- Under Obamacare (ACA) the ‘Millenials’ cohort andthe ir successors are saddled with lifetimes of higher premiums than most would otherwise have paid. Legal on request abortions mean Millenials are far fewer in number than otherwise, as well. Every dollar spent to support illegal aliens has been the PC tradeoff paid for aborted future workers.. in one year (2009), NY and FL alone performed over 200,000 abortions. From 1973 through 2008, nearly 50 million legal abortions occurred in the U.S.: – Guttmacher Institute
Maybe this is too simplisitic, but supporting laws that allow abortion to remain legal is a far and away difference from condoning abortion in one’s personal life. I believe that the Constitution contained unenumerated rights, including a right to privacy and a right to bodily integrity. I also strongly believe in a separation between Church and State. As such, I would oppose laws that would seriously infringe on those areas. It does not necessarily follow that I would engage in abortion (hard to, since I am a guy) or encourage others to do the same. In fact, it is the opposite. I would encourage alternative paths. I just think that the Constitution allows a choice, and that the right to that choice out to be maintained. Does that make me a sinner or unfit in the eyes of the Catholic Church or am I giving to Caesar what is Caesar’s?
Actually, T. J., I think the fact that the Church is so strongly opposed (as it should be) to abortion leads to a widely held misconception — that abortion is just a religious matter.
This leads to rationalizations such as wanting to keep abortion legal in order to separate church and state.
We seem to be able to accept other laws against killing without anyone complaining about someone’s religious views being imposed on the rest of society. Should we legalize murder because the pope is against it, so that makes it a purely religious concern? I think not.
The state has a very legitimate, secular, obligation to prevent killing by individuals. There is no reason to give license to kill to individuals just because their victims haven’t been born yet. That would be arbitrary. Others think it’s a great, bright line. Still others — and this seems even more arbitrary to me — want to draw this line somewhere between conception and birth, such as at three months, or six months.
The whole “I’m opposed to abortion, but I’m pro-choice” argument has always seemed really, really untenable to me. Oddly, a friend who was pro-choice once provided me with the best analogy for explaining WHY it’s untenable that I’ve ever heard.
I was explaining why the “pro-choice, not pro-abortion” argument made little sense to me, when he nodded and interrupted: “Yeah, I know. It’s like saying, ‘I’m deeply, personally opposed to lynching. But I don’t feel I have the right to impose my values on other people who believe that lynching is OK.'”
But he was still pro-choice. Go figure.
T.J. that is correct. You can be very much opposed to abortion but find it an issue that is outside the purview of government. The great irony of ironies is that the Catholic Church’s opposition to birth control is probably responsible for more abortions than any other policy on the planet.
Will not engage on Kulturkampf or religion, but I thought Canon 915 was an expensive camera. Really.
Dang Brad. At the great risk of repeating myself it simply cannot go unsaid. You rail and carry on like there’s no tomorrow about how you despise discussing these so-called Kulturkampf issues THEN turn around and write back-to-back posts on the alpha-Kulterkampf issue of them all – abortion. Seriously, do not ever, ever, ever, ever say you don’t like discussing this issue. It would just make you look even more damn foolish. Geez.
Agreed, as I have said many times before.
Brad,
Your analogy is way off the mark. As Bud mentioned above, the disagreement for me is not whether abortion is right or wrong, but whether the federal government has the right to legislate on that particular issue. Your analogy takes for granted the fact that it is something that can be outlawed or regulated. It is less about imposing a belief and more about a Constitutional right. Again, Consitutitonal rights can be reasonably regulated (i.e. gun control, not yelling “Fire” in a movie theatre, etc.), but not outright eliminated. I just think that my fellow citizens should not have a say over medical choices involving my body. That does not mean that I support abortion, it just means stay the heck out of my private life.
Laws restricting abortion were never aimed at interfering with YOUR private life. They were concerned with protecting someone ELSE’S life, a life that is actually at stake in this issue.
You’ve probably heard the old expression about where your freedom to swing your fist ends. Yep, it’s your private fist, but someone else’s face.
Also, I don’t think “whether the federal government has the right to legislate on that particular issue” is relevant. The laws that Roe vacated were state laws.
As you say, “Constitutional rights can be reasonably regulated.” Actual, real, constitutional rights, such as those actually spelled out in the Constitution — the First Amendment, even — can be thus limited. Certainly that should apply to a mere “penumbra” of a right, such as the alleged right to privacy in which Roe was rooted. Why should that ONE supposed right be absolute?