Archbishop Robert J. Carlson's most recent column in the St. Louis Review is a direct, down-to-earth explanation of why good Catholics cannot be pro-choice:
This past Sunday, on the Fourth of July, I heard one of the most ridiculous and pathetic homilies I've heard in quite some time, a homily that essentially made a mockery of what Abp. Carlson wrote. It was also one of the most instructive homilies I've heard although I'm certain that what I gleaned from it was not what the priest who gave it intended to be gleaned.
We were camping over the weekend of the Fourth, so we went to Mass at a parish (the only one within a reasonable distance from our campsite) that has a well-deserved reputation for leaning toward the "liberal" side of the spectrum in nearly every way. And, true to form, the leaning was there for all to see: the sloppy, shuffling informality; the prolonged meet-and-greet-and-greet-again; the bad hymns and equally bad singing (or barely singing); the improvising at various moments with certain rubrics and parts of prayers; and the homily.
The homily was about JFK's famous Houston speech, given fifty years ago, and a recent talk given by Abp. Chaput in Houston on the impact and meaning of the JFK speech. It was obvious that the priest, who is close to seventy, has a strong nostalgia for the revolutionary days of the Sixties (he used the word "revolution" several times, in fact). He also made it clear that the election of JFK was an event that, in his words, "made me proud to be a Catholic." The exact reason for this deep sense of pride was never stated forthrightly, but appears to have flowed from the acceptance and recognition that JFK's election symbolized and, in a certain way, made a reality. He was proud, it seems to me, to finally be seen as a real American. Interesting, that (I'll return to it below).
Since the first century, the Church has addressed the moral evil of abortion and the killing of a defenseless baby in the womb. People who are casual about the sin of abortion and who choose to view it as a political issue rather than the serious moral issue that it is are guilty of violating the Fifth Commandment. You cannot be "pro-choice" (pro-abortion) and remain a Catholic in good standing. That's why the Church asks those who maintain this position not to receive holy Communion. We are not being mean or judgmental, we are simply acknowledging the fact that such a stance is objectively and seriously sinful and is radically inconsistent with the Christian way of life.Read the entire column.
The Fathers of the Second Vatican Council said, "God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and human life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: Abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes" ("Gaudium et Spes," No. 51.3). That's why formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life (see canons 1398,1314, and 1323-1324).
This past Sunday, on the Fourth of July, I heard one of the most ridiculous and pathetic homilies I've heard in quite some time, a homily that essentially made a mockery of what Abp. Carlson wrote. It was also one of the most instructive homilies I've heard although I'm certain that what I gleaned from it was not what the priest who gave it intended to be gleaned.
We were camping over the weekend of the Fourth, so we went to Mass at a parish (the only one within a reasonable distance from our campsite) that has a well-deserved reputation for leaning toward the "liberal" side of the spectrum in nearly every way. And, true to form, the leaning was there for all to see: the sloppy, shuffling informality; the prolonged meet-and-greet-and-greet-again; the bad hymns and equally bad singing (or barely singing); the improvising at various moments with certain rubrics and parts of prayers; and the homily.
The homily was about JFK's famous Houston speech, given fifty years ago, and a recent talk given by Abp. Chaput in Houston on the impact and meaning of the JFK speech. It was obvious that the priest, who is close to seventy, has a strong nostalgia for the revolutionary days of the Sixties (he used the word "revolution" several times, in fact). He also made it clear that the election of JFK was an event that, in his words, "made me proud to be a Catholic." The exact reason for this deep sense of pride was never stated forthrightly, but appears to have flowed from the acceptance and recognition that JFK's election symbolized and, in a certain way, made a reality. He was proud, it seems to me, to finally be seen as a real American. Interesting, that (I'll return to it below).
The priest did not mock Chaput's speech outright, but he said, with a smile, that Chaput is a "controversial" and "confrontational" bishop; he repeated this point, clearly seeing these qualities as suspect, even contrary to what he considers to be a true Catholic spirit. He spoke of how a "few individual bishops" have criticized or even threatened excommunication for those Catholic politicians who have not "agreed" with them. "What about Supreme Court justices?", he said sarcastically, "Why haven't any justices been threatened with excommunication?" And a bit later, this little bomb: "There is never a right or wrong way to vote on any specific piece of legislation." That one stuck with me, for fairly obvious reasons.
There was more of this, but the real travesty was near the conclusion, when he praised a "certain nun"—Sr. Carol Keehan—for standing up to "those bishops" who opposed the passage of Obamacare. No mention that "those bishops" were, in fact, the bishops of the U.S., not some fraction thereof, as Cardinal Francis George made clear in a statement immediately prior to the vote on the health care bill, and in his statement after the bill passed, in which he said:
Oh. Well, that makes all the difference. Bravo. And there I was thinking his incoherent, misleading, illogical bit of homiletics was in danger of not having a leg to stand on!
Of course, what constitutes "authoritarianism" can vary quite a bit, depending on what you make your ground of final judgment and authority. Rebellious teenagers may think their parents are authoritarian. They might want to disobey Mom and Dad and yet also want Mom and Dad to take care of them, pay the bills, feed and clothe them, and tell them how wonderful of kids they are.
And that, in a nutshell, is how this particular priest came off to me. He isn't a radical; he doesn't have the stomach for it. He isn't an outright heretic; he doesn't have the, um, gumption for it. I suspect he likes being taken care of by the Church, of having his place and his little flock, of being able to appear "open minded" and "tolerant" without ever really grappling with the core of essential matters. The homily was not a daring shout in the face of dogma and Church authority, but a sad little dance by a priest who apparently takes more pride in being accepted by America than accepting Catholic teaching.
Abp. Chaput, in his address, said,
There was more of this, but the real travesty was near the conclusion, when he praised a "certain nun"—Sr. Carol Keehan—for standing up to "those bishops" who opposed the passage of Obamacare. No mention that "those bishops" were, in fact, the bishops of the U.S., not some fraction thereof, as Cardinal Francis George made clear in a statement immediately prior to the vote on the health care bill, and in his statement after the bill passed, in which he said:
Nevertheless, for whatever good this law achieves or intends, we as Catholic bishopsSr. Keehan, the priest said (without saying her name, for whatever reason), was to be lauded for doing what was right because she followed—get ready for it—her conscience. Oooohhhhh. And, on cue, most of those present broke out in applause. I tried to keep from vomiting. I thought, "Why bother calling this a 'Catholic' Church? Why not just call it the 'Conscience' Church, or 'First Community Church of the Infallible, Individual Conscience'?" The priest then tossed in a bit about how he was not saying the Church doesn't have a hierarchy or authority (oh no, of course he wasn't saying that!), but was only noting that while Jesus spoke with authority, he was never authoritarian.
have opposed its passage because there is compelling evidence that it would expand the role of
the federal government in funding and facilitating abortion and plans that cover abortion. ...
Many in Congress and the Administration, as well as individuals and groups in the
Catholic community, have repeatedly insisted that there is no federal funding for abortion in this
statute and that strong conscience protection has been assured. Analyses that are being published
separately show this not to be the case, which is why we oppose it in its current form. We and
many others will follow the government’s implementation of health care reform and will work to
ensure that Congress and the Administration live up to the claims that have contributed to its
passage.
Oh. Well, that makes all the difference. Bravo. And there I was thinking his incoherent, misleading, illogical bit of homiletics was in danger of not having a leg to stand on!
Of course, what constitutes "authoritarianism" can vary quite a bit, depending on what you make your ground of final judgment and authority. Rebellious teenagers may think their parents are authoritarian. They might want to disobey Mom and Dad and yet also want Mom and Dad to take care of them, pay the bills, feed and clothe them, and tell them how wonderful of kids they are.
And that, in a nutshell, is how this particular priest came off to me. He isn't a radical; he doesn't have the stomach for it. He isn't an outright heretic; he doesn't have the, um, gumption for it. I suspect he likes being taken care of by the Church, of having his place and his little flock, of being able to appear "open minded" and "tolerant" without ever really grappling with the core of essential matters. The homily was not a daring shout in the face of dogma and Church authority, but a sad little dance by a priest who apparently takes more pride in being accepted by America than accepting Catholic teaching.
Abp. Chaput, in his address, said,
Here's my second caveat: I'm here as a Catholic Christian and an American citizen – in that order. Both of these identities are important. They don't need to conflict. They are not, however, the same thing. And they do not have the same weight. I love my country. I revere the genius of its founding documents and its public institutions. But no nation, not even the one I love, has a right to my allegiance, or my silence, in matters that belong to God or that undermine the dignity of the human persons He created.The homily I heard last Sunday never mentioned abortion or the dignity of human life, even though those issues were central to the arguments being "addressed" in it. The elephant filled the room, but no one, especially not the priest, was going to bring any attention to it. The homily, in the end, was the product of what Fr. Robert Barron calls, in his book Bridging the Great Divide, "beige Catholicism," which possesses a "hand-wringing and apologetic quality" and in which the "biblical and theological tended to be replaced by the political, the sociological, and, above all, the psychological." It is also self-congratulatory, insecure, sentimental, and mushy. (It is also dying, although, being parasitical, it might well linger for many years or decades to come.) Thank goodness for bishops such as Bp. Carlson and Abp. Chaput, who are first Catholics and then Americans.
Churches like those mentioned above are the Catholic Churches own fault. Nothing is ever done by those in power (Bishops etc.)to make these Churches conform to the teaching of the Pope nad the Magesterium. For too long the liberals have been allowed to run amok with no fear of any penalty!!!
Posted by: Michael McFarland | Saturday, July 10, 2010 at 05:55 AM
So what did you do?! Reading the comments made by that priest had me wondering what I would have done if I was in your shoes. I think I would have considered the possibility of standing up in the middle of the homily and stating that he was flat-out wrong, and he's teaching heresy.
Multiple Popes and many Bishop's statement have explicitly stated that there ARE right ways and wrong ways to vote on particular pieces of legislation. Not all, but on occasion. And following ones conscience is not noble--or worthy of applause--unless it is properly formed through Truth.
(I would of course only consider doing that since, being on vacation, that would already be my last visit to that parish!)
I would then offer to talk to the priest afterward, and surely send a letter to his bishop explaining his serious errors. I think the above commenter is correct. The bishop's authority can only be expected to hold popular weight if they crack down on blatant heresy.
And many wonder how masses of nominal Catholics can blatantly disregard episcopal teachings; teachings like this from leaders of communities hold so much sway.
Posted by: Brandon Vogt | Saturday, July 10, 2010 at 01:05 PM
The applause from the Catholics in the pew is quite disturbing. Coming from Los Angeles you occasionally hear errant ideas but the Catholics in the pew do not cheer it on. I wonder how this priest would respond to legislation in this country when they decided on free and slave states, before the civil war. Never a right or wrong way to vote on any specific piece of legislation? The only answer for a democratic people not going the wrong way is a Pro Life conscious
Posted by: Marie | Saturday, July 10, 2010 at 06:52 PM
"There is never a right or wrong way to vote on any specific piece of legislation."
So...why fret about politics at all? If the priest really believed this, he wouldn't even bother mentioning Obamacare. But then, if he were being truthful and he really opposed authoritarianism, he'd oppose Obamacare as well.
Posted by: Jean | Saturday, July 10, 2010 at 09:39 PM
What this priest *might* have meant (I can, ultimately, only speculate) is that "There is no right or wrong way to vote on a piece of legislation, unless you disagree with my particular 'progressive' views"...
Posted by: Christopher Lake | Sunday, July 11, 2010 at 05:41 PM
Oh, to have been able to stand up, call the priest a heretic and march out. I can barely grasp that a priest talked like that in a homily so I have no idea what I would do. I would hate to leave without my Eucharist, if I could have believed the priest had any intention of consecrating it validly.
I will probably be dead before all the liberal post Vatican II priests retire, but it will be such a better day with the crop of new priests and the seminarians I see today. They are holy, Roman Catholic priests. We may have fewer priests, but we will have holy priests.
I pray the priest in this article will be brought to conversion before he dies.
Posted by: Deb Brunsberg | Monday, July 12, 2010 at 03:14 PM
Christ had no need to be authoritarian because he was authoritative--the difference between being an overbearing enforcer and being an accurate and reliable source of the truth. That is what the magisterium has always been, even when her pastors have strayed into error and willful ignorance.
Posted by: Honor | Monday, July 12, 2010 at 03:30 PM
I think the best course of action would be to take your family, stand up and leave without saying a word. Denouncing the priest in a few words (of necessity) would be futile and disrespectful of his office. Leaving without words would, perhaps, say even more. If this were not your diocese, I wonder if any follow up to the bishop would be effective. Possibly it would.
You have given me some food for thought, if ever I am in a similar situation. Luckily only once was this the case in my 60 plus years of Catholic Masses.
Posted by: Kenneth | Monday, July 12, 2010 at 03:59 PM