Vatican official calls Democrats “the party of death”
posted at 2:10 pm on October 2, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
The elevation of Joseph Ratzinger to Pope Benedict XVI has brought a new assertiveness to the Roman Catholic Church, especially at the intersection of politics and life issues. The new prefect of the Vatican Supreme Court, the former Archbishop Raymond Burke of St. Louis, warned in an interview with an Italian newspaper that the Democratic Party is well on its way to becoming the “party of death” in the United States. Burke called for greater discipline within the American church for holding Catholic politicians accountable for their actions:
Vatican officials seldom single out political leaders who differ with the Church on issues like abortion rights or embryonic stem cell research. But now that the Vatican’s highest court is led by an American, the former St. Louis Archbishop Raymond Burke, we can expect things to get more explicit in Vatican City — at least when when it comes to U.S. politics.
Burke, who was named prefect of the Vatican’s Supreme Court of the Apostolic Signature in June, told the Italian Catholic newspaper Avvenire that the U.S. Democratic Party risked “transforming itself definitively into a party of death for its decisions on bioethical issues.” He then attacked two of the party’s most high profile Catholics — vice presidential candidate Joe Biden and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi — for misrepresenting Church teaching on abortion.
He said Biden and Pelosi, “while presenting themselves as good Catholics, have presented Church doctrine on abortion in a false and tendentious way.”
Benedict chose Burke for a reason. He wants a closer focus on the way Catholics handle issues of life, especially abortion, in the public square. The church spent most of the last three decades quietly backing away from the notion of politicians who claim to be practicing Catholics and yet support abortions, which the church doctrine rejects so forcefully that it is a de facto ex-communicating event. Burke led the charge on this in 2004 during the presidential campaign when he openly called for John Kerry’s bishop to deny him the Eucharist.
Of course, politicians do not have to remain in the Catholic Church; it’s a completely voluntary association. If they disagree with the foundational doctrines of the church, of which opposition to abortion is a key tenet, then it behooves both the politican and the church to facilitate that separation. The silence from the American bishops over the last few decades has been seen as a tacit acquiescence to the arguments made by Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden that abortion is just one of a number of “social justice” issues, and that Catholics can remain in good standing by trading abortion support for confiscatory policy measures that address poverty and starvation.
Burke goes farther, though, in this statement. Until now, bishops have restricted their criticisms to Catholic politicians who work to support abortion rights. Burke has expanded this into a broader political argument, one that will create more controversy in the pews and in the general electorate, especially with pro-life Democrats who will resent the accusation. The church should pursue their mandate of Catholics first, and avoid partisan shots while focusing on issues instead.
Update: I see that, once again, I have to provide the link to the Catechism to explain excommunication in relation to abortion. Paragraph 2272 of the Catechism makes this plain:
Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. “A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,” “by the very commission of the offense,” and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law. The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.
The phrase “latae sententiae” means the sentence applies automatically, without any action needed by the church. The act constitutes a willful abandonment of the church, a self-imposed excommunication. If the person repents of their sin through confession and resolves to sin no more, they can return to the Eucharist.
It’s not me “kicking people out for political disagreements”, as one commenter accused. It’s the rules of the church, and it couldn’t possibly be plainer. I don’t have the power to kick people out of any church community, nor would I want it. I’m explaining the actual doctrine of the church, and why Archbishop Burke and the Vatican have become much more assertive in applying it. And if people resolve to formally cooperate with abortion anyway, then they have chosen to live in a state of excommunication.
One more point. I’m not arguing that Burke doesn’t have the right to accuse the Democrats of being “the party of death”; of course he does. I just think it’s more effective to stay focused on the issues of abortion and life rather than get into a Dem-Rep debate. Saying “Democrats stink” is partisanship, if you will, while “abortion stinks” is issue-oriented debate.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »
When the polls show that a solid majority of Americans are against abortion, the Dems will come out as the anti-abortion party and claim they always were (aka slavery). Pro-Life Dems will be filling their freezers with cash,building bridges to nurseries that are never built, and championing the civil rights of infants (after they get them the vote).
The aging generation of women who practiced careless “free love” and have had their uterus’ sucked and scraped more than a cheap hallway carpet will be in the next life answering for what they did to their children.
Hening on October 2, 2008 at 3:03 PM
Also, quote from Paul the Apostle: “But if you do evil then be afraid, for he [the King, and therefore applicable to all appropriate ruling parties and his/her representatives] does not bear the sword in vain.”
In the context the Bible was written in, the phrase “bear the sword” means to enforce the law by force, by killing the offender if necessary. Death Penalty.
*eats*
Grue in the Attic on October 2, 2008 at 3:04 PM
It wouldn’t to Aquinas or any of his Thomistic followers.
dedalus on October 2, 2008 at 3:04 PM
Hmmm, show me!
hawkdriver on October 2, 2008 at 3:04 PM
What part of my post didn’t you understand? I’ll repeat it:
The Catholic Church has opposed abortion from the word go. It isn’t a matter of debate.
schiehallion on October 2, 2008 at 3:04 PM
wow.
just wow.
Black Adam on October 2, 2008 at 3:05 PM
Ummm….
…did you read the document or just cut and paste from some website?
Go here for more information.
The point you are missing is not that this document made abortion “legal”, but in certain cases the penal sanction was removed:
So, to reiterate, from the very beginning of the Catholic church (see the Didache), abortion has been considered murder.
This has NEVER wavered.
There WAS a brief time when the ensoulment issue helped negate penal sanction, but it was still considered murder.
Religious_Zealot on October 2, 2008 at 3:05 PM
In the age of Obama, the Roman Catholics will suffer if they do not properly honor Obama in all things.
And I admire Burke for saying this, inspite of the threats to come from the new tyranny.
Right_of_Attila on October 2, 2008 at 3:06 PM
Oh jeez. Please not another twelve-page argument on the ins and outs of Catholicism. Please, I beg.
*eats*
Grue in the Attic on October 2, 2008 at 3:07 PM
The Party of Death:
1. Right to kill unborn children
2. Right to let children die (failed abortions)
3. Right to starve disabled who have outlived their usefulness (Terry Schiavo)
4. Right to kill the elderly who are a burden (Oregon/California)
The Democrats are passionate about the right to kill.
jerseyman on October 2, 2008 at 3:07 PM
FIFY
Religious_Zealot on October 2, 2008 at 3:07 PM
I’m looking forward to the way Chris Matthews, who claims to be Catholic, plans to spin this. Will he accuse Burke, rather than the GOP, of resurrecting the culture wars?
I’m getting a tingle (up or down?) my leg.
Thanks to Burke for going on the record.
BuckeyeSam on October 2, 2008 at 3:07 PM
At times, in the Middle Ages, the Church held that it wasn’t murder.
Wordgaming. The Church does not characterize abortion as murder. The catechism doesn’t use that word–see sections 2270-75. However, the Church has consistently taught that it is a mortal sin and a horrific crime–”abominable,” to quote the term used by the much-misused Second Vatican Council.
Here’s a good overview of the history of the Catholic position from the 1909 Catholic Encyclopedia:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01046b.htm
DRPrice on October 2, 2008 at 3:07 PM
Depending on how you word the question, polls already show this. And have for some time.
Large majorities oppose late term abortions.
Large majorities oppose using abortion as a form of birth control.
You can even get a near majority if you ask about making all abortion illegal, except in the case of rape or saving the life of the mother.
MarkTheGreat on October 2, 2008 at 3:08 PM
RZ, even all this time after teh squeaky wheel, you’re still educating this simple minded Southern Baptist,
:-)
hawkdriver on October 2, 2008 at 3:08 PM
Right ON! That’s the truth. That is why my family moved from Dem to Rep over the last 10-15 years.
The US Conference of Catholic Bishops is very liberal compared to the vast majority of Catholics.
Burke is finally bringing to light something that needs to see the light.
Sapwolf on October 2, 2008 at 3:08 PM
Aw, that’s not such a big feat. Catholicism and guilt go together like Peanut Butter and Jelly. ;-)
Seriously, silence is concurrence. If you really believe the tenets of your faith and do not stand up for them, you are sinning. More importantly, you are knowingly and willfully sinning. Pro-life Democrat Catholics who continue electing “Catholics” who support abortion and oppose banning even partial birth abortions are no more practicing the tenets of their faith than the politicians who are propping up America’s culture of death. Pro-life Democrat Catholics are knowingly and willfully sinning. The church should call them on their inaction.
highhopes on October 2, 2008 at 3:09 PM
They’ve opposed all matter behavior from eating meat on Friday to artificial birth control. No one would argue that Catholic politicians need to implement all Vatican teaching into U.S. law. Abortion is different due to the severity of the sin involved in killing another person.
dedalus on October 2, 2008 at 3:10 PM
Democrats are passionate about the right to kill, EXCEPT when it comes to murderers themselves.
Not only are murderers victims of society, they should be able to vote for Democrats in all our elections.
If we extend the right to vote to children in the womb, the abortion party will go pro-life in a matter of moments.
NoDonkey on October 2, 2008 at 3:10 PM
Ed, what the hell is this? Uh, announcement, abortion is an issue. This was not a partisan shot. It is the truth. They should be Catholic and come back to the flock, or leave the Church. Believe me, the Church really and sincerely wants the Bidens and Pelosis to realize what they are doing is wrong per Catholic Doctrine, receive Reconciliation, and rejoin the Church. If they refuse to, then they should stop pretending to be what they aren’t.
Sapwolf on October 2, 2008 at 3:13 PM
A half-hearted attempt at a defense of the Democrats:
They aren’t the Party of Death and never will be. For the true liberals – not the many who fake liberalism to pander to their base – life really is an important core value.
But their willing and able to lie to themselves, to cover their own beliefs in a blanket of bullpoop and baloney, if it furthers the rest of their agenda.
I was going to call them the Party of Stupid, but that’s not it. Nope. It’s the Party of Selfish. The Party of Illogical and Irrationality. The Party of Denial.
It’s not that they’re as cruel and evil and cold as they can seem. It’s just that they have a unique ability, born in selfishness and immaturity, to close their eyes and avoid seeing truth.
They never even *allow* themselves to ponder the obvious question: what if they’re wrong about abortion (and other bioethics issues)?
If they did – at least some of them would rethink their position. But they never do. They won’t and can’t.
The Party of Empty-Headed Dogmatic Denial. That’s the phrase you’re looking for.
Death is just the sad consequence of their foolishness.
Professor Blather on October 2, 2008 at 3:13 PM
So the do-nothing Catholic church is lecturing people about morality?
That’s about as ridiculous as it gets.
Dave Rywall on October 2, 2008 at 3:14 PM
I had a snarky reply to this, but it kind of just evaporated. Now I’m mostly speechless. I really don’t know what to say.
*eats*
Grue in the Attic on October 2, 2008 at 3:14 PM
NoDonkey on October 2, 2008 at 3:10 PM
Addendum: Party of Death to INNOCENT children, disabled, elderly.
Save the murders who ARE quilty (so they can kill more innocent people?)
jerseyman on October 2, 2008 at 3:14 PM
Again, I know that conservative Catholics like Ed come on here and talk about this as though it is some enlightening experience and YAY look how good Catholicism is.
But I don’t want priests to discuss politics. They are against abortion, preach against abortion and the virtues of life. They shouldn’t be giving stump speeches for either party or any politician from the pulpit. . . even if I agree with their position.
Ed, you say that Catholicism is ‘voluntary’, yet you are eager to kick people out for whatever POLITICAL reason you might disagree with. How is that different from Sharia? If the politician in a Muslim country doesn’t agree with Sharia law, they get voted out, fatwa against them, etc.
We have a SECULAR society. If the Vatican is interested in influencing American public policy, you might find me on the other side of that battle – even if I fundamentally agree with their position (as in abortion where I, and other Protestants, don’t have to be threatened with ex-communication to realize that it is wrong.)
ThackerAgency on October 2, 2008 at 3:14 PM
Absolutely! Too many people get confused between Old and New Testaments, and especially with the “turn the other cheek” instruction.
But that’s because they don’t look at WHO the instructions are for!
The Old Testament highlights the laws and rules, which were to be carried out by government, and what was required to be holy.
The New Testament highlights the responsibility of the individual within that framework, and the salvation that comes from Jesus Christ.
When you look at the context, it is clear that when Jesus spoke of “turn the other cheek”, he was speaking to individuals, not to the government.
dominigan on October 2, 2008 at 3:15 PM
Ed: My reply.
Vatican Watcher on October 2, 2008 at 3:16 PM
Riiiight. So just so we’re clear. You’ve now accepted that the Catholic Church has opposed abortion all along and are now moving onto the somewhat different subject of whether or not US Law in its entirety should conform to Catholic teaching.
Just so we’re clear. you’ve now accepted that:
Correct?
schiehallion on October 2, 2008 at 3:16 PM
Goodness! HA is hot today for wit, humor and some seriously well written commentary. Professor, I am impressed with that analysis.
(bows)
hawkdriver on October 2, 2008 at 3:17 PM
I think that is part of the problem. There is a generation of Democrats and liberals who convinced themselves that discarding life as casually as one changes their socks is reaching old age. They are beginning to feel guilt about the life they killed and what they so thoughtlessly gave up. Now, to justify what they did, they need to keep on demanding on the “right” to kill off unborn life.
Burke is right to call the party out for their positions. Ed is wrong that the Catholic Church needs to shut up, ignore political issues, and devote themselves to ministering to Catholics (i.e. those already in the “club”) instead of going out and challenging the way Paul did. Pro-life Democrat Catholics have essentially sinned by their silence about the party position. The only ones that come out well are atheists and agnostics who are essentially hedonists who are not burdened with issues of morality or dealing with qualms about life in heaven.
highhopes on October 2, 2008 at 3:17 PM
Cut the crap. There were only 5 cases of legitimate homosexual priest abuse with teen boys in 2007 over a priest population of around 40,000 in the USA. The Church is doing much better at screening for homosexuality than the 70’s/80’s when some seminaries had problems.
Sapwolf on October 2, 2008 at 3:17 PM
Rove you magnificent bastard!!!
Talon on October 2, 2008 at 3:18 PM
I don’t think so. Folks on the right have a lot more pregnancies than folks on the left. (Assuming the parents get to vote for the womb-bound.)
misterpeasea on October 2, 2008 at 3:18 PM
Just wanted to highlight this. Although I’d double the “very” and add the word “worldwide” to the end.
Abby Adams on October 2, 2008 at 3:19 PM
Bold statement for a church that has “transformed itself definitively into child molesting.”
jim m on October 2, 2008 at 3:20 PM
+1.
The Party of Unable-To-Reconcile-More-Than-One-”Principle”-At-The-Time.
misterpeasea on October 2, 2008 at 3:21 PM
Wow. I’ve never heard someone use THAT as an Anti-Death-Penalty defense from the Bible before. Usually I just get a bunch of “love-joy-peace-sunshine-and-rainbows” rantings and “that’s not what Paul meant” when I quote Galatians like I did above.
Learn something new every day.
*eats*
Grue in the Attic on October 2, 2008 at 3:21 PM
Isn’t there something on this site’s TERMS OF USE about this crap?
“We reserve the right to delete your comments or revoke your registration for any reason. Rarely, if ever, will we do so simply because we disagree with you. We will, however, usually do so if you post something that is, in our good-faith opinion, (a) off-topic; (b) libelous, defamatory, abusive,…”
neuquenguy on October 2, 2008 at 3:21 PM
Good point. And I’ll add that every Christian denomination that has taken a loose or non-demanding approach to the Faith is losing churchgoers.
The Catholic Church’s Doctrine is there and is not something that gets changed because it feels good. Some paper-Catholics believe that and think God should change moral law to fit their vices. Ain’t gonna happen.
Sapwolf on October 2, 2008 at 3:22 PM
That doesn’t matter. They have as much right to discuss politics as anyone else.
Well, two out of three isn’t bad. The Catholic church is all FOR the virtues of life.
1) This wasn’t a stump speech.
2) American law is quite clear about endorsing candidates from the pulpit. In reality only liberal churches have a problem with this and routinely use their pulpits to push for Democratic candidates.
Sharia is public law. One doesn’t get to choose whether it pertains to them or not.
Catholicism, like all religions, is a voluntary organization. You are free to choose to join them or to NOT join them.
As such, voluntary organizations have every right to have a set of rules and guidelines and to have the right to remove members who refuse to operate by these guidelines.
And we have freedom of speech.
One does not loose the right to petition the government just because they attend church.
Religious_Zealot on October 2, 2008 at 3:23 PM
But you have to figure that since Democrats know how dead people and housepets would vote given a choice (Democrat of course), they would also be able to discern that of course this fetus supports Democrats, doesn’t everyone?
Because they’re for the children. The ones they haven’t aborted yet, that is.
NoDonkey on October 2, 2008 at 3:23 PM
Except a few who have straightened out… isn’t the Roe v. Wade lady campaigning to have her own case overturned? Remember reading about that somewhere a few weeks back.
*eats*
Grue in the Attic on October 2, 2008 at 3:23 PM
ACtually, religious zealot, read more closely:
“Though it is clear enough the Church has always regarded abortion as a serious sin, it was not always accorded a penal sanction in Canon Law equal to that given homicide (nor is it now, see can.1397, supra).
The first papal canon, Effraenatam, that universally imposed a penal penalty of excommunication for abortion was issued by Sixtus V in 1588. It applied to all abortions and was reserved to the Holy See. In 1591, the law was modified by Gregory XIV so that the penalty would not apply when a fetus was not “animated” or “ensouled” under the Aristo-Aquinan theory of when human life begins (not before 40 days) and gave the local bishops control of these cases.
What’s clear is that it was consdered a serious wrong, but, for the most part, NOT murder.
jim m on October 2, 2008 at 3:24 PM
HERE-HERE!!!
*eats*
Grue in the Attic on October 2, 2008 at 3:25 PM
I haven’t contended that the Catholic Church ever taught that abortion was a moral act. My point is that the teaching on the severity of the sin has varied and for hundreds of years whether the fetus was “formed” or “ensouled” was critical.
dedalus on October 2, 2008 at 3:25 PM
All that’s true, but the leftists simply rationalize it all as ‘choice’, and then excoriate the priests as the order of pedophiles.
We win. You lose. Nana-nana-boo-boo. Obama or die. So it goes.
The seeds of the next revolution are sown with hundreds of millions amoral hedonists who would rather embrace anarchy for paramount personal pleasure than any sort of moral order or altruistic regulation for posterity & the greater good.
That’s why debating libs is pointless.
locomotivebreath1901 on October 2, 2008 at 3:26 PM
But in this case, you have politicians preaching religion and
misrepresentinglying about the beliefs of that religion… and claiming to be a devout follower! This is heresy, plain and simple, and should be dealt with in the harshest way possible by the church.It is not Ed that is advocating kicking them out, it is leadership of that group that is taking action. AND THEY HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO, especially when you have someone claiming to be religious making false claims that amount to heresy!
How is this the case when you have politicians making heretical statements about the Catholic Church? If politicians don’t want to appear stupid, they shouldn’t make stupid statements! There is nothing wrong with the clergy strongly correcting the false statements made by either of these
Christianspeople of faith.dominigan on October 2, 2008 at 3:27 PM
Within my small sphere of influence, I was not silent, just not active enough in the broader sense. Let alone commission; omission makes me a lazy sinner. I’ll whine now and say, “Too much work, too little time.”
captivated_dem on October 2, 2008 at 3:27 PM
Well, it does tend to remind us why we can’t tolerate them in positions where they can influence our lives, such as in the government.
NoDonkey on October 2, 2008 at 3:28 PM
Yeah, I see that.
Not being Catholic, I’m trying to get up to speed on a topic that is full of nuance.
I shouldn’t have interjected the word “murder” since Pelosi never used that word (and Pelosi’s ignorant statements are what I was discussing).
Religious_Zealot on October 2, 2008 at 3:29 PM
O.
M.
G.
Can we stop arguing about what the Catholic Church has taught in the past? NO ONE can dispute what they teach in the present, and that is all that really matters for Catholics around the globe.
Stop arguing, or I’ll pull this car over!
Abby Adams on October 2, 2008 at 3:30 PM
Yes, this is the truth. Thank you for putting in out there.
Sapwolf on October 2, 2008 at 3:31 PM
The Church hasn’t kicked them out, they are kicking themselves out.
I believe it’s the position of the Church that an individual who receives Communion but who is not in a state of grace, has committed a mortal sin.
So if Pelosi supports abortion, she would be committing a grave mortal sin by accepting communion, and a Catholic Priest should refrain from enabling her error.
NoDonkey on October 2, 2008 at 3:31 PM
I think you’re just playing silly-buggers with semantics with the probable intention of giving the appearance that there is some great debate within Catholicism about the rights and wrongs of abortion. Which there isn’t.
Article 2271 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
“Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable”.
There is no debate within Catholicism. Abortion is evil. Period. The End.
schiehallion on October 2, 2008 at 3:31 PM
I’m glad the church is finally defending its beliefs. Its anemic response to Mario “I won’t impose my personal beliefs on the public, except for captial punishment, taxation etc.” Cuomo was a low point. I guess they realized they had to do something when self proclaimed Doctor of the Church Botox Pelosi (D, Rainbows) started explaing church teaching.
I totally disagree. As the Church considers itself Universal, it has a duty to reach out to all, regardless of faith. [Its not like you get beheaded if you ignore them.] Its that kind of thinking which libs have used to try to drive the Church and other Christians out of the arena of ideas. The Church has every right to fully participate, just as any other group does. By coming out and denouncing the Democrats, the Church is helping to combat the moral and theological confusion many democrats have injected into the lives of the faithful.
Iblis on October 2, 2008 at 3:31 PM
Professor Blather
Hello! I’m not new here, really. I’ve been reading HA since its inception, but just registered to comment in the last go round. Where have you been? I’ve missed your input.
JAM on October 2, 2008 at 3:35 PM
Exactly why I couldn’t vote for Giuliani in the primary. If he was Pro-Life, I would have voted for him.
Sapwolf on October 2, 2008 at 3:36 PM
If you don’t think the work of Aquinas was important in the evolution of Catholic teaching then you might find questions relating to the soul to be silly–many think questions about angels on the head of a pin are.
But when the first collection of canon law (Decretum Gratiani) and Papal letters make a distinction between the stages of pregnancy it gets to the most essential question, i.e., when does life begin?
dedalus on October 2, 2008 at 3:39 PM
So, what should the church do, when a Political Party has as one tenent of its guiding document, a policy which goes against God’s Law (as they see it).
If you condemn the sinner, but not the organization that condones the sin, how can you be considered Righteous?
This statement always cracks me up. We do NOT have a secular society. Most of our laws are built around the Judeo Christian worldview. Most people still try to be Christian in their lifestyle (or at least, call themselves Christian).
The Elites have tried to convince us that we have a Secular society because of a misinterpreted Line in the Constituion… that somehow Freedom OF Religion means you can’t HAVE any religious overtones in Government. This idea defies the writings of the Founding Fathers, and even our Founding documents… and yet persists…
(and I say this as someone who does NOT consider himself a Christian… Agnostic at best…).
Romeo13 on October 2, 2008 at 3:39 PM
So the issue you’re trying to frame is that its only the “severity” of the sin that was in question, never about whether it has been a sin all along… which still contradicts what Pelosi said.
As an evangelical, I have a hard time with this concept. The Bible says nothing of being graded on a sliding scale. Those who are true Christians follow God’s word, and repent of their sins, of which this is one. To knowingly spread false teachings, that it is ok to commit this sin, does not sound very Christian to me…
In Matt 25, when the goats are separated from the sheep, the goats still call Jesus “Lord”… and yet, he says that he never knew them…
dominigan on October 2, 2008 at 3:41 PM
I also applaud the Church for finally appearing to have some muscle and to actually begin to fight for something.
Sad to say, not everyone is inspired by the “turn the other cheek” doctrine that came out of the liberal 60’s.
Some things are worth fighting for. I recently read a book by a Catholic historian on the Spanish Civil War, and it showed me a side of the Catholic Church that I hadn’t seen before and that hasn’t been seen in decades: http://www.isi.org/books/bookdetail.aspx?id=f488432f-e90f-4b1e-a0ed-38b5b4a6ea6c
Catholics such as General Franco didn’t debate the lunatic left, they killed them by the bushel. And it turned out to be a good thing for Spain.
We haven’t reached the point that the Spanish Nationalists have as of yet, but if we do, we’re going to need the sort of inspiration that the Catholic Church gave to the Nationalists.
NoDonkey on October 2, 2008 at 3:41 PM
I understand Ed’s point about not getting into partisan politics. Burke could have made his point by not singling out one party, I suppose. I guess he was more concerned with saving souls than with avoiding seeming political. That’s fine with me.
I think that folks who are bringing up Church and State issues may be forgetting that Burke is a Vatican official. He may be an American, but he’s speaking as a Vatican official, so it seems to me that there is no difference between what he’s done and what the British Prime Minister did recently… except that Gordon Brown specifically endorsed one candidate over another.
I think the fretting over Burke’s comments have more to do with alarm that they might actually be effective in influencing U.S. voters than with concerns about tampering with U.S. politics. I suspect there are a lot more American Catholics than transplanted Brits voting this year.
Y-not on October 2, 2008 at 3:41 PM
You’re officially wasting my time now.
schiehallion on October 2, 2008 at 3:43 PM
No-meat Friday’s is a DISCIPLINE, not DOCTRINE.
Otherwise, agree.
Sapwolf on October 2, 2008 at 3:44 PM
Thank you for explaining the nuances of Catholic beliefs. Just a side note… I didn’t say that the church was kicking them out… just that they were taking action.
dominigan on October 2, 2008 at 3:45 PM
The sentence in reference:
I thought the syntax of the sentence was humorous. An Amelia Bedelia-like statement.
geckomon on October 2, 2008 at 3:45 PM
I see Thacker still takes the position that anyone associated with a church may not take a position on any political issues.
MarkTheGreat on October 2, 2008 at 3:47 PM
The killing was going BOTH ways. Catholics sided with the Nationalist side because the Leftist groups were killing them and pursecuting them. Most Spanish leftist groups were secular in nature and very hateful towards Catholics. Of course most of them sided with Franco. They had little choice given the options.
The war was brutal, a million dead, and the killing was going both ways.
Sapwolf on October 2, 2008 at 3:48 PM
Your contention is/was that Pelosi’s statement was correct.
It wasn’t.
She said (in response to a comment about Catholics believing that life begins at conception:
OK, here are the errors:
1) It’s been a little bit more than 50 years since the Catholic church declared that life begins at conception. This, in fact, has been the default OFFICIAL position of the church for nearly it’s entire life. Only during the period of 1591 – 1869 did the issue of ensoulment enter the debate. So, at BEST she was off almost 90 years (back to 1869), at worse she was off over 1500.
2) This has NOT been an “issue of controversy” over the history of the church. While she may be referencing the writings of theologians, the church itself has been remarkable consistent.
3) The “doctors of the church” (whatever THAT means) have ALWAYS been able to determine when life began. From the origin of the church until 1591 the church ‘doctors’ determined that life began at conception. From 1591 to 1869 the church ‘doctors’ determined that life began later (40 days?). From 1869 to today the church ‘doctors’ have determined that life begins at conception.
There may have been differences, but their the church has never had an official stance that they didn’t know when life began.
4) While she is correct about St. Augustine, she misunderstands the difference between his writings and papal law. While there may have always been some kind of discussion/debate within the church, the church’s official position/law has been remarkably consistent.
If you note, I’m not even going to attack her inferences. Why should I do that? If one’s foundational “facts” are incorrect, then any opinion based on those will be wrong.
Religious_Zealot on October 2, 2008 at 3:49 PM
More than hateful – The left destroyed half of the churches in Spain and murdered 15,000 priests and nuns, most of whom were executed while they were praying for their killers.
“The war was brutal, a million dead, and the killing was going both ways.”
Absolutely, but the nationalists had a just cause.
The reds needed defeated and were defeated.
And the Catholic Church told the Nationalist Forces that they would receive one less year in Purgatory for every Red that they killed.
NoDonkey on October 2, 2008 at 3:53 PM
I can’t beleive it wasn’t Allah that wrote this post. I feel more depressed now. The one of the few I truly looked to for inspiration is enterring the dark side. Please Ed – read these posts and find the courage to write an UPDATE. I beseech you.
Fuquay Steve on October 2, 2008 at 3:55 PM
The Catholic Church’s Doctrine is there and is not something that gets changed because it feels good. Some paper-Catholics believe that and think God should change moral law to fit their vices. Ain’t gonna happen.
Sapwolf on October 2, 2008 at 3:22 PM
My commander is going to kill me if I don’t finish this memo but I had to jump in one more time and dovetail to this.
Sap, you are so right. I’d just like to also throw in that we as followers of Christ get our brains beat in individually by the media. Want to see a real piece of work against Christians. Watch the movie Saved. Want to see how they tried to remove the influence of an entire faith by proxy. Remember the way they handled the issue with the priests and the child molestation issue. The question never was how will you fix this, they framed it as if to ask, how you can even think about carrying on as an organized religious organization after what happened? Nothing we can do about the way they think about us because they are required to demean us for their very purpose. But, we can collectively do a lot by not allowing their presentations on our faiths to separate us. There’s more that is the same about our faiths than is different. I’m not a scholar like RZ and some of the others that post here but I believe. And I refuse to let the left define me.
hawkdriver on October 2, 2008 at 3:56 PM
It’s Church history. It isn’t interesting to everyone.
dedalus on October 2, 2008 at 3:58 PM
Do any of my fellow Catholics in cyber-space remember the priest (actually, I think I had a bishop) “slapping” your face at confirmation? This fight is why they do that.
Y-not on October 2, 2008 at 4:00 PM
It’s probably important to point out that the Church hasn’t denounced Democrats. All that happened here is that a Vatican official called the party for what it is.
highhopes on October 2, 2008 at 4:06 PM
If you note, I’m not even going to attack her inferences. Why should I do that? If one’s foundational “facts” are incorrect, then any opinion based on those will be wrong.
Religious_Zealot on October 2, 2008 at 3:49 PM
We are close to agreement. Pelosi was attempting to blur an issue that can’t be blurred.
The Catholic Church became clear on its abortion=murder position with with Apostolicae Sedis in 1869. However, those who respond to Pelosi by claiming that the church’s teaching didn’t vary over the centuries are overstating their case.
dedalus on October 2, 2008 at 4:07 PM
1. It will create controversy in the pews, but that is going to happen regardless as the bishops grow a spine and speak out on issues like abortion. The laity has gone thirty years without being properly catechized and unlearning everything bad is not going to be a piece of cake.
2. Who cares what the general electorate thinks? The Catholic Church isn’t running for office in the US, it’s working to save souls for Christ. If pro-choice Democrats who are Catholics don’t like Church teaching, they can take their ball and go play somewhere else. Why would the general electorate (I’m assuming Ed means non-Catholics) care what the Catholic Church says in the first place?
3. Pro-life Democrats stung by the words of a Catholic archbishop should reevaluate their situation. They’ve for the last thirty years allowed their party to be hijacked by the supporters of Roe v. Wade and done little to chastise those Democrats who have hypocritically changed horses midstream (Ted Kennedy used to be pro-life. Where is the pro-life Democrat outrage?). If what His Excellency is saying hurts them that much, it’s probably more due to their own regret and anxiety at their flimsy position in their own party than actually disagreeing with his words.
4. The church should pursue their mandate of Catholics first… Triumphalism may not be vogue at the moment, but the Catholic Church’s mandate is not just Catholics, but the entire human race.
5. The church should [...] avoid partisan shots while focusing on issues instead. The archbishop calling it as he sees it on a fundamental issue of human rights is hardly a partisan shot. Is it a partisan shot when the Vatican was speaking out against the US invasion of Iraq?
Vatican Watcher on October 2, 2008 at 4:09 PM
jerseyman,
You forgot the deaths the Democrats allowed to happen in Viet Nam, Cambodia, and Laos and, now, they want to happen in Iraq and Afghanistan.
It should be understood that a basic tenet of the Democrat Party is Eugenics: the state-sponsored discrimination, forced sterilization of persons deemed genetically defective, and the killing of institutionalized population.
This why Planned Parenthood, the ‘mother ship’ of the Democrat party, wields enormous influence when it comes to abortion.
pocomoco on October 2, 2008 at 4:10 PM
If you have some uncertainty over the Catholic Church’s position on abortion through the centuries then I suggest you contact Pope Benedict and tell him all the points you think he’s wrong on.
For my own part, the level of boredom I’m feeling in responding to your inane blather is now approaching that which I felt when I saw “the English Patient” at my local cinema.
Well, almost…
schiehallion on October 2, 2008 at 4:10 PM
Hawk,
From the very beginning of the Christian church (starting with Judas) there has been a fight between two factions:
Those who let God define and shape them…
…and those who want to define and shape God.
We must never forget this and always speak out against those who want to define God (’put God in a man-sized box’).
Religious_Zealot on October 2, 2008 at 4:12 PM
The church did not BECOME clear in 1869.
It has ALWAYS been clear – abortion is a sin.
What happened between 1591 and 1869 was that for this period in time abortion was NOT a sin if done in the first 40 days.
Abortion has ALWAYS been taught as a sin (again, see the Didache of proof of the earliest teachings of the church).
It just, for a little while, there was a small (40 day) “opening” that exempted people from punishment.
To call this an “inconsistency” of church teaching is to grossly misunderstand the teaching and overstate what happened.
Religious_Zealot on October 2, 2008 at 4:16 PM
Pelosi just tried to lawyer her way out of her untenable, immoral position and as usual, failed miserably.
NoDonkey on October 2, 2008 at 4:19 PM
I was mulling over the “politics at the pulpit” issue, partly because I got worried that there would be reprisals against the U.S. Catholic Church, and realized that the Catholic Church has handled this really well. Cardinal Egan and the U.S. bishops who slammed Pelosi (and Biden) stayed well within the boundaries of separation of church and state by sticking with specific comments made by self-espoused Catholic politicians.
Now by having Archbishop Burke issue this more general statement, they have used his position as prefect of the Apostolic Signatura to ensure that the remarks are coming from the Holy See rather than from any U.S. church.
Nicely done.
Y-not on October 2, 2008 at 4:20 PM
Y-not I didn’t see that and I don’t understand.
hawkdriver on October 2, 2008 at 4:20 PM
The window is a little wider than 300 years. Early canon law going back to the 12th century made the dictinction between early and late abortion.
Most Americans also make a distinction between very early abortions and very late abortions.
dedalus on October 2, 2008 at 4:29 PM
Wow… what an astute observation.
Abby Adams on October 2, 2008 at 4:31 PM
Nail, meet head. The good Professor is one of my favorite commenters here at HotAir — he’s been very, very good for as long as I’ve been hanging out here. He thinks. My God, he actually thinks. Judging by that vast majority of the American populace, I thought it was a lost art.
Speaking of the average Joe on the street, if you ask them “What’s the opposite of love?” most will respond with the knee-jerk response of “Hate.” They answer that way because, unlike Professor Blather, they don’t think, they’re not interested in learning anything, and they don’t care.
The truth is, the opposite of “love” is “self”. The vast majority of people do not understand this. Jesus spelled out the stark terms of the choice that we are faced with in the tenth chapter of Mathew
As Professor Blather points out, death is a consequence of choosing “self”. Similarly, hate is not the opposite of love, it is simply one of the many symptoms that reveal that the the hater has made his choice, by rejecting love (and life), and by choosing “self.”
My collie says:
CyberCipher on October 2, 2008 at 4:34 PM
There’s a silent majority in America that actually wants politically incorrect truth to be told for a change. As an Independant Baptist Christian, I disagree with the Catholic church on a whole bunch of things, but they are right on this. The Democrats encourage abortion (killing children inside the womb). They are literally “the party of death”.
apacalyps on October 2, 2008 at 4:35 PM
Thanks for the link. I read the page and have read the site in the past. Here is another link to an article by an American Bishop that refers to the historical distinction made by the Catholic Church in the past regarding animated and non-animated fetuses.
dedalus on October 2, 2008 at 4:40 PM
I have seen nothing to backs up this assertion and you have not provided any.
1) I don’t think the Catholic church really cares what “most Americans” think. They’re more interested in what God thinks.
2) If this sentence was a typo and you meant “Most American Catholics”, I would simply state that American Catholics opinions are not the same as Canon law – which resides at the Vatican with the Pope.
Religious_Zealot on October 2, 2008 at 4:44 PM
How can a fetus not have soul? When does it get one then?
I think at the moment of conception it occurs, IMHO.
johnnyU on October 2, 2008 at 4:45 PM
The fact that such a high ranking Catholic (I gather from my position as an outsider) is very telling of how many religous people feel about Obama. This election is important it isn’t just Republican/Democrat.
I mean it feels really pivotal culturally. When Obama wins, religion based values lose. I think that is why the Catholic Church is courageously standing firm to protect this basic doctrine. And also trying to protect traditional marriage. Politicians, who live for acceptence, are willing to forgo age old truths for acceptence. Even when it goes against their own conscience.
The Constitution that protects religion is going to undergo severe changes under an Obama administration. You can already see it in how Obama has no problem with limiting political speech. And how very quickly whatever lie they want to agree on becomes conventional wisdom.
I am truly afraid of what America is going to look like in a few years. Obama is the most liberal person ever to gain such power in our government and with a mostly friendly congress lots of things will change. And not for the better.
I’m afraid one of the biggest causualities of the child molestestion problems was the loss of some moral authority in the minds of many Catholics and non-Catholics. It is really too bad because now more than ever we need voices of moral authority for this increasingly secular society.
petunia on October 2, 2008 at 4:45 PM
I disagree with this particular point of your post (everything else is fine).
The opposite of ‘love’ is ‘indifference.’
The opposite of ‘God’ is ’self.’
Religious_Zealot on October 2, 2008 at 4:46 PM
I know we are not suppose to feed the trolls, or the stupid, but this comment is WAY off. I am a Protestant, but I am eternally grateful to the Catholic church for all they have contributed to this world. Oh sure, there is not doubt that someone like you will have some smarmy comeback. But to say something like this is outrageous! The Catholic Church has done so much for the poor, the sick, the elderly, or anyone in need. They have placed people in some of the most squalid, inhumane areas in this world to minister to people, and give them hope. What they are currently trying to do in Africa is very often overlooked. And last time I checked, the Catholic Church has always been about morality. No one but Jesus Christ has ever been perfect. No church is perfect, and no church has conducted itself entirely sin free. But most of us do not worship the church but we do worship the One that teaches us morality. And it is not Obama, but the real God. I may not agree with the Catholic Church on every issue, but I am very proud of them for stepping up to address this particular issue. I admire them for recognizing the need to address more fiercely their stance on abortion. And I do not see this as a lecture on morality as it is stating the Lord’s view on abortion. Last time I checked Catholics understand the other issue of free will as well.
freeus on October 2, 2008 at 4:51 PM
The seriousness is the imperative for politicians to address abortion as public policy, rather than accept it as private behavior.
Several recent Popes have identified contraception as evil, or a grave sin, but the greater severity of abortion as a sin requires a more active response among Catholics.
dedalus on October 2, 2008 at 4:54 PM
These dust ups come along every now and again but I have a feeling this one was personal.
When Pelosi and Biden starting dispensing Catholic doctrine on a subject considered by the church as Murder, that was the last straw.
His comments about the party were payback of sorts. If you are going to use the church doctrine as a vote keeper/getter I am going to indict your party Nancy. I’m also going to let all the priests in the US know that the Vatican is once again reminding you of church policy towards folks that support abortion–no communion.
While some may think this is interfering with US politics it is not. As a reminder the church does not prevent an elected official from holding current law. Render unto Caesar….
Now if the church really wants to stir the pot they should tell the world what they think about Mohammed. Yikes….
patrick neid on October 2, 2008 at 4:58 PM
.
It is a simple fact that the Republican Party Platform supports the Culture of Life while the Democratic Party Platform Platform supports the Culture of Death. These terms are well defined and by now pretty much universally accepted (involving issues such as abortion, euthanasia, cloning and embryonic stem cell research). So the association of these terms with the party’s platforms is valid.
Democrat Catholics have a problem because, as Catholics, they are required to properly form their conscience and always oppose intrinsic evil. Some Catholics use the argument that it is acceptable to vote for a pro-choice candidate if those candidates have a good record on other “life” related issues such as the death penalty or the war. The problem with this is that these issues are not in the same category. Abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, cloning, racism are intrinsically evil regardless of the circumstances, and Catholics cannot ever condone them. On the other hand good Catholics can disagree with each other, in good conscience, on issues like the the war, capital punishment, or the implementation of social justice because this issues can involve evil or not, depending on the circumstances (just war vs unjust war, etc).
It is a mistake for Catholics to treat all these issues as if they were morally equivalent.
neuquenguy on October 2, 2008 at 5:01 PM
I cited the Decretum Gratiani and its distinction between animated and non-animated fetuses. Here is a Wikipedia link that points to several Medieval church writings on the topic.
dedalus on October 2, 2008 at 5:06 PM
Archbishop Burke’s hardened stance probably has quite a bit to do with major Catholic politicians with uninformed consciences trying to act like they are Doctors of the Church in the Theology Department.
We Catholics have had to put up, relatively unaided by the American hierarchy until now, with misstatements about the moral/etchical and theological foundation of our Church’s stand with respect to abortion. We’ve had to read the weak-kneed drivel put out by 55 Democratic House members in their so-called “Statement of Catholic Priciples” (which was a line in the sand that covered the entire beach, as it were). Only when Pelosi and Biden misstated the Catholic position (tying their misstatement, no less, to Saint Augustine, one of the foremost Doctors of the Church) did the hierarchy really come alive here in America and call out their fake theological foundation for what it is.
Now that an American is in the Curia in a position of public power, we are certainly going to hear more — and I’m glad. It’s time for those 55 anti-Catholic Catholics in the House to squirm a little — and their Senate buddies, too!
unclesmrgol on October 2, 2008 at 5:08 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »