Mark Shea pointed this article out on his blog. Unfortunately, it’s written by someone for the Detroit News. I grieve for my home state at times. It’s bad enough we have a pro-abortion Catholic as governor, but we also have enablers.
Here is my response to the article as posted to the comments section online…
She simply misses the boat entirely on this issue. She seems to think that everything that the Pope says is Church doctrine and dogma. Not so. Abortion, homosexual acts, gay “marriages”, fetal stem cell research, human cloning and euthanasia are all non-negotiable. They, by definition, take innocent human life or go against the moral norm. The Church’s positions are unchangeable.
To be for ANY of these things is to be out of step with Church teachings. You would no longer be in communion with the Church as a whole. Therefore, you should not receive the ultimate expression of unity in the Church, communion.
Whether or not a particular war is just or whether the death penalty should be imposed or how to deal with the poor and lower economic classes are all matters of prudence. That means that the Church has no definitive position or definition on these things. They are things that you can validly take differing positions on from the Pope or any other Bishop and still be in good standing with the Church.
There is a huge moral difference between killing 1.5 million people in the womb every year and whether you should give tax credits to the poor to help them. While war and the death penalty will always produce dead people, you have to ask are these defensive measures? Are they the appropriate response? Is the response appropriate to the offense is it no more than necessary? There is no universal answer on these, and the Church has not absolutely defined the death penalty or any and all war as always and everywhere sinful as the above non-negotiables have been.
Finally Keenan doesn’t seem to understand two simple things about the Eucharist and these issues. First is that the Eucharist is not a right to anyone who happens to drop by Church. You must be in a state of grace and free of mortal sin to partake of the Body and Blood of our Lord. Being at odds with clear Church teachings and being obstinate in the refusal to assent to Church teachings is dangerous ground. Second, Bishops are not telling politicians or anyone else to vote a particular way.
They ARE saying that if you vote incorrectly to uphold immoral actions, there will be consequences in CHURCH. There are always consequences. Sometimes they are good, sometimes bad. Politicians need to be reminded that you cannot separate your personal beliefs (if they really do believe in the personally opposed, but… line of crap) from your public actions. Is it OK to be personally opposed to slavery but not willing to impose that on others?
Why one and not the other?