This past week was pleasant in bucolic Greenville, South Carolina. Then, all hell broke loose. At the St. Marys RC Church, some 150 years old, Father Jay Scott Newman, placed a message to parishoners in the weekly church bulletin: "Voting for a pro-abortion politician, when a plausible pro-life alternative exists, constitutes material cooperation with intrinsic evil, and those Catholics who do so, place themselves outside of the full Communion of Christ's Church, and under the full judgment of Divine Law." He added further, that such persons should not receive Holy Communion, until they are reconciled to God in penance. Additionally, he advised his parishoners that they must pray for the president-elect, and cooperate with him whenever "conscience permits."
There you have it. The good shepherd tending to his flock of God's children, as he saw the need to so do. His parishoners agreed by a 9-1 margin with his message, and then the hammer fell. Somehow, the press got hold of his church bulletin's message, and it became, of course, national news. The ensuing heat generated by the story, prompted a statement by Monsignor Martin T. Laughlin, administrator of the Diocese of Charleston, South Carolina. In his statement, Msgr. Laughlin allowed that the "churches clear moral teaching on the evil of abortion had been pulled into the partisan political arena." He went on to say that, "Father Newman's statements do not adequately reflect the Catholic Church's teachings." Interestingly, he also said that "Man has the right to act in CONSCIENCE, and in freedom, so as to make moral decisions...and guided by the AUTHORITATIVE teaching of the Church." Sounds very clear to me, how about you?
Coincidentally, on November 13, 2008, the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, through their Catholic Campaign for Human Development sub-committee chairman, Roger Morin, severed their financial relationship with ACORN, citing an embezzlement FINDING, and other acts of impropriety. This action provoked no outrage, no editorial dissection of motive underlying the action taken, nor any word at all. Nothing like good clean decisions made in the best interests of the Church, and it's benefactors. Gosh, that was easy enough, and they didn't have to go very far back in time to come to a just conclusion.
Here is the dilemma, On the one hand, a monetary decision is made in good faith, one consonant with good business practice. All's well, that ends well. Then, there is father Newman, guided by HIS conscience, and by centuries of Church teaching. From the first century Didache, to Pope John Paul II, in his "Evangelium Vitae" (Gospel of life), it has been eminently clear that abortion is FORBIDDEN, as is murder. The law of retribution, Lex Talionis, stresses that abortion calls for STRICT penalties. Moses himself, said so, and here some 1900 years later, so too, did father Newman advise his flock regarding the evils of abortion, and how to select in good conscience, one person of a better moral understanding of the evil, than another not so held to the mandates of HIS church's teachings. This is clear to me, how about you?
I suppose the central point is that the Church hierarchy, in it's haste to make the matter go permanently away, chose to make Father Newman a scapegoat. Of course, Father Newman would not agree with me, but I, in good conscience have made that distinction not for him, but for me. How is it that a sound business practice, absent historical significances, may be almost unilaterally made in but a minute or two, by the same people who, with two millennia of teaching and precedent, struggle with such a simple task?
Father Newman obviously, acted in good faith with his conscience and training as guides before writing his admonition to HIS parishoners. he should be praised, silently, if one must, but praised for holding firmly to the tenets of Canon Law. It truly is that simple. Why have others made it so difficult? You may supply your own answers here.
And now, there are new things to teach those who will save us from ourselves...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Holder accepts Obama's Justice offer, senior Democrat says (AP)
So, Atkinson, What is your take on this choice. Bettcha you will post your thoughts on next blog?
Rev. Patrick Respas O.P.
While you are "pro-life" which ACTUALLY should be called "Anti-WOMAN", it is YOUR TYPE that advocates NO SUPPORT for that woman AFTER SHE GIVES BIRTH. She gives birth and she's on welfare?? "Too bad" say you cons - in essence, GIVING A DEATH SENTENCE to that JUST BORN INFANT. You don't want WIC, you dont want WELFARE, but you DO want to FORCE A WOMAN TO BE PREGNANT IN THE FIRST PLACE. The the "choice" is PREGNANCY.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC)—he's the former Clinton impeachment manager—had nothing but praise about the selection. "She's got the right skill set for the job," he said, "There's no country in the world she can't go to. I mean, she's Hillary! Not many people in the world are known by their first name like that." Graham said her confirmation in the Senate should be "no problem," thanks to her knack for personal diplomacy. "She's good at giving credit to others, which works well in the Senate." As for diplomacy abroad, Graham emphasized her less warm and fuzzy side, "She's gotta pretty good view of how the Russians are drifting in the wrong direction." By "good,” Graham means a view NOT shared by all of her Democratic colleagues. Echoing Goldfarb, he added, "in the primaries, she had a tougher view on Iran than Obama."
"I look forward to working with her!" Bill Kristol wrote in an email.
Among former McCain advisers—Graham was one of the closest—Hillary's selection probably satisfies their sense that she has better judgment than Obama on foreign policy matters. McCain was respectful, even deferential to Clinton as a colleage, and staffers made no secret about their preference for Hillary as a more worthy rival. Her elevation, however, might also come with a surprising bit of schadenfreude: Clinton as Secretary of State means that Obama supporter John Kerry—once counted as a friend of McCain's—would not profit from his role as attack dog against the Republican nominee. News reports that Kerry ran after McCain to catch an escalator ride with him on his first day back on the Hill have been met with amusement by former campaign staffers, who pledge to hold a grudge even if McCain doesn't.
For her part, Clinton advisers explain her appeal to the right with an aphorism that would serve her just as well in her new role. Says a source close to the Senator, "Political pragmatism is where this starts and ends."
Post a Comment