Home | Join/Donate | Current Voices | Liturgical Calendar | What's New | Affirmation | James Hitchcock's Column | Church Documents | Search

Catholics and Political Responsibility
Created May 8, 2004 -- Updated August 7, 2008

Vatican Statements & Canon Law - Documents - Cardinal Ratzinger's memorandum

US Bishops' Conference Statements

Diocesan Bishops' Statements

Selected articles, commentary

"To claim the right to abortion, infanticide and euthanasia, and to recognize that right in law, means to attribute to human freedom a perverse and evil significance: that of an absolute power over others and against others. This is the death of true freedom..." [Pope John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae 20]

In 2008, a presidential election year in the United States, an issue that surfaced early is the responsibility of Catholic politicians, Catholic voters, and bishops to support Church teaching.

This is hardly a new issue. It gained heightened attention in 2004, the last US presidential election year, when the Democratic party’s candidate for president was a practicing Catholic who had a "perfect" pro-abortion voting record as senator from Massachusetts.

In this election year, though none of the candidates are Catholic, the abortion issue is as visibly significant as in the past. During the visit of Pope Benedict XVI to the United States in April, 2008, the issue received much publicity when several high-profile “pro-choice” Catholic politicians — governors, congressmen, etc. —  were televised receiving Holy Communion at Papal Masses.

The dispute is not over what Catholic moral teaching on life-issues are — that all human life is sacred, that the right to life is fundamental to all other human rights, and that abortion, the deliberate killing of unborn children, the most vulnerable human beings, is an abominable evil.

Rather, the conflict is centered on the obligation of every Catholic not only to recognize what the Church teaches, but to actively preserve, protect and defend fundamental moral teachings, putting them into practice whenever possible.

Some Catholic politicians maintain that there is a "wall of separation" between Church and State, and that a person's beliefs are merely private matters of "conscience" that do not (and should not) affect legislators' decisions — not even on key moral issues.

One manifestation of the basic moral conflict is whether Catholic politicians who are pro-abortion may be admitted to Communion. This has become a matter of controversy, even among some prominent Catholic leaders, not excluding some bishops.

In this section, we have compiled important resources, including quotes from key Church documents, statements from individual US bishops, and other helpful links.

Our aim is to provide an informative aid for Catholics in discerning the issues involved, and in forming a basis for decisions to support candidates for office who work for legislation consistent with fundamental moral law consistent with Catholic teaching.

The items appear in chronological order, beginning with the earliest.  (An archive of past statements of bishops is also accessible.)

Helen Hull Hitchcock, WFF director

(Note: Where available, links are given to the complete documents that are quoted here, either on this site, or elsewhere.)

Vatican Documents, Statements

In his Apostolic Exhortation on the Eucharist, Sacramentum Caritatis, dated February 22, 2007, Pope Benedict reaffirmed the “grave responsibility” of Catholic politicians and legislators, to concistently uphold Catholic moral teachings.

Eucharistic consistency
 83. Here it is important to consider what the Synod Fathers described as eucharistic consistency, a quality which our lives are objectively called to embody. Worship pleasing to God can never be a purely private matter, without consequences for our relationships with others: it demands a public witness to our faith. Evidently, this is true for all the baptized, yet it is especially incumbent upon those who, by virtue of their social or political position, must make decisions regarding fundamental values, such as respect for human life, its defence from conception to natural death, the family built upon marriage between a man and a woman, the freedom to educate one's children and the promotion of the common good in all its forms (230). These values are not negotiable. Consequently, Catholic politicians and legislators, conscious of their grave responsibility before society, must feel particularly bound, on the basis of a properly formed conscience, to introduce and support laws inspired by values grounded in human nature (231). There is an objective connection here with the Eucharist (cf. 1 Cor 11:27-29). Bishops are bound to reaffirm constantly these values as part of their responsibility to the flock entrusted to them (232). (Emhasis added.) 

Deus Caritas Est, Encyclical, December 25, 2005 -- Paragraphs on Justice and Charity.

Code of Canon Law - 1983

Recent press coverage of the problem of Catholic politicians who advocate abortion "rights" sometimes mention Church law. Some reporters have confused excommunication with not receiving Holy Communion at Mass. They are not the same. Excommunication is the exclusion from all Sacraments of the Church, whether this is incurred automatically or by formal juridical action. (Excommunication can be lifted by a formal process.) However, not receiving Holy Communion at Mass -- whether voluntary or imposed by a bishop as a disciplinary penalty -- is not "excommunication".

From The Code of Canon Law, Book IV, Part I, The Sacraments, Title III, The Most Holy Eucharist, Chapter I, The Eucharistic Celebration, Article 2, Participation in the Most Holy Eucharist (Canons 912-923).

C. 915. Those who are excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty, and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to Holy Communion.

C. 916. A person who is conscious of grave sin is not to celebrate Mass or to receive the Body of the Lord without prior sacramental confession unless a grave reason is present and there is no opportunity of confessing; in this case the person is to be mindful of the obligation to make an act of perfect contrition, including the intention of confessing as soon as possible.

Abortion, like homicide, is a crime that incurs automatic excommunication, which does not require formal action by the Church. (Bk VI; Pt II - Penalties for Specific Offenses: Canons 1364-1399 - Title VI Offense Against Human Life and Freedom.)

C. 1398. A person who procures a successful abortion incurs an automatic (latae sententiae) excommunication.

Pope John Paul II
Evangelium Vitae - The Gospel of Life

In this encyclical, dated March 25, 1995, Pope John Paul II gives a "pressing appeal addressed to each and every person, in the name of God: respect, protect, love and serve life, every human life!" This affirmation of the Gospel of Life, which is part of and inseparable from the entire Gospel of Christ, is fundamental to the Church's mission to the world, and part of the necessary witness of every Christian -- especially in our present culture where the very meaning and value of human life is under grave threat: "Only in this direction will you find justice, development, true freedom, peace and happiness!" (EV 5)

The encyclical consists of four chapters, and begins by outlining the present grave situation where assaults against human life lead the pope to characterize society today as a "culture of death". Selections below are particularly relevant to the issue of obligations of Catholic politicians and voters to uphold the moral law. (Click title above for complete version on this site.)

Selected quotes on freedom, democracy and political action:
19 ... Freedom negates and destroys itself, and becomes a factor leading to the destruction of others, when it no longer recognizes and respects its essential link with the truth. When freedom, out of a desire to emancipate itself from all forms of tradition and authority, shuts out even the most obvious evidence of an objective and universal truth, which is the foundation of personal and social life, then the person ends up by no longer taking as the sole and indisputable point of reference for his own choices the truth about good and evil, but only his subjective and changeable opinion or, indeed, his selfish interest and whim.

20. This view of freedom leads to a serious distortion of life in society. If the promotion of the self is understood in terms of absolute autonomy, people inevitably reach the point of rejecting one another.... In this way, any reference to common values and to a truth absolutely binding on everyone is lost, and social life ventures on to the shifting sands of complete relativism. At that point, everything is negotiable, everything is open to bargaining: even the first of the fundamental rights, the right to life.

This is what is happening also at the level of politics and government: the original and inalienable right to life is questioned or denied on the basis of a parliamentary vote or the will of one part of the people -- even if it is the majority. This is the sinister result of a relativism which reigns unopposed: the "right" ceases to be such, because it is no longer firmly founded on the inviolable dignity of the person, but is made subject to the will of the stronger part. In this way democracy, contradicting its own principles, effectively moves towards a form of totalitarianism.... The appearance of the strictest respect for legality is maintained, at least when the laws permitting abortion and euthanasia are the result of a ballot in accordance with what are generally seen as the rules of democracy. Really, what we have here is only the tragic caricature of legality; the democratic ideal, which is only truly such when it acknowledges and safeguards the dignity of every human person, is betrayed in its very foundations: "How is it still possible to speak of the dignity of every human person when the killing of the weakest and most innocent is permitted? In the name of what justice is the most unjust of discriminations practiced: some individuals are held to be deserving of defense and others are denied that dignity?" When this happens, the process leading to the breakdown of a genuinely human co-existence and the disintegration of the State itself has already begun.

To claim the right to abortion, infanticide and euthanasia, and to recognize that right in law, means to attribute to human freedom a perverse and evil significance: that of an absolute power over others and against others. This is the death of true freedom: "Truly, truly, I say to you, every one who commits sin is a slave to sin". (Jn 8:34)

Further on, the Pope addresses squarely the grave moral consequences of cooperation in abortion and euthanasia

73. Abortion and euthanasia are thus crimes which no human law can claim to legitimize. There is no obligation in conscience to obey such laws; instead there is a grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection. From the very beginnings of the Church, the apostolic preaching reminded Christians of their duty to obey legitimately constituted public authorities (cf. Rom 13:1-7; 1 Pet 2:13-14), but at the same time it firmly warned that "we must obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29). ... It is precisely from obedience to God -to whom alone is due that fear which is acknowledgment of his absolute sovereignty - that the strength and the courage to resist unjust human laws are born. It is the strength and the courage of those prepared even to be imprisoned or put to the sword, in the certainty that this is what makes for "the endurance and faith of the saints" (Rev 13:10).

In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to "take part in a propaganda campaign in favor of such a law, or vote for it".

A particular problem of conscience can arise in cases where a legislative vote would be decisive for the passage of a more restrictive law, aimed at limiting the number of authorized abortions, in place of a more permissive law already passed or ready to be voted on. Such cases are not infrequent. It is a fact that while in some parts of the world there continue to be campaigns to introduce laws favoring abortion, often supported by powerful international organizations, in other nations - particularly those which have already experienced the bitter fruits of such permissive legislation - there are growing signs of a rethinking in this matter. In a case like the one just mentioned, when it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality. This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects.

74. The passing of unjust laws often raises difficult problems of conscience for morally upright people with regard to the issue of cooperation, since they have a right to demand not to be forced to take part in morally evil actions. Sometimes the choices which have to be made are difficult; they may require the sacrifice of prestigious professional positions or the relinquishing of reasonable hopes of career advancement. In other cases, it can happen that carrying out certain actions, which are provided for by legislation that overall is unjust, but which in themselves are indifferent, or even positive, can serve to protect human lives under threat. There may be reason to fear, however, that willingness to carry out such actions will not only cause scandal and weaken the necessary opposition to attacks on life, but will gradually lead to further capitulation to a mentality of permissiveness.

In order to shed light on this difficult question, it is necessary to recall the general principles concerning cooperation in evil actions. Christians, like all people of good will, are called upon under grave obligation of conscience not to cooperate formally in practices which, even if permitted by civil legislation, are contrary to God's law. Indeed, from the moral standpoint, it is never licit to cooperate formally in evil. Such cooperation occurs when an action, either by its very nature or by the form it takes in a concrete situation, can be defined as a direct participation in an act against innocent human life or a sharing in the immoral intention of the person committing it. This cooperation can never be justified either by invoking respect for the freedom of others or by appealing to the fact that civil law permits it or requires it. Each individual in fact has moral responsibility for the acts which he personally performs; no one can be exempted from this responsibility, and on the basis of it everyone will be judged by God himself (cf. Rom 2:6; 14:12).

To refuse to take part in committing an injustice is not only a moral duty; it is also a basic human right. Were this not so, the human person would be forced to perform an action intrinsically incompatible with human dignity, and in this way human freedom itself, the authentic meaning and purpose of which are found in its orientation to the true and the good, would be radically compromised. What is at stake therefore is an essential right which, precisely as such, should be acknowledged and protected by civil law. In this sense, the opportunity to refuse to take part in the phases of consultation, preparation and execution of these acts against life should be guaranteed to physicians, health-care personnel, and directors of hospitals, clinics and convalescent facilities. Those who have recourse to conscientious objection must be protected not only from legal penalties but also from any negative effects on the legal, disciplinary, financial and professional plane.
(Emphasis added.)

Synod of Bishops, Paragraph 72 from Instrumentum Laboris, July 7, 2005.

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
Doctrinal Note on Some Questions Regarding the Participation of Catholics in Political Life

Issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on November 24, 2002, the Solemnity of Christ the King, and expressly approved by Pope John Paul II, this is the most recent and concise statement on the subject from the Church's highest authority.

The Doctrinal Note summarizes Church teaching on issues of freedom of conscience, pluralism and political activity. It stresses that "that a well-formed Christian conscience does not permit one to vote for a political program or an individual law which contradicts the fundamental contents of faith and morals."

It states emphatically, "John Paul II, continuing the constant teaching of the Church, has reiterated many times that those who are directly involved in lawmaking bodies have a "grave and clear obligation to oppose" any law that attacks human life. For them, as for every Catholic, it is impossible to promote such laws or to vote for them."

The Doctrinal Note refers to existing Church teaching documents, notably the Second Vatican Council's Gaudium et spes, and Pope John Paul II's encyclical, Evangelium Vitae - The Gospel of Life (March 25, 1995).
(Links are to documents on this web site.)

*posted 10/7/2005

SYNODUS EPISCOPORUM BULLETIN
[This Bulletin is only a working instrument for the press. Translations are not official.]
XI ORDINARY GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE SYNOD OF BISHOPS
October 2-23, 2005

English Edition -- #11 - October 7, 2005
Excerpt from the summaries of the interventions:

Summary quote from H. Em. Card. Alfonso LÓPEZ TRUJILLO, President of the Pontifical Council for the Family (VATICAN CITY)

 "Can we allow access to Eucharistic communion to those who deny the human and Christian principles and values? The responsibility of the politicians and legislators is great. So called personal option cannot be separated from the socio-political duty. It is not a “private” problem, the acceptance of the Gospel, of the Magisterium and of right reasoning are needed! As for all, even for politicians and legislators the word of God holds true: “Therefore anyone who eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily... is eating and drinking his own condemnation” (1 Cor 11:27-29).

The Lord of the family and of life, of love, of the covenant that unites spouses is truly present in the Eucharist. God is the creator of human dignity. The question cannot be resolved in a circumstantial way, according to the various diverse attitudes in the different countries, because the Christian consciences and ecclesial communion would become vague and confused. All these problems need to be clarified and illuminated by the Word of God in the light of the Magisterium of the Church, in the splendor Veritatis. Politicians and legislators must know that, by proposing or defending projects for iniquitous laws, they have a serious responsibility for, and must find a remedy to the evil done and spread, to be allowed access to communion with the Lord who is the way, truth and life (cf. Jn 14:6)."

Complete Document: Eucharistic Coherence of Politicians and Legislators, Pontifical Council for the Family, Intervention of H.E. Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo at the XI Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops, Vatican City, October 7, 2005

Pope John Paul II - Pastores Gregis - On the Bishop Servant of Jesus Christ for the Hope of the World
Apostolic Exhortation October 16, 2003

71. ... Within his own Diocese each Bishop, with the help of qualified persons, is called to work for an integral proclamation of the ''Gospel of life''. When Christians try to humanize medicine and the care of the sick by showing personal concern and closeness to the suffering, they become for everyone a powerful image of Jesus Himself, the healer of bodies and souls. Among the instructions which He gave to His Apostles, the Lord included an exhortation to heal the sick (cf. Mt 10:8).290 The organization and promotion of adequate pastoral care for health-care workers should thus be a priority close to the heart of every Bishop.

In a special way, the Synod Fathers felt the need to give forceful expression to their concern for the promotion of an authentic ''culture of life'' in contemporary society: ''Perhaps what most upsets us as pastors is the contempt for human life, from conception to death, as well as the breakdown of the family. The Church's 'No' to abortion and euthanasia is a 'Yes' to life, a 'Yes' to the fundamental goodness of creation, a 'Yes' which can move every person in the depths of his conscience, a 'Yes' to the family, the most basic community of hope, which so pleases God that He calls it to become a domestic Church."
(emhasis added)

Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments
Redemptionis Sacramentum

On April 23, 2004 this Instruction on the Liturgy was issued by the Congregation for Divine Worship (see related story on Diocesan Bishops section). Dated March 25, 2004, Redemptionis Sacramentum addresses abuses of the Liturgy in its 185 paragraphs. Three paragraphs in a section on "Disposition for Communion" referred to relevant existing laws and norms that apply to Catholic politicians, as to all Catholics. (Click title to go to complete Instruction on Adoremus web site.)

81. The Church's custom shows that it is necessary for each person to examine himself at depth, and that anyone who is conscious of grave sin should not celebrate or receive the Body of the Lord without prior sacramental confession, except for grave reason when the possibility of confession is lacking; in this case he will remember that he is bound by the obligation of making an act of perfect contrition, which includes the intention to confess as soon as possible". (Canon 915)

82. Moreover, "the Church has drawn up norms aimed at fostering the frequent and fruitful access of the faithful to the Eucharistic table and at determining the objective conditions under which Communion may not be given". (Ecclesia de Eucharistia 42)

83. It is certainly best that all who are participating in the celebration of Holy Mass with the necessary dispositions should receive Communion. Nevertheless, it sometimes happens that Christ's faithful approach the altar as a group indiscriminately. It pertains to the Pastors prudently and firmly to correct such an abuse.

Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion. General Principles
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger to US Bishops

After their "ad limina" visits in May and June, several bishops reported having conversations with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on the vexing problem of dissenting Catholic politicians. Some claimed that the CDF cautioned bishops against "politicizing" Communion with "sanctions" and "penalties".

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, prefect of the CDF, wrote a memorandum for the American bishops, sent to Bishop Wilton Gregory, president of the US Conference, and Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, who heads the bishops' Task Force to implement the CDF's November 2002 Doctrinal Note on the matter. (See Cdl. McCarrick's remarks below.) The memorandum was intended to give guidance on the issue for the US bishops' June 15 deliberations. Cardinal Ratzinger's letter was not made public at the time, but Cardinal McCarrick, reported that the matter was left in the hands of the bishops.

On July 3, 2004, Cardinal Ratzinger's memorandum was published by L'Espresso, an Italian news weekly, on its English-language web site, "www.chiesa.com", along with a story by editor Sandro Magister (http://www.chiesa.espressonline.it/dettaglio.jsp?id=7055&eng=y)

Following is Cardinal Ratzinger's complete memorandum, written in English expressly for the bishops' conference of the United States, and which provides important context for the bishops' discussion and decisions.

-------------------------------------------

Cardinal Ratzinger's Memorandum
Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion - General Principles

1. Presenting oneself to receive Holy Communion should be a conscious decision, based on a reasoned judgement regarding one's worthiness to do so, according to the Church's objective criteria, asking such questions as: "Am I in full communion with the Catholic Church? Am I guilty of grave sin? Have I incurred a penalty (e.g. excommunication, interdict) that forbids me to receive Holy Communion? Have I prepared myself by fasting for at least an hour?" The practice of indiscriminately presenting oneself to receive Holy Communion, merely as a consequence of being present at Mass, is an abuse that must be corrected (cf. Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum ,nos. 81, 83).

2. The Church teaches that abortion or euthanasia is a grave sin. The Encyclical Letter Evangelium Vitae, with reference to judicial decisions or civil laws that authorise or promote abortion or euthanasia, states that there is a "grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection. [...] In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to "take part in a propoganda campaign in favour of such a law or vote for it" (no. 73). Christians have a "grave obligation of conscience not to cooperate formally in practices which, even if permitted by civil legislation, are contrary to God's law. Indeed, from the moral standpoint, it is never licit to cooperate formally in evil. [...] This cooperation can never be justified either by invoking respect for the freedom of others or by appealing to the fact that civil law permits it or requires it" (no. 74).

3. Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.

4. Apart from an individual's judgment about his worthiness to present himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, the minister of Holy Communion may find himself in the situation where he must refuse to distribute Holy Communion to someone, such as in cases of a declared excommunication, a declared interdict, or an obstinate persistence in manifest grave sin (cf. can. 915).

5. Regarding the grave sin of abortion or euthanasia, when a person's formal cooperation becomes manifest (understood, in the case of a Catholic politician, as his consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws), his Pastor should meet with him, instructing him about the Church's teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin, and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist.

6. When "these precautionary measures have not had their effect or in which they were not possible," and the person in question, with obstinate persistence, still presents himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, "the minister of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute it" (cf. Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts Declaration "Holy Communion and Divorced, Civilly Remarried Catholics" [2002], nos. 3-4). This decision, properly speaking, is not a sanction or a penalty. Nor is the minister of Holy Communion passing judgment on the person's subjective guilt, but rather is reacting to the person's public unworthiness to receive Holy Communion due to an objective situation of sin.

[N.B. A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate's permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate's stand in favor of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.] (Emphasis added)

EDITOR"S NOTE: For a useful explanation of "formal" and "remote material cooperation", see Archbishop John Myer's June 1990 Pastoral Statement on this site.

See below for Cardinal McCarrick's presentation of Cardinal Ratzinger's memorandum to the bishops .

Update JULY 12, 2004 - The USCCB web site published Cardinal Ratzinger's July 9 letter to Cardinal McCarrick, in which the former prounounced the US bishops June statement "very much in harmony" with his memorandum. The publication of Cardinal Ratzinger's July 9 letter may have been intended to offset criticism, after the memorandum "Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion" (above) was made public July 3, that Cardinal McCarrick had not fully presented its contents to the bishops at their June meeting. (News release on USCCB web site:http://www.usccb.org/comm/archives/2004/04-133.htm)

The text of Cardinal Ratzinger's July 9 letter follows:

Your Eminence:

With your letter of June 21, 2004, transmitted via fax, you kindly sent a copy of the Statement "Catholics in Political Life," approved by the members of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops at their June meeting.

The Congregation is grateful for this courtesy. The statement is very much in harmony with the general principles "Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion," sent as a fraternal service-to clarify the doctrine of the Church on this specific issue-in order to assist the American Bishops in their related discussion and determinations.

It is hoped that this dialogue can continue as the Task Force carries on its important work.

With fraternal regards and prayerful best wishes, I am,

Sincerely yours in Christ
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger

Pope John Paul II to the Bishops of Region V

"While fully respecting the legitimate separation of Church and State in American life, such a catechesis must also make clear that for the faithful Christian there can be no separation between the faith which is to be believed and put into practice (cf. Lumen Gentium, 25) and a commitment to full and responsible participation in professional, political and cultural life."

Excerpt from the AD LIMINA Visit - Louisville, Mobile and New Orleans Provinces -- December 4, 2004, posted on the Adoremus website.

# # #

United States Conference of Catholic Bishops

USCCB News Release

08-112
August 6, 2008
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
En Espanol

Advisory

Discussing Faithful Citizenship

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has posted on www.faithfulcitizenship.org/media a series of articles by USCCB experts on issues pertinent to the November elections.

Articles are in both English and Spanish.

Topics include Immigration, Voting by Conscience, the Environment, Poverty, Iraq, Stem Cells, Gay Marriage, Abortion, Health Care and Economic Policy.

Articles may be reprinted as they are and/or serve as backgrounders. To interview any of the authors, contact USCCB Media Relations, 202-541-3200.

Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship, a statement of the U.S. Catholic Bishops, was passed by the bishops in November 2007.

Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship: A Call to Political Responsibility from the Catholic Bishops of the United Stateslong statement
November 14, 2007 (links to USCCB site)

The Challenge of Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship summary statement, November 14, 2007 (links to USCCB site)

May 18, 2007 -- Bishops’ Conference Responds To 18 Democrats Critical Of Pope

Update June 20, 2006 - ORAL REPORT to the USCCB June 2006 Meeting
TASK FORCE ON CATHOLIC BISHOPS AND CATHOLIC POLITICIANS by Cardinal Theodore McCarrick -- June 15, 2006, USCCB Meeting in Los Angeles.

Statement on Responsibilities of Catholics in Public Life
March 10, 2006

"A recent public statement by 55 Catholic and Democratic members of the House of Representatives offers an opportunity to address several important points about the responsibilities of Catholics in public life."....Click title for complete statement on the USCCB website.

Cardinal William H. Keeler
Chairman, USCCB Committee on Pro Life Activities

Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick
Chairman, USCCB Task Force on Catholic Bishops and Catholic Politicians

Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio
Chairman, USCCB Committee on Domestic Policy

Living the Gospel of Life: A Challenge to American Catholics
(This document was issued by the US bishops in 1998. Quotes from relevant paragraphs on responsibility of Catholic politicians follow. Click title above to link to access complete document on USCCB web site)

31.Catholics who are privileged to serve in public leadership positions have an obligation to place their faith at the heart of their public service, particularly on issues regarding the sanctity and dignity of human life. Thomas More, the former chancellor of England who preferred to give his life rather than betray his Catholic convictions, went to his execution with the words, "I die the king's good servant, but God's first." In the United States in the late 1990s, elected officials safely keep their heads. But some will face a political penalty for living their public office in accord with their pro-life convictions. To those who choose this path, we assure them that their course is just, they save lives through their witness, and God and history will not forget them. Moreover, the risk of witness should not be exaggerated, and the power of witness should not be underestimated. In an age of artifice, many voters are hungry for substance. They admire and support political figures who speak out sincerely for their moral convictions. For our part we commend Catholic and other public officials who, with courage and determination, use their positions of leadership to promote respect for all human life.

32. We urge those Catholic officials who choose to depart from Church teaching on the inviolability of human life in their public life to consider the consequences for their own spiritual well being, as well as the scandal they risk by leading others into serious sin. We call on them to reflect on the grave contradiction of assuming public roles and presenting themselves as credible Catholics when their actions on fundamental issues of human life are not in agreement with Church teaching. No public official, especially one claiming to be a faithful and serious Catholic, can responsibly advocate for or actively support direct attacks on innocent human life. Certainly there are times when it may be impossible to overturn or prevent passage of a law which allows or promotes a moral evil -- such as a law allowing the destruction of nascent human life. In such cases, an elected official, whose position in favor of life is known, could seek legitimately to limit the harm done by the law. However, no appeal to policy, procedure, majority will or pluralism ever excuses a public official from defending life to the greatest extent possible. As is true of leaders in all walks of life, no political leader can evade accountability for his or her exercise of power. (Evangelium Vitae, 73-4) Those who justify their inaction on the grounds that abortion is the law of the land need to recognize that there is a higher law, the law of God. No human law can validly contradict the Commandment: "Thou shalt not kill."

33. The Gospel of Life must be proclaimed, and human life defended, in all places and all times. The arena for moral responsibility includes not only the halls of government, but the voting booth as well. Laws that permit abortion, euthanasia and assisted suicide are profoundly unjust, and we should work peacefully and tirelessly to oppose and change them. Because they are unjust they cannot bind citizens in conscience, be supported, acquiesced in, or recognized as valid. Our nation cannot countenance the continued existence in our society of such fundamental violations of human rights.

34.We encourage all citizens, particularly Catholics, to embrace their citizenship not merely as a duty and privilege, but as an opportunity meaningfully to participate in building the culture of life. Every voice matters in the public forum. Every vote counts. Every act of responsible citizenship is an exercise of significant individual power. We must exercise that power in ways that defend human life, especially those of God's children who are unborn, disabled or otherwise vulnerable. We get the public officials we deserve. Their virtue -- or lack thereof -- is a judgment not only on them, but on us. Because of this, we urge our fellow citizens to see beyond party politics, to analyze campaign rhetoric critically, and to choose their political leaders according to principle, not party affiliation or mere self-interest.

Faithful Citizenship: A Catholic Call to Political Responsibility

In September 2003, the USCCB Administrative Committee prepared and approved the "Faithful Citizenship" statement, to prepare Catholics for the 2004 elections. It now appears on the USCCB web site. The document is intended to inform voters on a wide range of issues -- from human life and family issues to war and relations with the United Nations -- listing various social policies endorsed by the committees of the US bishops' conference. (Click on title above to access the statement on the USCCB web site.)

With the release of the statement, the USCCB has also launched a web site section with the statement and various other materials (including suggestions for homilies, liturgies, prayers) related to the political campaign. Link to this section of the USCCB web site: http://www.usccb.org/faithfulcitizenship/introduction.html

On June 15, 2004, Monsignor William Fay, USCCB General Secretary, reported that copies of "Faithful Citizenship" were sent, along with a letter from Monsignor Fay, to leaders of both major political parties: to Bill Harris, convention chairman and CEO for the Republican National Committee, and Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., who chairs the platform drafting committee for the Democratic National Committee.


US bishops' Task Force on the implementation of the Holy See's "Doctrinal Note"

The US bishops' conference has appointed a task force to implement the Vatican's Doctrinal Note. At their November 2003 meeting, a report from this task force was presented by Bishop John Ricard. (The task force chairman, Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, of Washington, DC, said that because of his location in the nation's capital, he preferred not to present the report himself.) The other members of this task force, according to the November report, are Archbishop Charles Chaput; Bishop Joseph Galante; Bishop Thomas G.Wenski; Bishop Donald Trautman; and Bishop Bernard Harrington.
The task force plans to consult with the Holy See and other bishops' conferences "to bring back a set of general guidelines to help shape the prudential judgments we will make", Bishop Ricard reported.
(Click title above to access the November 2003 Task Force statement on this site.)

NOTE: Go to Diocesan Bishops' Statements Page for individual statements by original task force members, Cardinal McCarrick, Archbishop Chaput, Bishop Galante, Bishop Wenski and Bishop Harrington.
(After the November USCCB meeting, Archbishop Chaput was replaced by Cardinal William Keeler, and Bishop Trautman by Archbishop William Levada.)

USCCB Doctrine Committee - Questions and Answers on the Doctrinal Note on Catholics' participation in political life

The US bishops' Committee on Doctrine issued a brief series of questions and answers on the Holy See's Doctrinal Note, from which the following are excerpts. (Click title above to go to complete document on USCCB web site.)

What about the separation of "church and state"?

The Note fully supports the rightful autonomy of the political or civil sphere from that of religion or the Church. It points out that the identification of religious law with civil law can stifle religious freedom and restrict or deny other inalienable rights. Also, the state does not have the right to interfere in specifically religious activities.

However this does not mean that there is an autonomy from morality. Christians and all citizens must defend, by legitimate means, moral truths concerning society including respect for human life and other rights of the person, justice and freedom.

The fact that some of these truths may also be taught by the Church does not lessen the political legitimacy or the rightful "autonomy" of the contribution of those citizens who are committed to them.

Some may have come to these truths through reasoned inquiry or from their being taught by the Christian faith or both. In whatever way a person has come to these fundamental moral truths, in a democratic society all proposals are freely discussed and examined. To disqualify Christians from political life for acting in accord with their consciences amounts to a form of intolerant secularism.

What are the responsibilities of the lay faithful in civil and political life?

This is an arena that is worthy and appropriate for the baptized faithful as they fulfill their mission in the Church to the world. Their legitimate autonomy to deal with many matters and issues which do not involve fundamental moral principles is fully respected. However, the well-informed Christian conscience does not permit one to vote for a political policy or an individual law which contradicts the fundamental contents of faith and morals. The Christian faith is an integral unity, and one cannot support one of these teachings to the neglect of the others or to omit support for one of them while supporting others. Christians should collaborate in the shaping of a culture that is informed by the true dignity of the human person and the common good.


USCCB Statement - Catholics in Political Life

On June 18, 2004, before leaving their semi-annual meeting in Englewood, Colorado, the US Catholic bishops voted (183-6) to adopt a statement that would address the issues about Communion and dissenting politicians. Clearly all the bishops are not "on the same page" in their policies about extending Communion to openly and actively pro-abortion Catholic politicians. In the end, the new statement strongly affirmed Church teaching on abortion -- but the bishops were unable to reach consensus on the matter of withholding Communion from prominent dissenting Catholics; and left it up to each individual bishop to decide how he will handle the matter in his own diocese.

This decision (or indecision) suggests that there will continue to be dramatically divergent practices in different parts of the country, replicating the divisions that have emerged among the dioceses in the application of liturgical norms.

The statement is copyrighted by the USCCB, and is available only on their web site. Click title above or go to http://www.usccb.org/bishops/catholicsinpoliticallife.htm.)

Five bulleted points in Catholics in Political Life stressed that

The bishops conclude their two-page statement by noting that "Bishops can legitimately make different judgments on the most prudent course of pastoral action. Nevertheless, we all share an unequivocal commitment to protect human life and dignity and to preach the Gospel in difficult times." The bishops also caution against "polarizing tendencies of election-year politics" which "can lead to circumstances in which Catholic teaching and sacramental practice can be misused for political ends. Respect for the Holy Eucharist, in particular, demands that it be received worthily and that it be seen as the source for our common mission in the world."

-----------------------------

Interim Reflections of the Task Force on
Catholic Bishops and Catholic Politicians

Reports from the Task Force were presented to the bishops of the United States at their meeting in Englewood, Colorado, on June 15, 2004. The reports represent the work, the observations, and the interim guidance of the task force only. It is not a final report. The Task Force will continue to consult with the Holy See, other episcopal conferences, the bishops of the United States, and others as it develops its final report. The introductory and concluding reports on the consultations of the Task Force were presented by Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, chairman of the Task Force; theological reflections by San Francisco Archbishop William Levada (chairman of the USCCB Committee on Doctine, succeeding Bishop Trautman; and a summary of the consultation process by Baltimore Cardinal William Keeler (chairman of the Pro-Life Activities Committee, succeeding interim chmn., Archbishop Chaput). Other members of the Task Force are Winona Bishop Bernard Harrington (chairman of the Committee on Education), Bishop Thomas Wenski and Bishop Joseph Galante. (Go to Diocesan Bishops' Statements to read statements by Bishops Wenski and Galante.)

In his introductory remarks, Cardinal McCarrick said, "We should not tell people how to vote or sanction voters. This is contrary to our teaching, may be a violation of the civil law, and is often counter-productive."
He also commented on Cardinal Ratzinger's memorandum (see above), and told the bishops, "As many of you know, Vatican officials offered both principles and advised caution and pastoral prudence in the use of sanctions. In recent days, I have once again been in contact with Cardinal Ratzinger both by letter and telephone calls. He has offered some observations for our work which he specifically asked not be published, but which I wish to share with you. The first is a recognition that it is up to us as bishops in the United States to discern and act on our responsibilities as teachers, pastors and leaders in our nation."

He continued with further comments on Cardinal Ratzinger's memorandum:

"Cardinal Ratzinger speaks about WHAT constitutes 'manifest grave sin' and 'obstinate persistence' in public life, stating that consistently campaigning for and voting for permissive laws on abortion and euthanasia could meet these criteria.

"Cardinal Ratzinger outlines HOW a bishop might deal with these matters, including a series of precautionary measures involving a process of meeting, instruction and warning. This process involves meeting with the person and providing instruction on Catholic moral teaching. Cardinal Ratzinger suggests informing such persons that if they reject Catholic moral teaching in their public actions, they should not present themselves for Holy Communion until their situation has ended. Using the precedent of our teaching and practice in the case of a person in an invalid marriage, the Cardinal recognizes that there are circumstances in which Holy Communion may be denied. He also indicates that in these cases a warning must be provided before the Eucharist can be denied.

"I would emphasize that Cardinal Ratzinger clearly leaves to us as teachers, pastors and leaders WHETHER to pursue this path. The Holy See has repeatedly expressed its confidence in our roles as bishops and pastors. The question for us is not simply whether denial of Communion is possible, but whether it is pastorally wise and prudent. It is not surprising that difficult and differing circumstances on these matters can lead to different practices. Every bishop is acting in accord with his own understanding of his duties and the law.

"It is important to note that Cardinal Ratzinger makes a clear distinction between public officials and voters, explaining that a Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil only if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate's permissive stand on abortion. However, when a Catholic does not share a candidate's stand in favor of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted if there are proportionate reasons." (Original emphasis.)

The "Interim Reflections" statement is copyrighted by the USCCB, and is available on their web site. Click title above or go to http://www.usccb.org/bishops/intreflections.htm to access complete report.

Update JULY 12, 2004 - USCCB web site published Cardinal Ratzinger's July 9 letter to Cardinal McCarrick, in which the former prounounced the US bishops June statement "very much in harmony" with his memorandum. The publication of Cardinal Ratzinger's July 9 letter may have been intended to offset criticism, after the memorandum "Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion" (above) was made public July 3, that Cardinal McCarrick had not fully presented its contents to the bishops at their June meeting. (News release on USCCB web site:http://www.usccb.org/comm/archives/2004/04-133.htm)

Update November 29, 2004 - Link to USCCB Website:
Task Force on Catholic Bishops and Catholic Politicians
Report by Cardinal Theodore McCarrick --Wednesday, November 17, 2004

# # #

Back to top - Diocesan Bishops' Statements - Selected articles

Women for Faith & Family operates solely on your generous donations. See Join Page or for Credit Card Donation see Network for Good instructions page.**

Voices copyright © 1999-Present Women for Faith & Family. All rights reserved.

PERMISSION GUIDELINES

All material on this web site is copyrighted and may not be copied or reproduced without prior written permission from Women for Faith & Family,except as specified below.

Personal use
Permission is granted to download and/or print out articles for personal use only.

Quotations
Brief quotations (ca 500 words) may be made from the material on this site, in accordance with the “fair use” provisions of copyright law, without prior permission. For these quotations proper attribution must be made of author and WFF + URL (i.e., “Women for Faith & Family – www.wf-f.org.)

Attribution
Generally, all signed articles or graphics must also have the permission of the author. If a text does not have an author byline, Women for Faith & Family should be listed as the author. For example: Women for Faith & Family (St Louis: Women for Faith & Family, 2005 + URL)

Link to Women for Faith & Family web site.
Other web sites are welcome to establish links to www.wf-f.org or to individual pages within our site.

Back to top -- Home
Women for Faith & Family
PO Box 300411
St. Louis, MO 63130

314-863-8385 Phone -- 314-863-5858 Fax -- Email