Well, it turns out that Father Newman originally had the full support of Monsignor Martin T. Laughlin, the acting administrator of the Diocese of Charleston, which currently does not have a bishop. But two days later, Msgr. Laughlin reprimanded Fr. Newman in what appeared to be fairly harsh terms (they really weren't; I'll get to that).
Most of the press has covered the story as if Msgr. Laughlin's initial support never existed. But Carolyn Click's report at The State on Friday (HT Catholic Culture) shows otherwise:
While Newman has been the most outspoken of South Carolina priests in the wake of the election, the administrator of the diocese of Charleston, Msgr. Martin T. Laughlin, supports him fully, said diocese spokesman Steve Gajdosik.
“I think it’s fair to say that Father Newman’s letter echoes the sentiments of Father Laughlin,” he said.
Further, Catholic Culture reports the following (bold is mine):
..... other priests of the Charleston diocese had already indicated their support for Father Newman. On November 12, for example, Father Newman received this message:
Thank you for your statement. I wish the bishops would have been as forthright. Why did they not speak before the election?
That email message was sent to Father Newman by... are you ready?... Msgr. Laughlin.
Seems Monsignor Laughlin has flip floppped. How sad that when it came his time to choose, he couldn't pay the price.
Tom links to a fabulous post at BizzyBlog.
Father Newman made no “statements contrary to Catholic teachings,” and if I may be so clever, Msgr. Laughlin didn’t say that he did. He said they were “inadequate.” But if even Laughlin had written, “The diocese repudiates every word of Fr. Newman’s statements,” the diocese would be wrong (see UPDATE; it is wrong), and I will reference material supported by official Catholic teachings to prove it.Here’s what the Catechism of the Catholic Church says:
2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law.
As to voters’ responsibilities, here is EWTN’s Father Stephen F. Torraco in 2002, in “A Brief Catechism for Catholic Voters”:
Q3. If I think that a pro-abortion candidate will, on balance, do much more for the culture of life than a pro-life candidate, why may I not vote for the pro-abortion candidate?
If a political candidate supported abortion, or any other moral evil, such as assisted suicide and euthanasia, for that matter, it would not be morally permissible for you to vote for that person. This is because, in voting for such a person, you would become an accomplice in the moral evil at issue. For this reason, moral evils such as abortion, euthanasia and assisted suicide are examples of a “disqualifying issue.” A disqualifying issue is one which is of such gravity and importance that it allows for no political maneuvering. It is an issue that strikes at the heart of the human person and is non-negotiable. A disqualifying issue is one of such enormity that by itself renders a candidate for office unacceptable regardless of his position on other matters.
Q6. If I think that a candidate who is pro-abortion has better ideas to serve the poor, and the pro-life candidate has bad ideas that will hurt the poor, why may I not vote for the candidate that has the better ideas for serving the poor?
….. solidarity (with the poor) can never be at the price of embracing a “disqualifying issue.” Besides, when it comes to the unborn, abortion is a most grievous offense against solidarity, for the unborn are surely among society’s most needful. The right to life is a paramount issue because as Pope John Paul II says it is “the first right, on which all the others are based, and which cannot be recuperated once it is lost.” If a candidate for office refuses solidarity with the unborn, he has laid the ground for refusing solidarity with anyone.
Q7. If a candidate says that he is personally opposed to abortion but feels the need to vote for it under the circumstances, doesn’t this candidate’s personal opposition to abortion make it morally permissible for me to vote for him, especially if I think that his other views are the best for people, especially the poor?
A candidate for office who says that he is personally opposed to abortion but actually votes in favor of it is either fooling himself or trying to fool you. ….. If you vote for such a candidate, you would be an accomplice in advancing the moral evil of abortion. Therefore, it is not morally permissible to vote for such a candidate for office, even, as explained in questions 3 and 6 above, you think that the candidate’s other views are best for the poor.
Q14. Is it a mortal sin to vote for a pro-abortion candidate?
To vote for such a candidate even with the knowledge that the candidate is pro-abortion is to become an accomplice in the moral evil of abortion. If the voter also knows this, then the voter sins mortally.
A Catholic in a state of mortal sin cannot receive Communion, but must receive confession and do penance to get out of the state of mortal sin. This is of course exactly what Fr. Newman said:
“Persons in this condition should not receive Holy Communion until and unless they are reconciled to God in the Sacrament of Penance, lest they eat and drink their own condemnation,” Newman wrote.
Father Newman is thus inarguably right.
How Beautiful it is to see a priest willing to pay the price.
(UPDATE-Thanks to those who emailed that the link was broken. Video is now working )
How Beautiful - Watch the best video clips here
(thanks to Tom for the ht - nice job on the round up!)
No comments:
Post a Comment