Why The Catholic Church Condemns Torture

By now we have all heard of the Middle Eastern religious and political “dissident” taken captive by a Western government, interrogated, ridiculed, made to endure denigrating postures, beaten and eventually killed.

His name? Jesus of Nazareth.

Two thousand years later, Christ remains with us, and so does torture. Meditating on the sufferings of Christ ought to help bring Christians to call for an end to torture, particularly in America. The painful scourging, the mocking crowning with thorns, the carrying of the cross, and the crucifixion were carried out with state sanction.

This relates directly to the controversy of interrogation (torture) at Guantanamo Bay. It is shameful to see many Catholic politicians, including pro-life Senator Sam Brownback, in favor of this horrendous endeavor and the continual existence of Guantanamo.

The safety of the American people is fundamental. Nevertheless, every human being is made in the image and likeness of God and their dignity—and the rights that flow from it—is inviolable. Torture violates the basic dignity of the human person that all religions, in their highest ideals, hold dear. It degrades everyone involved—policy-makers, perpetrators and victims. It contradicts our nation's most cherished ideals. Any policies that permit torture and inhumane treatment are shocking and morally intolerable.

Catholics, especially politicians, should stand with the Church and not with the arbitrary, and at times unjust will of the State.

Catholic House Republicans to Pelosi: Correct the Record

Speaker of the House of Representatives
H-232, The Capitol
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Speaker Pelosi,

On the Sunday, August 24th, broadcast of NBC’s Meet the Press, you stated “as an ardent, practicing Catholic, [abortion] is an issue that I have studied for a long time.” As fellow Catholics and legislators, we wish you would have made a more honest effort to lay out the authentic position of the Church on this core moral issue before attempting to address it with authority.

Your subsequent remarks mangle Catholic Church doctrine regarding the inherent sanctity and dignity of human life; therefore, we are compelled to refute your error.

In the interview, Tom Brokaw reminded you that the Church professes the sanctity of human life from conception to natural death. As stated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church: “Since it must be treated from conception as a person, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being” (2274).

To this, you responded, “I understand. And this is like maybe 50 years or something like that. So again, over the history of the Church, this is an issue of controversy.” Unfortunately, your statement demonstrates a lack of understanding of Catholic teaching and belief regarding abortion.

From the Apostles of the first century to Pope John Paul the Great “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” (Catechism 2271).

Thus, your erroneous claim about the history of the Church’s opposition to abortion is false and denigrates our common Faith. For example, during the reign of Pope Innocent XI in 1679, the Church unequivocally stated it is an error for Catholics to believe a fetus does not have a soul; and confirmed the teaching that abortion constitutes an unjustified taking of innocent human life.

To reduce the scandal and consternation caused amongst the faithful by your remarks, we necessarily write you to correct the public record and affirm the Church’s actual and historical teaching that defends the sanctity of human life. We hope that you will rectify your errant claims and apologize for misrepresenting the Church’s doctrine and misleading fellow Catholics.

Respectfully,

Thaddeus McCotter

Steve Chabot

Virginia Foxx

Phil Gingrey

Peter King (NY)

Steve King (IA)

Dan Lungren

Devin Nunes

John Sullivan

Pat Tiberi

John Boehner

Phil English

Jean Schmidt

Jim Walsh

Jeff Fortenberry

Michael McCaul

Paul Ryan

Walter Jones

Mike Ferguson

Archbishop Chaput Admonishes Sen. Biden

DENVER (Catholic Online) - On September 7, 2008, the nominee of the Democratic party for the Vice Presidency of the United States, Senator Joseph Biden, was interviewed on Meet the Press by Tom Brokaw. Biden is a professed, practicing Catholic. He, like Speaker Nancy Pelosi before him, responded to the questions concerning his position on the Right to Life by making inaccurate and confusing comments concerning Catholic teaching on the Right to Life.

He also demonstrated his lack of understanding of biology, the Natural Law, the separation of Church and State, authentic pluralism and the proper role of Catholic elected officials. Archbishop Charles Chaput, O.F.M. Cap. and Bishop James D. Conley of Denver issued a response to the Catholics of their Diocese.

Public Servants and Moral Reasoning

To Catholics of the Archdiocese of Denver:

When Catholics serve on the national stage, their actions and words impact the faith of Catholics around the country. As a result, they open themselves to legitimate scrutiny by local Catholics and local bishops on matters of Catholic belief.

In 2008, although NBC probably didn't intend it, Meet the Press has become a national window on the flawed moral reasoning of some Catholic public servants. On August 24, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, describing herself as an ardent, practicing Catholic, misrepresented the overwhelming body of Catholic teaching against abortion to the show's nationwide audience, while defending her "pro-choice" abortion views. On September 7, Sen. Joseph Biden compounded the problem to the same Meet the Press audience.

Sen. Biden is a man of distinguished public service. That doesn't excuse poor logic or bad facts. Asked when life begins, Sen. Biden said that, "it's a personal and private issue." But in reality, modern biology knows exactly when human life begins: at the moment of conception. Religion has nothing to do with it. People might argue when human "personhood" begins -- though that leads public policy in very dangerous directions -- but no one can any longer claim that the beginning of life is a matter of religious opinion.

Sen. Biden also confused the nature of pluralism. Real pluralism thrives on healthy, non-violent disagreement; it requires an environment where people of conviction will struggle respectfully but vigorously to advance their beliefs. In his interview, the senator observed that other people with strong religious views disagree with the Catholic approach to abortion. It's certainly true that we need to acknowledge the views of other people and compromise whenever possible -- but not at the expense of a developing child's right to life.

Abortion is a foundational issue; it is not an issue like housing policy or the price of foreign oil. It always involves the intentional killing of an innocent life, and it is always, grievously wrong. If, as Sen. Biden said, "I'm prepared as a matter of faith [emphasis added] to accept that life begins at the moment of conception," then he is not merely wrong about the science of new life; he also fails to defend the innocent life he already knows is there.

As the senator said in his interview, he has opposed public funding for abortions. To his great credit, he also backed a successful ban on partial-birth abortions. But his strong support for the 1973 Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade and the false "right" to abortion it enshrines, can't be excused by any serious Catholic. Support for Roe and the "right to choose" an abortion simply masks what abortion is, and what abortion does.

Roe is bad law. As long as it stands, it prevents returning the abortion issue to the states where it belongs, so that the American people can decide its future through fair debate and legislation. In his Meet the Press interview, Sen. Biden used a morally exhausted argument that American Catholics have been hearing for 40 years: i.e., that Catholics can't "impose" their religiously based views on the rest of the country. But resistance to abortion is a matter of human rights, not religious opinion. And the senator knows very well as a lawmaker that all law involves the imposition of some people's convictions on everyone else. That is the nature of the law.

American Catholics have allowed themselves to be bullied into accepting the destruction of more than a million developing unborn children a year. Other people have imposed their "pro-choice" beliefs on American society without any remorse for decades. If we claim to be Catholic, then American Catholics, including public officials who describe themselves as Catholic, need to act accordingly. We need to put an end to Roe and the industry of permissive abortion it enables. Otherwise all of us -- from senators and members of Congress, to Catholic laypeople in the pews -- fail not only as believers and disciples, but also as citizens.

+Charles J. Chaput, O.F.M. Cap.
Archbishop of Denver

+James D. Conley
Auxiliary Bishop of Denver

Knights of Columbus: Vote for Life and Family

Nearing the close of their 126th Supreme Convention in Quebec City on Thursday, the Knights of Columbus approved resolutions calling for the legal protection of marriage and asking Catholics holding elected office to “be true” to their faith by acting “bravely and publicly in defense of life.”

In one resolution at the fraternal charitable organization’s annual convention, the Knights called for “legal and constitutional protection ... for the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.” The resolution declares that marriage is a “natural institution based on ancient human values” that over time has become a “unique and deeply rooted social, legal and religious institution.”

Marriage, the resolution said, provides the best environment in which to protect children and also “reflects the natural biological complementarity between man and woman which predates the state and which is woven into the social and religious fabric of every major culture and society.”

Another resolution passed by the Knights advocates building a “culture of life” and opposing “any governmental action or policy that promotes abortion, embryonic stem cell research, human cloning, euthanasia, assisted suicide and other offenses against life.”

Knights of Columbus delegates also exhorted “our fellow Catholics who are elected officials to be true to the faith they claim to profess by acting bravely and publicly in defense of life.” Such officials, the resolution advised, should affirm with Pope Benedict XVI that “there can be no room for purely private religion.”

The resolution reaffirmed the organization’s policy of not inviting to any Knights of Columbus event persons “who do not support the legal protection of unborn children.”

In his opening convention address delivered earlier this week, Supreme Knight Carl A. Anderson urged Catholic voters to “stop accommodating pro-abortion politicians” and to “say ‘no’” to every political candidate who supports abortion.

Other resolutions passed at the convention addressed religious freedom, the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, decency on the internet and in the media, Catholic education, and the U.S. Pledge of Allegiance.

The Knights of Columbus, the world’s largest organization of Catholic laymen, was founded in 1882 and has more than 1.75 million members around the world.

Nancy Pelosi and Pro-Choice Catholics

I'm a Catholic Democrat. I'm for most liberal ideals of compassion and second-chances. I'm for the little guy (that includes the unborn). I do believe in the primacy of conscience. The Catholic Church whose faith I profess believes that we all must follow our conscience—though conscience is not just a personal preference or feeling as many leftist Catholic Democrats will say. I was recently pleased to see an Archbishop in Kansas reprehending the Catholic Democratic Governor for her pro-choice position and vetoing legislation that would restrict access to abortion.

But greater than she, as a problem, is Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House of Representatives, the highest ranking Catholic in public office—second in line to the presidency. She remains a challenge for proponents of Catholic orthodoxy in America, particularly for politicians in their unique call to unify their faith, moral convictions, and political responsibilities. Pelosi has manifestly rejected this call. The dichotomy between her stance as a radically pro-choice liberal Democrat and her professed Catholic faith is quite clear. She said that during the Democrats' first 100 hours in office, she planned to tackle expansion of embryonic stem cell research. She’s Catholic?

Despite her public dissent, Pelosi has continuously been honored amongst Catholics even to the point of being given the privilege to speak at Catholic commencement ceremonies and receive praise despite her abortion rights advocacy. She has received praise from Archbishops, been welcomed on Catholic campuses, and even participated in a Mass celebrating her election with people well aware of her pro-choice position, given the Eucharist by a priest—a Jesuit, in the instance of her "celebration" Mass—known for championing dissent based on conscience, an ill-conceived conception of conscience, as acceptable.

This is a serious issue for the Church. And what is even more despicable is that there are Cardinals, Bishops, and priests who know the severity of this crisis and refuse to reprehend Catholic politicians committing scandals by denying them communion. Denying people communion has just become an empty threat. John Kerry, the 2004 presidential candidate for the Democrats was seen receiving Holy Communion, post-election, even when his publicly professed positions contrary to Church teaching are known. Perhaps, a person can change their mind and reconcile with the Church. Kerry has not made any public retractions and continues to vote in favor of legalized abortion, in favor of embryonic stem cell research, and against marriage.

The same treatment is given to Nancy Pelosi, unfortunately. Pelosi, God bless her, is not struggling with the Church’s teaching, she isn’t trying to restrict abortion or work to protect life within the constraints of the current U.S. laws. She flat out rejects the Church’s teaching. She is unapologetically in support of abortion rights. She has a 100% NARAL pro-choice voting record.

She is an issue and so are all other Catholic dissidents in the public square. I’ll admit I am more biased against Pelosi because I believe (right or wrong) that she’s not even a good Democrat. Her bias toward Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton in the past primary season despite her being a “neutral” uncommitted superdelegate has been, in my opinion, ridiculous. Using her high ranking office, for months, she basically endorsed Obama behind a very thin veil and it won him many superdelegates. If a Catholic had to choose between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, Clinton would by far win the Catholic vote—she did in all the primaries. Why would a Catholic back a politician (Obama) who supports not only legalized abortion, but not giving medical care to babies that survive abortions and leaving them to die in utility rooms?

It goes without saying, if this woman, a public figure, who undermines Church teaching though she professes to be a Catholic, if she isn’t publicly challenged head on, by the Bishops, by the rest of us, by lay Catholics, then every day decisions on how to be faithful Christians in the midst of the complexities of our professions are compromised—surely the evil we do isn’t as grave as advocating abortion. Pope Benedict XVI addressed the matter in the document, Worthiness to Receive Communion: “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.”

Fundamentally, the problem with Pelosi and pro-choice Catholic politicians is only a manifestation of a greater problem. Catholics in public life who facilitate abortion, embryonic stem-cell research, and gay marriage are not in “full communion” with the Church. Hence, they should not receive communion. This idea of “conscience” as a means to any sort of behavior based on personal preference is senseless. We have somehow reached a point, I think, where a Bishop would certainly reprehend a priest for denying communion to parishioners who are not willing to abide by Church teaching on, say, contraception or observe the Church’s laws on marriage. Yet, I imagine it would be these same Bishops who have ignored the problem with priests abusing children—denying it and failing to address the issue head on.

What is that we fear? Perhaps, they believe a schism in the Church would potentially leave her in ruin. Where would that leave us? God forbid Bishops actually upholding the truth of the Gospel. God forbid Catholics living a virtuous, chaste life in imitation of Christ Jesus in marriage, priestly and religious celibacy, or unmarried chastity. If my opinion matters (I’m sure it doesn’t), we need to cut back on laxity, improve catechesis, and preach the truth and not compromise the Gospel for the sake of our comfort in our sins.

Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion

General Principles
by Pope Benedict XVI

1. Presenting oneself to receive Holy Communion should be a conscious decision, based on a reasoned judgment 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 authorize 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 propaganda 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 favour 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.]

St. Paul expressed similar sentiments here:
For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, "This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me." In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me." For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. But if we judged ourselves truly, we should not be judged. But when we are judged by the Lord, we are chastened so that we may not be condemned along with the world. (1 Corinthians 11:23-32)