|
By Iain T. Benson
Centre
for Cultural Renewal
TWO RECENT items, one within Canada, the other outside it, and both
involving (at least in principle) the Catholic Church and politicians,
give an interesting angle on the misuse of the phrase 'separation of
Church and State.'
In the first instance, Archbishop
Prendergast of Ottawa stated, in an informal interview with an
Ottawa-based theology discussion group 'Theology on Tap,' that politicians
who obstinately refuse to obey Church teaching in their work as
politicians can be refused communion when they show up at Sunday Mass;
they can be told, in other words, that they are out of communion with the
Church. This statement has created a bit of a buzz from certain quarters.
It should not have.
Some have criticized the Archbishop by saying that Catholic politicians
should be able to say and do what they like while identifying themselves
as 'Catholics' because of some supposed tie-in with the idea of 'the
separation of Church and State.' Implicit in this is that what a
politician does as a politician ought to have no bearing on his or her
religious life. This shows a misunderstanding of how those principles
work.
The Archbishop is perfectly entitled to say what the rules of the Catholic
Church are for all practicing Catholics as long as he abides by the
teaching authority of his Church -- set out in such documents as the Code of Canon
Law. So any politician who says that he or she is a practicing
Catholic and then, for example, supports abortion in his or her political
work -- which the Catholic Church rejects -- can be told by the bishop or
priest that he or she should not take communion in the Church. This has to
be correct.
The different jurisdiction between the Church and the State is perfectly
evident where a person claiming to be a Catholic in effect masquerades as
a Catholic by acting against the teachings of the Church and then in his
or her private capacity still expects to gain the benefits of Church
membership -- one of which is the sacrament of communion. Well instructed
Catholics know that when they are not living in accordance with Church
teaching they should, themselves, abstain from receiving communion --
which is, after all, a visible sign of unity. One frequently observes this
form of restraint in action at any Catholic Mass.
Canada (and not just its Catholics) would have been a lot less confused
about the scope of Roman Catholic dissent on the abortion issue, over the
past many decades, if the Catholic Church had applied this principle more
rigorously with the likes of Pierre Trudeau, John Turner, Paul Martin, Joe
Clark and Mark MacQuigan (to name but a few). It is past time that the
Catholic Church took more of a leadership role in talking with,
instructing and, if necessary, disciplining some of its high profile
members who seem utterly confused about Church teachings.
Continue article >>
|
Archbishop Prendergast has given an interview explaining his position
which is remarkable for its clarity. It may be heard here.
Similarly, another political pro-abortion supporter, this time in the
United States, recently stated that he could join the oldest order of
chivalry in the world -- the Catholic (and much imitated) Sovereign Military
Order of Malta -- while holding strongly pro-choice views. Someone in
the American Order evidently had not done their homework very well when
extending an invitation to the well-known person.
He went public using the Order of Malta as an example of his supposed
Catholic credentials. Big mistake. Very quickly questions were raised and
in no time at all the Order of Malta, based in Rome, basically said he
could take a hike -- but not wearing the Orders regalia. The application
for membership was withdrawn. The American Federal Association ought to
have known better and never invited him in the first place knowing his
views. An article on this sorry and obviously over-confident individual
may be read here.
That Catholic group (the Order of Malta) were just as within their rights
to refuse the pro-abortion politician membership in the Order as the
Bishop would be to refuse communion to 'pro-abortion' politicians who
claim to be Catholics in Canada. Neither of these examples raises the
jurisdictional line between 'Church' and 'State' just because they involve
politicians. The fact is that should some principle be raised to prohibit
the Church or one of its Catholic organizations from determining what it
is to be Catholic and what the ramifications are for practices within the
Church, we would have a problem of one jurisdiction (the State)
over-reaching into an area that is not its proper concern.
Politics has no business directing or instructing religions about their
dogma. The Church on the other hand has every business in teaching its
political adherents what they may support and advocate while still calling
themselves Catholic. If adherents attempt to claim that they are speaking
as faithful members of their religion when they are, in fact, working in
contravention of its teaching, the religion is best placed to say whether
that is true or not. Further, the Church, and all religions, are well
entitled to give moral guidance and suggestions to the surrounding society
in the interest of the 'Common Good.' A Catholic politician may reject the
Church's teaching on a matter, but when he or she does so and still holds
him or herself out as being a Catholic in full communion with the Church
and speaking consistently with Church teaching, the Church has every right
-- and duty -- to say, "No you aren't."
-- Iain T. Benson is executive director of the Centre for Cultural
Renewal. This article is reprinted with permission.
March 27/2008
|
As I understand it - Christ did not intend 'communion' -- "do this in remeberance of Me" to be utilized as a barometer to measure church unity -- or as a ritualistic ceremony -
Religion - the Catholic Church -- is so far removed from the love of Christ -- read the Scriptures to see how loving, merciful, forgiving He is -- how He wants to draw us to Him -- He has promised us eternal life -
He dispenses His grace so readily -- Grace is so precious but it is rarely taught in Catholic Churches
the Catholic Church has ranked itself first - above Christ -- its primary function is to judge its flock and dispense punishment -- how sad!
I believe the Catholic Church-- in its self proclaimed might and power -- is the largest obstacle that keeps well intentioned Christians from finding the love of Jesus --
Religious leaders have not progressed very far from the day of the pompous Pharisees - a group who demonstrated their artificial piety and supericial judgments - also a group whom Jesus did not respect --
Is the Catholic clergy any different than the Pharisees??
As for what the Catholic church does for the world's poor -- the Vatican is the richest organization in the world -- it keeps its riches --it is through the contributions of its members that missions and other works are supported --
it is also the membership -- not the Vatican -- that pays the fines that the courts have set out for the gross sexual misconduct of many of the priests --
I'm sorry but for the most part the Catholic clergy and particularly the hierarchy does not represent the love of God -- despite all that there are many spirit filled Catholics -- there could be so many more if the Catholic Church placed Jesus Christ first -- not the Pope -- not all the saints they create -- there is only one to pray to and to worship and that is Jesus Christ --
Vi