12 May 2008

Drop That Cup, Sebelius!

I spent some time watching the Pope's visit to the States and found two storylines fun and fascinating. First, there was the way that Mother Theresa's "Missionaries of Charity" jumped up and down like pre-teens at a Hannah Montana concert as the German Papa passed their way. Praise God for Tivo and the chance to play that image over and over. Second was the Vegas feel to the pundits discussing which pro-choice politicians would step forward to take communion. (I won $50 bucks when Giuliani rushed the alter to beat the spread.) And while the Missionaries of Charity have gone back to help the needy, the abortion-kind Catholic politicians are facing revived demands from the church to either drop their pro-choice stance or drop that communion cup.

As reported in the fluffy but colorful USA Today, Catholic Archbishop Joseph Naumann of Kansas City has drawn Christ's blood in the battle with a request that Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius back off from the Eucharist.

The archbishop said Sebelius should not take Communion until she has "acknowledged the error of her past positions, made a worthy sacramental confession and taken the necessary steps for amendment of her life," including "a public repudiation of her ... support of laws and policies sanctioning abortion."

Now, I have to confess that the abortion issue is not a deal-breaker for me. I understand that there are those who believe that abortion is the murder of an innocent life. I also know that there are those who are not sure when life begins and decide to err on the side of the woman's rights. Like many Americans, I hate the fact that current laws seem to consider abortion an "oops, I forgot my condom" fix, but I'm not ready to march in front of a clinic and harass young women who are making the most difficult decision of their lives. The Archbishop, however, has to answer to an even higher authority.
"The spiritually lethal message, communicated by our governor, as well as many other high profile Catholics in public life, has been in effect: 'The church's teaching on abortion is optional!'" Naumann writes.

In other words, abortion is not an issue you can ignore as a cafeteria Catholic. It revolves around the church's teachings on conception and its fundamental moral objectives concerning the sanctity of life. If you cannot accept this element of Catholicism, how can you in good conscience accept the church's offering of transformed wine that signifies life itself?

8 comments :

  1. DB said...

    If they can't get there own members (many of whom are pro-choice or support pro-choice candidates) to support anti-abortion candidates, how much power do they actually have on this issue? Obviously none. The Godfather taught us that ALL the Catholic teachings are optional! ;-)

  2. E. Rapp said...

    "I understand that there are those who believe that abortion is the murder of an innocent life. I also know that there are those who are not sure when life begins and decide to err on the side of the woman's rights."

    How about erring on the side of human life? If you're not sure when life begins, wouldn't it make more sense to err that way?

  3. Nikki said...

    Hey Khaki...My church's position is very clear. We are pro-life and though there are some members who take the pro-choice stance against church policy it doesn't hurt their standing in the church by any means. Also when I was a missionary for the church a person who had commited murder could not be baptised but a person who had an abortion could...to me this says that abortion though reprehensible is not the equivelant to murder, according to the teachings of my church. Though the church would urge very strongly against it in most situations. So I follow this stance myself. Just FYI...:)N

  4. Khaki Elephant said...

    Nikki, I think you have the right of it. In the case of Catholics, the church is clear on their teachings. You will not be excommunicated for any position on abortion, nor will you be denied communion if you had one. But, you are not to take communion if you actively support abortions. If a politician can't abide that dictate they should find another church. Maybe yours :-)

    As a side note, the ABC (American Baptist Churches) have never taken an official stance for or against abortion, so I'm in the clear on this one.

  5. Khaki Elephant said...

    Thank you for joining the dialogue, Dr. Rapp.

    I suppose in this case it would be erring on the side of the known rather than the unknown. We know that the woman is a living soul and thus should be afforded full liberty within moral boundaries. With the unborn . . . well, are we really sure? If not, is abortion beyond moral boundaries?

  6. Khaki Elephant said...

    Ah, db, I suspect that it is times like this that makes Rome long for a good old fashioned inquisition to bring those parishoners back in line. But the days of burning heretics and stealing Jewish babies have come to an end.

    When I attend mass with my wife I skip communion because I don't believe in transubstantiation. I just think that actual Catholics should show as much respect for their own church concerning one of its primary tenets.

  7. E. Rapp said...

    "I suppose in this case it would be erring on the side of the known rather than the unknown. We know that the woman is a living soul and thus should be afforded full liberty within moral boundaries. With the unborn . . . well, are we really sure?"

    This is still a terrible argument. If a woman goes ahead and has the baby, there is no possibility of killing a living soul. If the unborn child is aborted, there is a possibility of killing a living soul. I'm not talking about cases where the woman will lose her life if she has the baby. Such cases are rare.

  8. Khaki Elephant said...

    This is still a terrible argument.

    And here I thought the argument was kinda clever. You know, sort of protect what we know is true as opposed to what is debatable. Don't get me wrong, I wish there were no abortions . . . though in my mind that would also mean no rapes, but shouldn't a woman have the right to decide concerning issues where there is a logical debate on both sides?