UPDATE 6/24/2021 2:39 pm Central Time: the USCCB has released its own Q&A, available here (h/t Jim McCrea). It's quite brief. Among other things, it states that the bishops didn't vote last week to deny communion to anyone. It insists that the document to be drafted "is not meant to be disciplinary in nature, nor is it targeted at any one individual or class of persons." And it announces that "[t]here will be no national policy on withholding Communion from politicians."
UPDATE 6/21/2021 11:56 pm Central Time: I added some additional material to the answer to the third and final question below, in an attempt to provide some context for the motion's margin of passage. In short: even though the margin seems decisive, it falls short of a consensus. That supports the conclusion that the conference is currently divided on this question.
-----
News sources are reporting that, at the June meeting of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), which wrapped up last Friday, the bishops voted to proceed with drafting a document on the Eucharist. Here is Gabriella Borter and Julia Harte at Reuters:
A divided conference of U.S. Roman Catholic bishops announced on Friday that they had voted to draft a statement on Holy Communion that may admonish Catholic politicians, including President Joe Biden, who support abortion rights.
The 168-55 decision to draft a teaching document on the Eucharist, a holy sacrament in the Roman Catholic faith, came after two hours of debate at the virtual assembly of the United States Catholic Bishops' Conference on Thursday, in which the bishops weighed the merits of reaffirming church teachings against the possibility of sowing partisan division.
Naturally, questions occur. Herewith are some questions and their rather unsatisfactory answers.
Q: Was this vote aimed squarely at Joe Biden?
A: Yes and No.
Despite denials from some bishops who support proceeding with the document, it seems clear that the president was top of mind this past week at the USCCB meeting. Here are Borter and Harte at Reuters:
The bishops in favor of drafting the document insisted on Thursday that it would not call out any individual politician by name, but the topic of Biden's social views came up repeatedly in the discussion.
The genesis of the document also makes it clear that the President and his views on abortion and other social issues have led directly to this episcopal initiative. Michael Sean Winters drew the straight line at National Catholic Reporter a few days ago. In brief:
- When Biden, the second Catholic president in the nation's history, was elected last November, the USCCB established a special working group to address the "difficult and complex situation" of a pro-choice Catholic president. As Michael J O'Loughlin reported in America, this special committee was created in the context of an acrimonious election in which some bishops had said that Catholics couldn't vote for Biden because of his abortion views, and at least one bishop didn't immediately accept the election results
- The following March, the special working group was shut down, with an explanation that it had completed its work. Apparently, its work consisted of making two recommendations. One was that the USCCB write a letter to Biden, promising to work with him on issues in common. The second was that the USCCB issue "a document addressed to all of the Catholic faithful on eucharistic coherence".
- It is on this second recommendation, to issue a document on "eucharistic coherence", that the bishops voted last week to proceed.
Still, it would be erroneous to conclude that dissatisfaction with Catholic pro-choice politicians is a recent phenomenon. Biden's election may be the proximate cause of the desire to issue a document on "eucharistic coherence", but anger among Catholics toward Catholic pro-choice politicians - especially those who "evolve" from pro-life to pro-choice, seemingly for reasons of political expediency - has been percolating for years. Among the bishops, the issue previously came to a head during the 2004 presidential campaign, when pro-choice Catholic John Kerry was the Democratic nominee. A previous generation was up in arms in 1984 when New York governor Mario Cuomo, a Catholic Democrat, made a distinction between a politician's personal opposition to abortion and his duty to his office. According to the Wikipedia article on Cuomo, Cardinal O'Connor of New York threatened to excommunicate him on that occasion.
And in between these milestone events, anger has continued, unabated, at any and all Catholic politicians who are pro-choice. Nancy Pelosi has been the target of vitriol for many years, but so have many others. Senator Dick Durbin in my state has been a source of complaints on this score for decades.
I once attended a talk given by Cardinal Francis George of Chicago - I don't remember the exact occasion, but I believe it was during the campaign to pass Obamacare. I took the opportunity to ask Cardinal George why the Catholic prelates in the United States didn't take the sort of action the US bishops may now be contemplating: essentially, punishing the pro-life public officials for promoting and subsidizing abortions. He replied that, in church law, the grounds for imposing punishments on a person are quite narrow. I don't recall exactly what those grounds were, but I believe apostacy was one of them. Supporting abortion in one's political life didn't fit any of the existent categories. But at the end of his answer, he added something along the lines of, "... but it may be time for us to do something about it."
So, while clearly it is the case that this campaign to create a document on eucharistic coherence was precipitated by President Biden's election, it's also the case that pro-choice Catholic politicians have been a sore point for many Catholics for many years. Biden's election seems to have brought it to a head.
Q: Is this campaign on the part of the bishops politically motivated?
A: Yes and No.
In a previous post here at NewGathering, I cited criticism by San Diego bishop Robert McElroy. McElroy is among the more vocal of the minority of bishops who oppose the USCCB issuing this document. Here is McElroy:
To say that abortion is the pre-eminent issue in a particular political season is to reduce the common good, in effect, to one issue. And that’s a distortion of Catholic teaching. In fact, the assertion that abortion is “the” pre-eminent issue in this political campaign for Catholics is itself a political statement, not a doctrinal one.
Whatever McElroy means by "political statement", many Democrats clearly think it means something along these lines: the bishops are Republicans, and they are raising the issue of pro-choice Catholic politicians to hurt President Biden and Democrats, and help Republicans. The idea is that this document is intended to be a political broadside, cloaked in theological language, whose true purpose is to further the interests of the GOP.
I'd like to share a few miscellaneous thoughts.
1. In the last sentence of McElroy's quote above, he contrasts politics and doctrine. Abortion certainly is about politics. As a matter of putting things in the proper category, I'm not certain that doctrine is the right "bucket" in which to put abortion. As I think of it, abortion is both a political and a moral issue. The church's moral teaching on abortion has doctrinal underpinnings, which have been developed by such thinkers as Cardinal Bernardin, who gave a series of lectures on the Consistent Ethic of Life, and John Paul II in his encyclical Evangelium Vitae.
I am simply pointing out that, while McElroy is undoubtedly correct to note that the bishops should be teaching doctrine, they also should be teaching moral truth, and the church's opposition to abortion would seem to fall under the latter category.
2. The so-called separation of church and state is an American principle, but the Catholic church never has agreed that politics, government and policymaking are spheres which should exclude religiously motivated principles and policies, and a moment's thought should convince us that the church is right. The church's social and moral teachings touch on many areas of politics, government and policymaking, from health and income entitlements to immigration to human rights to workers rights to housing and food assistance to racial justice to environmental justice to war and peace. Abortion surely belongs on that list as well. The USCCB certainly recognizes the political implications of its moral and social teaching: it frequently addresses itself to Congress and the executive branch about pending legislation and regulations. Beyond the bishops themselves, there are many explicitly Catholic lobbying and advocacy organizations which work to influence government policy at the federal, state and local levels. And outside the precincts of the Catholic church, we can cite many other instances of connections between religious life and politics. For example, much has been made of "souls to the polls" initiatives in Black churches, in which religious leaders bring their church members to polling places for early voting on Sundays after church services.
3. In the Catholic church, there is a certain "division of labor" which states that it is the job of bishops to teach on matters of faith and morals, while it is the job of the laity to take that faith and morality into the world to make it a better place - in fact, to cooperate in the work of inaugurating God's kingdom, in the home, in the world of business and commerce, and in the public square (cf. Lumen Gentium 36).
4. There is little doubt that certain bishops are Republicans. Perhaps there also are some who are Democrats. Some conservative bishops have crossed lines which I'd prefer they not cross, as when they state publicly that Catholics can't in good conscience vote for Democrats because of abortion or some other issue.
5. Endorsing a particular candidate or political party is a line which bishops should not cross. If this document from the bishops, whatever it will say, constitutes a political endorsement, then it will have failed.
At the same time, if the document fails to acknowledge that there are political dimensions to life issues, and faithful Catholics are obligated to carry their faith into the public square and even into the voting booth, then the document also would be remiss in its treatment of the social responsibilities of discipleship.
6. When McElroy claims that the other side is making a "political statement", apparently we are meant to infer that only side would make political statements or engage in political machinations. But in the poisonous political climate which prevails today, tribal distrust is endemic. It seems inevitable that each sides will suspect the other of having surreptitious, political motives, of the secular and/or church variety. And indeed, during the conference proceedings, when one bishop requested more time to debate the motion to proceed with drafting the document, a bishop from the opposing camp accused him of seeking to filibuster the motion. For outside observers like us, it's impossible to discern with any certainty whether, and to what extent, politics is motivating the disagreements between the two sides.
Does the final vote represent a division between bishops who were appointed by Francis vs. bishops who were appointed by previous pontiffs? Is either side (or both sides) collaborating with allies in the Holy See? Is the Biden Administration taking an active hand in shaping public opinion? I haven't seen any reporting yet that would answer these questions. We'll need to rely on journalists to look into these questions and others.
In summary: abortion is one of many contemporary issues which have both a political dimension and a dimension of faith and morals. Faithful people have obligations in both spheres. Whatever document the bishops produce on the implications of abortion for eucharistic coherence should neither cross lines which shouldn't be crossed (such as endorsing particular candidates of parties) nor avoid complex topics such as the interrelationship between faith, morals, public life and God's kingdom. Fundamentally, it should be a moral and pastoral teaching document, rather than a document with a political program. Whether the bishops will produce what I am calling for here, we will learn in the coming months.
Q: In choosing to go forward with the drafting of the document, have the conservative bishops already won?
A: Yes and No.
The Reuters article cited above states that the vote to proceed with drafting the document passed with 168 bishops voting in favor, and 55 voting against. That's 75% of the bishops who voted - a decisive result.
The margin of victory also is significant because the final document would need to be approved by a two-thirds vote to be ratified, and the bishops easily exceeded that threshold with this initial vote.
It's also worth noting that the 55 who voted against proceeding is substantially fewer than the nearly 70 who had written a letter to Archbishop Gomez before the meeting, asking him to delay the vote. It seems the "go-slow" group lost some support in the run-up to the vote.
Does a 75% vote to proceed represent a consensus within the conference? One way to answer that question is to compare it to other USCCB votes. Although the vote to proceed with drafting the document received virtually all the media attention last week, the bishops managed to get other business conducted over the course of their virtual meeting, with that other business apparently proceeding in a relatively orderly and unremarkable fashion. According to The Pillar website, here are the votes taken at the June conference (the third number in each bullet is the number who abstained):
- To draft the document on eucharistic coherence: passed, 168-55-6 (73%)
- To proceed with a draft framework on marriage and family life: passed, 212-13-4 (93%)
- To proceed with a draft framework on youth and young adults: passed, 222-7-0 (97%)
- To draft a formal statement and program vision on Native American and Alaskan Native ministry: passed, 223-6-0 (97%)
- To approve a translation of liturgical texts for the celebration of Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of the Church: passed, 188-2-0 (99%)
- To approve a translation of the Liturgy of the Hours: Additional Intercessions and Psalter Concluding Prayers: passed, 1865-3-1 (98%)
- To approve a translation of the Order of Penance: passed, 182-6-2 (96%)
The final document may or may not be approved by a similar margin. It's possible that the final document could lose significant support among bishops. (It's also possible that it could gain even more support.)
Ratification also requires the approval of the Holy See. Given that the Holy See recently "advised" the bishops to undertake numerous consultations prior to issuing a document, and given that the bishops who voted to proceed seemingly aren't following that advice, the Holy See's ratification of a final document can't be taken for granted. All of Francis's public statements and gestures toward the Biden Administration have been friendly. There is no reason to think that Francis would wish to take an adversarial stance toward the president.
Finally, there is the consideration that any document the USCCB issues won't be binding on individual bishops. Each bishop still will get to decide whether or not to offer communion to the president, the speaker and other pro-choice Catholic public officials. Cardinal Wilton Gregory of Washington DC, whose diocese includes the White House, already has stated that he has no interest in denying communion to the president.
With last week's vote, the "pro-document" bishops have won the first round. A document certainly will be written. The margin of victory on this initial vote makes it seems likely that the final draft will be passed, perhaps as early as this coming November. But it also seems likely that the document will never go into effect as an official teaching instrument of the conference (which isn't to say that it will be without influence). Last week's vote may turn out to have marked the high point of the the "pro-document" group's success.
As a political document in support of Republican oligarchs who see both Biden and Pope Francis as threats, this document has already been very successful. It is front page news. The continuation of this course by the Bishops will achieve the oligarchs’ intentions to undermine Biden’s presidency and Francis pontificate. It does not really matter what the document ultimately says, whether or not it gets a two-third vote, whether or not its gets Rome’s approval, or whether or not any Democratic politician is denied communion. What counts in politics is the publicity it generates negatively as well as positively that can be used by the oligarchs and their minions against both Biden and Francis.
ReplyDeleteIt does not matter if some of the bishops who support this document are in active collaboration with the oligarchs and others are simply naïve, the political effects are the same. Catholic Democrats are right in regarding seventy five percent of the bishops as Republican stooges.
As an ecclesial document, it is a total disaster. The whole process discredits the bishops. And not only because they can be perceived as Republican stooges. It presents American Catholicism as being essentially in disarray with the bishops at odds with one another, with Pope and with Catholics who are Democrats. In other words Catholicism is no better than our very divided society, rather than being a beacon of hope for healing. Moreover the bishops are doing exactly what Republicans have been doing in Congress, using all the parliamentary maneuvers that can in order to achieve a technical political victory rather than bring about consensus and church unity. What does it matter if they even get a final document with a seventy five percent majority if American Catholicism like our country continues in disarray.
My concern is less for the bishops than for Republican Catholics. We have already had a national political disaster with all the negative fallout of the Trump presidency which continues to threaten the future of our Nation. Now we are going down a similar path in our Church. In the name of the abortion issue Republican Catholics now seem willing to chance that this document like a few Supreme Count judges will be the magic turning point for Church as well as our Country. I just don’t see it happening. I see rather an American Church becoming just as fragmented and damaged as our country. And I ask myself why don’t Catholic Republicans understand the consequences of their support of Trump and the American Bishops?
Very on target comment.
DeleteMy personal opinion is that the document will not have as much effect as either its proponents wish or its detractors fear. It will just become a part of the ecclesio-political background noise.
ReplyDeleteThe bishops are worried that pro-choice Catholic politicians "confuse" the faithful. I don't think they are confused at all. I have said before that as far as I know, Biden hasn't denied any part of Catholic teaching, including the part that abortion is intrinsically wrong. It's a question of him being a leader of Americans of different religions, or no religion, as well as his own.
I came across a quote (by Mark Shea) that I thought was good: "It is useless to impose by law a moral code that comes from Christian discipleship if you do not first make disciples."
Agree - they are not confused; the President of the country may not impose his religious views on all because, as you say, he is the leader of all Americans, of many religious views and none; and, referring to Shea’s observation, it seems the churches are losing disciples by the thousands every year - at least partly because of the politicalization of religion - primarily conservative, Republican politics.
Delete"Catholic Democrats are right in regarding seventy five percent of the bishops as Republican stooges."
ReplyDeleteWith respect: I think we need to give the bishops as a whole more credit than this. I think many people, especially those who are liberal, are far too ready to simply this entire exercise as the merest cynical politics, devoid of genuine moral outrage. That's simply not the case.
I am surprised that folks have a blind spot about this, because they experience outrage themselves when Catholic bishops don't manage to do what is right. If we can imagine ourselves being outraged when a Catholic bishop fails to do enough to protect a minor from sexual abuse, then we should understand when other folks feel outraged when a Catholic bishop fails to do enough to protect an infant in the womb.
Re: confusion: many people are genuinely confused: confused why this anti-witness to the faith, which is what Catholic pro-choice advocacy amounts to, is allowed to proceed with no consequences.
I believe that the bishops have genuine moral outrage, and that for them this isn't an exercise in cynical politics. Or at least not solely an exercise in cynical politics.
DeleteAs for confusion, I don't think anyone is confused about what the Catholic church teaches on abortion. It still is not clear to me exactly what the bishops expect Biden to do, given that he is bound to respect the laws of the land, and that he is a leader of all Americans, about 80% of whom believe that abortion should remain legal in at least some circumstances.
"It still is not clear to me exactly what the bishops expect Biden to do"
DeleteAt a bare minimum and show of good faith, he could support retaining the Hyde Amendment, something he supported for many years when he was a senator.
Jim -
DeleteWould you support a Muslim president who attempted to incorporate sharia law into the laws of the nation because he was threatened by his Inman with the Muslim equivalent of excommunication?
In the case of the Hyde Amendment it isn't a comparable situation to incorporating sharia law because Hyde is already a pre-existing law, even though it is in a political proxy war with the Democrats and Republicans.
DeleteI believe Biden's original reason for dropping support of Hyde was to preserve the Affordable Care Act.
If that is what Biden said, I am not sure what he meant. The Affordable Care Act has coexisted with Hyde for over a decade.
DeleteFWIW, here is my understanding. I'd be happy to be corrected if any of this isn't right, as this is a pretty complex topic.
The Hyde Amendment is applicable only to certain fairly narrow parts of the federal budget. Among them is Medicaid: the Hyde Amendment prohibits federal funding for abortions under Medicaid.
Medicaid is jointly funded by federal and state governments. Thus, if I receive Medicaid-funded medical care (e.g. treatment for a broken arm), that treatment would jointly be funded by the federal government and the government of my state, Illinois.
Some states do permit their Medicaid plans to pay for abortions. But under the Hyde Amendment restrictions those states can't use the federal portion of their Medicaid funding to pay for abortions; the state government pays for 100% of the abortion costs.
Obamacare is a vast and complex piece of legislation. When it first took effect, most of the public's attention was on the "insurance marketplaces" where uninsured patients can purchase health insurance (much of it subsidized by the federal government) over the Internet. The Hyde Amendment doesn't apply to the Obamacare insurance marketplaces; as noted above, Hyde applies only to certain fairly narrow parts of the federal budget. But Obamacare includes "Hyde-like" language which does provide some restrictions on what abortion services the federal government will subsidize in the insurance marketplaces. As I understand it, repealing or not renewing the Hyde Amendment wouldn't have any effect on that language.
Obamacare also made Medicaid available to many more people than previously by raising the income eligibility ceiling, if states agree to accept Obamacare Medicaid funds. When Obamacare initially became law, many Republican-governed states made a great show of refusing the Obamacare additional Medicaid funding, but since that time, a number of them have capitulated.
As noted above, the Hyde Amendment *does* apply to Medicaid funding. So the additional federal funding for Medicaid under Obamacare greatly increased the overall Medicaid funding. But because the Hyde Amendment covers Medicaid funding, that additional federal Medicaid funding can't be used to pay for abortions. But - if the Hyde Amendment is repealed or not renewed, then the now-augmented federal funding of Medicaid could be used to fund abortions.
"Would you support a Muslim president who attempted to incorporate sharia law into the laws of the nation because he was threatened by his Inman with the Muslim equivalent of excommunication?"
DeleteAs I know almost nothing about Sharia law, I don't know whether I would support it or not. If the law in question is to reduce federal subsidies of abortion, I might support her!
Sharia law on abortion:
Deletehttps://muslimmatters.org/2019/05/21/what-does-sharia-really-say-about-abortion-in-islam/
There was a good article by Sam Sawyer, SJ. "Catholics are talking past one another in the Biden-Communion debates".
DeleteThe above article was on the America site.
DeleteJim - you miss the point. Deliberately I suspect. So I will change the question. Do you believe that whoever is president of the US - of any religion or none - should be able to impose his or her religious beliefs on the entire country after being threatened by whatever religious ( or anti-religious) authority of whatever religious/ secular/ atheist group they identify with?
DeleteIf you want an example of Sharia - here is one example - some sects of Islam punish adultery by stoning the convicted person to death. Adultery is a grave sin in Islam so would you support a president who advocates this punishment for adultery because the religious authorities are essentially blackmailing him or her into proposing legislation to enact this and other provisions of their religious law and moral understanding?
Anne, yes, I understood the point you were trying to make. Let me be more explicit:
DeleteIn electing members of Congress, we are authorizing them to make laws on our behalf. There are 535 members of Congress, and they have many different backgrounds and motivations. Some work from religious principles - and they come from a variety of religious backgrounds, including Islam. Some work from more humanistic motivations. Some may actually work from anti-religious motivations. And they may have a composite of different motivations - I am sure I would.
What holds for members of Congress, also holds for presidents. Because of the expanding executive branch and the growth of the regulatory state, presidents have broad de facto legislative responsibilities. For example: the Department of Health and Human Services had responsibility for devising regulations pursuant to Obamacare; all of the conflict between HHS and Hobby Lobby, Little Sisters of the Poor, et al have grown from that HHS quasi-legislative activity.
If a president or a member of Congress attempts to make a law based on Sharia law, I think we need to evaluate the contents of the law. I wouldn't say, "Sharia law = bad law". Nor would I say, "Sharia law = good law." I would have the same attitude about laws based on the Law of Moses, or based on Catholic Social Teaching. I think we need to examine a proposed law on its own merits, using whatever criteria strikes us as just and wise. I don't support stoning convicted criminals, full stop. I might support a restriction on abortion which is based in Sharia law - it depends on what the law says. The fact that it was rooted somehow in Sharia doesn't strike me as especially important. All laws are rooted in *something*.
Catholic Democrats are right in regarding seventy five percent of the bishops as Republican stooges."
ReplyDeleteWith respect: I think we need to give the bishops as a whole more credit than this.
Today is the feast of Bishop John Fisher and Thomas More, both of whom had their heads chopped off because they refused Henry VIII taking control of the Anglican Church. Fisher was the only bishop to oppose Henry. Any reading of the lives of saints you will find out that there was a lot of mediocrity and corruption going on in the church. There is no reason to think that there is a lot of saintly behavior going on among the bishops today.
There is a lot of evidence to conclude that all the corruption of the sexual abuse scandal was not atypical, e.g. there is a lot of financial corruption too it has just not been exposed except in some cases like that bishop in Wheeling or McCarrick. Francis just recently put in a rule for the Vatican that abolished bribes. Now the amount of gift you can give will not get the guy lunch at his favorite restaurant.
When I was part of Voice of the Faithful we met with a lawyer who had been employed by the diocese to pay hush money to victims of sexual abuse. As part of his job he regularly was the only layperson in meetings of the bishop with his top clerical assistants. He was shocked at how terribly they talked about laity, much worse he said than locker room talk about women or racists speaking about blacks.
So I have concluded that bishops are just politicians like civic politicians with all their faults, and we laity should be on the look out for the worse.
I like the attitude of one local woman who got a degree from the seminary. When the priest professor was going on about the Holy Thursday Chrism Mass with the bishop surrounded by all his priests and deacons being the image of the eternal banquet, she put up her hand and said "Excuse me, if that is what heaven is going to be like, I don't want to go."
"It still is not clear to me exactly what the bishops expect Biden to do"
ReplyDeleteAt a bare minimum and show of good faith, he could support retaining the Hyde Amendment, something he supported for many years when he was a senator.
I support the Hyde Amendment. I was glad that Biden once supported it. I thought it was a bad move when he ceased to support it. In fact I thought it would lose him the presidency because he would lose Catholic votes. That did not happen.
However I don't think that Catholic Republicans should be urging the Bishops to deny Communion to Biden because of that. I think they should be organizing support for the Hyde Amendment. I suspect there are a lot of Catholic Democrats that agree with it.
When we (either bishop or layperson) enters into the sphere of another person's relationship with God we are entering Holy Ground. We should take off our shoes and bow down before the mystery of a burning bush. Imposing our puny thoughts upon that mystery makes us liable to the sin of desecration. One of the early church fathers said that hell was littered with skulls of bishops.
It is very possible that Biden has backed off the Hyde Amendment because it only impacts the poor who rely on Medicaid. Others can afford pay for their abortions or have health insurance that covers.
ReplyDeleteBiden IS trying to enact legislation that will provide more economic security for families, especially for the poorest families. This will help to lower the abortion rate for poor women (2/3 of abortions are obtained by poor women, many of whom already have other children and can't afford one more).
While I understand why people don't want their tax money to be used to pay for abortion, we have to consider that we really don't have the right to pick and choose what programs our tax money goes to. If we could do that, I would not want my taxes to pay for executions (also against church teaching but totally ignored by the bishops who have said not a word about so-called "good" Catholic William Barr authorizing an execution spree during trump's last few months in office). I would also want to severely limit the amount of tax money being used to beef up the military budget in somewhat absurd ways- especially by funding big ticket items like ships and planes that are really intended to fight former threats, not the current ones. My husband worked on DoD contracts his entire career and says these items are pure military ego expenditures and not what is needed now.
Some do not want their tax money used to support the poor! Some who don't have children in the school system don't like paying taxes to support public schools (local property not federal tax, but the same idea). Pick and choose where individual tax money goes is not a viable policy.
"It is very possible that Biden has backed off the Hyde Amendment because it only impacts the poor who rely on Medicaid. Others can afford pay for their abortions or have health insurance that covers."
DeletePoor women already account for a disproportionate number of abortions. Apparently, the lack of federal Medicaid subsidies doesn't stop them from aborting.
Biden stopped supporting the Hyde Amendment because he wanted to be president; and he couldn't become president unless the Democratic Party nominated him; and he thought he couldn't win the nomination if he supported Hyde.
Now - to be sure, he may have followed that train of thought for noble motives: he may have thought, "In my heart of hearts, I still support the Hyde Amendment because I don't want the government to subsidize abortions. But - unless I am nominated as the Democrats' presidential candidate, Donald Trump will run against someone whom Trump stands a good chance of defeating in the general election. So for the sake of the country, I will reluctantly support the non-renewal of Hyde, if that helps get Trump out of the White House."
If Biden's thought process ran something like that, then that is something he could explain confidentially to his bishop. That presupposes trusting and candid dialogue - which is exactly what Francis has been calling for, via Cardinal Ladaria.
"If Biden's thought process ran something like that, then that is something he could explain confidentially to his bishop." Yes, Wilmington's bishop-elect Koenig has said he would be glad to talk with Biden privately. Hopefully he would realize that Biden falling on his sword politically wasn't in the best interests of the country.
DeleteSome states cover abortion under Medicaid. Some follow the federal guidelines.
DeleteAddressing the larger question - do you believe that we taxpayers should be allowed to pick and choose where our tax money goes? So my taxes would not go to defense? Yours would not go to abortion. Someone else might refuse to finance national highways etc?
Still unanswered - should presidents be allowed to try to impose their personal religious views on the entire countrY?
Is it moral for religious authorities to attempt to coerce a president to try to impose the views of the specific religious (or non- religious) group the president is affiliated with by issuing threats of being denied the rights and privileges of the group?
Anne - no, I don't think it would be workable to allow each taxpayer to pick and choose where our tax money goes. If we don't like where the tax money goes (or the borrowed money goes), our remedy is to elect representatives who will better represent our views and interests. That's part and parcel of being a member of a community: my community may not do everything exactly as I wish it would. At any rate, as one of a couple hundred million taxpayers, I feel my cooperation with government-instigated evils is pretty remote.
DeleteI answered your question about personal religious views, at some length. Please scroll up and see my comment posted at June 23, 2021 at 2:42 pm.
I don't know if it's moral for religious authorities to coerce a president as you describe. Whether the American bishops will attempt to do that is yet to be seen. Some bishops have issued pastoral letters recently on the topic of eucharistic discipline for pro-choice Catholic politicians. Here is Archbishop Cordileone's. Please note: there is no indication that the USCCB's document will bear any resemblance to this. Do you consider this coercive? https://sfarchdiocese.org/inthewomb#section_294797
Yeah, that seems coercive. It leaves no room for anyone who considers abortion intrinsically wrong, but believes it should be the woman who carries the burden who decides, and not politicians.
DeleteI don't dispute that abortion is an evil. But is it THE pre-eminent no-brainer evil that some make it to be? Elective abortion, nasty as it is, will not make the human race extinct. Global warming could. Nuclear war would. Destabilization caused by the first could lead to the second. The Trump-supercharged Republican Party was accelerating us on our path to self-destruction. I have no idea what goes on inside the head of someone who presents as a devout Catholic and is also, obvious from his background, an ambitious, opportunistic politician. Neither do the bishops. What the bishops are doing is prioritizing abortion over extinction level problems. Bad use of the power of the Church.
ReplyDelete