Integrity and the Political Arena
The Most Reverend Lawrence E. Brandt, JCD, PhD
Bishop of Greensburg
Dear Brother Priests and Deacons,
Dear Sisters and Brothers in Faith,
This pastoral letter is being addressed to you in an effort to clarify the
Catholic Church's teaching as it relates to certain issues which have emerged as
a result of this year's election campaigns. It analyzes these issues from a
faith perspective. By way of conclusion, I have focused upon some practical
measures which result from this analysis, and which are considered pastorally
appropriate. I commend this statement to your careful consideration.
Religious Values and Societal Values
In the formulation of its laws and public policy, a society reflects the
values by which it chooses to live. Moral values have their ethical moorings in
religious faith. The Ten Commandments provide examples of such values. The
Commandment "Thou shall not bear false witness against thy neighbor" is not only
the religious basis for demanding that individuals be honest and be truthful,
but it is also the moral basis for making perjury a crime in civil society. The
Commandment "Thou shall not kill" not only expresses the religious basis for
demanding from each individual a respect for the sacredness of human life and
that one not kill unjustly, but it is also the moral basis for making murder a
crime in civil society. These moral demands, as also the others made by the rest
of the Ten Commandments, are directly related to God through the Commandments.
Conscience is simply a moral circuitry stamped on the soul of each one of us
by God. We are wired for God. This circuitry, properly formed in the truth,
enables us to relate such religious and moral values correctly to real-life
situations. We do this as religious persons both in our private and personal
lives, and also as citizens of civil society in our public lives. Some claim
that these two dimensions of our moral lives – the public and the religious –
can be separated into two distinct spheres which must be kept unrelated.
However, when such a separation happens, it leads to a moral schizophrenia which
produces dysfunctional citizens and spiritually flawed individuals. "Public" on
the one hand and "religious" on the other must go together. One without the
other means dishonesty. Such a separation means a lack of integrity: not being
whole as a person.
The Church and Society's Values
Religiously grounded moral values lie at the heart of the way we lead our
lives as religious individuals and also as citizens in a civil society. The
Church has always had not just the right, but also the duty, of teaching about
these values and showing how they apply to our lives as people of faith and as
citizens of our country.
The Catholic Church has always been a partner in helping to define how the
moral environment should look, in which we live as people of faith and
responsible citizens. For that reason, the Church has likewise always been
legitimately interested in what moral values are reflected in the laws and
public policies which are part of this moral landscape. This moral landscape, at
the present time, is in need of some critical examination for the good of our
country and for the good of the Catholic community in the Diocese of Greensburg.
Religious Issues and Election Controversies
It has not been the policy of my predecessors nor is it my own now, as the
present Bishop of Greensburg, to endorse or oppose individual political
candidates for public elective office. It has likewise not been the policy of
the newspaper of the Catholic Diocese of Greensburg, The Catholic Accent, to
endorse or oppose individual political candidates for public elective office.
However, this in no way limits nor abrogates the right and duty of Catholic
bishops to speak out on issues in public life and activity, on the local, state
or national levels, which touch upon matters of religious faith and moral
values. We hold the values to be discussed here essential for the common good
and for the right ordering of society itself.
The Catholic Church's Teaching on Abortion
The attention being given to this year's election campaigns has brought to
the fore in sharper relief than ever the assertions of some aspirants for public
office and of some elected officials, who claim that one can advocate for
abortion and vote for legislation in support of abortion and still be a Catholic
in good standing.
The position of the Catholic Church on procured abortion was just as clear
and consistent in its earliest days as it is now. The oldest catechism of the
Church, the Didache, written about 90 A.D., declares: "You shall not kill the
embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish." The Second
Vatican Council and the most recent Catechism of the Catholic Church restate the
same teaching. Throughout 2,000 years, the Catholic Church has taught
consistently that abortion is a crime against our own humanity, as well as a
grave moral disorder. This teaching on the sanctity of life concerns one of the
moral values most fundamental to human society and to the Church itself: the
sacred value of human life. Because abortion is about human life itself, it has
priority of place among all the issues related to life. This doctrinal holding
then is an essential part of the communion of faith and the covenant of values
which identify a person as a Catholic.
In 1995, Pope John Paul II, in his Encyclical "The Gospel of Life,"
reaffirmed the constant teaching of the Church and reiterated that those who are
directly involved in lawmaking bodies have a grave and clear obligation to
oppose any law that attacks human life. For these individuals, it is impossible
to promote such a law or to vote for it. The subsequent document of the Vatican
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, "Doctrinal Note on Some Questions
Regarding the Participation of Catholics in Political Life," repeats this
teaching. It highlights the fact that teachers of faith (bishops, priests, and
deacons) must instruct Catholics that abortion is a gravely evil action. This
document reaffirms also that voting for legislation that permits or enables
abortion is gravely wrong. It furthermore reaffirms that any attack on human
life, which is based on abortion (e.g. fetal stem cell research), is likewise
gravely wrong. If abortion is an intrinsically grave evil action, then
legislative support of it is also gravely wrong. This kind of legislative
support is then cooperation in a grave moral evil.
There is something further evident from the Church's teaching on this issue.
It is that the Catholic Church alone determines what it means to be Catholic,
what the Church's core doctrinal holdings are, and what is required to be a
Catholic in good standing. No institution of higher education, no political
party, no board of trustees, no think tank, no group of theologians, no
newspaper, no individual, no one – no matter how well intentioned – does this
except the Catholic Church itself through its official teaching authority (the
magisterium).
In the last two documents just cited, it is clear that the teaching function
of the bishops, priests, and deacons concerning the moral dimensions of abortion
and its culture of death is absolutely crucial. Catholic public officials whose
values on life issues are not consonant with the teachings of the Church should
be invited by bishops and pastors to meet with them. These meetings should be
held to clarify for these public officials any misunderstandings they may have
regarding the teachings of the Church or to answer any questions or difficulties
they present. On our part, we bishops, priests, and deacons have to ask
ourselves also whether we have spoken enough about these teachings of the Church
from the pulpit or in other available forums.
I am willing personally to meet with any Catholic candidate or Catholic
elected official from the Diocese of Greensburg to discuss such pastoral
matters. We welcome more effective dialogue and engagement with all public
officials in conversations initiated also by political leaders themselves.
In view of the well-articulated, well-publicized, and consistent position of
the Catholic Church on abortion for 2,000 years, and on the basis of dialogues
which may have taken place concerning public officials' advocating questionable
positions from the point of view of Church teaching, it is difficult to imagine
that Catholic public officials or aspirants for public office could be ignorant
of the fact that voting in favor of abortion legislation is gravely wrong and is
a rejection of a core doctrinal holding of the Catholic Church concerning the
sanctity of human life from the moment of fertilization.
Governmental Support of Abortion
An established pattern of voting in favor of abortion legislation and an
established pattern of public rejection of a core teaching of the Church amount
to being a person who is engaged in public cooperation with a grave moral evil.
It means, furthermore, also having separated oneself in a fundamental way from
the Catholic Church because one is no longer sharing the covenant of core
beliefs and values which identify a person as Catholic.
Any public official who says, "I can vote for abortion and still be a
Catholic in good standing," is being intellectually condescending to every
Catholic by making himself or herself the sole judge of what "Catholic" means.
For a public official or a person campaigning for public office to say, "I can
be in favor of abortion and still be a good Catholic," is asking us to believe
that his or her position is just as valid as the position of the Catholic
Church, which is diametrically opposed to it. This must be viewed as
intellectual sleight of hand! This is also demeaning to the intelligence of any
informed Catholic. When such candidates or public officials renew publicly and
in church, during the Easter season, their baptismal vows, by affirming that
they "believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy Catholic Church …," then such a
declaration, in the minds of very many, is bearing false witness to the Catholic
faith.
It is not honest for such politically-involved individuals to say that they
are a Catholic and then act in a way completely incongruous with that faith by
helping to legislate abortion's acceptance or continuation. It represents a lack
of integrity for a public official to expect others to accept the premise: "What
I do publicly contradicts who I say I am religiously, but that doesn't make any
difference." This is tantamount to asking citizens to accept a lack of personal
integrity as a qualification for public office.
Integrity means acting in a manner which is faithful to one's moral
convictions. Moral convictions have no other meaning than to be translated into
good action choices and behavior patterns. If they aren't that, convictions
aren't even worthy of mention. When convictions are mentioned without the
required personal integrity to back them up, then it must be concluded that
convictions are mentioned only because they are self-serving. This reasoning,
"What I do contradicts who I say I am, but that doesn't make any difference,"
becomes all the more menacing when one reflects on the fact that some of these
"so-called" Catholic officials help keep pro-life individuals from becoming
federal judges and justices on the Supreme Court of the United States.
Public Support of Abortion and Holy Communion
A public pattern of cooperation in a grave evil, which affects the lives of
millions of people, and a public pattern of rejection of a core doctrinal
holding of the Catholic Church, have a direct bearing on one's proper
dispositions for receiving Holy Communion. A pattern of public cooperation in
grave evil inevitably calls into extreme question one's worthiness to receive
Holy Communion. To do so nonetheless, as Saint Paul says, profanes the Body and
Blood of Christ (1 Cor. 11:27). A pattern of public rejection of a core
doctrinal holding of the Catholic Church separates one in a fundamental way from
the communion of faith which is the Catholic Church. What sense then does
receiving the effective sign of that oneness in a communion of faith, which is
the Eucharist, have in such a situation? None, because it is a contradiction in
terms. The Eucharist is aptly called Holy Communion because, of its nature, it
reflects a communion or unity of belief on the part of those receiving it. Here
the words of the second-century martyr Saint Justin are appropriate: "No one may
share the Eucharist with us unless he believes what we teach is true, unless he
is washed in the regenerating waters of baptism for the remission of his sins,
and unless he lives in accordance with the principles given us by Christ." The
reception of the Eucharist by those who enable grave evil and publicly support
it is offensive to every committed Catholic in the Church because such
individuals have proven that they have repudiated what we are because of what
they do. To receive Holy Communion under these circumstances is not only
offensive to committed Catholics, but it is also offensive to pro-life Catholic
public officials who often risk their public careers to fight for the pro-life
cause. It is also offensive to those Catholic public officials who voluntarily
refrain from receiving the Eucharist because of their recognition of their
compromised status.
Should such a public official, as we have been talking about, be denied Holy
Communion? The document "Catholics in Political Life" published by the United
States Bishops on July 7, 2004, indicates that each bishop can make prudential
judgments regarding this question in accord with established canonical and
pastoral principles and with what is deemed to be pastorally appropriate.
I think the decision about the reception of Holy Communion should be put
where it belongs – on the person contemplating receiving Holy Communion. It
should not be imposed on the bishop, on the priest, on the deacon, nor on the
Eucharistic minister. That is "passing the buck!" It should be placed exactly
where it belongs, which is on the conscience of the individual contemplating
receiving communion. Such public officials who have notoriously cooperated in
enabling a grave moral evil to become a fixture of our ethical environment,
should, of their own accord, refrain from presenting themselves to receive Holy
Communion. If they nonetheless do receive Holy Communion, they should be
challenged to take ownership of the consequences of a lack of integrity by
publicly acknowledging that what they do contradicts who they say they are. In
acknowledging this, they should also take into account the sensitivities of
ministers of Holy Communion who resent the perception that they are being used
for political purposes. Furthermore, in receiving Holy Communion under these
circumstances without the proper dispositions, these public officials create
also the perception that they are opportunists who are willing to try to barter
even their religion for political power. Should an individual who demonstrates
that his religious core and personal convictions play so paltry a role in what
he does, be a person entrusted with power over others?
I think the moral responsibility for the decision to receive Holy Communion
should be put where it belongs, so that it is the potential recipient who bears
the full weight of the consequences of his action before God, the Catholic
Church and "society itself." I say society itself because this is not just a
Catholic problem about Holy Communion. It is a problem with much deeper and
wider implications. It is a cause of very serious concern for all the citizenry
about a matter of integrity. It is a very serious concern about placing public
trust in a person who has demonstrated public misrepresentation. Any individual
who says he can advocate for and enable the practice of abortion and claims that
he can still be a Catholic in good standing, has a very serious problem with
integrity which any community can ignore only at its own peril.
Consequences for the Catholic Community
In view of the seriousness of this situation, as well as the false witness
and the misunderstanding it can cause, it is pastorally appropriate that the
Catholic community, its organizations, and institutions should not honor those
who act in defiance of the fundamental tenets of our faith and the moral
requirements which follow from them by giving such public officials or
candidates for office any awards or honors or platforms, which might be
interpreted as support for their positions or actions. It must be borne in mind
that the polarizing tendencies of election year politics can lead to
circumstances in which Catholic teaching and sacramental practice can be misused
for political purposes.
Furthermore, as with the reception of Holy Communion, such public officials
should voluntarily refrain from presenting themselves as candidates for the
positions of lector, extraordinary minister of Holy Communion or other public
functions in the life of the Church, including being a godparent at baptism or a
sponsor at confirmation. All of these roles require that a person live a life of
faith in conformity with the teachings of the Catholic Church.
Conclusion
We are privileged to live in a country where we have the freedom and the
right to vote and to participate in public life. In voting, we demonstrate our
gratitude for this freedom. We may certainly also use this right to bring our
faith perspective, as outlined above, to evaluate the integrity of the
candidates and the validity of the positions they advance or support. In voting
from a faith perspective then, we use our right to help renew the moral
landscape in which we must make our home.
Given at the Chancery
August 10, 2004
