SENATOR KERRY'S CHOICE

THE BISHOPS KNOW THEIR DOCTRINE; KERRY KNOWS ONLY HIS PRO-CHOICE BENEFACTORS

By
Kerry Jacoby

It is time for Senator Kerry to examine his conscience and decide what he truly is.

And it is not only Senator Kerry who must make this choice, but Senator Kennedy, Senator Feinstein, Mario Cuomo, and all those who stand on the razor-thin ledge called "personally pro-life, but--." By this they generally mean that they are, in fact, Catholic in heritage, but because they are (usually) Democrats they feel obliged to pay homage to their pro-choice masters. Although politicians and professional observers of the political scene are howling at the very idea, the Vatican has made it crystal clear--though not in so many words--that one cannot, technically, be both pro-choice and a good Catholic. It therefore follows that politicians attempting to present themselves as such ought to refrain from receiving communion, and priests ought to refrain from giving it to them.

What? How can this be? Do we not have separation of church and state? How dare the religious authorities even whisper advice to politicians about how they ought to vote? Isn't there something downright communistic about the very notion of such a thing?

In a word, no.

The Church isn't telling John Kerry or anyone else what he should think or how he should vote. There's no "threat" involved here, despite pro-abortion politicians' best efforts to paint this move as some form of mystical blackmail. In fact, it's very odd to think that such clear-headed and otherwise secularly-oriented politicians as these would be the least bit bothered by the inability to receive communion. After all, they seem undisturbed by the cognitive dissonance of being pro-choice and Catholic or pro-gay and Catholic. They pay no heed to the official teachings of the Church on any other matter or at any other time. Indeed, not long ago on the Floor of the Senate, Mrs. Feinstein waxed philosophical with the very un-Catholic position that perhaps one was not really a baby until one came home from the hospital!

What the no-communion-for-pro-choice-politicians rule is doing is protecting the souls of those politicians. They may not believe it, but for once "it's for your own good" really applies. The Bible admonishes us to examine ourselves before taking the Body and Blood of the Lord, lest we eat and drink condemnation upon ourselves. It is the responsibility of those who administer communion to remind us of this, and the responsibility of the shepherds of our souls to see to it that we are in alignment with the will of God.

In the worldview of Catholicism, to take communion while in flagrant sin (as those who advocate the abomination of abortion are) is to compound a mortal sin with a sin against the Body and Blood of Christ. Redemption becomes that much more difficult, for one's initial sin is intensified. Even for Protestants, taking communion in unrepentant sin varies from a risky proposition to a forbidden act. Given the Scripture, it is hard to imagine a Christian position that would encourage its members to take communion while in unrepentant sin.
Those who object to the bishops' position misunderstand the direction of the directive. It does not dictate how the politician must vote or what stance he or she must take on the tricky question of abortion. It only clarifies the consequences of that choice for those who would be Catholic. Advocating the murder of children in the womb is simply something that disqualifies one from being a good Catholic. Some folks think that's unfair. But nobody ever said that religions and religious organizations had to be fair, within the bounds of their own structures. Indeed, to do such a thing would itself violate the First Amendment right of free exercise of religion.

Religions have rules. Mormons can't smoke or drink. Neither can Pentecostals. Most Christians are circumscribed in their behavior by the restrictions of their doctrine. Majorities of Protestant groups forbid adultery, fornication, and homosexuality; others add restrictions of dress. Catholicism, as it happens, has a thing about abortion. In some cases, violating these rules renders one ineligible for membership, though usually still welcome in fellowship. And the benefits and obligations of membership vary, as well.

Kerry is welcome to be pro-choice, if that is where his conscience leads him. But if he chooses to elevate his own wisdom over the two-thousand year consistent teaching of the church, he has chosen a religion that is not Catholic, and a Lord that is not the Christ of Catholicism. At that point, his membership is void, and he is barred from the privileges thereof, one of which is taking communion.
The problem lies in the transparently false Catholicism practiced by politicians whose only interest in religion is in the photo opportunities it provides for them so they can appeal to people in the "red" states, where folks are largely pro-life. Truly they must hold a low opinion of such benighted souls, for their pretense is entirely superficial--they call themselves "Catholic," yet agree with the church on fewer issues than they do with President Bush. They are not "personally pro-life," unless by that they mean that they personally would find it distasteful to crush the skull of a baby in the birth canal in order to administer a partial-birth abortion. They are, in fact, personally pro-choice, and they are publicly Catholic only in the sense that they want to go to Mass and take communion, because to publicly NOT do so would be to admit to themselves and others what they in fact are: apostates.

This may seem a harsh, even medieval, word, but it is backed up by the catechism of the Catholic church, which assigns to abortion a special category of sin. To commit or participate in an abortion is an excommunicating act, one by which the perpetrator is separated from the church and from God in the spiritual realm, regardless of what any earthly authority says about it. In other words, the minute the act is committed, one is no longer a Catholic and is forbidden to receive communion.

While Kerry and his ilk do not actually participate in abortions, the Church has recently clarified the position on those who advocate abortion and concludes that they are guilty of the same sin as those who commit the act. Therefore, pro-choice politicians are not only guilty of a mortal sin against the body and blood of Christ, but they are also no longer Catholic the minute the words drift from their lips.

Now, of course, since we have freedom of speech, Kerry can call himself a Catholic, if he wishes. He can also call himself a Klingon, a race car driver, or a bowl of porridge. But there are certain rules by which those things are defined, and since he does not conform to any of them, he cannot be any of them. In other words, he can call himself anything he chooses (pun intended), but saying something doesn’t make it true.

So now it is time for politicians claiming to be pro-choice and Catholic to decide. Whose side are they on? What do they desire more? To be on the right side of God? Or to be on the right side of NOW?

God and Mammon await their decision.