Scranton bishop threatens to deny sacrament to Casey

Republican Herald ^ | April 30, 2009 | BORYS KRAWCZENIUK

[NYer]

For the first time publicly, Diocese of Scranton Bishop Joseph F. Martino made it clear Wednesday that he might eventually bar U.S. Sen. Bob Casey from receiving communion if the senator doesn’t follow his advice on opposing abortion.

The bishop also said the senator should now think twice about receiving communion after voting Tuesday to confirm an abortion rights supporter, former Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, as Health and Human Services secretary.

“If necessary, future determinations will be made regarding whether Sen. Casey is worthy to receive Holy Communion,” a Diocese of Scranton statement on Casey’s vote said. “However, at this point Bishop Martino believes it is incumbent upon Sen. Casey to reflect on his actions and ask himself if he should receive the sacrament.”

The bishop said he plans to continue to monitor Casey’s positions and votes on “life issues.” He also believes he has “a pastoral responsibility to instruct the senator about these serious moral issues” because Casey is a member of the diocese.

In letters last month and earlier this week, the bishop warned Casey against voting for Sebelius.

As he has for months, Bishop Martino declined to make himself available to answer questions about his position.

“The bishop isn’t available for an interview,” diocesan spokesman Dan Gallagher said in an e-mail.

In a telephone interview, Casey, who opposes abortion, declined to comment directly on the bishop’s new warning, but defended his support of Sebelius.

“Although I disagree with her on some issues, including a number of the decisions she has made on abortion, I believe my vote in favor of her confirmation was correct,” he said in a statement.

Casey also said:

· Leaving the position vacant as the country faces a possible flu pandemic “would be highly irresponsible.”

· The country cannot afford a further delay in appointing the official who will lead the fight to make sure more than 40 million uninsured Americans have health insurance and to reform the nation’s health care system.

· Sebelius has executive experience both as a governor and Kansas insurance commissioner that will help her carry out her duties.

“While the Secretary of HHS will have a limited role in defining abortion policy, I look forward to working with the president to reduce the number of abortions through measures like my Pregnant Women’s Support Act legislation,” Casey said in the statement.

The diocesan statement questions whether Casey is as opposed to abortion as he says he is and accuses him of having an “inconsistent” voting record.

It praises Casey’s support for legislation to aid pregnant women and families, but says he voted:

· Against restricting the payment of American tax dollars to foreign family planning groups that refuse to renounce abortion. Casey says such groups are already forbidden from using American tax dollars for abortions and the new restriction is unnecessary.

· To confirm Harvard Law School Dean Elena Kagan as solicitor general, despite her support of partial-birth abortion and her opposition to withdrawing federal money from taxpayer-funded abortion clinics and funding for teen-pregnancy counseling by religious institutions.

· To confirm Sebelius, who vetoed laws to restrict late-term abortions, including one that would have allowed lawsuits against doctors who perform abortions illegally and required late-term abortion providers to give “a fuller account” of each abortion. Sebelius also took hundreds of thousands in contributions from “one of our nation’s most notorious abortionists.”

That’s “ample evidence for the anti-life evidence she will make in this key position,” the diocesan statement said.

[Kolokotronis]

“Does in not matter to you at all what those principles are?”

Sure, especially in comparison to a politician whose “principles” are venial, materialistic and self centered.

[ArrogantBustard]

It seems to me that you're willing to vote for politicians who espouse anti-Christian principles ... because at least they're principled.

But you would never vote for a "Latin Rite" politician who espouses explicitly Christian principles ... because a Bishop had the temerity to also espouse said principles.

If I didn't know any better, I'd think you were getting carried away with either "anti-Latinism" or "anticleiricalism". Your right, of course. It's still a more-or-less free country. But it seems bizarre to me.

[ArrogantBustard]

Party No. 1 nominates a committed stalinist.

Party No. 2 nominates a spineless, poll-driven moron.

Third parties offer no nomination.

How do you cast your vote?

[MEGoody]

I hear a lot of talk about this, but have never seen a published report where this has actually happened. Did I miss it, or is this all just a bunch of hot air?

[MEGoody]

How about eliminating her because she didn’t pay her taxes.

Indeed. Or because she lied about campaign contributions.

[arturo]

Key words: “might eventually.”

[MEGoody]

But if I lived in his diocese, I’d NEVER vote for any pol who qualifies as or hopes to qualify as a good Latin Rite Catholic.

Apparently, you don't realize that this isn't about YOU and who you would vote for. It's about this individual politician doing something that is in direct conflict with deeply held convictions of the Catholic Church, and the church taking action in relation to that.

You may not agree, and that's fine. Your "orthodox" church is a bit more "laizze faire" concerning pro-life issues, and that's up to them. (I use quotations on "orthodox" because it would seem to be completely unorthodox for a church to shrug its collective shoulders at the murder of innocents. But that's just my opinion.)

If you don't like what the "Latin Rite" church teaches, then I suggest you stay away from it. I'm quite sure they will be staying away from yours.

[Kolokotronis]

“How do you cast your vote?”

Write in.

[Kolokotronis]

“Apparently, you don’t realize that this isn’t about YOU and who you would vote for.”

No, when it comes to politicians being driven to vote the way his/her bishop wants under threat of what amouts to excommunication, it is very much my business and that of every other voter.

“If you don’t like what the “Latin Rite” church teaches, then I suggest you stay away from it. I’m quite sure they will be staying away from yours.”

Well, see, the overwhelming number of Orthodox laity, lower clergy and monastics, and, I suspect, hierarchs, want to stay very far away from the Latin Church. The Latin Church, however, seems determined to save itself from the consequences of its Vatican II folly by reuniting with us. I sincerely hope that Rome will decide that given our attitudes, it would be best for them to go it alone. :)

[ArrogantBustard]

Good. That's what I do.

Now ...

Party No. 1 nominates a committed Catholic.

Party No. 2 nominates a spineless, poll-driven moron.

Third parties offer no nominations.

How do you vote?

[onedoug]

Please wake us when this bishop actually stops Casey at the rail.

[utahagen]

Casey is worse than “pro-choice”: he's FAKE pro-life, so he gives cover to the Democrats and confuses sincere people about what opposition to abortion should look like.

[Kolokotronis]

” How do you vote? “

Where I live? All things being equal, the Catholic. In Scranton? Write in.

[xsmommy]

Personally, I would have a very hard time attending a church that was indifferent to the murder of innocents.

[ArrogantBustard]

Interesting ... So the real problem is that if a Bishop dares to "Bish" ... you'll oppose any members of 'his' Church who run for office.

Matthew 5:

13 You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt lose its savour, wherewith shall it be salted? It is good for nothing any more but to be cast out, and to be trodden on by men. 14 You are the light of the world. A city seated on a mountain cannot be hid. 15 Neither do men light a candle and put it under a bushel, but upon a candlestick, that it may shine to all that are in the house. 16 So let your light shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven.

I fail to understand why anyone who professes to be a Christian would want other Christians to "put [their candle] under a bushel". Yet this is precisely what you want Catholic Bishops to do.

[A.A. Cunningham]

The gum flapping of an ignorant schismatic is irrelevant.

[mick]

But if I lived in his diocese, I’d NEVER vote for any pol who qualifies as or hopes to qualify as a good Latin Rite Catholic.

FRiend, I'm not as learned a man as you. I do not have a Legal Degree. But it appears to me that your statement quoted above is tantamount to saying that you are in favor of a religious test to hold public office in the US. And while you did not explicitly advocate that for everyone, you certainly announced here that it was your criteria. And your other posts drive home the point that you do in fact have as your number one criteria the religious affiliation of the candidate. You have every right to your opinion.

But I believe the historical record shows that Our Founders considered that view anathema to a Republican form of government conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. And as such are entitled to be judged as individuals when seeking public office irrespective of their religious affiliations. If any criteria can be said to be Un-American it is yours ,Sir.

Be careful what you try to impose on others, lest it is imposed upon you.

[RobbyS]

You have got your facts wrong. First of all, our Church includes more than the “Latin rite.” Second, the “latin-rite” bishops have made common cause with politicians on a wide-range of issues since the New Deal. During the ‘80s, they reacted to the growing support for abortion rights among Democrats by giving cover to liberal Democrats such as Mario Cuomo by not condemning his “personally opposed, publicly pro-choice” speech at Notre Dame. Conservatives such as Cardinal O'Connor upbraided Ferraro for her pro-choiuce stand in 1984, and many other Catholics followed his lead by
voting for Reagan.

Two many “clerics,” however, had their roots in Democratic households, and so the bishops have been slow to make their opposition to Democratic social policies that have become more and more radically opposed to the teachings of the Church. This has led to the split in the Church that we see evident in the Notre Dame flap. The Democrats have made abortion rights and gay rights party shibboleths. Whatever you think of Martino he is simply telling us the way the cow ate the cabbage. If you don't like the way he is doing it, I suggest you look at the tact taken Archbishop Chaput, who as he has pointed out, grew up as a Democrat and shares many opinions with the Democrats but is telling his flock that the Democrats now support many policies that no one who calls himself a Catholic can consistently support.

[trisham]

I wonder how much longer Latin Rite Catholics will or should hold elective office in this country? Personally, I doubt I would vote for any pol who gets his/her voting instructions from a bishop or any other cleric or preacher for that matter. In fact, it probably would be a good idea from here on out to ask Latin Rite politicians if they intend to represent their bishops’ interpretation of Latin Church dogma or their constituents.

*****************

Casey cannot be compelled to do anything. If he wants to remain a Catholic in good standing, he must put into practice the teachings of the Church.

It's up to him.

[philly-d-kidder]

Amen