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.

[netmilsmom]

>>I was goaded into a very bad reaction... <<

All of us have been there, my FRiend.

[papertyger]

...ask Latin Rite politicians if they intend to represent their bishops’ interpretation of Latin Church dogma or their constituents.

You have a problem with doing what is right as opposed to doing what is wrong?

[papertyger]

Political action is not what Orthodoxy is about, though some here in America would make it that way.

In America, politics is not an option by virture of the citizen's responsibility unlike other governments throughout human history. Withdrawing from the political discussion, Orthodox or otherwise, is tantamount to "burying the talent."

[Kolokotronis]

“You have a problem with doing what is right as opposed to doing what is wrong?”

Not at all; I have a problem with politicians who take their orders from hierarchs, clerics or preachers of any kind, especially if those orders are coupled with threats of excommunication. When those orders are given by, in general, truly incompetent theologians who have heretically raised a doctrine which only the Roman Church calls dogma to the most important religious consideration in the lives of its members, then I think its plainly time to vote for someone else.

Look, here and there one will find politicians who are pro-life honestly because they were properly catechised. In other words, they come by their pro-life convictions honestly. The pol I want gone is the person who will knuckle under to threats from some mitered egomaniac.

You know, if The Church did even a half way decent job of catechesis, this wouldn’t be a problem, at least for Roman Catholic pols. Even so, resistance to Roman hierarchs dictating American law will likely remain very, very strong.

[Kolokotronis]

“Withdrawing from the political discussion, Orthodox or otherwise, is tantamount to “burying the talent.”

I disagree. Hierarchs, monastics and lower clergy can always withdraw from the discussion to the extent that their continued involvement causes increasing secularization of the Church. For lay people, on the other hand, it seems to me preferable that their votes and actions be informed by their religious beliefs, though of course that could lead, since the massive influx of Mohammedans into this country over the past 10 years or so, many of them with the active assistance and financial support of the USCCB, to the sort of “religiously informed voting” few if any of us here on FR would like to see. Mark my words, within a few years, Mohammedans will be dominating the vote in some areas of this country, though from the pov of the right wing of the Latin Church, that might be good since on a number of social issues, Mohammedanism and Roman Catholicism have common agendas, as bishops in Mohammedan infested areas of this country seem compelled to remind us.

[papertyger]

Not at all; I have a problem with politicians who take their orders from hierarchs, clerics or preachers of any kind, especially if those orders are coupled with threats of excommunication.

Should your concern not be for the quality of the decision rather than how said politician came to it?

If not, why?

When those orders are given by, in general, truly incompetent theologians who have heretically raised a doctrine which only the Roman Church calls dogma to the most important religious consideration in the lives of its members...

Orders such as...?

What is this "most important consideration" to which you refer?

Even so, resistance to Roman hierarchs dictating American law will likely remain very, very strong.

As will the "commitment to sex education."

[nmh]

It won’t matter.

Look at Pelosi.

I can’t tell you how many friends of ours that are Catholic VOTED FOR THIS FREAK. They are good people. They lead a moral life and they voted for Obama. They got caught up in the skin color issue and socialism.