48 Democrats sent a letter to Uncle Ted, er, His Emminence Cardinal McCarrick, imploring him to "go-easy" on pro-abort politicians. Rep. Peter T. King, New York Republican, responds, "Anyone who knows anything about Catholic theology knows you cannot equate abortion with the war in Iraq," he said. "Abortion is always intrinsically evil but, as for war in Iraq, that involves prudential judgment. You have the moral right to make a decision on what is the best policy to follow."
The operative words in Rep. King's response are "anyone" and "anything." Too few of the faithful know the faith. Young and old treat Catholic teaching like social studies. To say that abortion is always intrinsically evil is not expressing another worldview, it is true. Anyone who knows what the word "intrinsic" means would understand that.
It's worth pointing out that Rep. King is a solid pro-lifer:
http://www.wevoteprolife.com/newyork.htm
He's correct that you can't always neatly divide legislation into pro-life and pro-abortion categories. For instance, the bishops, National Right to Life, and other pro-life groups fought welfare reform in 1996, saying that if we limited welfare, the abortion rate would increase. The opposite has happened: the abortion rate has continued to drop slowly since then.
That being said, King should not have signed that letter. He was in bad company.
I don't believe King signed the letter. Solely Democratic signators, I believe.
As a non-Catholic Christian and a conservative Republican, I in no way see some evil papist conspiracy or anything of the sort in the Catholic Church getting serious about its doctrines, particularly in relation to its most public of parishioners, Catholic politicians. It's an issue of church discipline, and for Protestant sola scriptura enthusiasts (or quasi-enthusiasts) there's good grounding for that in Scripture alone, aside from ecclesiastic history and tradition. Simply put, pastors and teachers face a greater judgment and must be quick to protect the flock from heresy.
This letter is complete bunk, and its signators know it. There's no chance of widespread anti-Catholic hysteria gripping the public as it did in the 1800's and early 1900's. It's a moronic argument that bubbles forth from the depraved minds of guys like Paul Begala, who still go ballistic to this day over George W. Bush's supposed closet anti-Catholicism by virtue of his speech to Bob Jones University in 2000.
Ken is correct. The 48 Democrats wrote a letter asking the bishops not to deny them Communion because of their votes for legal abortion. Rep. King wrote a response rebuking them for their faulty thinking. Abortion is an intrinsic evil, as Sal notes, always and everywhere wrong. The death penalty and war are not. There is no equivalence whatever between abortion and the latter two.
And since the Pope did not issue any official magisterial condemnation of the Iraq War, only expressed personal opposition, support for the Iraq war in no way represents defiance of Church authority.
The Dems' letter is classic liberal passive-aggressive manipulation. "You shouldn't do something we don't like because some people might not like us because of it." Which, as Ken noted, isn't going to happen. And the Dems' letter also contradicts Church teaching on the duty of Catholic elected officials to uphold the natural moral law.
Will we see any of these Congresspersons' bishops correcting them on this matter?
I'm sorry. I misunderstood the issue at hand. King is a good guy, except for his apologizing for the IRA, whose members should be rounded up and shot.
Yet the vast majority of the bishops are still hiding behind the "Seamless Garment" approach. This makes me ache inside, because I was one of the originators of this--- founder of the Seamless Garment Network back in the late l970's--- and the intent was the exact polar opposite: we were trying to apply "do not kill the innocent" (you know, the intrinsic evil thing)across a spectrum of left-right issues: strategic nuclear bombs, abortions, infanticide/euthanasia, death penalty applied to mentally ill or retarded criminals, etc.
The explicit intent was: you intentionally violate any one of these, you're guilty of murder.
Not "Good on three, bad on two? You're all right, Jack." No.
Seamless.
Sigh.
Anyhow, this question for the torn-up stitched-sideways Seamless Garment bishops (like, say, dear Tom Gumbleton?):
IF SOME POLITICIAN favored a law which authorized the beheading and dismemberment of a very moderate number of Catholic bishops ~ annually ~
would the bishops say "...but where does he stand on the environment"?"