RSS
Monsignor Laughlin confuses the moral for the political
Yesterday, the Diocese of Charleston, South Carolina, issued a repudiation of Father Newman’s statements regarding the culpability of voters who cooperate in furthering the ongoing holocaust of innocent babies. The full statement, delivered by Monsignor Martin T. Laughlin reads as follows:
CHARLESTON, S.C. (November 14, 2008) – This past week, the Catholic Church’s clear, moral teaching on the evil of abortion has been pulled into the partisan political arena. The recent comments of Father Jay Scott Newman, pastor of St. Mary’s Catholic Church in Greenville, S.C., have diverted the focus from the Church’s clear position against abortion. As Administrator of the Diocese of Charleston, let me state with clarity that Father Newman’s statements do not adequately reflect the Catholic Church’s teachings. Any comments or statements to the contrary are repudiated.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church states, “Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions.” The Catechism goes on to state: “In the formation of conscience the Word of God is the light for our path; we must assimilate it in faith and prayer and put it into practice. We must also examine our conscience before the Lord’s Cross. We are assisted by the gifts of the Holy Spirit, aided by the witness or advice of others and guided by the authoritative teaching of the Church.”
Christ gives us freedom to explore our own conscience and to make our own decisions while adhering to the law of God and the teachings of the faith. Therefore, if a person has formed his or her conscience well, he or she should not be denied Communion, nor be told to go to confession before receiving Communion.
The pulpit is reserved for the Word of God. Sometimes God’s truth, as is the Church’s teaching on abortion, is unpopular. All Catholics must be aware of and follow the teachings of the Church.
We should all come together to support the President-elect and all elected officials with a view to influencing policy in favor of the protection of the unborn child. Let us pray for them and ask God to guide them as they take the mantle of leadership on January 20, 2009.
I ask also for your continued prayers for me and for the Diocese of Charleston.
Unfortunately, Monsignor Laughlin’s repudiation confuses a moral issue for a political one. Abortion is not a political issue. It is a moral issue, which has been politicized because of the nature of our country and government. Throughout history, God has used worldly governments to rule over his people. Figures such as Pharoah, Moses, Nebuchadnezzar, Xerxes, Cyrus, and Caesar have been used by God to either chastise or deliver His people.
The United States is unique in history because of the phrase “We, the People.” Abraham Lincoln referred to the United States as a “government of the people, for the people, by the people.” In this sense, we are the authority which God has set over us. As such, we are culpable for our actions as rulers of God’s people. To that end, every time we resort to the polling place, each of us is engaged in a moral act which has ramifications for our salvation.
During the latest election, we were given the choice between two men whose views were remarkably similar. More than one person argued with me that there was not a hair’s breadth worth of difference between the two candidates. In many ways, they were correct. The difference between the candidates was mostly in degree, but not in intent. Universal health care? One proposed to socialize medicine, while the other provided health care through the tax code. Immigration? I’m not really sure that there was any difference, frankly. The economy? The candidates disagreed only to the extent that the government should nationalize industry. Social Security? Was there a difference? The environment? One wanted massive tax increases through the imposition of cap and trade. The other wanted massive tax increases through cap and trade. Indeed, the only real difference was on the issue of abortion. I argued that this was the determinative factor and the reason conservatives should swallow their pride and vote for McCain – because there was a chance that McCain would nominate justices who would overturn Roe v. Wade, whereas his opponent would expand the destruction of innocent life.
Viewed in this light, each voter’s prudential decision to which Monsignor Laughlin refers was between a candidate who supports the destruction of innocent life whenever convenient and one who does not. The other issues – the ones which the Monsignor implies a person might have been justified in basing his decision – were more or less the same except in their degree. Given that choice, it is clear that Father Newman’s original statement was more in keeping with the Church’s teachings.
Even if there were social justice issues that a Catholic could look to and find Obama preferable, I am at a loss to find even one that trumps the wholesale murder of millions of innocent babies. Welfare? Jobs? Education? Health care? None of them do a person any good if he is killed in the womb. Life is more important than any other social justice issue, because without the basic right to be born, there is no justice.
In that sense, the elimination of abortion is the predicate to all social justice. There is not a larger moral issue than our complicity in the killing of millions of babies. So long as we continue to engage in this barbarity, we can scarcely call ourselves a moral nation. No matter the level of congeniality we achieve racially, socio-economically, ethnically, or between the sexes, we will still merit damnation as a nation while we are killing our babies. Furthermore, Monsignor Laughlin’s comments about the well formed conscience beg the question. Can a person with a well-formed conscience vote for a candidate who will expand abortion? Because abortion is, above all else, a moral issue, the Church is singularly competent to address it. They should be forceful in their condemnation of the act. Attaching repercussions to one’s status within the community of the Church for material support of this evil is appropriate. The Diocese of Charleston should reconsider its position.
UPDATE: While Fr. Newman has taken the original letter off the parish website, as we know nothing ever truly is deleted on the Internet. Here is the cached Google page containing the original letter.
