Tue Apr 19/05
In support of Paul Martin's excommunication

In an otherwise inconsequential Shotgun post, Commenter PatC points to a fascinating July 2004 memo by none other than your new Pope, Benedict XVI. It's not new material, of course, but if PB16 is as conservative as many seem to be hoping, his words could have serious ramifications for secular Canadian Catholics. To wit:

The Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae, with reference to judicial decisions or civil laws that authorise or promote abortion or euthanasia, states that there is a "grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection […] In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to 'take part in a propoganda (sic) campaign in favour of such a law or vote for it'." Christians have a "grave obligation of conscience not to cooperate formally in practices which, even if permitted by civil legislation, are contrary to God's law… This cooperation can never be justified either by invoking respect for the freedom of others or by appealing to the fact that civil law permits it or requires it."

Man, that's dense. To me it almost sounds deliberately vague, as if to allow for differential application of the principles in different parts of the world. Catholics can't have abortions — roger that — but how exactly does one go about "obeying" a law that allows abortion? If Canada had an abortion law I suppose I'd be "obeying" it right now, just sitting here, typing away. (No abortions here, officer — full compliance!)

So the question is: is "formal cooperation" with the practice of legal abortion a matter of having or performing an abortion, or simply of being in favour of abortion rights? The answer for politicians is very clear:

…when a person's formal cooperation becomes manifest (understood, in the case of a Catholic politician, as his consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws), his Pastor should meet with him… informing him that he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin…

For the voters, it's less clear. On the permissive side, there's this:

A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil… if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate's permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic… votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.

And on the not-so-permissive side, there's this:

There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.

Yet it's impossible to imagine Canadian Catholic churches agreeing to some sort of fundamentalist crackdown on their wayward flocks, and that's what bothers me so much: they publicly insist on doctrines and mandatory beliefs that they know perfectly well their first-world congregations do not, by and large, share… and then they try to influence Canadian politicians and Canadian society on moral principle! The morality of millions of Canadians is, and should be, a powerful social force, but I'm considerably less interested in the morality of a few dozen celibate men in robes putting funny words in the intelligent mouths of my Catholic friends and acquaintances.

They might at least throw us a bone: back all the sabre-rattling up just once and actually deny a prominent Catholic politician communion. No doubt it would lighten the local collection plate a little, but I'd suggest the current inhabitant of 24 Sussex Drive as a perfect candidate. The clergy can make its point and put the fear of God back in the urban laity, and then — poof! — soon enough he won't even be a prominent politician anymore.