I Cogitate
| Recent Posts | My Best Blogs | Archives | Favorite Quotes | Links | Contact |
Moral Relativism and Pope Benedict XVI
For those, especially in the Catholic hierarchy and church, who self-righteously badger the Democratic Party and many of its politicians and supporters, with the charge of living large with moral relativism, well, please address the following.
I understand your fierce opposition to abortion. But, addressing Pope Benedict XVI in particular, your edict (as Cardinal Ratzinger) ordering the withholding of communion to Catholic politicians and any other of the faithful who do not stringently and unalterably oppose abortion, absolutely contains no ifs, ands or buts.
Here you are Pope Benedict XVI, as Cardinal Ratzinger, enforcing the edict:
Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion. General PrinciplesNow some will argue that you, Cardinal Ratzinger, employed inconsistency and relativism yourself in ranking abortion, noted as a 'grave' sin, over war as the sinful chart topper, despite the dramatically higher number of lives physically and psychologically lost and maimed in war versus abortion..
by Joseph Ratzinger
...2. The Church teaches that abortion or euthanasia is a grave sin. 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 propaganda campaign in favour of such a law or vote for it’” (no. 73). 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. Indeed, from the moral standpoint, it is never licit to cooperate formally in evil. [...] 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” (no. 74).
3. Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. 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...
5. Regarding the grave sin of abortion or euthanasia, 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, instructing him about the Church’s teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin, and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist.
6. When “these precautionary measures have not had their effect or in which they were not possible,” and the person in question, with obstinate persistence, still presents himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, “the minister of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute it” (cf. Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts Declaration “Holy Communion and Divorced, Civilly Remarried Catholics” [2002], nos. 3-4). This decision, properly speaking, is not a sanction or a penalty. Nor is the minister of Holy Communion passing judgement on the person’s subjective guilt, but rather is reacting to the person’s public unworthiness to receive Holy Communion due to an objective situation of sin...
So, one can surmise from the above that 'participating' in war definitely ranks below the 'grave' sin of abortion, despite any anti-war edict by the Holy Father. Why and how was this determined as God's law without running the risk of the 'stain' of relativism?
It's well known that Pope John Paul II opposed the invasion of Iraq.
Then how has it been determined that participating in or supporting such is a lesser sin, making the transgressor still worthy of communion privileges? I refer to what you wrote above: "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. Indeed, from the moral standpoint, it is never licit to cooperate formally in evil." Remember, Pope Paul II opposed the war.
This makes it appear that opposing the Pope (God's law) on some matters of life and death is acceptable. Abortion = no diversity, no formal cooperation with evil acceptable. War = diversity licit, formal cooperation with evil acceptable.
Abortion is a 'grave' sin, War a 'venial' one.
But for a sin to be 'grave' or 'mortal,' these conditions must exist:
1) It must be of a grave matter
2) It must be committed with the full knowledge it is a mortal sin
3) It must be committed with full consent, voluntarily.
Pope John Paul II opposed the Iraq invasion as contrary to God's law, defined above as a 'grave' sin. Those participating in such, without coercion, are therefore doing so with the awareness that such is a mortal sin. But as Cardinal Ratzinger, you wrote despite this formal cooperation with evil, they remain eligible for communion.
Pope Benedict XVI, you are straddling a withering tightrope that is drooping mightily.
Relatively speaking (pun intended), we can now greater appreciate and understand what Galileo Galilei endured when reality yet again collided with the Catholic Church.
top
RSS feed
| Recent Posts | My Best Blogs | Archives | Favorite Quotes | Links | Contact |