America Loves Freedom - But What Is Freedom?

Your Email:

Your Name:

To:

Subject:

Message:
BY Edward Pentin Cardinal Francis George was in Rome for Pentecost. The archbishop of Chicago told Pope John Paul II on his ad limina visit that the Church in the United States now is in “great danger,” both from government interference and factions within the Church. He spoke to Register correspondent Edward Pentin on May 29. Cardinal George said the Church must embrace the healing of the Eucharist and addressed the Communion-for-politicians controversy. What is it like making an ad limina visit? Every five years bishops come in pilgrimage to the tomb of Peter and Paul and talk to Peter's successor and those who help him. So we prepare for that spiritually. But the business part of it is prepared by a rather lengthy report — lengthy for Chicago because there's a lot of activity. They bring up points from the report that they want to clarify or talk about. You can bring up any topic you like. Naturally, with the Holy Father himself you wait to see if he has any topics. You say a few words — he's a good listener so he listens more than he talks, as he always has done. He seemed aware; he has a synthesis of your report in front of him, he knows what you've written. What topics did the Pope ask about? He was personally interested this time in family life — he asked a lot of questions about that, and that's something that's always been close to him because of his early ministry in Poland when he was friends with couples when they got married and began their family. It's what informs his teaching on human sexuality and the theology of the body. But he asks about how family life and society go because the family is the first church for many people and where they learn faith. If the family's not stable we have real problems, and that's what's happening. I told him 50% of marriages in the United States break up, and he was pretty preoccupied with that. He also asked the secondary questions about vocations to the priesthood and to consecrated life. We could tell him contemplative vocations are fine; active apostolic religious life is suffering from a dearth of vocations. Chicago is doing very well for priests. It's not a flourishing of vocations but it's enough, and he was interested in all that. He's a very present man when you talk to him, he's present to you even in his weakened condition, and he is weak. Nonetheless he's present, he's thinking, he's reflecting, and occasionally he'll say something but usually he lets you talk. Where do you stand on the issue of pro-abortion politicians receiving Communion? For many years we were told, “The big problem with you bishops is that you can't get your act together and something that is national should have a common policy.” Well, we have a group working on a common policy, and I will discuss that with the other bishops and come up with a common policy. I hope in June; if we can't do that, then again it will be everyone for himself. That's not helpful in keeping the Church united. What's clear about the scandal — and it is a scandal of politicians — not one of them has said, “I don't accept what the Church teaches on the morality of abortion,” but they say it is their personal faith, and so say they're faithful Catholics, they're not rejecting Church teaching, but then they ignore Evangelium Vitae's [the 1995 encyclical The Gospel of Life] injunction that a Catholic politician, of course, accepts the law as it is but then works to change it if it's against the common good. And abortion is not just a matter of Catholic doctrine, it's a matter of the common good. We can't impose Catholic doctrine on a particular fast on Friday or something during Lent. We can, however, say it's against the common good to have a whole class of human beings outside the protection of law. … This is a great scandal and the politicians should be working to limit abortion. It's difficult to do that in the United States, unlike Europe, where there are abortion laws, and therefore we can say, let's say 20 weeks, let's say 14 weeks to handle a tragedy of some sort. It's still wrong, but at least you can talk about limits. In the United States we got this as a dictate of the courts and therefore it's a constitutional right. Well, you don't limit rights, and so our rhetoric does us no good, and our democratic system has failed miserably in this and in other things as judges establish their own whims as the law of the land and there's no way to recall them, usually, so it's a very faulty democratic system. But in this case you have politicians saying it's a constitutional right, therefore we have to defend it, and that is a scandal, but it's not a scandal easily resolved, and what we can say is this is an inadequate response. What we haven't yet said is, therefore, that there should be sanctions. And the document from the Holy See on the participation of Catholics in political life does not envisage sanctions. The Code of Canon Law says you can refuse Communion to a manifest public sinner. We have never yet said — but we might — that someone can be called a manifest public sinner because of the way they vote. So if we say that, it's a new step in pastoral practice, and we ought to say it together. I can see an argument for saying it, I can see an argument for hesitating to say it, but at this point I think the bishops should try to say whatever they're going to say together. Are you concerned that the issue will become over-politicized? In a political campaign, yes, everything gets politicized. And the problem is the demands of the faith — which are never absorbed in politics — become absorbed in politics because that's how the media report them, as political moves rather than coming from our concern for the nature of the Eucharist and communion with the Church when you receive it. Do you think, though, that the main point is not being adequately conveyed, that it's not just about pro-abortion politicians receiving Communion but a general sense in society that one can do what one likes regardless of consequences to one's neighbor? Lots of people would say you can't do what you like if it hurts your neighbor. The problem is to see the unborn child as a neighbor. They play off a woman's freedom. Freedom is our great value. Americans kill for freedom. We do it in every generation, and so a woman's independence and freedom is more important than the life of a child. That's the American value system. Do you think it permeates all through American society? Yes, so therefore it isn't just abortion, it's all kinds of other situations, but I would not say that Americans would say you can do whatever you like even if someone else is hurt. Generally they don't say that; they got abortion in because they say it's not human. Now they can't say that so well, obviously, since scientifically it's indefensible, and that's where the crisis has come up. But the difficulty is what you cannot do, to use your faith as a way of creating public policy — faith is always private now in a secularized society. Public life has to be secular and therefore individualistic. Are you concerned, though, that if the bishops do decide to unanimously impose sanctions, it could lead to a situation where anyone who dissents from any Church teaching cannot be considered a full member of the Church? Well, abortion is a particularly important issue. It's unique, it's life and death, it's intrinsically immoral. It's not the same as “can there be just wars?” or that “the state still has the right in theory to execute someone who's a threat to safety, although we should do it in another way now as we have the means to put them into prison.” Other issues, even life issues, are not as absolute as abortion, so it is a unique case. But you know, the reception of Communion is in the hands of the individual who examines his life and then says, “I am free enough of grave sin that I can go to the Lord as a penitent sinner and ask for the forgiveness of my sins and be in more perfect communion with God and with Christ's body, the Church.” And we leave that up to the individual, usually. What we're talking about here is a public sin, and that's where the rub comes in. If someone is a private sinner, we assume they went to confession, and they are now ready to receive Communion. Otherwise you put the priest — and that is a concern of mine — in an impossible situation. You put the burden on the priest who's giving Communion, and he might or might not recognize the individual who comes forward — there might be someone with a camera taking a picture and that further exacerbates it. The point of all of this is to weaken episcopal authority, really. The secularists want the Church to be in uproar and want, therefore, episcopal authority to be shown to be in disarray because that's the principle of unity in the Church. If that goes, we're just a collection of individuals — we're Protestants with a few Catholic customs. So that is where people on all sides play into a secularist agenda in this conversation, but sometimes unwittingly. Edward Pentin writes from Rome. http://www.ncregister.com/info/email-a-friend/america_is_great_because