deal with the devil
By Diogenes ( articles ) | Jan 02, 2007
Back in 2004, Denver’s Archbishop Charles Chaput wrote a pointed critique of the arguments that former New York Governor Mario Cuomo had advanced to justify a “pro-choice” stance. Cuomo, the archbishop argued, was in effect saying:
In brief, it’s OK to be Catholic in public service as long as you’re willing to jettison what’s inconveniently “Catholic.”?
That’s not a compromise. That’s a deal with the devil, and it has a balloon payment no nation, no public servant and no voter can afford.
But for the benefit of those who might not remember Cuomo’s argument, let me provide a recap. Cuomo said:
I strongly oppose any effort that would seek to criminalize women or their doctors over this issue. I would strongly oppose legislation similar to the one recently passed by the South Dakota legislature. As governor, I would enforce existing laws, including Roe v. Wade. It's not part of my agenda to change these laws: Improving education, health care and our economy - which will be the top priorities for my administration - will do more to improve the lives of children and reduce the number of abortions in our country than a divisive focus on punishing the women who find themselves turning to it as a solution.
Oh, wait. That’s not a quote from Cuomo. It’s from Bill Ritter, the newly elected Governor of Colorado. But the argument is basically the same “deal with the devil” proposed by Mario Cuomo.
In another 2004 newspaper column, Archbishop Chaput took on the argument about “pro-choice” Catholic politicians who wish to receive the Eucharist:
Claiming to be Catholic and then rejecting Catholic teaching is an act of dishonesty and a lack of personal integrity. Worse, if we then receive Communion, we violate every Catholic who does believe and does strive to live the faith fully and unselfishly.
Obviously the archbishop doesn’t want every Catholic in Denver to be violated. So while he stopped short of saying that a “pro-choice” Catholic politician should be denied Communion, he certainly wouldn’t want to do anything to encourage that pol. Such as-- oh, say, scheduling a special Mass to celebrate his inauguration as governor. At Holy Ghost parish. On January 9.
Clarification by Diogenes
The purpose of my original post was to call attention to the January 9 plans. I did not intend to imply that Archbishop Chaput was involved in the planning; in fact I wanted to call those plans directly to his attention. If I unintentionally led readers to believe that the archbishop himself would be celebrating the Mass, then I owe him an apology. If the plans have been derailed, kudos.
All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!
Posted by: -
Jul. 09, 2010 10:03 AM ET USA
Thanks ColmCille for the dictionary reference. However, by analogy, such a definition - based on attraction, compulsion, desire or emotional or glandular impetus - would make me and many other men who are actively and persistently faithful to their wives and observe a chaste marital relationship in conformity with 2,000 years of Christian teaching, despite their inclinations, "polygamists."
Posted by: Christopher_Johnson -
Jul. 08, 2010 11:51 PM ET USA
(1) Di, Di, Di, Di, Di, Di, Di, Di, Di. what is this "Anglican teaching" to which you refer? (2)Uh...yeah. Is this a trick question? (3)That trying to deduce anything at all from Anglicanism, never mind coherency, is a fool's errand these days.
Posted by: ColmCille -
Jul. 08, 2010 9:53 PM ET USA
It seems current Anglican teaching on the morality of homosexual acts is "some feel it is OK, others not, and that's fine" or "it's all relative, man!" mjarman: Homosexual adj. Of, relating to, or having a sexual orientation to persons of the same sex. n. A homosexual person... [American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 4th Edition] If one accepts the above definition, it's sexual orientation, regardless of sexual activity. As for "gay," I reject the word in that context.
Posted by: -
Jul. 08, 2010 4:29 PM ET USA
It is not just the "Anglican teaching on the morality of homosexual acts" that is a mystery, it's how the gay community and the press defines what it MEANS to be a homosexual. In my mind, someone who is not having sex and who is committed to refrain from having sex is neither "homosexual" not "heterosexual" but is "celebate."