Ara, l-Amerka ghandhom id-dnub mejjet ukoll
You know the fuss Labour likes to make about that mortal sin business in the 1960s, conveniently omitting to mention that its war was with the Curia and not with the Nationalist Party, and completely oblivious to the fact that the Constitutional Party had been there and done that some 40 years before? Read on.
Saturday, November 29, 2008
Priest seeks to explain his letter on voting for Obama
– S. Carolina Catholic diocese backs warning to Obama votersBy Sue Nowicki | Modesto Bee
Parishioners of St. Joseph’s Catholic Church in Modesto have been told they should consider going to confession if they voted for Barack Obama, because of the president-elect’s position condoning abortion. “If you are one of the 54 percent of Catholics who voted for a pro-abortion candidate, you were clear on his position and you knew the gravity of the question, I urge you to go to confession before receiving communion. Don’t risk losing your state of grace by receiving sacrilegiously,” the Rev. Joseph Illo, pastor of St. Joseph’s, wrote in a letter dated Nov. 21.
The letter was sent to more than 15,000 members of the St. Joseph’s parish. It is one of 34 parishes in the Stockton Diocese, which has more than 200,000 members in Stanislaus, San Joaquin and four other counties. Illo also delivered this message in a homily. Obama’s support of abortion rights angered many Catholics nationally during the campaign, and Illo’s letter, while the first in Central California from a priest to his parishioners on the topic, is not the first nationally.
A Greenville, S.C., priest told parishioners earlier this month that those who voted for Obama risked placing themselves “outside of the full communion of Christ’s church” by their vote. That priest’s action was supported by his diocese, the Diocese of Charleston, S.C., which said the priest was simply asserting church teaching.
But the Most Rev. Stephen Blaire, bishop of the Stockton, Calif., Diocese, said he disagrees with Illo. He said Catholics should not feel compelled to disclose how they voted to their priest. Blaire said Catholics who carefully weighed many issues and settled on a candidate, such as Obama, who was supportive of abortion rights, were not in need of confession. He said confession would be necessary “only if someone voted for a pro-abortion or pro-choice candidate — if that’s the reason you voted for them.”
“Our position on pro-life is very important, but there are other issues,” Blaire said. “No one candidate reflects everything that we stand for. I’m sure that most Catholics who voted were voting on economic issues. “There were probably many priests, and I suspect many bishops, who voted for Obama.” Illo’s letter states, “Many Catholics voted for such pro-abortion candidates thinking that their good positions on other issues, such as the war or health care, outweighed their deplorable stand on abortion.”
Illo also wrote that Obama “promised Planned Parenthood that the first thing he would do upon taking office is to sign the so-called ‘Freedom of Choice Act,’ which would grant unlimited access to abortion in all 50 states up until the moment of live birth.”
Illo, in an interview Wednesday, explained his reasoning. “In Catholic teaching, you have to go to confession when you have committed a mortal sin,” he said. “Now, what is a mortal sin? It’s somewhat complex. No one can say, ‘You committed a mortal sin.’ I can only say, ‘It’s a grave matter.’ It’s my job to look after my parishioners. I’ve gotten a lot of e-mails and phone calls. It’s about 12-to-1 in favor of what I said. One person has left the parish. But I got all of these other positive things.”
Across the country, Obama’s nomination and campaign was divisive for many Catholics. Many priests and church officials sermonized against him because of his stance on abortion, as they did four years ago when Democratic John Kerry challenged President Bush. There were Catholic-inspired anti-Obama videos on YouTube regarding the issue.
In a story published in October in the Chicago Tribune, Joe Scheidler, president of the Pro-Life Action League, said it was hypocritical for any Catholic to vote for Obama — even if they agreed with his positions on other health care topics. “There are a lot of ways you can solve poverty and all these other issues,” Scheidler said. “But abortion is the taking of a human life, and the church is very strict on that. Any involvement in abortion is not just a sin, it’s an excommunicable sin. This is serious business.”
12 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
I wonder if this same priest encouraged his voters not to vote for George W. Bush the second time round when it was obvious to all that the president had knowingly sent the country to war for no justifiable reason. Why is abortion a greater sin than causing the death of thousands through an unjust war?
Apples and oranges.
“You know the fuss Labour likes to make about that mortal sin business in the 1960s, conveniently omitting to mention that its war was with the Curia and not with the Nationalist Party, and completely oblivious to the fact that the Constitutional Party had been there and done that some 40 years before? Read on.”
For a person who describes herself as secular, you seem to be condoning the fact that the Church had entered into areas where it shouldn’t have. I’m only 27, so I or my family weren’t personally effected, but saying that voting for the MLP is mortal sin is surely interference in the Democratic process.
Reading accounts of the Muzewmini spraying disinfectant after a Labour rally, or of church bells being rung constantly, doesn’t leave one in doubt on whose side the Curia was on.
[Daphne – I am very secular, yes, which is why my attitude would have been: if the Curia doesn’t like the way I vote, tough. I really can’t understand the frame of mind of those people who want to make the Catholic Church in their own image, so that they can be members and still do as they please. The Curia was not so much for the Nationalist Party or against Labour, as vehemently anti Dom Mintoff. And you know what? It turns out the archbishop was right: the election of Mintoff in 1971 was the worst thing to happen to Malta since aerial bombardment in World War II. We are still recovering today, and the party he led hasn’t recovered since.]
But most of the troubles with the Church started much earlier than the ’71 election, they had been going on since the 50’s.
And saying that the Church was anti-Mintoff only doesn’t stand up to the reality that all those who voted Labour were interdicted, not only Mintoff personally. ALL Labour voters were interdicted.
Archbishop Gonzi also represented this power structure (the Church) that was so powerful in Maltese society. He was ordained a priest in 1908, appointed a Bishop in 1928. If anyone represented the status quo, it was him. So if anybody was going to try and rock the boat, a la’ Mintoff and his 6 points, it was obvious that he wouldn’t be met kindly.
[Daphne – If people voted Labour knowing they would be interdicted by the Church, then they knowingly made a choice in favour of Labour and against the Church, and like all adults who make a choice they had no right to complain afterwards. With religion, you can’t have your cake and eat it. They make the rules, you stick to them. Nobody was forced to be a Catholic, even in the 1960s, and nobody was forced to vote Labour. Grown-ups take decisions and live with the consequences.]
But it’s not that clear cut in real life. People couldn’t just be totally Catholic, or totally Labour. My Grandfather was a totally hardcore Mintoffian, the kind of person who literally lit candles in front of his picture. The only time that I have ever heard him criticising the Labour Party was when Alfred Sant set up that commission about introducing Divorce. The Church still has a strong hold here, and people can’t undress themselves of the moral values that have been instilled in them since birth.
You’re right Daphne, but you’ve got to admit that thumbing your nose at the Church was – rightly or wrongly – a lot harder to do in Malta 50 years ago than it is now.
I note that Joe Scheidler, who I assume is a lay person, was waving a big stick (excommunication), presumably without any religious authority. So sad when the Catholic religion which is essentially based on love and forgiveness is reduced to the old fire and brimstone threats.
To dismiss the question of the decree of mortal sin on all those voting Labour (or attending MLP meetings, or even reading MLP newspapers)as simply a matter of “you chose to, therefore grin and bear it” is to fail to appreciate the significance of what it meant to be anti-Church in the 1960’s in Malta. Families were torn apart, people carrying the stigma of having the having their houses not blessed at Easter-time were pointed out and ostracised by neighbours and children of Laburisti were shunned by their school-mates. A small number of interdettjati were married in the Church Sacristy (treatment usually reserved for Protestants and other heathens of that ilk)and others buried in unconsecrated ground (unfortunately popularly referred to as Il-Mizbla). All this, remember, in a country were the Church was the most respected institution of all, and religion the primary social value.People’s social ties were badly lacerated.
My own parents had always voted Labour, but when faced with the prospect of committing mortal sin and being prohibited from receiving Communion, chose to forego voting Labour. Rather face the earthly Hell (as they saw it) of a Nationalist government than risk eternal damnation in a spiritual one. My mother had tearrs in her eyes when she learnt that the Church and MLP had finally made peace – and she could finally vote Labour again.
The anguish many staunch Catholics with Labour leanings went through – whether they finally decide to stick to their Labour beliefs or not – should not be taken lightly. For some, the resentment at the unfairnes(as they saw) of the choice they were forced to make was to provide justification for the violence they perpetrated in the 70’s and 80’s. It was a good excuse anyway.
[Daphne – The Constitutional Party was there before Labour, and you can rest assured that it was much worse in the 1920s. But you never hear any whining. Why? Maybe it’s because that party’s supporters came from a different socio-educational background and realised that adults must face up to the consequences of their actions.]
Darren Azzopardi:
Anyone ever told you that Archbishop Gonzi was also a founder member of the Malta Labour Party and represented its interests in the senate in those days?
@ Manuel
First of all Protestants are Christians and NOT “Heathens”!
And secondly, to be quite honest, I still can’t understand all the fuss about the issue of the “Interdettjati” as you call them.
I can’t see why your parents had to vote PN as SURELY nobody would have had any idea what they wrote on the ballot paper.
But I can understand that It might have been more of a moral/conscience issue for people in those days to disobey the church.
Thankfully, nowadays most people would just point 2 fingers at the Archbishop and get on with their lives.
I just happen to agree with Obama when it comes to abortion and I am entitled to my opinion. As far as the priest in Modesto, I wonder if he is related to Archbishop Gonzi since they both want to condemn people who don’t agree with them. I remember when the bishop condemned people who voted for Mintoff and damned with the interdet, at the time I sided with the bishop but when I look back today I see what an injustice that was. I’m still not sure if the Maltese Catholic Church ever apologized to the lives they ruined by not letting those who voted for Mintoff be buried in a catholic cemetery or receive catholic rites etc. I, like millions of other people voted to elect Barack Obama and if that’s a sin it’s between me and God.
@ Jonathan Beacom:
The “heathens” comment is not to be taken at face-value. It was meant to underline the attitudes at the time, and not to castigate Protestants in any way.
@ DCG:
There were considerable differences between the politico-religious struggles of the pre-war years and those of the 60’s. Strickland capitulated after three years, while Mintoff stuck to his guns for a decade, until the Church signed what is, practically universally, considered an unconditional surrender.
Moreover, many Constitutionalists – especially the better-educated ones who could be relied upon to comment articulately about the goings-on during the struggle – in later years changed their allegiance, and switched to the PN.It’s no longer in their political interest to resuscitate the past.
[Daphne – The clue to the reason why former Constitutionalists don’t resurrect the past lies in the first sentence of your last paragraph. Most of the Constitutional Party’s backing came from that sector of society which disliked drama and political posturing, and you would never have caught any of them making xenati or going to war with the church or any of that. Because they were better-educated, they could work things out for themselves. Put simply: Mintoff could manipulate his supporters into a face-off with the church. Strickland could never have done the same, even if he had wanted to, which he didn’t. And actually, no – those who grew up in households of Stricklandjani did not switch to support for the Nationalist Party, which was the arch-enemy (Labour was closer to the Constitutionalists pre-Mintoffjanizmu). Lots of Stricklandjani families migrated to Labour first, and only moved away in horror when they saw what was happening. Some never moved away at all. It was under Fenech Adami that former Constitutionalists really became comfortable with voting for the Nationalist Party, because he reinvented it.]
@Joseph Calleja: “As far as the priest in Modesto, I wonder if he is related to Archbishop Gonzi since they both want to condemn people who don’t agree with them”
No, Joseph, Archbishop Gonzi is related to Lawrence Gonzi, our dear Prime Minister.