Reflections On Tne US Bishops' Vote

A quick recap, via the AP:

U.S. Catholic bishops overwhelmingly approved the drafting of a “teaching document” that many of them hope will rebuke Catholic politicians, including President Joe Biden, for receiving Communion despite their support for abortion rights.

. . . The result of the vote — 168 in favor and 55 against — was announced Friday near the end of a three-day meeting of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops that was held virtually.

. . . As a result of the vote, the USCCB’s doctrine committee will draft a statement on the meaning of Communion in the life of the church that will be submitted for consideration at a future meeting, probably an in-person gathering in November. To be formally adopted, the document would need support of two-thirds of the bishops.

I brought up my calculator and found that 168 plus 55 is 223, the total number of bishops voting. 168 is 75% of 223, so this is some indication of which way a vote on a completed draft might go. My first, overwhelming reaction is that this is not the caricature of US bishops held by rad-trad media. These are not a bunch of happy-clappy pedophile enablers.

The second thing I've noticed is how obtuse all media --legacy and independent, left, right, and whatever -- has been over this story. It's characterized as a move to "rebuke Biden" for his stand on abortion, when the references I've seen from bishops themselves indicate there's a much broader set of concerns including privileging transgenderism and same-sex activity, as well as issues like unisex restrooms.

A third takeaway is that things are changing. It appears that the USCCB is preparing to act on issues that had been on the agenda since communications from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith from at least 2002. My impression of Abp Gómez both as president of the USCCB and as Archbishop of Los Angeles is that he has been an effective political actor in both church and secular environments, and he apparently feels this was a good time to act. I'm sure he brought the issue to vote knowing the result beforehand.

But the obtuseness in covering this news extends even to commentators who should know better. I found a piece on the Just the News aggregator that interviews Peter Kreeft, a widely published Catholic apologist who in my view gets things all wrong:

Peter Kreeft, a longtime Catholic apologist and a philosophy professor at Boston College, told Just the News that for Catholic authorities and theologians the issue hinges on the fact that the commission of a mortal sin doesn't necessarily determine "whether a person is in the state of mortal sin or not."

"The nature of the act itself is only one of the three requirements for a state of mortal sin, the other two being full knowledge in the mind and full consent in the will," Kreeft said.

"A prudential decision like this is not a matter of dogma alone, and therefore we usually find faithful Catholics on both sides of the debate," he continued, though he argued that "in the last few generations the Church has been much more reluctant than in the past to offer clear public witness to its unalterable doctrines when many people, even those who call themselves Catholic, say they are offended by them."

This is confusing at best. Speaker Pelosi insists that, having borne five children without presumably aborting any of them, she is eligible to receive communion whatever her views or public policy activity enabling it. Kreeft appears to agree.

But the sin in question isn't abortion, it's scandal. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is succinct in this:

2284 Scandal is an attitude or behavior which leads another to do evil. The person who gives scandal becomes his neighbor's tempter. He damages virtue and integrity; he may even draw his brother into spiritual death. Scandal is a grave offense if by deed or omission another is deliberately led into a grave offense.

This article at Catholic Answers expands on the passage:

The person who gives scandal becomes his neighbor’s tempter. He damages virtue and integrity; he may even draw his brother into spiritual death.” Our Lord militates against scandal, and even ties a curse to those who promote it: “Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened round his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea” (Matt 18:6).

The Catechism explains that scandal is greater according to the authority of the one scandalizing.

While the article concentrates on the responsibility of priests and bishops to speak correctly, there's an equivalent responsibility for Catholic elected officials to do the same. If some of the highest officials, like the president or the speaker, endorse abortion, same-sex activity, transgenderism and the like, they're implicitly saying these things are OK. If a lukewarm Protestant or an atheist endorses them, it's not the same as if a Catholic does.

And this is especially true when Catholic politicians are hitchhiking on the Catholic brand to get votes. If a politician claims to have been a Navy SEAL to get votes but the SEALs say he never was one, voters can make a more informed decision. I see no reason why this shouldn't extend to Catholics.

Peter Kreeft is 84. Perhaps he should finally retire and refrain from giving interviews.