Participating in Positive Change

Agendia Aloysius' line of duty

header photo

Obama, abortion and priestly overzealousness

November 16, 2008

Obama, abortion and priestly overzealousness

When I read an article published by Associated Press and dated November, 13, 2008 with the title SC Priest: NO Communion for Obama supporters, I was really embarrassed by the priest stands and choice of words.

I do not understand why a man who calls himself, a “man of God” has the audacity to suggest that that those who voted for Obama as president of the USA should not be given Holy Communion for as he posits, Obama supports abortion, hence those who support him “"constitutes material cooperation with intrinsic evil." As if those who supported his adversary are free of cooperation from more intrinsic evil either.

The South Carolina priest, Jay Scott Newman, of Saint Mary Catholic Church, Greenville, according to the article, emphasized that such voters who take communion without penance are putting their soul at risk.

The truth is that, those who respect the virtue of life will certainly never kill through abortion. Abortion is in itself evil, but under what circumstances can abortion be committed? That is subject to another debate. In my opinion, in any case where the foetus is a threat to the life of the mother it can be dealt away with. That notwithstanding, abortion should not be a choice given that if partners choose not to have children they should not even have it before deciding to deal away with it. Obama looses points here

Many others who are against abortion have killed millions of lives in other ways which can as well be worst than abortion because in my own thinking, inasmuch as I value the life of an unborn child, killing a person already alive on earth is more dangerous than a person yet to be born.

The statement of the clergy, though not totally wrong, can be considered extreme and in this particular context, it can be considered outrageous because it has political undertones.

My worry is why has this priest been so quiet as people die in thousands every day because of "irrational" wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Sudan, racially imposed sanctions on Zimbabwe, exploitative and neo colonially funded war and confusion in Democratic Republic of Congo, injustice in the Middle East etc. I wonder why it is now he wants to advocate for the rights and privileges of the unborn when he has never done for the millions alive but suffering from injustice caused by fellow humans.

Rev Newman wrote “"Voting for a pro-abortion politician when a plausible pro-life alternative exits constitutes material cooperation with intrinsic evil, and those Catholics who do so place themselves outside of the full communion of Christ's Church and under the judgment of divine law. Persons in this condition should not receive Holy Communion until and unless they are reconciled to God in the Sacrament of Penance, lest they eat and drink their own condemnation. "

The election of Barack Obama as the 44 and first African American president of the most powerful nation on earth was testimony of the fact that the racial divide, at least, in the domains of politics in the USA, is being gradually bridged. If Obama could genuinely win an election in a country whose past is entangled with lots of horrible racial stories and whose minority/coloured or African American population constitutes less than 15 percent of the 250 million Americans, it was therefore a good testimony.

For “men of God” to make such statements in public is therefore tantamount to preaching hatred. If Obama is a hundred percent for abortion, can the clergy contest the fact that some of those who are anti abortion have not directly or indirectly killed millions of born and unborn children through other means? It can be argued therefore that his teaching in this situation, was not based on moral grounds as that of a man of God should be, but, on more of political and racial grounds.

The choice of words of the priest describing Obama as “radical”, though this is part of freedom of expression which is an integral part of US life, it is to say the least, unexpected of a priest who is ought to be subtle in his ways. His insistence on using Hussein as the middle name of Obama equally has a negative connotation of the priest’s real intentions.

According to the newspaper report, 54 percent of US Catholics voted for Obama therefore implying that, 54 percent of US Catholics should be deprived of the HOLY communion. The above average vote for Obama by US Catholics also attests to the fact that some Christians do go to church but may not necessarily follow the teaching of priests, some of whom across the world, have become as bad examples as evil itself.

I personally stand against abortion. When priests mingle with politics not because they want to distinguish right from wrong or good from bad but, because, they want political gains to go on the other side of the coin, then, there is a big problem. Can this not be considered hypocrisy? 

 

Agendia Aloysius www.agendiaaloysius.blogspot.com www.lebialem.com

Go Back

You know there are some of these priests who force me to denounce my catholic teachings and call them names! Relecting on the priest's stand point makes one to run to the conclusion that his training in Catholic doctrine needs much to be desired. Obama is talking from the humanitarian point of view;I am in no way condoning with Obama, for we all know abortion is not good It is something close to killing, or do I call it a small euthanasia? Asking christians who voted for Obama to go for confession before communioning was outrageous and very irrational. Obama has his views as an individual; those who voted for him did so as a civic responsibility, and wanted just who would fit into the white house. The priest should not pass any rash judgement on Obama and his voters, for judgement is God's only.

I have always believed with deep conviction that that free will is absolute. Everybody has a degree of freedom of choice, opinion and action provided this does not in itself violate the basic human right of others. Denying abortion in toto will be wrong and out of place. There are moments when a woman's very existence is at stake and the foetus should be aborted so that her life can be spared. If those who are clamouring as pro life think this is wrong, they themselves are not without bloody hands. Pretending to call those who are pro choice is an act of aggression on their opinion and freedom. Dialogue and a mutual platform of undertanding rather than confrontation should have been the modus operandi that could resolve this issue. We should accept values that make life better and forge ahead rather than go fighting against one another. To say those who voted for Obama who is pro-choice rather than pro-life should not be given communionis evil. God alone is judge and we should allow vengeance to him alone.



Comment