AmP Poll: Was SC priest right to suggest confession for Obama voters?

You can vote in the AmP Poll at the bottom of this post. But first, the details....

Michael Paulson at Articles of Faith:

The pastor of St. Mary Catholic Church in Greenville, SC, is urging parishioners who voted for Barack Obama not to present themselves for Communion unless they go to confession first because they have cooperated with "intrinsic evil'' by voting for a candidate who supports abortion rights over a candidate who does not. The Rev. Jay Scott Newman told the Greenville News that he doesn't intend to deny anyone Communion, but made it clear that his view is that Obama voters should not present themselves without seeking penance first "lest they eat and drink their own condemnation.''

The relevant passage from Pastor Newman's letter:

Voting for a pro-abortion politician when a plausible pro-life alternative exists 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.

Before I get into the reactions, my four observations:

1. not quite: The common teaching on this matter has been that it gravely wrong to vote for a pro-choice candidate because you support their pro-abortion stance. This is the common conclusion drawn from, for instance, Cardinal Ratzinger's famous letter. Fr. Newman seems to be arguing that an Obama vote in this case is wrong not because it representes formal cooperation, but because it is a case of material cooperation (because their vote helped elect him)
2. actually: People who vote for a pro-choice candidate despite there being a pro-life candidate in the running, circumstances being equal, I would say have a poorly-formed conscience ... however, that does not mean they are culpable of any sin if they honestly attempted to inform their conscience, or were misled by third parties, etc.
3. moreover: individual parish priests should take the lead from their bishops when it comes to the pastoral implications of forming the consciences of their parishioners. There's a reason why no other priest in America has apparently done something like this - a priest ought not to exercise this level of admonition about issues still genuinely up for discussion.
4. finally: it seems to be that a nation of Catholics that elects Obama by a majority needs education, guidance and leadership about its faith. There are good and bad ways to go about it, and telling people they have just committed a mortal sin isn't the best way. Try teaching them for four years, and if this keeps happening .... well, that's another story.

Now here's an interesting thing, the parishioners don't seem too upset, at least according to Fr. Newman. Remember who we are hearing this from, of course. I wonder if the parish leans heavily right?

More amazingly, one could conclude the local diocese of Charleston has Fr. Newman's back:

"Stephen Gajdosik, spokesman for the Catholic Diocese of Charleston, told The News that calling parishioners who voted for a candidate who supports legalized abortions to penance is a question of how best to deepen a flock's relationship to God and a move left up to local priests. He said such a move is appropriate and in line with church teaching."

"Newman said, "An uninformed vote is an irresponsible vote," and that no informed voter this year could have mistaken the candidates' abortion positions." [source.]

Charleston currently does not have a bishop, instead they have an interim apostolic administrator.

Anyway, let's talk about it. Is Fr. Newman, strictly-speaking, right or wrong? And if he is right, was he right to go about it in this way? After all, how you preach the truth is important as well. Oh and vote:

Poll stats here.