A Great Choice for San Francisco
The new auxiliary bishop of San Francisco is Robert McElroy. Why is he a great choice? Because he has taken on (i) the distortion of just war teaching by George Weigel and Michael Novak; and (ii) the call for “eucharistic sanctions” on abortion-supporting politicians by a small-but-noisy wing of the American Catholic Church.
Here is the essay on the Iraq war. He argues strongly that the just war conditions did not – and still do not – apply. In addressing the Weigel-Novak distortion, he makes the following point: “The primary background against which the church has interpreted the just-war tradition for the past 50 years is not the limited destructiveness of medieval warfare, but the enormous destructive potential of contemporary warfare. Against this background, the leadership of the church has been unswerving in its presumption against war.” His take on proportionality is particularly interesting. He notes that the war party called for “epistemic modesty” when evaluating whether the evils unleashed by war would outweigh any good that might come of it. But later, that same war party put aside all modesty and asserted that the American occupation must continue.
You should also read his essay on eucharistic sanctions. He hits the nail on the head: “The use of eucharistic sanctions for political action will inevitably breed a reductionist outlook in defining the church’s social agenda….Yet the sanctions movement has already made clear that it advances a two-tier notion of political imperatives for Catholics, one that centers upon life issues and another for all other political and social questions. The life issues will be deemed essential to the fullness of Catholic faith and thus to participation in the Eucharist; all other issues–including war and issues of economic justice, over which the United States exercises unparalleled influence because of its political and economic power—will be relegated to secondary status.” Furthermore, “The imposition of eucharistic sanctions solely on candidates who support abortion legislation will inevitably transform the church in the United States, in the minds of many, into a partisan, Republican-oriented institution and thus sacrifice the role that the church has played almost alone in American society in advocating a moral agenda that transcends the political divide.”
We need more bishops like this. (Hat tip: Michael Sean Winters).
Comments are closed.
Sounds like a dynamic bishop!
1. Re: the two-tier political model of “life issues” and “all other” political and social questions:
The pope in Caritas in Veritate (51) writes that it is contradictory to insist on policies respecting the environment, trade, immigration, and so forth when policies on the respect for life are out of whack (not the pope’s exact words).
The decisive issue is the overall moral tenor of society, and it is just as wrong to isolate war, immigration, and economic justice as it is to isolate contraception, abortion, and same-sex “marriage”.
They are all tied together – the truth, and the love which it reveals – are tied together by openness to life, which can only be received as a gift given stewardship; it cannot be produced and manipulated. It would be wrong to uphold one set of duties while trampling on the other.
2. Re: protecting the sacrament of the Eucharistic transforming the Church in the United States, in the minds of many, into a partisan, Republican-oriented institution:
This presumes the Democratic party will not change its stand in support of abortion on demand. I’m more optimistic. God is good and He is in ultimate control.
Congratulations!
MM,
How are we to intrepret this appointment from the political point of view? I’m talking about Church politics.
Oh dear. Bad day for the Pelosi-haters.
I read the article on eucharistic sanctions. It’s poorly reasoned. Here’s hoping that he’ll be a great bishop anyway.
My Dear Minion,
Even the politically liberal Church sometimes gets a bone!
Very best,
Austin
He may or may not be a great choice, but are these the best of reasons for thinking so? He won’t deny The Holy Eucharist to politicians who do nothing to protect the unborn. So what exactly will he do, and until you know why should he be applauded for his handling of this issue? Of course all should wish him God’s blessing, and best wishes and prayers.
By the way as to one of Bruce’s points, The Holy Father, then Cardinal Ratzinger in 2004 sent a letter to the President of the USSCB( Theodore Mccarick I believe)regarding Holy Communion, abortion, war and peace, and the death penalty. From his letter it should be clear that there is more to the denial of Communion to pro-abortion politicians than GOP partisanship.Sorry I can’t link to it, but an internet search should lead you to it.
Good for Bishop McElroy, who also wrote, “No nuances in the relationship between legislator and constituent, no recognition of the mediating institutional questions lying between the act of abortion and specific legislative formulations can eradicate the fact that political action designed to retain or expand current abortion rights is morally unacceptable. The continuing decision of American Catholic politicians and voters to contravene the tenets of their faith is a major failure in church life.”
Thought experiment: If a group of bishops stepped up and said they intended to withhold Communion from politicians who had routinely voted for the war in Iraq, would the abortion party’s defenders applaud their courage, or would they condemn the politicization of the Sacrament in a way that threatened to transform the Church into a partisan, Democratic-oriented institution? We all know the answer to that, I think.
Fact is, that the only place for a faithful Catholic is in opposition to both of these parties. To be a loyal Republican is to make one’s peace with war and torture. To be a loyal Democrat is to make one’s peace with abortion on demand.
My dear Austin,
Since the most “politically liberal” American Catholics (in the real meaning of the word!), are folks like George Weigel, Michael Novak, and Robert George, then, yes, you are quite right!!
Mark:
This is not just a thought experiment, it is exactly the reason why most of us oppose these “eucharistic sanction”. And no, I would not favor such a course of action, not even for torture supporters where the degree of moral proximity to the evil act is far closer than it is for any abortion supporter. The reason is simple – once you open the floodgates, when do you close them?
Yes, there is that hobby horse of yours rearing its head again! Hope you are very well…
…and we liberals are getting a lot of meat bones lately. The Great Raymond Burke got a new job! Have you heard?
“I read the article on eucharistic sanctions. It’s poorly reasoned. Here’s hoping that he’ll be a great bishop anyway.”
Pinky,
I realize this is only the comment section of a blog, but could you provide an example of the “poor reasoning” that bothers you so much.
The arguments he gives strike me as perfectly sound. Which do you disagree with?
MM – Then you agree with Msgr. McElroy’s stand in support of bishops doing nothing?
Of course I oppose Eucharistic sanctions for those this a misguided view of Iraqi policy.
Though I am not sure the sole reason the “imposition of eucharistic sanctions solely on candidates who support abortion legislation will inevitably transform the church in the United States, in the minds of many, into a partisan, Republican-oriented institution” is because of a corresponding silence on Iraqi policy. For some Catholics (including this one) the corresponding issue is not Iraq but silence on Eucharistic reception for conservative Republican corporate chieftains in the insurance industry.
It is not a matter of action on conservative causes vs. silence on liberal causes. It is a matter of action on public policy concerns vs. silence on corporate economic actions.
Phos – First off, and this isn’t a question of reasoning but of fact, the virtues of faith, hope, and love aren’t found in moderation. A first-year theology student would have caught that mistake.
I had other problems with the article, but the main one was his use of prudence as what seemed like an excuse. If there’s a tradition of the Church dealing with error, what is it? Spell it out. Don’t tell me that it’s “prudence” and then choose the side that you obviously favor. That kind of reasoning is sloppy.
Curious title here: A great choice for San Francisco. Are you suggesting that he a great choice for that city because so many Catholics in the Bay Area take a genuinely “seamless garment” approach to respect for human life? Or do you really mean that SFO is the stomping ground for abortion-advocate cafeteria Catholics like Nancy Pelosi who will take comfort in getting off the hook once again? To ask the question is to answer it, I think.
I don’t believe he used the word “moderation” with respect to the virtues, but rather of balancing them. . . which of course is perfectly right.
As for the prudence: he gave his reasons why withholding communion would have bad consequences. In particular, that the reasons for withholding communion would multiply.
I think you do him a disservice by thinking that he’s bending his argument to favor a conclusion he’s already accepted. The arguments he gives are sound.
In June 2004 then Cardinal Ratzinger sent a letter to Cardinal McCarick, intending that it be shared with all US Bishops which he failed to do. The letter addressed the matter of worthiness to receive Holy Communion. It referenced the “grave sin of euthanasia or abortion”. It also noted that “Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion or euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion.”
The letter goes on to note that “regarding the grave sin of abortion or euthanasia” when one’s formal cooperation has become manifest his Pastor should meet with him and instruct him not to present himself for Holy Communion until he/she brings about an end to “the objective situation of sin.” If such a person still persists in objective sin, he is to be denied Holy Communion.
You may do a search, or go to LifeSiteNews for a copy of the letter.
Not all moral issues are the same. There is more, much more, to denial of the Eucharist to pro-abortion politicians than partisan politics.
…and we liberals are getting a lot of meat bones lately. The Great Raymond Burke got a new job! Have you heard?
I think we have different understandings of the term “liberalism” here. But it seems Austin joins me in one facet of liberalism as I understand it — an acceptance of a legitimate pluralism of thought within the Church on pastoral style, matter of opinion, doubtful matters and other issues and concerns and the validity of facilitating that pluralism in episcopal appointments.
Liberals of my (and maybe Austin’s) ilk, accept both a McElroy and a Chaput as just part of a deliberate pluralism of viewpoints in the Church. Neither holds any proposition that makes him unacceptable for the episcopal office.
Like all of us, Archbishop Burke is a man of certain talents and certain shortcomings. Liberals like me were nothing less than pleased to see him moved from a position where he had the pastoral care of souls (not his strong point) to an administrative position in the Curia (certainly a ministry that can make better use of his talents).
This thinking does have its limits. I am sure Austin would agree with me that in episcopal appointments, we do not “throw a bone” to advocates of viewpoints that deny the Nicene Creed, the Real Presence, the moral unacceptability of abortion or racism, or papal primacy.
In maybe the only wise quotation of a certain figure, “Let a thousand flowers bloom.”
Kurt,
I was being ironical! I would not describe myself as a liberal in teh Church for that is a political category. Politically, I would say I am a conservative in the modern sense which would equate to a classical liberal of the kind my friend Minion does not like very much.
In the Church I am an orthodox Catholic. I find McElroy perfectly acceptable in his opinions. I do not suspect that he is squishy on matters of faith and morals. I may disagree with him on certain issues, like the proper reception of the Eucharist, but that is his decision to make and not mine.
I wonder if there is any action a person could take that folks on this thread would call for a bishop to deny communion. Anything at all?
Phos, the author begins by talking about sanctions for scandal. He then states that the route of sanctions diverges from the traditional actions for scandal. He supports that with – nothing. No historical analysis, no explanation of the traditional rules regarding scandal. He simply states his opinion of four downsides to sanctions.
His unintended consequences are the appearance of: coersion, a solely religious motivation to oppose abortion, a two-tier approach to social issues, and partisanship. Are those based on the traditional actions, prior experience, church teaching, or just his own ideas? I don’t think that open-minded people would read eucharistic sanctions as coersion, or that sanctions would “cripple” the intellectual arguments against abortion. As Chris C. pointed out, there *are* two tiers to social issues, with abortion ranking higher in importance. There can be arguments about a just war or a particular avenue of economic empowerment, but not about a justly killed baby.
The fourth unintended consequence is the most disheartening, though. The author defends the Democratic Party from criticism on the grounds that criticism would be partisan. (He seems more comfortable pointing fingers in the Iraq War article, though.) Does he truly believe that the Church takes the best stand by penalizing absolutely nothing? Or does he just want the freedom to criticize the Republicans when they’re wrong and defend the Democrats when they’re wrong? Additionally, he implicitly discounts the possibility that sanctions could influence the individual politicians and the parties in a positive way.
I agree with Kurt. There will always be more progressive bishops and more conservative bishops – on liturgy, on ecclesiology, on politics. There’s nothing we can do about that. But what does anger me is when the Curia circles the wagons to protect its own. Why, for example, does Cafrdinal Sodano retain such a pre-eminent position after the exposure of his corrupt relationship with Maciel?
Pinky,
His argument, as I understand it, was that the pro-sanction side is making a novel argument, and that the burden of proof is on them. (That argument being that those politicians who vote pro-life are “automatically deprived of the right to receive the Eucharist.” Whereas, he claims, the argument from scandal has always looked at the particular case, and never issued a blanket condemnation.
And look: we have seen one unintended consequence of this: right now, it looks as if the Church supports torture. Many catholics, in fact, seem to believe so:
http://pewforum.org/Politics-and-Elections/The-Religious-Dimensions-of-the-Torture-Debate.aspx
This is a failure of cathecism, it seems to me, and the fact that “support” for abortion, even if it is of the most tenuous kind, is always loudly decried, while torture is not, is responsible for this.
Whetehr this is politically motivated or not, you can’t deny that the Church’s stance has helped republicans, even war mongering ones, and not democrats.
MM – Corrupt, or just horrible judgement? (I guess the obvious follow-up question is, when the judgement is that bad, don’t you want the person out of senior management either way?)
Crickets. All i hear is crickets.
So, there is nothing that a person could do that should prevent them from being given Communion? Well known pornographer: Body of Christ. Partial birth abortionist: Body of Christ. Head of the North American Man-Boy Love Association: Body of Christ. There are no grounds for you folks in withholding Communion?
Chirp, Chirp, Chirp.
Austin Ruse:
War crimes, or support of same.
(Also, NAMBLA is perhaps not the most felicitous example to use in this context; was Marcial Maciel ever denied communion?)
Phos – If it’s a novel argument, the burden may well be on those who make it. But the burden is on McElroy to show that it is a novel argument. The Church has used excommunications, interdicts, Crusades, missionaries, every last thing to try to reach those in error. In what sense is it novel for the Church to refuse to give Communion?
I don’t want to get lost in a digression about torture, but let me just say that you could make the exact opposite argument to the one you imply: that by not standing clearly against abortion, the Church’s voice has lost its credibility on the issue of torture.
“In what sense is it novel for the Church to refuse to give Communion?”
What’s novel is that the denial of communion is said to be automatic. As he points out, JPII gave communion to politicians who were known to support abortion. It has always been up to the judgment of the bishop; the new argument if favor of sanction wants to take it out of the bishop’s hands and make it automatic. An extreme move.
As for your second point: are you really claiming that the church has not stood clearly against abortion? The facts show otherwise: everyone knows that abortion is un-catholic, but quite a few church-going catholics don’t think torture is un-catholic.
This has actually happened; and it is a foreseeable result of treating abortion has uniquely sanctionable.
When you get into using eucharistic sanctions for political positions, where does it end? Support for abortion, even the so-called “hard cases”. Support for ESCR. Support for Bush-Cheney style torture. Support for gay marriage. Support for no-fault divorce. Support for unregulated pornography. Support for war. Support for nuclear weapons. Support for efforts to curb unions. Support for cutting unemployment benefits. Refusing to support measures to reduce carbon emissions. Support for measures to deport immigrants.
Where does it end? It is almost impossible to find a legislator whose votes do not violate at least one part of the moral law, somewhere. You might say – but some positions are worse than others. Fine, but where do you draw the line? And how do you deal with the proximity dimension, which tends to make things far more complicated?
That is not to ignore canon law entire. We focus on the word like “manifest”, “grave”, “obstinate”. The scandal comes about when a person in the public domain, through argument or example, gives the impression that some evil choice is acceptable to faithful Catholics, even when the error is pointed out. The unrepentent mafia boss. A person who claims that abortion or euthanasia are positive virtues. A serial adulterer. And, yes, a person who goes on EWTN and argues that the just war teaching claims torture is virtuous.
As I noted in my Politics post, there is also the not so insignificant matter of losing. If a legislator keeps on getting re-elected despite your condemnation of them on a political issue, how are you to address him or her? Are you to say please do us this favor on an unrelated issue even though we’ll keep beating you over the head on another issue, even if that issue isn’t presently being addressed legislatively? I understand the desire of some to want to remove a bishop’s discretion on the matter, but this seems to be a case where we are just inviting spite if we go down this road. The plain truth is that we as a Catholic community have a multitude of interests, and we are ill served if we foreclose assistance on even lesser interests to pursue Quixotic battles. The start and end of our engagement with the political branches cannot just be abortion.
Where do you draw the line? “Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion or euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion.”
BTW, I don’t know what a proximity dimension is.
Pinky,
If you want to debate the moral theology here, it would help if you addressed the principles involved, rather than keep quoting a private letter between two experts out of context.
Moral proximity refers to the degree of cooperation with evil. To give a rather stark example, I think we would all agree that actually torturing somebody is a lot more serious than holding an opinion that abortion should be legal. And in the United States, legislators are do far more damage by their votes for national security issues than abortion, where (after all), the “right” comes from the judicial wing.
“Where do you draw the line?”
Traditionally it has been left to the bishop. As a liberal democrat who voted for Obama, I say we go with tradition.
Minion,
I crafted my quesiton outside of politics. Killing unborn children is not a political position. Neither is creating hard core pornography. Neither is promoting a crime like pedophilia. Would you support withholding communion from the actual abortionist, pornographer, pedophile. Presumably, each of these meet the criteria in the catechism. Would you withhold?
MZ, maybe we should drop the Nicene Creed. After all, we say it every week, but some people don’t, and what kind of a message does that send?
Austin,
Your question is actually quite loaded, and changes the subject in such a way that tries to make your opponents look unreasonable.
The topic of this post isBishop McElroy, who has opposed, in writing,the withholding of the eucharist from politicians who support pro-choice laws.
You took this as “proof” that there’s nobody we crazy liberals would deny communion to.
Yes, your examples were outside of politics. . . but the original point had precisely to do with politics.
(Also, I was unable to find out. . . was Maciel ever denied communion?)
The point of the good Bishop’s essay and many posts on this thread is that political support for abortion can never be a reason for withholding communion. Some seem to have gone even further and implied that nothing should stand in the way of someone receiving communion. I just cannot believe that. There must be something, some ACT that should cause a bishop to say “no Communion for you.”
What I am trying to establish is the principle of whether there is any persistent behavior which should preclude someone from receiving communion. I believe that a politician’s support for abortion is one of those reasons. The good Bishop disagrees, so do you and my friend Minion. I am now wondering if there is any persistent acts which should cause a bishop to withhold communion. If there aren’t any, so be it. Say so. If there are, let us know those, too….
Austin – the point of many of the posts oin this thread, and of MM’s original post, and the bishops letter, is that using the Eucharist as a political football is a bad idea. I mean, I can easily summon the following scenario:
1. Righty agitators demand that communion be denied to Nancy Pelosi and other pro-choice politicians;
2. Lefty agitators retaliate by demanding that pro-torture politicians also be denied communion
3. Righties retaliate to that retaliation by demanding more stringent controls on who receives (“I was at Mass in San Francisco, and saw father give communion to Pelosi with my own two eyes…”)
4. Lefties retaliate…
See what I mean? The point is not reverence for the Blessed Sacrament (the net effect would actually erode respect, I think) but for each faction to be able to add “God demands that you vote for/against [political party]” to their list of selling points. A persuasive argument could be made that abusing the Body of Christ in that manner is itself sacrilegious.
MM – I’m familiar with the idea of moral proximity. I’ve just never seen it called “proximity dimension”.
If you want to consider torture as morally objectionable as abortion, I have no problem with it.
Phos – I don’t know that Maciel should have been denied Communion, based on what was known at the time. If he appeared to be fully repentant of his past misdeeds, and he wasn’t in persistent doctrinal error, on what grounds would he be forbidden?
Matt,
This keeps getting cast in political terms. Is it lefty of righty to hate pornography? Is it lefty or righty to hate the killing of unborn children? Is it lefty or right to hate pedophilia?
Let’s take it out of the current political debate and see if we can agree on something. Are there any instances where someone’s publicly known actions should prevent them from receiving communion? Not political positions. Actions. Anything at all?
Austin Ruse,
I think using 915 in the public forum is an end run of the penal canons. I think that is wrong for many reasons. If a bishop and a politician want to come to an arrangement in the private forum, I have no objection.
Pinky,
I don’t understand the point you are attempting to make.
This keeps getting cast in political terms.
Right, and that’s what we both object to, correct?
“Are there any instances where someone’s publicly known actions should prevent them from receiving communion? Not political positions. Actions. Anything at all?”
Yes, of course there are, and bishops have often refused communion to various people for various reasons.
But should there be some class of actions that trigger the sanction automatically?
Probably not.
I know, I know. . . you want me to cough up a particular example, something that I find beyond the pale. . .so let me repeat what I said before: war crimes, or the support thereof.
Regarding the question of whether “someone’s publicly known actions should prevent them from receiving communion”: The picture which stands in my mind is JPII’s very dramatic and public scolding of Ernesto Cardenal on the tarmac in Nicaragua. Cardenal had not obeyed the pope’s demand that he resign from the Sandinista government.
Is that how we envision entire classes of obstinate and public miscreants being treated at the altar rail? Or would it be more like private meetings and individual requests that the offenders not present themselves for communion, the host still being given should an offender present himself anyway? Is the altar rail a place where we want to see confrontation and exhibition of power, or is it a place of love and grace?
Since the matter is primarily a question of the offending politician’s state of conscience, why do we feel so invested in whether an earthly manifestation of God’s love is to be offered? What does it mean about us if it’s so important whether someone else is sanctioned or not?
Here’s a picture of the confrontation. Hope it makes it through wordpress.com’s filters:
http://www.ratzingerfanclub.com/images/jpII_ernesto_cardenal.jpg
Matt,
No, i do not object to it. I do believe Bishops are within their rights and would do a lot of good if they did withhold communion from politicians who vote to uphold the killing of children. What i am doing here is trying to find out if the folks on this thread/blog would find any reason at all for withholding it. I fear many here would be fine with “Partial Birth Abortionist; Body of Christ”. Frightening. Disappointing.
No, i do not object to it.
Austin – well, we clearly disagree. I definitely do object to it, because then the debate then becomes, for which offenses should Catholic political partisans agitate for communion denial to politicians. Can’t you see that becoming, as I said, a form of sacrilege itself? Isn’t there a tinge of the pharisee to that kind of thinking?
I suppose that rainbow sash wearers should also not be denied communion. Nor should men dressed in drag as nuns.
Those would be appropriate instances as would inappropriate dress or drunkenness.
Having slept on it, it occurs to me that church and politics aren’t all that different.
Repeat offender :: due process :: lenient judge :: fear of crime :: “Three strikes” laws
Electable politician :: canon law :: moderate bishop :: scandal :: automatic excommunication
I would be interested to hear Austin’s response to Phosphorious’s citing of war crimes as a reason to withold communion.
Phosphorious is right, of course, and I don’t think claiming to be fighting “terror” in defense of “freedom” should acquit any Catholic in military or political power from the communion-being-denied consequence or exculpate him from the guilt of ordering, permitting, or engaging in the deliberate targeting of innocent civilians, even if they are “only” Arabs or Palestinians, collateral damage, “terrorists”.
As far as I can tell, the Catholic Church, pace neo-con racism and Zionist propaganda, still considers Arabs (even if they are Arabs who don’t care for the murderous policies of Israel) human.
Any Catholic defending the obviously deliberate murder of peace activists on the flotilla to Gaza should consider if he really believes in the sanctity of all life before he demand sanctions for pro-choice and pornographic politicians.
You can’t be pro-life and be pro-Israeli-and-American foreign policy with regard to the “war on terror” and the Palestinians in Gaza, at this time. It’s that simple. That’s the real issue, and before that it resolved, this debate about who should be withheld communion will be all but useless, unless it brings out the points I am suggesting are the most important.
The fact that you have “pro-life” conservatives defending murder when Israel does it in the name of “survival”, and when Americans do it in the name of neo-con, Jacobin ideology, “the war on terror,” which Obama firmly upholds (and I shall assume, in charity, that because of the power of Israeli propaganda, these “conservatives” “don’t know what they are doing”) is absolutely scandalous, and deflecting the issue to obviously anti-Catholic and immoral things like pornography and abortion isn’t helpful.
Thaddeus,
The Church’s policy on withholding communion is consistent: it is to be withheld from someone who is publicly committing a mortal sin. This clearly applies to someone who votes for abortion. By this logic, communion should certainly be withheld from war criminals. That being said,you cannot say that one cannot be pro-life and support American and Israeli foreign policy. What you are objecting to it seems are particular incidents, particular incidents which cannot be used to condemn anyone who supports current American foreign policy. If I were a politician that supported the War on Terror, my voting for the military actions initially would not mean that I supported the use of torture, or the abuses at Abu Ghraib, for example. I did not vote for that.
And in any case what would you propose? Are you saying that all of American foreign policy in Afghanistan, in Iraq, and every single action the Israeli military takes, are war crimes? That seems like an unfounded blanket statement.
My point is that a person of good will could support American foreign policy, while objecting to particular instances that were immoral in the conduct of that policy; whereas, no person of good will could vote for abortion, and immediately excommucates him or herself by such an action.
I am not alone in my opinion. The current pope, among others, agrees:
“3. Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.”
-Joseph Ratzinger
If a person in public life says “I am voting for this bill because I want to kill babies” then I think there may be serious issues on Communion reception.
But all evidence so far has been that this is something secular conservatives want to use selectively to advance a secular conservative agenda.
Not only the excuses for warmongering and racism, but the moral emptiness of these conservatives is most evident in when they have made calls for the excommunication of those who they accuse of voting for funding abortion by giving people tax credits or subsidies for purchasing health insurance from the private market yet have never suggested the excommunication of any of the actors that market these pro-abortion policies.
You see, to them, while abortion is regretable, it does not trump their devotion to unregulated private enterprise.
Hi Kurt,
A person does not have to say ‘I am voting for this bill because I want to kill babies.’ He could say he is voting for a bill because he wants world peace for I care, but if the end result of the bill will be the death of more babies, then I think the Church has to call him or her on that position.
Also, why the blanket statements about conservatives, and the ad homimen attacks? You say ‘all evidence’ says that I am talking about a selective secular conservative agenda. All evidence? There are no pro life politicians with good will, none at all? You also accuse conservatives of racism and warmongering. I am a conservative and I would never condone either.
All I was doing was pointing out what the teaching of the Church was on administering communion to public officials, and you respond by calling conservatives racist? Surely we can aim for a higher level of charity and consideration on a Catholic blog.
If you disagree with what I wrote, and the stated opinion of the Holy Father on this matter, that is fine. Please say so, and say why. But please, do not call people of my political affiliation racist, without cause. I would not accuse you of that, since I do not know, so please afford me the same courtesy. But as it is, if all you can do is attack the motives, and not the policy positions, of those you debate, it is better to say nothing at all.
Would I withhold communion from a war criminal? Someone actively and unrepentently involved in genocide, for instance? Of course. Wouldn’t you?
“You say ‘all evidence’ says that I am talking about a selective secular conservative agenda. All evidence? ”
To defend what I think Kurt is saying: yes. All evidence.
And the fact. . . to which I have alluded more than once. . . that many good, church going catholics think that torture is acceptable shows that the principle has been applied selectively and to the benfit of the conservative side of the argument.
The conservative commentors here want to make sure that the refusal of communion is not politicized. But it has been politicized.
No liberal who supports pro-choice legislation is under the illusion that the church agrees with them. They know. . . because no one ever fails to point it out. . . that they are diverging from church teaching; it is just that they think the teaching* is wrong.
Meanwhile, as polls have shown, a majority of Catholics who do not consider themselves “cafeteria Catholics” in any way, are in favor of torture.
This is a failure of cathechesis at a minimum; I’m inclined to think it’s a much deeper failure on the part of the hierarchy.
*NB: the “teaching” which is considered to be wrong is not that abortion is wrong, but that abortion must always and everywhere be made illegal. There’s a difference.
“Would I withhold communion from a war criminal? Someone actively and unrepentently involved in genocide, for instance? Of course. Wouldn’t you?”
Agreement! Good!
But. . .uh. . . not to be difficult. . . but. . .
What counts as “active” and “unrepentant?”
Let’s try adn take it away once more from politics. Matt, would you favor withholding communion from a known pornographer; Larry Flynt, for instance?
Austin:
Murder.
Active means someone who is an ongoing war criminal. It would be wrong to withhold communion from a former war criminal since we should assume he has confessed. Active and unrepentant means precisely that. They are doing it now and they are not sorry. You know, like someone who runs (present tense) an abortion clinic.
Hi Kurt,
A person does not have to say ‘I am voting for this bill because I want to kill babies.’ He could say he is voting for a bill because he wants world peace for I care, but if the end result of the bill will be the death of more babies, then I think the Church has to call him or her on that position.
…..
You also accuse conservatives of racism and warmongering. I am a conservative and I would never condone either.
My point was not that the conservatives I were referring to “said” they were warmongers and racists.
If you disagree with…the Holy Father on this matter, that is fine
The Holy Father, like his predecessor John Paul the Great, has invited “pro-choice” Catholic politicans to receive the Eucharist from his Apostolic hand. I have never voiced a disagreement with those acts of the Holy Father.
There are no pro life politicians with good will, none at all?
There are many. And at least among those serving in Congress from their public statements and from private conversations, I know not a one that joins in with the call for Eucharistic sanctions.
I made no blanket statements about conservatives. I made a statement about the subset of conservatives that seek to use Eucharistic sanctions to push their legislative and political program. This subset certainly does not include honorable conservatives like Senator Brownback, Minority Whip Cantor, Chairman Steele, the late Representative Hyde, or President G.W. Bush.
It occurs to me, Austin, that you are not asking what the most serious thing is that would get us crazy liberals to deny communion. . . but rather what is the least serious thing.
If I were to say “Gleeful genocide” in answer to your question, you would roll your eyes and say “of course that. . .”
I’m inclined to think that the question is an ignoble one; I don’t spend a lot of time coming up with rationales for withholding grace.
But, as an intellectual amusement. . . I’m in.
My high/low is “gleeful genocide/jaywalking”. . . which is to say that the answer is “of course” for the first and “of course not” for the second.
Your turn. Close that gap, or you have to drink.
If communion is what we pretend it to be – we would let GOD take care of the issue. So what if Larry Flynt or George Bush or Dick Cheney or Barack OBAMA or George Carlin lined up for communion – I trust that the Lord would be able to sort it out without any help from the local bishop or excitable commentators.
In my mind Jesus would give communion to EVERYBODY – yes that is a hard pill to swallow for us humans.
Sure in reality every single religion is busy enforcing rules and excluding plenty not quite up to par. Oh well – the realities of life – but nothing to be proud off really.
If George Carlin lines up for communion even though he’s been dead over 2 years,… We might have other concerns than whether to let him receive.
Does anyone know how the Rainbow Sash Alliance protests at Pentecost came out this year? Though I live in the SF Bay Area, the only people I’ve ever seen wearing a sash at Mass are the Knights of Columbus. I understand some bishops ordered “no communion for anyone wearing the rainbow sash” while others ignored it. Apparently some laypeople took it upon themselves to kneel and physically block sash-wearers when their bishops did not act. I bet the confrontation left both sides feeling really good about who they were and how they expressed their identities.
Even when the individuals under ban willingly identify themselves, the situation is a mess. If pro-abortion politicians, abortion providers or CIA waterboard interrogators quietly receive communion, or if Larry Flynt were to roll up in his wheelchair and receive, it seems logistically impossible for the Church to prevent it.
To take it one step further: Putting sufficient logistics in place to block specific people from receiving communion, especially if they do not self-identify, would do more damage to the Church and to the Mass than simply letting God sort it out, as Grega suggests. I don’t want to be required to show my baptismal certificate to receive communion.
Maybe a better question is not what ACT might cause the pastors of the Church to withhold communion but what PERSONS are appropriate for groups of the laity to single out and circulate internet petitions demanding they be barred from communion and then retaining the names to be used for “voter education” in the next civil election.
For example, Mrs. Flanagan who sits five pews behind me at Mass. How about I show up at the parish Sodality meeting with a petition in hand about her? And my motivation is out of reverence for the Eucharist, not just because I never liked the old cow anyway.
Kurt – I couldn’t follow Michael MC’s reply to you because it veered into the question of racism. So I went back and reread your comment, and sure enough you accused unnamed people of racism. I don’t see the word “racism” any more. It has been overused to the extent that it’s background noise.
Why did you complain about the unnamed conservative racists, anyway? Did it have something to do with the topic? If so, that means you’re making a connection between those who call for Eucharistic sanctions and racists. What is the connection?
I believe that any action that encourages abortion is sinful. To compel someone to pay into a plan that funds abortion is more serious than to allow someone to pay into a plan that funds abortion.
To compel someone to pay into a plan that funds abortion is more serious than to allow someone to pay into a plan that funds abortion.
Pinky,
Who is being (or going to be) compelled to pay into a plan that funds abortion? If you are talking about buying coverage on the health care exchanges, there will always be plans that do not include abortion coverage. I have seen arguments about the choice that will have to be made by pro-lifers who evaluate a number of plans and determine the best plan for them is one that includes abortion coverage. What are they supposed to do? (The answer in the article I read said they must choose a plan without abortion coverage, even if it is not the most desirable plan.) They are being treated unfairly. But what about the vastly larger number of people who receive employer-provided insurance that includes abortion coverage? Nobody has ever suggested they are being treated unfairly by not being given a choice of coverage that doesn’t include abortion. And if anyone has ever claimed that people must turn down employer-provided insurance because it contains abortion coverage, I haven’t heard about it.
I believe that any action that encourages abortion is sinful
Leaving 50 million Americans without health insurance is then sinful. Private market financing of abortion is then sinful. Lack of social assistance to women in crisis pregnancies is then sinful. Support for the Republican Medicare Advantage Plan is then sinful. Support for the Republican FDA FEDS plan is then sinful.
A whole lotta sinning going on here.
However, opposing the “Pro-Life” position on campaign finance reform is probably not sinful.
David – If I recall correctly, several of the initial proposals required pay-in to state-run insurance plans that would have covered abortion. The main “secular conservative” proposal was to allow purchases across state lines, which would have ideally given people more options in what their plans covered. You say that “nobody has ever suggested they are being treated unfairly by not being given a choice of coverage that doesn’t include abortion”, but I’ve heard that issue raised.
Pinky,
You recall incorrectly. There was never a required pay-in to a plan that covered abortion.
The Republican proposal was to allow sale of individial policies across state lines, undercutting the laws in 5 states that prohibited plans from covering abortion.
The law is the most profound expansion of the right to have abortion free health care ever enacted.
Kurt – The law is not necessarily an expansion of health care, and it’s only abortion-free as long as the executive order stays in effect.
Pinky,
You propose the health care law may not work as intended. I guess you have that right equally with those who claim that various pro-life legislation will not work as intended. And in claiming that right you make the case against eucharistic sanctions based on non-support for Church endorsed legislation.
Kurt – Your argument is: a) Pinky says that health care legislation may not work as intended, so b) it is possible that pro-life legislation won’t work as intended, and therefore c) we are not bound to support pro-life legislation. I think you’d need something more between b and c, but to be honest, I’m not sure. I didn’t know that there was opposition to pro-life legislation, only support for pro-choice legislation. I’d need an example.
Jesus would give communion to everybody? Even if it means bringing the judgment of God upon them as St. Paul instructs? I would think Jesus would at least point out the error and give the opportunity for repentence first, which seems to be the point of the withholding thing.
C matt…that pesky Jesus would be getting political again!