Catholic Politicians and Communion

St. Thomas More

A recent column in the Catholic Anchor tipped off a reader, whom promptly contacted me and let me know how pleased they were to see such a piece in the paper, and how I should certainly link to it. As I read it, what struck me first and foremost was how good it really was. Not only that, but it is just one, in a long line of excellent pieces that have appeared in the paper over the last 8 months. The Anchor has consistently gotten better, and the level of orthodoxy has continued to increase with each passing day. The article that peaked both my reader's interest as well as my own is entitled: "Catholic Politicians and Abortions" by: Bob Flint.

···•°···

Now, for my consistent readers, you will certainly see glaring similarities in Flint's piece to some of my posts on the same subject. [Links: Here, here, and here.] Flint's premise is that you can't be a Catholic Politician and be Pro-Abortion, in any form:

Bob Flint

Religion informs and educates the conscience, but does not govern. Political activity belongs to the citizens, not the church. Most principles are general, and prudential judgment means that Catholics can follow sound moral principles yet come to different conclusions. There are, however, grave issues where the judgment of the church is specific. Abortion ranks at the top.

~•~

“Pro-abortion Catholic in good standing” is an oxymoron. 

The real bite to Flint's piece is that he goes after both Alaskan Senators, and with a piercing ferocity. He raises the question of whether Communion should be withheld from them due to the very public support of abortion:

How should the church deal with such dissent?

America has two new cardinals who express different approaches. Cardinal Raymond Burke, Prefect of the Church’s highest court, recently stated:

“To ignore the fact that Catholics in public life …who persistently violate the moral law regarding the inviolability of innocent human life . . ., lead many into confusion or even error regarding the most fundamental teachings of the moral law, in fact, contributes to the confusion and error, redounding to the gravest harm to our brothers and sisters, and, therefore, to the whole nation. The perennial discipline of the Church, for that reason among other reasons, has prohibited the giving of Holy Communion and the granting of a Church funeral to those who persist, after admonition, in the grave violation of the moral law.”

Cardinal Donald Wuerl, Archbishop of Washington, no less condemnatory of scandal, fears publicly denying Communion would politicize the Eucharist.

The debate will continue. Whatever the outcome, each Catholic must follow the direction of the local bishop. Only he can make the prudential decision how to deal with those publicly espousing gravely sinful acts.

Pope Benedict

He goes on to argue that politicians must understand incompatibility of supporting abortion, and their role as public office holding Catholics. As I have stated before, it comes down to whom they feel they serve first, "Caesar or God." In the case of Alaska it appears that both of our Senators serve the former first. But what can really be done? Is denial of communion a legitimate and proper option? Pope Benedict, writing as then Cardinal Ratzinger explained in 2004:

On the question of Communion for Catholic politicians, Cardinal Ratzinger outlined a process of pastoral guidance and correction for politicians who consistently promote legal abortion and euthanasia. That process could extend to a warning against taking Communion, and in the case of "obstinate persistence" by the politician, the minister "must refuse to distribute" Communion, he said.

So what constitutes "obstinate persistence"? Is it actions? Words? Or is it a voting record? This has always been a hot button topic, and Flint doesn't shy away from painting the picture exactly as he sees it. He explains the incompatibility issue, he argues the damage that such a politician does to the mindset of the public, and even goes so far as saying that Senator Murkowski's position seems to come close to supporting abortion, and therefore if true would be incompatible with the Faith. He states:

Catholic politicians must understand the incompatibility of supporting abortion and being a faithful Catholic. They must confront themselves, consider the damage they do the church, and conclude, as all of us must, that when in grave sin, penance and reparation are a precondition to receiving Christ in the Eucharist.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski 

Senator Lisa Murkowski answered the Catholic Anchor poll that she was “personally opposed” to abortion, the common preface of pro-abortion Catholics, but was required to uphold the laws of the land, i.e., Roe v. Wade. This is disingenuous. She is not a judge who is required to apply the law created elsewhere. She is a legislator whose job it is to make law. Defending abortion is a position incompatible with the Catholic faith.

Many Catholic public officials reverse Saint Thomas More’s declaration. God takes second place to the king.

Now, what is most striking here is that this article appears in the Archdiocesan paper, in which the Archbishop himself is the publisher. I would not be so foolish or brazen to assume where His excellency comes down on this, but I will say it is a rather welcomed piece.

What lingers is what affect their public stances have over fellow Catholics. This is a hard question to answer, and it is an even harder problem to deal with, especially for the Archbishop. Should the public and official support of abortion and other stances held contrary of the teachings of the Church be grounds for denial of Communion? Should a pastoral guidance occur prior to that denial? What information, if any, should be made public regarding the official and the Church's discussion on the matter? What Catechesis is necessary for lay constituents of the official when situations like this occur?

Personally I disagree with Cardinal Wuerl that denial is somehow akin to politicizing the Eucharist. It isn't a matter of a Bishop denying Communion to somehow convince a politician into changing their policy stance on an issue. Instead, the action is taken to preserve and correct the soul and heart of a Catholic that is under the protection and guidance of a particular Bishop. Archbishop Schwietz is in the unenviable position of being the Ordinary over two Catholic Senators, both of whom have incompatible stances on several Catholic issues. We must remember to pray for the Senators and our Archbishop. This is no easy decision for a Bishop, and yet left unchecked the people of the Archdiocese suffer. Catholic Politicians cannot be pro-choice, that view is incompatible with the Faith; the only solution may be that the Bishop is required to deny that official Communion at Mass. This would be done in an effort to reform both the public official, and the people hurt by that official's open and public stance on issues contrary to the teachings of the Church.