Dispel the Confusion

By Russell Shaw
Herald Columnist
(From the issue of 7/15/04)

At their assembly in Denver last month the American bishops said it was up to each of them individually to decide whether or not to withhold communion from Catholic politicians who flout the Church's teaching on abortion. This appears to be in some tension with the statement by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, prefect of the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, that once such a person has been warned, communion "must" be withheld.

But be that as it may, there's at least one aspect of this matter on which Church leaders can and should move swiftly and in unison. This is the urgent need to do all they can to dispel the confusion that now exists in many Catholics' minds about what is at stake in this area.

According to conventional wisdom reflected in opinion polls, the issue is essentially political. Should bishops refuse communion to pro-choice Catholics politicians as a way of forcing them to vote the Church's way on abortion? (A more specific variant of that would go: Should this sanction be invoked against Sen. John F. Kerry in hopes of influencing the outcome of the presidential election?)

You hear that line in the letter by 48 House Democrats, all of them Catholics and most pro-choice, telling the bishops to lay off. Trying to "influence votes by the threat of withholding a sacrament" might cause an upsurge of anti-Catholicism, they said. Similarly, Victoria Reggie Kennedy, wife of that well-known pro-choice Catholic Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA), warned in The Washington Post against using the Eucharist "to coerce governmental action."

It's no help for Kerry to say, as he recently did, that he thinks life begins at conception but wouldn't want to impose his views on people who don't. That's like saying I think it's wrong for somebody to murder you, but if the would-be murderer is proceeding in good faith, it would be wrong for me to interfere.

Facing such confusion, it's self-defeating for bishops to speak of withholding communion as a sanction. The terminology—sanctions, penalties—reinforces the legalistic mentality at the root of this problem. The serious question is this: Is a Catholic legislator who supports abortion sufficiently in communion with the Catholic Church to be able rightly to receive the Eucharist? The issue is integrity—the integrity of Catholic doctrine and of the sacrament itself.

The bishops got that right in their Denver statement.

"The Eucharist is the source and summit of Catholic life," they said. "Therefore, like every Catholic generation before us, we must be guided by the words of St. Paul, 'Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the Body and Blood of the Lord' (1 Cor 11.27).

"This means that all must examine their consciences as to their worthiness to receive the Body and Blood of our Lord. This examination includes fidelity to the moral teaching of the Church in personal and public life."

But it will take more than a statement to do the job. The current situation mirrors confusion of 30 years' standing on the question of eligibility to receive communion. It's reflected in the current practice of indiscriminate, come-one come-all reception.

Jesus does indeed want us to partake of his Body and Blood—if we are properly disposed, meaning not in a state of serious sin. Otherwise, he wants us to take the necessary steps to become worthy by repenting and confessing our sins before we receive. These points badly need making today.

Copyright ©2004 Arlington Catholic Herald.  All rights reserved.