We ask you, humbly, to help.

Hi readers, it seems you use Catholic Online a lot; that's great! It's a little awkward to ask, but we need your help. If you have already donated, we sincerely thank you. We're not salespeople, but we depend on donations averaging $14.76 and fewer than 1% of readers give. If you donate just $5.00, the price of your coffee, Catholic Online School could keep thriving. Thank you. Help Now >

They're not Gonna Take It--Anymore

Free World Class Education
FREE Catholic Classes

By Mark Brumley

Out of the woodwork they come. Bishops from every region of the country are declaring that Catholic politicians who reject Catholic teaching on subjects such as abortion, euthanasia, and same-sex marriage shouldn't receive Holy Communion.

Not all bishops, of course. But many. Certainly, many more this year than in the past thirty years. Consider one example.

Recently, the bishop of Colorado Springs, Michael Sheridan, issued a pastoral letter warning Catholic politicians who support abortion, euthanasia, and same-sex marriage not to receive Holy Communion.

The media had a field day, but Bishop Sheridan didn't back down. Not even after a major donor to the Diocese of Colorado Springs threatened to withdraw a substantial financial contribution.

Bishop Sheridan didn't do what he was widely reported to have done--say he would deny certain politicians or their supporters the Eucharist. He said that, given the objectively gravely sinful nature of what they're are doing, they should refrain from receiving Holy Communion.

Apparently, the distinction between warning wayward Catholic politicians against receiving the Eucharist and denying it to them, significant as it is, was lost on many in the media.

Other bishops have weighed in on proabortion politicians receiving the Eucharist, in varying degrees of forcefulness and clarity, including Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver, Archbishop John Myers of Newark, Archbishop Sean O' Malley of Boston, Archbishop John Vlazny of Portland, Oregon, Archbishop Alfred Hughes of New Orleans, Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz of Lincoln, Nebraska, Bishop William Weigand of Sacramento, California, Bishop Olmsted of Phoenix, and Co-adjutor Bishop Thomas Wenski of Orlando, Florida.

We ask you, humbly: don't scroll away.

The logic of the bishops seems impeccable, irrefutable. Support for abortion, euthanasia, and same-sex marriage is gravely sinful. Those who engage in gravely sinful acts shouldn't receive Holy Communion. Therefore, those who support gravely sinful things such as legalized abortion, euthanasia, and same-sex marriage shouldn't receive Holy Communion. Q.E.D.

Although Catholic politicians who reject Catholic teaching on those points cry foul, no one should wonder why Catholic bishops, as spokesmen for the Catholic Church, say such things. They're simply acting like bishops--pastors--warning their people not to do things that are gravely sinful.

At least one bishop has gone farther than issuing warnings. Archbishop Raymond Burke of St. Louis said he would deny Holy Communion to pro-abortion Catholic politicians, including presidential candidate John Kerry.

The band of brother bishops hasn't yet followed suit. If they do, are they within their rights?

Within their civil rights, without a doubt. There's no law against bishops deciding which positions on social issues are gravely sinful according to the Catholic Church. Nor a law against bishops deciding that people who espouse sinful positions--including politicians--put themselves outside the range of acceptable belief to receive the Eucharist.

Yet according to some critics, recent statements by bishops aimed at dissenting Catholic politicians breach the "wall of separation of church and state." This is sheer nonsense.

Set aside the question of whether such a separation of church and state was envisioned by the Founding Fathers. It's an infringement on the free exercise of religion to insist that Catholic pastors--or any other kind of pastors--must accept as full participants in their church politicians, or their supporters, who act contrary to the church's central beliefs.

So much for civil law. Does denying Holy Communion to pro-abortion, pro-euthanasia, or pro-same-sex marriage Catholic politicians violate Church law?

Not according to the Vatican's Cardinal Francis Arinze, who heads the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments. At an April 2004 press conference to present a new document on the Sacred Liturgy Cardinal Arinze said pro-abortion politicians shouldn't try to receive the Eucharist and priests ought not to give it to them.

Cardinal Arinze's position is no innovation. According to the Code of Canon Law, "Those who ... obstinately persist in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to Holy Communion" (CIC 915).

Supporting abortion, euthanasia, or same-sex marriage is, says Catholic teaching, objectively gravely sinful. Politicians or their supporters who obstinately persist in promoting such things, well, obstinately persist in grave sin. If they do so before the public, then they obstinately persist in manifest grave sin and shouldn't, according to Canon 915, be admitted to Holy Communion.

Embrace your Faith

From the perspective of Church law, then, bishops are on solid ground to deny the Eucharist to Catholic politicians who support abortion, euthanasia, or same-sex marriage.

Still, some Catholics object. One priest sermonized that since Jesus didn't deny Judas the Eucharist at the Last Supper, bishops and priests have no business denying the Eucharist to Catholics, not even to obstinately persistent committers of manifest grave sin.

The priest's objection ignores a crucial distinction between what Jesus did at the Last Supper, when he alone knew of Judas' sin, and what a pastor does in giving the Eucharist to one who obstinately persists in manifest grave sin.

It's one thing for a pastor to allow someone to receive the Eucharist whom the pastor alone suspects of unrepentant grave sin. It's another thing for a pastor to do so when everyone in the congregation knows the man to be unrepentant.

In the former case, the recipient of the Eucharist brings judgment upon himself, as Paul notes in 1 Cor 11:27-29. In the latter case, both the recipient and the minister of the Eucharist risk leading others to sin. By their actions, the man and the priest imply either that (1) it's acceptable to receive Holy Communion unrepentant of grave sin or (2) what the Church claims is gravely sinful really isn't.

Some observers have wondered aloud about the growing number of like-minded bishops taking energetic stands regarding pro-abortion Catholic politicians. We've had pro-abortion Catholic politicians receiving Holy Communion since 1973, the critics note.

The bishops, of course, know this. Apparently, they've just decided that thirty-one years is long enough.

_____________________________

Mark Brumley is President of Ignatius Press (www.ignatius.com) and author of 'How Not to Share Your Faith' (Catholic Answers). Here is Mark's book on Amazon - www.amazon.com