Pro-Abortion Politicians and Voters and the Reception of Holy Communion

Synod of Bishops, 11th General Assembly (October 3-23, 2005), Instrumentum Laboris, n. 73. http://www.vatican.va/romancuria/synod/documents/rcsynoddoc20050707instralabor-xi-assemblyen.html.

U.S. Bishops, “Catholics in Political Life,” Origins 34: 7 (July 1, 2004): 97, 99.

U.S. Bishops, “Catholics in Political Life,” Origins 34: 7 (July 1, 2004), 99.

U.S. Bishops, “Catholics in Political Life,” Origins 34: 7 (July 1, 2004), These are summaries of the original text.

U.S. Bishops, “Catholics in Political Life,” Origins 34: 7 (July 1, 2004)

Here, the U.S. Bishops recognized that decisions about denying Communion to such politicians are a matter for each bishop's conscience. As is true of all judgments of conscience, each bishop must take into consideration all circumstances related to his decision. The Bishop of Pittsburgh. Donald Wuerl, noted “The issue of a national politician's reception of holy Communion and public stance on moral issues is a concern that affects not just the local church wherein the politician lives, but also considerably affects the church throughout the nation, as was evidenced in last year's election and the controversy surrounding Sen. John Kerry. Here, one may well understand the national implications on the part of any diocesan bishop who would rightfully wish to make declarations in regard to a politician receiving or not receiving holy Communion in the church while at odds with church teaching.” While recognizing the right of diocesan bishops to make such decisions. Bishop Wuerl nevertheless proposes that individual diocesan bishops express a collegial spirit with regard to such decisions either through “an actual mechanism of the conference [USCCB] to facilitate some consensus and unified pastoral practice.” or by a “commitment on the part of all the bishops to discuss beforehand, through some conference structure, decisions that will impact all of the bishops and the church as a whole,” (Sec. Bishop Donald Wuerl, “Episcopal Pastoral Decisions and Ecclesial Communion,” Pittsburgh Catholic (August 26, 2005). The first of these recommendations would effectively prevent the diocesan bishop from acting in conformity with his own conscience whenever the consensus of the USCCB would differ from his own judgment. The second proposal, if understood as requiring the permission of the USCCB before acting, could also impede the diocesan bishop's exercise of conscience. Perhaps the best way to ensure the freedom of a diocesan bishop to exercise such pastoral decisions in his own diocese according to his own conscience while at the same time contributing to the collegial spirit of the body of bishops, would be to request that bishops inform the USCCB of such decisions whenever possible.

Some bishops and commentators have expressed grave concern about telling such politicians not to receive Communion. They fear that refusing them Communion would turn the Communion line into a battle line. Such a view presupposes that politicians would present themselves for Communion in defiance of the bishop's directive. However, the hope is that denying Communion to such politicians would persuade them to rectify their situation of objectively grave sin by repenting and ceasing to promote gravely immoral practices.

In a September, 2005 address to the Commission of the Bishops’ Conferences of the European Community (COMECE), the Archbishop of Washington. D.C., Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick, stated that the U.S. bishops are facing a choice between a persuasive and a defensive approach to influencing public policy. He stated that “one of the most serious challenges facing our Church involves Catholics in public life who publicly take positions that violate fundamental Church teaching.” The Cardinal characterized the approach of those bishops who threatened to deny Communion to such politicians as defensive, and added that most bishops chose “to reach out and teach and persuade these people without publicly using the sacrament as a disciplinary tool.” (For a report on the Cardinal's remarks see the newspaper of the Archdiocese of Washington, The Catholic Standard, October 20, 2005.) However, those bishops who have threatened to deny Communion to such politicians have done so only after all other efforts to persuade have failed. In fact, given such efforts, the threat to refuse Communion must itself be viewed as a last effort to persuade.

Ratzinger Cardinal Joseph “Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion: General Principles,” Origins 34: 7 (July 1, 2004): 133.

“Propositions of Synod on the Eucharist, Nos. 46-50.” Zenit.org, November 6, 2005, Proposition 46.

Ratzinger op. cit., 133.

Paul John II Veritatis Splendor (August 6, 1993) (Boston: Daughters of St. Paul. 1993), n. 72.

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, “Doctrinal Note on Some Questions Regarding the Participation of Catholics in Public Life.” No. 4, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/doc_doc_index.htm (original emphasis).

Ratzinger op. cit., 1.33.

See Veritatis Splendor, nn. 71-83.

Kopfensteiner Thomas R. “The Man With a Ladder.” America 191: 13 (November 1, 2004): 9-11.

Kopfensteiner Thomas R. “The Man With a Ladder.” America 191: 13 (November 1, 2004), 11.

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, “Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons.” (July 31, 2003), Origins 33: 11 (August 14, 2003) N. 6, 180 (emphasis added).

Kopfensteiner op. cit., 11.

Ratzinger op. cit., n. 3, 133.

Kopfensteiner op. cit., 10.

As Bishop of La Crosse, Wisconsin, Burke Raymond L. (now Archbishop of St. Louis) showed great fortitude and prudence in his efforts to bring three pro-abortion Catholic politicians to a change of heart. Although his actions predate Ratzinger's memorandum to the USCCB Task force, Burke followed the very same procedure outlined by Ratzinger.