Archbishop Burke and Communion Redux
Archbishop Burke has just published a scholarly article entitled “The Discipline Regarding the Denial of Holy Communion to Those Obstinately Preserving in Manifest Grave Sin.”
It’s implications are not entirely clear to me, but he seems to be saying that each individual minister of communion (lay as well as ordained) has an obligation to refuse communion to Catholics in manifest grave sin, including pro-choice politicians. He argues that Eucharistic ministers are “held, under pain of mortal sin, to deny the sacraments to the unworthy.” Here’s an article about it in The Pew Forum, pithily entitled “Ministers Must now be Communion Cops.”
I’m not sure what’s going on in the article, so I have some questions about how this is supposed to work in practice:
1. Is Archbishop Burke trying to encourage priests and lay ministers in dioceses other than his own to adopt this policy, in the face of different procedures in place adopted by their bishop? Assuming his account of the norms themselves are correct (I’m not a canon lawyer) there is still the question of jurisdiction. Does canon law provide for who constitutes the supreme interpretor of canon law within a particular dioceses? Assuming that canon law provides that the bishop of that diocese is the definitive interpreter, is Archbishop Burke encouraging widespread ecclesiastical civil disobedience on the part of priests and Eucharistic ministers in dioceses which do not approach the communion issue in his way?
2. As Archbishop Burke notes, canon law requires potential communicants to be warned before being denied communion. How is this all supposed to work, if each individual Eucharistic minister has to make up his or her own mind about who is worthy? The question of the relationship of law and morality is complicated under the best circumstances, always dealing with the art of the possible. Church teaching on, say, cooperation with evil and legislation is not easy to understand. Who decides if a politician’s explanation is good enough–that he is acting in good faith–or that he has been given sufficient chance to reform — each and every communion minister?
3. What happens if there’s a mess? Suppose a communion minister in another diocese denies communion to a politician whom he believes is acting in grave sin about life/marriage issues (say there’s a disagreement about whether domestic partnership health benefits undermines marriage). To whom can the politician denied communion appeal? The bishop? But what if the communion minister doesn’t recognize his authority, since he wasn’t sound enough on life issues, since he didn’t replicate Archbishop Burke’s denial of communion policy. Would justice require a public apology in the diocesan newspaper? Who should issue the apology? The bishop? He didn’t deny communion. The Eucharistic minister? He doesn’t think he did anything wrong. He read the Catechism. And after all, he’s under “pain of mortal sin” to protect the sanctity of the Eucharist.
4. How does civil law enter into this? Suppose a person denied communion claims that it was done as part of a personal vendetta on the part of Eucharistic minister, and tat the denial constitutes the tort of defamation. How would such a law suit proceed, and what would the church state implications be?
5. What about other sins? As Archbishop Burke’s article seems to state, the provisions he invokes contemplate refusing communion to a whole range of public sinners,not merely politicians. It is his own prudence, it seems to me, that limits denial of communion to these cases. But others might have different prudential judgments about who constitutes a recalcitrant public sinner? Do we want each and every communion minister deciding who’s a sufficiently public sinner in the range of cases discussed in the article? See question about defamation above.
Doesn’t culpability for sin require that the sinner understands his behavior to be a sin?
Isn’t it possible for a politician who has never had an abortion, never assisted with an abortion, never helped someone get an abortion, never encouraged anyone to have an abortion fail to see how he has committed a grave sin by not requiring penalties be exacted under the law for those who do?
If bishops have specific people in mind when they make these statements, why can’t they work through this with those individuals in private instead of making across-the-board public statements like this?
Isn’t this part of the pastoral care they should provide?
If #4 is really a possibility, then perhaps a waiver of liability could be required, with a lapel pin indicating that the waiver is on file. Seeing the lapel pin, the Eucharistic minister could then act as necessary without legal threat. Alter boys could keep waivers and pens available for unregistered guests. Perhaps a retinal scanning device could be put in place to recognize all who have been judged to be “obstinately preserving in manifest grave sin” so that no EM would have to worry about making such a judgment call.
This article came to my attention a few days ago on a different blog.
What struck me most was the virtual lack of citations to gospel texts. Burke cites aplenty various church scholars over the centuries as well as Paul’s letters. Yet, when it comes to the teachings of Jesus, the AB can only cite (if I haven’t missed anything) two Matthean passages: Mt 7:6 and 15:26. The former reads, “Do not give what is holy to dogs — they will only turn and attack you. Do not throw your pearls in front of pigs — they will only trample them underfoot.” The second passage tells of the Canaanite woman who asked the Lord to cure her daughter, and Jesus — acknowledging her great faith — fulfills her request.
Not only do I question the applicability of these two texts (after all, who ultimately has the power of discernment to read another’s heart, and do all people of good faith agree on the issues of induced abortion, stem cell research, and euthanasia?), but I find it especially interesting that Burke, in citing Mt 7:6, ignores the previous five verses where Jesus instructs his followers not to judge others, etc.
Although the AB of St. Louis is a canon lawyer, he is also supposed to be a pastor, indeed, the chief shepherd of his diocese. This article, however, is legalistic to the extreme. Its stress on “the law” reminds one of his deplorable dealings with the Catholics of St. Stanislaus Kostka Church, an episode that understandably raised the hackles of not a few moderate and progressive folks who rightfully see the church as the People of God. With Burke, it’s “Obey or else.” He is a hierarch. He is the church’s version of the benevolent dictator.
The question comes to the fore: Is canon law to serve the People of God — saints and sinners all, or are we expected to serve canon law? The AB is no moderate here.
In his book CANON LAW AS MINISTRY: Freedom and Good Order for the Church, James Coriden, professor of canon law and dean emeritus at the WTU, notes the “identity crisis” facing this field, a debate involving “basic questions about the very nature and function of Canon Law.”
Coriden notes how Good Pope John, in announcing his wish to convene a Vatican council, also expressed his wish to update the Code of Canon Law. “Pope John XXIII intuited that the Council would have a major impact on Canon Law and for that reason he linked the two…” The pope called this undertaking “a recognitio, that is, a rethinking or reunderstanding of the Code.” According to Coriden, “The revisionary enterprise surfaced basic differences regarding the need for church law, the nature of that law in an ecclesial body, and the wisdom of its arrangement in a code.”
Coriden sees what I would call competing views of church in Vatican II’s aftermath: “one of sacrament and communion, the other of a juridically organized ‘perfect society’ which parallels the structure of secular states.” He asks, “Is [canon law] a juridical or a theological science?…Are questions answered by legal reasoning or by theological arguments?” “Legalism,” according to the author, “was denounced by the Council fathers along with triumphalism and clericalism. A rigidly juridical mode of church leadership was viewed as unsuitable and detrimental.”
In the final analysis, is the Catholic Church to be a Church of Law or a Church of Love? Burke, to me, is clearly advocating the former. There’s very little gospel in his portrayal of church.
Perhaps we need to see the AB’s recent pronouncements as part of a wider and longer-term effort to make the church one of law? God forbid.
The trouble is, I can’t actually see how it will work, as a matter of law. How does jurisdiction work? Any canonists out there?
Sounds like guerrilla warfare.
We all agree that the table of the Lord should be approached with the utmost respect and charity. I do like the approach that applauds the ministers knowing their community. With such progress people will perhaps stop searching outside the church for the community of believers who love and care for one another.
Clearly, pastors, let alone ministers of the Eucharist, hardly know their parishioners except for the usual clique and trusted few. So any sanctions against those approaching the table of the Lord are to stop while pastors get to know their parishes. This may take years.
In the old days, whoever thought they ought to be able to receive Communion went up to the altar rail. A person could not go to Communion for any number of reasons, including “I didn’t get to Confession yesterday.” One excuse that probably came in pretty handy between family members was “I accidentally had a cup of coffee this morning.”
Now everyone processes up to Communion, a liturgical gesture which is beautiful in itself. However, it’s pretty obvious who is denying him/ herself Communion–and few do so.
Then, in my mom’s parish, they’ve started this thing where the Extraordinary Minister comes to the end of each pew. Everyone above a certain leg length really has to leave the pew so as not to cause full-body-dives–and there really isn’t much time to indicate to the minister “No thanks, I don’t want Communion today!” So everyone goes to Communion, prepared or not, annulment or not, Catholic or not.
I’m just saying, if more people were being honest about their moral-ecclesial lives, and if pastors made it feasible and normal for people to simply stay in the pew, there wouldn’t be this Cecil B. DeMille production where people are worried about defamation. Most likely plenty of people should be avoiding Communion on any given Sunday.
Or just bring back the fast–that would help.
Kathy:
I like your thinking on this; it makes it much easier to place the onus on the would-be communicant, and not put the minister of communion in such an awkward situation.
I wonder, however, whether any EM’s in St. Louis would consider resigning their positions in protest–or possibly in good conscience. “I’m sorry, but I cannot carry out what is now being required of me. Not only do I consider it unjust; I simply do not think I am the one to make these judgments.” What if a number of people took such a position? What effect, if any, would such a move have–especially if a number of people did this?
Mark,
I don’t think this is about St. Louis. I understand this to be an academic paper, which seems to have been written to persuade fellow bishops that the American policy should be changed in light of precedent, law, and universal norms among the Churches.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1666268,00.html
Random thoughts . . .
While I can’t pretend to have read all eleven- or twelve-thousand words of the article, I scanned through it closely enough to see he doesn’t mention that Jesus seems to have fully included Peter (who was about to deny him) and Judas (who was about to betray him) in the Last Supper.
There are those who claim anti-Catholicism is the “last acceptable prejudice.” Now,there is a Catholic majority on the Supreme Court, and somewhere around 25 to 30 percent of members of congress and senators are Catholic. If we had that proportion of some other religion (Mormons, for example), and the governing body of that religion talked of religious sanctions against their members if they voted a certain way, I think everybody (including Catholics) would be extremely alarmed. But it seems to bother the general public very little if at all that the Catholic Church is trying to pressure legislators to vote in a certain way. If there were real anti-Catholicism, wouldn’t we be getting a whole lot more complaints about the Church trying to impose its agenda on the country?
Unless I have missed it, there have been no pronouncements from the Catholic Church on how Catholic Supreme Court justices must vote on these same issues, and of course the biggest issue of them all (abortion) basically belongs to the Supreme Court. Why doesn’t the Catholic Church let it be known that if Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas don’t overturn Roe v Wade, they can’t receive communion? Some might say, “Because it’s their job to interpret the Constitution, not make the law.” But you could also argue that it is the job of a senator or congressman not to vote his conscience, but to represent his constituency. If I am a Catholic congressman, and my congressional district is solidly in favor of abortion rights, stem cell research, and gay marriage, is it my duty to vote against the wishes of the people who elected me to represent them?
David, this is precisely the pastoral problem: Judas seems to have eaten and drunk to his own condemnation.
“For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes.Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord.”
A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself.
(I Cor. 11:26-29)
I know I’m singing only one note, but my first worry about this is legal, not pastoral.
Think of this analogy to the secular society. Pace Jodie Foster and Dexter, In secular society, you can’t have every individual going out and deciding who’s committed a crime, on their own, and dealing out the appropriate consequences on their own.
I’m sure that the church’s canon law has some parallel principle-but where is it and what is it?
Cathy, assuming you mean that your first worry is canon-legal, my guess–knowing just a bit about canon law–is that Eucharistic ministers don’t have the authority to impose a penalty for a delict. I believe only the bishop has that right–and things become very tricky when penalties are imposed without naming the accused beforehand. This, I think, would violate the rights of the accused. These questions were raised when Bishop Bruskewitz excommunicated members of CTA in his diocese en masse.
Yes. But the article says this isn’t a penalty–so the analogy to criminal law is only an analogy. And this isn’t excommunication, but denial of communion, so it’s not clear to me the same procedural protections are granted to the potential deniee.
My question is really church order. Does Archbishop Burke really want to encourage people outside his diocese to do this–the critical reference to other bishops could be read this way.
If the blogosphere is any indication, I can certainly see a number of Catholics who support him organizing in other dioceses to do this as an act that would be analogous to civil disobedience.
Or am I missing something obvious?
At the grocery store sometimes the cashier has a list of people not to accept checks from. I’m assuming the cashier did not generate the list, but that s/he is obligated to follow its direction.
Kathy, I don’t think that’s an apt comparison. The cashier isn’t deciding on his own whether he should reject a person’s check based on information he’s gleaned outside the store. Rather, he’s been told not to accept checks by the competent authority.
Cathy, I don’t think you’re missing anything obvious. Burke’s proposal seems rather difficult to manage, and legally questionable. It is hard to believe his assertion that denying Communion isn’t a penalty. But hey, at least he isn’t afraid of a little fraternal correction: in the footnotes he names McCarrick and Mahony as bishops with incorrect views on the matter. I think this is the second instance of public fraternal correction since Bernardin launched Common Ground.
I read through the entire Burke article (penance, I think it would be called) and a few things stood out, some of which have been cited here, and some others I told interviewers:
One was, per Cathy and Peggy Steinfels, this seems to be a rather unsettling effort to enlist eucharistic ministers (lay and ordained) to his cause. And that could create all sorts of confusion and difficulties, for those ministers and for other bishops. The effort to circumvent the ordinary cannot be welcome among most of his brother bishops.
That leads to a second consideration, which is whether this will cause any trouble–or policy change–in the bishops conference. They meet in November, and may discuss these issues. Burke seems more isolated than ever in his hard-line stance–even Archbishop Chaput seems to have moderated his earlier positions. On the other hand, it will likely lead to more debate, and more headlines, and less clarification than ever. At bottom, this whole exercise seems like an effort by Burke to justify his past position.
Third, it is remarkable, as Grant noted, that the bishops will criticize each other when it suits them. Burke is sharply critical of his fellow bishops, collectively and by name.
Fourth, the article is long and has lots of footnotes and historical references. But it doesn’t make the case. At all. In fact, by citing so many historical analogies to bolster his argument, Burke only seems to undermine it (IMHO) by showing how much views have changed and how badly communion-denial was used before. For example, citing St. Basil’s command that any widow over 60 who remarries be denied communion until “she will have renounced her impure passion” doesn’t seem to help us today.
It also strikes me as odd that he quotes Cardinal Ratzinger’s response to the bishops’ statement declaring that it was “very much in harmony” with Ratzinger’s own position. But Burke ignores that and seems to try to put another position in Ratzinger/Benedict’s mouth in order to argue against the decision by the bishops. Burke’s blast also seems to ensure that Benedict will face these “wafer war” questions more intesnely than ever when he comes to the US in April.
Finally, never in the article does Archb Burke adequately explain how this relates to the concrete situation of US policies and laws on abortion. He seems to take “obstinate manifest grave sin” as a given, that we all–and all ministers of communion–would know what that means in regard to the abortion debate and when someone has crossed that threshold and when they have not.
There are so many issues and laws and policies and decisions on abortion being made at varying levels of applicability. By the archbishop’s definition, the Bishops of Connecticut, with their acquiesence to the Plan B post-rape pill program, could be denied communion…
Kathy,
To the extent that there is pastoral concern for the Catholic politicians involved, Jean Raber makes an excellent point: “If bishops have specific people in mind when they make these statements, why can’t they work through this with those individuals in private instead of making across-the-board public statements like this?”
As for pastoral concern regarding the rest of the faithful, in terms of their being made fully aware of the Church’s teachings on the issue of abortion, I find it extremely difficult to believe people will not find the Church’s teachings on abortion to be “hollow” it pro-choice Catholic politicians aren’t denied communion.
And in any case, how much of an impact would denying communion really make on the general public, or even fellow Catholics? It seems to me that if the offenses being committed and the harm being done by pro-choice Catholic politicians are as grave as Archbishop Burke maintains, denying communion is a tepid response. If those who believe as Burke do really want the message to get across, excommunication would seem to be their most effective weapon.
Of course, the more determined the efforts of the Church to dictate the votes cast by Catholic politicians, the more likely the return to the situation we thought had become a thing of the past with the election of President Kennedy.
One of Burke’s heroes is St Louis king of France who led one of the Crusades. Now that is what a Catholic politician should do is go to war for what the church wants and, never mind refusing communion, jail those who do not listen to the church. Of course, on war, he would be disagreeing with Benedict XVI and John Paul II.
And Burke might also get rid of all those rich garments and gold chalices in his diocese to aid the poor as he professes.
Burke is right in saying that in receiving the. Eucharist we should be more and more like Jesus. I just wonder how he measures up to that. Looks like much more casuistry than gospel.
Grant, I think that if anything were ever set in motion on this matter, bishops would tell pastors whom not to give Communion to, and pastors would tell the lay ministers. The bishop would be the competent authority. The lay minister’s responsibility would be to abide by the bishop’s designation of those ineligible for Communion in the diocese at any given time.
The list could be updated, naturally, as soon as the politician paid his/ her bill. So to speak.
In most cases he probably would try to speak to the person beforehand. But what if the person didn’t change? Personally I would be happy to see a new frankness of communication between pastors and people on matters of conscience, instead of the don’t ask don’t tell policy that so often effectively prevails.
David N., I couldn’t follow the negatives in your second paragraph. Not a criticism–I’d just like to understand what you mean.
Kathy,
There’s one too many “not” in the paragraph. Let me totally rephrase, though . . . .
I believe bishops can speak clearly and credibly against abortion without denying communion to pro-choice Catholic politicians. Burke says the following: “No matter how often a Bishop or priest repeats the teaching of the Church regarding procured abortion, if he stands by and does nothing to discipline a Catholic who publicly supports legislation permitting the gravest of injustices and, at the same time, presents himself to receive Holy Communion, then his teaching rings hollow.” I don’t believe that.
Let me add that I believe the Church’s teachings on abortion are one issue, and the matter of how a Catholic elected (or appointed) government officials in a democracy may vote on legislation (or rule in a court case) that permits abortion is a related but quite different issue. I find particularly interesting what the obligations of a Supreme Court justice are along these lines, since the abortion issue basically rests with the Court, which of course has a Catholic majority.
David,
Is abortion different from other issues in the way a legislator or judge must act in response to it? In other words, does the conscience of a legislator or judge (or prosecutor) have any bearing in how a case is handled?
Kathy,
I hope someone will correct me if I’m wrong, but Burke’s proposal seems to be something quite different from what you have in mind.
I often don’t receive. Now that we all stand up during Communion, it’s easier to see that there seem to be several individuals who are doing likewise, for whatever reason.
However, I find Catholic sensibilities about the Eucharist a bit weird. God does not need to be “protected” from sinners, even those unfit to receive.
It makes a bit more sense if you’re trying to get someone to abstain so as not to think he’s got a “stamp of approval” on his behavior, thus allowing him to go further down the road to perdition.
In those cases, though, I don’t know why someone can’t be encouraged to present himself for a blessing. This is something I truly miss at the Episcopal Church. You could go to the rail, bow your head and cross your arms on your chest (like if you were dead), and the priest wouldn’t give you the eucharist, but would say a short prayer for a change of heart.
This would seem to be a more loving response to sinners than what looks like shunning them.
Forgive me if if I find this discussion rather absurd if not disqusting.
Five million children die every year before they reach five years old. FROM PREVENTABLE CAUSES. Women are sold into slavery. Children are killed daily. Iraqi people are in daily turmoil and fear. Etc.
But men in Roman vestments from pagan Rome are preoccupied with zygotes.
Forgive me if I revolt.
Grant, the action being argued for (not a proposal, I think, but rather a rationale for the road not taken, like a minority opinion) includes the very explicit measure of an admonishment. This would be done outside of Mass, prior to it–and probably remote from it, by phone or visit between pastor (most likely the bishop) and the public figure.
See the “sixth principle” in section 7, note the expression “duly admonished,” and see Conclusion #5.
Apparently abortion is a special case to the Catholic Church, since as far as I know, it is only over abortion that there has been a serious discussion of disciplining Catholic politicians who do not vote as the Church wishes them to. Just to take one issue (see Bill Mazella’s message above for others), John Paul II was a strong critic of the war in Iraq, so is Benedict XVI, and so are the American bishops. I know of no proposals to discipline Catholic politicians who defend and support (and fund) the Iraq war.
I don’t believe conscience is the issue here, since I am convinced (although you may not be) that politicians (some, at least) who say they personally oppose abortion but defend at least some legal abortions are acting in good conscience. This is a pluralistic society, and it can be reasonably argued that Catholic views should not be imposed on non-Catholics. In Judaism, which I believe has as much reverence for life as Catholicism, there is simply no question that an abortion may be performed to save the life of the mother. The Catholic position is that there is never a justification for abortion. It seems to me it is not an unreasonable argument to say that in our American democracy, a Catholic politician has no right, whatever his own personal beliefs, to deprive a Jewish woman of the medical intervention her tradition calls for.
Kathy,
How does that link up with your example of the grocery-store clerk?
Grant,
For real?
Okay. This is how it would work. The bishop “duly admonishes” a Catholic public figure. The person does not have any intention of losing the PAC money, voting bloc or party standing. So s/he says “Thank you, bishop, for your time but I’ve got to vote my conscience.” The bishop says “I’m sorry but I must henceforth withhold Communion from you as a disciplinary measure. Please let me know the moment you change your mind.” The senator from Massachusetts says “Yeah, right.” So the bishop writes a letter to all the pastors and says, “Senator X is not to receive Communion until I notify you, in writing, otherwise.”
And all the local ministers of Communion–the grocery clerks, as it were–obey the bishop’s directive.
(I wonder if part of the confusion is the article’s expression “minister of Communion.” I take this to be a general term, in the canonical sense–including all the ministers, ordinary and otherwise.)
One thing that frustrates me in conversations regarding denial of communion is the arguments that rely on the logic that since it is difficult (or impossible) to ensure that denying communion will be appropriately done in all cases, there is no case in which it is appropriate.
The first question, I think, that needs to be answered by anyone who engages in this argument is, “Is it ever appropriate to deny communion to someone in manifest grave sin?” It seems to me that many who criticize Archbishop Burke really object to the very idea of denying communion in any case.
In Burke’s case, didn’t he actually privately meet (even repeatedly) with some politicians from his diocese to discuss their abortion positions and votes before denying them communion? Isn’t this the pastorally correct way to handle this?
Kathy,
At the beginning of his essay, Burke makes clear that he’s referring to both ordinary and extraordinary ministers of Communion. It seems to me that you’re providing a lot of connective tissue that is simply lacking in Burke’s article. I don’t know what he thinks “admonishment” means, nor do I know whether he believes it entails making a list and passing it on to all his pastors, who would in turn deliver it to his Communion ministers. It also doesn’t address the problem of public sinners who receive Communion outside their home diocese. I doubt anyone wants a national database of the “publicly unworthy.”
Burke does refer to a situation in which a priest cannot deny a public sinner Communion without causing further scandal, in which case he ought not to refuse the communicant–which is interesting, and I think bears on some of the questions Cathy and others have raised in this thread.
Grant,
“Admonishment” is the connective tissue. I’m not introducing it. And I’m not, like some, pretending that it isn’t material.
Sean, I have no objection whatever to excommunicating people.
What confuses me (and perhaps others) is whether there’s a difference between a priest or EM’s denying people communion at the parish level, and formal excommunication, which can only be done by a bishop (except in the case of abortion, where excommunication is automatic).
If it were me, I’d prefer to be formally excommunicated, which would require that the priest and bishop remonstrate with me and (assuming I decline reconciliation and accept penance), publicly make it clear I am not to receive, not anywhere, not no how, no gray area about it, rather than to leave it up to an EM.
Listen to “Catholic Answers” on the radio sometime, and you’ll hear a sickening litany of complaints from morality narcs who want somebody to know that “Mildred” started taking the Pill after her third kid, or “Bob” got divorced without an annulment and brings his non-Catholic new wife to communion, or “Louise and Denny” are shacked up, or “Tiffany” has been messing around with the football team and is now expecting a baby in November.
Frankly, I think it would be kinder to simply confront these transgressors, remonstrate with them, offer them reconciliation and penance, and if they refuse, turn them over to the bishop for public excommunication. It would at least stop the gossip and show that the Church means business about excommunication.
Oh, and the Church could also do a better job remonstrating with the gossip mongers, because last (CCC 2477) detraction and rash judgment were also sins.
There is a slippery slope argument against pursuing the course Archbishop Burke advocates. Does he intend to limit the refusal of communion to pro-choice politicians? I don’t think he can, if his reasoning is sound. Then where does it end? Cohabitation is one of his historical examples. The database will have to be very large if he’s consistent.
Kathy,
I certainly didn’t mean to give the impression that you think admonishment immaterial. I just think it’s a bit of a stretch to claim that Burke means what you say he means. The text doesn’t go that far. Unfortunately, the most Burke does in addressing the problems raised here is to acknowledge that it’s going to be difficult. Again and again he emphasizes the unique responsibility of the Communion minister in deciding who should receive the Eucharist, without providing sufficient context regarding instruction from the bishop.
Jean,
A couple of points –
It seems to me the issue is not one of whether, in principle, one can be denied Communion, but the manner and standard for doing so. You seem to agree, except that you seem to be saying that some form of juridical excommunication ought to be the line. That has the beauty of simplicity and clarity, but it seems to me that it undermines the Eucharist and results in scandal.
Let’s suppose that the priest actually sees a parishioner commit a grave sin immediately before Mass (as do others), and then as he processes down the aisle hears the same person bragging about it to a friend. What should he do if that person presents himself for Communion?
Most of the arguments I here are not about the principle of the thing, that is where there are any circumstances under which one can be denied, but as to its application, that is when is it appropriate. My brief – and incomplete – reading of Burke’s article is that he is trying to engage the question.
It seems that there is too much emphasis on the “punishment” aspect of this question, and too little on the scandal issue and the consequences of sin. A few years back, I was out of town with a good friend of mine, and unusually, I was traveling back on a Sunday and had to go to Mass where we were instead of when we got home. My friend hadn’t been to Mass for years, and had some issues with the Church, but for whatever reason, he asked to come along. As we went there, and through much of the Mass I thought, do I have an obligation to say anything to him? When the time for Communion came, he stayed seated. After Mass, without my saying anything, he said, “I may not be a good Catholic, but I’m still enough of a Catholic to know I needed to go to confession first.”
The problem is, his attitude is rare and becoming rarer still. The failure to say anything about this for so many years is part of the reason. I am not saying we should enlist a cadre of Communion Brown Shirts to enforce the rules, but that we ought to be able to recognize the need for some enforcement of this principle or we will continue to see scandal.
Also, by ignoring the problem we turn a blind eye to sin. In the case of my friend, I felt some obligation to say or do something not because I was offended, or to keep my Church pure or anything like that. I felt that way because I know that for him to have taken Communion would itself possibly (in fact probably) be a grave sin, and I actually believe that has consequences for him in particular, and for all of us.
Sure, I get annoyed and even angry when I see politicians shouting at a pro-abortion rally one day, and taking communion at a wedding the next. But the biggest reason it bothers me is not because of the politician, but because of the clear message it sends. It says that we Catholics either don’t believe what we say about the Eucharist, or that we don’t care. And that has consequences not just for the politicians, but for all of us.
As for slippery slopes, it seems to me there are two sides to this particular hill and we have been sliding down the other side way too long.
Grant, the bishop is the “decider.” That is not as clear in the article as the responsibility of the Communion minister, who is the “withholder.”
Does anyone understand that this situation of eligibility for Communion is completely out of control? There really is a one-hour fast, which at least means not to drain the Starbucks on the way into church and pop in a breathmint. Catholic Communion is for Catholics and maybe Orthodox (though you won’t find a lot of Orthodox bishops allowing that!) and not for your Methodist cousin visiting from Poughkeepsie. You’re really not supposed to go to Communion if you’ve committed a mortal sin such as fornication. But if you’ve rented a one-room apartment with your boyfriend, and no one is sleeping on the living room futon, you’re really really not supposed to go to Communion. Cohabitation institutionalizes fornication and makes it basically inevitable.
“Hi, I’m deliberately living in a way that fosters my grave sin. Can I please go to Communion?”
The thing about cohabitation, though, is all it would take is a few pointed homilies and people would get the idea. Whereas pro-choice politicians, for some reason, seem to have the idea that what they’re doing is somehow acceptable. It’s almost as if Catholic ethicists were giving them bad advice!!
All of this juridicism does fit the words of Jesus about externals while inside the person is evil. Jesus gave Judas the bread. How clear can it get? He said: The one who dips the bread is the one who betrays me.
What is the need for condemnation for communion when we say nothing of our literally hoarding or destroying food while people go hungry. How hypocritical can we get?
Bill, help me out, what is the connection between Eucharistic discipline and neglect of the poor?
Kathy,
Everyone knows the bishop is the decider. The problem is that the article also suggests that Communion ministers have a responsibility to make the decision to withhold. Burke’s article does not say anything to the effect of your interpretation above.
Grant,
The decision to withhold, since it does not contain a moment of admonishment, cannot be the same as the decision to designate an individual communicant.
Do you see any specific mention of a time when an EM is named as a “decider,” in the sense of designating an individual communicant as non-admissible?
I don’t believe there is any such mention, but maybe I’m missing something. As far as I can tell, the EM’s decision would be between a) following the bishop’s directive or b) not.
The connection with the two is that you, and others, are more interested in punishing people than following Jesus on Matt25:31-46. Jesus gave Judas communion. So who are you or the bishop to refuse to anyone. Refusal of communion began as a political weapon and modern day pharisees continue to make it one.
Neither the bishop nor anyone has the right to refuse communion. He can advise but not prohibit. It is for God to judge at the judgment.
Do not judge, if it ever had a meaning it applies here. Canon Law is not infallible and noone ever said it was/is.
We are not enjoined to refuse communion but we are enjoined to help Jesus in others. What are you not getting?
Bill, what I don’t get is, what would prevent me from refusing Communion to a pro–life politician on Sunday morning, then buying lunch for a homeless man on my way to work at the St. Vincent de Paul thrift shop?
Or, what’s to prevent at bishop from admonishing a guy on Tuesday and opening an unusually innovative and beneficial low-cost housing development for elderly people on Wednesday?
Sean, by scandal, you mean making a mockery of the sacrament, yes?
But doesn’t the catechism say we are to construe the actions of others in the best possible way? So unless the EM or priest actually SAW someone committing a grave sin–popping what was a clearly labeled birth control pill, fornicating in the car park of the church, guzzling coffee and breathmints 50 minutes before receiving–it seems to me the priest or EM has a responsibility to withhold snap judgment.
What if there is only water in the coffee mug and the medication is nitroglycerin?
That’s not to say that the person oughtn’t to be taken aside afterward, questioned by the priest and told he should consider himself in a state of excommunication until such time as he seeks reconciliation and performs appropriate penance, if, indeed, the person has done what he appears to have been doing.
If the person admits wrongdoing and says he doesn’t consider it a sin, then I think it has to go to the bishop. It absolutely has to. Otherwise, you’ve got Mrs. Grundy the EM waging her own private little war on sins, real or imagined.
One exception to all this which probably everyone has seen is a priest or EM withholding communion from teenagers chewing gum, though I’d argue this occurs more out of ignorance than sin.
Bill,
Yes, yes, Christ ate with tax collectors and prostitutes, but he didn’t finish supper and say, “time to get back to work girls.” Jesus came to change us, not to create a live-and-let-live culture. We are called to repentance.
It is too easy to answer every discussion about sin with “judge not,” but we are so busy as a culture not judging that no one even knows what a sin is. You are correct, I am absolutely in no position to condemn anyone for sin, but we have to look at actions, our own and others, and make judgments about them. If we fail to do this, we can’t repent or help others to.
Jean,
I do not deny that this is a thorny problem, but we do no good by ignoring it. As for the level of knowledge required, I find it curious that we are requiring a state of knowledge so absolute, and an evidentiary standard so high, that we would never make any other human decision. You are right to be concerned about issues of gossip and improper judgment, but there is a difference between that and instances where people openly and blatantly flaunt their sins – indeed even brag about them.
My problem with the debate is that there is for some an element of deception involved. The issue usually arises in blatant situations – where a politician openly defies Church teaching and proclaims his intent to continue to do so. When someone suggests that denying communion might be appropriate, we are treated to the claim that if we do that, then we will end up denying communion to Mrs. Hoolihan because Mrs. Grundy overheard the pharmacist say she uses birth control. Most of the time, people making these arguments make them not because they are worried about Mrs. hoolihan, but because they disagree with the position that the politician’s position is sinful in the first place.
That is why I asked my question, which I thank you for at least trying to address, which is, Is it ever OK to deny anyone Communion because of manifest grave sin?
If the answer is no, then that is a different debate than the one we are having.
I admit that the spectre of Mrs. Grundy the EM is daunting, with her handbag, gloves and pillbox hat. I think that I’m correct in saying that the decision would not be made on the spot.
I hope so, because sometimes Mrs. Grundy doesn’t understand canon law very well.
Sean asks: That is why I asked my question, which I thank you for at least trying to address, which is, Is it ever OK to deny anyone Communion because of manifest grave sin?
Jean says: Yes, if your bishop has decided that you can’t. Or you are chewing gum.
You know, when we talk about denying communion to people, we usually use the example of the Catholic politicians who vote contrary to Church teaching about abortion.
But here’s a poser: Who excommunicates the bishops who failed for years and years and years to remove known child molesters from their positions and hired hotsy totsy lawyers to fight abuse claims and hush things up?
If I were truly a cynic, it would occur to me that perhaps some bishops are encouraging us to focus on politicians instead of themselves.
But that would be uncharitable.
Sean, you mentioned that if your friend had taken communion, such act would “probably” have been a “grave sin.”
Let me offer a different perspective. Perhaps such eucharistic reception would have been a contradiction in action or reception under perception of pressure. By the former, I refer to a Catholic engaging in the outward sign of ongoing fellowship/communion even though s/he has been “out of communion/fellowship” for some period of time. By the latter, I refer to an individual not wanting to “stand out” among the rest of folks approaching the eucharistic minister. In the first case, inappropriate eucharistic reception would reflect ignorance of the meaning of communion within the Body of Christ. In the second case, one could rule out “grave sin” because the recipient felt pressured to get in line.
Kathy, you mentioned that cohabitation is a “grave sin,” thus morally precluding a couple from receiving communion. What about the following situations that virtually make it impossible for a loving couple to marry? Elderly couple whose grown children will not “allow” them to marry — for whatever reasons (issues involving inheritance, finances, Medicare, etc.). Young couple reluctant/afraid to marry because of their dysfunctional childhood experiences, etc. The divorced & remarried couple who rely on application of the internal forum solution but refuse to relocate to another parish as a matter of principle.
All of these cases would represent, I think, irregular eucharistic reception and would likely be considered “scandalous” by “orthodox” Catholics. Yet, I’m reminded of gospel passages where sinners and other undesirables went out of their way to touch the Lord’s cloak or otherwise present themselves to him. All of these “have nots” asked Jesus’ help. And give it he did.
One characteristic I’ve noticed among many Catholics on the right is the tendency to focus on others’ (mis)behavior or perceived wrongdoing. This — in spite of the fact that Jesus told us to be wary of judging others. (On this latter point, I again refer to AB Burke’s including a reference to dogs and pigs in his article but [conveniently?] ignoring the preceding verses where the Lord tells us not to judge others lest we be judged…)
I do not think any human being, Archbishop Raymond Burke of St. Louis or the lowliest lay eucharistic minister, is qualified to judge anyone else’s worthiness/unworthiness to receive communion.
Cathleen Kaveny has done an excellent job (as usual :) pointing out the more mundane legal problems, both civil and ecclesial, in following the AB’s demands. When we consider the demands of the gospel (for all intents and purposes, ignored by Burke), his fellow bishops need to tell this guy, “Thanks, but no thanks. And, by the way, mind your own da*n business!”
To repeat: Is the Catholic Church to be a Communion of Love or an Institution of Law? It’s ultimately a choice between two hard-and-fast alternatives. There’s no middle ground here. And Raymond Burke is a reminder of this fact.
Sean:
Jesus may not have told those tax collectors and sinners that he ate with to get back to the business of sinning but he did not set a time-table for their repentance either. His practice was to eat with them. When that practice was questioned by the Pharisess his answer was simple, that he came to “call”sinners to repentance. How long might that take? How many times did he eat with them in the process of their repentance? Were there some who never repented, all the while they dined with him? What is clear from the Gospel is that he came to call and not to coerce by refusing to eat with tax collectors and sinners. I suspect he wagered that he stood a better chance at having an effect if he maintained fellowship with them than if he excluded them from the meal.
Sean,
I have no problem with the idea of denying communion “to those obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin.” But I see two problems with what Archbishop Burke is up to. First, it smacks of a political maneuver to use the Eucharist in a propaganda campaign against certain politicians (as opposed to just safeguarding and clarifying Church teachings). And second, if the Church has made a clear case about what constitutes a sinful vote by a legislator in a representative democracy, I would like to see it. Compromise is fundamental to a functioning democracy. Suppose I am a Catholic senator and am opposed to all abortions without exception, but in a sincere attempt to have fewer abortions, I vote for a bill that greatly restricts abortion but also allows them in certain limited cases (rape, incest, life of the mother, severe genetic defects). I think most pro-life advocates would consider that a great advance, but would you say the senator is an accomplice to the limited number of abortions the bill does permit? Should he be denied communion? Or suppose a Catholic Republican comes from a heavily pro-choice Democratic district, and if he doesn’t vote pro-choice, he will be replaced by a pro-choice Democrat. Is he committing a mortal sin by (a) voting according to the wishes of his constituents (he is, after all, their representative) and (b) holding on to his office? Further suppose he determines at the time of his vote that the pro-choice side is going to win anyway, no matter how he votes? Must he still vote pro-life?
When, exactly, is a vote by a legislator in a representative democracy sinful? What is the Vatican’s theory of how American legislators must vote? And does it apply to votes on war, capital punishment, help for the poor, health care, and so on? Somebody has to make a clear case of when, where, and why it is manifest grave sin to vote for a law “legislation which gravely violates the natural moral law,” and they will have to give a clear explanation of what constitutes such a law.
In the light of this discussion, I found this quote from the Charles Taylor article in this issue of Commonweal interesting:
**********
The Vatican’s present position seems to want to retain the most rigid moralism in the sexual field, relaxing nothing of the rules, with the result that people with “irregular” sexual lives are (supposed to be) automatically denied the sacraments, while as-yet-unconvicted mafiosi, not to speak of unrepentant latifundistas in the third world, and Roman aristocrats with enough clout to wangle an “annulment” find no bar.
**********
Given the wide range of views offered in this thread, I offer the following for whatever it is worth:
One of the distinctive characteristics of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), the denomination within which I am an Elder, is that the Disciples are one of the few Protestant denominations to make communion a weekly part of the worship service. Part of the liturgy calls for an Invitation to Communion. According to Disciples tradition, the pastor is supposed to welcome all who affirm Jesus as their Lord and Savior to the table (the Disciples affirm “No creed by Christ.”) Every now and then, when the pastor is away, the Elders will lead the communion service, or sometimes a guest preacher is asked to lead it. In both circumstances, I have been asked to to offer the Invitation to Communion. I give the standard invitation, followed by, “If you have no idea why you are here, you are welcome at this table.” Maybe I have hopelessly watered down the meaning of communion, but so far, the invitation seems to me to be the right thing to do.
I realize, of course, that this is NOT the Catholic way. I just thought I would bring it up as an alternative perspective. Suffice it to say that we do not have the problem under discussion.
Joseph J.,
A half century ago, Catholic priests in these parts ran a tidy little countercultural industry in interracial marriages. The smallest amount of study of canon law shows that, unless one of the couple is already married, the Church positively encourages marriage. The elderly couple and the young couple, I am sure, would be given loads of help to overcome whatever they see standing in their way of a true bond.
The people who are already married, well, how would it be if the Church said, “Oh, it’s okay, no justice is required for your first wife/ husband. Let’s just pretend like your voluntary commitment OF YOUR LIFE doesn’t matter, okay?”
But anyways, there are going to be people who aren’t “allowed” to have sex. Which brings up the question, does anybody have to have sex? For that matter, does anybody have to have Communion every time they go to Mass?
And anyways, didn’t Jesus say, “From now on, avoid this sin?”
Cathleen’s question #4 is interesting, but I wonder if this would really hold up in a civil court.
Politicians have been denied other sacraments (i.e., marriage) by the Church and they have not contested it in court. However bad it made the politician look to his constituency, the court wouldn’t have the right to force the church to marry someone against its own teachings, would it?
Just looking at this as a reporter, not a lawyer, I know that defamation/libel cases are awfully hard for public officials to wage.
The politician in question would have to a) prove that his reputation was harmed, b) prove he was not engaging in the behavior for which he was denied communion and c) show that the EM acted out of malicious disregard for the truth.
A lot of personal info can get dredged up in these kinds of trials, which many public figures don’t want to deal with.
Kathy, I respond to your last comments paragraph-by-paragraph:
“Loads of help” from the official church is a matter of perception. Tell the guy and gal that it’s better to marry (and give up the lady’s survivor benefit) than to “live in sin” (with two benefits). From what I’ve heard, this line is usually not persuasive. And for fully undersandable reasons. Better to have more money than less. And, of course, love cannot be legislated.
I mentioned “internal forum solution.” To clarify, the couple meets the requirements for application to their situation, but, contrary to the advice/request of their priest, they insist on continuing worship and communion at their existing parish. They know, in short, that they are truly married before God even though the official church cannot bless/convalidate their union because — for whatever reason — the external forum (tribunal) does not have the evidence it needs to adjudicate a petition for declaration of nullity. In short, the couple cannot “prove” their case in a church court but know, nonetheless, that had relevant evidence been available to the court, a declaration of nullity would/could have been supportable under canon law.
I’m not going to address your “sex” part since sex was not part of my earlier comment.
Regarding Jesus’ admonition, I’ll refer you to the earlier post by Alan Mitchell.
Jean, those are all good points–but I was thinking of something a little more parochial, due to the broad nature of the article’s sweep.
My focus was on a situation in which each individual communion minister could decide who was “worthy” to receive communion in his own little parish; not a clear case of bishop=endorsed refusal.
Suppose Mr. Busybody denied communion to a person, say, because he saw them on the latest Amnesty International contributor’s list (someone in the Vatican said not to give, after all). The denied person could say this was not a) justified; and b) perhaps not even motivated by religious belief, but by personal animosity–maybe they have competing businesses.
You wouldn’t have the higher malice standard, you’d have the negligence standard here.
My problem with Apb. Burke’s analysis is that ‘public sinners” don’t have to be public figures for NY Times v. Sullivan purposes. And there are lots of public sinners out there.
Everyone knows that John and Jane are living together in the church; Mary decides to publicly admonish Jane, by denying her communion. Mary used to date John. Mmm.
Agnes Nixon would have a field day. I can see the title of the soap opera now: “All My Communicants.” Not that it matter. My guess is Apb. Burke isn’t a big “All My Children” fan.
Jean, I think you may be comparing apples with oranges in your reference to marriage vs. communion.
The church has clear *documentable* requirements for sacramental marriage. Examples: A person has been married or not. A prior marriage has been declared null and void as a sacramental marriage by the church. Etc. If I remember, if a person is wed in the church (or with church approval outside the church) but deceit about such person’s eligibility for a church marriage is involved, then the marriage, as far as the church is concerned, is not a sacramental one.
Regarding withholding of communion, we have not only a politician’s public statements but also his/her private conscience. The public statements, of course, are a matter of public record, but no one is capable of discerning another individual’s conscience.
The CCC notes that a person must follow his or her conscience even if it’s (objectively) erroneous. Even if the St. Louis AB judges a politician to have a faulty/erroneous conscience, such conscience must prevail if the politician truly believes s/he is morally right.
Kathy:
Help me to understand how you get from Jesus’ admonition to avoid sin to refusing to have fellowship with sinners? Do you think that by admitting sinners to his fellowship he is condoning their sin?
Dear Abp Burke:
May the wisdom of the many enlighten you and open your heart.
“Tis the time’s plague when madmen lead the blind.” W. F. Shakespeare.
Listen with the ear of the heart. St. Benedict.
Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a great battle. Philo of Alexandria.
.How small, of all that human hearts endure, that part which laws or kings can cause or cure. Samuel Johnson.
You can safely assume you have created God in your own image if God hates the same people you do. Anne Lamott
He who travels in the barque of Peter had better not look too closely into the engine room. Msgr. Ronald Knox
And, most importantly of all:
If one man calls you an ass, ignore it. If two or three call you an ass, start looking for a saddle
Cathleen, yes, denying communion to a private individual might be stickier, if you could make a defamation suit stick at all.
As I said, I’m not a lawyer. I’m only familiar with what can be written or broadcast–or implied by cartoons/photos. Would an action (or lack thereof)–denying someone communion–be actionable under defamation law?
Joseph, I defer to your insights about marriage vs. communion.
Alan,
My reading of I Corinthians 11 suggests a distinction between Eucharistic fellowship and table fellowship in the early Church. Would you agree?
Kathy:
The issue in 1 Cor 11 is that upper status Christians were going ahead with a separate meal of their own before the lower status Christians could arrive to participate in it. The upper status Christians had violated Paul’s understanding of he Lord’s supper by being exclusive instead of inclusive. When the meal took place is difficult to determine. It would appear that since Paul links it to the eucharistic gathering he did make distnction beween the two. Here are the operative verses:
When you come together, it is not really to eat the Lord’s supper.
For when the time comes to eat, each of you goes ahead with your own supper, and one goes hungry and another becomes drunk. What! Do you not have homes to eat and drink in? Or do you show contempt for the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing?
What was supposed to be eucharistic fellowship was corrupted by this separate meal. He would have preferred an inclusive celebration of the Lord’s supper, which I take to be the roots of Eucharistic fellowship. Their corruption of the Lord’s supper was that they made it exclusive rather than inclusive. I fail to see how this sheds light on the discussion in this thread.
How does it relate to the point you were making by recalling that Jesus exhorted people to avoid sin? I don’t see the connection.
Jean, I think it depends upon its communicative intent. If denying communion is mean to be saying, “this person is in serious sin–mortal sin,” I think you’d have at least something to put in a complaint–along with a citation to the Archbishop’s article.
I don’t think it’s that hard to sue; and I think people do it to defend their reputations. (Tom Cruise). In a free-for-all world, I could certainly see a disgruntled deniee suing an obnoxious denier.
We’d have to reinstitute the early church prohibition of lawsuits!
Also, there is a separate tort involving invasion of privacy which might be relevant–here it doesn’t matter that the info is true, just that it was wrongly disclosed.
Alan,
Jesus had table fellowship with known sinners. This is well-attested. But Eucharistic fellowship is not, I believe, the same as table fellowship. So I thought that was important to add to your comment, “Do you think that by admitting sinners to his fellowship he is condoning their sin?”
Sorry to keep bugging you, Alan, but my understanding is also that the excommunication in the Corinthian community was intended to be medicinal for the sinner. Does that sound right?
Back, for a moment, to cohabitation.
I have a friend, “annulled,” cohabiting with a widow. He’s in good health; she has COPD, a progressively debilitating condition for which there is no cure. She has minimal education and a “hard knocks” background: smoked since age 14, marriage at 14, three children (all grown), now age 46 and working as a convenience store clerk. No insurance.
She also has (unpaid) medical bills totaling somewhere between $75,000 and $80,000.
The two of them have been cohabiting for about a dozen years, and I have every reason to believe they love each other. They do everything together and are true companions. They are not married, however, because my friend does not want to “inherit” his love’s medical bills. He is financially solvent although far from well off. But for the financial situation, they probably would have married years ago.
Are they “living in sin?” What would the good AB Raymond Burke of St. Louis advise this couple to do? Advise them to refrain from the eucharist? Repent and marry?
Or would the good AB publicly and continually advocate universal health care so these friends of mine might be able to marry without worrying about the financial repercussions of my friend inheriting a medical bill that even he cannot afford to pay?
What to do here?
Any thoughts, Raymond?
Joseph J., I can’t speak for the Archbishop, but one pastoral solution that has been employed or suggested in such situations is “live together as brother and sister.”
“Eucharistic fellowship is not…the same as table fellowship.”
Might this distinction not be artificial?
If, as we Catholics believe, the eucharist is Jesus under the appearance of bread and wine, should it really matter if it was OK for a “sinner” to confront Jesus in person 2,000 years ago — but it’s not OK for this same “sinner” to encounter Jesus in the eucharist today?
Is there not some degree of hypocrisy in allowing the “sinner” to eat at the Tuesday Night Fund Raiser for the parish — but not allow this same “sinner” to eat at the eucharist?
Don’t they go together?
Just an illustration:
There might be people invited to your house for Thanksgiving that you wouldn’t necessarily want to stay for the weekend.
No, never mind, that’s not it at all. Of course Jesus wants everyone to come to Communion. According to Vatican II, the main goal of all apostolic activity is so that more people will come to eat the Eucharist.
The Orthodox have 2 customs that I like. First of all, although Communion is only for those who went to confession within the past day or so, everyone goes up at the end of the Liturgy to receive “blessed bread,” which is not consecrated but which used to be part of the bigger loaf that the consecrated bread was cut out of.
Secondly, before Communion they say “Holy things to the holy!”
I guess thirdly, they have a lot of nice potlucks.
Cathleen, under invasion of privacy, would something specific have to be disclosed? Besides the implication that the EM thinks the person denied is in a state of mortal sin?
Here’s the internet version.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_privacy
I think there are a lot of problems with the lawsuit, as you say, but:
1) being in a state of mortal ins itself would seem to qualify as something people don’t want disclosed;
2) my guess is Mrs. Busybody will tell someone the basis for her allegation (Well, I saw him going into that porn shop every Thursday noon). (Think if that congressman found in the MN airport were a Catholic businessman–but did his stuff around town. It seems to me that Archbishop Burke puts such a heavy emphasis on the sanctity of the eucharist, and its right to be pure, that the weight is against giving such people communion (once we move away from the abortion context, which is an artificial move in the article, in my view).
3) Is this “public enough”–well, I think an enterprising lawyer could make a case that public humiliation in the context of a big sunday mass was a big deal.
People don’t like being sued-it’s very upsetting; it’s often enough to avenge a wounded ego, even if there are no damages.
To Kathy:
We Catholics sometimes go up to communion, and ask for a blessing, as you or someone else noted.
Do you really think Apb. Burke would convey a blessing to John Kerry in lieu of communion in mass? It looks more, from the outside perspective, as an act of endorsement “He gave him his blessing”–literally.
I can see the front-page photo now.
Joseph,
I can only say that your emphasis on “fellowship” as a principal purpose of the Eucharist seems to run counter to Catholic doctrine, and ignores doctrine that receipt of the Eucharist when not in a state of grace is itself a grave sin. We are to encourage our fellows to commit grave sin so they can feel better? As I said at first, our reluctance to address this issue undermines the faithful’s belief in the True Presence. There are many ways to encourage fellowship through prayer and other aspects of the liturgy without doing this.
As for your examples of people “living in sin,” the answer is yes, the behavior you describe
would be sinful, I think. No one says that doing the right thing is always easy. In fact. experience shows that doing the right thing is usually harder, and requires more sacrifice than doing what is more convenient.
Cathleen,
Earlier you accused Kathy of providing “connective tissue” in the Burke article that isn’t there, and I agree with you on that. However, I think it is not there because he doesn’t intend this article to be specifically about how to apply the canon in all cases. His intention, it seems to me, is to engage the issue.
Remember where he is comming from. In 2003-04 he decided to confront (I think it was 2) politicians from his diocese who prominently touted there Catholic connection but who also were uniformly and vocally pro-abortion. He publicly called on them to repent, and he met privately with both on more than a few occasions to discuss with them the Church’s teaching and to encourage them to repent. Some time after these meetings, he publicly stated they would be denied Communion in his diocese.
In short, this is not a guy who wants to create a corps of EM enforcers.
Despite all the efforts he went through, he was roundly condemned by many in and out of the Church. In other words, it is not the application of the rule that is the real objection – there are ways that can be addressed – but the rule itself. His article, I think, is an explanation and a defense of the rule, not a how to manual.
Sean,
First, you got the wrong accuser.
Second, I remember.
Third, you’re both right and wrong, in my opinion, about the problem being not the application but the rule. I think there are theoretical, not merely practical problems in applying a legal rule that has been allowed to lapse for at least forty years. The problem goes to the continuing validity of the rule (Aquinas talks about this). Even if there is continuing validity in the case of canonical rules, the relationship between a custom of non-enforcement and the law itself is a complicated thing. Selective enforcement of a law allowed to lapse raises all sorts of problems.
Second, Burke is advocating selective enforcement–the target is pro-choice politicians. Not all the other public sinners out there. Why? The article doesn’t say why this sin should be distinguished for purposes of the holiness of the sacrament.
Third, selective enforcement among selective enforcement–no pro-torture politicians. It will be interesting, if Rudy is the nominee, whether he makes a public statement about him, and whether he’ll include torture–another intrinsically evil act.
Fourth, I can’t tell whether he’s trying to foment independent action on the part of pro-life eucharistic ministers or start a conversation with his brother bishops. The fact that I can’t tell worries me.
Cathleen
To Cathy,
I think that’s exactly what he would do.
I’m thinking that if I were writing an open letter to Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion, I would probably publish in my archdiocesan newspaper rather than in the PERIODICA DE RE CANONICA.
And I’d probably cite the Decretals of Gratian a little less frequently.
Kathy:
I don’t feel like you are bugging me with your questions. I rather enjoy talking about the New Testament. In fact, I do it for a living.
You are right to distinguish between fellowship meals and the Lord’s supper in pauline churches. You are correct, too, that Paul had some kind of temporary disciplinary method for erring brothers and sisters. I would not, however, call it excommunication, which I take to be a more juridical form. If anything, it was more like shunning and sometimes took the form of not eating with people. This was true at Thessalonike where some Christians preferred to wait for the parousia and sponge off the community. Paul told them that they had to work or they could not eat (2 Thess 2:17). In Corinth, Paul recommended exclusion from the common meal in 1 Cor 5:11. The verb Paul uses here, “to eat together,” is not used in reference to he Eucharist in the NT, so in its narrow meaning it simply refers to the common meal. Although there is no evidence for it in Paul’s letters, it would seem logical that people who no longer participated in the common meal would not be present at the Lord’s supper.
Perhaps a more relevant text for this thread is 1 Cor 11:27-34. There, Paul speaks about eating the bread and drinking the cup in an unworthy manner, which refers to the separate meal shared by the upper status people to the exclusion of the lower status ones. Rather than prescribing a judicial procedure to handle brothers and sisters who err in this way, Paul asks them to scrutinize themselves. This self-scrutiny includes not only an examination of themselves but also the need to reflect on how they belong to the Corinthian community. When they eat and drink without “discerning” the body (referring both the the body of the Lord and the community gathered at the Lord’s supper), Paul says they bring judgment on themselves. Earlier in 1 Cor 11:27 he told them they would be held accountable (answerable) for the body and blood of the Lord. Paul means in these instances that they are acountable to God. Hence he can say in verse 31: if we judged ourselves we would not be judged. In other words, if the individuals would scruntize themselves they would not be subject to divine judgment because the self-scrutiny would prevent them from eating the bread and drinking the cup in an unworthy manner. It seems to me that Paul is asking for self regulation here and is not imposing a specific disciplinary action like excluding someone from the Lord’s supper. He would rather that they exclude themselves.
To be clear, my participation in this thread began with the example of Jesus eating with tax collectors and sinners. Surely, they were not participating in a eucharistic meal. So, the example only fit into the thread by analogy. My point was that Jesus did not seem to feel as though he were defiled by eating with sinners, and that he may have thought that, in calling them to repentance, persuasion was better than coercion. I do not dispute the development of disciplinary procedures in the Church, even within the span of the composition of the New Testament. Within pauline churches such developments were not always in keeping with what Paul himself had intended and wanted for his communities. The Pastoral Epistles are a good example of that. So looking back to the example of Jesus may be a good way to evaluate even more contemporary methods of church discipline. Not every bishop agrees with Archbishop Burke on this matter and some, like Cardinal McCarrick, and perhaps his successor, believe that in dealing with poliicians or rank and file Catholics and communion, persuasion may be better than coercion. This seems to me to be a better pastoral response to this thorny issue.
I apologize for this long post. I am not very adept at the literary form of the blog comment.
As I keep saying, I’m not sure what he’s doing here.
But suppose he thinks abortion is such a grave problem that everything has to be done to stop it–including marshaling the resources of the church in a creative way. Suppose he does want to encourage widespread refusal of communion. How would he do this strategically?
The local newspaper would be enough for your own eucharistic ministers, but how about those in other dioceses? How do you get to them?
First, write a big article not only justifying the course of action that you want them to take, but arguing that it is mandatory on pain of mortal sin.
Second, recognize that given your past activities with the question, the article will be picked up by news services. (I didn’t find it in the journal, I found it on the pew forum).
Third, recognize that it will be picked up on Pro-life activist sites.
I don’t think he will convince anyone who isn’t convinced; I think he will embolden those who want to be emboldened–outside his own diocese.
Well, then, their own bishops will discipline the renegade EMs.
Who will move to St. Louis.
Alan, thank you! (I hope this isn’t too sneaky, but I looked you up at Georgetown and knew you had the ability to provide just this kind of rich Scriptural depth to the conversation.)
Renegade? One gets the impression that Burke wants Communion ministers to make this judgment.
Alan, Your blogging ability is very adequate and appreciated. You bring a needed scholarly biblical approach to counter a juridical approach which is vengeful rather than merciful.
Even Augustine repeated over and over again how the wheat will become separated from the chaff at the last judgment. Burke and Co want to be judges now.
You get that impression,Grant. I’m not sure why.
But the Archbishop of St. Louis doesn’t have jurisdiction in any other place. I’m pretty sure his suffragen dioceses don’t have to follow his lead in liturgy, for that matter.
As I’ve said, he repeatedly emphasizes their responsibility to do so. Why do you think he does that?
Isn’t it clear that Burke is saying any Eucharistic Minister who doesn’t do what he says is committing a mortal sin?
. . . [T]he minister of Holy Communion is held, under
pain of mortal sin, to deny the sacraments to the
unworthy, that is, <
to receive its effect, because they are in the state
of mortal sin without the will of reforming themselves>>.
He emphasizes the responsibility of the minister–in the broad sense of that term–to deny Communion to those who have, after being admonished, refused to give up their public, scandalous situations (whatever they may be).
He could be clearer about who must first admonish, but it seems most likely that he is talking about the bishop.
That doesn’t leave any room for Molly Marple to be making these decisions on her own. She needs to be informed that the party in question has been admonished.
How would she know that?
Kathy,
What is the basis for your narrow reading of Burke’s argument, given he repeated emphasis on the Communion minister’s duty to refuse Communion to public sinners? (Incidentally, or rather crucially, he says that he’s talking about both lay and ordained Communion ministers at the beginning of the article.) Obviously I think you’re overreaching bigtime–supplying lots of information for Burke that he saw fit to leave out of his very long article.
My argument turns on the necessity of “admonishment.”
Do you agree that this is a presumed (and stated) prior step to the refusal of Communion?
“Live together as brother and sister.”
Kathy, the above is the historic textbook answer, a response that is always in black and white. As I’ve noted on other threads, “the law” may be in black and white, but “life” is anything but! And we know the contempt that Jesus had for Teachers of the Law (the latter had their sins — just as their successors today have theirs, merely of a different kind — maybe!). Question: I wonder how many of those “brothers and sisters” are committing moral incest today and still trying to touch the hand of Jesus?
Sean, it’s news to me that “‘fellowship’ as a principal purpose of the Eucharist seems to run counter to Catholic doctrine.” I’m somewhat relieved you used the word ‘seems.’ To the best of my knowledge, fellowship — with Christ and others — is precisely the purpose of the Eucharist. If Jesus engaged in fellowship with sinners while preaching the Good News — in other words, if the Messiah “pressed the flesh” with all sorts of undesirables during his earthly ministry, what difference should it make if today’s undesirables (sinners all), assuming they are truly repentant, engage the same Jesus in the Eucharist? How does such practice “undermine[] the faithful’s belief in the True Presence [?]” If I remember, there are a few passages in the gospels where the Lord’s disciples try to keep folks, good and bad alike, away from the Teacher — behaving somewhat like biblical secret service agents! And what was Jesus’ response? Inter alia, he got mad as hell if I recall. “I came to serve, not to be served.” As for your concern about this perceived irreverence making people “feel better,” how might you feel if Jesus met you on the street corner, invited you over to him, and said, “Whatcha doin’ there, Sean! Give me a high five, pal!” Would you feel worse off?!?
You contend that the couples I described would, indeed, be “living in sin.” How? Because they’re not married under civil law — or church law? Again, the law is black and white. Life is often anything but. Tell these folks to live as “brother and sister?” With all due respect, we must get real just as Jesus got real with the lawyers and “proper folk” of his day. The Lord was scandalous to the latter but refreshingly scandalous to the ordinary people who found themselves burdened with all the religious claptrap imposed on them by the “righteous” and that Jesus condemned.
“No one says that doing the right thing is always easy.” I agree. “In fact, experience shows that doing the right thing is usually harder.” Usually? I’ll go with 50/50. “In fact,” I am finding that “doing the right thing” is getting easier. Why? Maybe because I’ve been finding increasingly more credibility lately in the Jesus in the gospels — for me, a credibility that far surpasses a lot of the stuff coming out of Rome, St. Louis, and other bastions of so-called “orthodoxy.”
I like Alan Mitchell’s suggestion that “looking back to the example of Jesus may be a good way to evaluate even more contemporary methods of church discipline.” For me, it’s the best way!
Obviously it is. Nowhere does Burke give the reader the impression that he would do anything resembling your proposals.
Grant, I really don’t understand what you think the timeline would be.
When would the admonishment occur, relative to the denial of Communion?
Why not during? “Body of–wait, no, you don’t get this unless you repent and show firm purpose of amendment.” Okay, not really. Obviously admonishment comes before Communion–as Burke says. What I object to is what you think admonishment entails: making lists, distributing them to parishes, etc.–none of which he mentions in his very long article.
No, no, that’s not admonishment.
Admonishment is the bishop talks things over with the politician.
Now, how does a parish EM know that this has happened? The Curt Jester?
That’s precisely the problem, Kathy. And it’s not just about politicians. Look at the other examples in the paper. All Burke says is that it’s going to be difficult. But I suppose when it comes to avoiding mortal sin, no pain, no gain.
Grant, all I’m saying is that in the event that this was a policy of the American bishops, there would have to be some mechanism in place. But the paper isn’t a description of implementation. It’s a rationale FOR implementation.
Actually, it’s a call for Communion ministers to turn away public sinners under pain of mortal sin. I’ve overstayed my welcome on this thread. Over and out.
Kathy,
It seems to me it would be very strange if he’s saying, “It’s a mortal sin for anyone to give communion to those obstinantly persisting in manifest grave sin, but of course keep doing it until a policy is worked out.”
If it were a “call,” it would be disseminated differently.
Although, the swiftness with which “everyone knows” what was written in the PERIODICA DE RE CANONICA does suggest that (topic of a different thread) speculative theology in journals does not occur in a professional vacuum. The little ears of the faithful are listening!
“The little ears of the faithful”?
A bit condescending to the laity, no?
Whether or not he intended to write an article purely for an academic audience in the first place, surely he knows there is controversy now.
I wonder whether he’s planning to clear up the questions.
I was deliberately being a little humorous there.
There are no purely academic audiences. I admit, it could possibly be true that Arch. Burke intended for people other than Canon Lawyers to think about the idea of Eucharistic discipline.
Then again, Roger Haight taught Adult Ed.
And Galileo wrote in Italian, instead of engineering an orderly dissemination of revolutionary scientific thought through the Latin-speaking academy.
It’s interesting this thread has attracted two sub-threads: one looking at implementation of Burke’s proposals (or demands!), the other looking at the underlying gospel implications of Burke’s suggestions (or demands!).
Perhaps the impracticability of the AB’s proposals/demands will ultimately “save the day” for the gospel in the church?
P.S. — If such turns out to be the case, might it suggest that Jesus was eminently practical?
Kathy writes: I admit, it could possibly be true that Arch. Burke intended for people other than Canon Lawyers to think about the idea of Eucharistic discipline.
Jean says: I think this is a fine idea, though I think the emphasis ought to be more on personal examination of conscience and reconciliation, and doing more preaching about this at Mass and during faith formation.
There are any number of good guides for examining your conscience. Why not fold those into a brochure entitled, “Is today the right day for you to receive communion?” and place them in the hymnal holders for people to ponder before Mass?
Information about Reconciliation could be included at the end.
Though Reconciliation, in my view needs some serious attention.
“Though Reconciliation, in my view needs some serious attention.”
Boy howdy, I totally agree!!
I continue to ask: What is the reasoning behind maintaining that a pro-choice Catholic politician who won’t change his position is obstinately persevering in grave sin?
The usual political position is something like, “I am a Catholic, and I abide by what my Church teaches on abortion. However, in America we have a democracy, and one of our cherished principles is separation of church and state. I took an oath of office to uphold the constitution, and I believe it would be a violation of that oath to impose the restrictions of my faith on other Americans who are of different belief systems.”
Is that so far removed from reason as to claim anyone who takes that position is gravely sinful?
******************
Our public morality, then – the moral standards we maintain for everyone, not just the ones we insist on in our private lives – depends on a consensus view of right and wrong. The values derived from religious belief will not – and should not – be accepted as part of the public morality unless they are shared by the pluralistic community at large, by consensus.
Religious Belief and Public Morality: A Catholic
Governor’s Perspective
Governor Mario Cuomo
Remarks delivered at the University of Notre Dame
September 13, 1984
http://pewforum.org/docs/index.php?DocID=14
I’m beginning to wonder why AB Burke would put this thing out on his own–especially a paper in which he is making assertions that should be interpreted as a matter of universal church law. I get that it’s possible he wants to start a conversation, but shouldn’t that conversation be brought up in a more private setting among his brother bishops–say, when they convene next month? Or, if he wanted to start a conversation, wouldn’t there be better ways to go about it than taking pot shots at his brother bishops?
At the very least, shouldn’t his critiques of his colleagues have been excised, so as to avoid the appearance of scandal and division in the church? Fanciful thinking, I know, but there seems to be more going on here than a bishop simply wishing to start a conversation.
A friend of mine, when hearing about this paper, wondered whether AB Burke isn’t trying to prove himself to the more conservative elements in the Vatican . . . all for the purpose of earning a coveted red hat. I think that’s a bit too jaded a view, but it did make me begin to wonder.
Kathy: I do agree with Grant that your midrash on this document assumes far more than Archbishop Burke has written. While your proposal of how this whole denial of communion policy might work work is both creative and irenic, I can see other ways this document can be interpreted–often with disastrous results.
Mark,
I don’t see it happening.
For one thing, Miss Marple doesn’t give out Communion very often anyway.
But mostly because pastors wouldn’t allow it unless their (own) bishop said so. If, on the remote possibility the USCCB adopted some version of this policy, it would be shored up with many safeguards against the nightmare scenarios Grant imagines.
What is more puzzling to me is why folks can’t see that complacency of conscience is itself a disastrous result of the current effective don’t-ask-don’t-tell-don’t-discipline-don’t-rock-the-boat policies that prevail in Catholic parishes.
Joseph,
You are highly selective in your use of the Gospels. Of course he criticized the Pharisees, but he also directed his disciples to “do what they tell you” when they were exercisizing their proper authority.
The world is full of paradox. Yes, a slavish adherence to law or rules without a spirit of love is wrong, but that doesn’t mean there are no laws or that we are only bound by them if it is convenient for us. For example, the scriptures are clear that the kind of cohabitation you described is sinful. As far as I know, there is no execption for financial or other practical reasons. These are reasons to empathize with people in this circumstance, but it does not make their behavior any less sinful.
Remember, in the Gospels Christ himself was not shy about identifying sin. He commanded his disciples to love one another as He loved them. Part of that is helping each other to holiness. When we take those parts of the Gospel that command us not to judge others, which I think are more focused on condemnation and placing ourselves in God’s shoes, as meaning we can’t make judgments about what is sinful, we not only can’t help our fellows to holiness, we can’t even do it ourselves.
David,
You ask,
Is that so far removed from reason as to claim anyone who takes that position is gravely sinful?
Absolutely, and here is why.
Substitute the word rape, or slavery for abortion and it is clear. You cannot accept the Church’s position that something is an objective, gravely immoral act and then say democracy trumps that. If tomorrow, 90% of the electorate believed rape was not only moral, but a behavior that men had a right to participate in, it would still be wrong, and we would still have a moral obligation to prevent it.
Kathy says: What is more puzzling to me is why folks can’t see that complacency of conscience is itself a disastrous result of the current effective don’t-ask-don’t-tell-don’t-discipline-don’t-rock-the-boat policies that prevail in Catholic parishes.
Jean says: I don’t think anyone is arguing that complacency of conscience exists.
We differ in how to address that problem.
Only a priest in a confessional has the right and responsibility to determine whether someone is in a fit state to receive.
Mrs. Grundy (or Miss Marple) have no business deciding this for themselves.
I would sooner support a ban on lay EMs than fall in with Archbishop Burke’s suggestions.
Sean,
Instead of substituting the word rape or slavery, try substituting one of the following:
masturbation
oral sex
artificial birth control
divorce and remarriage
support for war (aside from just war)
premarital sex
deliberately choosing single (unmarried) motherhood (a la Murphy Brown)
artificial insemination
in vitro fertilization
surrogate motherhood
stem cell research
What are the obligations of Catholic politicians regarding those issues?
Also, the difference between rape and abortion is that moral arguments can be made against rape without resorting to religion. As for slavery, a moral consensus did not form against slavery until fairly recently in human history. It seems to be a matter of dispute when the Catholic Chuch first condemned slavery, but I think I’m safe in saying it didn’t happen within the first thousand years.
Jean proposes a ban on lay EM’s – all in favor?
A subtext of this whole discussion is the use of lay EM’s. It would seem to me that if you consistently had well trained and thoughtful EMs there would be less concern. Unfortunately, that’s not always, or even usually, the case. I would think that a well trained EM, if given any discretion at all, would exercise it only in the most extreme or obvious cases.
When Burke mentions lay EM’s it seems to me that he is simply pointing out that canon 915 does not distinguish who is ministering the sacrament. In this he is correct. The training and conduct of EM’s, however, is supposed to be under the tutelage and supervision of the pastor, so although the kinds of problems discussed above might happen, I doubt we’d have hoardes of rogue EM’s.
Sean, I proposed nothing of the kind. I said I would sooner favor banning EMs than have them given discretion for handing out communion.
You also note, “It would seem to me that if you consistently had well trained and thoughtful EMs there would be less concern.”
Seems like there’s a whole other debate waiting to happen there “well-trained” to do what? “Thoughtful” about what?
Their job is to administer the sacraments to whomever the priest directs them to, not to engage in speculation about what they think they know about their fellow communicants.
David,
My point with rape and slavery was not about the Church’s teachings on these issues, but to answer your question which is, is this position reasonable.
We would not consider a person who made the same argument about rape or slavery to be making a reasonable argument because of what we believe about rape and slavery. These examples are far more like abortion than any of those you listed because they involve obligations we have to innocent people.
If one really believes the Church’s position that abortion is the unjustified taking of human life, the idea that I must not only not oppose it, but may in fact make abortions more readily available because of an obligation to a pluralistic society is unreasonable.
Your list of issues is interesting, but clearly the nature of what is involved (except in the case of embryonic stem cell research – which I do think Catholic politicians have a moral obligation to oppose) is different in each. In fact, no Catholic politician can morally support an unjust war. Of course, whether any particular war is just is a matter of prudential judgment, so two Catholic politicians could be on opposite sides of the issue and neither be sinful. Most of the rest of your list involve using the state to protect people from themselves. This is clearly different from a moral obligation to protect the innocent.
If a legislator would support policies that would decriminalize rape and make it easier, possibly even government funded, the legislator would be gravely at fault, right?
I forgot to add to my list
torture
extraordinary rendition (torture by proxy)
capital punishment
Jean,
I was joking about you proposing it – sorry if that didn’t come through.
I am in agreement with you in principle, that the EM should have almost no discretion. I do think there could be very limited circumstances where an EM might have a moral obligation to deny – that is what I was talking about. For example, if there is a real risk of abuse – I have actually seen this where a group of young people were clearly “pocketing” the Eucharist – for what reason who knows. In such a circumstance, I would think the EM could deny the sacrament if he or she is able to.
I am not even sure Burke is saying they should have a lot of discretion, only that the rule applies regardless of the minister – about which he is correct. Certainly, he is aware that lay EM’s operate under the direction of ordinary ministers.
Sean,
I believe that from the Catholic viewpoint, some of the most widely used methods of artificial birth control result in the loss of innocent life. Both the birth control pill and the IUD are believed to work, in some cases, by preventing implantation after conception has taken place. In vitro fertilization usually involves the fertilization of more eggs than will be used. And of course we have just seen the Connecticut bishops approve the use of the morning after pill, which also can prevent implantation.
My expanded list includes capital punishment, which the Church has said is almost never necessary. If there is true reverence for life, not only the “innocent” must be considered.
David, your list is very long.
But all of the examples you cite are either
-Not killing
-Not direct killing, or
-Not direct killing of innocents
Not that this justifies any of these activities. But abortion = direct killing of the innocent. You just don’t find that *equation* anywhere else.
But torture is awfully close…
Woo hoo! I’m the 120th poster! Do I get a free cup of Starbucks or one of those giant checks from Ed McMahon? I’ll be home all afternoon!
Anyway, Sean, I didn’t get the joke. Apologies for getting testy.
If I were an EM–and I’m not and don’t want to be because I have Mrs. Grundy tendencies–I’d give communion as directed. If I felt I could not give communion to an individual, I’d ask to be excused for that day.
Kathy,
In a culture in which rape was not considered reprehensible, or in which there was not a moral consensus about rape, I don’t believe a legislator who voted to make it legal would be committing a grave offense. I don’t think we hold the Founding Fathers to be gravely evil for sanctioning slavery and counting a slave as three-fifths of a person. I believe we think of them as gravely mistaken, but products of their time. There may come a time when there is a consensus on abortion, but there isn’t one now.
Going back to the rape example, it is difficult to imagine a society in which rape is not considered reprehensible. But how about this:
If a man is caught in the act of raping a young
woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty
pieces of silver to her father. Then he must
marry the young woman because he violated
her, and he will never be allowed to divorce
her. (Deuteronomy 22:28-29)
Is this a fitting punishment for rape? Is it in any conceivable way (by our standards) justice for the victim? But are we to think of a society that accepted this as an evil one?
I’m not sure how this parallels, David. Rape was forbidden, and restitution was required.
I recently saw a clip from a tv talk show, the one with Tim Russert, in which Fr. Drinan, RIP, said in so many words that religious beliefs should not enter into considerations of abortion, stem cell research, and euthanasia. The tv spot was taken between the time when Terri Schiavo, RIP, was not being fed or given anything to drink, before she died.
What interested me was that Fr. Drinan seemed to be very selective about which issues a Catholic should allow his or her religiously-informed conscience play a role in governance. I was trying to imagine him saying the same sort of thing about war. I’m pretty sure he wouldn’t have.
Kathy,
You say: “But abortion = direct killing of the innocent.”
This is begging the question. Whether or not abortion (or stem cell research) involves taking the life of a human being is the very issue on which there is not a consensus. And it is not merely a matter of an argument between the secular and the religious. Jewish law says a fetus becomes a person when the head emerges from the womb.
I would disagree that modern warfare does not involve direct killing of the innocent.
One more outside reference.
I’ve just been reading A Theological Autobiography to Date by Robert W. Jenson, in the Spring 2007 number of the Lutheran journal Dialog. I thought that this paragraph was poignant but also interesting as a first hand cultural account:
“Finally to the Gettysburg time, the town was well located for participation in the years of protest. While at Luther College, I had been in the Washington civil-rights march of 1963, and we had been locally active. Now Blanche and I joined the marches against the Vietnamese intervention; we withheld taxes; I gave speeches in hostile places; parents would not let their children associate with our daughter; etc. And after it all we experienced the same downer as others did: we thought there should be a straightforward move from opposition to segregation or an unjust was to opposition to killing unborn children as desired, but “the movement” and our political party went another way. I do not know precisely what effect all that has on my theology, but it must be considerable.”
Kathy,
Here’s an interesting quote from 1971:
“While the deep concern of a woman bearing an unwanted child merits consideration and sympathy, it is my personal feeling that the legalization of abortion on demand is not in accordance with the value which our civilization places on human life. Wanted or unwanted, I believe that human life, even at its earliest stages, has certain rights which must be recognized – the right to be born, the right to love, the right to grow old.
“On the question of the individual’s freedom of choice there are easily available birth-control methods and information which women may employ to prevent or postpone pregnancy. But once life has begun, no matter at what stage of growth, it is my belief that termination should not be decided merely by desire. …
“When history looks back to this era it should recognize this generation as one which cared about human beings enough to halt the practice of war, to provide a decent living for every family, and to fulfill its responsibility to its children from the very moment of conception.”
Senator Edward M. (Ted) Kennedy
Yes, David, that is very interesting!
David,
I don’t think Kathy’s point about taking innocent life begs the question. The very point is that these Catholic legislators are saying that is what they believe, regardless of what there is a lack of concensus about. That’s what makes the position unreasonable.
In its starkest terms it means, “I think abortion is murder, here’s some public funding to help you do it.”
Sean,
I consider the question of public funding to be a separate issue. A good case could be made that Catholic legislators could not vote for public funding of abortion. It is one thing not to outlaw something. It is quite another thing to fund it.
I don’t think we can consider lawmakers responsible for the actions of people who do things the lawmakers don’t outlaw, and at the moment, abortion is both legal and furthermore a constitutional right. Elected officials take an oath to uphold the constitution. If they can’t abide by that oath, they shouldn’t run for office.
The burden of responsibility is really on the Supreme Court, not Catholic senators, congressional representatives, or presidential candidates. The Supreme Court has a Catholic majority–and what have THEY done?? And who is holding THEM responsible?? (I would really like an answer to this question, whether from you or anybody who has thoughts on it.)
As I keep pointing out, although abortion is prohibited in Catholicism, it is permitted–as I understand it, practically required–under certain circumstances in Judaism. I think both religions are equally serious about the sanctity of life. In a pluralistic society and a secular state, does Catholic thought trump Jewish thought?
As for public funding, currently (as best I understand it) the federal government (through Medicaid) and most states will pay for abortions for poor women only in cases of rape, incest, and threat to the life of the mother. I think there is an overwhelming consensus among the American people (and probably among American Catholics) that abortion is permissible in those cases, although of course it would be the official teaching of the Church that abortion is never permitted.
As for abortion being murder, I thought we had reached a consensus (on dotCommonweal) that it was not. But of course if it is, then I think the pro-life movement is duty bound to push for laws that treat it like murder and to punish the abortionists AND the women who obtain abortions as murderers. Why don’t they?
David,
Public funding – Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi – as examples – all support some form or forms of public funding for abortions. Just because they haven’t been successful doesn’t measn they don’t hold the position.
You keep ignoring the point that the Catholic Church teaches that abortion is the wrongful taking of human life. This is not a question of enforcing “Catholic thought” or “Catholic practice.” The Church says that, as a matter of fact, not as a matter of its opinion or as a practice it created, but as a matter of fact, that abortion is killing. The Church doesn’t make aborton wrong, it just tells us it is. I reiterate this because that is what makes the whole idea of claiming you believe this, but then that you have no obligation to do anything about it, and even more shockingly promote the right and ability of others to do it nonsensical.
It is like saying I agree that arsenic is poison, but if you don’t agree you have a right to go ahead and feed it to your children. That others haven’t reached a consensus about a fact doesn’t make it a not a fact.
Catholic politicians who hold this incongruous position are treating the Church’s teaching as if it is an opinion, not a statement of fact.
As to the Supreme Court, at least two of the five Catholics have explicitly stated in opinions that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and would overturn it, two others haven’t had an opportunity to rule on this issue, and one has voted with the majority. As for what they can do, they are in a somewhat different postition from elected officials. They are, at least in theory, supposed to follow the law – whether they agree with it or not. Elected officials are empowered to change the law, particularly when they disagree with it.
Elected officials are clearly in a position to do many things, up to and including amending the Constitution. The idea that they are limited by their obligations to a pluralistic society is belied by the fact that many who make this claim, including Kennedy, Pelosi, Meehan, DeLauro, and Durbin, all voted against banning partial birth abortions even as about 90% of the elctorate favored the ban. Plainly, their ideology trumps their obligation to protect innocent life.
Sean, regarding my so-called “highly selective…use of the Gospels,” I use what makes sense — and not just to me. I try to consider both the cultural context of a biblical passage as well as its possible relevance (or irrelevance) in our time.
As you’ve noted, Jesus told his disciples to “do what [the Pharisees] tell you.” In his commentary on Matthew, Daniel Harrington, SJ observes, “It is difficult to square [23:3 "do what they tell you"] with the many other statements in chapter 23 and elsewhere in the Gospels that criticize the teachings, and not merely the practices, of the scribes and Pharisees. Their imposition of the priestly regulations on lay people contrasts with the easy yoke and light burden of Jesus (see 11:28-30)” THE COLLEGEVILLE BIBLE COMMENTARY: NEW TESTAMENT, p. 894.
You state that “the scriptures are clear that the kind of cohabitation [I] described is sinful.” Where? In the index to my Bible (Today’s English Version), I find the following entries under “Sexual Perversion:” adultery, prostitution, incest, homosexuality (my Bible was printed in 1985), and bestiality. My biblical index does have an entry for “concubine,” defined therein as “a ‘wife’ who is not legally a wife.” Examples given suggest that concubinage (i.e., in the Old Testament) could be good or bad depending on the situation. The index also has an entry for “concupiscence,” defined therein as “sinful desire.” Surely you did not conclude that my examples cited earlier illustrated sinful desires, did you? I think such an inference would be a “stretch,” to say the least. But for special circumstances outside their control (or perceived to be such), these couples would be married in the eyes of the state and/or the church.
According to the CCC, a sin is mortal if it meets three conditions: it involves grave matter as specified by the Ten Commandments; it involves knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s Law; and it involves deliberate consent. Certainly all the examples I gave involve deliberate consent. However, do they involve the first two conditions? I’m prepared to concede there is no clear and right answer. The CCC also notes, “The promptings of feelings and passions can…diminish the voluntary and free character of the offense [presuming, of course, that an actual offense is involved], as can external pressures or pathological disorders.” The CCC reminds us that we can judge an act but that we must entrust judgment of persons to God’s justice and mercy. (CCC, 1857 – 1861) In his BELIEVING IN JESUS (4th ed.), Leonard Foley, OFM cites an important moral principle, i.e., “And always a higher law makes lesser laws stand aside: ‘The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath’” (p. 171). If a couple truly love each other but are not legally married because of fear and/or external circumstance, are they really living in mortal sin — or even venial sin? “Love one another,” Jesus said. Did he limit this love to any specific kind of human expression? Does living faithfully and permanently without benefit of formal marriage ipso facto prevent a couple from growing in holiness and love of God? Are we so insecure in our own awareness of God’s unconditional love that we find it necessary to label others as “living in sin?” While someone else’s behavior may be “objectively” wrong, am I walking in their shoes? Let go and let God.
“If your brother sins, rebuke him…” (Lk 17:3). The “brother” here refers to a fellow disciple. This passage is linked in the CCC to paragraph 2845 which, interestingly, avoids use of the word ‘rebuke.’ Instead, we see references to forgiveness, truth in relationship, and brotherly reconciliation. This paragraph suggests that any rebuking is done within the context of intimate relationship so that “peace” and “brotherly concord” may be attained. Perhaps the authors of the CCC (led by Ratzinger, no less!) were loathe to make any reference to “rebuking” today?
“Why, then, do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the log in your own eye? How dare you say to your brother, ‘Please, let me take that speck out of your eye,’ when you have a log in your own eye? You hypocrite! First take the log out of your own eye, and then you will be able to see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye” (Mt 7:3-5). Might it not be unreasonable to infer that Jesus believes each of us has a perpetual log in his/her eye? And, again, the Lord puts this teaching within the context of brotherly relationship. If one should think twice before, in effect, rebuking one’s brother, how much more should we be reluctant to rebuke strangers? The CCC links this passage to paragraph 678, which deals with the Last Judgment. No mention, however, is made of rebuking!
Sean, I have no problem with making judgments about *what* is sinful. We must take responsibility for our actions. I have no problem with stating/declaring *what* is sinful. However, we cannot live others’ lives.
Intimate relationships can benefit, as appropriate, from fraternal correction if done carefully. Prudence — and not just the gospels — might very well suggest, however, that we not engage in rebuking strangers.
There is only one reference to “correction” in the CCC, and even this mention in paragraph 1829 is to “fraternal correction.” If Jesus cautions us about correcting our brothers (and sisters), how much more so should we be reticent about correcting those whose circumstances we do not know.
Live and let live, and leave the rest to God.
I’ve just demonstrated, to my own satisfaction, my poor time management skills by reading or at least skimming every comment in this thread. A few miscellaneous thoughts:
I’m a eucharistic minister. If Abp Burke thinks I’d even *recognize* Rudy Giuliani or John Kerry or whoever the demonized-politician-du-jour is, he’s got a seriously distorted view of how much time I spend watching MSNBC vs. other activities like surfing this blog.
Look, I’m sympathetic to the theory that legislators with public, consistent track records of supporting abortion should be barred from communion.
But, I can’t say with enough emphasis how *wrong* it is to ask a Eucharistic Minister to make that determination in the middle of the communion rite. Short of a “most-banned” list hanging in every sacristy, with frontal and profile mug shots, how will the poor minister even *know*?
Not just who they are, but what they’ve done? Perhaps Archbishop Burke can rattle off the voting records on the floor and in committee for every Federal and state legislator in the land, but I can’t. I doubt one in a thousand EMs could, either.
(And it isn’t just Mrs. Grundy we need to be concerned about; what about Deacon Chuck who had 2 night classes on the Eucharist during his acolyte year and tends to spout the most “unique” theological opinions; or poor old Fr. O’Brien who can no longer see well enough to have any definite idea who he’s giving communion to?)
I love our EMs, but if they all get to the right communion station on the first try, it’s a victory. Thinking and making judgments isn’t part of the ministry description.
So … having said all that … we have a senator from Illinois. Dick Durbin. Catholic. Was pro-life earlier in his career, become pro-choice and it hasn’t hurt his political prospects in this blue state. Is regularly damned by Respect Life committees across the state. I wouldn’t recognize him, either. But … presumably he belongs to a parish in his Downstate home town, and goes to mass there several times per year. It’s not unreasonable to expect that *those* EMs will know him. And if he came up with his hands cupped, and the EM covered her ciborium rather than offer him Christ’s Body and Blood, this based on prior instruction from her bishop … I really think, all in all, that I’m okay with that.
A favorite, brief reference is “Your Conscience and Church Teaching: How Do They Fit Together?” by Nicholas Lohkamp, OFM. It’s part of the CATHOLIC UPDATE series published by St. Anthony Messenger Press.
The link to this Update is (here’s hoping :)
http://www.americancatholic.org/Newsletters/CU/ac1282.asp
Lohkamp, inter alia, distinguishes between “two competing methods of arriving at moral principles.”
Worth a look.
Thanks, Joseph, that is worth a look. Regarding HV it engages in a certain amount of , dare I say, casuistry. But in many ways it’s very thoughtful and points the best way forward, which, I’m convinced, is the Synod.
Sean,
You say: “The Church doesn’t make aborton wrong, it just tells us it is.” But from your point of view, the same would be the case for artificial birth control, divorce and remarriage, in vitro fertilization, stem cell research, and a whole host of other issues. And yet you aren’t arguing that Catholic legislators must write the Catholic position into law for all of these. (Or are you?)
What you are not acknowledging is that in the United States–a secular society, with freedom of religion and separation of Church and state–the Catholic Chuch saying something is a fact doesn’t MAKE it a fact. When the Catholic Church says unequivocally that life begins at conception, for the purposes of American government, that is a religious teaching, not a factual statement. Nobody KNOWS FOR A FACT that the Catholic Church is what it claims to be. For those who believe in the Church (or in God, for that matter), it is because of faith, not factual knowledge.
Your arsenic example is faulty, since the properties of arsenic are matters of empirical fact. I can demonstrate empirically that arsenic is poison, but no one can demonstrate empirically that abortion is killing a person.
I find it a strange argument that supreme court justices are off the hook because they are supposed to follow the law whether they agree with it or not, but legislator must fight against abortion. As I said before, legislators take an oath to uphold the constitution, and until the court decides otherwise, abortion is a constitutional right. From your point of view, wouldn’t it make more sense to say that Catholic supreme court justices would be duty bound to do whatever they could to stop abortions, and if they find themselves having to uphold the right to abortion, their only choice would be to resign?
The partial birth abortion ban was not a pro-life victory, since (as I understood it), the decision of the court was that D&X (“partial birth abortion”) was unnecessary, because there were other methods of abortion that were equally safe and effective in the circumstances where D&X has been used. Simply put, the Court was saying, “Don’t use this method; use another method.” I do think it was a mistake for Democrats to oppose a partial birth abortion ban, but not one abortion will be prevented because of the ban.
And we all know that the pro-life tactic is to try to chip away at abortion rights bit by bit. It was bad public relations to appear to support D&X, but the overall strategy of defending the right to abortion by opposing the “chip away” strategy is sound.
By the way, I am not saying there should be a right to abortion. I am stating the fact that, under current law, there IS a right. It’s because of Roe v Wade, and unless it is overturned, abortion will be a right.
David, I wish you hadn’t brought this up because it’s a whole new subject on a thread that’s already pretty long, but, by “being Catholic,” a person saying, “Yes, I believe the Catholic Church is what it says it is.”
That belief implies assent to definitive teachings regarding faith and morals.
Kathy,
I absolutely agree with what you say about “being a Catholic.” The issue I am trying to deal with (and maybe it deserves another thread, or maybe it doesn’t), is to what extent should religious certainties–be they Catholic, Evangelical, Jewish, Muslim, or Mormon–determine how a legislator who belongs to one of those faiths votes and makes laws that apply to the people of the other faiths. Each one of these faiths has its own certainties that people of the other faiths strongly disagree with. That’s why we have freedom of religion in the United States and separation of church and state–to guarantee the rights of people of all faiths (and no faith).
The example I bring up time and again (which nobody wants to comment on) is the difference between the Catholic and the Jewish position on abortion. Suppose Catholics and Protestants in the United States somehow form a coalition and manage to enact a total ban on abortion. Is it acceptable in our democracy for the Catholics and the Protestants to enact a law that prevents a Jewish woman whose life is believed to be at risk from a problem pregnancy to have an abortion? The Jewish religion permits it, and I have even seen some argue that Judaism requires it. “Life (personhood) begins at conception” is a “fact” for Catholics. “Life (personhood) begins at birth” is a “fact” for Jews. Is it up to the government to decide which “fact” to base legislation on?
Is a Catholic legislator who votes for an abortion ban that makes an exception in the case of the life of the mother (to accommodate the Jewish view) committing a grave sin because he or she is not mandating a total ban?
Thanks, Jim Pauwels, for the insider’s practical perspective and the good humor with which you do it.
I think the crux of the biscuit here is “based on instruction from her bishop.”
“Crux of the biscuit.” Is that something they say in the North Country when there is nothing left in the pantry cave but a barrel of flour?
“Is a Catholic legislator who votes for an abortion ban that makes an exception in the case of the life of the mother (to accommodate the Jewish view) committing a grave sin because he or she is not mandating a total ban?”
David, this is getting way ahead of ourselves. First our Catholic legislators have to be willing to vote against partial birth abortion.
http://www.bdfund.org/pbagraphics.asp
David,
This is getting circular, but you don’t address the first part of the pro-abortion Catholic politician’s argument. That is, that they believe what the Church teaches. That is what makes their position unreasonable.
When I say I believe what the Church teaches, it is not a question of “religious certainty.” In the case of abortion, the Church teaches that abortion is the taking of human life. The answer to the position that some other religion or sect disagrees with that assertion is not – could be – it is they are wrong.
In a pluralistic society, certainly Church teachings should not be enforced by the state. In the case of abortion (and some other limited areas – e.g. embryonic stem cell research), however, where the Church’s teaching is that, as a matter of fact, the pre-born are human, how can an elected official say they have no obligation to protect it?
This is why the arsenic example is spot on. My example is about what the peson knows or believes, but in criticizing it you have to address the underlying basis of the belief. That’s irrelevant. What I mean is this. If I know arsenic is poison (for whatever reason) I wouldn’t let people eat it. When I say “I believe” to the Church’s teaching on abortion, if I mean what I say, I must mean I know the pre-born are human with the same kind of certainty.
The bottom line is, when I hear the personal Catholic belief, public pro-abortion position, I conclude that the person either has no conscience, or really doesn’t mean the first part. The latter is probably the case in most instances.
You are right that Catholic politicians have no right to make laws to keep people from sinning, or to enforce Catholic beliefs. The point is that laws limiting, or perhaps some day eliminating, abortion do not do this. I support such laws not to keep people who have or perform abortions from sinning or to promote my faith, but to protect innocent life.
Thank you for your kind words, Jean.
“Crux of the biscuit” – I think our religious ed instructors are using that term to explain transubstantiation.
‘”Crux of the biscuit” – I think our religious ed instructors are using that term to explain transubstantiation.’
I used a cell phone.
Btw, Cardinal George weighs in on the topic of this thread in a wide-ranging interview with John Allen, now on Allen’s blogsite:
http://ncrcafe.org/node/1361
Well worth reading, he touches on a number of topics discussed here recently.
I am beginning to see the essence of your argument, I think. In a democracy that is a pluralistic society, a member of religion A does not have the right to pass laws forcing a person of religion B to behave as if he or she were a member of religion A. So even if they should achieve a majority in the United States, Catholics may not pass laws prohibiting remarriage after divorce, Quakers may not outlaw gambling, and so on.
However, in this one area involving the beginnings of life, the purpose of the law is not so much to enforce a certain kind of behavior (although that is a byproduct) but to save the lives of the unborn. If one believes a fetus is a person (even if the doctor and pregnant woman involved do not), that person’s right to life overrides any concerns about imposing one’s beliefs on the pregnant woman and her doctor. So it is only in very specific and rare cases (when an innocent life is involved that can’t speak for itself) that intervention based on religious belief is acceptable. It might be similar, in a limited way, to the courts intervene to force a parent with a sick child to provide proven treatment for the child when the parent is allowing the child only some kind of “alternative” (crackpot) treatment.
This is a closer understanding of what I mean, but remember what started the discussion. The question is whether the private belief/public position that some Catholic politicians put forward is reasonable.
It seems to me that elected politicians, regardless of their religion, are charged with enacting and enforcing laws that, among other things, protect the innocent.
If I say I accept the Church’s teaching that means that a) the un-born infant is an innocent life, and b) that abortion is the wrongful taking of that life.
If I then say I am pro-abortion rights, that means I believe that a person who is not innocent has a right to take the life of an innocent.
That’s not reasonable.
If a politician says, I don’t believe an embryo is human life, then a pro-abortion stance is perfectly reasonable – but wrong.
Surely the respect for life that undergirds Catholics’ opposition to abortion is rooted, not in any source of divine revelation like Scripture, but rather in natural law? In that sense, it’s difficult to see how critics of the church can claim that Catholics – or anybody – wishes to “impose religious beliefs” on a non-believer.
Of course, natural law itselc could be viewed as a source of divine revelation, but I don’t see that a non-believer’s acceptance of the divine source of natural law is necessary to the natural-law argument. We should all be able to agree that respect for life is innate to human nature, and agree to disagree about its source. That sounds eminently American to me.
Jim,
Would you really argue that Catholics have more respect for life than Jews, Anglicans, Muslims, and Buddhists, all of whom permit abortion under certain (although very limited) circumstances?
No, David. At least not intentionally. Did I?
Why is my coun try so full of moral cowards?! A vast majority of the comments I have seen here represent a hair-splitting attempt to relieve oneself of the responsibility to stand up publicly for what is right. We say canon law this and legal tort that and all we are doing is saying that I do not wish to stand out and be counted among those who see the moral repugnance of a policy that has taken the lives of 50 MILLION Americans and counting. We want to sleep with whomever whenever we wish and we want to have no consequences but the moral and natural world God created does not work that way. If I see John Kerry or Ted Kennedy or anybody else I recognize as a pro-abortion politician or other person known to live and advocate a way contrary to the teachings of Jesus as outlined by His body the Church I will tell them to move on and if they have a problem with that, they can sue me!
And Jim, I would have answered yes to David Nickol’s Question, The Catholic Church has more respect for life than anyone who allows abortion inder ANY circumstances. There are NO justifications for an abortion whatsoever.
Way to go Sean. Abraham Lincoln once said that no one has the right to do something wrong.
< < And Jim, I would have answered yes to David Nickol's Question, The Catholic Church has more respect for life than anyone who allows abortion inder ANY circumstances. There are NO justifications for an abortion whatsoever. >>.
… and you would have been wrong, Paul. At least in your last sentence. Even the Catholic church countenances abortions when the mother’s life is in danger and the intent is not to kill the baby.
While we’re waiting for David to respond (if he cares to), I’ll also remark that talking about Jewish or Muslim respect for life is like talking about Christian respect for life: there is no single, monolithic position, and no universally-recognized teaching or ruling authority to speak one.
Paul, do you distribute Communion?
If so, I concede to Grant.
Sean,
I see your point, and I concede it is a strong point. What I will say for now–in the light of what you have said–is that a politician who claims to be pro-life (by which I mean believing personhood begins at conception) had better have a very strong theory about when, where, and why legislation that permits one person to do something gravely wrong to another person can be voted for with a clear conscience.
I guess part of my concern is the “slippery slope.” There is a great deal that Catholic teaching deems wrong that is not illegal, so where may the Catholic legislator draw the line? I note, for example, that Archbishop Burke speaks of “Catholic politicians who publicly, after admonition, continue to support legislation favoring procured abortion and other legislation contrary to the natural moral law, for example . . . legislation redefining marriage to include a relationship between persons of the same sex.” I’m betting I can guess where you stand on gay marriage, but permitting gay marriage does not involve the taking of innocent life. Has Archbishop Burke gone too far in branding Catholic politicians who favor gay marriage grave sinners? And if not, what else that is not a life-and-death issue must Catholic politicians oppose in order to be worthy of receiving communion? Divorce and remarriage? The birth control pill? Sperm donation? The manufacture and selling of condoms, which according to Catholic though, have no use that is not “contrary to the natural moral law”?
Paul,
“The the moral and natural world God created” results in 50 to 80 percent of human beings dying within a few days of being conceived (if you believe that life begins at conception).
Of course, the deaths are naturally occurring, not caused deliberately. But if life (personhood) begins at conception, why should it matter if it is lost a few days after conception or a few days after birth? You can be sure that if 50 to 80 percent of babies began dying a few days after birth, the medical resources devoted to alleviating such a situation would be enormous. And yet rarely does anyone who claims to believe life begins at conception give early embryo loss a thought.
Paul,
You said: “Abraham Lincoln once said that no one has the right to do something wrong.’
Can you give a source for that? I can’t find it in any collection of Lincoln quotes. In fact, I can’t find the quote attributed to anybody.
Jim,
I don’t think it is merely respect for life that the Catholic Church cites as the reason abortion is prohibited. It is rather the idea that human life (personhood) begins at conception, and that a death that takes place only a few seconds after fertilization is morally equivalent to the death of a baby or an adult. I think everyone would agree that a fertilized egg or an embryo is a POTENTIAL person, but I think the case for it being a full human person with the same standing and rights as an adult can be made only from a religious point of view.
Jim, Evangelium Vitae would contradict you about abortions where the mother’s life is in danger. I am not interested in what the muslims teach about life after the universal celebration on 9/11/01 and it is my goal, anyway to convert them to the true Faith.
Kathy, Yes I distribute communion. I am a priest. I don’t understand what you mean about conceding to Grant.
David, As for your slippery slope comment, first I would like to inform you that during the debate regarding segregation in schools, the Archbishop of New Orleans excommunicated two senators from Louisiana due to their favoring the “Seperate but equal” policy and after the excommunication, they realized that their stance is morally repugnant and changed it. The excommunication was used to teach them the importance of being morally right. St. Thomas More said that if a person in public office sacrifices his private conscience for the sake of his public duty, he leads his country down a short route to chaos. Dr. Lyman Hall, a signer of the Declaration of Independence said that when a person acts to represent his people in government he owes his constituents not only his integrity but his judgement and he fails in his duty if he sacrifices that judgement to their desires.
There is only one right way to act. Moral truth as taught by the Catholic Church is just that, the truth, not an opinion with which one can agree to disagree. If i disagree with the moral truth, I am wrong and it does not matter which religion I follow.
Fr. Richardson,
I was referring to Grant Gallicho’s concern that individual ministers, including priests, deacons, and lay people, might decide for themselves who was worthy to receive Communion. I argued that there would be an orderly discipline, in which the bishop would inform the priests that he had, first of all, admonished the politician (or whomever). We can’t go just by voting records and public statements. There has to be a discussion as well.
I think that the person has to be given that personal opportunity to repent, don’t you?
This is what Archbishop Burke said in an interview:
“On Wednesday, Burke, the archbishop of St. Louis, was asked if he would deny Communion to Giuliani or any other presidential candidate who favors abortion rights.
“If any politician approached me and he’d been admonished not to present himself, I’d not give it,” Burke told The Associated Press. “To me, you have to be certain a person realizes he is persisting in a serious public sin.” ”
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5ggNkz0du8u6hK7EMYzbHll2TTFUAD8S2HV3G0
Fr. Richardson,
First, thanks for alluding to the story of Archbishop Joseph Rummel of New Orleans and his stand against segregation in the 1950s and 1960s. I have been reading about him on the web, and he is truly (as one of the articles says) an unsung hero of the civil rights movement. If there’s somebody out there who writes screenplays, please check out the following two articles and get busy!
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,896105,00.html
http://www.loyno.edu/history/journal/1993-4/Smestad.html
Regarding the “slippery slope,” if I understand you correctly, it is an irrelevant concern because a Catholic legislator is obliged to vote in accordance with Catholic moral teachings not merely on issues of the utmost gravity (such as abortion and stem cell research) but on ALL issues where there is a moral position clearly articulated by the Church.
Let me ask about the death penalty. The Catechism of the Catholic Church says, at the end of section 2267, “Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm – without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself – the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity ‘are very rare, if not practically nonexistent.’” (The short quote within the quote is from John Paul II, Evangelium vitae.)
As a preliminary to my questions, I will say that this seems clear-cut to me, but I am familiar with the concept of “wiggle room.” Do you think there is any here?
Assuming the answer is no, is it the duty of Catholic legislators to attempt to repeal death penalty laws? May a Catholic prosecutor ask for the death penalty when he tries a case? May a Catholic judge impose the death penalty? May a Catholic governor sign a death warrant? And may Catholic prison officials actually carry out the execution? Or may any or all of these people say that in spite of their Church’s teachings and their own personal beliefs, as elected or appointed officials in a pluralistic society and a democracy, they must carry out their official duties?
This thread is very interesting and is ranging over a wide terrain. If Apb. Burke’s article is primarily aimed at Catholic politicians, who may be personally opposed to abortion, but believe that in their constitutinal role they must uphold the law of the land, then would it be profitable to conduct the discussion here in terms of formal and material co-operation? Do politicians directly intend abortions by supporting Roe v. Wade any more than conscientious Catholics who continue to pay their taxes, some of which go to fund abortions in this country? Are these not both examples of remote material co-operation? How remote does the co-operation have to be before it is sinful? Should rank and file Catholics be refused Communion because they pay their taxes? Should these Catholics refuse to pay their taxes and accept the legal consequences of that for the pro-life cause in view of the greater good of preventing abortions? Have, in fact, some pro-life Catholics taken that approach and have they willingly accepted the legal consequences for refusing to pay their taxes?
Burke says, “To me, you have to be certain a person realizes he is persisting in a serious public sin” in order to refuse him/her communion.
And if a person does not so realize, i.e., after Burke’s “admonition?”
“[W]hen a person acts to represent his people in government he owes his constituents not only his integrity but his judgement and he fails in his duty if he sacrifices that judgement to their desires.”
And if a Catholic representative believes, on the basis of his church’s teaching, that abortion is morally wrong because it involves the killing of innocent human life, but said legislator also knows that not all his constituents hold such belief because their faith traditions hold different views on this issue, would such representative be failing his duty of judgment and, in effect, sacrificing it to their “desires?” And what would the word ‘desires’ denote or connote in this context?
“If I disagree with the moral truth, I am wrong and it does not matter which religion I follow.”
May a Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, agnostic, athiest, etc. make claim to this same statement? Can an entity other than the Church of Rome hold a moral truth at odds with the teaching of the Catholic Church? In these United States of America, what body decides “moral truth” to which all citizens, residents, and visitors must subscribe?
As a former federal poll observer who served under authority of the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965 in Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana, I am well familiar with the excommunication of a prominent Catholic who spouted virulently racist views in the New Orleans archdiocese. That said, Paul Richardson, are we not comparing “apples and oranges” with this situation, on the one hand, and the debate over the humanity and legal rights of the unborn child, on the other? In other words, might not the “average man/woman on the street” (even back then) have conceded the humanity of the Negro but not necessarily the humanity of the unborn human offspring?
“Moral truth as taught by the Catholic Church is just that, the truth, not an opinion with which one can agree to disagree.”
Slavery and usury?
And, finally, Paul, you state that your “goal, anyway[,] is to convert [Muslims] to the true Faith.”
How does your statement as a Catholic priest (a statement I find repugnant to the extreme) mesh with Vatican II’s declaration on religious liberty? To put it another way, Paul, why have you adopted such a “goal” when the conciliar fathers recognized the value of inter-religious dialogue, an approach that does not — even remotely — suggest the need, much less the duty, for Catholic clergy to establish goals (and timetables :) for converting everybody else to Catholicism?
Thank you for your time here.
O, yes, Paul Richardson,
You stated, “The Catholic Church has more respect for life than anyone [else vis-a-vis the abortion issue]”
Please tell me how Josef Ratzinger and his fellow CDF folks showed “respect for life” toward their fellow theologians who offered new insights into God and our relationship with God?
You also expressed your disapproval of folks who want to sleep “whomever whenever [they] wish.” Can you cite anyone on this thread who advocated such a stance?
Again, thank you for your time here.
I want to note here that although I admire the actions of Archbishop Joseph Rummel of New Orleans, the three people he excommunicated were attempting to prevent the integration of the New Orleans CATHOLIC schools. The Time magazine article from April 1962 says, “But now New Orleans’ public schools have been integrated, in token fashion, for more than a year, and last month Rummel ordered that the city’s Catholic schools, which enroll almost half of New Orleans’ white students, be completely desegregated in September.”
So although this was a case of the archbishop using his power of excommunication against Catholic public officials, they were public officials who were trying to use the power of the state to interfere with the way he was running the archdiocese. That is quite different than if he had excommunicate lawmakers because they were maintaining segregation in the PUBLIC schools. He was not attempting to influcence the action of Catholic legislators who merely were not adhering to Church teachings on separation of the races. He was excommunicating them because they were actively challenging the way he was running the archdiocese.
“Do not give what is holy to dogs — they will only turn and attack you. Do not throw your pearls in front of pigs — they will only trample them underfoot” (Mt 7:6).
“And if some home or town will not welcome you or listen to you, then leave that place and shake the dust off your feet” (Mt: 10:14).
“Then Jesus replied [to the Canaanite woman], ‘I have been sent only to the lost sheep of the people of Israel.’ At this the woman came and fell at his feet. ‘Help me, sir!’ she said. Jesus answered, ‘It isn’t right to take the children’s food and throw it to the dogs.’ ‘That’s true, sir,’ she answered, ‘but even the dogs eat the leftovers that fall from their masters’ table.’ So Jesus answered her, ‘You are a woman of great faith! What you want will be done for you.’ And at that very moment her daughter was healed” (Mt 15:24-28).
Jesus instructed his twelve disciples, “Go and preach, ‘The Kingdom of heaven is near” (Mt 10:7).
What can we make of the Lord’s wishes?
1. Do not waste time with dogs and pigs, i.e., folks who refuse to listen or show hospitality.
2. On the other hand, do give time to the undesirables, i.e., folks more or less despised by God’s Chosen People.
3. Preach the Good News to anyone who shows hospitality and listens.
As a former neighbor of a young Muslim couple (she a convert from Christianity, he a Pakistani Muslim), I always felt welcomed in their home, and I think we tried to listen and not just hear what each other said on matters of religion. We shared a lot of basic beliefs common, I suspect, to all the world’s great religions. We did not want to “convert” one or the other. We enjoyed the simple opportunity to share: ourselves, our beliefs, our concerns, etc.
Throughout the gospels, Jesus stresses the importance of listening (ignored by most of us most of the time) and hospitality. My community has an annual event that gives various faith traditions the opportunity to share, to be hospitable. The conciliar fathers would heartily endorse this kind of dialogue, which, by the way, fosters ongoing conversation throughout the year.
Let’s not confuse preaching with converting. And let’s not forget that Our Lord was, is, and always will be a Jew.
Joseph,
Regarding attitudes toward Muslims, one might also mention the Parable of the Good Samaritan. When Jesus says, “Love your neighbor as yourself,” and someone asks who our neighbor is, Jesus responds with a story in which the Samaritan is clearly the neighbor. John L McKenzie (Dictionary of the Bible) tells us, “There was no deeper breach of human relations in the contemporary world than the feud of Jews and Samaritans, and the breadth and depth of Jesus’ doctrine of love could demand no greater act of a Jew than to accept a Samaritan as a brother.”
We really, really need a thread on freedom of conscience according to Vatican II.
From DECLARATION ON THE RELATION OF THE CHURCH TO NON-CHRISTIAN RELIGIONS:
All men form but one community. This is so because all stem from the one stock which God created to people the entire earth; and also because all share a common destiny, namely God. His providence, evident goodness, and saving designs extend to all men against the day when the elect are gathered together in the holy city which is illuminated by the glory of God and in whose splendour all peoples will walk.
Men look to their different religions for an answer to the unsolved riddles of human existence. The problems that weigh heavily on the hearts of men are the same today as in the ages past. What is man? What is the meaning and purpose of life? What is upright behavior, and what is sinful? Where does suffering originate, and what end does it serve? How can genuine happiness be found? What happens at death? What is judgment? What reward follows death? And finally, what is the ultimate mystery, beyond human explanation, which embraces our entire existence, from which we take our origin and towards which we tend?…THE CATHOLIC CHURCH REJECTS NOTHING OF WHAT IS TRUE AND HOLY IN THESE RELIGIONS [emphases added].
Finally, I find the following paragraphs from Article 6, Moral Conscience, in the CCC to be most enlightening (getting at the “nitty gritty” here, Paul):
1790 – A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.
1792 – Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one’s passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church’s authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these CAN BE at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct [emhases added].
1800 – A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience.
1801 – Conscience can remain in ignorance or make erroneous judgments. Such ignorance and errors ARE NOT ALWAYS free of guilt [emphases added].
We in the pews, in other words, cannot deny in good faith the duty of church officials to teach. However, when push comes to shove, the latter cannot deny in good faith the duty of us folks in the pews to follow our conscience, whether “rightly formed” or otherwise. We all know that official church teaching has been wrong in the past on slavery and usury.
Too, let’s not overlook the “common sense of the faithful.” Humanae Vitae is but one example. In addition to ignoring our collective common moral sense, HV is a good example of collective non-reception of official (albeit, non-infallible) church teaching.
Paul, you can preach to high heaven until the cows come home about our need to “obey the Magisterium” lock, stock, and barrel. For those of us who know better, however, your words will ring hollow. The more you and like-minded clergy so preach, the more your efforts hurt the credibility of church teaching, not to mention its authority to teach,
Joseph,
Do I understand you to be applying to Catholics, directly and immediately, the Vatican II teaching regarding non-Christians?
< < Jim, Evangelium Vitae would contradict you about abortions where the mother's life is in danger. >>
I’d like a specific cite, please, Paul. My understanding of the Catholic moral tradition is that a procedure such as a tubal ligation, in the case of an ectopic pregnancy, is acceptable, so long as the intent is to save the mother’s life.
< < If Apb. Burke's article is primarily aimed at Catholic politicians, who may be personally opposed to abortion, but believe that in their constitutinal role they must uphold the law of the land, then would it be profitable to conduct the discussion here in terms of formal and material co-operation? Do politicians directly intend abortions by supporting Roe v. Wade any more than conscientious Catholics who continue to pay their taxes, some of which go to fund abortions in this country? Are these not both examples of remote material co-operation? How remote does the co-operation have to be before it is sinful? Should rank and file Catholics be refused Communion because they pay their taxes? Should these Catholics refuse to pay their taxes and accept the legal consequences of that for the pro-life cause in view of the greater good of preventing abortions? Have, in fact, some pro-life Catholics taken that approach and have they willingly accepted the legal consequences for refusing to pay their taxes? >>
These certainly are excellent questions, Alan. Probably one place to start is to note that intention is important. Even the bishops are occasionally careful to note that a politician or a voter who casts a vote that enables abortion, may have her culpability lessened if the intention was not specifically to enable abortion.
Here is a link to an America Magazine article frmo 2004 that explores these questions (subscription may be required):
http://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=3635
Kathy, please clarify your question. Thanks.
Joseph,
I’m interested in exploring the meaning of freedom of conscience as it applies to Catholics, particularly on issues of faith and morals. This has been a complex thread, but that is the question that seems central.
You said, “When push comes to shove, the latter cannot deny in good faith the duty of us folks in the pews to follow our conscience, whether “rightly formed” or otherwise.”
I think you are oversimplifying the problem. It seems to me that Catholics have a duty to the truth. They have duties regarding the formation of their consciences. And they accept a certain duty of obedience with the Sacraments of Initiation.
But didn’t Aquinas say unequivocally that under all circumstances, one MUST follow one’s conscience?
David:
I’ve heard that but haven’t seen it personally. But, Thomas also held that there are higher laws than conscience, such as just laws promulgated by the state, and divine law, and they should constrain the conscience. Eg:
“Laws framed by man are either just or unjust. If they be just, they have the power of binding in conscience, from the eternal law whence they are derived, according to Prov. 8:15: “By Me kings reign, and lawgivers decree just things.” Now laws are said to be just, both from the end, when, to wit, they are ordained to the common good—and from their author, that is to say, when the law that is made does not exceed the power of the lawgiver—and from their form, when, to wit, burdens are laid on the subjects, according to an equality of proportion and with a view to the common good. For, since one man is a part of the community, each man in all that he is and has, belongs to the community; just as a part, in all that it is, belongs to the whole; wherefore nature inflicts a loss on the part, in order to save the whole: so that on this account, such laws as these, which impose proportionate burdens, are just and binding in conscience, and are legal laws.”
Summa T. I-IIae 96. 4
Kathy, thanks for your clarification. I’m addressing the parts of your last paragraph:
a. “Catholics have a duty to the truth.”
I believe everyone, regardless of creed or belief, has a duty to the truth. The rub, of course, is “What constitutes the truth?” The answer gets sticky when one allows for the myriad belief systems that can influence one’s perceptions of reality and understandings of “the truth.”
b. “[Catholics] have duties regarding the formation of their consciences.”
I agree. We have a duty to listen to official church teaching. However, listening does not occur in a vacuum. Without our even trying, we interpret the “new” within the context of the “old,” i.e., our experience. If something does not make sense, we can inquire further, or we can write it off. Humanae Vitae comes to mind. I suspect most Catholics took the second option.
I think a critical question is “Who bears the burden in church teaching, the teachers or the laity?” I put it on the former. When one considers the tremendous shift in the clergy-laity relationship that has occurred since Vatican II, i.e., the disappearance of the clerical (and even episcopal) pedestals, the official teachers have a choice: Do a better job of teaching (if possible), or fall back on condescension or threats of interdict and excommunication.
c. “[Catholics] accept a certain duty of obedience with the Sacraments of Initiation.”
In theory, yes. In practice, it all depends. Without desiring to elaborate, let’s just say I see a lot of assumptions in your quote from Thomas Aquinas, assumptions (and not presumptions) that I find per se unconvincing today.
I think Nicholas Lohkamp’s YOUR CONSCIENCE AND CHURCH TEACHING, referenced above, is relevant here. Earlier, I asked if the Catholic Church, in being true to her mission, should focus on love or the law. We might also ask if the laity should relinquish exercise of (informed) conscience for the sake of (blind) obedience.
Christ was obedient to the Father unto death. For more than a thousand years, the laity were obedient to the fathers unto the deaths of the children. Given our fallible human nature and the sordid history of the institutional church, I think we need to be very careful about this “obedience thing.”
Jim:
Thanks for the link to the Beal article, which I have found to be well down, lucid, and very helpful. Perhaps Apb. Burke should read it.
Kathy:
On the primacy of conscience, I have found no better explanation that that from Joseph Ratzinger himsefl in his commentary on Gaudium et Spes:
“Over the pope as an expression of the binding claim of ecclesiastical authority, there still stands one’s own conscience, which must be obeyed before all else, if necessary even against the requirement of ecclesiastical authority.” Ratzinger, Joseph, Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II, Vorgrimler, Herbert (Ed.) Herder and Herder, 1967-1969, Vol.5, p. 134.
Fr. Beal doesn’t seem to address the expression in Canon 915 “or interdicted.” I don’t know what that means, so I may be mistaken, but the expression seems to fall out of the discussion.
Speaking of important expressions that sometimes get lost, two in the rather dated Ratzinger quote might be “the binding claim of ecclesiastical authority” and “if necessary.”
Personally I tend to believe more easily, though not exclusively, in prophetic disobedience that a) costs something and b) isn’t self-interested.
The Ratzinger quote makes me realize I should be a little more careful of what I write, in case I am elected pope someday.
It made me think of the ancient joke (which still makes me smile) that Hans Kung would never allow himself to be made pope because he wouldn’t want to lose his infallibility.
Kathy:
I do not have the Beal article with me right now, so I will reserve comment on that.
As for the “dated” quality of Ratzinger’s thought on the primacy of conscience I am a bit baffled. For him, truth is not dated. He believed what the wrote at that time was perrennial truth, since he cited a work entitled Der einzelne Christen which provides the sources for his claim; sources which witness to the continuous tradition of the Church on the primacy of conscience.
I was always taught that I had to follow my conscience, even if it were erroneous, because it was the only conscience I had, and I would be responsible before God for it. It is immoral in traditional Catholic thought to violate this principle. Catholics cannot follow any conscience but their own, even in view of the dircetive to form their consciences correctly. The tradition of the church recognized that the formation of conscience did not happen overnight and could not be imposed merely by authority. For goodness sake, this has been one of the proudest moments of the Catholic tradition. if we gut it of its meaning we are savaging our roots.
In recent debates this treasured principle has been highjacked by people like Pell, who have distorted the teaching to their own advantage. Whenever the tradition does not fit their purpose, they change the narrative. This results in a delicious irony that the traditionalists are not very traditional after all, since they do not adhere to the best of the Catholic tradition. In my opinion, authority and ecclesiastical office cannot contravene the tradition. This is what Ratzinger meant when he wrote what he wrote in his commentary on Gaudium et Spes. The “if necessary” that you cite is equivalent to “of necessity,” which means you do not have a choice. You must follow your conscience as a Catholic even if it runs counter to ecclesiastical authority including the Pope himself.
Joseph,
I’ve been meaning to thank you for your thoughtful reply to my questions.
I should clarify that I really do believe, generally speaking, that Catholics should be appropriating the truth personally: part of the “renewal of your mind” that Paul speaks about is a real education, with questions, mystery, tussles of will. All of that.
I don’t think, though, that faith in itself is very angsty. My guess is that faith, which is a gift, is a fairly clear light that we can accept better when we’re at least willing to, ultimately, submit.
Alan,
I wonder if part of what is being considered among us is the question of: What is the conscience, anyway?
I wonder if it’s worth considering an article I found by googling, by Bishop Anthony Fisher, a chum of Cathleen Kaveny’s, if I remember correctly from an earlier post.
On the other hand, he’s associated with the JPII Institute down under.
On the other hand, he does mention the NYTimes.
On the other hand, he’s in charge of the next World Youth Day.
He’s a Dominican, which can mean almost anything anymore.
All in all, a balanced thinker, yes? Okay, in full disclosure, he comes down on *my side* of the issues. But I think a good deal could be gained from seeing how he gets there. Well anyway, for what it’s worth, here’s a link to The Moral Conscience in Ethics and the Crisis of Moral Authority. http://www.zenit.org/article-19058?l=english
Kathy:
To get back to Beal. I do not think that “interdict” has fallen out in his argument. He sees it as something that should rarely if ever be used in the matter of politicians presenting themselves for communion. His article lays out how difficult it is to meet all the conditions for interdict mentioned in Canon 915. The point he makes on the intention of the commission that revised the Code to interpret the Canon 915 narrowly is instructive: the intention was to prevent church authorities from acting “on their visceral instincts” because of the harm such “gut reaction” would do to higher ecclesiastical value.
I find this fascinating in light of Bishop Fisher’s view of the contemporary understanding of conscience as a “feeling.” Fisher would invoke Canon 915 against politicians who come to moral truth on the basis of what he beleives are mere “visceral instincts” seemingly unaware that he, too, may come to the decision for interdicting someone on the same basis, if he cannot demonstrate that all of the conditons for interdict have indeed been met. Who actually has been interdicted, and on what basis? Burke may have suggested that Kerry and Guilani should be denied Communion but he does not have the canonical jurisdiction to issue and interdict against them, since they do not reside in his diocese.
As for Fisher’s article, I thank you for giving me a concrete example of exactly what I had said above about the hierarchy hijacking primacy of conscience. Has not Fisher constructed the usual straw man argument by presenting a false view of how moralists and theologians, who seriously debate the primacy of conscience, view conscience? Does he not reduce their argument to a caricature? I do not know of anyone, who seriously thinks about this issue, who has maintained that arriving as a moral decision on the basis of conscience is something that one does by simply feeling that something is right or wrong. In my opinion, Fisher does a disservice to thinking Catholics and to the tradition of the Church. By his own admission the process of forming and informing one’s conscience is complicated, and it is made no less so by the issue of freedom and autonomy. I fail to see how he can know from external evidence that someone, who wrestles with an issue of conscience, is simply going on a gut feeling. The process, as Biel points out, is completely internal. And is that not why bishops and archbishops like Mahony and McCarrick beleive it is the first responsibility of politicians to scrutinize themselves before presenting themselves for the reception of Communion. Bishops like Burk and Fisher fail to trust that thinking Catholics can make reasonable moral choics on their own.
There are abuses of ecclesial authority. Concience and acting on one’s conscience offers a serious remedy to such abuses. If I may quote Joseph Ratzinger again from his commentary on Gaudium et Spes you may see what I mean.
In speaking about the role of conscience and its primacy he goes on to say:
“This emphasis on the individual, whose conscience confronts him with a supreme and ulimate tribunal, and one which in the last resort is beyond the claim of external social groups, even of the official Church, also establishes a principle in opposition to increasing totalitarianism. Genuine ecclesiastical obedience is distinguished from any totalitarian claim which cannot accept any ultimate obligation of this kind beyond the reach of its dominating will.” Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II, Vorgrimler, Herbert (Ed.) Herder and Herder, 1967-1969, Vol.5, p. 134.
Church authorities who believe that Catholics should immediately and without question submit to their authority do not see how such behavior fails to conform to genuine ecclesiastical obedience, which must be based on following one’s conscience. Any obedience to Church authority, which does not pass the conscience test is not a genuine assent of the Catholic in question, and may simply be a response to an ecclesiastical authority’s dominating will. I think Ratzinger himself would see this as a form of totalitarianism.
Kathy:
The interdict mentioned in canon 915 is a specific penalty for committing an ecclesiastical crime. It functions as a mini excommunication. See CIC canon 1332. The reason that Fr. Beal did not cover “or interdicted” is because he covered essentially the same subject matter under the “Excommunication” section, i.e., since the abortion canon does not apply to pro-choice politicians, the only way excommunication/interdict would apply to their situation would be if there were some other law imposing the penalty that fits their conduct. There is no such law.
Kathy,
You opined that “faith…is a fairly clear light that we can accept better when we’re at least willing to, ultimately, submit.”
Let’s be careful here. I assume you could have ended your sentence with “to Rome” or something akin to it in phraseology.
One of my former pastors constantly distinguished between the Catholic Faith and the Catholic Church. He noted they were not one and the same. At different times, he described the faith as a crown jewel or as a struggling unhatched chick. He portrayed the church as a dingy, musty old container, and, on other occasions, as the cracking shell of an egg. (I heard him preach during JPII’s pontificate.)
We need to be mindful of this distinction. All of us constitute the People of God. As such, the church is a living entity (although I think Benedict is continuing his predecessor’s attempts to cling to the old container or, in a different way, erect their scaffolding around the egg to tape the cracks). At some point, I hope, the container will crumble so we better behold the jewel, and the egg will crack open so the Holy Chick can emerge to continue its mission of revitalizing the church.
Obedience (or submission) is not without its risks. Trust is involved. Intuition is involved. Common sense is involved. Education is involved. History is involved. Experience is involved. Conscience is involved.
Bishops have an obligation to teach. We have an obligation to listen. Bishops have a duty to respect supremacy of conscience. We have a duty to follow our conscience.
Life is not black and white, and the law cannot address shades of gray.
Contrary to popular belief, controversy is good, not bad. It denotes differences of opinion and maybe of conscience, as well. Controversy is a sign of life, not of death. Burke and like-minded apparently don’t understand or appreciate this basic fact of life. That’s too bad for them — but not for the church. Thank God.
Alan,
My sense is that Bp. Fisher presents straw men on both sides of the question. His characterization of ultramontanes is equally facile. I’m thinking that’s because the essay/ talk is brief.
Paul,
Thanks for the clarification.
Joseph,
When I said “submit,” I deliberately left out the “to whom.” Ultimately one submits to God. Who else? But part of trusting God, for Catholics, is trusting in the Holy Spirit who guides the Church through bishops.
Do bishops have a governing role or not? If they do, why the current climate of suspicion? Isn’t it remotely possible that our desires for moral autonomy run contrary to the Gospel, and keep us from even wanting to be governed?
I guess the main thing that keeps me from accepting wholeheartedly the fairly enormous claims here regarding the freedom of conscience is that “conscience” does not seem to be very well-defined. Maybe conscience is an interior voice that tells me what and what not to do. But certainly there are attractions which I should not follow, delights that I must not taste. At least that’s the old story.
How is my conscience to be distinguished from my appetites?
Kathy:
I do not see that the question of appetites is relevant here,except to prove your underlying point that you think that it is all too convenient to reduce one’s conscience to simply what what one wants. That is not what I or others who seriously explore the primacy of conscience are talking about. You raise the question earlier about suspicion of authority. Why are you suspicious of mature thinkng Catholics who can in conscience come to reasonable moral positions that may be at odds with church authority? Do you believe there is any legitimate position of dissent in Roman Catholicism based on following one’s conscience?
Alan,
If my bishop were to teach a lie, or order me to do something wrong, then I should disbelieve/ disobey.
Kathy:
Well, duh, of course when you frame it that way. How about introducing some complexity to the question where it is not so cut and dry? After all this is where we really live. Please give me a concrete example from real life, apart from the no brainer you have offered thus far, of a conflict of conscience issue where following one’s conscience is the legitimate way to proceed against the teaching of ecclesiastical authority.
Alan,
I’m not sure that “duh” was necessary.
Nor can I think of a reason to disobey ecclesiastical authority unless they want me to a) believe something untrue or b) do something wrong.In any other situation, it seems correct to me to obey.
I would just spell out the implied obverse of each of these situations: if asked to a) keep silence or b) do nothing, when speech or action are morally required, then I think that disobedience in speech and action are correct.
But I will mention again that, although my judgment of anyone else’s conscience is neither hear nor there, I would from the outside tend to believe that it is conscience when it costs something. Freedom Riders–conscience. Birth control. Hmmm.
Kathy:
You are right that the “duh” was unnecessary. Please accept my apology.
Thank you for clarifying your position.
Alan,
It’s fine, thank you. No big deal.
I’ve been wanting to talk about conscience in a forum like this for such a long time that my positions are pretty well formed–and in situations like that I can be very laconic.
Kathy, you mentioned that “part of trusting God, for Catholics, is trusting in the Holy Spirit who guides the Church through bishops.”
Perhaps you overlooked adding “and the whole People of God” to your assertion? Bishops are not the sole receivers of help from the Holy Spirit. God works through all of us, no doubt, collectively and individually.
“If ["bishops have a governing role"], why the current climate of suspicion?”
I do not see the relationship between a “climate of suspicion” among the laity, on the one hand, and our acknowledgment of supremacy of conscience, on the other. Bishops can *be* wrong; bishops can *do* wrong. Supremacy of conscience does not negate the role of the bishop, but the latter does not negate the all-importance of conscience. We are comparing apples and oranges here.
“Can our desires for moral autonomy run contrary to the Gospel…” Yes.
“…and keep us from even wanting to be governed?” Yes.
I agree with one of your later comments that “conscience [can cost] something.” But not always. HV likely cost a lot for some folks and not much at all for others. How to explain? In short, many human variables, both good and bad.
As I see it, if there’s any “relief” for those of your persuasion, even the CCC acknowledges the supremacy of conscience when all is said and done.
Sorry, I’ve been away for a while. Someone mentioned the death penalty. I agree it must be abolished but first thubgs first. There are other social juatice issues but none as grave as the abortion issue. We Americans have murdered 50 million innocent children. Think of the totality of issues as the concerns of a homeowner. He has four problems thar need fixing. 1. there is a leak in the roof. 2. There is a faulty valve in the bathroom. 3. there is a broken light socket. 4. There is a fire out of control in the kitchen. Who do you call first, the roofer, the plumber, the electrician or the fire department. It doesn’t matter how we help the poor and needy if we cannot stop murdering our children. If you do not defend life at its beginning, it is hypocritical to defend it any other time.