That most wonderful time of the year.
John Allen’s recent Web column has occasioned some teeth-gnashing among those who want bishops to refuse Communion to prochoice Catholic politicians (see here, here, and here).
But I wonder what such critics make of the fact that the former mayor of Rome, well known as a prochoice Catholic politician, received Communion from John Paul II. As reported by Melinda Henneberger during the last presidential campaign:
At an Environment 2004 party on Beacon Hill Monday evening I ran
into Francesco Rutelli, the popular former mayor of Rome, and asked him
about rumors that he, a pro-choice Catholic of the Italian left, had
nonetheless received communion from Pope John Paul II himself.
“Oh
yes, this is true,” he said, and asked to be walked though the
controversy in the American Catholic Church, where some bishops have
suggested that pro-choice politicians like John Kerry should be denied
communion. “This is very strange for me,” Rutelli said, “that you
cannot be a Christian and also uphold the law of your country.”
“So,
this is politics, too?” he asked of the bishops, wryly suggesting that
perhaps these American prelates were too far from Rome—and too close to
Washington.
Incidentally, John Allen also reported this here.
Ah, yes, when the expectations of the Catholic Right are not realized, they usually have one of 2 reactions:
1. Pout
2. When in wonder, when in doubt:
run in circles, scream and shout.
This is interesting, and would be more interesting if it were the case that the Pope’s giving Rutelli communion were any kind of binding precedent.
But wouldn’t communion for Rutelli simply be policy made by the Bishop of Rome for the diocese? In the same way that Bruskewitz makes policy for his flock? Not that Bruskewitz couldn’t take a page from the Pope’s example …
The real crux of the biscuit is whether Bruskewitz’s policies are canonically invalid, as Grant’s earlier post on this matter explored, no?
My guess, not being a canon lawyer, is that Bruskewitz’s policies are canonically valid, but not pastorally wise–at least in the estimation of his brother bishops, with respet to their own dioceses.
Anyone who expects consistency or reasonableness in these matters has no sense of history. As James Madison noted, men are not angels ( had he not been a gentleman, he would have added women). In any case, neither are the leaders of the Church, or for that matter, those they are trying, not always successfully, to lead.
Joseph,
Which matters are you referring to? Bruskewitz and his excommunication policy or the public refusal of Communion to prochoice Catholic politicians? The last link in my first paragraph leads to a Mirror of Justice post that is fascinating for its expectations: Brennan seems to be offended by Bishop Meyers’s comments that lay Communion ministers “might not understand” the abortion and Catholic politicians situation well enough to enforce a ban, just as he is offended that without such a ban, the same laypeople will be scandalized and confused about the church’s teaching. (He appears to use “scandal” very loosely.)
Not that I want the discussion to head into Bruskewitz territory, but since you asked, Jean, the canon lawyers I spoke to expressed serious doubt about the canonical standing of Re’s letter of support to Bruskewitz, and also raised questions about the (canon) legality of his excommunication policy.
Grant, yes, I was recalling your exchange with the canon lawyer, who raised questions about Bishop B’s excommunication policy.
But the Pope’s actions in giving Rutelli communion really don’t change that situation, do they? Except to point out that the Pope is arguably a better bishop that Bishop Bruskewitz?
That was my only point.
It’s always been clear to me that the hidden, or not-so-hidden, agenda of a small minority of American Catholics (and it is a small majority, even if it dominates the blogosphere) is to follow the example of the evangelicals and align the Church with the Republican party. Just look at the stuff they find most important: refusing Democrats (and a few token Republicans) communion, and issuing voting guides that are strangely biased toward Republicans (again, you will not find any concern for torture)….
I hope Myers’ statement is the beginning of the end for this movement. Time to expose the charade.
Perhaps someone can answer these questions for me:
Is there any statement of belief or opinion, or behavior, by a baptized Catholic upon which a bishop or a priest may base a pastoral decision to refuse the Eucharist to him or her?
If so, what would it be? Examples would be helpful.
Finally, what is the level of certainty upon which such a decision must be based, and what evidence can it be based upon?
What always strikes me about these discussions is that the assumption is always – it’s just about politics. I seriously stuggle with this issue. On the one hand there is the knowledge that no one is really worthy to receive the Eucharist, but can only do so by God’s Grace.
On the other hand, when we simply ignore the repeated, public, and consistent rejection of important Catholic beliefs it clearly sends the signal that a) we don’t really care about a moral issue b) we don’t care about the spiritual health and soul of the person receiving the Eucharist, and/or 3) we don’t believe in the Real Presence.
Grant,
I was speaking in general terms, but in particular I was thinking about the Bishop of Rome giving communion to the pro-choice mayor.
Sean, I think Grant explored the “legal” issues involved in excommunication with a canon lawyer, so I think that base is covered.
If I were a bishop or priest, I’d be pretty loathe to withhold God Himself from someone without pretty compelling evidence.
Since excommunication is a public act–anyone attending Mass can see that communion is denied–I’d have to know that the person I excommunicated had been equally public about a) committing a grave sin, b) declaring his unrepentance, and c) denying Catholic teaching about that sin.
I suppose that if a priest hears something like this in the Confessional, that would be grounds for excommunication.
A heretic, in short. Someone who is not in a fit state to benefit from receiving God.
A heretic is not the same as a bad Catholic, a category in which I would put myself.
I do not go to Mass every Sunday, I gripe about my parish, and I belong to Amnesty International, which has taken up a stance on abortion I dislike.
However, AI does not promote abortion as a means of birth control, nor does its stand on abortion negate the other good work it does. In my view, of course.
More to the point, I have never had an abortion, nor do I encourage others to have them, nor do I deny the church’s teaching about abortion, though do not believe a legal ban is going to stop them, so I don’t waste my time working for it.
I might expect my priest to take me aside some Sunday and ask me to consider the state of my soul, to encourage me to seek Confession, and to ask me whether, in my heart, I should be taking communion.
I would not expect him to deny me communion.