Every passing day the un-ending stream of news stories continues about Catholic politicians voting in support of gay marriage, abortion, embryonic stem cell research or some other serious moral issue - - placing themselves in opposition to the Church’s teachings.Such support by dissenting Catholics raises the question of what it means to be Catholic, or perhaps better put - does it mean anything when one calls themselves Catholic in the United States in the year 2009?
According to the website OneNationUnderGod.com that tracks Catholic politicians and their votes, there are 161 Catholics currently serving in Congress.
Twenty-six have a 100% voting record on all life issue votes and twenty-eight have never taken a pro-life position earning a 0% voting record.
Thirty four Catholic lawmakers co-sponsored the Freedom of Choice Act of 2007.
Seventy-five Catholic members of Congress accepted campaign donations from groups that advocate for unrestricted abortion rights.
Nancy Pelosi, the current Speaker of the House, is one such example. Mrs. Pelosi was first elected to Congress in 1987.
Precisely when her first Congressional vote on an issue placed her in opposition to the Church occurred is unclear. We do know that as far back as 1993 her dissent from Church teaching was on public display when she voted against the Hyde Amendment.
Three years later congressional records show she voted against the Defense of Marriage Act. It is clear Mrs. Pelosi’s record of dissent goes back at least 16 years.
Recently it was revealed that Cardinal Ratzinger, while head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, issued a letter to Letter to Cardinal McCarrick back in the Summer of 2004 on the issue of whether politicians who back abortion rights should receive Holy Communion.
Cardinal McCarrick chose not to share the letter with America’s bishops. Its contents were recently leaked by a source in Italy.
In this letter the then Cardinal Ratzinger said that when a person’s “formal cooperation becomes manifest (understood, in the case of a Catholic politician, as his consistent campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws), his pastor should meet with him, instructing him about the Church’s teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist.”
Years later in the Spring of 2007, that same person, as Benedict the XVI, repeated this sentiment while en-route to the country of Brazil.
A reporter aboard the Pope’s plane asked Pope Benedict XVI if he supported the Mexican bishops in their warning to politicians who supported legalizing abortion that they would face excommunication.
The Pope responded saying, "Yes, this excommunication was not an arbitrary one but is allowed by Canon law which says that the killing of an innocent child is incompatible with receiving Communion, which is receiving the body of Christ."
No clairvoyance is required to know where the Pope stands on this issue.
The Bishops’ upcoming semiannual meeting in early November contains nothing on the official schedule that suggests that this issue is going to be discussed or placed on the agenda. However there are several very good reasons why it should be:
- Dissenting Catholics, knowing that the Bishops tolerate such open dissent, will continue dissenting, leading others into error.
- Lukewarm Catholics, watching from the sidelines, may conclude that the church has changed her mind on these important moral issues, and thus will be misled.
- Faithful Catholics, watching the inactivity of the Bishops on this most serious issue will conclude that Bishops aren’t faithful or are not serious about doing their jobs – and Bishops will lose credibility and respect from their strongest supporters.
Over the past year, various bishops have weighed in on the issue of withholding Communion. Some like Archbishop Burke have been quite adamant that this should be done. Others like Archbishop Wuerl have stated that "the Church just didn't use Communion as a "weapon."
It seems quite clear that there is no consensus to act, and that if there is a consensus it is to continue status quo of inaction.
Given the Holy Father’s clear position on this issue a little activity on this front might be appropriate. I would like to put forward the following suggestion for the Bishops’ consideration:
The Bishops speaking thru the USCCB should modify the guidance already provided in Missalettes for the receipt of Communion to more clearly address the receipt of the Holy Eucharist by Catholics who publicly dissent from Church teaching.
While I am sure the Bishops can find their own words for such a statement, I would suggest something along the following lines:
Any Catholic that is a state of mortal sin should refrain from receiving Holy Communion until they are reconciled to Christ through the Sacrament of Reconciliation, a pre-condition of which is a firm purpose of amendment.
This stricture to refrain from the receipt of Communion is especially serious when it pertains to Catholics in public life. When public officials openly violate or dissent from Church teaching on serious moral issues – and continue to receive Communion -- they create a public scandal that requires a public response.
Catholics in public life who openly dissent from Church teaching should know that under Canon law, it is within the rightful authority of the Bishop and his priests to withhold the Eucharist should they present themselves for Communion.
This text or language should be:
- Printed in every Missalette,
- Printed in every Parish bulletin; and,
- Read by a Priest before the distribution of Communion at every Mass.
If even this small step (or something similar) cannot be agreed upon and implemented quickly, I am forced to conclude that the majority of Bishops do not believe it is a serious moral issue to protect millions of Catholics from the scandal caused by dissenting public officials who receive Communion.
What other interpretation is possible?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Disclaimer
No responsibility or liability shall attach itself to us or to the blogspot ‘Clerical Whispers’ for any or all of the articles placed here.
The placing of an article hereupon does not necessarily imply that we agree or accept the contents of the article as being necessarily factual in theology, dogma or otherwise.
SIC: PS