It's Really Very Simple

The Question of Whether to Deny Communion to Public Supporters of Abortion

I haven't blogged about this because I was busy thinking about it. Now I think I'm ready to say something.

To recap: the Blogosphere has been bubbling since the Holy Father's visit about pro-abortion Catholic politicians like Pelosi, Kerry, Kennedy, Dodd, and Giuliani receiving Communion at papal masses when the Pope visited Washington and New York last month. It was well known in advance that these famous supporters of abortion, some of the most prominent Catholic pro-aborts in the world, would approach to receive Holy Communion.

I've already written about my disappointment that they were admitted to communion at a mass celebrated by the Pope. Clearly, neither the Holy Father, the Papal Nuncio, nor the Archbishops of those dioceses, took any action to prevent this from happening. My view is that this lack of action is highly indicative, and that it places people like me (who would prefer to see Communion denied to famous pro-aborts) solidly in the wrong.

Within minutes after my post, it was brought to my attention that the well-respected John Allen at the not-so-well-respected National Catholic Reporter had made essentially the same argument.

Conservative columnist (and Catholic) Robert Novak, at The Washington Post, published a column blaming Cardinal Egan of New York and Archbishop Wuerl of Washington for permitting this to happen.

Cardinal Egan quickly responded with a statement faulting Mayor Giuliani (this link is to Father Z's excellent blog for his fine analysis) for violating a private agreement they'd reached several years ago, to the effect that Giuliani would not receive communion while he still supported abortion. This was a remarkable rebuke, and many people chose to remark on it. In a comment to a post at the very fine blog Pro Ecclesia on the topic, I wrote:

You know, as nice as it is to see Cardinal Egan's comments, I wonder if it doesn't just cause more harm in the long run if the effect will be to show in even sharper the relief the acquiescence to abortion of prelates like Archbishop Wuerl.

In a similar discussion at the very good Southern Appeal blogger Morning's Minion of Vox Nova (where one can often read defenses of pro-abortion politicians written from a Catholic perspective) (there's no link because one of my rules for blogging is that life is too short to read Vox Nova) called my remarks about Archbishop Wuerl "outrageous and despicable". Perhaps they were. All I know is that the American bishop who could do the most to prevent people from saying "I'm Catholic and I support abortion rights" has failed to prevent anyone from saying that, and is not making any public effort in that respect, and has no successes to show for any private efforts he may be making. That looks like acquiescence to me.

Meanwhile, the no-longer-anonymous Anchoress seems to feel that we shouldn't care about this question. At least she doesn't seem to want to.

And then Archbishop Wuerl released a statement, and it still looks like acquiescence to me. It's not his job, he says, to protect the sacrament from national politicians who are just visiting his turf. That's the job of their own local bishops.

And then at Rich Leonardi's excellent blog Ten Reasons, Rich's post and its subsequent comments finally brought me clarity on this issue. I had expressed my discouragement on the issue, and several subsequent commenters encouraged me to write letters and pray, and not give up hope.

It's very much as the piercing wit of Diogenes said at Off the Record:

Imagine a mother whose toddlers crawl past her legs under the kitchen sink, open various bottles marked with the skull-and-crossbones, pour the contents into sippy-cups, and then trot off drinking the contents while she shakes her head in bemused resignation. Either the woman is criminally negligent, or she doesn't believe the marked bottles really contain poison. There is no third possibility.

The eerie but incontestable fact is that most Catholic pastors behave like this unnaturally nonchalant mother. The Church still labels certain bottles with the skull-and-crossbones -- i.e., she still professes a belief in mortal (soul-destroying) sins, but even those of her clergy who give verbal assent to Church doctrine seldom conduct their office in a way that is intelligible if the doctrine were true.

It is very evidently the settled teaching of the Catholic Church -- the Pope and the bishops teaching in unison -- that even the most prominent and vocal supporter of abortion cannot face even the slightest canonical consequence for their advocacy.

And why is this? It is traditionally the duty of a bishop to "teach, sanctify and govern." Perhaps it's much harder to govern than to teach and sanctify. Perhaps governance is where the teaching is given teeth, and a toothless teaching is much less frightening.

As it is, the stated policy of the USCCB is that any bishop is free to take action on this issue, or not. And so the vast majority (the exceptions can be counted on the fingers of one hand) take the path of least resistance. I expect that in future, it will be enforced that no bishop may deny communion to prominent abortion rights advocates.

Clearly, as evidenced by the determined refusal to act by the bishops, the papal nuncio, and even the Holy Father, there is no danger to the souls of Speaker Pelosi, Senator Kennedy, Senator Kerry, Senator Dodd, and all the rest (I could mention from my own state Senator Durbin, Mayor Daley, Governor Blagojevich, and many other pro-aborts who are routinely admitted to communion by Cardinal George).

Just as clearly, there is no danger of legitimate scandal on the part of the laity. Clearly there is nothing wrong with people like me being led to believe that it is fully acceptable to dissent from the toothless teaching that abortion is wrong, and even to dissent publicly. Such dissent is not and should not be any barrier to receiving communion.

I can confidently say this because, if souls were in danger, if scandal were a concern, surely the bishops would not wait to be deluged with letters from the laity. The Church is not a democracy. The rules to be followed are explicit.

Either, for the good of the soul of the public dissenter, and for the avoidance of scandal, a public abortion supporter should be denied communion; or else it's OK to vocally and publicly dissent from the Church's teaching on abortion. The bishops are not stupid men; they know what is at stake. Clearly, given their actions, there is really no problem.

Or else they are willfully negligent on such a scale as to boggle the mind. I don't see a third possibility here.

Would anyone care to weigh in and claim that it's negligence? That would be "outrageous and despicable". But would it be untrue?