Communion is not relative

 

Catholics either are or are not ‘in communion’ with the Church, which is why the Eucharist (Communion at Mass) is a sacrament to be shared by all who are, not abused by those who are not, and never used politically. Though the issue has come up again and again in relation to politicians, especially in the days since Pope Benedict’s visit to America. I’ve been getting mail on it, so let’s clarify…

Washinton columnist Robert Novak was among the first I saw to bring up the controversy in the media, his column reflecting what a few others had already said..

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senators John Kerry, Christopher Dodd and Edward M. Kennedy received communion at Nationals Park in Washington, as did Rudolph Giuliani at Yankee Stadium in New York. They were present because they were invited to the masses by Archbishop Donald Wuerl of Washington and Cardinal Edward Egan, archbishop of New York. Given choice seats, they took communion hosts as a matter of course.

Vatican sources say the pope has not retreated from his long-held position that pro-choice politicians should be deprived of communion, but the decisions in Washington and New York were not his. The effect was to dull messages of faith, obligation and compassion conveyed by Benedict. In his Yankee Stadium homily, he talked of ”authority” and ”obedience” — acknowledging ”these are not easy words to speak nowadays.” They surely are not for four former presidential candidates and two princes of the church, representing Catholics who defy their faith’s doctrine on abortion.

The Cardinal Egan came out with a public statement. Here’s a CWNews commentary on the controversy.

Cardinal Egan deserves praise and thanks for his public statement, in which he shows himself to be a leader, a teacher, and a pastor of souls.

By emphasizing the gravity of support for the legalized killing of the unborn, the cardinal takes a strong stand in defense of human life.

Washington’s Archbishop Donald Wuerl’s statement soon followed.

As you read today’s column, you may be tempted to say, have we not been down this road many, many times? The answer is yes, we have. But since the question continues to be raised of how bishops should respond to Catholics in public life who support abortion legislation, I thought it would be helpful once again to highlight a number of issues for the record. All of these points have been addressed before by me, and collectively by the bishops of the United States.

The first is the Church’s position on abortion. In my column in the Catholic Standard this past Nov. 15, 2007, I reminded all of us that, “The teaching is clear. Abortion and support for abortion are wrong. No informed Catholic can claim that either action is free of moral implications, and certainly no one should be led to believe, because of someone else’s voting record, that this teaching about abortion is uncertain.

“All of us have an obligation to be informed on how critical the life-death issue of abortion is, and how profoundly and intrinsically evil is the destruction of unborn human life. Our political actions, out of which come the laws of this country, must be based on the natural moral law and on the most basic of all human rights, the right to life.”

That sentence is key. Out of our political actions come the laws of this country. Those laws were intended by the nation’s Founding Fathers to be based on natural law and intrinsic rights “endowed by our Creator”, the first among them….life.

Benedict reminded Americans of this in different addresses he made here, from the White House to the bishops address to the United Nations General Assembly.

At the end of the address Benedict gave to the bishops at the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception, he was “asked to give his assessment of the challenge of increasing secularism in public life and relativism in intellecutal life, and his advice on how to confront these challenges pastorally and evangelize more effectively.”

Benedict’s response fits right in with this issue of politicians following their own conscience on matters of faith and morals.

Perhaps America’s brand of secularism poses a particular problem: it allows for professing belief in God, and respects the public role of religion and the Churches, but at the same time it can subtly reduce religious belief to a lowest common denominator. Faith becomes a passive acceptance that certain things “out there” are true, but without practical relevance for everyday life.

The result is a growing separation of faith from life: living “as if God did not exist”. This is aggravated by an individualistic and eclectic approach to faith and religion: far from a Catholic approach to “thinking with the Church”, each person believes he or she has a right to pick and choose, maintaining external social bonds but without an integral, interior conversion to the law of Christ. Consequently, rather than being transformed and renewed in mind, Christians are easily tempted to conform themselves to the spirit of this age (cf. Rom 12:3). We have seen this emerge in an acute way in the scandal given by Catholics who promote an alleged right to abortion.

The pope speaks always with charity, but unquestionable clarity.