Some thoughts on that letter from the Holy See to Archbishop Gomez

What follows are some miscellaneous thoughts about the letter sent by Cardinal Luis Ladaria, SJ, the Holy See's prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), to Archbishop Jose Gomez of Los Angeles, the president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB).  The letter addresses the highly-publicized intention of some American bishops to have the USCCB issue a consistent set of guidelines on the worthiness of pro-choice Catholic politicians to receive communion. 

To the best of my knowledge, the actual text of Ladaria's letter has not been made public, but some reporters have seen it.  My analysis and comments are based on the story in America by Gerard O'Connell, the magazine's Vatican correspondent.  NewGathering readers interested in additional commentary on this topic may read Jack Rakosky's post here.  

"Preeminent"

Ladaria's letter addresses the claim, made by the USCCB in its quadrennial document on voting, Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship, and elsewhere, that abortion is the "preeminent" moral issue for Americans in public life.  In the most recent edition of Faithful Citizenship, released for the 2020 presidential election, the word "preeminent" appears five times, all in the context of the seriousness of abortion as an issue or of our obligation to protect innocent human life.  

The claim that abortion is our preeminent issue has its critics.  In an interview in America last year, Bishop Robert McElroy of San Diego, who is thought to be close to Francis, voiced an alternative view of what should be "preeminent" for Catholic voters in the US:

In my own view, abortion is a pre-eminent issue for Catholics—one of several.  My concern was that when you say abortion is the pre-eminent issue we face as a nation, you are setting up an election choice. The church’s teaching is that evaluating candidates and deciding who you should choose has to do with certain qualities about the candidates, but it also has to do with their positions on a series of key issues in Catholic moral teaching. The concept that brings them all together is called the common good. The common good is, in Catholic theology, the advancement of the whole series of issues in society, which allow the fullest expression and enhancement and achievement of human life and dignity for all people in our society and in the world.  To say that abortion is the pre-eminent issue in a particular political season is to reduce the common good, in effect, to one issue. And that’s a distortion of Catholic teaching. In fact, the assertion that abortion is “the” pre-eminent issue in this political campaign for Catholics is itself a political statement, not a doctrinal one.

O'Connell, in his America story, reports that Ladaria's letter warns Gomez about the risk of positioning abortion as the "preeminent" issue facing Catholics in the US:

Significantly, in a comment that challenges the U.S.C.C.B. position that abortion is “the pre-eminent” moral issue, Cardinal Ladaria told the conference’s president that “it would be misleading if such a statement were to give the impression that abortion and euthanasia alone constitute the only grave matters of Catholic moral and social teaching that demand the fullest accountability on the part of Catholics.”

Perhaps even more significantly, Ladaria gives Gomez advice on which magisterial sources the US bishops should consider:

Cardinal Ladaria begins the letter by responding at length to Archbishop Gomez’s request that the C.D.F. make available a copy of a letter from then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger to former cardinal Theodore McCarrick in 2004 on the subject. Cardinal Ladaria explained that since it was “in the form of a private letter to the bishops” and Cardinal Ratzinger had stipulated that “these principles were not intended for publication,” the C.D.F. would respect his wish.

At the same time, Cardinal Ladaria acknowledged that the principles contained in the letter may assist the bishops in drafting their document, but they “should only be discussed within the context of the [C.D.F.’s] authoritative doctrinal note” of 2002: “On some questions regarding the participation of Catholics in political life.” He said that text predates Cardinal Ratzinger’s “personal communication” and “provides the teaching of the Magisterium on the theological foundation for any initiative regarding the question of the worthy reception of Holy Communion.”

The significance of Ladaria's mentioning these two documents lies in their respective approaches and scope.  To help appreciate the differences between the two, I would recommend that the interested reader take a few minutes to read both the 2002 doctrinal note and the 2004 letter.  Both are quite brief, and in my opinion, reading them is time well-spent if one wishes to appreciate the contrasting approaches recommended by Ladaria on the one hand and some US bishops on the other.

The 2002 doctrinal note is a general and wide-ranging consideration of a Catholic politician's moral responsibilities.  Its intended audience is worldwide: it is directed to "the Bishops of the Catholic Church and, in a particular way, to Catholic politicians and all lay members of the faithful called to participate in the political life of democratic societies."  The values it seeks to uphold are the common good of society (a theme McElroy also emphasized) and the flourishing of the human person.  Abortion and euthanasia rightly are listed as evils which are contrary to these principles, and are even emphasized as among the principal dangers of our times (paragraph 4).  But nowhere does it claim that abortion and euthanasia are "preeminent" (the word does not appear anywhere in the document).   Abortion and euthanasia are named as being among several important areas of a Catholic politician's concern:

the lay faithful are never to relinquish their participation in ‘public life’, that is, in the many different economic, social, legislative, administrative and cultural areas, which are intended to promote organically and institutionally the common good».[10] This would include the promotion and defence of goods such as public order and peace, freedom and equality, respect for human life and for the environment, justice and solidarity. (Paragraph 1)

Overall, the 2002 doctrinal note is not an "abortion document"; it suggests that a Catholic politician's vocation is to build up and promote the common good.

Unlike the 2002 doctrinal note, the 2004 Ratzinger letter is narrow and specific.  It topic is abortion and euthanasia, and politicians who promote these evils.  It was addressed to one person, McCarrick, with the expectation that its contents would help guide one particular discussion at one meeting of one nation's episcopal conference deliberating on one particular topic: Catholic pro-choice politicians in the US presenting themselves for communion.  To be sure, that topic is precisely the one which some American bishops now hope to induce the national conference to comment upon, so the Ratzinger letter's relevance to the matter at hand can't be denied.

While the Ratzinger letter doesn't mention the word "preeminent", it does say, "Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion."  This comes very close to claiming preeminence, without actually using the term, for the evils of abortion and euthanasia.

The Ratzinger letter also states that, when a politician's consistent campaigning and promoting of abortion and euthanasia makes his formal cooperation in these evils manifest, his pastor should meet with him (paragraph 5).  If that fails to bring about a change of heart and behavior, he should be denied communion (paragraph 6).  

In short, the Ratzinger letter already says everything that some American bishops wish to say again today.  There can be little doubt that Gomez requested the letter so he and his allies could formally endorse it.

We could summarize the difference between these two documents by noting that the Ratzinger letter dwells on the primacy of the issues of abortion and euthanasia, whereas the 2002 doctrinal note situates those issues as being two among a number of others within the broader framework of the common good.

My own view lands somewhere in the middle between what seem to be two opposing sides on the question of whether abortion and euthanasia should be considered preeminent evils.  I don't object to the language of preeminence, so long as it is rightly understood.  To note that one issue is more important than all others is simply to state what is true; not all issues are of equal importance, and when issues are ranked, one of them has to head the list.  That is so, even when there may be sincere disagreement as to which of the items on the list is the preeminent one.  

At the same time, one needs to recognize that when a single issue is anointed as the preeminent one, other issues aren't therefore of trivial or no importance.  More than one thing can be important, and we Christians must juggle them all.  Somehow, we must reduce abortions, and feed the hungry, and work for racial justice, and live lives of gratitude, reconciliation and personal holiness, all at the same time.  All of these are constituent parts of the common good.  All of these have political implications.  But they may not all be equally important.  

As it happens, I accept the American bishops' collective judgment that abortion is the preeminent moral issue of our time in the United States.  Accepting this judgment has implications which must be acknowledged and acted upon: that talent and resources must be marshalled to resist the regime of abortion in a concerted, focused, strategic manner; that we must articulate an alternative and compelling vision of what life in the United States could consist of with abortion occupying a much smaller place than it does now; that we must strive to understand the thinking and motivations of those who take part in this social structure of sin today, and we must address their fears and concerns with sympathy and mercy.  I fear that other Western, developed societies have settled for acceptance of abortion as something which "just is".  That acceptance strikes me, not as wisdom, but as moral folly.  The American bishops could perform a tremendous service, not only for the American church, but for American society and for the church worldwide, by finding a fresh and merciful way of articulating the urgency of this preeminent issue.  

Unity

In his letter to Gomez, Ladaria notes that his Congregation recently had warned the American bishops that issuing a document on the worthiness of receiving communion could foster disunity:

In the letter from Cardinal Ladaria, a copy of which was seen by America, he recalls that the issue of a U.S.C.C.B. document on Catholic pro-choice politicians and worthiness for reception of Communion, had been raised during the 2019-20 ad limina visits of the U.S. bishops to Pope Francis. He said the C.D.F. had then “advised that dialogue among the bishops be undertaken to preserve the unity of the episcopal conference in the face of disagreements over this controversial topic.”  Furthermore, the cardinal said, “the formulation of a national policy was suggested during the ad limina visits only if this would help the bishops to maintain unity.” He added, “The congregation notes that such a policy, given its possibly contentious nature, could have the opposite effect and become a source of discord rather than unity within the episcopate and the larger church in the United States.”

Ladaria's preventative for disunity is dialogue.  He advises that the bishops dialogue among themselves with the aim of achieving unity on the doctrinal issues which underlie the question of pro-choice politicians presenting themselves for communion.  He then recommends a second stage of dialogue, in which the bishops converse with pro-choice Catholic politicians.  He stresses that these sessions should be characterized not by lecturing but listening: such dialogue with politicians would be "a means of understanding the nature of their positions and their comprehension of Catholic teaching."

We may offer three observations about this series of recommendations.  The first is that these recommendations are characteristic of Francis.  Dialogue, listening, discernment: these are cornerstones of the spirituality of accompaniment, which is one of the pastoral hallmarks of Francis's papacy.  It seems clear that Ladaria (and presumably Francis) wish the bishops, not to correct or punish these Catholic politicians, but rather to accompany them.  Accompaniment requires a spirit of open-hearted listening; it requires a willingness to walk in the shoes of the other person, and to try to see things from their perspective.

The second observation is that this call for dialogue and consultation wasn't dreamed up out of nothing; it has a basis in recent events.  This past January, Gomez ignited controversy on the occasion of President Biden's inauguration by issuing a statement which criticized Biden for his support for abortion.  The word "preeminent" appeared in it.  Gomez issued the statement in his role as president of the USCCB, thus implying that the national conference would be taking an adversarial stance toward Biden's presidency.  

Gomez's impolitic statement elicited an unusually public rebuke from Cardinal Cupich of Chicago, who called for consultation across the conference before such a statement would be issued in the conference's name.  It may be worth revisiting Cupich's frank criticism:

In his four-part Twitter thread Cupich said that “the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops issued an ill-considered statement on the day of President Biden’s inauguration. Aside from the fact that there is seemingly no precedent for doing so, the statement, critical of President Biden, came as a surprise to many bishops, who received it just hours before it was released.”

“The statement was crafted without the involvement of the Administrative Committee, a collegial consultation that is a normal course for statements that represent and enjoy the considered endorsement of the American bishops,” he said.

“The internal institutional failures involved must be addressed, and I look forward to contributing to all efforts to that end, so that, inspired by the Gospel, we can build up the unity of the Church, and together take up the work of healing our nation in this moment of crisis.”

The Gomez statement also clashed with the Vatican's diplomatically upbeat message of welcome to the incoming president.  Thus, Gomez's statement became an instrument of discord and disunity, both within the national conference, and between the national conference and the Holy See.  This incident surely was at the forefront of Ladaria's mind when he wrote his letter to Gomez.

The third observation is that Ladaria's advice, if followed, would take a long time.  Even prior to Ladaria's letter, it didn't seem likely that a USCCB document on the worthiness of receiving communion would be forthcoming anytime soon.  The bishops meet next month for one of their twice-yearly meetings; at that meeting they are scheduled to vote, not on the document itself (the drafting of which apparently still is in some unknown state of incompletion), but merely on whether the conference's doctrine committee should proceed with the drafting.  It seems unlikely that the conference as a whole would have a completed document to consider and vote on until, at the earliest, this coming November, which would be their next group gathering after June's.

An American president's term is only four years.  President Biden will be past 80 by 2024.  He may decide not to run for re-election.  The 'problem' of an American Catholic pro-choice president may be solved by the course of events before the bishops conclude their series of dialogues, consultations, listening and discernment.  Is running out the clock an ulterior motive for the Holy See?  

How united, or disunited, are the American bishops on the question of the worthiness of pro-choice Catholic politicians to receive communion?  The safest answer is: nobody knows for certain.  But some knowledgeable people seem to think that there is a pretty strong consensus across the national conference:

even critics of the initiative [to issue a conference document], such as Bishop John Stowe of Lexington, Kentucky, predict the endeavor will win overwhelming approval.

We may wish to consider the possibility that, at least on this issue, the American bishops aren't particularly divided.  To be sure, there almost certainly will not be perfect consensus on whatever document comes out of this process; but in a conference of 300 or so members, unanimity would be rare on any issue.  

We also may ask whether, even if there isn't a strong episcopal consensus on this particular issue of pro-choice Catholics and communion, is the bishops' overall unity therefore seriously impaired?  It seems possible that the bishops may not be unanimous on this particular point and yet continue to enjoy substantial unity across many dimensions of faith and morals.

Nor is this seeming point of conflict between the Holy See and (some) American bishops the only such matter of unity with which the Holy See must deal.  Within the past week, German priests offered blessings to same-sex couples in open defiance of a document issued by Ladaria's dicastery and signed by Ladaria himself.  The Holy See's arrangement with China for the appointment of bishops also continues to be controversial.  Compared to these controversies, this American question may not be in the top rank of church unity concerns.  In a church of one billion+ members, the forces pulling us apart always will be present and sometimes may be strong.  

The bar for unity is high indeed: ideally, a national conference would be united among its own members; and also united with the people it shepherds; and also united with other national conferences and their people; and also with the Holy See.  (And the quest for unity doesn't stop there: it extends to other churches and denominations not perfectly in communion with the Catholic Church.  Theologically, it extends to the saints and angels, and ultimately to the Triune God.)  If the church must wait for perfect unity before it teaches, then no documents ever would be issued.

Finally, there is the question of how unity is realized in the relationship between the Holy See and individual countries.  Among Francis's major initiatives during his papacy has been to decentralize decision-making, and to re-empower national conferences.  The German bishops have taken that initiative to heart and have run with it in pursuing their Synodal Path - somewhat to the Holy See's discomfort.  The American bishops do not have a tradition of strong independence from Rome.  Somewhat interestingly in light of the overall American character, American bishops - and American Catholics as a whole - tend to be deferential to Rome.  Ladaria and Francis may be counting on this tendency to surface again.  

But in theory, the American bishops could courteously but firmly inform Ladaria and the Holy See: Thank you for your advice.  We appreciate the good intentions, and we will give your wisdom its due consideration.  But this is an area for our competency, not yours.  We're Americans, you're not.  We swim in this particular pond all day every day, whereas you are looking into it only occasionally and from afar, and your view is filtered through your own pond water.  We think it's entirely possible that we know a good deal more about our present situation, and what pastoral measures are called for, than you do.  We will discern what is best for our situation, and act accordingly.  We will keep you informed, and are always grateful for your friendly suggestions.  If we need any help, we'll let you know.