This article by Michael Sean Winters which appeared in NCR today expresses my thoughts exactly:
"...If the goal was to turn the Catholic Church into an arm of the Republican Party and to cause left-leaning Catholics to find something else to do on a Sunday morning, the approach has succeeded. (as an aside, it's not only left leaning Catholics who are alienated by this stuff.)
"Fr. Robert Morey said: "Sadly, this past Sunday, I had to refuse holy Communion to former Vice President Joe Biden. Holy Communion signifies we are one with God, each other and the church. Our actions should reflect that. Any public figure who advocates for abortion places himself or herself outside of church teaching."
None of us is ever completely "one with God" this side of the abyss. As Pope Francis explained in the famous footnote 351 in Amoris Laetitia:
In certain cases, this can include the help of the sacraments. Hence, "I want to remind priests that the confessional must not be a torture chamber, but rather an encounter with the Lord's mercy" (Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium [24 November 2013], 44: AAS 105 [2013], 1038). I would also point out that the Eucharist "is not a prize for the perfect, but a powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak" (ibid., 47: 1039).
"The Holy Father's words about both sacraments remind us, or should, that the principal agent in the Eucharist is not the priest, nor the communicant, but our great and merciful God."
"But let us set aside Morey's lousy theology. Is it true to say that Biden "advocates for abortion"?"
"It is true to say that Biden believes government should leave the decision whether or not to procure an abortion to the mother. I disagree with his stance and would support the kinds of limits on the availability of legal abortion that are common in Europe, permitting the procedure before 12 or 14 weeks of pregnancy but strictly limiting thereafter."
"I hope someday changes in the culture will bring us to the point where abortion will be unthinkable in all circumstances, but we are not there. I am certain that Biden's posture does not hasten the day when we will get there, but neither has the pro-life movement demonstrated any awareness of what it will take to make abortion unthinkable. Hint: It will take more than overturning Roe v. Wade."
"My disagreement with Biden, then, is not whether or not abortion is moral.... I think the unborn — like all marginalized persons, including immigrants and refugees — deserve legal protection in a just society. …. It always baffles me a bit that Democrats are so deaf to its obvious moral value, but I recognize, too, that pro-choice politicians adopt their stance out of sympathy for women facing an unwanted pregnancy."
"James T. Keane, writing in America, did a fine job presenting the "on the one hand/on the other hand" arguments contained in canon law. Canon 912 states: "Any baptized person not prohibited by law can and must be admitted to holy communion." But Canon 915 states: "Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion." NB: Particular canons are easily accessed at the Vatican website here."
"In this case, the former vice president has not been excommunicated, nor is he under any interdict, so the issue is what constitutes "obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin." It would seem quite obvious to all that this is not such an easy thing to determine and so the self-assured defenders of denying Communion to politicians are suspect precisely because they are so certain in their sweeping claims."
"....It is hard to see how denying Communion to someone about whom you know only their voting record, whose confession you have never heard, whose friendship you do not enjoy, meets the standard of moderation or charity."
"I do not know Morey. I hope he is a good pastor of souls to those in his parish. But he is wrong on the law, wrong on the facts, and wrong on the theology of the Eucharist."
"A judgmental priest is an unpersuasive priest. … The church's teaching is well-known and decidedly clear. What it has lacked is the ability to find a way to persuade those who do not share our moral belief. Denying Communion to Biden will not ameliorate that lack. It will accentuate it."
The preceding was from MSW. This is from me: I have no idea if I will vote for Joe Biden or not. As a fallen away and non-practicing, but still registered, Republican, I can't vote for any Democratic candidate in a primary or caucus. It is still very much up in the air who will ultimately be the Democratic candidate for president in 2020. The one thing I am certain of is that I will never vote for Donald Trump.
What bothers me the most about this incident is that the SC pastor has judged Biden to be in a state of mortal sin, that is in separation from God. I have not seen anything that would indicate that he believes abortion to be right or good, but that he shares the view of many people that a women should have the right of consent to pregnancy, since her body will be the life support system for nine months. I think he would believe, as I do, that she should trust God and choose life. But that he believes the decision should be up to her doesn't mean that he has placed his soul in a state of rejection of God.
"Holy Communion signifies we are one with God,"
ReplyDeleteOne with God? To paraphrase someone (don't know who): The difference is, God never thinks he is Father Morey.
The problem with Father Morey and his ilk is that they talk themselves into a corner where they have to embrace -- or pretend to embrace -- everything EXCEPT abortion. Which makes them priests of the Church of the Full Term. For which there is no scriptural support.
It isn't clear to me what Fr. Morey wants for an outcome. Biden kneeling in the snow for three days like Emperor Henry IV to get reinstated? (even though he isn't excommunicated). More likely he wants him to renounce any leaning to a pro-choice position. Which would finish him as a Democratic candidate. Worth it if his salvation were truly at stake. But that guarantees that Bernie or Warren would be the Dem candidate (maybe Buttigieg or Klobuchar would pick up some of Biden's support). None of whom have expressed the least qualms or scruples about being pro-choice. Which brings us to what you said about Morey et al being priests of the full term, of our seamlessly pro-life president (sarcasm off).
DeleteWhen Biden announced for president, I was certain that this would happen, and that the Catholic religious right would make an issue of it, and that he would lose the Catholic vote and the election.
ReplyDeleteBiden did not help his cause by changing his stand on the Hyde amendment. At least before he could argue that he was not imposing his views upon non-Catholics at the same time he was protecting Catholics from having to pay for abortions. He might have been able to carry the day with that argument, i.e. respecting others beliefs. Unfortunately the Democratic party would not let him do that. They are ultimately telling not only Catholics but Catholic politicians that they are second class members of the Democratic party who need to abandon their beliefs in favor of party policy. That as much as right wing Catholic zealots will help re-elect Trump.
Jack, you're right about the Democratic party, they're basically telling Catholics that they aren't welcome, or at least their beliefs aren't.
DeleteI'm thinking at this point it would be better if one of the others got the nomination. There's nothing that the Catholic religious right could do to them, since they're not Catholic. Oh, they could call them fake Christians or godless secularists, but that was a given anyway.
I think communion can be withheld if a priest thinks the person is not in a fit state to receive, would endanger his soul by receiving, or would cause scandal. (For me, Catholic notions of communion grow murkier by the day.)
ReplyDeleteWithholding communion is not excommunication as much as a pointed and public message that the person needs to get right with God.
This type of thing makes some people happy, some angry, probably based more on political leanings than piety, though they'll deny it.
Is public withholding of communion good pastoral care? Whatever God thinks, God's not saying.
My question about this public shaming or shunning is, will it change Biden's mind? Will it change anyone else's mind? If not, it's just grandstanding.
DeleteI agree that Communion can be withheld, as you said, if a person is not in a fit state and would endanger his own soul. But it would be better to speak to him in private.
Cardinal Ratzinger, before he became Pope Benedict but acting in his capacity as Prefect for the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, wrote a clear and concise letter to the US bishops back in 2004, when some other, similar controversy was roiling the waters. The whole thing is pretty brief and worth reading, but here are two paragraphs that seem germane:
ReplyDelete"5. Regarding the grave sin of abortion or euthanasia, when a person’s formal cooperation becomes manifest (understood, in the case of a Catholic politician, as his consistently 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.
"6. When "these precautionary measures have not had their effect or in which they were not possible," and the person in question, with obstinate persistence, still presents himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, "the minister of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute it" (cf. Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts Declaration "Holy Communion and Divorced, Civilly Remarried Catholics" [2002], nos. 3-4). This decision, properly speaking, is not a sanction or a penalty. Nor is the minister of Holy Communion passing judgment on the person’s subjective guilt, but rather is reacting to the person’s public unworthiness to receive Holy Communion due to an objective situation of sin."
https://www.priestsforlife.org/magisterium/bishops/04-07ratzingerommunion.htm
Did this pastor, or any pastor, pursuant to no. 5 above, attempt to meet with Biden? Does Biden's track record on abortion qualify him for denial? I don't know the answer to either question. But, perhaps contrary to most people here, I do think there are circumstances that justify denying a Catholic politician communion.
I would feel the same way about Catholic politicians who actively and persistently support measures that abuse the fundamental human rights of immigrants and asylum seekers.
With regard to abortion, Joe Biden's career arc has been one of embracing pro-life positions early on, and then over time progressively embracing pro-choice policies. In this election cycle, he had an opportunity to offer Catholic witness to a political party that, frankly, could use some when it comes to abortion. Instead, he forsook Catholic teaching in order to keep his lead in the polls. That's one of those things for which "made a deal with the devil" seems as fitting a recap as any other. I don't know whether he should be denied communion, but he deserves to be rebuked by Catholics.
Jim, I agree that Biden's switch from his previous position is troubling. Sometimes "offering witness" costs one; I'm pretty sure doing so would cost him any chance at the nomination. And maybe that's the way it should go, to throw the nomination to someone else. As far as I am able to determine, none of the other candidates is even "personally opposed". Which leads to a voter dilemma. Cardinal Ratzinger also had this to say:
Delete"A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation with evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stance on abortion or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share the candidate’s stance in favor of abortion or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.”
A proportionate reason for me is getting rid of Trump and not handing him another four years to wreck the country. I think both political parties are broken, and I partly blame Christians, including Catholics, for that.
The points you make are persuasive from a legalistic POV. Whether denying communion is good for the Church, good for the souls of those who withhold communion, and good for the souls of those you deem beyond the pale is something only God knows.
DeleteKatherine, I believe in instant runoff voting. I'd vote in a second for a pro-life democratic socialist party. Then would I be a sinner if my second choice were pro-choice?
DeleteI would be more accepting of Communion denial if it were also applied to politicians who support the collective suicide of promoting climate change.
Stanley, instant runoff voting would be an interesting concept. I assume this would be for the nomination process? If so it would give voters some actual choices.
DeleteI think fraternal rebuke should also be extended to candidates not opposing child abuse and family separation inflicted on asylum seekers at the border.
Let's not confuse the voter with the votee.If my pastor were to try to tell me not to vote for Biden under the Ratzinger par. 6, my pastor would be in deeeeeeeeeeep doo-doo.He might find himself needing a part time job to pay for the re-carpeting of the church.
DeleteWe are talking about the politician himself (and, btw, the same Cdl. Ratzinger wrote that I can vote for Biden if I do so for another, good reason and not because of his putative stance on abortion.) So much of this assumes the politician in question, whoever s/he is, actually plans to give five minutes' thought to abortion once in office. But there you are. So, the official position of the Catholic Church is:
Catholics who are not tee-total on abortion may not function as Catholics, so you might as well vote for the Protestant or Jew who is not tee-total on abortion. Got it.
See my comment at 7:42 AM for the Ratzinger quote about voting for a pro-choice (or a not tee total) candidate for a proportionate reason. Agree that the voter and the candidate have different obligations.
DeleteI think a large part of the problem is that, in the case of the Democratic Party, a politician who is an economic and even social progressive is forced into being a cheerleader for abortion. If the chokehold of the two parties were broken, maybe there would be a place for prolife Democratic politicians and the people who'd vote for them. And maybe the present absolutism on both sides could reach some sort of compromise. Instant runoff would make this possible.
Delete"A proportionate reason for me is getting rid of Trump and not handing him another four years to wreck the country. I think both political parties are broken, and I partly blame Christians, including Catholics, for that."
DeleteI'm sure not going to tell you your judgment is wrong. As the Ratzinger memo lays out the criteria, it seems to suggest candidates are (or reduces candidates to) bundles of policy preferences. A voter presumably would weigh each preference (clearly, in his mind, abortion is a heavyweight issue) and come up with the best candidate to vote for.
But that approach seems to make an assumption: that the competing candidates are fit for office. Fitness for office precedes all the weighing of policies.
Most ardent "pro-lifers" that I know (I have a cousin that fits the bill to a T) aren't. What they are, however, is vehemently anti-abortion. Not the same, folks; not the same by a long shot!
Delete"Sometimes "offering witness" costs one; I'm pretty sure doing so would cost him any chance at the nomination. "
ReplyDeleteRe: costing one: Yes. Would taking a more moderate stance on abortion cost Biden the nomination? I don't know. I'd like to see him try it. I don't think people who support him, do so because of any particular stance of his on abortion; I'm not even sure what the popular perception is of his views on abortion (especially given that those views apparently have changed over time).
I assume he is leading, or near the lead, because (a) he has better name recognition than his rivals, and (b) he is perceived as someone who can beat Trump. Neither of those factors are particularly about abortion. Neither factor depends on his being an abortion hardliner.
Btw, speaking of being able to beat Trump: Nate Cohn is reporting that Biden is running ahead of Trump. Warren apparently is not, at least not in key swing states. Sanders may actually be doing better than Warren in that respect.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/04/upshot/one-year-from-election-trump-trails-biden-but-leads-warren-in-battlegrounds.html?te=1&nl=the-upshot&emc=edit_up_20191104?campaign_id=29&instance_id=13593&segment_id=18499&user_id=7bba122dbc8acf5289c69a5c9f2867a2®i_id=87407961
Warren is hurting herself by doubling down on Medicare for all, or M4A as the acronym goes. I have read that 80% of those who have insurance through work are happy with it and don't want to give it up. The thing is, some mountains would have to get moved in order to get to M4A. If she would come out for a public option, that would get her farther than M4A, and might actually be doable.
DeleteWarren isn't playing well in the midwest.
A friend of mine is an OR nurse. He has health coverage through the hospital. The hospital provides the actual care and is somewhat niggardly about it. He is in his 50's and the job is taking a physical toll along with the commercialization of medical care. He says he wishes there was Medicare for All. That would enable him to take perhaps a lower paying but less demanding job. I wonder how many of the people who love their insurance also love their jobs and realize how much extra freedom this would give them. Also, anxiety about losing a job would be less if not accompanied by loss of medical coverage. I'm covered. I'm ok. I just want to live in a better country with less stressed people.
DeleteWhole different conversation, but I'm on Medicare, and anybody who thinks A and B is good enough health coverage is high.
DeleteI pay $137 a month for Medicare premium, which is also the monthly deductible. That means I am paying doctor visits and lab tests out of pocket most of the time, which amounts to about $300 a month. month
I also pay $30 per month for a Part D, which is positively Byzantine.
No vision or dental.
Had I not had savings (which is dribbled out in payments of about $500 per month), I would be eligible for food stamps and lots of medical subsidies. You try to be independent and you get shafted. No wonder seniors are talking about "rational suicide" and stories like this one about how to starve yourself to death are treated sympathetically: https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/social-issues/at-94-she-was-ready-to-die-by-fasting-her-daughter-filmed-it/2019/11/03/41688230-fcd9-11e9-8190-6be4deb56e01_story.html
Obamacare was WAY better than Medicare, higher premiums, but less out of pocket, about $200 per month.
ANYway, Bernie and Warren are NOT talking about Medicare for all, but something that may be based on Medicare but is more comprehensive. And likely way too expensive.
True. If we had comprehensive medical care, we would not be able to afford THIS:
Deletehttps://youtu.be/CCb_XbmB_iE
And an F-22 Raptor is way cool and health care is so damned boring. Every time an underinsured person ends up on their deathbed, they should receive a little plaque saying, "Boeing and Lockheed-Martin thanks you for your sacrifice". Similar to the "Thank you for your service" spoken to military veterans.
Yah, the war toys get to be a bit much. But just cleaning up the health care system we have would go a long way.
DeleteIf you get a serious disease, you have umpteen health care "systems" offering you a range of diagnostic, monitoring, and treatment options. A second opinion is often a sales opportunity to persuade you to "shop" with another system, which touts its treatments as superior.
I often wish I lived in Italy. Developing best practices and protocols with an eye on quality of life seems to be something they are very good at.
Jim wrote: As the Ratzinger memo lays out the criteria, it seems to suggest candidates are (or reduces candidates to) bundles of policy preferences.
ReplyDeleteBut that approach seems to make an assumption: that the competing candidates are fit for office. Fitness for office precedes all the weighing of policies.
It also presumes the parliamentary model whereas we are a representative democracy where in better times we choose presidents, etc. for their talents and experience. Who knows what situations we will face in this fast changing world, we need to attract the most competent people into public life not merely those who agree with us on whatever we think important at this moment.
I think a priest, bishop or Eucharist minister who politicizes the reception of communion sins against the person denied communion, the rest of the church and the nation. We should sentence such pastors to ten years without money.
Contrary to Ratzinger the decisions of a politician with all their consequences far beyond their re-election are far more complex than the average voters choice among candidates, and should be given the benefit of the doubt.
This whole communion thing is as much about clericalism as about politics. We need to reject clericalism when we see it, and treat those who practice it harshly.
"Contrary to Ratzinger the decisions of a politician with all their consequences far beyond their re-election are far more complex than the average voters choice among candidates, and should be given the benefit of the doubt."
DeleteI don't think it's always complex. In many cases it's staightforward: supporting broad access to abortion, government subsidies for abortion, etc., is popular in some districts and some states. Supporting those policies pleases that candidate's or elected official's voters.
At the very least, any decision to deny someone communion should be based on personal knowledge and should be preceded by a good-faith attempt to talk to the person, to try to understand it from his/her point of view.
But I agree, pace canon law, that it's not wrong for a communion minister to extend the benefit of the doubt to anyone who approaches her/him in the communion line. That puts the question of worthiness (or preparation, if you like) on the communicant.
At the very least, if someone needs counseling because their public actions aren't compatible with Catholic teaching, it is a pastoral responsibility, and not for an EMHC to decide. I have never heard of an EMHC turning anyone away from receiving Communion, but in the present overheated milleu it is not inconceivable that someone might take it upon themselves to make a point.
DeleteAs an EMHC myself, I'm not even sure I would recognize a famous face out of context, if they weren't a parishioner. A few years back, then-Gov. Dave Heineman was in our town visiting relatives. He attended Saturday evening Mass in our parish, just as an incognito part of the crowd. I didn't know about it until later, when someone said, "Wow, did you know the governor was at our church last weekend?" I had been on for EMHC at that Mass, he may have been in my line. Not that it would have made any difference.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Delete"At the very least, if someone needs counseling because their public actions aren't compatible with Catholic teaching, it is a pastoral responsibility, and not for an EMHC to decide. I have never heard of an EMHC turning anyone away from receiving Communion, but in the present overheated milleu it is not inconceivable that someone might take it upon themselves to make a point."
DeleteUnfortunately, that Ratzinger letter I cited, and (I think) canon law, both put it on a minister of communion to not offer communion to someone who manifests "public unworthiness".
Not only *may* a minister do this, s/he *must* do this. (I'm not arguing for this; just summarizing the legal requirements).
Let me suggest this, though (and this brings us back to Winters and Amoris Laetitia): in Amoris Laetitia, Francis has given us what I consider to be a critical contribution - a genuine development - to these considerations, with his theology of pastoral accompaniment.
Accompaniment is a different approach than these punitive, black-and-white judgments about withholding communion. (I know Ratzinger insisted that denying communion to someone isn't punitive, but I find it difficult not to see it as punitive.)
In Amoris Laetitia, Francis envisions accompaniment in the context of a pastor or another minister accompanying a married couple to discern the truth of their union, in those situations in which one or both of the spouses remarried without first getting a declaration of nullity of a previous union. While that requirement for an annulment usually is presented as a black-and-white legal requirement, there can be circumstances, some of which are mentioned in the document, that introduce shades of gray. This always has been the case, that real life is more complicated than a simple yes-or-no rule. These complex situations have always been a source of difficulty and perplexity for priests - not to mention consternation and suffering for the couple.
But the idea of accompaniment to assist in discernment is much broader than that single application. It can be used in many different pastoral situations. I think it's applicable to what we're discussing here: ideally, a pastor (e.g. a bishop) would accompany Joe Biden to help him discern all the aspects of the abortion issue, and where he should stand as a Catholic politician. It's possible Biden would end up right where he is now - that could be the outcome of the discernment. Or it's possible that the accompaniment could bring about a change of heart in Bidene. It's also possible that the bishop could have his eyes opened up - that there are aspect of the issue in public life that he hadn't previously considered.
Accompaniment avoids the "Thou-shalt-not", judgy attitude on the part of church leaders that so many people find off-putting. It respects the agency of the person being accompanied as a mature, responsible baptized adult. And it allows the shades of gray, in their full complexity, to be taken into account in discerning what to do.
From a practical standpoint, I don't see where there are enough priests to accompany people. Maybe that opens the door for more lay "spiritual directors" (though I have never been entirely clear what they do)? Or, ye gods, another program run by Church Ladies with think-and-do books?
DeleteMoreover, don't we already have accompaniment programs in place? Project Rachel, Retrouvaille, annulment, etc.?
Jim said
DeleteUnfortunately, that Ratzinger letter I cited, and (I think) canon law, both put it on a minister of communion to not offer communion to someone who manifests "public unworthiness".
Not only *may* a minister do this, s/he *must* do this. (I'm not arguing for this; just summarizing the legal requirements).
When talking about the minister of communion, Ratzinger likely had in mind a bishop, priest or deacon, not extraordinary ministers of communion such "church ladies." He would likely be horrified if any of them took it upon themselves to deny communion.
The velvet glove of accompaniment while a step away from clericalism does not eliminate it.
DeleteAccompaniment should be a part of synodality (walking with) which in both politics and family life should involve a lot of discussion and decision making among laity (since we are responsible for both areas).
The role of the clergy is not to make our decisions for us, much less rate us on some divine scorecard as if they were in the place of God the Judge rather than Jesus the servant. Their role is to inspire us with ideals and inspiration, and support us with compassion as we make the decisions, including ones they may think are mistakes.
A bishop asking to talk to a political candidate is not far from the corrupt days in which Jesuits were confessors to kings and the aristocracy and all the corruption that came from it. While I think politicians and staff should meet with clergy as a group on the moral aspects of policy making, if a politician wants personal moral counsel he should consult a spiritual director who does not have a conflict of interest because of their public policy statements.
I feel a need to get back to something Katherine said yesterday:
ReplyDelete"I have read that 80% of those who have insurance through work are happy with it and don't want to give it up."
Maybe so, maybe no. I didn't know squat about health insurance until I was approaching 65, and so I probably would have been in the 80% until then. But I am older, now, and wiser. When I retired, I got a pension -- which hardly anyone gets anymore -- and my employer covered all my non-Medicare health care costs. Medicare is primary; Aetna (as it happens to be) is secondary. It used to be that Medicare & Aetna took care of almost everything, except for the 40 hours a month I had to put into keeping Aetna straight about what it is supposed to do. But then I started paying deductibles plus"a fraction" of my Aetna supplement out of my pension. The percentage goes up every year. My secondary coverage is now taking almost $200 directly out of my pension. And it will be more next year and so on infinitum. Now, explain that to someone 30 years old, and once he understands the process, ask again if he wants to keep his employer-paid insurance permanently.
Tom, as I understand it, one's secondary coverage goes up with age whether it is part of an employer sponsored deal or not. I'm not on an employer plan now, since I am retired. We had to find our own supplemental, and it's going to keep creeping up. When I was on the employer plan it was very good coverage for an affordable out of pocket amount. I realize not every plan is that good, and people who work for small businesses rarely get employer insurance. I was told that the amount my employer paid for an employee plus one plan was around $15 K a year. Trust me, if they put an end to employer sponsored insurance, that amount will not find its way into money given the employee to find their own plan, or to taxes paid to the government for Medicare for All. They ought to quit calling it Medicare for All because the plans Warren and Sanders are promoting are not Medicare, they are a national health plan, which is different in many regards.
DeleteAgreed, any corporate savings will go to the CEO and the stockholders, in that order. But, as more employment is at-will and with just-in-time companies, employer health care will go the way of the dodo whether you vote for Bernie or revive Coolidge, stuff him and put him in office. And then, whatever they call it, there will be only pubic health care and private policies for the CEOs who got a $15,000 salary boost for every employee they dropped from the company plan.
Delete