Communion and Abortion

I've been reluctant to post about the recent flare-up regarding Catholic politicians and communion. The reason is simple: even now, I still feel deeply conflicted about Rome. As a result, this is not going to be a well-thought out post.

I converted to Catholicism as an undergraduate, and even considered the priesthood during a lengthy late adolescent spiritual and emotional crisis. (For a variety of reasons, I felt called to the Dominicans. But that's definitely another post). After my first marriage (a Catholic one) ended in divorce well over a decade ago, I chose to worship elsewhere. Never once did I consider annulment. (Again, another post, but annulment always struck me as the ultimate example of adding "insult to injury"; if you've made a mistake, step up and admit it, and don't try to make it "go away". I'm not proud of three divorces, but by God, they happened, I knew what I was doing, and I take full responsibility for them.) In the past dozen years, I've taken Roman Catholic communion only once: in a tiny church on the outskirts of Florence, on a moment of impulse. I respect the right of the church to limit who can come to the altar, and thus I choose to break bread and worship elsewhere. I honor the Catholic Church too much to demand the right that I be included in the eucharist.

I'm planning on voting for John Kerry in November. But his language on abortion troubles me. Like many, I am bothered by the phrase Kerry and other pro-choice Catholics use: "I am personally opposed to abortion, but I support abortion rights." What pro-lifers want to know, John, is what that "personal opposition" really is and in what is it rooted? As William F. Buckley asked (and heaven help me, I'll never quote WFB again here): Where is he exhibiting his pride in what he stands for? Whom has he counseled against abortion? A nun somewhere, out of earshot? On what theological, spiritual, and medical grounds is Kerry even "personally opposed"? If fetuses aren't people, why is this procedure different from any other routine medical procedure?

But the issue at hand is communion, not abortion itself. Several Catholic bishops have suggested that pro-choice Catholic politicians, Kerry chief among them, be barred from communion. (One, Michael Sheridan of Colorado Springs, went much farther by barring those who vote for pro-choice candidates, but has received little support). Many liberals, both in and out of the church, are concerned about a perceived double standard. Why are conservative Catholics not barred from the altar for supporting the death penalty, something that the pope and the overwhelming majority of bishops have consistently opposed? Why is abortion elevated above all other issues?

In February's First Things, Richard Neuhaus answers for the church:

On capital punishment, Catholic politicians may in good conscience, and with great respect for the Pope’s statements on the subject, have different prudential judgments about what the Catechism describes as “the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime.” There is no such question about the moral obligation to protect innocent human life. Meanwhile, it will continue to be the case that a frightened young woman who procures an abortion is automatically excommunicate, while politicians who aid, abet, and encourage her in such great evil remain in apparently untroubled communion with the Church.

It's a bit sly (what else would you expect from a Catholic neo-con like Neuhaus), but it has some merit: for the past century (though not much longer) the Holy See, the councils, and the magisterium have spoken out with one voice against abortion. The church, despite the clear convictions of John Paul II, has no such unanimity on capital punishment, or, for that matter, the war on Iraq. From a theological and moral standpoint within the Catholic tradition, the church's decision to raise abortion above all other issues is defensible because opposition to abortion has become a uniquely essential doctrine.

I want the church (the universal one, not just Rome) to be a prophetic voice in our culture. I want our churches to challenge our politicians and our people, not just on abortion, but on poverty, war, and global justice. Though I am opposed to abortion, I don't regard it as a greater moral evil than war or capital punishment (I am intensely wary of "ranking" sins, be they individual or societal). I wish the United Methodist Church could challenge President Bush as firmly as some Catholic bishops have challenged John Kerry! The communion table cannot be just another corner of the public square to which all are legally entitled to come regardless of their beliefs and their actions. Though I choose to worship in a community that practices open communion, I honor the Catholic position that proclaims that table fellowship can only happen where true unity exists.

Jonathan Dresner sent me a link to some Saturday letters in the New York Times on the subject. I liked what Ed Manier of Notre Dame wrote, largely because it happens to be, almost word for word, the official Mennonite position on abortion:

The effort to recriminalize abortion mistakenly assumes that secular legislation can presuppose or compel openness to divine grace.

And Jonathan was particularly struck by what a Beth Ciopelletti wrote:

A Catholic politician can believe in church teaching on abortion while opposing laws to enforce that teaching. What if outlawing abortions made things worse?

Teaching the beauty and sacredness of life is having success in decreasing the number of abortions performed. This could be a wiser choice than the political one.

Lots to think about. Meanwhile, I confess that every once in a while, I've been known to sneak into an empty Catholic church or two and kneel before the BVM. If only my beloved Mennonites would embrace Marian devotion, my theological life would be easier!

Comments

[jeremyw]

What is Marian devotion? (I know I can Google for it, but I'd like to hear from you, and why you'd like Mennonites to embrace it!)

Also, I'd be curious to read more about your denominational journeys, if you haven't already blogged about them, and how you relate to your two churches.

[Xrlq]

Though I am opposed to abortion, I don't regard it as a greater moral evil than war or capital punishment (I am intensely wary of "ranking" sins, be they individual or societal).

Surely you jest. Apart from the sheer silliness of labeling capital punishment and war as "sins," do you really mean to suggest that all sins are equal? Think about where that reasoning leads: fighting in the Wehrmacht to help expand Hitler's empire was no different from fighting in the U.S. Army to stop him. Further, both acts are no better than taking a hostage and slowly sawing his head off in front of two video cameras to score a cheap political point, yet no worse than stealing an apple or driving 66 mph in a clearly marked 65 mph zone. Am I missing something here?

[annika]

Catholics do believe in "ranking" sins, i.e. mortal vs. venial sins.

My own position on communion for politicians is this. i oppose abortion, and i don't like Kerry. However, i don't believe that priests should refuse to give communion to Kerry because of his public position on abortion. That would be to presume knowledge of Kerry's conscience, which is an individual thing. The only priest in a position to know Kerry's conscience would be his confessor, and that priest would be prohibited from disclosing anything revealed during Kerry's confession (assuming he went to confession). Once you start denying communion to people based on their statements as politicians, you get into a slippery slope area, where you have to start denying communion for a whole "host" of other reasons.

[Hugo]

Nice pun, Annika. Indeed, since Aquinas (if not before), Catholics have ranked sins -- though often the rankings are not compatible with secular, legal definitions of what is just.

As far as XRLQ's concerns, both Catholic and Anabaptist theology acknowledge the existence of "structural sin" -- sin that exists on a corporate, not merely an individual level. Abortion is more personal than the death penalty, but it does not mean that the sin is any greater -- states and their agents can be as imbued with sin as individuals acting alone.

And I am reluctant to "rank" sins because I recognize that my own biases will invariably lead me to place highest on the list those sins in which I do not participate, while diminishing the severity of my own.

[John]

That's fair, Hugo. I don't like ranking sins either. But the Catholic Church teaches that the right to life is the foundation of all the other rights, that those politicians who vote for death are against the doctrine of the Faith. The Vatican, to answer Annika, does forbid communion for any number of reasons, (adultery, divorce, etc.) Kerry's stand on the issue is very public. Look at his voting record-You don't need to ask his confessor-The man is hotly pro-death. I don't like the "Consistent life" arguments on this one either-"When we've fixed child poverty, the death penalty, etc. etc. etc., THEN we can do something about abortion". It's a cop-out to allow pro-life people to vote for pro-choice politicians, something I will never do, even if the politician is a Tory.

[Hugo]

Well, John, I agree with you that it's no good waiting until all the other issues are fixed before we focus on abortion.

But while my own stand on abortion is far closer to the president's than to John Kerry's, when I weigh all of the issues out (particularly economic and environmental ones), I come -- with some reluctance -- to the side of the "presumptive Democratic nominee".

[Camassia]

I think the reluctance of many Christians to rank sin -- and Hugo isn't alone, I've encountered that a lot -- stems ultimately from Paul's line in Romans that "all fall short." In other words, any sin separates you from God and goes against his will, so everyone who sins -- i.e., every human being on earth -- needs salvation in grace. Also, in many of the epistles the church fathers use this reasoning to warn against pride and arrogance, because even if you've sinned less than the person next to you you're still a sinner in God's sight.

All this is highly theological, however, and shouldn't be mistaken for a claim that all sins should be punished the same here on earth. After all, when God laid down the Mosaic laws he prescribed different punishments for different crimes. Since Christians are no longer subject to all Jewish laws, the question of earthly punishment is a sticky one that's never been resolved to my satisfaction, but that's another subject.

[Neil Dhingra]

Dear Hugo,

Thank you very much for your blog. Regarding the letters from the Saturday New York Time, I thought that you might be interested in the following, from the National Catholic Reporter's Vatican correspondent John Allen's 2.20.2004 'Word From Rome' column:

"One crucial aspect of the debate pivots on this question: Is there any room, however slight, within Catholic tradition for a Catholic politician to both uphold the church’s teaching on the immorality of abortion, and yet not actively promote its legal prohibition?

"Two noted Catholic thinkers in Rome, one a moral theologian and the other a philosopher, say there might be. Both emphasize, however, that the circumstances under which such a distinction could be justified must be carefully circumscribed, and do not necessarily describe any actual politician’s circumstances.

"I put the question to Fr. Brian Johnstone, a moral theologian at Rome’s Redemptorist-run Alphonsian Academy, and Fr. Robert Gahl, a philosopher at the Opus Dei-run Santa Croce University.

"Here’s the hypothetical: Suppose a Catholic politician was firmly convinced of the church’s teaching on abortion, and was personally involved in efforts to oppose abortion at the social and cultural level. The politician, for example, might give money from his own resources to support unwed mothers, might volunteer at counseling centers to help pregnant women explore options other than abortion, and would make public his opposition to abortion in all circumstances.

"At the same time, this politician is genuinely convinced that legal prohibition will backfire, causing an escalation in unsafe procedures whose impact will fall disproportionately on the poor, and may even result in more abortions as women are scared away from exploring their options for fear of legal fallout. In other words, the politician believes that effective prohibition of abortion may not be achieved through civil legislation.

"Is such a position defensible on the basis of Catholic moral principles?

"'That position could be argued,' Johnstone said, emphasizing that he did not necessarily agree with it. He noted, however, that such a stance would be virtually impossible to reconcile with recent magisterial documents such as the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s Doctrinal Note on some questions regarding the participation of Catholics in political life.

"'A politician may never foster laws that open the way to more abortions,' Johnstone said. 'But if a person is convinced that attempts to eliminate abortion by law are not feasible under present circumstances, and genuinely pursues other social means to accomplish that end, that could be judged coherent with Catholic moral thinking,' he said.

"Gahl agreed, but placed two conditions.

"First, the politician would have to make publicly clear that abortion is gravely evil and that the eventual goal is abolition. Second, the judgment that legal prohibition won’t work would have to be expressed as a 'contingent, provisional' analysis, not as a general principle. In other words, the politician cannot propose legal tolerance of abortion as a norm, but merely as a concession to a particular set of circumstances.

"'Abortion is a violation of a fundamental, if not the fundamental, human right,' Gahl said. 'The purpose of law is to promote justice and to defend the weak, and any politician must desire that law do this. Otherwise the very idea of law would be emptied.'

"Both Johnstone and Gahl emphasized that the burden of proof would be on the politician who wishes to argue that attempts to promote prohibition would be ineffective in a given context.

"Gahl also stressed that a Catholic politician cannot base such a view on the notion of tolerance. 'The right to life is a principle so fundamental that it precedes all tolerance,' he said.

"Nevertheless, both men said there is a conceptual distinction, though not a separation, between moral analysis and political strategy. The latter involves prudential judgment, and there may be times and places when the aim of eradication of abortion cannot be achieved with legal means ..."

Neil

[Hugo]

Thank you, Neil; that's so good, I'll mention it in the blog itself.

[John]

That might be so (and as he says, the Vatican's "Doctrinal Note" is very clear that it's basically not), it is only so for those whose opposition to Abortion is clear. Kerry's support is very clear indeed, esp. on issues like Partial Birth Abortion etc, which even pro-choice politicians voted against. But not Kerry.

Communion is not a civil right, neither is it something designed to make you feel better. It is a sign of fellowship with the Church, and many good Catholics refrain from Communion because of many reasons that break that fellowship, including that they forgot Confession this week. Refusing Communion to a persistent sinner is a pastoral grace, to prevent the sinner falling into worse sin, and is practiced even in my lower-than-dirt Pentecostal church, which has an open table. When it's all said and done, who gets Communion is the Church's decision. In this case, much as it kills my severely Protestant conscience to say so, "Roma locuta, causa finita est", or as I, and most, if not all of my Evangelical brethren would say: "Scriptura Sacra locuta, res decida est".

[Xrlq]

I don't doubt that groups, such as corporations, states, etc., are capable of sinning. I just think that war and the death penalty are crummy examples of that. Once you start down that path, there's no clear stopping point, and before you know it, every political disagreement with an arguably moral angle to it (read: most) ends up being cast as some heroic struggle between good and evil.

Regardless, let's go against my better judgment and assume for argument's sake that abortion, the death penalty, and war are all sins. Assume further that it is impossible for mortals to rank them, i.e., we must assume that in the eyes of God, killing an innocent, developing fetus is no better or worse than killing a not-so-innocent, convicted murder, and either offense is morally equivalent to allowing one person to die in a war. Given that, and given the huge imbalance between the number of abortions in this country every year, vs. the relatively paltry number of war deaths and the near-zero deaths by lawful execution, how can anyone who believes as you do vote in good conscience for Democrats?

[annika]

"when I weigh all of the issues out . . . I come -- with some reluctance -- to the side of the 'presumptive Democratic nominee'"

Much as i complain about my friends on the right who are one issue voters, i must confess that i won't vote for a pro-abortion candidate unless there is no other alternative. So for me, i guess that while abortion is not the only issue, it is at the top of the list of issues i use to vet candidates.

[R]

"If fetuses aren't people, why is this procedure different from any other routine medical procedure?" Has there been anything written into law that defines exactly when a fetus does a person? Is this something that there is undisputed concensus on?

[Neil Dhingra]

I also found worth reading the editorial from the current America (a Jesuit weekly). It says, in part:

"The U.S. Catholic Bishops’ Conference has established a committee, chaired by Cardinal Theodore McCarrick of Washington, D.C., charged with developing a policy statement on the responsibilities of Catholics in public life. Although the committee is not expected to publish its statement until after the November elections, Cardinal McCarrick has observed that he would be very reluctant to use exclusion from participation in the Eucharist as a sanction for Catholic politicians whose legislative decisions seem inconsistent with Catholic teaching. It is likely that most U.S. bishops share Cardinal McCarrick’s distaste for such sanctions, and certainly many in the Catholic community, including the editors of this journal, would find the imposition of such sanctions to be pastorally offensive and politically inept. In fact, the imposition of such ecclesial sanctions suggests that the abortion issue is one of denominational discipline, a 'Catholic issue,' rather than an issue of human rights, around which a broad coalition of religious and nonreligious traditions can unite.

"When questioned by Catholic News Service, European and British bishops showed no interest in employing the denial of Communion as a weapon to control the Catholic politicians in their countries. The Tablet of London even reported last year that Pope John Paul II gave Communion to British Prime Minister Tony Blair, a pro-choice Anglican, during a private Mass. One Italian bishop identified the underlying issue with admirable simplicity: 'Faith is one thing. Legislation is another.' Legislators who believe that abortion is immoral may, rightly or wrongly, decide that legalized abortion is the least of several possible evils in a pluralistic society.

"At the same time, Catholic bishops and voters have a right to expect Catholics in public life, who affirm their personal belief in the immorality of abortion, to demonstrate that commitment by working to reduce the number of abortions that take place each year. Such efforts will include but not be limited to legislative initiatives. Catholic bishops and Catholic voters can take the measure of a candidate’s total record on abortion, but the bishops would be wise to let the voters come to their own conclusions on the records of individual candidates."

One can find the entire editorial at americamagazine.org .

Thank you again.

Neil

[Joy Paul]

I cring when a church wants to start withholding communion from someone because of his/her views that he/she holds. I guess that is why I don't worship in a "mainstream" church, because I know that I would not be welcome at the communion table--I'm gay.

So I worship in a church where we practice open communion. While I respect a church that decides to "police" the communion table or its membership, I also think that we then (especially me in the past) make the mistake of judging someone else's spirituality. I used to judge those who wore their hair on their collar as "poor examples of Christ's followers." Although this may seem very ridiculous to many of you, it is not too many steps away from keeping John Kerry away from the communion table because of his stand on abortion.

Before you start to take sides on whether the Catholic Church should give communion to John Kerry or not, why not ask this quesion? How many people in my church (maybe secretly) agree with his position on abortion? What steps am I taking, or my church taking, to bar them from communion? Or better yet, ask this question: Should I or my church be consistent in this area and bar all sinners from partaking of the elements?

Since many have declared who they intend to vote for this November, I will honestly declare that I personally hope GWB wins, but I don't intend to vote for him. My political views tend (mostly) to point to Bush, but I simply can't bring myself to vote Republican, since there are so many gay bashers among them.

While some may say not voting is "venial sin," I don't vote for a specific reason, not because I am disinterested.