'I believe in the Charter'.

How many times can a Catholic publicly reject the Church's solemn doctrinal and moral teaching and remain in good standing? If some people had their way, forever! But alas for them, God does not agree. While He is all merciful, He abhors obstinate public disobedience: the history of the Hebrews in the Old Testament proves He acts.

The Church cannot do otherwise. Canon 915 of the Code of Canon law states that those "who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, are not to be admitted to Holy Communion." As the Eucharist is the source and summit of Christ's Church and her liturgical and spiritual life, those cut off from it enter a spiritual wilderness.

The Toronto Star's "Martin may face wrath of Vatican" (September 30) led a flurry of related newspaper articles. The October 2 opening of the International Synod of Bishops in Rome was connected by the media to Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin's well-publicized defence of great evils such as the recent legalization of sodo-matrimony (July 2005). The Synod aimed to study the Eucharist, including the reception of Communion by politicians and others who publicly reject Church teaching.

The very day of the Star's article, the Prime Minister rehashed it all. "I am a practising Catholic; in fact I am a strong Catholic," he said at a news conference. "But I am a legislator and I believe in the separation of church and state. I believe in the Charter of Rights and I do not believe the prime minister can cherry-pick those rights. Have I discussed [this] with senior churchmen, with bishops? The answer is yes, I have. But as far as any further comment, I'm a legislator and that's public and I will comment on my public position. As a Catholic, that's my faith and I'll keep that to myself." He amplified it in French, saying, "The practice of my faith is a private issue" (Vancouver, Canadian Press, October 1, 2005).

The Prime Minister claims separation of church and state, but he means separation of law from morality. As for practising Christianity privately, the Danish philosopher Soren Kierkegaard said that it is like firing a cannon silently. It can't be done.

The most recent editorial in Toronto's Catholic Register expressed astonishment, even annoyance, at all "the heat and smoke emanating from Canada's national media over the Catholic Church. In recent weeks, you'd think the Pope had personally issued an excommunication of the prime minister" ("Religious illiteracy"). The editor added that "most bishops believe it would do more harm than good."

The Register is wrong and the news reports are right. There is indeed a connection with the Synod. Precisely because of it many bishops are now re-thinking their position. After all, here in Canada alone there are 130 Catholic MP's of whom a hundred voted for sodo-matrimony.

The media seem aware that 40 years of intolerable tolerance are coming to an end. For decades Catholics in Canada have put up with Catholic politicians mocking and rejecting the gravest moral principles without a public reproach from their local bishops. One exception was the late Bishop of Saskatoon, James Mahoney. In 1976 he confronted the three Saskatoon MP's and then issued a pastoral letter saying their pro-abortion stand disqualified them from holding public office. He did not say anything about their place in the Church, however.

Today the scene has changed because the Vatican has laid the foundations for defence. Beginning with its declaration on abortion (1973), the Magisterium systematically has laid down the intellectual and spiritual foundations of Catholic teaching on sexuality, family life, and medical technologies. It then broadened the approach to help people recognize they were facing a Culture of Death (John Paul II, The Gospel of Life, 1995). In 2002 the Magisterium spoke on Catholics in politics; in 2003 it rejected same-sex "marriage;" in June 2004 then-Cardinal Ratzinger said No to Communion for those who publicly oppose Catholic teaching on grave moral issues ("Worthiness to receive Holy Communion," C.I., September 2005). By that time a number of bishops had taken action defending the Eucharist against indifference and scandal. This same "horizontal" dimension of the Eucharist ("linking it with social transformation") has now become evident at the Synod.

Mr. Martin has made the Charter his sole guiding star. As Cardinal Marc Ouellet pointed out (see September editorial), this Charter is incompatible with the moral teaching of the Church. Martin and the other Catholic MPP's should draw the consequences.

Alphonse de Valk, C.S.B

EDITOR