A modest proposal.

Regarding "Communion Wars" (March Signs of the Times) by Tara Dix and Heather Grennan Gary, the current debate over banning certain politicians from receiving Communion in the Catholic Church should be conducted in a broader context. The problem demands a creative solution.

I have a modest proposal that might solve the problem to the satisfaction of liberals and conservatives alike. We are fortunate that when Jesus instituted the Eucharist, he did so under two species: bread and wine. We are also lucky that the Catholic Church teaches that people can receive Communion under either or both species and still receive the complete Body and Blood of Christ.

So let's allow every Catholic who believes himself or herself to be in the state of grace to receive the eucharistic bread. The only public implication of receiving the host, therefore, would be that the person is a baptized follower of Jesus and believes him to be "the way, the truth, and the life."

The wine, however, would be reserved only for those who are "right with Rome" in every way. Instead of denying Communion to a particular person or group of people, it would go the other way: Only those able to prove that they do not disagree with a checklist of church teachings would be allowed to receive from the cup.

Perhaps the local bishop could issue a badge or pin or something so the eucharistic ministers could know that the communicant was hierarchically certified. These badges could be renewed each year or more often if necessary. These "super Catholics" would then be able to demonstrate every week that they are in perfect compliance with the magisterium.

The rest of the Catholics--let's call them "ordinary Catholics"--would have to be satisfied with Communion under the one species. This solution should make everyone happy, and it would certainly have made Jesus proud. Too bad he didn't think of it.

Greg Pierce

Chicago, Ill.

It appears that more bishops are joining the pro-life chorus against Catholic politicians who will not so openly embrace the entirety of church teaching on abortion. But the bishops have teeth--refusing Holy Communion.

When I am asked to defend that action--something that, as a committed, conscientious Catholic, I want to be able to do--I run into difficulty from at least two perspectives. First, an arguably valid interpretation of the bishops' actions might find them in opposition to other dogmatic church teaching that suggests that if a public official's moral decisions are in accord with his own personal conscience, he has a right to follow it and the bishop has an obligation not to interfere. The catechism seems clearly to point that way.

Secondly, as Catholic Americans, don't we owe some respectful consideration to the concept of church and state separation that our forefathers wisely taught? When a bishop directs--indeed attempts to force--specific legislative action on a Catholic public elected official, it cannot be called anything but church entrance into the state's juridical process.

I pray fervently that our bishops will avoid the waiting traps that accompany this sort of action.

By refusing Holy Communion to those politicians who follow their consciences in a matter of such religious significance, the bishops would seem to place them in that same public niche reserved for those "who obstinately persist in manifold grave sin" (Canon 915). Pretty heavy.

Tom Roller

Amboy, Ill.