Dissenting Catholics & Holy Communion.

Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus (Phil. 2:1-11)

Brothers and Sisters in Christ, it is not always easy to discover what the mind of Christ is on a particular subject.

Some people have adopted the motto: "Do what Jesus would do." And then they proceed according to what they think Jesus would do! Not surprisingly, as often as not, they clash with others who also think what they are doing is what Jesus would do!

Precisely to forestall these divisions and to maintain unity among believers, the Lord has given us the Church. In matters of faith (say the teaching on ordination, for example) and in moral teaching, the Holy Spirit prevents the Church from teaching what is wrong.

Still the Church herself has to struggle to fully understand what a particular teaching might imply or require.

I would like to draw your attention to one such problem, namely the question of dissenting Catholics and Holy Communion.

The upcoming Synod

There will be an International Synod of Bishops in Rome, October 2-23; it has the "Eucharist" as its topic. Section 73 of the preparatory document (Lineamenta), deals with the "Eucharist and the moral life." It states the following:

"Some Catholics do not understand why it might be a sin to support a political candidate who is openly in favour of abortion or other serious acts against life, justice and peace. Such attitudes lead to, among other things, a crisis in the meaning of belonging to the Church and in a clouding of the distinction between venial and mortal sin."

The text also says:

"Some receive Communion while denying the teachings of the Church, or publicly supporting immoral choices in life such as abortion, without thinking that they are committing an act of grave personal dishonesty and causing scandal" (Zenit, July 8, 2005).

Furthermore, let us remember that the CCCB statement, issued July 20, 2005 (the date sodo-matrimony became law in Canada), states: "Unfortunately, there are also some Catholics who have promoted the redefinition of marriage, including politicians who have voted in its favour. In this regard, they are in dissent from the teaching of the Church as enunciated by the Holy Father and the Bishops. This is a serious and problematic matter." [Editor: emphasis mine]

Public office

Pro-life activists have long held that being pro-abortion and pro-euthanasia and now pro-same-sex "marriage" disqualifies a candidate for public office, no matter what other talents such a person may possess. In Saskatoon, SK, the late Bishop James Mahoney took that position as far back as 1976. He was joined immediately by Bishop Adam Exner of Kamloops, BC. The same disqualification is true for racism, anti-semitism and other disorders of this kind. Unfortunately, a great many people, including many Catholics, vote for pro-abortion, pro-SSM politicians as if these are minor errors which do not matter.

To the mind of good practising Catholics, this irritating discrepancy between faith and behaviour has developed into a need to disqualify pro-abortion Catholics from receiving the sacraments. The scandal is simply too great. But few Catholic bishops have approached the subject in public and even fewer have acted. This has left them open to charges by people who accuse them of trying to safeguard the Church's tax-exempt status; or acting out of cowardice, or hypocrisy, or trying to pander to politicians for selfish motives, or out of spiritual blindness. Others, giving the bishops the benefit of the doubt for now, feel strongly the time is at hand for a more mature judgement.

American election

The issue of politicians and the reception of Holy Communion is at least fifteen years old. But the first full-blown discussion broke out during the 2004 delivered this homily at Our Lady of the People parish in Oshawa, ON, on September 25, 2005. American presidential election. The bishops who have responded so far fell into two opposing camps (I am simplifying a little here for the sake of brevity.)

DIVISION AMONG BISHOPS

Group one

The first group rejected the idea that action was necessary. The teaching of the Church is clear, they said: everyone who comes to Communion must be properly disposed, i.e., be in the state of grace. As for those who break this rule, they are subject to St. Paul's rule:

"Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord" (1 Cor. 11:27).

These people are adults, they said, and hence they can make up their own minds.

Until now, these bishops said, the only persons who are refused Communion according to Church law are those who are formally excommunicated, or interdicted, or divorced Catholics re-married outside the Church.

Group two

The second group based itself first on Canon law, esp. Canon 915. It states: "Those upon whom the penalty of excommunication or interdict has been imposed or declared, and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, are not to be admitted to holy communion."

The first part is clear: if you are excommunicated, you are forbidden to partake of Holy Communion. But listen to the second part:

"Others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, are not to be admitted to holy communion."

WHAT IS THE SITUATION IN CANADA?

On the one hand we have Bishop Fred Henry of Calgary, who has declared that in his diocese people like Joe Clark, Jean Chretien, and Paul Martin, may not receive Communion. In a pastoral letter posted in May 2004 he described Prime Minister Martin as "morally incoherent" and "a scandal to the Catholic community." Shortly thereafter Bishop Nicola DeAngelis of Peterborough, ON, endorsed that letter for his own diocese. On the other hand we have Archbishop Marcel Gervais of Ottawa.

Archbishop Gervais had taken a position against SSM earlier, in 2003, when the diocese handed an 18,000-signature petition to the House of Commons. In 2004 he wrote the Prime Minister because the PM was a parishioner in Ottawa, but he then refused to discuss the contents of the letters, on the grounds that they were private. In a February 1, 2005, pastoral letter, read in all the churches, the Archbishop called on parishioners to contact political representatives to "insist that the traditional definition of marriage must be upheld for the common good of our society" and "that a totally free vote be allowed." So the Archbishop is certainly opposed to SSM.

Press Release

Then in March 2005, Archbishop Marcel Gervais issued the following press release:

"Refusing communion and excommunication are very serious actions, and are means that the Church uses only as a last resort. Refusing communion to a leader of Parliament is serious to the extreme. I, like most other bishops, would not entertain such a thought without the backing of my brother bishops, or without prior communication with the Holy See ...

He went on to say:

"Bishop Fred Henry of Calgary, however, is fully within his right as a Catholic leader of a diocese to express his judgment on situations concerning faith and morals. He chooses now to say he would consider refusing communion to the Prime Minister, and possibly excommunicate him. To him the PM is a federal politician.

He continued:

"To me he is also a faithful Bishop Fred Henry member of my cathedral parish. [Editor: emphasis mine] He did not personally bring his party to adopt this policy. He has come to the conclusion that it is according to the plan of God for him to accept to be the leader of his party and, in this arena, it is acceptable for him to represent his policies. As the leader of the party in power, he believes that his personal opinion is not relevant to his role as leader. While I do not agree either with his argument or his conclusion on same sex marriage, I do not think, at this time, his position merits refusing him communion" (Lifesite News, Mar. 24, 2005).

Let me pause for a minute.

There are two ways of looking at this division; one is preferable to the other.

One can say: why is there such a division among bishops? It is an outrage! It's a scandal! It's more proof that the Church is sick! And then go on in this vein in an angry tone. My comment is: this is not very helpful.

The other way of looking at it, is to understand that we are in the process of learning to handle the holiness of the Eucharist in the face of new legislation on issues not discussed forty years ago.

Magisterium 

For now, most local bishops may not have given these issues all that much thought. Meanwhile, the Magisterium of the Church in Rome--under the leadership of Popes who have been unrelenting in their defence of the dignity of human life--has steadily developed the theological principles of the Christian pro-life view and drawn the consequences of what that means for the faithful.

Following the rejection of contraception in 1968 (Humanae vitae) the Vatican published a series of papal admonitions and statements on abortion (1973), sexual ethics (1976), euthanasia (1983), and new medical technologies such as in-vitro fertilization (1986). These teachings, so much resented by dissenting academics and "progressive" laity, found a fuller treatment in the lengthy 1995 encyclical Evangelium vitae, the Gospel of Life. Here Pope John Paul spoke of facing a "Culture of Death," and solemnly re-iterated the injunction that Catholics may not co-operate in any way with legislation promoting or condoning grave anti-life measures.

More recently, the Vatican has focused directly on the role of Catholic politicians, as in its Doctrinal note on some questions regarding the participation of Catholics in political life (signed Nov. 24, 2002; published in Jan. 2003; see C.I., March 2003, p. 22). In June 2003, the Vatican provided a response to the propaganda for so-called same-sex marriage in the document, Considerations regarding proposals to give legal recognition to unions between homosexual persons (signed in March, published in June 30, 2003; see C.I., Sept. 2003, pp. 23-24, and again C.I., Dec. 2003, Ian Hunter, "Rome's 'shocking' statement pp. 18-19).

Finally, the Vatican position on Communion and dissenting Catholics reached its most complete form in Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger's memo to Cardinal McCarrick of Washington in June 2004 entitled: "Worthiness to receive Holy Communion" (text, C.I., Sept. 2004, p. 24). But this came in the form of a memo only and was, therefore, not yet "established" law.

At any rate, the memo was sent to Cardinal McCarrick of Washington during the 2004 presidential election in the USA. Cardinal McCarrick held the memo back during a special meeting of the American bishops in Denver in June 2004. The meeting concluded that this matter was to be determined by each bishop in his own diocese. Only after the meeting did an Italian newspaper reveal the contents of the Memo and make it known to the rest of us.

The Cardinal, now Pope Benedict, stated the following:

"The Church teaches that abortion or euthanasia is a grave sin. The (1995) Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae, with reference to judicial decisions or civil laws that authorize or promote abortion or euthanasia, states that there is a "grave and clear obligation" to oppose them by conscientious objection. {...} In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to 'take part in a propaganda campaign in favour of such a law vote for it'" (no.73). Christians have a "grave obligation" of conscience not to cooperate formally in practices which, even if permitted by civil legislation, are contrary to God's law. Indeed, from the moral standpoint, it is never licit to cooperate formally in evil. {...} This cooperation can never be justified either by invoking respect for the freedom of others or by appealing to the fact that civil law permits it or requires it" (no. 74). [Editor: emphasis mine]

WHAT HAPPENED WITH THE SAMESEX "MARRIAGE" VOTE?

(JUNE 20, 2005)

Out of 90 Catholic MPs (not counting some 40 MPs in Quebec for whose Catholicity I couldn't find firm corrobaration), 56 supported its legalization, led by Prime Minister Paul Martin. Martin also coerced the members of the Cabinet, and the Parliamentary Secretaries, to vote with him, on threats of losing their posts.

Following the vote, it became public that three MPs had been removed by their bishops from serving in the liturgy.

MP Tony Martin in Sault St. Marie had been asked to stop being a reader in his parish.

MP Charlie Angus in the Timmins diocese has been denied Holy Communion by his parish priest, Fr. John Lemire, after he announced he would vote in favour of SSM. Bishop Marchand backed up his priest.

Diocese of London: Joe Comartin

In London the initiative to censure a local politician came from the bishop. On July 6 Bishop Ronald Fabbro issued a letter to all 149 parishes in the diocese to be read on Sunday, July 10, that MP Joe Comartin (NDP-Windsor-Tecumseh) had forced his hand to take action against him. On the day Bill C-38 passed third and final reading in the House of Commons, June 28, Comartin spoke in the House, explaining that he teaches in the marriage preparation program at his parish. He then stated:

"One of my visions is that some day my church will allow those couples {in marriage preparation} to not only be heterosexual but also to be homosexual My vision says to me that some day this will happen. The Roman Catholic Church in this country and across the globe will follow the precedents that the United Church, the Quakers, the Metropolitan Church and any other number of Christian denominations have taken. This is about love," we will guarantee within our religious services that all couples will be treated equally" (Hansard, June 18).

The bishop's comment: "I have decided that Mr. Comartin is not to give marriage preparation sessions within this diocese, and that he is not to engage in any liturgical ministries; for example, minister of the Eucharist or reader.... My decision will remain in effect until Mr. Comartin has changed his mind."

Cardinal Marc Ouellet

Finally, Cardinal Ouellet gave an interview to the press after delivering the bishops' rejection of SSM to the Senate. The thrust of his remarks were that in his opinion Catholic MPs who dissented from Catholic teaching in this matter would first have to go to confession, before receiving Communion.

Confession, of course, is a private matter. But the offence is a public act. Consequently it would seem that a public act of contrition should also be required.

It was noted by the press that all three censored MPs belonged to the NDP. What about the 53 Liberal MPs who voted in favour of SSM? So far, no action.

What about Prime Minister Paul Martin? So far, Archbishop Gervais stands by his press release of March 2005. He has since stated that "if Rome orders me to excommunicate him, I will do so, but not until then."

So that is where it stands. The Canadian bishops met in plenary meeting in Cornwall this past week (October 17-19) and "the Eucharist" was on the agenda in preparation for the synod, but Section #73 was not. Nevertheless it was mentioned.

Let us offer our prayers for the upcoming international Synod of bishops, that Section 73 be discussed in depth and that the Magisterium will formulate a definitive answer to the question of dissenting Catholics and Holy Communion.

POST SCRIPT NOVEMBER 3, 2005

The synod in Rome has concluded its deliberations. The question all along has been whether the growing opposition to giving Communion to Catholics who publicly reject the Church's teaching will end in a whimper (because of episcopal opposition), or lead to a decisive, well formulated policy in harmony with Canon 915.

Section #73 was discussed at the Synod and has become No. 46 of the final 50 propositions. The Vatican Information Service summarized it as follows:

"Catholic politicians and lawmakers must feel their consciences particularly aroused ... by the heavy social responsibility of presenting and supporting iniquitous laws. There is no Eucharistic coherence when legislation is promoted that goes against the integral good of mankind, against justice and natural law. The private sphere and the public sphere cannot be separated, placing oneself in a position of contrast with the law of God and the teaching of the Church, and this must also be considered in Eucharistic terms. In applying this guidance, bishops should exercise the virtues of courage and wisdom, bearing in mind actual local situations." (Origins, Nov. 3, 2005).

This (unfinished) treatment of the question under discussion, therefore, shows the following:

* The Synod affirms that the issue concerns the Eucharist;

* It denies the feasibility for Catholics to say one thing and do another;

* It denies the feasibility for bishops to simply close their eyes and do nothing; instead it exhorts them to face the issue with courage and wisdom;

* It affirms that each bishop is responsible for the situation in his diocese.

We will now have to wait either for the Post-Synodal Apostolic Letter summarizing the discussion and/or wait for a more specific Papal instruction on this issue. Meanwhile, bishops are now clearly accountable for their actions or non-actions.

Father de Valk delivered this homily at Our Lady of the People parish in Oshawa, ON, on September 25, 2005.