Rome Really Needs To Get Involved on This One

The U.S. bishops continue to hold diverse opinions about whether or not canon law requires one to withhold Communion from pro-abortion politicians.

Many, out of an apparent desire not to alienate those who hold pro-abortion views--as part of a "woo them back gently" strategy--resist the idea that Communion should be withheld from such politicians.

The replies given by some bishops involve arguments that strike one variously as (a) dodges of the real issue, (b) subversive of canon 915, or (c) simply incoherent.

For the record, canon 915 states:

Can.  915 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.

This is the Church's law. Yet some quotes from bishops in the media give the appearance that the respective bishops have never heard of this canon, which is difficult to believe after the "Can John Kerry receive Communion?" controversy of the 2004 election.

Part of the problem we are encountering at present is that bishops do not like to be pitted against each other in the press and, since there is not a consensus among them about whether canon 915 should be applied to the case of pro-abortion politicians, many are engaging in diplomatic contortions to avoid bringing the disagreement among them into sharp public focus on the eve of an election season.

So we have a significant disagreement among Church leaders on how the Church's law is to be applied.

Well, that's why God created the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts.

We need an authentic interpretation on this point--one way or the other.

For myself, I am strongly of the opinion that both canon and moral law require the withholding of Communion from a politician with a pro-abortion voting record (even if it's with an "I'm personally opposed, but" dodge).

But Rome needs to sort this out for the good of the Church--both here in American and wherever in the world abortion is being promoted, which includes Rome's own back yard: Europe.

It's time for the Church to take a stand on this, for as canonist Ed Peters writes:

We are living through a terrible, perhaps unprecedented, unraveling of respect for Jesus in the Eucharist. Such a crisis compels all of us, I think, to examine our consciences for how our sins might have contributed to this disaster.

GET THE STORY.

Comments

[A Non]

Used to be that if you were outspoken against your Bishop, you would be excommunicated; should you and all who support your site be denied communion for such grave sins?

[Michael]

My friend, please refer to "DA RULZ" 21 & 24:

21. Commenters in the combox are to use either their real name or a (non-offensive, non-spiteful) handle that distinguishes them from others when posting comments. They are not to post comments while leaving the "Name" field blank. It's rude to expect people to interact with you and give them no way to refer to you. (A Non is the same as leaving it blank)

24. It constitutes rudeness to make inflammatory assertions that one is not prepared to back up by anything more than hearsay (e.g., "Mother Theresa prayed to Hindu idols. I know because my friend said so.").

[Ligonite]

It's almost as if many bishops (for that matter, many priests too) have taken a class in seminary titled "Avoiding Responsibility Through the Creation of False Dichotomies". It seems like the technique is used repeatedly to avoid taking action when a problem presents itself. It works like this -

Step 1: Describe every troublesome situation as an all-or-nothing scenario. Exaggerate the negative effects of taking action, and ignore the outcome from "doing nothing". Avoid the concepts of escalation and discipline at all costs.
Step 2: Paint those who insist on taking any real action as "uncharitable" or "unjust", and make sure that you hint that those who are "uncharitable" are probably more guilty than the original troublemakers. Suggest that perhaps your critics' attitude is part of the problem. Introduce irrelevant facts to muddy the waters - a little ad hominem goes a long way!
Step 3: Step back and admire your efforts as "charitable" and "demonstrating positive leadership". If you really feel the need to DO something, write a column for your local diocesan newspaper or parish bulletin describing how painful the whole situation is for you and for those against whom no action has been taken. Think of yourself as "pastoral".
Optional Step 4: Penalize those who persist in demanding action. They're nothing but sore losers anyway.

One can see this technique applied to so many areas (Communion for pro-abort politicians, dealing with clergy abuse, liturgical experimentation, etc.) that it's almost nauseating. I think there is a very good reason why the Church demands celibacy from its priests. Could you imagine what the children of clergy would be like if they were raised in a home with this sort of "discipline"?

[John F. Kennedy]

What about The situation in San Francisco where the Archbishop gave Communion to a couple of gay men who were dressed up as clown nuns? Who didn't see anything wrong? I would like to see some action on that!

[TurretinFan]

Committing abortion certainly is a "grave sin." Requiring abortion is also certainly a "grave sin." Passing legislation to assist abortion is also a "grave sin," as is giving someone money so they can have an abortion.

Is "not stopping" abortion similarly a grave sin? Or is it less heinous? If a politician must sacrifice his career to try to stop abortion, must an ordinary citizen sacrifice his for the same end?

It's easy to throw stones, but we could all do more to stop abortion.

-Turretinfan

[Karin]

It seems pretty straight forward, why there is such confusion I have no idea.
Perhaps the Bishops need a refresher course in Catholic Law 101!

[Jack]

Turretinfan,

Your faith comes before your career.
If your job is a sin you have to quit. Too many use the excuse that its their job, have to feed the family, or try to find every definition of remote that they can. In this day and age some jobs should not be held by a Catholic.
We need more "green martyrs".

[Brian Walden]

Is "not stopping" abortion similarly a grave sin? Or is it less heinous? If a politician must sacrifice his career to try to stop abortion, must an ordinary citizen sacrifice his for the same end?

A Catholic politician (or anyone for that matter) isn't required to actively try to stop abortion or be involved in pro-life work. But he or she most not publicly campaign that he will vote for abortion legislation if it comes before them. That's public scandal. The same rule would apply to a Catholic who doesn't have a public job but, say, writes a letter promoting abortion to the local newspaper.

[Magdelaine]

Yes, I'm curious myself why the sacrilege in SF hasn't aroused more commentary than it has. As an Extraordinary Minister myself, I know I'm not to "withhold" communion from someone seeking it...but I don't know what I would/should do in a case like this. The same questions would arise if Schwartzenegger showed up in my line.

What is the duty of EM here?

I do hope that the Vatican becomes involved in straightening the politian/abortion issue out for US Bishops. What is the point of the hierarchy if they are all allowed to act as if they are independent?

[M.Z. Forrest]

From Dr. Peters:
To be sure, important questions such as the point at which one's pro-abortion voting record constitutes objective grave sin...

That is not consistent with "others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin." Personally, I don't see how something requiring pastoral judgement - has the disagreeable activity exceeded tolerable levels? - can be judged by a minister of communion when the ordinary hasn't judged likewise and has had opportunity.

Just so I don't get raked over the coals here, I have no issue with politicians being interdicted. In fact, I have difficulty seeing how Archbishop Burke's notifications of unworthiness to receive aren't interdicts. I'll let smarter people reconcile that though.

[Brian Walden]

From Ed Peter's blog: "McCarrick seems to think there are only two ways to deal with the scandal of pro-abortion Catholic politicians: either withhold the Eucharist from them or work to persuade them of the error of their ways."

I agree with Karin on the Catholicism 101 refresher course. Every good Catholic knows that when posed with an either/or conundrum the correct answer is both/and.

Given that so many Catholics feel they have a right to receive the Eucharist even when improperly disposed I can see why Cardinal McCarrick (and I'm sure Archbishop Burke also) is worried about turning people permanently away from the Church. But allowing them to persist in their behavior even after being informed of Church teaching will only make things worse.

One question I have is how does this all work with EMHC's? Have any bishops written instructions about this? I would think that unless the EMHC see's a person doing something disrespectful directly at Mass they can't make the choice to deny anyone communion. They would have to be instructed by the priest. Does that mean that if an EMHC knows someone is sinning publicly, they have an obligation to consult the priest before offering them communion?

An even trickier question: Take the example of an EMHC's brother (or someone else they know intimately) who is divorced and civilly remarried and makes statements around friends and family that he doesn't believe their sinning and haven't gone to confession in 20 years. What happens when the brother approaches the EMHC and the EMHC refuses to give him communion because it would go against her conscious even though the priest has told her to let him receive communion. That's a tricky situation, who's right and who's wrong?

[Burnt Marshwiggle]

Umm... I thought the Vatican already got involved in this one years ago and made it clear that communion should be withheld. I'm sure Cardinal Arinze even expressed dismay that a cardinal was being asked such questions repeatedly. I think he even suggested that we ask a seven year old child preparing for first communion whether we should give communion to someone who advocated ripping babies apart in their mother's womb. They know the right answer.

[Pseudomodo]

The solution to the situation of these wayward clerics is simple and I've stated it before:

Organize a signifigant BOYCOTT of the collection plate!! A few months of empty collection baskets will turn the most ardent sinner (cleric) into a pious fool.

EMHC's (Extraordinarily Money Hungry Clerics) will get the message that the vast majority of the faithful will refuse to tolerate this situation any longer.

Refuse Holy Cash to the church and make it stick.

[bill912]

Here's my 2 cents(if it's even worth that much): If the EMHC, as in Brian's scenario, *knows* his brother is not eligible to receive Holy Communion, he would be obligated to refuse to administer it to his brother, even if the priest ordered him to do so, as the priest would be ordering him to commit a sacrilege. As the Church teaches, no one can order you to sin. "I was only following orders" doesn't cut it.

[Brian Walden]

"Organize a signifigant BOYCOTT of the collection plate!! A few months of empty collection baskets will turn the most ardent sinner (cleric) into a pious fool."

I have a hard time with this. I know I'm not obligated to give money to my local church - I could send it to Archbishop Burke's diocese or some other trusted charity, but I personally feel that I should give my money to my parish.

If we advocate your method, where do we draw the line? Does each person get to stop giving money because he disagrees with his priest or bishop? Will a third of a diocese stop giving because they feel the bishop puts too much emphasis on canon 916 while another third stop giving because they feel the bishop puts too much emphasis on canon 915? Will the other third stop contributing because they object to the other two thirds being allowed to pull that stunt with their money? Unless I know the money I give to my parish is intentionally being used contrary to the gospel I'm going to give it to them.

[Liam]

Well, American Catholics may demand clarity on point from the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts - we Americans like the meaning of our legal texts and the application thereof to cohere tightly - but Rome may or may not share that desire since Roman legal culture admits at many times a fairly looser coherence. And - other than the validity of sacraments, where Roman clarification is usually quick and clear (by Roman standards) - there's no predictable way to discern where Rome at any given time prefers to show greater clarity and somewhat more coherence.

One thing is sure: be careful not to provoke Rome's passive aggressive approach to people who make demands on it.

[Pseudomodo]

Brian,

Let's see if I get this straight....

We advocate refusal of holy communion in CONFORMANCE with church law. In fact from a spiritual perspective it is not strictly a refusal but a deferral of communion.

The opposition advocates giving holy communion in CONTRAVENTION of church law - after all 'where do we draw the line?' - 'Unless I know the [holy communion]I give to my parish[oner] is intentionally being used contrary to the gospel I'm going to give it to them.'

Sorry to use your own argument against you Brian, but you sound like McCarrick except we are talking cash instead of communion.

"Pope Clement IV died November 29, 1268 at Viterbo. The Papacy remained vacant for two years, nine months and two days. Prior to this time, the Papal Election was held in a chapel in a palace or other convenient place. However, the Cardinals failed to produce a Pope. THE LAITY OF VITERBO INTERVENED AND FIRST BOARDED UP THE DOORS AND WINDOWS AND PLACED THE CARDINALS ON BREAD AND WATER. When even this could not induce them to elect, they proceeded further. One of them proposed to authorize six cardinals to name the pope, all promising to recognize the one thus named by compromise. It was necessary to have recourse to such an expedient, for the conclave had lasted three years. Ramieri Gatti, captain of the city, HAD THE ROOF UNCOVERED SO THAT THE INCLEMENCY OF WEATHER MIGHT DISPOSE THE CARDINALS TO MAKE A FINAL CHOICE. (De Montor's Lives of the Roman Pontiffs, volume 4, page 168) September 1, 1271, the second longest interregnum in Church history ended. It was the intervention of the laity to force the Cardinals to complete their solemn task that ended this interregnum."

[Brian Walden]

One thing is sure: be careful not to provoke Rome's passive aggressive approach to people who make demands on it.

Well then, would it be appropriate for us to ask for the USCCB to take a few minutes out of its busy schedule of advising the Federal Government on how to end the war in Iraq and solve the immigration crisis to work out a unified policy for handling those who sin publicly and still present themselves for communion. Or would the USCCB's involvement likely also lead to unhappy results?

[Liam]

The USCCB has already been involved in this issue. Can't you tell?

[Brian Walden]

Psuedomondo,

McCarrick isn't my bishop, he's nearby but not my Bishop. I don't specifically know of a case at my parish where the priest knows someone chooses to persist in public sin and gives them communion. I obviously assume, by the number of people I see waiting in line for confession, that people ineligble for communion receive it. But I don't know for sure who's an unrepentant public sinner and who isn't and I'm not sure that the priest does either.

[Brian Walden]

The USCCB has already been involved in this issue. Can't you tell?

Wasn't it basically to leave it up to the local priests... That's not a unified policy, that's a no decision. I realize that in the end situations like this must be a judgment call made by the Eucharistic minister, but the proper way to interpret the cannons really needs to be clarified.

It's not like the USCCB is the Magisterium, if they mess up they can change their policy. Then again, making a policy doesn't mean the Bishops will follow it - just look at how well the rubrics for Mass are followed.

[Different]

Magdelaine,

According to Archbishop Burke, whose recent paper on the subject has thrust this back into the limelight, an EMHC is obligated to refuse Communion to one who "is obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin (915)" (such as a pro-abortion politician). His Excellency make the point that it is not just up to the priest to make this decision but to each person who is distributing Communion as it is their responsibility to protect the Holy Eucharist.

[Different]

Oh and I sincerely hope Rome clarifies this issue for once and for all. And I agree the clarification should confirm the case stated by Archbishop Burke.

[Dan Hunter]

"Wooing them back gently" has always and everywhere been opposed to the perennial teaching of the Church.
The Church has always used the method of condemning and killing error in no uncertain terms.
This method must be employed to destroy error before it claims great ground and destroys many souls.
For to long now though,since 1962, this therapy has been employed only sporadically and we can see the results of the Churches failure to kill error at the moment it rears its serpentine head.
Examples: Blessed Sacrament in the hand.
Extraordinary Ministers of the Blessed Sacrament.
Clown Mass's, altar girls etc.
Why is the sacrilege of reception of the Blessed Sacrament by public figures outside the pale of the Church, even being discussed?
God bless you.

[Susanne]

Brian,
Rudy Giuliani is an unrepentant PUBLIC sinner. A random, rogue brother-in-law of an EMHC is a private sinner. Rudy defies the Holy Catholic Church in insisting that he can hold his own dissident viewpoint, use his power to further the cause of abortion on demand, and still be a Catholic in good standing. If the Church allows him to continue this behavior, then any sin is allowed. The sacrament is mocked. The faithful are given the impression that everything is negotiable. If you can talk fast enough, you can get away with anything. The brother-in-law in question scandalizes his sister-in-law, but he doesn't compromise the sacrament for anyone else but her and himself.

[David B.]

Used to be that if you were outspoken against your Bishop, you would be excommunicated;

A Non,

It is the duty of Catholics to defend the sacraments. Even a bishop can give scandal. Criticizing someone's public failures is not a venial sin, let alone one that is worthy of excommunication. You owe "those who support [the] site" (what is this. do you think catholics fall into factions of blogger supporters?) an apology-pronto.

[Brian Walden]

Susan,

I thought a civil marriage is public. It's making a relationship with a person who is not your spouse before God a matter of public record. I'm not sure what's more public than that?

How is that any different than a politician who refuses to speak about abortion yet votes for it anyway? His vote, as a matter of public record, is manifest grave sin whether or not he speaks publicly about it.

[Dan Hunter]

Discussed by Bishops and priests, is what I meant.
The discussion here is wholesome.
Ut Prosim.

[Liam]

Please, do not confuse reception of the Blessed Sacrament in the hand, its distribution by lay ministers and female altar servers as "error" that needs "killing". Sheesh.

The wooing approach has actually been used repeated over the centuries by the Church. Just to cite the most remarkably long-lived approach: chattel slavery. Which is condemned by the Church as intrinsically evil and gravely sinful. But which many prelates and highly visible public figures practiced without a hint that they needed to cleanse themselves of it before receiving the Blessed Sacrament.

Which is a descriptive, not prescriptive, observation, I should add.

[Jeff]

Germane to any discussion of Canon 915 is this 2000 declaration of the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts:

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/intrptxt/documents/rc_pc_intrptxt_doc_20000706_declaration_en.html

[Brian Walden]

Good link Jeff, I guess here's the crux of it:

The phrase "and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin" is clear and must be understood in a manner that does not distort its sense so as to render the norm inapplicable. The three required conditions are:

a) grave sin, understood objectively, being that the minister of Communion would not be able to judge from subjective imputability;

b) obstinate persistence, which means the existence of an objective situation of sin that endures in time and which the will of the individual member of the faithful does not bring to an end, no other requirements (attitude of defiance, prior warning, etc.) being necessary to establish the fundamental gravity of the situation in the Church.

c) the manifest character of the situation of grave habitual sin.

[Esau]

Used to be that if you were outspoken against your Bishop, you would be excommunicated; should you and all who support your site be denied communion for such grave sins?

Posted by: A Non | Oct 16, 2007 2:05:11 AM

You should for posting such a riscible comment.

An even trickier question: Take the example of an EMHC's brother (or someone else they know intimately) who is divorced and civilly remarried and makes statements around friends and family that he doesn't believe their sinning and haven't gone to confession in 20 years. What happens when the brother approaches the EMHC and the EMHC refuses to give him communion because it would go against her conscious even though the priest has told her to let him receive communion. That's a tricky situation, who's right and who's wrong?

Posted by: Brian Walden | Oct 16, 2007 6:59:16 AM

I think Saint Paul has said it well already:

1st Corinthians 11:27-28

27 Therefore, whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord.
28 But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread and drink of the chalice.
29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.

Unless anyone here thinks s/he is far above St. Paul; St. Paul's words make it plain and simple.

[Mary]

Organize a signifigant BOYCOTT of the collection plate!! A few months of empty collection baskets will turn the most ardent sinner (cleric) into a pious fool.

When? Where? Should we all boycott all the collections until -- well, until what?

Might be appropriate if a fellow parishioner received Communion unworthily, if you informed the priest of your concerns. The problem would be clear, the solution would be clear when it occurred, and the priest does not face an issue where he has no notion what happened and so can not cure it.

[Dan Hunter]

Liam,
I will quote Dietrich Von Hildebrand from an letter he wrote to His Holiness Pope Paul VI:
"Unfortunately,in many places Communion is distributed in the hand. To what extent is this supposed to be a renewel and deepening of the reception of Holy Communion? Is the trembling reverence with which we recieve this incomprehensible gift perhaps increased by receiving it in our unconsecrated hands, rather than from the consecrated hands of the priest?
It is not difficult to see the danger of parts of the consecrated Host falling to the ground is incomparably increases, and the danger of desecrating it or indeed the horrible blasphemy is very great? And what in the world is to gained by all this? The claim that contact with the hand makes the Host more real is certainly pure nonsense. For the theme here is not the reality of the matter of the Host, but rather the conciousness, which is only attainable by faith, that the Host in reality has become the Body of Christ.
The reverent reception of the Body of Christ on our toungues, from the consecrated hand of the priest, is much more conducive to the strengthening of this consciousness than reception with our own unconsecrated hands.
Visus, tactus, gustus in te fallitur, sed auditu solo tuto creditur, says St Thomas Aquinas in his magnificent hymn Adoro Te [Sight, touch, and taste would err about Thee, but through hearing alone are we given certain faith]"
This from a man who the Supreme Pontiff,Pope Pius XII called "the great Doctor of the Church of the twentieth century".
Ut Prosim.

[Brian Walden]

Esau, I wasn't so much asking about the person presenting himself for communion but the EMHC caught in a position where a priest tells her to administer the Eucharist to a person when her conscience tells her she'd be giving it to someone who is unworthy.

But I do find verse 28 interesting:
28 But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread and drink of the chalice.

I've heard (but have no evidence to verify it) that Orthodox pastors somewhat likely to question someone who they don't recognize. Paul clearly condems those who receive unworthily - I wonder if it would be so bad if we had to do a little more to prove ourselves. Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating an inquisition at every Mass. But maybe we could all make small sacrifices like instead of throwing a fit if we went to a new parish and got asked if we're properly disposed, we could realize that the Eucharistic minister is just doing his job to the proctect the sactity of the sacriment and answer them kindly.

[Magdelaine]

Different but similar topic: if a Sister of Perpetual Indulgence presents himself to an EMHC for communion (as happened in SF), can the EMHC refuse him or anyone that appears to be mocking the sacrament by dress or action? Imagine if the Sunday before Halloween a someone came to Mass dressed as a witch or a devil. Can communion be refused? Would it depend on whether the person is a recognizable member of the parish or a complete stranger?

[Dr. Eric]

You tell me:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WadbbxPoBlk

[Dr. Eric]

And another one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khco_N-uEOY

[Pseudomodo]

ALL boycotts bring up the same question...

What about the innocent priest and laity who are the victims of a boycott? The has been true for all Boycotts.

The boycott of British goods in December 1921 by Mahatma Gandhi, known as the swadeshi policy. Gandhi also urged people to boycott British educational institutions and law courts, to resign from government employment, and to forsake British titles and honours.

The Boycott by African Americans during the United States civil rights movement, late 1950s and 1960s

The United Farm Workers union's grape and lettuce boycotts

The Arab League boycott of Israel and companies trading with Israel

The boycott of South Africa by a large part of the world's countries during its apartheid period

All these boycotts had thier opponents and victims

If we listened to all the opponents that suggested that Africans, Mexicans, Indians would be hurt by a boycott, we would all still have aparthied, the British would still be running half the world and farm workers would still be slaves.

[Brian Walden]

Magdalaine,

I would venture a guess that if we accept Archbishop Burke's conclusion that it is indeed the job of EMHCs to decide if a person is in violation of canon 915, then it's also their job to decide the lesser situation of whether or not a person is appropriately dressed.

I wonder what would happen if someone went to the All Saints Vigil Mass (Halloween evening) dressed as their favorite saint. Surely their intent would be in the right place, but would their attire be appropriate for Mass? It's not a black and white issue.

Are ambiguous issues like this best left to EMHCs to decide on the spot? Do we need to better train EMHCs (and ordinary MCs) to judge these situations prudently and handle them pastorally (the real, deny communion when necessary but make sure to educate the person and do it in the most charitable way possible, type of pastoral)? Do we maybe need to rethink whether or not it might not be better to use less EMHCs and get out of Mass 10 minutes later than to have a whole platoon of them?

[Esau]

What I am personally astonished by is the fact that there are those EMHCs that actually give Holy Communion to folks who are actually chewing gum in their mouths at the time of reception!

Do any of these EMHCs actually believe in the Real Presence or are they just there to look cool for the audience and flaunt their 'position of power'?

[Brian Walden]

Fine Pseudomondo,

You can boycott. Send your money straight to the Vatican or the Knights of Columbus or FSSP or wherever you trust, but some of us don't see boycotting as the most effective way of combating the issues in the Church right now.

[Magdelaine]

Oh! Oh! Oh! Oh noooo! I can't believe those videos... I was thinking of dressed-up parishioners, not of the EMHC herself as a devil! Or the priest as Barney... gack! The case there is already lost. :(

As to responding pastorally, I do think that better/more training of EMHCs is called for. And for wayward priests, while we are at it.

[Brian Walden]

Do any of these EMHCs actually believe in the Real Presence or are they just there to look cool for the audience and flaunt their 'position of power'?

Esau, I often think like you. I don't know why, but the herd of EMHCs often look smug to me like think they're special. I don't know what it is about it; I guess I just expect a more solemn look to go with such a solemn task. But I do my best to assume the best and that they're just radiating with the Christian joy of fulfilling such an important duty which they were called to by Christ.

[Policraticus]

First, lest there be any unfair accusations, let me say that I am unequivocally anti-abortion.

We all would love simplistic answers to complex questions. But sometimes complex questions don't have simple answers, even if they are handed down by Rome. What constitutes a pro-choice politician? What ever their previous vote on abortion was? How often they vote pro-choice? How long its been since they voted pro-choice? The totality of the record on abortion? If they have only voted pro-choice once in their career? All of the above? What's the criteria, Akin? The variance from politician to politician compounds the difficulty, not to mention the fact that it is not self-evident that Canon 915 would apply to any one or all "pro-choice" politicians. In other words, Akin tragically simplifies the question from the start.

I suppose I question Akin’s understanding of the local bishop. His suggestion that Rome needs to get involved seems to beg for a universal norm on a question that seems to be subject to local episcopal authority. There seems to be legitimate disagreement on the precise interpretation of the text in question in light of politicians, and I think that the more traditional and Catholic approach (i.e. the early Church’s understanding of episcopal authority) is to allow each local bishop to determine what his policy is within the bounds of his jurisdiction. Akin likewise implies that the authority of a single bishop can be subjugated by a Pontifical Council in itself, which is another error in judging the reality of episcopal authority. I offer all of this out of the traditional understanding of the episcopacy as outlined in the Fathers and the Scholastics. I fear that Jimmy has fallen pray to a modern neo-Ultramontanism because he desires neat and tidy answers from Rome to a questions that seems to have room for legitimate disagreement among bishops.

[Liam]

Dan

And the Church did not accept the beloved Dr Hildebrand's advice on the matter. QED.

[Liam]

"I don't know why, but the herd of EMHCs often look smug to me like think they're special."

Perhaps it's...projection? Absent objective indicia, it would seem to be unworthy speculation.

[Brian Walden]

Just a thought: I've never been to a church with an altar rail, but from what I've seen in videos and stuff wouldn't an altar rail (or atleast the concept of forming a line and having the priest move down it rather than each person wait their turn and approach the priest) be faster and alleviate the need for as many EMHCs. If you cut out half a second per person, that saves over four minutes for every 500 people.

That could make it so that in all but the largest parishes you might only need EMHCs for the cup.

[Brian Walden]

Perhaps it's...projection? Absent objective indicia, it would seem to be unworthy speculation.

I agree, that's why I try to assume the best of them. But I know I'm not the only one who gets that initial gut reaction.

[Liam]

Just to clarify my own thoughts on EMHCs: they don't as such bother me in the least. However,were a pastor to ask me my thoughts on the best practice for the administration of Holy Communion, I would recommend that all be invited to receive the host from the celebrant and partake of the chalice held by the deacon (intinction by the celebrant assisted by the deacon would be even better). In other words, all receive from the same hands, in the same location (except for the handicapped who may need the minister(s) of the Sacrament to come to them, perhaps first). Neither a battery of EMHCs nor a battery of priests.

Most American Catholics would revolt at the extra time this would take. Which is why no one will ask me.

[Esau]

Esau, I often think like you. I don't know why, but the herd of EMHCs often look smug to me like think they're special. I don't know what it is about it; I guess I just expect a more solemn look to go with such a solemn task. But I do my best to assume the best and that they're just radiating with the Christian joy of fulfilling such an important duty which they were called to by Christ.

Brian,

I believe you may have missed my point.

These were comments in their entirety:

"What I am personally astonished by is the fact that there are those EMHCs that actually give Holy Communion to folks who are actually chewing gum in their mouths at the time of reception!

Do any of these EMHCs actually believe in the Real Presence or are they just there to look cool for the audience and flaunt their 'position of power'?"

Thus, the latter was just a rhetorical statement concerning the former.

It would be just like saying about a traffic officer who's just looking at traffic instead of directing it, "Is the traffic officer there only to look pretty?"

To put simply, EMHCs should not be giving out Communion to those folks chewing gum!

[Brian Walden]

What constitutes a pro-choice politician? What ever their previous vote on abortion was? How often they vote pro-choice? How long its been since they voted pro-choice? The totality of the record on abortion? If they have only voted pro-choice once in their career? All of the above? What's the criteria, Akin?

Policraticus, I think you misrepresent the original argument. It's not over whether or not the criteria of persevering in grave sin is met, that will always be the judgement of the Eucharistic Minister working in cooperation with his bishop. For example, I don't believe that Cardinal McCarrick's argument is that he's found the politicians in question to not be persevering in grave sin. Instead his argument is that the proper way to deal with it is to let the politicians decide for themselves whether or not they're worthy to receive communion.

The question Jimmy poses actually takes place after a Eucharistic Minister uses his own judgment to determine that someone is unworthy to receive communion. At that point what is the Eucharistic Minister obliged by canon law to do?

[bill bannon]

Jimmy
Thank you for requiring something from Rome itself which is rarely done on St. Blogs. Your position on this is right on point.

[Dan Hunter]

Liam,
Yes sadly enough and to the detriment of many souls the good and holy Dr Von Hildebrands sound wisdom was ignored. Yes he was a beloved teacher
God bless you

[Policraticus]

Instead his argument is that the proper way to deal with it is to let the politicians decide for themselves whether or not they're worthy to receive communion.

This is not Akin's argument. At all.

[Policraticus]

My mistake and my apologies, Brian. In my haste I see that I mistook the argument you attributed to McCarrick for an argument you attribute to Akin.

The question Jimmy poses actually takes place after a Eucharistic Minister uses his own judgment to determine that someone is unworthy to receive communion. At that point what is the Eucharistic Minister obliged by canon law to do?

This is not quite Akin's question, but close. In your phrasing, a bishop can (and many have) decide at what point an EM is obliged by Canon Law to withhold the Eucharist according to that bishop's interpretation of Canon 915. This is precisely what I advocate. Akin wants to see Rome universalize a static interpretation of Canon 915 that does not take into consideration the contingencies and conditions I enumerated in my initial comment. Indeed, Akin seems to push for an interpretation that the clear text of Canon 915 cannot bear. He accentuates his case by attributing incoherency, question dodging and subversive intentions to the bishops who do not see Canon 915 the way he does. This is disingenuous and terribly unfair to the particular case of each bishop, but forgivable. It seems to me that, given the (intentional?) lack of a precise answer to Akin's dilemma by the Vatican, the local bishop has every bit of authority to determine his policy for the diocese over which he has jurisdiction. This is better in keeping with the traditional understanding of episcopal authority of the Catholic Church. McCarrick's solution, which I also favor in addition to local episcopal authority settling the question, is not at all subversive and is quite in keeping with St. Paul's mandate for examination of conscience on the part of the communicant. It is not manifest that each and every politician who has voted pro-choice at least once in his/her career is persisting in grave sin. I think Akin's haste to punt to Rome is Ultramontane and simplistic in rationale.

[Esau]

Shouldn't the quote from Ed Peters read: "We are living through a terrible, perhaps unprecedented, unraveling of dis-respect for Jesus in the Eucharist."?

[Liam]

Apropos Policraticus' point, the current Pope seems very eager to limit Rome's intervention in matters customarily decided by ordinaries.

[Pseudomodo]

Fine Brian,

Boycotts can work on a local, regional or national level and the strategy has been used even in the past by Rome itself.

If a priest ignores the rules and is implementing forbidden practices against the express wishes of the parishoners, then a boycott of the collection plate can work. It will at least get his attention. If he complains to the Bishop then the parish can explain it's position and seek a resolution.

If the Bishop is the problem, then the boycott can work the same way by putting pressure on the local priest to point out to a wayward Bishop that his policy is getting the attention of the local parishes.

In the 20's the Church basically closed it's doors in Mexico. No sacraments. If that's not a boycott I don't know what is.

[Matthew Siekierski]

I don't see how this is hard to figure out. If a person is in a state of grave sin, and is obstinately persevering in that state, they should not receive Communion. This needs to be enforced for two reasons: a proper respect for the Body and Blood of our Lord, and out of concern for the immortal soul of the person.

Holy Communion is not a symbol of belonging, it's the actual reception of the Body and Blood of Jesus, and needs to be treated as such. Denying it to those in manifest grave sin is not optional, it's required. Those who don't refuse Communion to people in such a manifest state of sin are contributing to profaning the Body of Christ, and further endangering the soul of the sinner by helping them to unworthily receive Communion. The "good" of wooing them back to the faith cannot be accomplished through such a bad (evil) act.

To put it shortly, give Communion if you're not sure, deny Communion if you are. But the priests and bishops really DO need to make things clear for extraordinary ministers, because right now they're uncertain about what to do.

[Brian Walden]

This is not Akin's argument. At all.

You're right, I was thinking of the Ed Peters blog article Jimmy linked to. While Jimmy states his personal opinion that canon 915 should apply to pro-choice politicians, his argument is that Rome should help clear up the issue. I think that's a fair request.

No one is asking Rome to define what constitutes a pro-choice politician - that's a label not a sin. Jimmy's request is that Rome help to clear up which actions objectively constitute grave sin. For example, if a politician publicly campaigns that he will not vote to change any abortion laws (both those that restrict and those that expand abortion) is that objectively sinful? I think that's a moral issue which Rome has every right to decide on.

I'll admit I don't know much about how the Vatican works. Maybe its an unrealistic request to ask Rome to offer some more concrete definitions, but I don't think its an unfair thing to ask for.

[Thomas]

Matthew's comments are correct except for setting aside the issue of whether the person is publicly known as a sinner. For instance, a priest who has private knowledge that someone is an adulterer cannot refuse communion if the adultery is not known. But if he is publicly performing such acts, the priest is performing both sacrilege and scandal, and is guilty of grave sin. Similarly, with respect to abortion, someone who rejects the Church's teaching publicly is not fit to receive communion, and someone who gives communion is guilty of sacrilege and scandal. This of course is to set aside issues such as surpise, confusion of whether it is really the person, etc.

This is not primarily an issue of canon law, but a very simple and straightforward issue in moral theology. It is in all the old books, such as Prummer, Jone, Nicolaus.

Even though it did not need to, the Vatican did speak out. The bishops are just ignoring it.

With respect to the first comment, Catholics have always held that one can reverently criticize bishops if they are causing grave scandal and damage to the faith.

[Brian Walden]

Shouldn't the quote from Ed Peters read: "We are living through a terrible, perhaps unprecedented, unraveling of dis-respect for Jesus in the Eucharist."?

Instead of thinking of disrespect for Jesus as a novel which unravels as we move through the plot, think of respect for Jesus as a sweater which unravels as someone pulls it apart. Ed peters is using the analogy of a sweater rather than a novel.

[Thomas]

Cardinal Ratzinger's comments can be found here: http://www.priestsforlife.org/magisterium/bishops/04-07ratzingerommunion.htm.

It is a very basic issue.

[Brian Walden]

Pseudomondo,

I'm personally not convinced to participate in a boycott, but I don't deny your evidence that it can be very successful. At my parish too many people don't contribute, not because they're boycotting for moral reasons, but because they're rather spend their money on themselves. For now I'm going to do my part to support my parish.

If an organized movement were started to get a large number of people to inform their pastor or bishop that they will be sending their usual contributions to one specific charity until the issues surrounding pro-abortion politicians are better defined I would consider it.

[Mary]

At my parish too many people don't contribute, not because they're boycotting for moral reasons, but because they're rather spend their money on themselves.

This is why a boycott can not succeed in secret. They have to know why.

[Esau]

This is why a boycott can not succeed in secret. They have to know why.

Mary,

I believe Brian was saying that people there in his parish weren't contributing -- not because of a boycott -- but because they would rather spend money on themselves than anything else.

Unfortunately, I've seen this too often than not in other parishes.

There are the $1 Catholics or, even worse, $0 Catholics which Brian mentions.

[M.Z. Forrest]

And then there are those Catholic who turn up their noses at the $1 Catholics while contemplating how to avoid their duties to support the parishes. I must say, I have never heard of a time where support of the church was optional. This isn't anything against Esau, just those who advocate boycotts and other silly things.

[Karen LH]

Just a thought: I've never been to a church with an altar rail, but from what I've seen in videos and stuff wouldn't an altar rail (or atleast the concept of forming a line and having the priest move down it rather than each person wait their turn and approach the priest) be faster and alleviate the need for as many EMHCs. If you cut out half a second per person, that saves over four minutes for every 500 people.

A communion rail is faster, for the reason you give. I used to know a priest at a church with a communion rail and I asked him.

[Brian Walden]

This isn't anything against Esau, just those who advocate boycotts and other silly things.

Just to clear up the record I don't think Esau ever advocated not supporting parishes or boycotting. And maybe the people who appear not to contribute financially to the parish have set up direct deposits for their weekly contributions - that's becoming common. The people who put a buck in the basket might be doing it on top of their regular contribution.

[Esau]

Brian:

Just to clear up the record I don't think Esau ever advocated not supporting parishes or boycotting.

Thanks for setting the record straight! ;^)

And maybe the people who appear not to contribute financially to the parish have set up direct deposits for their weekly contributions - that's becoming common. The people who put a buck in the basket might be doing it on top of their regular contribution.

Brian,

That's a rather charitable thought --

Although, curious -- why then did you say: "At my parish too many people don't contribute, not because they're boycotting for moral reasons, but because they're rather spend their money on themselves."?

[Esau]

M.Z. Forrest has the right thought here:

I must say, I have never heard of a time where support of the church was optional.

[Brian Walden]

Although, curious -- why then did you say: "At my parish too many people don't contribute, not because they're boycotting for moral reasons, but because they're rather spend their money on themselves."?

It's pretty easy to figure out given the number of parishioners, the standard of living in the town where I live, and the weekly collection results listed in the bulletin. It may have been wrong of me to assume that just because they're not giving money to the parish they're spending their money selfishly. But I still think its a reasonable assumption to say that there's a good portion of people attending mass who don't feel they have a responsibility to give significantly to charity. Just as its a reasonable assumption that at any given Sunday Mass there's a good number of people receiving communion unworthily.

The part about the possibility of people contributing through direct deposit was more toward judging anyone individually. Without evidence we shouldn't assume that the person who doesn't put anything in the basket is shirking their responsibility to the church just as we shouldn't assume the person standing next to us is receiving communion in grave sin even though we can be fairly sure that a certain percentage of people at mass fit into one or both of those categories.

[Esau]

It's pretty easy to figure out given the number of parishioners, the standard of living in the town where I live, and the weekly collection results listed in the bulletin. It may have been wrong of me to assume that just because they're not giving money to the parish they're spending their money selfishly. But I still think its a reasonable assumption to say that there's a good portion of people attending mass who don't feel they have a responsibility to give significantly to charity.

Actually, while yours may merely be based on what seems like a guess; my assumption is based more so on the fact that the parishes that I mention are those my friends attend.

By having grown up with some of them and their families and close relations, I actually know they hardly contribute to the Church.

It wouldn't bug me so much if they were poor and needy, as some folks in other parishes are.

However, they're very affluent and when it comes to themselves, they spare no expense in buying the best high-end items from a nearby Nordy's and such.

That, in itself, isn't actually wrong.

However, when a church survives only by the parishoners' contributions; it would be nice if such folks actually contributed to the parish -- especially with what God had bountifully blessed them.

...we shouldn't assume the person standing next to us is receiving communion in grave sin

Sorry Brian --

But when it comes to politicians, I agree with Jimmy Akin in the withholding of Communion from a politician with a pro-abortion voting record (even if it's with an "I'm personally opposed, but" dodge).

He is dead on here!

[Brian Walden]

Esau,

I'm in agreement with Jimmy. I wasn't talking about people who are persevering in manifest grave sin. I was talking about situations like a person who assumes the the people on either side of him in the communion line are sinning for no other reason than because of the stat that 2/3 of Catholics don't believe in the Real Presence.

[Brian Walden]

But when it comes to politicians, I agree with Jimmy Akin in the withholding of Communion from a politician with a pro-abortion voting record (even if it's with an "I'm personally opposed, but" dodge).

Actually, I change my mind. Without qualification I can't say I'm in complete agreement with this statement. What about a situation such as a politician who voted pro-abortion 5 years ago and was never instructed to refrain from receiving communion. There's been no news for or against his position on abortion since then. I can't advocate witholding communion from him now; he may still be in grave sin but I don't think we can call it manifest. I think this is the point Policraticus was making.

Now if next week he votes for a bill which expands abortion or starts running a pro-abortion campaign or gives an interview about his pro-abortion beliefs, etc. - then I think his priest and or bishop should meet with him and deny him communion if he persists in his stance.

This raises the question: If a person's state of grave sin is manifested nationally, does the priest or bishop who notifies him that he is not eligible to receive communion have the duty of making it known nationally. Does this violate the rules of confession or does the public nature of the sin make it allowable or even necessary to avoid scandal?

[J.R. Stoodley]

Brian,

I believe it's 2/3 say they don't believe in Transubstantiation, many because they don't know what the word means.

Everyone,

What about politicians who call themselves pro-life but support abortion in some limited circumstances?

[Esau]

Everyone,

What about politicians who call themselves pro-life but support abortion in some limited circumstances?

J.R. Stoodley,

Very good question there!

[Matthew Siekierski]

Brian, I would hope that one thing required of a repentant politician who formerly publicly supported abortion would be to publicly announce his changed position. This is not to embarrass the person, but to clarify for the rest of us Catholics that the former position had been abandoned. It's not a public apology, but a public correction of a public error, and makes it clear that that issue is not a cause to deny Holy Communion. It needs to be done to remove the appearance of scandal.

If the pro-abortion support was 5 years ago, you probably could make a really good case that it's not "manifest", especially since 5 years is plenty of time for the person in question to have received absolution. It's tough, though, with all the media coverage and archive footage that surfaces, to handle something like this, which is why I hold the position stated in my preceding paragraph (public correction).

If the nationally-manifested sin was not disclosed to the priest or bishop under the confidentiality of confession (i.e., if the priest or bishop read the newspaper and discerned the manifest grave sin), then there's no rules violation. I think it would better be handled quietly (messages to the priests, who tell any extraordinary ministers) instead of announced on the news.

[Brian Walden]

I believe it's 2/3 say they don't believe in Transubstantiation, many because they don't know what the word means.

Interesting point. Anyway that was just the first thing that popped into my head. Use the statistic that 90%+ of Catholics use contraception instead of you'd like.

What about politicians who call themselves pro-life but support abortion in some limited circumstances?

I think it's not about what you claim publicly so much as what you do publicly. You can call yourself pro-life or say that your actions aren't sinful all you want but if you vote for legislation that, for example, that allows abortion if the unborn child is diagnosed with down syndrome that's public sin.

[Mary]

What about politicians who call themselves pro-life but support abortion in some limited circumstances?

If they openly say that handicapped babies or what have you should be killed freely, they aren't pro-life.

If they work on a law that excepts some conditions because otherwise it won't pass, they are trying to limit abortion -- morally licit.

[Brian Walden]

What about a politician who never speaks publicly about abortion and votes against measures to restrict abortion but abstains from voting on measures to expand it? He's technically not advancing abortion, but he's voting against efforts to restrict it. Is there a clearcut answer as to whether or not this constitutes formal participation in grave sin?

[Brian Walden]

If they work on a law that excepts some conditions because otherwise it won't pass, they are trying to limit abortion -- morally licit.

Good point Mary. I guess such a law wouldn't permit certain types of sin so much as it would restrict certain previously allowed types of sin. I know there's a joke about smoking while praying or praying while smoking in there somewhere.

[Karen LH]

The people who put a buck in the basket might be doing it on top of their regular contribution.

This is true. I used to do this as a spiritual exercise: tithing out of my spending money, which meant dropping a couple of dollars into the basket each week. This was entirely separate from our actual donation to the parish.

I also couldn't tell you what the giving levels of any of our friends are.

Just to agree with the observation that you can't tell too much about how much any given individual gives to charity unless they actually tell you.

[Francis Beckwith]

"What about a politician who never speaks publicly about abortion and votes against measures to restrict abortion but abstains from voting on measures to expand it? He's technically not advancing abortion, but he's voting against efforts to restrict it. Is there a clearcut answer as to whether or not this constitutes formal participation in grave sin?"

Let's just change the subject and see what happens:

"What about a politician who never speaks publicly about lynching blacks and votes against measures to restrict lynching blacks but abstains from voting on measures to expand lynching blacks? He's technically not advancing the lynching of blacks, but he's voting against efforts to restrict the lynching of blacks. Is there a clearcut answer as to whether or not this constitutes formal participation in grave sin?"

Here's my answer: "whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me...[W]hat you did not do for one of these least ones, you did not do for me." (Matt. 25:40,46- NAB)

[Jamie Beu]

I wonder how much of this "bending over backwards" for pro-abort politicians has to do with state and federal funds going to bishops' pet projects.

"Oh no - if we speak out against him, maybe Teddy will cut funding for adoption centers..."

"If I speak up against her, Nancy might decide to revoke our tax-exempt status..."

Yes, bishops and priests are called to a celibate life to be consecrated men, but, by God, be MEN! Stand up for what's right!

[Brian Walden]

Thank you Dr. Beckwith,

I think we're all convicted by Jesus' words but that doesn't necessarily mean we're in violation of canon 915.

Your example does make things more clear, though. Laws are moral decisions. Voting against a law that restricts abortion, even without ever voting for a law that allows abortion or speaking in support of abortion, is not a neutral action. At the very least it's the equivalent of making a public statement that the current laws allowing abortion are just and moral.

[StubbleSpark]

Boycotting I think would be problematic because you stand to gain financially from the sinfulness of the clergy.

I think a better alternative would be to vote with your feet if you can. Find a parish with more faithful leadership and reward them with your presence.

Just like the "welcoming" pro-homosexual parish in the now infamous Archbishop Niederauer SPI communion video, the wayward parish will be devoid of families and children with no future.

[John Hetman]

Abortion is a cold clinical term that diminishes the utter heinousness of an act of murder. Given the rampant permissive amorality in our society and the duress that some pregnant women may feel, the onus of the crime lies mainly on those who finance abortion, perform abortion, and support abortion through legislation that allows this slaughter to continue unabated. A Catholic politician who tries to weasel his or her way out of their support for abortion by using the cheap excuse of being "personally opposed" but answerable to their constituency, and the bishop that allows this politician to receive Our Lord are both culpable contributors to a crime that cries to heaven for justice.

Let us be grateful that Archbishop Burke and some others have been prophetic voices against these crimes against the unborn, their mothers (and fathers) and our own sick society.

[ERV]

Excommunicate Richard Daley and the pro-abort politicans. and those who support Gay marriage

[ERV]

Excommunicate Richard Daley and the pro-abort politicans. and those who support Gay marriage

[TurretinFan]

Jack wrote: "Your faith comes before your career. If your job is a sin you have to quit. Too many use the excuse that its their job, have to feed the family, or try to find every definition of remote that they can. In this day and age some jobs should not be held by a Catholic."

I basically agree. But does every imperfection warrant harsh punishment.

To reparaphrase a la Beckwith:

Let's just change the subject and see what happens:

"What about a politician who never speaks publicly about profaning the name of our Lord and votes against measures to restrict profaning the name of our Lord but abstains from voting on measures to expand profaning the name of our Lord? He's technically not advancing the profaning the name of our Lord, but he's voting against efforts to restrict the profaning the name of our Lord. Is there a clearcut answer as to whether or not this constitutes formal participation in grave sin?"

The res ipsa argument has two edges.

-Turretinfan

[LJ]

Regarding the Real Presence and worthiness to receive communion, what is required first is a primer from all the pulpits in the land. Until that happens, ignorance and confusion will reign, as well as such mockery as the giving of communion to the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence.

[Joanie]

Poor Jesus!
He looks for our love when He comes to us in Holy Communion. Let's make reparation to Him when we receive Him next time and love Him a little more for those who don't.

[A.Williams]

LJ,

It's pretty hard to give a primer on the infinite value of the Blessed Sacrament from the pulpit, after having removed the Tabernacle from the center of the Sanctuary to a place..like 8 ft. from the side exit door of the Church.(Even as they did at my parish Church)

Actions speak louder than words, and when the Tabernacles are moved it is advocating that the 'Community' has more value than Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament. And once this great dishonor to the Lord is tolerated, or even promoted, then, pretty much nothing matters anymore. ie.. People are more important than the Eucharistic Lord.

In His state of dishonor, it really doesn't matter much who recieves Him. And its always better NOT to create waves!

[Mark]

If Hillary and Rudy emerge as the party nominees, what is the morality of voting for Rudy (a strict constructionist) versus Hillary (views abortion as nearly a sacrament) as the lesser of two evils? Anyone thought this through from a Catholic perspective?

[Scott W.]

If Hillary and Rudy emerge as the party nominees, what is the morality of voting for Rudy (a strict constructionist) versus Hillary (views abortion as nearly a sacrament) as the lesser of two evils? Anyone thought this through from a Catholic perspective?

One could argue that they are voting to limit the harm in such a case. But I agree with Dobson that this is an imprudent move. Republicans winning without a genuine commitment to the sanctity of life, marriage, etc. is a real blow to those causes, whereas a Hillary victory would energize them and hopefully force Republicans to stop acting like pseudo-Democrats.

[Thomas]

A lot of this has been covered before by moral theologians.

A priest or teacher who publicly denies an part of the faith (even five years ago) is in a state of mortal sin at least until he decides to publicly retract. This retraction would be required, for instance, if a theologian or priest were to oppose the Church's teaching on contraception or abortion. An ordinary person need only change his opinion. Consequently, an ordinary layman might change his position, go to confession, and then receive communion.

There are two issues here: 1) Is there a public sin without repentance? 2) Has someone with teaching authority denied an article of the faith or a grave matter in morals?

There are all sorts of less clear matters for prudence, e.g. a politician might say that he is for outlawing abortion, but can do nothing about it; a politician might (but I think not) be considered to have a teaching role; a politician may have gone to confession and yet this fact may not known. In this last case, the public nature of the act would require some sort of restitution and notification of the authorities. It would be the same for a someone who is known to be in an invalid marriage or otherwise living in sin.

[Liam]

Except that Rudy is no strict constructionist when it comes to executive power or, it seems, torture, so there goes that "lesser" of two evils idea. Rudy seems to be the worst candidate from a Catholic perspective.

[Mark]

Liam,

I think you're torturing logic to assert that Hillary is the lesser of two evils from a Catholic perspective. I mean seriously, she would create a veritable police state to advance the agenda of Planned Parenthood, GLADD and the Hollywood and Ivy elites. It would be the Culture of Death writ large.

Rudy is merely a disgrace as a "Catholic" in public life. And it would be easy for the Bishops to point out his hypocracies. He would probably advance the gay adenda (lamentable) but he would appoint judges who would tend to restrict rather than expand imaginary rights like publicly funded abortion.