Pope Clarifies Position on Excommunication of Pro-Choice Politicians
Saturday May 12, 2007
See also: Giuliani Reaffirms Support for Abortion Rights
In 2004, several conservative American bishops began to selectively deny, or threaten to deny, the Eucharist to pro-choice Catholic politicians. Most significantly, this included Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry. But there were some practical problems with this approach:
Mexican bishops responded by threatening pro-choice politicians with excommunication, which put the conservative but pragmatic Pope Benedict XVI in a bind when he visited the country last week. He decided to stand by his principles:
My suspicion--and I think this will be borne out by future papal remarks--is that he does believe that the Mexican pro-choice politicians receive automatic excommunication, but does not believe that self-excommunicated Catholics should necessarily be denied the Eucharist. The public denial of the Eucharist, when it is directed at politicians, is more of a political statement than a theological one. Such a public process leaves no room for the kind of sophisticated pastoral assessment of the communicant's spiritual life that would be necessary in order to justify an outright denial of communion.
If the Pope's position on this issue is not made explicit soon, the Mexican controversy over pro-choice politicians and the Eucharist will no doubt be repeated in the United States next year. At least two of the 2008 U.S. presidential frontrunners, Rudy Giuliani and Bill Richardson, are pro-choice Catholics--and the more visible frontrunner, Giuliani, is a Republican. Will the conservative American bishops who were so critical of John Kerry in 2004 also be critical of Giuliani? And if they are not, will this reflect their growing awareness of the necessity of the pastoral element in decisions regarding excommunication, or will it simply reflect party preference?
As a pro-choicer, I obviously do not agree with Pope Benedict XVI's position on abortion law--but I do welcome the directness of his remarks in Mexico. In this debate where bishops can so easily use the threat of excommunication to impose their political will, politicizing the process of excommunication, Catholic politicians deserve to live under a theologically consistent standard--the kind of standard that only a Pope can impose. If the position of Pope Benedict XVI is that pro-choice Catholic politicians have excommunicated themselves but should not be selectively denied communion by priests and bishops, so be it. This, at least, would prevent the kind of ugly altar rail politics that we witnessed in 2004.
Read more:
|
- Limiting excommunication to politicians makes little theological sense in a democratic system, since everyone who knowingly votes for a pro-choice candidate is partially responsible for that candidate's election under the standards of traditional Roman Catholic moral theology. But some 46% of the United States' 67 million Roman Catholics identify as pro-choice, and the Roman Catholic Church is not prepared to excommunicate 32 million people.
- When the process of excommunication becomes too politicized, priests and bishops may find it difficult to resist using the threat of excommunication as a strictly political tool. This appeared to be the case in 2004, as excommunication threats revealed a party line disparity; pro-choice Republicans were less likely to be threatened with excommunication, while at least one pro-life Democrat was.
- The abortion issue was the only political issue that really generated much excommunication fervor. The Roman Catholic Church has taken strong stands against elective war and the death penalty, and in favor of immigrants' rights and social welfare programs, but no American bishops have suggested excommunicating conservative Catholic politicians for their views on these issues.
Mexican bishops responded by threatening pro-choice politicians with excommunication, which put the conservative but pragmatic Pope Benedict XVI in a bind when he visited the country last week. He decided to stand by his principles:
On the plane from Rome, Benedict appeared to go further than the Vatican had before on the contentious issue of Catholic politicians who favor abortion rights. He seemed to suggest that Mexico City legislators who recently voted to allow abortion in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy had excommunicated themselves.This statement was, understandably, somewhat controversial. Vatican officials went into damage control mode:
"Yes, the excommunication isn't something arbitrary — it's part of the code" of church law, the pope said in Italian, in response to a question during the first full-fledged news conference of his two-year pontificate. "The killing of an innocent human child is incompatible with going into communion in the body of Christ."
On Thursday, the Vatican tried again to defuse the controversy.Call me crazy, but it seems to me that if you ask His Holiness a question, he says "yes," and Vatican officials edit out the "yes," that's a pretty substantial change. So what did Pope Benedict XVI mean by "yes"?
A slightly edited transcript was issued that dropped the word "yes" in the pope´s response to the question that started it all. Several other changes made it seem a more general statement, rather than referring to the Mexican bishops.
Lombardi told reporters such edits are common. "Every time the pope speaks off-the-cuff the Secretariat of State reviews and cleans up his remarks," he said.
My suspicion--and I think this will be borne out by future papal remarks--is that he does believe that the Mexican pro-choice politicians receive automatic excommunication, but does not believe that self-excommunicated Catholics should necessarily be denied the Eucharist. The public denial of the Eucharist, when it is directed at politicians, is more of a political statement than a theological one. Such a public process leaves no room for the kind of sophisticated pastoral assessment of the communicant's spiritual life that would be necessary in order to justify an outright denial of communion.
If the Pope's position on this issue is not made explicit soon, the Mexican controversy over pro-choice politicians and the Eucharist will no doubt be repeated in the United States next year. At least two of the 2008 U.S. presidential frontrunners, Rudy Giuliani and Bill Richardson, are pro-choice Catholics--and the more visible frontrunner, Giuliani, is a Republican. Will the conservative American bishops who were so critical of John Kerry in 2004 also be critical of Giuliani? And if they are not, will this reflect their growing awareness of the necessity of the pastoral element in decisions regarding excommunication, or will it simply reflect party preference?
As a pro-choicer, I obviously do not agree with Pope Benedict XVI's position on abortion law--but I do welcome the directness of his remarks in Mexico. In this debate where bishops can so easily use the threat of excommunication to impose their political will, politicizing the process of excommunication, Catholic politicians deserve to live under a theologically consistent standard--the kind of standard that only a Pope can impose. If the position of Pope Benedict XVI is that pro-choice Catholic politicians have excommunicated themselves but should not be selectively denied communion by priests and bishops, so be it. This, at least, would prevent the kind of ugly altar rail politics that we witnessed in 2004.
Read more:
- Pope Opens Trip with Remarks Against Abortion (The New York Times)
Comments
I see that you support NOW, a group that supports the taking of innocent lives. I think that those who are biased present their biased views. To put one’s self above God’s commandment to not kill, makes for a difficult situation for one’s self eschatologically.
Where would you say that Catholics draw the line against this secular thinking about the culture of death.
I find it amazingly shameful that in a culture that protects children as much as they do, puts to death those who are only some years younger and say that its an acceptable thing to do.
Where do we draw the line on civil liberties for the innocent, the weak and the vulnerable? or don’t they count?
We excommunicate priests who go against the Church, why not politicians?
The Eucharist to Roman Catholics is not only the real presence of the Body and Blood of our Lord, Jesus Christ, who is the head of the body of the Church, we also believe that Communion represents for those who receive it, that they are in communion with the Roman Catholic Church, and those who are not in communion should not receive the Eucharist. Please read the latest Catechism of the Catholic Church, numbers 949 – 959 (pp. 247-250).
To Catholics, Communion is more that just a wafer and sip of wine. It is who we are as a Church.
T. Davis writes:
Where do we draw the line on civil liberties for the innocent, the weak and the vulnerable?
Week 23. I don’t mean to be glib; that’s literally where we draw the line, under Supreme Court precedent.
Cheers,
TH
And for whatever it’s worth, I think priests and bishops have every right to excommunicate pro-choice politicians if they choose to do so. But it if it’s not done consistently–if it only happens when the politician in question happens to be the Democratic presidential nominee–then I think bystanders have every right to point that out.
It does harm the credibility of the church, I think, when party affiliation plays a role in this sort of thing. If it’s about abortion, then it’s about abortion, period–not the Democratic Party, not the Republican Party.
Cheers,
TH
TH writes: “…thats literally where draw the line, under the Supreme Court precedent.”
The Supreme Court has no jurisdiction over the Church and what people believe. For those who believe in God, there is a higher authority than the Supreme Court. This is to whom the Church has to answer to; not the Supreme Court or others. Over the past one hundred years, the Church’s documents from Rerum Novarum on have expounded upon the rights people should have. Yet this country (with its Supreme Court rulings) and others continue to be human rights violators.
I’m sure that you would concur that it is not the perfect system, and there is much work to be done. There in lies the problem; that the there are inconsistencies in all systems that govern, even the Church, Supreme Court and other systems which provide governing to people. Credibility is harmed when party affiliation in the Supreme Court twists laws to favor their agendas as well. Hence the reason for checks and balances and the separation of church and state.
It truly does revolve around peoples choices, whether your Democrat or Republican, Catholic or Protestant, etc, and who you really have to answer to in the end.
Peace,
T. Davis
I think we’re on the same page here. The Supreme Court has certainly screwed up in the past:
http://civilliberty.about.com/od/raceequalopportunity/tp/supreme_racism.htm
Then there’s the Schenck case from 1919, where the Supreme Court astonishingly held that it was perfectly okay for the government to restrict political speech during wartime.
I should be clear: I’m not trying to make a fundamental criticism of the Roman Catholic Church. I think the ambiguity of the current situation vis-a-vis pro-choice politicians creates an undesirable opportunity for a few (and I emphasize few) American bishops to use that ambiguity to their own advantage in an undesirable way, and if His Holiness is willing to replace that ambiguous standard with a clear standard, any clear standard, that would satisfy my concern in this regard.
I must say, by the way, that Pope Benedict is pleasantly surprising me. I did not like Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, but part of his job as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was to do unpopular things. Now, as Pope, he is showing a more well-rounded character that I’m beginning to respect. Of course I don’t believe anything like what he believes, but if I did and if I were in his shoes, I’d probably do what he’s doing.
I did take two courses in Spring Hill College’s M.T.S. program some years ago, by the way. Loved it. (3.75 GPA for the two courses, if I remember right.) Had to drop out of the program because I was on a second master’s at the time, but I have immense respect for the Roman Catholic tradition–particularly the Jesuits and Franciscans–and have a well-worn copy of the ‘94 edition Catechism myself.
Cheers,
TH
As a Catholic Christian who thinks christian churches should follow Christ, rather than turn Christianity into a social club, (I know it’s a novel concept for some…,) I find it reprehensible and unforgivable that any Catholic authority should delay or refuse to excommunicate a politician, church authority, or other Catholic individual who chooses to promote/advocate or actively murder children.
It is not discriminatory to push away those who deny the church’s most basic belief: the sanctity of human life. Such people can simply do as the King of England did when the Church didn’t agree that he could divorce and remarry; they can start their own church.
IN the end, the bible makes clear that such people will not be near God. He won’t force them to follow him. Why would you now allow them to be near Christians, in God’s churches, when they demonstrate clearly that their actions are murderous and non-Christian? Read the New Testament, for God’s sake.