Monday, April 25, 2005

Pope Benedict XVI and the war on John Kerry

Almost forgotten is that last summer Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, declared war on pro-abortion public officials who profess to be Catholic. The key moment was a document he sent to the USA in July of 2004. The document cuts the ground underneath every reason currently offered by many Catholics for voting for pro-choice public officials.

1. A common objection is to relativize the abortion issue. For some Catholics, abortion is important, but so are the issues of war and capital punishment. Pope Benedict XVI strikes down that reasoning: in the Catholic Church there can be legitimate diversity of opinion on when it is right to go war and when capital punishment is justified--but there is no legitimate diversity on abortion.
2. Consequently, Catholic public officials who support the legal right to abortion are in rebellion against the Church and should be denied communion.
3. Since every case is different, the application of this rule is left to the discretion of the local bishop--but the principle itself is crystal clear.

This is a bold move and reflects the sentiment of younger priests worldwide. Although older priests and bishops of the post-Vatican II generation have been inclined to play down the seriousness of abortion, the younger generation thinks the time for compromise is past. Numerous senators and congressmen currently present themselves to the public as both loyal Catholics and pro-choice. This is almost certainly the last generation of Catholic public officials that will be allowed to do so.

The management of this principle will nonetheless require great care. I have been quite struck by the breadth of the opposition that Pope Benedict XVI's ruling aroused when it was announced last summer. However important the pro-life principle is, the Catholic Church is still a corpus mixtum--it mixes together sinners and saints alike, and the final sorting out can only be done by the Son of God at the end of the age (Matthew 13.47-50).

Cardinal Ratzinger/Pope Benedict XVI July 2004
1. Presenting oneself to receive Holy Communion should be a conscious decision, based on a reasoned judgement regarding one’s worthiness to do so, according to the Church’s objective criteria, asking such questions as: “Am I in full communion with the Catholic Church? Am I guilty of grave sin? Have I incurred a penalty (e.g. excommunication, interdict) that forbids me to receive Holy Communion? Have I prepared myself by fasting for at least an hour?” The practice of indiscriminately presenting oneself to receive Holy Communion, merely as a consequence of being present at Mass, is an abuse that must be corrected (cf. Instruction “Redemptionis Sacramentum,” nos. 81, 83).
2. The Church teaches that abortion or euthanasia is a grave sin. The Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae, with reference to judicial decisions or civil laws that authorise 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 or 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).
3. Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.
4. Apart from an individual’s judgement about his worthiness to present himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, the minister of Holy Communion may find himself in the situation where he must refuse to distribute Holy Communion to someone, such as in cases of a declared excommunication, a declared interdict, or an obstinate persistence in manifest grave sin (cf. can. 915).
5. Regarding the grave sin of abortion or euthanasia, when a person’s formal cooperation becomes manifest (understood, in the case of a Catholic politician, as his consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws), his Pastor should meet with him, instructing him about the Church’s teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin, and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist.
6. When “these precautionary measures have not had their effect or in which they were not possible,” and the person in question, with obstinate persistence, still presents himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, “the minister of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute it” (cf. Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts Declaration “Holy Communion and Divorced, Civilly Remarried Catholics” [2002], nos. 3-4). This decision, properly speaking, is not a sanction or a penalty. Nor is the minister of Holy Communion passing judgement on the person’s subjective guilt, but rather is reacting to the person’s public unworthiness to receive Holy Communion due to an objective situation of sin.

[Note: This memorandum was sent by Cardinal Ratzinger to Cardinal McCarrick of Washington, DC, and was made public in the first week of July 2004. Bold face added..]

3 Comments:

At Monday, 25 April, 2005, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your erudition and clearly involved scholarship make reading you a sheer delight. Keep it coming.

 
At Tuesday, 26 April, 2005, Blogger GrenfellHunt said...

Many thanks. I'll do my best.

 
At Wednesday, 27 April, 2005, Blogger P-BS-Watcher said...

I am interested by the limited selections made from the array of choices available on the topics of war, euthanasia, abortion, and the death penalty. See Missing In Action

 

Post a Comment

<< Home