Fr. Roger J. Landry
The Anchor
Editorial
May 23, 2008
The Church is preparing to celebrate on Sunday the Solemnity of the Body and Blood of the Lord. The Sequence for this feast, the Lauda Sion Salvatorem — written by St. Thomas Aquinas in 1264 at the request of Pope Urban IV— contains a strong warning from the Angelic Doctor, which the poet Gerard Manley Hopkins translated in the following way:
Both the wicked and the good
Eat of this celestial Food
But with ends how opposite!
With this most substantial Bread
Unto life or death they’re fed
In a difference infinite.
The one who receives the Lord worthily, in other words, receives the “Bread of Life.” The person who takes him unworthily is, to use the words of St. Paul, “guilty or profaning the body and blood of the Lord” and “eats and drinks judgment upon himself” (1 Cor 27-29).
These truths have been brought back into focus by recent actions by certain politicians and the noteworthy reactions by their bishops.
After former Gotham mayor Rudy Giuliani received Holy Communion from a priest at the Papal Mass in St. Patrick’s Cathedral, Cardinal Edward Egan responded with a public rebuke, in which he singled out the consequences of Giuliani’s support of the intrinsically evil practice of abortion. “The Catholic Church clearly teaches that abortion is a grave offense against the will of God,” the prelate said in a statement. “Throughout my years as Archbishop of New York, I have repeated this teaching in sermons, articles, addresses, and interviews without hesitation or compromise of any kind. Thus it was that I had an understanding with Mr. Rudolph Giuliani, when I became Archbishop of New York and he was serving as Mayor of New York, that he was not to receive the Eucharist because of his well-known support of abortion. I deeply regret that Mr. Giuliani received the Eucharist during the Papal visit here in New York, and I will be seeking a meeting with him to insist that he abide by our understanding.”
Cardinal Egan was clearly following the practice of the Church with regard to politicians who support abortion. This teaching was candidly and clearly summarized by then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger in June 2004, in response to a request from U.S. Bishops. In a letter entitled “Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion, General Principles,” the future Pope wrote:
“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.”
Cardinal Ratzinger also delineated the next step, which would be invoked if the pro-abortion politician were to choose to ignore that pastoral instruction: “When these precautionary measures have not had their effect … 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. This decision, properly speaking, is not a sanction or a penalty. Nor is the minister of Holy Communion passing judgment 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.” We presume that that will be part of Cardinal Egan’s next conversation with Mayor Giuliani.
A similar situation has developed in Kansas, where the pro-abortion Catholic Governor Kathleen Sebelius, often mentioned as a leading contender to be Senator Barack Obama’s running mate in the fall, has ignored Kansas City Archbishop Joseph Naumann’s repeated private instructions to refrain from receiving the Eucharist (see story on p. 4). In addition to receiving campaign contributions from the country’s most notorious abortionists, Governor Sebelius recently vetoed a bill, passed by both houses of the Kansas legislature, that would have provided pregnant women with information about the development of their unborn child as well as about abortion alternatives.
Since he became Archbishop, the Kansas City shepherd has met with Governor Sebelius several time, as he wrote in an article in his Archdiocesan newspaper, “to discuss with her the grave spiritual and moral consequences of her public actions by which she has cooperated in the procurement of abortions performed in Kansas. My concern has been, as a pastor, both for the spiritual well-being of the governor but also for those who have been misled (scandalized) by her very public support for legalized abortion.” He says that it has been his hope that “through this dialogue the governor would come to understand her obligation: (1) to take the difficult political step, but necessary moral step, of repudiating her past actions in support of legalized abortion; and (2) in the future would use her exceptional leadership abilities to develop public policies extending the maximum legal protection possible to the unborn children of Kansas.”
Having failed in his effort to persuade her to change her ways, however, Archbishop Naumann wrote her “requesting that she refrain from presenting herself for reception of the Eucharist until she had acknowledged the error of her past positions, made a worthy sacramental confession and taken the necessary steps for amendment of her life which would include a public repudiation of her previous efforts and actions in support of laws and policies sanctioning abortion.”
When the Archbishop learned that she had ignored his instruction and received holy Communion at a recent Mass, he wrote her again, asking her to “respect my previous request and not require from me any additional pastoral actions,” the latter conjunct seeming to imply an instruction for priests to deny her holy Communion in accordance with the Church’s practice summarized in Cardinal Ratzinger’s letter.
To Governor Sebelius’ argument that she has an obligation to uphold state and federal laws and court decisions, the Archbishop has publicly called upon her “to show a similar sense of obligation to honor divine law and the laws, teaching and legitimate authority within the church.” He said that her “spiritually lethal message” has been in effect, “The Church’s teaching on abortion is optional!” He added that he hoped that his reiterated request of the governor not to present herself for holy Communion “will provoke her to reconsider the serious spiritual and moral consequences of her past and present actions” as well as “help alert other Catholics to the moral gravity of participating in and/or cooperating with the performance of abortions.”
It is clear that U.S. Bishops are beginning to lose patience with Catholic politicians who not only ignore the Church’s teaching on the moral evil of any cooperation with the grisly practice of abortion but who also reject the discipline of the Church with respect to worthy reception of Holy Communion. Even though bishops, as men of communion, naturally do not want to deny Catholics the Eucharist when they present themselves — and have opted first for education about the evil of abortion and the conditions for worthy reception of the Lord — there comes a point when, for the spiritual good of the politician as well as the overall health of the people of God, they reluctantly find themselves needing to go further. Otherwise, the faithful would be right to conclude that, as a practical matter, the Church’s teaching on abortion is, in fact, optional and one can remain in communion with Christ and his Church while supporting the destruction of those made in Christ’s image and likeness.