Conservative lawyer Douglas Kmiec was denied communion recently at a mass connected with a gathering of Catholic business people. The priest denounced Kmiec’s endorsement of Sen. Barack Obama, then refused to give Kmiec communion.
E.J. Dionne also has a piece in New Republic on this entitled “Denied the Rite” which begins thus:
Word spread like wildfire in Catholic circles: Douglas Kmiec, a staunch Republican, firm foe of abortion and veteran of the Reagan Justice Department, had been denied communion.
His sin? Kmiec, a Catholic who can cite papal pronouncements with the facility of a theological scholar, shocked old friends and adversaries alike earlier this year by endorsing Barack Obama for president. For at least one priest, Kmiec’s support for a pro-choice politician made him a willing participant in a grave moral evil.
Kmiec was denied communion in April at a Mass for a group of Catholic business people he later addressed at dinner. The episode has not received wide attention outside the Catholic world, yet it is the opening shot in an argument that could have a large impact on this year’s presidential campaign: Is it legitimate for bishops and priests to deny communion to those supporting candidates who favor abortion rights?
As a general rule calling someone out from the pulpit is a pretty extreme act. Unless there was a private meeting or at least some sort of warning calling for repentance this was likely inappropriate. Withholding communion comes under the same general rule. In the Orthodox Church we take communion rather seriously. But we also give fair warning usually in church bulletins and signs often posted in the narthax that we don’t do inter communion and specifying the conditions necessary for communing.
In my parish our priest routinely announces that only those who are fully Orthodox and who have prepared themselves through prayer, fasting (all of the fasts for the last week and no food or drink from midnight the night before) and recent confession should approach the chalice. Unless someone is not Orthodox and trying to take communion it would be extremely unusual to refuse them the sacrament if they approach the chalice. If someone is doing something very scandalous that precludes them from communion then I would think that is best handled privately.
Then there is the rather overt interference by a priest into a matter of political conscience. It is one thing for a priest to remind the faithful from the pulpit that they are morally obligated to consider certain issues when deciding who to vote for. It is quite another to directly dictate someone’s vote under pain of excommunication. All in all this left a rather bad taste in my mouth.
ICXC NIKA
John
(Happy Ascension Thursday!)
What’s next? Denying communion to politicians who support the death penalty and the Bush Administration’s torture policies? And to those politicians’ supporters?
It sounds like neither party took the time to read the entire memo from then-Cardinal Ratzinger to the US Catholic Bishops on this issue some years back, quoted below in relevant part:
[blockquote]1. Presenting oneself to receive Holy Communion should be a conscious decision, based on a reasoned judgment 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? [i]Am I guilty of grave sin?[/i] 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 [i]abortion or euthanasia is a grave sin[/i]. The Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae, with reference to judicial decisions or civil laws that authorize or promote abortion or euthanasia, states that there is a ‘grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection. […] In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to “take part in a propaganda campaign in favor of such a law or vote for it”‘ (no. 73). [i]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[/i]. 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 judgment 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), [i]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[/i].
â€6. When ‘these precautionary measures have not had their effect [i]or in which they were not possible[/i],’ 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.[/blockquote]
IMHO, this was the right thing done the wrong way to the wrong person. Perhaps next time the Catholic clergy (or even a Bishop) will focus on a more culpable example of complicity with the culture of death.
#1 I agree that this is something that ought to have (and perhaps was) been handled privately. It IS rather extreme to call someone out like that.
#2 The death penalty is not an intrinsic evil like abortion or torture. Personally, I think that pro-torture politicians ought not to receive the Eucharist either, but abortion is a much more widespread issue at the moment