United States: The bishops and abortion
This question is rendering the American presidential campaign acrimonious, following declarations by certain bishops on the refusal of communion to the democratic candidate John Kerry who, although Catholic, defends the right to abortion. They have explicitly affirmed that Catholic politicians who make such a choice will find themselves refused the sacrament.
A working group under the direction of Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, archbishop of Washington, has been looking into this problem since November 2003, and has drawn up a document, Pastoral Instructions on the links between the political activity of believers and Church doctrine. These Instructions will not be published before the elections in November, in order to avoid, they say, too great an interference in the vote of the citizens.
However, the final declaration of the Washington meeting specifies that respect for the Eucharist demands that this sacrament be received by the faithful with the proper dispositions. It warns Catholic politicians against an erroneous interpretation of Catholic morals and the practice of the sacraments for political ends. It is even necessary to lead responsible Catholic politicians to correct the laws which are reprehensible in the eyes of Catholic morality. This applies especially to the protection of life before birth and the fight against abortion. Anyone who does not try to correct these laws makes himself morally guilty, and sins against the common good, affirm the bishops.
Furthermore, according to La Repubblica of June 17, in an official but confidential letter to the American Bishops Conference, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger asks that persons living in a state of mortal sin or rejecting the doctrine of the Church abstain from Communion. This letter has not been made public. It was sent to the American bishops in response to their various questions, in the face of this controversy which is causing a stir in the presidential campaign.
We recall that Mgr. Raymond L. Burke, archbishop of Saint Louis, and Mgr. Charles J. Chaput, archbishop of Denver, declared themselves against giving Communion to people whose public positions were against the teaching of the Catholic Church. According to non-official sources, Cardinal Ratzinger would not be sorry to hear them speak out in this way. An American bishop, on his ad limina visit to Rome in April 2004, also reported that the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith would ask the American bishops to be more attentive to this question.
On June 24, diverse opinions were put forward during the last plenary assembly of the American bishops at Englewood, in the suburbs of Denver. Mgr. William J. Levada, archbishop of San Francisco, considered that abortion has a unique place in Catholic social doctrine. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinions among Catholics on a declaration of war or on the application of the death penalty, but not concerning abortion and euthanasia. The President of the Episcopal Commission on Doctrine and a member of the working group, Catholic bishops and Catholic politicians, Archbishop Levada called on the bishops to commit themselves to genuine dialogue with Catholic politicians, with regard to the relationship between public politics and ethical and moral principles. Concerning the case where a bishop may feel obliged to refuse communion to a Catholic who publicly defends abortion, he stressed that the bishops were called to watch over the unity of the Church in all her diversity. And he emphasized that the application of restrictive measures on the reception of communion in a particular diocese would necessarily have implications for everyone.
The battle for human life and dignity, for the weakest and most vulnerable, must not be fought at the Communion rail, but in the public square, declared Cardinal McCarrick. It is a battle to win hearts and minds, which must be led in our pulpits and public advocacy. On the subject of refusal of Communion, the archbishop of Washington acknowledged that the Episcopal Conference is divided, with several bishops who are sincerely convinced of its necessity and many others who are against such action.
The Bishops conference has consulted moral theologians and canon lawyers, who have warned against such measures, which could raise serious questions on the subject of Catholic doctrine and the application of Canon law, he affirmed. There are no easy answers in the way in which the bishops have to maintain relations with politicians, said Cardinal McCarrick. The bishops must be political but not partisan when they express their teaching, and carry out their pastoral duties and their role as heads of the Church, by appealing to Catholic politicians responsibilities and reminding them of the moral values which are at stake. He wishes the bishops to have principles but not to be ideological, engaged but not used.
