The Kerry Affair: What Ratzinger Wanted from the American Bishops (Rome: "REFUSE Eucharist!")

(Italian Paper) L'espresso ^ | 3/7/04 | Sandro Magister

[Polycarp IV]

The Kerry Affair: What Ratzinger Wanted from the American Bishops
What he wanted, but didn’t get. In its entirety, the confidential note in which the prefect of the Holy Office establishes the principle of refusing communion to pro-abortion Catholic politicians

ROMA – Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, prefect of the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, was clear with Theodore Cardinal McCarrick, archbishop of Washington and the head of the “domestic policy” commission of the U.S. Catholic bishops’ conference. He was more than clear, he set it down in writing: no eucharistic communion for the politicians who systematically campaign for abortion.

Read: no communion for the Democratic candidate for the White House, the Catholic John F. Kerry.

Ratzinger’s memorandum is presented in its entirety below. It was sent as a confidential letter, during the first half of June, to cardinal McCarrick and to the president of the bishops’ conference, Wilton Gregory.

But the bishops of the United States made a different decision. After months of discussion, and after days of wrangling at their conference’s general assembly, held in Denver from June 14-19, they published a note entitled “Catholics in Political Life,” which leaves to each individual bishop the decision of whether or not to give communion to pro-abortion Catholic politicians.

The note was passed with 183 voted in favor and 6 against. During the previous weeks, out of 70 bishops who had expressed their opinion to the task force in charge of the matter, those against the idea of withholding communion had beaten those in favor by a margin of 3 to 1.

The question had been unleashed with Kerry’s nomination as the Democratic presidential candidate. Kerry is a professed Catholic and attends mass. But he is publicly aligned in favor of abortion, and in favor of other choices that go against Church doctrine. For this reason, some bishops stated that communion should be withheld from him. Particularly incendiary anti-Kerry comments came from the bishop of St. Louis, Raymond L. Burke, and of Colorado Springs, Michael J. Sheridan.

This provoked a highly spirited discussion, both within and outside of the Catholic Church. The bishops of the United States, who were coming to Rome in groups to meet with the pope for their periodical “ad limina” visits, came under pressure from the Vatican to be severe. But they also faced strong pressures – and justifications – from the other side.

The bishops’ judgments about Kerry were and are in harmony. It is no secret that he is a pronounced “secularist” on questions such as abortion, euthanasia, cloning, homosexuality, education, and the family. Louis Bolce and Gerald De Maio, professors of political science at City University of New York, published in the May 2004 edition of “First Things” a ranking of senators according to their degree of “secularism,” on a scale from 0 to 10. The Republican average is .95. The Democrat average is 8.9. Senator Kerry scored a round 10.

But what divides the bishops is what response they should give to “public unworthiness to receive Holy Communion,” as Ratzinger writes. The prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is wholly in favor of refusing the eucharist to Kerry and other politicians like him. Most of the American bishops are not.

Even many of the bishops and cardinals of “neoconservative” tendency are reluctant to censure publicly the Catholic politicians who are at odds with the Church.

One of these is the cardinal and theologian Avery Dulles. In June 29 interview with “Zenit”, he maintained that by denying them communion the Church exposes itself to the accusation of wanting to interfere in political life.

Another of these is cardinal Francis E. George, archbishop of Chicago. In an interview with John L. Allen of the “National Catholic Reporter,” he said that the limits that should be placed upon abortion within the realm of politics are “matters of prudential judgment about which there can be many discussions” even within the Church.

Cardinal McCarrick, speaking to the bishops gathered in Denver, made himself the spokesman of the concern “that the sacred nature of the Eucharist might be turned into a partisan political battleground.” The real battles, he said, “should be fought not at the Communion rail, but in the public square, in hearts and minds, in our pulpits and public advocacy, in our consciences and communities.”

McCarrick also told the assembly that he had had from the Holy See professions of their trust in the responsibility of the American bishops: thus they may judge whether the refusal of communion is a “pastorally wise and prudent” decision. But there is no trace of any such professions in Ratzinger’s memorandum.

In reading the two notes in parallel – the note of the prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and that of the bishops – the impression is one of a clear divergence.

But it must be noted that the rigorism of Ratzinger and the Holy See have for years lived side by side, in Italy and the rest of Europe, with a more flexible praxis, even at the highest levels of the Church.

On January 6, 2001, at the concluding mass of the Jubilee, John Paul II personally gave communion to Francesco Rutelli, a practicing Catholic and a premier center-left candidate for this year’s planned elections in Italy.

Rutelli had been, as a member of the Radical Party, one of the most active supporters of Italy’s abortion law, which is among the most permissive in the world. And he continued, as a Catholic, to maintain publicly “pro-choice” positions.

In Italy during the 1970’s, other left-wing politicians even more closely connected than Rutelli with the Catholic sector, such as Piero Pratesi and Raniero La Valle, had given strong support to the introduction of the abortion law. But they were never denied communion. It was never even discussed.

Europe is full of analogous cases. On the Old Continent during the last few decades, the Catholic Church has never faced, much less created, an affair like that of Kerry, which is typically American. What made the news in Europe, on account of its singular nonconformity, was a contrary case: the gesture of the strongly Catholic Baldovino of Belgium, who temporarily abdicated as king to avoid signing the abortion law. His gesture was completely spontaneous: no one in the Church’s hierarchy had asked him to do it.

Here, then, is Ratzinger’s previously unpublished memorandum, which he wrote in English expressly for the bishops’ conference of the United States:


Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion. General Principles

by Joseph Ratzinger


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 propoganda 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 individuals’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.

[N.B. A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favour of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.]

__________


The note approved by the U.S. bishops’ conference at their general assembly in Denver:

> Catholics in Political Life, June 18, 2004

The dossier of documents and commentaries made available to the bishops, at the same assembly:

> Interim Reflections of the Task Force on Catholic Bishops and Catholic Politicians


Avery Cardinal Dulles’ interview with “Zenit” on June 29, 2004:

> Cardinal Dulles on Communion and Pro-Abortion Politicians

The interview of Cardinal George conducted by John L. Allen of the “National Catholic Reporter”:

> European and American approaches to pro-choice politicians

The survey by Louis Bolce and Gerald De Maio in “First Things,” no. 143, May 2004:

> The Politics of Partisan Neutrality

The doctrinal note on Catholics and politics from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, dated January 16, 2003: 

> The Participation of Catholics in Political Life

__________

[Desdemona]

With Kerry, though, it's not just the life possitions, there's a lot of other things. He does not seem to understand charity in its most empirical form. He does not heed the call to treat others with dignity and respect. John Kerry is a pathetic excuse for a Catholic and it's about time somebody called him on it.

[HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity]

There are several different parts to this controversy bearing on Catholic teachings:

* The meaning and significance of Holy Communion (the Eucharist, real presence, sanctifying grace)
* The gravity and moral tragedy of abortion (the sanctity of each and every human soul)
* The reasons and guidelines governing Excommunication
* The authority of bishops
* The seriousness of the call to public witness for Christ required of all Catholics
* Responsibilities of Catholics in civic life
* The meaning of mortal sin and the grave seriousness of its consequences
* The meaning of "scandal"
* The meaning of no longer being in "full communion" with the Catholic Church and the types of public behavior which fall under this category
* The need for continued prayer and reparation for the grave evils of abortion in modern society

Chaput may have been right that this is a blessing in disguise. It may be that as well as a chastisement. There is a renewed call to holiness and vigilance underlying this. This is an opportunity for Evangelium Vitae to be proclaimed to the whole country.

[Desdemona]

I think this very much a blessing in disguise. That the concept of scandal and the teaching of examination of conscience have to be so explicitly defined says a lot about the state of the church after so many years of Amchurch "teaching."

[HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity]

Posted by Desdemona On News/Activism 07/03/2004 9:38:52 AM PDT #41 of 42 With Kerry, though, it's not just the life possitions, there's a lot of other things. He does not seem to understand charity in its most empirical form. He does not heed the call to treat others with dignity and respect. John Kerry is a pathetic excuse for a Catholic and it's about time somebody called him on it.

He's arrogant. Brazenly arrogant.

Someone really needs to point out the demonic cruelty and jaded insensitivity of people who promote abortion, partial-birth abortion, and slaughtering embryos for stem cells. It would almost seem a given that such people are habitual mortal sinners for their minds to be so dark and so blind. To live in such utter spiritual darkness...

[Salvation]

Bumping!

[fdcc]

Also bumping.

[Polycarp IV]

The schism has been simmering for a long time, but it sure seems to being coming to the boil now.

Pope Leo XIII's letter on Americanism:

CONCERNING NEW OPINIONS, VIRTUE, NATURE AND GRACE, WITH REGARD TO AMERICANISM

Testem Benevolentiae Nostrae

Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII promulgated on January 22, 1899.

What?!?

I thought all the trouble in the modern Church STARTED with VII and the Novus Ordo?

;-)

[Fedora]

Ping.

[Arthur McGowan]

Note the number of bishops in the U.S. who have made explicit statements that MISLEAD their people--those who have said that they are unwilling to impose a "penalty" or "use the Eucharist to punish people." As this document, which they have all seen, reminds them, refusing Communion to manifest sinners is not a penalty.

[Cicero]

As I said earlier, this completely contradicts their claim to be making a prudential judgment. They refuse to enforce a general principle because they say (with some plausibility) that cases differ. But then they make a SWEEPING GENERALIZATION themselves, that they will not refuse Communion to any politician whatsoever. Whatever happened to their claim about being prudential, or that cases differ?

Or do they only differ when it comes to following the rules and teachings of the Church, but not their own personal opinions?

[sinkspur]

But its also open schism.

No it's not. When Ratzinger makes this the official policy of the Church, in Europe and in Latin America, then it would be schismatic.

As of now, we have an Italian newspaper as the source, with a truly schismatic website parroting that same newspaper.

[Polycarp IV]

with a truly schismatic website parroting that same newspaper.

Catholic World News, sister website to Catholic World Report magazine, is truly schismatic ?

I'll assume you are confusing Catholic World News with Catholic Family News and withhold my withering barrage in your direction, pending your emerging from this senior moment ;-)

[sinkspur]

You are correct. I was mistaken.

However, the quotation is lifted entirely from the Italian newspaper.

I'd like to see another independent source.

[old and tired]

I'd also like to see another source for this letter. The bishops left themselves wiggle room when apparently Ratzinger left none. Over the years, I've considered McCarrick many things, but I've never thought him stupid.

[narses]

Polycarp says:

The USCCB voted 183 to 6 NOT to obey this clear definitive demand from Rome. (So what makes the American Catholic church any less schismatic than the SSPX?)

[narses]

He gave a press conference in a BAR last month. If that isn't arrogant, out of touch and stupid, I don't know what is.

[lrslattery]

When Ratzinger makes this the official policy of the Church, in Europe and in Latin America, then it would be schismatic.

As the Holy Father states in Ecclesia de Eucharistia (making it the official policy of the Church):

Along these same lines, the Catechism of the Catholic Church rightly stipulates that “anyone conscious of a grave sin must receive the sacrament of Reconciliation before coming to communion”. I therefore desire to reaffirm that in the Church there remains in force, now and in the future, the rule by which the Council of Trent gave concrete expression to the Apostle Paul's stern warning when it affirmed that, in order to receive the Eucharist in a worthy manner, “one must first confess one's sins, when one is aware of mortal sin”.

The judgment of one's state of grace obviously belongs only to the person involved, since it is a question of examining one's conscience. However, in cases of outward conduct which is seriously, clearly and steadfastly contrary to the moral norm, the Church, in her pastoral concern for the good order of the community and out of respect for the sacrament, cannot fail to feel directly involved. The Code of Canon Law refers to this situation of a manifest lack of proper moral disposition when it states that those who “obstinately persist in manifest grave sin” are not to be admitted to Eucharistic communion.

[NYer]

Rome HAS spoken.

Thanks for posting this to the News/Activism Forum!

And so has Archbishop Raymond Burke!

"In other words, for the Catholic politician to receive Communion when he or she has publicly violated the moral law in a grave matter like procured abortion risks leading others into thinking that they can accept procured abortion with a right conscience. In such a case, if the Catholic politician does not recognize the lack of the proper disposition to receive Communion, then the church herself must refuse the sacrament, in order to safeguard the worthy reception of the sacrament and to prevent a serious scandal among the faithful."
Catholic politicians and bishops

Catholic Ping - let me know if you want on/off this list

[Coleus]

Democrats Secret Weapon - How American Bishops Kept Abortion Legal for Thirty Years

Catholic Bishops'Conference Employs Pro-abortion Kerry Supporter in High-Ranking Position

Archbishop Raymond Burke - "Voting for candidate who backs abortion a sin"

Bishop Burke Says USCCB Can't Force Him to Back Down from Refusing Communion to Abortion Supporters

Kerry: Abortion, HELL is a Reality and we are Free to Choose it, Bishop Samuel J. Aquila, Fargo

CCHD-Catholic Campaign for Human Development (...for Helping Democrats)

Wishy-Washy Statements by Catholic Bishops on Abortion and Voting Leading to Scandal

Three Catholic Bishops Refuse to Take Action on Pro-Abortion Catholic Politicians

U.S. Bishops' Task Force to Discuss Pro-Abortion Politicians In Wake of Card. Arinze's Comments

Rome Says No Communion for Pro-Abortion Catholics; Time for U.S. Bishops to Take the Next Step

Bishops Take on Pro-Abortion Legislators

Why do Catholic Bishops promote & aid pro-abortion, pro-homosexual Senator Gil Cedillo?

Bishops Hiding Behind Curtains [Re: pro-abortion Catholic politicians)