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

__________

[Romulus]

(So what makes the American Catholic church any less schismatic than the SSPX?)

What a stupid and evil thing to say. Apart from the fact that tu quoque is no defense, it's literally diabolical to seek to advance one's case by adverting to the sinfulness of one's opponent. Your foul and satanic subtext is that sinful men have no business proclaiming the truth. This is precisely how the slavery of sin takes hold: the weak and foolish are tempted to despair at the thought of their personal sinfulness and how far short it falls of the truth of God they're charged to uphold.

[Polycarp IV]

(So what makes the American Catholic church any less schismatic than the SSPX?)

What a stupid and evil thing to say. Apart from the fact that tu quoque is no defense, it's literally diabolical to seek to advance one's case by adverting to the sinfulness of one's opponent.

Please don't attack Narses for this quote above, Romulus. He was quoting me. I asked this rhetorical question, not Narses, and I'm no apologist for the SSPX. I was simply pointing out that we ften attack the trads when our own USCCB seems even more schismatic at this point than the SSPX.

So how about I offer a little levity?

This was forwarded to me by an excellent priest from Brooklyn NY:

Communion Advice from the Archdiocese of L.A.

I figured that you would appreciate this one. It is from a blog called "Dyspeptic Mutterings" run by one Dale Price.

http://dprice.blogspot.com/2004_06_01_dprice_archive.html#108783089645150 069

Posted Monday, June 21, 2004 by Dale

Letters to the Editor of The Tidings, June 28, 2004.

Dear Sir: Despite the Cardinal's recent statement that no one would be refused Communion in the Archdiocese, I would appreciate some guidance on the following:

On Sunday, June 27, a man presented himself for the Eucharist at our parish. In his right hand, he held a severed head. In his left, a blood-caked machete. He received Communion from Fr. Hailfellow. Was this correct?

Editor:

Your situation is indeed a delicate and, sadly, recurring one.

According to the Diocesan Liturgy Office, he was indeed entitled to receive, but he should be carefully catechized so that the next time, he receives in the hand as a sign of unity with the rest of the gathered community.

[B Knotts]

I don't think he's necessarily trying to "advance his cause" there...several of us who are not advocates of SSPX have wondered aloud about the same thing.

The question is: when some U.S. bishops are at least as disobedient to Rome as SSPX, what makes one schismatic and the other not? Granted, there was a formal document regarding SSPX...this is more of a philosophical question.

Then consider the subject matter: one wishes to celebrate a particular version of the valid Roman Rite, without proper permission. The other apparently wishes to downplay a central teaching of the Church. Which is worse?

This is not to accuse all U.S. bishops of schism...it is simply to say that we have at least a few, and possibly more than a few, who are not doing their job.

[ninenot]

Another authoritative look at the question you raised.

This one's a little less formal than Abp Burke's statement in America magazine--but has exactly the same reasoning and logic, including addressing the 'formal/informal/remote' question.

Hope that it satisfies your curiosity.

[ninenot]

Thanks!!! Most interesting. The last two graphs also clarify the Church's position on 'voting for pro-abort' people like GWB and Hutchinson, I suppose.

[ninenot]

then let R. force McC to back down

Ummm, how do you suppose that this "secret" letter got to the Italian press?

[ninenot]

When I see Ratzinger's letter in some other venue than an Italian newspaper, I'll concur.

Perhaps you'd like R. to CC you by Fedex?

[getmeouttaPalmBeachCounty_FL]

I wonder how little he tithes to the Church.

[ninenot]

Actually, Poly, the whole CHURCH started with V.II, if you believe certain clergy and Bishops.

Testem Ben. was really addressed to the then-Apb. of St Paul/Minneapolis, who was an Irishman absolutely devoted to the nascent schism of Americanism.

Bernardin and his ilk are merely the (rotten) fruits of this tree, planted well back in the 1800's.

Not all that different from the progression of Dimowits from FDR to Clinton.

[ninenot]

Over the years, I've considered McCarrick many things, but I've never thought him stupid.

Satan isn't stupid either. But he lies VERY well.

[narses]

What a stupid and evil thing to say

Stupid? I don't think so. The USCCB regularly lies to and disobeys Rome. I am no theologian or canon liar, but I sort of get the idea of schism, and when Rome said apply Canon 915 and 90+% of the US Bishop's said NO, well, if that is NOT schism, maybe we need a new word. Nor is this new. Review the history of the Indult, not the Tridentine one but the Communion in the hand Indult. Try the history of Altar girls. Rome said NO! The USCCB went right ahead anyhow. As for EVIL, well if calling disobedient and geretical Bishops schismatic is EVIL, then the word needs redefinition.

[old and tired]

Satan isn't stupid either. But he lies VERY well.

That's exactly why I'm not sure this letter is real. Maybe McCarrick just doubted that the actual letter would ever leak out. If that's the case, and this letter is authentic, then he's a moron in addition to being a liar.

[ninenot]

The document has the style of Ratzinger, albeit just a little less formal than his typical style. Of course, that could be due to the fact that he's writing to brother Bishops, rather than a general audience.

And the leak has the imprint of 'romanita' about it. R. writes a letter which is flagrantly ignored, and he knows that this compromises the Church's teaching on both the Eucharist and on abortion (mutatis mutandis.)

R. cannot let this pass unremarked, but he also cannot directly call the US Bishops a bunch of temporizing, ah, fibbers. After all, there are at least 6 who are NOT temporizing fibbers...

So the letter magically appears in the hands of an Italian journalist.

Let's pursue another logic-path. Why would an Italian journalist (or anyone ELSE) create a logical and concise statement of the Church's clear teaching and print it?

Cui Bono? as they say...

This letter was leaked for the edification of the Faithful, such as Polycarp, Sinky, and the rest. NOT for the Bishops (except the faithful 6) and NOT for the Democrats--and not for the Republicans (because it was leaked in Italy.)

[broadsword]

The USCCB regularly lies to and disobeys Rome. I am no theologian or canon liar, but I sort of get the idea of schism, and when Rome said apply Canon 915 and 90+% of the US Bishop's said NO, well, if that is NOT schism, maybe we need a new word. Nor is this new. Review the history of the Indult, not the Tridentine one but the Communion in the hand Indult. Try the history of Altar girls. Rome said NO! The USCCB went right ahead anyhow. As for EVIL, well if calling disobedient and geretical Bishops schismatic is EVIL, then the word needs redefinition.

Well put, but some thoughts, however true, are just so terrifyingly ugly that folks just refuse to consider them.

Lord deliver us from the mitered wolves in your sheepfold.

[Romulus]

Are you going to make me repeat myself?

Very well: you cannot make your case by calling attention to the blunders or even malice of your opponent.

The regrettable fact that the AmChurch hierarchy is timid or disobedient does not and can not confer any legitimacy upon the Lefebvrite schism.

[Romulus]

He was quoting me

Indeed, and in my haste I overlooked that. But in quoting your text and bolding it, he associates himself with the remarks and makes them his own. I don't seek a quarrel with either of you. Though I don't post as frequently as many on this board, I hope you realise that my sympathy is with the traditional Latin rite, which I attend at home and as often as possible when away from home. Nevertheless I accept the licitness of the NO, even while finding it unlovely, badly flawed, and practically inviting liturgical innovation and ad libs.

I stand by my remark, that it's "diabolical" in the strict and literal sense of the word, to make one's way by accusing others of sin.

God knows that I grieve over the treachery and evil of those working from within to hollow out the sacraments and redefine the Church and man. I hope I have never shilled for these time-serving frauds, but continue to insist that a cynical and deceitful rebellion cannot justify one that's reactive and embittered.

You make an excellent point in asking whether the AmChurch bishops aren't every bit as schismatic, but Narses wrongs you in appropriating those words to bolster his own defective cause.

[Romulus]

Then consider the subject matter: one wishes to celebrate a particular version of the valid Roman Rite, without proper permission. The other apparently wishes to downplay a central teaching of the Church. Which is worse?

The latter of course -- until the former group moved to consecrate its own bishops. It's that act of overt schism that placed the SSPX on a level every bit as bad as the worst of the AmChurch trimmers. This is not to impugn their love and reverence for the Trad rite, which it's well know I prefer myself. Their undoing as I hope you'll agree is in refusing to accept the humiliation and suffering that sometimes accompany obedience. To reject this mystery of suffering seems spiritually defective.

[B Knotts]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not an SSPX adherent; far from it. My total exposure to the Traditional Latin Mass is two indult Masses in the past year. I find that I do prefer it, but I belong to a parish that is more or less in my community, such as it is, and we have a very good priest who is cleaning things up, so I attend the Missa Normativa. Still, I pray for a universal indult, regardless of what the naysayers say.

I just can't help noting that there is schism "within" the Church which is at least as bad, in most aspects, as that which has been formally recognized.

That said, there are some possible, if unlikely, reasons why bishops may have voted for this language, even if they did not actually agree with it.

[B Knotts]

As if to make my point, this article is posted right on cue:

More goings on at St. Joan of Arc parish

Don't miss their "gay pride" float:

GLBT Pride/Twin Cities Presents the 2004 Community Pride Award to Church of St. Joan of Arc

Now, if that ain't schism, I don't know what is.