PRO-ABORTION CATHOLIC POLITICIANS:
ANOTHER APPROACH
By Charles M.
Wilson
Only one thing has scandalized and infuriated
faithful Catholics more than the spectacle of politicians
identifying themselves as Catholic while running for office and
then proceeding to promote the killing of innocent preborn
children. That one thing is to see these proabortion Catholic
politicians suffering little or no public reproach from Church
leaders for their wrongdoing. To add insult to injury, they
sometimes even received awards such as honorary degrees from
Catholic institutions while ecclesiastical authorities looked the
other way or sometimes even joined in the festivities. My purpose
here is not to repeat the details of this scandal, which you
already know only too well. Instead, I would like to discuss the
recent action taken by the thenbishop of La Crosse, Wisconsin,
Most Rev. Raymond Burke, the full text of which appears in "Straws
in the Wind."
After Roe V. Wade
On the infamous day of January 22, 1973, the U.S.
Supreme Court struck down state laws protecting the lives of
living but yet unborn humans. It was almost sixteen years later,
on November 15, 1989, before a Catholic bishop would take explicit
action against a Catholic politician who supported abortion. The
late Bishop Leo T. Maher, then bishop of San Diego notified
Democratic Assembly woman Lucy Killea that she was being denied
Communion due to the "pro-choice" position she had taken in her
campaign for a seat in the California Senate. Killea, of course,
sanctimoniously assumed the role of a martyr for the principle of
separation of church and state and narrowly
defeated her opponent. Sadly, there is no record of any other
California bishop giving public support to Bishop Maher. (See
“Maher’s Moment: A look back at Bishop Maher’s Denial of Communion
to A Pro-Abortion Politician,” by Robert Kumpall in San Diego News
Notes, January 2004) Indeed, I recall reports that Killea
continued to receive communion while in the state capital with the
knowledge and implicit approval of the then-bishop of Sacramento,
Most Rev. Francis A. Quinn. In view of what happened to Bishop
Maher, Catholic bishops in the United States apparently chose not
to suffer a similar fate. One exception was Bishop Fabian
Bruskewitz of Lincoln, Nebraska, who on March 19, 1996 promulgated
a diocesan law providing that Catholics of the diocese who
attained or retained membership in fourteen named organizations
after a certain date would incur the latae sententiae
(automatic) penalty of excommunication. Three of these
organizations were pro-abortion, but the law did not mention
pro-abortion politicians. Until Bishop Burke issued his
Notification last November 23, I could find no record of any other
express public act by a bishop against a pro-abortion Catholic
politician. In fairness, though, I would acknowledge that some
bishops made private approaches to politicians and some made
public comments, as in the case of the Bishop of Sacramento
concerning ex-governor Gray Davis or the strong words of support
from Arch-bishop Hughes of New Orleans. There will no doubt be
others between the time that this article is written and the time
that it reaches our readers.
Canon 915
Both Bishop Maher’s action against Lucy Killea and Bishop
Burke’s Notification that "Catholic legislators, who are members
of the Diocese of La Crosse and who continue to support procured
abortion or euthanasia may not present themselves to receive Holy
Communion" are based on canon 915, which states:
Those upon whom the penalty of excommunication or interdict
has been imposed or declared, and others who obstinately persist
in manifest grave sin, are not to be admitted to Holy Communion.
Bishop Maher took a lot of heat over the Killea affair,
including some from Catholic pro-lifers who were worried that his
action might not be canonically legal. A prominent American
canonist, Dr. Edward N. Peters, addressed this issue in his
article that appeared in the October 1990 issue
of Homiletic and Pastoral
Review. In his words, "if it was legal, his courageous stand
has done pre-born children and Church teaching a great service;
but if it was illegal, his blunder could embarrass pro-life
efforts for months, perhaps years." A copy of the complete article
can be obtained from Dr. Peters’ web site at http:/mywebpages.comcast.net/expeter.
One of the key points made by Peters is that denial of the
Eucharist is a very serious act that must be carried out in
ac-cord with the norm of law. One way would be by imposition of an
expiatory penalty or by the censure of interdict or
ex-communication either automatically
(latae sententiae) -
if the law allows - or by a penal process
(ferendae sententiae).
The penal process requires that the accused be notified and
afforded an opportunity for defense, which includes a right to
counsel. If the process results in the infliction of a penalty, an
appeal immediately suspends its effects, although the ordinary
could extend the denial to prevent scandal, as authorized by canon
1722. It is obvious that there was no penal process in the Killea
case and, in fact, Bishop Maher said explicitly that she was not
excommunicated.
The other way a member of the faithful could be denied
reception of Holy Communion is the application of canon 915. This
canon allows denial of the Eucharist but not the denial of other
sacraments. Since there is no canonical penalty, the
technicalities of the penal process do not apply, nor do the
canonical requirements for the remission of the penalty once the
offender repents. As stated in Bishop Burke’s Notification, a
public renunciation of support for abortion and euthanasia would
suffice.
If the 1917 Code of Canon Law was still in force, it might be
argued that reception of the Eucharist could not have been denied
in accordance with canon 915 (canon 855 in the 1917 Code) without
observing penal procedure. As Peters notes, a penalty was broadly
defined by canon 2215 of the 1917 Code as "the privation of some
good" (privatio
alicuius boni) and that it was thus arguable that denial of
reception of the Eucharist without a penal process was itself a
violation of law. However, there is no canon corresponding to
canon 2215 in the 1983 Code and it would appear that both Bishop
Maher and Bishop Burke acted within the law. As a distinguished
canonist in his own right, Bishop Burke was undoubtedly aware of
this and the deftness with which he handled the issue is testimony
to his skill.
Dr. Peter’s conclusion could apply to both Bishop Maher
and Archbishop Burke: “Canon 915, located within the Code’s
regulation of the sacraments, is neither a penal nor a procedural
canon. As such, I can see no canonical basis for interject-ing
a formal judicial or administrative penal procedure into
the operation of canon 915.” I think that one would be hard
pressed to find a canonist who would insist otherwise.
In passing, I believe that the “canon 2215”
argument might still be applied to the privation of some benefit
other than reception of the Eucharist; but that is an issue to be
discussed at another time. Canon 915 vs. Canonical Penalties
In addition to the procedural differences
already noted, the effects of “canon 915 denials” of reception of
the Eucharist (hereafter denials) are fairly narrow in scope in
contrast to the effects of penalties.
As we have seen, a denial concerns only
reception of the sacrament of the Eucharist. A declared or imposed
interdict would, for example, also prohibit any ministerial role
in any ceremony of public worship and the reception of any sacrament.
In addition to these effects, a declared or imposed excommunication
would prohibit the exercise of any ecclesiastical
ministries or functions, the benefit from privileges already
granted, the assumption of any dignity or other function in
the Church and the enjoyment of the benefits of any dignity,
function or pension held in the Church. There are other effects
pertaining to the assumption or exercise of ecclesiastical office
but I did not include them because pro-abortion Catholic politicians
have been and are, with the exception of Fr. Robert
Drinan, S.J., members of the laity.
Another very important difference between denials and
penalties has to do with territory. Generally speaking, the effects
of a denial stop at the boundaries of the diocese while
the effects of a penalty stick with the offender wherever he or
she goes. That is why Lucy Killea could legally receive Holy Communion whenever
she was outside the boundaries of the diocese of San Diego. Thus,
if Senator John Kerry should realize his political ambitions and
the archbishop of Boston denies
him the reception of the Eucharist, he could still receive
in Washington unless Cardinal McCarrick took similar action.
Then he could cross the Potomac and receive unless the
bishop of Arlington also denied him.
One advantage that a denial would have over a penalty is
that an appeal would not suspend its effects. There is no question that one who
is the object of denial could appeal, the denial would remain in
force until the competent authority modifies or revokes it.
Where do we go from here?
Frankly, I’m not quite sure. While I heartily
applaud what he did in La Crosse, it remains to be seen what
Archbishop Burke will do in St. Louis. The fact that the
archbishop recently
said that if presidential aspirant Senator John Kerry approached to receive
Communion, he would give him a blessing but not the sacrament is
encouraging. It also remains to be seen if any other U.S. bishops
will take similar action or even if they will take any action at
all. Certainly, all of us would hope and pray that more will.
Despite the relative simplicity of issuing a denial, I would also
hope and pray that bishops will consider the option of using a
penal process. Its course would surely be more demanding; but the
results would be worth it, especially in the case of the more
prominent and notorious
offenders. My belief is that most of these people are,
for all practical purposes, apostates. The only reason they
bother to call themselves Catholics is that they believe that will gain them votes and I doubt that a denial will cause them
any concern. It didn’t seem to bother Lucy Killea or any of the
Wisconsin politicians that were the object of Bishop Burke’s
Notification. And when Archbishop Burke stated that he
would refuse Communion to John Kerry, the Senator simply
shrugged it off as a difference of opinion. The imposition of canonical penalty would be a clear sign that the Church takes
the matter of abortion very seriously and those Catholic politicians
who promote or facilitate the killing of the unborn
would, as a result of their own choice, face grave consequences.
In a previous article, “’Pro-Choice’ Catholic Politicians and
the Law,” which appeared in the October 18, 2002 issue CHRISTIFIDELIS, I discussed the application of ecclesiastical
penalties. In the same issue, I announced that the Foundation
had prepared a “generic” denunciation package, which something like those “do it yourself” legal forms that we see
on the magazine racks at the supermarket. It is available anyone who wishes to denounce a politician to his or her
bishop. It would be up to the individual to collect the evidence
but that package will make the preparation of the rest
of the denunciation much easier.
The possibility of a denial of reception of the Eucharist was
not included in the package for several reasons. Because Archbishop Burke’s up-front use of canon 915, we have
amended the package to include that possibility. The com-plete
package includes canonical observations and a cover let-ter.
Since the observations take up six pages, I can only show
you the revised cover letter.
Your [Eminence or Excellency] or Dear Cardinal
or Bishop: I write to bring to your attention statements and actions
by [Name of candidate or holder of office] that call
into question his [or her] commitment to the Church’s
teaching on the matter of procured abortion. I hereby
petition you to investigate his [or her] conduct in accord
with the norms of c. 1717, §1. This petition is supported
by the enclosed evidence and canonical observations,
which are hereby made a part hereof and which I believe
would support the commencement of a penal process or
the employment of other means of special pastoral care.
The latter might include a denial of reception of the Eucharist
according to the provision of canon 915. If in
your judgement a penal process is called for, then I respectfully suggest that a
judicial process be invoked in accord with c. 1718, §1, 3º so that
the rights of the accused
will be properly protected.
As I am sure you are aware, the fact that the laws of
the United States no longer affords sufficient protection
to the lives of the unborn has caused great anguish to
faithful Catholics. It is the cause of even greater anguish
that this tragic state of affairs was brought about and is
permitted to continue by the actions of judges, legislators and other elected officials who claim to be Catholic
and whose failure to give witness to her teachings seems
to have been ignored by the Church.
My hope that this petition will open the way to clarify
and uphold the teaching of the Church and to call “Pro-choice”
Catholics to accept and live by that teaching is
shared by many members of the faithful of the
[Arch]Diocese of [N.]. Some of them have mandated me
to act as lawful procurator so that this petition will be-come
theirs as well. Others will indicate in other ways
their support and encouragement.
The letter and observations can easily be
changed to accommodate particular situations. If you would like a
copy of “’Pro-Choice’ Catholic Politicians and the Law” and the canonical
observations, please contact our office and we will be
happy to send them to you. We would also be happy to assist
anyone who wishes to request an investigation of the conduct
of a particular individual.
Conclusions
The community simply cannot afford to take no notice of those
who reject sharing the Church’s mission or refuse the call to
Christian witness in a significant way.
Thomas J. Green, J.C.D.
This quotation is taken from The Code of Canon Law: A
Text and Commentary, produced by the Canon Law Society
of American and published by Paulist Press in 1985. I have
used it many times and will surely use it again. The community
has taken almost no meaningful notice of pro-abortion
Catholic politicians for thirty-one years and the price has in-deed
been more than we can afford. It is not terribly important
whether our bishops decide to use canon 915 or the penal
canons in confronting the problem; but doing nothing was,
and still is, not a rational option.
Here and there, we can see some signs that our
bishops may be starting to think about doing something. Unlike the
heroic but hapless Bishop Maher, Archbishop Burke has received
some verbal support from his colleagues. What would
really help are some more denials and announcements that
penal processes are going to be directed at specific individuals.
The Saint Joseph Foundation is prepared to assist members
of the faithful in doing whatever they can to bring this
about.
|
