Phil Lawler at Catholic Culture reviews the willingness of most of our bishops to give pro-abort Catholic politicians a pass:
That debate, as practiced by American Catholics, was not always about Biden specifically. There was John Kerry before him, and Geraldine Ferraro behind that, and the same question has been asked regarding Nancy Pelosi and the late Ted Kennedy and many other Catholic politicians. But Biden himself has been the main topic at least since 2008.
That year, you may recall, Biden was candidate for the vice-presidency. When he visited Florida on the campaign trail, Bishop John Ricard of Pensacola issued an open letter reminding him that “all must examine their consciences as to their worthiness to receive the Body and Blood of our Lord. This examination includes fidelity to the moral teaching of the Church…” Lest Biden or any other reader fail to grasp the point, Bishop Ricard pointed to the senator’s “profound disconnection from your human and personal obligation to protect the weakest and most innocent among us: the child in the womb.”
Notice that Bishop Ricard did not forbid Biden from receiving the Eucharist, much less instruct priests to turn him away from Communion. He merely asked the candidate—as the Catholic bishops of the US have asked all candidates, and as perennial Church teaching has asked all Catholics—to make an examination of conscience before approaching the Blessed Sacrament.
But a few weeks later, when Biden was the vice-president-elect, another Florida prelate, Bishop Robert Lynch of St. Petersburg, said plainly that pro-abortion politicians should not be barred from Communion. In a revealing blog post, Bishop Lynch said that he took that position because “one keeps open a dialogue with the Joe Bidens of the world.”
And how has the dialogue worked out? Twelve years later Biden is just as firmly committed to legal, tax-subsidized abortion on demand. Yet the “profound disconnection” that Bishop Ricard spotted in 2008 is even more evident today. In the intervening years Biden has also embraced the cause of same-sex marriage—even officiating at one such union—vowed to rescind the legal protection extended by the Trump administration to the Little Sisters of the Poor, and now chosen a running-mate who views membership in the Knights of Columbus as subversive activity.
The Catholic bishops who say that Biden should still be allowed to receive Communion—and they are, apparently, still the majority in the US bishops’ conference—argue that it is wrong to politicize the Eucharist. That is certainly true. But when the issue of Communion has been politicized—by a candidate who trumpets his Catholic faith, who runs advertisements about the inspiration he receives from that faith—how should prudent bishops react?
Go here to read the rest. Then Cardinal Razinger answered this question sixteen years ago:
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 judgment 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.
Go here to read the rest. That the letter quickly became a dead letter, mostly due to the actions of the addressee of the letter Cardinal McCarrick, is only one of endless betrayals that faithful Catholics have come to expect from the men at the helm of Mother Church. Catholicism hasn’t failed, it simply has endlessly been betrayed by those who are paid to preach, teach and defend the Faith.
“Not to oppose error is to approve it; and not to defend truth is to suppress it; and indeed to neglect to confound evil men, when we can do it, is no less a sin than to encourage them.” — Pope St. Felix III
Don’t forget Bishop Lynch was involved in the Terri Schivo death.
From 2016, “When my family pleaded for simple advocacy,” Bobby Schindler continued, “or for simply a public acknowledgment that it was wrong to deprive my sister of food and water, Bishop Lynch instead offered weak platitudes that served to endorse an estranged husband’s death wish for his wife. Michael Schiavo had not only abandoned his marital promise to Terri, ‘in sickness and health,’ but he had estranged himself from her and our family by living and having children with another woman. For any faithful Catholic, it was plain to see that Michael was living in an adulterous relationship—while at the same time actively seeking to end his wife’s life. For Bishop Lynch, however, these realities were of no consequence.”
“I’ll never forget one of his boldest statements, issued in the weeks leading up to my sister’s death,” Schindler continued. “He didn’t call for mercy for Terri, or for the continuation of basic care, but, unbelievably, for my family and those fighting for my sister to ‘step back a little and allow some mediation in these final hours’ with those seeking to end my sister’s life. They were only her ‘final hours’ because men like him regarded her right to life as negotiable rather than absolute. It remains a spiritual struggle for me to come to terms with what this man did and failed to do as my bishop during the most brutal years in my sister’s life.”
One has to wonder whether the issue is merely “presenting oneself for communion” or is it really one of openly committing a “sacrilege” and then the issue also becomes one of a priest knowingly cooperating in the sacrilege? Then again, one has to wonder of the sins of the many bishops who remain silent while such sacrilege takes place under their watch?
It’s a pleasant surprise when you locate a bishop who isn’t a worthless church-o-crat.
The “let’s keep an open dialogue rather than exclude anyone” is a fine pastoral approach, but how many decades do you give it before trying something else? Has there been a single Catholic politician who has gone from pro-abortion to pro-life?
The classic definition of insanity comes to mind. Unless they don’t want a different outcome…
The “let’s keep an open dialogue rather than exclude anyone” is a fine pastoral approach,
Actually it isn’t. It suggests you’re a political gamesman.
What we learned after 1966 (certainly after 1976) that the nominal Catholics active in the Democratic Party who were actually influenced by Catholic moral teaching were a minority whose share of Democratic legislative caucuses was in a state of secular decline. I seem to recall John LaFalce ca. 1988 got about sixty Democrats in Congress to sign on to a letter appealing to other Democrats to not be ‘the party of abortion’. By the time the haggling over Obamacare was underway, there were about two-dozen Democrats in Congress who were working against the abortion license. The last time a Democratic candidate for president criticized the abortion license was in 1992. The last time anyone running was actually in favor of legislative measures against it was in 1984 (and that candidate – Reuben Askew – sank without a trace).
Someone who actually was repelled by the abortion license would run as a Republican, agitate against it in Democratic caucuses, or stick to public offices where it wasn’t at issue. People who run for public office, however, tend to be inveterate careerists. No point in having a dialogue with them; the only thing that gets them to listen is arguments bishops shouldn’t make.
McCarrick isn’t the only one to blame here. Even the so-called “orthodox” bishops were pretty much silent on that letter because of the explicit language regarding the legitimacy of the death penalty.
But yet, Lawler doesn’t seem to concerned about that.
Too, not to.
It’s not just that they’re “paid” to preach, teach and defend the Faith. Being paid to do something is a very low secular obligation. Priests, deacons, and bishops operate on a much higher level. They are ordained to preach, teach, and defend the Faith. Presumably some kind of vow goes along with ordination. Ordained men who fail to live up to their obligations should be laicized.
It should be noted that one of the reasons the Protestant revolt succeeded so well was the lack of knowledgeable and dedicated Bishops in the Roman Church. Yet, it still took almost forty years before Trent got that point across.
Priests, deacons, and bishops operate on a much higher level.
Would that this were true. It would be refreshing if most of them simply exercised the simple honesty of a plumber or an electrician I hire.