Politics with Marc Ambinder

« Did The Chinese Watch Obama's Town Hall? | Main | Rep. Dennis Moore Retires; A Chance For The GOP »

Nov 23 2009, 8:11 am by Chris Good

Question Of The Day: Communion

Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-RI) says that Bishop Thomas J. Tobin has forbidden him from receiving communion because he supports abortion rights. Is this the right thing for bishops to do, given the church's views on abortion, or an unnecessary political statement?

:: Comments (18) :: Share This

Comments (18)

Pineview1997

Unnecessary. Clearly.

What's next, denying communion to politicians that are in favor of the death penalty? Sheesh.

torourke (Replying to: Pineview1997)

The Church's position on the death penalty is not quite the same as its position on abortion. Abortion is an intrinsic evil and cannot be allowed under any circumstances, as it always involves the deliberate destruction of an innocent human being. The Church frowns on the death penalty, but has not placed it in the realm of an intrinsic evil. It recognizes that in some cases, the death penalty may be necessary to protect other human beings from harm. Pope JPII said that in the modern state, with its ability to protect society from the most dangerous of criminals, the death penalty's use should be rare if not practically non-existent. Nevertheless, the Church has not placed the death penalty among the category of intrinsic evils. This might seem like inside baseball, but it matters a great deal when deciding how to deal with politicians taking public stands on certain policy issues.

jackson93

Unnecessary and inappropriate.
People who commit a multitude of sins and/or hold beliefs contrary to the church's are still allowed to receive communion and the other sacraments. Murders, rapists, people who support the death penalty, people who use contraception, people who support war, child molesters are allowed to receive communion. Refusing communion is a rare and extreme penalty.

Jesus reached out to the worse public sinners. He welcomed them to his table and had empathy for them. He knew it was easier to change their hearts using positive actions. He also was able to and taught other to forgive, even if the person had not asked for forgiveness. The Bishop's actions here do not follow Jesus's model.

Singling out politicians (and notably only politicians) makes the bishop's act a political one, not a religious one - it's an act concerned with american politics not an act concerned for kennedy's soul. Acts like that should raise eyebrows about the church's tax exempt status.

jb (Replying to: jackson93)

While I concur with much of what you said what makes Kennedy and other politicians different is...

1. They have routinely made public statements backing abortion rights. It is not just a belief that the hold, it is something they have campaigned on in violation of their Church.

2. They have the power to change things more in line with the Church and have failed to do so, and in fact have gone against the Church.

If Kennedy and others are so opposed to what their Church is doing then they should seek a different place to worship.

jackson93 (Replying to: jb)

Other politicians are outspoken about other issues about which the church has a very firm stance, like the death penalty for example. Politicians who support the death penalty and who have campaign on the death penalty are not targeted like this.
Mass murders who have been convicted of murder (thus their crime is publicly known) can receive communion and other sacraments like last rites. Priests who abused their power and violated church law by molesting children are allowed to receive communion.

This bishop and a few others are very specifically targeting abortion and only abortion as the deciding issue about whether or not someone should receive communion. Again refusing someone communion is not common - it is an extreme move. The church is not only for people who follow the religion perfectly. If that was the case, the catholic church would have no members. The church is not a club where perfect people gather to congratulate themselves. it is a place where flawed human beings go to find peace and to find the strength to cope with life and the inspiration to become a better person.

Also, I would go out on a limb and say that most catholics disagree with church teachings on a few things. Some people may believe that women should be allowed to be priests or that priests should be allowed to marry or that contraception shouldn't be forbidden or that evolution is real. Most people don't throw out their religion just because they don't agree with it 100%. Patrick Kennedy is pro-choice, and he disagrees with his church about this issue. It doesn't mean that he rejects the church as a whole .

jb (Replying to: jackson93)

I am not Catholic, but trust me the Catholic Church is NOT a democracy. If you don't like it leave it. It is what Luther did.

My understanding is that abortion is considered to be a mortal sin. Again, it is not so much what Kennedy believes, but that he advocates against the Church that puts him at a whole different level.

jackson93 (Replying to: jackson93)

responding to jb

I am a Catholic. I went to Catholic schools for 20 years - pre-school,grammar school, high school, and college. I was raised in an Irish Catholic community on Chicago's southwest side.

Within Catholicism there are parishioners, scholars, priests, and nuns that publicly and privately disagree with some the church's teachings, may have a different interpretation of teachings, or may disagree with the way some beliefs or teachings are put into action. Pope Benedict and Bishop Tobin may not like it, but the reality is that the Catholic Church is not a monolith.

torourke (Replying to: jackson93)

Actually, mass murderers cannot receive Communion if they have not confessed their crimes and made sufficient atonement. And the Church treats the death penalty as different from abortion, because the latter is intrinsically evil, and as such can never be justified. Killing an innocent human being and executing a convicted first-degree murdered are obviously not the same thing, and the church puts them in slightly different categories even as they are opposed to both.

In 1962, Archbishop Joseph Rummel excommunicated--not just denied communion--three Catholics who refused to abide by his order to integrate the New Orleans school system. I wonder how many people who rail against the Church and suggest its tax-exempt status needs to be reconsidered would argue with Rummel's actions.

And the last paragraph is just silly. How on earth is the priest supposed to know which Catholic toes the line on which issue? The public nature of the politician's job and the gravity of their decisions makes the stakes much higher. But even there, the bishop or priest almost always contacts the politician privately and seeks to settle the matter without anything becoming public. Such was the case with Congressman Kennedy until he made it public.

jackson93 (Replying to: jackson93)

torourke

i take your point about the different levels of sin. i would also note that not every person who has been executed has been guilty. innocent people have been killed by capital punishment.

my understanding is that procuring/performing an abortion is a mortal sin. i think how grave of a sin kennedy has committed is debatable. he has not performed nor received an abortion. he has supported policy which allow abortion to be legal. one may argue that is an equivalent to procuring but is it?

women have free will to decide whether or not to have an abortion, and women will have abortions even if abortion is not legal. kennedy doesn't make that decision for them. so, considering the gradations of sin, i am not sure he has sinned to the same degree that someone directly involved with an abortion has.

(of course, as I am not God, it is not my place to decide who is a sinner or to what extent a person has sinned.)

As for Archbishop Rummel, while I appreciate his dedication for social justice in that situation, I just don't love the idea of using religion or faith as a to punish people. That's just a thing I have.

torourke (Replying to: jackson93)

jackson93,

You could argue the same about any law. People still commit murder even though it's outlawed, so what if a Catholic politician were to vote to decriminalize the act? Politicians have an enormous amount of responsibility since common sense dictates that the law will have an impact on how many people act. Sure women would still get abortions even if it were outlawed, just like people still murder, steal, and so on even though those are outlawed. But the number of abortions would be much lower if there were legal restrictions on the practice. Furthermore, Bishops have a responsibility not only to teach clearly and not only to discipline those of their flock that are causing scandal to the Church, but they must also warn those who are jeopardizing their own salvation. He must think of the state of their souls, and if a Catholic politician is publicly refusing to protect the innocent or is publicly discriminating against those of different skin colors, then the Bishop has a responsibility to show them the error of their ways. He would be failing in his pastoral duties to do otherwise, and so it makes no sense to characterize his actions as using religion or faith to punish people. The politicians are the ones who are jeopardizing their salvation, and the Bishop is there to show them the proper path. Seeing it in a political context is unhelpful, and Chris framed this question in the wrong way.

torourke (Replying to: jackson93)

This is quite confused. The Church does not know the inner lives of each communicant, and it is up to each individual to confess serious sins before receiving Communion. If the priest knew that a communicant had failed to confess serious sins before receiving, then the priest could deny that person communion. But it would be very difficult to know whether that person had confessed or not (Priests are sworn to secrecy on these matters). The politician on the other hand takes a very public stand on a particular issue, and when that politician refuses to act in a way that respects the basic dignity of innocent human beings, then they are very publicly repudiating their Church's teachings. Bishops cannot allow politicians to repeatedly and publicly repudiate the clear moral teachings of the church and act as if nothing is amiss. Bishop Tobin did so privately, and it was Congressman Kennedy who brought this out in the open.

jackson93 (Replying to: torourke)

Sorry for not being clear - i wasn't so much comparing politicians to private citizens. There are public figures who are Catholics who publicly declare their differences with the Church. There are also private people who express their differences with the church in public ways. We do not see the Church calling to deny these people communion in the same way they have politicians.

My understanding is that Kennedy and Tobin have had a private dialogue on this issue for a number of years. However, it seems to me that Bishop Tobin was the one who made this more of a public issue. In response to Kennedy's statement in regard to the Stupak amendment suggesting that a truly pro-life church would support health care, Bishop Tobin printed an open letter to Kennedy in the Rhode Island Catholic on November 12. In that letter, he questioned whether or not Kennedy meets the basic requirements of being a Catholic and questions Kennedy's faith.

torourke (Replying to: jackson93)

I am not aware of private individuals publicly disagreeing with their Church (how do they do this, call a press conference?) Priests cannot know how each communicant lines up on each moral teaching, and that is why it is up to the communicant to refrain from receiving if they are in the state of sin. Priests cannot know who has confessed and who has not, and so they must trust that each communicant is receiving communion in clear conscience. But with a politician, it is more than simply airing their point of view, they have the power to shape public policy in ways that go to the core of what a just society is. Will we protect the innocent? Congressman Kennedy is clear that the answer is no. And he has been very outspoken on the matter, suggesting that it was the Church who was not being pro-life in its advocacy of the Stupak amendment and its opposition to the health care legislation. Never mind the incoherence of Kennedy's view and the fact that the Bishops endorsed the bill once the Stupak amendment had passed. In that case, Bishop Tobin had a responsibility to publicly defend the Church since Kennedy's comments amounted to a public attack. But it was Kennedy who made the fact that he was denied communion public, not Tobin.

gen

I'd be a lot more onboard with this shunning if they were doing it to, oh say, greedy Wall Street highway men, former speakers with divorces under their belts, people who authorize torture or, what the heck, even women like me who take their communion about 2 hours after their birth control pills. Of course the BC using women are also the ones who do the lion's share of the parish work so I can see why they don't want to go there.

There are bishops who like to get their 15 minutes of fame. We call them "jerks".

jb

To Jackson93

But you are not a national leader. That is the difference.

And if you don't believe the Catholic Church is a monolith then you should not call yourself a Catholic. That is one of the Church's tenets.

jackson93 (Replying to: jb)

I am just describing the reality of parishes across the country.

I personally know priests, nuns, catholic school teachers, and lay communion ministers who disagrees with church on certain issues.

If any Catholic who disagrees with anything the Catholic Church says is by definition not a Catholic, the Catholic Church would be near empty. Just think of all the woman who use contraception - that goes against church teachings. People who believe priests should be allowed to marry go against church teachings. These opinions do not mean that people are not dedicated to their faith. The Vatican may want everything to be an absolute, but people and life if full of gray areas.

torourke

I think Chris is out of his depth a bit on this question. I think it would be better to frame it like this: Should a politician who consistently and publicly repudiates the clear moral teaching of his church be allowed to receive communion in that church as if nothing were amiss? If a Catholic politician were to vote against civil rights for blacks, would anyone have a problem if his bishop or priest disciplined him? I doubt it.

Elmer_Stoup

torourke hit the nail on the head. Rep. Kennedy openly advocated elective abortion, an intrinsic evil. Given that the public closely identifies the Kennedy family with the Catholic Church, the bishop had the responsibility to make clear the Church takes the life issue seriously. Personally I was scandalized by all the actions of the Church's leaders when Sen. Kennedy died this summer.

I can only hope more bishops will do the same with these "pretend Catholics" who ignore the most basic right of all, the right to life.