Pope on a Plane
As you may have heard, Pope Benedict had an interesting thing to say to reporters while on his way to Brazil. This from the AP:
Flying to Latin America, Benedict was asked about comments by Mexico City church officials that the lawmakers would be excommunicated for having voted last month for the legislation legalizing abortion in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy."It's nothing new, it's normal, it wasn't arbitrary. It is what is foreseen by the church's doctrine," Benedict told reporters aboard a plane to Brazil in his first full-fledged news conference since becoming pontiff in 2005.
Reporters flying with the pope took his comments to mean that he endorsed the comments by Mexican churchmen that the lawmakers should be excommunicated.
Vatican officials have acted quickly to tone down the 'EXCOMMUNICATION!' headlines, clarifying that:
"Since excommunication hasn't been declared by the Mexican bishops, the pope has no intention himself of declaring it," said Lombardi, who was on board the plane. "Legislative action in favor of abortion is incompatible with participation in the Eucharist. ... Politicians exclude themselves from Communion."
It will be interesting to see how this story develops in the days and months ahead. The Pope's mind was on Mexico and Brazil when he spoke, but as the US Presidential season approaches, such comments will almost certainly be applied to our political environment. With the most prominent Catholic candidate a pro-choice Republican (pace, Dodd supporters), will conservatives rehash their 2004 calls for withholding of communion from pro-choicers? With the US Bishops meeting in November to consider an updated version of 'Faithful Citizenship,' what impact will Benedict's comments have?
Fr. Tom Reese is a friend of ours here at FPL, and always a wise source of comment on matters related to the Church of Rome and politics. He has issued the following statement in response to the day's excitement:
Pope on Pro-Choice PoliticiansWhile traveling to Brazil, Pope Benedict XVI responded to a question about Mexican politicians who voted to legalize abortion. From his answer, reporters inferred that he endorsed comments by Mexican churchmen that the politicians should be excommunicated. The pope’s press spokesman later issued a statement approved by the pope that said the pope did not intend to excommunicate anyone. In response to questions, AP reports that the spokesman said, “Legislative action in favor of abortion is incompatible with participation in the Eucharist. ... Politicians exclude themselves from Communion.''
As Governor Romney eloquently said during the Republican presidential candidates’ debate, each church has the constitutional right to determine its internal policies, for example, who can go to Communion and who cannot. This is not a violation of the separation of church and state. The Quakers, for example, would have every right to excommunicate a member who voted in favor of war. Whether they should or should not is an issue to be debated and decided by the church.
In talking about abortion, it is important to distinguish a person’s position on the morality of abortion from a person’s position on whether the state should criminalize abortion. A person who feels that there is nothing wrong with abortion is clearly taking a position contrary to the position of the Catholic Church. But it is a separate question whether abortions should be criminalized.
Many canon lawyers and moralists believe that a politician could be against abortions and still oppose criminalizing it for prudential reasons, for example, because he believes such laws would be unenforceable, divisive and politically unrealistic. He may believe that a more realistic approach is to enact programs (healthcare, childcare, welfare, employment) that will reduce the number of abortions by giving women a real choice, by empowering them to say yes to life. These politicians point to the fact that there were fewer abortions during the Clinton Administration than during the Bush Administration. Raising the minimum wage, for example, would reduce more abortions than outlawing partial birth abortions. Such a politician could say, “I am opposed to abortion and will do everything possible to reduce the number of abortions short of putting women and doctors in jail.”
So far, the vast majority of the U.S. Catholic bishops oppose denying Communion to pro-choice Catholic politicians and voters. During the 2004 presidential election, only about 10 to 12 bishops of the approximately 190 diocesan bishops spoke out in favor of denying Communion. When the bishops meet in Baltimore this November, the question of denying Communion to pro-choice politicians will once again be debated when they vote on a new statement on “Faithful Citizenship.”


Comments
I'm not surprised but I am disappointed. Considering that I belong to a denomination which celebrates communion once every quarter I'm reminded of the fact that for Catholics the Eucharist plays a far more prominent role.
I wouldn't attempt to say that their decisions are appropriate for them or not but I would say that in my view excluding parishioners from full participation in congregational life/ rites should only be done in extreme cases.
I would be interested in learning under what circumstances Catholics regularly deny communion. I googled it but found this instead- Cardinal Ratzinger lays out principles on denying Communion, voting
I find this to be quite interesting and wonder to what extent ones decision in the voting booth is a soteriological concern. I appreciate the opportunity to learn more about Catholicism.
Thanks!
Posted by: Johnny A. Ramirez | May 25, 2007 07:34 AM