On Sunday, Fr. Robert Morey, a priest in South Carolina, denied Communion to presidential candidate Joe Biden. It didn’t take long for Biden’s own bishop (Bishop Malooly) to criticize the priest for “politicizing the Eucharist,” and Fr. James Martin quickly attacked the priest’s actions:
Besides, a priest has no idea what the state of a person’s soul is when the person presents himself or herself in the Communion line. As we were taught in theology studies, the person may have repented of any sins and gone to confession immediately before Mass. You have no idea.
— James Martin, SJ (@JamesMartinSJ) October 29, 2019
On the surface, Bishop Malooly and Fr. Martin’s makes sense. After all, we’re not called to judge others, nor can we possibly know (as Fr. Martin points out) whether the person has just been to Confession. So far, so true.
But + Malooly, Fr. Martin, and whoever taught the theology classes Fr. Martin went to are teaching something directly contrary to Church teaching. Pope St. John Paul II answered Fr. Martin’s objection directly in Ecclesia de Eucharistia, when he wrote:
The judgment of one’s state of grace obviously belongs only to the person involved, since it is a question of examining one’s conscience. However, in cases of outward conduct which is seriously, clearly and steadfastly contrary to the moral norm, the Church, in her pastoral concern for the good order of the community and out of respect for the sacrament, cannot fail to feel directly involved. The Code of Canon Law refers to this situation of a manifest lack of proper moral disposition when it states that those who “obstinately persist in manifest grave sin” are not to be admitted to Eucharistic communion.
That final quotation is from Canon 915 of the Code of Canon Law, and it’s worth reading canons 915 and 916 alongside one another:
Can. 915 Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.
Can. 916 A person who is conscious of grave sin is not to celebrate Mass or receive the body of the Lord without previous sacramental confession unless there is a grave reason and there is no opportunity to confess; in this case the person is to remember the obligation to make an act of perfect contrition which includes the resolution of confessing as soon as possible.
Canon 916 is directed at the sinner. If you’re aware that you’ve commit a grave sin, you shouldn’t receive Communion until you’ve been to Confession, unless there’s a grave reason, and no opportunity to confess. Why the exception for grave reasons? Probably because the priest is required to receive at Mass, and so a priest who falls into grave sin may not have an opportunity to go to Confession before he’s next required to say Mass. In those circumstances, he simply makes the most perfect act of contrition he can, and leans on the mercy of God. But barring those kind of extreme cases, it’s very clear: if you know you’ve commit a grave sin, don’t present yourself for Communion.
If this was all that the Church taught, Fr. Martin would be right. But alongside this canon is Canon 915, which says that those “obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin” are “not to be admitted to holy communion.” This is expressly directed at the minister of Holy Communion, to say that even if such people present themselves, they must be refused the Eucharist. Notice how neatly this answers every argument Fr. Martin raises. His first claim is based on equivocation:
Denying Communion to politicians, Democrat or Republican, is a bad idea. If you deny the sacrament to those who support abortion, then you must also deny it to those who support the death penalty. How about those who don’t help the poor? How about “Laudato Si”? Where does it end?
Where does it end? It ends with the question, “is the person ‘obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin?’”And disagreeing with the assessment of clergy on fallible judgments and prudential matters (like the best way to take care of the poor; or whether the death penalty is appropriate in a particular context, or even whether it’s appropriate at all in the modern world; or the best way to care for Creation) aren’t sinful, much less gravely sinful. As St. John Paul II notes, while “there is a growing tendency, both in the Church and in civil society, to demand that it be applied in a very limited way or even that it be abolished completely,” it’s also the case that “legitimate defence can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another’s life, the common good of the family or of the State,” and that “the need to render the aggressor incapable of causing harm sometimes involves taking his life.” Whether such a case applies in a particular context is a prudential judgment, and it’s not a sin if your prudential judgment differs from my own. So you can’t deny Communion simply because you disagree with the way that they think we should fight poverty or pollution. There’s no one Catholic answer on poverty, the death penalty, or environmentalism, and it’s dishonest for Fr. Martin to suggest otherwise.
Pro-Abortion Politicians and the Eucharist
On the other hand, there IS a single Catholic position on abortion. Here’s St. John Paul II again, this time from Evangelium Vitae:
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 propaganda campaign in favour of such a law, or vote for it”.
And Biden has manifestly, openly, happily been guilty of this sin. As CNN notes,
Biden has said he would seek to codify Roe v. Wade, the landmark Supreme Court decision that established women’s abortion rights nationwide — a move that could protect that right from mounting legal challenges from Republican-led states.
He has also said he would seek to eliminate the Hyde Amendment, the federal law that bars federal dollars from being used to pay for abortions, except in the cases of rape, incest or when the life of the mother is in jeopardy. Biden previously supported the Hyde Amendment but reversed his position earlier this year amid criticism from his 2020 Democratic presidential rivals.
So Biden is publicly fighting to entrench abortion legally, at the very moment is seems that Roe v. Wade might be vulnerable, and he’s fighting also to make sure that your and my tax dollars will go to pay for other people’s abortion (which is what the Hyde Amendment tries to protect against). He also has personally served as the minister of a same-sex marriage in the White House, in a particularly audacious political stunt.
Biden defends his stance on abortion by saying that he “personally opposes abortion” but “refuses to impose that on others” (although he’s apparently fine imposing payment for abortion onto pro-life taxpayers). St. John Paul II called out this sham out for what it is:
In this way, any reference to common values and to a truth absolutely binding on everyone is lost, and social life ventures on to the shifting sands of complete relativism. At that point, everything is negotiable, everything is open to bargaining: even the first of the fundamental rights, the right to life. […]
Really, what we have here is only the tragic caricature of legality; the democratic ideal, which is only truly such when it acknowledges and safeguards the dignity of every human person, is betrayed in its very foundations: “How is it still possible to speak of the dignity of every human person when the killing of the weakest and most innocent is permitted? In the name of what justice is the most unjust of discriminations practised: some individuals are held to be deserving of defence and others are denied that dignity?” When this happens, the process leading to the breakdown of a genuinely human co-existence and the disintegration of the State itself has already begun.
To claim the right to abortion, infanticide and euthanasia, and to recognize that right in law, means to attribute to human freedom a perverse and evil significance: that of an absolute power over others and against others. This is the death of true freedom: “Truly, truly, I say to you, every one who commits sin is a slave to sin” (Jn 8:34).
He goes on to point out that “Among all the crimes which can be committed against life, procured abortion has characteristics making it particularly serious and deplorable. The Second Vatican Council defines abortion, together with infanticide, as an ‘unspeakable crime’.” And he notes that
The moral gravity of procured abortion is apparent in all its truth if we recognize that we are dealing with murder and, in particular, when we consider the specific elements involved. The one eliminated is a human being at the very beginning of life. No one more absolutely innocent could be imagined. In no way could this human being ever be considered an aggressor, much less an unjust aggressor!
We are, in other words, dealing with one of the gravest sins possible. And the pope is explicit that it’s not only the abortionist and the parents who bear moral responsibility in this matter, including “the legislators who have promoted and approved abortion laws.” In other words, this is not a matter, as Bishop Malooly suggests, of “politicizing the Eucharist.” It’s rather recognizing that abortion is a moral issue, not simply a political one, and that the consequences for Biden’s political behavior impact his standing before God and the Church. When Rudy Giuliani (a Republican) tried the same “personally opposed” weaselly position on abortion, Bishop Thomas Tobin compared him to Pontius Pilate, who was “personally opposed to the Crucifixion,” but let it happen anyway.
But Why?
So there are two people who are responsible for ensuring that you don’t receive Communion unworthily: you, if you’re in a state of “obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin,” the minister of Holy Communion. But why is this important? Because to receive Communion unworthily is to eat or drink damnation upon yourself, as St. Paul says in 1 Cor. 11:27-29,
Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.
There’s an addition reason as well, as JPII notes: there’s both a visible and an invisible dimension to communion. Someone might invisibly be separated from the Church through some private sin that prevents them from entering fully into the life of the people of God. And Fr. Martin is right that we can’t know or judge that very well. It’s this that canon 916 is about – what’s going on in that interior place that none of the rest of us can see? But “ecclesial communion, as I have said, is likewise visible.” Receiving Communion is an outward action. So it administering Holy Communion to a communicant. And for those external actions to be appropriate, you need to be in right relationship with Christ and the Church externally as well as internally. Otherwise, you risk giving scandal to others, by making it appear that one can and should receive the Body and Blood of the Lord while publicly opposing the Gospel on (in this case) abortion.
When a bishop or priest says that they personally won’t do this, they’re announcing publicly that they simply don’t intend to obey canon law – that they prefer their private pastoral judgment over the teachings of the Catholic Church, and over the canon law that regulates their behavior as ministers of the Sacraments. Whether intentionally or not, they’re fomenting the same spirit of disobedience that got us to where we are today on issues like abortion. To put it bluntly, a bishop who openly flouts canon law this way can hardly complain when his priests or his people disobey him.
I think one question that needs to be asked of everyone who says they are “personally” opposed to abortion but support a woman’s right to choose is: WHY?
What is it about abortion that you are personally opposed to? Implicit in their personal opposition is an acknowledgement that someone is being harmed, or there would be no reason to oppose it.
They personally oppose it because the propaganda from the anti choice side is so strong.
Most women do not regret abortions but people who have never had them assume they all do. People who have never looked into abortions assume they’re barbaric procedures on very late term viable embryos rather than mostly early or on fetuses that can’t survive.
So regret is the basis on whether something is right or wrong?
Phil,
“They personally oppose it because the propaganda from the anti choice side is so strong” = actually, the propaganda is strongly in favor of the pro-abortion side, with the support of a wide majority of secular media. Recently, “many media outlets declined to air advertising for the film [Unplanned] on account of the controversial subject matter…”, according to Wikipedia.
“Most women do not regret abortions” = according to many studies, up to 28% of women actually felt “harmed by their abortion within two years” (source: APA.org). Regardless, many studies have shown how abortion has negative effects on women, psychologically and physically, but these effects are rarely mentioned to abortion candidates.
“People who have never looked into abortions” = irrelevant and prejudicial.
“assume they’re barbaric procedures” = correct; abortion is indeed barbaric
“…very late term viable embryos rather than mostly early or on fetuses…” = your choice of words is interesting and completely incorrect. While embryo and fetus both refer to the developing baby inside the mother’s womb, an embryo represents the early stage of human development, roughly corresponding to the 5th-10th weeks of pregnancy, and a fetus is a developing baby beginning in the 11th week of pregnancy (MedicineNet). So, if anything, you should reverse the terms. And it’s fascinating how you use medical terms to trying to disconnect the discussion from its human association.
“fetuses that can’t survive” = “who” can’t survive. A fetus is a human being, so the correct term is “Who”, not “that”. Regardless, survivability is not an adequate criterium to judge this dilemma. If it where the case, astronauts should be aborted as soon as they reach space, because they can’t survive without an adequate apparatus (reductio ad absurdum).
“Otherwise, you risk giving scandal to others”
Joe, you need an essay on this directed towards the Fr Martins and Bishops of the world. And to every catholic.
When the Pope gives scandal, who are we to judge?
Excellent post! I would also recommend people listen to a video just put up by Dr. Taylor Marshall where he goes through Canon Law, St. Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologiae, and scripture to essentially come to the same conclusion as Joe does here. It is worth a listen.
Some very good points here. I would love to hear Bishop Malooly’s and Fr. Martin’s answers. How do they deal with what the Code of Canon Law says?
I do question, however, your position that the same reasoning you use with regard to abortion does not apply to the death penalty as well. You say that this is not a matter of Catholic doctrine and that people are free to disagree with it. But the Church teaches that supporting the DP is contrary to the dignity of the human person:
CCC #2267 “Consequently, the Church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that ‘the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person’,[1] and she works with determination for its abolition worldwide.” So if a Catholic supports the DP as something modern states ought to plan on keeping, he is in opposition to the teaching of the Catholic Church and is promoting an activity that is contrary to the “inviolability and dignity of the person.” If he promotes this opinion publicly and brazenly, why shouldn’t the priest deny communion to him too?
Because, unless we are saying that the Church is contradicting two thousand years of consistent teaching (plus the Mosaic and Noahide Covenants), then Pope Francis’ remarks in the Catechism must be a prudential judgement based on a non-essential justification for the death penalty (protection of the public from future crimes).
The essential and necessary justification for the death penalty is retributive justice, and the Catechism does not really address this. In order to ever execute someone legitimately, they MUST be guilty. Protection of the innocent is no justification for executing someone (that is intending the death of someone) unless there is another justification already there (retributive justice). Therefore, since the Church has not condemned retributive justice as an evil concept and it has not condemned capital punishment as intrinsically evil in all times and places (which it would have to in order to make it a non-prudential matter).
Timothy Gordon has a great debate with Trent Horn on The Counsel of Trent podcast where he makes this restoration argument: You cannot kill 100% of murderers to get to the 7% that will kill again. That would be consequentialism, which is evil. The only way you can kill 100% of murderers to get to 7% that will kill again is if you are already justified in killing 100% of murderers (because they deserve death due to retributive justice).
I used to lean towards an opposition to the death penalty, but then I learned that consequences of denying retributive justice are devastating. If the only justification for the death penalty is protection of the public from harm, you have consequentialism, and then it becomes very easy to unjustly execute innocent undesirables (mentally ill, etc.) who are considered a threat to society.
I would also direct you to many posts from Dr. Edward Feser on Capital Punishment as well as his book By Man Shall His Blood Be Shed.
Retorsion argument* (not restoration argument)
And when I said “therefore since the Church…“ I meant to end with “it is not immoral to support the death penalty”.
It is early…
I know in my heart that the Death Penalty which is the state murdering in cold blood is an extremely grave sin. How can someone who believes murder sin commit murder???? And not be guilty of murder. It’s very much worth while repeating
Lois,
Do you believe imprisonment is morally equivalent to kidnapping?
Something to ponder.
I know in my heart that the Death Penalty which is the state murdering in cold blood is an extremely grave sin. How can someone who believes murder sin commit murder???? And not be guilty of murder.
“Under the Common Law, or law made by courts, murder was the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought.” By definition, the death penalty is not murder as it is lawful. It should be a matter of justice and not of malice. The question in mind is whether there is a more merciful option. For most of history there’s been no reasonable alternative to protect public safety, and I suppose there are still places where that might be true. How much risk is society willing to take on by not eliminating a proven threat? In concern for the soul, the threat of death penalty as a prompt to repentance and conversion may in some cases be the most merciful alternative. However, the Church in its wisdom has decided that in current times that abolishing the death penalty is effectively the best course of action to satisfy both justice and mercy. I’ll go with the Church.
Completely spot on, Joe! As hard as it will be for me, I plan on praying for Mr. Biden and the rest of the pro abortion politicians.
“For my prayer is ever against the deeds of the wicked’ Psalm 141:5
Thank you for a spot of clarity in an ocean of ambiguity.
Mr. Biden is in a position to reach the masses. Because of this, his actions (as well as his words that he is a practicing Catholic) affect many people. If the Church does not get between him and the public, then many souls will be lost. People will think it is perfectly fine to kill a baby in the womb and still receive communion.
The Church needs to take a stand on this very important issue!
It seems to me that a politician who votes on issues is affecting and imposing their vote on others if they are in the majority ( imposing on the minority vote), so the argument of a “vote FOR something you are ” personally opposed to..”” is hypocritical at best, and , in my opinion, if both those points ARE true to the individual, what better definition of the type of person Our Lord will spit out of His mouth as being lukewarm, since mixing cold and hot ( opposing views) makes lukewarm. At least vote for what you believe, not what will get you elected, in opposition to what you believe.
The death penalty is wrong. Abortion is wrong.
Yes, let’s flat out deny any person who actively and openly supports this directly or via political/business ties.
I see nothing wrong with this at all.
Amen. This is a mic drop post.
Pushing out reasonable moderates is a great way to hasten the end of the religious right.
Out of curiosity, how would it go over to deny medical care for politicians who are passing the insane Ohio ectopic pregnancy nonsense law? Would that be fair?
Pope Francis:
“The judgment of one’s state of grace obviously belongs only to the person involved, since it is a question of examining one’s conscience. However, in cases of outward conduct which is seriously, clearly and steadfastly contrary to the moral norm, the Church, in her pastoral concern for the good order of the community and out of respect for the sacrament, cannot fail to feel directly involved. The Code of Canon Law refers to this situation of a manifest lack of proper moral disposition when it states that those who “obstinately persist in manifest grave sin” are not to be admitted to Eucharistic communion.”
I always thought the judgment of a person’s state of grace belongs to the Judge of all men. Now, if you want someone to tell you, “you’re good, have a great weekend” after confession on Friday, that’s understandable, but if I’m not mistaken, there is One who searches our hearts and knows our every thought, and last I heard, He hasn’t surrendered His powers, and certainly not His all-knowing perception to every Father Tom, Dick or Harry. If you think the Grace of God is a currency and you’ve got the right to mint it, well that’s the sort of legalistic claptrap the Pharisees made a career out of. It was good while it lasted I guess.
So Francis the talking Jesuit (who sometimes took the 5th in Argentina) says we are the judge of our own state of Grace? My, my! But then he does say the darnedest things doesn’t he? Well, when he’s not speaking ex-cathedra that is!
“A question of examining one’s conscience”? Really!? So if it feels good to me, do it?
And then there’s this bit about “…cases of outward conduct which is seriously, clearly and steadfastly contrary to the moral norm.”
Call me old-fashioned, but I always thought He is the same, yesterday, today and forever? Making your first born “pass through the fire” used to be the norm; did that make it OK?
In my Bible the commandments of men (aka “Social Norms”) are worth less than nothing; which one does the pope use?
I’d go a little farther, I’d say taking the Eucharist in a knowing state of sin is a very dangerous thing to do indeed, and getting Father _______’s “you’re forgiven” rubber stamp on Friday isn’t going to put a person in a state of grace which only comes from wholehearted and free repentance to God. To pretend that a mere man may grant or withhold the forgiveness of God without having God’s knowledge of the mind and soul of a person and the sincerity of their repentance, if any, is the kind of thing that might have washed in the early Middle Ages, but today?
But I suppose this is another example of the Petrine bungee cord having no limitation to how far it can be stretched? Apparently God has said, “you decide Pope ——— and I’ll go along with it”? So all those folks who bought indulgences got their sins forgiven or their time in purgatory reduced? So God said, “Well, I’m not crazy about this, but I did say it’s all up to you, so I guess I’ll forgive them just like I forgive those who truly and earnestly repent.”
Sure.
But then Pope Frances really gets serious: he invokes Canon Law! Say, does this pope ever quote Scripture, or is that not a habit the curia wants to encourage?
Priests have no business presuming to adjudicate on the souls of men; since they are no more than men themselves.
As one can see here, there are motes enough to pluck out of their own eyes: https://bishop-accountability.org/priestdb/PriestDBbylastName-A.html
Or to be more precise, millstones to slip off their necks.
“For my prayer is ever against the deeds of the wicked’ Psalm 141:5