Commentary
‘Lukewarm’ Is the Wrong Temperature
Commentary by Judie Brown
May 21, 2004

 

In the wake of a recent reiteration of Catholic teaching with regard to abuses of the sacrament of Holy Eucharist, there has been a flurry of commentary from bishops.  Not all of it, in case you haven’t noticed, is encouraging.

Cardinal Theodore McCarrick of Washington, D.C., has made no bones about what he would do if a rabid pro-abortion Catholic approached him for Holy Eucharist – he would give the body of Christ to this individual.  No question about it.  In fact, he has recently stated, “I have not gotten to the stage where I am comfortable in denying the Eucharist.”

Comfortable?  What kind of a notion is that?  What do you mean, comfortable?  Don’t we all remember how Catholics got the miracle of Holy Eucharist in the first place?  It had little to do with comfort.  It had everything to do with Christ suffering undeniable pain as he hung on the cross for three hours before He died.  Comfortable?

Christians are called by Christ to follow Him, to imitate Him; and that can mean being very uncomfortable – particularly in the midst of a godless, secular culture.

Who is comfortable? Well, certainly, pro-abortion Catholics are comfortable.  People such as Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, Rep. Nancy Pelosi of California, Gov. Jennifer Granholm of Michigan, and countless others must be comfortable to the point of numbness. The McCarrick comment offers them perpetual carte blanche to receive the body of Christ while thumbing their noses at Catholic teaching.  Comfort? Yes indeed. That’s what it’s all about.

Perhaps Catholics who support legal abortion need a refresher course on basic Canon Law and what it means.  Let’s start with Canon 915, which states: “Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or the declaration of a penalty as well as others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to communion.”

That's pretty clear. And if you're still missing the point, there is the statement Pope John Paul II made just last year, in his encyclical Ecclesia de Eucharistia:

“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 [915] 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.”

Or, to put it in plain English, pro-abortion Catholic politicians should not be receiving the Body and Blood of Christ.  They are people who display “outward conduct which is seriously, clearly and steadfastly contrary to the moral norm.”  Is that really so hard to understand?

These are people who approve the killing of babies by the sinful act of abortion.  Catholics – believing Catholics, that is – know that the Ten Commandments are binding on all men.  And, according to the Commandment thou shalt not kill, the act of abortion is a crime, an act of murder.  No Catholic can condone such a grisly act and still claim to be a faithful Catholic, regardless of what comfort level any member of the hierarchy may desire. 

The cardinal has also suggested that when it comes to Catholics in the voting booth, “many issues” need to be taken into account before making a determination about a particular candidate.  This is patently false. The fact is that if you are killed before you are born, then no other “issue” is ever going to concern you.  This is why the Church repeats and repeats that the right to life is fundamental. 

Cardinal McCarrick’s comments have created confusion.  They have also opened the door for other members of the hierarchy to feel at ease by voicing similar views. 

The president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Bishop Wilton Gregory, has said that a “common discernment” is needed among the bishops so that the question of reception of the sacraments can be discussed.  However, the fact is that every bishop is responsible for the people in his diocese.  He is described as a shepherd and those people in his diocese are his to teach, to lead and to inspire. A public figure who is supporting abortion is not in engaging in public dissent from essential Church teaching and therefore should not receive Holy Eucharist.  “Common discernment” is a nice term, but it is a cop-out.

A spokesman for the Diocese of Charleston, W.Va., told a reporter, “Certainly in our diocese, the Catholic Church is more interested in converting hearts than in keeping lists of who should and shouldn’t receive communion.”

How in the world can a heart be converted if nobody is willing to point out that the actions these people are advocating are wrong, are offensive to God, and in need of correction?  How is an individual who is engaging in such despicable acts to know that what he is doing is not only detrimental to his soul but to his eternal future?  Conversion starts with awareness.  Is such an attitude going to convert hearts or drive away the faithful?

Archbishop Sean O’Malley of Boston is on the same page.  A spokesman for the archbishop said the archdiocese does not “hold to the practice of publicly refusing Communion to anyone.” What is that supposed to mean?  If a publicly identifiable and totally unrepentant mass murderer approached a priest in the Archdiocese of Boston for Holy Communion, would he be permitted to receive? 

In the midst of all these phrases, swirling in the air and settling together into an easily fermentable brew of human respect, come the heroic words of bishops who know that the truth is the same yesterday, today and forever.  St. Louis Archbishop Raymond Burke was the first to say, without apology, that he would not give communion to pro-abortion public figures.  And several others have come to the forefront to offer strong statements on the subject, including Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz of Lincoln, Bishop Joseph Galante of Camden and Bishop John Smith of Trenton.

Bishop Smith, in particular, has been excoriated in the press for making it clear that public figures who do not uphold the teachings of the Catholic Church on respect life issues cannot be considered devout Catholics. How dare he, the press scowled!  But we would ask, how dare he not? 

These pro-abortion politicians are publicly promoting a sinful activity — abortion.  There is absolutely no doubt about that. A private sinner commits sins known only to him and God, not to everyone in the community or the nation.  But when a pro-abortion public figure presents himself for Holy Communion, everyone in the Church knows that he is an advocate of a crime against God that should prohibit him from receiving the body and blood of Christ.  There is no judgment involved; there is instead a public record that is not hidden, and in fact is often flaunted in the face of the Church and in particular those members of the hierarchy who choose to imbibe the brew of human respect.

The fact is that words can mislead people. If they are spoken by bishops or their representatives, they can mislead people into a false sense of what it means to be Catholic, to be devout, to be worthy of receiving Holy Eucharist.

The brew that some of these bishops have concocted is toxic.  It must be exposed for what it is.  It is a recipe designed to please the polltakers, not the Lord.  Take a little bit of comfort and stir it in with common discernment, denial of public sin and evasion of responsibility to enforce Canon law, and you will get a disaster of enormous proportions. 

There is no eternal value in seeking human respect, particularly when it involves denial of the fundamental obligations that are inherent in the very identity of an ordained bishop of the Catholic Church. The bishops, of course, are in our prayers. But in the end, there is no defense for wimping out. 

Judie Brown is president and founder of American Life League—the nation’s largest pro-life educational organization—that has worked for the past 25 years to foster a true Culture of Life that respects and defends innocent human life from fertilization to natural death.