If you stop and think about the degree to which mainstream journalists view life through a political lens, then it is absolutely stunning that the feisty folks over at the Politico seem to have the following story to themselves — for a few hours.
The headline is a dud: “Pope’s visit renews abortion debate.” Like, that’s a surprise.
But the actual story by Josephine Hearn and Ryan Grim has a much-tougher edge to it and the news hook is totally logical. Here’s the top of the report:
In June 2004, as prominent Catholics in the United States debated whether Democratic presidential candidate John F. Kerry should be allowed to receive Communion, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger weighed in with what appeared to be an unequivocal opinion: No.
If a politician who supports abortion rights attempts to receive Communion, Ratzinger wrote, “the minister of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute it.”
Ratzinger is to arrive in Washington on Tuesday as Pope Benedict XVI, and his visit to the nation’s capital is already pitting anti-abortion-rights activists against Roman Catholic lawmakers who support abortion rights, reviving an issue that has received scant attention in Congress or on the campaign trail in recent months. The conflict could come to a head Thursday, when the pope is scheduled to celebrate a Mass at the Washington Nationals’ new ballpark. The Vatican has invited all Catholic lawmakers, and many abortion-rights-supporting Catholics — including Kerry and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) — are expected to attend.
Conservative Catholics are pleading with the pope to take a stand, hoping that the advisors around Benedict XVI will brief him on who is who before the service.
But stop and think about that for a moment. The logistics of the service are going to be gigantic — Holy Sacraments for an entire stadium of worshippers (click here for a New York Times story on that). Very few people will receive the Sacrament from the hands of the pope himself and there will be a not-so-small army of bishops and priests spread out all over the stadium after the consecration rites.
In this case, the critical decisions were made by whoever issued the invitations to the Mass.
The Politico has all kinds of good sources on this story, with voices from the Catholic left and right — as the story demands. Meanwhile, the stance of the U.S. Catholic bishops is that the believers are supposed to police themselves.
Sister Mary Ann Walsh, spokeswoman for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, said she knows of no plan to deny Communion to particular lawmakers Thursday.
“You presume that everyone there knows the rules of the church and follows them,” she said. “No one is policing that. People go to church and people go to Communion if they feel in their heart they are prepared to receive Communion.”
Abortion-rights-supporting Catholic lawmakers on the Hill seemed reluctant Monday to discuss the issues raised by the pope’s visit. Representatives for several members said their bosses were traveling and couldn’t be reached or were otherwise unavailable for comment. Drew Hammill, a spokesman for Pelosi, offered a one-line statement: “The speaker receives Communion regularly and expects to receive it on Thursday.”
Meanwhile, Catholic conservatives will be very pleased to see that Hearn and Grim have included a short — but very thorough — summary of the history behind this issue, at least the history of Benedict XVI’s views on the subject. Here is that section of the story:
Ratzinger’s 2004 opinion appeared in a memo that was sent to then-Washington Cardinal Theodore McCarrick and first reported in the Italian magazine L’Espresso. In the memo, which did not mention Kerry by name, Ratzinger said: “The church teaches that abortion or euthanasia is a grave sin. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion, even among Catholics, about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not, however, with regard to abortion and euthanasia.” …
Benedict has not softened the position expressed in the memo. Aboard the papal plane in 2007, he discussed a threat by Mexican Catholic leaders to excommunicate politicians who supported abortion. According to a Reuters report, the pope supported the proposed excommunication.
“Yes, this excommunication was not an arbitrary one but is allowed by Canon law, which says that the killing of an innocent child is incompatible with receiving Communion, which is receiving the body of Christ,” he said.
Like I said, it’s hard to believe that this story hasn’t hit front pages until now. Stay tuned.
 | Posted at 2:20 pm |  Print
| Permalink | Trackback |
Comments (22) |
April 15, 2008, at 4:46 pm
Well, the church teaches that whoever receives the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ and is sinful and unrepentant, receives it to his/her own damnation.
The emphasis is on the receiver/deceiver, not the server.
Grannie Gloria
April 15, 2008, at 7:06 pm
If you subtract politics from this issue (yes, I know), then the logic of the position is to require a “loyalty oath” from all Catholics that the receiver not support abortion, will not vote for any politician supporting abortion etc before receiving communion. And because people can change their mind, shouldn’t that happen every time? After all, why should politicians be treated differently?
April 15, 2008, at 7:17 pm
Jerry, when a public figure whose positions are publicly known is involved, the situation is complicated by the sin of scandal (and I mean that as a technical term defined in the Catechism of the Catholic Church). If a church leader is seen to knowingly give communion to a person known or even widely believed to support legal abortion, it looks a whole lot like the church is making an actual statement that the pro-legal-abortion position is compatible with the reception of communion. This is why there’s at least the potential for the person administering Communion to be committing wrongdoing.
As for you and me ordinary folks, the eucharistic minister has no window into our hearts (unless we’re wearing a T-shirt proclaiming our political and moral leanings) and he or she can safely (for his/her own soul) give us the benefit of the doubt. We bear all the responsibility ourselves. Pastors bear a significant responsibility too to remind and educate the faithful what are the requirements, of course.
April 15, 2008, at 7:19 pm
JERRY:
The key is consistent, publicly expressed opposition to the teachings of the church. That’s the standard. The Catholic makes this an issue through their own repeated words and actions in public life, through their own choices.
April 15, 2008, at 7:33 pm
Well, conservative Catholics aren’t pleading for it. Pro-life activists, who are also Catholic, are pleading for him to delve into their political agenda. As the ALL press release you linked to points out, this is part of an agenda that is much more political than religious.
April 15, 2008, at 7:45 pm
Michael:
Have you read the Catholic teachings on that issue at all? Have you followed Benedict on this matter? Or, of course, is the pope just another political activist in your view of things?
April 15, 2008, at 8:19 pm
Okay, Michael, let’s put the boot on the other foot.
Suppose a well-known Catholic politician has based his or her platform on appeals to racism. Suppose this person has expressed opinions about black people/Jews/Hispanics/illegal immigrants that have stirred up controversy and led to accusations of hate speech.
Suppose this person even went so far as to call for the denial of basic human rights to certain races or faiths.
Suppose, then, that a group of activists who were also Catholic, were pleading for the Pope to take a stand on this before the Mass.
Is this mixing politics and religion? Should this person be permitted to receive Communion at a Papal Mass, in a public ceremony? Is that only politics, or are we talking about the discipline of the faith?
Here’s the relevant bit of the Cathechism:
“Respect For the Human Person
1929 Social justice can be obtained only in respecting the transcendent dignity of man. the person represents the ultimate end of society, which is ordered to him:
What is at stake is the dignity of the human person, whose defense and promotion have been entrusted to us by the Creator, and to whom the men and women at every moment of history are strictly and responsibly in debt.35
1930 Respect for the human person entails respect for the rights that flow from his dignity as a creature. These rights are prior to society and must be recognized by it. They are the basis of the moral legitimacy of every authority: by flouting them, or refusing to recognize them in its positive legislation, a society undermines its own moral legitimacy.36 If it does not respect them, authority can rely only on force or violence to obtain obedience from its subjects. It is the Church’s role to remind men of good will of these rights and to distinguish them from unwarranted or false claims.
1931 Respect for the human person proceeds by way of respect for the principle that “everyone should look upon his neighbor (without any exception) as ‘another self,’ above all bearing in mind his life and the means necessary for living it with dignity.”37 No legislation could by itself do away with the fears, prejudices, and attitudes of pride and selfishness which obstruct the establishment of truly fraternal societies. Such behavior will cease only through the charity that finds in every man a “neighbor,” a brother.
1932 The duty of making oneself a neighbor to others and actively serving them becomes even more urgent when it involves the disadvantaged, in whatever area this may be. “As you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.”38
1933 This same duty extends to those who think or act differently from us. the teaching of Christ goes so far as to require the forgiveness of offenses. He extends the commandment of love, which is that of the New Law, to all enemies.39 Liberation in the spirit of the Gospel is incompatible with hatred of one’s enemy as a person, but not with hatred of the evil that he does as an enemy.”
April 15, 2008, at 8:25 pm
My point, Michael, is this: if a prominent person in political life who self-identifies as Catholic participates in a public Mass and is seen to be given Communion by the Head of the Church, despite certain opinions this person states they hold or statements they have made which are contrary to the teaching of the Church - what does that say?
What message does that send to the public? “Hey, Joe X or Mary Y is a right-wing racist nut who wants to round up all Patagonians living in the U.S. in concentration camps, but the Catholic Church has no problem with that! Don’t talk to me about social justice, you hypocrites!”
April 15, 2008, at 9:28 pm
I realize that the pro-life movement is desparate to politicize the Eucharist to further its political and legal goals. Although apparently TMatt sees no difference between pro-life activist groups and all conservative Catholics, it’s important that journalists understand the difference.
ALL is an organization focused on making abortion illegal. That they want the Pope to assist them in their efforts by politicizing the Eucharist during his visit needs to be understood by journalists when examining the theological (and political) motives of Catholics generally.
April 16, 2008, at 1:34 am
Not being a Catholic, that was news to me. I guess I have an overly simplistic view of the situation since I based my judgment on such passages as Luke 5:30-32 and Matt 9:11-13. I guess that’s one reason I’m one of those “spiritual but not religious” types.
April 16, 2008, at 9:00 am
You know, Michael, I think you’re right. ALL is only concerned with politics and legistlation. They’re not at all motivated by their belief that abortion terribly wounds to women and kills children - and by association harms the family, the building block of a healthy society. They’re not at all motivated by the Church’s teaching that giving communion to people who publicly sin unrepentantly leads an already confused Catholic flock in America into even greater confusion about the truth of Catholicism. They’re not at all concerned about those who condemn themselves by receiving communion while knowingly having unconfessed sins on their souls. And it’s got nothing to do with the fact that they interpret Canon Law more in the style of Archbishop Burke than Archbishop Wuerl. For ALL and other pro-life groups it’s all about power and politics.
[end sarcasm]
April 16, 2008, at 12:53 pm
[…] Our religion-blogging compatriots at Get Religion, spotlighted a story from Politico Monday about Pope Benedict XIV’s U.S. visit that might be of interest to St. Louisans, especially St. Louis Catholics. […]
April 16, 2008, at 1:28 pm
I understand you are being sarcastic, but I do think there is an important point about how journalists cover interest groups that have a religious orientation. ALL lobbies legislatures, it gets involved in litigation, it raises funds from people inside the pro-life and conservative movement. Being religious does not make it immune from criticism or questioning their motivations.
If the press wants to turn the pope into a superdelegate, groups like ALL (and apparently GR bloggers) want to turn him into a pro-life lobbyist and GOP activist. Shouldn’t the press question those motivations? Shouldn’t reporters move beyond the gilt and religious dressing, and act hard questions about the politics behind calls from political groups like ALL?
April 16, 2008, at 1:36 pm
MICHAEL:
The goal is for the pope to be the Bishop of Rome, on doctrinal issues of Communion as well as on abortion, capital punishment, human rights, the Iraq war.
There are doctrinal issues at stake. There are sacramental issues at stake.
As you well know, this has nothing to do with covering the ALL.
It has to do with covering actions and conflicts growing out of the writings of the man who is now Benedict XVI.
Michael, the pope is allowed to disagree with you (and me and whoever). I know that’s a shock to you. The pope may have his own beliefs and motivations, as a bishop.
April 16, 2008, at 1:38 pm
MICHAEL:
I forgot. A yes or no question.
Did you at least read the Benedict statements in the Politico article?
April 16, 2008, at 1:46 pm
TMattm, I did read them.
There are also political issues at stake, especially when pro-life groups and conservative Catholics are pressuring bishops and the Pope to act.
You do realize that abortion is a political issue? And that when a pro-life group says bishops and the Pope should do something, it has a political motivation as well as a doctrinal one? And that sometimes doctrinal and sacramental issues are also political?
… and the pressure being placed on the Benedict by conservative and orthodox Catholics in the U.S.
If the pope denies the Eucharist to Nancy Pelosi or John Kerry, that is a political act as well as a doctrinal and sacramental. When interest groups start using the media to raise the issue, it is a political act as well as doctrinal and sacramental.
April 16, 2008, at 1:55 pm
Of course it has political implications. So do the decisions these politicians have made to remain Catholics while publicly opposing the teachings of their church.
Are you saying that the pope’s political role should be allowed to trump his sacramental and doctrinal role?
Surely not. You would never, ever say that about an issue of racism, the environment, war and peace, etc. Never.
April 16, 2008, at 4:13 pm
When the conservative Catholic groups call on the Pope to deny the Eucharist to GOP politicians who support unjust war, racist policies, or the death penalty, get back with me.
When conservative Catholics clamor for the pope or bishops to deny the Eucharist to Catholic politicians, they are being political. When pro-life groups do that clamoring, they are asking the pope and bishops to play the role of pro-life lobbyist and GOP operative. It’s important for the press to not get so blinded by all the talk of sacraments and doctrine to miss the political story and not allow those groups to hide behind the gilt.
April 17, 2008, at 9:38 am
If the NAACP fires its president because he’s been hobnobbing with David Duke, isn’t that OK? What if that NAACP president was advocating an end to affirmative action and was also a member of the house of representatives? Isn’t it OK to fire him then, too, even though affirmative action sometimes comes up in legislation?
Don’t groups of any kind have the right to enforce their own rules? Separation of church and state doesn’t mean that church people can’t speak in public or set their own disciplinary rules.
John Kerry and Nancy Pelosi don’t have a constitutional right to belong to the Catholic Church, any more than you or I have the right to belong to the Masons. John Kerry and Nancy Pelosi are perfectly free to find a more congenial church to join - there are thousands of them in the US.
BTW “freedom of speech” applies to government entities, not private ones.
April 17, 2008, at 12:51 pm
One of the stories I saw on this had this gem of a quote…”There’s a time for celebrating who we are as Catholics, and this is one of those times,” said Rep. Jose Serrano, D-N.Y.
Well, the pro-abortion Democrats are, not to put to fine a point on it, pretty crappy Catholics. When push come to shove they put their politics ahead of the clear and unambiguious teaching of their Church. We aren’t talking St. Thomas More here.
Furthermore they lack the intelectual honesty to simply leave a Church they obvioulsy do not take seriously and find one they can, in good conscience, support.
If there is anything worthy of celebration in being both a coward and a hypocirite, it totally escapes me.
April 17, 2008, at 1:07 pm
Michael, the people involved in these pro-life groups are concerned about more than politics. They are, truly, very concerned about people’s salvation. They want them to get to heaven and they know that if they sanction the killing of innocent human life, they ain’t going to get there.
But to the topic, tmatt, I’m not surprised this hasn’t come up yet, except in Politico. This story has been hashed and rehashed so many times that it has lost its unique flavor. The only way that I could have seen this come up in the MSM is if someone on Abp Wuerl’s staff had assigned Abp Burke to distribute Hosts where the likes of Kerry, Pelosi, Kennedy, et al, were to receive Communion. But as is well-known from then-Bishop Wuerl’s public rebuke of Abp Burke (telling the press that no bishop should act on his own when there is a national issue at stake), the two do not see eye-to-eye on this issue and no one on Wuerl’s staff would have had the gumption to do such a thing.
So unless I’m very much mistaken or unless the Holy Father himself raises the issue, I don’t think we’re going to see much about this at all.
April 17, 2008, at 1:41 pm
Absolutely. And other people have the right to criticize them and question their motives. And the press has an obligation to question the motivations of the people involved on all sides. And the press—and commentators—have the right to criticize the Catholic church when they step into the church/state divide.
On a related note, it would be interesting to see any coverage of the Vatican’s reaction to the Catholic members of the Supreme Court making it easier to execute people on death row through means that even animal doctors consider too cruel. What are his conversations with the president who approved the executions of more prisoners than any person in U.S. history. Where are the pro-life movement’s press releases on that issue.
Now, there’s a story.