View Comments      Email Article       Printable Version

Published: November 12, 2007

No help from the Left Coast

Bishops to consider excluding pro-abortion politicians from communion, but California’s prelates unlikely to support such a ban

A four-day meeting of U.S. bishops begins today at the posh Baltimore Marriott Waterfront Hotel. On the bishops’ agenda, among other items, is a revision of their statement on “faithful citizenship,” a guide for Catholics on political issues.

A news release from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops says a draft of the updated statement “focuses on the bishops’ role in helping to form consciences in political life.” But what is the best way to do that? The prelates are divided, with some favoring denial of communion to Catholic politicians who support abortion and euthanasia, while others consider the question of whether or not to receive communion a matter of private conscience.

Archbishop Raymond Burke of St. Louis is probably the strongest advocate of denying communion to pro-abortion politicians as a disciplinary measure. In a recent interview published by the Archdiocese of St. Louis’ Office of Communications, Burke minced no words when asked if the majority of bishops supported this discipline: “It is not a question of what number of bishops agree or disagree with the discipline. It is the discipline of the universal Church, which every bishop is required to uphold.”

Those favoring denial of communion to Catholic politicians who defy Church teaching point to Canon 915 of the Code of Canon, and particularly to a clause that says those “who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to communion.” In 2004, Pope Benedict XVI (then Cardinal Ratzinger) sent a memorandum to U.S. bishops specifically about the issue of denying communion to politicians. The memo said defiant politicians should be given “due process” of prior warning, but insisted that denial of communion was the next step: “Regarding the grave sin of abortion or euthanasia, when a person’s formal cooperation becomes manifest (understood, in the case of a Catholic politician, as his consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws), his Pastor should meet with him, instructing him about the Church’s teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin, and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist.”

But California’s bishops do not appear as willing as Archbishop Burke to follow the advice contained in Ratzinger’s memo. In a March 22 online chat held at the LA Religious Education Congress in Anaheim, California’s most prominent bishop, Cardinal Roger Mahony of Los Angeles, was asked about American bishops who do not follow the instructions of Pope Benedict by denying Communion to pro-abortion politicians. Cardinal Mahony answered by denying that the pope took that position: “Rather, he is asking that everyone who approaches Holy Communion should make sure he/she is living a life worthy of Jesus in this Sacrament,” said the cardinal. “The burden is on the recipient, not on the minister.” And, in a May 2004 interview with the Catholic News Service before the Bush-Kerry election, Cardinal Mahony said, “I'm slightly mystified why this is all coming up now. We've had pro-choice Catholic politicians going to Communion since Roe vs. Wade… in fact, with respect to the Eucharist, it really is not possible for a priest or bishop to deny someone Communion unless that person is known to have been a public sinner, in the sense of having been interdicted or excommunicated or formally sanctioned in some way… The presumption is that if someone presents himself for Communion, that they are doing so with the belief that they are in a state of grace and receiving in good faith the Eucharist."

Bishop Tod Brown of the Diocese of Orange has made no public statements about the issue, but has given Holy Communion to pro-abortion Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez and remains on very friendly terms with her. It is not likely that he would embrace a program of denying Communion to pro-abortion politicians.

Neither is it likely that Bishop Robert Brom of San Diego would support such a measure. In 2001, he reversed his predecessor’s (Bishop Leo Maher’s) communion ban on pro-abortion Assemblywoman Lucy Killea, and as recently as 2004 Bishop Brom said in a press release, “In my judgment at this time, it is not prudent to deny Holy Communion to Catholics in political life because of their public support for abortion on demand.”

Bishop John Steinbock of Fresno also refused to deny pro-abortion politicians communion during the 2004 election. In a pastoral message from July 2004, Steinbock spoke of Cardinal Ratzinger’s memo: “I pointed out to the priests and deacons that this document did not say, as was falsely reported by the secular media, that Catholic politicians who vote for abortion may not receive Communion. It did not refer to Catholic politicians at all… Let us not politicize the Eucharist. We all struggle, whether we are public figures or not, to be faithful to the Lord Jesus, and must constantly examine our own consciences. Let us not judge the consciences of others and be so presumptuous as to say who is and who is not worthy to receive Communion…”

There are no statements on record from Monterey Bishop Richard Garcia on denying communion to politicians, nor has Bishop Gerald Barnes of San Bernardino made any public statements about the issue, but a June 2004 chart on Catholicvote.net indicates that Bishop Barnes would not withhold communion.

Bishop Patrick McGrath of San Jose is another bishop who has not spoken publicly about the issue, but the Catholicvote.net survey indicates he “follows the policy of San Francisco, will not withhold communion.” (At the time the survey was taken, Cardinal William Levada was Archbishop of San Francisco.)

Archbishop George Neiderauer, who succeeded Cardinal Levada, apparently shares his predecessor’s views. In a February interview on KCBS radio, Archbishop Neiderauer was asked about House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s position on abortion and whether it presented a problem for him. Neiderauer astonished listeners by saying he didn’t know her position on abortion. When pressed as to whether he would deny her communion, Neiderauer said, “I think that when I stand at communion time, in front of the altar, to distribute communion, I, like all priests and bishops, I believe, am counting on the individual communicant who’s coming forward to receive communion, to decide whether he or she is worthy of communion and is ready to receive it, this sacrament. I am not there principally as a gatekeeper. I am there as a priest and a celebrant to give forth the Eucharist.”

In January 2003, Bishop William Weigand of Sacramento publicly told former Gov. Gray Davis and other pro-abortion politicians that they should refrain from receiving communion, but has not gone so far as to deny it. A month later, in an interview with the National Catholic Register, Bishop Weigand told reporter Tim Drake, “Some people thought I was 'considering formally forbidding the [governor] from receiving Communion.' I did not intimate that I had any such thing in mind, nor that we would refuse Communion to someone that approaches… Some people thought that there must inevitably follow a further step, namely to excommunicate Governor Davis. But there are no inevitable consequences to my action. After instructing people, we respect them and strive to treat them as adults. We prefer to trust in their sincerity and goodwill. That is why I stated that a person of integrity should 'choose of his own volition to abstain from receiving Holy Communion until he has a change of heart.'”

Bishop Allen Vigneron of Oakland has not made any public statements about denying communion to pro-abortion politicians, and the 2004 Catholicvote.net survey indicated he did not respond to their inquiry.

Bishop Daniel Walsh of Santa Rosa told LifeSite News in July 2004 that the idea of denying Communion to pro-abortion politicians was “an election year ploy.” Instead, he said, “In this diocese there will be no trying to force people to do what their conscience tells them they cannot do, or vice versa… The sacraments are not used as a bludgeon, a weapon to enforce Church law. Out of respect for the sacraments and the faithful, (dissenting politicians) would normally refrain from the Eucharist until they were in unity with the Church.”

© California Catholic Daily 2007. All Rights Reserved.