Recently the US Catholic Bishops have voted to produce a document addressing the thorny topic of the reception of communion by politicians who dissent from Catholic teaching. A common complaint against doing this is that such efforts "weaponize the Eucharist" and "politicize the sacrament".
This, I think, is a suspicious complaint. And if I were talking to a person of that persuasion, I'd have a few questions....
Question 1: Can a person become unfit to receive communion?
The first question is whether it is possible for a person to render himself/herself unfit for the reception of Holy Communion. While it is true that the Eucharist is the "medicine of immortality" for repentant sinners, that's not the whole story. In 1Corinthians 11:27-30, Saint Paul says:
"So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves. That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep."
Following that Biblical teaching, the Church has always held that for people in grave sin, the Eucharist is actually harmful to them. Thus, the Catholic Catechism states that the Eucharist is only licitly received by those who are reconciled to the Church. [1395, 1415]
"Anyone who desires to receive Christ in Eucharistic communion must be in the state of grace. Anyone aware of having sinned mortally must not receive communion without having received absolution in the sacrament of penance." - CCC 1415
Question 2: Can a Politician's Platform Constitute this Sort of Sin?
The second question is whether it is possible for a politician to support something as part of his/her political platform which is so heinous that it constitutes the sort of grave sin mentioned above?
For instance: Would the person think that a politician who supports apartheid, segregation, slavery, or even genocide - should receive Holy Communion?
Or is the realm of politics so cut off from the moral order that there is nothing a politician could advocate which would render him/her unable to licitly receive communion?
Question 3: Does Support For the Legality of Abortion Count?
The third question is whether the person thinks supporting the legality of abortion constitutes the sort of moral trespass which would do the job. And this is where I think the rubber meets the road, because many people who identify as Catholics just don't see it as a big deal. They've imbibed the idea that it is enough to be "personally opposed" to abortion while nevertheless upholding it as a civil right.
This is not so. The Catholic Church holds that abortion is so contrary to human dignity that it must be illegal. Paragraph 2273 of the Catechism states that political authorities must recognize the right of all innocent humans to not be killed, and that this right must be upheld through legislation.
"The rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority. Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being's right to life from the moment of conception until death.[] As a consequence, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child's rights." - CCC 2273
Catholics are not allowed to believe that abortion should be legal. Even moreso, those in places of public authority are not permitted to advocate for its legality.
So that's the third question: Is the support for the legality of abortion a political cause which renders a political unfit to receive communion?
And I'll spoil the ending here: The answer is "Yes".
Therefore, while the people who complain about "politicizing the eucharist" may dress up their objection in the language of piety, subjecting their complaint to scrutiny suggests their true motivation may be something else entirely.
No comments:
Post a Comment