Communion need not be a political weapon

Pepperdine’s Doug Kmiec, a conservative Catholic, raised quite a few eyebrows earlier this year when he endorsed Barack Obama for president. There have been several relatively high-profile Republicans to throw their support to Obama (some have taken to calling them “Obamacans“), but Kmiec was especially surprising.

Kmiec, after all, is also a staunch Republican who played a role with Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign. He also headed the Office of Legal Counsel for Presidents Reagan and H.W. Bush. Theologically, we’re talking about a man who can “cite papal pronouncements with the facility of a theological scholar,” and who opposes abortion rights and gay rights. He backed Obama despite his positions on these issues, not because of them.

And how did Kmiec’s Catholic Church respond after learning of his favored candidate? As E. J. Dionne Jr. explained today, by denying him Communion.

Kmiec was denied Communion in April at a Mass for a group of Catholic business people he later addressed at dinner. The episode has not received wide attention outside the Catholic world, but it is the opening shot in an argument that could have a large impact on this year’s presidential campaign: Is it legitimate for bishops and priests to deny Communion to those supporting candidates who favor abortion rights?

A version of this argument roiled the 2004 campaign when some, though not most, Catholic bishops suggested that John Kerry and other pro-choice Catholic politicians should be denied Communion because of their views on abortion.

The Kmiec incident poses the question in an extreme form: He is not a public official but a voter expressing a preference. Moreover, Kmiec — a law professor at Pepperdine University and once dean of Catholic University’s law school — is a long-standing critic of the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision.

Obviously, the Catholic Church is free to come up with its own rules. I’m not Catholic, and this doesn’t apply to me anyway. Who does or does not get Communion is the business of the church and its hierarchy.

That said, looking at this as an outsider, the church’s position — and punishment of loyal adherents like Kmiec — strikes me as wildly foolish.

I think it’s a mistake to deny Communion to public officials who, in their official capacity as policy makers, stray from the church’s doctrines. But this is adding insult to injury — targeting Catholic congregants based on their votes, rather than their beliefs and conduct.

In other words, at least in the abstract, John Kerry should be blocked from receiving Communion and Catholic voters who supported him should receive the same treatment.

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops issued a statement last year telling Catholics that they can’t vote “for a candidate who takes a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, such as abortion or racism, if the voter’s intent is to support that position.” That left voters plenty of wiggle room — a Catholic voter could back a pro-choice candidate (most U.S. Catholics are pro-choice by the way) and simply say that it wasn’t his or her “intent” to support the candidate’s position on abortion. Problem solved.

But that brings us back to Kmiec.

[B]ecause Kmiec is a private citizen and has such a long history of embracing Catholic teaching on abortion, denying him Communion for political reasons may spark an even greater outcry inside the church.

Kmiec says he is grateful because the episode reminded him of the importance of the Eucharist in his spiritual life, and because he hopes it will alert others to the dangers of “using Communion as a weapon.”

Doesn’t the Catholic Church have to worry about losing their tax-exempt status? Their acts in support of one candidate (and against another) are wrong, and should be investigated by the IRS.

  • Could someone please explain to me why the Church takes this position regarding communion for so-called abortion rights advocates but is silent on those Catholic who support the death penalty and the war in Iraq. The Church opposes both of those but does nothing to politicians who deviate from the company line on those matters.

    This really makes no sense tome and I would welcome some explanation

  • NPR’s All Things Considered had a story about this with Kmiec describing what happened that evening. The priest was confrontational.
    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91087067

    A spokesman for Cardinal Mahony said this action was not within the priest’s authority. There is apparently a recognized procedure for denying communion, which wasn’t followed in this case. Kmiec speaks well for himself.

  • This should give anyone pause when Catholic Supreme Court justices are nominated. Even for conservatives. How long will it be before the Church issues a similar demand regarding the death penalty?

  • It is the absolute right of the pastor of a Catholic Church to deny communion to anyone it deems unfit…

    However, it is not their right to continue receiving tax subsidies when overtly engaging in political activity by denying communion to political figures it deems unfit.

    I am a practicing Catholic, and yet I wholeheartedly believe that this incident should be investigated by the IRS immediately.

  • It’s worth noting that — at least so far as we know so far — this represents the actions of a single rogue priest.

  • I’m a former Catholic, for many reasons. This kind of thing happens to be one of them.

    The Catholic hierarchy is highly selective with its sanctions. Support an unnecessary war that kills thousands of innocent civilians, maims more, and dislocates millions from their homes? No problem! Support abortion rights? You’re on the highway to Hell. No sacraments for you!

    When you hear a Catholic bishop talk about protecting “innocent” life, you can be sure that he (it’s always HE) is using these weasel-words ranting about abortion while giving a pass to the death penalty – which the Church also opposes.

    JFK’s 1960 Houston address should have ended this crap forever. But today, the Catholic hierarchy is trying to prove that all the old anti-Catholic bigotry was completely true and accurate – a Catholic politician has no choice but to follow the Pope’s orders or lose his immortal soul.

    This is the first time that Groucho’s famous line ever really made sense to me: “I don’t care to belong to any club that will have me as a member.”

  • Stuart Shiffman:
    Could someone please explain to me why the Church takes this position regarding communion for so-called abortion rights advocates but is silent on those Catholic who support the death penalty and the war in Iraq[?]

    Catholic wingnut KLo took a stab at that question (why is the abortion issue special in a way that Iraq or the death penalty is not?) at the Corner a few weeks back. (The immediate context was Catholic nuns — inexcusably in her mind — voting for Obama.) Her answer was (taking for granted that a fetus is a full-fledged person) that abortion kills innocents. I suppose she deserves some credit for addressing the issue, but needless to say that’s a rather unconvincing argument. War certainly kills innocents. When I read her post, a tragic image flashed into my mind: that of the body of a toddler pulled from the wreckage of his home.

  • I’m a Catholic, and this is absolute bullshit.

    Whatever you think of its policies — and most American Catholics pick and choose which ones they follow, hence the “cafeteria Catholic” sobriquet — the Church has a consistent position on issues of life. It’s opposed to a wide range of issues that violate the “seamless garment of life” theory, including birth control, abortion, euthanasia, the death penalty and unjust wars, specifically Iraq.

    In 2004, a handful of archconservative Catholic bishops, hoping to curry favor with the Vatican and promote their own selfish hopes for elevation to a higher position, decided to focus solely on one issue — abortion — and only penalize those who violated Vatican teachings on that one issue. It’s pathetic.

    We need to demand that they stop this immediately. Or, failing that, insist that they apply a uniform standard here and deny communion to politicians who support the war and the death penalty, which are equally in contravention of Vatican teaching, as well as their supporters.

    Given that would likely rule out 90% of Catholics, maybe they’ll realize to put a sock in it.

  • If we’re voting, here’s how I feel:

    I would feel __________________________ taking communion next to the following candidates.

    Barack Obama: [X] very comfortable, [ ] somewhat comfortable, [ ] awkward, [ ] queasy, [ ] revolted.
    Hillary Clinton: [ ] very comfortable, [X] somewhat comfortable, [ ] awkward, [ ] queasy, [ ] revolted.
    John McCain: [ ] very comfortable, [ ] somewhat comfortable, [ ] awkward, [ ] queasy, [X] revolted.

    Now, if it was a communion salad…

  • What crap. And very typical.

    Jesus comes for the lost, the marginalized, and the lame. His crucifixion and resurrection is for ALL people, and yet the church, rather than proclaim the Light of the World, becomes the Lighting Company of the World. So if you do not pay your bill of lip service and obedience to the decisions of “Holy Mother Church,” then the Electric Catholic Church will cut off your service.

    Yet another reason I got the hell out. Grace is sovereign, and the Sacraments of that Holy Grace should not be used as a weapon.

  • Hmmm … would the Church refuse a contribution in cash from someone who also donated to Obama? Would this priest have refused communion to a Republican anti-Choice Catholic who, for whatever reason, had decided to support Obama?

  • I could be wrong, but according to the Catholic Church’s own rules, I don’t think a Priest has the right to withhold Communion. To do so is withholding a sacrament, which is de facto excommunication. The power to excommunicate is generally reserved to local bishops or ecclesiastical courts and the reasons that a person can be excommunicated are pretty well defined. I’m curious to see if the Church takes any action against this Priest who seems to have exceeded his authority by more than a bit.

  • I think Catholics of every stripe should object to this type of treatment. Why? Because if this was perceived as a true statement of the Catholic Church, every Federal Judge that is also Catholic could be forced to recuse themselves from any case dealing with these issues. Supreme Court nominees may be required to state that they will follow the law and ignore the Church! Anyone in public life or serving in a governmental agency would also be affected.

    The Catholic Church should come out and distinguish that if someone is doing their job, following the law and not being an advocate for practices which conflict with the Church, they are okay.

    In fact, Obama isn’t an advocate for abortion either. Most women who get an abortion are not advocates for abortion. Most supporters of women who have either chosen or needed to get an abortion do not advocate for it, either before or after.

  • Stuart Shiffman, Ponnuru gives another argument today, justifying a qualitative moral distinction on a quantitative difference:

    For one thing, even if you believe, as I do not, that Iraq is an unjust war, it is not generating a toll of 1.3 million unjust deaths each year.

    What’s that? You wanted good arguments? Well, you should have said so. πŸ˜‰

  • The local Catholic church in my very small(500), rural town has had a billboard up for years about abortion. It used to have a picture of a real baby with a message that his heart beats 15 days after conception. I thought ‘ so does a toad’s’. Now it says, ‘Embryos are babies’, of course with a picture of a real baby, not a fetus. No way they would have the balls to put up an anti-death penalty billboard. It’s all about politics.

  • Catholicism is the grandest hoax ever perpetrated on humanity. Who gives a crap what they think anyway? Good for this Kmiec guy. One day the humanity will be rid of organized religion and be able to evolve as we are intended.

  • Hmmm … would the Church refuse a contribution in cash from someone who also donated to Obama?

    Heh. That reminds me — in 2004, our bishop was one of the four who said he’d deny Kerry communion. About a month later, I got a call from the Diocese asking for donations. I said to the guy on the phone, “The bishop told me he didn’t want pro-choice Catholics at communion, so I assumed he didn’t want my money either.”

    Most satisfying phone call of my life.

  • Here in St Louis, we have Archbishop Burke. he actually wrote a letter about why the death penalty and war are not intrinsically evil, but abortion and gay marriage are, during the 2004 election. see if you find it convincing…
    http://www.ewtn.com/library/bishops/burkecom.htm

    hint – you won’t. do a “control-f” for “capital” – the reason why its okay to vote for a pro-death penalty person is on a Bush v. Gore level of arglebargle and fooferah:


    5. Aren’t capital punishment and war also pro-life issues?

    Capital punishment and war are certainly pro-life issues. Although they are rarely justified, they are, though, not intrinsically evil as is abortion. In some circumstances self-defense and defense of the nation are not only rights but responsibilities.

    One cannot, however, justify voting for a candidate who promotes intrinsically evil acts which erode the very foundation of the common good, such as abortion, by appealing to that same candidate’s opposition to war or capital punishment.

    He tries to conflate “self defense” with capital punishment, since the only logical conclusion from his pronouncements is that a real Catholic should only vote for a anti-abortion, anti gay marriage, anti stem cell, an anti-death penalty candidate. but there ain’t any of those, so vote republican!. classic.

  • nerpzilla, I thought I’d found some bad arguments but you’ve got me beat. Note that the letter doesn’t even include the word “Iraq”. That some wars may be justified is kind of moot given that it is the official position of the Catholic Church that the Iraq War is an unjust war.

  • Communion “need” not be a political weapon? No. Communion **should** not be a political weapon. I won’t tell a religion I don’t follow how they should use their tenets, but the secular law is another matter. And the law on this is quite clear: religions must be politically neutral.

  • Catholicism, as it exists today, embraces profit.

    Capital punishment is a profit-driven enterprise; a single trial, from indictment to ‘final solution,” can easily put over a million dollars into the economy. Prisons, Lawyers, Courts—all derive profit from this enterprise.

    Likewise, war is a profit-driven enterprise—and there are a good many Catholics who put money into their pockets—and eventually into the collection plates of the Catholic Church—because of war.

    Abortion, on the other hand, does not benefit Catholicism’s endless thirst for profit. Therefore, abortion is an unbearable evil—while capital punishment and war are not.

    But this should go into a more “microcosmic” measurement of the issue. It was not the Church, per se, that denied this individual Communion—it was an individual priest. And because that particular priest used Communion as a political wedge, then it is the priest who should lose his tax-exempt status. Yes—he probably only make $15K or so in actual salary, but his benefits package (transport stipends, room/board at the rectory, healthcare, etc.) could turn his base package into a nice “bill” from the IRS….

  • SF,

    Would this priest have refused communion to a Republican anti-Choice Catholic who, for whatever reason, had decided to support Obama?

    Did you read the original post?

  • This kind of action by the Catholic Church makes a clear case for insisting that all Catholic judges and Justices (especially Scalia, Roberts, Alito, and Thomas) recuse themselves from cases involving abortion rights. Possible loss of access to communion would represent a clear conflict of interest for the judge.

  • TR rocks, even if (s)he is a Catholic

    Thanks.

    I’m a He-Catholic, for the record. Somewhat lapsed, but still enough in to get upset about this nonsense.

  • Edo, Yes, and you’re right: he IS a Republican. I was thinking, and did not make clear, of a less prominent, in fact not prominent at all, Republican anti-Choice Catholic. Sorry.

  • For one thing, even if you believe, as I do not, that Iraq is an unjust war, it is not generating a toll of 1.3 million unjust deaths each year.

    Far another thing, even if you believe, as I do not, that abortion is generating a toll of 1.3 million unjust deaths each year, Iraq is still an unjst war by the Catholic Church’s own admission.

    Also, even if you believe, as I do not, that abortion is generating a toll of 1.3 million unjust deaths each year, you have no right to prosecute me for the difference in our beliefs. Especially when your only argument about why this is legally justified is because the Big Book of Religious Fairy Tales tell me that the Invisible Sky Fairy commands it.

  • I don’t see any reason for an IRS investigation here. The IRS rules say non-profit groups can take moral positions, but can’t endorse candidates. It certainly sounds like the Roman Catholic Church is playing by the rules. They have every right to make their own rules for their own members. If some members don’t like it, no one is holding a gun to their heads making them remain in their church. They are perfectly free to do a Henry VIII job and secede. If they are foolish enough to believe the old “Extra ecclesiam nulla salus” line, that’s their fault.
    As for the RCC being invilved in politics, that’s hardly news. Go tell it to Henry IV of Germany. If Roman Catholics were actually willing to think (this applies to all christians, of course), they wouldn’t need a church because they would understand it’s all made up anyway.

  • FWIW, the question on rather or not the death penalty and Iraq War should also be cause for denial of communion has been raised by the US Bishops. The difference is one of ‘potential evil’ vs. ‘intrinsically evil’.

    In Catholic doctrine, abortion is held to be never licit. It is always “a grave moral disorder”. Further, before announcing this in EVANGELIUM VITAE, Pope John Paul II polled the Bishops world wide. In response to this poll, he declared that the teaching was infallible, not because of papal authority, but because of the universal agreement of the magisterium, IE, the infalliblity of the Church via universal agreement of the college of the Bishops. This is the same sort of infallibility of the Church that is relied upon in selecting Popes.

    Since abortion is never licit, even is very sad circumstances like maternal health, it is considered “intrinsically evil”, so direct complicency is a grave moral disorder.

    The Church does strongly object to the death penalty. In fact, the ‘local Catechism’ in the United States calls for its abolition and attributes it to a culture of death. However, in the Universal Catechism, does acknowledge that there might be cases where the death penalty is the only way to protect society (CCC 2267). This is in keeping with many centuries of Church teaching. It notes that these cases are very rare, if not practically non-existant, but the *possibility* exists. Since the death penalty might be licit, support of applications is a disagreement with the prudential judgement of the Magesterium. This is not something to be taken lightly, the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church states that the Pope’s prudential judgements, particularly ones forcefully taught, like the Church’s position on the death penalty, should be obeyed. But because there is the possibility of a licit application, CIC 915, the provision of Canon Law that would permit the denial of communion, is generally considered not met.

    War also is considered inherently a grave moral issue, but since St. Augustine the Church has held that Just War might be possible (under the concept of protecting one’s fellow citizen from unjust agression). Those criteria are spelled on in CCC 2309 with some moral judgements deferred to proper societal authority. Again, the Church strongly objects to the war in Iraq. And other provisions of the Catechism, such as CCC 2313 (treatment of prisones) almost certainly make Iraq an unjust action. But because the possibility exists, CIC 915 is not quite met (though supporters of both the death penalty and war that they do not believe to meet all the criteria of the Catechism should likely not present themselves for communion).

    Although political support of abortion and euthanasia can meet the criteria for CIC 915, it is normally not done lightly. It should really only apply to politicians and those in the public eye. It is also is supposed to only apply to direct support of the grievous matter. As noted, the USCCB has explained that concepts like “limiting the harm” (introduced in EVANGELIUM VITAE) and another concept called “proportional reasons” can be applied by lay Catholics in voting. That is, when confronted with candidates who all have objectional positions, a Catholic can try to limit harm and promote good. Since the evil is unavoidable, and not, in intself supported, complicency is considered “remote”, hence potentially not a personal sin. Also, there is some prudential judgment on the part of the Catholic’s local bishop. Also, the Church encourages attempts to meet and correct the grievous public sin before communion is denied (punishment is not supposed to be punitive, but instructive). And a goodly number of bishops have argued that they will not use the Eucharist as a “weapon” in any case.

    All this said, I think this is a) within the Church’s authority and b) counter productive. For example, Archbishop Burke is one of the most outspoken supporters of this kind of activity and we have seen opposite backlash each time he has grabbed headlines.

  • From now on, I’m going to deny MY Communion to that f-ing priest the next time he comes to my Mass. And for those select few of you who have been to a Biobrain Mass, you know exactly why this is such a big deal.

    Hint: The Communion wafers are chocolate mint.

    Oh, and just to show you how upset I am, I’ll share with you a little something that priest told me in confession: He’s a farter. Yep, and not just in the privacy of his own home, but he totally lets loose every Sunday during Mass. He didn’t want me to tell anyone, but Biobrain Confessions have no promises of confidentiality. That’s why I do it, for the power trip.

  • Regarding what Fitz @35 gave as the reasoning behind this apparent hypocrisy, it still never answers the question on why politicians are supposed to force non-Catholics to obey Catholic rules. I understand why John Kerry shouldn’t have an abortion, but don’t understand why he is forced to forbid us from having them. I mean, whatever happened to freewill? God supposedly introduced evil into the world to allow us to make our own mistakes and choose our own destiny. So where does the Catholic Church come off trying to force their believers into denying me the freewill to make my own mistakes?

    I mean, God allows millions of kids to starve to death in order to test to see if we’re good people, but John Kerry is supposed to use our prison system to make sure that people don’t have abortions? What sense does that make? Oh yeah, no sense. If God thinks I can choose to go to Hell, by god, I want to deserve it.

  • I’ll come back to the Catholic church when they have the wafer-melt option.

  • Fitz-

    I appreciate the interesting and illuminating response. However, even assuming abortion is inherently evil, how can the archbishop claim that the death penalty, as it exists in reality, can be tolerated? There is no longer any set of circumstances (if there ever was) where society cannot be protected by measures less than capital punishment. My criticism with the Archbishop is not that abortion is inherently evil, but that the death penalty, in the United States, is not and cannot be used in a manner consistent with Church doctrine. therefore, voting for anyone who supports the US death penalty is necessarily voting for the promulgation of an illicit act. Now, as a lawyer, I respect the loophole he creates, but as a moral statement, it smells bad. Shouldn’t the standard be you cannot vote for anyone who supports the death penalty in any case but for the protection of society, which in reality means an absolute opponent?

    I feel the Archbishop is trying to morally conflate “self defense” (i.e. shooting an intruder who is seeking to harm your family) with capital punishment (i.e. executing a person who is locked up 23 hours a day, for life, posing no threat to society). hiding behind only theoretical extreme situations is cowardly. there is no longer any potential non-evil purpose for the death penalty, therefore it must be inherently evil.

    I feel, as do most, this was a cherry-picking of reality to push support to the republicans. Why else hedge on a fairly straight forward issue with legal mumbo jumbo? I respect and appreciate the Archbishop’s convictions against abortion. What I do not respect is his naked hypocrisy. If he wants to make the argument that, “there are no perfect candidates out there, so since abortion is more evil than the others, and both republicans and democrats support the death penalty, a Catholic should vote for the least evil one,” so be it. But to push the taking of a human life, after living right next to Illinois, which had only recently put a moratorium on the death penalty because of the number of innocent people on death row, to the side so casually and disingenuously, reeks of political favoritism.

    Lastly, this is not just about the withholding of the sacrament. The Archbishop was advising Catholics how to uphold their civic duty to vote. Far form the extreme punishment of taking away communion, the Archbishop was telling people it was okay to vote for representatives who supported acts of murder, in contradiction to Church doctrine. He basically said, its okay to be complicit in the taking of life in the death penalty, as long as you don’t vote for someone who thinks two men should be able to file taxes together.

  • Pretty much every poster on this topic is going to hell. I know cause I’m the devil. See you soon.

  • If they deny communion on the abortion issue but not the capital punishment issue, they are showing themselves to be Republicans, not Catholics.

  • Comments are closed.