In the past few months, several Catholic bishops have issued statements on the question of whether to publicly deny pro-abortion politicians the Eucharist. I am grateful to all my brother bishops who have courageously spoken out on this thorny subject. When bishops share according to their conscience and listen to others’ points of view, they foster genuine dialogue—a necessary step on the path to unity.
I would therefore like to respond to Bishop Robert McElroy’s recent essay, “The Eucharist is being weaponized for political ends. This must not happen.” His title suggests that political motives are driving the bishops’ current discussion of pro-abortion politicians and worthy reception. But while I don’t presume to know what’s in the mind and heart of my brother bishops, I am not motivated by political ends, nor are those with whom I have discussed the subject. Our concern is not political but pastoral; it is for the salvation of souls. This issue has political ramifications, but that is not an excuse to shy away at this crucial moment.
Bishop McElroy is also concerned that excluding pro-abortion politicians from communion will weaken the unity of the Church. Jesus prayed that Christians might all be one (John 17:21), and this is an obligation we must all take seriously. Yet he also said, “Do you think that I have come to give peace on earth? No, I tell you, but rather division” (Luke 12:51). Speaking the truth at times appears to create division, but often it simply exposes the division that already exists. If Catholics cannot agree on protecting the helpless unborn, then our unity is superficial at best and illusory at worst.
Bishop McElroy then critiques what he calls a “theology of unworthiness.” He argues that those who would deny pro-abortion politicians communion are applying an “extremely expansive” litmus test that “applies sanctions very selectively and inconsistently.” Is this the case?
Canon Law states, “A person who is conscious of grave sin is not to celebrate Mass or receive the body of the Lord without previous sacramental confession” (CIC 916). As abortion is one of the few sins that carries an automatic excommunication (see CIC 1398), there is no doubt that a politician who actively protects abortion and strives to make it more accessible also risks his or her salvation. It surely is not “expansive” to put this evil in the category of grave sin.
It is fair to question whether we are cherry-picking by focusing on abortion. Why aren’t we seeking eucharistic sanctions for other evils that are rampant in society? The answer is that while there are many serious sins that diminish our worthiness to receive the Eucharist, only the gravest sins extinguish that worthiness entirely. As a body of bishops we have read “the signs of the times” (Gaudium et Spes), recognized that abortion is the great evil of our culture, and called it out as such for decades. Back in 1998 our conference named abortion a “preeminent threat” and in 2019 we reaffirmed that the “threat of abortion remains our preeminent priority because it directly attacks life itself.” Pro-abortion political leaders have not heeded these calls, and now we seek to apply the last remaining and most severe medicinal option we have: eucharistic sanctions.
Bishop McElroy examines the arguments for denying communion to pro-abortion politicians and asks, “How many Catholic political leaders of either party could pass that test?” I would suggest that this is the wrong question. Jesus was not interested in numbers, but in the salvation of souls. A better question might be, “Have I done absolutely everything I can as a bishop to try to bring all pro-abortion Catholic politicians in my flock back into a state of grace?”
The above comes from a May 18 piece in First Things by Bishop James Wall of Gallup, New Mexico.
Bishop Wall is profoundly wise and deeply pastoral. We are in desperate need to be affirmed by many more righteous clerics!
But McElroy’s wasn’t thoughtful?
The problem is that McElroy’s thoughts run to the ridiculous, which is completely unacceptable for a man in his position.
Just because you disagree with something doesn’t make it ridiculous or even wrong.
McElroy disagrees with the Church he represents, therefore he is wrong and ridiculous. Those who side with him against the Church are too.
I for one would prefer that our learned bishops should have such dialogues between each other and not here, as this site seems to judge from a definite point of view, and surprisingly condemning our church leaders when they disagree on the abortion stance. One wonders if there are some who truly believe that President Biden, or ANY President who is Catholic yet must, in the name of representing the entirety of the US, not take the a pro-life stance that goes against Constitutional or other laws. One wonders if there are those who would bar such a president from even entering their church! I’ve many Catholic friends who state that they themselves are pro-life, that they would choose for themselves NOT to get an abortion, and have raised their children in a similar paradigm, but who would not interfere with another person’s right to choose otherwise. Would they be disappointed? Yes! Would they try to convince the person otherwise? Indeed, but not by the usual shame and blame tactics used by some pro-lifers. So some here like Bishop Wall’s words, other Bishop McElroy’s, and there we see the divide that the church leaders, trying or wishing to unite the church, are instead causing more divide. Excommunicating a woman because she had an abortion (and lest we forget, nothing done to the man who got her pregnant) doesn’t help reunite a flock, but instead creates that “obey or die” paradigm that uses fear to keep congregants in line. I find it interesting that some conservative politicians have held back from condemning one of their fellows for having had relations when he was 18 with a 14-15 year girl. Is this not statutory rape? Ah, but when the man marries the girl, all is forgiven? And did both enter into this marriage in full consent, or was there familial or social pressure brought to bear. Rape is rape, right? One sees how many in the church who fell away because of these kinds of missteps, that instead of show compassion and love, it’s deep down still condemnation, threat of expulsion, and disregard for the family.
“not take the a pro-life stance that goes against Constitutional or other laws…” It is always right to denounce abortion for the sin that it is, regardless of the laws. This is what it means to be moral in an age of rampant immorality. Biden is justly denounced because he has not only not opposed abortion but has actively sought to promote its practice. As to the Constitution, why do you suppose the democrats wish to pack the Court? Because they and everyone else knows that abortion is not in the Constitution and Roe v Wade rests not on Constitutional grounds but on an alleged and quite dubious ground of privacy. If Roe v Wade really rested on firm legal grounds, there would be no threat to its reversal. As to your “obey or die” categorization, it may seem to some that you have either emptied abortion of its horror, or Divine Mercy of its restorative power. The final word is never condemnation, except at the final judgment when the sheep are separated from the goats.
Sin is sin, should the Church condone, ignore or enable the sinner, thus encouraging others to fall into the same state ? God Forbid & yes He has !
We need this back and forth from the bishops. Even with the heavy hand of Rome supporting the likes of Cupich and McElroy, the issue will not go away and some very strong backbones are developing. Francis will ultimately have his own men dominating the episcopate but for now I for one rejoice in the courage of Bishop Wall. Whatever Francis does to destroy the legacy of Benedict, he cannot shut the mouths of courageous men like Wall.
We have to stand for the teaching of Christ, not the teaching political leaning Bishops.
If a President or any prolife politician, lay person support abortion then they should not present themselves for the reception of the Eucharist until a sacramental confession has been made
So easy then: sign the law, go to confession. Sign another law, go to confession. Wash, rinse, repeat. Just like millions of Catholics do when they confess habitual sins weekly or monthly. I don’t see what the problem is. Confession solves the problem.
One is Not absolved of ones sins if one does intend on changing ones ways. That is a serious mortal sin in itself — the sin of a sacrilegious confession, and only adds to ones condemnation. Another priest can be fooled, and people can be fooled, but God is not fooled.
So are all the people who confess the same sins week after week, month after month making sacrilegious confessions? So regular people intend to change but fail every time but an abortion supporting politician can’t do that too? What’s the difference? You’re holding politicians to a higher standard.
“You’re holding politicians to a higher standard.” Yes because they carry the public trust and are responsible for the welfare of their citizens. Your station in life has a large bearing on what you are responsible for and to.
And, has been noted, if there is no firm amendment to correct the sin, then the penitent is not forgiven. God recognizes our weakness. Building virtue is not a one or two time thing. If it was, I wouldnt be one of those sorry souls at confession every week. Confession is a source of strength just as is worth reception.
No it is not holding politicians to higher standards to expect them to change their behavior to doing what is right from what is intrinsically evil.
Correction to first line of my 6:40 pm, May 25 post: One is NOT absolved of ones sins if one does NOT intend on changing ones ways.
Scurry away now.
Trip, trap. Trip, trap. Thank you Billy Goat Gruff for knocking that troll off the bridge. We do have a troll among us — maybe even a couple of them.. (Laughter.) Now I am getting off of here before I end up in more trouble.
Giving this a thumbs down means you don’t like or don’t believe in the Lord’s merciful forgiveness offered in Confession.
Yet ANOTHER great highlight along Route 66, Gallup NM and Bishop Wall.
Oops! I made a major typo in the first line of my previous post. I meant to write “One is NOT absolved of ones sins if one does NOT intend on changing ones ways.”
Sorry!
@ Anne TE – don’t worry – I knew what you meant.
Thank you.