The Roman Catholic Church opposes abortion, and many controversies have arisen over its treatment of Catholic politicians who support abortion rights. In most cases, Church officials have threatened to refuse communion to these politicians. In some cases, officials have stated that the politicians should refrain from receiving communion; in others, the possibility of excommunication has been suggested.
Contents |
In 2004, there was discussion of whether communion should be refused to American Catholic politicians who voted for legalizing abortion.[1] With a few American bishops in favor of withholding communion from politicians and the majority against, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops decided that such matters should be decided on a case-by-case basis by the individual bishops.[2] In 2005, Archbishop Donald Wuerl of Pittsburgh said no individual bishop should on his own deny communion to politicians because of "national ramifications", and suggested that such an action should be taken only on the basis of a two-thirds majority of all of the bishops or as mandated by the Vatican, while bishops Thomas Olmsted of Phoenix and Charles J. Chaput of Denver stated they would act on their own initiative.[3] In 2008, Raymond Burke, former archbishop of St. Louis and subsequently assigned to the Vatican, said that communion should not be given to such politicians because he considers support for abortion rights to be a mortal sin that makes a person unfit for communion, and to prevent other Catholics from thinking, because they see that pro-choice politicians can receive communion, that being pro-choice is an acceptable political position.[2]
Those few[4] bishops who support denying communion to pro-choice Catholic legislators interpret canon 915 as justifying such action.[5] In 2009, Wuerl said that communion was not intended to be used as a weapon and that a pastoral approach would be more effective for changing minds than a canonical one.[6]
These statements of intent from church authorities have sometimes led American Catholic voters to vote for candidates who wish to ban abortion, rather than pro-choice candidates who support other Catholic Church positions, such as war, health care, immigration, or lowering the abortion rate.[7] Penalties of this kind from bishops have targeted Democrats, although a number of prominent Republican politicians are also pro-choice.[8]
Proposals to deny communion to pro-choice politicians are unique to the United States. Suggested reasons for this uniqueness are a politicization of pastoral practice and abortion's constitutional status as a right.[2][1]
During a special election for the California Senate in 1989, pro-choice Catholic Lucy Killea was barred from communion by Leo Thomas Maher, bishop of San Diego.[8] This was the first instance of a politician being censured in this way.[9] She received communion in Sacramento with the consent of Bishop Francis Quinn.[10] The incident brought publicity to Killea's candidacy and gained her the voters' sympathy, winning her the election.[11][12]
In 1984, Cardinal John Joseph O'Connor, then archbishop of New York, considered excommunicating New York Governor Mario Cuomo.[13][14] He also condemned Cuomo's statements that support for abortion rights did not contradict Catholic teaching, but did not suggest that Cuomo should stop receiving communion.[15]
In January 2003, Bishop William Weigand of Sacramento said Governor of California Gray Davis, a Catholic who supported abortion rights, should stop taking communion.[8]
In 2004, Archbishop Burke said he would not give communion to presidential candidate and Senator John Kerry, in part because of his position on abortion. According to religion experts, such a denial of communion would have been unprecedented.[16][17] Kerry's own Archbishop Sean O'Malley refused to specify the applicability of his earlier statement that such Catholics are in a state of grave sin and cannot properly receive communion.[16]
The issue led to comparisons between Kerry's presidential campaign and that of John F. Kennedy in 1960. While Kennedy had to demonstrate his independence from the Roman Catholic Church due to public fear that a Catholic president would make decisions based on Vatican commands, it seemed that Kerry, in contrast, had to show obedience to Catholic authorities in order to win votes.[8][18][19][20][21]
In 2007, Burke said that he would deny communion to Rudy Giuliani because of his views on abortion, and that Giuliani should not seek the sacrament.[17]
In May 2008, Kansas City Archbishop Joseph Naumann said that Kathleen Sebelius should stop receiving communion because of her support for abortion rights, and that she should not again take it unless she publicly stated that she opposed abortion rights.[22][23][24]
After Joe Biden, a pro-choice Catholic, was nominated as a vice presidential candidate in the 2008 presidential election, Bishop Joseph Francis Martino of Biden's hometown of Scranton, Pennsylvania, said Biden would be refused communion in that diocese because of his support for abortion rights.[7] Biden was not refused communion in his then parish of Wilmington, Delaware.[25]
In November 2009, Bishop Thomas Tobin barred Representative Patrick Kennedy from communion because of his position on abortion rights.[26] Kennedy told the Providence Journal that Tobin instructed priests in the diocese not to give him communion; Tobin denied this.[26]
In Europe, Catholic bishops have not raised the question of refusing communion to pro-choice Catholic legislators: there "rigorous principles coexist with more flexible pastoral customs".[2] In January 2001, Pope John Paul II gave Communion to Mayor of Rome Francesco Rutelli, whose position is that of being "personally opposed to abortion, but not willing to impose his stance through law". Similar cases are found among parliamentarians in Austria, Belgium and Germany.[1] When the Spanish Parliament voted to liberalize that country's abortion laws in 2010, the Bishops Conference declared that the parliamentarians who chose to vote for the new law were not excommunicated, but that they "seriously separated themselves from the church and should not receive Communion." King Juan Carlos, who was constitutionally required to sign the law, did not fall under any church sanctions.[27]
In May 2007, Pope Benedict XVI expressed support for the Mexican bishops' envisaged excommunication of politicians who had voted to legalize abortion in Mexico City. Responding to a journalist's question, "Do you agree with the excommunications given to legislators in Mexico City on the question?" the Pope said: "Yes. The excommunication was not something arbitrary. It is part of the (canon law) code. It is based simply on the principle that the killing of an innocent human child is incompatible with going in Communion with the body of Christ. Thus, they (the bishops) didn't do anything new or anything surprising. Or arbitrary."[28] According to Der Spiegel, many journalists were wondering if this support could be interpreted as a wish to excommunicate such politicians,[29]; Time magazine reported that it was in fact such a declaration.[30] However, church officials said that it was not a declaration but appeared to be a misunderstanding.[28] Federico Lombardi, director of the Holy See Press Office, clarified that the Pope was not excommunicating anyone, since the Mexican bishops had not in fact declared an excommunication, and that he did not mean to depart from a recent declaration that placed the decision to leave the Church in the hands of individual politicians. However, Lombardi said "politicians who vote in favor of abortion should not receive the sacrament of Holy Communion", because their action is "incompatible with participation in the Eucharist."[31]