Why I disagree with the Cardinal Mahoney regarding the the US Bishop's Document on Communion for Pro-Choice Politicians

   Vatican News published an interview with Cardinal Mahony regarding his opinion on the, now famous USCCB Document to be titled, "The Mystery of the Eucharist in the Life of the Church". In the interview conducted by Sr. Bernadette Reis, fsp, Mahoney considers the USCCB Document "unfortunate" despite having been chosen to be written in a democratic vote by an overwhelming majority of US Bishops. 

 What I find "unfortunate" is that despite the fact Cardinal Mahony has been suspended from pastoral activity by the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, is under investigation for potentially sexually abusing minors, and is virtually relegated to spending out the rest of his life in his childhood parish, i.e. St. Charles Borromeo Parish in North Hollywood, yet has been given a podium from which to speak to his "Brother Bishops" in this interview and in an "open letter" dated in September of 2021. One cannot pass to see without the silliness befalling the current status quo. The one thing I would agree with the Cardinal on would be the need to "listen" before speaking. So here goes an attentive reading of his words and my commentary.

The Interview

 The Interview is a simple one with only three questions. I will reproduce the first question and His answer in full and comment on it. I underline key parts.

"Your Eminence, back in September, you sent an open letter to your brother Bishops regarding the proposed document on the Eucharist that will be discussed by the USCCB during its plenary beginning on Monday. Can you tell us your thoughts on the proposed document in its present draft?"

"I think it's unfortunate that we're even having this document before us because recall this topic came up at the Ad limina visit we had last January 2020 before Covid hit. The Holy Father, of course, is always, always looking for the path of encounter and dialogue to deal with issues like this, especially among the Bishops. And then Cardinal Ladaria, Prefect of the Congregation for Doctrine of the Faith, sent a quite lengthy letter to the Bishops of the United States, at the Holy Father’s urging, in which he outlined the process for us to go through. It was a wonderful three-step process in that letter, in which we would meet regionally for maybe 2 or 3 days together. And really come to know each other, to understand what was going on, what our differences were. We didn't do that because of Covid. If we had done it I think we would be in a far different situation. And if we had really had this honest dialogue among ourselves and got to understand each other's positions and then acted as the communion of Bishops with our unity, we could have found a path forward. I believe we would have decided we do not need this document."

 The Cardinal strikes out from the outset. "It's unfortunate that we're even having this document..." Not a lot of listening going on here. His mind is made up. He suggests that the Holy Father and Cardinal Ladaria (Prefect of the CDF) had issued a 3-step process to hear one another out. The Cardinal continues, saying that, "if we had really had this honest dialogue among ourselves...we could have found a path forward". There's no doubt further conversation within the USCCB could have changed the "path forward" but within the confines of reality I believe they have "met and discussed" at length and have seen as Pastors their role to defend the Truth and the Faith. 

What has not Happened: A True Conversation

 The fact is that the listening has happened and many frank and honest conversations have occurred year-after-year, month-after-month, and what we are finding is that the "conversation" is one sided. If a politician decides to vote contrary to Natural Moral Law he or she does so. Here, one does not just encounter a separation between Church and State, one encounters a separation of the Moral Conscience and Human Act. The Church, and namely Bishops, has the moral obligation to inform the Faithful (which include Politicians) and their consciences regarding what is and what is not licit according to Moral Law in the Faithful's "goings and comings". The Catholic Church has a wide berth with regards to views and takes. It does not necessarily align to the "American Way of Life", in fact it has often criticized the materialism of our Nation and the downgrading of those most in need. Our Country has many many positive facets and one can never leave those out (for example, our Constitution and Bill of Rights which ultimately recognizes the Sovereignty of God and the Dignity of the Human Person). But on the other hand one of the negative facets of our culture is just that, a Culture of Death. 

The Cardinal continues:

"Remember this document was intended primarily to go after and penalize Catholic legislators. However, the Holy See reminded us that the Bishops’ conference has no power to mandate something binding on every bishop and every diocese in the country or any country without being approved by the Holy See. The document of any kind should be at the very end of the process. That's why I am so unsettled about this document that we have before us."

 The Church, as a good Mother, and Bishops as good Fathers, some times must chastise those who no longer live and act according to the objective Moral Law. One of the ways a person can do so is to be "pro-choice" or to flat out commit an abortion. One way to be "pro-choice" is to vote for a politician who publicly supports abortion or pro-choice legislation. Another way to act against Moral Law is to, as a politician, support, vote for, or write pro-choice legislation. This has been taught over and over again by the Catholic magisterium. 

Pope St. John Paul II in Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life) n. 73 stated clearly:

"In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to "take part in a propaganda campaign in favour of such a law, or vote for it" (quoted from Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration on Procured Abortion (18 November 1974), No. 22: AAS 66 (1974), 744.)

 No member of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops is against "dialogue" or "listening" what they are discerning and have discerned is that regardless of their many "pastoral attempts" to engage in a dialogue with these so-called "Catholic" politicians their attempts have failed. There is no doubt, that the mode by which these attempts have been made can be put under scrutiny as each Bishop and Pastor has a "Care of Souls" over a geographic or communal area, but by and large, the call to heed the warning signs are not being followed, ultimately for a Politician who claims to be "in good standing with the Catholic Church" receiving Communion is a right, regardless of their actions, omissions, and God forbid someone bring up their being in a State of Grace or Sin.

 Loosely speaking, we are "owed" the sacraments by the merits of Christ who gave his Life so we could "access" His Grace and His Salvation. That said, there is no literature on Planet Earth that suggests that we "own" the Mysteries of Christ tout-court and can abuse them for our own hubristic gain. No one should consider himself "worthy" to receive the Eucharist even when he or she is in a state of grace. It is a gift, and one we ought to approach in "fear and trembling" (Cf. Phil 2:12) as opposed to "pomp and circumstance".

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states in a seemingly egalitarian way, 

"519. All Christ's riches "are for every individual and are everybody's property."

The only correct interpretation of the Catechism's claim is to also embrace the fact that if we consider "Christ's riches" as personal and communal "property" that we must be worthy and seek to be worthy to possess them. This is the Universal Call to Holiness. St. Paul uses the word, "Steward" and not "Tyrant" we would do good to ourselves and to God by taking that distinction seriously as He mentions the need for each of us to be "Trustworthy". 

St. Paul states clearly in his First Letter to the Corinthians,

"1 This is how one should regard us, as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God. 2 Moreover it is required of stewards that they be found trustworthy." (1 Cor 4:1-2)

An Example in Hyperbole 

 Often the debate over abortion is placed in hyperbolic circumstances whereby the pro-choice voice is one of a moral public plea for compassion for those in difficult situations. There is no doubt that many times an abortion is sought out for women and couples in difficult situations. A deep-dive is no doubt necessary and the true compassionate answer should be to help those in need whilst avoiding an abortion. (More often than not at this point of the conversation the "tolerant" pro-choice person will practically say, "nothing can be done" as if Abortion and only Abortion will solve all, a deus ex machina). 

Catholic Social Doctrine supports legislation and actual service towards  and for  struggling families with unplanned and even "unwanted" pregnancies (yes, even against all conservative libertarian advances to support - even with handouts). I think of the often wasted efforts in adoptions in the United States where many good families cannot adopt a child due to the unnecessary duress and hardships to adopt a child. 

I would like to use the same hypothetical argument for a reason why pro-choice politicians should not receive Holy Communion. The proportional perspective of this scenario may not pass muster but for the tolerant, I ask, please, read to the end. 

The year is 1945. World War II has just ended. German Catholics and German Lutherans fought side by side as Nazis. Most if not all had no choice. Some of them even as infamous SS and concentration camp officials and staff. Many were even cognizant of the inherent evil of their duties in physically "exterminating the Jews". Should German Catholics who served in the SS, concentration camp officials, or as camp staff who were cognizant of their actions in exterminating Jews. Should they have been receiving Communion during World War II? I think the decisive answer is a resounding, "NO!"

I am more than sure that the reader (even a pro-life reader) could feel disgust in my suggesting there is a parallel between Nazi Catholics and Pro-choice Politicians but the Truth is that the victims are both the same exact Human Beings, just divided by time and religion. While in World War II, the great majority of victims were Jewish and in Europe, the victims of Abortion are of all Religions (or none at all) and in every Continent. You could claim that there is a "substantial" difference between those in the womb and those without the womb but that is contrary to simple ontology. The only being in a human womb is a human being. Nothing else can be procreated by a human being but a human being regardless of its stage of gestation, be it born or unborn. I cannot simplify it further.

In Conclusion

The earliest Christians would have seen it as clearly as day. There was no compromise on the topic and one proposing or assuming He or She could receive Communion while publicly supporting Abortion (or Euthanasia for that matter) would simply have been rejected by the "Ekklesia" or Church "assembly".

Read the Didache which taught Early Christians around 70 AD:

“The second commandment of the teaching: You shall not murder. You shall not commit adultery. You shall not seduce boys. You shall not commit fornication. You shall not steal. You shall not practice magic. You shall not use potions. You shall not procure [an] abortion, nor destroy a newborn child” (Didache 2:1–2). 

The Cardinal continues: 

"First of all, this document is totally unnecessary because at our June meeting we also approved a path forward for Bishop Andrew Cozzens and his Committee on Evangelization, which will begin after the holidays – a two-year intensive program of revitalization through the Eucharist ending in 2024 with a National Eucharistic Congress. So, we already have in place this important piece. I think the document as we have it is being passed just as we come up on the holiday season, no one is going to read, it is not something that can be put into a pamphlet form of teaching document. It will never have any impact because, right after the holidays, we’re getting into this Eucharistic Revival, which is what we should be doing in the first place."

 This USCCB Document, as the Didache of the First Christian Century is necessary. The Cardinal mentions that given its public introduction at the end of the Year, that "no one will read it". His is a shallow reading of the Signs of the Times. I would posit that he is an anti-prophet in the fact that he does not want the Church to be heard, in particular by those who need conversion and a change of heart, especially by those who claim to be of Her fold.

 I sincerely look forward to reading it attentively and sending my US Representative to Congress a copy. I also admire the US Conference of Bishops for going against the grain, even against the grain of their superiors in Rome, to preach the Catholic and Apostolic Truth of all Times and Places, not just that of the United States. They are a Beacon of Light in that regard.