The Sin of the Politician or Public Official that Votes for Or Upholds the Validity of Permissive Abortion Laws

The last two installments of this series of post indicated that formal cooperation in abortion was a reason why pro-abortion politicians must be judged unworthy to receive Holy Communion and must, therefore, be denied the Sacrament by the minister. When Benedict XVI was prefect of the CDF he indicated that formal cooperation in abortion was a reason why the politician was unworthy. Indeed, that cooperation in the results of such immoral laws are the cause for serious concern among the Church’s ministers. In Evangelium vitae, no. 73, John Paul II raised the issue of these laws saying, “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 favor of such a law, or vote for it.’” This quotation is from the Declaration on Procured Abortion, no. 22. Cardinal Ratzinger’s 2004 letter referred directly to this idea insofar as it spoke of campaigning and voting for the immoral law. Here is the relevant statement from the Declaration on Procured Abortion: “It must in any case be clearly understood that whatever may be laid down by civil law in this matter, man can never obey a law which is in itself immoral, and such is the case of a law which would admit in principle the liceity of abortion. Nor can he take part in a propaganda campaign in favor of such a law, or vote for it. Moreover, he may not collaborate in its application.”

The interesting point about these texts from Evangelium vitae and the Declaration on Procured Abortion is that the issue is not so much the cooperation in one or more procured abortions, but the cooperation in the creation of intrinsically immoral laws. In the next post, the blog will take a closer look at this issue.

Works cited:

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration on Procured Abortion (18 November 1974), No. 22: AAS 66 (1974), 744.)

Campaigning and Voting for Permissive Abortion Laws Place the Politician in an Objective Situation of Grave Sin, i.e., Manifest Grave Sin

It is clear from the last post that the traditional moral teaching, presented in the earlier posts, prevails regarding the role of the minister in the administration of Holy Communion according to the 2004 letter of the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger. In fact, the future pope’s statement is utterly congruent with and reaffirms traditional moral principles on the administration of Holy Communion and the minister’s responsibility. The statement includes the pastoral element of meeting with the offender and instructing him or her on the recipient’s duty not to approach reception of the sacrament until the objective situation of sin is remedied. The instruction given by Cardinal Ratzinger precisely outlines the steps which must be taken if when the politician is in an objective situation of grave sin. This is an instruction to the ministers of the sacrament and it is precisely the kind of action which must be taken if the minister, himself, is to avoid the sins of immoral cooperation and scandal. The conclusion that one must make, following upon the statement is unmistakable: In keeping with the minister’s moral duties regarding the administration of the sacraments, he must deny the Holy Eucharist to those who do not remedy the public situation of sin created by campaigning and voting for permissive abortion laws.

When Cardinal Ratzinger wrote that letter, he characterized the sin of the Catholic politician who campaigns and votes for abortion as formal cooperation in the grave sin of abortion. In this case, the cooperation of the politician in abortion is the issue. This is an important point. A formal cooperator is one who agrees with the immoral act, either in the intention (the motive for having an abortion) or the object (the abortion as a means to an end) or both, of the person or persons who are the principal agents of the grave sin of abortion. According to the principles of cooperation, the formal cooperator is equally guilty of the sin as the principal agent because the cooperator adopts the evil outcome of the principal agent’s actions as his or her own. Thus, the politician who formally cooperates by consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion laws is guilty of all the instances of the sin of abortion that he or she seeks to permit through the campaigning and voting for the permissive laws. The critical factor for the minister of Holy Communion is that these sins are "manifest" by virtue of the public nature of the activity in the political life of the state. The minister has the right and the responsibility to take cognizance of this manifest state of sin.

Cooperation and Scandal: Are Politicians Who Vote for Permissive Abortion Laws Manifest Grave Sinners and Unworthy to Receive Holy Communion?

In the discussions that surround the issue of Holy Communion and the public sinner who is, therefore, unworthy to receive the sacrament, no one, as far as this author is able to tell, has given an explanation as to why the traditional moral teaching in this matter does not prevail in the matter of politicians who support a so-called right to abortion. Concerning the canonical discipline, the Rev. John P. Beal argued in 2004 that c. 915 could not be used to exclude pro-abortion politicians from Holy Communion, asserting that politicians cannot be compared to prostitutes, magicians and others who are publicly unworthy. (Beal, 2004) Unfortunately, the author does not give an explanation of his opinion that could withstand serious scrutiny. Distinguishing the pro-abortion politicians from those who are divorced and remarried, in the same article he argues, “However loathsome some politicians’ views and votes on life issues may be, it is hard to see how it can be said that theirs is a state and condition of life in such objective contradiction to the Gospel that their grave sin should be judged ‘manifest.’” That claim, given the death of those innocents whom the politicians make no effort to protect, is illogical and untenable. His assertions are in no way consistent with the moral law of administration of the sacraments. In any case, as Archbishop Burke points out in his article in 2007, the moral issue was settled by Cardinal Ratzinger in a letter to the bishops of the United States. What the future pope said seems to remove any doubt about the politician’s responsibility for the grave sin of abortion: “Regarding the grave sin of abortion or euthanasia, when a person's formal cooperation becomes manifest (understood, in the case of a Catholic politician, as his consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws), his Pastor should meet with him, instructing him about the Church's teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin, and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist.” (Ratzinger, 2004) That letter is widely available though it was a private letter sent to Archbishop Wilton Gregory and Cardinal Theodore McCarrick as representatives of the bishops' conference in the United States.


Works cited:

Beal, John P. 2004. Holy Communion and Unholy Politics. America, (June 21), http://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=3635

Ratzinger, Joseph Cardinal. 2004. Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion. General Principles. L’espresso, (July 3), http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/7055?eng=y.

Cooperation and Scandal: The Differences between the Cases of the Public and "Private" Sinner

One could ask why we would need to consider cooperation in sacrilege when, morally speaking, the avoidance of scandal should be sufficient reason for the minister to refuse communion to a public sinner. The answer to that question lies in the fact that many ministers of the sacraments do not understand the seriousness of the matter. As a matter of fact, one must be dismayed by the general lack of awareness of sound moral principles regarding the administration of the sacraments. This is not to say that the Church’s ministers are intentionally failing in their responsibility, but the discussion that has taken place surrounding this matter of Holy Communion certainly points to a lack of knowledge about authentic moral principles which guide the administration of sacraments. Perhaps by considering the more basic question of the minister's moral culpability for cooperation in another’s sin, the importance of the issue of scandal involved in public sin can be better appreciated.

In their erudite treatment, Moral Theology: A Complete Course, Dominican authors John McHugh, OP, and Charles Callan, OP, discuss the circumstances under which the minister must deny the sacraments to a potential recipient. They write, the minister “must deny them, as a rule, to those who to his knowledge are certainly unworthy (e.g., on account of lack of requisite instruction or moral disposition); otherwise he casts pearls before swine, cooperates in the sacrilege of others, and scandalizes the people.” (Mc Hugh and Callan 1958, 2: 663) They add, “Hence a public sinner—that is, one whose unworthiness is notorious…--should not be given the Sacraments publicly, until he has repaired the scandal he gave; and no unworthy person, even though he is a hidden sinner whose guilt is known only to the minister, should be given a Sacrament in private until he has shown signs of repentance.” (663) They indicate quite clearly that the minister must refuse to admit to Holy Communion persons who are known to be unworthy. “Those persons are denied communion who cannot receive without scandal.” (687) Among those who cannot receive under this circumstance they identify those who are infamous such as prostitutes or defamers and those who are intoxicated or “insufficiently dressed.” (687)

The authors make some points here which need to be clearly understood. First, the worthiness of the recipient is, in fact, an issue when administering sacraments. Thus, it is incumbent upon the minister to be aware of the potential for immoral cooperation and scandal. Secondly, the question of cooperation in sacrilege arises in the case of any sinner, not only the case of the public sinner. Thirdly, the minister’s response to the unworthy recipient differs depending upon whether the recipient’s unworthiness results from a public sin or a hidden (not public) sin. When the grave sin is not public, administering the sacrament to the unworthy recipient whose sin is known to the minister constitutes cooperation in the sin. In such a case, however, cooperation is permissible under some circumstances and scandal is not likely to become an issue. But, when the sin is public, the matter of scandal takes on paramount importance. And, since the moral law called for “repair of the scandal” as a matter of justice, essentially a public repentance, the unworthy recipient could not receive the sacraments publicly again even if he had confessed the sin and received absolution. The authors, however, in no way discount the need for absolution for the one whose sin is private but known to the minister.

The fact that scandal becomes the overriding moral issue in the case of the public sinner does not, however, eliminate the need to consider the duty of the minister not to cooperate in sacrilege.

Works cited:

McHugh, John A., OP, and Callan, Charles J., OP, 1958. Moral Theology: A Complete Course Based on St. Thomas Aquinas and Best Modern Authors. Rev. and en., Edward P. Farrell, OP. New York: Joseph F. Wagner.

(Fourth post in a series on Communion and Pro-Abortion Politicians)

Cooperation and Scandal: Can the Minister of Holy Communion Ignore the Worthiness of the Recipient without Risk of Sin?

In the writings of the moral authors as well as canonists the issues of scandal and cooperation were discussed and analyzed proximately because both principles treat of involvement of one person in another’s sin. The noted canonist and moralist, Dominic Prummer, OP, distinguishes the two, saying, “Co-operation differs from scandal is so far as the latter causes the evil will of the sinner (by advice, command, or example), whereas co-operation presupposes the evil will of the sinner and is a means of bringing this evil will to completion in an external act.” (Dominic M. Prummer, OP, Handbook of Moral Theology, trans., Gerald W. Shelton [Cork: Mercier, 1956] 103). There are good reasons why commentaries on canon law (and the Catechism of the Catholic Church, as well) should emphasize scandal, in general. Scandal is a bit of a trump card in the moral arena. An otherwise moral action can become immoral if it causes scandal, or, in other words, leads another into sin. Scandal can be a particular concern for those in authority since a person in authority has a responsibility to lead and instruct. This analysis will turn to the issue of scandal later but cooperation will be addressed first.

Given the statement from Prummer it is easy to see why moral theology needs to look at the morality of cooperation of the minister in the administration of sacraments. In charity, after love of God, the first responsibility of the minister is to the good of his own soul. Immoral cooperation follows on the evil will of the person with whom he cooperates. If the participation in the other person’s sin is immoral, then, the cooperator commits sin which can be grave. Moreover, to act prudently and with a certain conscience, which is morally required, the cooperator must consider the moral meaning of his act of cooperation. If the cooperator is unsure about the moral goodness of the action or simply dismisses the involvement in the other person’s sin as unimportant, he can still be responsible for the sin of immoral cooperation. This is so because no one is permitted to act with a doubtful conscience and all reasonable efforts should be exhausted to resolve doubts. Ignorance is not necessarily a justification for acting in an evil fashion, either. For as the Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 1791, teaches, “Ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man ‘takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is blinded through the habit of committing sin. [Gaudium et spes, 16] In such cases the person is culpable for the evil he commits.” This result flows out of the serious duty each of us has to avoid evil.

In the case of the minister of Holy Communion who allows a recipient to receive the sacrament even when that one is notoriously a serious sinner, according to moral principles, the morality of the minister’s cooperation in the sin of sacrilege must be analyzed. The minister's failure to consider this moral issue does not make, in the end, the minister’s action less subject to moral evaluation. This outcome ought be obvious to anyone who has even a basic knowledge of morality. In fact, failure to consider one’s potential cooperation in another’s sin may suggest a blindness to sin that the Catechism (1791) cautions against.

(Third post of series begun Nov. 13, 2008)

Ad sacram communionem ne admittantur: The Roman Ritual, the Pio-Benedictine Code, and Canon 915 of the Code of 1983

The first post on this subject referred to c. 855 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law (Pio-Benedictine). The language of c. 855 which requires that the minister refuse communion to public sinners was virtually identical to that of the Roman Ritual of 1614 published by Pope Paul V. (Rituale Romanum, Editio princeps (1614), ed. Manlio Sodi, SDB, and Juan Flores Arcas, OSB [Libreria Editrice Vaticana: Vatican City, 2004]).

Archbishop Burke traces the development of the Roman Ritual on the administration of the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist. He discusses the historical background of the canon from the origins in decretal law and the reforms of the Council of Trent. He then goes on to draw out the relationship of the ancient and traditional teaching to canon 915 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law (Codex Iuris Canonici [Libreria Editrice Vaticana: Vatican City, 1983]) which states: “The excommunicated and interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others who remain obstinately in manifestly grievous sin are not to be admitted to Holy Communion.” Archbishop Burke presents the conditions for exclusion from the sacrament and demonstrates with decisive authority why the minister bears the burden for the proper administration of Holy Communion and why in some cases the minister must refuse to give the sacrament.

The canonical discipline and the canonist’s explanation of the law given by Archbishop Burke is persuasive. At the same time, moral theology can help clarify the moral meaning behind the law in a way that is perfectly consistent with Archbishop Burke's expert legal analysis. Indeed, in order to fully appreciate the law’s instruction to the minister of the Eucharist to refuse Holy Communion to those who persist in manifestly grave sin, one must consider the principle of material cooperation mentioned in the earlier post. As we shall see, the law of the Church not only seeks to bring back an errant sinner, it protects the moral integrity of the minister. The sacred minister, like all others, is morally required to avoid evil including the participation in another person's sin. Since one who is known manifestly to have commited grave sin also commits a sacrilege by receiving Holy Communion, under most circumstances the minister is bound to avoid participation in that sin.

The Manuals and Administration of the Sacraments: The Role of the Minister

The approved authors of the moral books had much to say about the administration of the sacraments and about the minister's moral responsibility regarding the duty to administer and refuse the sacraments to certain persons. They were concerned with a few different principles and precepts which helped to clarify the role of the minister as one who acts in the name of Christ. "The sacraments were instituted by Christ as so many channels or conduits by which he might convey to the souls of men the fruits of his passion and death. They are administered in his name and by his authority, and so Christ himself is the principal minister of the sacraments." (Thomas Slater, S.J., A Manual of Moral Theology for English-Speaking Countries, Vol. 2 [New York: Benziger, 1925] 61.) The concern for the proper administration of the sacraments was manifested clearly in the treatment of the responsibilities of the minister.

Recently, however, in any number of statements made by those who do not support withholding of the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist from those Catholic politicians who publicly support abortion, the underlying assumption seems to be that the withholding of the sacrament from an unworthy recipient is no more than a matter of the minister's discretion, if such action is allowable at all. However, the teaching of the moralists was quite the opposite. Indeed, the moralists wrote with clarity on the duty of refusing the sacraments to the unworthy. In the twentieth century between 1917 and 1983, the commentary of moralists was often based upon Canon 855 of the 1917 (Pio-Benedictine) Code of Canon Law: “Those who are notoriously unworthy are to be refused, such as the excommunicated, the interdicted, and manifestly infamous, as are strumpets, those living in concubinage, usurers, wizards, sorcerers, blasphemers, and other public sinners of that kind, unless it is certain that they have repented and amended, and have made satisfaction for the public scandal which they have given.” From a moral point of view, administering the sacraments to those unworthy to receive represented, at least, material cooperation in another’s sin. In the case of public sinners, scandal imposes an additional moral problem.

Archbishop Raymond Burke has presented a very thorough explanation of the canonical aspects of the current text of the law found in canon 915 of the current Code of Canon Law. The article, "The Discipline Regarding the Denial of Holy Communion to Those Obstinately Perservering in Manifest Grave Sin," may be found in Periodica de Re Canonica, vol. 96 (2007): 3-58. (A copy of the article can be found at http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/holycom/denial.htm).