Debating the Eucharist: Bishops May Deny Communion to Pro-Choice Politicians

On June 18, 2004, the nation’s Roman Catholic bishops voted 183-6 to allow individual bishops and dioceses to deny communion to pro-choice Catholic politicians.

However, the vote did not dictate that bishops forbid communion to pro-choice lawmakers. Instead, the bishops’ statement, a 1000-word document called "Catholics in Political Life," supports bishops on both sides of the debate, since it says that each bishop should decide the matter for himself and for his diocese.

The debate

Many bishops believe that Catholic politicians who support a woman’s right to choose (such as likely presidential nominee John Kerry) are violating the Catholic Church’s moral teachings. Many bishops conclude that these pro-choice lawmakers should be denied the communion wine and Eucharist, which they believe to be the blood and body of Christ.

The Catholic News Service reports that Father Frank Pavone, national director of Priests for Life, said that politicians who support abortion are assisting evil and working against the common good. Pavone argues that abortion is never acceptable, even when the mother’s health is at risk, and therefore any politician who defends abortion is violating Catholic doctrine.

Pavone argues that other moral issues, such as capital punishment and war, are justified in certain circumstances; but abortion, he says, "is always intrinsically evil."

What about other moral issues?

Readers who responded to The New York Times article on the subject argued that the Catholic Church should be prepared to censure politicians who favor the death penalty and unfair economic and health policies as well, since they also violate Catholic teachings. Many of those who wrote letters to the editor disagreed that abortion is drastically different from other moral/political issues, as Pavone suggested.

Bishops disagree

Many bishops, priests, and Catholics disagree with Father Pavone and feel that the Church should not use the Eucharist as a political weapon. The Catholic News Service reports that Archbishop Charles J. Chaput of Denver believes that the Church should almost never deny communion to a Catholic. According to The New York Times, Cardinal Roger Mahoney of Los Angeles agrees. He says that it is the duty of each Catholic to consider her or his own worthiness to receive communion; it is not the role of the Church.

What is the role of the church?

Clearly, this issue brings up the church-state debate. To what extent should politics be discussed from the pulpit? What does it mean when voters look to religious leaders to inform their decisions on political leaders? Can politics and religion exist separately when both are institutions that help to guide and shape society by establishing and enforcing laws?

Historical context

Over 40 years ago, John F. Kennedy had to reassure voters that, if elected, his religion would not inform his decisions. Much was made of Kennedy being Catholic, since there had never been a Catholic president and since voters and media were concerned that his beliefs would dominate his presidency.

On September 12, 1960, Kennedy addressed the Greater Houston Ministerial Association in Houston, Texas, with these words: "I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute--where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote--where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference--and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him or the people who might elect him."

These days, voters accept the idea of a Catholic president, so Kerry does not have to defend a Catholic’s right to lead, as Kennedy did. In this campaign, it seems that the reverse is true, since Kerry has been criticized for not fully aligning himself with Catholic doctrine.

A different church

Some religious organizations are challenging their followers to be politically thoughtful. According to The Associated Press, The National Association of Evangelicals wants its members to spend time reflecting on the issues and warns against a strict allegiance with any political party. The Los Angeles Times reports that evangelicals are aware of their political power and hesitate to wield that power blindly.

Although evangelical leaders are against abortion and stem-cell research, they want to take a step back from politics, "lest nonbelievers think that Christian faith is essentially political in nature." Those words are from a draft of guidelines that the National Association of Evangelicals released June 20, 2004. The draft, which provides criteria for lobbying Congress and the White House, has yet to be reviewed by religious leaders and voted on by the association’s board. If it is approved, it will be distributed nationally to churches, church groups, and seminaries.

"The Jesus Factor"

Despite Evangelicals’ attempts to de-politicize their faith, the group is generally aligned with the Republican Party. A Frontline story about religion and the 2004 election investigated this connection. The piece, called "The Jesus Factor," includes an interview with Richard Cizik of the National Association of Evangelicals, who explains that the Republican Party solicits his group’s ideas and opinions, while the Democratic Party does not. Frontline interviews also stressed the power a religious group has by having a president, in this case, George W. Bush, translate their beliefs into executive action.

It should be noted that "The Jesus Factor" only included interviews with those sympathetic to the Evangelical point of view, like Steve Waldman, Editor-In-Chief of Beliefnet, who feels that Bush wins the religious vote because he talks openly about personal spirituality. Waldman says that the Democratic candidate is going to need to discuss faith as well, in order to stay in touch with mainstream America.

Electing a religious candidate and a political party

A candidate’s beliefs are sure to shape her or his decision-making once in office, so voters must consider those beliefs. But how does and should a candidate’s religious affiliation affect her or his electability? How fully should a candidate’s religion inform her or his decision making when she or he is serving all of the people? What does the majority of the leadership of the candidate’s political party believe? How much control do these personal beliefs show in appointments of judges and officials of the executive branch of the federal government? Whose beliefs control the state political parties?

Though the Constitution keeps them separate, church and state seem to be timelessly linked, if only in the voter’s mind. How does your religious background affect your voting? Do you require your political leaders to mirror your religious leaders? What would the perfect leader’s belief system look like, when that leader must listen to and serve all Americans, as well as connect with religious leaders around the world?

Discuss these issues with other WomenMatter readers in one of our online forums. To read more about church-state issues, click here. To read more about abortion, click here. If Women’s Rights are important to you, sign up for an e alert and we’ll keep you posted. Don’t forget to register to vote and contact your representatives, because your voice matters.

WomenMatter is dedicated to empowering women to participate in the political process. To make a donation, click here.

Update Posted on: 6/25/2004