The Krazies Are Coming; The Krazies are Coming

Hold On, Here We Go Again

Just a heads-up.  Get ready for the next krazy assault in the blogosphere.  President Obama is giving the eulogy at Beau Biden’s Funeral Mass on Saturday at Saint Anthony of Padua Roman Catholic Church in Wilmington.  The arch-krazies will be furious that Delaware Attorney-General and son of the Vice-President is being given a funeral Mass at all, but even the moderate krazies will be leading the torch and pitch-fork krowd about a Catholic Church being “desecrated” by that Kenyan-born Muslim pretender to the presidency being allowed in the church door, much less to speak from the ambo.  Forget charity; the lack of basic civility on occasions such as this is truly appalling.  No wonder John 11:35.  

Joe Biden, Pope Francis, and the Communion Kerfuffle

Well, now the fuss is that Vice President Biden and Democratic House Minority leader, Pelosi received Holy Communion at the Mass inaugurating the Petrine Ministry of Pope Francis.  Did you honestly think that they wouldn’t?  As for whether they should or not, it isn’t my business to make a judgment call.  I am not sure it is the business of all those who have an opinion on the matter either. 
I was living in Rome during the funeral of Pope John Paul II and the inaugural Mass of Pope Benedict XVI and was working for the BBC and several other networks as a consultant.  As such I had access to a wide variety of sources of information.  Moreover, in the circle of friends and acquaintances with whom I had dinner or went to the beach or spent weekends in the Tuscan countryside were any number of low and medium level Vatican “officials.”  An inveterate gossip, I learned not to give opinions but only to ask questions with a faux innocence that opened the dams of behind-the-scenes information.  I found out, among other things, that the priests giving Holy Communion at the Masses for the funeral of John Paul and the installation of Benedict were instructed not to refuse anyone Holy Communion.  This instruction was especially reinforced for those in the diplomatic section and the sections where special guests were being seated.  This meant that not only were dubious politicians of various nationalities to be given Holy Communion but non-Catholics as well.  In fact, Cardinal Ratzinger/Pope Benedict gave Holy Communion to Prior Roger Schutz, the Calvinist prior of the Ecumenical Community of Taizé.   Of course precedents had been set when Pope John Paul had given Holy Communion to Tony Blair—at the time not only a pro-choice politician but an Anglican—at a Mass with the Blair family in the Pope’s private chapel.
As prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Ratzinger had written a letter to the American Bishops supporting the policy that pro-choice politicians should be denied Holy Communion.  Cardinal McCarrick managed to deflect the letter, not releasing it but only summarizing it in remarks to the Bishops at their semi-annual meeting.   McCarrick and Ratzinger were not on friendly terms, at least after that.  McCarrick allegedly led the American Cardinals in the 2005 conclave in an unsuccessful alliance with the Germans to evade a Ratzinger papacy.  Cardinal McCarrick’s resignation, offered on his 75^th birthday, was immediately accepted by Pope Benedict unlike the resignation of most other Cardinals who were invited to stay on for several years.  Was McCarrick’s refusal to implement canon 915 the reason for Benedict’s quick acceptance?  The Holy Father could have removed the Cardinal from his see earlier, of course, but that would have been a too obvious rebuke. Nevertheless, had Benedict wanted canon 915 to be enforced he would not have appointed Donald Wuerl to the Washington See as Wuerl, when Bishop of Pittsburgh, had made it very clear that he was not going to refuse Holy Communion to anyone, even those politicians who supported abortion or euthanasia.  Wuerl’s removing the faculties of Father Marcel Guarnizo, a priest of the Archdiocese of Moscow working in the Washington Archdiocese, for Guarnizo’s having refused an acknowledged Lesbian communion, was a clear sign that in his Archdiocese ministers are not to take it upon themselves to decide who may and may  not receive Holy Communion.  We all know where Wuerl stands on this issue. 
Pope Benedict had not found it in his agenda to remove Cardinal Wuerl or, for that matter, Bishop Loverde of Arlington, from their sees for refusing to implement canon 915.  Bishop Loverde has somewhat flown under the radar on this issue while it is likely that more Democratic politicians live in his diocese than in the Archdiocese of Washington.  Loverde is a very gentle and pastoral man—perhaps too gentle with his priests who are often in rebellion against his authority for his being “too liberal.”  Moreover, priest friends of mine in the Washington chancery have claimed that both Wuerl and Loverde are under instructions from Rome not to make this matter of Holy Communion and politicians an issue.  We will see if that changes in the new papacy, but in the meantime I need to remember that it is not up to me to enforce canon 915 and it probably isn’t up to you either.  When I make judgments about who is receiving Holy Communion worthily, I probably am not doing so myself.

 

 

Inauguration Weekend III

Today, at noon, President Obama was sworn in for a second term in the Blue Room of the White House. Tomorrow there will be a public ceremony on the steps of the Capitol.  Today is Sunday and there is a tradition going back to 1821 that when Inauguration Day falls on a Sunday, the public festivities are delayed until Monday.  The last time this happened was with the second inauguration of Ronald Reagan in 1984.  The origins of  this, of course, are to respect the Christian Sabbath although President Monroe, whose inauguration it was in 1821, was only nominally a Christian, being—like Jefferson, Madison, and probably Washington—a Deist, something more akin to today’s Unitarian.     

As far as I could tell there was no prayer in today’s official swearing-in.  Tomorrow there will be both an invocation and a benediction.   The invocation, or opening prayer, will be given not by a member of the clergy but by Myrlie Evers-Williams who was the widow of Medgar Evers, the civil-rights leader whose 1963 murder in Jackson Mississippi became part of the plot to the popular novel, The Help, by Kathryn Stockett.  The Benediction will be given by the Reverend Luis Leon, Rector of the Episcopal Church of Saint John, Lafayette Square—the so-called “Church of the Presidents” just across Lafayette Square from the White House. The Obamas are not regular Church attenders as were the Clintons and the Carters though they do attend more often than the Reagans or even the Bushes.  Saint John’s tends to be the default Church more often chosen than other houses of worship.  Other than a funeral the President has not opted to worship in a Catholic Church since becoming President but then, since he would not be welcome at Holy Communion, I can understand why. 

Supposedly the President wanted the opening prayer to be led by someone other than a member of the clergy and thus Mrs. Evers-Williams was invited.  Good choice by the way. Initially the Reverend Louie Giglio, pastor of Atlanta’s Passion City Church had been invited to give the closing prayer, but when some anti-gay remarks were discovered in a twenty-year old sermon, Dr. Leon was named to replace him.  Now, both Luis Leon and Louie Giglio should be Catholic names—that is a topic for some future blogs but right now we will let it pass.  

All this indicates, I believe, that despite their occasional episodes of public worship, President Obama and his family represent the casual approach towards Christian fellowship that is becoming more and more common in our culture.  This is not a criticism, just an observation.  The First Family does not currently have a church membership.  Worship seems to be something that they do “when they need it” and somewhat like the modern hybrid cars who make less frequent trips to the gas station than our old traditional gas-guzzlers, modern Americans—like the Obamas—“fill ‘er up” somewhat infrequently, having other sources of energy.  Of course this contemporary piety (or lack thereof) is based on the idea that worship is something we do for spiritual energy rather than a duty we have towards our Creator.  It is all part of the radical subjectivism that is pac-manning our “culture.” On the other hand, Vice-President Biden and his wife are, I understand, faithful Mass-goers to the annoyance of the Pharisee party in the Catholic Church and the bewilderment of most fellow-liberals who don’t quite know what to make of believing Catholics.  But then Jefferson and Franklin admired the Carrolls but were bewildered by their attachment to our anti-Enlightenment faith.    

Where do we go with this?  Nowhere in particular.  Just read the signs of the times.  Protestant clergy with name like Luis Leon and Louie Giglio; Catholic Chief-Justices swearing in thoroughly secularized Presidents; Liberal Democrats attending Mass without qualms of conscience; laity replacing clergy in leading prayer; public prayer being reduced to the inoffensive and politically correct; and what else might I be missing?  It is a new world and we have no choice but to adapt to it and devise a thoroughly new strategy of evangelizing in this post-Christian culture.  Don’t waste your time crying over spilt holy water—the time for that is past.  This is the time to ask the Holy Spirit’s Guidance on how to bring the Gospel alive in this brave new but vapid world. 

On All of Our Shoulders

Two weeks ago, over 150 Catholic theologians and scholars issued a statement “On All of Our Shoulders” to help us focus on making moral choices in the upcoming election.  Drawing on the magisterium such Catholic intellectuals as John Langan, S.J., Thomas Reese, S.J., Bryan N. Massingale, Dolores R. Leckey, James E. Hug S.J., Peter Steinfels, Elizabeth Johnson CSJ, Anthony Ruff OSB,  Alexander DiLella, John F Haught, Jay P. Dolan, and Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, (along with twelve dozen others) have put out a thought-provoking analysis of the philosophical arguments that underlay the political choices in this year’s election.  “On All of Our Shoulders” certainly does away with the lie that the question of for whom a Catholic should vote in the upcoming election is an open and shut case.  It particularly demolishes the misrepresentation that Vice-Presidential Candidate Paul Ryan’s Catholic faith is the root of his political philosophy.  This is not to say that Congressman Ryan is not a good Catholic—far from it.  The Congressman has shown us the importance of his Catholic pieties but it does show us that his social vision is directly opposed to the Magisterium.   I am taking the liberty of posting  “On All of Our Shoulders” in several segments over the next few weeks.  This is not an endorsement of the Obama/Biden ticket.  Our bishops and their allies in the Republican Party (read Carl Anderson of the Knights of Columbus) have made us well aware of the serious moral questions posed by the Democratic Platform, in particular by the Democratic support for legalized abortion.  They have also waved the canard of the Obama Administration posing a threat to Religious Liberty in an effort to divide the Catholic electorate from its traditional home in the Democratic Party.  That strategy does not seem to be working any better in 2012 than it did in 2008.  What “On All of Our Shoulders” does, however, is to make clear to the Catholic voter that the alternative is every bit as problematic and at least as fundamentally opposed to Catholic teaching.  But then you are all adults and can think for yourself, so I will simply post the statement, as I said, in readable size portions.     

On all of Our Shoulders

A Catholic Call to protect the Endangered Common Good

We write as Catholic theologians, academics and ministers concerned for our nation and for the integrity of the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. We write to hold up aspects of the Church's social doctrine that are profoundly relevant to the challenges our nation faces at this moment in history, yet are in danger of being ignored. At a moment when the ideas of Atlas Shrugged influence public debate and policy, we write to proclaim the Catholic truth that the stewardship of common good rests upon all of our shoulders together. This is a responsibility we dare not shrug. We fulfill this obligation in myriad ways, but indispensibly among them, through the policies of our government. We highlight these principles of the Church's social doctrine in the hope that their substance will better influence our political and policy debates.

A Tipping Point

America is at a tipping point where the traditional commitment of our government to protecting and advancing the common good is in very real danger of being dismantled for generations. Members of the "Tea Party," libertarians, Ayn Rand followers and other proponents of small government have brought libertarian views of government into the mainstream; legitimating forms of social indifference. After decades of anti-government rhetoric and "starve the beast" tax cuts, some even appear to exploit predictable fiscal problems to establish a privatized, libertarian order that reduces society to a collection of individuals and shrinks the common good to fit the outcomes achievable by private, for profit firms.

A Threat to the Church's Teachings

Congressman Paul Ryan's candidacy for Vice President brings the threat of this social philosophy home to the Church. We do not question Paul Ryan's faith. We are concerned however, that defenders of Ryan have gone beyond highlighting the aspects of Catholic moral teaching with which his political positions are laudably consistent, to argue that his Ayn Rand "inspired" individualist and anti-government vision and the policies they inform are themselves legitimately Catholic. They are not.

We do not write to oppose Ryan's candidacy or to argue there are not legitimatereasons for Catholics to vote for him. Our concern is that Ryan and his Catholic supporters, must be informed—as prochoice candidates and Catholics who vote for them are perennially and appropriately reminded—that some of his positions are fundamentally at odds with the teachings of the Catholic Church.
We fear the Church's legitimate disagreement with the inadequate exemptions in the Obama administration's contraceptive insurance mandate will lead some bishops to avoid giving due scrutiny to Ryan's disagreements with or misunderstandings of the Church's social teaching. This would be a tragic failure of episcopal oversight. Presidential campaigns have enormous power to legitimate their messages. If Congressman Ryan's Randian vision is allowed to be promoted as Catholic, many believers will be confused and our nation will be deprived of the Church's full wisdom.
Congressman Ryan has forthrightly proclaimed his inspiration by Ayn Rand. This was no passing youthful phase. Few politicians have offered so comprehensive a statement of a social philosophy and shown its links to their policy priorities and political strategies as Congressmen Ryan did in his remarkable 2005 address to the Atlas Society. In addition to naming Rand as the "one thinker" whom he would credit for his entering public service, he stated that he repeatedly returns to Atlas Shrugged to "check my premises so that I know that what I'm believing and doing and advancing are square with the key principles of individualism." From this perspective he judged "defined benefit" safety net programs such as Social Security and Medicare to be "collectivist" and "socialist based." He called for privatizing of Social Security and Medicare into individually funded programs in order to "change the dynamics in this society" and to form "believers in the individualist capitalist system." [1] These values and policy priorities are evident throughout the several budget resolutions he has authored. Defined benefit programs are an explicit target in themselves because they foster "dependence"—a term he invokes 5 times in his 2013 budget resolution. Congressman Ryan's concerns about the growing Federal debt are commendable. It is clear, however, that he had a prior philosophical bias against publically funded safety net programs independent of these fiscal concerns.Given these values, it seems reasonable to conclude that Ryan's deep cuts to Medicaid, Medicare and food stamps are policy priorities themselves. Thus, it is not surprising, that the savings achieved by these cuts are swamped by revenue losses resulting from massive new tax cuts for high earners and corporations.
Ryan's rejection of Rand's atheism is laudable, as are his public avowal of the thought of Thomas Aquinas and Catholic social doctrine. We do not question the sincerity of his convictions, but must note that a shift from the social philosophy of Ayn Rand to the social doctrine of the Catholic Church is a radical change indeed. Such a conversion would take much time and reflection. Congressman Ryan's policies have remained unchanged through this shift. This suggests that they may in fact still be more indebted to the social principles of Rand than to Aquinas and the Catholic Church. Clarification of the substance of Catholic social doctrine will assist him and other Catholics in discernment of these policies.

footnotes

1  Address by Paul Ryan to Atlas Society "Celebration of Ayn Rand," 2005. (Published transcript is incomplete. Quotes are taken from audio file.) http://www.atlassociety.org/ele/blog/2012/04/30/paul-ryan-and-ayn-rands-ideas-hot-seat-again.

 

Biden Catholics and Ryan Catholics

Well, the choice of Paul Ryan for the Republican Vice-presidential nominee has thrown a barking dog in among the Catholic chickens.  Liberal Catholics are appalled; conservatives delighted.  Of course, at the present we have Catholics slated for the number 2 slot in both major parties, though—and I could be wrong—I don’t believe that I have heard that it is certain that President Obama is keeping Vice President Biden on the ticket.  There can always be a switch though Biden has certainly been a team-player—with a more than occasional foul, of course—with the President. 

I was away over the weekend and in my room at a beautiful retreat house in the mountains, was a copy of Catholic Digest.   I hadn’t seen this little magazine in years.  Someone had written to it asking about the possibility of the “Social Justice Catholic Church” being reunited to the “Orthodox Roman Catholic Church.”  The columnist responding made it clear that the “Social Justice Catholic Church” is and consistently has been well within the boundaries of the “Orthodox” Roman Catholic Church.  But the question was interesting because it shows how successful elements of the religious right have been in pushing those Catholics who support the very causes of social justice taught by the magisterium—opposition to the death penalty, rights of workers to organize, rights of access to education, health care, housing, and other necessities, human rights and freedoms (worship, speech, association, press), equal dignity of women, rights of women and children, rights of people to migrate—how Catholics supporting magisterial teaching have been emarginated within the Church by those whose politics ironically differ from magisterial principles.   For some who consider themselves to be “faithful Catholics” there are only two magisterial points that matter—opposition to abortion and to same-sex marriage.  They condemn “cafeteria Catholics” while they themselves hit only the coffee-bar of Catholic teaching. 

At the end of the day, one has to say that both Paul Ryan and Joe Biden are practicing Catholics.  Neither Paul Ryan nor Joe Biden are the Catholics they should be.  I am happy to see them both at communion on Sunday Mornings, I wish both of them would bring their religious faith more into their politics.  More to my concern, however, is that there are increasingly two Catholic Churches in this country.  There are historical reasons that go back a long way—actually into the early nineteenth century with the split between the old time Maryland Catholics whose heirs are today’s “liberals” (and Joe Biden Catholicism) and the “new immigrant Catholicism” of the 1840’s whose heirs are the “conservatives” (and Paul Ryan Catholicism.)  (See entries for January 21, 23, 26, 28, March 7, 9, 2011, January 6, 7, 2012)  When you know the history of the American Church you know that both groups have long and strong roots; the challenge today is to keep them together at the same altar sharing the One Bread of Christ’s One Body.

Church of the Presidents

President and Mrs. Obama along with their daughter Sasha attended Saint John’s Church Lafayette Square, where they received Holy Communion at the Episcopal Liturgy Sunday (March 18) morning.  Saint John’s is called the “Church of the Presidents” as every United States President since it was built in 1815 has attended worship there at least once during his time in the White House. The Church stands facing 16^th Street, across Lafayette Square from the White House. It was built after the burning of Washington during the presidency of James Madison.  Madison was a charter member of the parish and his wife Dolly, a convert from Quakerism, was baptized and confirmed here. At the time, the Madisons were not living in the White House which had been burned by the British during the War of 1812, but in Octagon House on New York Avenue in Foggy Bottom, about twice the distance from Saint John’s as the White House. When President Madison left office, he and Dolly retired to his plantation, Montpelier.  Not one for quiet country life, in her widowhood Dolly returned to Washington in 1837 and lived until her death in 1849 in a home just “around the corner” on Lafayette Square from Saint John’s where she worshipped regularly.  

      The Madisons regularly sat in pew 28, during subsequent rennovations this pew was renumbered 58 and then later 54.  President Taylor “bought” the Madison pew in perpetuity (the purchase of pews by parishoners for regular use was a custom in many churches—Catholic as well as Protestant—in the nineteenth century) for use of himself and future presidents.  However it is the protocol that the President and his family, when they do attend, be seated in the first pew on the right.

     At the time of John Kennedy’s tenure in the White House it was still considered forbidden for Catholics to attend Protestant services and this provided a challenge to the custom that each President visit the church at least once in his term of office. However, when the Reverend John C. Harper was installed as Rector in March 1963, President Kennedy made a courtesy call on the new rector at the beginning of the service, discreetly leaving before the service proceeded.   

      The Church has many connections with prominent Americans besides presidents.  Benjamin Latrobe, the architect of the United States Capitol, was a man of many talents and not only designed Saint John’s Church, but served as its first organist and choir-master.  The 1000 pound bell in the church steeple was cast by Joseph Revere, son of Paul Revere—the metal supplied from British cannon captured in the War of 1812.

     The Obamas, accompanied by Vice-President-elect Joe Biden and his family, attended services at Saint John’s before proceeding to the Capitol for their inaugurations on January 20^th 2009. (Vice President Biden is a devout Catholic but today the Catholic Church does not object to Catholics attendng worship services in other Christian traditions although Catholics do not generally recieve Holy Communion except at a Catholic Eucharist.)  The Obamas have been back at least twice since before this morning for services.  The President attends church services only occasionally but, while he is not an Episcopalian, has attended Saint John’s more than any other church during his time in office.

Canon 915 and Who is the Decider, Part I

Cardinal Burke wearing the galero that
someday will hang over his tomb

Can. 915 Those upon whom the penalty of excommunication  or interdict  has been imposed or declared,  and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.

This is the text of canon 915, these days probably the most cited canon in the Code of Canon Law of the Roman Catholic Church as intra-Church disputes rage concerning congressmen and lesbians coming to Holy Communion..  But we not only have a text we have a context and the text needs to be put into its context for correct application.     

      The first part—those upon whom the penalty of excommunication or interdict has been imposed or declared…” is fairly clear and does not need to be commented on other than to note it refers to those on whom excommunication has been imposed or declared.  This does not include those who have occurred excommunication latae sententiae or “automatically.”  Such people should not present themselves for Holy Communion but since reason for their automatic excommunication would be “internal forum,” it would not be in the scope of the minister of the Eucharist to deny them the sacrament.  Presumably the only one who could tell their moral state with any certainty would be their confessor and he cannot do anything that would indicate knowledge gained in the Sacrament of Reconciliation even if it meant giving the Eucharist “unworthily.”  Any other minister of the Sacrament would have to presume the person had been reconciled and the excommunication lifted. 

      The issues under debate revolve around “and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, are not to be admitted to holy communion.”  This provision is to cover those who in some circles are called “public sinners.”  Who makes the determination? 

      The controversy has raged in the American Church at least since 2004 when then Archbishop Raymond Burke of Saint Louis and several other bishops declared that Democratic Presidential Candidate Senator John Kerry should not be admitted to Holy Communion because of his support—and his party platform’s support—for the legality of abortion.  Burke had articulated this same position earlier as Bishop of LaCrosse Wisconsin but it only became a practical issue when he held a major See in which a presidential candidate might be likely to be present on a Sunday.  Senator Kerry was not alone under the threat of a Eucharistic ban.  Archbishop Burke had always been pretty free imposing this ban on those whom he perceived as disagreeing from Church teaching.  After numerous conflicts in his diocese with priests, religious, and laity, Burke was (re)moved to Rome where he was given a significant post in the Church’s judicial system but without any direct pastoral responsibilities.  This position rewarded him with a Cardinal’s hat and permitted the archdiocese to heal from his divisive leadership thus being a win/win situation.  He was succeeded in Saint Louis by Archbishop Robert J. Carlson.

      Not all bishops have interpreted Canon 915 in the same way that Archbishop Burke has.  Indeed, most American bishops have tried to duck the issue.  Cardinal Francis George of Chicago advised a Chicago Pastor where it was thought that 2008 Vice-Presidential candidate Joe Biden, a faithful Mass-attender, might attend Mass while in Chicago that he should not give Biden communion at Mass but allow him to receive privately in the church sacristy.   The then Bishop of Biden’s family Diocese, Scranton PA, Joseph Martino, told Biden he was not to receive Holy Communion in the Scranton Diocese, but successive Bishops of Wilmington, Michael Saltarelli and William Malooly have not issued any such ban.  Bishop Martino, like Archbishop Burke, had alienated various people and institutions in the Scranton Diocese and though only in his early sixties resigned his See “for reasons of health” soon after announcing that Biden was not welcome to Holy Communion.  Archbishop Joseph Naumann of Kansas City in Kansas banned from Holy Communion then Governor Kathleen Sibelius.  When Sibelius became Secretary of Health and Human Services, Naumann claimed that this ban was effective in Washington but Canon Lawyers have clarified that his authority to restrict an individual from Holy Communion is limited to his own diocese.  When Sibelius took up residence in the Washington area such jurisdiction passed to the Archbishop of Washington or the Bishop of Arlington, depending on where the Secretary lives and/or attends Mass.  

      Of course, Cardinal Donald Wuerl (and his predecessors Cardinals Theodore McCarrick and James Hickey) and Bishop Paul Loverde of the Arlington VA Diocese are the most watched prelates for how the Canon is applied.  Neither Wuerl (nor his predecessors) nor Loverde have shown any indication that they will ban individuals from the Sacraments because of their stance on political issues including abortion, same-sex marriage, stem-cell research or other “hot button” issues.  Wuerl in particular takes much heat on this issue and is regularly picketed when he appears at his cathedral or other parishes by those who insist that he has a moral responsibility to invoke canon 915 against Democratic politicians.  While Bishop Loverde, a very kind and pastoral man, was named to the Arlington See before this became an issue, Wuerl—as Bishop of Pittsburgh—had made his position very clear that he would not invoke the canon.  This did not stop his appointment to Washington and some sources claim that Rome would not appoint a prelate to Washington who would stir up this controversy.  Rome certainly knew what they were getting with Wuerl on this issue and there does not seem to have been any pressure on him from the Holy See to invoke Canon 915.    But there are those more Catholic than the Pope who fault him for his “lax” defense of the Eucharist.  Maybe the Pope should have appointed one of them as Archbishop. 

More on this subject next time.