De Tielse Canon goed bewaakt!

Marjorie Campbell, marjorie@marjoriecampbell.com

What is missing, Deal, from the laudable statement issued by Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good ("Statement") is the 1983 Code of Canon Law.  Many Catholics don't realize the Church has a legal code, much less think to consult it before pronouncing rights and obligations of members of the Church.  But on one point that deeply concerned the signatories to this undoubtedly well-intentioned Statement, well, they missed a major point - and their target of promoting civility.

The signatories, concerned by "public embarrassment of politicians whose public positions differ with Church teachings through the public refusal of the sacrament of Holy Communion or public admonition by the Bishops" (a preoccupation with forum-over-substance?), suggest that proper politeness among Catholics would respect that "An individual’s fitness to receive communion is his or her personal responsibility." 

Canonically, this is simply wrong as canonist Archbishop Burke of St. Louis recently detailed in a wonderful article only canon lawyers can love.  (A prominent canon lawyer calls the article "cool".)  Cutting to the bone:  a plain reading of Canon 915 imposes upon clerics administering Communion a responsibility - bounded by what they know to be fact - to determine entrance to the sacrament.

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. 

Our ministers are legally obligated to enforce this law, like the civil authorities restrict threatening, inflammatory speech to incite lawless action.   Public statements by a public politician who publicly identifies him/herself as a member of the Roman Catholic Church dissenting from core Catholic teaching - as protecting unborn life is - bring factual information to the attention of news-reading ministers of the Eucharistic sacrament.  This information is surely worthy of note and further inquiry. 

I agree fully with the Statement's suggestion that such reports do not provide (in most circumstances) sufficient reliable evidence to exercise the directive of Canon 915.  More, I agree that the Church's response to such information (or call to consider such information) should not be used as a political hockey puck by non-Catholics, lay Catholics or any minister of the Church.  But there is minimal any of us Catholics can do to muzzle media anxious to mix our religious affairs with print-worthy news concerning politicians, celebrities, sports figures or other prominent people whose names sell copy.

So, I conclude, like the far worthier canonist Dr. Peters, "that the CACG [Statement] is firmly supporting one side in a crucial "partisan" debate (the wrong side, at that)."  It's a shame that a good effort, like the Statement, misses the target of civility by, sadly, aiming bent arrows.