Catholic politicians and bishops are both feeling heat from pro-life voters. Politicians who reject Church teaching on abortion, stem-cell research, and samesex marriage feel pressure for claiming to be Catholics. Bishops are incurring parishioners' ire for preaching prolife sentiments but failing to do much of anything about these same anti-life Catholic politicians. In election year 2004 the key personality involved is Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry. The key Church issue is the reception of Holy Communion.

Let us begin with Mr. Kerry, his marriage, his views on abortion.

Is Kerry married in the eyes of the Church?

On April 13, 2004, the president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, William Donohue, issued a statement with respect to Kerry's marriage. "In today's newspapers, all the buzz is over John Kerry's voting record on abortion and whether this should disqualify him from receiving Holy Communion. But this is not Kerry's biggest problem with the Catholic Church. The question of his status as a married Catholic is: there is no evidence that John Kerry and Teresa Heinz were ever married in the Catholic Church.

"We know that Kerry continues to receive Holy Communion, but if he isn't married in the Church, then he is expressly contravening Church teaching. This is not an opinion: the operative paragraph in the Catholic Catechism on this subject is paragraph 1650.

"Let's review what is known for sure. We know that he divorced Julia Thorne in 1988 and married Teresa Heinz in 1995. But the Kerry-Heinz marriage was not recognized by the Catholic Church. Why? Because Kerry's first marriage was never annulled. Kerry did not even apply for an annulment of his first marriage until November 1996; that is when he started the process in the Archdiocese of Washington.

"On May 8, 1997, Kerry joked about the annulment process on the Don Imus radio show, thus going public about the matter. From this point onward, the media have reported that Kerry 'sought' an annulment, but there is no evidence that it was obtained. When now asked about this question, Kerry's staff goes mute.

"In Kerry's recent book, he calls himself a 'believing and practicing Catholic.' If that is the case, he should have no problem saying whether he is married in the Catholic Church. If he is, then a) he must have been granted an annulment of his first marriage, and b) he must have married Teresa Heinz in the Catholic Church subsequent to that time. But if this isn't the case, then in the eyes of the Catholic Church he is still married to Julia Thorne. To say this raises serious issues - especially given his willingness to present himself for Communion-would be a gross understatement" (CLRCR, April 13, 2004).

Kerry and abortion

Presidential candidate John Kerry has said that, as an elected official, he must separate his personal and religious views from his actions as a legislator and that it is not "appropriate in the United States for a legislator to legislate personal religious beliefs for the rest of the country." (In Canada, Prime Minister Paul Martin has said the exact same thing, as did his predecessor Jean Chrétien, both Catholics).

When, in February 2004, St. Louis Archbishop Raymond Burke said he would offer the politician a blessing rather than give him Communion, a spokesman for Kerry's campaign told the St. Louis Post Dispatch newspaper that Kerry disagreed with Archbishop Burke's decision. "The archbishop has the right to deny Communion to whomever he wants, but Senator Kerry respectfully disagrees with him on the issue of choice," Kim Molstre, a Kerry campaign representative, said. In fact, while in St. Louis, Kerry attended a Baptist church. Again, later on, on Palm Sunday, April 4, 2004, he attended the African Methodist Episcopal Church (Life News, April 5, 2004).

Senator John Kerry summed up his differences with the Catholic Church over abortion in a statement to the New York Times on April 6, 2004: "I'm not a church spokesman. I'm a legislator running for president. My oath is to uphold the Constitution of the United States in my public life. My oath privately between me and God was defined in the Catholic church by Pius XXIII and Pope Paul VI in Vatican II, which allows for freedom of conscience for Catholics with respect to these choices, and that is exactly where I am. And it is separate. Our constitution separates church and state, and they should be reminded of that" (The Times saw fit to point out that there was a Pope John XXIII, but not a Pope Pius XXIII).

Well-known Catholic author and Pope John Paul II biographer, George Weigel, accuses Kerry of systematically misrepresenting the nature of Catholic teaching on the pro-life position. Kerry describes that teaching as a 'sectarian position which has no place in a pluralistic society' (D. F. Joseph, April 22, re NewsMax.com, April 16). Bishop Raymond Burke answered this false understanding of the separation of Church and State in his pastoral letter of November 23, 2003 as follows: "For example, while the Ten Commandments forbid stealing, no one would believe that laws against theft are an imposition of the Jewish or Christian religions. People of different faiths or of no faith can recognize the natural obligation to respect the property of others. Also, no one would consider Christian opposition to slavery a "religious" issue. Rather, Christians who oppose slavery and other similar evils are acting according to the standard of right and wrong which has its foundation in our common human nature (Zenit, January 10, 2004).

To argue that defending the dignity of the human life is a "sectarian" position as Kerry does when it is a fundamental right of human nature, Weigel concludes, is making a mockery of democracy and freedom.

How pro-abortion is Kerry?

On April 23, 2004, Senator John Kerry was in Washington, D.C., where he joined with 500,000 or so pro-abortion feminists in town for the so-called "March for Women's Lives." Kerry took aim at U.S. President George W. Bush's pro-life stance, particularly with respect to the nomination of pro-life Supreme Court judges. He warned the marchers that upcoming appointments to the Supreme Court, if filled by President Bush, would jeopardize a woman's access to abortion.

"If you need any motivation [to vote for me] let me give you three little words - the Supreme Court," Kerry reiterated at every opportunity (MyWay News). He promised to appoint only Supreme Court justices who are in favour of abortion. "More than 30 years after Roe vs. Wade became the law of the land, it has never been more at risk than it is today," Kerry said. "We are going to have a change in leadership in this country to protect the right of choice" (mlive.com).

Senator Kerry's remarks were not a surprise. He has an almost perfect pro-abortion voting record in the Senate. He is as pro-abortion as they come.

Let us now move to examine what bishops think about pro-abortion Catholic politicians and, more importanly, what they are prepared to do.

Bishops and Holy Communion

Pro-life activists in North America have long held that being pro-abortion disqualifies a candidate for public office, no matter what other talents such a person may possess. In Saskatoon, SK, Canada, the late Bishop James Mahoney took that position as far back as 1976. He was joined immediately by Bishop Adam Exner of Kamloops, B.C. The same disqualification is true for racism, anti-Semitism, or any other major character flaw. Yet, while few people vote for the last named, a great many, including many Catholics, vote for pro-abortion politicians as if this does not matter.

To the mind of a good practising Catholic, this irritating discrepancy between faith and behaviour has developed into a need to disqualify pro-abortion Catholics from receiving the sacraments. But few Catholic bishops have broached the subject in public and even fewer have acted. This has left them open to charges by some of trying to safeguard the Church's tax-exempt status, cowardice, hypocrisy, pandering to politicians for selfish motives, or simply, spiritual blindness. Others, giving them the benefit of the doubt, feel the time is at hand for a more mature judgement.

While most local bishops perhaps had not given the issue much thought, the Magisterium of the Church in Rome - under the leadership of a Pope who has been unrelenting in his defence of the dignity of a human life - has steadily developed the theological principles of the Christian pro-life view and drawn the consequences of what that means for the faithful. The series of papal admonitions and statements on abortion, euthanasia, and contraception during the first 15 years of John Paul's reign - so much resented by dissenting academics and "progressive" laity - found a fuller treatment in the lengthy 1995 encyclical Evangelium vitae, the Gospel of Life. Here the Pope spoke of facing a "Culture of Death," and re-iterated the injunction that Catholics may not cooperate in any way with legislation promoting or condoning grave anti-life measures.

More recently, the Vatican has focused directly on the role of Catholic politicians, as in its Doctrinal note on some questions regarding the participation of Catholics in political life (signed November 24, 2002; published in January 2003; see C.I., March 23, 2003, p. 22). In June, 2003, the Vatican provided a response to the propaganda for so called same-sex marriage in the document, Considerations regarding proposals to give legal recognition to unions between homosexual persons (signed in March, published on June 30, 2003; see C.I., September 2003, pp. 23-24, and again C.I., December 2003, Ian Hunter, "Rome's 'shocking' statement," pp. 18-19).

It is this tension between pro-abortion Catholic politicians and Church discipline that now faces Catholic bishops in the United States as well as in Canada. American bishops who have spoken out so far are divided about what to do.

The following is a short survey of the divergence of views based partly on the April bulletins of Communique, an organ of the American Life League which has summarized reports from local news agencies, and partly from other sources.

Washington

In an interview with Chris Wallace in early April, 2004, Cardinal Theodore McCarrick of Washington, D.C., was asked about Archbishop Raymond Burke, who told his priests not to give Communion to certain pro-abortion politicians. "I think every archbishop has the right to make a decision in his own area," said Cardinal McCarrick. "I think that there are many of us who would feel that there are certain restrictions that we might put on people, that there are certain sanctions that we may put on people. But I think many of us would not like to use the Eucharist as part of the sanction."

A few days later, on April 14, Cardinal McCarrick held a private meeting with Senator John Kerry, but neither man would comment on the nature of the 45-minute discussion. The cardinal's office said Kerry had requested the meeting. Perhaps it was about the annulment question.

Chicago

On April 2, 2004, Senator Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) summed up his differences with the Catholic Church over abortion in a statement to the Chicago Tribune: "Personally I would counsel any woman who asked in my family to do her best to carry the child full term and I'd try to help," he said. "But I do believe the government should not prohibit a woman from making that decision."

"That's a hard thing to reconcile," said Fr. Thomas Hurly of Old St. Patrick Church in Chicago, where Durbin attended Mass and received Communion, despite assertions that, as a pro-abortion Catholic, Durbin should be denied the sacrament. "I know that there are probably bishops and people who would not agree with me. But I'm sorry. I'm first his priest. . At the heart of it, he is first and foremost a man of faith."

A spokesman for Cardinal Francis George, Chicago's archbishop, said the cardinal and senator have met privately, but the cardinal wished to avoid public confrontation ("Durbin keeps faith despite votes," Chicago Tribune, April 2, 2004).

On April 8, Cardinal George was asked if he would deny Communion to pro-abortion political figures. "No, not at this point. No," he said, adding, "I don't have a good answer" about exactly what to do with such persons. "I'm loath to say we should take too many public positions on that at this point" ("No Communion ban for local politicians," Chicago Tribune, 4/8/04).

Los Angeles

Cardinal Roger Mahoney of Los Angeles expressed his views in response to a letter of February 12, 2004, on the subject of pro-abortion Catholic politicians receiving Communion. In response the Cardinal writes:

"It has been the Church's traditional practice that each person who approaches to receive Holy Communion is responsible for his or her own good conscience..

"It is not the role of the minister of the Eucharist to evaluate the interior readiness of the communicant to receive Holy Communion..

"The Church refuses Holy Communion to a notorious sinner who is under a public penalty of excommunication or interdict, or who publicly displays the lack of proper moral disposition by obstinately persisting in manifest grave sin. I am unaware of any publicly penalized notorious sinner in our country.. The public stances taken by politicans rarely reveal the nuances and larger context of their moral choices and goals, and so do not lend themselves readily to a moral judgment of the person who makes them." (Wanderer, May 6, 2004).

The other American cardinals, Egan of New York and Maida of Detroit, and, in Canada, Ambrozic of Toronto, Turcotte of Montreal, and Ouellet of Quebec City, have so far remained silent.

Milwaukee

In early February, Archbishop Tim Dolan of Milwaukee had told a reporter of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that he was appreciative of Bishop Burke, adding, "I think what the bishops decide collectively, I would take very seriously. But ultimately, it's something I'm going to have to say, how best I can lead and guide.. I don't know, to be honest with you" (Wanderer, February 12, 2004).

Denver

A little more forthcoming was Denver Archbishop Charles Chaput who writes, "Candidates who claim to be 'Catholic' but who publicly ignore Catholic teaching about the sanctity of human life are offering a dishonest public witness. They may try to look Catholic and sound Catholic, but unless they act Catholic in their public service and political choices, they're really a very different kind of creature. And real Catholics should vote accordingly."

Archbishop Chaput indicated he wished to talk about faith with three Catholic U.S. Senate candidates in Colorado. He said pro-abortion Catholics "are not serving democracy. They are betraying it" ("Catholic politicians scolded," Denver Post, 4/15/04).

Boston

Also willing but not yet prepared to go ahead is Boston Archbishop Sean O'Malley who told the priests of his archdiocese that today's Catholics are "exiles in the midst of Babylon" who "find themselves in a hostile, alien environment where the overriding temptation is to assimilate, the cultural pull is to conform to a dominant cultural influence that is incongruous with our faith and our destiny." He told his priests, "the strongest predictor of Catholic behavior and identification [is] the quality of the Sunday sermon," and urged them to preach from the heart ("O'Malley confronts 'culture of death,'" Boston Globe, 4/7/04).

When asked about the possibility of denying Communion to pro-abortion Catholics in Boston, Archbishop Sean O'Malley's spokesman, Fr. Christopher Coyne, said, "If someone presents themselves for Communion, unless they're obviously not Catholic, we give them Communion. The important thing to recognize is that the reception of Holy Communion is not a reward for living an exemplary life; the reception of Holy Communion is, among many things, a remedy and nourishment of the soul for the Catholic Christian, to help them persevere in seeking a life of holiness and becoming more aligned with the church's life" ("A debate simmers over Kerry and the Eucharist," Boston Globe, 4/11/04).

Trenton

Bishop John M. Smith of Trenton, N.J., has said, "it gives me great annoyance" that some Catholic political figures support abortion. He added that when New Jersey Gov. Jim McGreevey "refers to himself as a devout Catholic and supports legislation and programs that are contrary to the teaching of the Holy Father and the bishops, he is not a devout Catholic" ("Bishop Smith blasts hypocrisy of 'prochoice' Catholic politicians," The Monitor, 3/31/04).

Other bishops begin to draw the line

Earlier, in 2003, several bishops had spoken out on the same issue. For example, Bishop William Weigand of Sacramento, Cal., rebuked then California Governor Gray Davis for coming to Communion while being pro-abortion. He told him not to receive Communion but Davis ignored him (C.I., April 2003). Bishop Robert Carlson of Sioux Falls, South Dakota, objected to Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle advertising himself as a Catholic (C.I., July/August 2003, p. 27-28). But neither bishop asked his priests not to give Communion to these pro-abortion politicians.

              As the debate warmed up during 2003 two bishops drew the conclusion that Catholic politicians who publicly support abortion should be barred from Holy Communion. They are Archbishop Raymond Burke of St. Louis, formerly of La Crosse, Wisc., and Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz of Lincoln, Neb. Both are convinced not only that the scandal of doing nothing is too great to bear and too destructive for faithful Catholics, but that the proper theological approach is to treat the offending politicans as willful public sinners. It is therefore not a question of imposing external "sanctions" (see Washington's McCarrick), or of seeking new restrictions (Chicago's George), or of saying "I am unaware of any. notorious sinners in America" (Los Angeles' Mahoney) but of following through on the principle that only people in the state of grace may receive the Eucharistic Sacrament. Those not in the state of grace must seek Confession before they may receive. Those who publicly reject solemn Church teaching may not receive at all.

La Crosse, Wisc., St. Louis, Mi.

Archbishop Burke's views were published in January, 2004, but were set forth in a November pastoral letter issued when he was still bishop of La Crosse (see C.I., "Bishops tackle abortion and same-sex 'marriage'," February 2004, pp.22-23. Readers may find the original letter on the internet at http://www.dioceseoflacrosse.com/whats_new/CivicRespPastoralLetter.pdf). The bishop asked his priests not to give Communion to Catholic pro-abortion politicians after they had refused to meet with him and accept counsel. He has maintained his stand after moving to the Archdiocese of St. Louis.

Lincoln, Neb.

On April 6 Catholic writer Barbara Kralis called the office of Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz of Lincoln, Neb., to get his ideas on whether pro-abortion Catholics should be barred from receiving Communion. The response: "We agree completely with Archbishop Raymond Burke in the action he has taken and we would take the same action in the diocese of Lincoln with regard to manifest, persistent, obstinate sinners, including politicians, regardless of which diocese they are from" ("Bishop Bruskewitz will deny Kerry the Eucharist," Barbara Kralis, 4/6/04).

Camden

On April 3 Associated Press reported that the incoming bishop of Camden, N.J., Joseph Galante, announced that he would not give Holy Communion to the state's Governor James McGreevey, a divorced Catholic who supports abortion (see Trenton above). The principal reason for this action, the new bishop said, was primarily that the (Democratic) governor remarried without receiving a church annulment (AP, April 30, 2004).

The Governor responded by saying, "I'm proud to be a Catholic. I love my faith. I'm the governor of the State of New Jersey and I have a responsibility to 8 1/2 million people." Decisions on such matters as abortion and stem-cell research, he said, are "intensely personal." "Those are personal decisions, so I think certain bishops are doing a profound disservice to the faithful."

Following Bishop Galante's stand, Bishop John Smith of Trenton (see above) also announced that he would refuse the governor Communion. Thereupon the Governor announced that he would no longer seek to receive Communion (Zenit, May 6, 2004).

 &