Have You No Fear of God?

Because of the nature of the material in this particular post, it is likely that I need to begin the post by reminding my readers and what is posted on this blog is my view on what is happening in the Church today, although this opinion is firmly rooted in the established teaching of the Catholic Church, and I'm about to restate that teaching as part of this post.

This past Thursday, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops voted by an overwhelming margin to draft a document on what is called Eucharistic cohesion, basically it will be a document reminding Catholics about the Church's teaching on what is required in order to receive the Holy Eucharist. It is widely expected that as part of that document there will be a reminder that public figures who openly support and promote abortion should not receive the Eucharist, since the Church teaches very clearly that abortion is murder, and that if a public figure is going to openly promote abortion and pass laws which not only keep it legal, but actually encourage the practice, to receive the Eucharist under the circumstances is to endanger their soul.

In response, more than sixty Democrats who also claim to be practicing Catholics signed a letter demanding that the Bishops not interfere with their "right" to receive Holy Communion, and they said that the Bishops should not "weaponize the Eucharist." Every one of these people are also public supporters of abortion on demand. In drafting such a letter, these individuals have shown us that no one is threatening to weaponize the Eucharist but them. 

Among the many responsibilities of Bishops, the most important is to be a teacher of the Catholic faith and to hand on the deposit of faith as it was handed on to them. The bishops are the successors of the apostles, and thus have a duty to uphold Catholic teaching. Furthermore, a bishop is the Supreme liturgist in his diocese, and he is ultimately the one in charge of the conferral of the sacraments. He determines who receives the sacraments and who does not. Signing a letter to bishops attempting to tell them not to deny you the sacraments while you tell them that you are going to obstinately remain in opposition to Church teaching in a public way is not a good idea. It is, in fact, an invitation to be denied the Sacraments. 

These people believe that they should be able to receive the Eucharist while acting in public opposition to the Church on a moral issue of such gravity that if a Catholic woman receives an abortion with full knowledge and consent of the will, she is excommunicated laetae sententiae, that is by the very commission of the act. (CIC 1398) Now yes, if the same woman comes to the Church repentant, and, as are many women are in that situation, confused and frightened, the Church has made a way to easily lift that penalty for the good of souls, because the mercy of Christ is truly boundless. Nevertheless, excommunication is still the highest penalty that the Church can levy on any Catholic, and that is the penalty for knowingly procuring an abortion or assisting in one. Yet the "Catholics" who signed this letter somehow believe that they are above that, that those who procure or assist in abortions can be excommunicated while they ought to be able to receive the Eucharist with impunity while they not only tolerate legal abortion, many of them are promoting legislation, funding schemes, and organizations which promote and even encourage abortion. The executive actions of our current President have done more to promote abortion than any President in my lifetime (even the one under which he served as Vice President, and Obama's promotion of abortion was bad enough), but he can go to Mass next weekend and receive the Eucharist and not face any ecclesiastical sanction, while the young woman who takes advantage of the abortion funding that Mr Biden has promoted could face laetae sententiae excommunication if she willingly receives an abortion.

It is not weaponizing the Eucharist to demand accountability in one's faith and sacramental life. If you are a public figure, you cannot promote the taking of the most innocent human life as a matter of public policy and not expect to be called on the carpet by your co-religionists, and ideally by your religious leaders. 

Since the First Century the Church has condemned abortion. The Didache, which is the earliest manual of Church order that we know of, gives the instruction to the earliest Christians (Didache Chapter 2):

"[Y]ou shall not murder a child by abortion, nor kill that which is begotten."

The Church's teaching is clear, yet these public officials persist in their opposition to that teaching and at the same time believe that despite their public promotion of abortion, they should simply be able to receive the Eucharist as if they've done nothing wrong.

Then there is this piece of work from California Congressman Ted Lieu:

Congressman Lieu appears to be in dire need of a corrective session on Catholic teaching from his bishop, who just happens to be the current President of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Archbishop Jose Gomez of Los Angeles. Obviously, I can't make Archbishop Gomez have a little teaching conference with Congressman Lieu, that's up to the Archbishop to do... However, I am in a perfectly good position to explain to the Congressman that it is possible that he could be denied Communion, and because of the posture he is taking, Archbishop Gomez would be perfectly justified in denying it to him. He is not merely engaging in personal sin, he has chosen with his statement to publicly engage in obstinate defiance of Church teaching and authority. That is perfectly good justification to deny someone the Eucharist unless and until they repent of such obstinate defiance.

Sanctioning Congressman Lieu for this behavior is entirely up to his bishop, that would be the case even if the USCCB drafted a very specific document on the subject that was extremely clear about this problem... It is still a matter for the local bishop to handle. However, it is most important to be reminded of just why many of our bishops feel the need to have a discussion about this issue and draft a document about it that explains the circumstances under which a person should and should not receive Holy Communion, and which could make it clear that those who publicly promote abortion should not receive Holy Communion.

We have come to this discussion and this place because these supposedly "good Catholics" are refusing to be honest with us or with themselves. If you proclaim yourself a Catholic, one of the things you are supposed to profess as a matter of dogmatic Truth is that the Eucharist (Holy Communion) continues to have the outward appearance of bread and wine, but that when the elements are consecrated they become the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ. The Lord gives us His flesh to eat (cf. John 6:32-58). Secondly, to receive Holy Communion is both Communion with God and with the Body of Christ, the Church. In addition to receiving the Body and Blood of Christ, Holy Communion is an outward and visible sign not only of that belief, but of unity of faith. If you receive Holy Communion you are saying with your amen that you believe what the Church teaches, that you are in Communion with the Church. If you are not in a state of grace, you should not receive Holy Communion. If you are persistently, publicly, and obstinately opposed to a fundamental aspect of the Church's teaching such as the sanctity of human life at all stages, you most definitely should not be receiving Holy Communion, because in the most literal sense of the word you are not in communion with the Church or what she fundamentally holds to be true. If you are receiving Holy Communion under those circumstances, you are not being honest with yourself and you're certainly not being honest with those around you. When you receive Holy Communion, with your "Amen" you are saying "so be it," or "I believe," while you are literally telling the world in public statements that you don't believe.

This is not a partisan critique. I can think of two cases, one Republican (former Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge) and one Democrat (former Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius) who each got "the talk" from their local bishop about this issue during their political careers. To my knowledge, both of them respected the bishop's judgment that they should not receive Holy Communion until they had reconciled with the Church on this issue of abortion.

Of course that would be the right thing to do, to be honest with yourselves, with your fellow Catholics, and with your constituents. If you are so persistently and obstinately opposed to the Church on an issue upon which the Church has not changed since the first century, why on Earth would you receive Holy Communion if you really believe what we are supposed to believe about what- about Who - the Eucharist actually is? Respect for your own beliefs would demand that you did not receive Holy Communion, unless you are using that belief system or the Eucharist (or both) as a political prop, and if that is the case, may God have mercy on your souls...

Considering the poor state of catechesis in many places in our country today, it is always possible that some of the people on that list of signatories to the "letter to the bishops" were not aware of the Church's teaching regarding the Eucharist, or what constitutes worthy reception of Our Lord in the Eucharist. Let us all be reminded of the words of St. Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:23-29:

For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.

It should be noted here that the majority of the 11th chapter of 1st Corinthians is devoted to correcting those who have disrespected the Eucharist.

Holy Communion is not a right, it is a gift. Specifically, it is a gift from Christ to the Church, not from the Church to individual members. If you are doing things which willfully promote grave or mortal sin (and certainly something which can excommunicate your brothers and sisters in the faith), this is also grave, and that would include not merely upholding existing law, but promulgating new laws which encourage, fund, and even promote abortion and other manifest public and apparent sin. 

If you publicly and willfully believe in things which are utterly contrary to the most basic teachings of the Catholic faith, the best thing you can do for yourself and the good of your own soul, as well as the good of your brothers and sisters in the faith, is to abstain from receiving Holy Communion unless and until you can reconcile your beliefs with what the Church teaches. 

Note that I am not telling you that you aren't Catholic or that you should not come to Mass and worship with us. I am saying that if you are not in Communion with the Church, you should not receive Holy Communion.

If someone knows that their beliefs are not in Communion with the Church, and they persist in receiving the Eucharist anyway under those circumstances, then it is fair to ask: Have you no fear of God? Do you have no belief in the Judgment of God? Do you have no respect for Jesus who died for you? This debate persists in the Church because some people persist in this public display of dishonesty about what they believe.

It doesn't have to be that way. As an act of love and charity, I beg of those who persist in these public errors: If you don't believe, don't receive.