By Sam Keyes

When the news came that Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone had barred Speaker Nancy Pelosi from Holy Communion, I wondered how quickly Episcopal bishops would scramble over one another to declare their willingness to do the opposite. Somewhat to my (admittedly jaded) surprise, the public response has been prudently quiet, though within a day of Cordileone’s announcement, the Episcopal Bishop of California noted on his public Facebook page that Pelosi would be welcome to receive the sacrament at any Episcopal church. While it was cloaked in the usual cautious language against any charge of “sheep stealing,” it read much like a political endorsement.

I’m an ex-Anglican Roman Catholic, so I’m hardly a disinterested observer. I also recognize that the largely Anglican/Episcopalian readers of this blog may not be very invested in these internecine problems of sacramental discipline. But I want to suggest here that they should be, in one way or another, and that this isn’t merely a “conservative” or “progressive” thing as much as it is a “Church” thing.

One might wonder if many of those who decry the archbishop’s move as “political” apply the same standard to their own community boundaries. Several times now I’ve seen variations on a meme asserting that, on the one hand, “I can accept that people have different opinions than I do,” but on the other hand “I cannot accept people holding beliefs that deny people human rights.” Sometimes the sentiment is expressed as “You can believe whatever you want, but you’re not allowed to enact policies reflecting those beliefs.”

Advertisement

Of course, the trouble is that these boundaries are not self-enforcing or self-evident. The things in dispute (abortion and sexuality, to name just two) are precisely beliefs and questions of human rights and human nature; arguing that this or that item is “religious” vs. “political” is counterproductive at best, manipulative at worst. Progressive Episcopalians who hold to revised definitions of sacraments do not believe that these revisions are “political.” They simply reflect reality. It is amusing for anyone in a church which has spent the last several decades trying to solve its problems through lawsuits and disciplinary action against traditionalists to insist that no one should be disciplined for their beliefs. That is simply a self-defeating approach to any healthy form of institutional life.

Imagine this hypothetical situation: As the rector of an Episcopal parish, I declare that anyone in a same-sex union will be barred from Holy Communion due to their persistence in manifest, grave sin. Someone writes to the bishop, who calls me and insists that I revise this policy immediately because it does not reflect the teaching of the Episcopal Church. I tell her that conscience does not allow me to do this, and I refuse to arrange a meeting to discuss things. Can we really imagine, even in a more conservative diocese, that such a situation would be allowed to stand, that no disciplinary proceedings whatsoever would happen?

It wasn’t all that long ago that various clergy of the Episcopal Church had ongoing conversation about whether or not Donald Trump should be refused Holy Communion. Bishop Love of Albany was forced to step down from his ministry for simply following his conscience on the nature of marriage. Imagine if an Episcopal lay person in public office started giving speeches on the floor of the Senate saying, “My Episcopal faith is very important to me! It is thanks to this faith, and my devotion as an Episcopalian, that I think it important to support legislation banning interracial marriage.” Would this not be a situation of scandal? Would not bishops be quick to point out that this was not, in fact, the teaching of the church? Is it so hard to imagine that the scandal might result, eventually, in some form of sacramental discipline?

All of this is to say: Disagree with the Catholic Church’s teaching all you want, but have a little self-awareness before you start pontificating on people being “political” or not. No amount of “whataboutism” can modify, from the perspective of Catholic canon law, a pastor’s responsibility for the salvation of souls. For a bishop this includes not just Nancy Pelosi’s soul but the souls of all the faithful who do not understand how a person who so flagrantly, publicly, and repeatedly says and does things that no Catholic should say and do, despite repeated warnings and pleadings to repent, can waltz up to Communion as if it doesn’t matter.

Not to grasp this as a scandal is not to grasp, even in its most elementary outline, Catholic teaching about the Eucharist and about sin. (And on the subject of “whatabouts,” I don’t know of any serious Catholic who wouldn’t affirm a Catholic bishop’s right to make just such a decision about a Catholic politician from a more “conservative” position who repeatedly disregards or belittles core Church teaching on other matters.)

In other words, I’d submit that Cordileone has just as much right to impose sacramental discipline on a member of his flock (as archbishop of San Francisco he is Speaker Pelosi’s “proper pastor” in a canonical sense) as any other ecclesiastical authority. Other authorities might, indeed — Cardinal Gregory of Washington comes to mind — come to different conclusions, and they do so within the competence of their jurisdiction and, one dare hope, with the good of the whole Church in mind. I may vociferously disagree with the Episcopal Church’s revisionist definition of the sacraments of matrimony and order, but I do not question that body’s right to govern itself by its own rules. A church without basic disciplinary standards is no church at all.

It might come as a shock to acknowledge this in polite society, but there is real disagreement about abortion. There is disagreement about what we might call fundamental moral questions (when human life begins, what obligations we have to the unborn, what obligations we have to pregnant women) as well as disagreement on policy (whether abortion should be legal at all, whether there should be limits to its legality). If a bishop said to one of the faithful, “You cannot receive communion unless you vote for or against this or that bill,” that might indeed be a kind of “weaponization” of the Eucharist. But I know of no bishop who has done such a thing.

If the Eucharist were merely a meal, the various memes and protests about Jesus “eating with sinners” might be useful. But it is no mere meal — at least, that is what anyone calling himself a Catholic ought to affirm. St. Paul himself says that it is dangerous to receive it unworthily. Has the holy apostle “weaponized” the Lord’s table? Hardly. We weaponize ourselves, in opposition to the Church’s unity and witness, when we approach the table without “discerning the body.”

About The Author

Sam Keyes serves as Professor of Theology at John Paul the Great Catholic University in Escondido, California, and a priest in the Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter.

Related Posts

Subscribe
Notify of

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

10 Comments
oldest
newest most voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
C R SEITZ
30 days ago

Thank you.

C R SEITZ
28 days ago

PS–I never understood the “Jesus eating with sinners” response, since the implication is that abortion is a sin. I don’t believe Pelosi would accept that characterization.

A Jolivet-Habiby
24 days ago

Would he also exclude those lawmakers who are in favor of the death penalty? Or those who oppose ‘welcoming the stranger’ (immigrants)?
The Roman Catholic Church has some strong positions in favor of issues that many would deem ‘progressive’, and in only singling out those that are deemed ‘conservative’ for excluding people, he does a disservice to the holistic message and does indeed politicize his message.

Samuel Keyes
24 days ago

Agreed (largely). There’s a big distinction though between advocating policy with questionable morality and publicly calling evil good. The death penalty is not, in Catholic teaching, an intrinsic evil. It is potentially just. The recent magisterium (starting with JP2) has argued that it has no contemporary practical place, so to be at scandalous, public odds on the magisterium on this would involve repeated promises to increase the death penalty, or to apply it more broadly (or to use it against criminals in other states!). And I’m not aware of any Catholic politician who’s done that.

A Jolivet-Habiby
24 days ago
Reply to  Samuel Keyes

I’m not an expert on RC doctrine but I think it is a stricter and more fundamental position than that presented. According to US Catholic in 2021, “In the summer of 2018, the Catholic office for all matters of doctrine, the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, took steps officially to forbid support for the death penalty by faithful Catholics, adding a new directive to the Catechism of the Catholic Church: “the Church teaches, in light of the gospel, that ‘the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and the dignity of the person.’” Pope… Read more »

Samuel Keyes
24 days ago

That’s a good summary of magisterial teaching, but it neglects to note the subtle distinction between what is “inadmissible” and what is intrinsically evil. Abortion simply is in a different category. And note again that the issue isn’t that politicians support generic legislation that approves abortion, but that they explicitly bring their Catholic faith into it! Again, I’m not aware of any Catholic politicians who have so flagrantly contradicted church teaching on things like capital punishment or immigration. (They would effectively have to say something like “immigration is inherently evil and I will 100% work against it,” and publicly dismiss… Read more »

A Jolivet-Habiby
24 days ago
Reply to  Samuel Keyes

Gov Greg Abbott of Texas comes to mind as an exemple, William Barr, too, as well as Justices Scalia, Alito and Thomas. It seems strange that the hierarchy of the Church hasn’t or didn’t call them to order, but in any case they have clearly, consciously and repeatedly violated the Church’s doctrine both on immigration and the death penalty.

Samuel Keyes
24 days ago

Actually in the case of Abbott, I believe bishops did call him out. I hope they will continue doing so. Not sure about Barr. As to the SCOTUS guys… call me naive, but interpreting the law isn’t the same as making the law — it’s a rather different position. I’m not sure that you get that, while the Church rules out capital punishment as a legitimate act of justice today, she makes no moral equivalence between the execution of a criminal and the intentional killing of an innocent. Immigration is, frankly, even more complicated, because while it’s definitely a question… Read more »

Joseph Baird
24 days ago

“A church without basic disciplinary standards is no church at all.” I assume this would explain why my sister-in-law’s family was denied communion when her parents couldn’t enroll her and her sister in catholic school. (they couldn’t afford it at the time).
Personally, I favor the line from the movie, “Communion isn’t reward for the virtuous, it’s food for the starving!”

Samuel Keyes
24 days ago
Reply to  Joseph Baird

That is … pastorally stupid is what comes to mind, though I don’t know the circumstances. The fact that discipline is sometimes poorly applied doesn’t mean it should never be applied at all!

Indeed, communion is food for the starving. But even a starving man should not be given something that is known to be poisonous to him.