Let’s face it. This Baltimore meeting of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops was a classic example of what kind of stories drive front-page news in the mainstream press.
For starters, you had a complicated story about a doctrinal, moral and institutional crisis in Roman Catholicism today — the collapse of Catholic beliefs and practice related to sin, confession, forgiveness and Holy Communion.
Then you had a political story that, for journalists, pitted the satanic hordes of conservative bishops linked, somehow, to Donald Trump against the wise, progressive, nuanced shepherds who sympathize with ordinary Catholics like President Joe Biden.
Guess which story framed most of the coverage? Consider this headline from the journalistic college of cardinals at The New York Times: “Catholic Bishops Avoid Confrontation With Biden Over Communion.” And here’s the overture:
BALTIMORE — The Roman Catholic bishops of the United States backed away from a direct conflict with President Biden …, approving a new document on the sacrament of the eucharist that does not mention the president or any politicians by name.
At issue was the question of which Catholics, under which circumstances, are properly able to receive communion, one of the most sacred rites within Christianity. For some conservative Catholics, the real question was more pointed: Should Catholic politicians who publicly support and advance abortion rights be denied the sacrament?
For some of the most outspoken critics of Mr. Biden and other liberal Catholic leaders, the document represented a strategic retreat.
OK, here is a blunt question about that last statement: Is there any evidence that ANY DRAFT of this document — "The Mystery of the Eucharist in the Life of the Church" (.pdf here) — included a single reference to Biden, the White House or the presidency? If conservatives drove the process that led to this document, as assumed in the news coverage, isn’t it logical that references of this kind would have made it into digital ink at some point?
Here is another crucial statement in this Times report that deserves some careful parsing:
The document approved … does not address the question of public figures’ right to the eucharist head-on as some had hoped — and others feared. And the 29-page guidance barely mentions the word “abortion.”
Well, the question there is whether “public figures” (see this Religion Unplugged report by our own Clementi Lisi) might also be described as laypersons who “exercise some form of public authority.” #JustSaying.
As for abortion, the document does include a passage from the writings of Pope Francis, one that I stressed in my recent “On Religion” column about an earlier draft. Here is the final language:
Pope Francis has warned us that in our “throwaway culture” we need to fight the tendency to view people as “disposable”: “Some parts of our human family, it appears, can be readily sacrificed for the sake of others considered worthy of a carefree existence. Ultimately, “persons are no longer seen as a paramount value to be cared for and respected, especially when they are poor and disabled, ‘not yet useful’ — like the unborn, or ‘no longer needed’ — like the elderly.” As Christians, we bear the responsibility to promote the life and dignity of the human person, and to love and to protect the most vulnerable in our midst: the unborn, migrants and refugees, victims of racial injustice, the sick and the elderly.
If a bishop dared to read that passage aloud, perhaps in the president of Biden, I have no doubts that it would unleash a wave of headlines.
As for the framing statement of the Times story — delivered, without attribution, in the usual magisterial paraphrase — that would be the following. The debates about the document:
… also illuminated sprawling rifts among ordinary American Catholics, falling along lines that have become familiar since the presidency of Donald J. Trump scrambled both political and religious loyalties. An emboldened Catholic right wing, including media outlets and activist groups, now feels increasingly free to antagonize Pope Francis and his agenda.
Now, back to the document. For me, the most eye-raising passage — assuming the political framing device — in the final, approved, version was this one:
We repeat what the U.S. Bishops stated in 2006:
If a Catholic in his or her personal or professional life were knowingly and obstinately to reject the defined doctrines of the Church, or knowingly and obstinately to repudiate her definitive teaching on moral issues, however, he or she would seriously diminish his or her communion with the Church. Reception of Holy Communion in such a situation would not accord with the nature of the Eucharistic celebration, so that he or she should refrain.
Reception of Holy Communion in such a situation is also likely to cause scandal for others, weakening their resolve to be faithful to the demands of the Gospel.
To its credit, the Times team did note a fleeting reference to another important document in the life of the modern church — one with another connection to the current pope:
The document quotes from a 2007 text known as the Aparecida Document, named for a gathering of bishops in Central and South America and issued by a committee headed by Pope Francis himself, who was then Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio. That document, which has come to be read as a foundational text of his approach, contains sharp words for “legislators, heads of government and health professionals” who violate church teaching on abortion and other “grave crimes against life and family.” Catholics in such positions of influence may not receive communion, it says.
With that final theme in mind, more this passage in the final draft — pointing toward the need for the confession of mortal sins (such as those tied to abortion):
One is not to celebrate Mass or receive Holy Communion in the state of mortal sin without having sought the Sacrament of Reconciliation and received absolution. As the Church has consistently taught, a person who receives Holy Communion while in a state of mortal sin not only does not receive the grace that the sacrament conveys; he or she commits the sin of sacrilege by failing to show the reverence due to the sacred Body and Blood of Christ.
Also note this quote from St. John Paul II:
The judgment of one’s state of grace obviously belongs only to the person involved, since it is a question of examining one’s conscience. However, in cases of outward conduct which is seriously, clearly and steadfastly contrary to the moral norm, the Church, in her pastoral concern for the good order of the community and out of respect for the sacrament, cannot fail to feel directly involved. The Code of Canon Law refers to this situation of a manifest lack of proper moral disposition when it states that those who ‘obstinately persist in manifest grave sin’ are not to be admitted to Eucharistic communion.
There’s the heart of the issue. Is the public support for abortion through the third trimester, including the use of tax dollars to fund abortion, an example of an action that is “seriously, clearly and steadfastly contrary” to centuries of Catholic moral theology? How about Biden’s decision to perform a same-sex marriage rite, while stating that Catholic doctrines on that subject were wrong and should be changed?
The document then, in a subtle way, did include another passage that points to The Big Story in this dispute — the growing evidence of doctrinal (politics is secondary) divisions inside the USCCB.
It is the special responsibility of the diocesan bishop to work to remedy situations that involve public actions at variance with the visible communion of the Church and the moral law. Indeed, he must guard the integrity of the sacrament, the visible communion of the Church, and the salvation of souls.
How does a bishop “guard the integrity of the sacrament”? Is there a different standard for that in Chicago or Washington, D.C., as opposed to Denver or Los Angeles?
Stay tuned. This doctrinal struggle is not going to go away?
FIRST IMAGE: Photo (uncredited) from the Vatican News website report about the fall 2021 USCCB meeting in Baltimore.