"Using Communion as a weapon" against a Catholic voter

E.J. Dionne writes today about the denial of communion to Doug Kmiec, a Catholic, "a staunch Republican, firm foe of abortion and veteran of the Reagan Justice Department."  Kmiec was denied Communion for his endorsment of Barack Obama for president.  Here's a snippet from E.J.'s piece:

The Kmiec incident poses the question in an extreme form: He is not a public official but a voter expressing a preference. Moreover, Kmiec -- a law professor at Pepperdine University and once dean of  Catholic University's law school -- is a long-standing critic of the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision. . . .

In an interview over the weekend, Kmiec argued that 35 years after Roe, opponents of abortion need to contemplate whether "a legal prohibition" of abortion "is the only way to promote a culture of life."

"To think you have done a generous thing for your neighbor or that you have built up a culture of life just because you voted for a candidate who says in his brochure that he wants to overturn Roe v. Wade is far too thin an understanding of the Catholic faith," he said. Kmiec, a critic of the Bush administration's Iraq policy, added that Catholics should heed "the broad social teaching of the church," including its views on war.

Kmiec shared with me the name of the priest who denied him Communion and a letter of apology from the organizers of the event, but he requested that I not name the priest to protect the cleric from public attack.

The priest's actions are almost certainly out of line with the policy of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. In their statement "Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship," issued last November, the bishops said: "A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who takes a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, such as abortion or racism, if the voter's intent is to support that position."

The "if" phrase in that carefully negotiated sentence suggests that Catholics can support pro-choice candidates, provided the purpose of their vote is not to promote abortion. . . .

But because Kmiec is a private citizen and has such a long history of embracing Catholic teaching on abortion, denying him Communion for political reasons may spark an even greater outcry inside the church.

Kmiec says he is grateful because the episode reminded him of the importance of the Eucharist in his spiritual life, and because he hopes it will alert others to the dangers of "using Communion as a weapon."

Kmiec's account of these events is here.  dotcommonweal is having an interesting discussion of E.J.'s column. 

In other Catholic news, Vox Nova also asks why Monsignor Lisante's partisan attack (Silante called it a prayer) has apparently been ignored thus far by the Catholic hierarchy, while Father Pfleger's partisan attack drew a rebuke from Cardinal George.  I thought it was a good question, but I'm not Catholic.  Having a Catholic ask the question gives me more confidence that it has merit.

Comments

[Steve]

Archbishop Burke, one of the leading canonists in the world, has already demonstrated in exhaustive detail that every minister of the Eucharist not only has the right but the duty to deny the Eucharist to public supporters of pro-abortion candidates, i.e., people like Doug Kmiec.

There's really no room for disagreement here from Catholics.

Of course, there are Catholics who don't understand or refuse delivery of the truth, but that doesn't change the truth.

[Melissa Rogers]

Steve, re the priest's decision in the Kmiec case, some prominent and learned Catholics disagree, including (reportedly) at least one Cardinal.Let me quote Gerry Bradley http://bench.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZjAxZWQ2M2Q4YmE2MDE4Njg5YTBkODAxYjI1MjFhNzg=
:

"E.J. Dionne (among others) is reporting the latest misguided turn of events involving Doug Kmiec. As recently as New Year's Day of 2008, if you called Information and asked for the names and numbers of the five most prominent conservative Catholic law professors in America, Kmiec would surely have been on the list. . . .

Now comes word that Kmiec was denied Communion by a California priest, reportedly for the sole reason of Kmiec's public support of Obama. The priest has (again, reportedly) been upbraided by Cardinal Mahony for doing so. Cardinal Mahony is right."

See also Ross Douthat.

http://rossdouthat.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/06/matters_of_life_and_death.php

[Steve]

Cardinal Mahoney is wrong.
Gerard V. Bradley is wrong.

Archbishop Burke, is on the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura, the highest canon law court in the Universal Catholic Church.

It is a court from which there is no appeal.

He has already written an airtight case from Scripture, Tradition and canon law demonstrating that *every* priest, deacon and EME has the power, the right and the absolute *duty* to refuse the Eucharist to anyone giving public scandal through heinous acts such as public support of abortion.
See:
http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/holycom/denial.htm

Cardinal Mahoney, to my knowledge, is not even a canon lawyer, so his opinion is not exactly expert. It is not even relevant.

Ive never heard of Bradley, and I doubt he has anywhere near the expertise or authority Burke has. His opinion is CERTAINLY not relevant.

This is a settled case.

There is nothing to appeal and nothing to debate. Any Catholic who says otherwise is either ignorant or deliberately refusing to face facts.

Thats why Ratzinger made it clear, as had of the CDF, that this should have happened four years ago. Washington DCs bishop deliberately lied to the entire USCCB in order to keep Eucharist from being denied to Kerry.

Now Benedict is Pope. Kmiec can appeal all he wants, but if he does, the priest is going to be vindicated and Kmiec will be confirmed in his error. Thats why Kmiec isnt starting a formal appeal. He knows damned well he cant win it.

[Steve]

Look, let's explain this in clearer, more concrete terms.

Compare what happened to Father Pfleger, who merely made a stupid speech, to what happened to this anonymous priest who denied Doug Kmiec the right to enter into intimate communion with God Himself.

For a stupid speech, Fr. Pfleger gets removed from his pastorship for several weeks.

For denying a Catholic communion with God, this anonymous priest has to endure a stern talking to and angry eyebrows from the Cardinal. He might even wiggles his eyebrows a lot, thus increasing the sense of terror.

Now, why the enormous difference in punishment? Pfleger is entirely stripped of his authority, while Anonymous Priest just has to turn his hearing aid back on after he leaves the Cardinal's office. But didn't Anonymous Priest commit a much more serious crime than Fr. Pfleger?

Why, yes, I believe he did!

So why does he get off so lightly?

Because a bishop can't remove a priest from his pastorship without GOOD reason. If he does so without good reason, the priest can appeal to Rome and Rome will slap the bishop. Priests, especially pastors, have canonical rights that bishops must respect.

Now, a bishop can yell at a pastor all he wants. There's no appeal for just being yelled at. You just have to stand and take it, or at least keep the hearing aid turned down until his lips stop moving.

So, Fr. Pfleger got removed for supporting Obama. Notice how he's not appealing that? He knows how such an appeal would end. Fr. Pfleger is stupid, but he's not a complete fool.

Cardinal Mahoney, on the other hand, is NOT removing the priest. He just yells.
Notice how that keeps the priest from having an avenue to appeal to Rome. Cardinal Mahoney is not a complete fool either.

If this got to Rome, Mahoney would be slapped once, very hard, right across the face by the Signatura. He would bleed embarrassment for the rest of his tenure.

No, Mahoney ain't nobody's fool.

[Matt]

Steve,

You have not even gotten close to demonstrating that Archbishop Burke's words apply to Kmiec, who is not supporting abortion but a pro-choice candidate DESPITE his being pro-choice!