by Tom Cordaro
Pax Christi USA Ambassador of Peace
As a Catholic striving to be faithful to the call to nonviolence exemplified by the life and teachings of Jesus, I am scandalized by those bishops and priests in the United States who would deny the Eucharist to politicians who disagree with them on the best way to eliminate abortions and create a culture of life.
And now this scandal is in danger of metastasizing because the U.S. Catholic Conference of Bishops will consider voting on a document prepared by its Committee on Doctrine that would encourage all bishops to deny the Eucharist to all politicians who do not support their strategy of outlawing all abortions.
The Church teaches that the Eucharist is the source and summit of the Christian life. To deny access to the Eucharist is to deny fellow Catholics the spiritual sustenance they need to thrive. It constitutes an act of violent coercion – in effect starving those Catholics into submission who will not obey the dictates of the bishops.
Thankfully there are other bishops who are speaking out against this kind of action. Bishop Robert McElroy (in America magazine) was right to say, “I do not see how depriving the president or other political leaders of the Eucharist based on their public policy stance can be interpreted in our society as anything other than a weaponization of the Eucharist … to pummel them into submission.”
I find nothing in the life and teachings of Jesus that would support this kind of violence. It is clear from the Gospels that Jesus not merely ministered to sinners but identified with them. Nothing more illustrates this point than Jesus’ practice of table fellowship. In the Middle East, table fellowship or sharing a meal is a particularly intimate form of association. Most would never eat and drink with a public sinner. The scandal Jesus caused in that society by mixing socially with public sinners (tax collectors, drunkards and prostitutes) can hardly be imagined today (c.f. Jesus Before Christianity, by Albert Nolan). In the parables he told and in his own behavior throughout his life, Jesus demonstrated that our fellowship table should be open to all (Mk 1:15-17, Lk 7:36-50, Lk 14:15-24, Lk 15:11-32, Lk 19:1-10). Even at the Last Supper, knowing he would be betrayed and abandoned by his own friends, Jesus broke bread with all of his disciples, including Judas.
Like many Pax Christi members I am very passionate about Catholic Social Teaching and the call to protect and defend the dignity of life from womb to tomb. At the same time I am often disappointed by the lack of commitment to the principles of Catholic Social Teaching by many of our Catholic brothers and sisters who hold positions of responsibility in politics, business and sadly even in the Church. But it would never occur to me to seek the exclusion of any of these members of our Catholic family from the Eucharistic Table.
After his resurrection Jesus asks Simon Peter to demonstrate his love for him by caring for his flock. Three times the apostle is asked, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter replies emphatically, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” And Jesus commands him, “Feed my sheep.”
Jesus did not say, “Feed only those sheep who follow the rules.” He did not say, “Feed only those who are free of serious sin.” He did not say, “Feed only those who do what they are told.”
For those who do not feel that the life and teachings of Jesus are enough reason to oppose these violent acts by members of the clergy, let me site some other reasons for opposing these actions.
1. Denying Communion to others is a counter-sign of the true meaning of the Eucharist.
Pope Francis teaches that the Eucharist is not a prize awarded for good behavior; it is a source of healing, mercy and reconciliation. He goes on to say, “If we don’t feel in need of God’s mercy and don’t think we are sinners, it’s better not to go to Mass; the Eucharist is a celebration of Christ’s gift of himself for the salvation of sinners, which is why the Mass begins with people confessing they are sinners and begging for the Lord’s mercy.”
The Church teaches that prior to receiving Communion individuals should examine their conscience and should refrain from participation if they are guilty of mortal sin. While this is true, it is a matter between God and the individual; not a matter of ecclesial policing.
The Eucharist should not be weaponized in order to punish or shame others because we all stand before the Lord as sinners in need of mercy, forgiveness and healing. Just before receiving the Eucharist we recall the words of the Roman centurion: “Lord, I am not worthy to have you come under my roof. Speak but the word and I shall be healed.”
2. Denying Communion to those who disagree with the application of Church teaching further erodes the teaching authority of the bishops.
Bishops who resort to violent acts of coercion in an attempt to force a change in the behavior or beliefs of their brothers and sisters in Christ are abdicating their role as teachers. Their resort to violence is an admission of their failure to persuade their fellow Catholics of the validity of their strategy. By acting this way they show themselves more as inquisitors than instructors; more authoritarian than pastoral.
The failure of the bishops’ teaching on abortion is evident in polling conducted by multiple sources — ranging from Pew Research to conservative Catholic media outlet EWTN — indicating that most Catholics in the U.S. believe abortion should be legal in all or most cases. And there is no evidence to show that punishing and shaming those who disagree ever resulted in changing hearts and minds.
Bishops and other clergy can preach and teach about the reasons the Church rejects abortion. They can lobby and they can participate in nonviolent direct action to stop abortions. They can encourage, support, and advocate for the rights and dignity of women and their children. They can condemn those social forces that promote the sexual objectification of women. They can fight against all the root causes of abortion in our society.
All of these avenues are open to the bishops to make clear what the Church teaches. But when Jesus disarmed his disciples from using the sword to protect him (Mt 26:52), he forever removed the option of using violent coercion as a means of protecting the faith.
3. Denying Communion to others based on a narrow reading of Catholic Social Teaching undermines the entire tradition.
In “Gaudete et Exsultate,” Pope Francis warns against thinking that “the only thing that counts is one particular ethical issue or cause.” He reminds us: “Our defense of the innocent unborn, for example, needs to be clear, firm and passionate, for at stake is the dignity of a human life, which is always sacred and demands love for each person, regardless of his or her stage of development. Equally sacred, however, are the lives of the poor, those already born, the destitute, the abandoned and the underprivileged, the vulnerable infirm and elderly exposed to covert euthanasia, the victims of human trafficking, new forms of slavery, and every form of rejection.”
By reserving this violent punishment and shaming only for those politicians who reject the bishops’ political and legal strategy to end abortion, the bishops undermine the totality of Catholic Social Teaching and risk making the Church social teaching a partisan political tool. It gives support to those Catholics who urge government intervention to stop abortions but reject government intervention to enact other aspects of Catholic Social Teaching that protect and defend the dignity of human life.
4. This action by the bishops will sow distrust and enmity in the Body of Christ.
The action being contemplated by the bishops’ conference could have the effect of poisoning the bonds of community in parishes across the country. This Communion ban, directed at politicians, is based on the argument that because they are public figures, their punishment can take the public form of exclusion from the reception of Communion.
But why stop at politicians? Aren’t Catholics who publicly support these politicians equally at fault? And what about Eucharistic Ministers, lectionary readers, sacristans and other liturgical ministers who attend rallies or volunteer for the campaigns of these politicians? Aren’t they also acting in “public”? Shouldn’t they all be banned from the Eucharistic Table?
This ban, in the hands of parish anti-abortion zealots, will be a weapon they can use to exact punishment on all those in parish lay leadership positions and ministries who do not adequately embrace the anti-abortion strategies of the U.S. bishops. Fear and forced silence will begin to dominate parish life as many parishioners are forced to live double lives; one in the church building and another as free citizens. In one life they will be free to exercise their rights and responsibilities as citizens and in their other life they will be forced to live a lie.
Pope Francis warned against clergy who “act as arbiters of grace rather than its facilitators.” He warned that parishes should not operate as “a tollhouse,” but as a space with open doors “where there is place for everyone.” This ban will force pastors to become grand inquisitors, constantly worried about running afoul of the anti-abortion zealots in their parish who will report them to their bishops if they fail to properly police their flock.
Bans like the one being contemplated by the U.S. Catholic Bishops’ Conference are a prime example of why our young people are leaving the Church. Some leave because they have lost their faith, but most leave in order to save what faith they have. Our young people are not leaving because they reject Jesus; they are leaving because those who profess faith in him have rejected what he taught, lived, died and rose to do.
5. None of us are worthy; that is why all are welcome.
The Eucharist is powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak: it is food for our journey. When we gather around the Eucharistic Table we do so not as conservatives or liberals; not as traditionalists or progressives; but as brothers and sisters in Christ. We gathered around the table in recognition of our sinfulness and our need for God’s mercy – this is even true for bishops and cardinals. How can anyone of us turn to our brother or sister and say you are not worthy to gather at this table?
As Pope Francis points out, “In reality, those who participate in the Mass don’t do so because they think or want to believe they are superior to others, but precisely because they know they are in need of God’s mercy.”
Speaking before a joint session of Congress, Pope Francis raised up the witness of three Americans that best exemplified the best of who we are. One of them was the Trappist monk Thomas Merton who wrote: “Our job is to love others without stopping to inquire whether or not they are worthy. That is not our business and, in fact, it is nobody’s business. What we are asked to do is to love, and this love itself will render both ourselves and our neighbors worthy.”
What binds us together is our common recognition of the need for mercy and forgiveness. Jesus taught us to pray, “Forgive us our sins as we forgive those who have sinned against us.”
ACTION SUGGESTION: In mid-June, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops will meet for their General Assembly where they will possibly consider a proposal to publicly exclude President Joe Biden and other pro-choice Catholic politicians from the Eucharist. Pax Christi USA Ambassador of Peace Tom Cordaro, in his column above, lays out the danger and violence inherent in such a proposal.
We are inviting our members to write personal letters or emails directed to their local bishops expressing their viewpoint and incorporating the talking points in Tom’s column that most resonate with you. You can find links to information for your diocese here, including information to contact your bishop.
I read somewhere that Jesus, the Christ, gave His body and blood in shared Eucharist with Judas, knowing full well that Judas would betray Him. Jesus, the Christ, also shared His body and blood in Eucharist with Peter (whom He expected to be head of His flock/Church) knowing full well that Peter would deny Him THREE times!
Does history repeat itself in this political situation? At least Peter was humble enough to be broken hearted at what he had done.
And now? Alas.
Thank you for this profound article. I pray that it can be distributed to various other media sources
so that the whole world can read it. I will contact my local Bishop. And I pray that all Pax Christi
members do the same. I will write a letter to the editor of my local newspaper. And I pray that the
Holy Spirit will inspire the Bishops who are promoting the exclusion and coercion for those who
disagree with their politics, to really hear the word of Jesus and the Spirit.
This is an excellent rebuttal of weaponizing the Eucharist!! Amen
This article is one of the best I have read as a rebuttal to what the Bishops are planning. I find it really difficult to believe that the move is not political, especially since they are silent about gun violence, the violence between Palestine and Israel, and the insurrection attempt on January 6, in which people died as well as War in General. .
It is so sad that my church is now telling this country that no Catholic should run for office and win, unless they do the bidding of the church. To me this is not what Christ and His Father would have wanted. It’s certainly not what Christ taught in His ministry, nor does it fit in with Free Will.
It is appalling the Catholic Bishops would entertain the idea of voting on such a document. Not alone will a Communion ban be a public shaming and drive more Catholics away, but it will once again showcase the hypocrisy rampant among some members of the episcopal elite. Some of these bishops ignored or enabled systemic sex abuse in areas of their jurisdiction, while preaching on the dignity of all human life where abortion was concerned. While the sacredness of all human life is central to Catholic Social Teaching and should be the focus of their conference, concentration on the needs of the poor, the oppressed , the marginalized and war torn communities is essential to a meaningful Christian dialogue. Judging who among us is worthy of receiving the Eucharist is not within their authority.
Sometimes I think the USCCB is determined to destroy the church as we know it
This article by Tom Cordaro is really a shame. It distorts the issues and misses a great opportunity to advance non-violence. One terrible thing it does, right off the bat, is to strip away the power of the word “violence” by saying that telling somebody they shouldn’t go to communion is an act of violence. That’s what our opposition uses with regard to abortion, saying that denying women the right to terminate a pregnancy is an act of violence. I’m not claiming that there isn’t some kind of a spectrum with physical violence at one and omissions of something that is very desired at the other end. But we should never conflate the two ends of the spectrum.
In addition, Tom writes that the bishops want to “encourage all bishops to deny the Eucharist to all politicians who do not support their strategy of outlawing all abortions”. In that case, I couldn’t go to communion either, because I don’t want to prohibit abortion done for the sake of saving a mother’s life, although I myself think it morally wrong to kill an innocent person even to save another’s life. But more importantly, the goal post has been moved from the early months of pregnancy, where I see it possible for reasonable persons to make a mistake about the existence of for human life, to late-term and post-birth abortion. And to the subsidization of abortion by the federal government. In other words, Biden has moved way past the point where he could be given any legitimate benefit of the doubt as to a reasonable good will.
In terms of the consistency issue, I think the advocacy of a late abortion right is a great place to start, because there can be no serious debate about its wrongness. Once such advocacy is nailed down as a communion disqualifier, that can be used as a base to expand disqualification to other forms of advocacy of violence that are less clear-cut for most people. Pax Christi should try to jump on this issue in support of the bishops, but also to point out that, once this is done, logic requires its expansion to other forms of true violence (not to every sort of undesired omission, however, as I argue above against Tom).
I found this article disturbing and not in keeping with the spirit of the consistent life ethic, which I thought Pax Christi supported. I don’t feel super strongly about whether pro-choice politicians and other publicly pro-choice figures should be denied Communion, and I agree with Mr. Cordaro that public figures who stand against life, peace, and justice on other issues such as war and the death penalty should be called on their misguided stances every bit as much as those who support abortion. Of course, Catholic teaching itself is still not caught up fully with the CLE especially on war. And I long for the day when it will be!
But here and now in 2021, by jumping into this debate Pax Christi are themselves turning the issue – and the Eucharist – into a political pawn, and sinking down into the left-right divide by choosing a side/toeing the leftist line, which is equally (or almost?) as inconsistent a stance as the right-ist line. (And why you’re implicitly defending a consistent-death president is beyond me anyway.)
The Eucharist is table fellowship – and it’s also much more. To quote a colleague of mine, the Eucharist isn’t a sandwich. As Catholics we believe that Communion means truly, physically taking God Himself, the God who physically and truly gave His life for us, into your body and soul. It’s table fellowship with other believers too, and is deeply relational and mutual, both (equally importantly) with your fellow communicants and with your personal Savior, to borrow a wonderful Protestant term. Jesus is ready to be hospitable to you, no matter who you are and what you do … So true. This hospitality goes both ways: the communicant, who invites the Lord to dwell in themselves, must be radically open to Jesus, to the Church that He founded – His mystical body – and to its teachings. And to a true love for all His people (including, I would say, a desire for them not to be killed).
I just expected so much better from Pax, that maybe you would rise above the muck. Again, I don’t even see the debate about Communion for Biden as the main issue; if asked to pick a side I’d say all are welcome at the table — after repentance and Sacramental confession. I’ve certainly been away from grace, and I guess we all have. There’s a way back. Valid points can nonetheless made on both sides of this issue. What’s the most disappointing is Pax’s completely lopsided endorsement of one view, which calls into question your actual take on peace for all.
Please keep up the good work that you do best and do so faithfully, working for an end to the sin and scourge of war.
Changing the definition of words such as violence in order to fulfill a political agenda is a tactic used in totalitarian societies. It was used in Germany and the Soviet Union. Why are you using these same techniques?
It makes me so sad to see a lack of response by Pax Christi regarding the decision to overturn Roe vs Wade. To imagine supporting the forced birth of children to women who have been raped, molested by relatives, or human trafficked. To imagine forcing women to travel borders going into septic shock due to a miscarriage that now needs aborting. This is no longer imagination, it is reality. Our sisters will die. Our children will grow up unloved, unwanted, sick, suffering. This is not pro life. This is pro death. This is pro suffering. My heart aches for women everywhere who will die because politicians made a decision to remove their bodily autonomy. While I have not had an abortion myself, I will no longer be trying to bring a child into this world as I may die due to an ectopic pregnancy or a miscarriage, as these are common. My husband and I weep for this loss of a child we might have one day had. I ask Pax Christi to make a statement about what they believe, so I can decide if my family should be a member any longer.