What did Ratzinger write?

Joseph_RatzingerThe Washington Times’ Julia Duin (a friend of this blog) reported Wednesday on Vatican official Joseph Ratzinger’s tough six-point memo regarding Catholic politicians who defy church teaching on abortion and euthanasia. Drawing from a story in the Italian newspaper L’Espresso, Duin reports that Ratzinger called for a stronger discipline than indicated by Washington Cardinal Theodore McCarrick:

“I would emphasize that Cardinal Ratzinger clearly leaves to us as teachers, pastors and leaders WHETHER to pursue this path” of denying Communion, Cardinal McCarrick told the bishops in his speech, the text of which is posted at the U.S. bishops’ Web site, on www.usccb.org.

“The question for us is not simply whether denial of Communion is possible, but whether it is pastorally wise and prudent,” the cardinal said.

. . . However, the Ratzinger letter says that denial of Communion is obligatory “regarding the grave sin of abortion or euthanasia.”

Duin also reports McCarrick’s assertion that the L’Espresso report is incomplete:

“From what I have heard, it may represent an incomplete and partial leak of a private communication from Cardinal Ratzinger, and it may not accurately reflect the full message I received,” the cardinal said.

“Our task force’s dialogue with the Holy See on these matters has been extensive, in person, by phone and in writing. I should note I was specifically requested by the cardinal not to publish his written materials, and I will honor that request.”

Whatever Ratzinger may have written to McCarrick in a cover letter or other communications, his six-point memo as published in L’Espresso is straightforward:

1. Presenting oneself to receive Holy Communion should be a conscious decision, based on a reasoned [judgment] regarding one’s worthiness to do so, according to the Church’s objective criteria, asking such questions as: “Am I in full communion with the Catholic Church? Am I guilty of grave sin? Have I incurred a penalty (e.g. excommunication, interdict) that forbids me to receive Holy Communion? Have I prepared myself by fasting for at least an hour?” The practice of indiscriminately presenting oneself to receive Holy Communion, merely as a consequence of being present at Mass, is an abuse that must be corrected (cf. Instruction “Redemptionis Sacramentum,” nos. 81, 83).

2. The Church teaches that abortion or euthanasia is a grave sin. The Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae, with reference to judicial decisions or civil laws that authorise or promote abortion or euthanasia, states that there is a “grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection. [. . .] In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to ‘take part in a [propaganda] campaign in favour of such a law or vote for it’” (no. 73). Christians have a “grave obligation of conscience not to cooperate formally in practices which, even if permitted by civil legislation, are contrary to God’s law. Indeed, from the moral standpoint, it is never licit to cooperate formally in evil. [. . .] This cooperation can never be justified either by invoking respect for the freedom of others or by appealing to the fact that civil law permits it or requires it” (no. 74).

3. Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.

4. Apart from an [individual's judgment] about his worthiness to present himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, the minister of Holy Communion may find himself in the situation where he must refuse to distribute Holy Communion to someone, such as in cases of a declared excommunication, a declared interdict, or an obstinate persistence in manifest grave sin (cf. can. 915).

5. Regarding the grave sin of abortion or euthanasia, when a person’s formal cooperation becomes manifest (understood, in the case of a Catholic politician, as his consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws), his Pastor should meet with him, instructing him about the Church’s teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin, and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist.

6. When “these precautionary measures have not had their effect or in which they were not possible,” and the person in question, with obstinate persistence, still presents himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, “the minister of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute it” (cf. Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts Declaration “Holy Communion and Divorced, Civilly Remarried Catholics” [2002], nos. 3-4). This decision, properly speaking, is not a sanction or a penalty. Nor is the minister of Holy Communion passing [judgment] on the person’s subjective guilt, but rather is reacting to the person’s public unworthiness to receive Holy Communion due to an objective situation of sin.

[N.B. A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate's permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate's stand in favour of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.]

Print Friendly

  • molly

    How convenient for pro-death penalty politicians. But, correct me if I’m wrong, aren’t capital punishment and euthanasia the same thing? Someone else is willingly ending the life of another person regardless of the circumstances leading to death. Methinks that meddling Catholic bishops are trying to have their cake and eat Kerry, too.

  • http://tmatt.net tmatt

    Tmatt here, during a break in my speaking duties out in Phoenix. I’m glad LeBlanc posted all of this — even though it knocked the rapping Anglicans off the top of the page.

    I think John Paul II has raised questions about whether the death penalty can be used in a fair manner in modern societies, but I do not think that he has declared it a moral evil.

    Like it or not, not all of the threads in the seamless garment are created equal in the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, as opposed to the American Catholic Church. That is part of what this debate is all about.

    BTW, those seeking basic texts (and traditionalist commentary) on these issues should visit:

    http://www.wf-f.org/Catholics_and_Politics.html

  • http://www.ratzingerfanclub.com Christopher

    Over at Catholic Kerry Watch — http://catholickerrywatch.blogspot.com — Jamie Blosser posts a line-by-line comparison of Cardinal Ratzinger’s letter with Cardinal McCarrick’s earlier and conflicting “interpretation” in an interview.

    To Molly: debate over the value of capital punishment and euthanasia are two different things entirely; the former is the question of justice and protection of the common good, and whether ending the lives of the guilty is the most fitting means of doing so. Here’s an article by Cardinal Dulles: Catholicism and Capital Punishment — http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0104/articles/dulles.html .

    With respect to capital punishment, the Catechism teaches: “. . . the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor. If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.”

    The question of justice and how it ought to be distributed does not play a part in the Church’s condemnation of abortion and euthanasia, which as the deliberate killing of the innocent on account that they are sick, handicapped or dying and deemed “not suitable for life”, is simply morally unacceptable.

    Consequently, the Church distinguishes between (and does not equate) its condemnation of abortion/euthanasia and its criticism of capital punishment.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X