Steele Yourself…

Yet again, the denizens of the Catholic blogosphere are discussing the most important topic facing the country and the world at the moment: the list of those to be cast from the communion rails. It’s been almost a year since Deal Hudson’s guys sent “spies” into the papal Mass to see which abortion-supporting politicians were receiving the Eucharist. And of course, the hissy-fits over Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi have not stopped. In the latest round, the usual suspects are lecturing archbishop Donald Wuerl on how he must under no circumstances give communion to Kathleen Sibelius– of course, these bloggers are far more well-versed on moral theology and canon low than a lowly archbishop.

Well, I’m waiting for the inevitable onslaught against Michael Steele to begin. After all, Steele is a practicing Catholic who regular frequents churches of the archdiocese of Washington, including at episcopal liturgies. For Steele has come up with pretty much the exact position of the other public figures so derided by the communion warriors. Consider the following interview question:

“Are you saying you think women have the right to choose abortion?
Yeah. I mean, again, I think that’s an individual choice.

You do?
Yeah. Absolutely.”

That seems pretty cut and dry. I’m waiting…

It is the inconsistency that sums up my problem with the communion warriors. For it’s always been about the politics. If these people wanted to be consistent, consistent in their interpretation of Canon 915, then the net would would cast a little wider. As well as Michael Steele, it would catch John “nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent [Roe v. Wade]” Roberts. It would also catch those who supported the torture of the Bush administration, given that torture is listed among the intrinsically evil acts that can never be supported, regardless of circumstance. By this interpretation of canon law, it seems patently obvious that politicians and other public figures who have supported torture or advocated publicly on its behalf obstinately persevere in manifest grave sin, and ought to be denied Holy Communion. That could be a long list, and include many who pride themselves on their Catholic orthodoxy. It would encompass Justice Scalia, the National Review’s Kathryn Lopez, Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, Pat Buchanan, and Rick Santorum. You could probably count the Catholic Republican politicians who escape that net on one hand.

Let me be clear: I do not want to go there. Many who present themselves for communion each week should not do so, but this isn’t really the issue, is it? No, this is political. It is merely another front in what this group sees as a “war”, using tactics that are almost Marxist in tone. As Sam Tanenhaus described the modern American pseudo-conservative movement: “In place of the Marxist dialectic they formulated a Manichaean politics of good and evil, still with us today, and their strategy was to build a movement based on organizing cultural antagonisms.” As I noted in response, I think much of this relates to the very American culturally Calvinist and/or Gnostic religious traditions that paints the world in stark “us versus them” terms. This is the way the evangelical right views the world, but it is far removed from the Catholic mindset. Yes, I know I sound like a broken record at this point, but what can I do? This much is pellucidly clear.