One of the undying myths of North American Catholicism is the belief that in order to have any voice in our faith, one has to be ordained. There is no truth to that myth.
The most direct example is in dealing with Catholics upset that the bishops do not excommunicate pro-abortion politicians. Concerned laity say that the law requires that politician X must be excommunicated for his stand on abortion but the bishops refuse to do it. It is a travesty in the minds of many members of the laity and they get angry at the episcopate for allowing pro-abortion politicians to receive the Eucharist.
Meanwhile, the bishops says they will not excommunicate them for various reasons. For example, Bishop Tobin of Providence, RI recently tweeted:
There are Cuomo-like pseudo-Catholic politicians in just about every state. The Church lost her ability/will to discipline them a long time ago. Very hard to recapture that discipline now.
So, from his perspective, it is an untenable position to excommunicate Catholic politicians who support abortion. But that assumes that the only ones who can act are the bishops. That is just not true, especially in a democracy.
What is the purpose of excommunication? It is a remedial action taken by the Church to send a clear message to the sinner that he or she lives outside what is acceptable for one who shares in Jesus’ ministry of priest, prophet and king. (cf Baptismal rite)
A similar dynamic happens in the confessional:
A person works in the porn industry and also goes to confession one Saturday. The penitent confesses the sin of participation in making these movies, but also has no intention of leaving his or her job at the studio.
The priest has no recourse but to refuse absolution because the person is not repentant and not willing to stop this sin in their lives. Now the penitent has to make a choice to either cease everything to do with this sin, or cease receiving the Eucharist. There is no longer a middle ground.
Excommunication works the same way. The bishop who excommunicates a person sends a clear message: Either live in accordance with the Gospel or refrain from receiving the sacraments for your own good. The warning here is that the person cannot be on the road to salvation while rejecting the will of God. In other words—taking a teaching from the Gospels—either one is for Christ or not. One who is playing both sides against the middle is not for Christ exclusively, therefore, he or she is against Him.
St. Paul calls the Christian Corinthians to cast a man, living in an immoral relationship, out of their company (“Deliver such a one to Satan”) that he may be saved. He may suffer in body, but he may be saved because of this remedial action the community took and the suffering he encountered because of it. (cf 1 Corinthians 5:5)
So excommunication is a remedial action sending a message that says “Your salvation is in danger. Receiving the Sacraments at this time will further harden your heart.” Get yourself back on the narrow road.
It is possible that the ordinary of diocese A says the politician cannot receive the Eucharist, so he or she communicates when attending mass in diocese B. Whether that is canonically correct is irrelevant, unless the bishop in diocese B is ready to enforce the directive set out in diocese A, the politician will take what is the easiest and the most politically expedient path. Keep in mind, for example, that there are three dioceses in the one city of New York.
It is reserved to the bishop to issue the excommunication decree, but, it is up to the lay person to do the work of conversion.
The Eucharist is God’s expression of love for his people. It is literally ‘God is with us.’ Jesus Christ, the Son of God is present to us literally in the sacrament of His Body and Blood. How does one approach the Son of God? In humility and docile to His grace.
If we truly believe that the Eucharist is the physical presence of Jesus Christ, then we do not approach Our Lord in pride and arrogance. This is what the pharisees did. If you look carefully at the Gospel accounts of Jesus’ interaction with the pharisees, you will see their hearts become more and more hardened in every sentence. Finally, at the end of the Gospel of Matthew they are so closed to the grace of God right in their midst, they even bribe the Roman soldiers to keep them quiet about Jesus’ resurrection. Their hearts, finally hardened like rock, leave Jesus to exclude Himself from their company for all time. He never returns to them after His resurrection as He does to five hundred others (cf 1Corinthians 15). The pharisees, so obstinate, would try to crucify Him again for even if one returns from the dead, they will not believe. (cf Luke 16:31)
When we approach Christ, we must only do so on His terms. When we approach Christ on our terms, then we are hardening our hearts and becoming blind to his grace and love, just like the pharisees.
In the absence of the action on the part of the bishop, there is nothing to prevent the laity from writing to the politician and others about the importance of approaching the sacrament in humility as a repentant sinner. They can encourage one in mortal sin to refrain if he or she is not disposed to receive the Eucharist in humble docility to grace.
There is nothing to prevent the laity from accurately instructing others about the disposition to receive the sacrament or even to ask neighbors if they really want to vote for candidates who approach the Eucharist proudly as if they are entitled to it.
Therefore, the belief that only the bishop or the priests have the power to address an issue, especially in a democracy is just plain wrong.
This is what the laity often does not seem to understand. So they just throw up their hands and say the bishop is not doing what he should do and they get angry at the bishop. That is because it seems that somewhere they bought the media’s admonition that they are to pay, pray and obey.
Our baptism commissioned us to proclaim the word of God throughout the world. So clearly it is within the right of the laity to address this action on their own. They cannot physically prevent the person from receiving the Eucharist, nor harass them in the mass, but they can write to him or her. They can talk with others, they can even ask the office holders at town hall meetings why one should vote for someone who is so obstinate before God.
The bishops have their prerogatives. The laity have their own duties as well . Lack of action on the part of the bishops is no excuse for the laity to assume nothing can be done.
Recent Comments