On Church Discipline and Its Discontents

"So, what do you think about the bishops wanting to deny Biden Communion?"

I've gotten that question a lot. There are a number of ways to approach this issue that I think are interesting on their own merits, but not ultimately the heart of the conversation.  For example, the lawyer in me is fascinated by the applicability of Canon 1405 p.1, which states that "[i]n the cases mentioned in Canon 1401 [which includes ecclesiastical penalties such as denying Communion], the Roman Pontiff alone has the right to judge . . . Heads of State."  That seems pretty black and white to me--the U.S. Bishops' Conference has no jurisdiction over Biden so long as he is the President.  And, if you think through the "legislative history" of this Canon, it was surely written to prevent local bishops from mucking around with the Pope's broader diplomatic and spiritual initiatives.  In other words, exactly the kind of scenario we have right now.  

Along those lines, from a Vatican-ology standpoint, it is clear that the Powers-that-Be in Rome are not excited about this development.  It also seems to be the case that many of the U.S. Bishops either don't care about this fact, or perhaps even see sticking it to Francis and the establishment in Rome as a feature and not a bug.  Speaking of the bishops, the job of actually doing the denying of Communion (insofar as it is not reserved to the Pope as discussed above) is in the hands of the Archbishop of Washington, Wilton Gregory, who has basically said he's not going to deny Biden Communion.  And even if Gregory were inclined to do so, as a practical matter Biden could always find some priest to defy the ban and give him Communion.  I mean, the Jesuits in D.C. surely would give him Communion, and what is anyone going to do about it?  Complain to the [Jesuit] Pope?  Shut down Georgetown University?

So, from an operational, pragmatic perspective, this is Sound and Fury Signifying Nothing, at least as to Biden specifically.  Which is why I think this is much more profitably thought about in a broader, more holistic context.  Forget the machinations of heads of state and bishops' conferences.  Let's talk about the regular Roman Catholic in the pews, faced with a priest who thinks that one's view of the controversial "pelvic" issues (abortion in this case, but also LGBT issues, or even birth control) is and should be determinative of your ability to receive Communion.  How should we think about that?

I approach this question with two core propositions in mind.  First, I think the Roman Catholic position on the the aforesaid pelvic issues is wrong.  I think they are wrong on birth control, wrong on LGBT questions, and wrong on abortion.  And when I say "wrong," I don't mean "well, the authentically Christian position is the RC Church's position, but I reject it because I prioritize other commitments."  I mean "I think it is totally permissible to fully follow Christ and believe that birth control and abortion are OK, and I actually think as a Christian I am affirmatively obligated to support LGBT rights and LGBT persons."  My position is a determination on the merits, in every way.

Second, I don't think it is appropriate for a clergyperson to deny a (under my formulation) baptized Christian the Eucharist under any set of circumstances.  I believe this because I don't think, at the end of the day, the clergy are to be gatekeepers on who does or does not receive God's grace in the sacraments.  God is fully capable of withholding God's grace if God for whatever set of [ultimately unknowable] reasons chooses to do that.  We have no need to "assist" in this process, and it is presumptuous in the extreme for us to do so.

So, my position is that it would be improper to deny someone Communion for being pro-choice because (1) I think that person is right on the issue on the merits; and (2) denying someone Communion is improper in general.  But, here is the thing--the Roman Catholic Church disagrees with me about both of those positions.  More to the point, the Roman Catholic Church is clear and unambiguous that I do not have the right to adjudicate these questions; they do.  Nothing in the Roman Catholic intellectual or theological system would authorize me to decide for myself what the doctrine of the Eucharist is with regards to receiving Communion.  There is a little more wiggle room with regard to moral questions as they interact with personal conscience, but I think any fair reading of anything that has been written by the Roman Catholic Church within the last sixty years on the topic of abortion shows that I am beyond the pale with my position.

Said another way, there is no principled basis within the Roman Catholic system to hold the positions I hold.  Within that system, I am wrong, period.  And it is for that reason, at the end of the day, that I made the decision to no longer be a part of, and subject to, that system when I became an Episcopalian four years ago.  The Episcopal Church has a different set of doctrines and disciplines as it relates to these questions, ones that are far closer to my views.  As far as my situation goes, the problem is solved.  And yes, sure, there are going to be people within the Roman Catholic system who view me as a heretic and an apostate, but who cares?  The Roman Catholic Church does not have the power to burn me at the stake for being a heretic/apostate.  And, because my positions on these issues stem not just from political and pragmatic considerations, but also from theological reflection and analysis, it's not like I think God is going to punish me for making this move.  Of course I might be wrong about my theological commitments and that might get me in trouble In the End, but that possibility was already baked into the equation.  After all, I don't know, the Mormons might be right In the End.

So, if you don't like what the Roman Catholic Church has to say about abortion, and they want to deny you Communion as a result, you can always leave and take Communion from somewhere else.  But that's not what is at issue here.  What is being asserted is some free-floating right to remain a Roman Catholic "in good standing" (whatever that means in this context) while rejecting a rather unambiguously presented doctrinal position of the Roman Catholic Church.  And, if I am being honest, I don't really see where such a right would come from.  Sure, I used to advocate for such a right, and if you were to search through the archives of this blog you would likely find such advocacy pieces.  But that was an exercise in self-interested projection--I wanted to believe what I wanted to believe without having to change religious traditions.  Thus I completely understand why people want that to be a thing, as I very much wanted that to be a thing.  But, if I am being honest, I don't think it is a thing.  I think the conservatives have the better of the argument here.

Particularly where the only real response you hear is some variation of whataboutism.  "Why didn't they ban Trump administration officials like Barr from Communion?  How about Greg Abbott in Texas who signs execution warrants?"  If you are using those facts to advance the argument that the U.S. Bishops are hypocrites, or in the tank for MAGA, then I am with you.  But those are not affirmative reasons for some other group of people who are ignoring clear teachings to also get a pass.  If anything, I think its good support for my view that policing Communion is an endless rabbit hole that leads to madness and suggests that no one should be banned from Communion, but again the Roman Catholic Church doesn't ask for or care about my opinion on these matters.  Plus, there are official statements saying that abortion is worse than all of the offenses of the right, and however much I think that's incoherent as a theological position, once again that's not my call.  At least not in the context of the Roman Catholic system.

Others may find this special pleading and self-serving on my part, and that's fine.  But I do believe that going from being a Roman Catholic in dissent while demanding my place to an Episcopalian was a move from a lesser level of personal and spiritual integrity to a position of greater integrity.  And so, while I understand the position of the people who are deeply exercised about the Biden document, it's hard for my to be fully sympathetic.  You know what the rules are.  You know what your place is supposed to be, and what your authority (or lack thereof) is on these questions.  Either live with the consequences, or refuse to accept them and leave.  If you care about the Roman Catholic Church as an institution at all, I think you have at least some obligation to take what they say seriously.  And taking what they say seriously means that there are certain positions that place you outside of being a Roman Catholic in good standing.                    

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Jesus Doesn't Care if You Masturbate, and Other Provocations

Image
1.  A couple of weeks ago, I stumbled upon this post on the Patheos Catholic channel .  In it, a young woman named Marina S. Olsen began what she promised is a series of posts discussing sexual sins, and she begins with masturbation.  To call the post alarmist would not do it justice--even in the heyday of the drug scares in the 80s, an anti-drug ad that adopted this tone would be seen as over-the-top.   But something struck me in reading her post--Ms. Olsen believes, with an apparently unshakable conviction, that what the Catholic Church has to say about masturbation is true.  Actually, that's not quite right--she takes as a given  that what the Church says about masturbation is true.  It is noticeable that at no point does she try to do the Dr. Greg trick, which is to justify her opposition to masturbation on the basis of ostensibly neutral or scientific grounds .  No, her thesis is that people despair about masturbation because masturbation is going to result in those folks
Read more

Another Theology of the Body, Part VI--A Theological Exploration of the Clitoris

I was introduced to The Body's Grace by Frank from Letters to the Catholic Right in this post , where he quotes Williams saying: It puts the question which is also raised for some kinds of moralist by the existence of the clitoris in women; something whose function is joy. If the creator were quite so instrumentalist in ‘his’ attitude to sexuality, these hints of prodigality and redundancy in the way the whole thing works might cause us to worry about whether he was, after all, in full rational control of it. But if God made us for joy…? I want to talk about the first part of that quote here, regarding the clitoris.  I am not aware of any theology that has been done on the clitoris, but there should be.  As Williams alludes to, the existence and nature of the clitoris is a theological "problem," especially if you want to hold on to traditional Christian sexual morality.  It is especially problematic if you want to hold that sexuality needs to be understood through the
Read more

Holy Sex!--Part 3.3 Getting Down to Business, Part II

Chapter 12 is about foreplay.  Most everyone acknowledges that foreplay is good, and this chapter is no exception.  Popcak makes the interesting but seemingly effective choice to break foreplay down into the various senses.  So, for example, under seeing he discusses things like wearing lingerie, under smell he suggests to use scented candles, etc.  There is nothing revolutionary or earthshaking here, but the suggestions are solid and reasonable. He also provides an unambiguous defense of oral sex.  Some might be puzzled as to why oral sex needs defending, but the traditional position of the Church opposed oral sex--hence the reason it was traditionally grouped with anal sex under the heading of "sodomy."  So, Popcak is stepping out a bit on a limb here, and he deserves his kudos for that.  He also makes clear that oral sex goes both ways, subject only to the One Rule.  Good on him for recognizing the needs of the ladies in this realm. I could see how his constant use of
Read more