Catholic World News News Feature

On "clarifying" the Pope's remarks May 14, 2007

Pope Benedict XVI is an extraordinarily intelligent man, with a rare gift for clarity of expression. Add the fact that he is the Vicar of Christ, and perhaps you will understand why I am troubled when subordinates find it necessary to "clarify" the Holy Father's remarks.

Of course I am referring to Pope's exchange with reporters on board his May 9 flight to Brazil, about the status of Catholic politicians who vote to legalize abortion. Later the director of the Vatican press office, Father Federico Lombardi, issued a "clarification" of the Pope's remarks. Whether Father Lombardi's statement actually clarified the issue, or obscured it further, is an open question.

First, let's establish what Pope Benedict actually said. During an in-flight press conference, an Italian journalist asked the Pontiff: "Do you agree with the excommunication of legislators in Mexico City over the issue of abortion?"

"This excommunication," the Pope replied, "is not an arbitrary thing, but something envisioned by the Code [of Canon Law]."

The Mexican bishops had done "nothing new, nothing arbitrary or surprising," the Pope continued. "They simply announced to the public what is stipulated by the law of the Church."

That seems clear enough, doesn't it? The Pope was asked whether he supported the Mexican bishops' decision to excommunicate politicians who vote for abortion. He said that he did.

But wait; it isn't quite that simple.

Complication #1: The Mexican bishops have not announced the excommunication of any politicians. And if any such canonical sanctions are to be imposed, they should be imposed by the local diocesan bishop, not the Bishop of Rome. As Father Lombardi would later say, "the Mexican bishops have not excommunicated these politicians, and neither has Benedict XVI."

Complication #2: The Code of Canon Law clearly stipulates that anyone directly involved in an abortion incurs the penalty of excommunication. Some canonists argue that this penalty could also apply to politicians who vote in favor of legalizing abortion, but that is at best a controversial interpretation of the canon, and the weight of informed opinion leans against it. It is true that the Pope, as the supreme legislator for the Church, has the authority to make a definitive ruling, and say that the excommunication does apply to pro-abortion politicians. But as Ed Peters observed on his excellent canon-law blog, the Pope would probably make such a ruling only after careful deliberation, not in response to a reporter's query. It seemed highly improbable that he intended any such "legislating in midair."

Complication #3: The term "excommunication" is linguistically very close to "excluding from Communion," which is quite a different thing. Excommunication is a canonical penalty, which brings into play all the provisions of the Church's legal system. Excluding an individual from receiving Communion, on the other hand, is a disciplinary action that any bishop could take for due cause. In Mexico, the bishops had said that politicians who supported the move to legalize abortion would be barred from receiving the Eucharist; that is the context for the Pope's statement. But since the Holy Father's words were translated quickly into dozens of different languages-- usually by secular journalists, who would not understand this distinction-- confusion was quick to ensue.

Was the Pope actually speaking about formal excommunication, then, or did he merely mean to say that the Mexican politicians who voted to legalize abortion should not receive Communion? Father Lombardi replied to that question by saying that the Mexican politicians "exclude themselves from Communion"-- a statement which, regrettably, does not directly answer the question.

Perhaps the best way to analyze the Pope's statement is to set aside the issue of excommunication, and examine the simpler question of whether the Pope believes the Mexican lawmakers should be barred from receiving the Eucharist. When the question is framed in that way, the answer seems quite clear.

In his own commentary on the confusing exchange, John Allen of the National Catholic Reporter offers a fair summary:

In the abstract, Benedict clearly seems to feel that a Catholic politician who knowingly and consistently supports legislation that expands access to abortion is in violation of church teaching, and thus should not receive communion. Moreover, the pope seems prepared to support bishops who apply this principle to specific cases…

Formal excommunication is a dramatic step: one that commands attention in the mass media. But excommunication is not the only means of making it quite clear that the Church cannot condone the deliberate destruction of innocent human life, or the behavior of politicians who support the killing.

Short of outright excommunication-- a step we can always discuss later-- Catholic bishops have the authority to say that public figures who support the culture of death should be denied the Eucharist. A few brave bishops have actually taken that step already. Now it's quite clear that those few bishops have the Pope's support. On that issue, at least, there's no need for further clarification.