God and Caesar: 'Cuique Suum', to Each His Own
It has been suggested that fraternal correction and the avoidance of scandal are the reasons for article #915 of the Code of Canon Law, specifically the provision that those obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to Holy Communion.
There seems, in fact, to be an "intersection" between fraternal correction and the exclusion of those obstinately persevering in public grave sin from Holy Communion, but each has its own proper essential "theme" or reason.
The Difference Between Fraternal Correction and the Exclusion from Communion
The reason for fraternal correction is the inner state of soul of the sinner.
The reason for the exclusion from Communion is the integrity of the truth about the Body of Christ as the sacrament of unity. The act of sinning (and the inner state of the soul of the sinner) is an act against God, and therefore, if we believe as an article of faith that Christ is God, who is incarnate in the flesh and blood of the sacred species, also an act against the union between the Incarnate God and the human person. It is, furthermore, an act against the union between the believers that is mediated by and actualized in the Body of Christ. To the extent that the bishop, who has the fullness of priesthood, is the "guardian" of the sacrament of unity, he has the duty to protect it also with regard to its "unifying" efficacy. So also the priest who shares in and depends on the fullness of bishops' priesthood.
Another point of difference between fraternal correction and the refusal to give Communion to obstinate public sinners involves authority and discipline as applied to cases of the latter. Fraternal correction does not involve this dimension. It is a correction of one individual by another as two equals before God. Thus, it may be properly exercised by a subordinate with regard to his superior. The misunderstandings about the withholding of Communion from obstinate public sinners are in part grounded in the general failure, characteristic of our culture, to understand and to exercise authority properly. This failure has infected members of the Church, hierarchy and faithful alike. I will return to this question later.
The Role of Prudence
The nature of fraternal correction is the basis for its prudential dimensions, giving the one who administers fraternal correction the latitude that is a function of the particular circumstances, with primary concern for the inner state of the sinner's soul. Thus we have a certain "relativity." Where the state of one individual's soul may call for fraternal correction, another's personality and temperament, etc., may even militate against fraternal correction for exactly the same kind of fault. In fraternal correction the primary "theme" is one's function as the "keeper" of one's brother. Prudence in the care of one's brethren accounts for the latitude of discretion that is absent in the matter treated by Canon 915 of the Code.
In the case of the Sacred Species, by excluding a persistent public sinner from communion, the bishop or priest does not suspend his care for the sinner's soul, but rather acts in a more fundamental role as the guardian of the "mystery" which is itself the foundation for his role as physician of souls. If he allows the one who obstinately acts against God to "appropriate" God's offer of unity with man in the Body and Blood of Christ by giving him Communion from his own hand, the bishop or the priest himself acts against God and the Sacrament of Unity. He has no objective discretionary latitude as he has in the case of fraternal correction. The expected or hoped for "good" consequences or effect upon the sinner as subject to the law, or even upon external observers who are not a part of the Body of Christ, can have no objective role in determining the exclusion of persistent public sinners from Communion. Neither should so called "risks" — bishops being accused of trying to coerce the conscience of politicians, the Church being accused of meddling in the political process or the Church alienating judges, legislators and administrators whose good will is needed for support of Catholic education or care of the poor (with all due respect to Cardinals Dulles and McCarrick) — play an objective role in excluding obstinate public sinners from Communion.
Exclusion from Communion Is Not a "Means" or a "Weapon"
It follows from the above that the labeling of exclusion from Communion as "weapon" that a bishop refuses to use lest he demean the sacredness of the Mystery is entirely inappropriate. Should it happen that a bishop or priest has been tempted and succumbed to the temptation of using exclusion from Holy Communion as a weapon, he should repent and convert, thereby changing his subjective sacrilegious attitude. But the objective exclusion is called for by the proper reasons, which demand from the bishop as well as from the excluded sinner the proper attitude, conversion, repentance and reverence.The Sacrament calls for the interior reverence that is dignum et justum. But the same Sacrament calls for a behavior in the external forum that is also objectively dignum et justum. In the case of an inappropriate inner attitude that is "secret:' the bishop or priest who has no gift of reading souls has little choice but to communicate the faithful who approach the Lord's Table. In the case of an external act that goes against God and the truth of the Sacrament, the bishop or priest has a strict obligation in justice, given both his role and the nature of the Sacrament, to withhold Communion from a public sinner.
The above would seem to be the primary and fundamental reason for exclusion from the Sacrament of Unity.
Avoidance of Scandal as a Secondary Reason for Exclusion from Communion
A second but also important reason for excluding the public sinner is the scandal caused to others by the admission to Communion of an obstinate public sinner. Here, the inner condition of the souls of third parties enters into play. But here also, there is room for prudential discretion which must take into account the public climate and perceptions. As important as is the "theme" of scandal and its avoidance, it should not and cannot replace the primary theme by virtue of which the bishop and the priest are the "keepers" of the Lord's Body and Blood that have been entrusted to them.
In the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, the faithful of the Eastern Churches recite a prayer prior to Communion which captures the primary as opposed to secondary themes: (1) I will not betray the Mystery to Your enemies; and (2) May the reception of your Holy Mysteries he for me not unto judgment and condemnation, but for the cure of soul and body.
The failure to exclude from Communion the obstinate public sinner persevering in grave sin constitutes precisely such a betrayal of the Mysteries of God to his enemies, which include that very sinner. But the "betrayal to" is at the same time a "betrayal of." It is an infidelity. And it is a particularly grave infidelity on the part of those to whom the Faith is entrusted in a specific way so that they may "feed the Lord's sheep."
The Politics of Consequences
Some have argued that refusal of Communion to the Catholic politician publicly adverse to Church teachings constitutes a politicization of the Sacrament that is not proper. Surely, the use of the Sacraments and the Faith for political purposes is a sacrilege. But are we, perhaps, confronted with a fallacy in this case? Defense of the sacraments and the faith, particularly against politicians and civil government, can also have consequences. Some may be harmful to the faithful, as when the defense proves to be ineffective. And some may prove to be harmful to the politicians and the civil governors when the defense proves to be successful. In the case of refusing Communion to the Catholic politician running for office on a plank that is in patent contradiction of a basic truth taught by the Church, the refusal should not have as its purpose a political defeat of the politician. Similarly, the admonition against promoting, supporting and voting for pro-abortion legislation — and candidates for legislative and executive offices that support abortion — should not have as its purpose the defeat of a candidate or legislative proposal, but rather the non participation of the individual in any act that is intrinsically evil, in this case, evil because it is intrinsically unjust.
Such a refusal on the part of the voters to participate in an intrinsically unjust act may, indeed, have political consequences. So also, the intention to insure justice in the public order — such as the protection of pedestrians against automobile drivers — will have consequences in the political order. To raise the objection that one is "playing politics" in these instances is to betray a complete misunderstanding of the true nature of the public order in the polis.
A Misunderstanding of the Role of the State
The misunderstanding consists in this erroneous position: the essential function of the state is to provide benefits to the citizens that would not have accrued or not have accrued in the same measure to the same number without the intervention of the state. Such an understanding is erroneous in theory. When implemented, it becomes an injustice in fact. Why? Because it disregards the true essential nature of the political order, which consists in its mission of justice.
The Relation of Benefits to Justice
Feeding one's child is a matter of justice. The parent has an obligation to feed the child who, in turn, has a strict claim or right in justice to be fed. This is part of a more general strict right, in justice, of the child to be defended and protected. Now, when the child is fed, the nourishment as well as the health and, indeed, life that depend on it are also benefits. In the natural order, the child's just claim to such benefits binds or obliges those who are to provide it. The justice of the claim necessarily introduces a dimension of hierarchy and authority. The parent is subject to the claim and the child, in some real sense, stands "above" the parent with regard to its just claim. The reason for this is that the child's just claim is grounded in God. God gave something to the child as "its own." The sovereignty of God, grounded in his absolute power and goodness, justifies the child's claim to his own life. I will not develop this aspect according to the "herneneutics of the gift" of John Paul II. It suffices to mention two other things that are given with the gift of life: one is the gift of God's own Self and His love in the gift of life; the other is the gift of parents given to the child. In a real though wonderfully mysterious way, the parents are the vicars of God. They share in the Fatherhood of God, from Whom descends all fatherhood on earth. And all authority. And here we encounter as mystery another truth about sovereignty and authority. By virtue of His sovereignty, we belong to God. By virtue of His love, however, we have a real claim on him. God has become subject to us without relinquishing his sovereign throne. And so also our parents: they belong to the child without losing their parental authority. One dimension of this mysterious relationship manifests itself inn that the sovereign authority, in the person of the parents and civil authority, is to serve those entrusted to them as Christ served his disciples. The mystery consists partly in that this service does not abrogate the genuine hierarchical authority of the servant.
The Separation of Benefits from Justice
A specific error of the modem age with regard to the State is the affirmation of benefits and the claims to them and a simultaneous rejection of justice. The dimension of hierarchical authority is thereby also rejected. For the creature that is the human person, every benefit is a gift from on high. Yet as John Paul II puts it in the context of his "hermeneutics of the gift," man can refuse to accept the gift and the Giver and instead appropriate it. This is the essence of sin. To take the gift but to refuse the Giver and His love. John Paul II also calls this gesture an "extortion of the gift."
Politics and the Eucharist in the Context of the Gift
Perhaps we can now see more clearly the connection between politics and the Eucharist as perceived by the spirit of the age. The state or civil authority is no longer perceived as defending God's interests, namely His sovereign ownership of the individual against third parties, namely, against the extortionist, the thief, the embezzler, the robber, the child molester, the trader in women and children, and above all, the murderer. For all His absolute power, God does not descend from heaven to protect the widows, the orphans and the unborn. He has entrusted them to us. In other words, they are His gifts to us. Once again, we can refer to John Paul 11's hermeneutics of the gift, his key to understanding creation. Each human person is not only a gift to himself or herself but also a gift to each of us, and each of us to him or to her.
The spirit of the age rejects the gift and its Giver. Nominally, the age affirms that every individual belongs to himself. The State, then, is nothing but the collective power of these individuals, each affirming what is "leis own." Nominally, "benefits" belong to the individual. But in fact, the age replaces them with "interests," not, as in an older usage where one's "true interests" were the true "benefit" or good for the person. "Interest" now means whatever the individual wants or desires, whatever brings him satisfaction. "Interests" so conceived determine the meaning of "mine" — not what belongs to me in justice because it was a gift given by the sovereign God, but rather mine because it pleases me. The individual who takes possession of himself keeps himself for himself. In this connection it is necessary to recall the warning and the prophecy of Christ: lie who takes possession of the gift to keep it for himself, will loose it.
The "Gift" Is Reduced to an Item of Exchange in the Market
In a culture marked by the rejection of justice, "benefits" are promised and offered by politicians not because they are justly claimed by the recipient, as a child would claim food and education from his parents, but as items for exchange. What the politician wants for himself, as his "benefit," is the satisfaction of power and all its accoutrements. In exchange, he offers "benefits" to those who vote him into office. He seeks to become "as God" dispensing benefits from his largesse. But more modestly than God, he does not claim ownership of the individual. In name, the latter belongs to himself; in fact, he belongs to the State which, with its own claim to absolute sovereignty, has to contend against God. Waging war against God, the State — and its politicians — necessarily become anti-theistic.
Politics Against God
This is the dismaying context in which we must understand the Catholic politician's claim to receive Communion even as he rejects the Church's teaching, the Vicar of Christ and the Eucharistic Christ Himself. Holy Communion is a benefit, to be sure. It is a gift, as Bishop John Meyers reminds us in his pastoral, "A Time for Honesty," of May 5, 2003, "It is a gift given to us by a merciful and gracious God. In fact, the Eucharist is God's gift of Himself to us." As such it is a Sacrament of Love that efficaciously establishes union with Christ and the members of His Body. It is a Sacrament of Love by virtue of its efficacy in establishing union with Christ and the members of His Body. But is also a Sacrament of Justice because in it plan acquires the capacity to do what would otherwise he an ineffective symbol: In Christ, With Christ and through Christ man can finally render unto God what from the beginning belonged to God. It is an act of worship and adoration in which we give what is due to God. In this eucharistic act of thanksgiving, man is also given the assurance that God receives man's total gift of self.
Politics in the Polis of God: to Each His Own
It will not do for bishops, priests and the faithful to treat the Eucharist merely as the benefit that it surely is. For, in the first place, it is Christ who offers Himself, His Body and Blood, soul and divinity as a gift to man. He does this so that man can fulfill his obligation, in justice, to render unto God his own being, which belongs to God. In the Catholic tradition, this is called the act of adoration. It is an act of justice with regard to the sovereign God. It is also an act of love, demanded by the "law of reciprocity" with regard to the one who "loved us first" and gave himself to us in love. The law of reciprocity demands that one respond in gratitude to the gift received. It's fulfillment is called the "Eucharist" — thanksgiving, a total gift of self to God enabled by our union with Christ.
Objectively, the State has a 'duty, analogous to adoration, of rendering unto God by recognizing that its role in the public order is to protect what belongs to God and is, consequently due to Him. It is to recognize publicly the sovereignty of God in the public order, a sovereignty that it is the foundation of its civil authority.
The Church Is Not an Extension of the Welfare State
When the Catholic politician in word and deed obstinately rejects the teachings of the Church but approaches the Eucharist, he reduces it to a mere benefit for himself, something he claims to be in his interest as determined solely by himself. The bishop is not allowed to imitate the politicians and turn the Body of Christ into a "Welfare Church" offering as "benefits" whatever satisfies the personal conscience, read "interests," of the faithful or the faithless. Such acquiescence on the part of the bishop may, indeed, bring peace in his relation to political, economic and communications interests. He is called, however, to imitate Christ. Indeed, more terribly, he is called to be Christ, the sovereign Lord who says, "This is my Body," and gives Himself in the sacrament of the Eucharist. Christ has anointed the heads of bishops with a hierarchical authority, which makes of them more that the brothers in Christ, dispensing fraternal correction to their equals. Each bishop is a spiritual lord. But unlike the politician, he is not absolute, for he serves, or rather, is called to serve the Lord of Lords. He cannot, at the same time, serve politicians. When these have rejected the authority of God and act against him, they, unlike Caesar, no longer have anything they can claim as their own or demand as their due.
Dr. Fedoryka is presently professor of philosophy at Ave Maria College, Ypsilanti, MI.
This item 6550 digitally provided courtesy of CatholicCulture.org
