Are those in the public eye more responsible for their moral decisions than others? Yes.
For instance, as administrator for the Diocese of Little Rock, it is particularly important that I live a life in keeping with the Gospel and that my decisions be in conformity with the teachings of the Church. Were I to fail in either instance, I would cause scandal. My actions could well appear to condone sinfulness and lead others into sin.
This is also true of other Catholics who are in the public eye. It is particularly true of Catholic legislators who have the power to make laws that affect the moral lives of millions of people.
Our public and private lives as Catholics must be consistent with the teachings of our Church. For a Catholic politician to promote immoral acts, such as abortion and euthanasia, would amount to formal cooperation in a serious sin.
For the Catholic politician to say that he/she is personally opposed to this grave evil but supports it in the light of a woman's "right" to abort her child would indicate a lack of compliance with the basic teachings of the Church. As Catholics, we believe that the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit when it teaches in the areas of both moral and dogmatic theology, particularly in those areas which have been defined as "infallible teachings."
In "Sacramentum Caritatis" by His Holiness Benedict XVI, we read: "Catholic politicians and legislators, conscious of their grave responsibility before society, must feel particularly bound, on the basis of a properly formed conscience, to introduce and support laws inspired by values grounded in human nature. There is an objective connection here with the Eucharist (cf. 1 Cor. 11: 27-29). Bishops are bound to reaffirm constantly these values as part of their responsibility to the flock entrusted to them."
What of our Catholic legislators who vote in such a manner as to promote abortion and euthanasia? Do they not flagrantly oppose a basic moral teaching of the Church to which they nominally belong? In doing so, do they not become notorious sinners, promoting that which the Church declares to be intrinsically evil?
Do they not, as affirmed by His Holilness Benedict XVI on his recent flight to Brazil, excommunicate themselves? And what is the responsibility of their bishops to address this issue?
The bishops of our country have struggled with this problem. They are priests with pastoral hearts. While they fully understand the evil of abortion and euthanasia, many have been "slow on the draw" to deny the recalcitrant politicians access to the Eucharist.
No one could accuse our bishops of having an "itchy trigger finger" on this issue. But to be true to the teachings of our Church, it may be time for a showdown. Code 915 of the Code of Canon Law clearly states, "Those who are excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy Communion."
As priests, we are always concerned about Catholics who might leave the Church. The words of Our Lord ring strongly in our ears, "And this is the will of the one who sent me, that I should not lose anything of what he gave me, but that I should raise it on the last day." (John 6: 39)
Priests want to bring people to Christ, not cause them to turn away from him. We are afraid that calling people to task might cause their loss of faith. But do we not have the responsibility of proclaiming the truth? Those who left Christ when he proclaimed that he would give them his flesh to eat and his blood to drink did so of their accord; Our Lord did not soft-pedal his doctrine to keep them. When Judas left the last supper and fled into the night to betray the Lord, Jesus did not stop him.
When a Catholic politician supports abortion or euthanasia, he cooperates in the deaths that will occur. Should a bishop know that one of his flock supports such legislation, he should naturally contact him to point out the impending evil.
With a pastoral heart, he should seek to educate, reason and counsel. I think that most bishops would do exactly that. If the politician will not change his stance, he places himself outside of "eucharistic consistency" and should not receive Communion.
Would I refuse him Communion if he came up to me in the Communion line? Had Hitler been a Catholic and made known that he was killing Jews and others to create a super race, would I have denied him Communion? I pray I would have had the courage to do so.
