... from the communion of the Church are presented by Joe Tremblay in a new Homiletic & Pastoral Review essay, "The Pastoral Mandate, Politicians and Religious Liberty":
Indeed, there are at least three reasons why the pastoral practice of
excluding obstinate sinners from the communion of the Church was
enjoined by our Lord, and practiced by the apostles, the Church fathers,
and the saints.
First, the failure to reprove or exclude from the Church unrepentant
sinners creates the public perception that mortal sin is compatible with
the life of Christ. Worse yet, such failure is a disservice to the
sinner himself. Politicians, who publicly advocate for abortion rights
and same-sex marriage with impunity, naturally suffer from the mistaken
belief that they are in communion with the Church and, therefore, in
communion with God. In fact, there are many adversaries of the Gospel of
Life who go to their deathbeds with this assumption. But as the parable
of the wedding banquet suggests, the King has a dress code in heaven.
To be sure, those without a wedding garment will be asked to leave the
table by the King. The question then becomes: When “Catholic”
politicians enjoy full communion with the King’s Church, are they not
made to believe that they can attend the heavenly banquet without a
wedding garment? Are these current pastoral practices really preparing
obstinate sinners for eternity?
The second reason for exclusion is this: Many bishops, again with
good intentions, often engage in an ongoing conversation with wayward
politicians behind closed doors. However, the unintended consequence is
that mortal sin is perceived to be negotiable because of the high public
profile politicians enjoy. It is because of unintended consequences
like this that St. Paul instructed St. Timothy to reprimand the sinner
publicly (1 Tim 5:20). It is why Pope St. Gregory the Great said that
private sins should be addressed privately, and public sins should be
dealt with publicly. Furthermore, it is why St. John the Apostle did not
go behind closed doors to correct Diotrephes, a wayward brother. He
said: “I wrote to the church, but Diotrephes, who loves to dominate,
does not acknowledge us. Therefore, if I come, I will draw attention to
what he is doing, spreading evil nonsense about us” (3 Jn 9-10). “I will
draw attention to what he is doing.” Today’s conventional wisdom in the
Church is to avoid “drawing attention” to those who cause scandal.
Again, this is yet another departure from the New Testament pastoral
mandate.
The third reason is that when public sinners can sit next to faithful
Catholics on your local church pew, when they can stand before the
altar to receive the Eucharist—that is, the Body, Blood, Soul and
Divinity of Jesus Christ (even after St. Paul’s warning about the
dangers of receiving such a sacred gift unworthily; cf. 1 Cor
11:28-32)—and when they enjoy the fellowship of Catholics, intermingling
with them, it inevitably creates moral confusion. In other words, when
the bishops make no public distinction between obstinate sinners and
repentant sinners, then in the minds of Catholics, and other onlookers,
there cannot be but little distinction between error and truth, between
sin and holiness, and between vice and virtue. Thereafter, all homilies
and pastoral letters will be undermined by this indiscriminate mix of
obstinate sinners and repentant sinners. From this indiscriminate mix,
emerges a division within the Body of Christ, the Church. Why? Because
sin and error divides! What is more, a consensus on the most important
issues of life and death is much harder to come by.
Meanwhile, Dr. Edward Peters, in a First Things (November 2012) article, "Fencing the Altars", writes:
For several years, Raymond Cardinal Burke, now Prefect of the Supreme
Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura, and I have been among the chief
exponents of the view that Catholic sacramental and canonical discipline
supports, and in some cases demands, that Catholic ministers withhold
Holy Communion from certain Catholics in response to their public
conduct. In particular, serious questions have arisen about the
eligibility of some prominent political figures to receive Communion.
Almost invariably, these questions focus on their personal, albeit
public, conduct, rather than their beliefs, and are being decided, or
conspicuously not decided, case by case.
While some earlier
disputes about participation in Communion focused on the receiver’s
private conduct, recent disputes concern conduct that is particularly
public, indeed often formally political or, at any rate, packed with
societal consequences. These modern debates emerged first in regard to
Eucharistic participation by the millions of Catholics who civilly
divorced and remarried, followed by arguments about Catholic politicians
such as Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, Kathleen Sebelius, Andrew Cuomo, and
Rudy Giuliani, and most recently Catholics participating in various
forms of pro-homosexual activism.
Many Catholics who support
untraditional marriages, Pelosi’s near-perfect pro-abortion politics, or
Rainbow Sash-style activism profess outrage at seeing the Eucharist
“used as a weapon” against fellow Catholics. Others, however, are
appalled at seeing such markedly contrarian Catholics take Holy
Communion.
The Eucharist is central to the identity, doctrines, and practices of the Catholic Church. As canon 897 of the Code of Canon Law
puts it, “The most august sacrament is the Most Holy Eucharist in which
Christ the Lord himself is contained, offered, and received and by
which the Church continually lives and grows. The eucharistic sacrifice .
. . is the summit and source of all worship and Christian life, which
signifies and effects the unity of the People of God and brings about
the building up of the body of Christ.”
Canon 898 adds: “The
Christian faithful are to hold the Most Holy Eucharist in highest honor,
taking an active part in the celebration of the most august sacrifice,
receiving this sacrament most devoutly and frequently, and worshiping it
with the highest adoration.”
Against Burke’s view and mine stand
some scattered negative episcopal demurrals (Cardinals Roger Mahony,
emeritus of Los Angeles, and Donald Wuerl of Washington, D.C., come to
mind) and some short essays by academics. Mostly, it seems, the
opposition reflects an institutional reluctance to enforce
ecclesiastical discipline when the public outcry might be loud.
Read his entire essay.