No “Capitol punishment” on communion

There have been a growing number of reports that Kansas City Archbishop Joseph Naumann has asked Archbishop Donald Wuerl of Washington (and Bishop Paul Loverde of nearby Arlington, Va) to bar former Kansas governor and future Health and Human Services chief Kathleen Sebelius from communion once the pro-choice Catholic moves to the capitol, as expected.

The story has migrated from The Washington Times to U.S. News and World Report and now Deal Hudson at InsideCatholic has an analysis. Each time the story has taken on added force, but the reality seems to be a good deal less than is being advertised.


Yes, Naumann has spoken to Wuerl, as Naumann himself told EWTN’s Raymond Arroyo on March 6:

RA: A piece in the Washington Times points out that Archbishop Wuerl here in Washington would be responsible, correct?

AJN: I have spoken with Archbishop Wuerl and I have shared with him the history of my history of my experience with Gov Sebelius…

But, Naumann adds:

AJN: …It’s somewhat a question though whose jurisdiction it would be. I don’t know if she is confirmed where she will live. She could live in Arlington or she could live in Baltimore. So it, it may not be under his jurisdiction. I know he’s very concerned too. He’s said publicly he wants to support what the local bishop’s policy is with any politician.


It’s a murky situation, and church sources in the Washington area make several clarifications in this regard:

One is that Naumann himself has not barred Sebelius from communion. He asked her not to present herself, and she has not. A distinction with a difference in this case, as there is no “order” for Wuerl to uphold.

Two, Nauman has not asked Wuerl or any other bishop to bar her–and as one church official said, “we’ll follow the decision of a local bishop, but ultimately, it is up to Wuerl and Loverde to decide what to do and neither of them believes in barring people.”

That’s pretty much that. As it should be. The Archbishop of Washington has never been, and cannot be, the bad cop for the entire U.S. hierarchy.


In his analysis, Deal Hudson argues that Archbishop Joseph Naumann of Kansas City has effectively made Wuerl and the Capitol-area bishops to do the dirty work of barring communion to pro-choice Catholic pols–and has put pressure on other local bishops around the country to follow his lead.

As Deal writes:

Archbishop Wuerl and Bishop Loverde’s collegial response to Bishop Naumann destabilizes the relationship between pro-abortion Catholic politicians and their bishops back home. The question will arise as to why Governor Sebelius should be the only politician in Washington who has been called to account under Canon 915. [Which calls for withholding communion.] What about the dozens of others in Congress who have a 100 percent pro-abortion voting record? What about Vice-President Joe Biden himself?


Will other bishops seize this opportunity to apply Canon 915 to politicians in their dioceses, knowing that Archbishop Wuerl and Bishop Loverde will back them up? Given the determination of the Obama administration and the Congress to roll back all restrictions on abortion, I wouldn’t be surprised.

Well, I’d be surprised, actually. The Washington-area bishops are not going to send letters out to priests or put such an onus on ministers of communion, either. This is perilous territory for the hierarchy, and much is up in the air, to be sure.

But with 161 Catholic Members of Congress, or more than 30 percent, identifying as Catholic (higher than the general population, which stands at 23 percent), and of course Administration types like Sebelius and jurists like Scalia living in and around the Capitol, an approach like the one outlines by Deal Hudson and others would an inordinate amount of attention and responsibility on a few people to take the heat for others.


Besides, Wuerl and Loverde were just last week the target of a campaign by Randall Terry–backed by Archbishop Burke, until he got wise–to rally Rome to crack down on them as “soft bishops.”

That was an unfair characterization, to say the least. But above all it’s a skewed way to prosecute the “communion wars”–narrowing the field of combat to the more manageable District of Columbia, where guerilla forces can compensate for inferior numbers with close-in fighting and a few key allies.   

Comments read comments(3)
post a comment

posted March 31, 2009 at 8:37 pm

Those guys sure like tho try and throw their weight around, huh? Isn’t a RC supposed to know whether they are in proper mind to take communion? If that is the case, why would Naumann start trying to interfer with what she does in DC? She apparently didn’t “present” herself in Kansas, (at Naumann’s request). So who knows, she may have no use for it in DC! Or the DC fellows might not worry about it. After all, it is DC.

report abuse

Little Bear

posted April 1, 2009 at 10:18 am

I am so sick and tired of these arch/bishops playing politician (they are ecclesiastical political climbers—who want to impress the Vatican) and they manage to ‘wow’ some of their non-think sheep-followers.
If President Obama wanted to retaliate (which I don’t think he would–I believe that he is better than that)for all the pressure (using sacraments as a spiritual punishment) that the American bishops are putting on elected officials (and the Vice-President)—he could sever all diplomatic ties with the Vatican. For decades and decades we did not have an ambassador to the Vatican—-and we could do it again.
Then I would meet with those governors in those states where thise “political hierarchs” live and I would work to remove their tax-exempt status. I wouldn’t do it with every building that the Church holds—not with the actual church/cathederal building, not with schools, or buildings that house social services (soup kitchens, free clinics, shelters). But I would tax the arch/bishop’s residence, the chancery, and the residences of the priests. I’d have them pay property and school tax. Those arch/bishops who are moderate—I would leave alone and not tax anything.
John Kennedy must be turning over in his grave at the thought of what is going on in the political American Church today. If we had hierarchs the likes of Naumann et al., Kennedy would have never been able to be elected. He would REALLY been under the Church’s heavy hand.

report abuse


posted April 3, 2009 at 9:36 am

“Those guys sure like tho try and throw their weight around, huh? Isn’t a RC supposed to know whether they are in proper mind to take communion?”
“I am so sick and tired of these arch/bishops playing politician”
Look. This is not complicated.
Canon 915 in the Code of Canon Law for the Latin Church states, in part, that individuals “obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.”
That means the Church — not just the individual — has a responsibility to say that certain people are not to receive communion, and even not to admit them to communion if they present themselves.
The threshold is pretty high: You can’t deny someone communion just because he is in grave sin (though anyone in grave sin should refrain from receiving). To be denied communion under the quoted clause of Canon 916, a person must be (a) obstinate and persevering (someone who persists in a course of action and refuses Church correction) and (b) be guilty of manifest or public grave sin.
It’s not a question of politics. It’s a question of Church teaching, morality, discipline and integrity.
As a host of Church documents (e.g., JP2’s Evangelium Vitae) make clear, laws which legitimize the direct killing of innocents, including laws legitimizing abortion, are seen in Catholic teaching as a grave evil, directly undermining the very possibility of a just society and legitimate rule of law. As grave evils, such must always be opposed.
Advocacy of such a grave evil is by definition grave sin. Public advocacy of such laws is manifest grave sin. Long-term advocacy of such laws, in defiance of Church teaching, is obstinate perseverance in manifest grave sin.
The post above quotes a diocesan spokesman as saying “neither of them believes in barring people.” That would seem to mean “neither of them believes in upholding Canon 915.”
Bishops have a responsibility to uphold their Church’s discipline. If they can’t or won’t do that, they shouldn’t accept the responsibility that comes with their office.

report abuse

Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to and may be used by in accordance with the agreements.

Previous Posts

More blogs to enjoy!!!
Thank you for visiting Pontifications. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here are some other blogs you may also enjoy: Faith, Media and Culture Prayer, Plain and Simple Happy Blogging!!!   ...

posted 2:38:01pm Aug. 27, 2012 | read full post »

Moving on, and many, many thanks... recent vacation and related absences also coincided with an offer from to cover religion for them, as editor Melinda Henneberger announces here in her roundup on the site's very successful first 100 days. That ...

posted 8:29:24pm Aug. 02, 2009 | read full post »

Calvin at 500, Calvinism 2.0
If you thought you knew John Calvin--who turned 500 last week--you probably don't know enough. For example, that he was French, born Jean Cauvin. And if he was in fact scandalized by dancing, he was also a lot more complex than that. I explored ...

posted 11:53:35am Jul. 16, 2009 | read full post »

Apologia pro vita sua...Kinda
 In my defense, I've had computer outages and family reunions and a few days of single-parenthood, which is always a bracing reminder of what many parents go through all the time. And this weekend it's off for a week's vacation. Anyway, ...

posted 10:51:36am Jul. 16, 2009 | read full post »

When Benny met Barry: "I'll pray for you!"
The first word via Vatican Radio and first image (that I saw) via Rocco: Speaking to Vatican Radio, Press Office Director Fr. Federico Lombardi said "moral values in international politics, immigration and the Catholic Church's ...

posted 12:54:28pm Jul. 10, 2009 | read full post »


Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.