The U.S. bishops, meeting as a body this week in Florida for the U.S.C.C.B.’s annual spring meeting, are debating how they might use their political clout to influence a more humane treatment of the migrants and refugees who travel to our border.
The priority is preserving the “right to life,” the U.S.C.C.B. president, Cardinal Daniel DiNardo, said in a statement. “Our government has the discretion in our laws to ensure that young children are not separated from their parents and exposed to irreparable harm and trauma. Families are the foundational element of our society and they must be able to stay together.”
At the meeting, several church leaders urged immediate steps for accountability. Cardinal Joseph Tobin of Newark, N.J., proposed that bishops visit the border to inspect detention facilities where children are held, “as a sign of our pastoral concern and protest against the hardening of the American heart,” Religion News Service reported.
It is rare for penalties to be discussed in relation to a subject other than abortion.
Bishop Edward Weisenburger of Tucson, Ariz., raised the tougher question of implementing canonical penalties—censures or punishments imposed under church law—for Catholics directly involved in the separation of children from their families at the border.
Examples of canonical penalties range from the temporary withholding of Holy Communion to excommunication.
“Canonical penalties are there in place to heal, and therefore, for the salvation of these people’s souls. Maybe it’s time for us to look at canonical penalties,” Weisenburger said in his remarks.
During the 2004 presidential campaign, a national debate arose on whether or not John Kerry, a Catholic and then the Democratic presidential nominee, should be barred from receiving Communion because of his pro-choice views. Archbishop Raymond L. Burke of St. Louis told reporters at the time that he would give Kerry only a blessing if he came forward for Communion.
Some observers noted the significance of a similar discussion occuring on a subject other than abortion.
“It’s hard to overstate how significant it is for a Catholic bishop to even raise this possibility outside of the context of abortion,” John Gehring, Catholic program director at Faith in Public Life, wrote on Twitter.
While it may be the most recent prominent case of canonical faculties being debated by the U.S. bishops, it is not the first time. In the 1960s, Archbishop Joseph Rummel of New Orleans, with support of the Holy See, excommunicated political leaders who opposed his plans to desegregate Catholic schools in the area.
The basic principle concerning admission of Catholics to holy Communion is clear: “Any baptized person not prohibited by law can and must be admitted to holy Communion” (Canon 912). Exceptions to this norm are to be interpreted strictly, i.e., by giving them the narrowest construal consistent with their literal meaning (Canon 18). The Code of Canon Law does contain two exceptions to this principle...Canon 916 addresses those who are conscious of having committed grave sin and warns such individuals that they are not to approach holy Communion unless they have first been reconciled to God and the church through sacramental confession. Since sin involves not only an external violation of a moral norm but also internal advertence and consent, the law normally leaves the decision about approaching holy Communion to the informed conscience of the individual. Canon 915, on the other hand, is addressed to ministers of holy Communion and stipulates, “Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persisting in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy Communion.”
In 2004, drawing from an interview with Sister Sharon Euart, a canon lawyer, Catholic News Service reported:
the key issue in refusing Communion is whether the individual is under a formal ecclesiastical penalty. For this to be the case, the local bishop should have discussed his objections to the person’s actions with him or her, made an effort to understand the person’s thinking and instructed him or her on where the bishop saw errors or misunderstanding, she said. The bishop would explain that changes in the person’s behavior are expected and what penalty might result if changes are not made. The bishop would then have to inform the individual in writing that a sanction was being imposed...
While Bishop Weisenburger insisted that the canonical penalties are there “for the salvation of these people’s souls,” there is a fear that the imposition of penalties could bring the sacraments into partisan politics.
“I am not in favor of weaponizing the Eucharist for politicians acting against church teaching,” Natalia Imperatori, an associate professor of religious studies at Manhattan College, wrote on Twitter. “If [Blessed Oscar] Romero could give communion to torturers and murderers, the US bishops can find other ways to make their point.”
In his 2004 America article, Father Beal wrote, “Zeal to protect the Eucharist from profanation by sinners can unwittingly lead to an even greater profanation by transforming the eucharistic celebration into a continuation of politics by liturgical means.”
In “Evangelium Vitae,”St. John Paul II reminds Christians of their apostolic duty “to obey legitimately constituted public authorities,” but also warns that “we must obey God rather than men” (No. 73). There is a “grave and clear obligation to oppose” laws that go against the church’s teachings on human life, he states.
Regardless of whether any local bishops will choose to impose canonical penalties on those cooperating with the separation of migrant families at the border, it is clear that the bishops are considering immigration issues as matters of grave importance.