What he said:
Pope on abortion, politicians, Communion

		The Catholic  Difference  George Weigel

Flying to Brazil on May 9, Pope Benedict XVI was asked whether he supported the excommunication of Mexican legislators who had voted to legalize abortion.

The pope replied, "Yes, this excommunication was not something arbitrary, but is foreseen by the Code [of Canon Law]. It is simply part of Church law that the killing of an innocent baby is incompatible with being in communion with the body of Christ."

That seemed clear enough, until Jesuit Father Federico Lombardi, the papal press spokesman, went though the press section of the papal plane and told reporters that the pope "was not announcing a new policy on Catholic politicians," and that in any case, as the Mexican bishops had not pronounced a formal excommunication of the legislators, the pope wasn't doing so.

What happened next

The next day, a transcript of the pope's impromptu press conference was posted on the Vatican Web site, in Italian; alert observers like my friends John Thavis of CNS, Philip Pullela of Reuters, and Victor Simpson of the AP (who seems to have been covering popes since Linus, Cletus, and Clement) reported that the transcript had altered what the pope had actually said.

The "Yes" at the beginning of his answer (which might have been a bit of rhetorical throat-clearing, much like someone saying "Well . . .) had been deleted, as had the references to Mexican bishops. Not altogether reassuringly, Father Lombardi went on to note that this was standard procedure, as the Vatican Secretariat of State "reviews and cleans up" the pope's remarks "every time the pope speaks off the cuff."

All of which tended to create, unnecessarily, an image of confusion, vacillation, and, as Vic Simpson put it, a "roll back" of a tough papal stance. In fact, however, there is considerable clarity beneath the surface confusion, and it's worth noting precisely what's clear.

Three points

First, it is the settled conviction of the Catholic Church that a legislator's facilitating abortion through a vote to legalize or fund the procedure puts that legislator outside the communion of the Church. The pope seems content to leave it to moral theologians to determine precisely how this form of cooperation with grave evil touches on legislators (as distinguished, say, from abortionists).

But that a public official's act in facilitating the "killing of an innocent human baby" is "incompatible with being in communion with the body of Christ" is not in doubt. And if one's communion with the body of Christ that is the Church is radically ruptured, then one must not present oneself for Holy Communion - for that is to add a lie to the original offense against justice, the taking of an innocent human life.

Second, Benedict's answer indicates that he will support the actions of those bishops who deem it a pastoral necessity to order that politicians in this position of estrangement from the Church not be given Holy Communion. Anyone who expects Pope Benedict to distance himself from the American bishops who have taken this stand is likely to be disappointed.

And third, the pope's answer suggests that he is prepared to leave the pastoral judgment on these cases to the discretion of the local bishops, who are presumably better-informed about the circumstances than he is: and by "circumstances," I do not mean "balancing" serious (and, some would argue, canonically required) sanctions against wayward politicians with other prudential considerations, but the specific circumstances of Legislator X.

All of which is to say that Pope Benedict seems unlikely to issue a universal edict on the subject.

Clearing confusion

This may well be good ecclesiology and prudent pastoral practice, but it is very difficult to communicate without appearing to vacillate.

Thus it would be helpful if the Holy See would, on some future occasion (and not six months from now) underscore that a) deliberate legislative facilitation of abortion is a grave evil that puts one outside the communion of the Church and thus renders the reception of Holy Communion a dishonest act, and b) that, when local bishops choose to forbid obstinate politicians from receiving Holy Communion for this reason, they will receive the full support of the Holy See.

George Weigel is a senior fellow of the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, D.C.

A message:
During this time of continuing conflict

The following message to Catholic men and women in the U.S. armed forces from Archbishop Edwin F. O'Brien, is reprinted from the AMS News from the Archdiocese for the Military Services, USA.

As our divided Nation continues to search for an honorable and morally responsible end to our military involvement in Iraq, the four years that have elapsed since the start of our incursion compel an assessment of our current circumstances and the continuing obligation of the Church to provide a moral framework for public discussion.

It is particularly important that as Archbishop for our Catholic Armed Forces, I offer some points for moral and pastoral guidance to you and to your families as you continue to bear a disproportionate share of the burdens brought on by our present national policies.

It is also important to note at the outset that raising moral questions, even grave moral questions about U.S. involvement in Iraq, is not to question the moral integrity of our military personnel. Indeed, the Holy Father's comments to the Fifth International Convention of Military Ordinaries, citing the Second Vatican Council, can surely be applied to those of our military who serve as "ministers of the security and freedom of peoples" (Bishop Thomas Wenski, chairman, USCCB Committee on International Policy, 2006).

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops in statements on Iraq has consistently offered pastoral support to the men and women in uniform "who serve bravely, generously, and at great risk."

While the focus of this letter is both to address our current situation and obligations in Iraq and to look forward, a review of earlier Church statements is useful.

Position of the Holy See

The position of the Holy See through the many statements of Pope John Paul II is well known: That all efforts toward a peaceful resolution of the differences between Iraq and the U.S. (and its allies) had not been pursued.

In addition, with its intimate knowledge of the historical and contemporary sectarian complexities of the Middle East and of Iraq in particular, the Holy See feared an ominous and long-term escalation of violence throughout the area, with gravely negative repercussions for the people of the region and the fragile Christian presence there. Unfortunately, such has been the case.

The Holy Father was so concerned that he sent his special envoy, the former Apostolic Nuncio to the United States, Pio Cardinal Laghi, to deliver a personal message to President Bush two weeks prior to the U.S. (and allied) invasion. Cardinal Laghi summarized the Holy See's opposition to resorting to war:

• Peaceful paths were still possible.

• Every effort should be made to resolve differences within the framework of the United Nations.

• Foreseen there was the potential danger both of large-scale killings of innocent Iraqi civilians and of greater regional instability.

With singular foresight, Cardinal Laghi also warned of the likelihood of a "new gulf between Islam and Christianity."

U.S. Catholic Bishops

From the beginning, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) called upon our Nation's Catholics to pray, think, and speak out in accordance with conscience. The bishops' comments, however, were not only for Catholics.

The Conference addressed our Nation's actions in light of just war criteria based upon natural law.

While the Catechism of the Catholic Church clearly leaves the "evaluation of these (just war) conditions for moral legitimacy . . . to prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good," such an evaluation must be subject to a rigorous consideration of the just war doctrine.

The exercise of this obligation by public authorities must be within the broader context of the effort to "safeguard peace" and the obligation of "all citizens and governments . . . (to) work for the avoidance of war." In a democracy, all citizens to varying degrees share responsibility for the common good through civic participation.

There were four major statements (beginning September 13, 2002) prior to our nation's March 20, 2003, military action and four additional statements have been made during the conflict (the latest being January 12, 2007). Throughout, our Bishops Conference has called for a rigorous and objective application of just war principles. In my opinion, our bishops' observations were necessary, balanced, and reasonable, and have, indeed, proved to be prophetic.

Pre March 20, 2003

A particular concern raised consistently by our bishops has focused on the just war criteria of probability of success and proportionality. As (then) Bishop Wilton Gregory noted in his September 13, 2002, letter to President Bush on behalf of our Conference:

"How would another war in Iraq impact the civilian population, in the short and long-term? Would the United States and the international community commit to the arduous, long-term task of ensuring just peace or would a post-Saddam Iraq continue to be plagued by civil conflict and repression, and continue to serve as a destabilizing force in the region? Would the use of military force lead to wider conflict and instability?"

The bishop summarized: While people can in good faith arrive at different prudential conclusions when applying ethical principles to the complex situation involving Iraq, it is the bishops' prudential judgment that "a preemptive, unilateral use of force is difficult to justify at this time." Throughout the crisis, the bishops have strongly condemned terrorism as an ongoing threat to peace and cited the refusal of the repressive Iraqi regime to abide by multiple United Nations resolutions calling for cooperation and disarmament.

Post March 20, 2003, intervention

Once hostilities began, the concern of our Conference repeatedly focused upon the need for a "responsible transition that leads to security and stability for the Iraqi people" (Wenski 2006). The U.S. presence in Iraq should flow from a moral obligation to help the people of Iraq attain security, stability, and reconstruction, but a U.S. presence depends on the will of the host government as well as a realistic assessment for what is achievable.

In our Conference's final major statement to date, Bishop William Skylstad, USCCB President, offered the following benchmarks for a responsible transition in Iraq:

• Minimally acceptable levels of security;

• Economic reconstruction to create employment for Iraqis;

• Political steps to overcome divisions, reduce violence, and increase respect for religious freedom and basic human rights, including the rights of the courageous Iraqi Christians and other minorities who have remained in that war torn country.

While the bishops point out the Conference's pre-war warnings of unpredictable and uncontrollable consequences of invasion and occupation, they insist that now is not the time to look back or engage in partisan political debate. Rather, it is emphasized, our nation must carry out our additional moral responsibilities to help Iraq secure and rebuild their society based on justice. Ultimately, Iraqis must assume the responsibility for the fate of their nation, arriving at a political solution that promotes national reconciliation and fosters human rights. This work of supporting Iraqis will also require the United States to work with the nations of the region and the international community all of whom have important roles and responsibilities.

The path ahead

Permit me, now, to offer a concluding few thoughts:

1. At no time has the Holy See or the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops cast doubt on the motives of our national leadership in the Executive or Congressional branches.

2. The unleashing of sectarian violence with hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians killed, wounded, or displaced seems to confirm the initial fears that this conflict would have significant adverse consequences for the people of Iraq.

3. At this stage, our nation must honestly assess what is achievable in Iraq using the traditional just war principle of "probability of success," including the probability of contributing to a responsible transition. Our troops should remain in Iraq only as long as their presence contributes to a responsible transition.

4. Unless it is concluded that a responsible transition is not achievable, the U.S. and its allies also have a grave responsibility, even at high cost, to help Iraqis secure and rebuild their nation.

5. Meanwhile, political and military leadership must evaluate the moral and human consequences of every possible alternative cause of action in light of the goal of a responsible transition.

Conclusion

Finally, I would again quote from Pope Benedict XVI's words to the military ordinaries assembled in Rome for our Fifth International Congress last fall:

"From within the military world, the Church will continue to offer her specific service to the formation of consciences, certain that God's Word, liberally scattered and courageously guided by the service of charity and truth, will bear fruit in its own good time."

While that is what this letter attempts to do, I am well aware of the daily spiritual support and moral guidance offered to you by our generous and courageous chaplains who serve side by side with you, often in the most perilous of circumstances. The Church in our Land owes them a profound debt of gratitude, as all of America does to you and to your families.

May your sacrifices, offered out of selfless love of neighbor, soon bring about that responsible and peaceful transition for which all of us hope and pray each day.

Archbishop Edwin F. O'Brien is Archbishop for the U.S. Military Services.