Wispolitics’ Milwaukee Notes blares the headline: “DOLAN: CHURCH SHOULD DENY COMMUNION TO THOSE AT ODDS WITH TEACHINGS.” I was at the particular event at which he made the comment that headline was based on. You can get the next best thing by listening to the podcast online.
There’s a lot of irony here. Early in the conversation, interviewer Mike Gousha, a distinguished fellow at MULS, asked Dolan about the Vatican’s statement this summer on ecclessiology. Archbishop Dolan responded that American media blew the story out of proportion by missing the exact language use. We hear “defective” and think of it as an intensely negative, even mean, thing to call someone. But the CDF used it in its technical, theological sense, i.e. having a defect. The media was not sensitive, in other words, to exactly what the Vatican was conveying.
I think the WISPOLITICS writer failed in the same way on this story and headline. The writer does note “He added that bishops unanimously agree in the principle teachings of the church, but may not all agree with Burke’s stance of openly and publicly denying communion.”
THIS is the story, people. The question is not, “Should a pro-abortion politician present himself to receive communion?” Almost all the bishops agree that the answer is no, he or she should not. Certainly Archbishop Dolan believes this to be true, as he said yesterday: “If a politician, or anybody for that matter, would say to me that they are seriously at odds with the belief that abortion is intrinsically immoral, I would have absolutely no hesitation in saying that you are entitled to your opinion, but that ruptures your bond with the body of Christ, and you should not approach for Holy Communion.”
What Archbishop Burke is saying, however, is that if a pro-abortion politician DOES approach for communion, the priest should refuse to give the Eucharist to that person. The way the headline is written, you would think that Archbishop Dolan adopted Archbishop Burke’s position. He did not. And that’s the story: Archbishop Dolan fails to say priests should deny communion to pro-abortion politicians. Basically, he failed to plant himself in Burke’s conservative camp on this issue.
I have read Archbishop Burke’s very scholarly treatment of Canon 915 of the Code of Canon Law, and leave it to the truely interested to do likewise. Given that and some other background reading, my biggest concern with Archbishop Dolan’s answer is that he failed to consider the possible scandal (and that term, scandal, is used in a particularly theological sense) to the faithful by the administration of communion to pro-abortion politicians. That said, the question was not framed that way, so I can understand why he didn’t touch on it.
In conclusion, this is not a critique of what Archbishop Dolan had to say about communion. I will leave that question to others (Anyone, Anyone, Bueller? Dad29?). My point is simply that journalists should be very careful about the words they use and how they use the words of others when reporting on unfamiliar theological and religious subjects.
Last 5 posts by Daniel- Tom Barrett's Savings Plan - June 8th, 2010
- C.J. Abrahamson on J. Stevens - April 11th, 2010
- Why always Bill Bablitch? - March 24th, 2010
- Suhr on Nixon on Health Care - February 23rd, 2010
- Did the USCCB Foresee Dead People? - February 8th, 2010
Interesting that Wiscpolitics.com linked to my “live blog” of the event.
I made it clear that when he said that pro-abortion politicians should not take communion he meant that they should choose not to take it. He said he would counsel them not to take it. But he never said he would deny it.
WOW…. that’s exactly why he was so careful with his words Thursday.
Obviously, Abp Dolan is taking the “pastoral” approach.
Abp Burke’s review of the canonical history is significant, you ‘re right.
The difference: Burke lays emphasis on the sacred-ness of the Eucharist–approximating Ratzinger’s and Woytyla’s positions.
Dolan did not think in those terms.
It could be argued that Abp Dolan’s approach is more pragmatic. Here’s why:
Over the last 50+ years (yes, that long…) but particularly in the last 30 years or so, the ineffability of the Eucharist has been degraded in innumerable “small” ways. This process goes hand-in-hand with the “loss of the sense of sin” mentioned by JPII back in the 1980′s.
Thus, there are lots of Catholics who are (frankly) outright casual about the Eucharist, recieving while in a state of grave sin (think artificial birth control, or skipping Mass on Sundays/Saturday anticipations). There are other, less serious, offenses, such as ignoring the presence of the Eucharist while in the church (think chattering/laughing, or lack of proper genuflection–or wearing shorts/midriffs, etc.)
This general atmosphere “is what it is.” While Abp Dolan may choose to engage the problem, he chooses not to start with the politicians; for after all, they could well say “…But Excellency,….look at THESE sinners…”
IOW, Abp Dolan doesn’t choose to “take on the whole culture” by (in effect) shooting a couple of the public figures who simply reflect the culture as a whole.
Abp. Burke does, as does the Bishop of Lincoln, F. Bruskewitz.
One may call that a matter of style (“pastoral discretion” is the term) or a matter of substance. Clearly, Abp. Dolan is ‘stylistcally flaccid’. That shows in his overall governance pattern since his arrival.
Obviously, I cannot say whether that is “right” or “wrong.” It is what it is. And it is also his responsibility, not mine.
In a manner of speaking, Abp Dolan is counting on the ‘under-30′ crowd to reform the Church from the bottom. That leaves the question: what have you done about reforming the “over 30 crowd”? And maybe he has a plan for them, too.
He hasn’t laid it out…
THE FOLLOWING SECTION FROM A RECENT POSTING ON “ON THE SQUARE” SEEMS APT TO THE QUESTION OF RELIGIOUS REPORTING:
The New York Times last Wednesday morning reported “Episcopal Bishops Reject Anglican Church’s Orders.†There is a case to be made for that, and the reporter made it finely, but the London Telegraph saw quite the opposite: “For Now,†it claimed, “US Anglicans Give In to Archbishop.†The London Times, for its part, thought that the “Bishops Rejected Same-Sex Blessings,†but the New Orleans Times-Picayune claimed that the “Episcopal Bishops Decline to Roll Back Inclusion of Gays.†Prognosticating a bit, the Boston Globe surmised that the “Episcopal Leaders Act to Avert Schism.†And that was all very nice, but the BBC thought otherwise: “Threat of Anglican Schism Still Looms,†they concluded. The Economist, wisely, scratched its collective head and simply called its readers’ attention to “The Turbulence of Priests,†probably the most accurate headline of them all.
Normally, the best explanation for this would be the well-known fact that the only requirement for finding work as a religion reporter is a complete ignorance of religion. But in this case, the poor scribblers were reproducing the confusion within Anglicanism itself.