Angelus News | July 2, 2021 | Vol. 6 No. 13

that such determinations can only be
made by individual bishops regarding
politicians and public officials in their
local dioceses.
“Bishops can legitimately make different
judgments on the most prudent
course of pastoral action,” according
to the statement. “Nevertheless, we all
share an unequivocal commitment to
protect human life and dignity and to
preach the Gospel in difficult times.”
Bishops opposing the drafting of a
new document cited a May letter from
Cardinal Luis Ladaria, prefect of the
Congregation for the Doctrine of the
Faith, who warned that any “national
policy” on Catholic politicians and
the Eucharist could “become a source
of discord rather than unity” among
the U.S. bishops.
Cardinal Joseph Tobin of Newark,
New Jersey, said denying Communion
to politicians would “thrust” the
bishops “into the very heart of the toxic
partisan strife which has distorted
our own political culture and crippled
meaningful dialogue.”
Such a move, Cardinal Tobin said,
“will drive a wedge between the
Church and American society as a
whole.”
Bishop Robert McElroy of San Diego
warned against the “weaponization
of the Eucharist in partisan battles.”
Focusing too much on issues like
abortion and euthanasia would also
“limit the Church’s witness in other
areas of moral concern,” such as
immigration and the environment, he
said.
While bishops opposing the document
stressed its possible political
consequences, supporters seemed
more concerned with the bishops’
responsibility as moral leaders and
teachers.
Bishop Donald DeGrood of Sioux
Falls, South Dakota, said he had
encountered Catholics in his diocese
who were “scandalized” by
the bishops’ lack of clarity on what
the Church teaches on “eucharistic
coherence,” an expression that comes
from a 2007 Latin American bishops’
document drafted by a commission
headed by then-Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio,
now Pope Francis.
That document insisted: “We must
adhere to ‘eucharistic coherence,’ that
is, be conscious that they [legislators,
heads of government, and health
professionals] cannot receive holy
communion and at the same time
act with deeds or words against the
commandments, particularly when
abortion, euthanasia, and other grave
crimes against life and the family are
encouraged.”
Bishop Donald Hying of Madison,
Wisconsin, was one of a few supporters
of the document who actually
named President Biden.
President Biden’s professed Catholicism,
while advancing policies strongly
contradicting Catholic teaching
Bishop Kevin Rhoades, chair of the U.S.
bishops’ doctrine committee, gave a taped
presentation explaining the planned document
on the Eucharist. | YOUTUBE
on abortion and family life, had left
faithful “concerned and confused”
and looking to the bishops for clear
teaching, Bishop Hying said.
Following three hours of debate,
nearly three-quarters (73%) of the
bishops voted to begin drafting the
document.
Although the document was clearly
intended to be pastoral, educational,
and exhortative, not political
or disciplinary, nearly every major
commercial media outlet chose to
characterize the bishops as moving to
censure President Biden and others.
“Targeting Biden, Catholic Bishops
Advance Controversial Communion
Plan,” The New York Times headlined
its report.
And in the confusion surrounding
the document, some politicians chose
to use the moment to challenge the
bishops.
More than 60 pro-abortion Catholic
Democrats in the House of Representatives
issued a “statement of principles,”
warning the bishops against “the
weaponization of the Eucharist.”
One pro-abortion member of Congress
took to social media to say, “Next
time I go to church, I dare you to
deny me communion.”
The bishops are expected to meet by
region in the coming months to generate
input for a draft to be discussed
and voted on at their next meeting, to
be held in person in Baltimore Nov.
15-18.
The process will surely be marked by
more of the intense, apparently fruitful
dialogue from last week’s meeting.
But it will also come with some
challenges. Among these challenges
will be trying to avoid direct confrontation
with President Biden and
other pro-abortion Catholics, without
sounding too vague.
Timing will also be a concern. Is
there enough calendar space in the
five months for the bishops to get
together and come up with things to
say in the document? Given the pace
at which the bishops’ conferences
processes normally move, and the
unpredictability of the relevant policy
battles that might break out in Washington,
D.C., this year, who can say?
But the biggest challenge may be
coming to a shared understanding of
what a bishop is supposed to say and
do in 2021 America.
Judging by their remarks this week,
bishops opposed to a document on
the Eucharist seem to fear that it will
hamper the bishops’ conferences’ efforts
to advocate for social justice and
those “on the peripheries” of society.
Those favoring the new document
seem to fear that if the bishops fail
to lead and teach strongly, they will
lose their credibility with the faithful
as well as their moral authority in
society.
In their remarks, both Archbishop
Gomez and Archbishop Pierre
identified unity as the bishops’ most
pressing need in 2021. After their latest
Zoom meeting, it is clear that the
bishops will need all the talking time
they can get in the next five months if
they want any chance of finding it.
Pablo Kay is the editor-in-chief of
Angelus.
July 2, 2021 • ANGELUS • 23