Journalists who have studied the history of Catholic disputes about politicians and Holy Communion are probably familiar with this name — Archbishop Joseph Francis Rummel of New Orleans.
There’s a good reason that that.
In 1962, Rummel infuriated segregationists by ordering the integration of all local parish schools. This was especially important in the intensely Catholic culture of Louisiana and it led to debates about how bishops relate to Catholic politicians that continue to this day. That was the topic that loomed in the background during this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (click here to tune that in) focusing on this recent GetReligion post: “Washington Post explores Joe Biden's faith, while embracing language of Catholic left.”
Back to Rummel. The 1964 New York Times obituary for this archbishop noted that he had, as early as 1949, taken actions expressing his opposition — clearly rooted in Catholic teachings — to segregation and other expressions of racism. In 1953 he issued an order stating that Black Catholics no longer had to wait at the end of the line to receive Holy Communion.
But it was the battle over integrating Catholic schools that put this archbishop’s name in the history books. The Times obit noted:
Archbishop Rummel's stand was publicly opposed by three prominent church members: Leander H. Perez Sr., president of the Plaquemines Parish Council, Jackson G. Ricau, executive director of the South Louisiana Citizens Councils, and Mrs. B. J. Gaillot Jr., head of Save Our Nation. Inc.
The three were excommunicated by the Archbishop after they failed to accept letters of “paternal admonition.”
Yes, they were excommunicated. That’s a big step beyond informing them that they should not receive Holy Communion. But note: These Louisiana politicians rejected a direct order from their bishop.
In recent decades, Catholic leaders have argued about whether Rummel’s action is relevant during discussions of how to handle Catholic politicians — especially those seeking national office — who openly support abortion on demand and take other actions to oppose church teachings on marriage and sex.
The question, of course, is where to draw the line when discipling Catholics in public life. American bishops have ended up in a tense standoff linked to controversial actions taken by a rather controversial Catholic — Theodore McCarrick. Yes, that is “Uncle Ted.” As I noted in a recent “On Religion” column:
The current standoff has lingered since 2004, when Democrats nominated Sen. John Kerry, a Catholic liberal, for president. A committee of American bishops petitioned the Vatican for advice on the communion issue.
The committee's leader was Theodore McCarrick, the archbishop of Washington, D.C. The ex-cardinal has since fallen into disgrace in a sex scandal involving teen-aged boys and seminarians.
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger sent McCarrick letter that was, at first, private. In it, the man who is now Pope Benedict XVI argued that if prominent supporters of abortion continue to present themselves for communion — against the advice of their local bishops — the "minister of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute it."
McCarrick claimed — without releasing the text — that this letter endorsed compromise. McCarrick also said he believed it would be wrong to "turn the Eucharist into a perceived source of political combat."
It became clear what McCarrick had done, once the full Ratzinger text was released. Nevertheless, this so-called “McCarrick compromise” remains in effect in America.
Yes, the Catholic Catechism states: "Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense."
Yes, "grave" is a crucial term, since Catholic Canon Law states that those who are "obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion."
But what does “formal cooperation” mean? What if a politician maintains that he or she is “personally opposed” to abortion, but is willing — in the world of secular politics — to support abortion rights under the current legal regime in the United States?
Some Catholic politicians have stressed their efforts to find compromise, such as opposing the use of tax dollars to fund abortions or opposing third-trimester abortions, gender-selection abortions or even the killing of babies that accidentally survive abortion procedures.
In the past, Joe Biden — to name a name — supported the Hyde Amendment that banned using tax dollars to fund abortions. But he changed his stance during the recent White House campaign and is now an orthodox Democrat on life issues.
So what is Biden’s status, in terms of taking parts in the sacraments of the Catholic faith?
The status of the Catholic in the White House depends on his relationship with the current Washington, D.C., archbishop. That shepherd, Cardinal Wilton Gregory, has noted that Biden was given communion during his years as vice president and he told Catholic News Service: "I'm not going to veer from that."
Note this: Archbishop Rummel gave Catholic politicians a specific order to obey his application of Catholic teachings on the dignity of human life. The politicians disobeyed and paid the price.
Under the McCarrick compromise, everything depends on the actions of a local bishop. If Catholic politicians have not received orders to defend church teachings — or to cease taking actions that openly oppose them — then there is no reason to discipline them.
In the end, this dispute is not about Biden or other liberal Catholics. The dispute centers on disagreements inside the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.
Now, there’s one other subject that came up during this “Crossroads” broadcast. I mentioned the efforts, long ago, of President Jimmy Carter — a Southern Baptist — to take centrist stance on abortion. His attempts at compromise led to a brutal and unsuccessful campaign by Sen. Ted Kennedy — a Catholic — to deny Carter the Democratic Party nomination for a second term.
Carter was trying to find a way to state that he considered abortion morally wrong, even though it was legal. Thus, he wanted to limit government support for abortion.
What would happen if a Catholic politician tried to take a similar stance today?
In 1995, The Atlantic ran a fascinating essay that explored what this kind of stance would look like and sound like. This piece by political scientist George McKenna, now a professor emeritus at the City University of New York, ran with this double-decker headline:
On Abortion: A Lincolnian Position
Principled yet pragmatic, Lincoln's stand on slavery offers a basis for a new politics of civility that is at once anti-abortion and pro-choice
After a lengthy discussion of Lincoln and his nuanced attempts to defeat slavery, McKenna offered a sample of what these arguments would sound like if they were applied to contemporary political fights over abortion.
What would happen if someone — a Democratic candidate for the presidency, for example — used the following language in a speech to the nation? Here is McKenna’s proposed language:
"According to the Supreme Court, the right to choose abortion is legally protected. That does not change the fact that abortion is morally wrong. It violates the very first of the inalienable rights guaranteed in the Declaration of Independence — the right to life. Even many who would protect and extend the right to choose abortion admit that abortion is wrong, and that killing 1.5 million unborn children a year is, in the understated words of one, `a bad thing.' Yet, illogically, they denounce all attempts to restrain it or even to speak out against it.
“In this campaign I will speak out against it. I will say what is in all our hearts: that abortion is an evil that needs to be restricted and discouraged. If elected, I will not try to abolish an institution that the Supreme Court has ruled to be constitutionally protected, but I will do everything in my power to arrest its further spread and place it where the public can rest in the belief that it is becoming increasingly rare. I take very seriously the imperative, often expressed by abortion supporters, that abortion should be rare.
“Therefore, if I am elected, I will seek to end all public subsidies for abortion, for abortion advocacy, and for experiments on aborted children. I will support all reasonable abortion restrictions that pass muster with the Supreme Court, and I will encourage those who provide alternatives to abortion. Above all, I mean to treat it as a wrong. I will use the forum provided by my office to speak out against abortion and related practices, such as euthanasia, that violate or undermine the most fundamental of the rights enshrined in this nation's founding charter."
What would happen if Biden or another modern Catholic spoke those words?
In particular, what would be the reactions of (a) Democratic Party leaders, (b) editors at The New York Times (and those in other influential newsrooms) and (c) Catholic bishops in the United States and in Rome?
Would anyone consider denying Holy Communion to this Catholic politico?
Enjoy the podcast and, please, pass it on to others.