If you regularly read mainstream political news coverage, you can often come away with the notion that President Joe Biden is a man who governs as a moderate, seeks unity with Republicans and is consistently guided by his “devout” Catholic faith.
A lot of this reflexive media coverage is largely a fantasy. Biden went from being compared to JFK before Inauguration Day to FDR by the time he recently reached the 100-day mark. He has outlined a series of initiatives that his adversaries on the other side of the aisle have dismissed as socialism. Biden, it must be highlighted, is president at a time when the Senate is split 50-50 and Democrats have a slim majority in the House. The American people did not, in a tight election, give him a healthy mandate.
But this post isn’t aimed at breaking down Biden’s politics.
Instead, it’s to focus on the news coverage around Biden’s faith and how his beliefs relate to the church’s own teachings and the U.S. bishops tasked with enforcing doctrines. Is Biden a progressive revolutionary on matters of morality and doctrine? If so, can he also be “devout” in his faith? Should he — along with many other Catholic politicians — continue to receive Holy Communion? What can, and will, the bishops do next?
A lot of what we know regarding the answers lies in how the press cover such political issues and religion, of course. Combine political politicization in an age of misinformation with the culture wars and you have a very complicated set of factors for the news media to cover.
It should be noted that secular newsrooms don’t dislike organized religion like many may believe. Instead, they just don’t like religious leaders who attempt to defend traditional dogmas that govern said faith. Therefore, news coverage is often framed this way: Biden can be both “very Catholic” and pro-choice. He’s a good, modern Catholic, not a bad, ancient Catholic.
This very issue was thrust back into the forefront again when The Washington Post published an account on April 29 regarding the ongoing conflict between the president and U.S. bishops, a news story promoted on the newspaper’s Twitter that “a rising group of right-wing U.S. Catholic bishops” had come into conflict with a “very Catholic” Biden over his abortion stance.
At the heart of this debate is whether Biden should be permitted to receive Communion. Flip that around and the question is whether any U.S. bishops should raise questions about this issue.
The backlash from Catholic Twitter and several news sites , largely on the political and doctrinal right, was immediate. The tweet is the sort of stuff that wouldn’t pass the Post’s own fact check given how inaccurate it is to refer to Biden as “devout” as it is to bishops who enforce doctrines as “right wing.”
Unlike Thomas Reese, I don’t think the Biden stories regarding Communion are “stupid.” There are lots of news stories that could go under that headings. Instead, journalists need to give proper context when reporting on doctrinal matters that often are a mystery to them.
The Associated Press, in its coverage on April 28, managed to report on the entire Biden-bishops Eucharist tug-of-war without once mentioning the fallen cardinal Theodore McCarrick, the pivotal figure in American debates on this topic (click here for tmatt’s “On Religion” column on this topic). This is section to note halfway through the piece:
The Vatican has not ruled on the specific matter of Communion and politicians supporting abortion in a major teaching document, though the church’s in-house canon law says people in a situation of persistent sin shouldn’t be allowed to receive Communion. It has also issued guidelines for the behavior of Catholics in political life exhorting them to uphold principles consistent with church doctrine.
The then-head of the Vatican’s doctrine office, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the future Pope Benedict XVI, told U.S. bishops in 2004 that priests “must” deny the sacrament if a politician goes to receive Communion despite an “obstinate persistence in manifest grave sin,” including the sin of consistently campaigning for permissive abortion laws.
Here is the key moment in this drama. Read carefully:
Ratzinger wrote a confidential letter outlining the principles to U.S. bishops in response to their question about whether to deny Communion to John Kerry, who was the Democratic nominee for president. In the end the bishops ignored Ratzinger’s advice and voted instead for the policy currently in place allowing bishops to decide themselves whether to withhold it.
The document being drafted by the doctrine committee may contain some guidelines for bishops, Cordileone said, but it will not seek to strip their decision-making authority.
“This will put the burden of responsibility on Catholics who are prominent in public life,” he said.
That “confidential letter” went to the now-disgraced McCarrick, who as cardinal of Washington, D.C. at the time, was the one who enforced the directive to his fellow U.S. bishops. He distorted the contents of the letter and, thus, helped twist the debate.
In doing so, he created what many call the “McCarrick Doctrine” that protected national-level Catholic politicians whose faith was a crucial part of their lives and images, even if many doctrines didn’t mix with their politics. The former cardinal was defrocked by Pope Francis following decades-old allegations that he sexually assaulted young men and seminarians.
On Twitter, Father James Martin, the noted jesuit priest and editor-at-large at America, attempted to defend Biden’s stance. Martin is frequently quoted by the press as an expert on Catholic teaching.
The voices on Twitter from the other side have also made their concerns heard.
Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone of San Francisco, who joined Twitter last month, argued his case. He has largely received news coverage from traditional Catholic outlets, such as Catholic News Agency.
Adding fuel to this recent conflagration is another high-profile debate that highlights two problems we have seen before in news coverage surrounding this issue — the refusal by many in the mainstream press to report both sides of the debate and, also, to cover McCarrick’s role in this drama.
The Pillar, a new Catholic news website with a commitment to reporting both sides, recently covered a new front in this war — when many in the mainstream press did not. Here’s the way the April 22 piece opened:
Cardinal Blase Cupich of Chicago wrote to Denver Archbishop Samuel Aquila last week to express “a number of concerns,” after Aquila published an essay on theological and pastoral issues concerning the reception of Holy Communion. Cardinal Cupich urged the archbishop to offer a “public clarification” of his arguments.
“I am compelled to address the error that any baptized Catholic can receive Communion if he or she simply desires to do so. None of us have the freedom to approach the altar of the Lord without a proper examination of conscience and proper repentance if grave sin has been committed,” Aquila wrote.
“The Eucharist is a gift, not an entitlement, and the sanctity of that gift is only diminished by unworthy reception. Because of the public scandal caused, this is especially true in the case of public officials who persistently govern in violation of the natural law, particularly the pre-eminent issues of abortion and euthanasia, the taking of innocent life, as well as other actions that fail to uphold the church's teaching regarding the dignity of life,” the archbishop continued.
Several sources, among them a senior official in one U.S. archdiocese, told The Pillar this week that shortly after the essay was published, Cupich wrote to Aquila, taking issue with that argument.
The cardinal’s letter to Aquila — which has been seen by The Pillar — was dated April 14, the same day Aquila’s essay was published. The letter said that Cupich had “a number of concerns” with Aquila’s essay, and was especially concerned about the paragraph quoted above.
“I respectfully note that to claim that we can do anything to diminish the Eucharist, or its effects, is contrary to the church’s longstanding teaching,” Cupich wrote.
This news story stemmed from an America magazine essay from Aquila that was posted on April 14. Cupich responded to the piece in an open letter, which prompted a clarification from Aquila in a second essay.
It’s true that most U.S. Catholics say Biden should be allowed to receive Communion during Mass, but that doesn’t mean news coverage should ignore why some bishops are concerned about this matter. For example, Catholics receive bread and wine during Mass. The church teaches that when the bread and wine are consecrated by a priest, they become the actual body and blood of Christ — something known as transubstantiation. I have written before how the details of this belief may just be too “magical” for hard-news coverage.
The church, meanwhile, has many guidelines about who can receive Communion. For example, only baptized Catholics are eligible. If a Catholic is conscious of having committed a “grave sin,” then that person must first repent before being eligible to receive Communion.
This politicization of the Eucharist is an issue poorly covered by the media — period. This issue is astutely outlined by Thomas Weinandy, a theologian who also serves as a member of the Vatican’s International Theological Commission, who took on the subject in The Catholic Thing. (Full disclosure: My work has previously appeared on its website). Here’s what he argued:
Now, the interchange between Archbishop Aquila and Cardinal Cupich is part of a larger discussion – that of offering Holy Communion to Catholic politicians even though it is well known that they approve and promote behavior contrary to the Church’s teaching, such as abortion, contraception, euthanasia, same-sex “marriage,” and various forms of gender ideology.
Some bishops argue that such Catholic politicians should not be refused Communion, for to do so would politicize the Eucharist. The refusal on the part of bishops or priests would indeed cause a political and media fuss, and prudence may suggest, in certain circumstances, that Communion should not be refused. An argument could easily be made, however, that refusal should be made so as to avoid scandal and protect the integrity of the sacrament.
To refuse to give Holy Communion to dissident Catholic politicians, however, is not to politicize the Eucharist. The politicizing of the Eucharist occurs in the act of the Catholic politician presenting himself or herself to receive Communion even though he or she is well aware that to do so is contrary to what the Church teaches. Those who are objectively in the state of mortal sin, or who dissent from or promote contrary positions to the Church’s fundamental dogmatic or moral teaching are forbidden to receive the body and blood of Jesus, for they have made themselves unworthy to do so.
Thus, such Catholic politicians, in presenting themselves, are using – and so abusing – the Eucharist for seemingly political purposes – to present themselves as “devout” Catholics. Therein lies a threefold irony.
Without even naming Biden, this is the other key takeaway:
To be religious in America is still a good thing – it wins votes. Votes are also won by holding and promoting non-Catholic policies. Of course, these stances are contradictory, but then politicians are not known for consistency.
There may, nonetheless, be a deeper motivation. Although one may uphold and promote what is contrary to the Catholic faith, deep down within one’s heart and mind there could be the inerasable belief that Jesus is the one Savior and that the Catholic Church is the one true Church. To be “Catholic,” then, is essential to one’s salvation, for to receive Jesus in the Eucharist is to be truly in communion with he who saves.
Thus, one claims to be a devout Catholic and receives Communion in the hope that, somehow, someday, it will all work out. This comes dangerously close to a sentimental “Catholic” superstition – which is the most charitable interpretation of why dissident Catholic politicians insist on receiving Holy Communion.
Whether such politicians will be allowed to receive Holy Communion — or even challenged on this issue in some corners of America — remains to be seen. It will be a debate that lingers on in the coming months, possibly years, as Biden continues to blaze a progressive agenda that many traditional Catholics see as being in opposition to the church’s teachings. It is an issue that merits balance, accurate news coverage, although that has been sorely lacking given the partisanship that now dominates news stories.
Unfortunately, said coverage is also colored by politics and an inability to present both sides fairly. It is something that will further divide American voters and culture. It also goes to the heart of news credibility at a time when we need it most on such an important issue.