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 Sanders speech at Liberty U: Did it lead to any debates on that campus?

So gentle readers, raise your hands if you are already tired of the numbingly predicable acts of political theater that are being called "debates."

My hand is way up. I realize that the CNN ratings were really high for the recent GOP gabfest, but that doesn't mean that -- other than in their opening statements -- the candidates actually said much that would help citizens grasp their stands on real issues.

But something did happen the other day that served as a brief ray of sunshine in national political discourse. I am referring to the visit that Sen. Bernard Sanders of Vermont made to Liberty University. It isn't every day that a self-proclaimed socialist, and secular Jew, pops in to speak during convocation at one of America's most symbolic evangelical -- or even small "f" fundamentalist -- universities, one founded by the late Rev. Jerry Falwell.

I wrote a GetReligion post about some of the coverage of the Sanders speech and it also provided the hook for this week's "Crossroads" podcast with host Todd Wilken. Click here to tune in on that.

During that podcast, I wondered if Sanders asked to speak there or if Liberty leaders asked him to speak in convocation. As it turns out, it was Liberty that -- to its credit -- extended the invitation. Bravo for that invitation and for the candidate's decision to accept it.

As you would expect, the text of the Sanders speech -- click here for The Washington Post annotated version of that -- was packed with biblical references making a case for common ground on issues of economic and social justice. He also was very blunt in stating that he hoped for civil discourse on these matters, even though he completely disagreed with Liberty, and traditional Christian doctrine in general, on issues such as abortion and gay rights.

However, I thought that the most interesting moment came in the question-and-answer session when the candidate was asked (this inquiry drew a wave of applause) why his concerns for children didn’t extend to those in the womb.