Except I don't. I believe that if he presents himself, Kerry, a Roman Catholic, should be allowed to receive Communion--even though he is one of the staunchest advocates of abortion "rights" in the U.S. Senate. This got complicated in April, when Cardinal Francis Arinze--a top Vatican official who is sometimes mentioned as a candidate for the papacy--said Catholic politicians who support abortion rights should be denied communion. Kerry's campaign then weakly responded that religion should not be an issue in U.S. politics. But shouldn't Catholicism be part of the make-up of a Catholic?
Arinze is one of my favorite cardinals, and any statement from him deserves our full attention. I agree with the cardinal that Kerry should not be asking for communion. But, despite Arinze's statement, I believe that should Kerry present himself, he should not (for the time being!) be denied communion. Before you decide that I advocate this position merely because I'm a Republican who hopes Kerry will go to hell, let me explain:
Refusing Holy Communion is a last sanction, an option only when all else has failed. It is one of the gravest actions the Church can take. Not only that, I detest the idea of politicizing the Mass. (Not to mention the practical consequences-many politicians are in the same situation as Kerry. Are Eucharistic ministers, mostly ordinary lay Catholics, to receive tip sheets telling them who can or can't receive the Eucharist?)
In recent years, the Church has seen long communion lines and short confessional lines, leading to widespread concern that Catholics have forgotten the connections of grace, sin, and the Eucharist.
Senator Kerry's stand on abortion is a public flouting of Church teaching. A Catholic who publicly goes against the teachings of the Church should not think of himself as a good Catholic. Kerry should know better than to queue up for communion. He doesn't.
But he is not alone. Many Catholics today don't understand why they can't be publicly against Church teaching and privately good Catholics. This most often comes up with regard to abortion when Catholics claim to be "personally opposed" to abortion but insist they must make a difference between what they believe as individuals and what they do as politicians. But how can a politician legislate in favor of something he or she "personally" believes to be an abomination?
Gay marriage, which goes against the Church's teaching on marriage as being the sacramental union of a man and a woman, is probably going to be the next issue on which some Catholics are "personally" opposed but for which they are gung ho in their public lives.
