The cultural incoherence and disorder so characteristic of the world today, as well as the apparent decline in the appreciation of Catholics for the mystery of the Eucharist, are manifestations of the law of entropy: that in any closed system, disorder always increases with time. This is true even in the Church when we seek to act without being open to the gift of grace.
The fact that the Church comprises human beings means that our social constructs are subject to entropy, decay, and disorder. But the Church is a divine institution founded by Jesus Christ, who assured us that “the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Matt. 16:18). The fulfillment of Our Lord’s assurance obliges Christians to conform our human will to the divine will in carrying out the mission entrusted to the Church. Our failure to love God and our neighbor as we should is called sin:
One is not to celebrate Mass or receive Holy Communion in the state of mortal sin without having sought the Sacrament of Reconciliation and received absolution. A person who receives Holy Communion while in a state of mortal sin not only does not receive the grace that the sacrament conveys; he or she commits the sin of sacrilege by failing to show the reverence due to the sacred body and blood of Christ (The Mystery of the Eucharist in the Life of the Church, 47).
Merriam-Webster defines coherence as “the quality or state of cohering, such as systematic or logical connection or consistency.” The verb cohere comes from the Latin cohærēre, which means “to cling together, to be united.”
It follows then that something is incoherent if it is “lacking coherence: such as a: lacking normal clarity or intelligibility in speech or thought, b: lacking orderly continuity, arrangement, or relevance, or c: lacking cohesion” (Merriam-Webster).
Coherence in the ecclesiastical context refers to the logical connection and consistency between the faith that is professed and the actions that flow from that faith. Coherence in the Church also refers to the faithful clinging together as part of a community, united in their beliefs and in the moral dimensions of their behaviors.
Establishing eucharistic coherence
It should be noted that then-Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio, now Pope Francis, played a crucial role in the development of the Aparecida Document issued by the bishops of Latin America and the Caribbean that insisted on “eucharistic coherence” in their Catholic communities:
We hope that legislators, heads of government, and health professionals, conscious of the dignity of human life and of the rootedness of the family in our peoples, will defend and protect it from the abominable crimes of abortion and euthanasia; that is their responsibility. Hence, in response to government laws and provisions that are unjust in the light of faith and reason, conscientious objection should be encouraged. We must adhere to “eucharistic coherence,” that is, be conscious that they [i.e., the aforementioned 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 (436).
This paragraph is consistent with the position outlined in 2004 by then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (later Pope Benedict XVI), who wrote a memorandum in his capacity as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith titled “Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion: General Principles.” The key paragraphs are:
- Regarding the grave sin of abortion or euthanasia, when a person’s formal cooperation becomes manifest (understood, in the case of a Catholic politician, as his consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws), his pastor should meet with him, instructing him about the Church’s teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin, and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist.
- When “these precautionary measures have not had their effect or in which they were not possible,” and the person in question, with obstinate persistence, still presents himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, “the minister of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute it” (cf. Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts declaration Holy Communion and Divorced, Civilly Remarried Catholics [2002], 3-4).
This document was sent to then-Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, who concealed this letter from his brother bishops when he reported on this as the head of the task force addressing this issue at the June 2004 meeting of the U.S. bishops. Cardinal Ratzinger’s letter was not made public until two weeks later, in July 2004.
As a result, the brief statement Catholics in Political Life the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) issued in 2004 reached an incoherent conclusion:
The question has been raised as to whether the denial of Holy Communion to some Catholics in political life is necessary because of their public support for abortion on demand. Given the wide range of circumstances involved in arriving at a prudential judgment on a matter of this seriousness, we recognize that such decisions rest with the individual bishop in accord with the established canonical and pastoral principles. Bishops can legitimately make different judgments on the most prudent course of pastoral action.
Incoherence in the U.S. Church
This conclusion is incoherent in that the provisions of the pertinent canons, as we shall see, are not optional. The only prudential judgment involved is determining whether the conditions for denying admission to Holy Communion have been met, not whether or not to observe the requirements of the law.
It is also incoherent in that some bishops and pastors have determined never to enforce the canons on Holy Communion, while others have chosen to do so properly. It is not that the law is different in various dioceses but that some have chosen to ignore the law. Such antinomianism gives rise to incoherence and confusion among the faithful as to what is expected of them. It also gives rise to scandal in that it leads to the impression that grave sins may not be so grave—after all, there are no consequences for committing them.
The USCCB’s discussion of this topic took place in 2004 when John Kerry, a Catholic, was running for president. He lost the election, and attention to this issue faded. It has come back to the forefront with the election of a baptized Catholic, Joseph R. Biden, Jr. as president of the United States.
On the day of Biden’s inauguration, the Los Angeles Archbishop José Gomez, president of the USCCB, issued a statement saying,
As with every administration, there will be areas where we agree and work closely together and areas where we will have principled disagreement and strong opposition. Working with President Biden will be unique, however, as he is our first president in sixty years to profess the Catholic faith. . . . It will be refreshing to engage with a president who clearly understands, in a deep and personal way, the importance of religious faith and institutions. At the same time, as pastors, the nation’s bishops are given the duty of proclaiming the gospel in all its truth and power, in season and out of season, even when that teaching is inconvenient or when the gospel’s truths run contrary to the directions of the wider society and culture. So, I must point out that our new president has pledged to pursue certain policies that would advance moral evils and threaten human life and dignity, most seriously in the areas of abortion, contraception, marriage, and gender. Of deep concern is the liberty of the Church and the freedom of believers to live according to their consciences (USCCB President’s Statement on the Inauguration of Joseph R. Biden, Jr., as 46th President of the United States of America, Jan. 20, 2021; online at usccb.org).
Reacting to this statement, Cardinal Blase Cupich, Archbishop of Chicago, said “there is seemingly no precedent” for the USCCB president to have made such a statement. But it is indeed unprecedented to have a Catholic president of the United States who is virulently pro-abortion in his policies, as can be seen in his calls for taxpayer funding of abortion and codification of Roe v. Wade into federal law.
Canons 915 and 916
Since being appointed bishop of Springfield, Illinois, in 2010, I have been asked many times about the question of Holy Communion for pro-abortion Senator Richard Durbin, who is Catholic and whose home is in Springfield. In April 2004 Senator Durbin’s pastor, Msgr. Kevin Vann (now bishop of Orange, California), said he would be reticent to give Senator Durbin Holy Communion because Durbin’s pro-abortion position put him outside of communion or unity with the Church’s teachings on life (“Democrat senator releases controversial Catholic scorecard, reactions follow”; online at catholicnewsagency.com). My predecessor, now Archbishop George Lucas of Omaha, said that he would support that decision. I have continued that position.
This determination is based on canon 915 of the Code of Canon Law, which states that those “who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to Holy Communion.” In our statement “Catholics in Political Life,” the bishops of the United States said,
Failing to protect the lives of innocent and defenseless members of the human race is to sin against justice. Those who formulate law therefore have an obligation in conscience to work toward correcting morally defective laws, lest they be guilty of cooperating in evil and in sinning against the common good.
Because Senator Durbin’s voting record in support of abortion over many years constitutes “obstinate persistence in manifest grave sin,” the determination continues that he is not to be admitted to Holy Communion until he repents of this sin. Senator Durbin was pro-life when he started out in politics in central Illinois. The denial of Holy Communion isn’t a punishment; it is a medicinal remedy that seeks to foster a change of heart and encourage Senator Durbin to repent and return to being pro-life.
Wayward Catholic politicians
As bishop of the capital of Illinois, I have also had to deal with several Catholic legislators in the Illinois General Assembly who obstinately persisted in promoting the abominable sin of abortion by facilitating the passage of and/or voting for the Act Concerning Abortion of 2017 (House Bill 40). It provides for taxpayer funding of abortion, as well as for the Reproductive Health Act of 2019 (Senate Bill 25), which, among other things, purports to declare abortion to be a fundamental right while also declaring that an unborn baby does not have rights under the laws of this state.
On June 2, 2019, I issued a decree declaring that “Illinois legislative leaders who promoted and voted for the Act Concerning Abortion of 2017 (House Bill 40) and the Reproductive Health Act of 2019 (Senate Bill 25) are not to be admitted to receive Holy Communion, and Catholic legislators who voted for pro-abortion legislation are not to present themselves for Holy Communion per canons 915 and 916 of the Code of Canon Law.”
In the recitals of the decree (that is, the “whereas” clauses), I noted that the Church since the first century has affirmed that abortion is a moral evil, which teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable, citing Didache 2:2 from the first century: “You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.”
The Bible is also clear about eucharistic coherence: “Whoever eats unworthily of the bread and drinks from the Lord’s cup makes himself guilty of profaning the body and of the blood of the Lord” (1 Cor. 11:27).
Consistent with the maxim that law follows theology, canon 915 of the Code of Canon Law requires that those “who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to Holy Communion.” Canon 916 states, “A person who is conscious of grave sin is not to celebrate Mass or to receive the body of the Lord without prior sacramental confession.”
I therefore declared in accord with canon 915 that “Illinois Senate President John Cullerton and Speaker of the House Michael J. Madigan, who facilitated the passage of the Act Concerning Abortion of 2017 (House Bill 40) as well as the Reproductive Health Act of 2019 (Senate Bill 25), are not to be admitted to Holy Communion in the Diocese of Springfield in Illinois because they have obstinately persisted in promoting the abominable crime and very grave sin of abortion as evidenced by the influence they exerted in their leadership roles and their repeated votes and obdurate public support for abortion rights over an extended period of time.”
Moreover, I declared that “Catholic legislators of the Illinois General Assembly who have cooperated in evil and committed grave sin by voting for any legislation that promotes abortion are not to present themselves to receive Holy Communion without first being reconciled to Christ and the Church in accord with canon 916 of the Code of Canon Law.”
Since the publication of The Mystery of the Eucharist in the Life of the Church, other bishops have taken steps to enforce canons 915 and 916. Most notably, in May 2022 Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone of San Francisco formally notified Speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi that she is not to be admitted to Holy Communion. In a public letter explaining why he took this step, Archbishop Cordileone started by noting, “Pope Francis, as much as any pope in living memory, has repeatedly and vividly affirmed the Church’s clear and constant teaching that abortion is a grave moral evil.” The archbishop pointed out,
Speaker Pelosi’s position on abortion has become only more extreme over the years, especially in the last few months. Just earlier this month she once again, as she has many times before, explicitly cited her Catholic faith while justifying abortion as a “choice,” this time setting herself in direct opposition to Pope Francis. . . . After numerous attempts to speak with her to help her understand the grave evil she is perpetrating, the scandal she is causing, and the danger to her own soul she is risking, I have determined that the point has come in which I must make a public declaration that she is not to be admitted to Holy Communion unless and until she publicly repudiate her support for abortion “rights” and confess and receive absolution for her cooperation in this evil in the sacrament of penance.
Days later, Bishop Michael Burbidge of Arlington, Virginia, announced that his diocese, which is adjacent to Washington, D.C., will respect Archbishop Cordileone’s decision to withhold Communion from Speaker Pelosi.
More than a dozen other Catholic bishops publicly expressed their support for not admitting Nancy Pelosi to Holy Communion. On the other hand, not only has Archbishop Wilton Cardinal Gregory of Washington, D.C., not shown similar respect for the decision of Speaker Pelosi’s diocesan bishop, but his communications office told a reporter that media requests related to Pelosi’s denial of Communion by her bishop “will be ignored.”
Sadly, Pelosi herself has contumaciously defied her own archbishop, reportedly receiving Holy Communion during Mass at Holy Trinity Catholic Church in Georgetown and from a priest at St. Peter’s Basilica on the same day she met with Pope Francis.
Misinterpreting canon 915
Dr. Edward Peters, professor of canon law at Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit, has identified three unacceptable approaches to canon 915: ignore it, belittle it, or violate it (“Three Ways to Not Deal with Canon 915,” online at catholicworldreport.com). I would add a fourth: misinterpret it.
An example of this can be seen in a Sept. 14, 2020, article by Nicholas P. Cafardi, dean emeritus of Duquesne University School of Law and former general counsel to the Diocese of Pittsburgh (“Canons and the Candidate: Church law does not support attacks on Biden’s faith,” online at commonwealmagazine.org). In a sense, the subtitle is correct: canon law does not support attacks on the faith of former Vice President Joe Biden. However, there is much that canon law has to say in light of how Biden does or does not practice the Catholic faith.
Cafardi starts his citation of canons with canon 220 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law, which says, “No one is permitted to harm illegitimately the good reputation which a person possesses nor to injure the right of any person to protect his or her own privacy.” Cafardi observes correctly, “The condition of a fellow Catholic’s soul is a purely personal matter, not one for public debate.”
But then he makes this non sequitur: “The injunction of Canon 220 would seem, in itself, to forbid Catholics from engaging in a public discussion of the tenor of Biden’s Catholicism and his ability to receive the Eucharist. These are private matters, not political ones.”
This view reflects the modern fallacy of considering religion a purely private matter of belief. But Christianity is a religion that calls for public witness by putting one’s faith into action. Debating Biden’s policies in light of Catholic teaching has nothing to do with judging the condition of his soul. By contrast, it is permitted and absolutely germane to engage in a public discussion of whether or not a politician’s positions on political matters reflect his or her publicly professed faith.
On his campaign website and in various public statements Biden has made clear he seeks to legally protect the killing of unborn human beings through abortion and to fund this killing at taxpayer expense. Biden has said that he would seek to codify into federal law the abortion license of Roe v. Wade if the Supreme Court were to overturn that decision, and that he supports repeal of the Hyde Amendment which prohibits federal funding for abortion.
Shortly after his election, Biden issued an executive order rescinding the Mexico City policy, thereby allowing U.S. taxpayer dollars to support abortion overseas. He also has pledged to reinstate the contraceptive/abortifacient mandate originally issued under Obamacare. He has become even more strident in his support for abortion since the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Dobbs v. Jackson to overturn Roe v. Wade.
In July 2022, Biden issued an executive order promoting access to abortion and his administration’s Office of Personnel Management issued guidance that allows for federal workers to take paid sick leave to cover absences for travel to obtain an abortion. This is truly scandalous, in that it leads others to take similar immoral actions. Following the lead of the Biden administration, dozens of companies announced that they will pay for employees who want to get an abortion.
When Catholic politicians such as Joe Biden, Dick Durbin, and Nancy Pelosi promote abortion in their words and actions, they must abandon the tired claim that they are personally opposed to abortion but are not going to impose their beliefs on others. They are in fact imposing their pro-abortion beliefs on others and hence are formally cooperating in evil. As such, they are not to receive Holy Communion because of their manifest, obstinate, and persistent promotion of grave sin and their strident support for intrinsic evil.
In a July 2022 TV interview, Pope Francis responded to a question about President Biden’s support for abortion by saying, “Let him talk to his pastor about that incoherence.” It is indeed incoherent for Catholics to promote abortion—and it is incoherent for such Catholics to receive Holy Communion. We must continue to pray for their conversion and return to full communion with the Catholic Church.