Personally, I would not have refused Holy Communion to Fine Gael politician and Junior Minister, Colm Burke, if I were a priest or eucharistic minister. Nonetheless, Fr Gabriel Burke, the priest who did refuse Deputy Burke communion, has prompted a necessary debate on who should receive communion and when, because the attitude to the receipt of the Eucharist has become very casual indeed and lacking in any proper sense of reverence.
Fr Burke, a priest of the Cloyne Diocese, refused Deputy Burke communion because the latter voted in favour of abortion when legislation was being put through the Oireachtas following the repeal in May 2018 of the 8th amendment. In doing so, he was clearly acting against the teaching of the Catholic Church, as so many other politicians did at the time.
Colm Burke is not the first politician to be refused communion because he voted in favour of abortion legislation. Another was Fianna Fail’s Robert Troy back in 2019, very soon after the legislation was passed, and interestingly, the incident happened at a funeral Mass then too, as in the case of Colm Burke.
Both Fr Gabriel Burke this time, and Fr John Hogan last time, were, it seems, at liberty under canon law to refuse communion in each case, but they are not obliged to either. It comes down to pastoral judgement.
Refused
The issue of whether politicians who vote in favour of abortion should be refused communion has been around for a long time now with strong views being expressed by Catholics who take opposing, but generally legitimate views, on the matter.
Back in 2004, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (soon to become Pope Benedict), wrote a note to the Catholic hierarchy in America called ‘Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion’.
In it, he directly addressed the question of whether pro-choice politicians should be refused cCommunion.
With regard to someone like Colm Burke, can he be characterised as someone who has been ‘consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws?’”
Cardinal Ratzinger says as follows: “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.”
With regard to someone like Colm Burke, can he be characterised as someone who has been “consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws”? I don’t believe so. (Obviously euthanasia has not come before the Oireachtas properly yet).
Memorandum
The context for the memorandum was a discussion among American bishops about the application of canon 915, the part of Church law that tries to set out when Catholics should and should not receive communion and when they can be refused Communion. Like many laws, it contains quite a lot of room for interpretation, hence the note from Cardinal Ratzinger.
When someone, in this case a politician who voted in favour of abortion but was not an active and prominent campaigner for it, presents himself for communion, a priest or eucharistic ministers seems to just about be able to refuse that person Communion, but only just.
The priest must decide whether giving that politician Communion will do more harm than good, or vice versa, spiritually speaking. Will it draw that person, and other Catholics, closer to the teaching of the Church, or push them away, especially when it is done at a funeral? Markers do sometimes have to be set down, but when and how?
If a legislator comes to me and says, ‘Can I be a faithful Catholic and support abortion?’ I would say no. Your communion is ruptured if you support abortion”
In his defence, Fr Burke said Deputy Burke had effectively excommunicated himself from the Church when he voted for abortion, but actually, automatic excommunication is rare and voting for abortion is not one of the grounds for it.
Fr Burke quoted Archbishop Eamon Martin in his defence. Back in 2013 when the abortion law that followed the death of Savita Halappanavar was being debated in the Dáil, Archbishop Martin, then co-adjutor bishop of Armagh, told The Sunday Times: “You cannot regard yourself as a person of faith and support abortion. If a legislator comes to me and says, ‘Can I be a faithful Catholic and support abortion?’ I would say no. Your communion is ruptured if you support abortion.
“You are excommunicating yourself. Any legislator who clearly and publicly states this should not approach looking for Communion.”
I wonder if Archbishop Martin was asked to clarify today when he meant then, what would he say? Certainly, a politician who has voted for abortion should not present himself for Communion without first repenting of what he or she did, but this is not to say they are automatically excommunicated.
Practice
In practice, there are very few examples of politicians being refused communion because they have voted for abortion, and one of the only few examples that comes to mind of a politician being told she should not come forward for Communion in her diocese is Nancy Pelosi, the Democrat politician in America with a consistent record of very public pro-abortion advocacy.
Notably, Pope Francis has never refused someone Communion and I don’t think any bishop in this country has either.
However, there is a wider spiritual issue at play here, namely that we now go up for Communion almost in a state of absent-mindedness and without any regard for whether we are in a suitable spiritual or moral state to receive it.
We see this all the time whether at Mass each Sunday and much worse, at the likes of First Holy Communion or at funerals.
People who never or rarely go to Mass and haven’t been near confession in years, file up for communion anyway. An outside observer who knew nothing about the Catholic Church would never think from watching people receive Communion that this is the highest and holiest sacrament of the Church. Quite the contrary.
We need to debate how to restore a sense of the sacred to the receipt of communion and the liturgy of the Eucharist and being in the presence of the Host”
Therefore, we have definitely lost something extremely important, which is a sense of the sacred. When the Church doesn’t foster this, how can we possibly hope to foster a sense of the sacred, or the transcendent, in the rest of society? There is no chance of doing so.
Therefore, as a Church, we need to debate how to restore a sense of the sacred to the receipt of Communion and the liturgy of the Eucharist and being in the presence of the Host. What will it take to bring back a sense of reverence? If we don’t try to do so, then outsiders will be justified in thinking we don’t really believe in it at all.