Moral Obfuscation

First thing this morning, The Deacon’s Bench called my attention to a distressing exercise in moral obfuscation.

The writer, a retired priest named Fr. Emmett Coyne (about whom I know nothing beyond what appears in his essay) takes Catholic bishops to task for their stand on moral issues. The core of his statement is that conscience trumps hierarchy, or, in other words, what I think is right and wrong is more important than what the Church says is right and wrong.

To a certain extent Fr. Coyne is correct. If my conscience tells me that something is wrong, I must not do it. However, it is also my responsibility as a Catholic to form my conscience, and the magisterial teachings of the Church are key here.

You can read the piece yourself; let me mention a couple of key points:

Bishops indeed have a task to teach and educate, but they cannot usurp the role of judge of another’s conscience. That is domain of God alone. Unfortunately, today, they are perceived as being the judge of others’ conscience, particularly as they have politicized the Eucharist. They are determining who has a right to receive or not. They have sadly undermined their role as teachers by selective unfairness. They are slow to deny Communion to politicians who favor capital punishment, support an immoral war, the inequity of income distribution, etc.

However, the Church does not teach that capital punishment is always wrong, and never has. The Church does not teach that war is always wrong, and never has. These are matters about which prudential judgements may be made, and, in fact, it is the State that is responsible for making them. Nor has the Church ever taught that income distribution must be “equitable”; rather that those who have more must help those who have less. On the other hand, the Church has always and everywhere taught that abortion is gravely wrong, intrinsically wrong. There are no prudential judgements here; it’s simply wrong. Though he doesn’t mention it, this is clearly what Coyne’s talking about, as it is only in this context that the Bishops have discussed who should and who shouldn’t receive Communion. Another misstatement: no Bishop I’m aware of has told anyone that they do not have the right to receive Communion–no one has the right to receive Communion. They have told certain public individuals that they ought not present themselves for Communion at the risk of their immortal souls.

All this said, political support for abortion certainly isn’t the only grave sin that should prevent one from receiving Communion without repentance and confession. I’m addressing Fr. Coyne’s argument, not the moral state of politicians, or anyone else, including Fr. Coyne.

The other point that really bugged me was this one:

The prayer a Catholic prays before receiving Communion is, “Lord, I am not worthy to receive you.” But now a Catholic needs to pass judgment on having a well-formed conscience before proceeding to receive Communion (praying now, “Lord, I am worthy!”).

I begin to wonder what planet Fr. Coyne has been living on. It has always been a Catholic’s responsibility to make sure he is free of grave sin (by receiving the Sacrament of Confession, if necessary) before presenting himself to receive Communion. He is still not worthy, even then; the Eucharist is the “Good Gift” par excellence. None of us are ever worthy. But yes, indeed, it is a Catholic’s responsibility to attend to forming his conscience, and to be sure he is clear of grave sin. That’s what I was taught in Catechism class as a small boy, and it’s what I read in the Catechism now.

Examine your conscience. Ask forgiveness for your sins. Go to confession regularly, and more often if need be. And repent of grave sin, and do not present yourself for Communion until you have done so and been absolved. “Have mercy on me, God in your goodness.”

2 thoughts on “Moral Obfuscation

  1. en passant

    I have been told (more accurately, read in an article) that an archbishop of a large Southern city excommunicated people who publicly supported racial segregation when that issue was in the public spotlight.

    That was apparently a very popular decision at the time. (I’ll not attempt to answer the question of whether segregation rises to the level of evil that abortion does…and whether that means that excommunication is in order for politicians who actively support abortion.)

    What do the bishops of the Church do now, when they face the fact that a similar attitude towards abortion is unpopular?

    The article you mention gives a poor answer. Justifying support of one evil on the grounds of private conscience leaves a doorway through which all sorts of temptations may enter.

    Like

  2. I appreciated very much your response to the argument about “worthiness.” As you said, we are never worthy to receive Christ, even if we have not lost the divine life due to mortal sin. If we have any worthiness, it is through the sacrifice Jesus made on the cross, not through anything we ourselves have done.

    Like

Comments are closed.