Rants and Ramblings: random commentary about culture, media, politics, technology and whatnot.

wafer watch

With the apparent philosophical split between presidential hopeful John Kerry and the Catholic church on the issue of abortion, the press has put Kerry on a kind of “wafer watch,” to use the words of columnist Ellen Goodman, waiting to see if his priest will deny him communion at mass. (Boston Globe: “Putting Kerry on the ‘wafer watch’” - 04/15/04)

Adding further fuel to the fire, a Vatican cardinal, while avoiding discussing Kerry specifically, told reporters on Friday that Catholic politicians who do not follow the church’s teachings in public should not be allowed to receive communion. Cardinal Francis Arinze said he would leave it to U.S. bishops to decide how to apply the rule to individual American politicians. (Washington Post: “Pro-Choice Politicians ‘Not Fit’ for Communion” - 04/24/04)

Thankfully, it seems that most U.S. bishops, save a reactionary few, are taking a less forceful — and less public — approach to the issue.

A spokesman for Archbishop Sean P. O’Malley of Boston said Kerry had not been barred from taking communion in his home town, and he indicated that no ban was likely…

Coyne said that it would be appropriate for a priest or bishop to counsel a politician whose positions are contrary to church teachings. “But this is something that’s handled privately with the Catholic,” he said. “It’s not something where you would make any kind of public action or public statement to withhold communion.”

That appears to be in keeping with the approach of the vast majority of U.S. bishops, although a few have publicly threatened to withhold communion from certain politicians.

I think all this breathless discussion about Kerry’s relationship with the church is, frankly, inappropriate. In my opinion, the role of the church — any church — is to foster the relationship between a churchgoer and God, not push for a particular social or political agenda. A policy that requires followers to toe an inflexible line or else face public censure or expulsion does little to encourage discussion or openness.

An acquaintance of mine once said that if all the liberals abandoned the church, all that would be left would be the die-hard conservatives, and religious life would further recede into the fringes of society, unable and unwilling to adapt to social change. When I was in high school, our pastor and a church youth minister told those of us gathered for a teen discussion night that if we did not belive 100 percent in the church’s teachings, then they couldn’t call themselves Catholic. I felt angry and a bit helpless that, at an event ostensibly aimed at encouraging discussion and spiritual exploration, I was being told to blindly conform, or else face some kind of ostracism.

When John F. Kennedy ran for president in 1960, one of his “weaknesses” was a concern that, being Catholic, he might follow the dictates of the Vatican rather than the desires of his own constituents. Statements from the Vatican such as the one issued Friday only serve to bring that concern back to the surface. Politically, I think Kerry scores some “I am my own man” points by sticking to his own views in opposition to the church … but given the political importance of being in good standing with one’s church (how many atheists or non-churchgoers get elected to office?), he probably loses points, too.

I think the press could do something more productive with the Kerry/church story and use it as a springboard to discuss abortion — Kerry’s views, how they contrast with President Bush’s, how Kerry has voted in the past on abortion-related issues, the nuances of the issue. This way, the story rises above mere spectacle — I think it’s incredibly inappropriate to follow Kerry to church every week just to see if he’s allowed to take communion — and sparks something more substantive and far more useful to the voting public. Leave Kerry’s personal relationship with his church to Kerry and his pastor.

(Thanks to Shawn for the Boston Globe column.)