Quebec Life Coalition

Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion.
General Principles by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger
Issued June 2004

“Whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord”
(1 Corinthians 11:27)

1. Presenting oneself to receive Holy Communion should be a conscious decision, based on a reasoned judgment regarding one’s worthiness to do so, according to the Church’s objective criteria, asking such questions as: “Am I in full communion with the Catholic Church? Am I guilty of grave sin? Have I incurred a penalty (e.g. excommunication, interdict) that forbids me to receive Holy Communion? Have I prepared myself by fasting for at least an hour?” The practice of indiscriminately presenting oneself to receive Holy Communion, merely as a consequence of being present at Mass, is an abuse that must be corrected (cf. Instruction “Redemptionis Sacramentum,” nos. 81, 83).

2. The Church teaches that abortion or euthanasia is a grave sin. The Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae, with reference to judicial decisions or civil laws that authorize or promote abortion or euthanasia, states that there is a “grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection. [...] In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to ‘take part in a propaganda campaign in favour of such a law or vote for it’” (no. 73). Christians have a “grave obligation of conscience not to cooperate formally in practices which, even if permitted by civil legislation, are contrary to God’s law. Indeed, from the moral standpoint, it is never licit to cooperate formally in evil. [...] This cooperation can never be justified either by invoking respect for the freedom of others or by appealing to the fact that civil law permits it or requires it” (no. 74).

3. Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.

4. Apart from an individuals judgment about his worthiness to present himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, the minister of Holy Communion may find himself in the situation where he must refuse to distribute Holy Communion to someone, such as in cases of a declared excommunication, a declared interdict, or an obstinate persistence in manifest grave sin (cf. can. 915).

5. 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.

6. 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], nos. 3-4). This decision, properly speaking, is not a sanction or a penalty. Nor is the minister of Holy Communion passing judgment on the person’s subjective guilt, but rather is reacting to the person’s public unworthiness to receive Holy Communion due to an objective situation of sin.

[N.B. A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favour of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.]

While some might believe there is a controversy, for the Vatican there is no question about the need to deny Holy Communion to Catholic politicians who vote in favour of abortion. The issue was closed with a letter from Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI.

The Cardinal intervened into a debate among the US Bishops on the issue in 2004. Simply put, Cardinal Ratzinger said in his letter titled “Worthiness to receive Holy Communion”, that obstinately pro-abortion Catholic politicians, after being duly instructed and warned, “must” be denied Communion (see the full text of the document on the back of this brochure).

When that controversy erupted in 2004, the highest authority on the subject next to then-Pope John Paul II was Cardinal Francis Arinze, the Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments. Cardinal Arinze said a pro-abortion politician “is not fit” to receive Communion. “If they should not receive, then they should not be given,” he added.

Since then, Cardinal Arinze, who is still in his position as President of the Congregation, has been asked about the issue so frequently he has begun to joke about it. The latest such incident was videotaped and is available on Youtube.

In November of 2007 Cardinal Arinze was video taped responding yet again to the question. The video shows Cardinal Arinze, the head of Vatican office of Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, replying to the question of pro-abortion politicians and the inaction of their bishops. He first referred to Cardinal Ratzinger’s letter as authoritative. He said “You may have heard about the letter which the present Holy Father, as prefect of the congregation for the doctrine of the faith, sent to American bishops on that issue, so the matter is very clear.”

He told those in attendance that the question is not one of Church teaching, but of the immutable divine law of God. “It isn’t just that they [the politicians in question] have gone against church teaching, but they have gone against divine law; thou shalt not kill.”

Arinze elicited much laughter and applause when he made the analogy, “To the person who says, ‘Personally I’m against abortion, but if people what to do it, I’ll leave them free’, you could say, ‘You are a member of the senate or the congress, personally I’m not in favour of shooting the whole lot of you, but if somebody else wants to shoot all of you in the Senate, or all of you in Congress, it’s just pro-choice for that person, but personally, I’m not in favour.’
“That is what he is saying. He’s saying he’s personally not in favour of killing these millions of children in the womb, but if others want to do it, that’s pro-choice. That’s what he is saying.

“And then you ask, what does the Holy See do? Why doesn’t the Pope send 12 Swiss Guards to arrest them all?”

Arinze said that he is regularly asked if a person who votes for abortion can receive Holy Communion. He replies, “Do you really need a cardinal from the Vatican to answer that?

“Get the children for first Communion and say to them, ‘Somebody votes for the killing of unborn babies, and says, I voted for that, I will vote for that every time.’ And these babies are killed not one or two, but in millions, and that person says, ‘I’m a practising Catholic’, should that person receive Communion next Sunday? The children will answer that at the drop of a hat. You don’t need a cardinal to answer that.”

The issue comes down to the simple truth that the Holy Eucharist is the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

From the earliest days of the Church, receiving Holy Communion unworthily has been condemned. St. Paul in the eleventh chapter of First Corinthians tells us: “Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.” (1 Cor. 11:27-29)

The Church has taught the same in Canon law 915 which states: “Those upon whom the penalty of excommunication or interdict has been imposed or declared, and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, are not to be admitted to holy communion.”

Archbishop Burke of St. Louis, a pre-eminent Scholar of Canon Law remarks on the need for Bishops to uphold this canon since without doing so they undermine belief in the truth of the evil of abortion. “No matter how often a bishop or priest repeats the teaching of the Church regarding procured abortion, if he stands by and does nothing to discipline a Catholic who publicly supports legislation permitting the gravest of injustices and, at the same time, presents himself to receive Holy Communion, then his teaching rings hollow. To remain silent is to permit serious confusion regarding a fundamental truth of the moral law.”

In a recent interview with LifeSiteNews.com, the Archbishop of the Canadian capital city of Ottawa explained that denial of Holy Communion to pro-abortion politicians is also an act of love for the Catholic politician him or herself – an act meant to call the politician back to the truth. Archbishop Terrence Prendergast said: “The Church’s concern is for anyone who persists in grave sin, hoping that medicinal measures (which is how excommunication and interdict are to be understood) may draw them away from the wrong path to the truth of our faith.” He said that “medicinal” remedies such as “denial of communion” are employed to “draw them back to the way of Christ, Our Lord, the Way, the Truth and the Life.”