Correction over Communion can be complicated, but is also crucial

Following a brief meeting with Pope Benedict XVI on February 18^th, 2009, then-Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi issued a statement expressing her joy for the opportunity to have met the pope and to have praised “the Church’s leadership in fighting poverty, hunger, and global warming.” Conspicuously absent from her list was the Church’s leadership in fighting abortion on demand, but that is hardly surprising given that Pelosi would later characterize the overturning of Roe v. Wade as “heart-wrenching,” “outrageous,” and even “cruel.”

The fact is that Pope Benedict XVI squeezed Madam Speaker into his busy schedule following a routine weekly General Audience in the Paul VI Hall. After dismissing the Speaker’s entourage—most notably her photographers—from the small side room, the pope got down to business and launched into a bill-by-bill review of Mrs. Pelosi’s Congressional voting record on life issues. Those privy to the meeting relate how the pope’s unanticipated reprimand made Pelosi uncomfortable nearly to the point of illness. What she thought was going to be a prime photo op turned out to be an opportunity for the pope to voice a serious rebuke—a rebuke he had been planning all along.

This makes it all the more ironic that Mrs. Pelosi has appealed to Benedict’s successor to repeal her Ordinary’s injunction of Canon 915 that prohibits her from receiving holy communion. If she had heeded Benedict’s warning and reconciled herself to the Church, she never would have found herself in such an awkward position. More importantly, during the aforementioned February 2009 behind-closed-doors meeting, her reception of holy communion was not at all the main issue. That issue was—and continues to be—her Ordinary’s, not the pope’s. Both Archbishop Cordileone and his predecessor George Niederauer admirably assumed the pastoral role of reaching out to Mrs. Pelosi to address the issue of her participation at Holy Mass.

All this stands as an exemplary observance of the respective roles of authority and competence in the Church, something many Catholics fail to understand. It is not primarily the Bishop of Rome’s duty to decide who should and should not receive holy communion. But as Benedict’s action illustrated, it is his duty to correct a politician for creating public scandal through his or her actions. It was, after all, Pelosi who had asked for a private audience in 2009, not the pope. She clearly was unable to foresee what would come of it.

I draw attention to this 2009 meeting to highlight the role of prudence in establishing a right course of action when it comes to dissident public figures. Rather than publicly using a General Audience as the occasion to read a list of names of those who, like Pelosi, obstinately refuse to let the Church’s moral teaching guide them in their public actions, Pope Benedict deemed it more effective and prudent to confront Speaker Pelosi during a private tête-à-tête. He could not have been more courteous and respectful in doing so. Deliberations about how to deal with a dissident politician are obviously aimed at the individual’s spiritual health and salvation, but there is more. When it is a matter of public scandal, decisions are made on the basis of what will clear confusion among the faithful and lead them to a greater knowledge of the truth.

The situation gets even more daunting when public scandal affects non-Catholic Christians. Presbyterian theologian Carl R. Trueman recently lamented that “the present pope seems to be nothing more than a liberal Protestant in a white papal robe.” True or not, that impression is something the Holy See needs to take seriously, especially given Trueman’s sympathy for Catholic teaching and his high stature in Reformed, Orthodox, and Catholic intellectual circles. His impression that Francis signifies “a loss of the transcendent in favor of the immanent” may or may not be accurate, but the impression alone is serious enough to invite serious reflection on the part of the Holy See about how the Church is perceived by influential, serious-minded Reformed Christians.

Neither should the specific incident that triggered Trueman’s latest complaint be taken lightly: namely, the “pope’s decision to have a special pilgrimage for the LGBTQ community in the 2025 Jubilee Year, titled ‘Church: Home for All, LGBT+ Christians and Other Existential Frontiers.’” We can chalk it up both to his Protestantism and lack of knowledge about how things work at the Vatican to conclude that this was the “pope’s decision,” but that is beside the point (you can read about the whole fiasco here). The bottom line is that the Holy See messed up both the way it allowed outside events to be included in its schedule of Jubilee events and how it communicated its response to the incident.

Pope Sant John XXIII lived by the motto omnia videre, multa dissimulare, pauca corrigere (roughly, “see everything, overlook a great deal, correct a little”). The words have been attributed variously to Bernard of Clairvaux and Gregory the Great, among others. One of the hardest decisions a pastor must make at any level—be he a priest, bishop, or pope—is what to overlook and what to correct. The timing of the overlooking or correcting is no less important. But he must also carefully consider who is watching him overlook and correct. This does not imply that his decision is arbitrary or subjective, but only that it is prudently aimed at the good of both the one in need of correction and the faithful at large who witness (or do not witness) the correction.

Many corrections have rightly been made behind closed doors; far more, in fact, than in public. This is perfectly in accord with holy Scripture (cf. Matt 5:25; 18:15-17). But to put it bluntly, perhaps more discernment should be exercised before overlooking events uploaded to an open on-line Jubilee calendar and correcting those who choose to attend a valid Mass celebrated according to a Form approved for use under certain circumstances. Perhaps a similar discernment should be employed before deciding which episcopal actions to overlook and which to correct.

Though we may direct most of our attention to our enemies, it is actually our closest and most powerful allies—like Trueman—who are watching most closely.