"The reason for the ”speeding ticket” is to give those in ”group 2” a period of grace, so that they have an opportunity to come along in a gentle way."

Should have been:

"The reason for the ”speeding ticket” is to give those in ”groups 2/3” a period of grace, so that they have an opportunity to come along in a gentle way."

There are two primary reasons to enforce canon 915 in this context. First, people who persist in promoting manifest grave sin commit a mortal sin when they receive Holy Communion. Therefore, enforcing 915 is an act of mercy. Second, it most certainly send a message to sincerely confused Catholics who have gotten the impression that the Church doesn”t really consider abortion all that serious of an issue because even notoriously pro-abort pols can receive Holy Communion. This should play a role in positively influencing voting behavior.

Of course, those citizens and pols who are "die hard" pro-abortionists aren”t likely to be reached, I agree. The "target", as always, must be those who can be influenced…and they *do exist* – I know this from considerable experience in the pro-life movement working along with the priests at Priests for Life.

Regarding the impact on pro-abort pols, I disagree. Pols are no different that other people (well, for the most part!). On moral issues like this, I”ve found that there are always three groups in the Church: 1) Those who actively desire to know and follow what the Church teaches, the docile. These are for the most part already doing what they should be doing. 2) Those who don”t want to know what the Church teaches or don”t care when it conflicts with their personal agenda. And 3) Those Catholics who may be honestly confused, conflicted or who at least aren”t totally committed to the "good" or the "evil" so to speak for various reasons. These kinds of individuals most certainly can be and are influenced by strong disciplinary action, such as the enforcement of canon 915.

Group 1 will only be further confirmed in their fidelity by something like witnessing the enforcement of canon law against egregious cases. Group 2 can only be helped by prayer. Group 3 is of most interest because they can be influenced in a positive direction.

The reason for the "speeding ticket" is to give those in "group 2" a period of grace, so that they have an opportunity to come along in a gentle way. As a father, I use the same principle in my discipline. It”s unjust and more likely to engender rebellion when those in authority begin enforcement of the rules without first duly informing and warning those affected.

Also, it”s important to remember that the USCCB is there in support of individual bishops. It has no real authority in an of itself over them. If seeking its approval for a consistent response to such cases (abortion/Communion) unduly hinders or undermines individual bishops from teaching and disciplining those under his pastoral care, then it should be ignored, imo. I don”t think that point has been reached, and I would like to see Leon”s approach given a try. But if that fails, then I would much rather see individual bishops correctly teaching and disciplining their flocks than see them all fall to a lowest common denominator of non-enforcement, no warning simply for the sake unity.

IMO, the argument you”re making muddies the waters by getting into too many unnecessary "what ifs" and fine details, which in turn have the effect of rendering the law impotent. The law is there for the sake of the salvation of souls. It becomes ineffective and held in contempt when it is ignored and unenforced.

God bless.

A renewed attention to this document by parish priests could help create a climate in which a more nationwide implementation is conceivable.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/intrptxt/documents/rc_pc_intrptxt_doc_20000706_declaration_en.html

So on the "speeding ticket" analogy we start disciplining the worst offenders. Then what?? We wait and hope this has a chilling effect on other lesser known pro-abortion pols across the country?? But this is not what would happen. Many others both for sincere and cynical reasons would try to determine the precise criteria by which the fearsome four were banned from communion and try to pressure for their application to lesser known "speeders" as well as lesser "speeders".

The Bishops would foresee this. To implement the new discipline fairly the USCCB would have to define carefully what the speed limit is and how it could be applied uniformly. And this would be harder than the hardliners realize. Let me throw a practical example at you. Silvestre Reyes is a congressman from TX 16….a heavily democratic border district encompassing El Paso. He”s Catholic and presents himself as pro-life..been in office since 96.

Here”s his "prolife" record

he supported the partial abortion ban, ban on transporting minors for abortion, the Hyde amendment, for conscience protections for nurses and pharmacists, to prevent the US govt. from discriminating against organizations that are opposed to abortion and for a human cloning ban. He supported Stupak.

This is way better than Pelosi.

on the other had he supported embryonic stem cell research, international family planning funding, emergency contraception at military bases and against a proposal that would have criminalized harming a fetus in the commission of a crime. He voted against banning abortions in military hospitals and for Obama care.

His NARAL rating in 30 out of a 100 which is classified by them as "prolife" while NRLC call his record "mixed prolife." This is at best a pretty weak prolife member, we can agree. His record strongly suggests support for abortion restrictions but refusal to ban the procedure outright. When push comes to shove on the question of whether abortion should remain legal, he”s functionally pro-choice. He”s been in Congress since 96. Does this constitute perseverance in grave sin, assuming he”s been admonished by his bishop or that he”s aware of the Church
s teaching?? This guy doesn”t show up on Sunday shows to try to challenge the USCCB like Pelosi but he”s not exactly a reliable member where prolifers are concerned. On the other hand this is a useful member as far as pro-lifers are concerned since votes of members like him have ensured support for things like tthe Hyde amemdment when Dems are in the majority. But would the USCCB really want to discipline such a member???

The question is not academic. There”s about two-3 dozen Catholics like him in Congress give or take a few votes and hundreds if not thousands of Catholics in local offices across the country whose views are pretty well known in their communities? Most Democrats though I”m sure there are some Repubs as well.

In fact coming up with uniform standards on this would be a disaster,so that, regardless of how fair the bishops tried to make it, it would seem arbitrary. Plus it would involve the USCCB in too much minutiae of weighing specific votes!!!
I just read this "speeding" analogy as understood by M Forrest and I can”t help but think the practical aspects of this..namely how it would work and how far it would go have not been very carefully thought through.

No doubt canon 915 (politicians) and "proportionate reasons" (everybody else) is something I will continue to emphasize so long as there is rampant confusion on these issues.

But what is "the truth on this topic"? It”s the fact that to receive Communion, one must (a) be in visible communion with the Church (simply put, they must be Catholic), and (b) be in invisible communion with the Church (i.e., what we call the "state of grace"). If either of those two elements are missing, the person has compounded the problem by committing the grave sin of sacrilege, and if the person happens to be a public figure, there”s also an element of scandal. In order to avoid this problem, one must not go to Communion until (a) (RCIA?) or (b) (repentance and sacramental Confession) is cleaned up.

Canonical penalties are necessary, but they”re secondary to people "getting" the above point.

And because (b) poses a problem for a lot of people, we can say the Church is de facto much smaller, because a significant percentage of the faithful have separated themselves from communion with the Church. I suppose if we push the point, a number of those people would outright leave the Church so that it would be de jure smaller, but as painful as that would be it would be better than having the boatload of sacriligious Communions that are going on out there on a weekly basis.

Of course the reason the bishops don”t want to take a stronger position nationally is based on the above factors you mention. And there”s some disagreement, I suppose to some extent legitimate, as to the most prudent discliplinary approach, so there is a lack of true consensus on the point. Really, disciplinary issues such as the enforcement of canon 915 are really up to the local Church. The reason why a statement from the national body would help on that (and why it”s not going to happen anytime soon) is because it would counter the misapplication of canon 915 in some dioceses. But the bishops don”t want to air their internal differences publicly, especially when most people and especially the media do not appreciate the underlying teaching and principles.

And disciplining politicians has necessary political overtones, and as you note many bishops have Democratic sympathies (though election by election that number decreases, imho). Plus there”s the USCCB office itself, which has on staff people (e.g., the CCHD crew) who are in bed with the liberal Democratic establishment.

So while that "beast" is still there, I just thought another more incremental remedy would be to focus on some teaching points so that the baseline understanding of all Catholics (and the culture at large) is increased. I think that would be "systemic" and would prepare a better soil for understanding any and all "Communion controversies" that no doubt will arise.

What do you think is keeping the bishops, as a body, from actively proclaiming the truth on this topic?

While I don”t believe it is a legitimate excuse, I think Petebrown is onto something in that the implications would be to point away from almost any democratic candidate in almost any election. From what I”ve read, I understand that a significant number of US bishops are lifelong Democrats. I also know that many parishes and RCIA programs are filled with pro-choice people, and it has been the practice of pastors to emphasize "conscience," in a distorted manner, with respect to the moral law. So, there is also a "sense" among the [perhaps un]faithful (NOT the [i]sensus fidelium[/i])that is is okay for Catholics to determine their own moral principles, even if they conflict with the faith that has been handed down.

You both make good points in your emphasis of a progressive approach; however, the statements of bishops have very little impact unless they are actualized at the parish level. Regular Catholics will likely view the communion controversy as a personal war between the bishop and the politician – and the bishop is often be seen as a bully.

The more I think about this, the more I see it as a systemic problem that requires a systemic solution. I can”t help but think back to Cardinal Ratzinger”s homily, just prior to the conclave, in which he suggested that the Church may need to become smaller.

I think some people today are shocked when they read what Vatican II actually had to say about that authority.

Lumen Gentium, Vatican II:

"Bishops who teach in communion with the Roman Pontiff are to be revered by all as witnesses of divine and Catholic truth; the faithful, for their part, are obliged to submit to their bishop’s decision, made in the name of Christ, in matters of faith and morals, and to adhere to it with a ready and respectful allegiance of mind.” #25

“The bishops, as vicars and legates of Christ, govern the particular Churches assigned to them…by the authority and sacred power which indeed they exercise exclusively for the spiritual development of their flock…This power, which they exercise personally in the name of Christ, is proper, ordinary and immediate…In virtue of this power bishops have a sacred right and a duty for the Lord of legislating for and of passing judgment on their subjects…

The pastoral charge, that is, the permanent and daily care of their sheep, is entrusted to them fully…for they exercise the power which they possess in their own right and are called in the truest sense of the term prelates of the people whom they govern.” #27

You wrote, "My idea of the "warning" for speeders would be to clearly lay the foundation: when one commits a grave sin, one should not present himself or herself for Communion until he or she is reconciled to the Church. Full-blown, public dissent from the Church on the issue of abortion (and surely there are plenty of other grave sins) requires reconciliation with the Church before going to Communion. "

I think Catholics have been given quite a lot of warning already, but I think you may be right that this is a logical, intermediate step, short of the full implementation of canon 915 – especially in light of obvious reluctance of many bishops to enforce it. And your course would certainly have a stronger catechetical "warning" effect than the status quo. Who knows, perhaps more bishops will eventually have had enough as some people inevitably continue to ignore such a teaching and choose draw a line in the sand.

I hope at least some of our bishops take your idea and run with it.