From NCR’s Washington Notebook

Next, did Burke, a canon lawyer, act properly under church law? Hard to tell.

He employed Canon 915, which allows a bishop, in the name of quashing scandal and instructing the faithful, to deny communion to someone he determines is guilty of “manifest grave sin.” But Canon 915, because it represents a restriction on a right (in this case, the right to receive communion, found in Canon 912) must be interpreted narrowly.

Burke’s public “notification” is broadly written; it applies to all legislators in the Diocese of La Crosse. A canonical no-no? Perhaps. Those affected by Burke’s order, the “pro-choice” lawmakers, can appeal to Rome if they feel procedures have been abused.

Third, was Burke’s action theologically sound? Depends on whom you ask.

The burden is on the lawmakers, not the bishop, says Princeton University’s Robert George. “You are not fully in communion with the church if you have placed yourself on the side of so grave an injustice in the public realm thus denying to some members of the human family their basic human rights.” Burke, said George, is “making clear that [this] is a fundamental matter on which a pretense of unity will not be tolerated, cannot be tolerated.”

Burke’s way off base, counters Loyola Marymount theologian Michael Horan.

“From a pastoral theological perspective, this new policy, if made practice by the bishop toward individual Catholics, is more likely to cause scandal than the practice of the politicians themselves,” says Horan.

He continued: “The bishop’s point of view presumes that the Eucharist is a reward for good behavior. Interestingly, the only transgressions for which the early church communities practiced excommunication were adultery, apostasy and murder (of human beings already born). Abortion was not one of the transgressions that merited excommunication.”