An AP article on Catholic pols and Communion, featuring Archbishop Chaput:

As most of the nation’s 268 active Catholic bishops met for a private retreat this week in New Mexico, questions were building about how prominent their voices will be in the 2008 race.

Will some follow the example of Bishop Thomas Tobin of Providence, R.I., who last month called the pro-abortion rights position of Catholic GOP candidate Rudy Giuliani, "pathetic and confusing?" Will abortion dominate the bishops’ statements on the election, or will immigration and poverty?

Denver Archbishop Charles Chaput said in an interview with The Associated Press that official Catholic involvement depends on which candidates and issues emerge from primary season. A vocal proponent of calling on Catholic politicians and voters to follow church teachings, Chaput also made it clear he thinks the time for behind-the-scenes diplomacy with politicians is over.

"I personally think that anybody that is pro-choice as a Catholic is not being faithful to his Catholic identity, and I think that people who are Catholics, when they look at those issues, should take that into consideration when they vote," Chaput said before leaving for the retreat. "I didn’t name names last time, and I’m not going to name names this time. But I think if you study people’s history and their records, you know the people."

In 2004, scrutiny fell on Democrat John Kerry, a Catholic who supports abortion rights. Archbishop Raymond Burke of St. Louis did name names, saying he would deny Communion to Kerry. Several other bishops, Chaput included, stressed that politicians should refrain from the sacrament if they support abortion rights, which they consider a "foundational" issue.

Chaput helped craft a statement in summer 2004 that left the question of whether to deny Communion to an individual up to each bishop. Some bishops, Chaput said, felt pressured to take a stand after Burke’s comments and proposed that no one speak out on important issues without consulting the bishops as a group.

"I think a lot of folks just don’t want the pressure to explain themselves," Chaput said.

Chaput said his more aggressive posture grew partly out of frustration from his personal meetings with politicians, who often would just "look at you vacantly."

"I think being more aggressive, more assertive doesn’t in any way violate the principles we have to follow" under laws governing nonprofit involvement in politics, he said.

The most effective approach, Chaput argues, is educating Catholic voters, which in turn could influence politicians. However, if bishops conclude the major-party nominees in 2008 are "indifferent to the important issues … if everybody is taking the same negative position, perhaps there will be no motivation to talk about it at all," he said.

Given that scenario, Archbishop John Myers of Newark, N.J., said in an interview, "the principal involved is to try to figure out which of the candidates comes closest to the full gamut of Catholic teaching, in particular when you talk about the life issues _ which candidate is closer, if one is."

John Allen Jr., a senior correspondent for the independent National Catholic Reporter, said U.S. bishops who want to withhold Communion from Catholic politicians can find support in Pope Benedict XVI’s comments _ made to reporters en route to Brazil this year _ that essentially endorsed the idea that Mexican legislators who voted to legalize abortion have separated themselves from the church.

"If you are an American bishop who is inclined to move in that direction, you’re going to feel like the pope has got your back," Allen said.

The issues are varied and the distinctions somewhat fine. Bishops, it seems to me, must be wary of how they approach things. What is this about?

1) Is it about individuals and the Sacrament of Eucharist? In that case, the effort needs to be on clarifying what Catholic teaching and tradition is on that score for all of us. Which was the purpose of the document approved last fall Happy Are Those Called to His Supper (pdf).

Along this score, there needs to be clarity and honesty and historical integrity. The relatively small proportion of Catholics receiving Communion was a broad concern in the 20th century Church, and many efforts were made to remedy the situation – but the remedies were not pulling down the walls – the basic remedy you see as you read through accounts of the period – was encouraging frequent Confession and (beginning in the 1940’s)  easing the requirements of the pre-Communion fast.

The general point is that Catholicism and Orthodoxy have never been "open Communion" traditions – even interiorly. In the Early Church, the non-initiated were not even allowed to witness the Mysteries, and penance for serious, public sin always involved "ex-communication" in that sense – one was barred from receiving Eucharist for a period of months or even years.

The way this played out through the middle ages into the 20th century certainly had its problematic elements – on the way from the early Church to the modern period, something flipped. We went from having everyone at a Eucharist receiving Communion to hardly anyone receiving Communion to everyone receiving Communion again, but the circumstances and participants are radically different – which tells us that there trying to simply tranfer one practice from one era to the next just doesn’t work.

Which is what I mean by honesty and clarity and attention to history. A forthright discussion of this would be welcome – a discussion in which the politician issue would finally make sense.

2) Or is it about how politicians vote? Is the bishops’ purpose to stop Catholic politicians from voting for policies that contradict Church teaching? However those might be construed. Even though this seems simple at first, is it actually a real landmine,especially as bishops as individuals, as state conferences and as a national body get involved in political issues. State Catholic conferences regularly issue long laundry-lists of their evaluations of actions forthcoming in legislative sessions, never stating explicitly that anything is the church’s position or that Catholics are obliged to vote a certain way. Still, the proliferation of these kinds of statements does blur a line, and very easily lends itself to exploitation by parties on all sides. Further, you can’t say, "Church stay out of politics, then," because, you know, for most of its history, the Church has been involved in matters of society and state, in one way or another.

The other side, of course, is that faith is about life – not separate from it. What we do in whatever role we play in society is supposed to reflect our values as disciples of Jesus.

So..can there actually be a separation of Church and state for Catholic politicians? This is the other fundamental issue that is coming more and more into focus after decades of easy platitudes.

Not into clear focus, mind you.

I have always felt that the key thing bishops and other responsible Church parties (aka pastors) should be doing with these politicians is exactly what Bishop Tobin did. Just laying it all out, in plain and simple language and calling these folks on their illogic, sloppy thinking, and crass political motivations. Laying it out in public, laying it out in private. Understanding that these folks are first of all, politicians, and not buying into the tortured Catholic soul routine. Yeah, some in either party are tortured souls, but most live their political lives in the midst of a simple calculus, "If I endorse X, Group Y won’t give me money, I will be presented by the media as Z, and my chances of support from the national party for my future political life will be less than zero."

And as for the sacramental life? Again, that is up to individual pastors and bishops. But at the very least, refuse to be used for photo-ops, refuse to bestow honors or give platforms. Start there, preach and teach what the Eucharist is clearly, and see what happens. For all of us.