A story from the St. Louis paper on the politicians/Communion business.

Since I’ve not read any full statement on this issue, it’s hard to comment, but I’ll suggest offhand that the problem with the bishops’ present "stance" is that it utterly fails to challenge the politicians in question.

I agree, actually that a blanket "statement" from the USCCB on who and who shouldn’t receive Communion in this regard would be a least favorite option, partly because I believe that the USCCB should issue as few "blanket statements" as possible. I share Benedict’s skepticism about these bodies (isn’t that nice of me) because I believe that they have the power to create an episcopal culture in which bishops, rightly or wrongly, feel even more hamstrung in carrying out their duties than they even normally do. These national bishops’ conferences are an innovation, which doesn’t make them bad, but does, as theologians have acknowledged and discussed over the years, rendered them an ecclesiogical muddle unlike, say, synods, which have an ancient history in the Church, and plenary councils which have their own history as well.

And those of us who rail constantly about the uselessness and heavy-handedness and damage that the USCCB does in terms of church life in the US might want to remember our complaints when we then turn and demand that the USCCB issue a policy in this regard.

But the issue could be addressed in another way than what has been concluded here. It could have been addressed in a way that challenged politicians to be faithful, to explicitly lay out the moral dimensions in question and to clearly say that if you’re publicly defying Church teaching and weirdly flaunting your Catholic faith in the process, you might want to expect a chat with your bishop and the statement would encourage the bishops to do so.

There’s another way between a national policy and a statement that we have, which seems, from what I’ve read to actually discourage bishops from doing anything because it then puts the bishops who don’t do anything in an uncomfortable position.

See what I mean about tying hands?

There is all this blather, from some bishops and elsewhere about not wanting to "politicize the Eucharist."

Sorry, bub, but’s it been done, and it’s not the bishops who challenge politicians on this score who are doing it – it’s the politicians who are being given permission to do two things:

1) to use their Catholic faith as a political calling card in any number of different ways

2) to function as ad hoc, very public catechists about what it means to be Catholic. Remember Boston Mayor Menino’s idiocies he uttered last year, unchallenged by anyone who’s actually charged with teaching the faith in the Archdiocese of Boston?

And now, we have this Missouri politician who has this to say:

The news of Burke’s letters to Wisconsin politicians hit newspapers just after Pope John Paul II named Burke archbishop of St. Louis. At the time, Missouri Auditor Claire McCaskill, a Roman Catholic who supports abortion rights, was running for the Democratic nomination for governor against incumbent Gov. Bob Holden.

"I don’t want to prejudge the bishop," McCaskill said at the time. "I look forward to his arrival. I am praying for his leadership, and I hope he will pray for me."

McCaskill is now running for U.S. Senate, and the stakes are higher for Burke because of a Missouri ballot proposal to protect all forms of embryonic stem-cell research allowed under federal law.

McCaskill, who is a member of St. Gerard Majella parish in Kirkwood, said in an interview that she had not had any communications from him. She repeated her hope that Burke prayed for her and said she prays for him each Sunday. But McCaskill said she "hasn’t dwelled on" a possible confrontation with Burke.

"I worry more about staying true to my faith than I do about receiving a letter from the archbishop," she said.

God forbid any ordained minister of the Catholic Church charged with passing on the faith publicly correct this woman.

That might make some other bishop somewhere else feel as if he’s not doing his job.

Can’t have that.