Professor Bainbridge...on law, politics, religion, culture & food

Giuliani’s Marriage and the Church

A few days ago, I noted that Pope Benedict XVI's aggressive posture on Catholic politicians who depart from Church teachings potentially presented problems for both "(a) Catholic Democratic candidates who support abortion rights and (b) Republican Catholic candidates who support the war in Iraq." As for Rudy Giuliani, of course, he potentially has problems on both scores. A long expose in the Village Voice, however, points out that Giuliani has an even more serious problem viz-a-viz the Church:

Married three times, Giuliani simply isn't the Catholic candidate he claims to be. He can't have a confessor. He can't receive the sacraments of penance, the Eucharist, or marriage. While bishops disagree about whether or not a Catholic politician who supports abortion rights can receive the sacraments, there is no disagreement about the consequences of divorcing and remarrying outside the church, as Giuliani did a few years ago.  ...

"Any Catholic who remarries without annulment" assumes an "irregular status" within the church, says Monsignor Joseph Giandurco, who until recently was the canon-law expert at the seminary run by the Archdiocese of New York. Also a judge on the appeals court of the archdiocese's marriage tribunal and a canon-law adviser to Cardinal Edward Egan, Giandurco declined to answer questions about Giuliani individually, but speaking in general terms about someone with Giuliani's marital history, Giandurco added: "The marriage is not recognized by the church, and the person cannot receive communion or confession. He's not supposed to play a public role in the church." While a baptized Catholic is "Catholic forever," says Giandurco, a remarriage "breaks the covenant and objectively contradicts what the marriage bond signifies."  ...

John Kerry, a Catholic whose prior marriage was annulled, was dogged by controversy about his abortion position during his 2004 run for president, with a dozen prelates publicly insisting that he could not receive communion. That led to the National Conference of Catholic Bishops adopting a position paper on "Catholics in Political Life" that left it up to individual bishops to make a determination in their diocese. What went largely unnoticed in the press, however, was an interim task force report written by Cardinal Theodore McCarrick of Washington, D.C., that June. McCarrick cited his exchanges with Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI.

"Cardinal Ratzinger outlines how a bishop might deal with these matters," said McCarrick, starting with efforts to inform such persons privately "that if they reject Catholic moral teaching in their public actions, they should not present themselves for Holy Communion until their situation has ended." Most significantly for Giuliani, Ratzinger used "the precedent of our teaching and practice in the case of a person in an invalid marriage" as his guide as to what should be done with a Catholic politician who is pro-choice. According to McCarrick, Ratzinger specifically characterized an invalid marriage as "circumstances in which Holy Communion may be denied" and likened it to abortion, making Giuliani a two-time target. Ratzinger said that "in these cases, a warning must be provided before the Eucharist can be denied."

Does this mean a Catholic voter shouldn't vote for Rudy? I discussed the obligations of Catholic voters in a 2004 post entitled Catholic Voting, in which I came down on the side of Oregon Archbishop Vlazny, whose statement on the reception of communion by pro-choice candidates and those who vote for them opined that pro-choice candidates and those who vote for them because of their pro-choice views should refrain from receiving the Eucharist. In contrast, the Archbishop says that those who vote for a pro-choice candidate despite the candidate's pro-choice position should not refrain:

Should Catholics who choose to vote for pro-choice politicians refrain from reception of the Holy Communion? If they vote for them precisely because they are pro-choice, I believe they too should refrain from the reception of Holy Communion because they are not in communion with the Church on a serious matter. But if they are voting for that particular politician because, in their judgment, other candidates fail significantly in some matters of great importance, for example, war and peace, human rights and economic justice, then there is no evident stance of opposition to Church teaching and reception of Holy Communion seems both appropriate and beneficial.

Presumably nobody would vote for Guiliani because he is out of communion with the Church due to the irregular status of his marriage. Catholics who wish to vote for Rudy because of his stand on substantive issues and/or because the positions of other candidates are unacceptable should be free to do so. Yet, surely Giuliani's irregular marital status is a relevant consideration. It goes to questions of character and judgment.