TRENTON, N.J. — In a year when pro-abortion Catholics in public offices have defied their bishops on the issue of receiving Communion, New Jersey Gov. James McGreevey's decision was a head-turner.

McGreevey said May 5 he would stop receiving Communion during Mass.

Newark, N.J., Archbishop John Myers published a pastoral letter that day asking Catholic voters and politicians opposed to fundamental Church teachings to refrain from Communion. Archbishop Myers reminded the faithful that “no one may share the Eucharist with us unless he believes that what we teach is true.”

The reception of the Eucharist also symbolizes the union one has with the whole Church, according to Archbishop Myers.

“To receive Communion when one has through public or private action separated oneself from the unity with Christ and his Church is objectively dishonest,” he said.

McGreevey, an Irish-Catholic Democrat who has been governor for three years, supports legal abortion and embryonic stem-cell research.

“Archbishop Myers felt that the governor was honest,” said James Goodness, spokesman for the archbishop, “and he respected that.” Goodness noted McGreevey's decision might have been one that had already been made privately during the past few years.

The issue of Catholic lawmakers ignoring Church teaching when they cast votes on legislation concerning life issues has been in the public eye at least since former New York Gov. Mario Cuomo said he is “personally opposed” to abortion but supports it because it is legal. The matter has been ratcheted up this year with the presidential candidacy of Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., a Catholic who supports abortion.

Bishops in the United States tend toward one of two camps: a small but growing group of bishops who have decided to refuse Communion to such politicians or who call upon these figures to voluntarily refrain from taking Communion, and another group who think refusing Communion is the wrong approach.

Bishop Howard Hubbard of Albany, N.Y., believes refusing Communion is not helpful.

“The role of the Church is to teach the sacredness of the life of the child within the womb and the importance of the life of the mother who is carrying the child,” said Father Kenneth Doyle, chancellor for public information in the Albany Diocese. “The Church tries to prompt a reasoned discussion about the relative rights of each. Refusing Communion might well put the focus instead on politicians and penalties and sidetrack the essential discussion.”

Furthermore, Father Doyle believes such a policy would be impracticable.

“How would you administer such a decision to refuse Communion — would you list all of the life issues and then decide on an appropriate passing percentage of ‘good votes’?” he asked.

Shepherds and Teachers

Others believe a blanket policy for all pro-abortion Catholic politicians would be impossible to carry out because of the individual differences among lawmakers.

“It's a question of prudence — what's the best way to handle these situations in a charitable way,” said Dennis Poust, spokesman for the New York State Catholic Conference, which lobbies lawmakers in Albany. “The primary role of the bishop is the salvation of souls. It's a balancing act — because any act can backfire. What works for one politician may not work for another.”

Poust noted that part of the bishops' role is to teach the faith.

“When a politician misrepresents Catholic teaching, bishops may be obligated to say something,” he said. “But it's a pastoral matter. I would suspect that public statements would only come after the public has been confused.”

Others think the real issue is not Communion per se.

“The broader and more important issue is: Can a Catholic in good conscience vote for someone who works flagrantly against Catholic teaching?” asked Austin Ruse, president of the Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute.

That issue was addressed by Bishop Michael Sheridan of Colorado Springs, Colo., who said in a May 1 pastoral letter to the people of his diocese that “any Catholics who vote for candidates who stand for abortion, illicit stem-cell research or euthanasia … place themselves outside full communion with the Church and so jeopardize their salvation.”

While an ad hoc committee of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, chaired by Washington, D.C., Cardinal Theodore McCar-rick, studies the issue and plans to release its conclusions after the fall elections, bishops have autonomy in their respective dioceses on the issue.

Blanket Policy?

Msgr. Gerald Murray, a canon lawyer in New York, pointed out that Canon 915 of the Code of Canon Law says that those who obstinately persist in “manifest grave sin” are to be refused Communion.

Before determining they are obstinately persisting, “ecclesiastical authorities have to make them aware of what they are doing,” Msgr. Murray said. “Some politicians act that way because they've had poor formation.”

Every document put out by the Holy See on issues of politicians and the sanctity of human life call it a “grave” sin whenever a politician votes for laws that directly attack human life.

Cardinal Francis Arinze, prefect for the Congregation of Divine Worship, told journalists in April that Catholic politicians who unambiguously support abortion should be refused Communion and that such politicians must not go to Communion.

Cardinal Arinze's statement “is not so much a direct order,” Florida-based canon lawyer Pete Vere said, “as it is revealing of the mind of our Holy Father. It is a glimpse into what he is thinking. The Holy Father is backing the decision of these bishops.”

Vere noted that a blanket policy that would refuse Communion to such politicians could be acceptable under canon law. However, such a policy would have to be carefully worded to differentiate between legislators who are “incrementalists” — those who are basically pro-life but who fight abortion through small steps even if they vote for a law that accepts some types of abortion — and legislators who are committed to keeping abortion legal.

“We don't want to shoot our allies,” he said.

A blanket policy, according to Vere, should specifically target lawmakers who are radically pro-abortion.

In Poust's view, McGreevey's decision could be a teaching moment.

“McGreevey made a wise decision by not bringing this issue to a head,” Poust said. “The ideal outcome is that the politician begins to realize that we aren't free to do evil. Hopefully this will lead some back to the Catholic Church.”

Sabrina Ferrisi writes from Jersey City, New Jersey.