c. 1998 Religion News Service

(Andrew M. Greeley is a Roman Catholic priest, best-selling novelist and a sociologist at the University of Chicago National Opinion Research Center. Check out his home page at http://www.agreeley.com or contact him via e-mail at agreel(at)aol.com.)

UNDATED _ The Roman Catholic Church isn’t very good at explaining itself. Consider the recent mess some of its leaders have made in trying to account for (and condemn) the African priest who gave the Eucharist to President Clinton.

Two questions. Why does the church forbid the Eucharist to baptized Protestants? And why do some priests make exceptions to this rule?

First of all, the ban is church law, not divine law. It could be changed tomorrow, though that does not seem too likely.

The reason for the rule is that the Eucharist symbolizes, among other things, the unity of the faithful. Despite ecumenical progress, that unity has yet to be achieved.

Those who advocate a change in the rule argue that enough unity has been achieved, and that inter-communion is now a prayer for more unity.

It is, however, the law. Why then is it not on some occasions enforced?

It ought not be too difficult for church leaders to explain the differences between Roman law (on which church law is based) and Anglo-Saxon law (on which the American legal system is based).

Roman law knows exceptions. Anglo-Saxon law does not. Both must contend with exceptional situations. The former does so by permitting the exercise of discretion by the one bound by the law. The latter does so by permitting discretion by those who enforce the law.

Thus police will not arrest a man who breaks the speed limit driving a sick child to the hospital. He has broken the law but in this case the law will not be enforced.

Catholics who on a Friday in Lent visit a home where beef Wellington is being served can eat the meat lest they embarrass their host and hostess. They have not broken the law. Rather, they have excused themselves from it for a “grave” reason.

Thus, routinely in our times do priests, including bishops and cardinals, give Holy Communion to baptized Protestants and Orthodox Christians who present themselves at the altar. Many priests have pushed the envelope to invite Protestants and Orthodox at funerals and mixed marriages to receive the Eucharist. The priest who invited the Clinton party to the altar merely pushed the exception envelope a little further, apparently with the support of a new set of guidelines for these situations developed by the South African hierarchy.

Why all the outcry? The Catholics who complained to New York’s Cardinal John J. O’Connor surely have attended weddings and funerals where something like this happened. Some of them undoubtedly saw TV clips 15 years ago when the Reagans received the Eucharist, though technically that president was a “lapsed” Catholic in a marriage the church would consider invalid.

There was no outcry then. Are there different rules for Republicans?

My hunch is that the outrage over the current president’s participation in the Eucharist was not about a Protestant receiving Catholic communion. The fury came from Clinton-bashing Catholic conservatives who think the president is a notorious public sinner who should be barred from the Eucharist even if he were Catholic.

They apparently did not understand the scriptural reading of the Sunday in question in which Jesus said that the one without sin should throw the first stone. Nor do they understand the dictum “judge not that you be not judged.”

Many of them were all too willing to throw the first stone and run the risk of being judged. Holy Week is the week above all others when Christians should strive to reflect God’s compassionate and forgiving love.

Again we’ve made a mess of it. We have permitted the hard, judgmental and unforgiving right to set the agenda for us. We have denounced an African priest because he made a prudential decision in the context of the situation, the customs, the culture, and, it would appear, even the guidelines of his own environment.

Without nuance or qualification, we have insisted that the law of New York and Philadelphia must apply even in Africa _ even though exceptions are often made to law in our own dioceses.

IR END GREELEY