Has Arinze Settled the Communion Question?

Eve Tushnet points to this Get Religion post, which in turn links to a Life Site article (elephants, all the way down!) on Cardinal Arinze's comments on the question of whether pro-choice politicians can receive the Eucharist.

"The answer is clear. If a person says I am in favour of killing unborn babies whether they be four thousand or five thousand, I have been in favour of killing them. I will be in favour of killing them tomorrow and next week and next year. So, unborn babies, too bad for you. I am in favour that you should be killed, then the person turn around and say I want to receive Holy Communion. Do you need any Cardinal from the Vatican to answer that?"

Life Site (and I believe, though I can't be absolutely certain from what they've written, Get Religion and Ms. Tushnet as well) seems to believe that the Cardinal has finally and authoritatively ended the debate on whether politicians like John Kerry or Ted Kennedy can receive the Eucharist, and that the answer is no. Now, I think it's pretty clear that that's what Cardinal Arinze means, but I think, unfortunately, that his choice of words was such that his comments may have solved nothing and failed to meaningfully move the debate.

"If a person says I am in favour of killing unborn babies"
"I am in favour that you should be killed"

These phrases, I think, are the core problem with Arinze's comments. Nothing in them actually addresses those people over whom the controversy is being waged: pro-choice politicians who are "personally opposed" to abortion - Mario Cuomo and his heirs. This wasn't a fight over people who wholeheartedly endorsed abortion, or about ChiCom types who wanted to impose mandatory abortion. It was about politicians who believe (honestly, as far as I can tell, though, in my opinion, muddle-headedly) both that abortion is wrong and that it is not appropriate/legitimate for the state to outlaw it. Such people can still claim that they're not "in favor" of abortion, and that therefore Cardinal Arinze's admonitions don't apply to them, and keep on presenting themselves for communion.

To be clear: I have a tremendous amount of admiration for Cardinal Arinze. If I were the Holy Spirit (and, for a host of reasons, let's be thankful I'm not!) I'd make him the next pope. I'm not sure if the problem is caused by imprecise wording, or if the Cardinal is confused about the specifics of the debate in the church in America. I don't think Cardinal Arinze was trying to carve out a "personally opposed, but" exception. I'm quite sure that he meant, or would have meant, if he had understood the specifics of the issue on which he was being asked to comment, something like:

"It isn't enough to affirm a belief in the wrongness of abortion. There is an affirmative obligation to work, commensurate with one's powers, for an end to abortion. For elected officials this means, among other things, working for the repeal of laws permitting abortion (or the imposition of laws restricting or forbidding abortion) since a legal framework that permits abortion is unjust because it removes the protection of the law from one group of people (the unborn) simply because of their degree of development. To the extent that a politician opposes or fails to support such moves, he must do so for reasons that are proportionate to the evil that would otherwise be prevented. To the extent that his reasons are insufficient, he becomes implicated in the grave evil of abortion. If he does so with full knowledge and deliberate consent, he falls into a state of mortal sin, and cannot receive the Eucharist without committing the sin of sacrilege. Bishops and clergy should counsel such politicians, and, if they remain obstinate in their position, should withhold the Eucharist from them."

(Obviously, the Cardinal would be a great deal pithier.) Whether one agrees with it or not (I do, but I understand not all of my readers do) that is, I think, a fair summary of the Church's position on this particular issue. That said, until we actually get a statement like that out of someone at Cardinal Arinze's level or higher, it's at least premature and arguably counterproductive to behave as if we have, and the issue's been settled.