The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
PDF versionPoliticizing Communion harms interests of the church
Mar. 26, 2009
It was only a few decades ago that no one questioned a fellow Catholic’s decision either to receive or not to receive the Eucharist. This tradition has been slowly and regrettably compromised over the past 20 years. Holy Communion has become, in some circles, a political football.
The trend is unmistakable:
- The vice president of the United States was told by the bishop of his native city that he should not present himself for Communion there. The full body of the U.S. bishops at its general meeting in November 2007 approved an election guide called “Faithful Citizenship” intended for all U.S. Catholics. However, the bishop of the vice president’s diocese said he did not regard it as “official.”
- A former Republican official is circulating a petition among Catholics urging all bishops to bar Gov. Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas, President Obama’s nominee to head the Department of Health and Human Services, from receiving Communion in every diocese in the country, including Washington.
- Most recently, disturbing statements have been made severely criticizing the archbishop of Washington and the bishop of Arlington, Va., because they refuse to politicize the Eucharist. A few individuals claiming to be “courageous and dedicated Catholics” have publicly criticized these two fine shepherds for allegedly violating their responsibilities to respect the sanctity of holy Communion. How disappointing it is when there is every appearance that the motives of those criticizing these bishops are political.
I’ve had some personal experience with those who question the motives instead of the ideas of their political opponents.
---------------------
Column by Dr. Clarissa Pinkola Estes: Political Catholicism vs. Christ’s Catholicism
---------------------
In the early stages of the 2008 presidential election, a few of us noticed the bitter tones being used by some Catholics to describe several prominent candidates. They were openly referred to as “baby killers.” A friend and I coauthored a statement on civility, which called on both sides of the partisan aisles to be frank, candid and forceful in their analysis of the candidates, emphasizing, however, that a respectful tone ought to be used in presenting their findings in the public square.
The statement was warmly greeted by many, though my wife Margaret (who authored a book on Pope John Paul II) and I were publicly informed by one rabid partisan that we were “damned to hell” for advocating civility in the discussion of these issues.
NCR: February 3-16, 2012
Subscribe to NCR to get all the news and special features that aren't always available online. In this issue:
- US News: Bishops Host Conference on Immigration
Conference fields advocates' questions on law, policy
- Special Section: Deacons. Serving as parish administrator; roles of wives; and more
- Study: Black Catholics are more engaged
New study by Notre Dame researcher about parish involvement in America
I fear that the situation is getting out of control. Many had hoped that once the presidential elections took place, Republicans, especially Catholic Republicans, would practice engagement with the Obama administration and those on the other side of the political aisle — that we would present our ideas without the rabid emotionalism that serves only to question the integrity of our opponents. Our role, in the best traditions of a pluralistic democracy, would be that of the loyal opposition.
Pope Benedict XVI modeled this sort of behavior when he met in mid-February with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a Catholic who favors abortion rights. The Holy Father spoke clearly and candidly in calling the Speaker’s attention to the responsibilities of Catholic public officials to support Catholic teachings on life. There was no mention of not being allowed to receive Communion.
Likewise, when Benedict visited the United States last year, a few partisan activists wanted the Holy Father to forbid a select few Catholic members of Congress who attended the papal Mass from receiving the Eucharist. That, of course, did not occur.
As a lifelong Republican, I am concerned by the actions of a few party activists who claim that the Republican Party is the only party appropriate for Catholics. Their method has been to involve a few Catholic prelates in criticizing Democratic candidates. This small group of lay Catholic Republicans is actively campaigning to pressure the bishops with petitions to ban certain high Democratic officials from receiving Communion. This is not their responsibility.
Bishops, like all citizens, have the right and duty to engage in public debate on all issues. But the activity of a very few is harming the influence of a majority of bishops who are seeking to engage the opposition in a civil manner. When these actions are combined with those of a few lay Catholics who use the church’s teachings to achieve political goals, it harms the long-term interests of the church.
I suggest that we carefully study and follow the official position of the U.S. Catholic bishops as pronounced in their November 2007 statement on “Faithful Citizenship.”
Further, I urge all American Catholics to look to the inspiration of Pope John Paul II. The Holy Father was very clear on the teachings of the church when it came to the life issues and to questions of marriage. He was, however, never uncivil or negative in describing individuals who were not following the teachings of Christ in these matters.
He set a high standard for civility and human decency. It is one we should all aim to emulate.
Dr. Thomas Patrick Melady is the former U.S. ambassador to the Vatican. He was also ambassador to Burundi and Uganda. The president emeritus of Sacred Heart University in Fairfield, Conn., he also served in the administrations of three Republican presidents.
The companion essay to this commentary is Civility, respect should be our aim by Nicholas P. Cafardi .
I agree with the good doctor.
I agree with the good doctor. Hearts and minds are never changed by rancorus debate, isolation or arrogance.They are changed with patience, good example and civil discourse. The basic platform for change is mutual respect and concern for the common good of all people. But most of all respect for life in all its forms.. And respect for one another..Even though we disagree.
"The term `pro-choice' is
"The term `pro-choice' is obsolete,"
Please see: http://pewforum.org/news/display.php?NewsID=16664
What Makes Liberals and
What Makes Liberals and Conservatives Angry? Abortion Reduction
by John Gehring and Simone Campbell 03-25-2009
http://blog.sojo.net/2009/03/25/what-makes-liberals-and-conservatives-an...
When both the Left and Right begin sharpening their knives, it means you are on to something. This new threat raising the hackles of liberals and conservatives still hunkered down in culture-war bunkers? It’s a movement focused on comprehensive strategies to reduce abortions by providing economic supports for vulnerable women and preventing unintended pregnancies. A chorus of critics across the ideological spectrum has lined up to malign these common-ground efforts with all the righteous zeal of those who make the perfect the enemy of the good.
Liberal bloggers slam Catholics and evangelicals working on this approach as radical “anti-choice” hardliners cozying up to the Religious Right. Religious conservatives denounce the effort as a betrayal of faith and question research that finds abortions decline when women have quality health care and access to robust social services. The National Right to Life Committee starkly dismisses common ground on abortion as the “burial ground.” The Pro-Life Action League mocks it as a “sellout.”
While these reactions run the gambit from the predictable to the absurd, they share a scorched-earth rhetorical style and an absolutist devotion to hardened agendas. If politics is the art of the possible, these common-ground naysayers seem more comfortable defending turf and demonizing opponents than seizing a unique political moment when pro-choice and pro-life public officials are finally doing more than exploiting abortion as a “wedge issue” to divide voters and win elections.
Indeed, the time is ripe to end the abortion stalemate. President Barack Obama has made abortion reduction a priority of his Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. In Congress, pro-life Rep. Tim Ryan has joined pro-choice Rep. Rosa DeLauro to co-sponsor the Reducing the Need for Abortion and Supporting Parents Act. Sen. Bob Casey Jr. and Sen. Lincoln Davis introduced the Pregnant Women Support Act, legislation that helps expectant mothers with prenatal health care, nutrition support, and other critical programs. At a time of grave economic crisis, it’s more essential than ever that we reject the false divide between social justice and pro-life advocacy. Policies that help put Americans back to work, ensure families have affordable health care, and strengthen fraying social safety nets also lower the abortion rate, which is more than four times higher for women living in poverty than for women earning 300 percent above the poverty line.
Citizens weary of abortion politics as usual are hungry for a breakthrough. A post-election poll conducted by Public Religion Research found that most voters — including 81% of Catholics and 86% of white evangelicals — believe elected officials should work across party lines to increase economic support for vulnerable women, expand adoption opportunities, and prevent unintended pregnancies. While these are positive trends, hard work remains. Secular progressives who view access to abortion as a fundamental right and many religious Americans who believe it is a profound threat to the sanctity of life must still reach across bitter divides with courage and humility.
Winning hearts and minds in a democracy demands more than fiats or fist-shaking. As Roman Catholic Bishop Blase Cupich of South Dakota cautioned his fellow bishops at a national meeting, a “prophecy of denunciation quickly wears thin.” Religious Americans can maintain a prophetic spirit that speaks truth to power while at the same time engaging in dialogue and responding pragmatically to social and political realities. Those who make an idol of “choice” as the ultimate virtue must recognize that choice without responsibility is a false freedom. In an instant-gratification culture that objectifies women and divorces sex from loving relationships, pro-choice advocates can also acknowledge that cultivating greater reverence for the dignity of sexual intimacy is as important as promoting contraception. It’s also a mistake to dismiss all pro-lifers as reactionary fundamentalists aligned with conservative political orthodoxy. This only perpetuates stereotypes, undermines potential alliances, and alienates the majority of religious Americans who recognize that the moral wisdom of faith traditions defies easy political labels. If those on opposing sides of this polarizing issue embrace a spirit of greater humility, compassion, and critical introspection, enemies become potential allies and old assumptions fade away.
Comprehensive efforts to reduce abortions are a cause for hope that the pro-life and pro-choice communities should embrace. After more than three decades of political paralysis and legal gridlock, the time has come to break new ground.
John Gehring is a senior writer for Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good.
Simone Campbell, an attorney and Sister of social service, is the executive director of NETWORK, a National Catholic Social Justice Lobby.
While coping with the anger
While coping with the anger and disgust prompted by the fraudulent faith based motivation of the last eight years in the Whitehouse,a year long discovery of Catholic Social Teaching and its blueprint for life from conception to death resulted in profound respect for my faith. Severe doubt, however, about the short term future of the church, is unavoidable as long as there are bishops and some catholic fundamentalist laity determined that its Catholic Social Justice remain one of its best kept secrets. With the leadership of people like John Gehring and Simone Campbell we just might yet discover a light at the end of the tunnel.
Let's legalize car theft
Let's legalize car theft since it happens so much anyhow and some one could get hurt or killed trying to steal a car or stop it from being stolen. Then because it is such a great thing, we need to reduce the number of car thefts by social programs. As the Devil said in the Garden, "surley God didn't mean..." The confusion continues.
The difficulty with the
The difficulty with the common ground approach is they always fail to correctly understand what the pro abortion folks are really saying. The old Soviet Union used to go on about the importance of negotiations until it became clear they really meant; we need to negotiate about what is yours while touching nothing of what is ours. So, we have the above writer talking about how Obama is commited to reducing the number of abortions, never pointing out how he has done everthing in his power, so far, to make abortions easier to obtain. The common ground project may, indeed, result in a decline in the number of abortions. But, I suspect if the Nazi's offered to kill only 5 million people in the camps instead of 6 million; we wouldn't have been too impressed.
AMEND CANON LAW 915 HERE IS A
AMEND CANON LAW 915
HERE IS A TEST FOR POPE BENEDICT AND BISHOP BURKE.
Will THEY AMEND CANON LAW 915 to
"PUNISH" SINFUL/PEDOPHILE PRIESTS WHO OFFER HOLY MASS?
The Apostle Paul said, "Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils; ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and the table of devils (I Corinthians 10:21).
The person presenting himself/herself must be worthy to take Holy Communion.
Paul instructs, "Wherefore, whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of Christ", (I Corinthians 11:29). And "For he/she that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body"
(I Corinthians 11:29).
Consequently, prior to participating in Holy Communion one is to examine himself/herself, spiritually, to see if he/she is truly in the faith and is free from sin. According to Scriptures, it is essential that one conduct a personal, inner proving of himself to see if he is walking in submission to God and that he truly appreciates and remembers the death of Christ, which Holy Communion commemorates.
If a person would take Holy Communion unworthily two things result: (1) he/she is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, and (2) he/she eateth and drinketh damnnation to himself.
Canon law addresses this in 915.
Ofcourse, Canon Law 915 is SILENT on the "SINFUL PRIEST' like the PEDOPHILE PRIESTS who kept on celebrating Holy Mass and giving Communion even while they kept "SODOMIZING" the young ALTAR BOYS.
Will POPE BENEDICT and BISHOP BURKE amend the CANON LAW 915 to "PUNISH" the PRIESTS who offer the SACRIFICE of the HOLY MASS while continuing to LIVE in SIN?
Of course, you MUST be
Of course, you MUST be referring to the homosexual priests who victimize young men, right?
Pederastry is not confined to
Pederastry is not confined to one sexual preferance or another. It usually relates to how one was victimized. Otherwise heterosexuals have been known to victimize boys.
No, I do not agree with
No, I do not agree with changing Canon Law 915.
An unworthy priest is committing another grave sin just as a unworthy lay person who receives the Body and Blood of our Lord, Jesus Christ.
If and when the sins of the Priest becomes public information, then we have the sin of scandal which in itself is a grave sin. At this point, his Bishop should have already removed him from his post. This is the way we should be treating all Catholics. Once their grave sins are made public and they refuse to amend their ways, we do them a favor by denying them communion so that the sin of sacrilege and scandal may be avoided.
Ah, Thomas Schraad, and do
Ah, Thomas Schraad, and do you believe that we should go back to the days and laws of the Puritans---and print Scarlet Letters on people---that trumphet their sins?
In the early Church, there was NO sacrament of Reconciliation (Penance). St. Augustine---committed so many sins that he would never be permitted to receive Communion (if he were living today and if he was judged by the sanctimonious standards expressed by a number of folks here). But he did receive the Eucharist (which was the first sacrament of healing and forgiveness after baptism). And Augustine was healed and forgiven his many, many grave sins.
Nobody should be denied the Eucharist! Jesus is the Divine Physician who heals and forgives sinners. And Jesus, in the Eucharist, doesn't need to be protected from sinners (even grave sinners). He didn't spare himself to die on the Cross or to give himself in the Eucharist to grave sinners (death on the cross and immolation in the Eucharist---one and the same).
Canon Law should be reviewed every 25 years to see that it is performing as it is supposed to---that is, to better articulate the common good for the people of God of that generation. Laws are ordinances of reason----if their reasonableness belongs to another era, does not speak to the people of that generation, then the law (not the people) should be scrutizned and changed. Canon law exists for the people, not the people for Canon Law!
You can do away with the
You can do away with the Canon Law, but the scriptures remain.
If you eat and drink the Body and Blood of Christ in a state of grave sin you eat and drink your own condemnation, canon law or no.
Unless a person actually
Unless a person actually intentionally kills another person, born or preborn, there is no grave sin.
Paul's letter to the
Paul's letter to the Galatians disagrees with you.
Let me just say that in reply
Let me just say that in reply to another article a similar expert to yourself asserted that if I were a Catholic and were to accidentally kill someone, I would have no need for the Sacrament of Reconciliation.
Needless to say, I find it incredibly interesting how the very conservative members of the Catholic Church claim to know it all all the time and leave no room for others to contemplate, communicate with God, draw conclusions, and offer other perspectives.
Too bad I cannot put you two conservatives in touch with one another and let you battle it out directly.
Hmm, I think I misunderstood
Hmm, I think I misunderstood your original post.
What I thought you meant was this: Murder is the only serious sin.
What you seem to be saying: Accidental death is not the sin of murder.
If this is the case, sorry for the misunderstanding. ;-)
Not only is accidental death
Not only is accidental death not the sin of murder, but not making abortion illegal is also not the sin of murder. Furthermore, expressing an opinion is also not the sin of murder, even if one opines that murder is sometimes justified.
Excluding politicians from communion hurts the Church's mission more than it helps the politician in question's opponents. It gives the impression that the Church considers its purpose to be the consignment of souls to hell, when its mission is supposed to be spreading the Good News of salvation to all.
Marie, I didnot intend to say
Marie,
I didnot intend to say that if you accidentally killed someone that you would have no need of confession, but that accidentally killling someone would not require confession. You might be in need of confession for some other reason, I wouldn't know.
In fact, you yourself stated: Unless a person actually intentionally kills another person, born or preborn, there is no grave sin.
So you agree with me.
And why would the actual intentional killing of a pre-born baby not be a grave sin, objectively speaking?
It is a grave sin. I agree
It is a grave sin. I agree completely with that point. However, it is not necessary for it to be a crime in order for it to be a grave sin. This is where you and I come into disagreement, I think. The idea that a politician who does not make abortion illegal is guilty of an ongoing grave sin is taking things too far in my opinion.
Not only does the politician's personal opinion on abortion never come up as a reason women give for having chosen an abortion, but neither has any woman ever said she had an abortion simply because it was legal. It would only be valid to blame legality and politicians for abortion if every woman responded to the positive results of a pregnancy test by considering abortion ("Hmm, what does my Senator think I should do with this baby?" or "There is an abortion clinic in my town, maybe I should have this baby, which I want, removed because I can").
You know that would be nonsensical. Likewise, I think it is nonsensical to deprive people of communion in the Catholic Church because of their opinion as to whether abortion should be made a crime.
An excommunication would last
An excommunication would last only as long as the person remained unrepentant. Once people repent and have fulfilled the requirements (sacramental Confession, etc.) they would be welcomed to the sacraments again.
Our US legal system imposes sentences of a certain amount of time in prison; the Church says only that those who commit certain actions are to be refused the sacraments (except Confession) only until they repent.
The politicians who vote for loosening of abortion laws, those who make it easier for people to kill innocent human beings, are causing confusion and giving scandal to Catholics and non-Catholics alike. The Church has the authority to refuse the Eucharist to those who are public sinners and heretics, to protect not only the Eucharist but to protect and help the sinners.
.....and Jesus said, "Let
.....and Jesus said, "Let those who are without sin cast the first stone."
Let the Bishops work this out
Let the Bishops work this out as successors of the Apostles that is their duty. I for one, cannot confect a Eucharist. Pray for our Bishops! This Sacrament is the source and summit of catholic life. This is the true body and blood soul and divinity of Jesus Christ, God come in the flesh. Assist at a Mass for the intentions of our Bishops soon! Grace and peace with prayers always in Christ...
Out to get Joe Biden and
Out to get Joe Biden and Nancy Pelossi
I wonder how many of the bishops who are out to get Nancy Pelossi and Joe Biden understand the meaning of the words:
"Lamb of God who takes away the Sins of the World."
In the Church of these "CANON LAW" Bishops
(their numbers seems to grow as the Pope grows older!)
they are forming a new school of "SELF-RIGHTEOUS" "PHARISAICAL" "IMMACULATELY CONCEIVED" "PREFERABLY IRISH CATHOLIC" BISHOPS
who are so eager to get the attention of ROME,
so that they will be appointed the NEXT CARDINALS to fill the posts vacated by the RETIRING CARDINALS.
IT is time the HOLY FATHER lowers the age of RETIREMENT OF BISHOPS TO SEVENTY
Psalms 90: 9-10 "Our life ebbs away under your wrath; our years end like a sigh. Seventy is the sum of our years, or eighty, if we are strong; Most of them are sorrow and toil; they pass quickly, we are all but gone."
It is time too that Cardnals be "ELECTED" by the bishops instead of being appointed by ROME, just as the Pope is elected by the CARDNALS.
On Tuesday, March 17, 2009
On Tuesday, March 17, 2009 the Pew Research Center's Forum on Religion & Public Life invited Archbishop Chaput, who was appointed by Pope John Paul II in 1997 and who is the first Native American archbishop to be ordained in the U.S.
Here is an excerpt:
The Political Obligations of Catholics: A Conversation With the Most Rev. Charles Chaput, Archbishop of Denver
http://pewforum.org/events/?EventID=213
For believing Catholics, the Eucharist is not a symbol, or rather, it’s enormously more than a symbol. It’s the literal, tangible body and blood of Jesus Christ. Since the earliest days of the Christian community, honest believers have never wanted to and have never been allowed to approach the Eucharist in a state of grave sin or scandal. Saint Paul said that if we do that, we profane the body and blood of Christ, and we eat and drink judgment upon ourselves.
In other words, we commit a kind of blasphemy against God and violence against our own integrity and the faith of other believers. There’s nothing casual about this kind of sin, and the American notion of civil rights is useless and flatly wrong in trying to understand it. No one ever has a right to the Eucharist, and the vanity or hurt feelings of an individual Catholic governor or senator or even vice president does not take priority over the faith of the believing community.
Blasphemy and violence are unpleasant words in polite conversation. But for believers they have substance. They also have implications beyond this lifetime. That’s why no Catholic, from the simplest parishioner to the most important public leader, should approach communion with grave sin on his soul. The media have no obligation to believe what the church teaches, but they certainly do have the obligation to understand, respect and accurately recount how she understands herself, and especially how she teaches and why she teaches.
****************************************************************************
Question: Does the Catholic Church have a Canon Law that defines whether a Priest living in SIN (e.Pedophile Priests) can offer Mass?
Please cite the Canon Law that allows a Priest LIVING in an Habitual state of Sin (like the Pedophile Priests shielded by Cardinal Law) is permitted to offer Mass.
Dominus Vobiscum
Newman warned against the
Newman warned against the substitution of good manners and "civility" for serious engagement with the truth. "A gentleman is one who never hurts". {Which cuts out doctors and dentists].
The point of the discussion is that those who support abortion - directly or indirectly [by not acting it] - eat and drink damnation to themselves when they receive communion in a state of sin. If a man were an obvious murderer - say he just shot someone in the church - would it be wrong to deny him communion?
I couldn't agree more.
I couldn't agree more. Denial of communion is as much for the soul of the recipient as for those who might infer Church approval of abortion by allowing reception of the Eucharist.
God bless,
Dan
And truly even more so for
And truly even more so for those who pleasure in it so, and then there is that sin and near occasion of sin...
Who are you to judge Dan? Do
Who are you to judge Dan? Do you have total knowledge of the mind of God? If you refer to Corinthians - fine. Then find me a passage that addresses abortion in the New Testament! The link between non receiving communion and bringing condemnation is by people ignoring the needs of others and those who cause divisions in the Church. Do you think your comment brings unity or division? To be faithful to the New Testament Dan, you might reflect on the entire narrative found in 1 Cor. 11. Perhaps then you can protect your own soul.
"Then find me a passage that
"Then find me a passage that addresses abortion in the New Testament!"
Why does there have to be a passage in the New Testament, or even in the Bible?
"Do you think your comment brings unity or division? To be faithful to the New Testament Dan, you might reflect on the entire narrative found in 1 Cor. 11. Perhaps then you can protect your own soul."
It's analogous to claiming "Peace, peace," when there is no peace. A Potemkin village "unity" is no unity at all. The term you are looking for is "communion," and people who can't agree that snuffing the unborn or partially born is evil can never be in communion, no matter how much the unity pharisees pretend otherwise. There is no more clapped-out rhetorical sleight of hand and dialogue snuffer than accusing someone else of "divisiveness." The "divisiveness" canard is just another way of saying "shut up, you're making me uncomfortable." Well, too bad.
I couldn't disagree more. The
I couldn't disagree more. The body and blood of Christ are the medicine for a sick and broken world, not the desert for the righteous. Jesus said "those who are well do not need a physician, but those who are sick." As a Catholic, I believe that the Eucharist has a healing power all its own that depends neither on the worthiness of the Priest nor on the worthiness of the recipient. If I love my brothers and sisters who are openly pro-choice, how can I withhold the medicine for their souls?
St. John said "He who hates his brother is in darkness and walks in darkness, and does not know where he is going, because the darkness has blinded his eyes." There is no love in denying communion to those who earnestly seek it; only hate. Jesus offered his blood and rent the curtain of the temple so that both saints and sinners could stand in the presence of God. It is no ones place to deny anyone the Bread of Life, for to do so is to deny the sufficiency of Christ's sacrifice. The deep vitriol of so many people proclaiming to be pro-life Catholics shows nothing but hate, which has led to blindness, which has mired the "pro-life" movement in the total, ineffective darkness where it stands today.
This post is well stated. I
This post is well stated. I especially agree with this line: "It is no ones place to deny anyone the Bread of Life, for to do so is to deny the sufficiency of Christ's sacrifice."
I too see the withdrawl of Communion as a statement of the insufficiency of Christ's sacrifice. As if He didn't get it quite right and now we need to protect Him from His mistake.
What's really happening is we are protecting the rights of some Catholics to engage in how they think the Sacramental system should selectively be applied. In this system it makes sense to allow a politician like Robert Mugabe, a real killer, to receive the Eucharist, while denying it to Joe Biden.
Thank God for bishops who see through this and let the Power of Christ do the work He came here to do--heal us.
Amen!!! You are so right.
Amen!!! You are so right. Thank you for your pastoral, compassionate, Christian and intellectual response. The many accounts recently of what the(Roman Catholic) church heirarcy are doing with ther (assumed) power are abominations of what Jesus the Christ came to do and what His actions spoke. Fortunately, the Church (those of us in the pews) has many believers like you who are helping to (hopefully) bring about change from the grass roots. We can only pray for the Holy Spirit to open the hearts, ears and minds of the heirarchy.
Thank you! Very well said.
Thank you! Very well said.
I agree with you on the
I agree with you on the effects of the Eucharist, but there must be preparation (including repentance) before it is received. And the medicine for sin is the Sacrament of Confession (or Reconciliation)--not the Eucharist.
Someone who has not only taken a public stand in favor of abortion but also promoted it should not approach the Sacrament any more than a drug dealer should.
Very well said. I've had the
Very well said. I've had the same thoughts about the Eucharist as a healer of souls too. Amen to your take on the myopic vision of the current pro-life movement as well. It will never bear the fruit it longs for because it only takes into consideration one aspect of human life, the unborn, as worthy of protecting. What about the inherent dignity of all human life, at all its stages? These politicians that have everyone so riled up are people of public service, with good intentions. This, I believe, is what puts them into hot water: they feel they must protect the rights of ALL their constituents, not only those who agree with their religious beliefs. This is a gray area where they must learn to find balance. We should encourage them to listen to the Truth in their hearts, and support their struggle to come to terms with the teaching of the Church and their positions of public service. Ostracizing them would only be counter productive.
I sure don't understand this
I sure don't understand this idea of not touching Jesus (receiving communion) while a sinner. Remember the story of the woman who was bleeding and considered unclean dared to touch Jesus. He ended up healing her even though she sinned by touching him. I say let them come to the Eucharist to touch Jesus and perhaps be healed as this woman was. What do all the non-sinners need him for anyhow?
Not allowing a person who
Not allowing a person who seems to be in a public state of sin to receive the Eucharist (as some have stated) is for that person's own benefit, so they do not receive Holy Communion in a state of mortal sin. This is not an example of Jesus turning away from sinners. Someone who has presumably sinned mortally has turned away from God by his or her own actions; but Jesus is always there to welcome them back by His mercy in the sacrament of Confession. Receiving the Body and Blood of Christ is an act of such unity with Christ that it would be wrong to receive Holy Communion when you have separated yourself from Him through serious sin. In this case, receiving God's mercy first in Confession allows you to the receive Holy Communion with a clear conscience. Smaller, venial sins, of course, do not hold a person back from the Eucharist.
Mary R. - You said: "Not
Mary R. - You said: "Not allowing a person who seems to be in a public state of sin to receive the Eucharist (as some have stated) is for that person's own benefit, so they do not receive Holy Communion in a state of mortal sin. This is not an example of Jesus turning away from sinners."
First of all, the way I see it Mary, to set out to judge "a person who seems to be in a public state of sin" is against the teachings of Jesus Christ. If the Church cuts out the judging and moves instead in a forward motion with the Gospels of Jesus as teaching, it cannot divide itself, nor can it be conquered by evil. The real scandal is the self-righteous judgment and bearing false witness against one's neighbor.
Communion with Jesus Christ, a supernatural Communion, is the only real unity that any Church or person has within the Body of Christ. Once one judges another one and denies another by one's own judgment, one begins to grow a beam in their eye and works no longer to please God and does not pluck the beam out of their own eye, but is attempting to remove not just the splinter from someone else's eye, but remove their entire body as well, as is the case of denial of Communion to anyone.
No one is "benefiting" from denying certain people or politicians Holy Communion.
Jesus was confronted by a gang of religious men, supposedly so religious, holy and devout to God, and supposedly with the full understanding of God in their laws, and they presented Jesus with a sinner who was caught in adultery. Notice that the man who also partook in adultery was not brought before Jesus as well, but only the woman; as if this sin could be committed all by herself. The law accorded the unjust right for these religious men to stone her. I often wonder if the man who partook in the adultery as well if he lived on to "go and sin no more." We know that the religious group of men who brought the adulterous woman before Jesus did not "go and sin no more." Being shown mercy and compassion and forgiveness by Jesus surely was great incentive for the woman to "go and sin no more."
If we are truly grateful for Jesus' Mercy towards us, His death on a cross for us, we can then show mercy and compassion towards others as Jesus did. Why do we not listen to Jesus whose words on the cross to His Father were "Father forgive them, they know not what they do." Notice also that the adulterous woman did not present herself before Jesus, but she was presented by force by the religious authorities. Is this not similar to the Bishops presenting Governor Sibelius or VP Joe Biden to the Body of Christ and saying that the law says that we can deny them Communion? (btw: this is a modern form of public humiliation and stoning, and more than that in the present age). Are we, as the Body of Christ, the People of God, to allow others to be presented before us for judgement or stoned in judgment because the law says so? Or, are we to reflect, as Jesus did, on the many sins that we are guilty of and "know not" of, and that we should walk away from this type of Act of presenting others before Jesus to judge against one's neighbor and that all of us should "go and sin no more?."
Well said. If I may
Well said. If I may piggy-back off of this....
The Master, Himself, put it best: "Judge not, lest ye be judged." I am pro-life. I support a right to life amendment. I would shed no tears if Roe were overturned. Knowing that neither of these things would likely have happened with Republicans in office for the next four to eight years, I chose to vote for the candidate I honestly believe will best limit the harm.
At a high level, there are two potential ways to reduce abortions that can be understood by an analogy to economics. We can cut off supply (pass restrictive measures), or we can reduce demand (improving education and strengthening the social safety net). The first method is preferred by the type of Catholic who wants to deny communion to people like Joe Biden. The popes seem to favor this approach, as do some vocal bishops. On the other hand, Biden, Kerry, Pelosi, and Cuomo before them, et. al. say that they prefer to go the second route.
The bishops are absolutely right that in an ideal world, abortion would be unthinkable and the foundational right to life would extend to all human beings - all human life from conception until natural death. Other human rights, such as the freedom of choice, presuppose the right to life. The right to life is the condition for the possibility of the right to chose. Furthermore, in a world where ethnic strife and genocide are all too real, ideal laws would define the righ to life as broadly as possible to all human beings. Faith and science both affirm that at conception, a unigue human organism is formed. We may not know (even in dogma) the exact moment a soul is formed, but we do know when a human being begins to exist: at conception.
But even Hillary Clinton can say that the abortion rate ought to be zero - and I think she means it. Though she isn't Catholic, the bishops and her are not disagreement over the ideal. The disagreement is over how to get to the ideal.
I also believe that Barack Obama is sincere in his desire to reduce abortions.
Those who favor restrictions accept an "incremental" approach towards eventually banning all abortions. However, they seem to limit the types of incremental cultural change they want to see exclusively to the restrictive means of reducing abortions.
I am also an incrementalist, and I voted Republican most of my life because of this issue. The last few cycles, however, I have sided with the Democrats.
Thirty plus years after Roe, I am not very hopeful that a consensus can be formed to pass any meaningful restrictions on abortion in America. I have come to believe that the condition for the possibility for passing any meaningful restrictions on abortion is to first reduce the demand for abortion - and to be consistent on other life issues like poverty, health care, war and the death penalty. I believe that the Democrats present a more persuasive case that they will reduce abortions as much or more than Republicans over their terms of office. However, I believe that the Democrat's means of reducing abortions will also be more effective at changing hearts on the issue past their term in office.
It is not that the solution proposed by Democrats is ideal. Rather, it is that neither the Democrats, nor the Republicans will pass the ideal in the next four to eight years. Therefore, I must chose which of the two will deliver the greater incremental change in the fmoreseeable future.
I may be tactically wrong. However, this sort of error is neither a denial of dogma, nor a sin. In four years, we may see that a Democrat Congress under a Democrat President delivered a rise in the abortion rates. However, a mistaken belief in the present moment that Democrats will reduce abortion rates is not a sin!
I believe that many (most?) bishops refrain from jumping on the bandwagon to deny communion to the likes of Sebelius precisely because they know that it is rash judgment to presume she and others like her are in sin. They may not agree with her, but is she in mortal sin, heresy, or formal cooperation with evil? Charity demands a sort of presumption of innocence - a willingness to give the other the benefit of the doubt - a presumption that her heart may be in the right place - and even the humility to acknowledge that even her head may be in the right place, even if I don't currently see how she could possibly be right.
This goes beyond simply being "civil". Those who are screaming for the denial of communion based on the way a person votes need to be examining their own consciences. To presume someone is in mortal sin or heresy and unworthy of communion is a very serious matter. You cannot simply apply denial communion to those who ignorant, or mistaken, or trying to do the right thing by a different means than you would.
One must have a very high degree of moral certitude to make such a claim as to deny communion to a fellow Catholic, and it is arguable that little to nothing in American politics can be that clearly black or white. Rash judgment can be a sin, in itself. Maybe the bishops exercise caution on this issue knowing that their own souls could be jeopardized by overstating their case. They are right about abortion - but need to be catious about judging the ways various Catholics work towards the ideal in real life. To those in a rush to deny communuion, I would caution that the Master says, "Remove the plank from your own eye, so that you can see better to remove the speck from your neighbor's eye."
Excellent post! You cut
Excellent post! You cut right to the heart of the matter vis a vis doing the right thing by a different means. It comes down to a matter of strategy in dealing with a very serious matter. Attempting in a democracy to force all Catholics to vote as a bloc is both self-deluding and self-defeating. This 'strategy' has produced nothing but polarization and poisonous infighting with very little in the way of results when it comes to ending abortion. The rancor produced by this Good=Republican, Bad=Democrat is tearing the church apart at the seams.
P.S. I wish you blogged more often.
"Judge not, lest ye be
"Judge not, lest ye be judged"
Boy Jesus just wanted us to get along and stay out of each other business huh? You (like so many selling the kinder gentler Jesus) take his words out of context.
Matt 7:2-5 "Judge not, lest ye be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?"
Is complacency with abortion a speck? Shall I be judged with the same measure I use to condemn the pro-abortion policies of this government? Fine! I am ready at least for that judgment (others I am less confident of). We are not called to minimize evil by striking a deal with Satan. We are called to be a light to the world, a city on a mountain. Abortion is murder 1 a year is too many. It must illegal like all other murder. Moral law has no room for compromise there is right and wrong. We don't make the rules we live by them or not. Accepting the host is accepting communion with The Church and ALL of her teaching. You don't have to like it or even agree with it, just accept it. If you are not willing to do so then you receive at your own peril. A bishop denying communion to a vocally pro-choice (pro-abortion) politician is protecting the soul of the recipient but also minimizing the scandal that may lead others to infer that such a public stance is acceptable for a Catholic in full communion with the church.
Situations can have more than
Situations can have more than one absolute truth. For example, if the Mother had done nothing to save the 9 year old in Brazil and she died carrying twins, wouldnt the mother have been guilty of murder? If abortion in all circumstances was illegal in Brazil, the 9 year old would have died even though the means existed to save her. So did the ends, saving the twins, justify the means, allowing the 9 year old to die?
How can we know? Only God can know.
Please stop judging what other people do - as children of God, we are called to compassion and mercy - judging is not our role in the Kingdom. Denying someone the Eucharist is denying that person the means of salvation and that might itself be a very grave and public sin which violates Canon Law. So the Bishops and Cardinals who take the position that the Eucharist should be denied to pro choice politicians might themselves not be in the state of Grace to receive Communion.
This is the most rational
This is the most rational comment I have ever seen on this issue. Thank you, thank you, thank you for your voice of reason. I couldn't agree more or said it better.
No one is judging a
No one is judging a politician who is denied Communion because of support for abortion. And it's not a matter of the way a person votes. It's a matter of a public person taking a public stand that promotes abortion.
And it's not a matter of "the ideal". Moral theology is concerned with principles and concrete behavior--not ideals.
There's a reason that Obama had a 100% NARAL rating.
http://www.ontheissues.org/Social/Barack_Obama_Abortion.htm
Dear RBrown, President Obama
Dear RBrown,
President Obama would never be approaching the altar for Holy Communion because he is not a Catholic! I cannot remember (and I have an excellent memory) a president of the United States being so attacked by the Catholic Hierarchy. Is it because he's Black? Is it because he's young and vigorous?
It is because he sees the moral tone of the abortion struggle from the view-point of young Black women who are more often than not caught in this dilemma
with abortion?
Our Church leaders have an abysmal record of actually sitting down with women and conferring with them about abortion. Did it ever occur to you and others who write in defense of moral theology and Canon Law----that these are alien topics to most (if not all) women seeking abortions? One reason is because all of those who wrote on moral theology and Canon Law are men (perhaps a few women---religious orders)---nobody was talking to women who are able to bear children. And most of those seeking abortions are not Catholic. I'm not saying that Catholic women do not seek abortions----they do. But most are not Catholic. Many, many are Black women (actually young girls) who aren't Catholic---who are living below the poverty line, who would not be coming to any Catholic agency for assistance. Who have nowhere and nobody to turn to for help if they become pregnant.
Let's stop spouting about moral theology and Canon Law (they way some folks are clinging to these, is idoltry already). And let's start thinking about the real flesh-and-blood people that abortion affects. And I have news for you, Obama has a lot more in common with their plight than you do. At least he has a plan to help DECREASE abortions. Most of our Cardinals, Arch/bishops, etc.---are just making a lot of noise----without any real, practical plans to help real pregnant women scared, and alone.
Well Said Joe. When we speak
Well Said Joe.
When we speak of the eucharist, we are speaking of The Real Presence of Jesus. The very thought that a bishop or a priest can presume the state of a catholic's soul, and state that they should be denied the presence of Jesus is pure arrogance. Making a "thing" out of the mystery that is the eucharist, and using it as a tool for moral teaching is pure foolishness. When bishops use their pastoral staffs as cudgels, and demand conformity, they risk invalidating their ministry, their office, and their voice. What ever happened to denying communion to divorced catholics? Jesus had plenty to say about the evil that is divorce. I don't hear much about that from american bishops today, and for a very good reason. And it is not because all divorced catholics have annulments.
The thinking that you can deny The Real Presence of Jesus to a fellow catholic is like thinking you can make the sun only shine on "the just". God is everywhere and bishops do not control the love of Jesus for his people, or who is invited to his table. It is time to let God be God, and let Him make the judgements when the time comes. Not before. Bishops are shepherds who need to be about the business of including, not excluding.
The latest Pew research polls show that catholics in the NorthEast have just stopped listening to bishops, and stopped participating. We can all vote with our feet. It is high time bishops take a different tack and be includers not excluders. Jesus wants us ALL at his table.
-Daniel
According to Catholic
According to Catholic teaching, if you receive Communion while in a state of mortal sin, you are committing further sins and doing further damage to your soul. No one can judge souls or private sins but God. However, if your pastor or bishop become aware of your state of soul (without making special efforts to seek out that knowledge), because your sin happens to be public and a matter of common knowledge, it is incumbent upon them to warn you (privately) to refrain from Communion. If they fail to do so, they become partly answerable for your sins (without diminishing your own responsiblity, which God alone assesses).
If you happen to be a public figure, and if your sin involves public support of acts which directly oppose an important Church teaching, and if your sin is known to other Catholics, the element of public scandal enters. Silence of the pastor and/or bishop could imply approval or consent to the sin. So speaking up becomes not just a matter of caring for the offender's soul, but of public example.
When bishop of LaCrosse, Raymond Burke wrote PRIVATE letters to Catholic members of his flock--who happened to be politicians who publicly advocated for abortion. It was these politicians--NOT bishop Burke--who then released these letters and "politicized" the issue. Faced with a fait accompli, Bishop Burke of course upheld Church teaching.
He was then cast by the secular media in a role he did not especially seek out. He upheld Church teaching, although I think we can all agree that he possesses no special talent for public relations.
Later, when asked a question about what he would do if John Kerry presented himself for Communion, Archbishop Burke answered according to Church teaching. The media made much of this, of course, but he was answering only as a responsible bishop. Of course you're supposed to deny Communion to someone whose sins are public knowledge, for their benefit and for your own duty. Politicians, even prominent ones, should not receive special treatment. THAT would be the real politicization.
Yes, it's true that who does or doesn't receive Communion should not be a public issue. It used to be common for many Catholics in better-educated times to refrain because they were aware of some reason why they should. It's undoubtedly the case that in any given church on any given Sunday, when all or most go to receive, there are probably many who should not. But many of us no longer that there will be any calling to account after death, or we would not be so blase. Of course, many have not been properly taught, either. Again, God can judge the degree of responsibility of each individual.
Ultimately, this issue has prominence because of the bad consciences of many Catholics or ex-Catholics who support abortion, or do nothing to stop it. Those with bad consciences cannot bear being alone with their guilt, and their bishop or pastor who knows it; they need others on their side, so they enlist allies using the media.
Pace Joe Cecil: Yes, ultimately only God knows another's soul. You could argue that only God knows whether Charles Manson or Stalin deserved damnation, and so on, as many of us did in fondly-remembered adolescent bull sessions.
But we are not relieved of responsibility to act just because we are not God. We (including bishops) are not required to judge the inner state of a soul before acting -- only a person's outward acts. Canon law provides guidelines for occasions when denial of Communion is warranted. If you see someone taking a pill from a jar labeled "poison," you are obliged try to stop him or her without stopping to test the pill, even though you may be mistaken. It's quite possible that someone enjoined from taking Communion might not be in a state of mortal sin, even if his or her acts are causing public scandal. In that case, no harm is done to him or her. But much harm is done by allowing him or her to continue to receive Communion if he or she is in fact in a state of sin.
Thank you for stating my
Thank you for stating my thoughts co clearly. The private letters from Bishop Burke were an appropriate vehicle for reprimanding individuals. They should never have been made public by either party. The letter from the Catholic Bishops before the election was an appropriate and necessary vehicle for clarifying the position of the Church.
Too many Catholic politicians have chosen to publicly oppose the position of the Church on one of the most important moral issues of our time, the "Culture of Death." I believe that the silence of the Church leadership over the last thirty years has led us to the state where many devout Catholics are confused and choose to equate less definitive moral issues with the fundamental evil of abortion. Yes, war is an evil, but there are reasons for war in the defense of humans against evil. Abortion has little or no justification. (I admit to being conflicted on the recent issue of the girl in Brazil where either choice would have probably resulted in a death.)
Civility is not just a desirable approach to discourse, but a powerful ally in persuading people. The Bishop's letter was civil; a public damnation of an individual person is not. Let's try not to use the sacraments as a weapon, but we need to communicate the message that abortion is a fundamental evil opposed by the Catholic Church.
It gets very difficult when
It gets very difficult when we try and decide just who is without sin.
How many politicians are anti-death penalty, anti-abortion, and anti-divorce?
Ronald Reagan, staunch pro-lifer was divorced.
George W. Bush is Pro-life, never divorced, but a proponent of the death penalty and started a war in Iraq as the Vatican spoke out against it.
I think it becomes very awkward to decide when to throw these stones. It becomes oddly political when some mortal sins are judged worse than others for the purpose of denying the sacraments.
The volume and the acid in much of what's said seems designed to achieve political goals more than to change anyone's mind.
I think it's distasteful to throw stones. When the stones being thrown are the body and blood of Jesus, it shows a lack of respect for others and for miracle.
Dear Gypsy Boots, I am not
Dear Gypsy Boots, I am not sure if Charlie Manson or Stalin were Catholics? But we know Hitler was and he wasn't excommunicated formally by the Catholic Church. Interesting, isn't it?
The entire idea of placing the sacrament into the public square and the political spotlight, seems to me to turn the sacrament into a political football. This is the real SCANDAL.
Gypsy Boots, you said it all
Gypsy Boots, you said it all just right, I know I certainly couldn't have said it any better.
Talk to the Abortion
Talk to the Abortion Promoters. They are the ones who are "Politicizing Communion."
Biden Gulianni Kerry Pelosi. They defend the legalization of 47,000,000 mnurders, fight attempts to stop partiual bith abortion, promote free abortions and pro abortion judges, in return for big money from Emily's list and other rabid pro abortion groups.
This is active cooperation in the murder of millions.
Then they go to communion, for the purpose of photo opportunmities.
I wonder when Archbishop
I wonder when Archbishop Burke and his cohorts are going after gun rights supporters, labeling then "Pro Murder" and "Murder Supporters??
You know what CHAYNES: have
You know what CHAYNES: have you ever thought about how when you call someone something and it is not true that it is bearing false witness? Talk to your confessor about it, because it is a lie to say that Biden, Giuliani, Kerry and Pelosi are "abortion promoters" when they support policies that will decrease abortions and allow for abortions in the case of rape or for medical reasons.
That you are obviously a staunch supporter of Republicans, I really doubt your sincerity on any human level towards how others are treated. To believe that the abortion issue is the ONLY issue is total self-deception and a frequent lie.
There are thousands of people starving in the world everyday, but you don't care about that, you just care about tax havens for the wealthy that Bush supported. The Republican policies of GW Bush caused innumerable deaths in the world.
Get over yourself and wake up, because you are truly ASLEEP. Talk to your confessor.
The Republican Party has used
The Republican Party has used the issue of abortion in a most divisive way for over 30 years. Yet, when they were the presenting themselve as the party of pro-life, had majorities in both Houses, a sitting president, and a fairly conservative Supreme Court, they initiated nothing. This would seem to lead to the conclusion that most Catholics who believed that the GOP was the party of pro-life were pretty much bamboozled for all those years. It would certainly appear that this extreme concern for the unborn was a facade and a political charade, pulled out every four years to procure contributions and support at the polls.
Sadly, too many very pious Catholics refuse to admit the possibility of having been played for fools. This is especially true of the American hierarchy, most especially represented by the very controversial Archbishop Burke, late of St. Louis. It's a little hard to see the Republican Party as a party of life under these circumstances.
MOSTLY WHITE BISHOPS run the
MOSTLY WHITE BISHOPS
run the show in the Catholic Church in America, just as in ROME.
It is still a "WHITE-MAN's" Church,
among American Catholics, just like in the Republican Party.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/03/AR200809...
In a More Diverse America, A Mostly White Convention
By Eli Saslow and Robert Barnes
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, September 4, 2008;
ST. PAUL, Minn., Sept. 3 -- Organizers conceived of this convention as a means to inspire, but some African American Republicans have found the Xcel Energy Center depressing this week. Everywhere they look, they see evidence of what they consider one of their party's biggest shortcomings.
As the country rapidly diversifies, Republicans are presenting a convention that is almost entirely white.
Only 36 of the 2,380 delegates seated on the convention floor are black, the lowest number since the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies began tracking diversity at political conventions 40 years ago. Each night, the overwhelmingly white audience watches a series of white politicians step to the lectern -- a visual reminder that no black Republican has served as a governor, U.S. senator or U.S. House member in the past six years.
"It's hard to look around and not get frustrated," said Michael S. Steele, a black Republican and former lieutenant governor of Maryland. "You almost have to think, 'Wait. How did it come to this?' "
Republicans spent much of the past decade working to improve their minority outreach, particularly to blacks and Hispanics. But a number of setbacks, including an anti-Republican national mood, anger over the response to Hurricane Katrina and the Democratic nomination of Sen. Barack Obama, have largely negated their efforts, several Republicans said.
One week after Democrats nominated the nation's first black presidential candidate on the eve of the 45th anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" speech, Republicans have only one African American -- Steele -- scheduled to speak during prime time at their convention. The united, diverse coalition that Republicans once envisioned instead looks uniform.
The good news, Republicans said, is that they think Sen. John McCain can still win this election with the kind of demographics on display in St. Paul. In an interview with Washington Post reporters and editors Tuesday morning, McCain campaign manager Rick Davis outlined a strategy in which his candidate targets women and white working-class voters and essentially cedes the black vote.
Obama's "strategy is, 'If I can just deliver the votes that I know exist, whether it's in the minority community or the youth,' or whatever the coalition is that he's got . . . 'then I can win this election,' " Davis said. "We can run our campaign the way we want to run it and not be in direct conflict with a lot of voter groups he is trying to get."
The look in the convention hall is similar to that of a typical McCain event. This summer, for instance, 67 people showed up for one of his town hall meetings in Wilkes-Barre, Pa. One of them was black.
The lack of diversity is out of sync with the demographic changes in the United States. The Census Bureau reported last month that racial and ethnic minorities will make up a majority of the country's population by 2042 -- almost a decade earlier than what the bureau predicted just four years ago. Two-thirds of Americans are non-Hispanic whites, 12.4 percent are black and 14.8 percent are Hispanic, according to 2006 census numbers.
What has helped Republicans is that working-class whites, a bloc they rely on, are more likely to vote than other groups. "But if there is a loss this time, and it is attributed to a smaller and smaller base of white voters, there might be a rethinking" of GOP strategy, said Robert E. Lang, co-director of Virginia Tech's Metropolitan Institute, which studies demographics and other development patterns.
"If we don't get better at reaching out, we're in big trouble," agreed Michael Williams, a black Republican who chairs the Texas Railroad Commission and who spoke Wednesday night. "It doesn't take much to see that this is not what America looks like. . . . We're trying, but we're not there yet."
Joe and Dan, thank you
Joe and Dan, thank you both.
Getting to Scripture, we have these reminders that strongly suggest denying the Eucharist to those with whom we disagree is genuinely sinful and --- in this case --- the real scandal:
a. You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your heavenly Father, for he makes his sun rise on the bad and the good, and causes rain to fall on the just and the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what recompense will you have? Do not the tax collectors do the same? (MT 5:43-46)
b. Nothing is new under the sun. Even the thing of which we say, 'See, this is new!' has already existed in the ages that preceded us. (ECCLESIASTES 1:9-10)
Hierarchs like Burke need to keep these admonitions in mind. As noted previously, do not judge others and be prepared to remove the plank from one's own eye before trying to pull the speck out of the other's eye. And, of course, Jesus instructed his disciples to let the little children approach him.
Here we are in the 21st century, and the abortion controversy has been going on for more than 35 years since Roe v Wade. Good people disagree about how best to eliminate abortion, but we all want to see it disappear.
No bishop, priest, deacon, or lay eucharistic minister has a God-given mandate to refuse the Eucharist to anyone who sincerely and respectfully wishes to receive it. And canon law be damned if it should suggest or stipulate otherwise!!! The law serves Jesus, not the other way around.
The reason for the surge of
The reason for the surge of rancor is that Obama's election is seen as 'our America is lost'.. The Dem pols are laughing at this rage.. it's good that the rage is self limiting.. See A/B Burke
A recent priest friend of
A recent priest friend of mine, a good and faithful priest whom no one would ever label "liberal," said:
"The Holy Eucharist should never be used as a weapon."
Unfortunately Communion has been used in precisely this manner over the past few years.
I absolutely agree with this
I absolutely agree with this statement. Never was the Eucharist intended to be a weapon or a "prize" that anyone could give or not give. Let those "without sin throw the first stone". The political discussion on a moral issue, in my opinion, is not the way to solve this problem.
We cannot manipulate the
We cannot manipulate the teachings of the church to our own ideological stance.
We are extremely good in Catholicism in the art of rationalization. We do it well; we did it in the last election . .54 percent of the Catholic population.
I am not too sure a large majority of Catholics care what the Church teaches anymore. They choose to their liking; and disregard what makes them uncomfortable or their life style. They are Catholic Sometimes
We as priests, Bishops and all who are in educational endeavors have done a terrible job in educating our people in a healthy faith. Our entire Religious Education Program within the country needs a revamping. We need to focus a great deal on Adult Education . ..but, even in doing that. . .I am not sure.
We are creating a "laity of lazy minds" because as priests and Bishops we are not teaching. We are now in such a political correctness phase that Bishops can't even agree . .Canon 915 in which this debate is about.
And one wonders why we are where we are in the Catholic Debate.
Blessings to you and your families
Father, Regarding Religious
Father,
Regarding Religious Education, do you think the whole Christian Tradition revolves around the issue of abortion? Certainly there were abortions during the New Testament times, so where does it address this central issue? People with lazy minds would like to know. Does the New Testament speak of the economic injustice such as the type that was perpetuated by Republican adminstrations that favored the rich? Yes it does. Even my lazy mind knows that! Do you think Jesus would favor torturing people? Tax cuts for the wealthiest? Lying? The idolotry for Haliburton? Maybe my lazy mind needs to understand what you mean by a healthy faith!
Re: "Lazy minds" - What this
Re: "Lazy minds" - What this lazy mind has learned from the bishops in recent past is that they used their authority to ship pedophile priests from parish to parish without warning the people. Of course, they had to be secretive and conspiritorial in what they were doing - imagine introducing a priest to the parish by saying, "Here is Fr. X; he is here because he had sex with children in his last parish."
None of the bishops have really been held accountable. None has been fired. Cardinal Law even received a 'promotion' to an prestigious position in Rome and he is still a Cardinal. He could even be elected Pope some day.
By their actions, these bishops also failed their fiduciary responsibility to the church, opening it up to massive lawsuits. That has resulted in the closing of parishes and much heartache among many catholics.
The bishops have taught us much over the last few years. They have taught that it is OK for them to fail their moral and fiduciary responsibilities and yet remain in high positions. The bishops who supported the pedophile priests should have lost their jobs. Some should probably have gone to jail.
The bishops cannot teach when they have lost all moral authority. It may take generations before there is any confidence in the hierarchy. The time might be shortened, if lay participation were made possible in the choosing of bishops, but that is not likely under the current regime.
Since the bishops cannot be trusted to 'police' themselves, they all get painted with the same brush. There will continue to be a lack of confidence and chaos in the church, at least until the time when all those current members of the church elite have died.
Until that time comes, 'The Church' cannot teach this lazy mind anything.
You don't say, but I hope
You don't say, but I hope when you say that there has been a failure in teaching the teachings of the Catholic Church, you also include the many sins of capitalism which the church has spoken about, the death penality, the just war, workers right to organize and what the prefrential treatment of the poor means. All too many times you priests, Bishops and educators reduce Catholic teaching to abortion, stem cell and gay marriage. The result is that many a conservative who is anti abortion are given a sense by the leaders of The Church that they are good, faithful Catholics despite the face that they tend to ignore and go against the teachings of The Church on these other issues. It is time to be consistent.
Dear Fr. Joseph, SJ: Let me
Dear Fr. Joseph, SJ:
Let me ask you a few questions, please. Do you have job security? A lot of your parishioners (students) do not have it. Is your insurance and hospitalization taken care of by your religious community as it is for all Jesuits? This is not true for many of your parishioners (students). They may have lost it or have to contribute to it mainly out of their own pockets. Is your retirement taken care of? Of course it is---your religious community will provide for you. Do you have to worry about paying for your utilities, TV, computer provider? Your parishioners (students) do not have that option. As a religious priest--you don't have to fear where you will lay your head tonight in sleep. But many people who once had homes---are now out on the street with their children---they lost their homes.
You (and too many 'right-wing people, bishops and priests) just can't seem to get it through your heads that the worries and fears that I have listed above are MAJOR CONCERNS of more than 54% of Americans---and that percentage is growing larger. Many don't have the food, clothes or even a place to use the bathroom any more---it's as basic as that. All that you have are (yes, even though you took vows {Poverty}) are luxuries compared with what many Americans are facing today.
Get your head out of the Ivy Tower that it is in and come to see some of the "Camper Cities", the Free-Clinics that Catholic Charities run (and are visited by once middle class Americans who have no more hospitalization).
How can anyone worry about a 'healthy faith' when they don't have enough to eat, no place to sleep, no place to use the bathroom or take a shower, no clothes to wear, no idea what tomorrow will bring next for themselves or their children.
Faced with what more and more Americans are worried about, your concerns about the faith are nothing, but a burp in a hurricane.
If only it were that those
If only it were that those who are suffering this way had been those for whom abortion is/was the only issue. That would be justice.
I agree with you, Father. I
I agree with you, Father.
I have seen so many posts on this article which completely ignore the huge amount of help that the Church gives to people both in the USA and the world. So many people are trotting out the tired line of how pro-life people don't care about anyone once they are born, and yet look at what the Church does for people now, and has done over the centuries!
WRT the politicizing of the Eucharist: "Catholic" abortion-supporting politicians advertize themselves as Catholic! That's how they get a lot of their votes. From Schwarzenagger (R) to Pelosi (D)--those who vote to support abortion in any way are not only contributing to confusion among Catholics and non-Catholics alike, they are easing the way for others to commit a heinous crime and objective mortal sin.
Why do some people think that Christ accepted unrepentant sinners? He embraced those who wanted to change; but of those who did not want to change, He told the Apostles to leave their towns and shake the dust from their own sandals. Christ Himself called those who did not want to change whited sepulchers and chased the money changers out of the Temple. And through the centuries, the saints have followed His example and not minced words when it came to denouncing sin and those who committed sin.
Schwarzenagger is Catholic?
Schwarzenagger is Catholic? If it weren't for Republican strategists pointing out which Democrats are unworthy Catholics, I wouldn't know who they are. Isn't it funny that I didn't know the governor of California was Catholic. Could that be because he is a Republican?
It could be because he is a
It could be because he is a governor not really involved in the debate, as far as I can tell. However, of the Catholics who are in the House or Senate, most are Democrats and most of them have voted in favor of abortion. Moreover, just from my "regular person's" perusal of the news, I think that Catholic politicians who frequently vote on the abortion side tend to be more vocal about both their Catholicism and their support for abortion. Let's be honest, in a roomful of Republicans, voicing support for abortion is not going to bring on the cheers that "supporting choice" brings on in Democrat crowds.
Additionally, most of them have taken campaign money from abortion-supporting groups, as I saw on www.onenationundergod.com. The list is quite long and I saw only 4 Republicans and one whose party was not mentioned--**all** the rest were Democrats.
I do know this about
I do know this about Schwarzenegger, when the US government was not funding human embryonic stem cell research, he made sure that the State of California did so even though it has plenty of more pressing budget issues.
I also know this, that the "For Life" group of my state of previous residence proudly posed for a published picture in 2004 with a strategist from the Repulican party who had been so helpful to their cause.
The whole idea of using the abortion issue as a political device was developed in the late 1970's and early 1980's. At that time, I worked in a place that was central to one of our US religious denominations. A political organization in California sent inquiries there to find out which issues were most controversial in the minds of people associated with that denomination. They did likewise for other denominations. The result was that abortion was #1 in all cases. This is why the Republican party made it part of its platform, which left those who felt otherwise to the Democrats.
Post new comment