Enter your email address to receive updates by email:

subscribe in a reader like my facebook page follow me on twitter Image Map
Podcast Message Line: 512-222-3389
Logos Catholic Bible Software

« SDG Mystery Photo | Main | Remembering 9/11 »

September 11, 2007

Comments

LJ

---"The United States of America is a thoroughly secularized society which canonizes radical individualism and relativism, even before the natural moral law. The application, therefore, is more necessary than ever, lest the faithful, led astray by the strong cultural trends of relativism, be deceived concerning the supreme good of the Holy Eucharist and the gravity of supporting publicly the commission of intrinsically evil acts."---

That about sums it up.

---"Fifthly, the discipline requires the minister of Holy Communion to forbid the Sacrament to those who are publicly unworthy. Such action must not be precipitous. The person who sins gravely and publicly must, first, be cautioned not to approach to receive Holy Communion. The memorandum, "Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion", of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, in its fifth principle, gives the perennial pastoral instruction in the matter. This, in fact, is done effectively in a pastoral conversation with the person, so that the person knows that he is not to approach to receive Holy Communion and, therefore, the distribution of Holy Communion does not become an occasion of conflict. It must also be recalled that <>"---

It would seem that the application of Canon 915 must be accompanied by clear, unequivocal teaching from the pulpit, even if it requires the Bishop himself to do the preaching.

I hope that Fr. Euteneuer's critics and detractors have a copy of this. It certainly vindicates him, regarding his tangle with Sean Hannity. In fact Bishop Burke also points out that Father is obligated to withhold communion from someone who causes public scandal. He cannot ignore the matter without being guilty of mortal sin himself.

Scott W.

The way I read the doc Ed Peters linked, it seems not only can abortion politicians be denied communion, but that there is really no wiggle-room for the it-wouldn't-be-prudent-at-this-time excuse. That is, the law is clear, its violation can be determined objectively, not subjectively, and therefore must be enforced.

AnnonyMouse

Will they expect the EMHC to deny communion? I think this is wonderful and pray that more Bishops and priests will listen and find their backbone.

Kasia

That's a good question, Anonny. I guess the question there is whether the EMHC has the same responsibility for the Eucharist as an ordinary minister (priest or deacon). In other words, would I as an EMHC be committing a mortal sin by giving the Eucharist to Ted Kennedy? (Or, more realistically since she actually lives in my state, Jennifer Granholm?)

Dr. Peters?

J

No Jesus for you!
(yes, Seinfeld moment)

AnnonyMouse

J, I think it is more approriate to say that THEY, politicians who openly support ideas contrary to the Church, have said NO to Jesus.

Kasia, We hope the Bishops and priests will clarify what is to be done.

Sassy Love Child

Can you be denied communion if you're wearing a spaghetti strap top?

SDG

Can you be denied communion if you're wearing a spaghetti strap top?

Spaghetti strap tops and communion

Dr. Eric

I pray for the end of my "Babylonian Captivity" in Indy so I can get back to the STL Archdiocese again!

I wish His Grace Archbishop Raymond Burke many years!

jp

Ok, I feel dumb. I first read the headline as referring to the state, not the fictional character to which many-an-explanation has been made.

francis

I found it quite amazing how publicly Archbishop Burke criticizes his fellow U.S. bishops such as Mahoney, McCarrick, and Wuerl. Usually bishops are very, very reticent to critique their colleagues publicly like that.

Jarnor23

I think it may attest to the level of very, very bad that these bishops are behaving. It seems some areas with less prestige and power are getting some very good bishops, while the places where being bishop means you're a big, powerful man seem to have very bad ones. Interesting that.

Eric

The Church is made pure when the unworthy who approach Him are denied Christ.

Marcel LeJeune

It seems Archbishop Burke is saying that the individual minister of Holy Communion, whether ordinary or extraordinary, has the responsibility to deny Communion when necessary. He clearly says the canon "plainly articulates the responsibility of the minister of Holy Communion, ordinary or extraordinary, to deny Holy Communion to those who obstinately persevere in manifest grave sin." Then he goes on to say "The sixth principle, making reference to a declaration of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts of June 4, 2000, declares that, when a person who has been duly admonished persists in presenting himself for Holy Communion, the minister of Holy Communion must refuse to give the Sacrament. The principle further clarifies that the decision of the minister of Holy Communion <> but rather the recognition of objective and public unworthiness to receive Holy Communion."

Now, Dr. Peters can be more sure of his answer. But, he did teach me everything I know about canon law. :-)

MJJ

Even though I'm not an expert in cannon law, I read the entire article. I finished it and had a profound sense of loss. It seems we of the Church in the United States have lost our way. I will pray and fast multiple days that we may find our way back.

LJ

---"The Church is made pure when the unworthy who approach Him are denied Christ."--- Eric

Do I detect a note of sarcasm?

Do you remember the rich young man that walked away from Jesus sorrowfully because Jesus told him to sell everything, give it to the poor and follow him? It also says that Jesus loved that young man. But that young man would not meet the condition of total heartfelt repentance and conversion and commitment to Jesus Christ. So Jesus watched him walk away. He didn't say wait, we'll work it out later, it's a cultural thing, it's a political issue that has nothing to do with the Church. No he watched him walk away, and he loved him.

The unworthy can approach Christ. There is a sacrament known as confession, penance, reconciliation, that perpares that unworthy person to receive communion. Jesus and his Church will refuse no one who comes in true contrition.

BenYachov(Jim Scott 4th)

If "worthyness" where a factor then nobody could take communion. You should replace that with the word "un-repentant" and you should say "denied the Body of Christ" not "denied Christ".

Eric

LJ, as you know, to obtain absolution within confession, the priest celebrating the sacrament must make a judgment about the penitent’s predisposition to receive forgiveness. Is the penitent sufficiently contrite? Does the penitent possess a firm purpose of amendment? If the penitent is lacking in either of these respects, then it is proper for the celebrant to refuse absolution. Even in confession, the Church is made pure by denying Christ to the unworthy who approach Him.

JoAnna
LJ, as you know, to obtain absolution within confession, the priest celebrating the sacrament must make a judgment about the penitent’s predisposition to receive forgiveness. Is the penitent sufficiently contrite? Does the penitent possess a firm purpose of amendment? If the penitent is lacking in either of these respects, then it is proper for the celebrant to refuse absolution. Even in confession, the Church is made pure by denying Christ to the unworthy who approach Him.

I'm sorry, Eric, but I must disagree.

In this instance, the Church is not denying anybody anything. The sinners have made a deliberate choice to disobey Church teaching -- they have made the choice to keep themselves in a state unworthy to received the Eucharist.

The Church is acting to protect the Sacrament from being profaned, and the sinner from eating/drinking judgment upon him/herself. She says, "Once you have reconciled yourself to the Body of Christ, you are free to partake of the Eucharist," not "You cannot take the Eucharist because you are unworthy."

The sinner is making the deliberate choice to be unworthy of the Eucharist. Not the Church.

Eric
I'm sorry, Eric, but I must disagree.

In this instance, the Church is not denying anybody anything. The sinners have made a deliberate choice to disobey Church teaching -- they have made the choice to keep themselves in a state unworthy to received the Eucharist.

The Church is acting to protect the Sacrament from being profaned, and the sinner from eating/drinking judgment upon him/herself. She says, "Once you have reconciled yourself to the Body of Christ, you are free to partake of the Eucharist," not "You cannot take the Eucharist because you are unworthy."

The sinner is making the deliberate choice to be unworthy of the Eucharist. Not the Church.

It seems to me, JoAnna, that your taste for semantics is clouding your judgment. Of course the Church actively withholds Christ from those who are objectively unworthy. If those who are unworthy to receive approach the Sacrament, the Church must take the active role and deny them Christ. This does not reach to the reason that the individual in question is unworthy. I do not deny that the individual puts him- or herself in that abominable state. It seems to me that the Church is saying "Once you have reconciled yourself to the Body of Christ, you are free to partake of the Eucharist but until then you cannot take the Eucharist because you are unworthy."

CatholicAudio

It seems to me that the Church is saying "Once you have reconciled yourself to the Body of Christ, you are free to partake of the Eucharist but until then you cannot take the Eucharist because it would be unsafe for you and scandalous for others were you to do so."

bill912

BenYachov got it right. "O Lord, I am not worthy to receive You..."

bill912

CatholicAudio also nailed it.

Melanie

you cannot take the Eucharist because you are unworthy

According to Burke, "the discipline requires the minister of Holy Communion to forbid the Sacrament to those who are publicly unworthy."

Memphis Aggie

In a nutshell taking communion after a public mortal sin commits both sacrilege and scandal. Any knowledgable person who does so is, in effect, proclaiming their disbelief in the real presence and their disrepect for the Magisterium at the same time.

LCB

Eric, words have meaning. It's not semantics, it's saying really different things.

The unreported story here is the thinly-veiled shot taken at Mahony. Are we to believe that an Abp., especially Burke, would take a shot at a Cardinal without explicit approval from the highest ranks of the Curia? Perhaps even the Holy Father himself?

Abp. Burke, God Bless you. You make me long for the days when a Bishop could have more than one diocese!

Mary

BenYachov got it right. "O Lord, I am not worthy to receive You..."

"Lord I am not worthy to receive you, but only say the word and I shall be healed."

It is not through our efforts that we have been made worthy, but through His. Nevertheless, we are worthy -- or not.

JoAnna
It seems to me that the Church is saying "Once you have reconciled yourself to the Body of Christ, you are free to partake of the Eucharist but until then you cannot take the Eucharist because it would be unsafe for you and scandalous for others were you to do so."

This, exactly, was what I was trying to convey.

Leo

When discussing the applicability of these norms, abortion tends to be the only example considered. But that is not the only life issue for legislators and governments - especially in the US.

With these truths in mind, this most holy synod makes its own the condemnations of total war already pronounced by recent popes, and issues the following declaration. Any act of war aimed indiscriminately at the destruction of entire cities of extensive areas along with their population is a crime against God and man himself. It merits unequivocal and unhesitating condemnation. Gaudium et Spes 80
The Church and human reason both assert the permanent validity of the moral law during armed conflict. "The mere fact that war has regrettably broken out does not mean that everything becomes licit between the warring parties."

Non-combatants, wounded soldiers, and prisoners must be respected and treated humanely. Actions deliberately contrary to the law of nations and to its universal principles are crimes, as are the orders that command such actions. Blind obedience does not suffice to excuse those who carry them out. Thus the extermination of a people, nation, or ethnic minority must be condemned as a mortal sin. One is morally bound to resist orders that command genocide. Catechism of the Catholic Church 2312-2313

Possible exclusion from Holy Communion would also seem to apply to an avowedly Catholic legislator who publicly advocated, and voted for policies which contradicted the Natural Law and Church Teaching in any of the following ways:
- waging an unjust war,
- immoral methods of warfare (eg willingness to destroy cities in nuclear war),
- torture (Abu Ghraib?),
- capital punishment as the norm rather than possible exception.

bill912

"-torture (Abu Ghraib?)"

Right.

matt

Leo,

the problem is making an objective distinction on those issues. Unless a Catholic politician enunciates a position that is objectively in violation of the Church's teaching on the matter, he can not be judged objectively in denying communion.


- waging an unjust war,

Waging a war that even the Pope finds to be unjust, does not mean the Catholic can be objectively judged, it is a rejection of the principles of just war that could be objectively judged.

- immoral methods of warfare (eg willingness to destroy cities in nuclear war),

This is an incredibly complex issue, we probably don't need to get into it, but certainly actual unrepentant acts that are immoral methods of war could probably be judged objectively.

- torture (Abu Ghraib?),

To my knowledge no Catholic (or any other politician for that matter) has suggested that what happened at Abu Ghraib is morally acceptable.

The difficult question is not whether torture is moral, as it's almost unanimously rejected. The difficult question is what constitutes torture. Some things (mutilations for example) are clearly torture, other things may be torture, but the question is very subjective, and so can't rightly be applied to this discussion.

- capital punishment as the norm rather than possible exception

Again, it would seem that a rejection of the principles is necessary.

I think that part of the reason that this discussion necessarily revolves around abortion is that it is intrinsicly and always immoral. The acts that you mention above are generally matters of scale.

God Bless,

Matt

Karin

Can you be denied communion if you're wearing a spaghetti strap top?

Spaghetti strap tops and communion

SDG-
From what I have seen, especially recently, tank-tops and spaghetti straps are the norm along with shorts at more "liberal" parishes.
By the way, what do you think Father George would do if someone walked into Mass in these types of clothes?


Paul

No one has yet talked about what seems to be an important pre-condition before an extraordinary (or even ordinary) minister could deny communion:

Regarding those who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, it is necessary to know that indeed the person does obstinately persist, that is, that his pastor has informed him about the grave and public sinfulness of what he is doing and has cautioned him about not approaching to receive Holy Communion. (Burke § 9)

It seems that, at least under Archbishop Burke's reading, a warning from the proper pastor (Bishop or parish priest) would first have to issue before a person could be denied the Eucharist. Perhaps I'm misreading that part of the paper (or I could be being too formal about this). If I am not, then it would seem that an EMHC could not deny the Eucharist without there first being appropriate hierarchical action.

LJ

Paul,

I think you are right.

We have to remember that this is a very serious action. ABP Burke does include the point that it is the right of the faithful, properly disposed, to receive Holy Communion in the sacrifice of the mass. We have a number of other rights too, under Canon Law, including proper instruction, #217 and #229, which may go a long way to avoiding this situation in the first place.
So to deny someone Communion is, you might say, declaring that they are not in communion with the Church, or in other words, excommunicated. Such an excommunication, we know, can be incurred by anyone automatically, for certain actions.
Therefore, it is the proper duty of the pastor to make those kinds of determinations. An EMHC, even well trained, should not be put in the place of making that kind of determination. And, of course, if the pastor has gone to the person in question privately and warned them, it may just be enough to avoid confrontation in the Communion line. Hopefully. There may, however, be those who would defy the pastor and attempt to receive. That is where a pastor could inform the extraordinary ministers in advance of the possibility that a certain person may attempt to receive and to refuse them. But the decision there is still on the pastor, not the EMHC.

Paul

LJ, let's not forget that excommunication (can. 1331) and denial of the Eucharist for pastoral reasons (can. 915) are totally different things. One is a penalty incurred for committing an ecclesiastical crime, while the other is not a penalty but a method to prevent further sin. Besides, no parish priest can excommunicate; only a collegiate tribunal or ordinary can impose an excommunication or declare one that has been automatically incurred.

Still, despite the difference, it would seem that in order for someone to obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, they would need a warning first from a pastor, at least according to Archbishop Burke.

John

Can. 843 §1. Sacred ministers cannot deny the sacraments to those who seek them at appropriate times, are properly disposed, and are not prohibited by law from receiving them.

What the heck is a "sacred minister"????


Will the innovations ever stop??

John

It was posted:

"SDG-
From what I have seen, especially recently, tank-tops and spaghetti straps are the norm along with shorts at more "liberal" parishes"

Are we not supposed to be the "ONE" "HOLY" "Catholic" and "Apostolic" church by which the mass, customs and teachings are universal throughout, and if not then one of the 4 marks of the church has been denied and the church has defected??? Are we admitting such that we are no longer "ONE"?????? Of course so

Tim J.

So, someone wears shorts at Mass and this means the Church has defected.

If there's some brilliant reasoning in there, I missed it.

SDG

John, I missed the part in the Creed where it says "customs" are supposed to be universal throughout. Help out a benighted brother?

Are we admitting such that we are no longer "ONE"?????? Of course so

If you say so. I'm with the vicar of Christ. Sorry to hear about you.

Inocencio

SDG,

If you say so. I'm with the vicar of Christ. Sorry to hear about you.

Laughing and cleaning the coffee off my computer screen.

Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

horatio

A number of people have cited the point that a bishop or parish priest must inform the individual of their persistent mortal sin and explain to them why they no longer can receive the Eucharist.

My Question: Does it have to be the bishop of the individual's diocese? Does it have to be the priest at his local parish? Or, can it be any bishop or any priest?

And how must the bishop or priest inform the individual? Could they send a letter to their Congressional office? A phone call?

I wonder because I could see Archbishop Burke reaching the point of frustration where he declares certain Catholic politicians to be in a condition that no longer allows them to receive the Eucharist. And actually naming names.

At this point, I assume the local bishop or local priest (assuming the priest is not in Burke's diocese) could ignore Burke and continue to serve the Eucharist to those politicians. Or am I mistaken?

Those are the questions I'm most concerned about. And then the leap in possibilities is below:

I just worry that it would lead to Archbishop Burke coming across in the MSM as a McCarthy style moralist, "I have a list of 43 names of people in Congress who should no longer receive the Eucharist."

Juli

I am an EMHC, and doubt I would deny the Eucharist to someone who came up for it. While I personally think that those pro-abortion politicians should not be receiving Communion, I would rather have Father deal with it.

Of course, the pastoral associate in my parish knowingly and approvingly gives Communion to a Lutheran in her parish (she's an EMHC where she lives). Luckily, I'm in a small and rather obscure parish.

matt

I read that a number of mystics have had visions of the baby Jesus being recieved by communicants at Mass. The child reaches out to the faithful giving Himself willingly, the mystics report that the is in torment being forced into the clutches to be defiled to those who are unworthy. The fact is that it is a a terribly evil to recieve Him unworthily, and each act causes tremendous pain to our Blessed Lord. The embarrassment on all parties is trivial compared to the discomfort of even an instant in purgatory, let alone a lifetime in Hell.

To those who ordinarily act as extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion, if you don't feel comfortable refusing communion to a manifest grave sinner regardless of the policy of your pastor or bishop, I'd suggest you withdraw from accepting this responsibility for your own sake. When the Lord separates the sheep from the goats the excuse that "father said so" will not hold water. It's clear from the Church's teaching and the scriptures that those in positions of responsibility are held to a high standard, and many will fall.

God Bless,

Matt

Brian

Matt, I'm a little wary of your way of describing unworthy reception (using the word as Paul does in 1 Cor, not suggesting that any are truly worthy of Christ's Body). Particularly:

"The fact is that it is a a terribly evil to recieve Him unworthily, and each act causes tremendous pain to our Blessed Lord."

I find it problematic to describe any act as bringing pain to God, or interfering with His perfect beatitude, regardless of what visions some may have received. While in all likelihood legitimate, they could be highly allegorical and it could be a great disservice to assume to much from them. Moreover, Sacred Scripture, when it talks about receiving the Body and Blood unworthily, speaks specifically of judgment upon the sinner, including bodily sickness and even death.

As to an EMHC, I believe the issue would be whether or not to refuse a known grave sinner in the ABSENCE of any directive from the bishop or priest, whose place it is to know the communicant's worthiness. I may not be privy to if or when the person has sought and received absolution, and unless an EMHC is given specific instructions on the matter, it doesn't seem to me that he is in a position to judge then and there the worthiness of the recipient. The default always seems to be access to the sacraments, unless an impediment is known. (Canon 912, in particular, seems to state such.) After Mass, or before, if he suspects the situation will arise, he may indeed have a moral obligation to consult the pastor and/or bishop with his concerns, but the matter is not one of mere embarrassment, but one of canon law. That's my perspective on it, at least.

Memphis Aggie

"I find it problematic to describe any act as bringing pain to God, or interfering with His perfect beatitude, regardless of what visions some may have received"

Brian while you are not required to believe personal revelation (they may be prone to errors) the best revelations have been declared "worthy of belief". St Faustina's Diary, declared worthy of belief by John Paul II, is one example which I recommend to anybody. Reading about His infinite Mercy rekindles our love for Him.

I for one believe Christ still suffers whenever He is rejected and whenever Church members bicker or worse split into factions. His body is broken again, extending His passion when the Church divides. His great love makes Him vulnerable to our rejection. Because He is so strong and so gallant He has decided to make Himself open to us. We wound Him, we cause Him sorrow whenever we sin because He loves us. If we take the Eucharist casually or thoughtlessly we wound Him through the ingratitude of a lukewarm faith. All sin wounds God, not in the sense that He can be harmed (He clearly cannot) but in the sense that He is sorrowful over the loss of closeness to us. It is the greatest measure of human worth that God so cares that He would suffer for us - Is anything more central to Christianity?

Reading about respect for the Eucharist is the revelation of St. Gertrude the Great (who I think Matt was referring to) helped me to appreciate the Eucharist, Christ's great Love for us and my own laxity. I recommend this site: http://www.catholictradition.org/Saints/gertrude.htm


John

It was posted:

"So, someone wears shorts at Mass and this means the Church has defected.

If there's some brilliant reasoning in there, I missed it."

Laughing? Yes Inocencio you are good at that. The comment was about the term "liberal" parishes vs so called "conservative" and somewhere in the middle!

ONE means ONE, nothing to do with spaghetti straps, it has to do with allowing different innovations, abuses to the mass, the sacraments, and teachings to please the so called "liberal" laity such as in San Francisco where you have your homosexual masses


You are all in denial

JoAnna
ONE means ONE, nothing to do with spaghetti straps, it has to do with allowing different innovations, abuses to the mass, the sacraments, and teachings to please the so called "liberal" laity such as in San Francisco where you have your homosexual masses

Hobby horse, hobby horse, hobby horse...

Memphis Aggie

John,

You couldn't be more wrong -I lived the in Bay Area and even converted to Catholicism while in the Archdiocese of San Francisco. Mass was still the Holy Mass and there love of God was in evidence. You slander many good men and women who's faith was sincere.

SDG

John: That was Tim J laughing, not Inocencio.

Memphis Aggie

John,

More clearly than any argument the hostility and contempt of your words speak volumes: about you. I know I used to be an angry young man. Christ took my anger and I've benefited enormously from it. So I ask you to look within and ask why the hostility toward your fellow Christian? If you believe we are in error then teach through your charitable example; that would be far more convincing than insults.

Where you harmed in some way in the past and are now lashing out? Think about why you are so hostile and talk to someone you respect about it, maybe your pastor. Slander is sin; do not doubt it. There are healthier and more fruitful ways to interact with us here. I invite you to try them.

John

You make me laugh, anger?

Do you not feel any anger at the desecration of the body and blood of our Lord?

If you dont then maybe you truly dont believe in transubstantiation or else you would feel the same way.

Possibly it is the protestanism left in many here who made the so called "conversion" who want to instill their beliefs by way of ecumania into the true church

With respect to the so called "conversions" in the bay area due to the gay masses, when you inform me they have given up their sinful way of life, instead of the church once again CONFORIMING to others way of life, then we can discuss


SDG

You make me laugh, anger?
Do you not feel any anger at the desecration of the body and blood of our Lord?

John: Somewhere in the world, bad Catholics are desecrating the body and blood of the Lord.

Right here on this blog, you treat sincere, earnest followers of Christ with derision, contempt and scorn.

I am sorry to say I cannot think of a single sentence from you on this blog that struck me as charitable. Whether that says more about me or about you, God will judge.

One thing I know. If I have all zeal for the Blessed Sacrament, and denounce homosexual Masses, and have not charity, it profits me nothing.

Tim J.

"John: That was Tim J laughing, not Inocencio."

Well, actually, no - it was Inocencio.

SDG

Well, actually, no - it was Inocencio.

Oh, I see. I thought since John was quoting you, he was addressing you. Sorry for the confusion.

Memphis Aggie

John,

I converted from Judiasm not Protestantism and as for my respect the the Real Presence: I believe. But do you believe in charity? I am happy to denounce the sin of homosexuality, while respecting the person who struggles with it. I found the term "homosexual masses" to be slanderously directed at San Francisco as a whole. You paint with a broad brush. Direct your ire more precisely.

Inocencio

John,

First, get a dictionary so you can look up the word discuss. Because "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

Second, "You've got an overdeveloped sense of vengeance. It's going to get you into trouble someday."

Third, have a nice day on your hobby horse, Banter.

Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J


John

Inocencio posted:

"Third, have a nice day on your hobby horse, Banter."

Response:

If the protection of the Catholic church, her sacraments, her tradition and customs are a "Hobby horse", then let it ride!!

Inocencio

John,

When you pretend that you are protecting the Catholic Church by attacking the pope it makes me pity you. You really seem to believe every word you say because you have said it. Sad really.

As for protecting the Church that is why Christ Himself instituted the papacy. You have no authority whatsoever to define or declare Church teaching. Take a deep breath, calm down and put your hobby horse out to pasture.

Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

Memphis Aggie

John,

Another note, somewhat off topic. I, for one, think homosexuals and those suffering under same sex attraction (SSA) deserve compassion. As a happily married heterosexual, I'm protected from strong temptations and truly blessed with a loving wife. I have a lot to be grateful for, while the homosexuals I've known undergo hellish tests. Their desires push them away from the Church and God, and society supports and actively encourages that division. I wouldn't wish that on anybody.

JoAnna
If the protection of the Catholic church, her sacraments, her tradition and customs are a "Hobby horse", then let it ride!!

"If I speak in human and angelic tongues but do not have love, I am a resounding gong or a clashing cymbal.

[Love] it is not rude, it does not seek its own interests, it is not quick-tempered, it does not brood over injury,

it does not rejoice over wrongdoing but rejoices with the truth."

1 Corinthians 13:1, 5-6

John, when you post, all I hear is the clashing of cymbals.

SDG

Memphis Aggie, thanks for your contribution to this discussion. You get my vote for this thread's MVP (not to diss anyone else).

Memphis Aggie

Thanks SGD!

Memphis Aggie

Oops I mean SDG

Inocencio

SDG,

I second the nomination.

Joanna,

AMEN.

Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

AFN

Inocencio said "A number of people have cited the point that a bishop or parish priest must inform the individual of their persistent mortal sin and explain to them why they no longer can receive the Eucharist.

"My Question: Does it have to be the bishop of the individual's diocese? Does it have to be the priest at his local parish? Or, can it be any bishop or any priest? And how must the bishop or priest inform the individual? Could they send a letter to their Congressional office? A phone call?

--------------------
Yes. During the 2004 presidential elections our bishop sent a letter to John Kerry's campaign headquarters notifying him he would be denied the Eucharist if he attended Mass in the diocese while traveling around campaigning based on canon 915

Regarding the same sex attraction sidenote, as a Gay, Catholic celibate man, I would appreciate not being treated like a leper because of what is in my reasoned and informed opinion the sexuality with which God created me.

Yes, celibacy can be a struggle for many, but worse is the lack of respect for someone as a person you can feel at Church. Married opposite attracted couples receive much respect and deference as do celibate clergy of either sex as well as "consecrated" virgins and widows.

There seems to be an assumption widely held that if you are gay you are not celibate or have more difficulty than others we expect to maintain celibacy. Only when the Church stops treating same sex orientation as a shameful "disorder" needing compassion for "sufferers" and approaches it's Gay sons and daughters with an approach of outright respect and starts genuinely acting as though their life is a variation in how we may be created will it possibly succeed in not alienating the pink sheep in the family.

Memphis Aggie

AFN,

I apologize if I offended you, it was not my intent. No doubt being a celibate is difficult for anyone. I had in mind the fact that gays have social and family pressures that straights do not.

I have not read the Theology of the Body but it is my understanding that Catholic teaching is that sex which can not create life or does not enhance the union of a sacramental marriage is sinful. In this light homosexuality is much like the use of birth control (a mortal sin I was guilty of prior to conversion) It is sex simply for selfish pleasure that is sin. In fact even in a sacramental marriage if I am selfish I sin in this way.

It is a difficult teaching for everyone. Our Lady at Fatima said that most of the souls in hell failed due to lust.

John

Memphis posted:

"Another note, somewhat off topic. I, for one, think homosexuals and those suffering under same sex attraction (SSA) deserve compassion"

Gee Memphis, thanks for telling me that, and I love that little acronym that now has been tagged for those who are homosexual (SSA??)


I was always taught "Love the sinner hate the sin", guess that applies here, dont you think!!!


As far as the papacy Inocencio, maybe you should go back and learn of some of the teachings of Leo XIII and Pius X and tell me if they are in line with your way of thinking , or just the present liberal papacy that is in place today

Memphis Aggie

John,

Seriously what is "liberal" about the current papacy?

Memphis Aggie

John,

Another side note: SSA is an acronym the Church uses in it's documents to distinguish the desire from the act (or temptation from sin). I read about it in reference to seminaries which were debating whether SSA should be a considered in accepting applicants to the priesthood, recognizing that there were likely many priests/brothers who lived with same sex attraction.

SDG

John: An honest question.

You just quoted the aphorism "Love the sinner, hate the sin" -- an aphorism that has two clauses.

When you look at those two clauses, which of the two do you think that you, personally, are more likely to fail to satisfy?

Are you personally more likely to fail at hating sin, or more likely to fail at loving sinners?

Which of the two dangers represents the more proximate risk to your soul? Which of the two are you personally in more need of emphasizing in your own life?

peter

Virgina,

Why would you want communion from a cult like the Catholic church. Martin Luther, and many others have called it the Anti-Christ church to be revealed at the last days. Catholic festivals are a repacking of the cult of Mithra!

Inocencio

John,

I have read the teachings of Leo XIII and Pius X and in fact quoted them in refuting your nonsense.

Seriously, John, as I have suggested many times take a course in reading comprehension before you hurt yourself.

Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

peter

Why would anybody with intelligence want to be a Catholic. This is a male dominated, sexist, depressing, guilt ridden organization, trying to figure out if there is a God or not. Remember Catholics were instrumental in killing Abraham Lincoln. In Central America Catholic Priests are the biggest promoters of Communism.

peter

Catholics are more interested in Politics and having little boys as 'playmates' than in any interest in spreading the gospel message. Catholicism became the state religion in 325 AD and it is tormenting people ever since. Constantine the Emporer made it the religion to keep both Christians and Pagans happy. Now it is a religion that is neither Christian nor Pagan.

Jimmy Akin

PETER: THIS IS YOUR RULE #1 WARNING. KNOCK IT OFF OR YOU WILL NOT BE WELCOME ON THIS BLOG.

peter

No person who is truly set free would submit to the persecution of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church has killed more Christians than Islam ever has. The blood of martyrs is on the hands of this evil institution.

Jimmy Akin

PETER: FINAL WARNING. POST AGAIN IN THIS MANNER AND YOU WILL NOT BE WELCOME ON THIS BLOG.

peter

Jimmy,

What is wrong with giving a different perspective. Are you part of the thought police?

peter

What are the guidelines. China and Russia censor, so why do you?

Jimmy Akin

The above warning relates to the previous post. "Different perspectives" are not a problem. Bomb-throwing posts on subjects unrelated to the main topic is. This is a combox. Posters should keep to the main topic.

peter

Does not your Bible say, KNOW THE TRUTH AND IT WILL SET YOU FREE! Censors always fear the TRUTH.

peter

Fair enough

Jimmy Akin

If you want to know the guidelines, check out DA RULZ.

peter

So did Jesus require all this Canon Law during communion, or is this an invention of workers of iniquity?

Tim J.

"Only when the Church stops treating same sex orientation as a shameful "disorder"...

But it IS a disorder. Read the Catechism. Whether it is "shameful" is entirely up to the person dealing with it.

It is disordered affection.

Brian

Yay! It's wacky conspiracy theory time! Ooh...ooh...tell me about the Vatican supercomputer, Grampa! I want to hear about the Vatican supercomputer!

peter

Show me evidence that communion practiced by Jesus is the same practiced by the Catholic Church. I see no correlation.

peter

I was baptized Catholic and did first communion and confirmation. However I don't see how a slap is going to give you the Holy Spirit. These are man made traditions that can't be from God. God is a God of mercy not of slapping!

Esau

Show me evidence that communion practiced by Jesus is the same practiced by the Catholic Church. I see no correlation.

Saint Paul said, "The Cup of blessing that we bless, is it not the Communion of the Blood of Christ? and the bread which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord? ...

For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night in which he was betrayed, took bread, and giving thanks, brake it, and said: 'Take and Eat: This is My Body which shall be delivered for you. This do for the commemoration of Me'. In like manner also the cup, after the Supper, saying: 'This Cup is the New Covenant in My Blood. This do ye, as often ye shall drink, for the commemoration of Me. For as often ye shall eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye shall show the death of the Lord until He come. Therefore, whoever shall eat this bread, or drink the cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord.

But let a man prove himself; and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup.

For, he who eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord. (1 Cor 10:16, 1 Cor 11:23-29)

There are as many as 63 Fathers and eminent ecclesiastical writers from the 1st to 6th centuries, all of whom proclaim the Real Presence.

St Ignatius in the 1st century was a disciple of St. Peter himself and when he addressed the Gnostics, he even said:

"They abstain from the Eucharist and prayer, because they confess not that the Eucharist and prayer is the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ."

St. Justin Martyr wrote an Apology to the Emperor Anotoninus in the 2nd century:

"We do not receive these things as common bread and drink; but as Jesus Christ our Saviour was made flesh by the word of God, even so we have been taught that the Eucharist is both the flesh and the blood of the same incarnate Jesus."

Origen in the 3rd century wrote:

"If thou wilt go up with Christ to celebrate the Passover, He will give to thee that bread of Benediction, His own body, and will vouchsafe to thee His own blood."

St. Cyril of Jerusalem in the 4th century instructed the Catechumens:

"He Himself having declared, 'This is My Body', who shall dare to doubt henceforward? And He having said, 'This is My Blood', who shall ever doubt, saying: This is not His blood? He once at Cana turned water into wine, which is akin to blood; and is He underserving of belief when He turned wine into blood?"

St. John Chrysostom preached on the Eucharist:

"If thou wert indeed incorporeal, He would have delivered to thee those same incorporeal gifts without covering. But since the soul is united to the body, He delivers to thee in things perceptible to the senses the things to be apprehended by the understanding. How many nowadays say: 'Would that they could look upon His (Jesus') form, His figure, His raiment, His shoes. Lo! Thou Seest Him, touchest Him, eatest Him.'"

St. Augustine in the 5th century addressed the newly-baptized, saying:

"I promised you a discourse wherein I would explain the sacrament of the Lord's table, which sacrament you even now behold, and of which you were last night partakers. You ought to know wat you have recieved. The bread which you see on the altar, after being sanctified by the word of God, is the Body of Christ. That chalice, after being sanctified by the word of God, is the Blood of Christ."

peter

Also show me 1500 years of Catholic charity. I have never seen her charitable. My local bishop slapped me in the head when I questioned my belief in God. I have only seen dogma and oppression from the Catholic church.

Brian

As to the slapping, I was never slapped. That, indeed, was a tradition, much like saying "God bless you" when you sneeze. Those evil Catholics! I doubt you'll find any sacramental theology saying that the outward sign of confirmation is a slap, a pinch, or a poke in the eye.

peter

Great Esau, you quote 63 men from the 1st and 6th century. Where do they use canon law? Maybe the Catholic church has perverted the teaching of these great men.

Esau

Also show me 1500 years of Catholic charity. I have never seen her charitable.

Excuse me, but it was in fact the Catholic Church that established charitable help to all peoples from the very beginning.

Prior to the Church, charity of this kind was unheard of.

Read "How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization".

Perhaps you might actually learn something about the Catholic Church.

Jimmy Akin

Due to multiple egregious Rule #1 infractions, Peter is disinvited to participate on the blog.

Esau

Great Esau, you quote 63 men from the 1st and 6th century. Where do they use canon law? Maybe the Catholic church has perverted the teaching of these great men.

What?

Am I responsible for educating you in Patrology or even Patristics?

I have no time for that.

If your an adult, that's your responsibility -- not mine.

Tim J.

peter is a classic combox troll. It isn't a different point of view that he presents, so much a a particular kind of disease of the mind and heart.

Pray for him. This disease takes hold of Catholics, too, as we have seen in this very thread.

John

Esau posted:

"What?

Am I responsible for educating you in Patrology or even Patristics?

I have no time for that.

If your an adult, that's your responsibility -- not mine."


Esau-Not that I agree with the person, but how many times, countless, have you and Inocencio asked ME to provide you some sort of proof, whatever it may be to back up any statement I have made. And then when I present the link, you try and discredit it, and then me with slander!

Please pray for a full restoration of the church back to the times when one felt the real presence, the mass was full of reflection and worship of God and not Man/Woman, and where one knelt to receive our Lord on ones tongue from a man ordained in the rite of Holy orders and not from some lady who looked like your Aunt Sally with her hands outstretched to place Our Lord from her hands into yours expressing the denial of the real presence by these actions

SDG

John, any thoughts on the question I asked you above?

Inocencio

John,

You have the same perspective as peter, who was just dis invited.

You both think the Catholic Church teaches what you say it does even when the evidence contradicts your preconceived notion.

Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

David B.

"However I don't see how a slap is going to give you the Holy Spirit."

it does not. it is to remind you that you will suffer for Christ, if you will to follow him.

The comments to this entry are closed.

January 2012

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31