J
JReducation
Guest
The man is not saying it is. When I read it I understood it very differently. It’s the kind of joke as in saying that you roll your eyes at the uncomfortable situation.
JR
- Status
JR
C
CapIV
Guest
He is knowingly administering communion to those who are not in a state to receive it. Surely you are aware that this is contrary to canon law?The man is not saying it is. When I read it I understood it very differently. It’s the kind of joke as in saying that you roll your eyes at the uncomfortable situation.
JR
J
JReducation
Guest
Canon law allows for a bishop to do this. Check out Pope Benedict XVI giving communion to Tony Blair before he was Catholic and to Brother Roger of Taize, the Lutheran superior general of the Monks of Taize.
Fraternally,
JR
S
St_Francis
Guest
How would he know which of the people there was Catholic, etc.? Obviously they are distributing the Eucharist and not asking each and every person if they are Catholic.
J
JReducation
Guest
That’s another valid point. I had not considered it. It reminds me of the large crowds that often attend mass at our parish, usually between 800 and 1,000 per mass. No one really knows who is and who is not, especially on holy days such Christmas and Easter.
Fraternally,
JR
C
ClementRome
Guest
I loved when Bishop Chaput went on TV during the Pelosi scandal to set everything straight and affirm correct teaching of the Church. Someone had to fix the errors Pelosi had spread on the media and Im glad he had the courage too. The liberal media I think bullys the bishops and hence many do not come on TV to express and correct scandal
C
ClementRome
Guest
He is one of my favorite preachers. I hear nothing but truth when he speaks. I don’t think he is mean
S
sauce
Guest
Right on.
The media generally sound ill informed and old-fashioned when discussing or reporting Church teaching. They don’t get it and don’t make good connections either.
Pelosi needs a good house cleaning. She’s stale. And her quoting St. Augustine or
St. Thomas to support her views are way out of line.
K
kesa82
Guest
Generally because it is physically easier to write on the computer, I can easily erase, swap or switch out sentences, cut and paste, etc, I can write more carefully, write better, yes, write in a more charitable vein , this way than I could in long-hand, on paper.
But that’s my individual experience.
Also, at least for me, charity on this particular forum has been rigorously enforced. I am sometimes quite puzzled that comments that seem to me blatantly hostile apparently pass even without a warning, but anyway, as I am scared to death of being banned from this forum, I have learned the most remarkable self-restraint, which has ultimately evolved apparently into a charity that is GENUINELY FELT.
Then too I am a convert to Catholicism, and I have this over-emotional, over-wrought, desire to be loved, or liked, or at least tolerated, by Catholics.
So that has its effect too.
But that’s my individual experience.
Also, at least for me, charity on this particular forum has been rigorously enforced. I am sometimes quite puzzled that comments that seem to me blatantly hostile apparently pass even without a warning, but anyway, as I am scared to death of being banned from this forum, I have learned the most remarkable self-restraint, which has ultimately evolved apparently into a charity that is GENUINELY FELT.
Then too I am a convert to Catholicism, and I have this over-emotional, over-wrought, desire to be loved, or liked, or at least tolerated, by Catholics.
So that has its effect too.
S
Steeltemplar
Guest
It seems odd to me that Bishop Chaput does not deny communion to people like Ritter. Chaput is a very vocal and open defender of life. I would be interested in his reasoning.
J
johnnykins
Guest
What is a constant amazement to me on this Board is that so many members confuse “Charity” with “niceness” They are VERY different. “Charity - caritas - love - agape” - refer to an unlimited unselfish total giving concern/love for the other person. It is one of the 3 theological virtues. Someone mentioned the Dominicans, above. fueled by Charity they were usually the heavies in the Inquisitions. If your concern is for the salvation of others, sometimes you MUST be harsh, albeit for that charitable purpose. Failing to bring others to salvation in a confused sense of charity - being nice and not telling them of their error - can be the antithesis of charity. Certainly cruelty has no part in charity. Certainly harshness CAN also be counterproductive to Charity - but that is to be determined in the specific instance.
“Niceness” usually has NOTHING to do with caritas. Niceness often implies dullness, stupidity and smarminess. It can imply a fine point, a casuistic distinction. Often, hypocrisy leading to all manner of ill-considered and destructive results follow in it wake. A “nice” person often is played for the fool. “Nice” often has no place in business - as distinct from common courtesy or etiquette. “Nice” has no place when dealing with heresy, dissent, arrogance, etc.
B
Bruno_Schulz
Guest
**Two CAF-Friends of mine wrote to me, about this bishops thread. I of course don’t know a thing about it. Obviously he got nasty e-mails because he wanted to restore pure believe in God. Is that right?
A friend wrote:
Our Archbishop of Denver, Colorado, Charles Chaput, has stated as fact that the Church has FAILED in the past 40 years to teach the faith. He believes that the Church is only reaping what it sowed… Bad seeds produce bad plants.
I don’t know about the USA-RCC of course, but to over here, Europe I must say; yes he’d be very right indeed.
In Germany/Austria/Switzerland the Church minded far much too much the minds of people, to whom Church and believe in God is a kind of manner one does, sort of association for better togetherness, instead of the one and only foundation of life – which Christianity is - instead of teaching and preaching the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
I so often told Priests and theologians in Cath. Forums, they must not mind what people think, neither what they want to hear, but the truth of Jesus Christ only!
Once upon a day it was too late then.
Now we got three religious spoiled generations
It’ll take generations again to put things straight.
A young priest – son of our friends – usually preaches very strongly indeed. One sample of his sermon he preached on the eve before Christmas, when I had been in that service together with a friend of ours, a friar.
Father Metzinger said: Those of you, who did not reconcile with their neighbors, shouldn’t even think of celebrating Christmas before they did so!
Jesus Christ too very often user very hard words to put things straight.
So, if Christians, or even Catholics wrote nasty letters to this bishop as I understood, they ought to find out if they still are on the way of Jesus Christ, or if they too mistake the RCC for a social club.
**
A friend wrote:
Our Archbishop of Denver, Colorado, Charles Chaput, has stated as fact that the Church has FAILED in the past 40 years to teach the faith. He believes that the Church is only reaping what it sowed… Bad seeds produce bad plants.
I don’t know about the USA-RCC of course, but to over here, Europe I must say; yes he’d be very right indeed.
In Germany/Austria/Switzerland the Church minded far much too much the minds of people, to whom Church and believe in God is a kind of manner one does, sort of association for better togetherness, instead of the one and only foundation of life – which Christianity is - instead of teaching and preaching the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
I so often told Priests and theologians in Cath. Forums, they must not mind what people think, neither what they want to hear, but the truth of Jesus Christ only!
Once upon a day it was too late then.
Now we got three religious spoiled generations
It’ll take generations again to put things straight.
A young priest – son of our friends – usually preaches very strongly indeed. One sample of his sermon he preached on the eve before Christmas, when I had been in that service together with a friend of ours, a friar.
Father Metzinger said: Those of you, who did not reconcile with their neighbors, shouldn’t even think of celebrating Christmas before they did so!
Jesus Christ too very often user very hard words to put things straight.
So, if Christians, or even Catholics wrote nasty letters to this bishop as I understood, they ought to find out if they still are on the way of Jesus Christ, or if they too mistake the RCC for a social club.
**
G
gam197
Guest
This has been a problem even in my immediate family(brothers,sisters) as I am called by them not to mention “anything” controversial such as abortion.
When I say to my children that the church teaches that contraception is a sin or you are required to go to mass weekly, I am called “mean” and my children get angry with me.
I keep quiet but it does break down communication.
F
Fitz
Guest
Exactly, however I have actually read that some people think he’s mean. This leads me to wonder what type of mean Archbishop Chaput is really reading in the emails. I do think it is wrong to email a religious person and be crude, mean, or disrespectful. However, if it were phrased as to speak the truth and say things that “sound” mean to a cafeteria Catholic, then it may not really be mean. Many priests and Bishops lean left on their thinking and they are actually causing scandal themselves. I don’t know if that is the case here. I would like to see an example of what he considers mean. Then we could actually discuss this intelligently. Right now I fear it is just speculation. He says the left swears at him, but the right is mean. I want an example.
S
Shin
Guest
Yes, this when I read it, I became properly angry at the action: desiring with a strong will that it cease. If Chaput is receiving properly worded angry letters about this, then he has nothing to complain about, as there is an anger that is appropriate and even sinful not to express about the things of God. Anger can be expressed properly when it is under control and so serves its end, though it often is not, this zeal for the Lord is born of real charity. Anger discourages sinners from their sinful actions, and leads them to understand how truly bad what they are doing is and the terrible consequences, so it has a good purpose when it does not cause excess in the soul who expressed it, and it ceases after it has served its purpose rather than festers.
I won’t defend it expressed improperly, I will defend its expression in and of itself because there seems to be a widespread misunderstanding about that these days.
A person who is set in some gravely sinful action often will NOT cease it, if he receives 100 nice communications, but will cease it from 100 irate ones, and this is better than it continuing. So both have their place, especially combined properly, the welcome towards repentence and the reproof towards sin. Knowing which to use in each occasion or how much to use each is a matter of grace and virtue.
If the archbishop receives 100 people asking him to stop, or 100 protestors demanding that he stop, depending on his mentality – the latter might work better than the former.
So I’m glad it was brought up that and wish to reinforce that not all anger is inappropriate. It is a natural reaction that has its place properly ordered in the spiritual life. Christ Himself demonstrated this for us sufficiently I should hope.
Most people are so disorderly in their Catholicism or spiritual lives that expressing anger is difficult for them to do properly at all, because they do not understand what they are speaking about. This is par for the course and why places such as these forums need less anger and more kindness generally. But even in such people and people far from the faith anger can spring from the natural moral law and be better than permissiveness.
Yet in regards to the Archbishop, I wish it were not true that he had expressed this casual regard towards sacrilege, especially since he has on other occasions been so orthodox, it is the more saddening, but so far there is nothing to indicate that it is untrue.
It costs him nothing to in his homily before any mass where there are people who could improperly receive to give them fair warning. It costs him his soul if he is careless about sacrilegious reception of Communion.
I truly hope he is simply being misunderstood, though I am not so naive as to assume this is the most likely explanation.
On Anger
‘I want you to understand, that there is such a thing as a holy anger that springs from the zeal that we have for the interests of God.’
St. Jean Marie Baptiste Vianney, the Cure of Ars
“We must beware lest, when we use anger as an instrument of virtue, it overrule the mind, and go before it as its mistress, instead of following in reason’s train, ever ready, as its handmaid, to obey. . . zealous anger troubles the eye of reason, whereas sinful anger blinds it. . . There is an anger which is engendered of evil, and there is an anger engendered of good. Hastiness of temper is the cause of the evil, divine principle is the cause of the good, such as that which Phinees felt when he allayed God’s anger by the use of his own sword.”
St. Gregory the Great
Only the person who becomes irate without reason, sins. Whoever becomes irate for a just reason is not guilty. Because, if ire were lacking, the science of God would not progress, judgments would not be sound, and crimes would not be repressed.
Further, the person who does not become irate when he has cause to be, sins. For an unreasonable patience is the hotbed of many vices: it fosters negligence, and stimulates not only the wicked, but above all the good, to do wrong.
It is unlawful to desire vengeance considered as evil to the man who is to be punished, but it is praiseworthy to desire vengeance as a corrective of vice and for the good of justice; and to this the sensitive appetite can tend, in so far as it is moved thereto by the reason: and when revenge is taken in accordance with the order of judgment, it is God’s work, since he who has power to punish “is God’s minister,” as stated in Romans 13:4.
St. Thomas Aquinas
‘There is among the passions an anger of the intellect, and this anger is in accordance with nature. Without anger a man cannot attain purity: he has to feel angry with all that is sown in him by the enemy. When Job felt this anger he reviled his enemies, calling them * ‘dishonorable men of no repute, lacking everything good, whom I would not consider fit to live with the dogs that guard my flocks’ (cf. Job 30:1, 4. LXX). *He who wishes to acquire the anger that is in accordance with nature must uproot all self-will, until he establishes within himself the state natural to the intellect.’
St. Isaiah the Solitary
Code:
Therefore, putting away falsehood, speak the truth, each one to his neighbor, for we are members one of another.
Be angry, and sin not. Let not the sun go down upon your anger,
and do not leave room for the devil.
J
JReducation
Guest
The issue about communion is being taken out of context. If one goes back to the Archbishop’s statement, he said that people are told before mass the rules regarding receiving communion.
As to whether to give communion to Mr. X who should not ordinarilly receive communion, that is the judgment call of a bishop. There is no sacrilege if a bishop dicides to do so.
As I said before, Pope Benedict himself set this precedent at the funeral mass of John Paul II. He gave communion to Protestants. The most famous and recognizabe one was Brother Roger of Taize. After he was pope, he gave communion to Tony Blair before Blair entered the Church.
When Blair entered the Church the Vatican was asked what to do about his stance on abortion. The Holy Father’s answer was that charity had to be practiced and Blair was allowed to become Catholic without recanting his position on abortion. The official statement of the Vatican was that Blair was still on the journey. We don’t really know what was happening in private.
When asked why the Holy Father had given Blair communion before he became a Catholic, the press was politely told that it was no one’s business except the Holy Father’s.
This is possible, because at the time Joseph Ratzinger was a bishop and in charge of the proceedings at the funeral mass of Pope John Paul II. Of course he was elected pope after that, so there is no question about his authority to give communion to those whom he feels it would be a good thing.
Church law allows bishops to make this judgment call, not just the Pope.
We have to put these things into perspective, because there are certain decisions that come with the authority of the episcopacy. They (the bishops) do not have to share their reasons with anyone, except the Holy See, if asked. These judgment calls do not place a bishop’s soul in danger, because he has the authority to make them.
We have to understand the Church’s laws regarding the power and authority of a bishop and other men who are Ordinaries. They can make exceptions to rules for what they consider just or necessary reasons. The judgment is really very subjective, because the Church does not put too many restraints on the bishop. Only the Holy Father can do that.
I hope this helps clarify some questions.
Fraternally,
JR
As to whether to give communion to Mr. X who should not ordinarilly receive communion, that is the judgment call of a bishop. There is no sacrilege if a bishop dicides to do so.
As I said before, Pope Benedict himself set this precedent at the funeral mass of John Paul II. He gave communion to Protestants. The most famous and recognizabe one was Brother Roger of Taize. After he was pope, he gave communion to Tony Blair before Blair entered the Church.
When Blair entered the Church the Vatican was asked what to do about his stance on abortion. The Holy Father’s answer was that charity had to be practiced and Blair was allowed to become Catholic without recanting his position on abortion. The official statement of the Vatican was that Blair was still on the journey. We don’t really know what was happening in private.
When asked why the Holy Father had given Blair communion before he became a Catholic, the press was politely told that it was no one’s business except the Holy Father’s.
This is possible, because at the time Joseph Ratzinger was a bishop and in charge of the proceedings at the funeral mass of Pope John Paul II. Of course he was elected pope after that, so there is no question about his authority to give communion to those whom he feels it would be a good thing.
Church law allows bishops to make this judgment call, not just the Pope.
We have to put these things into perspective, because there are certain decisions that come with the authority of the episcopacy. They (the bishops) do not have to share their reasons with anyone, except the Holy See, if asked. These judgment calls do not place a bishop’s soul in danger, because he has the authority to make them.
We have to understand the Church’s laws regarding the power and authority of a bishop and other men who are Ordinaries. They can make exceptions to rules for what they consider just or necessary reasons. The judgment is really very subjective, because the Church does not put too many restraints on the bishop. Only the Holy Father can do that.
I hope this helps clarify some questions.
Fraternally,
JR
S
Steeltemplar
Guest
I think there is no question that Bishop Chaput takes great care with the Eucharist and treats the Holy Body and Blood of Christ with the utmost honor. His comment reflects, I think, his dealing with the frustration that all Priests must feel in dealing with these situations where the rifts in Christianity cause such problems.
J
JReducation
Guest
All of us should unite our voices and hearts in prayer that these rifts will heal.
Fraternally,
JR
S
Steeltemplar
Guest
I most certainly agree. As a convert myself from Protestantism, I know there is at least hopeAll of us should unite our voices and hearts in prayer that these rifts will heal.
Fraternally,
JR
D
Darryl1958
Guest
That was what the role of the fool in the king’s court was all about.
Only do the perfect not need the scourge of harsh criticism. Only when it doesn’t hurt is it irrelevant. If it hurts, then it very likely hit the target.
Probably the bishop is a very good man.
- Status