Archbishop Flynn: But WAIT, there's more!

[Deacon_Ed]

Once again I seem to in a position of defending pro-abortion politicians – a position I cannot take. I can, however, look at the situation as most of the bishops do since I have discussed this situation with several bishops.

We must begin with the premise that the “well formed conscience” is the final guide for all Catholics in making moral decisions. Yet, according to Catholic teaching, even if the conscience is not well-formed it must be followed. Thus, one could form a vision of the world in which abortion, although not personally acceptable, cannot be denied to those who would seek it. If that is what a person really believes then he or she might not be guilty of sin for following that thinking. Of course, the formation of such a conscience is lacking in that it clearly has not considered the full teaching of the Church on this matter. But the Church, through the sacrament of confession, is the one to make the determination of sin. No one can judge the state of another’s soul – that would be sinful!

It is for this reason that many bishops are hesitant to say that a pro-abortion politician cannot receive communion.

Those bishops who have chosen to make this statement, do so with their role a defender of the faith first and foremost. That is, they are saying that regardless of the state of the soul of such an individual, they are explicitly rejecting a portion of the Church’s teaching and, because of that, are no longer Catholic. There is, of course, historical precedent to this position.

Thank God I’m not a bishop. I would not want to be in a position to have to make such a judgement.

Deacon Ed

 

[aquinasadmirer]

Deacon Ed:

Once again I seem to in a position of defending pro-abortion politicians – a position I cannot take. I can, however, look at the situation as most of the bishops do since I have discussed this situation with several bishops.

We must begin with the premise that the “well formed conscience” is the final guide for all Catholics in making moral decisions. Yet, according to Catholic teaching, even if the conscience is not well-formed it must be followed. Thus, one could form a vision of the world in which abortion, although not personally acceptable, cannot be denied to those who would seek it. If that is what a person really believes then he or she might not be guilty of sin for following that thinking. Of course, the formation of such a conscience is lacking in that it clearly has not considered the full teaching of the Church on this matter. But the Church, through the sacrament of confession, is the one to make the determination of sin. No one can judge the state of another’s soul – that would be sinful!

It is for this reason that many bishops are hesitant to say that a pro-abortion politician cannot receive communion.

Those bishops who have chosen to make this statement, do so with their role a defender of the faith first and foremost. That is, they are saying that regardless of the state of the soul of such an individual, they are explicitly rejecting a portion of the Church’s teaching and, because of that, are no longer Catholic. There is, of course, historical precedent to this position.

Thank God I’m not a bishop. I would not want to be in a position to have to make such a judgement.

Deacon Ed

Deacon Ed,

If a politician is openly advocating or promoting abortion as a morally acceptable practice, would it be safe to assume that either:

a) they have a well-formed conscience, they know it’s wrong and wish to do it anyway.

b) they have a semi/mal-formed conscience, and follow it to justify promoting the pro-“choice” position.

c) I can’t of another scenario…

Deacon Ed, can you think of another scenario other than a or b?

If “a” is true, does this not fit the objective definition of grave sin?

If “b” is true, what responsibility (canonically or otherwise) does the bishop have to instruct the faithful in the whole truth of the church’s magesterial teaching?

Aren’t correcting with charity and instructing the ignorant works of mercy?

If there is no corrective action, or no response of a clear teaching of the gravity of giving support to abortion, then it should be no surprise that people are going to conclude that both the Eucharist and abortion are not really that important.

This is the Catholic Dictionary’s definition of scandal:
*
Scandal, i.e., the occasion of sin, follows from omission of required acts as well as from direct acts. Bishops, having failed to actively and repeatedly oppose abortion, have been and are continuing to be an underlying reason for many in their jurisdictions to not act according to the will of God in regard to the defense of the innocent. Practical – the effect of – indifference to abortion on the part of bishops should be understood as the source of grave scandal.

    Opposition to truth in regard to grave matter is grave scandal. Failure to support truth in regard to grave matter should also be considered as grave scandal.*

I’m tempted to think that this situation may fall under the definition of scandal.

Ultimately, this is a crisis of faith. People’s catechesis (including my own) has been woefully lacking. If the face of a progressively secularizing society, if people don’t know exactly why they are Catholic, they will be swept away by the prevailing norms of the culture. I hope we can find a way to remedy this.

 

[Deacon_Ed]

aquinasadmirer:

Deacon Ed,

If a politician is openly advocating or promoting abortion as a morally acceptable practice, would it be safe to assume that either:

a) they have a well-formed conscience, they know it’s wrong and wish to do it anyway.

b) they have a semi/mal-formed conscience, and follow it to justify promoting the pro-“choice” position.

c) I can’t of another scenario…

Deacon Ed, can you think of another scenario other than a or b?

How about: they have a well-formed conscience, would never have or permit a family member to have an abortion but do not believe that they can force their religious views on the public at large?

aquinasadmirer:

If “a” is true, does this not fit the objective definition of grave sin?

If “b” is true, what responsibility (canonically or otherwise) does the bishop have to instruct the faithful in the whole truth of the church’s magesterial teaching?

Aren’t correcting with charity and instructing the ignorant works of mercy?

To your first question, yes – it fits theh objective definition. But the issue is not one of the objective status, but rather of the subjective status – is the individual in mortal sin or not? That cannot be decided in the external forum because it is a matter of sufficient reflection and freedom of action coupled with knowledge.

The Church as a whole, the bishops as the official teacher in their dioceses, and the priests and deacons who serve with him are all obligated to present the truth, to teach and to admonish. But there is a limit to what we can do. We cannot force another to accept our belief and position. Each person is obligated to follow his or her own conscience and to form it in the best way possible.

aquinasadmirer:

If there is no corrective action, or no response of a clear teaching of the gravity of giving support to abortion, then it should be no surprise that people are going to conclude that both the Eucharist and abortion are not really that important.

I agree with your conclusion, but wonder at what you think an appropriate “corrective action” might be. The Church is a solicitous Mother seeking the best for her children. Perhaps the “spare the rod, spoil the child” thinking of the past needs to return – I don’t know (it didn’t help me!). Pope John XXIII set the Church on a different path with regard to corrective action – a soft approach instead of a big stick.

Remedies to the existing problem exist in prayer, dedication to the Truth, and being willing to speak out when things are wrong. Cardinal Ratzinger has said that he thinks the Church must get smaller in order to get past the present “crisis.” That would be consistent with history.

Deacon Ed

 

[Greg_McPherran]

cestusdei:

I am just one of those young mean conservative priests that send shivers up the spines of the dissenters.

Father, I can’t begin to tell you how much I encourage you and thank God for you.

Greg

 

[Theodora]

Deacon Ed:

Once again I seem to in a position of defending pro-abortion politicians – a position I cannot take. I can, however, look at the situation as most of the bishops do since I have discussed this situation with several bishops.

We must begin with the premise that the “well formed conscience” is the final guide for all Catholics in making moral decisions. Yet, according to Catholic teaching, even if the conscience is not well-formed it must be followed. Thus, one could form a vision of the world in which abortion, although not personally acceptable, cannot be denied to those who would seek it. If that is what a person really believes then he or she might not be guilty of sin for following that thinking. Of course, the formation of such a conscience is lacking in that it clearly has not considered the full teaching of the Church on this matter. But the Church, through the sacrament of confession, is the one to make the determination of sin. No one can judge the state of another’s soul – that would be sinful!

It is for this reason that many bishops are hesitant to say that a pro-abortion politician cannot receive communion.

Those bishops who have chosen to make this statement, do so with their role a defender of the faith first and foremost. That is, they are saying that regardless of the state of the soul of such an individual, they are explicitly rejecting a portion of the Church’s teaching and, because of that, are no longer Catholic. There is, of course, historical precedent to this position.

Thank God I’m not a bishop. I would not want to be in a position to have to make such a judgement.

Deacon Ed

Deacon Ed,

Thank you for your responses.

I definitely think that there are two lines of thinking. To make it short:

There are Bishops who don’t think they should judge anyone until a person confesses and, therefore, will give Holy Communion to politicians who consistently cast their vote on the side of abortion, giving scandal to al to whom it is so evident that this is done only for personal gain. (To have a greater possibilty to be voted into office to which they aspire.)
and
There are Bishops who think that in matters this serious (abortion, euthenasia, etc) there is enough evidence to come to the reasonable conclusion that certain (catholic) politicians are just not honest with themselves and with others and, therefore, will not be given Holy Communion.

I sigh. Two opposing views: can both be right?

God Bless Everyone.

Theodora

 

[aquinasadmirer]

Deacon Ed:

How about: they have a well-formed conscience, would never have or permit a family member to have an abortion but do not believe that they can force their religious views on the public at large?

To your first question, yes – it fits theh objective definition. But the issue is not one of the objective status, but rather of the subjective status – is the individual in mortal sin or not? That cannot be decided in the external forum because it is a matter of sufficient reflection and freedom of action coupled with knowledge.

Agreed, one cannot tell if a person in a state of mortal sin–mortal sin is always a state where a person is ineligible for communion.

But I quoted Canon 915, because it uses the term grave sin, not mortal sin. If this distinction can be glossed over, why is the canon in the code? You are stating above that whether or not it’s mortal is subjective; true. You also state that it is objectively grave, we agree. The Canon says grave not mortal sin. Why does the Canon not apply here?
Deacon Ed:

The Church as a whole, the bishops as the official teacher in their dioceses, and the priests and deacons who serve with him are all obligated to present the truth, to teach and to admonish. But there is a limit to what we can do. We cannot force another to accept our belief and position. Each person is obligated to follow his or her own conscience and to form it in the best way possible.

I agree with your conclusion, but wonder at what you think an appropriate “corrective action” might be. The Church is a solicitous Mother seeking the best for her children. Perhaps the “spare the rod, spoil the child” thinking of the past needs to return – I don’t know (it didn’t help me!). Pope John XXIII set the Church on a different path with regard to corrective action – a soft approach instead of a big stick.

I don’t know, maybe I could hear from the ambo that abortion is intrinsically evil more than once a decade. Maybe I could read that abortion and euthenasia are intrinsically evil without having them be lumped in with gun control and the tax code in the same paragraph, thus leading the casual reader to think that they are on a par with each other. Maybe I could hear from the pulpit the difference between mortal, grave and venial sin?

I don’t think any of these are overly harsh. I just think that we need to have some solid catechesis. I pray that my priest has the courage to talk about it more. I wonder how many priests are afraid to talk about it because they are afraid of losing their 501(c)3 status.

Remedies to the existing problem exist in prayer, dedication to the Truth, and being willing to speak out when things are wrong. Cardinal Ratzinger has said that he thinks the Church must get smaller in order to get past the present “crisis.” That would be consistent with history.

Deacon Ed

Yes, and that’s ok, history also shows that in times of crisis that there is also great spiritual gifts to be had as well. Times of Crisis gave us figures like, Augstine, St. Catherine of Genoa, St. Theresa of Avila, St. John of the Cross, St. Francis of Assisi, St. Catherine of Siena, St. Francis de Sales. (Just to name a few that popped into my brain) Lord knows there are multitudes of others.

 

[Sherlock]

Deacon Ed,

You wrote: “How about: they have a well-formed conscience, would never have or permit a family member to have an abortion but do not believe that they can force their religious views on the public at large?”

“Forcing” their religious views? We’re not speaking of “forcing” here. In the scenario you give us above, why wouldn’t this person abstain from pro-abortion votes if they feel that to vote pro-life constituted “force”? Far from abstaining, the pro-abortion politicians that would incur a denial of the Eucharist are active supporters of abortion. For example (to pick the most conspicuous one) Kerry speaking to the NARAL group is hardly the action of someone who believes that abortion is wrong but doesn’t want to impose that view—he could choose not to speak at their gatherings if he thought abortion was wrong but did not want to support it. Likewise, a vote against the partial-birth abortion ban is not the action of someone in the scenario you provided. That is a positive, supportive action in support of abortion, not a neutral one.

 

[Deacon_Ed]

Sherlock:

Deacon Ed,

You wrote: “How about: they have a well-formed conscience, would never have or permit a family member to have an abortion but do not believe that they can force their religious views on the public at large?”

“Forcing” their religious views? We’re not speaking of “forcing” here. In the scenario you give us above, why wouldn’t this person abstain from pro-abortion votes if they feel that to vote pro-life constituted “force”? Far from abstaining, the pro-abortion politicians that would incur a denial of the Eucharist are active supporters of abortion. For example (to pick the most conspicuous one) Kerry speaking to the NARAL group is hardly the action of someone who believes that abortion is wrong but doesn’t want to impose that view—he could choose not to speak at their gatherings if he thought abortion was wrong but did not want to support it. Likewise, a vote against the partial-birth abortion ban is not the action of someone in the scenario you provided. That is a positive, supportive action in support of abortion, not a neutral one.

Sherlock,

In this case I’m talking about a politician who, on a personal level, is opposed to abortion but who feels he or she cannot bring that religious sentement to the public forum and, therefore, does not vote against a bill that would permit abortion on the grounds that he or she cannot force his or her religious views on the general populace.

I’m not speaking about Sen. Kerry or any given politician. This is a hypothetical example albeit one based upon what I have actually heard from several politicians.

Deacon Ed

 

[Sherlock]

Deacon Ed,

This thread is about the denial of the Eucharist to PUBLICLY pro-abortion “Catholic” politicians, not about those who, in your scenario, merely choose to remain neutral because of their qualms about “imposing” their views on the populace. If politicians genuinely feel that way, then the option of abstaining from such votes exists—they would not, then, be publicly supporting abortion. Archbishop Flynn pretends not to see that option, and instead throws up his hands and says, who are we to judge? Are you also not seeing that very real option? Why pretend that a politician with a sincere desire not to inflict their personal views on abortion on others is compelled to publicly support it, by votes or otherwise? NO politician HAS to support abortion if it conflicts with their faith, period. Jesus has harsh words for poor shepherds, and so I pray that Archbishop Flynn develops some spine. However, I’m not holding my breath…

Although I will always be respectful of the office of bishop, I do not automatically extend that respect to any particular bearer of the title. Archbishop Flynn, in my opinion, is a weak shepherd.

 

[Catholic29]

Although I will always be respectful of the office of bishop, I do not automatically extend that respect to any particular bearer of the title. Archbishop Flynn, in my opinion, is a weak shepherd.

Sherlock, your opinion is shared.

 

[Deacon_Ed]

Sherlock,

Now you are asking for my personal opinion. That’s different from asking for Church teaching. My personal opinion is that a politician who specifically supports abortion and who votes for bills containing abortion clauses and does so for that reason falls into the category of one who was removed him or herself from the Church and, therefore, should be denied communion.

However, I will do what my bishop tells me to do in this matter since I am to be obedient to him in external matters.

Deacon Ed

 

[RBushlow]

Sherlock:

Deacon Ed,
This thread is about the denial of the Eucharist to PUBLICLY pro-abortion “Catholic” politicians, not about those who, in your scenario, merely choose to. . . . Archbishop Flynn pretends not to see that option, and instead throws up his hands and says, who are we to judge? Are you also not seeing that very real option?

Sherlock, you have to remember that Deacon Ed works for the Church. His job is in the hands of the Bishop, just as the Bishops fortune is in the hands of the politicians. Can you really expect someone to realistically put their livelyhood on the line to defend a Church teaching? Isn’t that asking too much?

 

[Sherlock]

Deacon Ed,

No, I’m not asking for your personal opinion. I am responding to comments you made in previous posts.

You wrote: “However, I will do what my bishop tells me to do in this matter since I am to be obedient to him in external matters.”

I appreciate your vows of obedience, and understand your desire to adhere to them. My point is not that you are acting wrongly, but that Archbishop Flynn is acting in a disappointingly (but predictably) weak and, I think, irresponsible manner on this issue.

Individual bishops are quite capable of being lousy shepherds—Arius comes to mind of course, but actually history is full of weak bishops who are uncomfortable with the controversy that often comes with preaching and teaching the truth. In some cases, as during the persecutions in England during the reign of Elizabeth, one can have some sympathy with those who wanted to keep their heads attached to their shoulders. But no such martyrdom is in store for Archbishop Flynn: he might get treated badly by the press and not be invited to the nicest social gatherings, and that’s about it for personal martyrdom.

 

[Deacon_Ed]

RBushlow:

Sherlock, you have to remember that Deacon Ed works for the Church. His job is in the hands of the Bishop, just as the Bishops fortune is in the hands of the politicians. Can you really expect someone to realistically put their livelyhood on the line to defend a Church teaching? Isn’t that asking too much?

Nothing could be further from the truth! I do not “work for the Church” – I have a secular job (as a webmaster/applications architect). I’ve been involved in data processing for 37 years now. I do not get paid by the Church and my livelihood does not depend on the Church. However, I am a cleric and I do try to present the Church’s teachings as clearly as I can.

Deacon Ed

 

[Deacon_Ed]

Sherlock:

Deacon Ed,

No, I’m not asking for your personal opinion. I am responding to comments you made in previous posts.

You wrote: “However, I will do what my bishop tells me to do in this matter since I am to be obedient to him in external matters.”

I appreciate your vows of obedience, and understand your desire to adhere to them. My point is not that you are acting wrongly, but that Archbishop Flynn is acting in a disappointingly (but predictably) weak and, I think, irresponsible manner on this issue.

Individual bishops are quite capable of being lousy shepherds—Arius comes to mind of course, but actually history is full of weak bishops who are uncomfortable with the controversy that often comes with preaching and teaching the truth. In some cases, as during the persecutions in England during the reign of Elizabeth, one can have some sympathy with those who wanted to keep their heads attached to their shoulders. But no such martyrdom is in store for Archbishop Flynn: he might get treated badly by the press and not be invited to the nicest social gatherings, and that’s about it for personal martyrdom.

But the Archbishop’s position is consistent with Church teaching! Remember that Catholicism tends to be a “both/and” rather than “either/or” faith. There is a Catholic teaching on the “cooperation with evil” – and I’m sure that this is what the Archbishop is thinking about in taking the stand he has taken.

We can always second-guess the bishop, but in the end it is his decision. There are those who want to read things literally (a typical American problem when it comes to Church related things). The drawback is that Rome does not read things literally! One simple example: in the document on the formation of deacons Rome asked for 1,000 hours of education. The formation directors in the United States scrambled to count the hours to make sure they qualify. Rome was amazed that we would do such a thing – they simply meant that formation should be a “substantial period of time.” When our bishops go to Rome for their *ad limina *visits they often struggle with understanding what Rome really means because of our tendency to be “law and order” folks. All one has to do is spend some time studying the juridic decisions that come from Rome to see that they do not think in the same way as we do in the United States.

I entered into this excursus simply as a way of pointing out that we have to be careful when we apply black-and-white standards because the Church almost never does so.

Deacon Ed

 

[Sherlock]

Deacon Flynn,

You wrote: “But the Archbishop’s position is consistent with Church teaching!”

I never claimed that Flynn was going against Church teaching—it would be helpful if you confine yourself to what I actually say, and not fabricate positions that I don’t in fact hold. You’re right, it is not contrary to Church teaching for him to take the position that he has. However, it would also be consistent with Church teaching for him to take a stong stance on the subject, and I am merely pointing out that he is being consistent with his own pattern of shepherdship by taking the soft and easy stance. He is a weak shepherd.

There’s an excellent article on the bishops’ reactions in the latest issue of “First Things” by Fr. Richard John Neuhaus. Read it if you get the opportunity. It’s titled “Communion and Communio” and is in his “The Public Square” section. One good quote from that article:
“A bishop cannot with integrity pretend not to notice public and persistent rejection, or pretend that it has no consequences for a person’s communion with the Church. A person may believe he is acting in good conscience, and the Church teaches that even a wrongly formed conscience must be obeyed, but public rejection requires public response.”

And another quote:
“Forty-four years after JFK at Houston, Catholicism in America is confronted by a historic moment of truth. The question is, as John Paul ll has repeatedly stressed, whether, in contending for the culture of life, the Church will have the courage to be a sign of contradiction or will retreat into being a sign of conformity.”

It is clear where Flynn will “stand”: squarely for not making waves and for being nice. He’s against Bad Things and for Good Things—as long as it doesn’t require anything, mind you.

 

[Anna_Elizabeth]

Thanks for all these repsonses, and now I have another thread for y’all! It’s in the Politics Forum, under the title “Archbishop Myers in the Wall Street Journal.”

It should cheer many of you up.

And maybe even prompt you to move to Newark, if indeed that is necessary - I keep asking, but have yet to receive an authoritative answer.

God bless,

Anna

 

[coeyannie]

I am also in the Archdiocese of Minneapolis/St. Paul. It is soooo frustrating to have such a weak kneed Archbishop, God bless him. However, the Diocese of St. Cloud, MN has one too. The Basilica of St. Mary printed Bishop Kinney’s letter to his diocese in their bulletin last week. That parish has the same agenda. Yes, it was Ms. Perfect whom Archbishop Flynn sent back all the letters. How childish. There is a contingent of people who are saying the Rosary every Sunday at these dissenting parishes. Last week, they said the Rosary at St. Stephen’s. They do have a web site, but I can’t remember it. If someone out there in MN knows of the website, let us know. They go to the church about 20 minutes before the beginning of Mass and say the Rosary. The Rosary is powerful. We have to put our faith in Jesus and Mary.

Deacon Ed, I have never heard such gobbledy-gook.

God Bless.

 

[_veritas]

coeyannie:

There is a contingent of people who are saying the Rosary every Sunday at these dissenting parishes. Last week, they said the Rosary at St. Stephen’s. They do have a web site, but I can’t remember it. If someone out there in MN knows of the website, let us know. They go to the church about 20 minutes before the beginning of Mass and say the Rosary. The Rosary is powerful. We have to put our faith in Jesus and Mary.

A friend of mine is one of the founder organizers of the “Rosary for Truth”. I am not sure about what their website is, but if anyone else in the Twin Cities metro is interested in joining them or getting more info, please e-mail me and I will pass you along to Mike.

The mission of “Rosary for Truth” began in the wake of the Pentecost scandal of the Rainbow Sash people receiving Communion at the Cathedral of St. Paul (which was under orders by Archbishop Flynn that they were not to be denied Communion) and initially began as a ministry that went to the various so-called “gay-lifestyle-friendly” parishes in the metro area.

It quickly became clear that these same parishes were also the ones which were the most heterodox and in a few cases, it was quickly discovered that the very validity of the Masses was being called into question (invalid matter, etc). :crying:

Rosary for Truth, then, as was said earlier, encourages people to join them in going to a different parish each Sunday, around 20min before the mid-morning Mass, to silently pray the Rosary as a group–openly but silently so as not to interfere with anyone or cause trouble. The purpose is to pray for the parish they are attending, that the Holy Spirit may open their hearts and minds to the fullness of the truth that they profess to be in communion with – to actualize what they say. The participants also pray for our Archbishop, that the Spirit may give him courage and strength in leading the flock of this Archdiocese, and for the priests who are (knowingly or unknowingly) leading their parish down the wide and easy road.

Since the group has started, especially as they have started revisiting parishes now, I have heard some wonderful things happening. Regular parishoners are beginning to join them in the Rosary, or asking them how to pray the Rosary. I have heard of people wanting to find out more about Adoration (in the Metro, we are blessed to have over 35 Perpetual Adoration chapels, so there is almost guaranteed that there is another parish reasonably close that has Adoration for these people).

All in all, this has turned out to be a blessing for our area, and I encourage all those around the Twin Cities metro to look into joining them once in awhile to pray with them for the continued conversion of God’s lost children.

+veritas+