Detroit Catholic Leaders Urge Gay Marriage Supporters to Skip Communion

[Brendan]

There is a difference between denying a person Holy Communion, which is what is sounds like some people are calling on the Bishops to do, and teaching people about what it means to present themselves for Holy Communion - which is a pastoral approach.

But, by definition, Church Canon Law is pastoral.

No one should be claiming that the application of Church law is anything but, since the Church is pastoral, by definition, Church law, by definition is also pastoral.

The mark of a true shepherd would be to pull a lamb back from danger, and to do what it can to prevent the lamb from endangering itself, even out of ignorance. Would you disagree?

 

[HansTrappist]

Perhaps the most well known “Catholic Gay Marriage Supporter” of all, the man whose declaration of being in favor of such predated President Obama’s “evolving” by at least a week … Vice President Joe Biden … will soon be IN Detroit on April, 20.

Per this advisory, it will be interesting to see what will happen.

The VP is a communion taking guy. At the Vatican, at St. Patrick’s Cathedral with Cardinal Dolan saying the mass … to the chagrin of some who object that publicly pro-choice (unborn babies may be killed) advocates should not be allowed to take what would be sacrilegious communions (without repentance and absolution first) by those dispensing the Eucharist.

Another Biden “choice” is coming. I’ll be watching. Bet I can predict what will happen

Bingo!

I’ll be watching too, to see if words are backed up with actions.

It is a grave scandal for Biden (and the others) to continue to receive Communion when he has failed to PUBLICLY recant his PUBLIC support for Murder (abortion) on Demand and Sodomy.

 

[fix]

Have you looked at it from the other side as well?

Many on this forum who reason with emotion rather than the Church declare that it is “bad” for Bishops to permit politicians who support abortion and SSM to receive communion.

To me that is just as wrong minded as those who say it is “bad” for Bishops to withhold communion. The way I see it is…

If you disagree with the Bishops who permit communion and
claim to be in agreement with the Church on this issue, then
it’s the same as saying the Bishops are in disagreement with the Church on this issue.

I don’t mean “you” as in you personally, but “you” in the general sense. I honestly find this perplexing and am not just just arguing for the sake of arguing.

Well all I can say is that canon law supports denying communion under certain circumstances. That is the mind of the Church. She is seeking the good.

Whether every single bishop is bound to enforce that law is up to others to explain.

 

[HansTrappist]

They then receive communion at their own spiritual risk.

And at their physical risk as well.

Scripture notes that participating physically in the Eucharist can be damaging to us spiritually, and even physically if we do so unworthily:

“Everyone is to recollect himself before eating this bread and drinking this cup; because a person who eats and drinks without recognizing the Body is eating and drinking his own condemnation. In fact that is why many of you are weak and ill and some of you have died. If only we recollected ourselves, we should not be punished like that. But when the Lord does punish us like that, it is to correct us and stop us from being condemned with the world.” (1 Corinthians 11:28-32)

 

[bellasbane]

But, by definition, Church Canon Law is pastoral.

No one should be claiming that the application of Church law is anything but, since the Church is pastoral, by definition, Church law, by definition is also pastoral.

The mark of a true shepherd would be to pull a lamb back from danger, and to do what it can to prevent the lamb from endangering itself, even out of ignorance. Would you disagree?

In the broadest sense, any strategy a Bishop uses to helps someone be a better Catholic can be regarded as pastoral. I have already said that some people may require stricter discipline than others. However, Cardinal Wuerl clearly makes a distinction between what he calls the “pastoral, teaching mode” and the “canonical approach”:

"For bishops, "there are two different approaches’’ to bring Catholic politicians in line with Church teaching. "One is the pastoral, teaching mode, and the other is the canonical approach’’ – the legal approach, in other words. He doesn’t think it’s a very close call: "I have yet to see where the canonical approach has changed anyone’s heart.’’ politicsdaily.com/2009/05/06/archbishop-wuerl-why-i-won-t-deny-pelosi-communion/

I don’t see the benefit of conflating two styles that Cardinal Wuerl makes a careful point of distinguishing from each other, because there is a lesson to be learned here as well. It’s not just all more or less of the same thing. There are deep philosophical differences at the center of the controversy that inspires discussions like this.

 

[JMJSHJ]

In the broadest sense, any strategy a Bishop uses to helps someone be a better Catholic can be regarded as pastoral. I have already said that some people may require stricter discipline than others. However, Cardinal Wuerl clearly makes a distinction between what he calls the “pastoral, teaching mode” and the “canonical approach”:

"For bishops, "there are two different approaches’’ to bring Catholic politicians in line with Church teaching. "One is the pastoral, teaching mode, and the other is the canonical approach’’ – the legal approach, in other words. He doesn’t think it’s a very close call: "I have yet to see where the canonical approach has changed anyone’s heart.’’ politicsdaily.com/2009/05/06/archbishop-wuerl-why-i-won-t-deny-pelosi-communion/

I don’t see the benefit of conflating two styles that Cardinal Wuerl makes a careful point of distinguishing from each other, because there is a lesson to be learned here as well. It’s not just all more or less of the same thing. There are deep philosophical differences at the center of the controversy that inspires discussions like this.

Our Current Holy Father, as a Cardinal signed a document indicating that politicians who support abortion should be denied communion. Of course that would extend to gay marriage as well. Would you support the Pope then?

 

[bellasbane]

Our Current Holy Father, as a Cardinal signed a document indicating that politicians who support abortion should be denied communion. Of course that would extend to gay marriage as well. Would you support the Pope then?

This is the statement fix quoted:

In the Aparecida Document, a document that represents a joint statement by Latin American church leaders but presented by Francis in 2007, the leaders stated, “we should commit ourselves to ‘eucharistic coherence,’ that is, we should be conscious that people cannot receive holy communion and at the same time act or speak against the commandments, in particular when abortions, euthanasia, and other serious crimes against life and family are facilitated. This responsibility applies particularly to legislators, governors, and health professionals.”

I do not see the word “denied” in this statement and would hesitate to extend it to SSM, which would be reading something into it that is not there. Note, the last sentence, which begins with “This responsibility applies…” - to whom does it apply? Not to Church leaders to enforce, but the individuals themselves: the “legislators, governors and health care professionals”.

A careful reading of this passage (which is all I have to go by) does not support your conclusion, but rather what we have been saying all along and is summarized so well in a previous post:

Communion is not used as a “weapon” to attack people who are rejecting Church teaching. They are counseled not to receive. That is the Pastoral approach. They then receive communion at their own spiritual risk.

 

[pnewton]

There is nothing pastoral about sacrilege.

The priest is not committing sacrilege. This was not a good thing to say.

To address something said earlier, if you administer the Eucharist, you do not have the authority to excommunicate by denying anyone the Sacrament you deem in mortal sin.

 

[TimeEntrance]

I post on a philosophy forum, most of whom seem to be anti-Christian, anti-religion, and pro-gay marriage.

Gay marriage has come up on that website for philosophical debate pertaining to ethics and politics.

Anyways… I’ve never brought this question up to them, in part as I did not want to fuel their fire of pro-gay marriage arguments. Nonetheless, I’ve come to pick up on a hypocrisy among those that are staunchly against gay marriage and the normalization and celebration of homosexuality in society today.

My question is this: Why can’t one just get over public normalization, celebration of homosexuality and gay marriage being legalized?

I could understand if it affected a person in their own intimate life. Say for example, a 25 year old woman that fears the spreading of male homosexuality would reduce her chances of marrying a man not yet married.

But if a boy can be raised by two lesbians or two gay men and “get over it” as a grown man, then why can’t grown heterosexuals that are married not emotionally and psychologically get over what others are doing? Given it does not impact your own lives.

Two gay men raising a boy or two lesbian women raising a girl is in no way impacting your life.

It seems to me a man that turns down a woman for another man (like a man that turns down a heavy set woman for a slim woman, or turns down a dark skinned woman for a light skinned woman) is impacting that woman in more intimate terms. As she’s essentially being discriminated against.

Other than that, homosexuals and lesbians are not discriminating against married heterosexual couples, or Catholic priests that are supposed to be celibate. In that context, homosexuality and lesbianism seems like a sin on the order of obesity, overeating, and masturbation.

Is a active gay male that is physically fit and a responsible father so much worse than a heterosexual father that is emotionally distant, emotionally abusive, and has a big round belly?

 

[Elizabeth502]

The priest is not committing sacrilege. This was not a good thing to say.

I believe that you may misunderstand the poster Francoist. I think the reference is to reception of communion in a state of mortal sin (sacrilege).

(At least, that’s the way I understood the post.)

 

[pnewton]

Is a active gay male that is physically fit and a responsible father so much worse than a heterosexual father that is emotionally distant, emotionally abusive, and has a big round belly?

Probably. It would depend on whether the second father also is living a life that endangers one’s eternal soul.

 

[estesbob]

I post on a philosophy forum, most of whom seem to be anti-Christian, anti-religion, and pro-gay marriage.

Gay marriage has come up on that website for philosophical debate pertaining to ethics and politics.

Anyways… I’ve never brought this question up to them, in part as I did not want to fuel their fire of pro-gay marriage arguments. Nonetheless, I’ve come to pick up on a hypocrisy among those that are staunchly against gay marriage and the normalization and celebration of homosexuality in society today.

My question is this: Why can’t one just get over public normalization, celebration of homosexuality and gay marriage being legalized?

I could understand if it affected a person in their own intimate life. Say for example, a 25 year old woman that fears the spreading of male homosexuality would reduce her chances of marrying a man not yet married.

But if a boy can be raised by two lesbians or two gay men and “get over it” as a grown man, then why can’t grown heterosexuals that are married not emotionally and psychologically get over what others are doing? Given it does not impact your own lives.

Two gay men raising a boy or two lesbian women raising a girl is in no way impacting your life.

It seems to me a man that turns down a woman for another man (like a man that turns down a heavy set woman for a slim woman, or turns down a dark skinned woman for a light skinned woman) is impacting that woman in more intimate terms. As she’s essentially being discriminated against.

Other than that, homosexuals and lesbians are not discriminating against married heterosexual couples, or Catholic priests that are supposed to be celibate. In that context, homosexuality and lesbianism seems like a sin on the order of obesity, overeating, and masturbation.

Is a active gay male that is physically fit and a responsible father so much worse than a heterosexual father that is emotionally distant, emotionally abusive, and has a big round belly?

Why can people just get over the fact that homosexual behavior is spiritually and physically debilitating and should be no way be enshrined in the law as being equivalent to marriage and family?

 

[Elizabeth502]

Is a active gay male that is physically fit and a responsible father so much worse than a heterosexual father that is emotionally distant, emotionally abusive, and has a big round belly?

So being physically fit is a requirement for quality parenthood now? As important, let alone more important, than personal morality?

Wow.

 

[Bob_Byrnes]

Why do I not hear Bishops speaking out on people who live together, have children and do not marry? That is the true threat to marriage, not two same sex people who value marriage. Marriage in the U.S. is a civil institution. It is not a religious rite. Churches can certainly participate and sacramentalize marriage and not marry same sex couples. The Church also teaches that Divorce is prohibited, so should any Catholic who does not object to divorce laws also refrain from Communion.
If a Catholic who does not object to same sex marriage laws should refrain from Communion, isn’t it logical that a Catholic that does not object to divorce laws should also refrain from Communion?

 

[WingsOfEagles]

Why do I not hear Bishops speaking out on people who live together, have children and do not marry? That is the true threat to marriage, not two same sex people who value marriage. Marriage in the U.S. is a civil institution. It is not a religious rite. Churches can certainly participate and sacramentalize marriage and not marry same sex couples. The Church also teaches that Divorce is prohibited, so should any Catholic who does not object to divorce laws also refrain from Communion.
If a Catholic who does not object to same sex marriage laws should refrain from Communion, isn’t it logical that a Catholic that does not object to divorce laws should also refrain from Communion?

There are many reasons that one might not be in a state of grace, but 2 wrongs don’t make a right.

 

[Lucky7]

I have to wonder whether there was ever a time in Church history where Church leaders allowed public sinners to receive communion for any reason (pastoral or otherwise)…until now.

Does anyone know the history of this? I have to think that this is one of those things that just doesn’t change…or shouldn’t change…if it was never allowed before. To me, this is more than canon law. This is about scandal and sacrilege, both very serious sins against Christ and His Church.

And to whomever said the “canonical” approach doesn’t work, how has the so-called “pastoral” approach worked for us? Have pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, etc politicians been seeing the light and publically recanting their views? If so, could you please show me the fruits?

 

[Lucky7]

therealpresence.org/eucharst/holycom/denial.htm

This seems to answer my own question. It is long, so I have only included the conclusions reached by Cardinal Burke:

*Conclusions

What conclusions can be drawn from the study of the history of the canonical discipline of denying Holy Communion to those who obstinately persist in public grave sin?

First of all, the consistent canonical discipline permits the administering of the Sacrament of Holy Communion only to those who are properly disposed externally, and forbids it to those who are not so disposed, prescinding from the question of their internal disposition, which cannot be known with certainty.

Secondly, the discipline is required by the invisible bond of communion which unites us to God and to one another. The person who obstinately remains in public and grievous sin is appropriately presumed by the Church to lack the interior bond of communion, the state of grace, required to approach worthily the reception of the Holy Eucharist.

Thirdly, the discipline is not penal but has to do with the safeguarding of the objective and supreme sanctity of the Holy Eucharist and with caring for the faithful who would sin gravely against the Body and Blood of Christ, and for the faithful who would be led into error by such sinful reception of Holy Communion.

Fourthly, the discipline applies to any public conduct which is gravely sinful, that is, which violates the law of God in a serious matter. Certainly, the public support of policies and laws which, in the teaching of the Magisterium, are in grave violation of the natural moral law falls under the discipline.

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 <<no ecclesiastical authority may dispense the minister of Holy Communion from this obligation in any case, nor may he emanate directives that contradict it>> [90].

Finally, the discipline must be applied in order to avoid serious scandal, for example, the erroneous acceptance of procured abortion against the constant teaching of the moral law. No matter how often a Bishop or priest repeats the teaching of the Church regarding procured abortion, if he stands by and does nothing to discipline a Catholic who publicly supports legislation permitting the gravest of injustices and, at the same time, presents himself to receive Holy Communion, then his teaching rings hollow. To remain silent is to permit serious confusion regarding a fundamental truth of the moral law. Confusion, of course, is one of the most insidious fruits of scandalous behavior.

I am deeply aware of the difficulty which is involved in applying the discipline of can. 915. I am not surprised by it and do not believe that anyone should be surprised. Surely, the discipline has never been easy to apply. But what is at stake for the Church demands the wisdom and courage of shepherds who will apply it.
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. Catholics in public office bear an especially heavy burden of responsibility to uphold the moral law in the exercise of their office which is exercised for the common good, especially the good of the innocent and defenseless. When they fail, they lead others, Catholics and non-Catholics alike, to be deceived regarding the evils of procured abortion and other attacks on innocent and defenseless human life, on the integrity of human procreation, and on the family.

As Pope John Paul II reminded us, referring to the teaching of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, the Holy Eucharist contains the entire good of our salvation [91]. There is no responsibility of the Church’s shepherds which is greater than that of teaching the truth about the Holy Eucharist, celebrating worthily the Holy Eucharist, and directing the flock in the worship and care of the Most Blessed Sacrament. Can. 915 of the Code of Canon Law and can. 712 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches articulate an essential element of the shepherds’ responsibility, namely, the perennial discipline of the Church by which the minister of Holy Communion is to deny the Sacrament to those who obstinately persevere in manifest grave sin.

Most Rev. Raymond L. Burke*

 

[Tigg]

I, in no way, see inaction or looking the other way as being pastoral. As someone else pointed out, it hasn’t worked for 40 plus years. The law was made for the good of man, not his detriment.

 

[Elizabeth502]

That is the true threat to marriage, not two same sex people who value marriage. Marriage in the U.S. is a civil institution. It is not a religious rite. Churches can certainly participate and sacramentalize marriage and not marry same sex couples.

This part of your post does not reflect Catholic teaching.

The bishops and the Vatican are the sources for how a Catholic is to consider these issues in the public square, and they do not agree that marriage is merely a civil issue which does not affect the additional Catholic (sacramental) dinension of marriage. Because it is an institution which affects all of society and the common good of all, it is imperative upon Catholics not to support the erosion of traditional marriage by redefining it, regardless of what additional threats exist to that institution. This is definitive Church teaching, binding on Catholics.

One of the many documents in which the bishops do not agree with you:
marriageuniqueforareason.org

"for Catholics, marriage is also a key public policy issue, in fact one of six raised by the U.S. bishops when they reissued Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship, their call to political responsibility. This means marriage is not only something that matters to the doctrine of the Church and the private lives of the people entering into it. It matters to all society.

The reason it matters is because marriage affects the common good. In fact, the two are inseparably intertwined. As the Second Vatican Council put it, “The well-being of the individual person and of human and Christian society is intimately linked with the healthy condition of that community produced by marriage and the family.” In fact, because the union of husband and wife is uniquely capable of welcoming new life into the world, the Church describes marriage as the very “condition” for society’s existence.

Because of marriage’s unique contribution to society, all people should be concerned with its well-being. In Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship, the bishops write that, in light of the tragic consequences of marriage’s breakdown or disappearance, especially for children, “policies on taxes, work, divorce, immigration, and welfare should help families stay together.” They also advocate for wages that “allow workers to support their families” and for public assistance for struggling families.

In addition to urging policies that strengthen marriages and families, the bishops are deeply concerned with “intensifying efforts” to redefine marriage, namely proposals to remove sexual difference from marriage. This is not “expanding” marriage, as the bishops see it, but rather redefining it and in effect dismantling it. Sexual difference is not an optional component of marriage but rather an essential element, rooted in the nature of the human person created male and female."

Both the bishops of the United States and Pope Benedict XVI have stated that defending marriage as the union of one man and one woman is, as the Pope taught in one ad limina talk, “ultimately a question of justice, since it entails safeguarding the good of the entire human community and the rights of parents and children alike.” Defending marriage does justice to the child by providing him or her with the best possibility of knowing and being loved by both mother and father together. In contrast, redefining marriage asserts that mothers and fathers are interchangeable and denies a child the right to know both a father and a mother. It also obscures the core of marriage, namely the union of husband and wife founded on sexual difference.
USCCB, Pastoral Letter Marriage: Love and Life in the Divine Plan (2009)
The marital vocation is not a private or merely personal affair. Yes, marriage is a deeply personal union and relationship, but it is also for the good of the Church and the entire community” (p. 44).

For an authentic education in the Catholic Church’s teaching on marriage, there is no substitute for the primary, authoritative teaching documents of the Church. On the Church Teachings page, you’ll find links to these main documents: the Catechism, papal encyclicals, Second Vatican Council documents, and more.

usccb.org/issues-and-acti…f-marriage.cfm

he Vatican also does not agree with you:

vatican.va/roman_curia/co…unions_en.html

 

[bellasbane]

therealpresence.org/eucharst/holycom/denial.htm

Thank you for including the link. It is long and I didn’t read the whole thing, but it should be noted that based on the introduction, Cardinal Burke seems to have written this because he found himself on the loosing side of what must have been a pretty intense debate among the Bishops. He writes:

The matter in question was extensively discussed by the Bishops of the United States during their meeting in June of 2004. The statement of the United States Bishops, “Catholics in Political Life”, adopted on June 18, 2004, which was the fruit of the discussion, failed to take account of the clear requirement to exclude from Holy Communion those who, after appropriate admonition, obstinately persist in supporting publicly legislation which is contrary to the natural moral law. The statement reads:

The question has been raised as to whether the denial of holy communion to some Catholics in political life is necessary because of their public support for abortion on demand. Given the wide range of circumstances involved in arriving at a prudential judgment on a matter of this seriousness, we recognize that such decisions rest with the individual bishop in accord with the established canonical and pastoral principles. Bishops can legitimately make different judgments on the most prudent course of pastoral action. [2]

While the judgment regarding the disposition of the individual who presents himself to receive Holy Communion belongs to the minister of the Sacrament, the question regarding the objective state of Catholic politicians who knowingly and willingly hold opinions contrary to the natural moral law would hardly seem to change from place to place.

The question of the scandal involved does not seem to be addressed by the Statement. While concern was expressed about <>, there is no mention of the gravely wrong conclusion which is per se drawn from the Church’s admission of politicians, who are persistent in supporting positions and legislation which gravely violate the natural moral law, to receive Holy Communion [3].​

Obviously, Cardinal Burke presented his case to the assembly of Bishops and they did not agree with him. It should also be noted that two years after this article appeared, Cardinal Wuerl expressed a very different opinion in the article I cited previously. Despite Cardinal Burke’s best effort the general consensus among our Church leaders regarding this issue has not changed.