Detroit Catholic Leaders Urge Gay Marriage Supporters to Skip Communion

[Lucky7]

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.

But actually it is our Bishops who have changed considering the history of how public sinners have been dealt with for hundreds of years. One must ask why they have chosen such a different response…especially since their new way of looking at things have not produced the fruits. Rather, the same politicians ignore their calls to refrain from communion…ie. these politicians are obstinate.

 

[bellasbane]

But actually it is our Bishops who have changed considering the history of how public sinners have been dealt with for hundreds of years. One must ask why they have chosen such a different response…especially since their new way of looking at things have not produced the fruits. Rather, the same politicians ignore their calls to refrain from communion…ie. these politicians are obstinate.

The United States is a liberal democracy - a politician cannot go against the will of the people who elected him/her without running the risk of loosing all power entirely. Its not the same as dealing with a King or Queen who can dictate whatever policies they like.

If a blue-state Bishop like Dolan puts the sqeeze on a Catholic politician like Cuomo and forces him to state his opposition to abortion rights, Cuomo will either ignore him or fail to get re-elected. In either case, the Bishop risks loosing a potential ally who is probably willing to cooperate with him on other issues and may have a much worse person to deal with in his/her place.

 

[Lucky7]

The United States is a liberal democracy - a politician cannot go against the will of the people who elected him/her without running the risk of loosing all power entirely. Its not the same as dealing with a King or Queen who can dictate whatever policies they like.

If a blue-state Bishop like Dolan puts the sqeeze on a Catholic politician like Cuomo and forces him to state his opposition to abortion rights, Cuomo will either ignore him or fail to get re-elected. In either case, the Bishop risks loosing a potential ally who is probably willing to cooperate with him on other issues and may have a much worse person to deal with in his/her place.

This should not be about forming political allies. We’re headed down the wrong path if this is indeed why they are doing what they are doing. Of course, I don’t really know the answer to that question, but I can see why you would think that way.

 

[pnewton]

Why do I not hear Bishops speaking out on people who live together, have children and do not marry?

I have no idea why you do not hear it. I hear it quite a bit. It is indeed the greater threat to the family, but that is absolutely no argument for homosexuality or homosexual marriage.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I have no idea why you do not hear it. I hear it quite a bit. It is indeed the greater threat to the family, but that is absolutely no argument for homosexuality or homosexual marriage.

Indeed. The Church vigorously opposes both coahbitation and homosexual behavior as threats, plural, to the family. Anything other position is a false dichotomy, not supported by Church teaching.

 

[TimeEntrance]

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

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?

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

Wow.

I understand the moral objection. There are many sins. Gluttony is one of the 7 deadly sins along with lust.

But I think you three were missing the point of my question. There is an incoherence and contradiction (not a tautology) in how grown adults objecting to homosexuality respond with a victims mentality, depression, and obsessive thought pattern replaying “the tape.”

On one hand, they’ll tell or expect those that have gone through their chaos and misfortune in life, especially if related to parents or home life (e.g., the man that was raised by gay parents), “to get over it.”

Yet said person was locked for years within a figurative box, intimately affected by X or Y or Z thing or things. On the other hand, we that have figurative and literal walls protecting us, having our own private and intimate worlds not “colonized” by homosexuals or their happy advocates and friends, act like batter wives, or adults complaining about how their parents reared them.

Many things endanger people’s eternal souls. Few complaints are heard about them.

Elizabeth, sloth and gluttony are 2 of the 7 deadly sins. Big bellies resulting from being out of shape are directly connected to physical sloth. And I’ll admit a prejudice to so called “fat” stomachs on people. I doubt Jesus was “fat.” He probably had a more defined or chiseled body than most in the contemporary developed worlds today.

 

[bellasbane]

This should not be about forming political allies. We’re headed down the wrong path if this is indeed why they are doing what they are doing. Of course, I don’t really know the answer to that question, but I can see why you would think that way.

Well, that’s the way its always been. Politics have been part of what Bishops do since the time of Constantine. Most Protestants believe we headed down the wrong path in the 4th century and have never recovered. Not that long ago, the idea that if a Catholic got into power, Rome would dictate public policy was a genuine fear of Yankee Republicans and Southern Democrats. In today’s terms, it would be like a Muslim getting into power and imposing Sharia law. Why do you think it was such a big deal when Kennedy got elected or more recently, when Rick Santorum was endorsed by Evangelical leaders?

Today secular liberals feel that way about any religious influence on politics - it doesn’t matter if you are a evangelical Protestant, a traditional Catholic or a wahabi Muslim, its all the same to them.

 

[Elizium23]

What the Archbishop is saying is that the people should not present themselves for Holy Communion. Which is distinct from a denial of Holy Communion.

So this is more of a call that support for same sex ‘marriage’ would bring the condemnation mentioned in 1 Cor 11: 25-29 and therefore should be part of the personal discernment St. Paul mentioned in ver 31

Well, that is a shame, because I didn’t read for comprehension, and I just hoped that this was a glimmer of steps taken toward enforcement of Canon 915. People do not understand that Canon 915 binds the ministers, not the faithful. Canon 915 says that you are forbidden from giving the Eucharist to those in obstinate persistent grave sin. It is within the bishops’ competence to identify such people and single them out in order that ministers can recognize them in the communion line and appropriately deny them by following the law. This is a canon more honored in the breach than in the observance. Woe to the minister who observes it: look what happened to Father Marcel Guarnizo.

It is clear that the mainstream media will try, convict and lynch any bishop, priest, or EMHC who dares to deny the precious Eucharist to obstinate sinners, and frankly I believe that our bishops are running scared from the court of public opinion and unwilling to use this relevant and important canon as a means of discipline and protection from sacrilege and outrage.

 

[SuperLuigi]

No. I am talking about the comments below the actual article. They ignore the true teachings of the Church. One said he was going to take communion anyway, and would proudly wave his rainbow flag while doing it.

In some places, that’s getting border-line hate crime.

Note: I didn’t advocate for hate crime laws, but they should be enforced…(here it comes)…EQUALLY.

 

[SuperLuigi]

Today secular liberals feel that way about any religious influence on politics - it doesn’t matter if you are a evangelical Protestant, a traditional Catholic or a wahabi Muslim, its all the same to them.

I disagree on this specific. When I see leftists storming mosques, Southern African-American Churches and synagogues yelling “It’s okay to be gay” and disrupting services, then I’ll agree.

I think the answer is very obvious why they will never do something like that.

When it comes especially to conservative Muslim men, the left is just in awe and fear. They even get their way over the “rights” of women in gays in Europe.

 

[SuperLuigi]

Why do I not hear Bishops speaking out on people who live together, have children and do not marry?

That type of correction is probably more effective coming from a priest. This is because it comes up more so in marriage preparation.

Having said that, bishops have addressed the issue:

old.usccb.org/laity/marriage/cohabiting.shtml

 

[Elizium23]

This 1999 paper from the USCCB had some certain impact, because my bishop at the time wrote a very stern pastoral letter condemning cohabitation, to be read at all Masses one week. Of course nothing was ever said again, and the pastor continued to condone “porn hymns” and masturbation as a non-sin…

 

[pnewton]

“porn hymns” …

I have never heard this term. To what does it refer?

 

[Lucky7]

Well, that’s the way its always been. Politics have been part of what Bishops do since the time of Constantine. Most Protestants believe we headed down the wrong path in the 4th century and have never recovered. Not that long ago, the idea that if a Catholic got into power, Rome would dictate public policy was a genuine fear of Yankee Republicans and Southern Democrats. In today’s terms, it would be like a Muslim getting into power and imposing Sharia law. Why do you think it was such a big deal when Kennedy got elected or more recently, when Rick Santorum was endorsed by Evangelical leaders?

Today secular liberals feel that way about any religious influence on politics - it doesn’t matter if you are a evangelical Protestant, a traditional Catholic or a wahabi Muslim, its all the same to them.

You say that politics has always been part of what the Bishops did. Sure, bishops are just men and can be affected by politics, but have “the Bishops” ever given the Holy Eucharist to an obstinate, public sinner because of his political power ? Has the Eucharist ever been used as a political weapon/bargaining chip? Because I’m not seeing any of that in the history of our Church. Politics may have come into play in the past, but from what I can see a line was drawn. It seems to me that you are suggesting that the bishops are allowing reception of communion as a bargaining chip for other political issues.

 

[CaptFun]

Is skipping TO communion close enough?



Such people shouldn’t go to communion (while they are obviously NOT in communion with the Church). Or be given communion (ministers and priests co-opted into the sacrilege). Or want to give communion to such (ministers and priests actively aiding someone committing a sacrilege and approving of it - for whatever fashionable reason).

Mark 14:10 Then Judas Iscariot, one of the Twelve, went off to the chief priests to **hand him over **to them.

11 When they heard him they were pleased and promised to pay him money. Then he looked for an opportunity to hand him over.

Jesus Himself warns people at the communion table:

Luke 22:19 Then he took the bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, which will be given for you; do this in memory of me.”

20 And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which will be shed for you.

21 "And yet behold, the hand of the one who is to betray me is with me on the table;

22 for the Son of Man indeed goes as it has been determined; but woe to that man by whom he is betrayed."

23 And they began to debate among themselves who among them would do such a deed.

And St. Paul further teaches about the holiness of the Eucharist and the dangers of
having contempt for the Lord. Belief and a state of grace should be present.

1 Corinthians 11:27 Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord.

28 A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup.

29 For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself.

30 That is why many among you are ill and infirm, and a considerable number are dying.

Some will jump to the conclusion that this is being “mean”. It’s not. I refrain from communion myself when I know I should not go. And hopefully I haven’t been clueless about some serious sin my conscience is too dull to alert me to.

The artwork above is meant to depict the silly spirit some have toward the Eucharist these days. And it was an attention getter. If you felt it was inappropriate to the seriousness of the topic … good! How much more sober should we be when actually receiving Christ in the most holy sacrament – exponentially more deserving of respect than a discussion thread. Though I’ll try not to make a habit of this shock tactic.

Going to communion is an honor system much of the time – and for the most part the Eucharist is dispensed to those who present themselves and say the “Amen” to the “Body of Christ” and “Blood of Christ”.

Lately it has become fashionable for certain public scofflaws of Church teaching to present themselves very publicly for Communion when their very public actions in participating in or promoting sinful behavior has given scandal already.

And (while not minimizing things) I must say that worse than "supporting ‘gay marriage’ " has been done with fanfare by some who present themselves. The subsequent scandal further undermines Church authority and demonstrates a seeming contempt for the Eucharist or (even in a slightly better case) breathtaking ignorance of conscience in perpetrating the charade that their outright contradiction of the Church’s teachings inhibit their eligibility for the Eucharist - not at all!

The Detroit Catholic leaders are being leaders, faithful to the Eucharist, reverent in their defense of it, and bearers of charitable counsel to the scofflaws, ignorant or scandalous.

Enforcement of this looks to be the honor system again mostly (I think); but it is good that something is said in this regard.

Hysterical as the criticism in some quarters may be. :sad_yes:

 

[Tigg]

Is skipping TO communion close enough?

http://s31.impactinit.com/smsdownlo...49C2-81E823D3AB6B2761&wm=watermark_cdbank.png

And (while not minimizing things) I must say that worse than "supporting ‘gay marriage’ " has been done with fanfare by some who present themselves. The subsequent scandal further undermines Church authority and demonstrates a seeming contempt for the Eucharist or (even in a slightly better case) breathtaking ignorance of conscience in perpetrating the charade that their outright contradiction of the Church’s teachings inhibit their eligibility for the Eucharist - not at all!

The Detroit Catholic leaders are being leaders, faithful to the Eucharist, reverent in their defense of it, and bearers of charitable counsel to the scofflaws, ignorant or scandalous.

Enforcement of this looks to be the honor system again mostly (I think); but it is good that something is said in this regard.

Hysterical as the criticism in some quarters may be. :sad_yes:

Very well said! The reception of the Eucharist is only part of the story and effects more than the recipient. Lord have mercy!

 

[Tigg]

The United States is a liberal democracy - a politician cannot go against the will of the people who elected him/her without running the risk of loosing all power entirely. Its not the same as dealing with a King or Queen who can dictate whatever policies they like.

If a blue-state Bishop like Dolan puts the sqeeze on a Catholic politician like Cuomo and forces him to state his opposition to abortion rights, Cuomo will either ignore him or fail to get re-elected. In either case, the Bishop risks loosing a potential ally who is probably willing to cooperate with him on other issues and may have a much worse person to deal with in his/her place.

I see. So in other words, the Church has completely lost her efficacy and the bishops must remain subservient to the State. Gotcha!

 

[bellasbane]

I disagree on this specific. When I see leftists storming mosques, Southern African-American Churches and synagogues yelling “It’s okay to be gay” and disrupting services, then I’ll agree.

I think the answer is very obvious why they will never do something like that.

When it comes especially to conservative Muslim men, the left is just in awe and fear. They even get their way over the “rights” of women in gays in Europe.

Unfortunately, you really do not understand secular liberals. With the exception of a few weirdos like Richard Dawkins, they literally don’t care about religious fundamentalists as long as a particular religious group does not attempt to influence political policy according to their idiosyncratic faith based beliefs. Even then, they won’t be particularly bothered about it if the group doesn’t have much political clout.

Religiosity itself isn’t the issue - what they want is for all religious fundamentalists to be like the Amish, who do not seek to make their idiosyncratic religious beliefs (e.g., absolute pacifism) the law of the land. Not, that is, until these beliefs are embraced by a majority of the electorate. In which case, they cease to be idiosyncratic.

 

[bellasbane]

I see. So in other words, the Church has completely lost her efficacy and the bishops must remain subservient to the State. Gotcha!

I don’t know what you “got”, but it certainly isn’t me.

Why don’t you stop pretending whatever you’ve “got” is my idea and just say what YOU mean. I’m sure you have some point to make - speak out and own it!

 

[Megan7]

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

God bless you.