Detroit Catholic Leaders Urge Gay Marriage Supporters to Skip Communion

[robwar]

Thank you. I’ll still place Catholic sources a little higher than CNN which, sadly, sometimes adds a bit of spin.

Peace,
Ed

you mean Clinton News Network commonly known by its initials as CNN?

 

[bellasbane]

…have “the Bishops” ever given the Holy Eucharist to an obstinate, public sinner because of his political power?

I don’t want anyone to think that I believe the Bishops are entirely Machiavellian in the way they handle politicians. I think they are pragmatic and have a big picture view of their goals - which are the goals of the Church.

To answer your question, in the past extreme measures against political leaders have generally only been used after all other efforts at reform have been exhausted. However, you have to remember that the political power structures we have today are very very different than what the Church was dealing with in the past and in some other parts of the globe. The political authority of our politicians comes from the will of the people and is NOT vested in any individual’s right to rule. For this reason, in some ways, even a dictatorship is easier for the Church to deal with than a liberal democracy.

This is because even if the Church succeeds in reforming a particular politician, the source of his or her power (i.e., the people) has not been reformed. Can you reform an entire population through legal and strong arm tactics? I don’t believe you can, because as soon as the control is lifted the community inevitably goes off the deep end and starts to sin on a grand scale. The only real way to reform a population is to teach them what is right, keep up the effort until it is internalized, and create voluntary communities of mutual support to reinforce self-discipline.

The one thing I find missing in the discussions on this forum is an appreciation for the different levels of catechesis that is required depending on the target (i.e., person, age group, community) of your efforts. It is NOT a one-size-fits-all approach by any means. It requires a careful assessment of the spiritual development of the target of your efforts. That is why catechists are blessed on Catechetical Sunday - it is to strengthen their ability to tune into the Holy Spirit who guides them in this process, because a mistake can result in a serious setback.

Remember Paul’s words:

"And so, brothers and sisters, I could not speak to you as spiritual people, but rather as people of the flesh, as infants in Christ. 2 I fed you with milk, not solid food, for you were not ready for solid food. Even now you are still not ready, 3 for you are still of the flesh. For as long as there is jealousy and quarreling among you, are you not of the flesh, and behaving according to human inclinations? 4 For when one says, “I belong to Paul,” and another, “I belong to Apollos,” are you not merely human?

5 What then is Apollos? What is Paul? Servants through whom you came to believe, as the Lord assigned to each. 6 I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the growth. 7 So neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but only God who gives the growth. 8 The one who plants and the one who waters have a common purpose, and each will receive wages according to the labor of each. 9 For we are God’s servants, working together; you are God’s field, God’s building." - 1 Corinthians 3: 1-9 (NRSVCE)

IMO, most Americans, even Catholic Americans, are very much still “infants in Christ”.

 

[_Abyssinia]

catholicvote.org/detroit-archbishop-tries-to-save-souls-mainstream-media-not-happy

Some Catholics respond to a situation like this by arguing Holy Communion should not be used as a political weapon. If a politician who promotes principles antithetical to Church teaching presents themselves for Communion, they should not be denied, because ultimately it is God who will decide if that politicians’ actions are right or wrong. Not the priest.

This argument is wrong on a number of fronts. Archbishop Vigneron oversees the Archdiocese of Detroit, home to 1.3 million Catholics. That’s 1.3 million souls he is responsible for getting into heaven. It’s a responsibility I would not want to have at this point in my life. As the Book of James reminds us, “not many of you should become teachers… for you will be judged more strictly.”

As such, Archbishop Vigneron is responsible for doing everything he can to make sure those 1.3 million Catholics are not in danger of losing their souls to eternal damnation. He will be judged more strictly for his actions than the rest of us. Therefore, he is responsible for making sure, among other things, that the deposit of faith is upheld. He is also responsible for making sure those 1.3 million Catholics are able to go to confession on a regular basis, that they are able to attend Mass as frequently as possible, and that they are in a state of grace while attending Mass so they can worthily receive Holy Communion, lest they further compound their sins and offend God even more.

Outlets like Esquire and the Huffington Post are trying to turn this into a political issue by arguing Catholics can support redefining marriage if their conscience tells them, and that this is nothing more than a conservative Archbishop trying to punish liberal Catholics.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

As Ed Peters – a professor of Canon Law at Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit and legal adviser to the Vatican – has pointed out on his blog over the past several weeks, Canon Law 915 explicitly states “Those…who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, are not to be admitted to holy communion.”

There is no wiggle room here. That is what the Church teaches. It is not a conservative issue. It is not a liberal issue. It is the official teaching of the Catholic Church. Period.

Be that as it may, the Detroit Free Press made Peters seem like he was but one of a handful of supporters of Archbishop Vigneron’s statement. The Free Press quotes Fr. Thomas Reese of Georgetown University as saying “Most American bishops do not favor denying either politicians or voters Communion because of their positions on controversial issues.” Fr. Reese added that only about “30 or so bishops have said that pro-choice or pro-gay-marriage Catholics should not present themselves for Communion.”

Again, by citing Fr. Reese, the Free Press is attempting to undermine Archbishop Vigneron and Peters’ arguments. But as Peters points out on his blog, Fr. Reese’s statement is misleading: “Reese is commenting on how bishops act whereas I am commenting on how canon law expects bishops and others to act. Reese’s claim about bishops’ (in)action, even if true, would not make my views (actually, the 1983 Code’s views, resting on settled Church teaching) wrong, it would simply mark them as ignored.”

Interestingly enough, CNN also makes it seem like Peters – who Esquire calls a “nuisance” and claims is merely relying on his own opinions and not Canon Law – is on the wrong side of history. At the end of the CNN article, readers are conveniently reminded that “a majority of Catholics, according to polling, disagree with [Peters’] view of Communion.” To which I would respond, thank God we don’t decide what is right and wrong in the Catholic Church based on polling data.

In an effort to make Peters and Archbishop Vigneron appear even more off base, Slate interviewed the reliably left-leaning Michael Sean Winters. “The principal threat to our Catholic teaching about traditional marriage is not gay marriage,” Winters argued. “The principal threat [to our Catholic teaching about traditional marriage] is divorce. “

He’s got a point about divorce, but he’s blinded by ideology if he thinks redefining marriage won’t be disastrous for the Catholic Church.

At the end of the day, Peters simply pointed out what the Church teaches about Holy Communion. And Archbishop Vigneron is simply echoing that teaching by reminding us that, as a Catholic, you cannot say “two contradictory things at once.” One being that you believe in Jesus Christ, and two being that you believe homosexual unions are part of His plan

The Church is in the business of saving souls. It alone, and not the media, should decide who is worthy to receive Holy Communion. It is not a political issue to deny Holy Communion to someone who does not uphold Church teaching in their daily lives. It is about the eternal destination of that person’s soul. I couldn’t think a better expression of love than concerning yourself with where someone will spend eternity. As atheist Penn Jillette once asked, how much do you have to hate somebody to believe that everlasting life is possible and not tell them how to attain it?

 

[Tigg]

catholicvote.org/detroit-archbishop-tries-to-save-souls-mainstream-media-not-happy

As Ed Peters – a professor of Canon Law at Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit and legal adviser to the Vatican – has pointed out on his blog over the past several weeks, Canon Law 915 explicitly states “Those…who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, are not to be admitted to holy communion.”

There is no wiggle room here. That is what the Church teaches. It is not a conservative issue. It is not a liberal issue. It is the official teaching of the Catholic Church. Period.

You mean bowing to the pols in appeasement is not part of the deal?

 

[Elizium23]

I think some of us are also laboring under another misconception, and that is thinking that denying the Eucharist is some kind of punishment or wielding control. Nothing could be further from the truth!

Properly withholding the Eucharist is protection for Jesus and protection for the faithful. First of all, unworthy reception is a sacrilege. It is a misuse on epic proportions. Jesus never intended His body and blood to be used in this way, and to do so hurts our relationship with Him. God has entrusted His sacraments to the Church as wise and judicious stewards. “Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

Cardinal Ratzinger lays out principles on denying Communion, voting

Therefore, it is not pastoral, it is not prudent and wise, it is not advisable to continue to allow unworthy reception of Holy Communion. It is vital for the protection of Jesus and vital for the protection of souls.

[BIBLEDRB]1 Cor 11:27-32[/BIBLEDRB]

In order to prevent the unworthy from condemnation, it is critical that they not receive Holy Communion and be urged to repentance. Because their continued reception will signal to them loudly and clearly that nothing is wrong. By the canons of the Church, if they were unworthy then they should be denied. So if they are still receiving the Eucharist, what is the logical conclusion? Politicians are skilled at legal matters and this distinction is not lost on them! By their very behavior they are able to twist Church leaders up into a quandary: either follow the law, and safeguard the sacraments and Jesus, or avoid a firestorm of bad publicity like poor Father Marcel, and be seen as “kind and pastoral”.

The bishops are sending a strong message that by caving in on this issue, temporal powers hold more sway on this Earth than spiritual ones. They are running scared when vast swaths of the “faithful” flock support immoral things, vote for immoral things, and practice immoral things while continuing to receive the Eucharist as if nothing is wrong.

A smaller, persecuted Church is our future and our reality. I think it should be embraced sooner rather than later.

 

[In_Spiration]

bellasbane,

For the record, please clarify a couple points for everyone. You agree that (1) sodomy is a grave moral evil often rooted in a particularly deviant sexual inclination that constitutes a perversion of good, normal sexuality, right? And you also agree that (2) “same-sex marriage” (i.e., state-sanctioned sodomy) is a viciously-unethical, politically-outrageous absurdity that ought to be publicly condemned and outlawed instead of legally allowed and promoted by the State, correct?

 

[Elizabeth502]

From the mouth of now Pope Francis:

July 8, 2010

"Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio, the Archbishop of Buenos Aires and Primate of Argentina, has said that if a proposed bill giving same-sex couples the opportunity to marry and adopt children should be approved, it will “seriously damage the family.”
He wrote: “In the coming weeks, the Argentine people will face a situation whose outcome can seriously harm the family…At stake is the identity and survival of the family: father, mother and children. At stake are the lives of many children who will be discriminated against in advance, and deprived of their human development given by a father and a mother and willed by God. At stake is the total rejection of God’s law engraved in our hearts.”
Cardinal Bergoglio continued: “Let us not be naive: this is not simply a political struggle, but it is an attempt to destroy God’s plan. It is not just a bill (a mere instrument) but a ‘move’ of the father of lies who seeks to confuse and deceive the children of God.”

 

[mexolic]

Ah, true grit Catholics in Detroit. Awesome. :thumbsup:Following the example of St. John the Baptist. I’m a Californian. I wouldn’t bother waiting to hear any news like that from my neck of the woods. :nope:

 

[Lucky7]

I don’t want anyone to think that I believe the Bishops are entirely Machiavellian in the way they handle politicians. I think they are pragmatic and have a big picture view of their goals - which are the goals of the Church.

To answer your question, in the past extreme measures against political leaders have generally only been used after all other efforts at reform have been exhausted. However, you have to remember that the political power structures we have today are very very different than what the Church was dealing with in the past and in some other parts of the globe. The political authority of our politicians comes from the will of the people and is NOT vested in any individual’s right to rule. For this reason, in some ways, even a dictatorship is easier for the Church to deal with than a liberal democracy.

This is because even if the Church succeeds in reforming a particular politician, the source of his or her power (i.e., the people) has not been reformed. Can you reform an entire population through legal and strong arm tactics? I don’t believe you can, because as soon as the control is lifted the community inevitably goes off the deep end and starts to sin on a grand scale. The only real way to reform a population is to teach them what is right, keep up the effort until it is internalized, and create voluntary communities of mutual support to reinforce self-discipline.

The one thing I find missing in the discussions on this forum is an appreciation for the different levels of catechesis that is required depending on the target (i.e., person, age group, community) of your efforts. It is NOT a one-size-fits-all approach by any means. It requires a careful assessment of the spiritual development of the target of your efforts. That is why catechists are blessed on Catechetical Sunday - it is to strengthen their ability to tune into the Holy Spirit who guides them in this process, because a mistake can result in a serious setback.

Remember Paul’s words:

"And so, brothers and sisters, I could not speak to you as spiritual people, but rather as people of the flesh, as infants in Christ. 2 I fed you with milk, not solid food, for you were not ready for solid food. Even now you are still not ready, 3 for you are still of the flesh. For as long as there is jealousy and quarreling among you, are you not of the flesh, and behaving according to human inclinations? 4 For when one says, “I belong to Paul,” and another, “I belong to Apollos,” are you not merely human?

5 What then is Apollos? What is Paul? Servants through whom you came to believe, as the Lord assigned to each. 6 I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the growth. 7 So neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but only God who gives the growth. 8 The one who plants and the one who waters have a common purpose, and each will receive wages according to the labor of each. 9 For we are God’s servants, working together; you are God’s field, God’s building." - 1 Corinthians 3: 1-9 (NRSVCE)

IMO, most Americans, even Catholic Americans, are very much still “infants in Christ”.

Although I think you make a lot of good points, in my mind the initial concern isn’t reform. It is scandal and sacrilege…it is stopping the bleeding. Then, if we are teaching the Truth (the “whys”) while we are also following canon law (stopping the bleeding), then “the people” will come to understand and reform (it’s not an either/or…it’s a but and with respect to LAW and CATECHESIS).

 

[Lamia]

God Bless you Bishop Vigneron !
I am so proud to be a catholic in the Detroit area