NCR Report "Analysis: Archbishop Gregory Says He Won’t Deny Biden Communion. How Will Catholics Respond?"

[stpurl]

Well I’d say the same probably if I had to read Crux, the National Catholic Reporter, or suchlike.

Now there are probably articles at those which are fairly tame but the bias leans way to a ‘progressive’ slant. Again, there is nothing wrong with progress-we are all trying to progress to Heaven, right?—but if progress is mainly or only defined as, ‘moving away from X concept or from X position’ because of a distaste for the position and not because one is trying to progress for any specific reason to something worthwhile, then it becomes simply ‘change for change’s sake.’

If I want to progress to heaven and I am moving along in a narrow way but it is otherwise clear even though it is steep, and I’m told, “That way is just too steep. Turn around from it and go on that nice broad level way to the left—or to the right—and I’m sure it will be much better. Sure we can’t see exactly where the left and right ways are going, but we’re bound to PROGRESS much faster because it’s all level! And don’t ‘all roads lead to God? Surely He permitted those broad level ways to be here for a reason and we know He WANTS us to be with Him. But above all, we are TIRED of the same old, ‘steep, straight and narrow’ which represses us and lacks freedom. Progress means having the faith to go on those ‘broad straight roads’ and CHOOSING our God instead of being ‘forced’ into it!! Bwa ha ha.

So yeah, some places slant to the right, and some to the left. If we keep our eyes on the straight, steep, and narrow, recognize the ‘slants’ for what they are and take from those sites the kernels of the ‘straight and narrow’ itself, we’ll be fine.

 

[Dr_Meinheimer]

What a phenomenal opportunity for the Church (in this case, Archbishop Gregory) to rise up and confront in a firm way the most powerful person in the world (arguably, anyway) against the backdrop of his professed-Catholic beliefs and teachings. How much necessary light would that shine on Church teachings, values and the utter seriousness and sanctity of the Holy Eucharist?

As such, it is no surprise Archbishop Gregory dropped the ball and apparently lacked the fortitude to take a stand. Half the world has shuttered its Churches for the better part of a year as a response to the virus. Biden is just fortunate he didn’t really offend God by doing something like showing up at a Cathedral unannounced.

 

[ReaderT]

We, as laity, have the obligation to insist that our Bishops, Priests and Deacons uphold the teachings of the Church. The salvation of souls is at stake.

That is absolutely true. The Christian faith is not the sole property of clergy; it belongs to all Christians. When a Bishop doesn’t excommunicate the guy officiating at same-sex weddings, then the Bishop has to be opposed (/deposed).

How should a Catholic respond to a disobedient Archbishop?

The Orthodox historically have thrown them into rivers. Sends a clear message

 

[KMC]

scandal is subjective. I don’t see any scandal

Scandal is not subjective within the Church…it is defined by the Catechism (some highlights…bold mine)

Respect for the souls of others: scandal

[2284] Scandal is an attitude or behavior which leads another to do evil….

[2285] Scandal takes on a particular gravity by reason of the authority of those who cause it or the weakness of those who are scandalized…

[2286] Scandal can be provoked by laws or institutions, by fashion or opinion.

Therefore, they are guilty of scandal who establish laws or social structures leading to the decline of morals and the corruption of religious practice…,

2287 Anyone who uses the power at his disposal in such a way that it leads others to do wrong becomes guilty of scandal and responsible for the evil that he has directly or indirectly encouraged. “Temptations to sin are sure to come; but woe to him by whom they come!”…

When 70% of Catholics don’t know the teaching on the Real Presence, which includes not receiving “unworthily” (as St. Paul taught), to give the Eucharist to a politician publicly and unrepentingly supporting intrinsic evils (like abortion and SSM) it certainly can lead people who are in a state of mortal sin to believe they too can receive the Eucharist. Its about souls…not politics.

That is scandal

 

[MikeInVA]

But he attacked the president because he went to a Catholic shrine. I think I will avoid going to the Basilica in DC until they get a new bishop.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

You can go to the Basilica/ National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception. It’s run by a rector.

St. Matthew’s Cathedral is the seat for the Archbishop soon-to-be-Cardinal, so that’s the one you’d want to avoid .

 

[MikeInVA]

It’s more about not contributing to the diocese. It’s usually a $200 visit by the time my wife wife checks out at the bookstore.

 

[Wendy1989]

The bookstore is for the support of the Basilica Shrine, not the diocese - so shop away!

 

[InThePew]

To be fair to the Cardinal, he’ll be wrong in somebody’s view no matter what he does. It’s interesting however, that what Archbishop Chaput takes issue with in the article, discussed in another thread, is the Cardinal’s public announcement that he won’t deny communion to the President-elect.

As the Archbishop himself says: "publicly denying Communion to public officials is not always wise or the best pastoral course. Besides the potential for the official to “bask in the media glow of victimhood” there’s also the simpler reality that working with public officials achieves more than being at odds with them. As Winston Churchill famously put it: “jaw jaw is better than war war”.To put it another way, if you publicly embarrass a lawmaker, don’t expect to get much cooperation from them when you want something!

Still, that’s not to minimise or overlook the importance of avoiding confusion or undermining the efforts of all those who work so hard to support and protect the unborn. It is however, a private matter and should remain as such. Indeed, this is implicit in the letter from the CDF which refer to the official’s pastor meeting with him, to instruct him about the Church’s teaching and inform him that he should not present himself for communion. This allows what is, ostensibly at least, a private matter to remain that way. So the proper response for any priest or bishop is not to say that a person will or won’t be admitted to Holy Communion but rather to simply say that it’s a private matter which is not for public discussion.

 

[IanM]

Besides the potential for the official to “bask in the media glow of victimhood” there’s also the simpler reality that working with public officials achieves more than being at odds with them.

Should St. Thomas More have been more cautious about promoting the idea that Cardinal Wolsey and Archbishop Cranmer should oppose the king’s divorce then?

 

[MNathaniel]

working with public officials achieves more than being at odds with them.

I suppose my honest question about this idea is, achieves more in what sense?

Is the goal temporal politics? Or eternal salvation?

I’m asking here both about the eternal salvation of the individual politician, and the eternal salvation of the thousands or millions who are scandalized by the stumbling block and bad example set by publicly promoting a pro-abortion politician as an example of what a practicing Catholic in full Communion with the Catholic Church looks like.

Temporal politics (and the effects of temporal political “achievements”) pass. This world is temporary. Our souls are eternal, and what is achieved in each of our individual souls is eternal.

 

[TMC]

As the Archbishop himself says: " publicly denying Communion to public officials is not always wise or the best pastoral course .

This has been discussed on the forum ad nauseum. I would remind long time posters that a couple of Popes have quite famously provided communion to pro-choice politicians (with the predictable outrage by anonymous internet “experts”). Tony Blair from JPII is the most prominent example that comes to mind.

My view - let’s leave pastoral care to those charged with it, and pay more attention to our own worthiness, or lack there of.

 

[Feanor2]

My view - let’s leave pastoral care to those charged with it, and pay more attention to our own worthiness, or lack there of.

Amen to that.

 

[stpurl]

But how did we get ‘here’ from ‘there’?

Over the last 60 years or so, Catholic teachings have received less and less ‘help’ from secular government.

Somebody once defined insanity as ‘doing the same things over and over again, and expecting different results.”

As others mentioned, throughout history when secular authorities demanded that Catholics deny their conscience and do evil, whether it was worship the Roman emperor, abjure Catholicism and accept Islam, be a ‘high ranking official’ and just let the king divorce his wife, stand down and let Napoleon have his way, etc, Catholics were to constantly repeat and uphold Catholic teaching, even at the cost of losing their jobs, their ‘standing’, and even their lives. This of course goes ‘double’ for Catholic clergy and hierarchy.

What they did NOT do was to accept the wrongs while bleating that the wrongdoers were ‘nice to their mommies’ or ‘had their hearts in the right place even if they advocated dismembering babies in the womb, because after all they wanted to give asylum to illegal immigrants and wasn’t this Christ like?’

Our bishops, I am sorry to say, for the most part have gone beyond ‘hoping that prominent Catholics in a certain party who do ‘so much for social justice, except for killing babies. . .and old people. . .and those with a bad quality of life. . And those unfortunate enough to be labeled as against the cause du jour. . Will ‘change their hearts if we just hunker down, praise them and don’t make them feel ‘bad’.

I do NOT advocate for making people ‘feel bad’. If they happen to ‘feel bad’ when they hear the truth, calmly but firmly, that’s on them.

But truth needs to be told. It is a false charity to attempt to ‘guide’ a Catholic by refraining from the truth and thus to him confirming that what he does with abortion etc are not ‘bad’ since nobody is condemning him.

 

[BigBoom]

To be fair to the Cardinal, he’ll be wrong in somebody’s view no matter what he does. It’s interesting however, that what Archbishop Chaput takes issue with in the article, discussed in another thread, is the Cardinal’s public announcement that he won’t deny communion to the President-elect.

As the Archbishop himself says: "publicly denying Communion to public officials is not always wise or the best pastoral course. Besides the potential for the official to “bask in the media glow of victimhood” there’s also the simpler reality that working with public officials achieves more than being at odds with them. As Winston Churchill famously put it: “jaw jaw is better than war war”.To put it another way, if you publicly embarrass a lawmaker, don’t expect to get much cooperation from them when you want something!

Still, that’s not to minimise or overlook the importance of avoiding confusion or undermining the efforts of all those who work so hard to support and protect the unborn. It is however, a private matter and should remain as such. Indeed, this is implicit in the letter from the CDF which refer to the official’s pastor meeting with him, to instruct him about the Church’s teaching and inform him that he should not present himself for communion. This allows what is, ostensibly at least, a private matter to remain that way. So the proper response for any priest or bishop is not to say that a person will or won’t be admitted to Holy Communion but rather to simply say that it’s a private matter which is not for public discussion.

Unfortunately, he’s going to be very wrong in God’s eyes.

 

[Weserthy]

But how did we get ‘here’ from ‘there’?

Over the last 60 years or so, Catholic teachings have received less and less ‘help’ from secular government.

Somebody once defined insanity as ‘doing the same things over and over again, and expecting different results.”

As others mentioned, throughout history when secular authorities demanded that Catholics deny their conscience and do evil, whether it was worship the Roman emperor, abjure Catholicism and accept Islam, be a ‘high ranking official’ and just let the king divorce his wife, stand down and let Napoleon have his way, etc, Catholics were to constantly repeat and uphold Catholic teaching, even at the cost of losing their jobs, their ‘standing’, and even their lives. This of course goes ‘double’ for Catholic clergy and hierarchy.

What they did NOT do was to accept the wrongs while bleating that the wrongdoers were ‘nice to their mommies’ or ‘had their hearts in the right place even if they advocated dismembering babies in the womb, because after all they wanted to give asylum to illegal immigrants and wasn’t this Christ like?’

Our bishops, I am sorry to say, for the most part have gone beyond ‘hoping that prominent Catholics in a certain party who do ‘so much for social justice, except for killing babies. . .and old people. . .and those with a bad quality of life. . And those unfortunate enough to be labeled as against the cause du jour. . Will ‘change their hearts if we just hunker down, praise them and don’t make them feel ‘bad’.

I do NOT advocate for making people ‘feel bad’. If they happen to ‘feel bad’ when they hear the truth, calmly but firmly, that’s on them.

But truth needs to be told. It is a false charity to attempt to ‘guide’ a Catholic by refraining from the truth and thus to him confirming that what he does with abortion etc are not ‘bad’ since nobody is condemning him.

Yes, it is clear that the current approach is not working. I’ve seen a lot of arguments that being "nice: and private about it will have a better chance of changing someone’s mind than a confrontational approach, but there has been virtually no evidence that this tactic is successful. If Archbishop Gregory did talk to Joe Biden about his abortion stance, which I highly doubt he ever did or will, but assuming he did, I have one question for him.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[ReaderT]

On Sanctity of Life Sunday, one of our Orthodox pastors started his homily by saying: “The Orthodox Church is unabashedly pro-life. If you’re not pro-life, well, there’s the door. Come back when you’ve repented.” And that was just the start of his homily.

You Catholics, respectfully, have to bone-up on this issue. Those who fight for the murder and dismemberment of children cannot receive the Body and Blood of the Lord.

I would remind long time posters that a couple of Popes have quite famously provided communion to pro-choice politicians

And they were wrong, as popes often are.

 

[TMC]

And they were wrong, as popes often are.

Hmmm, let me think this through. Who is correct about the Church’s practices and doctrines; and who is in a better position to make pastoral judgments based on those doctrines? At least the last three Popes, and the majority of the current and recent bishops? Or ReaderT? That is a tough choice… I will go with the Popes, I guess, thanks.

 

[RootKitWarrior]

Judas is considered to have committed one the gravest of all sins.
He betrayed Our Lord Jesus Christ.
Jesus knew before hand that Judas would betray him.
YET JESUS SERVED HIM COMMUNION.

Who living on this Earth right now, ranks higher than Jesus, to deny anyone Communion?

 

[MNathaniel]

Judas is considered to have committed one the gravest of all sins.
He betrayed Our Lord Jesus Christ.
Jesus knew before hand that Judas would betray him.
YET JESUS SERVED HIM COMMUNION.

Who living on this Earth right now, ranks higher than Jesus, to deny anyone Communion?

So just checking.

Is your position that literally no human on planet earth, should for any reason, whether ongoing serial murderer or atheist etc etc, be denied Communion?

P.S. You might want to re-read the scriptural passage to recall what happened to Judas at the moment when he received communion unworthily. Then brush up on St. Paul’s caution about why not to do the same thing.