NJ archbishop sets rules for barring Catholics from Communion

[Thomas_White]

Stop making politics out of everything. There are plenty of people on the right side of the aisle who are on the wrong side of the issues. It isn’t about the little letter behind the person’s name; it is about living a moral and righteous life and following the teachings of Christ and the Church.

Amen.

 

[Neofight]

ROME (RNS) Even as Pope Francis and Catholic leaders from around the world debate ways to make the Catholic Church more inclusive, Newark Archbishop John Myers has given his priests strict guidelines on refusing Communion to Catholics who, for example, support gay marriage or whose own marriage is not valid in the eyes of the church.

In the two-page memo, Myers also orders parishes and Catholic institutions not to host people or organizations that disagree with church teachings.

He says Catholics, “especially ministers and others who represent the Church, should not participate in or be present at religious events or events intended to endorse or support those who reject or ignore Church teaching and Canon Law.”

The new rules could raise eyebrows given that Francis is currently leading a high-level Vatican summit, called a synod, where he and some 270 bishops are debating whether to let divorced and remarried Catholics receive Communion, and how to be more welcoming to cohabiting and gay couples whose lives don’t conform to Catholic teaching.

The guidelines could also up the ante for the coming election season, when Catholic candidates who support abortion rights or gay rights are sometimes challenged by conservatives over whether they should receive Communion.

religionnews.com/2015/10/13/new-jersey-archbishop-sets-rules-barring-catholics-communion/

Document at link

A good argument can be made that Republicans fall into this category.

 

[Tarpeian_Rock]

From the letter:

A good argument could be made that Democrats fall under this category.

Are you suggesting that if someone is a registered Democrat (not a Democrat politician) they should not present themselves for Communion?

 

[jediliz]

He should do what bishop emeritus bruskewitz did after he was installed - excommunicate anyone belonging to organizations that are contrary to church teaching - like call to action or planned parenthood to name two.

 

[mlz]

LISTENING TO OLD GOSPEL MUSIC
mlz

 

[phil19034]

Unless he’s psychic, I wonder how he and the priests will know if someone supports same-sex marriage?
Will he tell the priests to specifically ask people? Or…do you think those who support it will offer this information freely or simply not go up for communion ever again and say nothing?

I guess he’s aware that perhaps half–maybe more–of the Catholics in NJ will need to bow out.
According to a poll a few years ago, almost fifty percent of Catholics in NJ support same-sex marriage.

A 2009 Rutgers-Eagleton Poll of NJ Catholics showed:
–48 percent support gay marriage
–40 percent oppose it
– 12 percent are undecided.

(Protestants held the opposite view–34 percent supporting, 55 percent opposing, and 11percent undecided)

And an updated 2013 New York Times/CBS News poll showed that 62-percent of US Catholics were in favor of legalizing same-sex marriage. (In that poll…Catholics approved same-sex marriage at a higher rate than Americans in general at 53 percent).

I sure hope Myers will follow what the pope says to do if there are any “pastoral changes” in the near future, after this synod.
What happens to him if he does not?

Then again, he may not even be in his position long enough to enforce these rules.
He turns 75 next year and must submit his resignation to the pope then, right?

And…because several priests, nuns, and canon lawyers have urged the Vatican to investigate him using the new tribunal set up re negligent bishops, saying he sheltered abusive priests.
A case against him was announced in July by Father Jim Connell, Sister Maureen Turlish, former priest and Co-founder/President of Road to Recovery, Dr. Robert Hoatson, Catholic schoolteacher Linda Bruns, Helen Rainsforth (a victim’s mother) and Samuel Rivera (a sexual abuse victim).

“When Pope Francis last month announced the new tribunal, instantly — within 24 hours — we were saying, ‘Myers has to be one,’” said the Rev. James Connell, a canon lawyer and retired priest from Milwaukee…

“…the archbishop came under heavy criticism in 2013 after it was reported that now defrocked priest Michael Fugee, who had been accused of groping a teenage boy, attended youth retreats and heard confessions from minors despite an agreement with prosecutors and an archdiocesan official barring him from contact with minors.
In Peoria, Larry and Helen Rainforth, whose son Lance was among 13 people who received settlements from that diocese over abuse by former priest Norman Goodman, said Myers threatened people who came forward with libel lawsuits and excommunication.”

(kansascity.com/living/religion/article29594776.html#storylink=cpy)

So…while Archibishop Myers is giving priests strict guidelines on refusing Communion to parishioners, one wonders if he, himself, should be abstaining.

.

These numbers are pretty much skewed. It includes people who are not practicing Catholics and who rarely go to Mass.

If they did a poll of people who attend Mass ever Sunday AND attend every Holy Day of Obligation, I believe those numbers would be very different.

God Bless

 

[dans0622]

I think that reporting that you’ve quoted is actually an overreach. The document details the conditions that preclude Holy Communion but asks people only to be ‘honest to themselves and to the Church Community’. There seems to be no instruction to Priests to make the judgement. …

I think you’re right. The talk of “sets rules” and “strict guidelines” and “gay marriage” are all products of the reporter, not the bishop.

There is at least an implication, however, that the ministers of the Sacraments (i.e., priests) have to be diligent in making sure that the people are properly disposed. They do have to make a judgment on that. This, though, is not really the bishop “setting strict guidelines”–that’s basic canon law on the Sacraments.

Dan

 

[shockerfan]

Are you suggesting that if someone is a registered Democrat (not a Democrat politician) they should not present themselves for Communion?

Any person of any political persuasion, who supports candidates who champion abortion, who champion same sex marriage, who champion embryonic stem cell research should really think twice about presenting themselves for Communion.

 

[Thomas_White]

The letter from the Archbishop, dated September 22, 2015, states the following:

“Catholics must be in a marriage recognized as valid by the Church to receive Holy Communion or the other Sacraments.”

It is the difficulty of reducing to writing an intangible, a concept, that might ultimately result in legalism. With all due respect, and only to illustrate the point, would a literal reading of the sentence quoted above apply to the Archbishop himself?

That is, must a Catholic be married to receive Communion and the Sacraments?

 

[Ender]

Unless he’s psychic, I wonder how he and the priests will know if someone supports same-sex marriage?

This is actually quite simple; it’s a wonder that it can be made to seem nonsensical. The priest has neither the ability nor the need to know the private thoughts of communicants. There are cases, however, where positions directly contradictory to church doctrine are publicly proclaimed, and in those cases the priest is obligated to act. Is this really hard to understand?

I guess he’s aware that perhaps half–maybe more–of the Catholics in NJ will need to bow out.
According to a poll a few years ago, almost fifty percent of Catholics in NJ support same-sex marriage.

Actually, all this means is that the priests need to do a better job of unapologetically proclaiming what the church teaches.

I sure hope Myers will follow what the pope says to do if there are any “pastoral changes” in the near future, after this synod.

“Pastoral changes” will not include the repudiation of existing doctrine. Abp Myers has done nothing more than proclaim he intends to enforce what is already church teaching.

So…while Archibishop Myers is giving priests strict guidelines on refusing Communion to parishioners, one wonders if he, himself, should be abstaining.

His personal condition is utterly irrelevant to the validity of his action in this case.

Ender

 

[Ender]

It would seem it must devolve once again to what is presumed objectively known, and that is that a remarried Catholic who has not obtained annullment is ipso facto in the state of mortal sin.

The church has been quite clear about this.
In fidelity to the words of Jesus Christ, the Church affirms that a new union cannot be recognised as valid if the preceding marriage was valid. If the divorced are remarried civilly, they find themselves in a situation that objectively contravenes God’s law. Consequently, they cannot receive Holy Communion as long as this situation persists.
…

• Receiving Eucharistic Communion contrary to ecclesial communion is therefore in itself a contradiction. Sacramental communion with Christ includes and presupposes the observance, even if at times difficult, of the order of ecclesial communion, and it cannot be right and fruitful if a member of the faithful, wishing to approach Christ directly, does not respect this order.
  *(Ratzinger, Letter Concerning the Reception of Holy Communion by the Divorced and Remarried…)
  Ender

 

[zz912]

Stop making politics out of everything. There are plenty of people on the right side of the aisle who are on the wrong side of the issues. It isn’t about the little letter behind the person’s name; it is about living a moral and righteous life and following the teachings of Christ and the Church.

Please explain how one can be a member of, and support an organization/party that actively works to undermine and contradict Church teaching, and at the same time live a moral and religious life? How does one support a group opposed to Church teaching and at the same time live a moral life?

 

[zz912]

A better argument would concern the teachings of the papal encyclical Laudato Si.

Feel free to make your argument. Let’s see how sound it is, compared to the Democratic Party and their stated opposition to official Church teaching and doctrine.

 

[zz912]

No more than it’s okay to cherry-pick five non-negotiables that happen to align with the Republican platform. Torture, for example, is a non-negotiable according to the CCC but strangely, Hudson didn’t include it in his list…

Because no one supports torture, and it is not a part of the Republican Party platform. If a political party does support torture, then it would be added to the list.

 

[zz912]

A good argument can be made that Republicans fall into this category.

Please do give this argument. Which planks of the Republican Party platform are in contradiction to Church teaching or doctrine?

 

[zz912]

Are you suggesting that if someone is a registered Democrat (not a Democrat politician) they should not present themselves for Communion?

I can’t seem to come up with a situation where someone, who belongs to and supports a political party that actively works to contradict and oppose Church teaching/doctrine, could be able to honestly present themselves for communion.

 

[zz912]

The letter from the Archbishop, dated September 22, 2015, states the following:

“Catholics must be in a marriage recognized as valid by the Church to receive Holy Communion or the other Sacraments.”

It is the difficulty of reducing to writing an intangible, a concept, that might ultimately result in legalism. With all due respect, and only to illustrate the point, would a literal reading of the sentence quoted above apply to the Archbishop himself?

That is, must a Catholic be married to receive Communion and the Sacraments?

This seems like a desperate deflection tactic. Absolutely no one has understood his letter to state that unmarried people cannot receive sacraments (such a position is contrary to Catholic doctrine and canon law, and the Archbishop is attempting to promote Catholic doctrine). Such a ridiculous tangent speaks to desperation and a need to derail the conversation.

 

[Thomas_White]

The church has been quite clear about this.
In fidelity to the words of Jesus Christ, the Church affirms that a new union cannot be recognised as valid if the preceding marriage was valid. If the divorced are remarried civilly, they find themselves in a situation that objectively contravenes God’s law. Consequently, they cannot receive Holy Communion as long as this situation persists.
…

• Receiving Eucharistic Communion contrary to ecclesial communion is therefore in itself a contradiction. Sacramental communion with Christ includes and presupposes the observance, even if at times difficult, of the order of ecclesial communion, and it cannot be right and fruitful if a member of the faithful, wishing to approach Christ directly, does not respect this order.
  *(Ratzinger, Letter Concerning the Reception of Holy Communion by the Divorced and Remarried…)
  Ender

Yes, we know. This was the very point. Thanks.

 

[Thomas_White]

Feel free to make your argument. Let’s see how sound it is, compared to the Democratic Party and their stated opposition to official Church teaching and doctrine.

The papal encyclical Laudato Si is part of the Church’s social teaching. The Democrat party has no teaching authority whatsoever in the Roman Catholic Church.

 

[Thomas_White]

This seems like a desperate deflection tactic. Absolutely no one has understood his letter to state that unmarried people cannot receive sacraments (such a position is contrary to Catholic doctrine and canon law, and the Archbishop is attempting to promote Catholic doctrine). Such a ridiculous tangent speaks to desperation and a need to derail the conversation.

How could any person possibly know what “absolutely no one” has understood? However, this was hardly the point and has nothing to do with “desperation” and “a need to derail the conversation.” Perhaps the comment wasn’t understood.