Pro-choice politicians take communion at Yankee Stadium

[urban-hermit]

…but I do not really think it is our position to judge the actions of the Bishops and Priests.

I think you are correct - and nobody cares what urban-hermit’s “judgment” on the matter is anyway.

What I essentially am doing is asking the question:

What is going on?,

because although I am in terms of Church authority a “nobody”, I wish to utilize my God-given gift of internet access to say, without trying to make the ridiculous implication that I know more than the bishops, but just to state publicly and as respectfully as I can given the outrageous context of the situation, that

I cannot rationally reconcile the words and the deeds of our bishops.

I think we are allowed to ask questions. The bishops are not obliged to answer them … but if they don’t, then that will probably just lead to more questions.

 

[Newbie2]

guess what… you have no idea what was in their hearts at the time of them taking communion. i would say stop trying to assume. even if they continue in their sin afterwards. they might have been to confession. they might have made a perfect contrition. bottom line…you don’t know.
.

Maybe so, but it’s up to them to publically renounce the reversal of their position, and one would think they would do that if it were truly “in their heart” to repent.

That’s not the question I asked. If Jesus was standing there, offering Himself-would He have told those people to leave? IMHO, He is the only one that could make that judgement because he is the only one who can truly know the content of the heart of that person in front of Him.

Yeah, but he ain’t here in person, is he? That’s why we have priests who act in personna for him.

But, it is not about reading anyone’s heart. It is about public behavior and scandal. Canon law speaks to the issue.

Bingo.

It’s a difficult matter all around. I wish at the very least some of the bishops would, pardon my strong language, stiffen their spine and address this issue better than the do now. IMHO, for the most part it’s not being publically addressed, as evidenced by our discussion here.

 

[Fitswimmer]

ok, let me explain why the idea of refusing communion bothers me. In my own personal history as a Catholic, I have been told by “well meaning” fellow parishioners that I should not be receiving communion because they have declared me a lesbian. I had to assume that it was based on my style of dress and lack of husband and children. Since these people did not know me beyond those superficial issues, there was no way that they could know that I have lived a chaste life as a person with SSA. Yet, they felt that as a member of the music ministry and a lector, I was “giving scandal” by openly receiving. My pastor at the time was also lectured by these “well meaning” folks for allowing me to serve as a lector. He delivered a SCATHING sermon on gossip and it’s effects, mentioning no names, but then made me an EM!! However, the tension remained, the gossip intensified and I finally left the parish to end the problems. I now attend a traditional Latin chapel, and while I did take some harassment from some militant SSPX women who have since left, overall it’s been a good experience.

My priest at the time could have VERY easily gone along with the gossip and denied me communion in order to avoid the appearance of scandal. Granted we’re talking about a public figure in this case, but how many people who volunteer and work in parishes or communities could be targeted by such an approach??

My position remains. Give the person the benefit of the doubt that he/she has made a good Confession and has changed his/her heart towards God.

 

[BartBurk]

ok, let me explain why the idea of refusing communion bothers me. In my own personal history as a Catholic, I have been told by “well meaning” fellow parishioners that I should not be receiving communion because they have declared me a lesbian. I had to assume that it was based on my style of dress and lack of husband and children. Since these people did not know me beyond those superficial issues, there was no way that they could know that I have lived a chaste life as a person with SSA. Yet, they felt that as a member of the music ministry and a lector, I was “giving scandal” by openly receiving. My pastor at the time was also lectured by these “well meaning” folks for allowing me to serve as a lector. He delivered a SCATHING sermon on gossip and it’s effects, mentioning no names, but then made me an EM!! However, the tension remained, the gossip intensified and I finally left the parish to end the problems. I now attend a traditional Latin chapel, and while I did take some harassment from some militant SSPX women who have since left, overall it’s been a good experience.

My priest at the time could have VERY easily gone along with the gossip and denied me communion in order to avoid the appearance of scandal. Granted we’re talking about a public figure in this case, but how many people who volunteer and work in parishes or communities could be targeted by such an approach??

My position remains. Give the person the benefit of the doubt that he/she has made a good Confession and has changed his/her heart towards God.

It would not have been valid to refuse you communion. You had not given any reason to believe you were a practicing lesbian. These politicians are publicly announcing they are pro-choice. They know that is against church teaching. The two situations aren’t comparable.

 

[Fitswimmer]

It would not have been valid to refuse you communion. You had not given any reason to believe you were a practicing lesbian. These politicians are publicly announcing they are pro-choice. They know that is against church teaching. The two situations aren’t comparable.

The situations ARE comparable. In BOTH situations you have human beings determining an individual’s worthiness to receive communion. The big argument for banning politicians from communion is because of the “domino effect” it has on other Catholics-by Rudy receiving communion the message is sent that it is OK for Catholics to be ProChoice and receive communion. The same “domino effect” occurs with banning. If it is OK to ban a public figure on a national/state level, why would it not be ok to ban a more local figure-even if the only local publicity was teaching CCD or being a lector??

 

[YADA]

Is there any precedent of a priest actually denying someone communion? As in, if someone came up, and the priest just shunned them away? I’ve never seen this before. .

I personnally witnessed a priest refuse to give a person communion at a mass [he gave them a blessing instead]. This was a Mass offered at a small Masters in Pastoral Ministry Cohort where Mass and Formtion was a part of the curriculum …

Now I know the person’s situation and why the priest did not give the person communion [in accordance with church teaching] This was NOT a matter of grave sin … Many in the Cohort thought that the priest was wrong and even un Christian in his position of following the “Letter of the Law” to the detriment of huan charity … after all we were a community, the mass was private and there was no “Sin”

At the time I was the only person who took the priest’s position, defending him in following the teachings of the church …

A couple of years llater this same priest was interviewed about the controversy over whether John Kerry should receive ot be denied communion … this priest said he would not deny Kerry communion …

Here is what I learned from that experience …

If you are a “nobody” [the average John/Jane Doe] in the pew, the priest can and will deny you communion for the most minor of issues …

If you are famous and notorious in your open opposition to Christian Values/Morals and in opposition to the Church on murdering children, you can receive communion with a “photo op” and press coverage …

Know I know you want to know why the priest denied this person … they had grown up catholic, became episcopalian … She was married to a catholic and at the time alternated attendance between his church and hers [and they each received communion at each others services]. She started this Masters in Pastoral Ministry [catholic program] and the priest in charge of the formation aspect denied her communion … Many in the program thought that he actually ended what could have been a “Coming Home” instead she left the program after one year and never attended a catholic church again. And at the Cohort Mass, we all knew each other, this was not a public mass for any public scandal… it was a small intimate group …

 

[YADA]

A few years later a friend [also episcopalian] was traveling with me in Guatemala on a medical mission … they attended mass with me at when it came time for communion they asked if it was okay to go to communion …

It was really to late to explain the reasons why they should not … and to just say “no” and go myself for communion seemed inappropriate … they received the “Body of Christ”

After mass I explained to them the “Rules” and the “Theology”…

But I have no problem with this Godly person receiving Jesus in the Eucharist … she is Christian, attends chruch every week and lives the Gospel … I actually think they may become “catholic” in a formal sense at some future time … but they are more ‘catholic’ than many card carrying catholics I know …

PLEASE NOTE: I would never encourage someone to violate church teachings on the reception of the Eucharist … I accept the teachings of the church, go to confession and try personally to receive in a state of forgiveness and reconcilliation …

The Pro-Abort - Pro-Choice catholics who receive Communion is a public scandal, ad if they receive reconcilliation they should [need] to publically renounce their previous position to avoid scandalizing the Eucharist …

 

[MollyF]

The situations ARE comparable. In BOTH situations you have human beings determining an individual’s worthiness to receive communion. The big argument for banning politicians from communion is because of the “domino effect” it has on other Catholics-by Rudy receiving communion the message is sent that it is OK for Catholics to be ProChoice and receive communion. The same “domino effect” occurs with banning. If it is OK to ban a public figure on a national/state level, why would it not be ok to ban a more local figure-even if the only local publicity was teaching CCD or being a lector??

Human Beings are not determining an individual’s worthiness to receive communion. Jesus is leading the church through the Holy Spirit. If the bishop/priest is following the church then he is representing Jesus.

 

[urban-hermit]

My position remains. Give the person the benefit of the doubt that he/she has made a good Confession and has changed his/her heart towards God.

Dear Fitswimmer, I want to say I am sorry for the things you have suffered. I was an openly gay man before my reversion, and I have worked with Courage after my reversion, making my homosexuality common knowledge to many people in the Church even now.

This issue is not about the “domino effect”. I hear that repeatedly from the bishops as well. Such fears are understandable - I do understand such fears when they come from you and your experience - but we as a Church simply cannot fail to do what is just and right now because of a fear of what might happen later, as if it were unpreventable or unavoidable.

Injustice needs to be confronted. I am sure you would agree about that. And I would say Canon Law has been carefully crafted to guide us on this matter, and that to ignore that guidance is … “unwise” for want of a better word.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree on the larger issue at hand, but I do hope you continue to discern this issue.

 

[grandfather]

I understand what you are saying here but the thing is anullment cases are not public knowledge so we have no way of knowing if this situation has been rectified or not.

Guliani is a public figure. His public position on abortion as a prominant Catholic is the cause of grave scandal. His Cardinal has publicly rebuked him for taking Communion, saying they had an understanding that he would not do this, meaning he is unwelcome and he acknowledged that in private with Cdl. Egan. This would indicate also that his marriage problems have not been straightned out. He’s on wife number three. She is on husband two or three. If he did change his public position on abortion in order to be reconciled with the Church this would have to be publicly stated in order to deal with the sin of scandal. The sin of scandal harms “our neighbor’s soul”. The catechism says it is a sin against the fifth commandment, thou shalt not kill, because it kills my neighbor’s soul. The only way to repair the scandal, which is public, is with a public statement or apology.
That has not happened. So now we have more scandal and sacrelige.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

guess what? It doesn’t matter what was in their heart. Objectively, if you look at the guidelines, they should still be denied communion for their public support of mass murder. Whether they feel good about it or not is irrelevant in this instance. Look at the documents yourself and see if you can find ANYWHERE that says what is “in their hearts” is a factor.

If they made a perfect contrition, they would have stopped supporting mass murder. Bottom line - they haven’t.

I find it amusing that you place yourself above both bishops, archbishops and the pope himself in determining who is and who is not fit to receive communion. Would it not be better to spend your excessive time worrying and working on your own salvation rather than in meddling in affairs that you are neither trained nor called up to give opinion to?

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Scandal means leading another to sin, not that some person is shocked by his behavior.

People seeing these figures publicly reject Church teaching and then receiving communion is a scandal in that many will think holding such positions is morally good and has no effect on our relationship with our Lord.

What you fail to realize is that something less than 1% of all catholics concern themselves with other people’s behavior. They are not aware that anything wrong is being “taught” by example as you suggest. They are oblivious to the entire matter until folks like Novak and folks here make an issue of it for them to read about. So you are the ones spreading the news. As I of course expected you would. I’ve been waiting for this thread to appear ever since I read about Novak’s article on the web. I just knew someone would have to begin a discussion about their “outrage”. I guess the whole bit about mote and log that Jesus taught about was a day you missed catechism?

 

[urban-hermit]

I find it amusing that you place yourself above both bishops, archbishops and the pope himself in determining who is and who is not fit to receive communion. Would it not be better to spend your excessive time worrying and working on your own salvation rather than in meddling in affairs that you are neither trained nor called up to give opinion to?

Dear SpiritMeadow,

“Meddling in affairs” ? Now THAT is amusing. I am simply sharing my viewpoint, just as you are.

But back to the topic of the conversation you have chosen to join - I am actually in agreement with some bishops and the Pope himself, who say that such politicians must be refused communion.

“The World Over Live” just did a TERRIFIC show on this subject.
ewtn.com/WorldOver/index.asp

Apparently more than 1% are interested, SpiritMeadow. I even heard that some people in rural Idaho are beginning to take note.

 

[Fitswimmer]

I find it amusing that you place yourself above both bishops, archbishops and the pope himself in determining who is and who is not fit to receive communion. Would it not be better to spend your excessive time worrying and working on your own salvation rather than in meddling in affairs that you are neither trained nor called up to give opinion to?

I’ve got enough to worry about with my own issues then to be wondering about whether anyone else should be at the communion rail. It’s between that individual and God as far as I’m concerned.

 

[fix]

What you fail to realize is that something less than 1% of all catholics concern themselves with other people’s behavior.

Not sure what this means?

They are not aware that anything wrong is being “taught” by example as you suggest.

Then, that would be a problem.

They are oblivious to the entire matter until folks like Novak and folks here make an issue of it for them to read about.
So you are the ones spreading the news. As I of course expected you would. I’ve been waiting for this thread to appear ever since I read about Novak’s article on the web. I just knew someone would have to begin a discussion about their “outrage”. I guess the whole bit about mote and log that Jesus taught about was a day you missed catechism?

So you may judge, but not others. Irony.

 

[fix]

I’ve got enough to worry about with my own issues then to be wondering about whether anyone else should be at the communion rail. It’s between that individual and God as far as I’m concerned.

It is not our personal opinion we are talking about, but Church law. That law exists for a reason. Why reject that law?

 

[mary_bobo]

What you fail to realize is that something less than 1% of all catholics concern themselves with other people’s behavior. Site where we can find this stat?

They are not aware that anything wrong is being “taught” by example as you suggest. And you know this because…?

They are oblivious to the entire matter until folks like Novak and folks here make an issue of it for them to read about. So you are the ones spreading the news. As I of course expected you would. I’ve been waiting for this thread to appear ever since I read about Novak’s article on the web. I just knew someone would have to begin a discussion about their “outrage”. I guess the whole bit about mote and log that Jesus taught about was a day you missed catechism?

I don’t think it is necessary to put other posters down in order to express your opinion. I don’t think you give people credit for what do and do not observe. I think many are more intelligent than that.

 

[Fitswimmer]

It is not our personal opinion we are talking about, but Church law. That law exists for a reason. Why reject that law?

Please point out where I said that I reject Church Law. I’m merely saying that it is not my business to enforce Church Law, nor is it my business to watch those going to Holy Communion and make determinations based on what I know about them to determine whether or not they are following Church Law. That’s above my pay grade.

 

[fix]

Please point out where I said that I reject Church Law. I’m merely saying that it is not my business to enforce Church Law, nor is it my business to watch those going to Holy Communion and make determinations based on what I know about them to determine whether or not they are following Church Law. That’s above my pay grade.

So you agree the law exists?

I hardly think it is irrational, or morally incorrect, to desire the law to be enforced. Nor, is it a stretch to be concerned about this issue.

 

[Cajetan]

What would Jesus do? Would Jesus turn a sinner away from Him if they approached? Human beings cannot know the content of another person’s heart, but Jesus can…and does. I’m really wary of anyone trying to judge what another person’s worthiness to receive. None of us are worthy to receive, and we all say so. Jesus makes us worthy. If Jesus can make me worthy, who am I to say that He can’t choose to make anyone worthy who approaches with a sincere heart?

If he hasn’t been to Confession, he must not receive. Clearly, Jesus would say to the sinner, “Repent.”

By the sinner refusing to repent (go to Confession), say, about supporting abortion, he is basically saying that he disagrees with Jesus. And if he disagrees with Jesus, why would he even try to receive Him? In this case, I have no qualms in asserting that Jesus would turn him away. Come back after you have repented.