Well, here we go again

[Antonio_B]

**BISHOP GRACIDA EXPLAINS HOW AND WHY PRO-ABORTION CATHOLIC POLITICIANS MUST BE DENIED COMMUNION **

CORPUS CHRISTI, USA, September 28 2004 (CNA) - In a statement sent to Catholic News Agency, Bishop Rene Gracida, emeritus of Corpus Christi (Texas), explained why there is no excuse to not deny Holy Communion to pro-abortion politicians, and describes in detail a case he dealt with during his tenure as Bishop of Corpus Christi.

Bishop Gracida, with reference to the Code of Canon Law, the Scriptures, and the teaching of the Magisterium, clearly and unequivocally presents the Catholic Church’s prohibition against the reception of Holy Communion by pro-abortion Catholics.

Since this prohibition is based on divine revelation, writes Bishop Gracida, the Church, and therefore bishops and priests at the Communion rail, have no right to oppose it and have a duty to protect the Sacrament of the Eucharist - Christ Himself - from objective and grave sacrilege.

He staunchly affirms, in a paragraph clearly aimed at certain U.S. bishops and priests, that those “who maintain that they cannot support the refusing of Holy Communion to pro-abortion politicians because the time of the distribution of Holy Communion is a time of unity in the Body of Christ are indeed relativizers of the objectively established precepts.”

The bishop charges that they are “guilty of relativizing the objectively based precepts” and thus they “directly relativize Truth Himself!”

The bishop states that “there can be no doubting that most of the major political figures who are on record publicly as favoring abortion-on-demand, euthanasia, cloning or fetal experimentation …qualify for being denied Holy Communion.”

However, he also states that “there is no need for public denial of Holy Communion…it can be carried out in complete privacy and confidentiality,” without requiring the “worst case scenario” of a loud public confrontation between a pro-abortion politician and the priest distributing communion.

Included in the bishop’s statement is a 1993 case history of his implementation of the Church’s prohibition against a self declared “very good Catholic” politician, a member of the House of Representatives of the Texas Legislature, who’s public support of abortion in an interview with the Corpus-Christi Caller Times - a strongly pro-abortion newspaper - constituted a public scandal.

Bishop Gracida wrote to the politician as his pastor, since he was domiciled in Corpus Christi, explaining Catholic teaching on the issue, and that no Catholic in good standing may hold views contrary to the teaching of the Catholic Church. He invited him to meet with him with an aim to elicit a public retraction.

The politician never responded, nor did he respond to a letter sent six months later by Bishop Gracida after the same politician publicly re-affirmed his pro-abortion stance. In this letter the bishop warned him that if he did not repent, that he would have no choice but to impose an interdiction forbidding the man to receive the sacraments of the Eucharist or the Annointing of the Sick. Therefore the interdiction was imposed, and, the bishop states, had not been lifted at the time of the man’s death in 2001. If the man had received Communion in the years before his death it would have been a further sacrilege.

What do you think? Antonio

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Antonio B:

What do you think? Antonio

I think it’s pathetic, and that the bishops are doing more damage to the Church than they are “protecting the Eucharist.” Remember this is the same Eucharist which was spat upon, flogged, mocked, and when Peter tried to spare Him such treatment He said, “get behind me, satan!” Apparently Peter didn’t get the point.

It is particularly unfortunate that the recent public escalation of bishops excommunicating politicians and even voters who vote for them comes on the heels of the widely publicized sex scandal within the Church, where members of the same body of bishops hid and condoned behavior within their jurisdiction which the public most likely views as worse behavior than abortion. This makes the Church look like it’s run by arrogant, ineffective hypocrites and almost seems a bit Clintonian in that they are making such a big stink over pro-choice politicians that maybe the public is supposed to forget all about the scandal.

I’m sure there are many wonderfully poetic, eloquent and legalistic arguments showing how these bishops are not only within their rights, but morally obligated to behave in this way. That’s all fine and good if you’re into legalistic debate, but it doesn’t change the effect that what they are doing has on the sheep and potential sheep.

If these bishops want to make public what should be kept privately in the confessional, in publicly judging and denying Communion to individuals, then maybe the bishops themselves should all waive their right to vote in private, and require public disclosure of how they and their priests vote in public elections.
The bishop states that “there can be no doubting that most of the major political figures who are on record publicly as favoring abortion-on-demand, euthanasia, cloning or fetal experimentation …qualify for being denied Holy Communion.”
Again, this sort of judgment belongs in the confessional.
However, he also states that “there is no need for public denial of Holy Communion…it can be carried out in complete privacy and confidentiality,” without requiring the “worst case scenario” of a loud public confrontation between a pro-abortion politician and the priest distributing communion.
Meaning they should just go away quietly and it is THEIR fault that he’s making such a big public stink about it.

The politician never responded, nor did he respond to a letter sent six months later by Bishop Gracida after the same politician publicly re-affirmed his pro-abortion stance. In this letter the bishop warned him that if he did not repent, that he would have no choice but to impose an interdiction forbidding the man to receive the sacraments of the Eucharist or the Annointing of the Sick. Therefore the interdiction was imposed, and, the bishop states, had not been lifted at the time of the man’s death in 2001. If the man had received Communion in the years before his death it would have been a further sacrilege.
He had a choice. What he holds bound is held bound, and what he forgives is forgiven, unless JPII himself ordered him to excommunicate this individual. I think it is cowardly for people who have the authority to make a decision to say, “I have no choice.”

Yeah, he certainly taught that stray sheep a lesson. How many souls do you suppose he saved? How many babies, for that matter? :tsktsk:

Alan

 

[AlanFromWichita]

In this letter the bishop warned him that if he did not repent, that he would have no choice but to impose an interdiction forbidding the man to receive the sacraments of the Eucharist or the Annointing of the Sick.
The first time through I missed the part about “Anointing of the Sick.” That’s a new one on me. Would this bishop spit on a dying man? At least when they burned heretics at the stake it was in the hope they would be saved.

Alan

 

[JNB]

AlanFromWichita:

The first time through I missed the part about “Anointing of the Sick.” That’s a new one on me. Would this bishop spit on a dying man? At least when they burned heretics at the stake it was in the hope they would be saved.

Alan
Dont worry, most Bishops still lack a spine, and will refuse to adress public scandal such as pro abortion politicians to recieve the eucharist. I feel that many American Catholics would be happier as Episcopalins.

 

[nucatholic]

Alan, In the Bible excommunication is taught as a valid and needed part of Church life. Do YOU know how to “win souls” better than God’s word and God’s Church? The Bishop is a succesor of the Apostles and has the right and responsibility to protect the sacraments. Lets not start Bishop bashing because some of them have made huge mistakes. If one is going to defy Church teaching and have the gall to flaunt it, then they need to be denied Communion and all the things wonderful about God’s Church so they can see the error of their ways. Christ wants all to come to His Church but His Church will not change in order for them to do so.

 

[juanh]

nucatholic:

If one is going to defy Church teaching and have the gall to flaunt it, then they need to be denied Communion and all the things wonderful about God’s Church so they can see the error of their ways. Christ wants all to come to His Church but His Church will not change in order for them to do so.

while this may be unpopular with many…I agree…it’s not up to me to choose.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

AlanFromWichita:

The first time through I missed the part about “Anointing of the Sick.” That’s a new one on me. Would this bishop spit on a dying man? At least when they burned heretics at the stake it was in the hope they would be saved.

Alan,
I believe that reception of the Eucharist can be part of the Anointing of the Sick. I believe one must be in a state of grace to recieve it but I could be wrong on that.

Also, Anointing of the Sick is not just for “a dying man”.

And while you are correct about the buring at the stake, heretics were denied the last rights.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

nucatholic:

Alan, In the Bible excommunication is taught as a valid and needed part of Church life.

Perhaps. Jesus also equates anger to murder, but you don’t see the Church excommunicating those who are frequently angry, including angry clergy.

Do YOU know how to “win souls” better than God’s word and God’s Church?

Not better that God’s Word. God’s Word ate and drank with sinners, and did not deny His flesh and blood to them. Paul became all things to all people. I can’t follow that act very well, but I can try. Neither one of them won souls by throwing stones at outcasts. They allowed it, but I suspect it was by concession, except for the one who was lost so that prophecy may be fulfilled.

Better than God’s Church? There are a couple ways to look at that. First, since I am part of the Church, do you mean better than the “rest of” God’s Church? If so, that depends on the particular soul. I’m not experienced at managing a bureacratic organization which serves over a billion, but I have certainly helped some individuals get over the hurt they experienced at the hands of Church officials and return to the Church, and helped others decide not to leave. I have helped agnostic academics acknowledge the likelihood of God, and have helped those indifferent to faith become reignited in it. For those individuals, the “rest of the Church” was not serving them. Since I am a part of the Church, though, I’m not saying I’m better than the Church, but just doing my part. Maybe you’re the hand and I’m the foot, or maybe I’m the appendix.

The Bishop is a succesor of the Apostles and has the right and responsibility to protect the sacraments.

When David’s people were hungry, did he and his pals not eat the consecrated bread allowable only for priests? Perhaps the bishop has a “right” to run his organization any way he wants to, but if our attitude is that Jesus and the sacraments need our protection from sinners and rule-breakers, then we might have to say that David should have been excommunicated.

Lets not start Bishop bashing because some of them have made huge mistakes.

I’m not bishop bashing because they have made huge mistakes. I’m bishop bashing because they are currently making huge mistakes.

If one is going to defy Church teaching and have the gall to flaunt it, then they need to be denied Communion and all the things wonderful about God’s Church so they can see the error of their ways. Christ wants all to come to His Church but His Church will not change in order for them to do so.

Do you really think John Kerry has learned anything or will learn anything from being excommunicated in many dioceses?

Alan

 

[AlanFromWichita]

ByzCath:

Alan,
I believe that reception of the Eucharist can be part of the Anointing of the Sick. I believe one must be in a state of grace to recieve it but I could be wrong on that.

I wasn’t aware of that. I thought that in an emergency even non-Catholics could be given the anointing, so i just assumed it didn’t require a person to have all the i’s dotted and t’s crossed.

Also, Anointing of the Sick is not just for “a dying man”.

That I knew, and in fact I received the anointing a few months ago myself for the first time.

And while you are correct about the buring at the stake, heretics were denied the last rights.

Gee whiz. That seems kind of counterproductive. If they did, in fact, do a “perfect contrition” in the searing heat of the flames, would that effectively do the same thing? If not, it seems like burning them would be pointless and vengeful.

Alan

 

[Joe_Kelley]

ByzCath:

Alan,
I believe that reception of the Eucharist can be part of the Anointing of the Sick. I believe one must be in a state of grace to recieve it but I could be wrong on that.

Also, Anointing of the Sick is not just for “a dying man”.

And while you are correct about the buring at the stake, heretics were denied the last rights.

The Last Rites include Confession, Anointing of the Sick and Viaticum [Eucharist]. If the person is unconscious, I think the priest can absolve him on the presumption that he wishes to repent. He will try to get some sign of repentance, e.g. a hand squeeze, from an apparently unconscious person.

If the person is conscious Confession would be necessary. I think that priests have the power to lift an interdict or excommunication in such a Confession on the presumption that the appropriate authority would do so if they were aware of the circumstances. of course the t’s must be crossed and the i’s dotted if the person recovers.

This is from memory; so don’t bet any real money on it.

 

[nordskoven]

The choice between “life and blessing” and “death and cursing” is what defines the people of God as contradistinct from the seed of Satan. Chose ye this day. Those souls who chose death and cursing are Zombie Catholics who are already dead. Don’t mourn such souls, neither pray for them as St. John counseled. They are dead in mortal sin and need to lay down and act their chosen part. It is a gracious act to treat the dead as dead in hope that they notice and correct their state. The watchman who doesn’t give warning will perish for not doing his duty. Bless the bishops who give warning. That’s tough love. The rest are handholding to Hell, as Sir Thomas More suggested.

 

[Antonio_B]

JNB:

Dont worry, most Bishops still lack a spine, and will refuse to adress public scandal such as pro abortion politicians to recieve the eucharist. I feel that many American Catholics would be happier as Episcopalins.

Frankly, Im very surprise at AlanfromWichita’s reaction!

Antonio

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Antonio B:

Frankly, Im very surprise at AlanfromWichita’s reaction!

Cool. What about it is surprising to you? I’ve been all over the map either in support of or questioning the Church on any given issue, so I’m curious. If you can pin it down some I’ll gladly elaborate.

Overall, I acknowledge and defend the “right” of the Church to do pretty much as she sees fit, but I personally believe that some of her recent “hard line” approach against “pro-choice” politicians is poor strategy, and I’ve seen how staunch pro-lifers (not necessarily Catholic) can work against their own goals in Kansas politics. Kansas is an enigma, a Republican-controlled state, traditionally conservative but gradually moving liberal, while Wichita is known as the “abortion capitol of the nation” for its abortion clinics including the infamous Dr. Tiller who provides elective late term abortions here to clients from all over the country. Part of it, IMO, has to do with pro-life strategy.

Alan

 

[rjmporter]

Alan,

I have to agree. My wife is very involved in the pro-life movement and I am very often appalled at the amount of HATE that is exhibited by some in this movement. Do they not know that the only way to win is love. Not just love of the innocent (which is of course essential) but love of your enemies.

Luke 6:27.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

rjmporter:

I have to agree. My wife is very involved in the pro-life movement and I am very often appalled at the amount of HATE that is exhibited by some in this movement. Do they not know that the only way to win is love. Not just love of the innocent (which is of course essential) but love of your enemies.

I honestly don’t think they realize it. They are so focused on savings the lives of the innocent they forget that those who are guilty are the real victims, and that their own anger, disgust, and contempt makes them victims, too. They say they condemn the sin and not the sinner but in practice the emotions involved are too overwhelming.

I have no doubt the baby children who are murdered are going to heaven, and I suspect the vast majority of them suffer no more than a typical “born” child suffers during circumcision. They are probably the ones who suffer the least out of the whole abortion situation.

When I was in college, I knew of three girls who were friends of mine, who had abortions. It just happened they were all Catholic, although I was not at a Catholic school and hung around with people of many different religions.

How could this be? Even though they had given into their lustful passions for premarital sex they did not use birth control because they believed that it was wrong in and of itself, and besides, it would show “premeditation” of the sin of premarital sex thereby making it more serious. Once pregnant they didn’t want to face their parents or fellow churchgoers who all thought they were virgins and would have been disappointed and/or appalled had they found out they had been promiscuous. So what happened? They had abortions and nearly everybody who knew them continued to think they were fine, upstanding girls who continued to go to Church, ostensibly followed the rules, and even participated in pro-life protests.

Alan

 

[Savagedds]

AlanFromWichita:

Do you really think John Kerry has learned anything or will learn anything from being excommunicated in many dioceses?

Hi Alan,

One would hope and pray that he would.

Do you believe professing Catholics are under any obligation to submit to the authority of the Church? If not, what do you base this on?

Peace,

Jim

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Savagedds:

Do you believe professing Catholics are under any obligation to submit to the authority of the Church? If not, what do you base this on?

Dear Jim,

This is a fair question. The short answer is “yes,” especially for those who are in the public eye such as the ones being targeted by the Church. I don’t think that submission necessarily must be complete and unconditional, though, on any given concrete decision. I’ll try to explain… (here comes the long answer)

For someone who isn’t in the public eye, I think that the minimal required submission to the Church is to keep up those activities which are visible to others, such as Sunday Mass attendance, refraining from meat on Lenten Fridays, etc. Whether they commit sin themselves or believe they are free from the “law” is between them and the Church, but if they exercise their presumed “freedom” in such a way that it causes others to sin, then I think that is an additional sin. In other words, if I don’t believe I need to go to Mass on Sunday, then I should still go for the benefit of my children as long as I profess to be Catholic, lest I weaken their faith. For that matter, I should abstain from Communion if I am in mortal sin for my own reasons, but if that’s not good enough then at least I should not flaunt it in front of others.

When in public life, I believe it becomes more stringent because there are more people watching. I’ll use Kerry as a visible example, especially since I just read an exclusive interview he gave to Catholic Digest. As much as I don’t think the Church’s best strategy is to publicly flog him and/or excommunicate him, I think, considering his public position and the 100% chance he knows what the Church thinks of his political actions, he needs to do one of several things, such as: 1) lose the pretense and officially renounce his faith, 2) publicly repent of his political position and go to penance service, 3) respect the Church enough to abstain from Communion, or 4) either by itself or preferably in combination with 3, give an honest and decent explanation of exactly why he believes his position is justified given the Church’s clear teaching.

As it is, Catholic Digest asked him several questions about his Catholic faith. He talked about how important and meaningful it has been and how it has shaped his whole life. He said they do plan to continue going to Communion, and he completely dodged a question about his political stance v. the Church teaching. To me he’s a big wuss and a coward, and he needs to grow up and face the music.

All that said, he may very well in good conscience (assuming he has one) have an honest (heh heh) disagreement with the Church’s clear teaching. If that is the case, he should make his reasoning public. I could make a case to disagree with the Church on legality of abortion without denying its immorality. It would not be acceptable to the Church or to many Catholics on this forum, but at least it would be something, and Kerry has given nothing except BS (Bureaucratic Speak) on this issue.

If he has no reason other than he just darn well isn’t going to budge and that’s that, and doesn’t even try to explain it, then let him take Holy Communion and let it judge him. I don’t think the Eucharist needs “protection” from sinners. If anything, unrepentent sinners need “protection” from the Eucharist and would be wise to refrain until they repent. He may lead sheep astray – the same kind who were lead to believe by the last Democratic president that oral sex is not “really” sex, and they might have hell to pay. The Church has definitely not shirked her duty to teach.

Summary: do professing Catholics have an obligation to respect the Church? Absolutely. If nothing else, they at least need to pretend for the sake of those who might be led astray by their show of freedom. Should the Church excommunicate politicians for their political views? That’s up to her but I think it is very risky strategy.

Actually, I feel myself shifting toward the Church’s position even as I write this, in terms of whether she should excommunicate public sinners. Give me some time and I might just back off a bit. OK, I still feel strongly that she shouldn’t bind consciences of voters based on “litmus tests” such as political opinions on abortion laws, for reasons I’ll spare you for the moment.

Alan

 

[rjmporter]

AlanFromWichita:

I honestly don’t think they realize it. They are so focused on savings the lives of the innocent they forget that those who are guilty are the real victims, and that their own anger, disgust, and contempt makes them victims, too. They say they condemn the sin and not the sinner but in practice the emotions involved are too overwhelming.

First of all Alan, I don’t think we want to get into the contraception discussion here, but I amazed at the contempt/bordering on hatred that pro-life people show toward abortionists and clinic workers. I recently heard one abortion protester call an abortionist a “demon” and a “minion of satan”.

PLEASE don’t misunderstand. I abosolutely believe that abortion is the holocost of our time. But we will not win by hating our enemy. We must love our enemy out of thier sin. We must invite them to our homes for dinner, pray for their souls. We must try to win them for Christ!!! Not help them continue on their path with His enemy. We need to engage them in dialog not shout at them on the street. I know, I just know, there must be an empty, aching part in their soul. We have to find that and help them fill it with love of God.

 

[Savagedds]

AlanFromWichita:

Dear Jim,

(here comes the long answer)

For someone who isn’t in the public eye, I think that the minimal required submission to the Church is to keep up those activities which are visible to others, such as Sunday Mass attendance, refraining from meat on Lenten Fridays, etc. Whether they commit sin themselves or believe they are free from the “law” is between them and the Church, but if they exercise their presumed “freedom” in such a way that it causes others to sin, then I think that is an additional sin. In other words, if I don’t believe I need to go to Mass on Sunday, then I should still go for the benefit of my children as long as I profess to be Catholic, lest I weaken their faith. For that matter, I should abstain from Communion if I am in mortal sin for my own reasons, but if that’s not good enough then at least I should not flaunt it in front of others.

This is a fair answer and I am really tempted to dialogue using it as a starting point, but I am going to try to bring our conversation back to where I had intended. I wasn’t specific enough with my question. Your answer deals with disciplines–things we do – but I meant to ask if Catholics are under any obligation to submit to what the Church teaches us to believe.

AlanFromWichita:

Kerry…needs to do one of several things, such as: 1) lose the pretense and officially renounce his faith, 2) publicly repent of his political position and go to penance service, 3) respect the Church enough to abstain from Communion, or 4) either by itself or preferably in combination with 3, give an honest and decent explanation of exactly why he believes his position is justified given the Church’s clear teaching.

Agreed!

AlanFromWichita:

All that said, he may very well in good conscience (assuming he has one) have an honest (heh heh) disagreement with the Church’s clear teaching.

Yes, he doesn’t have the right to differ with basic Catholic teaching and still claim to be Catholic. Which is the point I am driving at, unless he is using the term ‘Catholic’ in an ethnic sense.

AlanFromWichita:

If he has no reason other than he just darn well isn’t going to budge and that’s that, and doesn’t even try to explain it, then let him take Holy Communion and let it judge him.

That is what the Church is trying to protect him from!

AlanFromWichita:

I don’t think the Eucharist needs “protection” from sinners. If anything, unrepentent sinners need “protection” from the Eucharist and would be wise to refrain until they repent. He may lead sheep astray

But Alan, this is exactly what the bishops have been saying! And not just to prevent scandal, but to prevent these politicians sinning by taking the Blessed Sacrament when they are not properly disposed.

Peace,

Jim

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Savagedds:

Your answer deals with disciplines–things we do – but I meant to ask if Catholics are under any obligation to submit to what the Church teaches us to believe.

This is a much more difficult question than the one I answered. First, let me observe that a human being is absolutely capable of believing anything, without implying that there is any way for another human being to detect what it is. Certainly, with lie detectors, hypnosis, and other means we can attempt to find out what a person “really” thinks but I claim that it is impossible to know, absolutely, what another person thinks. Therefore, there is no reasonable and consistent way to properly enforce such an obligation that one human or a group of humans imposes on another.

To this, one must object, “I’m not asking yet about how to enforce an obligation, I am asking whether a person desiring to do what is moral, is morally bound to believe the Church’s teaching.” That would be similar to your objection to my first answer, because given my point above, enforcement and detection imply externally observable behavior – even if subconscious or otherwise unintentional. One may try to ameliorate this difficulty by suggesting that sooner or later our thoughts will become known; that which is hidden will be brought into the light, but it does not work because we are left with the same difficulty.

Given that we cannot judge another’s thoughts, next I’d like to examine the idea of whether we are even capable judges of our own thoughts and beliefs. This is important, because in order to be obedient, I would think it necessary that we at least know whether or not our beliefs are in compliance. Again, I find difficulty at this point because I often do not know exactly what I think or how I believe on any given issue. There are many reasons for this, but there are things I’ve struggled with believing and alternately not believing, for years. This is particularly true when discussing so-called “axiomatic” beliefs that cannot be objectively proven or disproven but without them there can be no meaningful discussion. I think there are certain beliefs, or certain types of beliefs, that do not readily lend themselves to an objective definition of what “believing” really means. For example, what about beliefs that change in time, such as something I didn’t believe yesterday, but believe today? What if, whether due to external or internal cause, I cease believing something that yesterday I would have sworn to be true? What if I just question it for a minute, and am truly uncertain? In this sorry state I could never say whether or not I am sinning if not believing the thing constituted sin. That is one of the very reasons I do not believe I am to judge my own heart, but have faith that God knows my motives and my struggles, and that He loves me, and knows whether I truly mean Him any harm or disrespect by entertaining certain doubts whether they last for seconds, minutes, or years.

Last, in order to be under an “obligation” to believe something, then belief itself must be subject to my will or I would be obliged to perform the impossible. Since this post is getting long already, let me just assert that this is often, if not always, the case. I can choose to cooperate externally, and I can choose to immerse myself in brainwashing, or I can tell myself a hundred times that something is true, but I don’t think there is any strategy that will exactly cancel out doubt except faith itself, which I do not equate to believing.

This analysis is by no means complete, as I’ve just realized there are slightly different shades of meaning of “believe” that could be introduced at this point, leading to different conclusions. I must take my daughter to a meeting at school now, so I will, if God wills, examine that little cloud later.

Alan