Especially if you’re a pro-abort politician or similarly manifestly grave malefactor.
GET THE STORY FROM ARCHBISHOP BURKE.
ED PETERS HAS MORE.
Author: Jimmy Akin
Jimmy was born in Texas, grew up nominally Protestant, but at age 20 experienced a profound conversion to Christ. Planning on becoming a Protestant seminary professor, he started an intensive study of the Bible. But the more he immersed himself in Scripture the more he found to support the Catholic faith, and in 1992 he entered the Catholic Church. His conversion story, "A Triumph and a Tragedy," is published in Surprised by Truth. Besides being an author, Jimmy is the Senior Apologist at Catholic Answers, a contributing editor to Catholic Answers Magazine, and a weekly guest on "Catholic Answers Live."
View all posts by Jimmy Akin
—“The United States of America is a thoroughly secularized society which canonizes radical individualism and relativism, even before the natural moral law. The application, therefore, is more necessary than ever, lest the faithful, led astray by the strong cultural trends of relativism, be deceived concerning the supreme good of the Holy Eucharist and the gravity of supporting publicly the commission of intrinsically evil acts.”—>”—
That about sums it up.
—“Fifthly, the discipline requires the minister of Holy Communion to forbid the Sacrament to those who are publicly unworthy. Such action must not be precipitous. The person who sins gravely and publicly must, first, be cautioned not to approach to receive Holy Communion. The memorandum, “Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion”, of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, in its fifth principle, gives the perennial pastoral instruction in the matter. This, in fact, is done effectively in a pastoral conversation with the person, so that the person knows that he is not to approach to receive Holy Communion and, therefore, the distribution of Holy Communion does not become an occasion of conflict. It must also be recalled that <
It would seem that the application of Canon 915 must be accompanied by clear, unequivocal teaching from the pulpit, even if it requires the Bishop himself to do the preaching.
I hope that Fr. Euteneuer’s critics and detractors have a copy of this. It certainly vindicates him, regarding his tangle with Sean Hannity. In fact Bishop Burke also points out that Father is obligated to withhold communion from someone who causes public scandal. He cannot ignore the matter without being guilty of mortal sin himself.
The way I read the doc Ed Peters linked, it seems not only can abortion politicians be denied communion, but that there is really no wiggle-room for the it-wouldn’t-be-prudent-at-this-time excuse. That is, the law is clear, its violation can be determined objectively, not subjectively, and therefore must be enforced.
Will they expect the EMHC to deny communion? I think this is wonderful and pray that more Bishops and priests will listen and find their backbone.
That’s a good question, Anonny. I guess the question there is whether the EMHC has the same responsibility for the Eucharist as an ordinary minister (priest or deacon). In other words, would I as an EMHC be committing a mortal sin by giving the Eucharist to Ted Kennedy? (Or, more realistically since she actually lives in my state, Jennifer Granholm?)
Dr. Peters?
No Jesus for you!
(yes, Seinfeld moment)
J, I think it is more approriate to say that THEY, politicians who openly support ideas contrary to the Church, have said NO to Jesus.
Kasia, We hope the Bishops and priests will clarify what is to be done.
Can you be denied communion if you’re wearing a spaghetti strap top?
Spaghetti strap tops and communion
I pray for the end of my “Babylonian Captivity” in Indy so I can get back to the STL Archdiocese again!
I wish His Grace Archbishop Raymond Burke many years!
Ok, I feel dumb. I first read the headline as referring to the state, not the fictional character to which many-an-explanation has been made.
I found it quite amazing how publicly Archbishop Burke criticizes his fellow U.S. bishops such as Mahoney, McCarrick, and Wuerl. Usually bishops are very, very reticent to critique their colleagues publicly like that.
I think it may attest to the level of very, very bad that these bishops are behaving. It seems some areas with less prestige and power are getting some very good bishops, while the places where being bishop means you’re a big, powerful man seem to have very bad ones. Interesting that.
The Church is made pure when the unworthy who approach Him are denied Christ.
It seems Archbishop Burke is saying that the individual minister of Holy Communion, whether ordinary or extraordinary, has the responsibility to deny Communion when necessary. He clearly says the canon “plainly articulates the responsibility of the minister of Holy Communion, ordinary or extraordinary, to deny Holy Communion to those who obstinately persevere in manifest grave sin.” Then he goes on to say “The sixth principle, making reference to a declaration of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts of June 4, 2000, declares that, when a person who has been duly admonished persists in presenting himself for Holy Communion, the minister of Holy Communion must refuse to give the Sacrament. The principle further clarifies that the decision of the minister of Holy Communion <> but rather the recognition of objective and public unworthiness to receive Holy Communion.”
Now, Dr. Peters can be more sure of his answer. But, he did teach me everything I know about canon law. đŸ™‚
Even though I’m not an expert in cannon law, I read the entire article. I finished it and had a profound sense of loss. It seems we of the Church in the United States have lost our way. I will pray and fast multiple days that we may find our way back.
—“The Church is made pure when the unworthy who approach Him are denied Christ.”— Eric
Do I detect a note of sarcasm?
Do you remember the rich young man that walked away from Jesus sorrowfully because Jesus told him to sell everything, give it to the poor and follow him? It also says that Jesus loved that young man. But that young man would not meet the condition of total heartfelt repentance and conversion and commitment to Jesus Christ. So Jesus watched him walk away. He didn’t say wait, we’ll work it out later, it’s a cultural thing, it’s a political issue that has nothing to do with the Church. No he watched him walk away, and he loved him.
The unworthy can approach Christ. There is a sacrament known as confession, penance, reconciliation, that perpares that unworthy person to receive communion. Jesus and his Church will refuse no one who comes in true contrition.
If “worthyness” where a factor then nobody could take communion. You should replace that with the word “un-repentant” and you should say “denied the Body of Christ” not “denied Christ”.
LJ, as you know, to obtain absolution within confession, the priest celebrating the sacrament must make a judgment about the penitent’s predisposition to receive forgiveness. Is the penitent sufficiently contrite? Does the penitent possess a firm purpose of amendment? If the penitent is lacking in either of these respects, then it is proper for the celebrant to refuse absolution. Even in confession, the Church is made pure by denying Christ to the unworthy who approach Him.
I’m sorry, Eric, but I must disagree.
In this instance, the Church is not denying anybody anything. The sinners have made a deliberate choice to disobey Church teaching — they have made the choice to keep themselves in a state unworthy to received the Eucharist.
The Church is acting to protect the Sacrament from being profaned, and the sinner from eating/drinking judgment upon him/herself. She says, “Once you have reconciled yourself to the Body of Christ, you are free to partake of the Eucharist,” not “You cannot take the Eucharist because you are unworthy.”
The sinner is making the deliberate choice to be unworthy of the Eucharist. Not the Church.
It seems to me, JoAnna, that your taste for semantics is clouding your judgment. Of course the Church actively withholds Christ from those who are objectively unworthy. If those who are unworthy to receive approach the Sacrament, the Church must take the active role and deny them Christ. This does not reach to the reason that the individual in question is unworthy. I do not deny that the individual puts him- or herself in that abominable state. It seems to me that the Church is saying “Once you have reconciled yourself to the Body of Christ, you are free to partake of the Eucharist but until then you cannot take the Eucharist because you are unworthy.”
It seems to me that the Church is saying “Once you have reconciled yourself to the Body of Christ, you are free to partake of the Eucharist but until then you cannot take the Eucharist because it would be unsafe for you and scandalous for others were you to do so.”
BenYachov got it right. “O Lord, I am not worthy to receive You…”
CatholicAudio also nailed it.
you cannot take the Eucharist because you are unworthy
According to Burke, “the discipline requires the minister of Holy Communion to forbid the Sacrament to those who are publicly unworthy.”
In a nutshell taking communion after a public mortal sin commits both sacrilege and scandal. Any knowledgable person who does so is, in effect, proclaiming their disbelief in the real presence and their disrepect for the Magisterium at the same time.
Eric, words have meaning. It’s not semantics, it’s saying really different things.
The unreported story here is the thinly-veiled shot taken at Mahony. Are we to believe that an Abp., especially Burke, would take a shot at a Cardinal without explicit approval from the highest ranks of the Curia? Perhaps even the Holy Father himself?
Abp. Burke, God Bless you. You make me long for the days when a Bishop could have more than one diocese!
BenYachov got it right. “O Lord, I am not worthy to receive You…”
“Lord I am not worthy to receive you, but only say the word and I shall be healed.”
It is not through our efforts that we have been made worthy, but through His. Nevertheless, we are worthy — or not.
This, exactly, was what I was trying to convey.
When discussing the applicability of these norms, abortion tends to be the only example considered. But that is not the only life issue for legislators and governments – especially in the US.
Possible exclusion from Holy Communion would also seem to apply to an avowedly Catholic legislator who publicly advocated, and voted for policies which contradicted the Natural Law and Church Teaching in any of the following ways:
– waging an unjust war,
– immoral methods of warfare (eg willingness to destroy cities in nuclear war),
– torture (Abu Ghraib?),
– capital punishment as the norm rather than possible exception.
“-torture (Abu Ghraib?)”
Right.
Leo,
the problem is making an objective distinction on those issues. Unless a Catholic politician enunciates a position that is objectively in violation of the Church’s teaching on the matter, he can not be judged objectively in denying communion.
– waging an unjust war,
Waging a war that even the Pope finds to be unjust, does not mean the Catholic can be objectively judged, it is a rejection of the principles of just war that could be objectively judged.
– immoral methods of warfare (eg willingness to destroy cities in nuclear war),
This is an incredibly complex issue, we probably don’t need to get into it, but certainly actual unrepentant acts that are immoral methods of war could probably be judged objectively.
– torture (Abu Ghraib?),
To my knowledge no Catholic (or any other politician for that matter) has suggested that what happened at Abu Ghraib is morally acceptable.
The difficult question is not whether torture is moral, as it’s almost unanimously rejected. The difficult question is what constitutes torture. Some things (mutilations for example) are clearly torture, other things may be torture, but the question is very subjective, and so can’t rightly be applied to this discussion.
– capital punishment as the norm rather than possible exception
Again, it would seem that a rejection of the principles is necessary.
I think that part of the reason that this discussion necessarily revolves around abortion is that it is intrinsicly and always immoral. The acts that you mention above are generally matters of scale.
God Bless,
Matt
Can you be denied communion if you’re wearing a spaghetti strap top?
Spaghetti strap tops and communion
SDG-
From what I have seen, especially recently, tank-tops and spaghetti straps are the norm along with shorts at more “liberal” parishes.
By the way, what do you think Father George would do if someone walked into Mass in these types of clothes?
No one has yet talked about what seems to be an important pre-condition before an extraordinary (or even ordinary) minister could deny communion:
It seems that, at least under Archbishop Burke’s reading, a warning from the proper pastor (Bishop or parish priest) would first have to issue before a person could be denied the Eucharist. Perhaps I’m misreading that part of the paper (or I could be being too formal about this). If I am not, then it would seem that an EMHC could not deny the Eucharist without there first being appropriate hierarchical action.
Paul,
I think you are right.
We have to remember that this is a very serious action. ABP Burke does include the point that it is the right of the faithful, properly disposed, to receive Holy Communion in the sacrifice of the mass. We have a number of other rights too, under Canon Law, including proper instruction, #217 and #229, which may go a long way to avoiding this situation in the first place.
So to deny someone Communion is, you might say, declaring that they are not in communion with the Church, or in other words, excommunicated. Such an excommunication, we know, can be incurred by anyone automatically, for certain actions.
Therefore, it is the proper duty of the pastor to make those kinds of determinations. An EMHC, even well trained, should not be put in the place of making that kind of determination. And, of course, if the pastor has gone to the person in question privately and warned them, it may just be enough to avoid confrontation in the Communion line. Hopefully. There may, however, be those who would defy the pastor and attempt to receive. That is where a pastor could inform the extraordinary ministers in advance of the possibility that a certain person may attempt to receive and to refuse them. But the decision there is still on the pastor, not the EMHC.
LJ, let’s not forget that excommunication (can. 1331) and denial of the Eucharist for pastoral reasons (can. 915) are totally different things. One is a penalty incurred for committing an ecclesiastical crime, while the other is not a penalty but a method to prevent further sin. Besides, no parish priest can excommunicate; only a collegiate tribunal or ordinary can impose an excommunication or declare one that has been automatically incurred.
Still, despite the difference, it would seem that in order for someone to obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, they would need a warning first from a pastor, at least according to Archbishop Burke.
Can. 843 §1. Sacred ministers cannot deny the sacraments to those who seek them at appropriate times, are properly disposed, and are not prohibited by law from receiving them.
What the heck is a “sacred minister”????
Will the innovations ever stop??
It was posted:
“SDG-
From what I have seen, especially recently, tank-tops and spaghetti straps are the norm along with shorts at more “liberal” parishes”
Are we not supposed to be the “ONE” “HOLY” “Catholic” and “Apostolic” church by which the mass, customs and teachings are universal throughout, and if not then one of the 4 marks of the church has been denied and the church has defected??? Are we admitting such that we are no longer “ONE”?????? Of course so
So, someone wears shorts at Mass and this means the Church has defected.
If there’s some brilliant reasoning in there, I missed it.
John, I missed the part in the Creed where it says “customs” are supposed to be universal throughout. Help out a benighted brother?
If you say so. I’m with the vicar of Christ. Sorry to hear about you.
SDG,
Laughing and cleaning the coffee off my computer screen.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
A number of people have cited the point that a bishop or parish priest must inform the individual of their persistent mortal sin and explain to them why they no longer can receive the Eucharist.
My Question: Does it have to be the bishop of the individual’s diocese? Does it have to be the priest at his local parish? Or, can it be any bishop or any priest?
And how must the bishop or priest inform the individual? Could they send a letter to their Congressional office? A phone call?
I wonder because I could see Archbishop Burke reaching the point of frustration where he declares certain Catholic politicians to be in a condition that no longer allows them to receive the Eucharist. And actually naming names.
At this point, I assume the local bishop or local priest (assuming the priest is not in Burke’s diocese) could ignore Burke and continue to serve the Eucharist to those politicians. Or am I mistaken?
Those are the questions I’m most concerned about. And then the leap in possibilities is below:
I just worry that it would lead to Archbishop Burke coming across in the MSM as a McCarthy style moralist, “I have a list of 43 names of people in Congress who should no longer receive the Eucharist.”
I am an EMHC, and doubt I would deny the Eucharist to someone who came up for it. While I personally think that those pro-abortion politicians should not be receiving Communion, I would rather have Father deal with it.
Of course, the pastoral associate in my parish knowingly and approvingly gives Communion to a Lutheran in her parish (she’s an EMHC where she lives). Luckily, I’m in a small and rather obscure parish.
I read that a number of mystics have had visions of the baby Jesus being recieved by communicants at Mass. The child reaches out to the faithful giving Himself willingly, the mystics report that the is in torment being forced into the clutches to be defiled to those who are unworthy. The fact is that it is a a terribly evil to recieve Him unworthily, and each act causes tremendous pain to our Blessed Lord. The embarrassment on all parties is trivial compared to the discomfort of even an instant in purgatory, let alone a lifetime in Hell.
To those who ordinarily act as extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion, if you don’t feel comfortable refusing communion to a manifest grave sinner regardless of the policy of your pastor or bishop, I’d suggest you withdraw from accepting this responsibility for your own sake. When the Lord separates the sheep from the goats the excuse that “father said so” will not hold water. It’s clear from the Church’s teaching and the scriptures that those in positions of responsibility are held to a high standard, and many will fall.
God Bless,
Matt
Matt, I’m a little wary of your way of describing unworthy reception (using the word as Paul does in 1 Cor, not suggesting that any are truly worthy of Christ’s Body). Particularly:
“The fact is that it is a a terribly evil to recieve Him unworthily, and each act causes tremendous pain to our Blessed Lord.”
I find it problematic to describe any act as bringing pain to God, or interfering with His perfect beatitude, regardless of what visions some may have received. While in all likelihood legitimate, they could be highly allegorical and it could be a great disservice to assume to much from them. Moreover, Sacred Scripture, when it talks about receiving the Body and Blood unworthily, speaks specifically of judgment upon the sinner, including bodily sickness and even death.
As to an EMHC, I believe the issue would be whether or not to refuse a known grave sinner in the ABSENCE of any directive from the bishop or priest, whose place it is to know the communicant’s worthiness. I may not be privy to if or when the person has sought and received absolution, and unless an EMHC is given specific instructions on the matter, it doesn’t seem to me that he is in a position to judge then and there the worthiness of the recipient. The default always seems to be access to the sacraments, unless an impediment is known. (Canon 912, in particular, seems to state such.) After Mass, or before, if he suspects the situation will arise, he may indeed have a moral obligation to consult the pastor and/or bishop with his concerns, but the matter is not one of mere embarrassment, but one of canon law. That’s my perspective on it, at least.
“I find it problematic to describe any act as bringing pain to God, or interfering with His perfect beatitude, regardless of what visions some may have received”
Brian while you are not required to believe personal revelation (they may be prone to errors) the best revelations have been declared “worthy of belief”. St Faustina’s Diary, declared worthy of belief by John Paul II, is one example which I recommend to anybody. Reading about His infinite Mercy rekindles our love for Him.
I for one believe Christ still suffers whenever He is rejected and whenever Church members bicker or worse split into factions. His body is broken again, extending His passion when the Church divides. His great love makes Him vulnerable to our rejection. Because He is so strong and so gallant He has decided to make Himself open to us. We wound Him, we cause Him sorrow whenever we sin because He loves us. If we take the Eucharist casually or thoughtlessly we wound Him through the ingratitude of a lukewarm faith. All sin wounds God, not in the sense that He can be harmed (He clearly cannot) but in the sense that He is sorrowful over the loss of closeness to us. It is the greatest measure of human worth that God so cares that He would suffer for us – Is anything more central to Christianity?
Reading about respect for the Eucharist is the revelation of St. Gertrude the Great (who I think Matt was referring to) helped me to appreciate the Eucharist, Christ’s great Love for us and my own laxity. I recommend this site: http://www.catholictradition.org/Saints/gertrude.htm
It was posted:
“So, someone wears shorts at Mass and this means the Church has defected.
If there’s some brilliant reasoning in there, I missed it.”
Laughing? Yes Inocencio you are good at that. The comment was about the term “liberal” parishes vs so called “conservative” and somewhere in the middle!
ONE means ONE, nothing to do with spaghetti straps, it has to do with allowing different innovations, abuses to the mass, the sacraments, and teachings to please the so called “liberal” laity such as in San Francisco where you have your homosexual masses
You are all in denial
Hobby horse, hobby horse, hobby horse…
John,
You couldn’t be more wrong -I lived the in Bay Area and even converted to Catholicism while in the Archdiocese of San Francisco. Mass was still the Holy Mass and there love of God was in evidence. You slander many good men and women who’s faith was sincere.
John: That was Tim J laughing, not Inocencio.
John,
More clearly than any argument the hostility and contempt of your words speak volumes: about you. I know I used to be an angry young man. Christ took my anger and I’ve benefited enormously from it. So I ask you to look within and ask why the hostility toward your fellow Christian? If you believe we are in error then teach through your charitable example; that would be far more convincing than insults.
Where you harmed in some way in the past and are now lashing out? Think about why you are so hostile and talk to someone you respect about it, maybe your pastor. Slander is sin; do not doubt it. There are healthier and more fruitful ways to interact with us here. I invite you to try them.
You make me laugh, anger?
Do you not feel any anger at the desecration of the body and blood of our Lord?
If you dont then maybe you truly dont believe in transubstantiation or else you would feel the same way.
Possibly it is the protestanism left in many here who made the so called “conversion” who want to instill their beliefs by way of ecumania into the true church
With respect to the so called “conversions” in the bay area due to the gay masses, when you inform me they have given up their sinful way of life, instead of the church once again CONFORIMING to others way of life, then we can discuss
John: Somewhere in the world, bad Catholics are desecrating the body and blood of the Lord.
Right here on this blog, you treat sincere, earnest followers of Christ with derision, contempt and scorn.
I am sorry to say I cannot think of a single sentence from you on this blog that struck me as charitable. Whether that says more about me or about you, God will judge.
One thing I know. If I have all zeal for the Blessed Sacrament, and denounce homosexual Masses, and have not charity, it profits me nothing.
“John: That was Tim J laughing, not Inocencio.”
Well, actually, no – it was Inocencio.
Oh, I see. I thought since John was quoting you, he was addressing you. Sorry for the confusion.
John,
I converted from Judiasm not Protestantism and as for my respect the the Real Presence: I believe. But do you believe in charity? I am happy to denounce the sin of homosexuality, while respecting the person who struggles with it. I found the term “homosexual masses” to be slanderously directed at San Francisco as a whole. You paint with a broad brush. Direct your ire more precisely.
John,
First, get a dictionary so you can look up the word discuss. Because “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”
Second, “You’ve got an overdeveloped sense of vengeance. It’s going to get you into trouble someday.”
Third, have a nice day on your hobby horse, Banter.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Inocencio posted:
“Third, have a nice day on your hobby horse, Banter.”
Response:
If the protection of the Catholic church, her sacraments, her tradition and customs are a “Hobby horse”, then let it ride!!
John,
When you pretend that you are protecting the Catholic Church by attacking the pope it makes me pity you. You really seem to believe every word you say because you have said it. Sad really.
As for protecting the Church that is why Christ Himself instituted the papacy. You have no authority whatsoever to define or declare Church teaching. Take a deep breath, calm down and put your hobby horse out to pasture.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
John,
Another note, somewhat off topic. I, for one, think homosexuals and those suffering under same sex attraction (SSA) deserve compassion. As a happily married heterosexual, I’m protected from strong temptations and truly blessed with a loving wife. I have a lot to be grateful for, while the homosexuals I’ve known undergo hellish tests. Their desires push them away from the Church and God, and society supports and actively encourages that division. I wouldn’t wish that on anybody.
“If I speak in human and angelic tongues but do not have love, I am a resounding gong or a clashing cymbal.
[Love] it is not rude, it does not seek its own interests, it is not quick-tempered, it does not brood over injury,
it does not rejoice over wrongdoing but rejoices with the truth.”
1 Corinthians 13:1, 5-6
John, when you post, all I hear is the clashing of cymbals.
Memphis Aggie, thanks for your contribution to this discussion. You get my vote for this thread’s MVP (not to diss anyone else).
Thanks SGD!
Oops I mean SDG
SDG,
I second the nomination.
Joanna,
AMEN.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Inocencio said “A number of people have cited the point that a bishop or parish priest must inform the individual of their persistent mortal sin and explain to them why they no longer can receive the Eucharist.
“My Question: Does it have to be the bishop of the individual’s diocese? Does it have to be the priest at his local parish? Or, can it be any bishop or any priest? And how must the bishop or priest inform the individual? Could they send a letter to their Congressional office? A phone call?
——————–
Yes. During the 2004 presidential elections our bishop sent a letter to John Kerry’s campaign headquarters notifying him he would be denied the Eucharist if he attended Mass in the diocese while traveling around campaigning based on canon 915
Regarding the same sex attraction sidenote, as a Gay, Catholic celibate man, I would appreciate not being treated like a leper because of what is in my reasoned and informed opinion the sexuality with which God created me.
Yes, celibacy can be a struggle for many, but worse is the lack of respect for someone as a person you can feel at Church. Married opposite attracted couples receive much respect and deference as do celibate clergy of either sex as well as “consecrated” virgins and widows.
There seems to be an assumption widely held that if you are gay you are not celibate or have more difficulty than others we expect to maintain celibacy. Only when the Church stops treating same sex orientation as a shameful “disorder” needing compassion for “sufferers” and approaches it’s Gay sons and daughters with an approach of outright respect and starts genuinely acting as though their life is a variation in how we may be created will it possibly succeed in not alienating the pink sheep in the family.
AFN,
I apologize if I offended you, it was not my intent. No doubt being a celibate is difficult for anyone. I had in mind the fact that gays have social and family pressures that straights do not.
I have not read the Theology of the Body but it is my understanding that Catholic teaching is that sex which can not create life or does not enhance the union of a sacramental marriage is sinful. In this light homosexuality is much like the use of birth control (a mortal sin I was guilty of prior to conversion) It is sex simply for selfish pleasure that is sin. In fact even in a sacramental marriage if I am selfish I sin in this way.
It is a difficult teaching for everyone. Our Lady at Fatima said that most of the souls in hell failed due to lust.
Memphis posted:
“Another note, somewhat off topic. I, for one, think homosexuals and those suffering under same sex attraction (SSA) deserve compassion”
Gee Memphis, thanks for telling me that, and I love that little acronym that now has been tagged for those who are homosexual (SSA??)
I was always taught “Love the sinner hate the sin”, guess that applies here, dont you think!!!
As far as the papacy Inocencio, maybe you should go back and learn of some of the teachings of Leo XIII and Pius X and tell me if they are in line with your way of thinking , or just the present liberal papacy that is in place today
John,
Seriously what is “liberal” about the current papacy?
John,
Another side note: SSA is an acronym the Church uses in it’s documents to distinguish the desire from the act (or temptation from sin). I read about it in reference to seminaries which were debating whether SSA should be a considered in accepting applicants to the priesthood, recognizing that there were likely many priests/brothers who lived with same sex attraction.
John: An honest question.
You just quoted the aphorism “Love the sinner, hate the sin” — an aphorism that has two clauses.
When you look at those two clauses, which of the two do you think that you, personally, are more likely to fail to satisfy?
Are you personally more likely to fail at hating sin, or more likely to fail at loving sinners?
Which of the two dangers represents the more proximate risk to your soul? Which of the two are you personally in more need of emphasizing in your own life?
Virgina,
Why would you want communion from a cult like the Catholic church. Martin Luther, and many others have called it the Anti-Christ church to be revealed at the last days. Catholic festivals are a repacking of the cult of Mithra!
John,
I have read the teachings of Leo XIII and Pius X and in fact quoted them in refuting your nonsense.
Seriously, John, as I have suggested many times take a course in reading comprehension before you hurt yourself.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Why would anybody with intelligence want to be a Catholic. This is a male dominated, sexist, depressing, guilt ridden organization, trying to figure out if there is a God or not. Remember Catholics were instrumental in killing Abraham Lincoln. In Central America Catholic Priests are the biggest promoters of Communism.
Catholics are more interested in Politics and having little boys as ‘playmates’ than in any interest in spreading the gospel message. Catholicism became the state religion in 325 AD and it is tormenting people ever since. Constantine the Emporer made it the religion to keep both Christians and Pagans happy. Now it is a religion that is neither Christian nor Pagan.
PETER: THIS IS YOUR RULE #1 WARNING. KNOCK IT OFF OR YOU WILL NOT BE WELCOME ON THIS BLOG.
No person who is truly set free would submit to the persecution of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church has killed more Christians than Islam ever has. The blood of martyrs is on the hands of this evil institution.
PETER: FINAL WARNING. POST AGAIN IN THIS MANNER AND YOU WILL NOT BE WELCOME ON THIS BLOG.
Jimmy,
What is wrong with giving a different perspective. Are you part of the thought police?
What are the guidelines. China and Russia censor, so why do you?
The above warning relates to the previous post. “Different perspectives” are not a problem. Bomb-throwing posts on subjects unrelated to the main topic is. This is a combox. Posters should keep to the main topic.
Does not your Bible say, KNOW THE TRUTH AND IT WILL SET YOU FREE! Censors always fear the TRUTH.
Fair enough
If you want to know the guidelines, check out DA RULZ.
So did Jesus require all this Canon Law during communion, or is this an invention of workers of iniquity?
“Only when the Church stops treating same sex orientation as a shameful “disorder”…
But it IS a disorder. Read the Catechism. Whether it is “shameful” is entirely up to the person dealing with it.
It is disordered affection.
Yay! It’s wacky conspiracy theory time! Ooh…ooh…tell me about the Vatican supercomputer, Grampa! I want to hear about the Vatican supercomputer!
Show me evidence that communion practiced by Jesus is the same practiced by the Catholic Church. I see no correlation.
I was baptized Catholic and did first communion and confirmation. However I don’t see how a slap is going to give you the Holy Spirit. These are man made traditions that can’t be from God. God is a God of mercy not of slapping!
Show me evidence that communion practiced by Jesus is the same practiced by the Catholic Church. I see no correlation.
Saint Paul said, “The Cup of blessing that we bless, is it not the Communion of the Blood of Christ? and the bread which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord? …
For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night in which he was betrayed, took bread, and giving thanks, brake it, and said: ‘Take and Eat: This is My Body which shall be delivered for you. This do for the commemoration of Me’. In like manner also the cup, after the Supper, saying: ‘This Cup is the New Covenant in My Blood. This do ye, as often ye shall drink, for the commemoration of Me. For as often ye shall eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye shall show the death of the Lord until He come. Therefore, whoever shall eat this bread, or drink the cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord.
But let a man prove himself; and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup.
For, he who eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord. (1 Cor 10:16, 1 Cor 11:23-29)
There are as many as 63 Fathers and eminent ecclesiastical writers from the 1st to 6th centuries, all of whom proclaim the Real Presence.
St Ignatius in the 1st century was a disciple of St. Peter himself and when he addressed the Gnostics, he even said:
“They abstain from the Eucharist and prayer, because they confess not that the Eucharist and prayer is the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ.”
St. Justin Martyr wrote an Apology to the Emperor Anotoninus in the 2nd century:
“We do not receive these things as common bread and drink; but as Jesus Christ our Saviour was made flesh by the word of God, even so we have been taught that the Eucharist is both the flesh and the blood of the same incarnate Jesus.”
Origen in the 3rd century wrote:
“If thou wilt go up with Christ to celebrate the Passover, He will give to thee that bread of Benediction, His own body, and will vouchsafe to thee His own blood.”
St. Cyril of Jerusalem in the 4th century instructed the Catechumens:
“He Himself having declared, ‘This is My Body’, who shall dare to doubt henceforward? And He having said, ‘This is My Blood’, who shall ever doubt, saying: This is not His blood? He once at Cana turned water into wine, which is akin to blood; and is He underserving of belief when He turned wine into blood?”
St. John Chrysostom preached on the Eucharist:
“If thou wert indeed incorporeal, He would have delivered to thee those same incorporeal gifts without covering. But since the soul is united to the body, He delivers to thee in things perceptible to the senses the things to be apprehended by the understanding. How many nowadays say: ‘Would that they could look upon His (Jesus’) form, His figure, His raiment, His shoes. Lo! Thou Seest Him, touchest Him, eatest Him.'”
St. Augustine in the 5th century addressed the newly-baptized, saying:
“I promised you a discourse wherein I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s table, which sacrament you even now behold, and of which you were last night partakers. You ought to know wat you have recieved. The bread which you see on the altar, after being sanctified by the word of God, is the Body of Christ. That chalice, after being sanctified by the word of God, is the Blood of Christ.”
Also show me 1500 years of Catholic charity. I have never seen her charitable. My local bishop slapped me in the head when I questioned my belief in God. I have only seen dogma and oppression from the Catholic church.
As to the slapping, I was never slapped. That, indeed, was a tradition, much like saying “God bless you” when you sneeze. Those evil Catholics! I doubt you’ll find any sacramental theology saying that the outward sign of confirmation is a slap, a pinch, or a poke in the eye.
Great Esau, you quote 63 men from the 1st and 6th century. Where do they use canon law? Maybe the Catholic church has perverted the teaching of these great men.
Also show me 1500 years of Catholic charity. I have never seen her charitable.
Excuse me, but it was in fact the Catholic Church that established charitable help to all peoples from the very beginning.
Prior to the Church, charity of this kind was unheard of.
Read “How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization”.
Perhaps you might actually learn something about the Catholic Church.
Due to multiple egregious Rule #1 infractions, Peter is disinvited to participate on the blog.
Great Esau, you quote 63 men from the 1st and 6th century. Where do they use canon law? Maybe the Catholic church has perverted the teaching of these great men.
What?
Am I responsible for educating you in Patrology or even Patristics?
I have no time for that.
If your an adult, that’s your responsibility — not mine.
peter is a classic combox troll. It isn’t a different point of view that he presents, so much a a particular kind of disease of the mind and heart.
Pray for him. This disease takes hold of Catholics, too, as we have seen in this very thread.
Esau posted:
“What?
Am I responsible for educating you in Patrology or even Patristics?
I have no time for that.
If your an adult, that’s your responsibility — not mine.”
Esau-Not that I agree with the person, but how many times, countless, have you and Inocencio asked ME to provide you some sort of proof, whatever it may be to back up any statement I have made. And then when I present the link, you try and discredit it, and then me with slander!
Please pray for a full restoration of the church back to the times when one felt the real presence, the mass was full of reflection and worship of God and not Man/Woman, and where one knelt to receive our Lord on ones tongue from a man ordained in the rite of Holy orders and not from some lady who looked like your Aunt Sally with her hands outstretched to place Our Lord from her hands into yours expressing the denial of the real presence by these actions
John, any thoughts on the question I asked you above?
John,
You have the same perspective as peter, who was just dis invited.
You both think the Catholic Church teaches what you say it does even when the evidence contradicts your preconceived notion.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
“However I don’t see how a slap is going to give you the Holy Spirit.”
it does not. it is to remind you that you will suffer for Christ, if you will to follow him.
Tim said, “But it IS a disorder. Read the Catechism. Whether it is “shameful” is entirely up to the person dealing with it.”
I’ve read it, including the footnote referencing Thomas Aquinas. Many who hear and use the word “disorder” are clueless that this is not like a disease or psychological problem. Anything which can lead away from the most efficient path directly toward Christian perfection is disordered in philosophical terms.
In that case, lots of things are disordered.
Even wearing the spaghetti strapped top (from above)turned out to be disordered I suppose. đŸ˜›
“Anything which can lead away from the most efficient path directly toward Christian perfection is disordered in philosophical terms.”
Okay. And your point? Would you say that SSA is or is not disordered according to your definition?
The Church has maintained – everywhere and at all times – that it is.
AFN,
I think this is problem of how we see ourselves. You self identify as a “Gay celibate Catholic”. Being gay has become for you an integral part of your self image, so if someone points out that SSA is disordered it’s perfectly natural to take that as a personal insult. Although it’s not intended that way. Many gays (I’d even say most) fall away from the Church through this dynamic. This is why I sidestepped the issue in my earlier posts.
If you can bear with me through this post and forgive any missteps I think I can help explain. First being gay sets you apart, it produces a fissure between yourself and the straight world. This alone is serious, but further the reluctance to accept deeply felt desires as wayward and sinful is really dangerous. To put it more clearly of the two sins expressed in the statement “Gay Pride” it ‘s pride which is the most dangerous. The failure to recognize sin and “hate the sin” is also dangerous just like hating the sinner is wrong.
Because I know my own self well enough to know that pride is the source of all of my own sin I hesitated to broach the subject. For two reasons: one for fear that being a “Gay celebate Catholic” you may feel rejected and choose to become simply “Gay” and the second reason is that it’s easy to criticize from afar and fail to see our own faults (that bit about eyes and motes and beams).
However I would also be remiss not to tell you that the Church regards homosexuality as sin and will always do so. This brings me to the core point: our view of morality and the view of God can easily be at odds. It doesn’t seem right to us that we can’t do what we want (I used to think that birth control was just fine, for example). As part of our continuous conversion we must wrestle with each point one at a time until we submit in obedience. I fully recognize how difficult that sounds, but once we are slaves of Christ we are free of sin and we are truly free. As sinners, God’s first punishment is let us enjoy our sin. Once our eyes are opened by the Holy Spirit we see our chains for what they are and we recognize our insufficiency to remove them and trust Christ to strengthen us so we can break free.
As a “Celibate Catholic” you’ve already come a long way. You are resisting the worldly call to abandon the Church and you deserve credit for it. Yes God made you and gave you SSA. He did not however gift you with this cross (that’s how I see it) so that you would sin. Rather He gave you this cross (I believe) in order to see the necessity of His love in carrying it.
Obviously I can only guess at His reasons – they are not reveled to us. He did give us the ability to think however and with that I can deduce a few things. Given that the Church has two vocations, marriage or the consecrated life, each of us must choose one or the other. I do not think that sacramental marriage is realistic for someone with SSA, although it’s not impossible. Likewise I do not think that the consecrated life would be easy either, but this road is probably more open. Obviously a consecrated life would require you to maintain celibacy in perpetuity – not something that anyone can take lightly. Further it would take a long period of discernment to be sure, and you would have to master your temptation.
For myself I was plagued with daily lustful thoughts of women other than my wife until I started regular daily prayer in self defense. My recommendation, for whatever it’s worth, is take to one Rosary daily and you’re sure to feel better.
Tim
I pray for all of us here as we are all after the same thing, the full unity and strength of the Catholic church
As far as homosexuals as this is what they are called, the mainstream media has tried their darndest to make them appear normal, with sit coms, comedies, home improvement shows, you name it, showing Gay couples out in the open living and loving and we are forced to accept this as so called “normal”.
If they are indeed “disordered” as you say or as the church says, should we not be getting them help as one would for someone with a “disorder”, or do as the Catholic church has done with their own gay priests and move them from parish to parish so they can have some new fresh victims to prey upon?
Dont try the so called feel sorry excuse for these persons as for the most part unlike most (and I say most) heterosexuals, they homosexual male prefers young innocent male victims. I have family in law enforcement and they have arrested everybody from priests at the local parish to the lowest of life preying on the youth or soliciting sexual favors on the street from young male prostitutes many of whom are barely 15 or 16 but hooked on drugs and are run aways
Society has become a cesspool with everything running rampant and the church does nothing to stop it for fear of being non ecumenical not to mention they have been infiltrated with this disease from within themselves with statistics ranging upwards of 50% of clery of being homosexual, possibly more at the seminary level. When society falls into the level of filth, God shall chastise this and every nation that condones it, like Sodom and Gommarah, Ancient Greece, Rome, and so on
“But it behooves us to glory in the cross of the Lord Jesus Christ, in Whom is our salvation, life, and resurrection.”
Have blessed Feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
“not to mention they have been infiltrated with this disease from within themselves with statistics ranging upwards of 50% of clery of being homosexual, possibly more at the seminary level.”
This is patently false. A lie, to be blunt. I’m not saying that you, John, are lying. You are just parroting what you have heard. But it is a lie, none the less, and you are passing on a lie when you repeat it.
Well, Memphis Aggie you’re certainly up on your lectionary. I believe “motes and beams” is today’s reading, and carrying our crosses was last Sunday’s gospel. Further, your words are food for thought.
Tim J,
You said,”Okay. And your point? Would you say that SSA is or is not disordered according to your definition?”
First, it’s not my definition; it is that of Aquinas, cited by the Church in the Catechism!! Aquinas lived in the 13th century and surely had no notions of modern
medical and psychological disorders in mind.
To call SSA (using the blog term acronym for the first time) disordered in terms of scholastic philosophical terms is to beg the question. Tons of things are “disordered” in the scholastic philosophical world view. Everything from craving fatty foods which compromise health, conspicuous consumption of dwindling resources, and failing to obey the speed limit are also “disorders” which can sidetrack our quest for holiness in some small way–though perhaps not in the same degree as ACTING on SSA desires by having SSA behavior. The lust of the straight person leading to adultery or fornication is virtually no less
disordered as a tendency to sin and fall short on the Christian path ending in the beatific vision.
The likes of JPII and other mid20th century people with a certain mindset see or subtley imply SSA is somehow a medical condition that should be cured or stigmatized. See for example his __Love and Responsibility__ (ISBN0898704456) where he claims expertise from psychology, physiology, sexology (no joke–his term), philosophy and theology for his notions of sexuality. These “views” eventually find their way into documents such as the CCC and statements of the CDF (formerly Ratzinger).
As a side-note, in contemporary magisterial statements homosexual is used as an adjective only. Even the slow processes of Church discourse now doesn’t objectify someone as “a homosexual” though that may be the connotation. Any human being, in God’s image (!) cannot be defined by his or her characteristics: gender, race, economic class, sexual orientation, etc. alone.
My problem with much of the rhetoric on the topic is it doesn’t correspond to the espoused view of the dignity of the human person in God’s image, the __imago Dei__.
Gay people have enough to deal with without the Church adding fuel to the fire in its misleading magisterial pronouncements. That is my point.
–AFN (who happens to have an MA in Catholic moral theology)
P.S. John,
Gay people ARE normal. They constitute 10% of the population more or less (I will not debate the statistic). In secular society in the US they have historically been denied–and still are–equal protection under the laws (14th amendment).
I won’t dignify the rest of your rant with a reply. Others can and likely will express it better than I.
AFN, I don’t actually disagree with anything you said, only with the seeming (and correct me if I’m wrong) implication that “Well, a lot of things are as bad or worse than being gay, so what’s the big deal?”.
I agree that the term “homosexual” (and “gay”, for that matter) SHOULD be used as an adjective, and not as a label. But many people with SSA do exactly that, they label themselves according to this temptation that they have.
I struggle with gluttony (seriously, now) but I am not seeking to have Gluttons declared the latest favored oppressed minority. I am not insisting that the Church tailor her magisterial statements to go easy on my self image. I do not have a Gluttonous And Proud bumper sticker.
I have a problem with gluttony, a temptation that I struggle with. That’s really all there is to it. To complain that “God made me this way” would be – for one thing WRONG, I think – and would also be a tremendous cop out in terms of taking responsibility, not just for controlling my desires, but for doing what I can to CHANGE my desires according to God’s will.
It can be done. I know it can, because I have also fought a protracted battle with lust, and made great gains (thanks be to God). Sinful desires must not only be suppressed and resisted, but in a sense CONVERTED. They can be (only with God’s help) transformed into holy desires that are pleasing to God.
It would be disastrous, I think, to try and repress gluttonous behavior while somehow trying to retain gluttonous thoughts and attitudes. Why would I be proud of my temptation, except insofar as God has helped me to overcome it?
AFN,
The constant teaching of the Church that homosexual acts, as stated in the Sacred Scriptures (Gen 191-29; Rom 124-27; 1 Cor 6:10; 1 Tim 1:10), are acts of grave depravity and contrary to the natural law is very clear.
As PERSONA HUMANA #8 states:
In the pastoral field, these homosexuals must certainly be treated with understanding and sustained in the hope of overcoming their personal difficulties and their inability to fit into society. Their culpability will be judged with prudence. But no pastoral method can be employed which would give moral justification to these acts on the grounds that they would be consonant with the condition of such people. For according to the objective moral order, homosexual relations are acts which lack an essential and indispensable finality. In Sacred Scripture they are condemned as a serious depravity and even presented as the sad consequence of rejecting God.[18] This judgment of Scripture does not of course permit us to conclude that all those who suffer from this anomaly are personally responsible for it, but it does attest to the fact that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered and can in no case be approved of. (emphasis added)
footnote 18. Rom 1:24-27 “That is why God left them to their filthy enjoyments and the practices with which they dishonor their own bodies since they have given up Divine truth for a lie and have worshipped and served creatures instead of the Creator, Who is blessed forever. Amen! That is why God has abandoned them to degrading passions; why their women have turned from natural intercourse to unnatural practices and why their menfolk have given up natural intercourse to be consumed with passion for each other, men doing shameless things with men and getting an appropriate reward for their perversion” See also what St. Paul says of “masculorum concubitores” in I Cor 6:10; I Tim 1:10.
So being “gay” is not normal. We are made in the image and likeness of God. That does not give us the right to make God into and image we like. God’s love is life-giving and being made in His image and likeness means that our love must be the same. Any use of the
The “gay” population is less than 2% (I also will not debate this statistic).
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio (who only has a public high school education)
J+M+J
“Gay people ARE normal. They constitute 10% of the population more or less (I will not debate the statistic).”
Why will you not debate this statistic? Because fewer people with SSA would mean it was, what, abnormal? Normal has different meanings outside of it’s use to mean a “statistical norm”. In that sense, you could say that abortion is “normal”.
“In secular society in the US they have historically been denied–and still are–equal protection under the laws (14th amendment).”
What do you mean specifically here? Gay “marriage”?
oops I didn’t finish my sentence above:
Any use of the sexual act outside of marriage is not ordered towards God plan for our salvation.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
AFN says:
I’ve read it, including the footnote referencing Thomas Aquinas. Many who hear and use the word “disorder” are clueless that this is not like a disease or psychological problem. Anything which can lead away from the most efficient path directly toward Christian perfection is disordered in philosophical terms.
In that case, lots of things are disordered.
Even wearing the spaghetti strapped top (from above)turned out to be disordered I suppose. đŸ˜›
So, then, people who murder and commit other heinous acts of sin should be excused; after all, it’s perhaps merely a disorder and God forbid that they take responsiblity for their actions!
Gay people ARE normal. They constitute 10% of the population more or less (I will not debate the statistic).
Sure — and Kinsey was correct in his assertion that, really, those things which are found to be sexually deviant by conservative society are actually normal (which even his research statistics supported); thus, these acts are not so deviant since the majority population of Americans actually engage in them!
–AFN (who happens to have an MA in Catholic moral theology)
— which further corroborates the pitiful predicament the Catholic Church finds itself in with so many rogue so-called Catholic moral theologists who more so support liberal (not to mention, ironically enough — immoral) stances than actual Catholic Teaching!
Tim posted:
“not to mention they have been infiltrated with this disease from within themselves with statistics ranging upwards of 50% of clery of being homosexual, possibly more at the seminary level.”
This is patently false. A lie, to be blunt. I’m not saying that you, John, are lying. You are just parroting what you have heard. But it is a lie, none the less, and you are passing on a lie when you repeat it.”
Tim, the church since the “spirit” of the 1962-1965 council has done everything in its power to promote an open minded, liberal, free thinking priesthood, one opposed to history and tradition, and who more open minded than that of a homosexual?
The 1917 code of canon law canon 2359 states “If they have committed an offense against the 6th commandment with minors under 16 years of age, or been guilty of adultery, rape, bestiality, sodomy…..they shall be suspended, declared infamous, deprived of every office….and be deposed
Then you have the JPII 1983 version of canon law which states in Canon 1395 par 2 “A cleric who has offended in other ways against the 6th commandment of the Decalogue, if the crime was committed by force, or by threats, or in public,or with a minor under the age of 16, is to be punished with just penalties (what exactly is just???) not excluding dismissal from the clerical state if the case so warrants”
So you have your watered down version of Canon law which gave the pedophile priests and bishops their loophole and eliminated the word sodomy as well as the penalty phases
Sin shall breed Sin
And just how does the above rant substantiate your bogus claim about the percentage of gay clergy and seminarians?
We all know how you FEEL, John. Try to think a little.
And the noisy gong goes on…
Schism breeds heresy.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
AFN,
The conflict between how we see ourselves and how God sees us is critical here. My concern is that each of us has a strong incentive to minimize and excuse our own sin. I come from Agnostic libertarian roots and based on those views it’s not immediately evident why homosexuality between consenting adults is bad. Actually that could read “sexuality between consenting adults” and be just as true. The point I’m making is that left on our own we do not see the consequences clearly.
One possible consequence is resentment of the Church. Because the teaching is so deeply personal it offends our sense of entitlement. While the state may keep it’s laws out of the bedroom, the Church respects no such barrier and wants our obedience on the most personal matters. This is just as it should be because the Church cares most of all for your soul and true love is always deeply personal. Just remember this challenge is based on the love of Christ and to be in true union with Him we must
(with His help) transcend our sexual natures to make them conform to His will.
I wanted to make one other point. In all of this I’ve tried to use “we” and “us” for a reason. Too often this kind of discussion becomes a source of division between us. We are all called to God and we all struggle to answer that call. It is not helpful to single out another’s struggle (if I did this earlier I apologize). Frankly I have no idea whether it’s easier or harder to be celibate if your Gay or straight and it doesn’t matter. What matters is discerning God’s will in your life and conforming your life to that will. It’s a classic case of easy to say, but hard to do.
AFN,
I hope that one day you will self identify simply as a Catholic, or Practical Catholic or perhaps -God willing – Brother or even Father đŸ˜‰
I suspect being Catholic with a MA in moral theology you were already far down that road.
“– which further corroborates the pitiful predicament the Catholic Church finds itself in with so many rogue so-called Catholic moral theologists who more so support liberal (not to mention, ironically enough — immoral) stances than actual Catholic Teaching!”
Not respecting human beings–POTENTIAL faults and all is what is immoral here. To what immoral stance are you referring, I’ve not suggested any sex acts in this regard as moral, only the worth of human beings.
“who murder and commit other heinous acts of sin should be excused; after all, it’s perhaps merely a disorder and God forbid that they take responsiblity for their actions!”
Yes these *acts* are disordered. Extremely disordered and heinously sinful (hardly comparable to intimacy between consenting adult parties–and no I’m not promoting or condoning it outside sacramental marriage, just trying to not to mix highly incompatible notions). Thoughts of anger are disordered as well and are a far better comparison with what I have been saying. Most people experience anger quite frequently yet these don’t lead to murder.
And further you won’t find seminary inquisitions, defaming curial documents, or other witch hunts dealing with those who may be angry.
Many points in our discussion are patently irrelevant such as scriptural citations whose interpretation is widely disputed and that do not even address contemporary notions of sexual orientation.
Other points in the blog discussion are worth considering–cymbals and gongs excepted.
Since I do follow Church teachings, do not wish to publically teach or argue even against the current ordinary magisterium of the moment, and my scholarship has been questioned, I will refrain from further discussions here. Unlike some, I wish to keep my interior reservations interior.
God bless us, forgive our sins, and bring us to life everlasting.
AFN,
I’m very sorry to see you go – God Bless and Keep You
AFN,
“my reasoned and informed opinion the sexuality with which God created me…”misleading magisterial pronouncements“…”seminary inquisitions, defaming curial documents, or other witch hunts“…”current ordinary magisterium of the moment“…“patently irrelevant such as scriptural citations whose interpretation is widely disputed”
vs.
I do follow Church teachings
I don’t see how you reconcile your above statements with I follow Church teaching. The constant Church teaching is clear and only widely disputed by dissidents.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
And the noisy gong goes on… Schism breeds heresy.
NEWSWEEK: A WOMAN IS ORDAINED TO THE CATHOLIC PRIESTHOOD.
Link:
Higher Calling: A woman is ordained to the Catholic priesthood. Not surprisingly, the hierarchy does not approve.
Interesting to note this Excerpt here:
“Rowley’s ordination—which took place at Eden Theological Seminary, a progressive institution in Webster Groves, Mo.—is approved by the Ecumenical Catholic Communion, a group of churches that decline to recognize the AUTHORITY OF THE POPE BUT SEE THEMSELVES NEVERTHELESS AS CATHOLICS.”
Sounds like someone we know?
Frankly “current ordinary magisterium of the moment” and especially “misleading magisterial pronouncements” bothers me too. However we are all works in progress and God forgives much many times over, provided we show ourselves as penitent. I read that as wounded pride, which is a real danger. I read “I do follow Church teachings” as being free of mortal sins, regularly receiving the Eucharist, etc. I do not doubt that, and I think the grumblings are likely venial.
I used to gossip myself (it grew out of pride) and I still fight it. It’s on the level of these complaints: venial and consequential but not mortal.
You can be angry at the Church or specific priests or Bishops or you can be in inner conflict with the Church and still follow it’s teachings. I imagine the feeling is not rare and is not limited to folks with SSA.
Esau,
I hope it hasn’t gone that far for AFN – but your point is well taken.
Memphis Aggie,
I am in agreement with you. But I don’t think, even with an MA, that any of us want someone teaching moral theology when they believe being “gay is normal”, a God-given sexuality and who declares “scriptural citations whose interpretation is widely disputed”. That perspective directly contradicts the clear teaching of the Church. The reason the Church issues magisterial pronouncements is precisely to clarify not cloud Church teaching.
Such as this document: On the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons October 1, 1986
and
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Inocencio,
Your right – there are limits. Sin must be recognized and repented not evaded or rationalized and obedience to the Church is not optional. If one find oneself at odds with the Church it is inward that the questions should be directed not outward to the Body of Christ. The lashing out is dangerous and destructive.
Oops I mean you’re right not “your right “. I make that error all the time
Tim,
Your assertions that 50%+ of priests and seminarians is not only wrong but is slanderous. Now, granted, I know priests basically in the midwest and recruit seminarians for my diocese; but unless they be the butchest bunch of homosexuals on the face of the planet, I couldn’t put the number of those with homosexual orientations much above 15% and knowing our seminarians and our screening process, I would the percent there, at best, at less than 5%.
People who parrot this nonsense only serve to weaken the priesthood in that any serious hetrosexual candidate can be scared off by believing that the ‘orthodox’ catholics will believe odds on that he’s gay. It is these ‘stats’ from poeple like Cozzens that serve to further damage the reputation of good holy priests. When I prepare candidates for seminary, I do warn them that there is the possibility that active homosexuals might be there, but that they are in the definitive minority. In talking with them, they report that they have come across nobody who is currently engaging in such behavior; and when it does happen that said individuals are released by the seminary.
Honestly, I tire of this nonsense. I was with homeschool group today and they asked about how to encourage priestly vocations. I told them, with whitewashing, speak positively about the good traits of priests they know. If all we do is badmouth the priesthood as a whole, the only people we will get is the people we so richly deserve. People like you, Tim, made it hard for me when I was going through the seminary. I expected such slander from society and the world…that I could deal with. It was the in-house slander that hurt!
anonymous on this one,
John made the absurd assertion not Tim J.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
sorry…without whitewashing…need to proofread my rants better
Sorry Tim…
Anon,
That slander originates with John not Tim – it’s a bit confusing but look back far enough and you’ll see it. Otherwise you’re dead on: slandering priest undermines vocations.
Just a quick FYI.
There’s a big difference between ordinary and extraordinary magisterial teachings.
Also as to “of the moment,” less than 100 yrs. ago the magisterium said scripture teachers and scholars must assert that Moses personally authored the first five books of the Bible. Also, there was no “Q” source in the gospels and each gospel was written by the person named without community influenced (and the list goes on).
Pius XII nixed those things mid-century.
Today any biblical scholar would laugh at the assertions made above.
We do make progress in understanding divine revelation better.
AFN,
I thought you might be back.
Then they would be laughing dissidents.
Also can you please give documentation for us poorly educated laymen?
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
“There’s a big difference between ordinary and extraordinary magisterial teachings. ” This helps, it was not clear earlier.
I’m also glad to see “we” …
Still there are questions, but it is not my place to ask them.
Today any biblical scholar would laugh at the assertions made above.
“Then they would be laughing dissidents.”
No credible scripture scholar Protestant or Catholic holds to these positions. Check out the Anchor Bible or the New Jerome Biblical Commentary, both standard accepted works for some time now anywhere. In the latter you can find explanations of each item mentioned on that biblical book as well as consulting the chapter on “Church Pronouncements.” The section on early 20th century Pontifical Biblical Commission documents list what I mentioned.
These sources are readily available standard texts and meant to be readily understandable to educated layfolk.
Apples and oranges. These issues were never proposed as established matters of faith. They said things like “X cannot be safely taught,” not “Contrary to X, the Church teaches Y.” The Church’s teaching on sexuality is in a fundamentally different category.
They constitute 10% of the population more or less (I will not debate the statistic).
Given that it’s derived from the work of a man who got his sample by trolling for homosexuals, you are wise not to debate it. It’s fit only to be debunked.
This is would good place for an expert to post on the Theology of the Body. However even without that, the Church teaching has always been clear, as is the Bible. Facing sin honestly and directly (ideally in a confession) is crucial to persevering to the end.
Mary I think you’re referring to Kinsey whose dubious number was procured by polling prisons and mental hospitals. It’s a classic example of “lies damned lies and statistics ..”
In any case 1% or 20% makes no difference to the moral question at hand.
with statistics ranging upwards of 50% of clery of being homosexual, possibly more at the seminary level
Plenty of high estimates here too…
http://www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles/pastoral/homosexual-priests1.htm
Happy to see that while I was gone I was found innocent of slandering priests! These here combox things can shore be confusicatin’…
For the record AFN, if you are there, I follow the teaching of the church in treating all human beings with dignity and respect. It does not follow that I must affirm them in their sins and agree to their political demands or run the risk of hurting their feelings and being labeled a mean-spirited reactionary.
Sorry.
I do hope you give this a great deal of prayerful thought. Is it not possible your understanding has been wrong, and that the “magisterium of the moment” might have some important things to teach you?
AFN
Check your Bible, Our Lord, God, and Savior Jesus Christ also thought that Moses wrote the first 5 books of the Bible.
Tim,
I’m here reading mildly entertaining entries such as the one above and sometimes enjoying insightful points in other posts. Once again, however, I won’t discuss the previous topic, and rehashing tangents is becoming tiresome.
Undoubtedly we all could learn a lot from the magisterium, and even when they offer reformable teachings, the presumption of truth must be in their favor. I enjoy and welcome learning.
God Bless.
do not wish to publically teach or argue even against the current ordinary magisterium of the moment
AFN, the above is laudable. The problem is that apparently you privately argue against the Magisterium and leave open the possibility of publicly teaching or arguing against the Magisterium at some future time.
That’s not a spiritually safe course to follow. In effect, it places an obstacle to God’s grace.
You demonstrate two fallacious beliefs. One is basing identity on sexuality. The other is that homosexuality in itself mirrors God’s image. There is no support for that.
Because this topic is more personal to you than an academic discussion, I can understand a reluctance to engage in a public discussion. But at least some of the posts reflect a serious concern for you.
“You demonstrate two fallacious beliefs. One is basing identity on sexuality. The other is that homosexuality in itself mirrors God’s image. There is no support for that.”
That is a bit of an understatement. All the testimony of scripture and the constant teaching of the Church affirms that the practice of homosexuality in any form warps and defaces the image of God… AS DOES ANY sin.
We are not our feelings. Our feelings can be submitted to the will of God and can be redeemed, transformed… changed. This is why I am hesitant to even use language like “sexual orientation” when talking about sexual sins.
My question to people who self identify as gay or homosexual would be “What makes you think you are gay?” and then go from there. If the reason is because they experience certain feelings, and not others, then I must point out that feeling one way or another is not what defines us as people, much more so it is how we respond to our feelings.
A lot of the feelings – strong feelings – that I have experienced in my life I have later recognized as, well, just wrong and in need of reform. They CAN be brought to heel and placed in submission to the will, with the help of the Holy Spirit. I’m talking about ALL passions, not just sexual ones. Anger, envy, sloth… the whole lot.
feeling one way or another is not what defines us as people, much more so it is how we respond to our feelings
Thanks for that, Tim. That hit home with me today. đŸ™‚
Anon posted:
“sorry…without whitewashing…need to proofread my rants better”
Try reading the following links to back up my assertions that the priesthood is anywhere from 30-50% homosexual and the base cause is the changes within the church these past 40 years
If you have proof that it is somewhere less than please show me
Thanks
http://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/a02iHomo&Clergy_SophismOne.html
Survey compiled by USCCB anon to priests, where the estimate here is 30%
“Former priest and psychotherapist A.W. Richard Sipe says his study of priests from 1960 to 1985, when many of the abuses now coming to light took place, found only about half of all priests maintained celibacy. He estimated 30% of all priests had a homosexual orientation.
Sharon Sherrard, 62, of San Rafael, Calif., a Catholic lesbian, says she’s sickened and saddened by church leaders’ remarks. “It is so easy to use us as scapegoats. It’s so easy.”
And it won’t work, says Paul Wilkes, who studied 600 parishes for his book, Excellent Catholic Parishes: A Guide to Best Places and Practices.
“If we drove all the gay priests out of the priesthood, our Masses would be on videotape,” Wilkes says.”
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002/04/25/gay-catholics.htm
I like that word ‘estimated’ that they throw around in your articles, John. I like how you mention too, the abuses after 1960. The word there was ‘many’. Don’t forget that the other cases were BEFORE vatican II, and many of the crimes the took place after that were perpetrated by priests trained in the Pre VII seminaries. I’m not trying to prove anything, just reminding John that the pre vII world was not as pristine as he’d like to think.
But John said it…it must be true.[ sarcasm off ]
Really the facts just get in the way of his rants. His hobby horse will not be denied, unfortunately.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
What I find troubling about the discussion of percentages of homosexuals in the population is the fact that politics has gotten in the way of truth. (Then, of course, when has politics not gotten in the way of truth?) The point is, that for the gay organizations, it is most beneficial to promote the idea that homosexuality is an either/or circumstance, and on/off binary sort of switch that is an accident of birth. To some extent, maybe a large extent, that proposition may be true. But there is also plenty of evidence to argue that there are huge enviromental influences as well. And beyond that, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that rather than a hard and fast dividing line between straight and gay, it is really more of a continuum, with many individuals who drift on either side.
A classic case in point, representative of many such cases. The well known Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson was married, had children, and then at one point asserted that he was gay and that was that. Objectively speaking and without getting graphic we all know what it takes to function as a married man and the children are proof positive. So to me it suggests that if anything, he could claim to be bi-sexual, as many people do. But that flies in the face of the claim that homosexuality is an either/or circumstance.
From the pastoral perspective, it would seem that homosexuality is not monolithic and there are different degrees and variations among those who assert that they are gay. Many may be able to function quite well on the other team but have taken the gay route for other reasons, perhaps in some cases a sense of freedom from commitment, which is not abnormal in the gay community much as many would like to present the opposite case in the drive for gay marriage. There are those who are quite ambivalent about their sexual orientation and go where they feel the most wanted. And we also know that there are those who as boys were introduced to homosexuality by older gay pedophiles and now grown know no other way to find the physical love they seek, whereas without that abuse as children who knows where they might be today?
And from the moral point of view, the existence of a gray area changes the equation somewhat as well. Objectively, the issue of normal must be examined much more closely, and a sincere and honest effort in the areas of genetics and psychology must be made to attempt to discover the truth of the matter. Clearly, it will not change the Church’s objective teaching, but it will help with the explanation and the application of that moral teaching.
In the interim, the broad application of the either/or paradigm makes it much more difficult for Catholic men with homosexual inclinations, however strong, to follow Church moral teaching, because they are not seeing themselves as human beings first. The irony is that the gay lobby claims to desire that we see them as human beings first and then proceed to do everything in their power to make that impossible. But the young Catholic man with homosexual inclinations cannot make his own personal assessment, his own examination of conscience without this either/or gay social pressure that has already pigeon-holed him, and beckons him to “go all the way” with them, when in another time or place in history he may well have put those inclinations behind him and moved on in life, the way that we all have to do with one inclination or another to sin.
Sorry for the long post, but this is not a simple subject, as I’m sure AFN would agree.
Inocencio posted:
“Really the facts just get in the way of his rants. His hobby horse will not be denied, unfortunately”
Gee Inocencio, it seems anything that I post that has to do with tradition and adherence to anything pre Vatican II is labeled a “hobby horse” by you
Quite possibly have you ever thought you are so anti traditonal and so modernistic, condemned by Popes Leo XIII and Pius X as evil and to be avoided, that MODERNISM is YOUR HOBBY HORSE!!!!
JMJ
The Fruits of the Holy Spirit are: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control (Gal. 5:22-23).
I don’t see “bitterness” listed as one of the Fruits of the Holy Spirit. That’s a sign for us: if we are bitter, there is something very wrong, and we should take steps to correct it.
John: Inocencio posts on LOTS of topics.
YOU post on ONE topic.
THAT is why YOU are hobby-horsing, and HE is not.
Please let me know if you have any difficulty with this concept, and I’ll see what I can do.
John, I remember going over this with you over a year ago.
The sources you cite, for one thing, don’t support your claim that 50% or more of priests are gay, do they? That is a product of your own wishful thinking, because you would see this as PROOF that the Church has apostacized, as if this would excuse your indignant rebellion and justify your hateful slander.
For another thing, those sources are ALL speculative and highly suspect. A tiny handful of highly un-scientific statistics are being spun into fantasy left and right. There are many, like yourself, who would like to see the number of homosexuals in the priesthood inflated to advance their own agendas, and the truth be hanged. The Gay Pride people wish to do the same thing to advance their agenda.
It would not surprise me in the slightest to see that this or that seminary has secretly become a gay culture hothouse. It does happen, and these places should be identified and thoroughly purged from the top down. But this should not be used as a way to conveniently tar and feather all priests and seminarians. You have no idea what you’re talking about.
Where else can a gay man gain unfettered access to other gay men and young children at the same time, and if found guilty of pedophila or suspected of such, gets protected by his Bishop moved from place to place, and protected from the laws that would apply to every day citizens and allowed to have the so called crime investigated by those who protected you in the first place? Non other than the Catholic church!
You see, the church needed liberal, open minded men when they set forth their agenda in the late 1950’s and 60’s to push forth the Bugnini and Modernistic ideals that were taking root after WWII and no one more open minded than that of a homosexual.
Lets be honest as I have been there first hand. Can you say likewise??
“Lets be honest as I have been there first hand. Can you say likewise??”
Been WHERE, John?
Tim
Are you homosexual as you seem to have a deep rooted protection for those who profess to be be clergy, abide by church teaching, and then abuse children
Are you bent on the destruction of the church Tim? Why are you opposed to anything that has to do with protecting the church from outside forces such as homosexuals
Been there? you figure that one out, I dont talk about my past. If you dont think one of every 2 priests is not gay then you are kidding yourself
Despicable! Jimmy, please ban this bitter, rude boor.
Tim
Are you homosexual as you seem to have a deep rooted protection for those who profess to be be clergy, abide by church teaching, and then abuse children
I wanted to stay out of this, but because John has continud to slandar innocent people (as he usually does), I cannot let this slandar against Tim J. go without a word.
That said, if anybody were to go over this entire blog, the Shakespeare quote:
“The lady doth protest too much, methinks.”
best describes John in his obsession with Homosexuals; that is, it seems more likely than anything else that John is a closet homosexual who is trying to deny it so much that he tends to behave in the manner as he has on this blog.
It reminds me of a Quantum Leap episode where (from what little I remember) the anti-Homo guy who kept on attacking Homos was actually a Homo himself!
So, John, if you are in fact “BROKEBACK”, go and apologize to your family for the lies you’ve perpetrated against them and apologize to every person you’ve offended as concerns this hateful nature of yours toward your fellow man and seek help for your homosexual tendencies!
Further to the above, Tim J.’s charitable attitude toward homosexuals is acceptable so long as he doesn’t condone their acts.
Even Jesus loved sinners — though he did NOT love the Sin!
John’s post above reads like a veiled but deliberate self-disclosure. If it is true that John faces temptations in this area, it could possibly explain a lot (in a way that could mitigate the issues many of us have had with his behavior, not in a way that aggravates them).
Assuming this is correct, presumably those whose temptations are otherwise should tread lightly on the subject of whatever problems, if any, John may have in this area, as we should anyway regarding other people’s problems.
This is not to say one can’t venture to counsel him in humility. But we need to be wary of the pitfalls.
If you dont think one of every 2 priests is not gay then you are kidding yourself
John:
May God strike you down with the worse of tribulations for your slandering of the innocent — saints, popes, priests, and other good folks who don’t deserve such ill treatment — that the adversities you shall suffer may finally open your eyes to the evil you do to Christ and His Church, just like when St. Paul got struck, may you get struck down a thousand fold!
I meant ‘worst’.
Okay, y’all don’t get in a twist over John. He has proved his character again and again, and no one should be surprised at anything that comes out of his mouth, at this point.
This is what he DOES when someone confronts him on facts… he resorts to a foot-stomping, mouth-foaming tirade.
Where he got the impression that I might defend abusive priests, I have no idea. To say that this is not true would not, I believe, help, as John has his mind made up and lives under a ray-shielded fact-proof force field.
Child abusers should be placed UNDER the jail, IMO, and left there. Okay? Clear enough, JT?
My entire point is that there are not nearly so many homosexual priests as you, for your own reasons, would like to think.
I asked what you meant by “been there” because I really (stupidly enough) wanted to understand what the heck you meant. I don’t think you’re gay, and I don’t think this is a helpful topic of discussion in the combox. I thought it possible that you were a disgruntled former seminarian, but how would I know without asking?
I have been for banning John for some time, and have said so – since long before he got around to slandering me personally.
Tim
My apologies if I was out of line, but you were going into my past, and I was going into yours. Is not my asking your orientation slander, or is not what is good for the goose good for the gander?
As far as my past as being a seminarian, I leave that for you to figure out, as I dont discuss my past as my life is beautiful with a wonderful wife and family
As far as Esau and banning, ban for what? For pointing out the liberalization and your vieled protestant views of the “spirit” of vatican II you so push forth under your wolf in sheeps clothing agenda?
The present pope knows the church is in a horrible state of decay, and now we see the TLM on EWTN. Soon it will be mandatory and the experiment will be over because God will not stand for this horrible corruption. Many of you here would be banned for YOUR way of thinking , talk and teachings only some 50 years ago, just goes to show how being a “traditional” can get one banned, but being a liberal cloaked under the guise of the “church” projects one into the mainstream today. Sad how far society and the church have gone downhill
As reported today, and you dont think these Bishops are pro gay?
As reported today on lifesite and spirit daily
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/sep/07091702.html
US Conference of Catholic Bishops Appoints Woman with Pro-Abortion Ties as Policy Director
By Matthew Cullinan Hoffman
WASHINGTON, September 17, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) — Kathy Saile, who once gave a speech on promoting liberalism at a conference held by a pro-abortion group, has been named Director of Domestic Policy for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB).
Previous to the appointment, Saile was Associate Director of Public Policy for Lutheran Services in America (USA), an organization that serves the extremely liberal Evangelical Lutheran Church of America (ELCA), which recently declared that their “clergy” were free to participate in homosexual relationships…..LifeSiteNews has also confirmed that Lutheran Services in America has a policy of distributing birth control at clinics affiliated with the organization.
A request for a response from the USCCB’s press spokesman, Sr. Mary Anne Walsh, was not answered at the time of publication.
Gong, gong, gong…
Lets be honest as I have been there first hand. Can you say likewise??
Posted by: John | Sep 17, 2007 10:09:40 AM
“Lets be honest as I have been there first hand. Can you say likewise??”
Been WHERE, John?
Posted by: Tim J. | Sep 17, 2007 10:13:23 AM
Tim
Are you homosexual as you seem to have a deep rooted protection for those who profess to be be clergy, abide by church teaching, and then abuse children
Are you bent on the destruction of the church Tim? Why are you opposed to anything that has to do with protecting the church from outside forces such as homosexuals
Been there? you figure that one out, I dont talk about my past. If you dont think one of every 2 priests is not gay then you are kidding yourself
Posted by: John | Sep 17, 2007 10:27:22 AM
That’s the exchange in total. John, you were WAY out of line.
Yes, you did apologize, but apologies from you are mere lip service. You show no remorse for your personally slandering Tim J. And no, there is no equivalence between Tim’s question and your slander. John, you initiated that “been there.” Tim simply asked you “been where?” A request for clarification is not prying into your past. If you don’t want people to ask what you mean, don’t say it to begin with.
You are very fortunate that Jimmy is so lenient. If you pulled that almost anywhere else, you’d be out on your ear.
I forgot to add that a sincere apology carries with it the sincere intention to not repeat. But you keep doing the same thing.
I forgot to add that a sincere apology carries with it the sincere intention to not repeat. But you keep doing the same thing.
Mary Kay,
Excellent comment!
Interestingly enough, that’s what the Sacrament of Reconciliation is actually all about.
That is, sins are only forgiven provided that there is the sincere intention not to repeat them.
Unfortunately, some Catholics don’t know their Catechism all that well.
I am afraid there will be no arguing with John on this point…or at least any truths inconsistent with his beliefs will go unaccepted. Over many posts on the site, John, I have detected a hostility to the Church. That is your choice. A 50% gay clergy/seminary candidates is just another ‘proof’ of an apostate church. You cite some site. I can cite ‘studies’ that prove 9/11 was an inside job, that JFK was killed by (fill in the blank), and that global warming is entirely manmade and that it has never happened before. In this day and age we can find ‘studies’ to help us cherry-pick reality. Would gay priests account for half of all priest you know? How many seminarians do you know? I know plenty of both. I do not know any gay seminarians and only a few gay (or more to the point those who have a homosexual orientation that to my understanding they do not act on) priests. LIke Anon, I live in the midwest. Like anon I recruit for my diocese. So, John, my experience in the world beyond bogus studies and cyberworld is that the 50% claim is bogus, slanderous, and just another venomous attack rendered by someone who dislikes the Church anyway.
As I said, if you hate the Church, well, that is your choice. BUt please don’t come in here thinking you can ride your hobby-horse enough to convince others that you are right. Like Peter, who was mercifully booted from here, who operated under the same hatred of the Church, there is no converting one whose ears are welded shut. I would suggest prayer and reflection here.
As I said, if you hate the Church, well, that is your choice. BUt please don’t come in here thinking you can ride your hobby-horse enough to convince others that you are right. Like Peter, who was mercifully booted from here, who operated under the same hatred of the Church, there is no converting one whose ears are welded shut. I would suggest prayer and reflection here.
AMEN, Father!
For all the innocent people (Mother Teresa, JP II, Ratzinger (now B16), and the innocent priests and seminarians out there) who have been injured by John’s malicious actions, his spiteful hatred for not only the Church but for those who follow the Church faithfully; may God wreak out His vengeance against such people in the end!
As it is said in Psalm 100 (101):
The wicked of heart must leave me;
the plotter of evil I will not acknowledge.
The man who plots against his neighbour in secret:
I will suppress him.
The haughty of eye, the puffed-up and proud –
I will not support them.
I will turn my eyes to the faithful of the land:
they shall sit with me.
Whoever walks in the way of perfection –
he shall be my servant.
The haughty shall not live in my palace;
the slanderer shall not stand in my sight.
Each morning I will suppress
all the wicked of the land.
I will rid the city of the Lord
of all that do evil.
Well, along the same line we need to excommunicate Jesus for giving Communion to Judas!
Patrick, you sound like a troll, but for the sake of any lurkers, you need to brush up on your Scripture. Because, as trolls do, you’ve gotten it wrong.
Mary Kay, Mark 14:17-26 says Judas was there and says nothing about him leaving before the Eucharist. Matthew 26:21-30 follows Mark, also not mentioning Judas leaving before receiving. Luke 22:19-21 is very clear that Judas’ hand was on the table after the distribution of the bread and consacration of the wine. John, as we all know does not report the institution of the Eucharist at the Last Supper. Mary, you really should read you Scripture.
The Troll
;
Ops, obviously “your Scripture.”
Patrick: Whether or not Judas received communion has no bearing on canonical reasons for denying communion.
Judas was in mortal sin, but mortal sin by itself, even in present Catholic law, is not grounds for denying someone communion. Rather, it is incumbent upon one in grave sin to refrain from receiving; if he presents himself for communion, the priest still ought to administer communion.
There are other grounds for denying communion, but they do not apply in the case of Judas.
Furthermore, no one has talked about “excommunicating” anyone, let alone priests administering communion to anyone. Excommunication is not even relevant to this topic, even with respect to the one denied communion, let alone to the priest who denies or administers it. The subject of excommunication was only brought up by one poster who apparently thought it was the same as denying communion. It isn’t.
Be all that as it may, even to raise the subject of “excommunicating Jesus,” even as a reductio, may be felt to be unnecessarily provocative. I know it was a reductio and you didn’t mean it, but Jesus is Jesus, and there is a circumspection that applies even to rhetorical flourishes. Just a thought.
US Conference of Catholic Bishops Appoints Woman with Pro-Abortion Ties as Policy Director
Important news clarification
I knew nothing of this until I read on Mark Shea’s site a retraction of this accusation based on an explanation from the Bishops showing that the Policy Director is, in fact, very pro-life.
I could not let this RUMOR stand uncorrected on this line of discussion.
What?! LifeSiteNews.com irresponsibly printed a false and scandalous story?! (And John believed it because it made the Church look bad?) I’m shocked! shocked!
SDG, as always you are right on target.
Be all that as it may, even to raise the subject of “excommunicating Jesus,” even as a reductio, may be felt to be unnecessarily provocative.
Which is probably where I got the impression of a troll.
I know it was a reductio and you didn’t mean it, but Jesus is Jesus, and there is a circumspection that applies even to rhetorical flourishes. Just a thought.
True again.
Patrick: Whether or not Judas received communion has no bearing on canonical reasons for denying communion.
This is indeed staying on topic. I misread Patrick’s post, not catching the “excommunicating Jesus” reductio. Then again, it was 3am and apparently I wasn’t as awake as I thought I was.
I took the bait of whether or not Judas partook of the third cup at the Last Supper. Since that’s what Patrick’s Scripture references are to, I might as make some response.
At a Passover Seder, there are four cups of wine, symbolizing four redemptions promised by God
(see http://www.angelfire.com/pa2/passover/thefourcupsofwineforpassover.html)
plus a fifth cup as Elijah’s cup.
The first two cups are before the meal while the third and fourth cups, the third cup sometimes referred to the cup of redemption or eucharistic cup and the fourth cup are after the meal. The point in question is that Judas was present for the meal but left before the third cup, the eucharistic cup, which was after the meal.
I was thinking of John’s gospel (John 13:21-30) where Judas clearly leaves during the meal and therefore before the third cup. Granted, Luke has Judas present after the institution of the Eucharist. That’s something I want to read more closely but won’t have opportunity until later next week. In the meantime, SDG’s posts answer Patrick’s first post.
Yes it was, of course, a “reductio” and I believe Jesus would understand the irony. If Jesus would give the Eucharist to one of the most notorious people in history, particularly in Christian history, it is absurd to impose a stricter standard – or else we individually will be judged by a sricter standard. I would prefer to avoid that, though others may not.
“The Troll”*
* I like that, it will give me something to think about when I have to forgive others. No, unfortunately I merely find it amusing.
Mary Kay, in John’s Gospel the Last supper is clearly not a Passover Meal, see the Gospel itsel and, if you need more, Ray Brown’s commentary on John. In the other Gospels it may well be a Passover Meal.
“Clearly”? Maybe to Raymond Brown, but he has a lot of views that don’t jive with Catholic doctrine. I believe he teaches that the Infancy Narratives in Matthew and Luke aren’t factual, and that we don’t have to believe them.
Bill, which one do you believe? They are theological propositions not historical accounts. If you don’t accept the former head of the Pope’s Biblical Commission…then maybe you need to study a bit more. Just a suggestion.
The Troll
Patrick,
If you’re saying that a Catholic can deny the historical reliability of the Gospels, then i would point you to the Council of Trent, which affirmed that the books of the bible are inspired and trustworthy.
“Bill, which one do you believe? They are theological propositions not historical accounts…”
False choice. Nothing keeps them from being both.
“If you don’t accept the former head of the Pope’s Biblical Commission…then maybe you need to study a bit more.”
Catholics are not required to accept – or even consider – the opinions of heads of commissions. We ARE required to accept the actual *teaching* of the Church. Maybe you need to study a bit more.
I’ve read Brown. Long on conjecture, short on substance. very fond of his own ideas.
I read Ray Brown’s commentary on John back in my seminary days. I don’t remember it saying what you say it says.
Jeremias and others have made a case that John’s Gospel does strongly suggest a passover meal. Even Brown admits that it sure looks like a passover meal.
It is true that the evidence is difficult and controverted, so much so that there is a tradition in Eastern Orthodoxy following what is widely regarded as the “Johannine chronology” of the non-paschal Last Supper (let the reader understand). However, it certainly isn’t a matter of “clearly” anything.
However, it certainly isn’t a matter of “clearly” anything.
Catholics are not required to accept – or even consider – the opinions of heads of commissions. We ARE required to accept the actual *teaching* of the Church.
What SDG, Bill and Tim said.
Well, if you don’t like Brown how about John? In John 18:28 which says the “Jews” were concerned about ritual purity on the morning of Jesus’ trial before Herod because they wanted to be able to eat the the Passover. In all fairness, the question of the Last Supper has been a source of debate for years now.
But let’s not lose track of the report that Jesus did give the Eucharist to Judas so who are we to deny the eucharist to anyone?
FWIW, I didn’t say whether or not I liked Brown. All I said was I didn’t remember Brown saying what you said he said.
John 18:28 is the one most difficult verse to reconcile with the Synoptics, certainly, but there are possible ways of doing it. One possibility has to do with terminological imprecision in the first century, by which point the passover properly so-called (Nisan 14) had become conflated with the subsequent feast of unleavened bread (which starts on Nisan 15). You can see this conflation in the NT as well as other contemporary first-century sources and certainly in present-day practice, although it was not originally described that way in the OT. It is not impossible that the reference to eating the passover in John 18:28 is a general reference to keeping the feast of unleavened bread.
The interesting thing about Brown’s analysis of all this is that it was not until Brown’s Death of the Messiah that he seems to have fully appreciated the issue of terminological shift; the John commentary is imprecise in this regard, though the later work is not. Yet in spite of this, The Death of the Messiah somewhat inexplicably repeats the same arguments on chronology Brown originally made in John, without any apparent awareness of how the terminological clarifications Brown himself has made undermine his own case.
Does the fact that Jesus never expelled Judas from the company of his followers mean that St. Paul was wrong to exhort the Corinthians to expel the immoral man (1 Cor 5)?
Jesus gave His Church authority to bind and loose in the name of heaven (Matt 18:18, 16:19), i.e., pastoral, disciplinary authority to command or to prohibit, to discipline or to restore, to forgive or to retain (cf. John 20:21-23).
Again, as noted above, those who are merely in grave sin are not denied communion (though as per 1 Cor 11:27-32 they are gravely obliged to refrain from presenting themselves). However, canon law provides, through the power of the keys and of binding and loosing, for the denial of communion to those whose sin is obstinate, grave and manifest (the last of which Judas’s sin had not yet become).
Now, had Judas not committed suicide, and been unrepentant about his sin, and nevertheless attempted to return to the company of the apostles and participate in the eucharistic celebration after Acts 2, and had the apostles permitted this, then you might have a case (although technically even there the Church is not obliged to permit always what she has permitted sometimes).
“But let’s not lose track of the report that Jesus did give the Eucharist to Judas so who are we to deny the eucharist to anyone?”
Thus the first outrage against the body of Christ in the eucharist was performed by the disciple who would betray Jesus to his bodily death. There is a poetic symmetry there that should not be missed.
Jesus had his reasons for doing what He did. It does not follow that in every detail of the Last Supper He was setting a strict pattern to be followed without variance. In that case, we would be required to say Mass only in upper rooms borrowed for the occasion from someone else.
If you look at what Paul says about taking the eucharist unworthily (and if you accept that the rules were the same before the Passion as after – a big “if”), Jesus – in allowing Judas to receive – may have allowed him to eat and drink damnation to himself.
In deciding which details are actually part of the pattern of the sacrament, and which are not, we have – *ding*ding*ding* – the constant tradition of the Church to guide us. We don’t take our cues on the administration of sacraments (or anything else) from narrow, private interpretations of one passage of scripture. That’s not Catholic.
Patrick,
first of all “WE” do not have authority to deny anyone Holy Communion, the Church does. Second, the Church does not call for anyone to be denied communion who is not a manifest grave sinner. While Christ of course knew of Judas’ sinful nature, but it was not manifest. The people we are discussing have manifested their unrepentant sin, and so to avoid scandal and protect the Body of Christ, and the sinner, they are to be denied.
God Bless,
Matt
People are not denied the Eucharist because of sins they are ABOUT to commit or that they are thinking about committing, only for – as matt pointed out – sins already committed. So the reasoning doesn’t hold up even in the simplest literal sense.
If Jesus (Perfection Itself, Creator of the Universe, and incapable of sinning) intended Catholics (fallen, imperfect creatures capable, while yet on earth, of sinning gravely) to repeat whatever He did while on earth, we would call people dogs and go into the desert to fast for forty days and be tempted by the Evil One. The Creator and the created are two different beings.
Dear SDG, you are right about Brown. I read both works a while ago, after leaving the seminary, they were published well after that.
The problem with “judging” is not merely that Jesus says we shouldn’t do it (unless He meant one rule for the church and one for humans), but where do you stop? A drugist/supermarket/gas station sell birth control products, refuse him/her? A soldier joins the military knowing he/she will fight in a was the bishops/church have decalred immoral, refuse the soldier? A senator or representative votes to go to or continue an unjust was, exclude them? Also, the consitution need to be amended, not the law to stop abortions, so it is distracting and a waste of time to concentrate on side issues.
“People are not denied the Eucharist because of sins they are ABOUT to commit..”
Tim,
Check the Bible, he already had agreed to look for an opertunity to betray Jesus.
“…the Church does not call for anyone to be denied communion who is not a manifest grave sinner..”
Matt,
Aren’t we all grave sinners? Or perhaps we, opps, the church should prohibit those who happen to come to the church’s attention. Perhaps those guilty of intolerance and bigotry against Islam, people of a different race or other Christian denominaions?
Patrick,
Canon law provides that communion should be denied to those whose sin is obstinate, grave and manifest. Pope Benedict has supported it, and his Archbishop Burke, in the article that occasioned the present blog post, discusses the history and context of the Church’s discipline in this regard from NT and patristic times and beyond, as well as the legal history through the centuries, the law of the Eastern Churches, papal teaching, the Roman Curia, and various forms of canon law.
Is your thesis that the Church provides for doing what Jesus says not to do? I just want to be clear.
The provision of canon law applies to those who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin. It presupposes that the sinner repudiates the Church’s best efforts to recall him to right behavior, and ignored cautions not to approach the Eucharist.
The canon certainly would not apply, for instance, to a soldier joining the military knowing he would fight in a war the bishops had declared immoral. It is not clear that there is any sin here at all — one may without sin disagree with the bishops on the justice of a particular war, for instance — let alone the kind of obstinate grave sin the Church has in mind. There is no analogy here to what the Church calls the “abominable crime” of abortion.
Having said that, Archbishop Burke does acknowledge that there are difficulties in applying the canon:
Thank God for courageous shepherds like Archbishop Burke who are willing to have the courage of the Church’s convictions.
Um, no. Grave sin is incompatible with the state of grace. Those who enjoy Christ’s friendship are not in grave sin. Those in grave sin have no life in them and cannot be saved if they die in that state.
“Um, no. Grave sin is incompatible with the state of grace. Those who enjoy Christ’s friendship are not in grave sin. Those in grave sin have no life in them and cannot be saved if they die in that state. ”
But only God, and the individual, can determine if an individual is in sin, much less grave sin. Thus God, i.e. Jesus, says do not judge. As the popular t-shirt says “What part of ‘no’ don’t you understand?” We and even the church don’t have that authority or right.
“Check the Bible, he already had agreed to look for an opertunity to betray Jesus.”
In other words, he was thinking about it. He had not yet actually betrayed Jesus and might easily have changed his mind. Again; people are not denied communion for sins they have not yet committed.
No, we are not all in grave sin, and we are certainly not all engaged in obstinate, grave, manifest sin. We are not to judge the state of any man’s (or woman’s) soul before God, but withholding the Eucharist does NOT do that. It doesn’t damn anyone to hell.
“We and even the church don’t have that authority or right.”
Wrong. As Christ said to Peter “What you bind on Earth will be bound in heaven. What you loose on Earth will be loosed in heaven.”
You may not like that, but it’s not your call.
Sorry, that was me above.
“What part of ‘no’ don’t you understand?”
Patrick, I find that highly ironic, given the tone of your posts. What part of “No, you can not receive communion if the lack of right disposition is serious and public don’t you understand?
“Um, no. Grave sin is incompatible with the state of grace. Those who enjoy Christ’s friendship are not in grave sin. Those in grave sin have no life in them and cannot be saved if they die in that state. ”
But only God, and the individual, can determine if an individual is in sin, much less grave sin. Thus God, i.e. Jesus, says do not judge. As the popular t-shirt says “What part of ‘no’ don’t you understand?” We and even the church don’t have that authority or right.
Posted by: Patrick | Sep 23, 2007 5:43:25 PM
Do you need me to post the definition of manifest? I think you are being very dishonest, I think with SDG’s very precise definition we should end the discussion since you have nothing to offer.
God Bless,
Matt
Patrick: I ask you again, was St. Paul wrong to exhort the Corinthians to expel the sinful man in 1 Cor 5?
I wrote you a substantial post above. You responded only to a tag afterthought. I hope you were working your way back.
Dear SDG,
I know you think that abortion, or more particularly, not voting for some legal action that almost certainly won’t work* is the worse thing imaginable. Unfortunately, for our discussion, I view war as the ultimate evil. I am not talking about intellectual flights of fancy, but the horrible reality that kills, wounds, destroys minds and bodies, lays the ground work for famine and future wars, and leaves even the unwounded with horrors that torment them for the rest of their lives.
* If the constitution isn’t amended it won’t work.
Patrick, what does politics have to do with withholding communion from those in obstinate, manifest & grave sin?
Your problem is that you don’t accept the teaching of the Church.
Church teaching simply does not proscribe war in every circumstance. Faithful Catholics may disagree about the justice and efficacy of a particular war, but there can be no debate about abortion.
And just because a politician votes to legalize drugs dosen’t mean he/she is a drug abuser, it may be the better way to deal with it. Yes abortion is wrong but that doesn’t mean it must be made illegal. Drugs are wrong, smoking is wrong and most of all was is wrong. Why doesn’t the church deny communion to those who vote for the death penalty, cuting benefits to the poor, etc? It is motivated by politics!
Tim J,
this has all been explained to Patrick, he is obstinate in his position in opposition to the Catholic Church. You’re just wasting your time now.
God Bless,
Matt
“Why doesn’t the church deny communion to those who vote for the death penalty, cuting benefits to the poor, etc?”
Because, as you fail to see, these two examples again are areas in which faithful Catholics are permitted to disagree with one another. The death penalty is NOT proscribed by Church teaching (see your Catechism). Which kind of government programs really help the poor and whether to fund those programs is an area of prudential judgment. Programs that do more harm than good in the long run ought to be defunded in favor of other programs that work.
Support for abortion – of any kind – is immoral, period, and is not in the same category as these other topics no matter how much you would like it to be.
Your subterfuge is showing, Patrick.
Misrepresentation, distortion, misdirection. Attributing to me a stance I never claimed, and explicitly reject. “I know you think that abortion, or more particularly, not voting for some legal action that almost certainly won’t work is the worse thing imaginable.” What nonsense. Don’t presume to know what I think if I haven’t told you.
Changing the subject. “If the constitution isn’t amended it won’t work.” What Tim J said. This is even less relevant than Judas at the Last Supper, which wasn’t relevant to begin with.
Vacuous moralizing. “Unfortunately, for our discussion, I view war as the ultimate evil.” Really? Which is a greater evil, World War II or a Thousand-Year Reich?
And your subsequent posts go downhill from there. You aren’t convincing anyone, friend, possibly not even yourself.
Well, as a lawyer let me tell you that the only way to change the law on this subject is to change the constitution. Passing laws that any reasonable lawyer knows will be overturned is pandering to the ignorent, legal masterbation, a waste of the courts’ and legislatures’ time and the taxpayers’ money. Any church requirement to vote for such nonsense is politics not faith and morals and deserves the disregard all sensible people will give it. Peace!
Just checking, counselor, which “law” would it be we’re talking about “changing”?
The Supreme Court’s interpretation of the United States Constitution to the effect that the government can’t criminalize abortion. It would take the Court violating the principle of stare decisis*, which is very unlikely, or an amendment of the constitution.
* to stand by what has been decided.
“Passing laws that any reasonable lawyer knows …”
Can you really say with confidence what this new Supreme Court will do? It has not been fully tested on the abortion issue.
In any case that’s besides the point.
What the Church should do must be independent of the culture: it is a rock and it must draw unambiguous lines. The Eucharist is the pinnacle of all sacraments the gift we are baptized, confirmed and reconciled to receive. It is not a right to be demanded but a gift to be cherished. Any politician who votes for abortion is denying Christ and publicly defaming Catholics by their infamous example. It is essentially a public (hence manifest) act of defiance to the Church.
If the same nominal Catholic politician attends Church and attempts to take communion he or she is a public hypocrite and is taking the Eucharist only as an act of pandering. However to the believing Catholic this person sins gravely through sacrilege. No priest worth his collar would willfully perform a sacrilege.
It’s a no brainer.
Patrick – your sophistry makes me wonder if you believe. Only a faithless person who was going through the motions of being Catholic could consent to the desecration of the sacrament. Arguing against the policy is self incriminating.
Memphis Aggie,
Well said.
Who was it that said “Stare decisis is fo’ suckas!”?
Also, you can’t really think it’s as unlikely as you say.