Taking votes on this kind of thing puzzles me. But thank God, a vast, vast, vast majority of bishops voted in favor of it and a small minority voted against it and six insignificant abstained. What’s up for a vote next, Holy Orders Coherence?
The lead story on the front page of a local paper:
Don’t we have to follow canon law on this? It seems to me that it has to be the national leader’s own bishop in the domicile in which he is living. In the case of President Biden, it has to be Cardinal Gregory when the president is in Washington, DC and the new bishop of Wilmington, Delaware when the President is in Wilmington.
And when the President goes to Mass in another city, it has to be the bishop of that city, no?
Thus, I scratch my head, wondering why any bishop would oppose a document on Eucharistic Coherence which I presume will highlight for every bishop and everyone else what canon law requires of bishops with a Catholic who is in serious schism with a significant moral teaching of the Church.
What if President Biden was divorced and remarried and his first marriage is the valid sacramental marriage. How would his bishop proceed? Of course, the problem with President Biden is his rabid support of the genocide of unborn babies even to the most horrid partial birth abortion and allowing a baby to die after a “botched” abortion. That seems more serious to me, a humble priest, than living an adulterous life with a person who isn’t your spouse, while your spouse is still your spouse, no?
Thus, who in the Name of God and all that is Holy would vote against Eucharistic Coherence?
My thoughts:
Those who also want the Church to ordain women and any variety of LBGTQ++++ non binary forms of gender as well as any variety of any form and number of spouses of marriage and, well do I need to go further?
14 comments:
Because many bishops are Democrat operatives masquerading as Catholics
So, how did your bishop vote?
Anonymous,
My bishop voted with the majority if your question is directed at me. How did yours vote?
The current vote was like 175-55-6, and only to COMPOSE a teaching document. It will take 2/3rds to approve said document, which is anything but assured given that split. Our shepherds.
And then, even if approved as initially writ, it will be free to be ignored by any bishop who chooses to do so.
Even if not utterly ignored, the politicians will likely be given "communion" privately.
The total impact of the entire document as passed will be formation of more committees from national down to parish on having more adoration times ignored by the majority...
and of the minority attending, at least 50% will be "adoring" by noodling on electronic devices, doing work/homework, and loud page flipping through magazines, youth groups forced to attend prior to Confirmation and which attendance will cease as soon as not required.
Because most there, top to bottom, are clueless as to authentic prayer, are not taught, cannot teach, true silent extended retreats with competent directors of souls are a thing utterly unknown.
And nothing will change past more scheduled "group activities" perhaps even rebranded as a "retreat" with break-out sessions.
A real yawner.
To be clear, the document is not only about pro-abortion politicians, but a reaction to polls showing the failure of bishops to even teach rudaments of the Faith such as the Real Presence.
Pro-abortion Catholics are only a manifestation of their failure, and only one of the manifestations with which they will attempt to grapple.
They are rightly being called out by liberals over giving Communion to high profile right wing figures ignoring church law, too.
Their projected document SHOULD be dealing with all of this, including at the parish level where we all know folk who are monied fixtures there living anything but God-centered lives and as phony as they come, still cheerfully provided leadership roles and Communion.
But, again, the elephant in room ignored, the root-cause of all problems, is that of a spiritual crisis and lack of all spiritual cathechesis/direction, nor a place to practice or live the same....people in love with God do not break his rules.
I am not sure this is a good idea. While a bishop should take some action against a person sho claims to be Catholic yet denies or challenges moral teaching, exactly what is to be done should be a unique solution.
rcg, it certainly will open up a can of worms which bishops and priests have dreaded opening.
However, the zero discipline of the sacraments have made their worth essentially zero in most Catholic eyes, with nearly 3 out of 4 seeing Communion only as a symbol of ethnic/cultural club membership, and something to which they are entitled by club membership.
There are too many sins to list which put one outside Communion with the Body of Christ, and sin has not even been taught effectively. But flagrant sins and sinners, at minimum, need to be dealt with.
The fact is, most of these folk know they are wrong and are not honest enough to admit it. In their arrogance they DARE someone to do something.
Over 30yrs ago as a poorly catechized brand spanking new Catholic, I stupidly put myself in a situation which I was informed by priest, and even harder line deacon, that put me outside Communion until resolved. It took the three longest years of my life to finally resolve, but I knew I was wrong, admitted it, and did not try to sneak off somewhere else to a friendlier or unknown priest for Communion, which both of which exist aplenty.
THESE people under discussion KNOW there is doubt voiced by those with authority, and cheerfully ignore those doubts and go cherry picking for prelates who will tell them only what they want to hear. When 2/3rds of folk tell you that you are wrong and you go with the 1/3 who ignore their own teachings, you would deserve no pity for what happened next.
Well, here is one "Catholic" congressmen who is not taking this sitting down:
U.S. Representative Ted Lieu (D-CA) has challenged the U.S. bishops to refuse him Holy Communion at Mass, flaunting his support for abortion and same-sex marriage.
“Dear USCCB, I’m Catholic and I support contraception, a woman’s right to choose, treatments for infertility, the right for people to get a divorce, the right of same sex marriage,” Lieu tweeted Friday.
“Next time I go to Church, I dare you to deny me Communion,” he taunted.
The Jesuit-educated congressman, who attended Cleveland’s St. Ignatius High School and Georgetown University, enjoys a 100% legislator rating from lobbyist NARAL for his spotless voting record in favor of abortion rights.
Lieu went on to tweet: “How radical is the @USCCB decision? A Catholic can love Jesus with all her heart, oppose abortion & work at Catholic Relief Services. But if she believes government shouldn’t put women in jail for an abortion, then she can be denied Communion.”
“No wonder membership is declining,” he stated.
Bell, Book, Candle
Government is not talking about putting women in jail for having abortions---I don't know of any right-t0-life group which advocates that. Instead, punishment would focus on the doctor.
Ted Lieu is another one of those liberals who equates abortion with the death penalty, a concept I would hope most everyone on this blog would reject. Even if one thought the two were of equal moral equivalence, how many times is the death penalty carried out in the United States? Maybe a few dozen times a year? In contrast, dozens of abortions are carried out every hour in this country.
Mr. Lieu may not be aware that except in cases of rape, women already have the "right to choose." And really, what percentage of abortions are due to rape?
As for divorce, no one of sound mind thinks that is going to be outlawed.
It does make you wonder---what is being taught in our "Catholic" schools and colleges?
No, you need not go farther, or even to LBGTQ and women's ordination, as Catholics who claim to support "a woman's right to choose" generally are already liberal on those other issues too. Not likely to find a pro-life Catholic who then says "but I also support LBGT ideology and identities and ordination of women priests."
Let's get something clear: it's extremely unlikely that any policy or document will emerge from this that forbids Mr. Biden and other pro-abortion politicians from receiving Holy Communion. What is possible is a document that spells out lots of circumstances where Catholics should, themselves, refrain from receiving the Eucharist. But that's going to be a mess to write, because it will be difficult to make clear to all concerned the categorical differences arising with public policy stances; therefore, it will be almost impossible to keep it from seeming to be partisan. The bishops aren't going to want to write a book that gives a detailed answer regarding every public policy stance, common among Democrats and Republicans, and what exactly jeopardizes a person's state of grace. For example:
- Is a Catholic politician gravely culpable if s/he votes against any particular legislation aimed at restricting abortion? I would have to say NO, as much as I would myself vote FOR just about all of them. Why? Because that Catholic legislator could legimately say, "I am FOR restricting abortion, but this bill has this or that other flaw" -- including not going far ENOUGH. Maybe it's fake, but the bishops' can't get at that, only God can.
- Is a Catholic politician gravely culpable if s/he votes against some measure aimed at assisting immigrants, legal or not? Again, I'd say no. As with the prior example, this stance could arise either from a legitimate motive or an illegitimate one, and politicians, knowing this, can conceal their culpable motive behind a publicly stated legitimate one.
If you hate people because of their race or national origin, or simply because they aren't Americans, and you want terrible things to happen to them, then yes, that's a grave sin. I think the number of people who are restrictionist on immigration for that motive is vanishingly small.
Oh, and to be clear: I am not equating the abortion and immigration issues morally; I am using these two examples because when abortion comes up as a can-he-go-to-communion issue for Ds, immigration is brought up regarding Rs.
It certainly is possible for someone's political acts -- statements and votes and so forth -- but it isn't easy to spell out, in plain language, how this is triggered. And one issue I have with people who are outraged about the bishops drawing a line now, is that they seem to disagree with my last sentence; but I don't believe it. I believe they agree that at some point, someone's political stances can be a mortal sin and call for denial of Holy Communion. But they won't admit that, because if they do, then the obvious follow up is, OK, when? And why issue X but not issue Y?
Oops, sorry, "Unknown" above is me. Not sure how that happened, but probably because I'm traveling.
The bishop of a diocese can order his priests to deny someone Holy Communion. However, the responsibility for enforcing Can. 915 is placed on the *minister* (at least priests and deacons). Given that the ministers are bound by canon law, a higher authority than their bishop, I rather doubt the bishop can licitly forbid priests and deacons from denying Holy Communion to a person persisting in manifest grave sin. Though he could certainly make their lives miserable.
Who but Satan would kill a baby?
Who but Satan would encourage anyone to kill a baby?
Post a Comment