AmericanPapist Comments
What the heck is he doing with it in that picture?
He doesn't even know HOW to receive Communion in the hand. What a total mess.
As my former priest said once, "Don't pop Jesus like a Tic Tac."
I can't tell you how many people wish they could have had Kerry's seat.
*sigh*
Just remember to pray for his soul.
Now,now, my friends, we do not know whether or not John Kerry has been converted by the Pope's prescence. Let us remember not Judge those in politics (even though they need the prayers the most).
Riiiiight G8s.
You can include me (and all the other Roman Catholics in good conscience) in the group that judges this grievous sin of receiving our LORD with their wide open public stance on MURDERING innocent human beings.
It is very easy for any of these politicians to get a press conference and openly state their change of heart. It would be a matter of seconds before cameras and crews from CNN would be there.
Pray for them yes, but don't be ignorant.
This is my first comment on this blog. I must share concern with G8s that we must be very careful and mindful of the planks in our eyes. I read that the senator and Rep Pelosi would be at Mass and I hoped that no one saw whether or not they received. It is not for us to make it more of a scandal than it may seem.
I am sometimes guilty of watching who receives communion at my parish. I have to remind myself that all I must worry about is myself and that everyone is a brother and sister.
Peace
Vincent,
There are times when we ARE called out to call wrong wrong. Following what you say John the Baptist was wrong to condemn Herod for marrying his brothers wife, calling the pharasees a brood of hypocrits, etc. When someone publicly & blatently denies Catholic teaching then it IS our duty to call it out.
Ed Peters:
There was a picture of Kerry receiving Communion at the parish of some safe priest (the Kerry advance team always made sure he didn't mistakenly go to Mass at the parish of a pro-life priest) during the 2004 campaign. Kerry received Communion in the same way--in both hands, lapping up the Host as though it were a handful of water. He certainly doesn't succeed in looking like a person who is at home at Mass.
My heart breaks for Our Lord.
My heart breaks for all the people who see this as a silent affirmation that one can be Pro-Abortion and Catholic.
And my heart breaks for all the unborn: past, present, and *sadly* future.
Kerry & Pelosi you have no idea what you've done to our country!
A while back, a number of Catholic lawmakers signed a letter that said:
"If Catholic legislators are scorned and held out for ridicule by Church leaders on the basis of a single issue, the Church will lose strong advocates on a wide range of issues that relate to the core of important Catholic social teaching. . . . Moreover, criticism of us on a matter that is essentially one of personal morality will deter other Catholics from entering politics, and in the long run the Church will suffer."
Addressing the bishops on Wednesday evening, the Holy Father said:
"Perhaps America’s brand of secularism poses a particular problem: it allows for professing belief in God, and respects the public role of religion and the Churches, but at the same time it can subtly reduce religious belief to a lowest common denominator. Faith becomes a passive acceptance that certain things “out there” are true, but without practical relevance for everyday life. The result is a growing separation of faith from life: living “as if God did not exist”. This is aggravated by an individualistic and eclectic approach to faith and religion: far from a Catholic approach to “thinking with the Church”, each person believes he or she has a right to pick and choose, maintaining external social bonds but without an integral, interior conversion to the law of Christ. Consequently, rather than being transformed and renewed in mind, Christians are easily tempted to conform themselves to the spirit of this age (cf. Rom 12:3). We have seen this emerge in an acute way in the scandal given by Catholics who promote an alleged right to abortion." (Emphasis added.)
That phrase "give scandal" has a very particular meaning (see, e.g., Catechism of the Catholic Church 2284-2287) and I doubt the Holy Father used it loosely. He's called out "Catholics who promote an alleged right to abortion" and admonished the bishops of their duty to correct these errors by their preaching and teaching. Beyond that, he's identified "the challenge of recapturing the Catholic vision of reality and presenting it, in an engaging and imaginative way," and reminded us that "the lay faithful have a particular responsibility in this regard" in pursuing the Church's "mission in and to the world."
"He who has ears to hear, let him hear."
Pelosi received as well:
“Communion is the body of the people of the church coming together,” Pelosi said at her weekly news conference after returning from the Mass. “I feel very much a part of that.”
Well, if that's how she views Holy Communion, no wonder!
If Pelosi only believes in Communion as a sign of oneness among human members of the Church, then she's even more wrong to receive. It's fairly clear that she's not in agreement with the Pope or with the mainstream of human members of the Church, and persistently so.
If she thinks she's right and we're wrong, she shouldn't deign to receive Communion along with a bunch of inauthentic, unloving yahoos. If she's not sure who's right, she should still refrain because this issue is acrimonious and deep, and her actions will increase the lack of harmony. If she knows she's doing wrong, she should refrain out of respect for others.
If, OTOH, she believes that the consecrated host is indeed Christ (Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity) and that she's being treated unjustly, then it would make sense for her to continue to try to get access to her Lord. (Although it would be ignoring Jesus' injunction about reconciling with your brothers before going to the altar, and a lot of other stuff, too.)
If she didn't really care, I think she'd be less of a PITA about it. Unless there's some cynical Machiavellian advantage to getting a bunch of voters mad at you, or she believes that other voters like to see her torquing off her fellow Catholics and scoring points "against the Pope".
But it's probably more of an ecclesiology problem with her than a Christology problem. Or so I hope, for the good of her soul. (Not that either problem is particularly great for your soul, mind you.)
These sorts of things are opportunities for me to do battle with pride and wrath. Thanks for the reminder to pray for them.
Actually, "lapping" is how I grew up doing it as an Episcopalian. I do it the "right way" now, just by imitating. Maybe he doesn't go often enough to have someone to imitate consistently.
I think the only ones "scandalized" by Kerry and Pelosi are the judgmental types who are pretty staunch in their judgmental ways anyway, so no worries about them leading anyone anywhere else.
John Kerry`s method of receiving the Eucharist is not wrong and it can be read about in the GIRM. In fact I saw Catholics, possibly Chaldean, in a Middle Eastern country in a news clip recently who were kneeling and receiving the Eucharist in the manner that Kerry received.
As for the correct way to receive the Eucharist firstly one must be in a state of grace. Who knows maybe Kerry went to confession and sincerely changed his ways, hey it does happen.
Hey, my sister knows you and pointed you out to me outside the Mass. Now that this has happened, can we identify the priest and do the detective work to see if Mr. Hudson's theory was correct?
While I understand the zeal with which others wish to apply respect to Holy Communion, I must agree with those who believe that we must suspend judgment.
Besides, the precise moment when the right-hand photograph was taken is unknown, therefore it may appear that Senator Kerry is "lapping" the Eucharist when in fact it might be something quite harmless.
Sidonius Apollonaris:
A bishop who "suspends judgment" in this matter is VIOLATING CANON LAW.
In other words, being "nice" about sacrilege and scandal is forbidden by both the moral law and the Church's law. Specifically, Canon 915, which says that ministers of Communion "MUST" refuse the Sacrament to manifest, obstinate, grave sinners.
The pro-abortion Catholics know exactly what the issue is, and they set out to score one against the Pope and Canon 915. And they did--because Abp. Wuerl has handed it to them.
When a pastor in Philadelphia was photographed beaming with John Kerry on the front steps of his church after Sunday Mass, what did Wuerl do to repair the scandal, by word or deed? In my diocese, that pastor would be flipping burgers or shampooing the carpets at the chancery.
Wuerl is an ally and collaborator with Pelosi, Dodd, Kerry, and all the others who spat on Jesus yesterday.
I propose that pro-lifers adopt a custom: No attendance at Masses celebrated by bishops who defy the Pope and Canon Law. A bishop who teaches that being pro-abortion is not sinful should have congregations composed only of people who agree with him.
Shouldn't Pope Benedict, as main celebrant, have made it know to those distributing communion that these politicians weren't to receive it? I ask that with an honest unawareness of the chain of command at Mass. I find it difficult to believe that Archbishop Wuerl's approach on this matter--by the way, I don't recall him ever saying being pro-choice is okay--trumps the wishes of the Pope.
I can appreciate the difficulty of the situation, though. Never before has a Pope come to America during an election year, and the Pope and his advisors aren't incompetent. They know that the biggest story of the day would be "playing politics" with the Eucharist had they denied Kerry and others communion. Thus, Benedict and his entourage kept focus on the message of the trip. This obviously pisses off other people who seek scapegoats within the American hierarchy, but on this particular trip, with the massive media coverage, it's the smart approach.
The thing that most disturbs me about this is the judgement Messrs. Kerry and Dodd and Ms. Pelosi are bringing onto themselves, eating and drinking to their own damnation, as the apostle says. I say pray (and once Eastertide is over: Fast! and engage in other acts of mortification some of which are always appropriate) for these folks, because if they do not convert then they will suffer eternal torment, one increased by every sacrilegious communion they have committed. Also pray for the bishops who have not prevented them from coming to hte Lord's table, as, unrepentant, they will suffer even worse, having led the sheep astray.
Of course, Abp. Wuerl has never said the words "Being pro-abortion is not sinful."
But giving scandal is a form of teaching.
The pro-aborts are presenting the public with this exceedingly simple syllogism:
Catholics are not to receive Communion if they are in a state of sin, or have broken communion with the Church.
We are receiving Communion.
Thus, we are not in the state of sin and have not broken communion with the Church.
By adamantly refusing to stop the pro-aborts' constant reiteration--through sacrilegious Communions--of this perfectly valid argument, even though this requires him to defy both Canon Law and the increasingly explicit entreaties of the Pope, Archbishop Wuerl is teaching that being pro-abortion is not sinful, and does not affect one's communion with the Church.
I understand the all of that, Father, but Wuerl is no different than the other 176 ordinaries. And that includes my archbishop, who is one of the most conservative in the country. So the whole American hierarchy--and I shouldn't confine the problem to just America--is failing the Eucharist. One of my brothers, who's also a priest, agrees that all the bishops are failing Canon 915 and that they need to work out a document that provides for unified action. But I digress. What's curious, though, is that all of these pro-choice politicians received communion within a direct of line of sight to the Pope. Even given the considerations I mentioned above, was it not the Pope's responsibility to put the foot down on this matter for this instance? I know it's just one Mass, but desecrating the Eucharist is desecrating the Eucharist, be it one time or a thousand times.
Unfortunately, I'm clicking publish and leaving for New York and leaving the computer here, so I won't get to see or respond to anything. Have a great weekend, Father and everyone else!
It is required that, before Communion is refused, the person must be notified and given an opportunity to repent, and repair the scandal.
Obviously, this could not occur during a Mass.
There seems to be no chance that more than a handful of bishops will act on this scandal unless some worldly consideration comes to outweigh the worldly motives for silence. If I were Pope, I would warn the bishops, then start deposing two or three a month until the rest got the message. Anybody who runs for Pope has to be out of his mind.
How did Pelosi and Kerry get in? Where did they get their tickets and why?
My understanding is that the Vatican invited all members of Congress. The Pope is a visiting Head of State.
Father,
The following ran in major DC papers:
http://www.all.org/db_file/1066.pdf
There was time to ask them not to present themselves.
I'm glad ALL ran the ad. I'm sure the Pope saw it. The way the Vatican works, there's no way to respond to such a message in just a few days. Every word and action of the Pope is scripted months ahead of time.
Archbishop Wuerl's position is known to all.
At this point, we can only hope that the Pope has a plan.
A good article on this subject may be found at:
www.clmagazine.org/backissues/2008marchapril_44-
45nowisthetime.pdf
Let us pray.
one more try!
www.clmagazine.org
sorry!
Fr. Joe,
I agree with Nathan that if your assertion (that we are under an obligation to judge Sen. Kerry et al. as sinful) then the main celebrant, the Bishop of Rome Benedict XVI, as president of the Mass, was too under an obligation to prevent these persons from receiving Eucharist. You were explicit that bishops are bound by duty to uphold Canon Law. So your stance could, strictly logically, be an implicit criticism of Benedict's policy for this particular Mass.
Now, as concerns the provision that "person must be notified and given an opportunity to repent, and repair the scandal," if you do believe that this should be the law, and also that the persons in question did not have either notification or an adequate opportunity to repent, then it follows that these persons are exempt from anyone's judgment.
But we could also say that Sen. Kerry has encountered this problem before and is certainly aware of the risk that he runs in a Catholic Mass. However, one would guess that if the Vatican wanted to make this an issue during Benedict's visit to the United States, that there would have been foresight to notify Sen. Kerry (and/or other pro-abortion persons). But there either was no desire to make this an issue or there was no foresight.
But, the reasons for giving Eucharist to these persons may, of course, be complicated. It could be political. It could just have been an oversight on the part of that/those particular minister(s).
Kerry is not pro-abortion. The Supreme Court made abortion legal, not Sen. Kerry. His support of abortion rights is meaningless; it neither contributes to nor perpetuates the legality and practice of abortion. The legality of abortion remains in the hands of the Supreme Court. Kerry is not a member of the Court. The decision to abort an unborn child remains with the mother. I suspect that neither Kerry nor anyone who reads this blog wants to make adultery illegal. A person's refusal to make adultery illegal does not mean that they support and directly assist all adulterers.
Greg: The Church teaches that the state has the obligation to protect the unborn from homicide, as it protects those who have been born. Kerry opposes protecting the unborn from homicide. That one thing is sufficient to place Kerry, or any other Catholic, in the state of mortal sin.
No one has ever asserted that Kerry has DIRECTLY assisted some individual to have an abortion. Straw Man! If, during Jim Crow, a person campaigned and voted for segregated lunch counters, that was sinful--and it would be utterly irrelevant whether he ever OWNED a lunch counter.
Kerry's public grave sin is that he contradicts the Church's teaching that the state is OBLIGED to provide the same legal protection from homicide to the born and the unborn.
In 2004, Kerry promised that he would nominate to the federal courts ONLY judges who would uphold Roe v. Wade. I.e., Kerry promised to do what he could as President to keep abortion legal. Kerry also has a PRO-ABORTION voting record in the Senate. You DID remember that he's been a Senator for decades, didn't you?
Adultery IS illegal. You didn't know that, either?
The fact that abortion involves the decision of the mother (It's often the decision of the "boyfriend," who brings her to the abortion clinic black-and-blue--which you would know if you've done any "sidewalk counseling.") is irrelevant. The decision to own slaves was the decision of the slave owners. So, you are arguing that those who favored the legality of slavery, and fought for it, were blameless--because ultimately the decision to buy and own slaves was the decision of the slave-owner.
Finally, if John Kerry had never been a Senator, and had never run for President, and had done nothing other than give speeches asserting that there is a "right" to abortion, and opposing making abortion illegal--that would be a mortal sin, and it would be obligatory for him to refrain from receiving Communion, and it would be obligatory for the local bishop to instruct his priests to refuse Kerry Communion.
Your arguments are mostly formally invalid. Check them with any competent philosophy professor, if you wish.
And you seem to have no compunction about making up "facts" about how our government works, and what the Church's teaching is.
By holding Kerry blameless for campaigning and voting for the status quo, you are contradicting the teaching of the Church--because according to the teaching of Church, it is gravely sinful to approve or support the status quo on abortion in any manner--even by words alone. Committing grave sin is the opposite of "blameless."
You have advanced the falsehood that Catholic teaching regarding abortion forbids ONLY DIRECT COLLABORATION in abortion. This is the fundamental evasion that the pro-abortion Catholics have been living by for forty years. It is a preposterous assertion that you have repeated--as is plain as day when one applies the same transparently dishonest claim to slaver
slavery, racial discrimination, and the gassing of Jews.
Sidonius Apollinaris:
The Pope crossed an ocean to address the whole Catholic Church in the U.S. You crow triumphantly that he didn't swoop down from the altar and bar John Kerry physically from reception of Communion.
Cardinal Ratzinger wrote a letter to the American bishops in 2004--the letter that Cardinal McCarrick tucked away and lied about--concealing its existence from his brother bishops--clarifying his judgment on this issue, a judgment that Ratzinger has only repeated again and again as Pope: Canon 915 specifies a grave obligation on the part of the pastor and the bishop WITHIN WHOSE JURISDICTION repeated acts of sacrilegious Communion are known to be occurring--those who are in objective, manifest situations of grave sin are to be REFUSED Communion.
It is no more valid to point and crow: "The POPE didn't stop Kerry! We win!" than it is to observe: "GOD didn't stop Kerry! So God agrees with Kerry, not with you pro-lifers!" Which is precisely the invalid point you are making. The Pope is not the policeman of every falling sparrow. The responsibility in this case rests primarily with Wuerl. HE lives here; HE is the bishop of this place.
It is impossible to miss the note of glee in posts by so many pro-abortion Catholics just in the past couple of days: "The Pope didn't stop Kerry and Pelosi from receiving! Gotcha! The Pope is on OUR side!" Your post falls into that category.
This is precisely the preposterous claim that Kerry, Pelosi, Dodd, Kennedy, Wuerl and others promoted by their collaborative disobedience on Sunday.
Preposterous, dishonest, desperate. And hideously ugly.
Fr. Joe,
You are erroneous on a few points and to say the least I do not appreciate your attacks on my person.
You believe that I am a pro-abortion Catholic, because you think that I am defending Sen. Kerry's ability to receive Communion. However, I only defended a suspension of judgement. Furthermore, I am pro-life. My post does not fall into the category of "the Pope did not stop it ergo 'we' (whoever they are) scored a goal against the Vatican." That is a rather slippery slope statement to qualify my words as such.
Neither was I crowing. I took the logic of your own statements and applied them to the situation at hand, a rather Sokratic method I think, and I am left with no other choices than that I am not qualified to judge these persons' actions.
You may indeed have a point that the primary responsibility lies with the bishop in whose jurisdiction the action takes place. Possession is, as they say, nine-tenths of the law. But against such a coldly legalistic approach, perhaps we might rather say that while the bishop of course has primary responsibility for his own diocese, that the community of bishops as a whole has a duty to encourage eachother to fidelity to both the letter and spirit of the law. This should apply especially to that primus inter pares, the pope. Besides, Benedict's express policy is to bring the Church into closer alignment with Canon Law and has issued directives to effect such a policy beyond his legal jurisdiction. Therefore, why should it be beyond his power to enforce this at a Mass which he celebrates, even if it is technically outside of his jurisdiction?
Commenting by HaloScan
