Wow, has anyone seen this? What are your thoughts?

ARLINGTON, VA, October 10, 2002 (LSN.ca) - Honorable Richard Black, member of the Virginia House of Delegates and a heroic defender of life and family in the state legislature, was refused Holy Communion at Arlington's St. Thomas More Cathedral. On September 22, the Cathedral Rector, Fr. Dominic Irace refused to give Communion to Delegate Black since Black was kneeling to receive.

Read the entire Article here: OR http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2002/oct/02101001.html

-- Choas (Choas@ivillage.com), October 11, 2002

Answers

And Arlington is one of the better dioceses in this country? This is disgusting! And yet all kinds of publically known pro-aborts are given Communion.

-- Christina (introibo2000@yahoo.com), October 11, 2002.

Actually, the priest was acting correctly. I don't know all the circumstances in this situation, but the US Bishops recently agreed upon the policy of "no kneeling" when receiving communion. Like it or not, I'm a loyal Catholic even when I don't agree.

God bless!

-- Hollis (catholic@martinsen.com), October 11, 2002.

It's a shame that our Roman Catholic Church is going through great confusion. But let's ask yourselves a good question; "When one is ready to receive the Holy Eucarist, is there anything wrong with kneeling with the outmost respect and veneration knowing that our Lord Jesus Christ is PRESENT in the Holy Eucarist? If we don't kneel to our FATHER ALMIGHTY, to whom will be giving our highest respect? I ask everyone to pray, for these are the days on which our confused world needs it the most for the conversion of sinners and peace in the world.

-- Adriana (Skycruisr182@aol.com), October 11, 2002.

To me, the article sounds like politics in action, not Church activity. As a young boy(1970s) through adolescence I received communion kneeling down. In my 20s (1980s) it became more commonplace to receive the Eucharist standing up. Then I went to my bench and knelt down to pray. What is the proper way to receive the eucharist? When Jesus passed the bread, his disciples were reclining! (John 13:21-27...one of his disciples-the one whom Jesus loved - was reclining next to him...). In early christianity before the Church was known as 'Catholic' but known as the 'Way' (Acts 19:9,24:22), churches were smaller because they were home churches. Nowadays, churches are special meeting places that accomodate thousands. So having people kneeling or reclining takes a lot of time. Standing up is better because is faster. I f I had been that priest I would have given him the eucharist. I have lived through so many changes in the Roman catholic Church that I no longer know what is right anymore in some beliefs. By the way, I worked in the Church, participated in church activities, and was president of my church group.

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonzalez@srla.org), October 11, 2002.

I'm in favor of kneeling to receive communion. But I'm not in charge of the church. The man in charge is the pastor, and his assistant pastors. No one has the right to impose his own preferences on the priest. It's regrettable when this results in a mini-confrontation about something so sacred.

No matter how important the politician may be, he is just another communicant at the foot of the altar. If he wishes to receive, he may receive; just walk up and receive like anybody else. I wonder who is the goody-two-shoes who reported this? He ought to start his own Catholic parish. (Just joshing.)

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), October 11, 2002.

I agree Adriana. The part about calling the man a "conservative idiot", if it really happened just like that article states, leads me to wonder how deep goes the priest's notion of a 'conservative idiot'; does it stop at just the manner of receiving Communion, or does it indicate something deeper about the man's views on other matters, such as abortion since the man seems noted for his stance? We can't tell from this article. Makes you wonder.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), October 11, 2002.

Like it or not, I'm a loyal Catholic even when I don't agree.

This sounds to me like you would do whatever you are told without regard for right or wrong. That is blind obedience.

The only correct stance in the presence of Our Lord is on bended knee. If we cannot prostrate ourselves before Him, then there is no reason left to ever kneel whatsoever.

You should approach your Lord on bended knee. Out of adoration, humility, and submission. To take away that simple act, just for the sake of moving things along quicker, will eventually 'imply' the absence of the True Presence.

Isabel

-- Isabel (isabel1492@yahoo.com), October 11, 2002.

Dear Isabel:
You are entitled to your own opinion. But you apparently don't read other people's opinions. You were just told clearly-- the recipeents of the first Eucharist ever -- were reclining!

In the early days of the Church, many masses were celebrated in which communicants received the Sacrament on their feet, and in the hands. Your ideal is very refined, I'm sure. But the Church has the final say, not you or me. It is not disrespectful, much less sacrilegious to receive holy communion standing. Your personal humility is supoosed to be interior. Between yourself and Jesus Christ. Making a big fuss in public is not respectful. It is defiant in the face of the priest celebrant, who has a God-given right to our deference in all these matters. You owe him the same humility you would show Jesus.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), October 11, 2002.

You owe him the same humility you would show Jesus

you are right. but then the priest should also show the same humility that Christ showed by relenting their will when someone is trying to give the utmost respect to Our Lord.

I do not deny the manner the apostles received the very first Eucharist, but the Church made that policy stricter for the proper adoration of Our Lord. To give Him what is His due. versus when certain heirarchy loosen it just for the sake of getting through the Communion line quicker. is that not what lay eucharist ministers are for, anyway? seems to me they can't get through the line quick enough. first lay people handing out communion, it still takes too long, so what the hell, don't let 'em kneel anymore. what's the big deal? it's only God. (sarcasm, of course.)

-- Isabel (isabel1492@yahoo.com), October 11, 2002.

This document of the bishops is proposed only, not the rule. And it is not Canon Law. Rome has stated that if we wish to kneel, we can kneel. With all the problems in the Church, this country in particular, is all the bishops have to do? What are they thinking of? And they wonder why people leave and join the congregations of the Society of St. Pius X!

-- Christina (introibo2000@yahoo.com), October 11, 2002.

Isabel,

You give me a chance to address the issue of "blind obedience".

On matters of faith and morals, I honestly believe the Church is the mouthpiece of God. The only way I would disagree with what was presented as official Church teaching would be on the grounds of one of the following questions being negative:

- Is what is being presented as Church teaching being articulated properly? - Is this truly official Church teaching? - Is this truly a matter of faith and morals, or rather a matter of discipline?

But if it is truly official Church teaching (won't get in to what technically defines official Church teaching in this discussion), I believe it. This is NOT blind faith. My faith in the Church as being the authentic vessel founded by Christ and guided/protected by the Holy Spirit to continue His Revelation and Grace (via Sacraments) throughout the ages until He comes again is VERY well founded. I'd be an idiot not to believe this after all I've learned and experienced first hand on this matter.

What really needs to be avoided is the "cafeteria Catholic" mentality so prevalent in our day. Go back and read Genesis 3 to see the first version of this. The costumes and props have changed over the centuries, but the plot is the same. We fall to the temptation to place ourselves (with limited capacity of intellect and very feeble wills) and our "opinions" over the clear voice of God. To be a loyal Catholic is not blind faith, it is faith solidly based in reason, but also based in the fact that I'm neither the center of the universe, author of Truth, nor infallible.

But the matter at hand in this discussion is NOT a teaching on faith and morals, but of discipline. So can I disagree? Yes - and I do as stated earlier. But the teachings of the US bishops are NOT violating any Church teaching with this discipline. So I can state that I disagree, why I disagree, send a letter to bishops to ask them to reconsider, form a group to start a grass root movement to demonstrate the "sensus fidelium" in action to the Bishops, but until they change it, I'm going to loyally follow it and agree with every priest that enforces what they are told to do by their bishop.

I strongly disagree with the blatant disobedience amongst priest and the "faithful" (kind of an oxymoron in this case) to try to get a disciple changed (good examples are Communion in the hand, altar girls, etc.). I realize that Satan has as his goal to get me to fall - whether it's to the "left" or "right", he really doesn't care. And the best defence is loyalty - even to disciplines I disagree with.

Blind faith? I don't think so.

God bless!

-- Hollis (catholic@martinsen.com), October 11, 2002.

Christina,

I somewhat agree with your conclusion, but not the premises.

Where in Canon law does it state we have a right to kneel when receiving Communion?

The bishops of a regional conference have the right to set forth certain aspects of how the liturgy is to be conducted. My last reading of the post-conciliar documents on this very matter stated that some form of reverence was to be given to the Eucharist before reception, but in a manner not to disrupt. I think it explicitly states it was left for the regional conferences to determine what is appropriate for that region.

They have stated the proper show of reverence is a bow. They recently came out and stated that kneeling is not allowed.

This clearly falls under the jurisdiction of the US Bishops Conference.

God bless!

-- Hollis (catholic@martinsen.com), October 11, 2002.

More.

-- jake (jake__@msn.com), October 11, 2002.

Jake,

If this is true, the priest was obviously not simply trying to be obedient to the bishops' request, but had an agenda - an very anti- Catholic agenda at that. What a shame. Let's pray (hard!) for him and give him the benefit of the doubt (as much as possible).

God bless!

-- Hollis (catholic@martinsen.com), October 11, 2002.

I read the letter by Joseph Stada, and just on the lighter side, I busted up laughing when I saw the request to have the priest enrolled in 'anger management".

Whenever I hear 'anger management' I bust up. How does one manage anger? You know, make it work somehow for your benefit and that of the whole society. It's like 'forest management'. We are so intelligent that we need to 'manage' the forest, you know, make sure it grows right and doesn't burn down, as if God didn't know what He was doing and we have to 'manage' it.

Sorry, I digress. 'Anger management'. lol! "Hey, let's all make anger work for us instead of against us!"

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), October 12, 2002.

eugene,

"the recipeents of the first Eucharist ever -- were reclining!"

I know you didn't mean it in this way, but you've given me an opportunity to rant about something. I hate it when people reduce the first Eucharist to the Last Supper, most especially when they do it to justify a liturgical abuse. The Last Supper alone was not the first Eucharist. The **entire Passion** was the first Eucharist. And it wouldn't surprise me in the least to learn that our crucified Lord brought people to their knees.

That said, I actually agree that it cannot be said that the priest "refused" Richard Black Communion. He told Black to receive it in different legitimate position than the one Black was using. In my opinion, Black was being imprudent together with Fr. Irace--both were responsible for creating unecessary scandal.

Remember, Honorable Black: Never refuse anything that is asked of you. You were not being asked to sin.

-- Skoobouy (skoobouy@hotmail.com), October 12, 2002.

Skoobuoy:
How many of the people at the foot of the cross received Jesus Body and Blood to eat and drink?

The first Eucharistic celebration was on that Holy Thursday; and the Passion and death of Our Lord as such is our Passover feast.

No doubt all this is food for contemplation, anyway the Blessed Sacrament can't be reduced to these abstracts. We know He lives; and we know what communion is.

Standing in line to receive His Body and Blood strikes some as irreverent. But it is HOLY communion nonetheless. God judges what's in our heart.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), October 12, 2002.

After Mass, and in the presence of Black's wife and daughter as well as other faithful, Fr. Irace shouted insults to Delegate Black as he exited the Cathedral. When Delegate Black tried to avoid Fr. Irace, pointing out that he had refused him Holy Communion, Fr. Irace shouted "you liar!" several times. As Delegate Black left the Cathedral, Fr. Irace loudly called him a "conservative idiot."

This is the part that is so confusing & hurtful. Why would any man, let alone a priest, stoop so low immediately following mass. This is just totally uncalled for. This first thing that comes to mind is this priest has lost his mind or something.

Peace

-- Choas (Choas@ivillage.com), October 14, 2002.

In my parish we don't have to worry about kneeling or not. We now have a Drive through window and it makes things move along quite quickly. The mass is piped through the parking lot and then we line-up for communion at the window just before the exit. Usually the parking lot is full, best church in town!

-- DickM (dickm@aol.com), October 14, 2002.

This is from the new GIRM. I added the capitalization:

"The norm for reception of Holy Communion in the dioceses of the United States is standing. COMMUNICANTS SHOULD NOT BE DENIED HOLY COMMUNION BECAUSE THEY KNEEL. Rather, such instances should be addressed pastorally, by providing the faithful with proper catechesis on the reasons for this norm."

This is not an offical english translation. So far, there is no official english translation. But it is an unofficial translation of the new GIRM, as amended for U.S. dioceses.

The old GIRM does not mandate one posture or another.

So, regardless of whether Mr. Black and Fr. Irace bound by the old rules or by the new rules, the priest DOES NOT have the right to deny communion to those who kneel.

BTW, the reasons for the new norm seem to be that conformity is a good thing, standing (for some reason) has in recent years become the usual posture, and some liturgists think that it was the usual posture in the primitive Church. Compelling reasons? No, I don't think so, either.

Steve P.

-- Steve Polson (steve@sdpolson.net), October 14, 2002.

I think the bottom line here is that the priest may very well have been correct -- but he was not charitable. :-)

-- Christine L. (christinelehman@hotmail.com), October 14, 2002.

Oh, now, Jake, don't be tooooo hard on the fella.... perhaps he suffers from "Borderline Personality Disorder" LOL!! The latest contribution of our esteemed Psychiatric Association.

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), October 14, 2002.

Here's a question. Anyone ever have this happen?

I recently attended a Catholic mass and before it ended and people were dismissed, the priest asked if anyone was celebrating any birthdays. People actually stood up and said "I'm so and so and I just celebrated my 45th b-day Tuesday, and so we went around the room." Then after the final person said they were celebrating a wedding anniversary, everyone started signing "Happy Birthday, Jesus loves you..." to these people. Then after that they finally had the last song and the priest walked down the isle and we could all leave.

I thought this was a joke at first and almost started laughing out loud. This obviously is not a church I frequent often, it was just convenient that Sunday. It was a bit of a shocker though, I mean Mass hadn't officially ended and here we were singing "Happy Birthday" to people.

Appreciate any and all comments:)

Peace

-- Choas (Choas@ivillage.com), October 14, 2002.

Anyone ever have this happen?

Thanks be to God, no.

-- jake (jake1@pngusa.net), October 14, 2002.

Delegate Black should have been given communion. Jesus certainly would not turn anyone away because the person was kneeling in His presence.

The priest should have given Black the communion and then talk to him on the side later about what the 'rules' are.

Jesus told Martha, "Martha, you worry about so many things, but Mary knows what is important. Kneeling or standing is not important, what is important is receiving Jesus - not whether a person was standing or kneeling - to have refused to bring Jesus into someone's heart and soul because he was kneeling is disgraceful - absolutely disgraceful.

Amazing how the bishops have so much time to spend making rules and changing rules - but ignore what is important.

MaryLu

-- MaryLu (mlc327@juno.com), October 16, 2002.

Here is part of the comment by Colin B. Donovan over at EWTN's Q&A forums:

"Yes, the camel swallowers are out in force, incensed that people genuflect instead of bow, and using the vilest lack of charity in the process - as in the case of the pastor in Virginia who refused communion to a pro-life legislator and then berated him in the presence of others after Mass. I have not heard that he was reprimanded by his bishop, much less suspended for lack of pastoral charity. These are usually the same ones who defy the authority of the Church in truly serious matters, and whose Masses are full of liturgical abuses. But when they see a little piety there are on it like black death. God will reward them, I am certain, for their diligence."

-- Christine Lehman (christinelehman@hotmail.com), October 16, 2002.

^

-- ^ (^@^.^), October 22, 2002.

The priest in question (Fr. Dominic Irace) is representative of only a small minority of priests in the Arlington (Va.) Diocese. I have seen numerous people kneel in this diocese, without any of them being reprimanded or refused.

In the 1980s, Fr. Irace was the sometimes unreliable head of the diocesan office for liturgy, stationed at the chancery and cathedral. Then he was pastor of a parish or two for about a decade, before (apparently) being made rector of the cathedral. (I am very sad to learn that such a troubled priest has been given such an honor.)

You see, I had a telephonic "run-in" with the Fr. I. in the late 1980s. I phoned, first the cathedral organist and then (at his insistence) the liturgy head (Fr. Irace), to complain about the cathedral's violation of published Vatican norms pertaining to musical concerts given in church. An article about the norms had just been printed in the diocesan newspaper, so I brought to the organist's (and Father's) attention the ways in which the current diocesan concert series was breaking the law (e.g., charging admission, including secular music, etc.). Fr. Irace tried every deceptive word-trick imaginable to get me to agree that I was mistaken -- that our diocese could break the rules. I did not give in, but persistently reasoned with him. Thank God, within a couple of weeks, the concert series had "cleaned up its act." Perhaps the organist or priest feared that I would write to the bishop.

And now I am sad, but not surprised, to read about Father's recent abusive behavior. According to the current (old) G.I.R.M., communicants in the U.S. may stand or kneel, since the bishops failed to specify one posture or the other. The new G.I.R.M. appendix for the U.S. (quoted by Steve P.) is not yet in effect, and Fr. Irace didn't apply it correctly anyway, as some of you have observed.

Let us pray for all priests. They need a lot of help.

-- It's (Not@Really.Important), October 26, 2002.

I'm so disappointed some days about all the unnecessary changes in the catholic church! I was raised to receive the Holy Eucharist kneeling or genuflecting (still do!), wearing a head covering and never departing the church before Mass concluded! Also, we always wore our Brown scapular, recited the Rosary and kept the First 5 Saturdays! What's happened with all these man-made rules?? What would Jesus do? Thanks for listening..

-- Patsy (paonanian@attib.com), January 05, 2003.

The Church's stance in that you STAND in the presence of the Lord, SIT to receive the word of God and KNEEL when in prayer. Using those guidelines you should stand when receiving Communion.

-- Mike (m7k41@yahoo.com), April 15, 2004.

Mike,

-your guidelines are from where? The Church's position is simple -- one should not be refused communion on the basis that they are kneeling...

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), April 15, 2004.

The choir and congregation sang "happy birthday" to one of our priests at our Sunday night teen mass. It was before the last song. I think he was shocked.

-- Mark Advent (adventm5477@earthlink.net), April 15, 2004.