I read an article today where Bishop Mahoney has defied Cardinal Francis George's orders not to give Holy Communion to Sash-wearers (gay activitists).

Bishop Mahoney told them to come to his church in Los Angeles and he would give them Communion.

What is going to happen now when two Cardinals disagree on such a major issue in the church? Mahoney also said he will give communion to pro-choice politician, after all priests were told not to.

What is going on in our church? Here we have two Cardinals in complete opposition. Isn't Cardinal Mahoney supposed to follow the rules? Will Rome step in now? Sound like Cardinal Mahoney may be taking the first steps to start his own church?

-- MaryLu (mlc327@juno.com), May 31, 2004

Answers

Mary Lu,

The deal is that Cardinal George has released a statement that specifically said that Communion should not be give to those who present themselves wearing a rainbow sash, thus identifying themselves as gay activists with the Rainbow Sash Coalition. Cardinal Mahoney otoh, has not made any statement that I'm aware of about this. The reason his name has come up is because the Rainbow Sash group issued their own press release which says that Cardinal Mahoney told them they would be welcome to receive communion in his diocese. So as much as I could believe Cardinal Mahoney saying this, until I hear it from him, I will give him the benefit of the doubt.

I do agree with you in general about Cardinal Mahoney. He follows his own rules. Rome has had plenty of opportunity to step in, take him to the woodshed, or discipline him. But they have declined to do so for whatever reason. It is completely exasperating. St. John Vianney pray for us.

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), May 31, 2004.

The Following Memo was sent to all the Catholic Pastors in the Archdiocese of Chicago To: Priests of the Archdiocese of Chicago. From: Cardinal Francis George Subject: Rainbow Sash Movement 1. The National Policy The Rainbow Sash movement wants its members to be fully accepted in the Church not on the same conditions as any Catholic but precisely as gay. With this comes the requirement that the Church change her moral teaching, which is from the Lord and his apostles, that genital homosexual relations are objectively mortally sinful. Rainbow Sash members give witness to their oppostion to the Church and her teaching as they come to Communion itself. The policy of the U.S. Conference of Bishops is to not give Communion to those wearing the Sash. If they come to Communion like every other member of the Church, without the Sash which is the sign of their opposition to Church Teaching, they may receive. This is also the policy of this Archdiocese. Priests, deacons and other distributors of Holy Communion shold understand and accept this policy. 2. The nature of the Eucharist The first issue here is the nature of the Eucharist, which is the body and blood of Our Lord and a sign of unity in the faith of all those who receive it. We all go to Communion as sinners asking for forgiveness, grateful for this gift and its promise of eternal life. The moment of receiving the Lord in Holy Communion is never a moment for an individual to exploit, turning attention to himself or herself, attempting to force a change in the meaning of the sacrament, transforming its objective sign value into a subjective statement. Such an action is objectively sinful. 3. Freedom of Worship The second issue here is freedom of worship, which is supposed to be constitutionally protected in this society. A commnity of religious believers has a right to worship in peace according to its own faith and practice, without disruption, provided it is not itself disrupting the public peace. Catholics have a right to celebrate the Eucharist as the Church tells us to worship, without fear of being berated or disturbed by people with personal or political agendas. Those who hold the apostolic faith and strive to meet its moral demands should not be forced to change their faith in order to make some group happy. No group has a right to make such a demand, especially not in the context of Eucharistic celebration.

Those who disagree with the Church's teaching, whether on homosexuality or any other subject, should be treated with great respect, listened to, instructed as possible, loved in all cases. But such pastoral conversation and care takes place outside of the celebration of Mass.

"Catholic Gay Activists Denied Communion in Chicago Sun May 30, 2004 06:38 PM ET By Andrew Stern CHICAGO (Reuters) - Priests denied Holy Communion on Sunday to a group of rainbow sash-wearing gay activists who showed up to protest a directive from Chicago's prelate that they violated church teachings by advertising their homosexuality. The volatile issue of denying Communion to Catholics who disagree with church teachings, a controversy that has recently entangled U.S. politicians, was fueled in Chicago after Cardinal Francis George sent a memo to priests in the second-largest U.S. archdiocese, ordering them not to offer Communion to sash-wearers. More than a dozen men and women activists sang and prayed with other parishioners filling the pews at Holy Name Cathedral but were offered only blessings when they sought to receive Communion with the others. "The bishop just said 'God Bless,"' Joe Murray, a spokesman for the American Sash Movement, said afterward outside on the cathedral steps. "We're good enough to be blessed, but we're not good enough to receive the Holy Eucharist." The demonstrators then stood for the remaining few minutes of the two-hour mass. "It's sheer hubris," said Lonnie Chafin, who -- like more than a dozen other gay Catholics -- came to the most visible church in the diocese to display his displeasure. He wore a rainbow ribbon, a gay symbol, and was given Communion after some hesitancy by the priest.

"Who is the church to say who can and cannot get communion?" said Greg Van Hyfte, 27, carrying a rainbow-hued umbrella prior to the services to fend off a driving rain. Murray said he had received scores of messages from around the country in response to Cardinal George's memo, and that he was disappointed that the prelate had not kept his promise to continue a dialogue on the subject.

In his message to priests, George said the church's moral teaching is that "genital homosexual relations are objectively morally sinful" and that Rainbow Sash members "give witness to their opposition to the Church and her teaching as they come to Communion."

Rainbow Sash members have been quietly protesting on Pentecost Sunday -- which celebrates the Holy Spirit's appearance promised to Christ's Apostles and often thought of as the anniversary of the Church's birth -- for several years. However, recent events swelled attendance and heightened the drama.

Some bishops have threatened to deny the sacrament to John Kerry, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, because of his stand on abortion rights.

A recent letter, signed by 48 congressmen and sent to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, objected to threats voiced by a few U.S. church leaders to withhold Communion from politicians who support abortion rights or stem cell research.

In contrast to Cardinal George, who was returning from Rome and was not at the church on Sunday, Murray said Los Angeles' Cardinal Roger Mahony had met with sash members and pledged to offer them Communion. Other protests were taking place in New Orleans; Minneapolis; Albuquerque, New Mexico; and Rochester, New York."

-- Anna (Flower@youknow.com), May 31, 2004.

Anna,

Thank you for the clarity. I was 'rushing' this morning (while the hubby was waiting for me) to get my post in...

MaryLu

-- MaryLu (mlc327@juno.com), May 31, 2004.

What happens now? When Cardinals are not in unity - one Cardinal says no and another Cardinal says yes...

-- MaryLu (mlc327@juno.com), May 31, 2004.

<--- The Trucker Hats have arrived. Available in BLACK or RED New Sizes! The Catholic Chopper Tees Now Available in Youth! --->

Cardinal George Rebukes Gay Activists

Cardinal Francis George, Archbishop of Chicago, has notified all his pastors not to give Communion on Sunday to gay members of the Rainbow Sash Movement. Members of the group, who publicly reject the teachings of the Catholic Church on homosexuality and same-sex marriage, are planning to wear rainbow sashes on Pentecost Sunday at many churches in Chicago, as well as in other parts of the country.

Catholic League president William Donohue remarked as follows:

“Anyone who politicizes the Mass, for whatever cause, has placed himself outside the community of faith. In doing so, such persons show nothing but contempt for the Church’s greatest prayer—the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Thus do they leave bishops and priests with little choice but to ostracize them from fully participating in the Mass.

“This is not the first time this band of homosexual extremists has sought to upend the Mass. For example, they’ve been known to stage protests at the Mass attended by U.S. bishops at their annual meeting in Washington; for this they have been turned away at Communion. Now they’re back, ready to disrupt the Mass again. Their preferred tactic upon being denied the Eucharist is to return to their pew and remain standing.

“Cardinal George is not politicizing the Mass—the Rainbow Sash fanatics are. Their goal is to exploit the Mass by turning it into a forum of dissent. That is why they have left Cardinal George with no alternative, and they know it.

“Some pundits will inevitably compare this to the decision of some bishops to deny Communion to pro- abortion politicians. But this is all the more egregious because it constitutes nothing less than a shakedown of the Catholic Church. Nothing can justify a sacrilegious mutiny, and that is exactly what this demonstration is all about.”

Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights www.catholicleague.org

-- MaryLu (mlc327@juno.com), May 31, 2004.

Personally, I disagree with the Roman Church's discipline on married priests. This is a disgreement about a discipline. It is not a disagreement about a moral teaching.

Moral teaching is a different category entirely.

What I hate is that this situation will detract from the abortion/politician issue.

God bless

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), May 31, 2004.

A group called Ushers for the Eucharist took it upon themselves to block the Rainbow Sashers from receiving communion because their Archbishop, Harry Flynn, said he would not deny them communion. Read the whole story here

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), May 31, 2004.

Does the current climate of 'division' within our church scare anyone else or is it just me?

It appears that our Cardinals are not in unity - shouldn't there be one ruling and all of the hierachy agree upon it?

-- MaryLu (mlc327@juno.com), June 01, 2004.

Mary Lu, we have to be careful not to confuse personal opinion with official teaching of the Ordinary Magisterium. While one Cardinal roots for the Mets, you may find another who roots for the Yankees. It doesn't mean they are not in sync when it comes to official teaching of faith and morals. When all Bishops (Cardinals included) are "in communion" with each other and the Pope, then you can take what they say to the bank. If they differ on a specific teaching, then you can bet they are espousing personal opinion and not "official" Catholic teaching.

-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), June 01, 2004.

Fear not.

Even the gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church....but, maybe some dioceses....!

-- Anna (flower@youknow.com), June 01, 2004.

Not to mention you can have an individual Bishop who is an heretic or even an atheist. This too shall pass. Hey, look at the bright side, if things get bad enough, we're that much closer to meeting our Savior!

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), June 01, 2004.

I concur with you Mary Lu. It would be wise if our Bishops could come to binding conclusions on the divisive social issues of our day. The United States is becoming the "Dis-United States" on many many levels, and I'm afraid the Church is reflecting the split mindset of our culture. That must change. How are we to affect change in our culture if we LOOK JUST LIKE OUR CULTURE?

Lord save us,

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), June 01, 2004.

Brian, I oppose what the Rainbow Sash people do but what the "Ushers for the Eucharist" did was even worse. Denying the Eucharist to a Catholic who asks for it is a very serious decision indeed. It is not surprising that two cardinals disagree about this action, especially where it involves a whole rather amorphous group of people. Perhaps Cardinal Mahoney is not sufficiently satisfied that ALL people who wear this sash in his diocese are in a state of mortal sin or are even necessarily opposed to the Church's teaching on homosexuality.

In any case, lay people should not under any circumstances take it upon themselves to physically prevent others receiving communion when the bishop and the presiding priest are willing to give it.

And is there any reason why Cardinal Mahoney is denied his proper title in the heading of this thread?

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), June 01, 2004.

Yay!!! For Cardinal George!! I'm rooting for his team.

-- Pat Delaney (pat@patdelaney.net), June 02, 2004.

Excuse me, Cardinal Mahoney....

-- MaryLu (mlc327@juno.com), June 02, 2004.

Once again, I'll bring up that old issue of divorced and re-married Catholics. What would everyone say if all across the country in a bunch of huge churches, groups of folks got together who were divorced and re-married Catholics and presented themselves for Communion? I just cannot see the local priests, nor any of the bishops or cardinals having a problem saying collectively, "WHOA now. I'm terribly sorry, but all of you folks know better than to do that, and we'll give you all a blessing, but you will NOT be permitted to receive the Eucharist." Yet, although the Church ALSO teaches emphatically that living an ACTIVE homosexual lifestyle is every bit as much a state of mortal sin as that of adultery, there appears to be some sort of confusion among not only the clergy, but the laity as well as far as what is acceptable. Does this make any sense? Sin is sin is sin is sin. It's all so clear and simple really.

-- lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), June 02, 2004.

Steve, I agree with you that the ushers' actions were wrong. I don't think they were more wrong than the activists, but wrong nonetheless. But if Archbishop Flynn had acted properly, as did Cardinal George, there would be no "Ushers for the Eucharist."

What if instead of Rainbow Sashes, we had a group wearing swastikas or white hoods coming up to receive communion. How would Cardinal Mahoney react? Would our bishops be unified in denying them the Eucharist?

Unfortunately, I think Cardinal Mahoney may be more in step with the Vatican on the communion issue than Cardinal George. Pope John Paul II has personally given communion to the mayor of Rome who is Pro- Choice.

From John Allen, a Vatican reporter for the National Catholic Register: "In January 2001, Rome's outgoing mayor, Francesco Rutelli, was the candidate of Italy's center-left "Olive Tree" coalition to be the country's next Prime Minister. (Rutelli went on to lose to Silvio Berlusconi). Rutelli's political background was in the Radical Party, which had led the battle for legalized abortion in Italy. As he moved into the mainstream, Rutelli took the classic position of left-leaning Catholics in public life: personally opposed to abortion, but not willing to impose his stance through law.

On Jan. 6, Rutelli and his wife Barbara, who are regular Mass-goers, attended the final act of the Catholic Church's Jubilee Year: the closing of the Holy Door at St. Peter's Basilica. Despite what in the United States would be termed his "pro-choice" stance, Rutelli came forward for Communion and received it from Pope John Paul II himself.

By itself, the episode does little to indicate the right answer to the communion controversy currently raging in the United States. But it does reflect a striking aspect of the debate, which is that so far it is an exclusively American phenomenon.

Across Europe, there are many Catholic politicians who differ from church teaching on issues such as abortion, gay rights, euthanasia, and stem cell research. One clear example comes in Germany, where Christa Nickels is a deputy in the Bundestäg with the leftist Green Party, which favors marriage rights for homosexuals. Yet Nickels is also a practicing Catholic and the spokesperson for environmental and bio-ethical questions for the Central Committee of German Catholics, a state-sponsored body. To date, no German bishop has suggested denying her communion.

Similar examples can be found in every European parliament. In Austria, the Social Democratic Party supports abortion rights, and features a number of practicing Catholics. In Belgium, the Christian Democratic Party includes Catholics who clash with the church on homosexual marriage and euthanasia."

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), June 02, 2004.

Lesley,

I think if they were wearing "divorced, remarried civilly and we have the RIGHT to communion" sashes, they should be denied. This is making a political statement and not being reverent. If they are just showing up as parishoners, MAYBE they still shouldn't receive communion, but I don't know if a communion line is the time to take up when their last confession was. Not that it's my decision, but I'd vote to give it to them, and let any error be on their souls.

Brian,

Same thing with the mayor, if he's just receiving communion, let him. If he shows up saying "I'm pro-abortion and have the RIGHT to continue to take communion AND encourage women to have abortions right and left, and I'm going to use this as a forum to prove it", he should be denied.

I'd see it as whether they are attempting to be one with the church and Christ, or attempting to influence the church to their way of thinking as to whether or not they should be denied. Who knows really when a person has a change in belief? Just because someone acted one way a week ago, that doesn't mean they didn't have a revelation and a reformation of their behavior this week.

The Ushers for the Eucharist are just wrong. It's not their call to make.

When my son had made his first communion the priest asked at mass next week asked me if he had made his first communion before giving him the host. He remembered giving him blessings each week, but didn't know that he had completed the Sacrament. Some priests do care about such things. He also told my son "congratulations".

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), June 02, 2004.

Well, let's look at a Biblical perspective on this.

John 13 (NAB)

2 The devil had already induced Judas, son of Simon the Iscariot, to hand him over.

Here is sounds like Judas is in a state of mortal sin.

18 But so that the scripture might be fulfilled, 'The one who ate my food has raised his heel against me.'

26 Jesus answered, "It is the one to whom I hand the morsel after I have dipped it." So he dipped the morsel and (took it and) handed it to Judas, son of Simon the Iscariot. 27 After he took the morsel, Satan entered him. So Jesus said to him, "What you are going to do, do quickly."

I wonder about this part that I bolded. Satan entered Judas -- was that because he received the Body and Blood of the Lord in an unworthy manner (ie. in a state of mortal sin)? One must wonder the repercussions for us now, if we receive unworthily!

So it appears from this passage that we should (as Saint Paul did) warn against receiving it unworthily. But if we follow the example of Jesus, the Eucharist should still be offered. Now, this could be an exceptional case due to the fact that the Scripture had to be fulfilled about Judas, as I showed above. Either way, I would say that the activists should be less concerned about their "right to receive" and more concerned about the state of their souls when they potentially open themselves up to Satan, as Judas did. Receiving the Body and Blood of Christ unworthily is a very serious sin indeed! If they realized this, I doubt they would be lobbying for such "rights."

Go read the story for yourself! Jesus (who knows our sinful hearts much better than any Eucharistic minister could) gave His own Body and Blood at the Last Supper to Judas (who, if sins were ranked, could be said to have committed the worst of all time -- that is, betrayal of our Lord).

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), June 02, 2004.

Receiving the Body and Blood of Christ unworthily is a very serious sin indeed! If they realized this, I doubt they would be lobbying for such "rights."

Right Emily. But why do they not realize this? Wouldn't denying them communion, as Canon Law 915 appears to require, make them think about or hopefully realize what a serious state of sin they are in. Wouldn't this act of denial make others realize what a state of sin they are in, so that they themselves may avoid serious sin, or at least avoid receiving communion in a state of mortal sin?

Pat,

Your sarcasm is duly noted. :-)

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), June 02, 2004.

Brian cited Canon 915, which states: Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.

So perhaps we could say that Judas' grave sin was not "obstinately persistent"? The other option, as I mentioned before, would be that Judas had to fulfill the Scriptural prophecy and that was a unique case.

Brian said: Wouldn't denying them communion, as Canon Law 915 appears to require, make them think about or hopefully realize what a serious state of sin they are in. Wouldn't this act of denial make others realize what a state of sin they are in, so that they themselves may avoid serious sin, or at least avoid receiving communion in a state of mortal sin?

Well Brian, I previously held this view until I realized what the passage about Judas said. Maybe you're right and I was misinterpreting the passage. I would tend to agree with you, actually, in my own opinion, but it's just that Scripture seemed to indicate otherwise.

I think the problem lies in determining whether people are "persevering in manifest grave sin." What struck me about that passage was that Jesus is the only one who can really fully know whether someone is doing this (eg. what if s/he went to confession or had perfect contrition right before the mass?), and yet Jesus gave it to Judas anyway!

Also, what exactly does "not to be admitted to holy communion" really mean?

God bless,

-- Emily ("jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), June 02, 2004.

There are some people who can't be stopped anyway. Look at excommunicated clergy, such as in the SSPX. They aren't supposed to be saying mass at all, and those excommunicated by name continued to partake of the Host themselves during every mass they said. It's a tough situation all right.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), June 02, 2004.

Frank, my point was that if indeed the folks were presenting themselves as a group in order to make a "statement" against Church teaching IMHO, the majority of Catholic clergy would have no problem denying the divorced and remarried crowd.

-- lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), June 02, 2004.

Lesley,

Sorry, I misread your post. I thought you meant that even if they showed up as a placarded group the clergy would look the other way. Oh well, my bad.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), June 02, 2004.

Emily,

You make a good point about Jesus and Judas. But if scripture indicates that communion should be given to anyone who wishes to receive it then there is no need for Canon Law 915. It should be abrogated.

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), June 02, 2004.

Of course people shouldn't use the Mass as a platform to "make a statement", especially not to try to pressure the Church into changing its teachings. But I think we have to be very, very careful about denying communion to a Catholic for any other reason than the certain knowledge that that individual is in a state of mortal sin.

I have seen people receive communion who were wearing highly contentious political messages, or even words bordering on obscenity, on their clothing. On the Sunday before an election, our local politician, whom we had never seen at our church before, came in just before Mass began and ostentatiously walked right down to the front pew, genuflected with exaggerated piety, and then presented himself for communion. In each of these cases, I felt like saying to the priest, "why are you giving them communion?", but it is not my place to judge the state of their souls.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), June 02, 2004.

Steve..I couldn't agree more as far as your example, because it's none of OUR business as folks sitting there in the pews who think we know about one individual. For all "we" know, your local man saw your local priest before mass, had his confession heard, and rightfully and joyfully received the Eucharist. Yet, since your priest doesn't live in a vacuum, and it IS his responsibility, it is up to him to take the 3 seconds needed to whisper to this man, (have you been to confession?) and if the answer is "no", then just as quietly whisper, "see me right after mass" and pass by him. The same thing if a homosexual couple holding hands and wearing a sash presents for communion, or a person known to the priest as divorced and re-married. When my Mother was visitng here briefly and went up to receive, our priest had never laid eyes on her. This KIND, holy man stopped, and smiled at her and said "Are you Catholic? Are you free from mortal sin my dear?" He whispered this quickly and quietly and THEN gave her communion. He was as concerned about her soul as he was about the sanctity of the sacrament.

-- lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), June 03, 2004.

Well that's great in theory Lesley, but what if the answer to these questions is not a simple yes or no? I can see how it could easily lead to a totally inappropriate long discussion / argument /confrontation because people don't understand. See today's report:

"Cardinal Theodore McCarrick of Washington has told journalists that denying Communion to politicians is a "slippery slope".

He said that denying the Eucharist to politicians who take positions opposed to church teaching is inevitably followed by denying the Eucharist to Catholics who vote for those politicians.

On the denial of Communion, he said, "I'm not going to do it. I'm not going to ask my priests to do it."

He reiterated a point he made in his May 13 column in the Catholic Standard, Washington's archdiocesan newspaper, when he told the group, "We should have no confrontation at the altar" when it comes to the withholding of Communion from politicians who support legal abortion.

"I'm not going to have a fight with someone holding the sacred body and blood (of Christ) in my hand," Cardinal McCarrick said."

I'm a communion minister and when I'm distributing the Precious Blood, even when I whisper to people who want to "dip" their host in the chalice, "please eat the Host first", sometimes I get several lines of back-and forth argument before they comply. It makes us both so uneasy I wonder if it would be better not to bother trying to stop them.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), June 03, 2004.

MaryLu, Ed tells me he's not going to change the title of this thread because he believes you meant no disrespect to Cardinal Mahoney. However I must correct you regarding "Bishop Mahoney has defied Cardinal Francis George's orders"

Apart from the Pope himself, no bishop, not even the highest ranking Cardinal, has the right to give "orders" to any other bishop. The Church strongly encourages bishops to act collectively through national and supra-national Bishops' Conferences, but each individual bishop is free to act on his own. In any case I don't believe the US Bishops' Conference has taken a position on this matter.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), June 03, 2004.

Steve,

I don't think you can group a pro-abort, pro-homosexual politician with their supporters on the communion issue. Take John Kerry for example. When he walks up to receive communion, EVERYONE knows who he is and that he is pro-abortion. When a Kerry supporter/voter walks up to receive communion, not everyone will know who he/she is, nor who he/she supports or votes for. Also, as much as I loathe Kerry, there are pro-lifers who support him for his other views. Unless the Kerry supporter is overtly and publicly pro-abortion, pro- homosexual whatever, or unless the priest knows the supporter votes for Kerry specifically because of his pro-abort stance and nothing else, I can't see them being denied communion. That is where it is more of a private matter between priest and parishioner, It seems to me Cardinal McCarrick is just trying to avoid confrontation or trying to appease certain politicians.

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), June 03, 2004.

Well you and I agree on that Brian but I think Cardinal McCarrick has a point about the "slippery slope". I understand some bishops and priests in the USA are ALREADY denying communion to people who merely VOTED FOR a politician who is pro-abortion.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), June 03, 2004.

Steve,

I messed up my post badly because I was rushing through it...when I realized that, I copied and pasted the 'article' containing all of the right information.

Thank you for bringing it to my attention, though. I certainly was not being disrespectful - a lesson learned here - no rushing posts and I will certainly check out my facts before posting.

-- MaryLu (mlc327@juno.com), June 03, 2004.

That’s OK MaryLu.

Lesley, the situation you describe might work in a quiet rural parish which has had the one same priest and the same two or three hundred massgoers for several years. In a city parish, even the most pastorally dedicated priest cannot possibly know by heart the status of the souls of all his parishioners, not to mention the many visitors.

Frank, I think you need to be much more hesitant talking about “an individual Bishop who is an heretic or even an atheist”. Not every situation is totally black and white. I understand some bishops who have permitted Rainbow Sash people to receive communion have done so because these people have given the bishop their written assurance that they intend no disrespect to the Mass and that they accept the church’s teachings on homosexuality.

The church tells us that if we take Communion with mortal sin on our souls, we commit further grievous sin. In the vast majority of cases, it must depend on our own conscience to tell us whether to take communion. Outside of the USA, I understand that even though bishops are generally much more "conservative" than the average US bishop, they deny a politician communion only if the politician himself creates a notorious scandal by publicly attacking and opposing the church over vital issues like abortion.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), June 04, 2004.

Steve,

I wasn't trying to imply that Cardinal Mahoney was a heretic or an athiest, but that there most likely *have been* bishops in the church who have been just that. The church continues onwards.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), June 04, 2004.

Vatican: Be Careful on Denying Communion

Friday June 4, 2004 6:31 PM

NEW YORK (AP) - A top Vatican cardinal told visiting U.S. bishops they should be cautious about denying Communion to Roman Catholic politicians who support policies at odds with church teaching, according to a news report.

Bishop Donald Pelotte of Gallup, N.M., said Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger spoke of proceeding cautiously on the issue, Catholic News Service reported. Ratzinger said he would like Vatican officials to meet soon with a U.S. bishops' panel reviewing how church leaders should interact with Catholics in public life.

Ratzinger, head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Vatican's orthodoxy watchdog, did not say whether the sacrament should be used as a sanction, said Pelotte, who was among a group of bishops participating in the meeting this week in Rome.

Pelotte was traveling and could not be reached for comment Friday, his spokesman told The Associated Press. American bishops have been at the Vatican for ``ad limina'' visits, which prelates must make every five years.

Several bishops have sparked a national debate on religion and politics with their varied positions on whether Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, who is Catholic and supports abortion rights, should receive Communion.

Archbishop Raymond Burke of St. Louis has said he would not give the sacrament to the candidate.

Other bishops have said Kerry should not attempt to take Communion, but would not be denied the sacrament if he did. Bishop Michael Sheridan of Colorado Springs, Colo., extended a similar warning to those who vote for Catholic politicians who make policy contrary to church teaching.

However, several prelates have said Communion should not be used as a public punishment.

Washington Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, leader of the bishops' task force on the issue, has not spoken with Ratzinger about a meeting, his spokeswoman told The AP. But the cardinal said in a statement, ``I am happy to meet with him on anything.''

What Ratzinger ``was suggesting was a meeting as soon as possible between the (bishops') task force and people at the doctrinal congregation, to work out some kind of understanding,'' Pelotte told CNS, an independently operating news agency that is under the communications arm of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

The task force is expected to give a progress report on its work at the U.S. bishops' closed-door, national retreat in Denver starting June 14, but the committee may not finish its work before the November election.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), June 11, 2004.

I tend to agree with caution in this as well. Also I would advise caution on any AP report trying to interpret Ratzinger's words. I have not found AP reporters very familiar with Catholic theology and tend to misinterpret what the cardinal says more often then not. They also have the bad habit of going to John Allen at the NCR for theological interpretations.

However, I also don't see the bishops nor the Vatican turning the Eucharist into a weapon against weak Catholics. Instead I think the US Bishops will make a wishy- washy statement after their meeting which will allow people to interpret how they should vote any which way they want to. -bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), June 11, 2004.