Bishops Must End Sacrilege of Those in Mortal Sin Receiving Communion
Free eBook:
|
| Free eBook: The Documents of Vatican II |
The ongoing discussion as to whether Communion should be given those who publicly acknowledge and by their actions support the despicable, deadly "right to choose" abortion has so far been woefully inadequate and misleading.
Even bishops are overlooking or blurring the distinction once expressed by terminology "sacraments of the living" and "sacraments of the dead," the former being those to be received only by those in "a state of grace," that is, those conformed to Christ by having His life in their souls.
All the talk about the Eucharist being for sinners, or for all (as if "all" are in the same spiritual state of health), or even for the "wicked" as one bishop is reported to have said, obviously blurs the reality.
That reality retains the substance of the Church's teaching on this matter, even if terminology has changed. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (n. 2042) still teaches the need of Confession as preparation for the Eucharist.
"Sin is before all else an offense against God, a rupture of communion with Him. At the same time it damages communion with the Church. For this reason conversion entails both God's forgiveness and reconciliation with the Church, which are expressed and accomplished liturgically by the Sacrament of Penance and Reconciliation" (n. 1440).
In n. 1457, the Catechism prohibits receiving Communion in a state of mortal sin, until one uses the Sacrament of Penance, except in cases of impossibility of going to Confession, with some grave reason for receiving the Eucharist. (See canon 916, Code of Canon Law. Reasons traditionally given include danger of death, giving of grave scandal. In such cases there must be the intent to go to Confession at first opportunity.)
Now, in the light of such teachings, our bishops surely should ask what has gone wrong that so many Catholics today receive Communion routinely, without ever, it seems, using the Sacrament of Penance. Can it be that 80% or more of us have become saints since Vatican II, after which the confessional boxes began to be emptied? Or can it be that the bishops have been lax in seeing that the true position of the Church about receiving Communion only when being conscious of being in a state of grace is taught and appreciated? It is undeniable that the idea being expressed by some bishops that no one should be denied Communion does reveal an attitude at odds with both traditional and stated duty in this regard.
The American Life League, at the recent meeting in Denver of the nation's bishops, quoted ALL's president, Judie Brown, about the fact that protection of the Body and Blood of Christ should be among the bishops' paramount concerns.
ALL in a full-page ad in USA Today had cited for the bishops canon law 915, which ALL said obligates "America's Catholic bishops, priests, deacons, and eucharistic ministers .. to end this public sacrilege being perpetrated by so-called Catholic pro-abortion public figures against the Body and Blood of Christ."
Canon 915 states: "Those .. who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, are not to be admitted to Holy Communion." Added to that are (either in full or part) these canons:
Canon 375: "By divine institution, bishops are constituted pastors in the Church, to be teachers of doctrine, the priests of sacred worship, and the ministers of governance.
"2) By their episcopal consecration, bishops receive, together with the office of sanctifying, the offices also of teaching, and of ruling, which, however, by their nature, can be exercised only in hierarchical communion with the head of the college and its members."
Since Vatican II calls abortion an "abominable crime," it is difficult to see how any bishop fulfills his "office of sanctifying" (canon 375, sec. 2, above) by arguing for or even allowing public defenders and enablers of a "right" to commit abortion to receive Christ's Body and Blood, with its implications of communion with His Church. How can there be such living membership in that Church?
Further, how are such bishops fulfilling their teaching and ruling office, if they give the impression there can be some sort of exemption or self-absolution for Catholic politicians, such as Sen. John Kerry, allowing them to receive Communion while on record as upholding pro-abortion court decisions?
Are not the bishops in effect succumbing to the claim of separation of the Catholic conscience into the "personal" and the "legal" that allows Sen. Kerry and others to vote in favor of even partial-birth abortion? Are not those bishops thereby teaching error? And that error is that it is all right to believe something is morally wrong, but nevertheless publicly to approve of it, and worse, take political, legislative, judicial action in its behalf.
Here is what The Catechism of the Catholic Church says in that regard, in n. 1868:
"Sin is a personal act. Moreover, we have a responsibility for the sins committed by others when we cooperate in them;
" — by ordering, advising, praising, or approving them;
" — by not disclosing or not hindering them when we have an obligation to do so;
" — by protecting evildoers" (emphasis in original).Kerry's words and actions as a public figure, a lawyer, a legislator put him in the category of "advising, praising, and approving" the millions of acts against innocents that his Church at her highest teaching level calls "abominable." He likewise fails, as a Catholic public official, in the obligation to hinder abortion by his votes, his political influence, his leadership.
For bishops to, in effect, excuse Kerry's grave moral failures in this regard by being indifferent to, or worse, approving of, his receiving Communion is to betray the "saving mission" received by the priesthood from Christ, shown by the sacraments; communication — particularly in the Eucharist — of the mystery of communion with God. (See The Catechism of the Catholic Church, nn. 1118, 1119, 1120, as well 1123, in which these signs of grace are called "sacraments of faith".)
Kerry knows full well what the Church teaches about the evil of abortion, and he very well should know what the Church teaches about the evil of cooperation with that evil, as shown in The Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 1385. If there is any chance he does not know, however, it is the duty of his bishop to correct him with the truth, and should his own bishop not do so, then the bishops as a whole should, and failing that, the laity should.
The fact of the matter is that a sympathy for politics is reigning superior over the Catholic truth and Catholic morality — and that in itself is a grave sin as a sort of subtle apostasy. How many of those baptized as Catholics, even the most "educated," seem to think they can by their vote help put in office those who, using their elected authority, will in turn help maintain the slaughter of innocent life?
It is strange that many of those so voting are the most vocal in decrying death of the innocent in war or in genocide. The fact is abortion since the infamous Roe v. Wade decision has outdone the worst of wars and the most deadly of pogroms and genocides in dealing out death. Where is the voice of the bishops in warning the many Catholics — most of the Democratic Party — that they pursue immorality in taking part by their votes in this debacle?
The indifference by many bishops to Kerry's insistence on some newly discovered schizophrenic double conscience — one personal, the other for his political career — is beyond Catholic understanding. Let anyone (come forward) who can find precedent or excuse for such a far-fetched notion. If the vocation to be a politician allows actions contrary to the personal conscience, why should that not be true for all vocations?
Let the solider claim immunity for all he is ordered to do despite its immorality, by claiming personally he does not agree with what he does. We can find dozens of solider-martyrs who died rather than follow an order to worship the emperor. What about business leaders who might personally find lying wrong but could nevertheless lie on the basis that it is a habit in that profession?
But must we not obey court decisions in all matters, such as that of Roe v. Wade? Well, the whole country disobeyed the same High Court's decision that prohibition was constitutional. Why should a Catholic politician feel obliged to obey a far worse court decision that exempts mothers from the charge of murder if their victims are their own children? Let us admit that a law such as that allowing abortion is honored only by rejecting its validity, just as German Catholics should have done regarding Hitler's murderous racial decrees.
Many U.S. bishops are ignoring the Vatican's clear decree against giving Communion to pro-abortion politicians persisting in the grave sin of supporting the monstrous "right to choose," meaning a right to destroy unborn human life.
Theodore Cardinal McCarrick of Washington and other prelates who maintain it is up to local bishops to follow what the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has said should be done, reduces the congregation's statement to mere advice. In fact, that attitude nullifies the Catholic position on the inviolable sanctity of innocent life by telling those who support abortion they can do so and remain in good standing as loyal Catholics. Why should anything such bishops say or do be received with respect, when clearly they make respect for human life conditional — apparently on party teaching?
The Democratic Party's platform has apparently gained more importance among not a few bishops than the Vatican's teachings.
This item 6100 digitally provided courtesy of CatholicCulture.org
