Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ten questions regarding the denial of the Eucharist [must read: media spin Vs reality re denial]
www.catholic.org ^ | 5/24/04 | Barbara Kralis

Posted on 05/24/2004 1:41:42 PM PDT by Polycarp IV

SPECIAL: Ten questions regarding the denial of the Eucharist.
by Barbara Kralis

By Barbara Kralis
© 2004 Catholic Online

Several U.S. bishops have recently voiced their opposition and ersatz reasoning why no one should be denied the Eucharist according to Code of Canon Law n. 915.

Those in the pews are perplexed.  Which bishop is correct?  Why would some bishops teach that the laws are binding and other bishops teach that they are not?  [i]

Quizzically, people are asking ten questions:

1] “Why should the Church deny the Eucharist to hundreds of ‘Catholic’ pro abortion politicians?”

Answer:  The Catholic Church condemns abortion,[ii] euthanasia,[iii] sodomy,[iv] cloning,[v] embryonic stem cell research,[vi] as well as other attacks against the sanctity of life and the family.  It is the obligation of the bishop to follow canon law.  Canon Law n.915 mandates the denial of Communion to all “manifest, obstinate, persistent sinners,” including but not exclusive to politicians. [vii]

Canon 915 not only protects the Eucharist from sacrilegious reception, but also prevents the faithful from sorrowful scandal.

It’s important to understand what ‘manifest, obstinate, persistent’ means.  Many wrongly think it applies only to politicians. [viii]  This is not so.

If a Catholic is a ‘manifest’ sinner, that means he is ‘known,’ or ‘public.’  This must be differentiated from the Catholics who are in the state of ‘private’ grave sin, to whom their sin is known only to themselves and God.  The private grave sinner cannot be denied the Eucharist because their sin is unknown to the bishop, to his priests, and his ministers of the Eucharist.

If a Catholic is gravely ‘manifest’ and ‘obstinate’ in his sin, that means he pigheadedly continues to ‘persist’ or ‘stand firm’ in grave sin that is ‘public’ in nature and causes scandal to others.  This is quite different from those who persist in ‘private’ sin.

‘Catholic’ pro-abortion politicians are certainly manifest, obstinate and persistent sinners and they are thus subject to the provisions of c.915. [ix]

2]  “If they deny politicians, then shouldn’t they deny all public sinners?”

Answer: Not only does this canonical discipline c.915 include the estimated 500 so-called ‘Catholic’ pro-abortion politicians in the U.S., but it also includes other manifest, obstinate, persistent sinners such as homosexual couples approaching the Eucharist arm-in-arm or with sodomite rainbow banners over their shoulders, those divorced and ‘remarried’ without benefit of annulment [x], directors of abortion mills and Planned Parenthood, Mafia figures, drug lords, notorious criminals, couples living openly in fornication or adultery (this is certainly not an exhaustive list of manifest sinners).

3]  “What about the couple or individual who lives in grave sin ‘privately’ and their Pastor is made aware of their sin?  Should their Pastor deny them the Eucharist?”

Answer: No.  Not if most people do not know this.  He cannot make their sin known to people.  The priest cannot make known the sins of others, if it is not already manifest.  It’s related to the seal of confession.[xi]  If it becomes known by most in the parish, then the priest might then be obliged to deny the Eucharist under c.915 so as not to cause scandal.

4] “Isn’t there supposed to be a separation of Church and State?

Answer:  The Founding Fathers of our nation believed in the promotion of religion, as the text to the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof….”

The Fathers merely wanted to avoid a state church or any other favoring of one Christian denomination over another.  In other words, the object was to avoid favoritism and compulsion, nothing more. [xii]

It would be a sad day in America if only Catholics believed in protection of innocent life. [xiii]

5] “Can the Church tell its members how to legislate and vote?”

Answer:  The Church is not asking Catholic legislators to impose her beliefs on unwilling populace.  Rather, the Church is calling upon her Catholic legislators to defend human life, which is a basic responsibility of all civic institutions. [xiv]

The Church is not trying to influence legislation but instead is protecting the dignity of the Sacrament and addressing the grave scandal of Catholic legislators who fail to defend innocent life.

Implying that the Church is trying to tell its members how to vote is erroneous.   It never directs its members to cast their vote for any specific party or candidate.  It is reiterating that abortion, euthanasia, sodomy, cloning and embryonic stem cell research (this is not an exhaustive list) are intrinsically evil in and of themselves; all other human rights pale in comparison to the right of life of the unborn.

6] “Isn’t the Church turning the Eucharist into a weapon?  No one should be denied the Eucharist.  Where is the freedom of conscience?”

Answer:  It is true that c.912 does say, “Any baptized person who is not forbidden by law may and must be admitted to Holy Communion.”  However, c.912 commentary further explains:  “unless the existence of some impediment is evidence in the external forum of c.915.”  [xv]

Canon 915 states: “Those upon whom the penalty of excommunication or interdict has been imposed or declared, and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin are forbidden by law from receiving Holy Communion.”

It is dishonest to use c.912 to justify permitting grave manifest, obstinate, persistent sinners to the Eucharist.  It is a mockery of the faith and belies ones identity as a Catholic believer.

True freedom is not doing what you want to do, but doing what you ought to do.[xvi] The Church teaches, “Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions.” [xvii]

Conscience is not the same as your opinions or feelings.  Conscience is the voice of truth within you and your opinions and feelings must reflect your well-informed conscience. [xviii]

A well-informed conscience is one that is totally in accord with the church’s magisterial teachings. If one is well informed (catechized), their conscience will be correctly informed.  This transcends any choice for political party or candidate.

No pope or ecumenical council has ever said that Catholics who hold public office are excused from living by the teachings of the Church. [xix]

"Christians, like all people of goodwill, are called upon under grave obligation of conscience not to cooperate formally in practices which, even if permitted by civil legislation, are contrary to God's law.  Indeed, from the moral standpoint, it is never licit to cooperate formally in evil.  Such cooperation occurs when an action, either by its very nature or by the form it takes in a concrete situation, can be defined as a direct participation in an act against innocent human life or a sharing in the immoral intention of the person committing it.  This cooperation can never be justified either by invoking respect for the freedom of others or by appealing to the fact that civil law permits it or requires it.  Each individual in fact has moral responsibility for the acts, which he personally performs; no one can be exempted from the responsibility, and on the basis of it, everyone will be judged by God Himself.” [xx]

7] “Why not deny Communion to politicians and laity who support the death penalty and the Iraq war?”

Answer:  The Church has never taught, and does not teach now, that the death penalty and war are evil in all instances. But, the church has always clearly condemned abortion, sodomy, euthanasia, cloning, and embryonic stem cell research in all instances.

The Church teaches that it is the right and responsibility of the legitimate temporal authority to defend and preserve the common good and citizens against the aggressor, even if it has to resort to the death penalty if no other means of defense is sufficient. [xxi]

8] “All I hear is the ‘right to life.’  What about the right to employment, the right to water, the right to food and clothing, the right to protection of the environment?”

Answer: Without the right to life, no other rights are possible.

As men and women of good will we strive to achieve true justice for all people and to preserve their rights as human beings. There is, however, one right that is “inalienable”, and that is the right to life. This is the first right. This is the right that grounds all other human rights. This is the issue that trumps all other issues. [xxii]

Here is this from the Didache circa A.D. 80: [xxiii]

“You shall not kill by abortion the fruit of the womb and you shall not murder the infant already born.”

The Catholic Church’s social teachings are vast and complete.  However, faithful Catholics may legitimately disagree on different points of view and on how to implement these social teachings. [xxiv]  One can never disagree on the teachings regarding the right to life of the unborn, the disabled, and the elderly. [xxv]

9] “When ‘gays’ and ‘lesbians’ march up to the altar arm and arm for Communion, should they be denied?”

Answer:  Canon 915 states that if they are gravely manifest, obstinate, and persistent in their sins, then they must be denied.  The Church condemns the sin of sodomy.  [xxvi]

Sodomites who approach the Eucharist wearing ‘Rainbow sashes’ or are living known lives of perversion are certainly manifest, obstinate and persistent in their grave sin. [xxvii]

Legal recognition of same-sex unions actually does homosexual persons a disfavor by encouraging them to persist in what is an objectively immoral arrangement.

There are absolutely no grounds for considering same-sex unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God's plan for marriage and family. Marriage is holy, while homosexual acts go against the natural moral law. Homosexual acts “close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.” [xxviii]

10] “What is Canon Law 915 I hear so much about?”

Answer:  You may remember that the canon lawyer, Archbishop Raymond L. Burke, D.D., J.C.L., on January 8, 2004, promulgated a ‘canonical notification’ in his diocese of La Crosse based on Canon Law 915.  In other words, he imposed sacramental disciplines or regulations concerning the unworthy reception of the Holy Eucharist.

Canon 915 is a sacramental law, not a penal law, and applies only to the Sacrament of the Eucharist, not other Sacraments.  It is not an excommunication or interdict.

Canon Law is the Church’s Sacred Discipline and is binding on all Catholics, not just politicians, who reject Church law.

There are, however, other legislative powers that the Pope and diocesan Bishops possess which gives them the right to enact laws for their dioceses, including penal laws which impose lataæ sententiæ (‘automatically without sentence’) penalties (c.1311, c.1315, c.1318, c.1369, c.1398).  Here we discuss only c.915.

When the diocesan bishops ignore enforcing Canon Law, they are giving license to all manifest sinners to commit Eucharistic sacrilege and cause grave scandal to the faithful.[xxix]


[i] ‘The Catechism of Catholic Church,’ §1755.

[ii] Pope John Paul II, ‘Evangelium vitae,’ §73.

[iii] Pope John Paul II, ‘Evangelium vitae,’ §73.

[iv] Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, ‘Considerations Regarding Proposals To Give Legal Recognition To Unions Between Homosexual Persons,’ n.10.

[v] Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, “Instruction on Respect for Human Life in its Origin and on the Dignity of Procreation,’ Ch.1, §6.

[vi] Pontifical Council for the Family, ‘Charter of the Rights of the Family,’ n.43.

[vii] Pope John Paul II, ‘Ecclesia de Eucharistia,’ §37.

[viii] Pope Pius XI, ‘Casti Connubii,’ §67; Pope John Paul II, ‘Evangelium vitae,’ §72-73.

[ix] Cf.Pope John Paul II, “Evangelium vitae,’ §73.

[x] According to Chuck Wilson, St. Joseph Foundation, the Apostolic Constitution Familiaris consortio (1981), the Letter Annus internationalis familiæ (1994), Ecclesia de Eucharistia (2003) and Redemptionis sacramentum (2004), include for the most part those in irregular marriage situations.

[xi] Summa Theologica, Pt.III, Q.80, Art 6.

[xii] Cf. Catholic World Report, 1/04, “The Mantra of the Wall of Separation” by Marion Edwyn Harrison, Esq., Pres. 'Free Congress Research and Education Foundation.'

[xiii] Archbishop Raymond Burke interview, EWTN, 1/16/04, with Raymond Arroyo

[xiv] Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, ‘Doctrinal Note on some questions regarding The Participation of Catholics in Political Life,’ n. 4; Pope JP II, ‘Evangelium vitae,’ §73.

[xv] Code of Canon Law Annotated, University of Navarre, Wilson & Lafleur Limitée, Montreal, 1993.

[xvi] Pope John Paul II, ‘Evangelium vitae,’ §18-20.

[xvii] The Catechism of the Catholic Church, §1782.

[xviii] Gaudium et spes, n.16; An Introduction to Moral Theology, Dr. Wm. E. May, pp.58.

[xix]  US Bishops, 1998, ‘Living the Gospel of Life,’ n.31-34.

[xx] Cf. Romans 2:6; 14:12; Pope John Paul II, ‘Evangelium vitae’ §74.

[xxi] Pope John Paul II, ‘Evangelium vitae,’ §27, 56; The Catholic Dossier, 9/98, “Opposition to the Death Penalty,” Dr. Ralph McInerny;

[xxii] Bishop Michael J. Sheridan, Colorado Springs, 5/1/04 Pastoral Letter, “duties of Catholic Politicians and voters.”

[xxiii] The epistle of Barnabas, the Didache, A.D. 80; The Companion to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, §2271, n.1,

[xxiv] Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, ‘Doctrinal Note on some questions regarding The Participation of Catholics in Political Life,’ n.6; Pope John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation ‘Christifideles laici,’ §59, Pope Paul VI ‘Apostolicam Actuositatem,’ §4.

[xxv] Pope John Paul II, ‘Evangelium vitae,’ §73.

[xxvi] The Catechism of the Catholic Church, §2357-2359.

[xxvii] Cf. Catholic Medical Assoc., ‘Letter to the Catholic Bishops;’ and ‘Homosexuality and Hope;’ Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, ‘Persona humana n.8; ‘Summa Theologica,’ Vol II, Pt.I-II, Q.94, Art.1-6; Vol IV, Pt.II-II, Q.154, Art. 12; Augustine, Confess. iii, 8;

[xxviii] Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, ‘Considerations regarding Proposals to be Given Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons,’ §4; Catechism of the Catholic Church, §2357

[xxix] Congregation for Divine Worship, ‘Redemptionis Sacramentum,’ §183.

Barbara Kralis, the article's author, writes for various Christian and conservative publications.  She is a regular columnist at RenewAmerica.us. Catholic Online (Catholic.org), Life Issues, The Wanderer newspaper, New Oxford Review Magazine, Washington Dispatch, Catholic Citizens, Illinois Leader, NewsBull, MichNews, Intellectual Conservative, Phil Brennan’s WOW, ChronWatch and others.  Her first journalism position was with Boston Herald Traveler, l964.  Barbara published and edited 'Semper Fidelis' Catholic print newsletter.  She and her husband, Mitch, live in the great State of Texas, and co-direct the Jesus Through Mary Catholic Foundation.  She can be reached at: Avemaria@earthlink.net

Contact:  Jesus Through Mary Foundation
none  TX, US
Barbara Kralis - Director, 903-532-5555
Keywords:  Eucharist, politicians



TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: bigotedcensors; catholiclist; exiledagain; homosexualagenda; modcensorship; moderatorabuse; religionforumghetto; totheghetto

1 posted on 05/24/2004 1:41:43 PM PDT by Polycarp IV
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
6] “Isn’t the Church turning the Eucharist into a weapon? No one should be denied the Eucharist. Where is the freedom of conscience?”

Answer: It is true that c.912 does say, “Any baptized person who is not forbidden by law may and must be admitted to Holy Communion.” However, c.912 commentary further explains: “unless the existence of some impediment is evidence in the external forum of c.915.” [xv]

Canon 915 states: “Those upon whom the penalty of excommunication or interdict has been imposed or declared, and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin are forbidden by law from receiving Holy Communion.”

It is dishonest to use c.912 to justify permitting grave manifest, obstinate, persistent sinners to the Eucharist. It is a mockery of the faith and belies ones identity as a Catholic believer.

2 posted on 05/24/2004 1:43:10 PM PDT by Polycarp IV (PRO-LIFE orthodox Catholic--without exception, without compromise, without apology. Any questions?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: .45MAN; AAABEST; AKA Elena; al_c; american colleen; Angelus Errare; annalex; Annie03; Antoninus; ...
Ping. (As usual, if you would like to be added to or removed from my "conservative Catholics" ping list, please send me a FReepmail. Please note that this is occasionally a high volume ping list and some of my ping posts are long.)"

Also note that this thread, so crucial in this POLITICAL campaign, and thus NEWSworthy, not strictly religious in nature, has been exiled to the Religion forum ghetto. Yet remember the anti-Catholic, anti-pope vanity thread that remained on the News forum for a day?

This thread only lasted on the News forum about 48 seconds before the censors here banished it to the Ghetto.

Institutionalized Free Republic anti-Catholic bigotry, as usual.

I rest my case.

3 posted on 05/24/2004 1:50:26 PM PDT by Polycarp IV (PRO-LIFE orthodox Catholic--without exception, without compromise, without apology. Any questions?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp IV

To: saradippity
Did you read the post I directed to you?

Yes, it was excellent and insightful. Thank you for providing that perspective.

So given all this,what would you tell Bishop Olmsted?

First I would tell him that his diocesan efforts to catechize and reverse the damages done by his predecessors are suberb, a point of light among much darkness.

But then I'd need to ask a few things.

1) How long have those Congressmen and Senators in his diocese been in office who routinely vote pro-abortion?

2) Is it rational to believe that they continue to vote in DC to kill babies, not knowing that murder is a violation of one of the Ten Commandments and abortion is considered intrinsically evil?

3) Is it even remotely possible that, even given the previous bishops' dismal catechesis, these national politicians have NEVER read the oft repeated stories in the secular media whereby the Catholic church's position is repeatedly published and highlighted at the time of every election since 1973?

4) The NCCB/USCCB has used "persuasion" and catechesis for 31 years, to no avail. Either their persuasion is useless to the point of malfeasance, or this is more stalling tactics. Why are we STILL trying to "persuade" national politicians 31 years later?

5) Who do you think honestly believes that any bishops have been trying to persuade for 31 years and further persuasion might NOW work.

6) Why don't you immediately OBEY Pope JPII and Arinze, Bishop Olmstead. The time for persuasion was just prior to and immediately after Roe Versus Wade. NOW its time to ober scripture and Church law and the Pope and Arinze.

7) Diocesan catechesis can occur simultaneously with the non-negotiable Church disciplines surrounding the Sacrament of Holy Communion repeatedly outlined by Pope JPII and recently reiterated by Arinze, can it not?

The discipline of the Sacraments is non-negotiable. The Pope has spoken. Please obey him. Yeah, that's what I'd say.

87 posted on 05/24/2004 4:10:36 PM EDT by Polycarp IV (PRO-LIFE orthodox Catholic--without exception, without compromise, without apology. Any questions?)

4 posted on 05/24/2004 1:55:23 PM PDT by Polycarp IV (PRO-LIFE orthodox Catholic--without exception, without compromise, without apology. Any questions?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp IV

Correct-a-mundo ... but wouldn't you be more worried somethign was "wrong" if the article stayed put? =)


5 posted on 05/24/2004 1:56:19 PM PDT by Askel5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp IV
Always helpful to go to the Source - the Scriptures - for guidance

1 Cr 11:27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink [this] cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
1Cr 11:28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of [that] bread, and drink of [that] cup.
1Cr 11:29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.
1Cr 11:30 For this cause many [are] weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.
1Cr 11:31 For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.
1Cr 11:32 But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world.

"unworthily" means to be in a state of unconfessed sin...and advocating the murder of unborn children and the "marriage" of homosexuals is clearly living in a state of unconfessed sin.

6 posted on 05/24/2004 1:59:48 PM PDT by LiteKeeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Askel5

Yep. (I thought I was being understated in my damnable-hypocrisy-runs-rampant-here-at-FR statement this time, no? I didn't even say "damnable hypocrisy" in my ping post ;-)


7 posted on 05/24/2004 2:00:16 PM PDT by Polycarp IV (PRO-LIFE orthodox Catholic--without exception, without compromise, without apology. Any questions?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: LiteKeeper

Excellent, thank you!


8 posted on 05/24/2004 2:01:52 PM PDT by Polycarp IV (PRO-LIFE orthodox Catholic--without exception, without compromise, without apology. Any questions?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp IV

9 posted on 05/24/2004 2:09:02 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

Your pic didn't post.


10 posted on 05/24/2004 2:10:05 PM PDT by Polycarp IV (PRO-LIFE orthodox Catholic--without exception, without compromise, without apology. Any questions?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp IV

I was afraid of that. Was just a test post from my SprintPCS account.


11 posted on 05/24/2004 2:11:30 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: valkyrieanne

See post #3, re our prior conversation.


12 posted on 05/24/2004 2:18:37 PM PDT by Polycarp IV (PRO-LIFE orthodox Catholic--without exception, without compromise, without apology. Any questions?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
I was afraid of that. Was just a test post from my SprintPCS account.

No problem. Just make sure your mods are as fast with their itchy keyboard trigger fingerss in exiling anti-Catholic vanities on the News Forum as they were with banishing this thread to the ghetto, OK? Would it help if I had other Catholics here post threads to the News forum? Are your mods just trying to harass me personally, or are they going to treat all of us Catholics equally this bad?

Thanks, Big Guy.

13 posted on 05/24/2004 2:26:10 PM PDT by Polycarp IV (PRO-LIFE orthodox Catholic--without exception, without compromise, without apology. Any questions?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp IV

LOL. Righhhht. Jim out.


14 posted on 05/24/2004 2:30:08 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: scripter; little jeremiah
Not only does this canonical discipline c.915 include the estimated 500 so-called ‘Catholic’ pro-abortion politicians in the U.S., but it also includes other manifest, obstinate, persistent sinners such as homosexual couples approaching the Eucharist arm-in-arm or with sodomite rainbow banners over their shoulders

Please ping your lists for a clear explanation of the Catholic Church's stance on denial of sacraments to those homosexuals who are 'persistent' sinners.

15 posted on 05/24/2004 3:18:41 PM PDT by NYer (Even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light! (2Cor 11:14))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cpforlife.org; Mr. Silverback
The Catholic Church condemns abortion,[ii] euthanasia,[iii] sodomy,[iv] cloning,[v] embryonic stem cell research,[vi] as well as other attacks against the sanctity of life and the family.  It is the obligation of the bishop to follow canon law. 

Canon Law n.915 mandates the denial of Communion to all “manifest, obstinate, persistent sinners,” including but not exclusive to politicians. If a Catholic is a ‘manifest’ sinner, that means he is ‘known,’ or ‘public.’ 

Please ping your pro-life lists for a clear understanding of how the Catholic Church distinguishes between public vs private sinners.

16 posted on 05/24/2004 3:23:20 PM PDT by NYer (Even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light! (2Cor 11:14))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp IV; american colleen; sinkspur; Lady In Blue; Salvation; narses; SMEDLEYBUTLER; redhead; ..

Excellent post! Clearly articulated and documented. Thanks, Polycarp, for posting this thread.


17 posted on 05/24/2004 3:26:40 PM PDT by NYer (Even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light! (2Cor 11:14))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: *Homosexual Agenda; EdReform; scripter; GrandMoM; backhoe; Yehuda; Clint N. Suhks; saradippity; ...

Homosexual Agenda Ping - A clear explanation of the Catholic position on homosexuals or those promoting homosexuality (as well as other evils such as abortion) and receiving communion.

Good for Catholics to read as well as those interested in the politics of the leftists using their "religion" as a tool to promote evil. What with all these Democrats who are supposedly Catholic, and at the same time minions of the "gay" activists, and berating the bishops who are doing nothing more than upholding morality as taught by God.*

Let me know if anyone wants on/off this pinglist.

*In every monotheist religion in the world, and then some.


18 posted on 05/24/2004 3:30:43 PM PDT by little jeremiah ("Gay Marriage" - a Weapon of Mass. Destruction!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp IV; cpforlife.org; Mr. Silverback
If one is well informed (catechized), their conscience will be correctly informed. 

I 'smell' an escape route for Kerry!

Here is this from the Didache circa A.D. 80: [xxiii]

“You shall not kill by abortion the fruit of the womb and you shall not murder the infant already born.”

Could anything be clearer!!! AD80!

19 posted on 05/24/2004 3:39:21 PM PDT by NYer (Even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light! (2Cor 11:14))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp IV; AAABEST
This thread only lasted on the News forum about 48 seconds before the censors here banished it to the Ghetto.

I have pinged some of the troops in the News/Activism Forum. They'll get the word out ;-D

20 posted on 05/24/2004 3:41:37 PM PDT by NYer (Even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light! (2Cor 11:14))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp IV
This is a great post, but I do have one question.

In #3 in the article, it sounds like you can partake in the Eucharist if you are sinning and only your priest knows about it.

This doesn't make sense to me. Why wouldn't the priest be obligated to deny the Eucharist to someone if he knew they were sinning. It just makes it sound like what people think is more important then whether or not I'm sinning.

Does that make sense? Can you set me straight?

21 posted on 05/24/2004 3:46:18 PM PDT by sojourner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sojourner
In #3 in the article, it sounds like you can partake in the Eucharist if you are sinning and only your priest knows about it.

To be publicly refused the Eucharist, one must be a manifest (i.e., PUBLIC---everyone knows it and it causes scandal to the faithful) grave sinner.

If only the priest knows it then it is a private, not manifest, sin, thus no scandal to the public.

The purpose of public excommunication is to remedy public scandal.

I'll welcome any other comments if I'm somehow off base in this.

22 posted on 05/24/2004 4:31:43 PM PDT by Polycarp IV (PRO-LIFE orthodox Catholic--without exception, without compromise, without apology. Any questions?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Thanks. Bookmarked for future reference.


23 posted on 05/24/2004 6:33:58 PM PDT by Victoria Delsoul (The BushAdm has apologized for abuse of suspected terrorists-Has the Arab world apologized for 9/11?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp IV

Polycarp,

I'm not sure that the word manifest should be taken to only mean public. Rather I think manifest in this sense means "obvious". Granted a public grave sinner would be more obvious, but I believe (although I could be wrong) that if a priest knows absolutely that a person is living in grave sin (eg it is a family member of his living with someone who is not his spouse) that priest would have a responsibility to withhold communion. After all, preventing scandal is only one reason to withhold communion, saving that sinner's soul by making him realize what he is doing is just as, if not more, important. Frankly I wish that the Bishops would care about Kerry's soul enough to try and make him realize by action and not only words, that what he is doing endangers his soul.

Pax in Christi,


24 posted on 05/24/2004 7:11:08 PM PDT by rmichaelj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp IV

also the fact that someone who is obviously in grave sin commits sacrilege against the Eucharist, regardless of the fact that the general public may not know it.


25 posted on 05/24/2004 7:13:01 PM PDT by rmichaelj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: rmichaelj

Good points, ones I was pondering but unsure how to best express. Thanks.


26 posted on 05/24/2004 7:15:52 PM PDT by Polycarp IV (PRO-LIFE orthodox Catholic--without exception, without compromise, without apology. Any questions?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp IV

After reading the Summa Theologica by St. Thomas Aquinas I believe the relevant part is as follows:

" But if they be not open sinners, but occult, the Holy Communion should not be denied them if they ask for it. For since every Christian, from the fact that he is baptized, is admitted to the Lord's table, he may not be robbed of his right, except from some open cause. Hence on 1 Cor. 5:11, "If he who is called a brother among you," etc., Augustine's gloss remarks: "We cannot inhibit any person from Communion, except he has openly confessed, or has been named and convicted by some ecclesiastical or lay tribunal." Nevertheless a priest who has knowledge of the crime can privately warn the secret sinner, or warn all openly in public, from approaching the Lord's table, until they have repented of their sins and have been reconciled to the Church. "

In short according to St Thomas if it is a secret sin which the priest only knows about then the communicant should not be denied. However, this is not the same as a "public" sin in the sense that the individual is a politician, in the media spotlight, etc.

The example I gave of a priest who had a family member living with a partner out of wedlock. If the priest knew that the family member was doing this openly, he should not give communion (the sin is not a secret one even if no one in that parish happened to know the family member). However, if the family member was having relations secretly out of wedlock and only the priest knew about it he should not expose the family member as a sinner by denying him Eucharist.

Confusing, but I think the best way to state the teaching of St. Thomas would be that a priest should not deny communion for secret manifest grave sins (occult). This is a more accurate statement than the one given above (Only public manifest grave sinners should be denied communion. The problem is that people are likely to misinterpret what is meant by the word "public". I think this is less likely but still not impossible if the word "secret" is used.

Problems like these are a good example of why the Church uses Latin. English vocabulary is just too prone to change over time and subject to too many interpretations.

Pax in Christi,


27 posted on 05/24/2004 7:34:33 PM PDT by rmichaelj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp IV

Final Thought then I'm off for the night.

In regards to Kerry and other obvious pro-abortion politicians, recieving or not recieving communion. A very strong case can be made for the need of a formal excommunication of these politicians. In this way you would not have the question of whether they should or should not be given communion by a priest, or bishop depending on which diocese they are in. The sin is manifest, grave, and creating a scandal in the Church. The most loving thing a mother can do is to strongly correct those children which are harming themselves. Excommunication while a serious act, is appropriate in this case. While I am thankful that I am not in a position to make the decision, it does hurt me to see the Church being maligned and scandalized simply because the Bishops will not carry out their duty to defend her teachings beyond mere words. Further, I worry about the mess that my children will have to deal with due to a lack of courage on the part ot the same Bishops. Regardless, I'll simply place my trust in the Lord, and do my best to make sure my defense of the Faith is not so lacking.

God Bless


28 posted on 05/24/2004 8:07:46 PM PDT by rmichaelj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp IV

After a lunchtime conversation, I'm beginning to believe that the biggest problem in all this is badly formed consciences. I sat and listened to a bunch of Catholic women advocate all sorts of apostacy and they had what they considered to be good reasons for doing it! It all sounds moral on the surface, but go deeper and the arguments fall apart.

And the soundbite Catholicism has to go. There is no Reader's Digest version and you can't pick and choose what you like out of it. maybe if it was explained WHY certain things are taught as they are, there might be a great awakening. Maybe. If the sheep can tear themselves away from American Idol.


29 posted on 05/24/2004 8:54:44 PM PDT by Desdemona (Music Librarian and provider of cucumber sandwiches, TTGC Ladies' Auxiliary. Hats required.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp IV

Thank yous to you and rmichaelj. The meaning is much clearer to me now. I am not Catholic but interested in understanding Catholic teachings. Maybe I'll convert someday. :)


30 posted on 05/24/2004 9:15:13 PM PDT by sojourner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp IV
Canon 915 states that if they are gravely manifest, obstinate, and persistent in their sins, then they must be denied. The Church condemns the sin of sodomy.

Here is something I would like an authoritative answer on. Coming out of the 60's free love era, I never would have considered oral sex to be "sodomy". I would like to know the official RC definition of "sodomy". Is oral and/or anal sex between a husband and wife approved? Or, is it only defined as "sodomy" if it is between unmarried heterosexuals or people of the same sex?

It is obvious that if oral and/or anal sex between a married couple is "sodomy" - well, then a lot of married people receiving communion should be denied.

31 posted on 05/24/2004 9:15:33 PM PDT by Ex-Wretch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp IV

This whole blow up over the denial of communion to apostate politicians kind of confuses me. Maybe I grew up in a time warp, but I can't honestly understand why ANYONE would think they could vote for infanticide and remain in good standing with any Christian church.

Sadly, as I have often said, the struggles on the far side of the Rhine often mirror those on the Tiber. The Lutheran churches are fighting their own war over the same issues. May the Lord be with us.


32 posted on 05/25/2004 4:34:08 AM PDT by redgolum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ex-Wretch
then a lot of married people receiving communion should be denied.

All non-procreative sex is always sodomitic, whether it be contraceptive, oral, anal, or masturbation. This was the common teaching of ALL denominations, Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox, until only recently. It is NOT just a "Catholic" concept.

However, the Church does not condemn forms of foreplay leading up to procreative marital union.

See the last couple posts on the differences regarding public/manifest/private sins and their application to denial of the Holy Eucharist.

33 posted on 05/25/2004 7:44:29 AM PDT by Polycarp IV (PRO-LIFE orthodox Catholic--without exception, without compromise, without apology. Any questions?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Ex-Wretch
well, then a lot of married people receiving communion should be denied.

By the way, unrepented contraception/sterilization itself is still a mortal sin, so those unrepentant Catholics who contracept or are sterilized should refrain from the Holy Eucharist. But most if not all contracepting/sterilized couples receive anyways.

34 posted on 05/25/2004 7:48:04 AM PDT by Polycarp IV (PRO-LIFE orthodox Catholic--without exception, without compromise, without apology. Any questions?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp IV

I would like to be on your conservative Catholic ping list, pls.


35 posted on 05/25/2004 9:08:51 AM PDT by pgyanke ("The Son of God became a man to enable men to become sons of God" - C.S. Lewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: pgyanke

Done!


36 posted on 05/25/2004 9:58:03 AM PDT by Polycarp IV (PRO-LIFE orthodox Catholic--without exception, without compromise, without apology. Any questions?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: sojourner
Confession is a sacrament in the RCC. If only your priest & you know about your sin, the priest would have come to the knowledge only by your confession. Even if the priest found out about your sin by some other person telling on you, your priest wouldn't know, unless you confirmed it. Refusing Eucharist would be akin to "outing" you, which is against the teachings about confession.
37 posted on 05/25/2004 10:28:00 AM PDT by GoLightly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp IV; 2nd amendment mama; A2J; Agitate; Alouette; Annie03; aposiopetic; attagirl; axel f; ...
During this election season, pro-lifers of every creed should know why someone might be denied Catholic Communion. They don't deny it for jaywalking, folks!

ProLife Ping!

If anyone wants on or off my ProLife Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.

38 posted on 05/25/2004 12:32:05 PM PDT by Mr. Silverback (Pre-empt the third murder attempt: Pray for Terri Schindler-Schiavo!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GoLightly
Confession is a sacrament in the RCC. If only your priest & you know about your sin, the priest would have come to the knowledge only by your confession. Even if the priest found out about your sin by some other person telling on you, your priest wouldn't know, unless you confirmed it. Refusing Eucharist would be akin to "outing" you, which is against the teachings about confession.

Makes sense. So the priest hearing confession has an important responsibility to discern whether or not someone has a repentant heart? (I obviously know little or nothing about confession.)

39 posted on 05/25/2004 2:18:44 PM PDT by sojourner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Desdemona

**And the soundbite Catholicism has to go. There is no Reader's Digest version and you can't pick and choose what you like out of it. maybe if it was explained WHY certain things are taught as they are, there might be a great awakening.**

So true!


40 posted on 05/25/2004 5:21:52 PM PDT by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp IV

Hmmm....3 pages, double sided, under the windshield wiper of a couple hundred cars in the parish parking lots, where Priests don't quite appreciate the facts presented here.

I'm pretty motivated after a Priest's open offer to discuss these issue's, with all who were interested, was met with "I don't want to get into a debate on this. I've got the bigger picture."


41 posted on 05/25/2004 6:26:13 PM PDT by G Larry (Support John Thune!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp IV
All non-procreative sex is always sodomitic ... However, the Church does not condemn forms of foreplay leading up to procreative marital union.

OK. Let me see if my understanding of what you are saying is correct. Oral sex is sodomy if there is no procreative act following the oral sex? BUT, oral sex is not sodomy if it is a prelude to the procreative act? Is this a correct understanding of what you are saying the RC teaching is?

42 posted on 05/25/2004 9:01:10 PM PDT by Ex-Wretch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp IV

P.S. - This is assuming that the partners are married, of course.


43 posted on 05/25/2004 9:04:00 PM PDT by Ex-Wretch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Ex-Wretch
Yes, oral sex is sodomy if brought to ejaculation, as is any purposely non-procreative sex.

BUT, oral stimulation only, as a prelude to the procreative act, is simply foreplay.

Loose translation? If you can get pregnant doing it, its probably not sodomy. If you cannot possibly get pregnant doing it, then yes, it probably is sodomy.

The bottom line for ALL protestants till 1930, all Catholics, Orthodox, and even Orthodox Jews, is whether the act is procreative.

If it is purposely non-procreative, it is considered sodomitic.

Please remember however that the use of the term "sodomitic" for all non-procreative sex is a protestant moral theology term, it is not a Catholic term in this respect.

Catholic moral theology employs other terms such as procreative versus non-procreative and fecund versus infecund. We do not generally use the term "sodomitic" regarding heterosexual acts.

Martin Luther (1483 to 1546) - "Onan must have been a malicious and incorrigible scoundrel. This is a most disgraceful sin. It is far more atrocious than incest or adultery. We call it unchastity, yes, a Sodomitic sin. For Onan goes into her; that is, he lies with her and copulates, and when it comes to the point of insemination, spills the semen, lest the woman conceive. Surely at such a time the order of nature established by God in procreation should be followed."

44 posted on 05/25/2004 9:38:09 PM PDT by Polycarp IV (PRO-LIFE orthodox Catholic--without exception, without compromise, without apology. Any questions?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson