NOMINALLY CATHOLIC PRO-ABORTIONISTS, HOMOSEXUAL ACTIVISTS AND DISOBEDIENT CLERICS...

The Rainbow Sash Movement recently issued a national call for people who oppose the Roman Catholic Church’s teachings on homosexuality to support the Movement on May 15, 2005 by attending church wearing a Rainbow Sash.

Will there even be a few renegade bishops who distribute Holy Communion to those obviously rejecting a tenet of the faith?

Cardinal Roger Mahony of Los Angeles approves of giving Holy Communion to Rainbow Sashers.

And last year Rainbow Sashers refrained from wearing sashes to the Pentecost Sunday Mass at Cardinal Mahony’s Cathedral, to say "thank you."

BUT, Cardinal Mahoney had gravely sinned in welcoming people rejecting a tenet of the faith to Holy Communion.

The Holy Father, Pope John Paul II, left no room for quibbling in Ecclesia de Eucharistia:

“The celebration of the Eucharist…cannot be the starting-point for communion; it presupposes that communion already exists, a communion which it seeks to consolidate and bring to perfection. The sacrament is an expression of this bond….both in its invisible dimension, which, in Christ and through the working of the Holy Spirit, unites us to the Father and among ourselves, and in its visible dimension, which entails communion in the teaching of the Apostles, in the sacraments and in the Church's hierarchical order….

”Keeping these invisible bonds intact is a specific moral duty incumbent upon Christians who wish to participate fully in the Eucharist by receiving the body and blood of Christ.

“However, in cases of outward conduct which is seriously, clearly and steadfastly contrary to the moral norm, the Church, in her pastoral concern for the good order of the community and out of respect for the sacrament, cannot fail to feel directly involved. The Code of Canon Law refers to this situation of a manifest lack of proper moral disposition when it states that those who “obstinately persist in manifest grave sin” are not to be admitted to Eucharistic communion.” (Emphasis added.)

Previously, the Roman Catholic Church's Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts had issued an interpretation of Canon 915 that should have sufficed to resolve any issue.

The Council, in agreement with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and with the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, declared:

“The phrase ‘and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin’ is clear and must be understood in a manner that does not distort its sense so as to render the norm inapplicable. The three required conditions are:

a) grave sin, understood objectively, being that the minister of Communion would not be able to judge from subjective imputability;

b) obstinate persistence, which means the existence of an objective situation of sin that endures in time and which the will of the individual member of the faithful does not bring to an end, no other requirements (attitude of defiance, prior warning, etc.) being necessary to establish the fundamental gravity of the situation in the Church.

“Naturally, pastoral prudence would strongly suggest the avoidance of instances of public denial of Holy Communion. Pastors must strive to explain to the concerned faithful the true ecclesial sense of the norm, in such a way that they would be able to understand it or at least respect it. In those situations, however, in which these precautionary measures have not had their effect or in which they were not possible, the minister of Communion must refuse to distribute it to those who are publicly unworthy. They are to do this with extreme charity, and are to look for the opportune moment to explain the reasons that required the refusal. They must, however, do this with firmness, conscious of the value that such signs of strength have for the good of the Church and of souls.

“The discernment of cases in which the faithful who find themselves in the described condition are to be excluded from Eucharistic Communion is the responsibility of the Priest who is responsible for the community. They are to give precise instructions to the deacon or to any extraordinary minister regarding the mode of acting in concrete situations.

“….the obligation of reiterating this impossibility of admission to the Eucharist is required for genuine pastoral care and for an authentic concern for the well-being of these faithful and of the whole Church, being that it indicates the conditions necessary for the fullness of that conversion to which all are always invited by the Lord….”

The reception of the Body of Christ when one is publicly unworthy constitutes an objective harm to the ecclesial communion, in that it is sinful behavior that affects the rights of the Church and of all the faithful to live in accord with the exigencies of that communion. That scandal exists even if such behavior no longer arouses surprise. Indeed, that unfortunate circumstance makes it more necessary for priests to act in defense of the Holy Eucharist and the Roman Catholic faith.

There's nothing ambiguous about the Roman Catholic Church's disapproval of abortion.

Section 2357 of The Cathecism of the Catholic Church defines homosexuality as "relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex."

Section 2358 states that "men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies....do not choose their homosexual condition.

It provides that such people "must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity"; "[e]very sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided"; and they "are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition."

"Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that 'homosexual acts are intrinscially disordered.' They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can be approved."

Some homosexuals say that homosexuality is natural, like heterosexuality, and not sinful.

Of course, these people are not "in full communion" with the Roman Catholic Church and therefore ineligible to receive Holy Communion.

Sacred Scripture and the Magisterium of the Church have spoken clearly on the subject of eligibility for Holy Communion.

Saint Paul said: “This means that whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily sins against the body and blood of the Lord. A Man should examine himself first, only then should he eat of the bread and drink of the cup. He who eats and drinks without recognizing the body eats and drinks a judgment

This divine revelation is the basis for the prohibition found in the declarations of the Magisterium.

The Church may not make ecclesiastical laws that would contravene this revealed doctrine.

And no priest, bishop or cardinal is free to disobey canon law and disregard revealed doctrine.

"Therefore it is the shepherd’s task not to keep silent, and it is your task, even if we the shepherds are silent, to hear the words of The Shepherd from the Scriptures.” (St. Augustine, Sermo 46, 20-21)

terms: “A person who is conscious of grave sin is not to celebrate Mass or to receive the Body of the Lord without prior sacramental confession unless a grave reason is present and there is no opportunity to make an act of perfect contrition, including the intention of confessing as soon as possible.”

The Code of Canon Law of the Eastern Churches has a parallel canon: “Those who are publicly unworthy are forbidden from receiving the Divine Eucharist” (can. 712).

In 2000 the Roman Catholic Church's Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts asked and answered this question:

"Should a priest deny Communion to a Catholic who is an obstinate public sinner?”

The reason: “In effect, the reception of the body of Christ when one is publicly unworthy constitutes an objective harm to the ecclesial communion: it is a behavior that affects the rights of the Church and of all the faithful to live in accord with the exigencies of that communion” (No. 1).

“Those upon whom the penalty of excommunication or interdict has been imposed or declared, and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, are not to be admitted to Holy Communion.”

The Pontificial Council warned against the danger of relativism, the self-indulgent notion that conceptions of truth and moral values are not absolute and objectively based but baseless and grounded on that which is relative and subjective to the persons or groups asserting them:

"Any interpretation of can. 915 that would set itself against the canon’s substantial content, as declared uninterruptedly by the Magisterium and by the discipline of the Church throughout the centuries, [is] clearly misleading. One cannot confuse respect for the wording of the law (cfr. Can. 17) with the improper use of the very same wording as an instrument for relativizing the precepts or emptying them of their substance."

Bishop Rene Henry Gracida exposed those who distribute Holy Communion to nominally Catholic, pro-abortion politicians posing as faithful Catholics as relativizers:

"I suggest that those who maintain that they cannot support the refusing of Holy Communion to pro-abortion politicians because the time of the distribution of Holy Communion is a time of unity in the Body of Christ are indeed relativizers of the objectively established precepts. Further, their belief that it would therefore be wrong to make it a time of confrontation and discord by refusing Holy Communion to anyone is indeed relativizing the precepts, but moreover, emptying them of their substance as well."

"Those who relativize the belief that it would be wrong to make the time of receiving Holy Communion a time of confrontation and discord are guilty of relativizing the objectively based precepts, which are based on Ultimate Truth Himself. He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. To relativize or compromise the objectively based precepts is to directly relativize Truth Himself!"

To those who try to excuse themselves from obeying the provisions of Canon 915 because they say that they are not in a position to judge another person’s thinking or conscience on the subject of abortion, euthanasia and fetal experimentation, Bishop Gracida sagely and solemnly replied:

"This is another example of relativizing the precepts or emptying them of their substance. This is another example of attacking the Truth Himself, Who is the objective foundation for these precepts, and Who IS the Holy Communion being attacked!

'….when you hear Me say anything, you shall warm them for me. If I tell the wicked man that he shall surely die, and you do not speak out to dissuade the wicked man from his way, he shall die for his guilt, but I will hold you responsible for his death. But if you warn the wicked man, trying to turn him from his way, and he refuses to turn from his way, he shall die for his guilt, but you shall save yourself' (Ezekiel 33:7-9)."

Bishop Gracida rightly reasoned that "[t]here can be no doubting that most of the major political figures who are on record publicly as favoring abortion-on-demand, euthanasia, cloning or fetal experimentation qualify....for being denied Holy Communion because they have a direct impact on the moral or immoral structure of a government, inasmuch as they are the direct agents in matters pertaining to legislation which forms a structure of sin, or a structure of goodness."

The Holy Eucharist is not suitable for either nominally Catholic, pro-abortion politicians or nominally Catholic, homosexual activists, each of whom wants patently sinful behavior "legitimized."

And, in the words of Bishop Gracida, "every bishop has the duty and obligation to implement the provisions of Canon Law in accordance with the Declaration by the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts."

"There is no need for public denial of Holy Communion. There is no need to reduce the need for public denial of Holy Communion to the worst case scenario: the minister of Holy Communion loudly refusing to give the Host to a loudly protesting pro-abortion politician in front of a church full of people. The implementation of Canon 915 can be carried out in complete privacy and confidentiality."

If Bishop Gracida's considerate approach is unappreciated, and an obstreperous sinner loudly protests being refused Holy Communion at the altar rail, Canon 915 still must be obeyed.

On April 23, 2004, Cardinal Francis Arinze, prefect of the Vatican Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of Sacraments, authoritatively explained at a press conference in Rome that unrepentant pro-abortion “Catholic” politicians should be denied Communion. Relying on Canon 915, which specifies that "[t]hose...who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, are not to be admitted to Holy Communion," Cardinal Arinze put it succinctly: "If they should not receive, then they should not be given."

And a few give to homosexual activists who also obviously are not in "in full communion" with the Church, a prerequisite to the receipt of Holy Communion.

Notably, Barbara Kralis recently reported that a bishop has misrepresented Cardinal Arinze's position that Holy Communion should not be given to unrepentant homosexual activists.

Ms. Kralis, lamenting the scandal of a few United States bishops giving Holy Communion on Pentecost Sunday to openly gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender persons whearing rainbow colored body sashes to protest the Roman Catholic Church's condemnation of homosexual acts as sinful, wrote:

"Most all U.S. Bishops have denied them Holy Communion. Four known bishops continue to give them the Eucharist. The scandal of a few continues to disunite the Church.

"Remarkably, on December 14, 2004, Catholic News Service (CNS) published an article entitled, 'Archbishop speaks to Vatican officials about Rainbow Sash protests.' CNS is owned and operated by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB).

"CNS quotes U.S. Archbishop Harry Flynn of the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis.

"While in Rome during his December 2004 ‘ad limina’ meeting, Flynn said he discussed in private with His Eminence Francis Cardinal Arinze, Prefect for the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments (CDW), whether sash-wearing ‘gays’ should be allowed to receive Holy Communion.

"Archbishop Flynn told CNS that after speaking to Cardinal Arinze, he was not asked to change his policy of giving the Eucharist to sash-wearing persons. He said he received no sense that the Vatican was pushing for a single policy on this.

"'I got the clear understanding that this is recognized as a very complex pastoral issue which must constantly be looked at in all its ramifications,' CNS quoted Flynn as saying.

"'There was encouragement to keep on teaching and also to be aware of the forces everywhere, including the United States, that are against the long tradition of the teachings of the Church.'

"Flynn added, 'Sometimes we don’t come to the same conclusion about how to handle it.'

"Interestingly, in a private letter to [Ms. Kralis], dated January 15, 2005, Cardinal Arinze refuted the statements given by Archbishop Flynn. Cardinal Arinze’s secretary wrote:

Dear Ms. Kralis, His Eminence, Francis Cardinal Arinze, asks me to thank you for your communication regarding a news release from the Catholic News Service dated December 14, 2004. It concerns the Cardinal’s private discussion with the Archbishop of St. Paul and Minneapolis, His Excellency Archbishop Harry J. Flynn.

Cardinal Arinze wants you to know that the report was not exact and does not show his stand. He has written Archbishop Flynn about it.

Rainbow Sash wearers, the Cardinal says, are showing their opposition to Church teaching on a major issue of natural law and so disqualify themselves from being given Holy Communion...."

"Let us pray for ‘munus episcopale’ or office of the Bishops or ‘Episcopes’ (overseers) in guarding the truth that has been entrusted to them by the Holy Spirit, to bring all souls to God, no matter at what cost, even if it means persecution and death of the Bishop (2 Tim l: 14).

"'It was at Antioch [where Ignatius was bishop] that the disciples were called Christians for the first time.' (Acts 11:26). St. Ignatius taught:

'The Bishop holds the supreme office in the community not by his own efforts or merits, nor by men’s doing, nor for personal glory. No, he holds it through the love of God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.'"

2 posted on 01/28/2005 2:22:34 PM PST by St. Johann Tetzel (Rule One: No Poofters!)

Since Bishop Pilla flies the Gay Pride flag on his website, maybe he will throw the Rainbow Sash on for this special day:

http://www.dioceseofcleveland.org/gayandlesbianfamilyministry/images/rnbwtile.gif

http://www.dioceseofcleveland.org/gayandlesbianfamilyministry/images/tooosgif.gif

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.