Posted on 03/04/2005 6:03:12 AM PST by NYer
LINCOLN, Neb. (AP) -- An official with a Catholic reform group that has criticized the church's handling of priest sex-abuse cases says he was denied communion by Lincoln Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz and two other priests.
John Krejci, a former priest and co-founder of the Nebraska chapter of Call to Action, said Bruskewitz denied him communion at Sacred Heart parish on Feb. 7, with "an unfriendly wave of his hand."
"It was kind of like, "Go away!," Krejci said. "Then he spun around and went back to the alter."
Bruskewitz said nothing, Krejci said.
Call to Action has long been critical of how the church handled allegations of sexual abuse of children by priests.
Nebraska's diocese in Lincoln was the only one in the nation to refuse to participate in the Catholic church's sex-abuse survey; Bruskewitz said it was flawed.
The alleged incident with Krejci came some nine years after he and members of several other groups were excommunicated by Bruskewitz -- a decision Krejci said is still on appeal to the Vatican.
Church law is supposed to allow Krejci and the others to receive sacraments until their appeal is decided, Krejci said.
A spokesman for the Lincoln Diocese, the Rev. Mark Huber, issued an unsigned statement from the diocese late Thursday that said there is "no evidence that an appeal from Mr. Krejci or his colleagues who have also abandoned the Catholic Church in order to belong to a sect entitled Call to Action is pending in Rome."
The statement said the diocese believed the appeal was dismissed, but did not say when.
Bruskewitz ordered Lincoln Catholics in 1996 to sever ties with 12 groups or risk excommunication themselves. The bishop said the groups -- including Call to Action, several Masonic organizations, and abortion-rights groups Planned Parenthood and Catholics for a Free Choice -- contradict and imperil Catholic faith.
Krejci said that after Bruskewitz put down his vessel of communion wafers, Krejci walked over and took one himself. No one reacted, he said.
"That might seem like a bold or overly dramatic gesture, but when someone violates your rights, sometimes you need to be dramatic and point that out," Krejci said.
Krejci said he returned to Sacred Heart on Feb. 20 and was again denied communion, this time by the Rev. Tom Walsh.
Krejci said Walsh explained that he had instructions from the Catholic Chancery office to deny communion. Walsh was out of town Thursday and not available for comment.
Krejci said he was denied communion again on Tuesday at St. Patrick's parish by the Rev. David Hintz.
"He said, 'John, I'm sorry, but I can't give you communion,"' Krejci said.
Hintz did not immediately return a phone message left Thursday seeking comment.
Krejci said he was unsure why he suddenly was denied communion. Bruskewitz and other priests had given him communion in the years since the excommunication.
"I don't know if he acted spontaneously or what," Krejci said.
The statement from the diocese ended with: "Mr., Krejci's behavior toward the Holy Eucharist has raised many concerns among the faithful who have heard of it. Any faithful Catholic realizes that he may not approach the sanctuary and take Holy Communion on his own. Mr. Krejci can be assured of our prayers, but must understand that we are obligated to follow the teachings of Christ and the laws of the Church."
Krejci, 67, attended the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome with Bruskewitz in the 1960s. He left the priesthood in 1971 and is now married.
Patty Hawk, national co-chair of Call To Action, said she was shocked by the incidents involving Krejci.
"It's very sad," she said.
No other members of the group have reported being denied communion in Lincoln, she said.
Hawk said Bruskewitz has not responded to requests to talk about the situation.
Call To Action was founded in 1979 and now has 25,000 members and 40 local chapters. It has long been critical of the church hierarchy on various issues and advocates for reforms such as the ordination of women and optional celibacy for priests, among other things.
At the same time, their mission statements and goals are disguised in shrewd words, usually in terms of "rights," "equality" and "social justice." But the Bible warns us of such a state of affairs; "I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves [clergy] will arise men speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them. Therefore be alert" (Acts 20:29-31). "And what I do I will continue to do, in order to undermine the claim of those who would like to claim that in their boasted mission they work on the same terms as we do. For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. So it is not strange if his servants also disguise themselves as servants of righteousness. Their end will correspond to their deeds" (2 Corinthians 11:12-15). "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles? So, every sound tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears evil fruit. A sound tree cannot bear evil fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit" (Matthew 7:15-18).
Due to the potential damage to the Faith, links to these sites are not provided. However, the names of these dissident organizations are offered for your education and awareness - to be alert as the Bible tells us. This list will be updated as more is learned about the various organizations. Following this list is material which contains more in-depth analysis of some of these dissident organizations. See also the Dissenting Author and Speakers page for the names of individuals commonly associated with the dissident organizations. Read also on how does an organization get placed on this list.
Note: Parish Churches are not placed on this list. They are instead identified with the particular dissenting pastor.
Receiving Communion is a "right"? M'kay.
This is just slightly different than the article posted just the... other day. The last one, I don't believe, pointed out that this person had been excommunicated for years. The reason for his dissent has been given the journalistic redux to something more, er, attention grabbing.
It's all about ME, isn't it?
I read somewhere that the membership numbers CTA publishes are quite suspect -they supposedly had a large number of members early on and as they veered of the path and were exposed the publicity gave unsuspecting members pause...
Thanks for that link!
| A Call to Action | The most visible dissenting group which is a movement of laity and religious seeking to reform the "sinful structure" of the "patriarchal" Church. One could call them the "mother of all dissenting groups" - feminist pun intended. CTA is infamous since its 1994 conference coverage on the CBS news program 60 Minutes. CTA promotes dissent against Church teachings on a broad front, including women's ordination, homosexuality, creation spirituality, married priesthood, and liturgical reforms, while incorporating new age and Wiccan spirituality. Bishop Bruskewitz excommunicated those that belong to this group in his Diocese. Many members belong to local groups called "small faith communities." Renew 2000 also promotes small faith communities. Membership draws heavily from former clergy, feminist nuns, and homosexuals. Members staff COR. CTA serves on the national task force for the We Are Church referendum. Get a more complete understanding of their position from their own information. For a list of their speakers at the 2004 conference, click here. |
Bishop Bruskewitz is just another modernist. Not that Call to Action is any great shakes--but the bishop is no different from Mahoney or Kasper or any of that gang of apostates. It's hard to see where Call to Action is any worse than his brand of false Catholicism.
hence the attack on Bishop Bruskewitz by UR. Thanks! Now it makes sense.
Like you didn't know this? Of course I reject his lumping good Catholics in with the nutcases. I'm merely showing that he is something of a nutcase himself. It's incumbent upon him, not the SSPX, to show how these good people are in any way heretical or schismatic--especially when he is so palsy with Protestants and Orthodox. Repeating what JPII said in a Motu Proprio won't do it, since the Papal declaration was itself bizarre and contradicted his own canon law. Both pope and bishop need to do more than just push their weight around. Some evidence for their claims was in order--but none was ever forthcoming and is therefore properly and politely ignored.
The claim that SSPX is in schism is false. It is motivated by opposition to those who profess traditional Catholicism in rejection of the attempt to impose a new religion on the Catholic faithful. It was false when pronounced in 1988 without a shred of evidence, and it is false today. I enclose for your enlightenment the follow essay which explains why so many canonists today reject this false slander:
________________________________________________
Schism and Monsignor Lefebvre
By the Rev. T.C.G. Glover, a former Vatican Canonist.
Voices are heard saying that Mons. Lefebvre and Mons. de Castro Mayer, together with the four bishops they consecrated on 30th June 1988, have been excommunicated for schism. The same voices also say that all the priests of the Society of St Pius X, and all the laity who support them or attend their Masses, are automatically excommunicated for schism. Generally, they ignore the fact that there are plenty of traditional priests running Mass Centres who are not members of the Society of St Pius. X, and include these as schismatics and so are also excommunicated. The facts do not support them.
There is no dispute that the episcopal Consecrations took place without a Pontifical Mandate--that is, without the Pope’s permission and indeed against his express wishes. Canon 1382 states that a bishop who consecrates another without a Pontifical Mandate incurs excommunication 'latae sententiae', and the priest who allows himself to be consecrated a bishop incurs it likewise. Excommunication is of two types: 'latae sententiae' and 'ferendae sententiae'. The first type is often called automatic, as the delinquent incurs it simply by committing the offence specified in the law, whereas the second type requires the intervention of a judge or superior to impose the penalty
On 1st July 1988, the Prefect of the Sacred Congregation of Bishops (the old Consistorial Congregation) issued a decree declaring that all six bishops were excommunicated. As the penalty is 'latae sententiae', this is not a condemnatory sentence imposing a penalty, but a declaratory sentence saying that the penalty has been incurred by the violation in question. To many, this will seem the end of the matter: the six bishops broke a law of whose existence all were aware, and which carries with it automatic excommunication. This is not so.
First, no penalty is ever incurred without grave moral imputability (Canon 1323.7). This means, in the moral theologian's terminology, subjective mortal sin. The Archbishop has made it clear many times that his primary purpose in consecrating successors is to ensure a future supply of additional priests to provide the laity with Mass and the Sacraments. He acted only after years of thought, and many months of protracted negotiations with the Holy See and a similar intention and careful consideration can be discerned in the other five bishops. Even if the final decision is judged a mistake, it cannot amount to subjective mortal sin.
Secondly, Canon 1323.4 states that even where an offence carrying a penalty has been committed, the penalty is not incurred if the act was performed out of necessity unless it be something intrinsically evil or damaging to souls. Again, it is clear that it was the necessity of providing for a future supply of traditional priests which caused the Archbishop and his Co-consecrator to act: as they did, after all hope for a 'reconciliation' with Rome had proved groundless.
There is a very old 'rule of law' (Regulaluris 15) which gives the benefit of any doubt in cases of penal law: Odia restringi, et favores convenit ampliari. In other words, if there is a doubt whether a penalty has been incurred in a particular case, it means that it has not been incurred. It is not, therefore, necessary to prove that the Consecrations were morally innocent and done under necessity; it is enough to show sufficient serious arguments to establish that there is a doubt, so the six bishops are not excommunicated under Canon 1382.
But the decree of the Sacred Congregation for Bishops goes further by declaring the six bishops to be schismatics and so also automatically excommunicated under Canon 1364.1. It further warns the faithful that if they support “the schism of Mons. Lefebvre, they too will be ipso facto excommunicated”. This charge involves a large and unjustified mental leap. It is made by the Pope in his Apostolic letter 'Ecclesia Dei' of 2nd July 1988. Speaking of the Consecrations, he writes:
"In itself, this act was one of disobedience to the Roman Pontiff in a very grave matter and of supreme importance for the unity of the Church, such as is the ordination of bishops whereby the apostolic succession is sacramentally perpetuated. Hence such disobedience - which implied in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy - constitutes a schismatic act."
It does nothing of the sort. Schism, defined in Canon 751, means refusal of subjection to the Supreme Pontiff of refusal of communion with other members of the Church. A mere act of disobedience to a superior does not imply denial that the superior holds office or has authority.
The child who says, 'I won't!' to his mother does not deny that she is his mother; the soldier ordered to polish his buttons by his officer, who instead smokes a cigarette, is not denying the validity of the Queen's Commission. Again, for the charge of 'Schism' to stick, it must be certain beyond all reasonable doubt. In a word, the six bishops have not incurred excommunication for schism so those who adhere to them cannot be excommunicated either. There is indeed more muddled thinking here.
The phrases 'followers of Mons. Lefebvre', 'Lefebvrist Mass Centres', 'Lefebvre priests' are frequently used. They imply that Mons: Lefebvre is the head of the Society of St Pius X. He is not. Fr Schmidberger has been Superior-General for five years, and has District Superiors under him.
Even if the six bishops had been excommunicated for illegal consecrations and schism, it would not in itself affect the others. If a retired Benedictine bishop were to be excommunicated, it would not mean that Benedictines throughout the world, and those who hear Mass in Benedictine churches, were excommunicated. Excommunication is a penalty for those who commit certain crimes will full moral guilt, not a contagious disease!
The point may seem academic: to support a schismatic against the Pope and 'adhere' to him is to join in his schism; but we have shown that the charge of schism will not stick. Even if it did, it would not automatically involve the laity who attend Mass Centres in excommunication. Canon 844.2 allows the faithful to seek the Sacraments of Communion, Penance and Extreme Unction even from non-Catholic ministers (provided their Orders are valid), if it is physically or morally impossible to go to a Catholic minister. This Canon has caused great scandal amongst traditional Catholics but it is, of course, accepted by the Pope! Even the old Code allowed access to an excommunicated priest in certain cases of necessity. And there is no doubt that it is often physically impossible to receive traditional Sacraments, except from a priest who supports the actions of Mons. Lefebvre. This does lead to another point. Traditional Catholics have become used to defending their actions, justifying their attendance at Masses not authority by the local bishop, and so on. This article is written in a similar strain, showing on the basis of Canon Law that the six bishops are not excommunicated either for illegal Consecrations or Schism, and in consequence, that other traditional priests and lay people are not excommunicated either. But it is a mistake to leave the question on this defensive note.
It is for the Pope and bishops to justify their actions. They have abandoned the traditional rites of Mass and the Sacraments, they have allowed heresy to be taught, and abuse to abound throughout the Church. Traditional Catholics have merely remained faithful to what the Church has always taught and done, and this fidelity to tradition is the sole cause of all their problems with authority. We now have the ludicrous episode of the Holy See condemning the six bishops in the Church who are clearly Catholics! There may be plenty of others, but their Catholicism is no longer manifest, and their attitude over the past 20 years puts it in doubt.
It is now for the Pope and those who claim to be 'faithful' to him to explain their actions, and to show that they are still Catholics. The six bishops involved in the events of 30th June have made their orthodoxy clear."
Krejci followed the bishop up to the altar and, after the bishop sat down, took a wafer anyway.Mr. Krejci is guilty of a scandalous disrespect for the Holy Host and to the bishop, on top of his anti-Catholic political views.Since then, Krejci has attended other Catholic churches in the diocese and participated in communion.
(Earlier Thread)
"Society of Saint Pius X (Lefebvre Group) = Dissenting(must....use....charity...must...resist...nutcase....term)"
That's not good enough. You need to add what their dissent is from. It is dissent from the modernism promulgated by this pope and his predecessor, Paul VI, replete with a new Mass and new doctrines and scornful disregard of ancient dogmas--that which both Pope and his appointees erroneously support to the great detriment of the traditional faith.
The SSPX is neither heretic nor schismatic. They do not deny the papacy nor the legitimacy of this Pontiff, but they do deny his new doctrines and his attempt to impose them on Catholics in flagrant disregard of Catholic Tradition. In this they are wholly within their rights. It is incumbent upon all Catholics to defend the faith--even against a hierarchy which attempts to intimidate them.
As for being off-topic--this is a neat trick of yours. First you slam the SSPX exclusively, then back-off, claiming I'm the one who's off topic for reponding. Not on your life. I refuse to let you muddy the truth with slanders against good priests and the good people who follow their lead in defending the faith of our ancestors.
"This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra;"
The key word here is AUTHENTIC. A doctrine cannot be authentic if it attempts to destroy the faith. Should Catholics be obliged to obey a pontiff in such a case? I don't think so. To think they should would be bizarre--and typical of modernists who, before Vatican II, blithely ignored magisterial admonitions--even the traditional dogmas of faith--but now demand obedience to their new religion by others! In fact John Paul II has gone so far in his approval of such men that he gives them red hats, though they have taught doctrines directly OPPOSED to the teachings of the Church which had been properly condemned. It is wrong, therefore, to suppose that blind obedience can ever be proper for Catholics confronted with such widespread hostility to Catholic Tradition at the very top, all in the name of a new theology, though it is a neat way to stifle any sort of opposition to modernist perversions against faith.
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.