Skip to comments.Abp. Vigneron: Gay Marriage Supporters Shoud Refrain From Communion
Posted on 04/08/2013 6:43:42 PM PDT by markomalley
Archbishop Vigneron of Detroit has done a shocking thing. He has stated the obvious. Bishops should be doing a lot more obvious stating.
A Detroit professor and legal adviser to the Vatican says Catholics who promote gay marriage should not try to receive holy Communion, a key part of Catholic identity.
And the archbishop of Detroit, Allen Vigneron, said Sunday that Catholics who receive Communion while advocating gay marriage would "logically bring shame for a double-dealing that is not unlike perjury."
And then of course they dig up this guy, whose only job seems to give comments like this to media.
Most American bishops do not favor denying either politicians or voters Communion because of their positions on controversial issues," said Thomas Reese, a Catholic priest and senior fellow at the Woodstock Theological Center at Georgetown University. Reese said that Peters' views are "in a minority among American canon lawyers."They are not controversial from a Catholic point of view, only from a dissenters point of view.
But, Reese added, "about 30 or so bishops have said that pro-choice or pro-gay-marriage Catholics should not present themselves for Communion."
There are a couple of technical slips in Niraj Warikoos article in the Detroit Free Press on the reception of holy Communion by gay activists (e.g., I hold a professorial chair at Sacred Heart Seminary, I am not a chairman, and one of my longer quotes is condensed to the point of confusing), but generally his presentation of my views (and I think of Abp. Vignerons) is well done.
Only the comments of Fr. Thomas Reese, sj, require, as per usual, contextualization, if not challenge. Per Reese: Most American bishops do not favor denying either politicians or voters Communion because of their positions on controversial issues and Peters views are in a minority among American canon lawyers.
Re Reeses first commentand setting aside his transparent attempt to steer the Canon 915 discussion into the voting booth, wherein no one thinks it appliesReese is commenting on how bishops act whereas I am commenting on how canon law expects bishops and others to act. Reeses claim about bishops (in)action, even if true, would not make my views (actually, the 1983 Codes views, resting on settled Church teaching) wrong, it would simply mark them as ignored. To be sure, the implications for me if my views are wrong, and for others if my views are right, are pretty obvious, but my hunch is, Reese knows that.
Re his second comment, Reese cites no canon lawyers who regard my position as minority (as if being in agreement with John Paul II, Cdl. Burke, then-Cdl. Ratzinger, and the PCLT could leave one worrying about ones minority status) though a few canonists have expressed alternative interpretations of the law. Thats fine, of course, its what lawyers do, but that only pushes the real questionnamely, whose interpretation of the law is the more soundback a bit. Eventually that fundamental question pops back up and needs to be addressed.
Finally, it seems to me that most of those (rather few) canonists who do express alternative interpretations of Canon 915 do not, when one gets right down to it, disagree with my read of the law, rather, they hesitate over whether the facts of individual cases meet the criteria set out in Canon 915. Fact questions are very important, I grant, but they lend themselves to resolution based on objective information. Ive always said that and so have the US bishops. What concerns me, and what I spend most of my time defending in this matter, is the basic point that Church law requires, upon the demonstration of certain kinds of facts, that canonico-sacramental consequences follow.
But again, I think Reese knows that; he just doesnt like it.
“....Catholics who promote gay marriage should not try to receive holy Communion....”
Neither should those who voted for the very politicians who promote these evils e.g. Obama, Biden, Pelosi, Kerry et al.
All Americans of good will, put the cards down and place your bets.
YES! More need to follow this man’s lead. Don’t leave it up to them though, archbishop. DENY them communion.
” Dont leave it up to them though, archbishop. DENY them communion.”
Although I agree that for high profile people it should be denied, T think for the most part it is taken care of by the fact that communion received when you are not in a state of grace is not communion at all.
It is long past time to have more of this. It is one thing to be attending a church seeking redemption it is another altogether to be actively promoting ones sinful nature proudly flaunting church tenants. Personally I believe all churches should be more demanding of their flocks especially their high profile political flock. Who do they serve God or the world? I believe one of the reasons church attendance and relevancy has fallen is because it in many cases has become meaningless not just on gays and abortion but on a whole slew of issues. Where are the courageous prophets of God like Nathan who chastised the likes of King David? People don’t tend to follow those who act like they are apologizing for what they believe.
I’m guessing Father Reese is another mealy-mouthed Jesuit Lib.
May God bless and keep this archbishop. And may more come forward and speak the truth.
When these Pro-Abortion and Pro-Gay “Catholics” go up for Holy Communion WITHOUT going to Confession first, they are committing a great SCANDAL and they have a MILLSTONE around their neck...woe to them. God will NOT be MOCKED.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
Maybe one day we shall have a functioning episcopacy in America.
Gay ‘marriage’ is a fraud.