Free Republic

I think most of the people posting on this thread have gotten the wrong idea about what the archbishop ACTUALLY said.

I believe that the journalist who wrote this article completely screwed up his lead sentence. From what I can tell, the archbishop DID NOT defend the abortion (as the title claims), NOR did he say that it was wrong for the Church to excommunicate those who performed and approved this abortion.

As a result, all of those who are criticizing the archbishop as a "Catholic in name only," as well as those who are praising him for "making an exception" to Church teaching, are off base.

Note the following paragraphs from the article (in italics):

The Vatican teaches that anyone performing or helping someone to have an abortion is automatically excommunicated from the church, and the Vatican prelate underlined that abortion is "always condemned by moral law as an intrinsically evil act."

The archbishop says abortion is "ALWAYS ... an intrinsically evil act," which means that a direct abortion is ALWAYS morally unacceptable. So, how can the archbishop be accused of "defending" this girl's abortion as the headline claims?

"There wasn't any need, we contend, for so much urgency and publicity in declaring something that happens automatically," Fisichella wrote.

In this quote, the archbishop very clearly reaffirms Church law that performing or being party to an abortion results in an AUTOMATIC excommunication. He is NOT criticizing the excommunication, which would have taken place even if neither the Church nor the media got wind of the abortion. The excommunication would have taken place AUTOMATICALLY at the moment the procedure took place, even if the girl, her mother, a doctor and God were the only ones who knew about it.

What the archbishop is criticizing is NOT the excommunication, but the public declaration of that excommunication. The archbishop is basically saying this: "These people are already excommunicated for what they did. Local Church leaders were very quick to announce the penalty for abortion and to threaten those involved with this penalty. But because this is such a tragic situation all around, the girl's family and others got the impression that the Church's position was cold, insensitive and unfair. The situation might have been better served if the local bishop had reached out to the girl's family, making it clear that he recognized her as a victim of an unspeakable crime, and presented the Church's opposition to abortion in a more compassionate way. I.e., explaining that the rape of a young girl is a terrible crime that shouldn't be compounded with the intentional murder of two more children. Also, reaching out to the family AFTER the abortion might have helped bring them to repentance; the public declaration of the excommunication might have the effect of pushing them further AWAY from Christ and further AWAY from the Church instead."

The archbishop may or may not be correct in his opinion about the public declaration of the excommunication. But it is VERY clear that he did NOT defend the abortion and he did NOT challenge the excommunication. He simply felt the Church's position could have been presented in a better way.

As much as I enjoy reading the threads on Free Republic, I hate the anti-Catholicism that seems to rear its ugly head so often in discussion threads. A while back, it made be so angry that I stopped visiting this site. And now, right in the middle of this discussion, I find yet another slam against my Church: a gratuitous reminder of the wrondoing of some Catholics, used as a way of insulting an entire Church. Why is it necessary to malign the Catholic Church here on Free Republic? Is this site trying to rival the mainstream media when it comes to religious insensitivity and bigotry?

That's a vile and offensive comment.
I don't know whether you are a Catholic or non-Catholic, but either way, you should be ashamed of yourself for making such a bigoted comment.

From www.catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0103sbs.asp


OBJECTION: But the bread of life discourse in John 6 shouldn’t be taken literally. Elsewhere, Jesus said that he was the door, the gate, the vine, et cetera. Here he is saying that he is the bread, since he gives us spiritual nourishment.

RESPONSE: When questions of biblical interpretation are raised, it is beneficial to read in context the entire passage that is in dispute. The bread of life discourse begins in John 6:22, and the first point to address is the discussion of the heavenly bread. Jesus makes the point that as the Father sent manna from heaven for the physical nourishment of the Israelites, he has sent Jesus for the spiritual nourishment of the world. When Jesus announced this (6:41), the Jews murmured because he said that he had come down from heaven, not because he said that he was like bread. They understood his symbolic statement regarding the origin of the manna, and were scandalized by what it implied: "Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does he now say, ‘I have come down from heaven?’" (6:42).

Beginning in verse 43, Jesus replies to these objections. At the completion of his answer (6:51), he speaks of a bread that he is yet to give. The Jews’ understand that he is now speaking in a literal sense, and so they object, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" So the Jews first objected because of what Jesus’ initial words meant symbolically, and now they object to what his second statement means literally. Had Jesus been speaking in a metaphorical sense here, this would be the perfect point to clarify his intentions.

Matthew 16:5–12 is one such example where Jesus’ listeners thought that he was speaking in a literal sense, and he had to correct them. In this passage, Christ was warning the disciples of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees. The disciples concluded that he was speaking of the bread they had forgotten to bring for their journey. In seeing their confusion, Jesus had to reiterate that he was not speaking literally of bread.

Keeping this in mind, look how Jesus answers the Jews’ objections in John 6:53–58: "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. . . . For my flesh is food indeed, and my flesh is drink indeed." These words would hardly quell the Jew’s fear that Jesus spoke literally. Following this, many of his disciples said, "This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?"(6:60). At this point, we witness the only place in Scripture where anyone leaves Jesus for a doctrinal reason. Had Jesus been speaking metaphorically, what would have been so hard for the disciples to accept?

One last passage worth considering is John 10:9, where Jesus says, "I am the door." Some say that this is the sense in which Jesus’ words in John 6 should be taken. However, no one understood Jesus to be speaking literally when he said that he was a door. The narrative does not continue, "And his disciples murmured about this, saying, ‘How can he be a door? Where are his hinges? We do not see a doorknob.’ Jesus answered them, ‘Amen, Amen, I say to you, I am a door, and my chest is real wood, and my hips are real hinges.’" This is absurd, but it illustrates how shocking Jesus’ words were when he said that his flesh was real food and his blood real drink.

The following is a short article from www.cuf.org/faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=121:

“This is My Body - Christ's Real Presence in the Eucharist”
ISSUE: Does the Catholic Church teach that we actually eat the body of Christ and drink His blood when we receive Holy Communion?
DISCUSSION: Yes. The Catholic Church has always taught that in the Most Blessed Sacrament of the Eucharist, the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus—the whole Christ—is truly, really, and substantially present. This teaching is rooted in Scripture, taught by the Fathers and doctors of the Church, and reaffirmed by popes and ecumenical councils throughout Church history. This teaching is summarized in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (nos. 1373-81).
Bread from Heaven
As the Old Testament attests, almighty God prepared His chosen people for the coming of Christ. He established His covenant with Abraham, confirmed the covenant with Isaac, and raised up a people through the sons of Jacob. When the Israelites were made slaves in Egypt, He led them out of slavery. This rescue from Egypt was just the beginning. Only after many years of trials and hardships would the people finally reach their destination. To prevent them from starving in the desert, God gave the people manna—“bread from heaven” (cf. Ex. 16:4 et seq.). He also led them by means of a cloud that hovered over the ark of the covenant (cf. Num. 9:15-23). These were two very tangible ways that the Lord demonstrated He was truly with His people.
As much as God cared for the Israelites in the desert, even more does He provide for His pilgrim Church today, by giving us His Son as our daily bread. As Jesus Himself said,
I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh (Jn. 6:48-51).
There are those today who accept the authority of the Bible but question whether Jesus was speaking literally in the Eucharistic passages, especially John 6. The Greek text itself evidences the Church’s constant understanding. In John 6:49, Jesus begins His teaching by first referring to eating manna. He uses the word efagon,[1] which means “eat” or “consume.” This verb can be used literally or figuratively. He then refers to Himself as the new manna, the living bread from heaven, of which those who eat will live forever. In this context, He uses the same word because of the figurative connection with manna.
After verse 52, when the Jews dispute His teaching, Jesus uses more emphatic language to clarify His teaching and address their concerns. He employs two techniques. First, He abandons any figurative association with manna. He no longer speaks of simply “eating,” but of “eating flesh and drinking blood.” He ends His explanation by stating, “This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as your fathers ate and died” (Jn. 6:58). Second, later in the discourse Jesus began using the word trwgwn,[2] which is rendered “gnaw” or “chew.” The verb trwgw is rarely used figuratively, and in the context used by Christ is evidently to be taken literally.
Many of the disciples had left everything to follow Jesus. They had just witnessed a miraculous multiplication of loaves (Jn. 6:1-14) and probably heard about His walking on water (Jn. 6:16-21), yet now they walk away from Jesus on account of this teaching (Jn. 6:66). This reaction simply would not make sense if Jesus were speaking only figuratively or symbolically.
Witness of the Church
Even more telling is the fact that during Christianity’s first thousand years there was virtually unanimous acceptance of the Church’s teaching on the Real Presence by faithful Christians. No one taught that the presence of Christ was only symbolic until Ratramnus (d. 868) and, more notably, Berengarius of Tours (d. 1088). The Church firmly rejected the teachings of both.
Conversely, there are many early Fathers of the Church who affirm Christ’s Real Presence in the Eucharist. For example, we have the writing of Saint Ignatius of Antioch (d. 110), whose witness is of unique importance since he was a disciple of Saint John, the author of the fourth Gospel. If there were any confusion as to the proper interpretation of John 6, surely Saint Ignatius could clarify the matter. Yet he never wrote that Jesus was speaking figuratively. Rather, he wrote, “I desire the Bread of God, which is the Flesh of Jesus Christ.”[3] Elsewhere he wrote that:
[t]hose who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us … do not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, Flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His goodness, raised up again.[4]
Then there is the witness of Saint Justin Martyr (d. 165) from his First Apology:
For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by Him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nourished, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus.[5]
Saint Cyril of Jerusalem (d. 386), at the end of a sermon on the Christian faith, taught:
[T]hat which seems to be bread, is not bread, though it tastes like it, but the Body of Christ, and that which seems to be wine, is not wine, though it too tastes as such, but the Blood of Christ…. [D]raw inner strength by receiving this bread as spiritual food and your soul will rejoice.[6]
Christ’s presence is clearly the work of God. In the words of Saint John Chrysostom (d. 407):
The priest standing there in the place of Christ says these words but their power and grace are from God. “This is My Body,” he says, and these words transform what lies before him.[7]
This teaching has been repeated over and over again by the great Fathers, doctors, and saints of the Church through the centuries.
In the sixteenth century, when the Church’s constant teaching was called into question by the Protestant reformers, the Council of Trent solemnly reaffirmed Our Lord’s Real Presence in the Eucharist:
But since Christ, our Redeemer, has said that that is truly His own body which He offered under the species of bread [cf. Mt. 26:26 ff.; Mk. 14:22 ff.; Lk. 22:19 ff.; 1 Cor. 11:24 ff.], it has always been a matter of conviction in the Church of God, and now this holy Synod declares it again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine a conversion takes place of the whole substance of bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord, and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of His blood. This conversion is appropriately and properly called transubstantiation by the Catholic Church [can. 2].[8]
When the words of consecration are spoken by the priest (cf. Mt. 26:26-29; Mk. 14:22-25; Lk. 22:17-19; 1 Cor. 11:23-25), Christ is true to His word: Through the action of the Holy Spirit, the bread and wine are transformed into the body and blood of Christ. Through the Eucharist, we are, among other things, nourished and strengthened in our Christian pilgrimage, and experience Christ’s assurance that He will be with us always (cf. Mt. 28:20).
Gift of Faith
Pope John Paul II has said that there is today a “crisis of faith” (Redemptoris Missio 2), and declining belief in and reverence toward the Real Presence is perhaps the case in point. Yet we know that the ability to accept this “hard teaching” (cf. Jn. 6:60) is possible only through the gift of faith. As Saint Bonaventure teaches:
There is no difficulty about Christ’s presence in the Eucharist as in a sign, but that He is truly present in the Eucharist as He is in heaven, this is most difficult. Therefore to believe this is especially meritorious.[9]
When discussing our faith with Christians who aren’t Catholic, we must build upon our shared love for Christ. Their willingness to follow Christ as Lord is the essential pathway to accepting Christ’s teaching about the Eucharist (cf. Jn. 6:67-69). If Jesus is truly present in the Eucharist, then He is truly there for all. A shared faith in Christ will lead us to a shared love of Him in the Blessed Sacrament.
Let us pray to our Eucharistic Lord, then, for an increase of faith for ourselves and for all, so that, united as brothers and sisters in the Lord, we may together share in the one heavenly banquet.
Catholics United for the Faith
827 N. Fourth St.
Steubenville, OH 43952
(800) 693-2484
www.cuf.org

© 2004 Catholics United for the Faith, Inc.
Last edited: 8/20/99

From www.catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0103sbs.asp

“Every time the Bible speaks of symbolically eating another's flesh and drinking their blood, this is the idiomatic phrase that meant to persecute, betray, and murder (see Micah 3:3; Psalm 27:2; Isaiah 9:20, 49:26). Now read John 6 in light of those that understood Jesus to speak symbolically. "I solemnly assure you that unless you persecute and betray me, you have no life within you. He who does violence to me has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day." This is senseless, but it is what his words would have meant if they were symbolic.”

I seem to remember Jesus commanding his disciples to eat his flesh and drink his blood. Personally, I'd rather not dismiss any of my Lord's commandments as "strange."

But whether you share this belief or not, perhaps there are better ways to respond to an uncharitable comment about the Mormon church than by making uncharitable comments about the beliefs of SEVERAL Christian denominations, including Catholics and Orthodox Christians (both of whom share identical beliefs about the Eucharist); as well as Anglicans, Episcopalians, Lutherans and others who (if I'm not mistaken) believe in at least some form of Real Presence in the Eucharist.

Oops ... I meant to say, "I'd take Schlafly OVER Boortz (a.k.a. the host of "some radio show called the Neal Boortz Show") any day.

I also love Boortz's dismissive description of "some group called the Republican National Coalition for Life." That's right, he thinks of it as some silly little group, some political sideshow.

FYI, that group was founded by Phyllis Schlafly in 1990. I'd take Schlafly or Boortz (a.k.a. the host of "some radio show called the Neal Boortz Show") any day.

Thanks, Neal Boortz. Calling pro-lifers "zealots" is such a great way to hold the conservative coalition together (sarcasm).

How can a person call for "a political movement dedicated to individual ... liberty," but then jettison the "right to life"? I, for one, can't reconcile a love for "individual liberty" with a willingness to completely ignore the fact that pre-born children themselves are "individuals" and their liberty is being denied at a shocking rate.

I'm very disappointed by Fr. Keller's statement and disagree with it wholeheartedly. I believe that Mott's past behavior has forever disqualified him from hearing confession.

BUT, having spoken with Fr. Keller on several occasions as both a high school and college student, I've always considered him to be a decent man and one who possesses the sense of quiet serenity you typically associate only with the very holy.

As a Catholic, I've been very critical of Cardinal Law and other bishops. But, I have trouble condemning Fr. Keller, despite this HUGE lapse in judgement. I think we should pray for him, that he has a change of heart.

Send your messages to the Schindler Family. Let them know how much you care about them and their daughter. In this time of tragedy, help them not to lose faith in a God of Mercy AND Justice.

I've heard a lot of references to marital problems/potential sex scandal involving Bill Owens. Can someone please tell me the full story or refer me to a source?

So far, he's my favorite contender for the '08 nomination. If there are any skeletons in his closet, I'd like to know earlier rather than later.

Dan Quayle ... Take that, Murphy Brown!

I know we've had a few posts about this new university already, but I couldn't resist posting another one. This place makes me wish I could go to college all over again!

New Catholic University is definitely in my prayers. Since I'm from the San Diego area, I'll also check into either volunteering with them or attending that fundraising gala in September. Anybody else on this board from SD?

Conservative Christians have got to help this thing get off the ground!!!

The good news is that New Catholic University sounds like a solid institution. I see that it's going to have a film program, too. It sure would be great if we could get more principled Christians in Hollywood.