Catholic commentary on culture, media, and politics.

Wednesday, July 06, 2005

The Roman Chaotic Church of Canada

When the priests and bishops can't speak with one voice on issues that a 10-year-old can understand clearly, when Holy Communion is treated like a political football (by Catholic politicans, that is, not Church leaders protecting our Lord's eucharistic integrity) no wonder the Church looks petty, disorganized and irrelevant.

Then there are these words from a Bavarian prelate now residing in Rome:

5. Regarding the grave sin of abortion or euthanasia, when a person’s formal cooperation becomes manifest (understood, in the case of a Catholic politician, as his consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws), his Pastor should meet with him, instructing him about the Church’s teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin, and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist.

According to Archbishop Marcel Gervais, who unfortunately (deliberately?) conflates the same-sex marriage issue with abortion, the following phrases are "not all that clear":

"not to present himself for Holy Communion"..."objective situation of sin"..."will otherwise be denied the Eucharist."

To paraphrase David Bowie, Let's Parse:

Refusing communion to a leader of Parliament is serious to the extreme.

Interesting that it's not phrased the other way around: "actively supporting the barbaric crime of abortion is serious to the extreme."

I, like most other bishops, would not entertain such a thought without the backing of my brother bishops, or without prior communication with the Holy See.

Show of hands: how many think Bishop John Fisher or St. Thomas More spent a lot of time "finding consensus" before acting against King Henry XIII's injustices? No bishop requires prior communication with the Holy See before declining Holy Communion to those who obstinately and publically persist in grave sin.

To him (Bishop Fred Henry of Calgary) the PM is a federal politician.

One sense the sneering presence of the word mere before "federal politician," i.e., Bishop Henry is cold and calculating.

Whereas:

To me he is also a faithful member of my cathedral parish.

For I am meek, and humble of heart.

He did not personally bring his party to adopt this policy.

Oh, no, he fought it tooth and nail.

He has come to the conclusion that it is according to the plan of God for him to accept to be the leader of his party and, in this arena, it is acceptable for him to represent its policies.

Said the German bishop of the Nazi parishioner.

As the leader of the party in power, he believes that his personal opinion is not relevant to his role as leader.

Just curious: would that also apply to the opinion that, say, blacks or gays are inferior?

While I do not agree either with his argument or his conclusion on same sex marriage, I do not think, at this time, his position merits refusing him communion.

I'm okay, you're okay, he's okay. Any questions?

4 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

I would also include the term "Roman Chaotic" to the US church. In the US these arguments of being a leader with counter policies to the Church's define doctrine is so ingrained(institutionalized) in the fabric of society that it would take a divine intervention to change hearts.
I once, with another Catholic complained, to the Archdiocese of LA for inviting Mrs. Clinton as First Lady in the opening of a Catholic facility. It was explained to us, with much disdained, that it is the office not the person who was invited.
They where just being civil.

9:47 AM

 
Anonymous Patrick said...

Yeah, they invited an abstract concept (aka The Office), not a real person who promotes real evils. And they think you're the uncivil one.

1:28 PM

 
Blogger Non Sum Dignus said...

***Just curious: would that also apply to the opinion that, say, blacks or gays are inferior?***

Let's not equate the two. One is a matter of pigment; the other is a matter of perversion (or dare I say it.... abomination)

Dominus Vobiscum Y'all

3:59 AM

 
Blogger Patrick said...

non sum:

You missed the point. I wasn't equating gayness and blackness. I was saying that if Prime Minister Martin "personally held" that gays and blacks were inferior, or some other bad thing, then I think most people (including Archbishop Gervais) would claim that such an opinion will certainly affect his judgement as a public leader. But being pro-abortion or pro-gay "marriage" is somehow *different.*

3:12 PM

 

Post a Comment

<< Home