Francis calls pro-abortion Biden "a good Catholic"

 As noted here:

"President Biden said he was told Friday by Pope Francis that he is a 'good Catholic' who should continue to receive Communion, even as some conservative U.S. Catholic leaders argue he should be denied the sacrament for his stance on abortion."

What more proof does one need that Francis is an anti-pope, a pretender to the Chair of Peter? A Masonic Manchurian Candidate in the Vatican?

Pope Saint John Paul II spoke authoritatively for the Catholic tradition when he defined that "direct abortion always constitutes a grave moral disorder, since it is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being" and that "no circumstance, no purpose, no law whatsoever" can ever make it licit (EV 62). He echoed the Second Vatican Council which had declared: "All offences against life itself, such as abortion... are criminal. They poison civilization, and they debase the perpetrators even more than the victims... Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes." (GS 27, 51)

Joseph Biden supports this crime against life.  Isn't it interesting that for Francis, the partisan, President Trump was "Non-Christiano" for wanting to build a wall, but Joe Biden,  the anti-life zealot who also promotes sodomy, is a "good Catholic "?

Who is really weaponizing the Eucharist?

 

From Bishop Samuel Aquila:

"Jesus counseled the disciples to enter 'through the narrow gate,' since the road that leads to destruction is broad and 'those who enter through it are many,' but the road that leads to life is narrow and 'those who find it are few' (Mt. 7:13-14).

Those of us who have followed the news in the last week or so know that the press has declared that the U.S. Bishops are planning to ban President Biden from Communion, allegedly ignoring the Vatican’s guidance. Of course, that is not true when one looks at the details of what we discussed at our June meeting and what Cardinal Ladaria said in his letter to the bishops.

The bishops were asked by Cardinal Ladaria, who heads the Vatican’s doctrine office, to build consensus about how to respond to Catholics who hold public positions and who insist on receiving Holy Communion after publicly committing grave sins. After hours of discussion, the bishops voted 168 to 55 to draft a document that addresses both this issue and the broader question of what places any person in a state of not being able to receive Communion. The document, which will be drafted and then discussed regionally in the coming months, will strive to make the Church’s teachings on the Eucharist and worthily receiving the Lord more widely known.

Despite the efforts made to clearly communicate that the document is 'not meant to be disciplinary in nature, nor is it targeted at any one individual or class of persons,' 60 Catholic lawmakers released a letter one hour after our vote justifying their support for legalized abortion and arguing that the bishops have 'weaponized the Eucharist.'

This is deflecting the blame for the situation. Instead of accepting their own responsibility to understand and follow Church teaching, these politicians are the ones who are 'weaponizing the Eucharist' by insisting that they remain in good standing despite publicly committing grave sins and continuing to receive Communion. Everyone with common sense understands that their claim of being in communion with the Church is false. One cannot say one believes something, do the complete opposite and then credibly say that they are in communion with a Church that believes what they did is evil.

To add another layer to this, many bishops – including myself – have been privately dialoguing with Catholic politicians on abortion and other issues for years, urging them to refrain from Communion if they won’t change their immoral political positions. Unfortunately, many – but not all – of these public figures have chosen political expediency over the Gospel. They value their political party and their power more than the Gospel of Jesus Christ. They do not serve as a leaven of the Gospel in society, but rather build a culture of death. They cite the importance of following their consciences but fail to explain how their conscience is a properly formed conscience. Instead, they adopt a form of relativism that says, 'truth is different for every person.'

As Jesus said to the disciples, the road that leads to eternal life is narrow and those who attempt to take the wide road are headed for destruction. We see this in St. Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians, where he warns that some people had received the Eucharist in a state of grave sin and became sick or died. “Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died” (1 Cor. 11:27-30).

Drawing on St. Paul, the Church’s teaching for every Catholic about worthily receiving the Body and Blood of Jesus is that one “must be in the state of grace. Anyone aware of having sinned mortally must not receive communion without having received absolution in the sacrament of penance” (Catechism 1415)..."

In the words of Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger:

"Presenting oneself to receive Holy Communion should be a conscious decision, based on a reasoned judgment regarding one’s worthiness to do so, according to the Church’s objective criteria, asking such questions as: 'Am I in full communion with the Catholic Church? Am I guilty of grave sin? Have I incurred a penalty (e.g. excommunication, interdict) that forbids me to receive Holy Communion? Have I prepared myself by fasting for at least an hour?' The practice of indiscriminately presenting oneself to receive Holy Communion, merely as a consequence of being present at Mass, is an abuse that must be corrected." 

See Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1395

Related reading here

Communion on the tongue safer than Communion in the hand

 

I've been saying this right along: Communion on the tongue is safer than Communion in the hand.  Another study confirms this.  See here.

And yet, the former Bishop of the Springfield Massachusetts Diocese (Bishop Mitchell Rozanski) used the pandemic to crush reverence for the Holy Eucharist throughout his sodomite-ridden local Church.  See here.

Communion on the tongue has always been, and continues to be, the norm.  See here.

The filth of the Springfield Diocese and it's legacy here.

The Bishops of Malta depart from the Faith...

As this EWTN article makes clear:

"In "Concerning the Reception of Holy Communion by Divorced-and-Remarried Members of the Faithful" the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in a letter to the world's bishops on October 14, 1994 said,

7. The mistaken conviction of a divorced-and-remarried person that he may receive holy communion normally presupposes that personal conscience is considered in the final analysis to be able, on the basis of one's own convictions, to come to a decision about the existence or absence of a previous marriage and the value of the new union. However, such a position is inadmissible. Marriage, in fact, both because it is the image of the spousal relationship between Christ and his church as well as the fundamental core and an important factor in the life of civil society, is  essentially a public reality. [/library/curia/cdfdivor.txt]

By this document the Holy See affirmed the continuous theology and discipline of the Catholic Church that those who are divorced and remarried without a Decree of Nullity for the first marriage (whether that marriage was made within or outside the Catholic Church) are in an objectively adulterous union that prevents them from honestly repenting, receiving absolution for their their sins, and receiving Holy Communion. Until the marital irregularity is resolved by a Marriage Tribunal, or other procedures which apply to marriages of the non-baptized, they may not approach Penance or Holy Communion. As Pope John Paul II pointed out in Reconciliation and Penance, the Church desires such couples to participate in the Church's life to the extent possible (and this participation in Mass, Eucharistic adoration, devotions and so on is a great spiritual help to them), as they work toward full sacramental participation."

The Bishops of Malta, inspired no doubt by Francis, have rejected this perennial teaching of Holy Mother Church founded on the teaching of the Lord Jesus Christ.

They have just declared that:


"With 'an informed and enlightened conscience,' a separated or divorced person living in a new relationship who is able 'to acknowledge and believe that he or she is at peace with God,' the bishops said, 'cannot be precluded from participating in the sacraments of reconciliation and the Eucharist.'"

For the Bishops of Malta, the teaching of Christ Jesus is something irrelevant.  Relegated to the garbage basket as well is the teaching of the Catechism of the Catholic Church that the Eucharist is properly the Sacrament of those who are in full communion with the Catholic Church (CCC, 1395).

But when you've made yourself your own God, the Commandments of the Lord Jesus are easily disposed of.

Deacon Ryan Duns: Archbishop Nienstedt comes across as homophobic

In a Blog post addressing a letter written by Archbishop John Nienstedt to a mother explaining the Church's teaching regarding homosexual acts and the reception of the Holy Eucharist, Deacon Ryan Duns, the Jesuit seminarian who believes that "gay marriage" might be a movement of the Holy Spirit, said that the Archbishop's letter, "..serves only to reinforce the belief that the Catholic Church is a homophobic institution more concerned with obedience than human flourishing." See here.

In his Encyclical Letter Deus Caritas Est (God is Love), Pope Benedict XVI writes, "It is characteristic of mature love that it calls into play all man's potentialities; it engages the whole man, so to speak. Contact with the visible manifestations of God's love can awaken within us a feeling of joy born of the experience of being loved. But this encounter also engages our will and our intellect. Acknowledgment of the living God is one path towards love, and the 'yes' of our will to his will unites our intellect, will and sentiments in the all- embracing act of love. But this process is always open-ended; love is never 'finished' and complete; throughout life, it changes and matures, and thus remains faithful to itself. Idem velle atque idem nolle —to want the same thing, and to reject the same thing—was recognized by antiquity as the authentic content of love: the one becomes similar to the other, and this leads to a community of will and thought. The love-story between God and man consists in the very fact that this communion of will increases in a communion of thought and sentiment, and thus our will and God's will increasingly coincide: God's will is no longer for me an alien will, something imposed on me from without by the commandments, but it is now my own will, based on the realization that God is in fact more deeply present to me than I am to myself. Then self- abandonment to God increases and God becomes our joy (cf. Ps 73 [72]:23-28)." (No. 17).

Jesus gave us this new Law of Love.  He said, "If you love Me, keep My commandments." (John 14:15).  And through the centuries many have demonstrated their love for Him by obeying His commands, even unto martyrdom. Others have followed Him indifferently or have turned away from Him entirely, abandoning that faith which is the pearl of great price.

Those Catholics who are agitating for "gay pride" and even same-sex "marriage" have embraced a false notion of "freedom."  For such people, there can only be true freedom if they are permitted to engage in homosexual acts or marry a member of the same-sex.  And anyone who resists this immoral agenda which embraces a counterfeit notion of freedom is denounced as a "hater" and a "bigot" or as one who fosters "prejudice."

Clearly Deacon Duns has set himself in opposition to the Church's authentic teaching regarding homosexual acts and has little interest in the truth that the Eucharist is properly the Sacrament of those who are in full communion with the Church (CCC, 1395).

Should this confused individual, who has shown contempt for Church teaching and a faithful Bishop of Christ's Church, be ordained to the priesthood?

Is this What passes for a sound candidate today?

Father Joseph Jurgelonis, Sister Joyce Rupp and God's Will

As I mentioned in a previous post, back in 2004, while accepting the "U.S. Catholic Award," angry feminist and New Age advocate Sister Joyce Rupp lapsed into a hate-filled rant against the Church and her hierarchy while promoting the concept of Yin and Yang and complaining that women are abused within the Catholic Church because they cannot be ordained to the priesthood.

 Rupp asserted that, "Many women in the Roman Catholic Church are in immense pain because of how women are treated by this church, particularly by the hierarchy and other ordained clergy. I once told the late Bishop Kenneth Untener that I felt like I had 'just one little toe in the church.' He responded with a twinkle in his eye: 'Keep it there.' I have, but I also understand the throng of women who have left the church because of such things as the continued arrogant use of exclusive language and the constant refusal to recognize the fullness of their gifts in church ministry."


Rupp may have kept her little toe in the Church. But in her heart and mind, she has left the Church. She speaks often about "compassion," but her words and actions have betrayed the fact that she has not persevered in charity. And as Lumen Gentium of the Second Vatican Council reminded us, "He is not saved..who, though part of the body of the Church, does not persevere in charity. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but, as it were, only in a 'bodily' manner and not 'in his heart.' All of the Church's children should remember that their exalted status is to be attributed not to their own merits but to the special grace of Christ. If they fail, moreover, to respond to that grace in thought, word and deed, not only shall they not be saved but they will be the more severely judged." (Lumen Gentium, No. 14).

Can a person honestly be said to be "persevering in charity" within the Church if they attack the Lord Jesus by attacking His faithful Pastors? Of course not. And we shouldn't lie by suggesting otherwise.

During her hate speech against the Church founded by Christ, Rupp insisted that, "Women suffer a lot because of the church" and asserted that, "..it's not just the ordination issue that drives women away...Women are not cows to be herded back into pens; they are not hens to be shooed away from the altar. It's this attitude of sneering domination and the obvious lack of respect for their individual worth that causes such immense angst in Catholic women today. I am very disappointed with the recent church document on women. I am saddened because it blames feminists for 'the lethal effects in the structure of the family.' Once again women are being blamed for society's failures. I am offended by the way this document pushes the power issue off onto women when the official church has, time and again, used power abusively to silence those longing for dialogue and has threatened into conformity those who dare to question doctrinal ultimatums.

Obviously someone forgot to inform Rupp that, "..the task of authentically interpreting the Word of God, whether written or handed on, has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church." (Dei Verbum, No. 10 of the Second Vatican Council).

Even though Sister Rupp has engaged in dissent from the Church's authoritative teaching for many years while promoting New Age concepts, many parishes across the Worcester Diocese continue to promote her upcoming  day-long retreat at St. Anne's Parish Hall in Shrewsbury.  One such parish is Holy Cross in Templeton.  This morning the "pastor," Father Joseph Jurgelonis, included in his Mass intentions the following: that all Catholics grow in unity in accord with God's Will.  This as he promotes Sister Rupp's day-long retreat in the parish bulletin and with a flyer on the bulletin board.


How is such unity to be achieved by promoting dissent or those who engage in such dissent? It should come as no surprise to any of us (unless of course you're a priest of the Worcester Diocese), that dissent within the Church leads to polarization and undermines truth which is the principle of the Church’s communion. In its Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian, No. 40, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith said that, “The Church ‘is like a sacrament, a sign and instrument, that is, of communion with God and of unity among all men’ (LG, 1). Consequently, to pursue concord and communion is to enhance the force of her witness and credibility. To succumb to the temptation of dissent, on the other hand, is to allow the ‘leaven of infidelity to the Holy Spirit’ to start to work.”

The warning of Pope Paul VI, given during his Homily at Holy Thursday Mass on April 3, 1969, has been largely ignored: "There is talk of renewal in the doctrine and in the conscience of the Church of God; but how can the living and true Church be authentic and persistent if the complex structure that forms it and defines it a spiritual and social 'mystical body', is today so often and so gravely corroded by dissent and challenge and by forgetfulness of its hierarchical structure, and is countered in its divine and indispensable constituent charism, its pastoral authority? How can it claim to be a Church, that is a united people, even though locally broken up and historically and legitimately diversified, when a practically schismatic ferment is dividing it, subdividing it and breaking it into groups which are more than anything else zealous for arbitrary and fundamentally egoistical autonomy, masked by Christian pluralism or liberty of conscience?"

Hypocrisy is pretending to be good or virtuous in order to get something we want or to advance our own personal agenda.  It includes deception and the willingness to manipulate others.  Cicero says that, "No type of injustice is more glaring than that of the hypocrite who, in the very instant of being most false, makes the pretense of appearing virtuous." (On Moral Obligation, Bk. 1, ch. 13).

Any priest who preaches on the importance of unity, charity and communion while promoting Sister Joyce Rupp, knowing about her New Age beliefs and her dissent from Church teaching, is engaging in hypocrisy.  Father Jurgelonis was notified several weeks ago about Joyce Rupp's troubling views.  And he has chosen to promote her anyway.

This represents a real tragedy.  Especially considering today's reading from 2 Corinthians 5: 6-10:

"Therefore, we continue to be confident.  We know that while we dwell in the body we are away from the Lord.  We walk by faith, not by sight.  I repeat, we are full of confidence and would much rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord.  This being so, we make it our aim to please him whether we are with him or away from him.  The lives of all of us are to be revealed before the tribunal of Christ so that each one may receive his recompense, good or bad, according to his life in the body."

Do we honestly believe that we please the Lord Jesus by railing against His Church?  Our Lord told His Disciples (the Pastors of the Church): "He who hears you, hears Me."  Can we honestly say that Sister Joyce Rupp, who ridicules the Church's authoritative teaching and her living teaching authority, is pleasing to the Lord?  If not, how can we promote her or her works?  Do we wish to share in the recompense which she will receive for her disobedience?

Communion on the tongue

Michael Brown has an article on this subject here. Communion on the tongue is the normative manner of receiving the Eucharist. Communion in the hand is allowed by indult (a sort of grudging permission if you will) and should never be presented as the preferred way of receiving. I just wrote the following letter to an Extraordinary Minister of the Eucharist at my parish:



April 28, 2010



Re: Distribution of Holy Eucharist at .......................



Dear Ms. ...............,



This past Sunday you were serving as an Extraordinary Minister of the Eucharist and attempted to force me to receive in the hand. After pausing for almost half a minute, you let out a pronounced sigh as if you were irritated with me and then grudgingly gave me Communion on the tongue. Although Communion in the hand is permitted by the Church, it is permitted by indult. This amounts to a sort of grudging permission. The normative way of receiving is to receive on the tongue. (See document attached). *

The Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship teaches clearly that, “The new manner of giving communion [in the hand] must not be imposed in a way that would exclude the traditional practice..” And, “The rite of communion in the hand must not be put into practice indiscriminately…it is necessary to have the introduction of the rite preceded by an effective catechesis, so that the people will clearly understand the meaning of receiving in the hand and will practice it with the reverence owed to the sacrament.”

Since reverence is “owed to the sacrament,” an Extraordinary Minister of the Eucharist should not engage in attempts to force people to receive in the hand or display irreverence toward the Lord Jesus by engaging in rudeness which is directed toward those who prefer receiving on the tongue.

Again, the norm is to receive on the tongue. It is my hope that you will respect my right to receive in the traditional manner in the future.


Respectfully,

Paul A. Melanson

The Extraordinary Minister in question attempted to force Holy Communion into my hand. And when she couldn't, she let out an angry sigh and made me wait almost 30 seconds before giving me the Eucharist. This was highly disrespectful to Our Lord Who is truly present Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity in the Blessed Sacrament and amounted to an act of liturgical violence.

* Here.

The truth....but only in small doses

The history of the Church testifies to the truth that men have a natural inclination to divide Christ's Deposit of Faith and to choose only what they want to believe. For those who are Catholic in more than name (a much smaller group than most realize), all questions of faith or morals are answered in a Deposit of Faith (Depositum Fidei) which has been revealed by God and entrusted to a Custodian (the Church's Magisterium) established by God Himself which has been endowed with infallible protection against any change or error.

But for the Catholic in name only, the reason for belief is private judgment rather than the infallible teaching authority established by God. The issue, ultimately, is who speaks for the Church? Who has the authority to speak in the name of Christ and to settle disputes which may arise within the Mystical Body of Christ? Vatican II, in its Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, No. 10, teaches authoritatively that: "...the task of authentically interpreting the Word of God, whether written or handed on, has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This teaching office is not above the Word of God but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit; it draws from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed."

If one is to be faithful to Christ and His Church, one cannot assert that what the Magisterium teaches is false and that the faithful are free to reject this teaching and substitute it with their own opinions or those of theologians. But this is precisely what dissent entails. The dissident looks upon the moral teachings of the Magisterium as mere legalistic rules instead of seeing them for what they really are: beautiful truths intended to enable the People of God to live the Christ Life.

Dissent represents an act of violence directed against Christ's faithful. Pope John Paul II drove this point home in his Encyclical Letter Veritatis Splendor (No. 113) when he said, "Dissent, in the form of carefully orchestrated protests and polemics carried on in the media, is opposed to ecclesial communion and to a correct understanding of the hierarchical constitution of the People of God." Dissent represents an act of violence because it violates "the right of the faithful to receive Catholic doctrine in its purity and integrity.." (VS, 113).

If one is to remain faithful to Christ and His Church, one can expect to encounter opposition even within the Church. There are many who can only tolerate the truth in small doses. We may find ourselves very unpopular because we insist upon accepting everything in the Deposit of Faith and because we defend the same. We may find ourselves in a minority. Even alone. But the majority is not always right. A lynch mob is a majority. As Father Joseph Esper reminds us:

"We can also suffer unpopularity because of our honest efforts to serve God and oppose wickedness. This was the experience of the great fourth-century defender of the Faith St. Athanasius. He almost singlehandedly preserved the Church from the heresy of Arianism, which denied the divinity of Christ. Because many bishops and important laypeople (including some emperors) favored Arianism, Athanasius frequently found himself under attack and was exiled for many of his forty-six years as a bishop." (Saintly Solutions to Life's Common Problems," p. 333).

Athanasius found himself pretty much alone. He wa greatly outnumbered. He was opposed by the "important" people. But they were wrong. And he was right. Nothing will ever change that.

Are we prepared to be saints? If so, we must be prepared to stand "alone." Of course, we are not really alone. When God is with us, who can be against us? Being popular is over-rated. The crowd chose Barabbas. Did they choose wisely?

"Selfishness...makes us prisoners of our interests and our desires that stand against the truth..."

"Conflict and lack of reconciliation in the world stem from the fact that we are locked into our own interests and opinions, into our own little private world. Selfishness, both individual and collective, makes us prisoners of our interests and our desires that stand against the truth and separate us from one another. Awake, the Gospel tells us. Step outside, so as to enter the great communal truth, the communion of the one God. To awake, then, means to develop a receptivity for God: for the silent promptings with which he chooses to guide us; for the many indications of his presence..." - Pope Benedict XVI, Christmas homily 2009.


"There are a great many kinds of sins. Scripture provides several lists of them. The Letter to the Galatians contrasts the works of the flesh with the fruit of the Spirit: 'Now the works of the flesh are plain: fornication, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, anger, selfishness, dissension, factions, envy, drunkenness, carousing, and the like. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things shall not inherit the Kingdom of God.'" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1852; see also Galatians 5:19-21, Romans 1: 28-32, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, Ephesians 5: 3-5, Colossians 3:5-9, 1 Timothy 9-10, 2 Timothy 3:2-5).

Father John Catoir: Only half the truth

In his Catholic News Service column Spirituality For Today, in a piece entitled "Free from needless guilt," Fr. John Catoir laments that, "The church was poisoned by heresies over the centuries. The better you understand these errors, the better you will be able to cope with the problem of needless guilt." Fr. Catoir then cites various heresies [all of which were condemned by the Church, so it is inaccurate to suggest that "the Church was poisoned" by them; Rather, some Catholics were influenced by them] including Manichaeism, Albigensianism and Jansenism.

To be sure, the "needless guilt" Fr. Catoir refers to has been a problem for some members of the Church past and present. Pope John Paul II, in his Letter to all the Bishops of the Church on the Mystery and Worship of the Eucharist (Dominicae Cenae) says that: "..our Catholic communities certainly do not lack people who could participate in Eucharistic Communion and do not, even though they have no serious sin on their conscience as an obstacle. To tell the truth, this attitude, which in some people is linked with an exaggerated severity, has changed in the present century, though it is still to be found here and there. In fact what one finds most often is not so much a feeling of unworthiness as a certain lack of interior willingness, if one may use this expression, a lack of Eucharistic 'hunger' and 'thirst,' which is also a sign of lack of adequate sensitivity towards the great sacrament of love and a lack of understanding of its nature." (No. 11). But His Holiness then addresses a more serious problem and one which is much more prevalent today:

"However, we also find in recent years another phenomenon. Sometimes, indeed quite frequently, everybody participating in the eucharistic assembly goes to Communion; and on some such occasions, as experienced pastors confirm, there has not been due care to approach the sacrament of Penance so as to purify one's conscience. This can of course mean that those approaching the Lord's table find nothing on their conscience, according to the objective law of God, to keep them from this sublime and joyful act of being sacramentally united with Christ. But there can also be, at least at times, another idea behind this: the life of our communities to lose the good quality of sensitiveness of Christian conscience, guided solely by respect for Christ, who, when He is received in the Eucharist, should find in the heart of each of us a worthy abode. This question is closely linked not only with the practice of the sacrament of Penance but also with a correct sense of responsibility for the whole deposit of moral teaching and for the precise distinction between good and evil, a distinction which then becomes for each person sharing in the Eucharist the basis for a correct judgment of self to be made in the depths of the personal conscience. St. Paul's words, 'Let a man examine himself,' are well known; this judgment is an indispensable condition for a personal decision whether to approach Eucharistic Communion or to abstain." (No. 11).

The worthy reception of Holy Communion requires a clear conscience. Because of this, someone in the state of mortal sin is not eligible to receive: "Anyone who desires to receive Christ in Eucharistic communion must be in the state of grace. Anyone aware of having sinned mortally must not receive communion without having received absolution in the sacrament of penance." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1415).

Fr. Catoir writes, "For centuries, the fear of eternal damnation, even for petty offenses, was taught in the name of religion. George Carlin, the late comedian, abandoned his faith because he saw the absurdity of believing in a God who would send you to hell for all eternity for eating meat on Friday. Many Catholics left the Church for the same reason. Winning them back will take a massive re-education process."

But as Dr. Germain Grisez explains, "Traditionally, the eucharistic fast,required by the Church for the sake of reverence, was considered a grave responsibility which did not admit of parvity. Now, since the requirement is more easily fulfilled, its violation is even harder to excuse...someone who deliberately disregards the eucharistic fast out of irreverence for Jesus or contempt for the Church's law plainly is guilty of grave sin. And, knowing that the fast has been broken , whether by accident or on purpose, in a significant way, anyone as reverent and obedient as he or she should be, will not receive Holy Communion except for a reason sufficient to justify an exception to the Church's law (see CMP. 11.G. 6-7)."

Did George Carlin really leave the Church because he had a problem with the Church's traditional teaching regarding the Eucharistic fast or might not there have been other factors involved in his decision to abandon the Church of Christ? I seem to recall a troubled man who had serious personal problems and who celebrated the use of profanity with a levity which was just disturbing.

Pope John Paul II, in the same Dominicae Cenae, No. 7 writes, "I have already drawn attention to the close link between the sacrament of Penance and the sacrament of the Eucharist. It is not only that Penance leads to the Eucharist, but that the Eucharist also leads to Penance. For when we realize who it is that we receive in Eucharistic communion, there springs up in us almost spontaneously a sense of unworthiness, together with sorrow for our sins and an interior need for purification.."

This is not the result of "needless guilt." It is the result of reverence before Our Eucharistic Lord. Fr. Catoir needs to present the full truth to his readers.

Senator Biden and Catholic teaching...

It's official. Senator Obama has chosen Senator Joe Biden (a man who professes to be Catholic) as his running mate. Since the Senator from Pennsylvania professes to be Catholic, it is important to discern whether or not he is a Catholic in fact or simply in name.

In an article published in the Christian Science Monitor and entitled "A frank and abiding faith," Senator Biden (who supports Roe v. Wade) is quoted as having said: "My views are totally consistent with Catholic social doctrine...there are elements within the Church who say that if you are at odds with any of the teachings of the Church, you are at odds with the Church. I think the Church is bigger than that...I was raised at a time when the Catholic Church was fertile with new ideas [read dissenting ones] and open discussion [e.g., Curran et al openly dissenting from Humanae Vitae] about some of the basic social teaching of the Catholic Church...questioning was not criticized, it was encouraged." (View article here).

Notice the contradiction here? First the Senator asserts that his views are "totally consistent" with Catholic doctrine but then argues that one is not necessarily "at odds with the Church" if one is "at odds with any of the teachings of the Church." Apparently Senator Biden never studied logic at University.

In his Apostolic Letter Motu Proprio Ad Tuendam Fidem (Joe probably doesn't have a copy), Pope John Paul II wrote:

"To protect the faith of the Catholic Church against errors arising from certain members of the Christian faithful, especially from among those dedicated to the various disciplines of sacred theology, we, whose principal duty is to confirm the brethren in the faith (Lk 22:32), consider it absolutely necessary to add to the existing texts of the Code of Canon Law and the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, new norms which expressly impose the obligation of upholding truths proposed in a definitive way by the Magisterium of the Church, and which also establish related canonical sanctions....

Canon 750 of the Code of Canon Law will now consist of two paragraphs; the first will present the text of the existing canon; the second will contain a new text. Thus, canon 750, in its complete form, will read:

Canon 750 – § 1. Those things are to be believed by divine and catholic faith which are contained in the word of God as it has been written or handed down by tradition, that is, in the single deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and which are at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn Magisterium of the Church, or by its ordinary and universal Magisterium, which in fact is manifested by the common adherence of Christ’s faithful under the guidance of the sacred Magisterium. All are therefore bound to avoid any contrary doctrines.

§ 2. Furthermore, each and everything set forth definitively by the Magisterium of the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals must be firmly accepted and held; namely, those things required for the holy keeping and faithful exposition of the deposit of faith; therefore, anyone who rejects propositions which are to be held definitively sets himself against the teaching of the Catholic Church."

Elements within the Church? Try Canon Law Joe.

On abortion, the Senator is quoted as having said, "I don't think I have the right to impose my view - on something I accept as a matter of faith - on the rest of society." We're all familiar with this particular approach to the question of abortion, first employed with success by Mario Cuomo. Of course, the argument is illogical since every piece of legislation presupposes a world view or morality. To those who say, "You cannot legislate morality" I answer that we legislate nothing else.

What does the Church have to say about Senator Biden's argument? In his Encyclical Letter Evangelium Vitae, Nos. 68-70, Pope John Paul II teaches us that:


"...it is claimed that civil law cannot demand that all citizens should live according to moral standards higher than what all citizens themselves acknowledge and share. Hence the law should always express the opinion and will of the majority of citizens and recognize that they have, at least in certain extreme cases, the right even to abortion and euthanasia. Moreover the prohibition and the punishment of abortion and euthanasia in these cases would inevitably lead-so it is said-to an increase of illegal practices: and these would not be subject to necessary control by society and would be carried out in a medically unsafe way. The question is also raised whether supporting a law which in practice cannot be enforced would not ultimately undermine the authority of all laws.

Finally, the more radical views go so far as to maintain that in a modern and pluralistic society people should be allowed complete freedom to dispose of their own lives as well as of the lives of the unborn: it is asserted that it is not the task of the law to choose between different moral opinions, and still less can the law claim to impose one particular opinion to the detriment of others. (68).

In any case, in the democratic culture of our time it is commonly held that the legal system of any society should limit itself to taking account of and accepting the convictions of the majority. It should therefore be based solely upon what the majority itself considers moral and actually practices. Furthermore, if it is believed that an objective truth shared by all is de facto unattainable, then respect for the freedom of the citizens-who in a democratic system are considered the true rulers-would require that on the legislative level the autonomy of individual consciences be acknowledged. Consequently, when establishing those norms which are absolutely necessary for social coexistence, the only determining factor should be the will of the majority, whatever this may be. Hence every politician, in his or her activity, should clearly separate the realm of private conscience from that of public conduct.

As a result we have what appear to be two diametrically opposed tendencies. On the one hand, individuals claim for themselves in the moral sphere the most complete freedom of choice and demand that the State should not adopt or impose any ethical position but limit itself to guaranteeing maximum space for the freedom of each individual, with the sole limitation of not infringing on the freedom and rights of any other citizen. On the other hand, it is held that, in the exercise of public and professional duties, respect for other people's freedom of choice requires that each one should set aside his or her own convictions in order to satisfy every demand of the citizens which is recognized and guaranteed by law; in carrying out one's duties the only moral criterion should be what is laid down by the law itself. Individual responsibility is thus turned over to the civil law, with a renouncing of personal conscience, at least in the public sphere. (69).

At the basis of all these tendencies lies the ethical relativism which characterizes much of present-day culture. There are those who consider such relativism an essential condition of democ- racy, inasmuch as it alone is held to guarantee tolerance, mutual respect between people and acceptance of the decisions of the majority, whereas moral norms considered to be objective and binding are held to lead to authoritarianism and intolerance. But it is precisely the issue of respect for life which shows what misunderstandings and contradictions, accompanied by terrible practical consequences, are concealed in this position.

It is true that history has known cases where crimes have been committed in the name of "truth". But equally grave crimes and radical denials of freedom have also been committed and are still being committed in the name of "ethical relativism". When a parliamentary or social majority decrees that it is legal, at least under certain conditions, to kill unborn human life, is it not really making a "tyrannical" decision with regard to the weakest and most defenceless of human beings? Everyone's conscience rightly rejects those crimes against humanity of which our century has had such sad experience. But would these crimes cease to be crimes if, instead of being committed by unscrupulous tyrants, they were legitimated by popular consensus?

Democracy cannot be idolized to the point of making it a substitute for morality or a panacea for immorality. Fundamentally, democracy is a "system" and as such is a means and not an end. Its "moral" value is not automatic, but depends on conformity to the moral law to which it, like every other form of human behaviour, must be subject: in other words, its morality depends on the morality of the ends which it pursues and of the means which it employs. If today we see an almost universal consensus with regard to the value of democracy, this is to be considered a positive "sign of the times", as the Church's Magisterium has frequently noted. But the value of democracy stands or falls with the values which it embodies and promotes. Of course, values such as the dignity of every human person, respect for inviolable and inalienable human rights, and the adoption of the "common good" as the end and criterion regulating political life are certainly fundamental and not to be ignored.

The basis of these values cannot be provisional and changeable "majority" opinions, but only the acknowledgment of an objective moral law which, as the "natural law" written in the human heart, is the obligatory point of reference for civil law itself. If, as a result of a tragic obscuring of the collective conscience, an attitude of scepticism were to succeed in bringing into question even the fundamental principles of the moral law, the democratic system itself would be shaken in its foundations, and would be reduced to a mere mechanism for regulating different and opposing interests on a purely empirical basis." (70).

Senator Biden doesn't believe that a pro-abortion stance renders one ineligible to receive Holy Eucharist. But he is simply wrong. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 1395, teaches that: "The Eucharist is properly the sacrament of those who are in full communion with the Church." This is the Magisterial teaching of the Church.

In the words of Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger:

1. Presenting oneself to receive Holy Communion should be a conscious decision, based on a reasoned judgment regarding one’s worthiness to do so, according to the Church’s objective criteria, asking such questions as: "Am I in full communion with the Catholic Church? Am I guilty of grave sin? Have I incurred a penalty (e.g. excommunication, interdict) that forbids me to receive Holy Communion? Have I prepared myself by fasting for at least an hour?" The practice of indiscriminately presenting oneself to receive Holy Communion, merely as a consequence of being present at Mass, is an abuse that must be corrected (cf. Instruction "Redemptionis Sacramentum," nos. 81, 83).

2. The Church teaches that abortion or euthanasia is a grave sin. The Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae, with reference to judicial decisions or civil laws that authorize or promote abortion or euthanasia, states that there is a "grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection. [...] In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to 'take part in a propaganda campaign in favour of such a law or vote for it’" (no. 73). Christians have a "grave obligation of conscience not to cooperate formally in practices which, even if permitted by civil legislation, are contrary to God’s law. Indeed, from the moral standpoint, it is never licit to cooperate formally in evil. [...] This cooperation can never be justified either by invoking respect for the freedom of others or by appealing to the fact that civil law permits it or requires it" (no. 74).

3. Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.

4. Apart from an individual's judgment about his worthiness to present himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, the minister of Holy Communion may find himself in the situation where he must refuse to distribute Holy Communion to someone, such as in cases of a declared excommunication, a declared interdict, or an obstinate persistence in manifest grave sin (cf. can. 915).

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.

6. When "these precautionary measures have not had their effect or in which they were not possible," and the person in question, with obstinate persistence, still presents himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, "the minister of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute it" (cf. Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts Declaration "Holy Communion and Divorced, Civilly Remarried Catholics" [2002], nos. 3-4). This decision, properly speaking, is not a sanction or a penalty. Nor is the minister of Holy Communion passing judgment on the person’s subjective guilt, but rather is reacting to the person’s public unworthiness to receive Holy Communion due to an objective situation of sin.

[N.B. A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favour of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.] (Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion, General Principles).

Related reading: Biden on the life issues.

And: Biden's Bishop will bar him from Catholic schools.