Skip to comments.Detroit archbishop: supporters of same-sex ‘marriage’ should not receive Communion
Posted on 04/09/2013 8:03:56 PM PDT by Morgana
DETROIT, April 9, 2013 (LifeSiteNews) Archbishop Allen Vigneron on Sunday told the Detroit Free Press that Catholic supporters of same-sex marriage should not present themselves to receive Communion.
For a Catholic to receive holy Communion and still deny the revelation Christ entrusted to the church is to try to say two contradictory things at once: I believe the church offers the saving truth of Jesus, and I reject what the church teaches, said the archbishop. In effect, they would contradict themselves. This sort of behavior would result in publicly renouncing one's integrity and logically bring shame for a double-dealing that is not unlike perjury.
In an email to CNN, Archdiocese spokesman Joe Kohn elaborated on Vignerons remarks: The archbishop's focal point here is not gay marriage; it is a Catholics reception of Holy Communion, he explained. If a Catholic publicly opposes the church on a serious matter of the churchs teaching, any serious matter for example, whether it be a rejection of the divinity of Christ, racist beliefs, support for abortion or support for redefining marriage that would contradict the public affirmation they would make of the church's beliefs by receiving Communion.
Both the archbishop and his spokesman said the Church and its pastors stand ready to help Catholics understand and avoid this crisis of faith.
Archbishop Vignerons comments followed a blog post by Edward Peters, professor of canon law at Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit and adviser to the Vatican, who wrote March 27, Catholics who promote same-sex marriage act contrary to [church law] and should not approach for holy Communion they also risk having holy Communion withheld from them being rebuked and/or being sanctioned under [church law] for gravely injuring good morals.
The two church leaders comments show a remarkable shift toward orthodoxy for the Detroit Archdiocese, which hadhomosexual activist Thomas Gumbleton as its auxiliary bishop until he was forced by the Vatican to retire in 2006. Gumbleton, who has said he was sexually abused by a Catholic priest in his youth, once famously said of homosexuals, homosexual people are not disordered people. They are psychologically healthy people. ... Homosexuals are as healthy as anyone else.
Gumbleton was affiliated with numerous gay activist organizations such as the Triangle Foundation, the Rainbow Sash Movement, and New Ways Ministry, SHARE, and Call to Action. In 1995 he received the Call to Action leadership award.
In contrast, Archbishop Vigneron told a news conference last month that if Catholic leaders were to abandon their teaching against homosexuality, we would be like physicians who didnt tell their patients that certain forms of behavior are not really in their best interest.
It is unclear whether the archbishop intends to deny communion to public proponents of same-sex marriage, or whether he will rely on offenders to stay out of the Communion line of their own accord. Calls to the archdiocese seeking clarification were not immediately returned.
Catholic teaching says that those who receive Communion while in serious conflict with the Church are guilty of mortal sin.
I agree with the idea that the Catholic Church has the right to enforce its beliefs upon those who claim to be Catholic. What I find interesting is two things....
1) To a Catholic, not receiving communion in the Catholic church is essentially denying them salvation. So that means that
2) Catholics believe that a living mortal can deny another mortal either their salvation or access to salvation.
(As a side note, I’m not a catholic and don’t believe most of their dogmas but I do agree that they or any other voluntary organization should enforce what they say is right or what they believe. Force the pretenders out.)
God bless and keep Archbishop Allen Vigneron.
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.
This is the kind of thing that Detroit needs most of all. Moral courage.
Catholics believe that we each have to accept the consequences of our own choices. To permit the unworthy to receive communion would only compound the sin.
Peace be with you
Christ to Peter
“And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.”
How nice to hear a US Bishop support Truth and not be “afraid” of making Satanists mad.
It has been DECADES since the Catholic Church in America has followed Catholic Canon (except SSPX ) ...
(actually, since Vatican II-—and does what the Church is designed to do-—proclaim the TRUTH and save souls.
They have blurred the truth with their alter girls/boys (got to emasculate the boys and make girls and boys interchangeable) and Marxist “social justice” crud and all the other pursuits of man-centered worship.....disgusting.
What really ticks me off (and there is not much that does : ) is the sloppy dress and the kumbaya “peace” glad-handing right in the middle of the most profound part of the liturgy. It is disgusting. The dress of the nuns is disgusting.-—The separation of the “Spanish” mass is Marxist to the core to separate, divide and destroy communities. Makes the elderly whites feel like bigots in the church that they spent a lifetime supporting. It is a slap in their face and feeds into the hate. Disgusting.
They better bring dignity and respect back to the mass that the Marxists ejected with Vatican II-—just like evil Marxists do-—destroy traditions-—like Bella Dodd stated——the infiltration in the 30’s and 40’s-—with the homosexual Marxists intimidated and chased off the good (Fr Oko’s report) and took control in the 60’s with Vatican II.
I am waiting to “see” how Catholic the Pope really is.
“....should not present themselves to receive Communion.”
Why couldn’t the Archbishop have bluntly said that they should be denied Communion until they officially recant?
Agree, but sadly...
the MSM will allude to him being a child molester in 3, 2, 1...
No, the priest is not “denying” salvation-—the priest is teaching the tenets of Catholic Theology-—it is his duty to teach the Truth. It is the Free Will of the Catholic to do what they do-—but if they do not believe in Catholicism—then they should never be allowed to receive communion. How could teaching the Truth be denying “salvation” to a person.
Truth is black and white......you either are a Catholic or not. Your beliefs determine it. If you believe in Satanism (homosexual Rites) you are a Satanist-—in mortal sin-—and not in communion with the Catholic Church. To not teach sin or gloss over mortal sin—is evil for the Catholic Church. Confusing the people will lead to no salvation.
Catholic Theology is the most profound and reasoned philosophy on earth. There is nothing more sensible and ethical and consistent. You should read Chesterton’s book, St. Thomas Aquinas (who is the Father of Catholic Theology). It is a profound book on the “thinking” and Logic of St. Thomas.
As you notice-—only the Catholic Church (of Christian Churches) is consistent over 400 years on contraception, abortion, homosexuality, sodomy, divorce, euthanasia, etc.......(ignore Vatican II and after.....since it was a takeover by Marxist homosexuals (Bella Dodd/ Fr. Oko’s report) ).
Take for instance-—the foundational principle....you can NEVER use a human being as a “means to an end”. Never. All other “faiths” and ideologies abuse that concept (and yes, the homosexual priests were NOT Catholic-—they were Marxists who infiltrated to destroy the Church from within). Marxism uses human beings as a means to an end. Individuals have no worth—only the collective.
The Church is supposed to guide the laity to the Truth. It would be wrong for the Catholic Church NOT to teach the Truth to the congregation and point out sin. People need to know what is right and wrong (feelings, too often cloud the intellect) and the priests and bishops spent years dedicated to understanding the profound teaching of the Church.
People can not “know” the teachings of the Catholic Church without spending a lot of time studying and reading-—most people don’t have the time that a priest has to dedicate to the Bible and Canon so thinking is profound and not superficial-—like most people’s thinking. When I went back to college, I was appalled at the “shallow” thinking of the “students”. They had no understanding of anything important—like faith-— even of moral relativism-—and they all profoundly believed in it and socialism and didn’t understand how evil Mao/Stalin/Pot/Hitler’s ideology is. They were useless idiots.
Thanks for this lucid explanation.
So I’m guessing the Detroit Archbishop would look askance at the situation in my parish in which a Communion minister comes to church with his male partner and their two adopted children. Yes, that’s right. He not only receives communion, he distributes it as an extraordinary minister. Years ago, they would have called such a situation, giving scandal. Today, they mumble “Do not judge” about everything.
Has this EVER been enforced? I’m thinking we are watching hot air, not doctrine.
So when Paul tells the Church in Corinth to expel the sexually immoral (1 Cor 5:2), is that making their salvation dependent on “another mortal’s” (Paul’s) decision, too?
“Has this EVER been enforced? “
Have no clue I don’t live in Detroit.
“Has this EVER been enforced? “
Have no clue I don’t live in Detroit.
Have you ever reported that situation to your bishop?
I have read the catechism and it says the not only is the Catholic church ‘necessary for salvation’ it also says that taking the sacraments is ‘necessary for salvation.’ That is wrong.
That is not what the Bible says is necessary for salvation. Repentance is necessary for salvation. Faith in Jesus is necessary for salvation. I will believe in the what the Bible says and not what an organization/church says in its belief manual.
On the topic of should the Catholic Church withhold communion....Sure, I think they should hold their members to what they say they believe. I just don’t accept alot of what the Catholic church teaches.
That verse doesn’t mean that one mortal man can prevent another mortal man from salvation. The Bible spells out in many places what is “necessary for salvation” and it boils down to belief through faith and repentance. There is NOTHING in the Bible which says that any church is necessary for salvation or that doing any work, such as taking communion, is “necessary for salvation.”
Now I know the catechism of the Catholic church claims those things, but that just shows that the catechism isn’t in line with the Bible, so therefore, I don’t worry about what the catechism says.
No. All that is doing is removing that person from that congregation. That person could still confess their sins and if they weren’t saved before could still come to the saving knowlege of Jesus later. The removal is discipline, which all churches have the right and responcibility to do, but they don’t have the power to “block” their salvation, which that Catholic Catechism teaches (as in saying that the Catholic church or communion is “necessary for salvation”).
CCC 818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."
819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth" are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements." Christ's Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him, and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."
Peace be with you
I have read the catechism and much on and about the Catholic churches beliefs and it is not logical and clear but complex and contradictory to what the Bible plainly teaches.
As I have posted to others already, I know that the Catechism teaches that the Catholic church and communion is “necessary for salvation” but that is NOT what the Bible tells us is necessary for salvation (repentance and faith).
I have no problem with the Catholic church enforcing its beliefs on people who claim to believe what the Catholic church teaches, but I’m just saying I don’t believe a lot of what the Catholic church teaches and believe.
So are you saying that the Catholic church and communion (sacraments) aren’t “necessary for salvation?”
Hmmmmm....I wonder if the Vatican knows this?
Who do you think wrote the Catechism?
You dodged. I’ll ask again....do you believe that the Catholic church and the sacrament of communion/eucharist is “necessary for salvation?”
Obviously. I love Catholic Theology and think it is brilliant. And as Chesterton (noted for Common Sense) stated so well, in “St. Thomas Aquinas” (and he converted to Catholicism later in life-—that the Summa is the pinnacle of “Common Sense” and Reason. In fact, after the Summa and which was the Protestant “Reformation”-—”Logic and Reason” were thrown out-—which was completely eliminated by Marx and the Postmodernists.
And you ignore —(Luke 22:15) And he took bread, and when he had given thanks he broke it and gave it to them, saying, This is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me. And likewise the cup after supper, saying, This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood. (Luke 22:19-20)
Common Sense and Reason is enshrined in the Catholic Canon....if one believes Jesus is the Son of God. This idea that you can be “saved” by “faith alone” and it doesn’t matter what you do in life-—like you can ignore the 10 Commandments, and everything else that Jesus states in the New Testament-—ejects all of the NT, except for two lines ——it is so irrational-—it is really quite insane.
Faith alone?????? and no “works”-—ignore the 10 Commandments and other verses such as Romans 2:13 “”For not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified.”
The idea that there are thousands of “truths” just blows the mind and that any person can “know’ the truth without studying and refecting for years, is absurd. Wisdom takes an infinite amount of work. “Finding Truth”-—getting out of the Matrix takes tons of effort and time and experience, and no one put in more time and effort than the Catholic Church-—except maybe the orthodox Jews.
I did not dodge, I am just getting too old to play pin the tail on the Papist very often. It would be more productive if you just came out and asked a simple question so that I could provide you with a clear and focused answer.
The answer is that one size does not fit all. While it is normatively taught that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body, exceptions exist such as for the invincibly ignorant as I already posted.
Peace be with you
Wow! You truly mangle the words of Christ to Peter, and the unbroken tradition carried out by his Apostles and disciples. St. Augustine remarked that if it weren’t for the authority of the Catholic Church he wold believe. Try St. Thomas Aquinas, and Benedict XVI who has been called the “theological Einstein” of our times.
No wonder we have several thousands of so-called Christian “sects” and “preachers” of the Bible from the Rev. Wright to Rev. Schuller, to Joel Osteen, to Benny Hinn, to Rev. David Koresh, to Rev. Al Sharpton, to Rev. (Kool-Aid) Jim Jones to Rev. Moon’s Korean Church, to your neighborhood corner street Four-Square Church pastor and all the other superficial Easter Sunrise ceremonies carried out by New Age “Christians” to local “Christian Fellowship” sects. Who you think separated the various books into the “Books of the Bible”? The early Church Fathers.
So do you always create strawmen so you tear them down?
Where did I post “faith alone” or some of that other stuff you are tossing out? The thing is I didn’t and you are assuming a lot. If that makes you feel good or soothes your conscience, that fine. Ultimately your decisions will be judged by God and you have to live with them.
It is a very simple question and you avoided answering it directly...again. (Psst, you could just answer yes or no, but you decided to dodge and weave.)
Whatever “tickles your ears.” That’s between you and God.
So show me where I “mangled” the Bible. I just pointed out that your interpretation of that verse wasn’t saying what you were implying. You disagree, fine. That’s between you and God, but I didn’t “mangle” anything.
I have answered very directly twice. I am sorry it it is not the answer you are seeking.
Peace be with you
John 6:53 NIV
Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.”
Seems biblical to me.
Catholics theologians have for centuries beginning with the practice of the early disciples believed this was the foundation for the sacrament of confession. Indeed, the theological support for this is overwhelming.
In the early 90s, I made a number of complaints about liturgical abuses to appropriate authorities including the Archbishop. There was either no response or a very unsatisfactory response. I don’t know that I’ll be going down that road again.
I’m not sure whether the archbishop knows about this situation or not, though this man (the Communion minister) has been on CNN in regards to the Boy Scouts controversy. This situation with him acting as a communion minister has been okayed by the past two pastors, though like I said, I think it’s giving scandal. Many people at Mass struggle with many sins, but they’re not open about it like this guy.
The Biblical explanation to your verse (in the same chapter if you bother to keep reading)...
John 6:58 “This is that bread which came down from heaven: NOT as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.”
Jesus wasn’t talking about a physical eating of his “flesh” like their ancestors did with manna (like some of the people initially thought). This “eating” is belief through faith.
The key to your understanding is you are putting your faith in CATHOLIC theologians. There are plenty of other theologians who disagree with those, so the question becomes who is right?
Well the key to that is 1) being saved and having the Holy Spirit to guide you and 2) studying the Bible yourself.
Another simpler understanding of “to loose or bind” one relates to Jewish Priests who could “loose or bind” people brought before them for breaking any number of the minor laws constructed to uphold the greater laws. An example of this was sabbath laws. A person could be brought before a priest for say walking farther then a “sabbath mile” on the sabbath and the priest could hear the person out and decide if the reason the person gave was good enough to “loose” them from the consequences or “bind” them to it.
This authority to “loose” or “bind” was given to all of Jesus’s diciples who would lead the first Christian churches and it was about setting up minor church rules and the ability for the church leaders to flexibility in enforcing those rules.
So if I agree to my church’s rule of not playing cards, but someone finds me playing cards, the church can discipline me or not based on what they find out and Christ will honor that decision as being just in Heaven EVEN though there isn’t anything in the Bible against playing cards.
IF that verse meant that a mortal could interfere with someoneelses salvation then that would contradict so many scriptures which say things like: “WHOSOEVER calls upon the name of the Lord SHALL be saved.” Romans 10:13
Salvation doesn’t come through a physical consumption of communion, it comes through repentance and faith.
You are wrong on two counts.
One the Catholic catechism states in different places that the Catholic Church is “necessary for salvation” and that the sacrament of the Eucharist is “necessary for salvation.” It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that the Catholic Church believes that by preventing someone from taking THERE communion that they are denying that person something “NECESSARY” for salvation. These acts are done by mortal men.
Two, the Law is not necessary for salvation.
Gal. 2:21 “I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness [come] by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.”
Rom. 3:28 “Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.”
Christ frequently and naturally referenced Jewish traditions and metaphors. He is now the Living Bread in the Eucharist. The Eucharist (Holy Communion) is taken only after repentance and forgiveness by those to whom that authority was given. Christ told the lepers to first go show themselves to the High Priests. Leprosy was a metaphor for sins of the flesh.
Do you condemn all the tribes of Judaism to hell as well? Are you God?
The thing I found interesting in your post is you claim that Catholic theology is full of “common sense and reason.”
Common sense and reason wouldn’t on one hand say something like “the (Catholic) church is NECESSARY for salvation” and then spend paragraphs and books trying to explain how it wouldn’t be necessary. If something is NECESSARY then that’s the end of it. If there are other ways around it, then it obviously isn’t NECESSARY.
I have spent plenty of years trying to make sense of the Catholic web of doctrines and they are neither simple nor do they as a whole make sense, specifically if you believe the Bible to be the Word of God/final authority.
Also if it were clear then I could get a simple “yes” or “no” to a simple question, but instead I get retorts to things I didn’t say and paragraph quotes from non-biblical sources trying to get around what the Catholic catechism states as necessary.
I know that the Catholic church believes that through some kind of time warp/magic act by the priest that their Eucharist/communion becomes the actual flesh and blood of Christ. THAT belief is based on an idea that a person needs to physically eat Jesus. That’s the same misconception documented in John, that’s barbaric, and it contradicts many other parts of Scripture.
Now I agree that during the rememberance of communion should be taken seriously and repentance is good to do before partaking, but recall that Jesus is now our Chief Priest and we can go to him and confess our sins, we don’t need to go to a priest to do that.
Why do you think I think a person doesn’t need Jesus? I never said such a thing.
As to the question of what did Jesus fulfill, he fulfilled the law. Now do you think that Jesus fulfilling the law is what saves you or do you think that by you TRYING to fulfill the law will add anything to saving your soul?
All of the righteous where in a place in “Hell” referred to as “Paradise” and Abrahams bossom. You can see this referenced in the parable of Lazarus and the rich man. However after Christ died he went to “Hell” to witness to the lost and to take the righteous to Heaven. (Ephesians 4:8-10 and 1 Peter 3:18-20)
No, I’m obviously not God and I don’t condemn anyone. A persons sins will condemn them if they don’t repent and accept Christ as their savior.