Spanish bishop: Pope says he will not change Communion rule

One does have to wonder why Martin Omally and Nancy Pelosi are given communio while some poor guy who married a whore or some poor woman who married an abuser are denied.

First of all, let's get this somewhat on a plane of reality.

As has been pointed out to you already (I repeat it so as not to be accused of contradicting somebody else), the poor guy who married a whore or the poor woman who married an abuser and subsequently get a divorce are not, repeat, are not denied Communion.

In fact, if they are in a civil union (that is the Church's term for what we'd call a civil marriage) to a different woman/man, they would not be denied Communion: particularly if they attempted to receive Communion in another parish...and, in 99% likelihood, they wouldn't be turned away if they attempted to receive in their home parish.

Chances are, the only way that they would be turned away would be if they walked up the Communion line with signs hanging around their necks that said, "I am married for the fourth time and haven't had a single annulment: I had sex with my current wife (husband) last night! What are you going to do about it?"

In fact, I'm 99.9999999999999999999999% sure that a woman who had an abortion the day before (without the benefit of going to confession afterwards) would not be turned away (unless she had a similar sign hanging around her neck).

At least in every parish I've seen, people aren't turned away unless they are 100% "in your face" about their public, manifest sin. I haven't been in every Catholic parish in the world, I haven't even been in every Catholic parish in my diocese, so I can't conclusively say that is the universal practice...but I have never, ever, ever seen that a person was turned away unless that person threw their sinfulness in the face of the person distributing Holy Communion.

A classic example of being "in your face" is the so-called "Rainbow Sash" movement, where unrepentant, sexually active homosexuals converge upon high-profile Masses, preferably celebrated by the local Diocesan Bishop, wearing Rainbow-colored sashes, representing a public declaration that they are sexually-active homosexuals...

What is really happening here is that people are asking the Church to change Her teachings on the subject of divorce and remarriage. To declare that it is no longer sinful to attempt marriage for a second, third, fourth time.

And that is simply not possible.

Just to be clear, someone in the state of serious sin should not approach the Eucharist.
Can. 916 A person who is conscious of grave sin is not to celebrate Mass or receive the body of the Lord without previous sacramental confession unless there is a grave reason and there is no opportunity to confess; in this case the person is to remember the obligation to make an act of perfect contrition which includes the resolution of confessing as soon as possible.

The issue with Catholics who are married and then enter into a civil union (the Church's term for what is typically called a "civil marriage") with another person afterwards is that they are unable to receive absolution:

Can. 987 To receive the salvific remedy of the sacrament of penance, a member of the Christian faithful must be disposed in such a way that, rejecting sins committed and having a purpose of amendment, the person is turned back to God.

Unless they leave that civil union and are either reunited with their spouses...or unless they remain celibate...they have not rejected the sins they have committed (and are committing every time they have sexual relations with their civil union partner).

And a lot of Catholics are upset that people like Pelosi are not denied communion, according to the clear teaching in canon law that persons guilty of “manifest public sin” should not be communicated.

I think that the real issue here is that the home bishops have not made public declarations that people like Pelosi, Kerry, Biden, O'Malley, etc., have not made public declarations that these public figures have taken public positions that place them squarely outside of Church teaching, such as their public support and voting for abortion and same-sex "marriage". And as such they are manifest public sinners who must not approach Holy Communion until they have publicly repented of those positions.

I honestly don't see that happening any time in the near future. The reason why is because I don't see a huge effort to preach personal morality from the "cathedra", much less public morality. Sure, every once in a while I will see a veiled reference in a homily. But no major effort. No preaching, no pastoral letters, no parish bulletin handouts, nothing. Without that background work, we won't see proclamations declaring that an individual person doesn't meet standards.

However, one wrong doesn’t justify another.

The real wrong in both cases is a lack of courage in teaching the unvarnished truth. Again, I know that there are some good bishops and some good priests, but they are in the distinct minority.

In the meantime, I can listen again this morning about the importance of "being nice."

“Yeah, go after divorced Catholics, but continue serving communion to abortion loving pols and convicted pedophile priests.”

If a re-married couple present themselves for communion there is every possibility that they would not be refused communion. No one fills out a questionnaire in the communion line.

It comes down to policing themselves.

The abortion loving pols may have confessed (there exists that very small possibility) so therefore would be receiving worthily.

Priest who were abusers; (these men were not pedophiles but actually homosexual priests: pederasty) if they are no longer acting as priests and have confessed and been forgiven may receive as well.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.