What we have here is a FAILURE TO COMMUNICATE.
Posted on 04/29/2008 5:31:54 AM PDT by kellynla
In the aftermath of the visit by Pope Benedict XVI, a troublesome question is asked by traditional Catholics: Did American pro-choice politicians receiving Communion at the papal masses indicate a softening on the abortion question by the pope? The answer is that it did not. On the contrary, it reflected disobedience to Benedict by the archbishops of New York and Washington.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Sens. John Kerry, Christopher Dodd and Edward M. Kennedy received Communion at Nationals Park in Washington, as did Rudolph Giuliani at Yankee Stadium in New York. They were present because they were invited to the masses by Archbishop Donald Wuerl of Washington and Cardinal Edward Egan, archbishop of New York. Given choice seats, they took Communion hosts as a matter of course.
Vatican sources say the pope has not retreated from his long-held position that pro-choice politicians should be deprived of Communion, but the decisions in Washington and New York were not his. The effect was to dull messages of faith, obligation and compassion conveyed by Benedict. In his Yankee Stadium homily, he talked of "authority" and "obedience" -- acknowledging that "these are not easy words to speak nowadays." They surely are not for four former presidential candidates and two princes of the church, representing Catholics who defy their faith's doctrine on abortion.
Benedict's position was unequivocal when he was Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Asked in 2004 whether Kerry as Democratic presidential nominee should be allowed to take Communion, he replied, "The minister of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute it."
Ratzinger's demeanor necessarily has changed in his elevation from doctrinal enforcer to global pastor, but he has not altered his position on abortion-communion. When as Benedict he arrived in Brazil a year ago, he declared: "The killing of an innocent human child is incompatible with going into Communion in the body of Christ."
Benedict did not reiterate that position in Washington and New York, because a pope traveling abroad is influenced by the stance of local church authorities. American bishops are divided. Archbishop Raymond Burke of St. Louis leads those who believe pro-choice politicians cannot receive Communion. Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, Wuerl's predecessor as archbishop of Washington, took a position opposite to Burke's. Blessed with charm and political finesse, McCarrick was not about to clash with his archdiocese's most famous parishioners.
Wuerl is considered less political than McCarrick, but he is hardly less averse to colliding with powerful laymen. He could have avoided any confrontation at Nationals Park by simply not inviting the pro-choice politicians to a mass where there was no room for the vast majority of Catholics who wanted to attend. The five pro-choice Catholics took Communion from the hand of Archbishop Pietro Sambi, the pope's representative to the United States as apostolic delegate.
In New York, Giuliani receiving Communion was even more remarkable. Unlike Pelosi and Kennedy, who are regular Mass attendees, the former mayor of New York says he goes to church only "occasionally," usually for holidays or funerals. Abortion aside, Giuliani's third marriage would make him ineligible for Communion because his second marriage was not annulled by the church. But in New York, Cardinal Egan is no more apt than Cardinal McCarrick was to offend the powerful, and Giuliani was invited to the Mass.
There are devout pro-life Catholics who oppose rejection of any worshiper at the Communion rail, but they believe bishops should publicly manifest disapproval of Catholic politicians who support abortion rights. The bishops of Washington and New York do not. During Wuerl's installation mass as archbishop of Washington in 2006, he shook hands with Kerry and Kennedy, seated side by side.
At Yankee Stadium, Benedict spoke of the "inalienable dignity and rights" of "the most defenseless of all human beings, the unborn child in the mother's womb." In parishes across the country, the faithful hear their priests echo the Holy Father's words. Those professions ring hollow when pro-choice politicians are honored as they were during the pope's visit.
ping
I thought Kennedy declined to receive communion?
The democrat politicians and other pro-abortionists have all repeatedly stated their core belief that humans determine their own morality as a matter of private choice-they have been on the wrong side of Church teaching for a long long long time and have influenced tens of millions of others to their (flawed?) philosophy
“he (Guiliani) goes to church only occasionally, usually for holidays or funerals.”
Same thing if you’re Rudy.
NEW YORK (AP) — Rudy Giuliani should not have received Holy Communion during the pope’s visit because the former presidential candidate supports abortion rights, New York Cardinal Edward Egan said Monday.
Egan says he had “an understanding” with Giuliani that he is not to receive the Eucharist. The Catholic Church teaches “that abortion is a grave offense against the will of God,” Egan said.
The cardinal said Monday that Giuliani broke that understanding when he received the Eucharist during Pope Benedict XVI’s visit earlier this month. He received Communion during the April 19 service from one of the many clergymen who offered the sacrament.
Egan says he will be seeking a meeting with Giuliani “to insist that he abide by our understanding.”
Their “philosophy” is not merely *flawed.* Their thinking is basically immoral.
The BigWigs in DC and NY went out of their way to stick it to the Pope, I thot. Bad music, invite the apostate politicians, etc. “We do it THIS way” they seemed to say.
I wonder when Pelosi, Kerry, Kennedy and Dodd et al made their last trip into a confessional?
A long time ago, I’d wager.
I have Christian friends, some Catholic, who see no conflict between being pro-choice and being Christian(or taking communion if they’re Catholic). They tell me, “I abhor abortion, but others might need it.” This is like saying “I’m against armed robbery, but if others want to do it, that’s fine with me.”
I tell them slavery used to be legal in America years ago, but slavery is always wrong...so is abortion.
Relativism seems to rule the day, and more’s the pity.
DC may have had bad music, but the music at the masses in New York was breathtakingly beautiful and traditional!
The spirit of the age never understands a man like the pope. People bend and twist, trying to make Christianity fit their own morality.
The Pope is not some “mean old man” trying to keep people from sharing communion. He is trying to protect them.
“Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. But a man must examine himself, and in so doing he is to eat of the bread and drink of the cup.”
If you receive Holy Communion KNOWING you have Mortal Sins on your soul......you are in deep trouble.
Either his words mean something, or they don't.
It sure looks like they don't, and everybody knows it.
What they are saying "I don't approve of killing my children but support the right others to kill their children"
Yes, I thought the NY masses were beautiful, too. Just exaggerating ...
Precisely.
I Corinthians 27 Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28 A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. 29 For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself. 30 That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep.
The truth is that the Bible says that those who receive communion unworthily receive it to their harm.
Since your Pope declared them unworthy and they received anyway, then I wouldn't want to be in their shoes.
The Pope's insistence that they not receive communion is NOT for their harm, but it is for their protection.
Not believing in spiritual things, these politicians have engaged in their own injury.
This kind of thing is going to continue unless swift discipline is carried out. A soft rebuke isn't going to cut it.
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.