Posted on 02/04/2009 11:59:01 AM PST by wagglebee
ROME, January 30, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Archbishop Raymond Burke, in an exclusive interview last week, told LifeSiteNews.com that the issue of pro-abortion politicians continuing to receive Holy Communion is still one of major concern and that it is the duty of bishops to ensure that they are refused.
He told LifeSiteNews.com, "I don't understand the continual debate that goes on about it. There's not a question that a Catholic who publicly, and after admonition, supports pro-abortion legislation is not to receive Holy Communion and is not to be given Holy Communion."
"The Church's law is very clear," said Archbishop Burke, who was appointed last year by Pope Benedict XVI as the head of the Church's highest court, the Apostolic Signatura. "The person who persists publicly in grave sin is to be denied Holy Communion, and it [Canon Law] doesn't say that the bishop shall decide this. It's an absolute."
Among the US bishops directly to address the issue, Archbishop Burke was one of around a dozen who vigorously supported a directive of the Vatican that said pro-abortion Catholic politicians "must be refused" Holy Communion if they attempt to receive at Mass. Others have refused to abide by the Vatican instruction and the Church's own Code of Canon Law, saying they would rather focus on "education" of such politicians.
Archbishop Burke called "nonsense" the accusation, regularly made by some bishops, that refusing Holy Communion "makes the Communion rail a [political] battle ground". In fact, he said, the precise opposite is true. The politician who insists on being seen receiving Holy Communion, despite his opposition to the Church's central teachings, is using that reception for political leverage.
In 2004, when self-proclaimed Catholic and candidate for the Democrat party, Sen. John Kerry, was frequently photographed receiving Holy Communion despite his vigorous support of abortion, the US Bishops Conference issued a document which said only that it is up to individual bishops whether to implement the Church's code of Canon Law and refuse Communion. The issue has remained prominent with the appointment of Joe Biden, another pro-abortion Catholic politician, as Vice President of the United States of America.
Archbishop Burke recalled previous experiences with Kerry, pointing to the several occasions when the senator was pictured in Time magazine receiving Communion from Papal representatives at various public events. Burke said that it is clear that Kerry was using his reception of Holy Communion to send a message.
"He wants to not only receive Holy Communion from a bishop but from the papal representative. I think that's what his point was. Get it in Time magazine, so people read it and say to themselves, 'He must be in good standing'."
"What are they doing? They're using the Eucharist as a political tool."
In refusing, far from politicising the Eucharist, the Church is returning the matter to its religious reality. The most important reasons to refuse, he said, are pastoral and religious in nature.
"The Holy Eucharist, the most sacred reality of our life in the Church, has to be protected against sacrilege. At the same time, individuals have to be protected for the sake of their own salvation from committing one of the gravest sins, namely to receive Holy Communion unworthily."
Archbishop Burke also dismissed the commonly proffered excuse that such politicians need more "education". Speaking from his own direct experience, he said that Catholic politicians who are informed by their pastors or bishops that their positions in support of pro-abortion legislation makes it impossible for them to receive Holy Communion, "I've always found that they don't come forward."
"When you talk to these people, they know," he said. "They know what they're doing is very wrong. They have to answer to God for that, but why through our pastoral negligence add on to that, that they have to answer to God for who knows how many unworthy receptions of Holy Communion?"
Archbishop Burke said that the issue had been debated enough. He rejected the idea that the matter should be left to the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, saying the Conference has no authority in the matter. "This is a law of the universal Church and it should be applied."
"I think this argument too is being used by people who don't want to confront the issue, this whole 'wait 'til the Conference decides'...well the Conference has been discussing this since at least 2004. And nothing happens."
When asked what the solution was, he responded, "Individual bishops and priests simply have to do their duty. They have to confront politicians, Catholic politicians, who are sinning gravely and publicly in this regard. And that's their duty.
"And if they carry it out, not only can they not be reproached for that, but they should be praised for confronting this situation."
"He wants to not only receive Holy Communion from a bishop but from the papal representative. I think that's what his point was. Get it in Time magazine, so people read it and say to themselves, 'He must be in good standing'."
Exactly. So very, very happy to hear this! And yes it should begin immediately!
BTTT!
The Pope just spoke through Archbishop Burke.
Are the CINOs listening? I doubt it, but I pray that they do.
Then they need to be.
Two greatest evils in the world right now are Islam and abortion, and oBUMa supports both of them.
On sunday mornings I see a good number of cars in the Church parking lot and in front of the Church with oBUMa and Lieden bumper stickers. not hard to figure out which ones to exclude from that evidence.
Please come back and help us.
When the pro-abortion bishops start refusing communion to their pro-abortion politician friends, let us know.
“Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or the declaration of a penalty as well as others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to communion.” Each word is significant.
"Obstinately" means they've been told beforehand and they do it anyway.
"Persist" means they've done it repeatedly.
"Manifest" means obvious, open, public.
"Grave sin" means matters of serious moral depravity --- like abortion ands infanticide --- and, incidentally, deliberately carrying out acts of war which intentionally destroy "cities or extensive geographical areas together with their inhabitants"--- all of which the church calls "abominable crimes."
Voting for Obama would not be such a violation, because it has never been defined by the Church as a sin; because a person might have done so without actually supporting abortion per se, and because it is not "manifest" --- that is, a secret ballot is not a public scandal.
Every person has the duty to refrain from Communion if they are conscious of ANY grave sin, --- any grave sin, even one which is quite private and secret.
Canon 915 specifically addresses the duty of the Bishop or priest (or, I would say, even a layperson distributing Communion), to refuse Communion to public unrepentant sinners. An example would be some of those flamboyant gay protestors who sometimes turn up for Mass with the obvious ("manifest") aim of sacrilegious reception.
This explains things pretty well.
So what about those Catholics who vote for John Doe, politician? Shouldn’t the Church be hunting them down and booting them out as well?
Simply sinning is not enough to warrant excommunication. It has to be a notorious public sin. This is not because public sins are any worse than private sins. The purpose of excommunication is not punishment.
The purpose of excommunication is to maintain clarity in what the Church does and does not teach. A notorious public sinner is publicly dissenting from a moral teaching of the Church, which then obscures that teaching and potentially creates confusion among the faithful as to what is and is not moral. By excommunicating the person, the Church removes such confusion.
Pelosi and other liberals will distort and manipulate Church Law in exactly the same manner they distort the Constitution to meet their agenda. She, and they, will only be successful if we accept the distortions and the redefinitions. All we need to do to win is to control the language. Sin is sin, murder is murder, excommunication is excommunication.
There won't be another Grand Inquisition if that is what you are asking. The Church recognizes that all will stand before their Creator and be held to account for their "thoughts and their words, for what they have done and what they have failed to do". There will be no equivocation, no legalistic arguments and excuses. Aside from a few high profile examples to reinforce the message the Church will more clearly define the moral choices and allow each of us to choose or lose our salvation. The Church also recognizes that each soul is worth redemption and will work endlessly to bring salvation to even the most sinful.
It's not the Church's job to be "hunting them down" those who sin in private. Surely you understand that? Surely you understand what problems arise when the sin is unknown and not public knowledge?
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.