Posted on 07/03/2004 6:45:41 AM PDT by RockDoc
In a letter to US bishops, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger threw his full support behind the few bishops who have said they will deny the Eucharist to Catholic politicians who support legal abortion, according to an Italian press report. The US bishops voted overwhelmingly to take a less rigorous stance.
The Italian weekly L'Espresso has reported that Cardinal Ratzinger, the prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, told the American bishops should speak privately with prominent Catholics who defy Church teachings on key issues involving the sanctity of life, alert them to the gravity of their offenses, and warn them that they should not receive Communion. The Vatican's chief doctrinal official wrote: "When ìthese precautionary measures have not had their effect...and the person in question, with obstinate persistence, still presents himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, ìhe minister of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute it."
L'Espresso has published the full text of Cardinal Ratzinger's letter, which had not previously been available to the public. Cardinal Theodore McCarrick of Washington, who heads a committee of US bishops studying possible responses to pro-abortion Catholic politicians, told reporters that the Ratzinger letter left the issue in the hands of the American hierarchy.
At their Denver meeting, the US bishops adopted a policy statement re-affirming the Church's condemnation of legal abortion, but stopping short of any call for withholding the Eucharist from prominent abortion supporters. The bishops reportedly turned down a milder form of the resolution, backed by Cardinal McCarrick, which would have said that it was imprudent to deny the Eucharist to Catholic politicians. In conversations with the press, Cardinal McCarrick had hinted that the Ratzinger letter gave support to that position.
Sandro Magister, the veteran Vatican reporter who is the author of the Espresso report, writes that Cardinal Ratzinger was clear in his letter, which was sent to Cardinal Ratzinger and to Bishop Wilton Gregory, the president of the US bishops' conference. But as Magister put it, in the headline of his article, the text of the Ratzinger letter shows: "What he wanted, but didn't get."
That's not what I was asking.
Yes. On Sundays and Holy Days.
Now, do you see what I'm getting at? You say that Holy Communion would take too long without EMHCs, but...you're distributing under both Kinds, which is obviously going to require more ministers, ordinary or extraordinary. We have the same "problem" in my home parish. It is also a modern-type church, but an altar rail could be put in somehow if it were found to be necessary.
I'm just saying that one priest, with an altar rail, can distribute Holy Communion, under one Kind, to a lot of people in a short period of time. So, the issue has to do with more than simply speeding things up, because if that was the sole issue, altar rail use would be universal, and no one would distribute under both Kinds.
We have to accommodate 4500 people on a Sunday morning. The only way to do that is make sure that cars move in and out of the parking lot within a 30 minute window, six times.
Masses cannot last 90 minutes, with 30 minutes devoted to the distribution of the Eucharist.
You are lumping all women into a category of (your words -- priestess wannabes)
How can you be the judge of my motives or even the motives of a man -- only God knows.
And, believe me, I don't want to be and have never wanted to be a nun or a priest!!
Bump
Some of the weekend masses at my parish have around 500 communicants, and my parish is probably one of the biggest parishes left in the US that still uses the rail, and it only takes two priests distributing hosts 10-15 minuites to distribute communion.
It's not loaded--if you look at R's letter, it's clear as crystal: REFUSE them!
An even better question: what about Joe/Jane who vote pro-abort BECAUSE it's pro-abort?
I believe that this question demands the correct use of the comma, thus:
What the heck, over?
My recollection of the question also differs from yours in that the word "heck" is not the one we used in the Military Police...
You're pretty handy with strawman arguments.
Abortion and euthanasia are NOT the same as fisticuffs on the playground, Sink. Your moral theo 101 should have told you that.
I'm SHOCKED.
Of course it's not. That's why we don't allow EEMs to decide who they will receive the Eucharist from them.
What a mess! That's why we don't allow EEMs to decide who will recieve the Eucharist from them.
Sinky, the solution is obvious to all: dump the EEM's and force your parishioners to spend an extra 10 minutes at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
That way, only you, the Pastor, and the Associate Pastors will be responsible for the disposition of the Eucharist, for good or ill.
No. We simply can't logistically handle 90 minute Masses.
First of all, you are beginning to sound like the Supremes in Griswold who found a "right to privacy" which does not exist in the Constitution--or like those legislators who find that the Second Amendment applies only to active members of the Reserves, the cops, and themselves.
As they say in Green Bay: Boooschwaaaa.
That letter is clear as can be: MUST REFUSE.
Secondly, you are again playing the "strawman" game.
The case of John Fn Kerry is notorious and well-publicized, as are the cases of State and other Federal legislators. They are either FOR babykilling, or AGIN it.
An EEM who cannot make these distinctions should NEVER have been made an EEM in the first place: another discussion you should have with your Pastor.
Well, since 25% of Christians are Catholic (of East or West) it's about what one might expect, statistically...
What does Dolan have to say? I notice he's not jumping on the "must refuse" bandwagon.
Of course, in the case of Kerry, and other politicos, Reconciliation is NOT the question--nice try at the side-step.
Public denunciation of the pro-abort position and a reversal of voting pattern are the requirements (along WITH private confession.)
How very, ah, OR-tho-dox of you.
It ought to bother you that this statement is in direct contradiction to your previous contentions that 'no EEM may refuse...'
Since the problem of EEM's is layered, beginning with the obstinate and persistent abuse of the position by the Bishops and priests of the USA--his response may seem odd.
But it's not. If you peel back the silliness, the Eucharist is "food which I shall give you", and that "I" is Christ.
Male priesthood follows from that "I" and so does the distribution of that "Food."
Of course, if the Bishops can justify the use of bar-room tunes and polkas as music for worship, then this little item is hardly significant, right?
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.