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."
5:30 AM, 7:15 AM, 9:00 AM, 10:45 AM, and 12:30 PM.
Simple, easy.
LOL!!!
I noticed that too.
First off, he hasn't been ASKED about it (and he's likely very happy...) by anyone in the local "press."
But I emailed him the article at the thread-head, as well as the various other items (Bend, OR.), Sherman, Burke, etc. just in case he doesn't read the papers.
And someday I will see him and in my typical smooth and suave manner ask: "Hey, Bish--when you gonna whack off those diseased members of the Body, hey?"
No problem.
0600, 0745, 0930, 1115, 1300, and 1700 hours for the rest.
Ratzinger would not likely issue a 'binding' letter on the topic. It would force the schism into the open.
I'm hoping many of these bishops are first trying to meet with the pro-abort pols, before refusing them. Ratzinger's letter called for instruction first, then denial.
I think it very significant that the Eucharist is distributed in a holy and servant-like manner.
Agreed. Please understand that I'm not quibbling with the praxis of most of the EEM's, nor with their bona fides.
What I'm trying to say is that the distribution of Communion HAS symbolic meaning which was obscured by the license taken...by the PoofterLitWonks, by and large, and than (injudiciously?) approved by Rome.
That's exactly what Burke did here in Wisconsin--he wrote three Dimowits (one in Congress, two at the Statehouse) and told them that they were not in conformance with the Church's teachings.
It only became public after a pro-life group up here tipped off the newspapers. It would not surprise me in the least to learn that other Wisconsin Bishops have also written letters--but they are now smart enough to keep the matter away from that particular pro-life group...
However, at some point in time, it will become known. The important question is how the Bishops act.
While your intentions are sincere, the numbers cited by Sinkspur would constitute more than 10 extra minutes. While I do not favor EEMs, it is apparent that a shrinking priesthood requires the assistance of 'deacons'.
A personal note. Please DO NOT misconstrue this for anything other than the charitable comment in which it is being given. It is an 'observation', not a 'judgement'!
Over the 40 year span following VCII, I accepted the changes in the liturgy. Initially, it was very difficult to take communion from a woman whose hands were dripping with jewelry and doused with perfume. It flew in the face of all that I had been taught by the good nuns in catholic school and was imbued in me, prior to VCII. Alas, I was and am still not in the postion of judging the work of the Holy Spirit, and went along with all of this.
Now that I am in a church where communion is by intinction and on the tongue, I am in a unique position to reflect on the 'Real Presence' in the Eucharist. Receiving that intinctured host on my tongue each week from the hands of an ordained priest, is a humbling experience. We place our trust in this priest that the host and wine are validly consecrated, while giving ourselves entirely over to our Lord, through His servant.
Recently, a RC family attended our liturgy. One of their children was overheard reacting to this experience. She was most perturbed at not being able to "receive in the hand". Initially, that struck me strange. On closer reflection, however, it seemed to me that what she was exhibiting was a "loss". Please bear with me on this!
During our infancy, we rely on others to feed us. Once we have mastered that ability, we have gained a new skill - the ability to feed ourselves. As senior citizens approach their very golden years, one of their greatest fears is the loss of that skill. They don't want to be dependent on others to feed them.
Perhaps I have read more into this situation than is true. It does seem to me, even watching the Mass on EWTN, that many catholics now 'want' to feed themselves. Those who were born after VCII have never experienced any other form of receiving communion. For them, the notion of entrusting themselves to a priest to administer communion, is an alien concept.
My comments are not intended to persuade the discussion in one direction or the other. Rather, they are intended as a simple 'commentary', a 'reflection' on what I have witnessed and experienced.
Personally, I would rather spend 2 hours in line to receive the intinctured host from a priest, than to take communion in the hand from an EEM. That is a personal choice; one that I can now make. It is indeed tragic that a younger generation of catholics has been 'encouraged' to receive in the hand and not on the tongue.
And what would be accomplished???....Many of the clergy have been exemplary, have been a blessing to many families, are we to 'crucify' them ??
After all...Dog spelled backwards is God..Maybe Sink has it backwards too!!
Same thing, ejo.
It's courtesy to ping someone if you mention them in a post.
Another excellent point which you brought up in that post: one can hardly 'feed himself' Eternal Life.
That's part of the reason that only the Ordained were allowed to touch and dispense the Sacred Species.
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.
No. We simply can't logistically handle 90 minute Masses.
Tsk, tsk, my children!. First of all it would be a real joy if we eliminated the EEMs at mass, and force the priests and deacons to actually do some work! Expel the broads with the stretch pants who wouldst stick their unconsecrated hands into the tabernacle! Only hands which have been consecrated should touch the Eucharistic body of Our Lord.
So it would take longer to distribute communion? Good! After all the protestants frequently have 2 hour Sunday services and think nothing of it. But we Catholics know so much better, and only give God a scant 40 minutes or so...and become restless if it takes longer. Too bad! The lines for communion would not be so long if everyone actually did an examination of conscience before, to determine if their souls are free from the state of mortal sin, so they are free to receive Holy Communion without risk of committing blashpemy - a mortal sin in and of itself! God tolerates all of our sins for our 60, 70, 80, or 90 years of life with tremendous patience. And we dare to whine about giving him 90 minutes of worship a week?
Why, how filled with pride we are! We are consumed with wisdom as we watch the Teletubbies dance across the sanctuary! After all, we are church....!
they are distractions at Mass. When five people show up for confession on Saturday afternoon and 4,000 come out for Communion on Sunday..... Must be we have a preponderance of saints within our flock.
Yeah, it is funny how Americans think Sunday ends at noon. In the Philippines, in a city parish, the above schedule is the norm. Although there are no Tridentine Masses in that country (that I know of), but there is also no vocations crisis, no divorce, no abortion.
Sunday does not end at noon in the USA--but the NFL football schedule BEGINS at noon.
Uh. It can leave the EMEs back in the pews where they belong. Duh.
Okay, here's an easy answer! As per Sacramentum Concilium, let's just NOT have EME's.
Solves the problem AND soothes consciences in one easy step! (and for a change we would be IN ACCORDANCE with the spirit of a Vatican Document).
Stunning in its simplicity, I know. Hold the applause!
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.