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."
***25% of the USCCB voted WITH Rome.***
A 250 batting average is OK for baseball, but theology ain't baseball.
I missed that, I had heard the vote was much less lopsided. I stand, sheepishly and saddened, corrected. What is wrong with these people Doc? Do 40,000,000 dead souls not cry out to them? Aren't these the same group who cry a river for the 6,000,000 dead jewish victims of the Nazi crimes? I certainly am not denigrating them for their willingness to decry the inhumanity of the Nazi genocide, but Doctors Mengele are in our midst, ripping children limb from limb, while the Shepherds appointed by GOD to speak out remain silent.
The good Deacon and the good Doctor are right. My math and reading skills have degenerated. Mea Culpa. The Bishops didn't even get into double digits on this one. Good thing it isn't anything IMPORTANT, like Altar Girls or the Latin Mass.
On the contrary...you have stumbled upon one of the key reasons why laymen should not be distributing the Eucharist, but you seem unwilling to acknowledge same.
It is, at minimum, imprudent to have persons distributing the Sacred Species who do not have the authority to refuse to distribute to a person in the exceptional circumstance when it would clearly be improper to do so.
Again, what about my example above? Should the EMHC just hand over the Eucharist for possible or probable profanation?
This is why the clergy, not the laity, should be distributing the Eucharist.
I am curious Deacon, how would you have voted?
Ah, now you add "possible"?
If an EEM is certain that someone might profane the Eucharist, he should not give it. And "profanation" means taking the Eucharist out of the Church without consuming it, or if the EEM knows, for certain, that the recipient will profane it.
Of course, if the EEM knows this, he will have informed the pastor or celebrant before Mass that such a person is in the parish, and might present themselves.
Let the celebrant or pastor make the determination, not the EEM.
This is not the crisis you think it is, Knotts. We've covered all this in our EEM training, and most other parishes, if they're smart, have done so as well.
Somebody said above that the bishops of the US are in open schism. Really? You're kidding? I knew this over 20 years ago. I did not need a light bulb to go off over my head to see this. We have suffered through some 40 years of blashphemous liturgical abuses, destruction of the patrimony of the church, heresy unabashedly proclaimed from pulpits, books, "catholic" tv shows radio & videos, and the general suppression of all forms of traditional private & public devotion. This has been "in yo face" like the white elephant in the middle of the living room for these 40 years. But most Catholics mentally live in "la-la"land, joyfully accepting "liturgy in the worship space", the Teletubbies dancing in the sanctuary, and other random outright blasphemy as if they were whacked up on Thorazine!!!
Go get 'em Thor!
Explain, in your own words Deacon, why EEM are needed. Go ahead, please. Explain why with the Deacons and Priests you already have, why you need divorced women handing out the Body of Christ. (You do have female EEMs, yes? Some are divorced, yes?)
On the contrary...you have stumbled upon one of the key reasons why laymen should not be distributing the Eucharist, but you seem unwilling to acknowledge same.
It is, at minimum, imprudent to have persons distributing the Sacred Species who do not have the authority to refuse to distribute to a person in the exceptional circumstance when it would clearly be improper to do so.
Again, what about my example above? Should the EMHC just hand over the Eucharist for possible or probable profanation?
This is why the clergy, not the laity, should be distributing the Eucharist.
I apologize for the repeat ping, but this point simply cannot be overemphasized!!!
Saves time for more announcements, you know?
I would have voted with the majority. Let each bishop determine what is best for his diocese.
I have no idea if someone has gone to confession earlier in the day or the day before, so I give the Eucharist unless I have strong evidence that the person is not Catholic (not knowing what to do when they come up is a pretty good indication).
Sex, money and power...roots of evil.
I have no idea of whether any of our EEMs are divorced or not.
I know none of them are divorced and remarried without benefit of annulment. I screen for that.
And let them ignore Canon Law and Ratzinger? I'm truly disappointed in you, Sink, and embarrassed for you in your making this revealing admission.
It is a problem, if infrequent.
If Ratzinger is not happy with the decision of the American bishops, he can always direct them to do otherwise.
And it is, after all, each bishop's decision, in the long run.
Don't be embarrassed for me, since I am not.
And golf and bicylces and boyfriends and such.
But, so far, I've never seen anybody do that.
And when it is further verified, what difference will it make to you?
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.