Archbishop Harry Flynn, what sayest thou?

In a recent column of the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis' newspaper, 'The Catholic Spirit,' Archbishop Harry Flynn wrote that the Eucharist was a source of unity, not judgments. Flynn said:

"It is my strong belief that the Eucharist is a source of healing and unity and that it should not be an occasion for political scrutinizing and judgments. As a bishop, I am committed to engaging the laity in transforming the world...but I do not believe that it is my responsibility or anyone else's responsibility to pass judgment on Catholics as they proceed to the Communion table."

The Council of Trent, recalling what St. Paul says in 1 Cor. 11: 27-29, teaches that "no one who has a mortal sin on his conscience shall dare to receive the Holy Eucharist before making a sacramental confession, regardless of how contrite he may think he is. This holy Council declares that this custom is to be kept forever." [1]

Ted Kennedy or Senator John Kerry came up to him for the Eucharist, and just weeks before Archbishop Burke, Archbishop Donohue, Bishop Vasa, Bishop Baker, Bishop Jugis and Bishop Bruskewitz had all denied Kerry the Eucharist, as they said they would do?

Would Archbishop Flynn remain 'divided' from these six fellow Bishops and 'do his own thing?' Would he want to obey Divine Law and remain 'united' with these six fellow members of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), a conference to which he belongs?

The six bishops who have declared they would deny the Eucharist to persons who obstinately persist in their grave manifest sin are neither quacks nor schismatic, but are faithful magisterial Bishops, members of the USCCB.

The Archbishop speaks of unity, but he causes disunity by giving the impression of a false unity.

Let us read what St. Paul said in 1 Cor. vv. 27-29 regarding unworthy reception of the Eucharist:

"Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup."

Does Archbishop Flynn, think that Canon 915 is incorrect when it clearly and definitely instructs "Those upon whom the penalty of excommunication or interdict has been imposed or declared, and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, are not to be admitted to Holy Communion."?

Why does Archbishop Flynn continue to instruct that the Eucharist should not be an occasion for political scrutinizing and judgments when Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, has already corrected this misconception? Here is the Church's teaching from Cardinal Ratzinger's June 2004 memorandum:

"This decision, properly speaking, is not a sanction nor a penalty. Nor is the minister of Holy Communion passing judgment on the person's subjective guilt, but rather is reacting to the person's public unworthiness to receive Holy Communion due to an objective situation of sin."

"Early last month, the bishops issued a statement, 'Catholics in Political Life,' that concluded, 'We recognize that such decisions rest with the individual bishop in accord with the established canonical and pastoral procedures.'"

In truth, Archbishop Flynn's brother Bishops issued the USCCB 'Statement' without the knowledge and directives of Cardinal Ratzinger's memorandum? Why? Cardinal Theodore McCarrick and Bishop Wilton Gregory, recipients of the memorandum, held it back from the entire conference of Bishops.

When the USCCB meet again in November 2004, surely this 'Statement' will no longer apply, knowing now that Cardinal Ratzinger's memorandum advised the Bishops to deny the Eucharist. He clearly said, "The minister of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute it."

Nowhere did Cardinal Ratzinger agree nor say that one Bishop could deny the Eucharist and another Bishop could not deny.

No matter how many times you read C. 915, it still says the same thing, 'they are not to be admitted.'

Archbishop Flynn said it is not the responsibility of the priest but of the one receiving. This, in fact, is incorrect.

In fact, Canon 915 puts the responsibility to deny on the minister — 'ne admittantur' — who, in some canonists' opinion, could be punished themselves according to C. 1389 §2, should he unlawfully administer the sacrament with the consequent danger of scandal.

The responsibility to issue canonical disciplines upon Catholic politicians who promote procured abortion rests with each individual Bishop over his diocese.

The Church has an innate and proper right to coerce offending members by means of penal sanctions and sacramental disciplines (C.1311). Diocesan Bishops as well as the Pope possess legislative power and the Code of Canon Law, i.e., C. 1315 and C. 1318, expressly recognize their right to enact laws for their dioceses.

Why is the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis so casual with the distribution of the Sacred Host, allowing gays and lesbians to receive Holy Communion when they come up to the Communion rail arm and arm, wearing Rainbow Sashes?

In fact, recognition of same sex unions actually does homosexual persons a disfavor by encouraging them to persist in what is an objectively immoral arrangement.

Homosexuals commit acts that go against the natural moral law and 'close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.' [2]

Cardinal Ratzinger also wrote that a priest may find an individual's judgment about his own worthiness to receive the Eucharist to be in grave error and the priest must deny him Holy Communion, according to C. 915.

The 'munus episcopale' or office of the faithful bishop has a most crucial obligation in guarding the truth that has been entrusted to him by the Holy Spirit to bring all souls to God, no matter at what cost, even if it means the persecution and death of the Bishop. [3]

When a Bishop permits another to persist in his manifest, obstinate sin against the Eucharistic Sacrament of Christ, is not the Bishop cooperating in the scandal as well? [4]

A Catholic Bishop's ministry is a crucial part of God's saving work in human history. The bishops must be forthright in proclaiming and defending the unchanging truths of the Church, 'in and out of season,' at a time marked by 'both a widespread relativism and a tendency toward facile pragmatism.' [5]

We respect your office, Archbishop Flynn. You are a priest 'in Persona Christi.' Please do not cause further sacrilege upon the Holy Eucharist by admitting those who are persistently obstinate in their grave manifest sins.

2. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 'considerations regarding Proposals to be given legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons,' §4; Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 2357.

4. Cf. "Living the Gospel of Life," n. 32, 1998, National Conference of Catholic Bishops.

5. Pope John Paul II, 2/6/04, meeting with members of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, biennial plenary assembly, Rome.

Barbara Kralis, the article's author, writes for various Christian and conservative publications. She is a regular columnist at RenewAmerica.us, Catholic Online.com, The Wanderer newspaper, New Oxford Review Magazine, Washington Dispatch, MichNews, Catholic Citizens of Illinois, Phil Brennan's WOW, ChronWatch, etc. Her first journalism position was with Boston Herald Traveler, 1964. Barbara published/edited 'Semper Fidelis' Catholic print newsletter. She and her husband, Mitch, live in the great State of Texas, and co-direct the Jesus Through Mary Catholic Foundation. She can be reached at: Avemaria@earthlink.net.

"What would Archbishop Flynn do if pro-abortion Senator Ted Kennedy or Senator John Kerry came up to him for the Eucharist, and just weeks before Archbishop Burke, Archbishop Donohue, Bishop Vasa, Bishop Baker, Bishop Jugis and Bishop Bruskewitz had all denied Kerry the Eucharist, as they said they would do?"

"Would Archbishop Flynn remain 'divided' from these six fellow Bishops and 'do his own thing?' Would he want to obey Divine Law and remain 'united' with these six fellow members of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), a conference to which he belongs?

"The Archbishop speaks of unity, but he causes disunity by giving the impression of a false unity."

I am really tired of hearing the Bishops or religious always invoke the "change the world" comment. The world is NOT our home, although we are saved by Jesus we still struggle and are fallen in nature. How could a fallen creature change the world to be a paradise because this is what they are truly saying with this type of comment.

The world will only be changed at the Second Coming of Christ and only through the Hand of God will it be done, NOT the hand of man who with pride and arrogance assumes they can.

This does not mean I do not believe we can make the world a better place (as we have seen through the actions of many Saints like St. Mother Teresa of Calcutta), but we will NOT be able to transform it.

I hear you! I wonder if somewhere along the line the focus has become more and more earthly centered instead of heavenly centered. The ECUSA, where I came from a year ago, is riddled with this "change the world" earthly centered mindset, to the very serious detriment of its stand on heavenly things - look at the infamous "vote" of the majority of ECUSA "bishops" in August 2003 as one example. Yes, like Mother Teresa and the saints in history, we can work to make world a better place, but "changing the world" in the sense of the article is something we who redeemed, still struggling daily to overcome sin and temptation, cannot do. You are correct, only by the Second Coming of Christ and through the Hand of God will the world truly be changed.

They (many bishops) always say that the Eucharist should not be denied to pro-aborts thus making it a "sanction" against them. I do not understand this mentality.

It is not a "sanction" to deny them the Eucharist, it is MERCY to deny them the Eucharist.

Given the excellent scripture and canon law references, seems to me it would be merciful to the pro-aborts souls if they were denied the Eucharist.

Is it me, or am I missing something here?

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.