Posted on 07/26/2005 11:25:09 AM PDT by NYer
PITTSBURGH, July 25, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) - According to Francis Cardinal Arinze, the Vatican's chief over the administration of the sacraments, the denial of Holy Communion to pro-abortion politicians is a no-brainer. Speaking at a dinner in Pittsburgh over the weekend, Arinze responded with his usual wit to the question, "Should Catholic legislators who support legal abortion 'be refused' Communion?"
The Cardinal elicited laughter when he rejoined, "I ask you, do you really need a cardinal from the Vatican to find the answer?"
He quipped, "Are there no children from First Communion to whom you can pose the question and receive the answer? You do not need a cardinal to answer that. Because it is a straightforward matter." In the Catholic Church, children are prepared to receive the Sacrament at the age of approximately seven years.
The Cardinal, moreover, is speaking not from his personal opinion but from the Church's Code of Canon Law which states, "Those who…obstinately persist in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to Holy Communion."
Apparently, however, the bishops do need a Vatican Cardinal to tell them. The US and Canadian bishops, with only a handful of exceptions, far from endorsing this requirement of the Church law, have evaded the issue or remained silent. Cardinal McCarrick of Washington, soon to retire, went so far as to withhold from the meeting of the US bishops' conference, the pertinent section of a letter by then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, (CDF) in which he said such legislators "must be refused" communion.
Cardinal Arinze is the Vatican's Prefect of the Congregation of Divine Worship and Sacraments, is the third highest authority in the Church matters pertaining to the sacraments, after the Pope and the current head of the CDF. He spoke at a benefit dinner hosted by a lay group, the Apostolate for Family Consecration.
In book-length interview with journalist Peter Seewald, the future Pope Benedict XVI said of bishops whose first instinct is to avoid conflicts, "Peace is not the first civic duty, and a bishop whose only concern is not to have any problems and to gloss over as many conflicts as possible is an image I find repulsive."
Read related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:
Since Denver Meeting Divisions Between US Bishops on Communion Issue Continue to Surface http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2004/jul/04071210.html
Read coverage in Post Gazette:
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05206/543242.stm
Should be:
Those using artifical means to prevent birth specifically (without overriding medical necessity wherein prevention of birth is a secondary consequence)...
P.S. I avoid all three and I am quite happy!
Unfortunately, your Eminence, due to the pathetic state of catechesis in the the United States in the recent past, few and far between would be the number of First Communicants who could answer this question properly. Yes, we desperately do need Cardinals and Bishops to answer this question in the most precise and straightforward terms for all those Catholics who have been denied a basic understanding of their Faith through lack of orthodox catechesis.
----If not, why won't he state it clearly.----
Perhaps he knows precisely what time the hammer is going to fall. The Synod, perhaps?
Frank
73. Various responses have insisted on the relationship between the Eucharist and the moral life, pointing to a significant awareness of the importance of the moral duty flowing from the reception of Holy Communion. Many refer to the fact that too many receive the Sacrament without having sufficiently reflected on their moral state in life. Some receive Communion while denying the teachings of the Church or publicly supporting immoral choices in life, such as abortion, without thinking that they are committing an act of grave personal dishonesty and causing scandal. Some Catholics do not understand why it might be a sin to support a political candidate who is openly in favour of abortion or other serious acts against life, justice and peace. Such attitudes lead to, among other things, a crisis in the meaning of belonging to the Church and in a clouding of the distinction between venial and mortal sin.
Hopefully the heterodox in the current crop of bishops will follow after McCarrick's example, grow old, and retire quickly and enjoy a long retirement.
My prayer is for the Holy Spirit to guide the Holy Father in making his choice for the replacements to those who are currently leading the dioceses of this country.
BTTT!
**"Peace is not the first civic duty, and a bishop whose only concern is not to have any problems and to gloss over as many conflicts as possible is an image I find repulsive."**
Could you please post your lists?
Irish minds think alike!
'Tis Frank, himself!
**1. Divorced and remarried **
Without receiving an annulment -- You need a clarification on that statement.
Thank you for that -- I was just about to ask him to qualify that statement also.
Correct -- those using NFP are OK because it is a disciplinary issue.
The Holy Spirit done good! (intentionally written this way).
The talk show host Rollye James said that the Catholic Church ought to lose its tax-exempt status if it excommunicated pro-abortion politicians (saying that it amounted to illegal lobbying.) She later extended this view to denying communion.
I e-mailed her and asked what would be permissible -- the only thing I could come up with was that the priest could not serve communion, but U.S. Tax Code forbids him from telling the reason.
WLAC dropped her soon after that (not sure if there was a connection or not) and I didn't like her well enough to follow her to XM...
I now remember seeing this quote. It is terribly ambiguous. Let us parse it.
1. Kerry's communion is up to the US bishops. That is the norm of the Church.
2. Unambiguously pro-abortion Catholic politicians are not fit to receive.
3. If they should not receive, they should not be given communion.
There are many ways to connect these dots. (1) is the only straighforward statement and it supports the cafeteria. (2) and (3) do not add up to anything that could offset (1). "Unambiguously pro-abortion" may or may not refer to Kerry who is never unambiguous and is quite ambiguous on abortion as far as his statements are known.
"Not fit to receive" does not mean "should not receive" if the modality "should" is meant binding on the priest. Fitness to receive is an internal condition known to communicant alone. Every Sunday there are communicants in the line that are variously fit and unfit. If they approach to receive, they should receive because the priest does not know if they are fit. And of course, "should receive" with "should" operating on the priest is tautologically the same as "should be given".
If "should not receive" operates on the communicant, then it means that the communicant would be sinning by receiving. But the priest, who does not know that, should of course still give the Communion if asked. In this case, "not fit to receive" is tautologically the same as "should not receive", but "should not be given" does not follow.
Clearly, the "should not receive" implied under "not fit to receive" in (2) is not the same as "should not receive" used in (3).
Third time's the charm. Arinze cannot be this crafty by accident.
Homosexuality is a choice, chosen within a sub-group that does not condemn it. That is the latest SCIENTIFIC findings; Johns Hopkins no longer categorizes it as a genetic, unavoidable path but merely a social choice.
I agree. I see this as part of the whole collegiality movement they are talking about again. In truth, this IS the proper role of the local ordinary. Problem is that our Ordinaries are so terribly ordinary.
I don't see any chance that the Vatican will take a forceful role here, its up to the local churches to deal with it, however badly they chose to do so.
patent
I wish Cardinal Arinze should avoid the folksy tone and speak in plain language to the amchurch liers. It is very naive of him to think that his rhetorical question in lieu of an answer will have any positive effect. >>>
I disagree. He is very simply being sarcastic and pretty much implying that you already know the answer, but too many really don't want to hear it. IOW, some really believe the lies they are telling themselves. Just my opinion.
Tell that to Jesus when he threw the tables of the money changers over at the temple as they were defaming God. And this man does not have the guts to protect the Body of Christ from sacrilige as well as hand it over to those that are in mortal sin and profess evil?
He is no different than the Phraisies who turned our Lord over to be crucified-only now our lord is being "crucified" by the so called Vicar of Christ, who refuses to take the Papal oath to protect. How can any post vatican II pope be actually called the vicar of christ when they are leading him to suffer again?
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.