Posted on 05/09/2013 5:06:34 AM PDT by NYer
Because, he says, unrepentant public sinners could slip in among the faithful, and he does not want to back up their hypocrisy. The case of Catholic politicians who support abortion.
ROME, May 9, 2013 – There is one particular in the Masses celebrated by Pope Francis that raises questions that have so far gone unanswered.
At the moment of communion, pope Jorge Mario Bergoglio does not administer it himself, but allows others to give the consecrated host to the faithful. He sits down and waits for the distribution of the sacrament to be completed.
The exceptions are very few. At solemn Masses the pope, before sitting down, gives communion to those assisting him at the altar. And at the Mass last Holy Thursday, at the juvenile detention facility of Casal del Marmo, he wanted to give communion himself to the young detainees who approached to receive it.
Bergoglio has given no explicit explanation of this behavior since becoming pope.
But there is one page in a book he published in 2010 that allows one to infer the motives at the origin of this practice.
The book is a collection of conversations with the rabbi of Buenos Aires, Abraham Skorka.
At the end of the chapter dedicated prayer, the then-archbishop Bergoglio says:
"David had been an adulterer and had ordered a murder, and nonetheless we venerate him as a saint because he had the courage to say: 'I have sinned.' He humbled himself before God. One can commit enormous mistakes, but one can also acknowledge them, change one's life and make reparation for what one has done. It is true that among parishioners there are persons who have killed not only intellectually or physically but indirectly, with improper management of capital, paying unjust wages. There are members of charitable organizations who do not pay their employees what they deserve, or make them work off the books. [. . .] With some of them we know their whole résumé, we know that they pass themselves off as Catholics but practice indecent behaviors of which they do not repent. For this reason, on some occasions I do not give communion, I stay back and let the assistants do it, because I do not want these persons to approach me for a photo. One may also deny communion to a known sinner who has not repented, but it is very difficult to prove these things. Receiving communion means receiving the body of the Lord, with the awareness of forming a community. But if a man, rather than uniting the people of God, has devastated the lives of many persons, he cannot receive communion, it would be a total contradiction. Such cases of spiritual hypocrisy present themselves in many who take refuge in the Church and do not live according to the justice that God preaches. And they do not demonstrate repentance. This is what we commonly call leading a double life.”
As can be noted, Bergoglio explained in 2010 his abstaining from giving communion personally with a very practical reason: "I do not want these persons to approach me for a photo."
As an experienced pastor and a good Jesuit, he knew that among those who receive communion there could be unrepentant public sinners who nonetheless professed themselves to be Catholics. He knew that at that point it would be difficult to deny them the sacrament. And he knew the public effects that that communion could have, if received from the hands of the archbishop of the Argentine capital.
One could infer that Bergoglio may sense the same danger as pope, indeed even more so. And for this reason he would be adopting the same prudential conduct: “I do not give communion, I stay back and let the assistants do it.”
The public sins that Bergoglio gave as examples in his conversation with the rabbi are the oppression of the poor and the withholding of just wages from the worker. Two sins traditionally listed among the four that “cry out to heaven for vengeance.”
But the reasoning is the same that in recent years has been applied by other bishops to another sin: public support for pro-abortion laws on the part of politicians who profess themselves to be Catholic.
This latter controversy has had its epicenter in the United States.
In 2004, then-cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, prefect of the congregation for the doctrine of the faith, sent to the episcopal conference of the United States a note with the “general principles” on the question.
The episcopal conference decided to “apply” on a case-by-case basis the principles recalled by Ratzinger, leaving it up to the "individual bishops to make prudent pastoral judgments in [their] own circumstance.”
From Rome, Cardinal Ratzinger accepted this solution and called it “in harmony” with the general principles of his note.
In reality, the bishops of the United States are not unanimous. Some of them, including among the conservatives, like cardinals Francis George and Patrick O'Malley, are reluctant to “make the Eucharist a political battleground.” Others are more intransigent. When the Catholic Joe Biden was chosen as vice-presidential running mate by Barack Obama, the archbishop of Denver at the time, Charles J. Chaput, now in Philadelphia, said that Biden's support for the so-called “right” to abortion was a grave public fault and “I presume that his integrity will lead him to refrain from presenting himself for communion."
The fact remains that last March 19, at the Mass for the inauguration of the pontificate of Francis, vice-president Biden and the leader of the House Democrats, Nancy Pelosi, she too a pro-abortion Catholic, were part of the official delegation of the United States.
And both received communion. But not from the hands of pope Bergoglio, who was seated behind the altar.
__________
The book:
Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Abraham Skorka, "On Heaven and Earth", Random House, New York, 2013.
It's not a question of whether the sinners need more pastoral attention. Of course they do. They need a straight, personal message of truth. They need this from any brother or sister n Christ who has a chance to communicate with them. They especially need it from pastors: the pastor of their own parish (if they go to church), from their own bishop; from the Pope. How long has it been, do you think, since Biden, Sebelius, Cuomo and Pelosi have been called out individuals and addressed seriously and personally?
" What is in a person’s heart, and what may come out of sharing in the taking of Communion is not for us to decide."
Their offenses have been, in the words of Canon 915 (Link) "obstinately" "persevering" in "manifest" "grave" sin. That means they have been previously warned and ignored the warning; they';re still doing it; they're doing it IN PUBLIV; and it s a serious matter.
They have to repent publicly because they have done open public harm. It's not just a private thing between Biden and God, Pelosi and God, etc. It's manifest -- pubic --- and requires a public recantation.
Not only that, but preserving the Blessed Sacrament from sacrilege is one of the most important duties of a priest. Knowingly providing a parody of Communing to a person "obstinately" "persevering" in "manifest" "grave" sin, can damn both the souls of the recipient and of the person who wrongly ministered the Sacrament to them..
(I especially didn't mean "pubic" for "public"!!)
He could ask him if he has confessed this sin. He could require a public renunciation of his support for (and votes in favor of) child-killing and sodomy.
He didn’t give the juvenile offenders at the detention center Communion. As far as I know, none of them were practicing Catolics; two were Muslims.
Canon 915. Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.
You can't give the person the "benefit of the doubt" if they are making public statements. That's what the word "manifest" means in Canon 915: the problem is a public official's public actions... not a private personal opinion.
OMgosh I am so angry right now. I can’t take this.
THE POPE THINKS IT’S OKAY TO JUST NOT DISTRIBUTE COMMUNION WHILE OTHER PRIESTS DO?????
Seriously? Is this the *Catholic Church*???
I'm hopeful. I think he's getting ready to lay down the law on this. I think he's distressed about what happened with Biden and Pelosi, and knows this has to stop.
Watch and Pray.
I appreciate the patience and thoroughness of your responses. I keep coming up with questions though. How is the one administering communion to know whether or not the person receiving it has recently confessed and whether it was sincere? It seems harsh that a priest could be damned forever due to a (excuse the pun) clerical error. I thought that under the New Covenant, each was responsible for his own soul and relationship with God because Jesus made it a personal relationship.
I also wonder about the need for public atonement - what keeps the Evil One from using that as an opportunity to lie and then turn around and mock the Church?
Please be patient with me - I was raised Catholic in my early years but never got the message. I am now non-denominational and find what I need in the Bible and Jesus is Lord and Savior in my heart. I'm one of His kids that finds most religion to be unnecessarily confusing and diverting from the real issue of carrying the Word. It seems odd that religious doctrine would dwarf the Bible in words. At any rate, I hope you use my diversions as learning/teaching opportunities because it never hurts to concentrate on Him and His love for us. God Bless
Read the article. According to that, yes he did.
In every case,though, the sacrilege is grave matter. It always objectively brings dishonor to Almighty God and negatively impacts anybody who sees it, hears about it, is confused or morally compromised by it, etc.
I want to thank you for the sincerity of your questions. And may your example rub off on others --- courtesy is seriously needed in this antagonistic, FReepy domain!
It is a pleasure to volley an idea back and forth with a person who asks, as you do, intelligently and with an open mind. May God bless you abundantly.
As I understand it, those who attended the Detention Cente Mass (which included both staff and detainees) were told at the beginning of the Mass that Communion was for Catholics who have observed the fast and are in a state of grace. Those who approached for the Sacrament were presumed to be such. I don’t think any of the offenders received. They may have come up for a blessing, which is what is often done when a person, for whatever reason, cannot in good conscience receive Communion. The priest puts his hand on their heads and blesses them.
And who could be more trustworthy and less likely to lie than the people in a detention center?
From your mouth (er, computer) to God’s ears.
I hope you are right, because I’m this close to making some drastic decisions.
The most frustrating part of all of this is that watching and praying is all I can do.
Do you know where you heard/saw this info? It certainly is good to hear. We should have this announcement at every mass.
As for the other four, it's solidly probable that either they did not approach for the Sacrament at all, or that they approached and were just given a simple priestly blessing without the Sacrament (which is how these things are handled); or it's possible that the Catholic youth had gone to Confession, and were properly disposed to receive HolY Communion. The detention center had a Catholic chaplain, and it is inconceivable to me that he would not have offered Confession to juvenile offenders. That's his job. It's what they do.
So there you have three possibilities, all of them are morally good.
Do you have any links you can give me to a source saying that none of these things happened, and that they were all given Communion while being, manifestly, not in a state of grace?
If one did not have such proof, one would be speculating and imputing the worst possible intent and practice without evidence. That is a sin in itself: either rash judgment or slander, depending on the accuser's intent.
And that dreadful time, 500 years ago, when every single Catholic Bishop in Britain decided that Henry VIII was fit to be head of the Church of England, adulterer, apostate, church-looter and murderer though he was. With the exception of Bishop John Fisher.
Take heed and be faithful.
But here's pretty good circumstantial evidence: in the immediate aftermath of Pope Fancis washing the feet of the youth offenders, there was a huge amount a'skwawkin, a'sqweekin' and a-freepin' about it, including solidly orthodox canonists (Ed Peters) and liturgists (Fr. Z), as well as radtrads (Rorate Caeli), and provocateurs like Nicole Winfield (whose oh-goodie-a-fight" piece got 21,000 hits in 48 hours (Link). Many blogs construed things in the worst possible light, the frantic anti-papist calumnies raising many a devilish cackle among the Lowerarchy in Flames I am sure.
In the midst of all this overheated huffiness, there was not one word said about "everybody" receiving Communion, which would have been a much, MUCH bigger deal if it had happened.
Le me clarify further, for the sake of comparison. The washing of the feet is not a sacrament, and neither is it a required rite. It is an optional observance; it was restored only in 1955 by Pope Pius XII as a part of the general reform of Holy Week, and governed by rubrics set in place in 1988 by the Office of the Congregation for Divine Worship (only yesterday, so to speak.) Setting aside "viri" to include women is permitted by many bishops' conferences, including in the USA (Link) and in Argentina, where Abp. Bergoglio had often washed the feet of patients in hospitals, including pregnant women.
My point here is, that people who were looking to foment a fight between faithful traditional Catholics and the Holy Father would have seized on, reported, and exploited a violation of Communion in a heartbeat, if it had happened. It would have been incomparably more radical, HUGELY more divisive, compared to just foot-washing, which an optional observance with rubrics set in place only in the 20th century.
Sacrilegious Communion is something solemnly rebuked 2,000 years ago in Scripture itself (1 Corinthians) and would have caused, not just a little lowing from the herd, but a rip-roaring livestock stampede. And for good reason.
Therefore, I conclude that no Eucharistic delict occurred on Holy Thursday. And I have seen no evidence that it did. A few newspaper reports noted in passing that "inmates and staff" received Communion. The Detention Center has 50 inmates ---10 female and 40 male --- and, if you include all shifts, an even greater number of staff, including Catholic, Jewish, Muslim and unchurched. NOBODY reported that "ALL" inmates and "ALL" staff received Communion.
I'd be willing to bet my right hand up to the elbow that they did not.
At the time that Yeshua instituted his ‘supper,’ he made it plain that it is symbolic, as the logical, spirit filled mind would concur. He held the ordinary bread in his still living hands, saying “This do in remembrance of me.”
The pagan, humanist position of the RCC is of courrse no surprise, in view of their other human traditionalist excursions form the plain words of Yeshua.
The Catholic Church I attend is Maronite, from the ancient city of Antioch. The words of consecration are chanted in the language of Jesus - Aramaic. Aramaic, the language that Jesus spoke, had over 30 words for "represent," but Jesus did not use any of them. He used the Aramaic word for "estin" which means "is."
The language of Yeshua was and remains Hebrew.
All of his ministery was in Hebrew. This has been proven beyopnd any shadow of doubt through the copies of Matthew’s gospel in the original language from St Petersburg, and from the various other Jewish archives in England and the caves of the Dead Sea.
Testimony from the disciples of John also bear this out.
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.