Posted on 07/16/2014 4:18:13 AM PDT by NYer
I begin with a piece, spotted by Fr Tim Finigan and reported in his indispensable blog The Hermeneutic of Continuity, which had been published in Sandro Magister’s blog—not his English one, Chiesa, but his Italian language blog for L’Espresso, Settimo Cielo.
A few days ago, Magister told the story of a parish priest in the Italian diocese of Novara, Fr Tarcisio Vicario, who recently discussed the question of Holy Communion for the divorced and remarried. This is how he explained the Church’s teaching on the matter: “For the Church, which acts in the name of the Son of God, marriage between the baptised is alone and always a sacrament. Civil marriage and cohabitation are not a sacrament. Therefore those who place themselves outside of the Sacrament by contracting civil marriage are living a continuing infidelity. One is not treating of sin committed on one occasion (for example a murder), nor an infidelity through carelessness or habit, where conscience in any case calls us back to the duty of reforming ourselves by means of sincere repentance and a true and firm purpose of distancing ourselves from sin and from the occasions which lead to it.”
Pretty unexceptionable, one would have thought.
His bishop, the Bishop of Novara, however, slapped down Fr Tarcisio’s “unacceptable equation, even though introduced as an example, between irregular cohabitation and murder. The use of the example, even if written in brackets, proves to be inappropriate and misleading, and therefore wrong.”
Fr Tim comments that “Fr Vicario did not ‘equate’ irregular cohabitation and murder. His whole point was that they are different—one is a permanent state where the person does not intend to change their situation, the other is a sin committed on a particular occasion where a properly formed conscience would call the person to repent and not commit the sin again.”
It was bad enough that Fr Tarcisio should be publicly attacked by his own bishop simply for propagating the teachings of the Church. Much more seriously, Fr Tarcisio was then slapped down from Rome itself, by no less a person than the curial Cardinal Lorenzo Baldisseri, who said that the words of Fr Tarcisio were “crazy [‘una pazzia’], a strictly personal opinion of a parish priest who does not represent anyone, not even himself.” Cardinal Baldisseri, it may be remembered, is the Secretary General of the Synod of Bishops, and therefore of the forthcoming global extravaganza on the family. This does not exactly calm one’s fears about the forthcoming Synod: for, of course, it is absurd and theologically illiterate to say that Fr Tarcisio’s words were “a strictly personal opinion of a parish priest who does not represent anyone, not even himself” (whatever that means): for, on the contrary, they quite simply accurately represent the teaching of the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church.
Sandro Magister tellingly at this point quotes the words of Thomas, Cardinal Collins, Archbishop of Toronto, who was appointed in January this year as one of the five members of the Commission of Cardinals Overseeing the Institute for the Works of Religion, and who at about the same time as Fr Tarcisio was being slapped down from the beating heart of curial Rome, was saying almost exactly the same thing as he had:
Many people who are divorced, and who are not free to marry, do enter into a second marriage. … The point is not that they have committed a sin; the mercy of God is abundantly granted to all sinners. Murder, adultery, and any other sins, no matter how serious, are forgiven by Jesus, especially through the Sacrament of Reconciliation, and the forgiven sinner receives communion. The issue in the matter of divorce and remarriage is one’s conscious decision (for whatever reason) to persist in a continuing situation of disconnection from the command of Jesus … it would not be right for them to receive the sacraments….
What exactly is going on, when Bishops and parish priests can so radically differ about the most elementary issues of faith and morals—about teachings which are quite clearly explained in the Catechism of the Catholic Church—and when simultaneously one Cardinal describes such teachings as “crazy” and another simply expounds them as the immemorial teachings of the Church? Does nobody know what the Church believes any more?
The question brought me back powerfully, once more, to one of the most haunting blogs I have read for some time, one to which I have been returning repeatedly since I read it last Friday. It is very short, so here it is in full; I am tempted to call it Fr Blake’s last post (one can almost hear his bugle sounding over sad shires):
It is four months since Protect the Pope went into “a period of prayer and reflection” at the direction of Bishop Campbell, someone recently asked me why I tend not to post so often as I did, and I must say I have been asking the same question about other bloggers.The reign of Benedict produced a real flourish of ‘citizen journalists’, the net was alive with discussion on what the Pope was saying or doing and how it affected the life of our own local Church. Looking at some of my old posts they invariably began with quote or picture followed by a comment, Benedict stimulated thought, reflection and dialogue, an open and free intellectual environment. There was a solidity and certainty in Benedict’s teaching which made discussion possible and stimulated intellectual honesty, one knew where the Church and the Pope stood. Today we are in less certain times, the intellectual life of the Church is thwart with uncertainty.
Most Catholics but especially clergy want to be loyal to the Pope in order to maintain the unity of the Church, today that loyalty is perhaps best expressed through silence.
I look at my own blogging, and see that I perfectly exemplify this. More and more, my heart just isn’t in it; and I blog less than I did. Now, increasingly, I feel that silence is all. Under Benedict, there was vigorously under way a glorious battle, an ongoing struggle, focused on and motivated by the pope himself, to get back to the Church the Council intended, a battle for the hermeneutic of continuity. It was a battle we felt we were winning. Then came the thunderbolt of Benedict’s resignation.
After an agonizing interregnum, a new pope was elected, a good and holy man with a pastoral heart. All seemed to be well, though he was not dogmatically inclined as Benedict had been: all that was left to the CDF. I found myself explaining that Francis was hermeneutically absolutely Benedictine, entirely orthodox, everything a pope should be, just with a different way of operating. I still believe all that. But here is increasingly a sense of uncertainty in the air, which cannot be ignored. “One knew where the Church and the Pope stood” says Fr Blake. Now, we have a Pope who can be adored by such enemies of the Catholic Church as the arch abortion supporter Jane Fonda, who tweeted last year “Gotta love new Pope. He cares about poor, hates dogma.”
In other words, for Fonda and her like, the Church is no longer a dogmatic entity, no longer a threat. That’s what the world now supposes: everything is in a state of flux. The remarried will soon, they think, be told they can receive Holy Communion as unthinkingly as everyone else: that’s what Cardinal Kasper implied at the consistory in February. Did the pope agree with him? There appears to be some uncertainty, despite the fact that the Holy Father had already backed Cardinal Mueller’s insistence that nothing has changed.
We shall see what we shall see at the Synod, which I increasingly dread. Once that is out of the way, we will be able to assess where we all stand. But whatever happens now, it seems, the glad confident morning of Benedict’s pontificate has gone, never again to return; and I (and it seems many others) have less we feel we can say.
Ping!
Should they wear a big "A" on their forehead so the priests knows to pass them by.
Sorry....I believe the church is wrong in the matter. If you wish to go to communion, do it.
...interesting stuff...
...gotta love Pope Benedict...all that dogma and such...
Sorry....I believe the church is wrong in the matter. If you wish to go to communion, do it.
...hmmm...can of worms alert...
“Is there growing confusion ...”?
I don’t think so. There’s ignorance, but that’s easily remedied by reading the Catechism. There’s discussion, but this need not generate “confusion” if one has read the Catechism. There’s rejection, but it’s disingenuous to pretend one doesn’t understand what one chooses to reject.
Your not serious? Advising folks to make sacrilegious Communions? That advise is straight from the pit of hell.
I found the part about the bloggers meeting Pope Francis with silence to be very interesting. Without thinking about it, I would have to say I have been mostly silent about Pope Francis.
I had come to the conclusion that I was silent because he is not John Paul II who will always be whom I think of when someone says the Pope. My subconscious always goes there. The Pope of my youth. When he became Pope I was 14, he lit us on fire for the faith. Then came Benedict.
Granted Papa Bene, not as charismatic as JPII, but I so enjoyed reading his words. Such clarity and went beautifully with what JPII had taught us.
That brings us to Pope Francis. What to do about Pope Francis? I think he is a .... fill in the blank. He is not good at being Pope. In my head I think well maybe he should not be Pope.
But is that fair? Am I being fair to the Holy Father? He was born under Pius XI, entered a novitiate under Pius XII, was teaching theology during Blessed John XXIII, ordained under Paul VI. Then served under John Paul I and John Paul II. That is a fair amount of diversity of style there.
When I heard he was elected I was mortified to tell the truth. A Jesuit from Argentina? Maybe I still am! In an effort to understand him. I have profiled him so to speak. I am by no means done, nor am I professional profiler but I think it is interesting to point out that he spent most of his time in academia. He was not a parish priest
It does not seem that he is used to dealing with parishioners and ordinary people. So maybe this off the wall stuff he says is because he is used to the debate that used to go on in classrooms before they became indoctrination centers?
What say you?
And plenty of Congress critters call themselves Catholic and support infanticide, does that make it right?
Should they wear a big "A" on their forehead so the priests knows to pass them by.
Might not be a bad idea.
Sorry....I believe the church is wrong in the matter. If you wish to go to communion, do it.
I am certain that even a cursory examination of the Yellow pages will assist you in finding a church more to your liking. I hear the Anglicans and Presbyterians have made some interesting changes to their teachings lately.
Pssst...Infanticide and communion are apples and oranges.
“When I heard he was elected I was mortified to tell the truth.”
Do we not believe that the Holy Spirit directs the Church in the Popes selection/election?
It depends on what communion is to you, and the risks for receiving it in a improper manner.
The issue is this.
1. If you divorce but don’t remarry, then all is OK. Civil divorce doesn’t affect your church marriage.
2. If you divorce and remarry, then you are not really remarried but living in adultery.
3. With issue #2, there are cases where the second marriage has children and family, and the first spouse has remarried also. What is the proper course now? The remarried person is living in a state of active sin, and therefore receiving communion would be to their determent (see St. Paul). But at some point, splitting up the second family would not good, or even possible. So how is that handled?
The real underlining reason is that for most of the USA and the West, “marriage” doesn’t mean anything. It is a short term arrangement. Now I know of many marriages who have failed because one spouse unilaterally split. That places the abandoned spouse in a hard place. But the risk is in removing the prohibitions on remarried persons receiving communion you put the persons souls in danger, and further cheapen the institution of marriage itself.
But some points to think about. 1. Maybe we have sucked so bad this century and the later half of the last, that the Holy Spirit is making a point? 2. I can be mortified and still be a Catholic. 3. Not all of our Popes have been stellar. 4. I can be wrong, it happens every now and again. :)
He's also not been as bad as I thought. he's not a total Marxist, but sometimes he's portrayed as such. In some ways, I do see what he's saying. When taken out of the context of politics I really have only a few problems with him. But in political philosophy I do have problems with him. But in fairness to him, these things are not being said in English for me to hear. I have to rely on an increasingly unreliable media who is also increasingly dishonest. I find myself wondering, did he say that? Or is this out of context or misspoken? Is whatever he said being twisted to fulfill some lefty dream? Not sure.
As I pointed out in my post above, does he say what he says as a literal matter or is he trying to provoke thought? I went to a wedding once where Father's first line of the homily was: Marriage is death! Pause! Now if you are Catholic it's didn't blow your mind or at least it shouldn't. But to the non-Catholics it may have seemed a strange way to start a wedding.
One of the most tragic divisions within Christianity is the one between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox churches. Both have valid holy orders and apostolic succession through the episcopacy, both celebrate the same sacraments, both believe almost exactly the same theology, and both proclaim the same faith in Christ. from "Eastern Orthodoxy" Catholic Answers
With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord's Eucharist" (Paul VI, Discourse, 14 December 1975; cf. Unitatis redintegratio 13-18). Catechism of the Catholic Church 838
'Who am I to judge?'
Now that was funny!
And commit a sacrilegious mortal sin?
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/who-can-receive-communion
guidelines for the reception of communion
As Catholics, we fully participate in the celebration of the Eucharist when we receive Holy Communion. We are encouraged to receive Communion devoutly and frequently. In order to be properly disposed to receive Communion, participants should not be conscious of grave sin and normally should have fasted for one hour. A person who is conscious of grave sin is not to receive the Body and Blood of the Lord without prior sacramental confession except for a grave reason where there is no opportunity for confession. In this case, the person is to be mindful of the obligation to make an act of perfect contrition, including the intention of confessing as soon as possible (canon 916). A frequent reception of the Sacrament of Penance is encouraged for all.
Reception of Holy Communion by the Divorced and Remarried Members of the Faithful.
ARTICLE 2:PARTICIPATION IN THE BLESSED EUCHARIST Canons 915 and 916
Can. 915 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.
Can. 916 Anyone who is conscious of grave sin may not celebrate Mass or receive the Body of the Lord without previously having been to sacramental confession, unless there is a grave reason and there is no opportunity to confess; in this case the person is to remember the obligation to make an act of perfect contrition, which includes the resolve to go to confession as soon as possible.
Or do you think you are better than everyone? Everyone? No just better than you apparently. I have shown you the USCCB and the canon law that are applicable.
Pssst...Infanticide and communion are apples and oranges.
Actually I was referring to the reception of receiving communion while in a state of grave/ mortal sin. and since they are both grave sins you would be receiving in an unworthy manner
1 Corinthians 11:27 Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord.
Here is the part where you say "oops I was wrong" or begin church shopping.
Worst thing if you are one of those gray fuzzy people who like to pretend there are gray areas. Because if you read the thing, there is no gray! I love the CCC. When I get static from a certain sector I say have you read the CCC, no?. You should is what I say. No excuses! No more hiding behind the I didn't understand the Encyclical etc.
Being Catholic is great! It's also a contact sport and it sure ain't easy a lot of times!
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.