www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Apostolic Nuncio Gives Holy Communion To John Kerry At Abp. Wuerl's Installation

Thanks Mark. I appreciate the response. I guess I just think that a few could fall through the cracks. I realize that most people would only faithfully receive or would abstain but a priest could never be 100% sure. I don't think anyone is going to lose any sleep over it tonight though (maybe from my kid's crying however).

Well, the Church teaches that human life is sacred, and that the taking of any innocent human life-- regardless of stage of development, age, or health-- is murder. I don't know about someone who simply thinks this but doesn't say anything, but in the case of someone who publicly professes that murder is okay, they should refrain from receiving Communion.

God bless,

Karen

I know! Isn't it sick and twisted how not every single hierarch is Jesus Christ Himself?! That definitely merits leaving the Church! :rolleyes:

Unfortunately, I'm afraid you'll find it is rather the same in the Eastern Orthodox Churches.

My word, what would you have done during the reign of Pope Alexander Borgia?

Logos Teen

Sad, but true. I remember in 1988, when Michael Dukakis ran for president. He was 100% pro-abortion, and the Greek Orthodox hierarchs said nothing about this-my memory is a little faded, but I think I remember one Greek bishop even saying that "he is ours", or something to that effect (although, to their credit, some OCA bishops spoke out about the immorality of Dukakis' abortion position, and his "not in good standing" status vis a vis Eastern Orthodoxy).

Dn. Robert

Although I agree you have identified a reasonable start of guideline for a public figure - then what has the hierarchy done to "make it so?" That is the problem. What has the local bishop done, to use your phrase, to "move against" him? Apparently, if the Papal Nuncio is giving this guy Communion at an Installation Mass, not much... it isn't like they don't know who he is and what he spouts.

When I think I've done something serious enough, I stay in my seat and don't go up for Communion until I have seen a priest for confession, because to do so is an even graver sin. I'm sure that is true of most of us. If I were a politician in this type of situation, I'd be sitting in my seat and not daring to go near the Communion rail (most RC churches in this area still have them), being more afraid of God than of public opinion. I guess I'd be spending my time, while others take Communion, doing what I always have done when I feel the need for reconcilliation -- praying for the ability to be more open to whatever tenet of the faith I'm not choosing to accept or for forgiveness for whatever sin I'm choosing to commit that is keeping me from daring to go near the Sacrament. Really, that's what I'd hope any of us would do, even the politicians. This is one place where they do not make the house rules suit themselves.

See that, the thing, Karen, THEY should refrain. But they don't. You and I would, wouldn't we, if we were them? You have guys like Kerry going through the sham of getting an annulment years after his divorce. That was a sad story that played out loudly in the Boston papers. They've done the same for Teddy, too. Ditto. On abortion, if a politician (both of these guys) gets into a state of being openly aiding and abetting abortion, which it seems there is some agreement that introducing or supporting legislation to that end would accomplish, then isn't it up to the hierarchy to act to say "you're out of here"? Repent and we'll talk about it. Until you do, you are excommunicated and no Sacraments for you. Instead, these guys go on and on and get their annulments and their positive reenforcement from the church while they continue to live in scandal.

If the hierarchy won't lead and set down reasonable boundaries in the church, then who will?

Yes, Annie, I too think that public sinners should be refused Holy Communion. I think it's cowardice on the part of the clergy that they don't.

Not as "punishment", but for their own good and for the good of the faithful who would be scandalized and led into sin because of them.

God bless,

Karen

Hi All,

I really should be quiet, but ...

If I remember correctly the Vatican just issued guidelines for how to deal with politicians who seem to be espousing positions that differ with Church teaching.

Again, if I remember correctly, the guidance ended up being something like let the local bishop use his pastoral judgement and decide after proper discussion and pastoral counseling.

Sounds like a Christian thing to do. Don't know bout you, but I'm not perfect and my spiritual Father is looking for progress not perfection ( at least till god gifts me with it!) Though that appears to be a long way off, I'm grateful for his patience and encouragement.

In any case, I'm certainly glad that he doesn't broadcast my progress or lack of it and that the bishops don't tell me bout that of Catholic politicians or Orthodox politicans. I've a big enough mote in my eye to keep me from seein the one in my brother or sisters eye!

I wonder what ever happened to the guidance handed down by the One who wrote sins in the sand?

Didn't He say things like:


"Let him who is without sin cast the first stone."

"As you judge, so you will be judged."


Like I said, I should keep my mouth closed.

May the One Who wrote a sinners sins in the sand write mine and Senator Kerry's and the Apostolic Nuncio's there , too.

In His mercy, may His Spirit bring us all home safely despite our foolishness and our sinfulness!

Steve

A bishop, and his subordinates, has the obligation, under Canon Law, of both Western and Eastern Churches, not to distribute Holy Communion to those who persist in manifest, public, grave sin, for the sake of not scandalizing the faithful. This course of action is also meant to be medicinal for the offender. Usually, this is to occur AFTER the "public sinner" has been properly counseled. To just go on and distribute Holy Communion to publicly grave sinners is to aid that sinner in committing a greater sin, that of scarilege, and it sends all of the wrong signals to the faithful. Nobody is judging the internal state of the soul of the offender (that is for God alone), but it is the external actions which are, objectively, and rightfully, being condemned. It also must be stressed that a clear distinction must be made between public (manifest), as opposed to private or hidden sins. Those who go on about "not judging" usually fail to make the proper distinctions in these areas.
In the case of the Nuncio, I would hope that he didn't know who Kerry was, or that Mr. Kerry might have repented beforehand.


Dn. Robert

Dear Steve:

Also, I seem to recall a Vatican directive like you said.

But I think you might also be referring to the directive issued last week by the USCCB itself, to wit:

Rest of the story:

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=6978

This "final" set of guidelines issued by the USCCB could be in compliance with that Vatican directive we have in mind.

Amado

Dear Deacon Robert,

Thanks for your comments above.

Your words raised some questions for me. Perhaps you can respond and clairfy things for me. Here are my assumptions and my questions.

My assumptions are based on what I understand the teachings of the One Who writes sins in the sand that I referred to in my previous posting to be. I understood that as an individual it is not my responsibility to judge the relationship between any other person and God. In fact it seems that the opposite is true. He appears to tell us not to judge.

Am I as a fellow repentant (or non repentant) sinner obliged or competent to judge the condition of another's relationship with God, even if the other sinner is a public sinner?

Is there something about me as a Christian that authorizes or requires that I make a judgement in either public (external) or private (internal) forums about the status of another person?

I understood correctly, that is the responsibility of a priest or, in the case under discussion, a bishop. If so, there's another question.

Is it the responsibility of the priest or bishop to make public his interactions with a sinner, even a public sinner, either as a matter of fulfilling the responsibilities of his office or to satisfy another sinners curiosity?.

Up to this point, I assumed that I should in charity assume that the priest or bishop and the sinner had worked things out especially since the priest or bishop gave communion to the public sinner. I assumed that it was they who needed to make the sublte distinctions to which you refer.

Am I in error?

Thanks,

Steve

Dear Amado,

I think that you're right!

It was the position of the American Catholic Bishops that I read last. I think that it's also what the Vatican document said, too. But the memory of reading that document is fuzzier. In any case it appears that the pastoral approach is being used.

For which this sinner is eternally grateful!

Nice to talk with you again!

Thanks,

Steve

WHere did exactly has the seal of confession been broken sufficently that we don't know that Kerry received the the sacrament of reconciliation before Communion...?

Ned

as far as I remember the Catholic position is that anyone who PROCURES and Abortion or helps an individual to procure an abortion directly is excommunicated and unable to receive Communion not someone who is just "pro-Choice" like Kerry. Has that changed or has that always been the case?

Hope this clarifies.

In Christ,
Dn. Robert