« Another bishop chimes in | Main | Playing Both Sides »
July 15, 2004
From Austin
A reader alerts me to that bishop's statement on abortion-rights-supporting politicians and the Eucharist.
Anyone who seriously disagrees with the teachings of the church has chosen for their own personal reasons not to be in communion with the church. The real question, it seems to me, is "should a person who is not in communion with the teachings of the church present himself or herself for holy Communion?" That question makes a great deal more sense than placing the bishop, priest or extraordinary minister of holy Communion in the position of refusing the Body and Blood of Christ to someone or having to make a public spectacle of the situation.In such a situation, the minister of Communion should first speak privately to the person and exhort them not to present themselves because of scandal. If the person persists and protests, then it could be cause to give them a blessing instead of Communion. All of this needs to be done in a spirit of charity. As I have said before, conversations behind closed doors are ways in which we can help people change their heart and have a clearer understanding of what God expects of us as the followers of Jesus. God never gives up on anyone and we should do our best to help people change their heart.
Posted by Amy Welborn | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451be0d69e200d834211b2e53ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference From Austin:
» The scandal is on the bishops from Ex Parte Fide
A commenter at Open Book made the mistake of mentioning in passing a pet peeve of mine. [Read More]
Tracked on Jul 16, 2004 9:23:53 AM
Comments
Now if we could only get "ministers of Communion" to avoid giving blessings during the Communion procession.
Everyone attending liturgy gets blessing. At the dismissal.
The Communion procession is for Communion, not blessings.
Posted by: Liam at Jul 16, 2004 6:23:28 AM
Anyone who seriously disagrees with the teachings of the church has chosen for their own personal reasons not to be in communion with the church. The real question, it seems to me, is "should a person who is not in communion with the teachings of the church present himself or herself for holy Communion?"
Enforcement of this policy would shorten Mass time by ten or fifteen minutes in most parishes since very few people would receive.
I say that because I recognize there are deep controversies in the Church over several issues including birth control, women priests, married priests, divorce, homosexuality, pre-marital sex, confession, sex education for children in the grade school, and even in some cases the meaning of the sacraments themselves. As bishops are demonstrating, there are even bishops who disagree with the teachings of the Church.
So, should this statement get broad application, or only narrow application which would base the decision on a "public/private" divide? In other words, present yourself, even when you disagree, so long as your disagreement is not public.
Posted by: Carrie at Jul 16, 2004 7:40:37 AM
Anyone who seriously disagrees with the teachings of the church has chosen for their own personal reasons not to be in communion with the church. The real question, it seems to me, is "should a person who is not in communion with the teachings of the church present himself or herself for holy Communion?"
Enforcement of this policy would shorten Mass time by ten or fifteen minutes in most parishes since very few people would receive.
I say that because I recognize there are deep controversies in the Church over several issues including birth control, women priests, married priests, divorce, homosexuality, pre-marital sex, confession, sex education for children in the grade school, and even in some cases the meaning of the sacraments themselves. As bishops are demonstrating, there are even bishops who disagree with the teachings of the Church.
So, should this statement get broad application, or only narrow application which would base the decision on a "public/private" divide? In other words, present yourself, even when you disagree, so long as your disagreement is not public.
Posted by: Carrie at Jul 16, 2004 7:41:50 AM
Check yourself Carrie - one of the "scandals" you mention isn't necessarily scandalous. I don't disagree with you at all in what you've said otherwise, but this is a pet peeve of mine.
A married priest is only an occasion for scandal when the ordained has left his vows to become married. In the Eastern Rites of the Catholic Church, it is valid for a married man to recieve the sacrament of Holy Orders. The requirement of celibacy is mandated by the rules of the Latin Rite only. When the bishops say this is doctrine, they are either splitting hairs or simply wrong. It is a practice of the Latin Rite, and it could be changed by a simple order from the pope at any time. Catholics who advocate the ordination of married men are not in the same category as pro-abortion advocates or those calling for the ordination of women.
The celibacy requirement was enacted to provide a filter for candidates to the priesthood at a time when there were too many potential priests. It is a crime to allow a shortage of priests to hurt the church when a perfectly valid solution - currently in practice in other Rites - goes ignored simply because of the obstinancy of the Roman bishops. I honestly believe many bishops do not want to provide this alternative out of sheer jealousy toward the happily married men who would become ordained as a result.
Posted by: Chris at Jul 16, 2004 9:14:21 AM
I think Chris is right that advocating a married clergy is not heretical. Whether it is advisable or not is a different issue.
Posted by: c matt at Jul 16, 2004 10:52:11 AM
As for the other issues (divorce, contraception, etc.) I don't know if deep controversy in the Church is accurate. There is deep controversy with the Church about these issues (generated by some of its own members), but the Church herself is, and has been for nearly two millenia, pretty clear about it. I suppose it depends on your definition of Church - the institution herself or some of her members.
Posted by: c matt at Jul 16, 2004 10:56:22 AM
Nevertheless, Chris, the Church has spoken, and those who refuse to accept what She has said are not in communion with Her teachings.
Everyone who disagrees believes his or her position is equally valid.
Posted by: Carrie at Jul 16, 2004 11:00:46 AM
C Matt, if you want to call it controversy "in" the Church or "with" the Church it doesn't matter. Either way, those who hold a position contrary to what the Church has taught are out of communion. And it is being "out of communion" that is the topic up for discussion.
On one of those subjects--contraception--even a Pope was "out of communion," specifically John Paul I.
Posted by: Carrie at Jul 16, 2004 11:05:06 AM
Carrie --
There's a difference between intellectual disagreement or even dissent and public advocacy for something the Church teaches is immoral.
I haven't heard of anyone publicly encouraging divorce, or voting to fund pro-divorce orgainizations. In fact, I would imagine someone who declared themselves pro-choice when it comes to marital infidelity would find themselves barred from the sacraments rather quickly.
Posted by: Marc at Jul 16, 2004 11:57:27 AM
What is a pro-divorce fund?
Has one of the candidates actually told someone to have an abortion? As in--it's a good idea for you that don't want children right now. Or have they left it up to the individuals free will to decide for herself? Is that okay?
Haven't lots of candidates funded many funds for contraceptives? And many Catholic voters, too?
One more question: If a priest has sexual relations with anyone, [child, adult, himself]would that priest [or bishop who fails to act to end this break of vows with knowledge of said sexual relation] be in communion with the Church? How many priests right now fall into that category? Studies from those who have counseled priests show that the numbers are high--over a quarter of a percent, if I recall. As a spiritual leader of a flock, no matter the size, the priest falls into the same category as a politician, or does he? Is it different somehow? [sorry that was more than one question]
deb
Posted by: deb at Jul 16, 2004 4:48:03 PM
