Archbishop Urges Gov. To Refrain from Communion

Archbishop Joseph Naumann wrote an op-ed today in the Leaven declaring that Governor Sebelius of Kansas is not eligible to receive Communion.

Having made every effort to inform and to persuade Governor Sebelius and after consultation with Bishop Ron Gilmore (Dodge City), Bishop Paul Coakley (Salina) and Bishop Michael Jackels (Wichita), I wrote the Governor last August requesting that she refrain from presenting herself for reception of the Eucharist until she had acknowledged the error of her past positions, made a worthy sacramental confession and taken the necessary steps for amendment of her life which would include a public repudiation of her previous efforts and actions in support of laws and policies sanctioning abortion.

Recently, it came to my attention that the Governor had received Holy Communion at one of our parishes. I have written to her again asking her to respect my previous request and not require from me any additional pastoral actions.

The Governor has spoken to me on more than one occasion about her obligation to uphold state and federal laws and court decisions. I have asked her to show a similar sense of obligation to honor divine law and the laws, teaching and legitimate authority within the Church.

I have not made lightly this request of Governor Sebelius, but only after much prayer and reflection. The spiritually lethal message, communicated by our Governor, as well as many other high profile Catholics in public life, has been in effect: “The Church’s teaching on abortion is optional!”

I reissue my request of the Faithful of the Archdiocese to pray for Governor Sebelius. I hope that my request of the Governor, not to present herself for Holy Communion, will provoke her to reconsider the serious spiritual and moral consequences of her past and present actions. At the same time, I pray this pastoral action on my part will help alert other Catholics to the moral gravity of participating in and/or cooperating with the performance of abortions.

This is pretty amazing stuff. Will update later.

The Case For Chaos

Catholic blogs take issue with many different things. CMR is no exception. Most of the time, we take exception with patently preposterous, the harebrained, or heretical. Less frequently (amounting to never) do we look at something from a pastoral perspective. I don't write this post with any great insight into historical liturgical practice, or any great insight on anything for that matter. I write it from the perspective of my Catholic gut. Minor though it may be, I take some issue with orderly, row by row, usher micromanaged communion.

In the parish of my childhood communion was un-choreographed, unsystematic, and chaotic. Each communicant would present themselves for communion at a time which suited them and more importantly sometimes not at all.

Back then, at communion time, everyone approached the communion rail (yeah, the good ol' days) randomly. We had all types, there were those who ran to the communion rail quicker than Marlon Brando to a Sizzler buffet. Others moseyed. Still others sashayed (we will leave these for another post). Random and anonymous. With all the randomness to it, if someone chose not to present themselves for communion, that choice was not readily apparent to those sitting in proximity. No one knew who got up when, so if someone was already kneeling in the pew already when you returned, it might mean that they simply had found a faster line with the quick Priest working the left side of the communion rail. Remember when priests were the ordinary ministers of holy communion? Point is, you had no idea if the person sitting next to you presented themselves for communion or not.

But something changed when standing became the ordinary posture for reception of Holy Communion. Somehow, the randomness of approach became unacceptable disorder. Like Jedi knights (or maybe Sith), these polyester clad warriors were called in to quell the rebellion. The empire of the usher had begun. They came out of the woodwork to bring sequence to the procession. The ugliness of the random banished forever. The jacketed juggernaut wrestled contumacious communicants into line. Everyone in their turn, pew by pew, rise, turn, proceed.

But banished with disorder was anonymity. No longer could you hold your place in the pew without telegraphing to all that would not receive communion. The effect of this is a strange sort of peer pressure to receive communion, prepared or not.

There was a time in my life when I was not properly prepared for communion. This usher enforced pew peer pressure made me very uncomfortable. I can easily imagine that someone who wants to attend mass but has not yet conformed their lives to the teachings of the church might find this orderliness a temptation to sacrilege or even a barrier to mass attendance. I know I did.

Now I am certainly not saying that all ushers are evil (not all) and that orderliness is to be avoided. No. But in the random and disorderly perhaps there was approachability that now seems lost. It seems that while the trains now run on time, the passengers are less important. I, for one, prefer the former ways. Ugly and anonymous.

This is my case for chaos. Does anyone else have an opinion on this?

Fr. McCartney on the Giuliani Debacle

By Father John McCartney

Reprinted from the Pastor's Page of St. Matthew Church in Dix Hills NY

A Catholic news story has developed over the last several days which merits our attention. The story has its origin in the Mass offered by Pope Benedict at St. Patrick’s Cathedral two weeks ago in New York. Various dignitaries and public officials, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, were invited to attend the various Papal events. This is standard practice at such things. However, during the Mass at St. Patrick’s, Rudolf Giuliani, the former Mayor of New York, was seen and photographed receiving Holy Communion. When he emerged from the cathedral a reporter asked him specifically about this and the former mayor confirmed that he had received Communion. This story was then picked up by the news media at large. The following day Newsday ran an article about it.

On Monday of last week, political columnist Robert Novak (a convert to Catholicism from Judaism) wrote an article on the topic. He raised the issue of the public scandal caused to the faithful by Catholic pro-abortion politicians receiving Holy Communion. A similar problem had occurred during the Papal Mass at Nationals Stadium in Washington, D.C., where other pro-abortion Catholic politicians had even announced beforehand that they intended to receive Holy Communion.

Mr. Novak pointed out that there were many other Catholics who would have loved to have attended a Papal Mass, but were denied for lack of seats. Was it right then, that those who publicly reject Church teaching should be given the honor of attending the Pope’s Mass?

John Allen, the well-known Vatican correspondent for the National Catholic Reporter, concluded that these incidents during the recent Papal visit had clearly encouraged the notion that pro-abortion Catholic politicians are eligible to receive Communion. However, in 2004, then Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger told the American bishops that Catholic politicians who publicly support abortion are in a state of serious sin and may not receive Holy Communion. The Vatican has recently reasserted that there has been absolutely no change in the Pope’s or the Church’s position on this issue. Sean Dolan, spokesman for the Diocese of Rockville Centre, said that our diocese adheres to Church doctrine that prohibits abortion and added that any public official who advocates abortion should not receive Communion.

As this controversy began to grow larger and received more media attention, Edward Cardinal Egan released a public statement on Monday afternoon:

The Catholic Church clearly teaches that abortion is a grave offense against the will of God. Throughout my years as Archbishop of New York, I have repeated this teaching in sermons, articles, addresses, and interviews without hesitation or compromise of any kind. Thus it was that I had an understanding with Mr. Rudolph Giuliani, when I became Archbishop of New York and he was serving as Mayor of New York, that he was not to receive the Eucharist because of his well-known support of abortion. I deeply regret that Mr. Giuliani received the Eucharist during the Papal visit here in New York, and I will be seeking a meeting with him to insist that he abide by our understanding.

Mr. Giuliani is twice divorced. Although he received an annulment from the Church for his first marriage, he has not received one for his second. Consequently, he is divorced and remarried outside the Church. This is a serious sin, and no Catholic in such a state may receive Holy Communion. In addition, Mr. Giuliani has stated that he is not a practicing Catholic; in interviews he has said that he attends Mass only “occasionally” on Sundays and at funerals. Any Catholic who misses Mass on a Sunday or Holy Day of Obligation without sufficient excuse (such as illness, for example) has committed a grave sin and may not receive Holy Communion until he has gone to sacramental confession. To receive Holy Communion in a state of mortal sin brings no grace to the person; in fact, it adds the sin of sacrilege against the Blessed Sacrament to the other sins already committed.

For both of these reasons, Mr. Giuliani should not have received Holy Communion at Mass. However, what is interesting is that these were not the points Cardinal Egan mentioned in his statement on the issue.

The Cardinal referred only to Mr. Giuliani’s very public support for legal abortion as the disqualifying reason for him not to receive Communion. The Cardinal clearly wanted to teach the truth about this most important issue.

Some argue that the Eucharist should never be a source of division. They forget that the Eucharist has always been a source of division among people since Our Lord announced it Himself in the synagogue in Capernaum:

The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us [His] flesh to eat?” Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and thinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.... Then many of his disciples who were listening said, “This saying is hard; who can accept it?” Since Jesus knew that his disciples were murmuring about this, he said to them, “Does this shock you?” ... As a result of this, many [of] his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him. Jesus then said to the Twelve, “Do you also want to leave?” Simon Peter answered him, “Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We have come to believe and are convinced that you are the Holy One of God.” [Jn 6:52-54; 60- 61; 66-69]

The Gospel of Jesus Christ is not something we vote on to determine whether we like it or not. It is not determined by a poll of how many Catholics would like it to change, to be made easier, more convenient, or softer. Jesus gave the Church His Gospel with the “Great Commission” to “teach them to observe all that I have commanded you.” [Mt 28: 20] We cannot pick and choose what we prefer to follow as Catholics. We must either accept the whole Gospel or reject the Gospel wholly.

A spokesman for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops issued a statement before the Pope’s visit: “People go to church and people go to Communion if they feel in their heart they are prepared to receive Communion.” This in fact is terribly misleading. What people do and what they should do are two completely different things. When people approach the communion rail, the priest has no way of knowing whether they have committed a mortal sin that would bar them from receiving the Eucharist. The assumption must be made that the person has properly examined his conscience in light of the teachings of the Church, and knows whether he may receive Holy Communion or should refrain. It has nothing to do with a feeling; it has to do with knowing whether one is in a state of serious sin or not.

Cardinal Egan is the chief shepherd of New York. He has an obligation to preach the Gospel, and neither to add nor subtract from it. He must always defend the Church’s teaching on human life in the clearest terms. He may not permit those in the public eye to use their fame to deny what the Church teaches. At the same time, he is also responsible, as pastor, for the immortal souls of those individuals. It would be a terrible lack of love for a pastor to allow one of his flock to stray into serious sin and not to try with all his might to bring him back.

Imagine you go to the doctor for your annual check-up. The doctor does a full exam and various tests, which reveal a serious illness. However, the doctor chooses not to tell you the truth, because it might upset you. The illness then goes untreated and becomes worse, perhaps terminal. Obviously such a doctor would be rightly sued, and would probably even have his license revoked. A priest is exactly like a doctor in this case. When he sees a person in a state of sin, perhaps even in a state of ignorance as to what the Church teaches, he has a serious moral obligation to tell the individual the truth—even if that truth is unpleasant for both of them. If he does not, the shepherd becomes culpable for that person’s sin as well. At the end of his life, Cardinal Egan will be judged by Jesus Christ on his shepherding of souls under his care; he would be a bad shepherd if he did not do everything in his power to protect his flock.

Mr. Giuliani, through a spokesman, has said that he will meet with the Cardinal, but that this is a “private matter.” It certainly was a private matter until Mr. Giuliani freely chose to break his private agreement with Cardinal Egan by receiving Communion at a Papal Mass on national television.

The Catholic Church in the United States has for too long looked the other way on this issue. In consequence, the situation has become worse, and has caused much unnecessary confusion. Now, it seems, we are beginning to emerge from the fog into the light. Though more bishops across the country are now speaking out, we still have a long way to go. As Winston Churchill once said in another context: “This is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.”

—Fr. McCartney

Cardinal Criticizes Rudy Taking Communion

New York Cardinal Edward Egan says Rudy Giuliani should not have received Holy Communion during the pope's visit. Egan said he had "an understanding" with the former presidential candidate and New York mayor that he is not to receive the Eucharist. Giuliani is pro-choice, never mind he didn't receive an annulment for his second marriage.

"The Catholic Church clearly teaches that abortion is a grave offense against the will of God," Egan said. "Throughout my years as Archbishop of New York, I have repeated this teaching in sermons, articles, addresses, and interviews without hesitation or compromise of any kind."

"Thus it was that I had an understanding with Mr. Rudolph Giuliani, when I became Archbishop of New York and he was serving as Mayor of New York, that he was not to receive the Eucharist because of his well-known support of abortion," Cardinal Egan explained.

"I deeply regret that Mr. Giuliani received the Eucharist during the Papal visit here in New York, and I will be seeking a meeting with him to insist that he abide by our understanding," the Catholic leader added.

Giuliani's spokeswoman told the media late Monday that he is available to meet with the Catholic official. She said he says his faith "is a deeply personal matter and should remain confidential."

You've gotta love that. He takes Communion at an internationally televised Mass with the Pope and then he turns around and says its private. Shameless.

Anti-Social Man Hopes Company Arrives Soon

An anti-social man said today that he hopes his guests will arrive soon. While some experts are saying they believe this new attitude to be an emotional breakthrough, some are more skeptical.

Matthew Archbold, who frequently writes for the blog Creative Minority Report, has a daughter receiving her first Communion tomorrow and guests aren't expected until Sunday at 1 p.m..

"I'm very excited about this," said Archbold, an infamous anti-social curmudgeon. "I can't wait for the party to start."

Some sociologist experts are however speculating that Archbold simply wants the company to arrive only because it would mean an end to cleaning the house. "We keep the house pretty tidy," said Archbold. "But now she wants me to dust under my books. I mean come on! How much dust can get under a book?"

Archbold's wife also seems to think all toys must not only be put away but out of sight. Archbold made a joke that we have to erase any evidence that children live in the house. The "joke," however, did not go over well with his wife.

His wife also cleaned the oven, something Archbold completely didn't understand as the family had already ordered lunch meat for the party. "Do you really think someone's going to look in the oven?" Archbold asked but only received a nasty glance.

And suddenly as of noon, Archbold's wife declared she wanted him to put the doors on the entertainment center (something he'd promised to do weeks ago.) Archbold said he'd attempted to do it but couldn't immediately locate the right size screwdriver so gave up. Some experts (including Archbold's wife) say he gave up too soon.

"Normally I'm not a big fan of having company," said Archbold. "But I can't wait for people to get here. I've already called a friend of mine and asked him to get here as early as he can."

But even that ploy doesn't always work, as is well known after the infamous Christening incident in 2003 when a friend showed up early and Archbold's wife actually put him to work, this destroying weeks of planning between the two friends.

The children, while doing everything asked of them, have repeatedly sent their father imploring looks as to when he would be able to stop the torture. At one point Archbold was sent out to the store and every one of his children volunteered to join him.

Deny Communion To Our Soldiers

War, huh, yeah
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
Uh-huh
War, huh, yeah
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
Say it again, y'all

Yesterday, Matthew posted a story about posthumous Medal of Honor recipient Michael Monsoor who sacrificed himself in order to save the lives of his brothers in arms. Matthew also says, correctly in my mind, that such self sacrifice and love transcend opinions about the war. It is a light in the darkness. Noble. Honorable.

Not so for the folks at Vox-Nova. For Morning's Minion, the prosaic lyrics (above) from the well known anti-war song are gospel. Literally.

Mornings Minion writes that no good can ever come of war. NO good.

In the zeal for military force, they often forget that war is a last resort, and is therefore–by definition– a sign of failure. And, following from this, no good can come of something that derives from failure and defeat.

When I first read this I naturally presumed that this was rhetorical hyperbole designed to highlight the horrific nature of war. It turns out that the benefit of the doubt is not warranted in this case. No, he proposes that the Nothing in the Edwin Starr song is a literal nothing. There is no nobility in it.

In fact, not only is there no nobility in it, but he argues that the participation in the defense of your nation is such a grave sin that soldiers should be denied communion. Yes, let me say it again. Soldiers who participate in war should be denied communion.

To close, I would remind everybody of the wise counsel once given by St. Basil of Caesarea. In trying to square Christian teachings with the miltary profession, be noted that soliders who kill in war should not be treated in the same way as those guilty of homocide. But they are not off the book either: “it is well to counsel that those whose hands are not clean only abstain from communion for three years.” I think it would be a good idea to resurrect this teaching, so show that the Church must stand apart from a culture that glorifies military service.

This distorted perspective is a lot of things, but Catholic is certainly not one of them. Let us first look at the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

2310 ...Those who are sworn to serve their country in the armed forces are servants of the security and freedom of nations. If they carry out their duty honorably, they truly contribute to the common good of the nation and the maintenance of peace.

Honorable. Contribute to the common good. This is what the Church teaches. Of course, the public authorities responsible for making or avoiding war have a very grave responsibility to avoid it wherever possible. But the soldiers who fight in our defense can do so with honor and very often do.

As to the notion that no good can derive from failure and defeat, this is decidedly un-Christian. I would remind the good folks over at Vox-Nova of something called the crucifixion. From this failure, from this defeat, from this intrinsically evil act, the Lord wrought our salvation.

War is most certainly a failure. But to deny soldiers who honorably carry out their duty in defense of their country communion would be an even greater failure.

San Fran Church Publishes Queer Letter in Bulletin

Just three days after Archbishop George Niederauer issued a public apology for giving communion to two “Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence” at Most Holy Redeemer church in San Francisco, the parish bulletin published a thank-you note from a member of the “leading order of queer nuns” who attended the Mass, says the California Catholic Daily.

What is wrong with this church?

The Oct. 14 parish bulletin contains the thank-you note on page 1, entitled “An Email from One of Those Attending Mass,” written by “Sister Delta Goodhand.”

In the message, “Sister Delta Goodhand” writes:

To all the Folks at Most Holy Redeemer,

Just a quick note to recognize the wonderful Mass yesterday at your Church to welcome Archbishop Niederauer. Your entire congregation was so welcoming and it was great to be able to participate in the Mass. The service was absolutely beautiful and I know that I personally walked away very inspired by both the Archbishop’s message and the angelic voices of your choir ringing in my ears! Amazing!

Afterwards, one of the parishioners offered us a blue “MHRC: An Inclusive Catholic Church” pin that I was proud to wear through the Castro Fair. You are a wonderfully inclusive church!

This kind of thing just continues to scandalize the church. Essentially this church is allowing these guys to come in and put a "kick me" sign on our backs and we're laughing right along with them so we can be called "inclusive" while they go on kicking.

The one good thing about this is that millions of Catholics now think their parish isn't that bad.