Holy Trinity, Biden and Holy Communion

 

Well is seems that the Parish Council over at Holy Trinity in Georgetown, known for being part of the liberal wing of the Church, has decided to publicly support Biden in receiving Holy Communion.  

This is really just posing, as they really have no standing on the matter. 

However, I know that Cardinal Gregory will be overjoyed to know of their support. 

 You can read it here:  Washington Examiner.

Something does not add up...

Recently, the WashingtonCompost posted another story about a homosexual who was denied Holy Communion by a Catholic priest of the Archdiocese of Washington.

According to the WashingtonCompost:

A Catholic chaplain at MedStar Washington Hospital Center stopped delivering a 63-year-old heart attack patient Communion prayers and last rites after the man said he was gay, the patient said Wednesday, describing a dramatic bedside scene starting with him citing Pope Francis and ending with him swearing at the cleric.
 
Details of the exchange this month between the Rev. Brian Coelho and retired travel agent Ronald Plishka couldn’t be confirmed with the priest, who did not respond to a direct e-mail or to requests left with the hospital and the archdiocese. The Archdiocese of Washington, for which he works, declined to comment and said Coelho “is not doing interviews.” The bedside discussion was first reported Monday in the Washington Blade.

To read the full story, go here:   click here. 

Now, in reading the story, a couple of things here come to mind: 

1. The Archdiocese of Washington did not comment on the story.  Very unusual, esp. considering Fr. Marcel and the Boy Scouts.  Maybe they learned a lesson not to speak until all of the facts are in.  Maybe they feel that by remaining hush and not chastising Fr. Coelho in public, the story might go away.
2. If Mr. Plishka goes to Mass every Sunday and claims to be Catholic, then he should know that if he is living an active gay lifestyle, and refuses to change his ways, then he should not receive Holy Communion.
3. This has not generated the level of interest as with Fr. Marcel.  Why?  Maybe the homosexual community knows that there is more to the story than published and if it comes out, might be an embarrassment?
4. Overall, there is something not right with this story.  I was talking about this with a female friend and she even feels that something is missing from the story.  Did Mr. Plishka leave something out?  Possibly.
5. Considering th fact that there have been a number of anti-gay hoxes over the last few months (the waitress, the birthday party for the 7 year old, etc.), could this too be story that has been embellished by Mr. Plishka so that he could get his way?

The National Catholic Register (thank you reader for pointing me to this) goes into some possible reasons for this but they too have some serious questions regarding this story.

The story just does not add up.

Finally...

When bishops and priests are hesitant in exercising their authority, the “father of lies” takes hold of the hearts and minds of the faithful, Bishop Samuel J. Aquila of Fargo warned recently.

“One must honestly ask, how many times and years may a Catholic politician vote for the so called ‘right to abortion’ … and still be able to receive Holy Communion?” the bishop said.
.
The continual reception of Communion by those who “so visibly contradict and promote a grave evil” creates “grave scandal” and undermines the teaching and governing authority of the Church, he warned. The faithful can interpret these actions as indifference to the teaching of Christ and the Church on the part of those who have “the responsibility to govern.

Is anyone in Hyattsville listening? Does anyone over there care?

To read the full story, go Catholic News Agency.

Communion in the Hand

When I was a child, everyone received Communion on the tongue. (Many churches still allowed you to kneel, when receiving.)

A number of years later, this would change. In fact, I remember very vividly the arguement put forth was "This is a more adult way of receiving Christ."

Now, at the time, I kept attempting to find arguements to refute this, but could not. The wave of this change was unstoppable.

Over the years, I think that I have recieved Holy Communion only once or twice in the hand. To this day, I continue to receive it on the tongue.

Over the years, I have watched people receive Communion to see if they are doing it correctly (yes, I know, I should have been focusing on the mystery of it).

When going up, some bow, a couple have knelt, some make the sign of the cross, and some are who knows where.

Of course, there seem to be mutiple ways to receive it: left hand flat out with the right hand under it, right hand with the left under it, both hands out side to side.

Finally, you may put it in your mouth with your fingers or just pop it in, like an M&M.

Aufer a Nobis has some thoughts on this.

Personally, I think he is on the mark and I would love to see a return to Communion on the tongue.

Blessings at Communion

I have noticed this practice occurring at a couple of churches. I think what really bugged me the most, as I watched this practice, was the fact that Ministers of Holy Communion were doing it and that I know was a no-no.

When the pastor decided to put a end to it at my parish, there was a great uproar. I think that part of it was due to the fact that he did not explain the reason behind it. At least that is my guess, since parishioners who were upset could not give me the reason why other than: Fr. XYZ said we could not do it.

Fr. Z has a simple explanation of why this practice should be stopped and a huge number of people asking questions and posing comments.

As always, kudos to Fr. Z.

Catholics who support abortion should not receive Communion

Once again, Archbishop Burke speaks the truth loud and clear. From the Catholic News Agency:

The prefect of the Apostolic Signature, Archbishop Raymond Burke, said this week that Catholics, especially politicians who publically defend abortion, should not receive Communion, and that ministers of Communion should be responsibly charitable in denying it to them if they ask for it, “until they have reformed their lives.”

In an interview with the magazine, Radici Christiane, Archbishop Burke pointed out that there is often a lack of reverence at Mass when receiving Communion. “Receiving the Body and Blood of Christ unworthily is a sacrilege,” he warned. “If it is done deliberately in mortal sin it is a sacrilege.”

He goes on to say:

If a person who has been admonished persists in public mortal sin and attempts to receive Communion, the minister of the Eucharist has the obligation to deny it to him. Why? Above all, for the salvation of that person, preventing him from committing a sacrilege,” he added.

“We must avoid giving people the impression that one can be in a state of mortal sin and receive the Eucharist,” the archbishop continued. “Secondly, there could be another form of scandal, consisting of leading people to think that the public act that this person is doing, which until now everyone believed was a serious sin, is really not that serious - if the Church allows him or her to receive Communion.”

“If we have a public figure who is openly and deliberately upholding abortion rights and receiving the Eucharist, what will the average person think? He or she could come to believe that it up to a certain point it is okay to do away with an innocent life in the mother’s womb,” he warned.

Now, only if Archbishop Wuerl would make these types of public statements.

++++++

Help defeat Montgomery County's Gender Identity Bill 23-07 this November.
Go to http://notmyshower.net.

As we move more and more closer to the primaries for US president, the issue of the denial of communion by a priest has once again come into question.

In the Archdiocese of Washington, Cardinal McCarrick 9the former archbishop) was adamant regarding the administering of the Eurcharist to politicians who support abortion. My understanding that is it is up to the communicant to be in a state of grace for him or her to decide to receive communion. It is not up to the priest.

Unfortunately, Archbishop Wuerl has decided to keep this policy in place. This I disagree with him wholeheartedly.

Now, why do I bring up this subject? because I came across a reference (and I am not certain where) to the following article published in the PERIODICA DE RE CANONICA vol. 96 (2007) pag. 3-58 entitled: The Discipline Regarding the Denial of Holy Communion to Those Obstinately Persevering in Manifest Grave Sin by R. L. BURKE.

Who is R.L Burke? Why he is the Archbishop of St. Louis who stated that he would not give communion to John Kerry in the 2004 election.

(Now there are many more people out there who are more knowledgable about this subject than I am, so if you feel that I am in error, please feel free to write to me and we can discuss the issue.)

After reading though the article, I think that the conclusions presented speak the most to the average catholic.

What conclusions can be drawn from the study of the history of the canonical discipline of denying Holy Communion to those who obstinately persist in public grave sin?

First of all, the consistent canonical discipline permits the administering of the Sacrament of Holy Communion only to those who are properly disposed externally, and forbids it to those who are not so disposed, prescinding from the question of their internal disposition, which cannot be known with certainty."

Secondly, the discipline is required by the invisible bond of communion which unites us to God and to one another. The person who obstinately remains in public and grievous sin is appropriately presumed by the Church to lack the interior bond of communion, the state of grace, required to approach worthily the reception of the Holy Eucharist.

Thirdly, the discipline is not penal but has to do with the safeguarding of the objective and supreme sanctity of the Holy Eucharist and with caring for the faithful who would sin gravely against the Body and Blood of Christ, and for the faithful who would be led into error by such sinful reception of Holy Communion.

Fourthly, the discipline applies to any public conduct which is gravely sinful, that is, which violates the law of God in a serious matter. Certainly, the public support of policies and laws which, in the teaching of the Magisterium, are in grave violation of the natural moral law falls under the discipline.

Fifthly, the discipline requires the minister of Holy Communion to forbid the Sacrament to those who are publicly unworthy. Such action must not be precipitous. The person who sins gravely and publicly must, first, be cautioned not to approach to receive Holy Communion. The memorandum, "Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion", of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, in its fifth principle, gives the perennial pastoral instruction in the matter. This, in fact, is done effectively in a pastoral conversation with the person, so that the person knows that he is not to approach to receive Holy Communion and, therefore, the distribution of Holy Communion does not become an occasion of conflict. It must also be recalled that "no ecclesiastical authority may dispense the minister of Holy Communion from this obligation in any case, nor may he emanate directives that contradict it."

Finally, the discipline must be applied in order to avoid serious scandal, for example, the erroneous acceptance of procured abortion against the constant teaching of the moral law. No matter how often a Bishop or priest repeats the teaching of the Church regarding procured abortion, if he stands by and does nothing to discipline a Catholic who publicly supports legislation permitting the gravest of injustices and, at the same time, presents himself to receive Holy Communion, then his teaching rings hollow. To remain silent is to permit serious confusion regarding a fundamental truth of the moral law. Confusion, of course, is one of the most insidious fruits of scandalous behavior.

But what I think is just as important...

Catholics in public office bear an especially heavy burden of responsibility to uphold the moral law in the exercise of their office which is exercised for the common good, especially the good of the innocent and defenseless. When they fail, they lead others, Catholics and non-Catholics alike, to be deceived regarding the evils of procured abortion and other attacks on innocent and defenseless human life, on the integrity of human procreation, and on the family.