A Blessing And A Curse

 

The Holy Eucharist has come up for discussion again, and the media are trying to create a storm over the possibility that the Bishops may well enforce canon 915 when it comes to Catholic TDs and Senators who vote for the abortion legislation.  I explained this canon and what could happen in an earlier post, so I'm not going to do so again here.

 

There are, however, a few things which need to be said with regard to this issue.  If you follow me on Twitter you will have seen earlier today that I tweeted part of a text sent into a radio show this morning.  The full text read: "How dare the Church decide who receives Communion in this day and age". 

 

In response.  First "this day and age" does not matter, a period of time does not decide what is true and what is not.  Murder was wrong in the 5th century, it is still wrong in the 21st. God's law is as true in the 21st century as it was in the 1st - it is only human arrogance which disputes that. 

 

It is the Church's prerogative to refuse the Eucharist to certain individuals in accordance with the divine law.  Without the Church there would be no Eucharist - so it is a bit rich, and I suppose the result of pure ignorance, to suggest that the Church should mind her own business when it comes to the Eucharist. While all Catholics have the right to receive the Eucharist, that right is a qualified right - those who through schism, for example, have removed themselves from communion with the Church no longer have the right to receive Holy Communion since receiving the Eucharist is a sign of communion with the Church - a communion that exists now and not one which may exist in the future.

 

But there is another point which must be made in this regard, one politicians should carefully note.  The Church refuses the Eucharist at times for the sake of the person seeking it.  To receive the Body and Blood of the Lord is indeed a blessing - the greatest of blessings, but for those who receive it unworthily it becomes a curse, a curse because in the unworthy reception a serious desecration is committed.  St Paul puts it quite bluntly in his First Letter to the Corinthians (see 1 Cor 11:27-29). This is a text our pro-abortion Catholic politicians should read very carefully before they get on their high horses and denounce the Church for her position.  To have the curse of God upon you is not a nice thing and the Church wants to spare even her worst enemies this blight. 

 

Now there will be those who say that such a thing is ridiculous - God is a God of love, he would never curse anyone, and he will forgive.  Yes, he will forgive - he will forgive all those who are truly penitent, but let's face it a politician who votes for abortion and then defends why he or she voted for it is certainly not penitent, and if they maintain that position at their death then they may well be lost.  (At this point we need to remind ourselves that death can come suddenly, and that we tend to die as we live - deathbed conversions are rare) 

 

When it comes to the curse, we curse ourselves because we have had the arrogance to presume that we can lay hold of the sacred even though we are in a state of serious sin.  Those things which are holy overpower those things which are evil; when a person has willingly given themselves over to evil, as in the case of providing for and defending the killing of the innocent, then contact with the All Holy will have devastating results.

 

And for those politicans who try and laugh this off, let them remember: one day they will stand before the throne of God for judgement, the same God who has told us we should not kill, and they will have to answer for their part in killing of every child who dies as a result of the forthcoming legislation - every child.  Political waffling will not save them.  These are matters of life and death - salvation and damnation, why make things worse by desecrating the Eucharist? 

Excommunication?

The media has been reporting in the last couple of days that pro-abortion Catholic TDs are being threatened with excommunication if they vote for the abortion bill.  Now perhaps a bishop has said something and I am not aware of it, but I do not think the issue has been raised by anyone in the hierarchy, not in public anyway.  As far as I can see the only thing that was said was that comment by Cardinal Brady in which he said that he did not want to politicise the Eucharist.    To be honest, I would be surprised if an Irish bishop mentioned the imposition of canonical penalties at all seeing as they have avoided any such measures for the last fifty years even in cases where they were required.

 

For one thing, I do not think a politician can be excommunicated for voting for an abortion bill, not at first anyway.  The norm, according to canon law, the famous canon 915 (most cited, often ignored), is that they must be refused the Eucharist, but only after certain conditions have been applied.  Here is the canon:

Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to Holy Communion.

Now a quick examination of this canon in the present context.  If a Catholic TD or Senator votes for this legislation (I believe Catholic members of the cabinet have already voted for this bill, so this canon now applies to them) they have not been excommunicated, nor are they under interdict, as of yet, so the first part of the canon does not apply yet.  However, the second part will.  To vote for the bill will be a grave sin which will require sacramental confession, personal penance and, I would also say, public repudiation of their vote and public penance of some form. 

 

If a TD or Senator votes for the bill, it will be the duty of his or her bishop to contact the politician and inform them of the serious nature of their act and to tell them that until they have confessed and repudiated their vote, they should not present themselves for Holy Communion.  If a politician ignores or dissents from this, the bishop has a duty to contact the politician again to call them back and admonish them.  If the politician continues to reject this, then they will be considered to be "persevering in manifest grave sin" - manifest because their vote is well known and their continuing to present themselves for the Eucharist will also be a public act.  At this point the bishop must formally inform the politician that if they continue to present themselves for the Eucharist they will be refused. 

 

The bishop must then inform all of his priests of the situation and direct them to refuse the politician communion; all Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion in the diocese are bound by this directive also.  (As an aside: this may present difficulties for lay Extraordinary Ministers, but they have no choice but to follow the directive.  When training laypeople for this ministry they must be informed that they may be required to refuse the Eucharist at times.  Indeed one good way of discerning candidates for this ministry is to see if they would obey such a directive.)  Now if a politician continues to ignore the directive, does not repent, then things could develop and he or she may face excommunication. 

 

This may seem like a long process - it can be, but must not be dragged out either.  The process must allow for space and time for reflection - a politician must be given time to repent.  The Church imposes penalties not for revenge, but to help bring a lost sheep back to their senses - she is concerned with reconciliation.   The process also puts the onus on the bishop to fulfil his duty to guide and teach his flock.   If a bishop fails to do this, leaves matters as they are in the hope that they will sort themselves out, or for spurious "pastoral reasons", he will be not only be failing in his duty, but also endangering a soul for lack of direction and, yes, admonishment.   For this omission the bishop will have to answer to God.  Charity and gentleness are required, but these virtues should never be confused with fear or inability to act.

 

So let us be careful when we hear the media speak of excommunication - remember the media are trying to get this abortion legislation through and so want to destroy those who oppose it.  In reporting on excommunication the media wants to show the Church as interfering in the political process.  We must not let the media set the agenda.  Nor force our shepherds into silence either.  Again, the Lord's teaching on doves and serpents applies. 

"Only Have Faith"

Watch this space!  After all the abuse scandals of the past twenty years, is there about to be a subtle u-turn concerning the legitimacy of paedophilia?

We know that in the Sixties and Seventies various organisations in the West, including some here in Ireland were working towards the normalisation of paedophilia in society.  The American Man Boy Love Association was one of the most prominent of these organisations.  To put it in official language, the aim of these associations was to reduce, or get rid of, the age of consent so as to enable inter-generational sexual contact.  Such opinions were uttered as recently as last year here in Ireland. It was the abuse scandals in the Church which led to a stalling of these organisations lobbying: the public were rightly horrified, so the climate was not favourable to lobbyists.  However, are they getting the campaign cranked up again?

Here is an article on CNN's website by James Cantor asking if paedophiles deserve sympathy?  It is an article looking at the nature-nurture debate.  Chelsea Schilling offers a few reflections on the article here.  The question one might ask: if they are saying someone is born that way, can we assume, then, that it is wrong?  If people begin to answer that question in the affirmative, then interested parties may well be laying the foundation for the new "civil rights issue of this generation".  Watch this space.  We may soon find ourselves trying to argue against the tide of those who believe "minor-attracted" people should be allowed to live as they see fit.

In related news, here's a good article by Michael Kelly on the abuse crisis in Ireland - how canon law was not the problem - it was not to blame for the Church in Ireland's pitiful response to child abuse, but rather its being ignored.   It was the liberal attitude that rules and laws do not matter anymore that created a climate in which a false view of love and compassion neutralised the Church's strict laws and punishments due to offenders. 

And here's another example of secularists's tolerance with regard to those who disagree with them.  Jane Pitt, Brad Pitt's mother, is pro-life and pro-marriage, as are many millions of Americans. She expresses her opinion, as is her right in a democracy, but she is attacked, reviled and even threatened, and the media hang her out to dry and paint her as a bigot.   Jane said that she will not be voting for Barack Obama because he is pro-gay marriage and pro-abortion (which he is) and she advised Christians not to dismiss Mitt Romney because he is a Mormon (which is correct and fair).   Journalism worthy of Pravda during the darkest days of Soviet oppression.

I was in a book store yesterday and I saw the pornographic novel Fifty Shades of Grey was number one in the store's bestseller chart.  I have heard a few debates about the novels and it seems some of our secular feminists have no problem with them - the books tell the story of what is, in all intents a purposes, an abusive relationship in which a man uses a woman for his own pleasure.  Some would say it is not abusive since the woman consents: well, that's the subject of the debates.  Pia de Solenni has a few interesting points to make on this issue.

And here is an interesting article on democracy, tyrants and the role of constitutions in keeping public order.  In recent years we have come to see constitutions are pliable - they can be changed.  Of course they can be amended; but as they are, we need to be careful and ask the simple question: in changing parts of a constitution are we undermining the whole?  If, as Fr Schall in this article points out, a constitution is there to help keep public order, can we constantly subject it to human whims which may, in the end, create disorder and chaos?  Have we not been a little flippant with the constitution in Ireland in recent years?  The present government has initiated a constitutional reform process in which a number of amendments will be considered among them gay marriage and the abolition of the upper house of parliament (this, I think, is a bad idea too - reform the Senate, make it more democratic, but do not abolish it - we need an upper chamber to keep an eye on the lower).

Fr Schall also reminds us of what Plato and Aristotle teach us - something which is undeniably true today because we can see it happening before our eyes: "[A] tyrant arises out of a democracy when the citizens have little or no inner principle of order other than what they will for themselves. The tyrant becomes the “leader of the people” and, finally, their master. He can impose on them his cure for their well-being. But he is seen as a savior because the people, no longer in contact with the rationale of their own tradition, have little else in their souls with which to judge him. Hence, the loyalty and enthusiasm [to] follow the “leader.”" The sidelining of religion to the private sphere coupled with the establishment of an secular "church" and a selfish concentration on individualism and personal desires is a perfect breeding ground for tyrants.

And today is the feast of St Benedict, patron of Europe.   A man who helped preserve the Christian faith in Europe, and the best of European culture and civilisation with it, he is a worthy patron of these times.  We pray that he will watch over all of us and help us in our needs; given the issues above, we certainly need his intercession.  One thing the Holy Patriarch teaches us is that we must never lose hope. Looking at the attack on the Church, and indeed on what is best in humanity, I see the devil at work, and he seems to be desperate.  He must know something great is coming, a great flowering of faith, and he is doing what he can to stop it.  As followers of Christ we must always remember that the victory is already won.  So we must not be afraid and we must have confidence.

Here's a video on Pope Benedict's visit to the tomb of St Benedict in 2009 - the Holy Father has some interesting things to say:

The Need For Consistency

You may be aware of the row that is going on in the Archdiocese of Detroit concerning Real Catholic TV and its use of the title "Catholic". Michael Voris, the front man for the TV company, is being told he must stop using the title Catholic since he does not have permission from the Archbishop of Detroit, his Ordinary.

This is an issue of canon law, and Ed Peters explains it all in his canon law blog.  It seems the plot is thickening as the question of jurisdiction has now been raised - it seems that Real Catholic TV may actually be officially domiciled in the Diocese of South Bend, so it is up to the Ordinary there to grant the title and not Detroit.   It will be interesting to see how this pans out.

Some maintain that Detroit is going after Voris because of his conservative position on Catholic teaching and his manner of broadcasting - I am not going to comment on that because I do not know all the facts, nor can I read the mind of the Archbishop.  I do know, however, that the title "Catholic" can only be used by a group or organisation with the permission of the bishop of the diocese in which they are based.  When the Fraternity was founded and we were applying for official recognition in the Church, we had to petition the bishop for permission to call ourselves a Catholic association.  That's the law of the Church, and it is there to protect the integrity of the Church and her teaching, and I agree with it.

Now, to be honest, I do think there is a need for consistency with regard to this law and its implementation.  There are many organisations, groups, institutions and institutes which use the title "Catholic", but are as far from orthodoxy as the Inferno is from the Arctic.   Dissenters trade under the title Catholic, and theologians, who are more renowned for their rebellion than their willingness to believe in orthodox Christianity, run about with "Catholic theologian" stamped on their academic passports.   Now the stripping of such a title with regard to theologians teaching in Catholic institutes is a matter for CDF, but local Ordinaries also have jurisdiction over groups and organisations trading in their territories.   Is it not time now to call a halt and start to pull them up as Voris and company have been?

You see, there remains the impression, be it true or false, that authorities are happy and quick to tackle conservative Catholic groups, but leave the self-styled "progressive" groups alone and free to do whatever they want.  This does not inspire confidence at all. 

Some suggest that the liberals and dissidents would not obey the bishop if he asked them to stop calling themselves Catholic - of course they wouldn't - disobedience is their trademark.  But that should not deter an Ordinary nor his officials from reminding them, and the public, that the particular group cannot call itself Catholic and is not recognised as being Catholic.    Others have suggested some bishops are afraid of these groups and so prefer to leave them alone.  We cannot ignore that suggestion because it may be true in some cases, and we respond to that with prayer and encouragement, and take a few tips from St Catherine of Siena who knew how to remind people of their duties, with charity of course.

And that last point is one we must bring to our consideration of the Detroit-Real Catholic TV situation: we presume good faith on the part of all involved and pray the situation will be resolved in a manner which is good for the Church.

Permanent Deacons and Perpetual Continence

Ed Peters, renowned canon lawyer, is creating a bit of a storm which may have universal consequences.  According to a thesis he wrote five years ago, and being discussed again, he maintains that Canon Law requires that permanent deacons must refrain from sex with their wives after ordination.  He is discussing canon 277 of the 1983 code.  Here is the canon:

§ 1. Clerics are obliged to observe perfect and perpetual continence for the sake of the kingdom of heaven and therefore are bound to celibacy which is a special gift of God by which sacred ministers can adhere more easily to Christ with an undivided heart and are able to dedicate themselves more freely to the service of God and humanity. § 2. Clerics are to behave with due prudence towards persons whose company can endanger their obligation to observe continence or give rise to scandal among the faithful. § 3. The diocesan bishop is competent to establish more specific norms concerning this matter and to pass judgment in particular cases concerning the observance of this obligation.

At the moment it is understood that men ordained to the permanent diaconate, may continue normal relations with their wives, but if their wives should die before them, then they are bound to celibacy, ie they may not marry again.  Peters is saying that while permanent deacons are dispensed the rule of celibacy (they may remain married), they are not exempted from the rule of continence (refraining from sexual relations with their wives).  This rule may even apply to those former Anglican ministers who are ordained priests.

He has come to this position having studied the practice of the early Church and the rule of law in the Church since then.  In the early Church those ordained to service in the Church in the clerical state, if married, were required to live a life of continence.  Clerical continence and celibacy have been part of the Church's life from the beginning, contrary to what progressives teach.   It seems Peters has a point if we are to argue from history. 

It will be interesting to see how this one will pan out.  Ed Peters's thesis is here.  His son covers the story here on his blog.  An interesting reflection by Fr John Boyle on his blog.  Here is one deacon's reaction.  This is an area the Church is going to have to address.