As expected, pro-abortion politicians from the U.S. received communion during the Pope’s inaugural mass yesterday.
Of course, this is not a uniquely American problem. Countries from all over the world sent delegations to the inaugural mass and probably more than a few contained pro-abortion pols. Now I don’t know if any announcement was made at the hugely attended mass about those, in general terms, that are not prepared to receive communion should abstain. They do this at Christmas and weddings now, thankfully, so I hope they did it there.
At the very least, the Pope avoided the dreaded photo-op of giving communion to one of these pro-abortion pols by not distributing communion himself.
But this issue has to come to a head at some point and perhaps Pope Francis is the one to do it. LiveAction reports that as the former Jorge Cardinal Bergoglio, Pope Francis wrote that more than mere reminders not to receive may be needed.
The Catholic Church is clear on its stance against abortion. Yet denying Communion to those who are known to facilitate in an abortion is not always as clear as it should be. Such situations are at times dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Often, the pro-abortion Catholics in question are reminded or encouraged not to partake in Holy Communion. In going against the Church, in these cases by facilitating in an abortion, a person is excommunicated by his or her own actions. More than a mere reminder or sense of encouragement may be needed.
The text itself states:
“we should commit ourselves to ‘eucharistic coherence’, that is, we should be conscious that people cannot receive holy communion and at the same time act or speak against the commandments, in particular when abortion, euthanasia, and other serious crimes against life and family are facilitated. This responsibility applies particularly to legislators, governors, and health professionals.”
So just perhaps, Pope Francis, now so appreciated by the pro-abortion left, may be the Pope to finally put them in their place.
March 20, 2013 at 7:14 pm
@Sophia's Favorite: I'm sorry I got your handle wrong. As for your criticism that Pelosi and Biden were not "well known" what planet are you on? Maybe the average Italian wouldn't know who they were, but the people handling the guest lists would have to have some knowledge of them. And do you honestly believe that the rest of the people in the Vatican would be so ignorant of these pro-aborts? Sorry, but you're just making excuses for PF1 failure to protect the Holy Sacrament from profanation.
March 20, 2013 at 7:17 pm
@Blackrep: Bravo for your brave words in the face of willful ignorance!
March 20, 2013 at 7:24 pm
You know the Pope knows who's in the VIP section…how? This seems an odd venue to reveal your telepathic powers to the world.
Where is your evidence that Biden is so prominently pro-abortion…to an Argentinian? Where is your evidence that even were that the case, Pope Francis would know him on sight?
Your case essentially hinges on your unsupported assumptions about what other people can be expected to know. This is, among other things, a classic symptom of paranoid schizophrenia—they all assume everyone knows their random little habits.
That being the case, it's funny that you say you can't live in a world that's not real.
March 20, 2013 at 7:42 pm
I might ask of all those who are condemning Pope Francis I for this event and painting hm as a liberal: What would you have done? Publicly humiliated people at your own installation Mass? Create a 'Cannot Receive Section' at the Mass…giving their neighbors glaring rights? Should he perhaps have gathered a large pile of stones so that he could have anyone who received unworthily stoned on the spot? What does he have to do to prove his credentials to you that he is worthy of being pontiff? Perhaps you should send him a list of your criteria! Who knew you had exclusive access to the ear of the Holy Spirit?! Better yet, perhaps your name should be on the list of the papabile next time! Me? I do not presume the ability to read souls nor do I presume the freedom to stand in judgement on the Holy Father. I find judging my own activities and lack of charity a full time job on its own.
March 20, 2013 at 8:12 pm
At the very least, a specific statement of the Church teaching in regards to receiving Holy Communion worthily could have been made very clear at the Mass, just prior to communion.
Moreover, repeating the words of St. Paul would be an act of Fraternal Correction that could also have been done.
The fact that this abuse has been allowed to continue provides more than enough basis for making the teaching very public at the Mass.
Lastly, better to be humiliated in public than lose your soul.
DB
March 20, 2013 at 8:25 pm
Fr.Peckman and Sophia's Wisdom, when I was a Lutheran, my synod dared to 'humiliate' people who dared to take the sacrament unworthily. If they were living in open sin, a heretic, not in communion with the synod, or an infidel, and they dared to come forward to take the sacrament, they would be turned away.
As for the hyperemotional argument that we can't read peoples minds and hearts, we're not concerned about the contents of the soul here, it's the declared public statements of belief and action that we care about. PF1 by his public actions showed disrespect for the sacrament. I hope and pray he never does this again.
March 20, 2013 at 8:51 pm
! Your HTML cannot be accepted: Tag is not allowed: BLOCKQUOTE
<blockquote>[H]ow do we know that they have had Reconcilation and in fact can receive it?
—Carolyn</blockquote>
They are public figures with public positions against the teachings of Jesus made public by His Church. Until these public figures renounce in public, they cause scandal by receiving the Eucharist in public.
Review your Gospels. Pay attention to the example of Zacchaeus. He too was a public figure with a public reputation that gave scandal until he demonstrated before the public that he had reformed. (Luke 19:1-10)
March 20, 2013 at 8:52 pm
We're not concerned about the contents of the soul?! Are you kidding?! Is it not the contents of the soul which make one fit or not fit for reception of the Blessed Sacrament?! I guess that God Himself did not strike these people dead on the spot makes Him complicit? I tire of those who believe their goal in life is to be a religious version of Mrs Kravitz, constantly presuming to have the right to condemn souls and make such pronouncements. Never mind that the Scriptures remind us time and again that such judgement of souls is the prevue God alone and that there are levels to fraternal correction. I will presume, of course, that such types have already contacted the offices of the VP and Pelosi and begged them to refrain in concern for their eternal souls before they jumped on here to condemn! I will assume that when that didn't work, then they got a few more fellow Catholics to beg them to relent. Then I am sure when that didn't work they contacted the ordinary of these individuals and begged them to intercede? I would suppose all of this was done prior to jumping on line and throwing out condemnations like beads from a Mardi Gras float? I will assume that those who presume to attack the Holy See have gone through similar steps before jumping up and down on him as if he were an ecclesiastical trampoline? If not…how about we go through scriptural prescription before we make wild statements like 'Pope Francis I showed disrespect for the sacrament.'
March 20, 2013 at 9:06 pm
Fr. Peckman, you're running on emotion, not logic. I said I was not concerned about the contents of PF1's soul, not because I didn't care, it's because I can't read minds or hearts. I can only go by his actions. His actions show he seems to be indifferent about administering the sacrament.
March 20, 2013 at 9:09 pm
Fine insights, Steve. Of course, it is also for the benefit of their souls that communion is to be denied to those who are outside Church teaching and appropriate practice in approaching and receiving Holy Communion.
Now, even if members of the Vatican did not know about this public person or that public person, the need to protect the Eucharist is so great that it should be a matter of course to conduct prompt research to discover any public statements/sentiments, etc. made by those who indicated their intentions to attend the installation Mass.
If such people sincerely indicate a change of heart to coincide with Church teaching and practice, this should be made public to serve as a counter to the other public statements in support of abortion, etc. Moreover, if these people have expressed such a welcome change of heart, they should want this to be made public to "correct the record" and also help others appreciate the Eucharist as it should be appreciated, and to help convert others to the proper point of view.
A simple press release, etc., could be done to accomplish this instead of leaving it to people to imagine that perhaps the offending individuals have expressed a change of heart while their offensive positions remain in the public eye.
A few questions to those who express the concern about public humiliation:
Should our concerns for the serenity of those who have scorned the Church and the Lord Himself in their public actions and statements outweigh our protection of and defense of the Lord in the Holy Eucharist?
Do human concerns trump Divine reality?
DB
March 20, 2013 at 9:15 pm
Fr. Peckman, I am certain that Biden and Pelosi didn't just arrive without any protocol. As the formal representatives of America, they would certainly have been greeted by someone from the Vatican, or their protocol officer would have been. That was the point of opportunity for a private education in what they should do, and in the moral consequences should they disobey.
March 20, 2013 at 9:18 pm
Thank you, DB.
March 20, 2013 at 9:36 pm
! Your HTML cannot be accepted: Tag is not allowed: BLOCKQUOTE
<blockquote>I might ask of all those who are condemning Pope Francis I for this event and painting him as a liberal: What would you have done? Publicly humiliated people at your own installation Mass?
—Fr Bill Peckman</blockquote>
Alas, the 'looking away' and being 'nice' by past popes and other bishops comes at a price and eventually every penny must be paid. Were not the scandals of another 'looking away' by bishops a warning?
To claim that publicly humiliating people at the installation Mass is the only alternative is to assert a falsehood. Think hard. There are other alternatives available. I'm not asking for be-on-the-lookout posters to be placed at the entrances to the installation Mass, but would that really be a bad thing if they were?
(Posters at parish entrances back home seems like a good idea, though. US bishops, wake up!)
March 20, 2013 at 10:35 pm
Our new Holy Father is Pope Francis, not Pope Francis I. Also, he is Christ's Vicar on earth. Please stop judging him. God's ways are not our ways. We don't know how our Heavenly Father is working to convert Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi and others who break His Commandments. I only know this: God loves them just as much as He loves me and He wants no one to be lost eternally. Let's pray for their conversion and for our Father's Will to be revealed through our Beloved Pope Francis.
March 20, 2013 at 10:40 pm
Don't forget that Judas was present at the Last Supper, our First Holy Mass. Our Lord did not humiliate him or draw attention to him. He just loved him and prayed for his conversion.
March 20, 2013 at 10:45 pm
How do you know the other alternatives were not done and simply ignored? I am finding it hard to believe that people have the hubris to attack the Pope for things they know little about.
March 20, 2013 at 11:03 pm
Greetings, Anonymous:
I'm not judging Pope Francis per se, but I am disappointed in that he and others in the Church hierarchy continue to allow abuses of the Holy Eucharist to take place in public. Please see my 2 other posts above.
Our Lord most certainly drew attention to Judas at the Last Supper, and Judas ran off. Was he humiliated? Who knows? Nevertheless, the other Apostles knew something wasn't right; otherwise, Judas would have stayed at the Supper because he wasn't sent out to pick up some milk, etc.
In any case, the position of Judas at the Last Supper is not equivalent to pro-abortion politicians in open defiance of Church Teaching. If the Church believed the same thing as you do about Judas and how he was treated, and would make the same application as you suggest, then why have the Law against unworthy reception in the first place?
Always keep in mind that the prohibition is an act of Fraternal correction and love due in large part to the Pauline admonition regarding the danger to one's soul in eating and drinking unworthily.
Tolerance of evil is not an act of love, but fraternal correction is.
DB
March 20, 2013 at 11:29 pm
Once again, if people have publicly presented viewpoints and also acted in opposition to Church teaching, and these viewpoints and practices are known to the public, then any change of heart by these people should also be made public for the benefit of the faithful who only have the prior statements and actions to consider.
I hope that Pelosi and Biden and others did have a change of heart, and if so, it should have been made public without delay to help avoid ongoing scandal, and to also help others who may still follow the wrong-headed public positions and actions of Pelosi and Biden prior to any hoped-for conversion.
And if the conversion was/is sincere, then there is an obligation in charity to renounce in public (as quickly as possible) the publicly witnessed wrong actions and opinions of the past that remain on the record until publicly revoked.
Have we heard from Pelosi or Biden or the Church in this regard? Unless we hear of a public renunciation of wrongful statements and actions, we only have the actions and statements on the record to go on, and if these continue to contribute to others holding such wrong positions and acting incorrectly, what possible good reason can there be for not making a public renunciation if such a sincere renunciation has been made?
The love of Christ and the Eucharist should bypass any possible human concerns that would keep such an important renunciation (if done) from being reported to the public.
DB
March 20, 2013 at 11:45 pm
Well said.
March 21, 2013 at 12:31 am
I think it is Pelosi and Biden that are to be condemned not Pope Francis. Unless they have been living under a rock they know they are not supposed to receive Communion. If they are so filled with hubris that they choose to ignore that directive then they must deal with the consequences. I understand how many of you feel as I feel the same way. I would give just about anything to see them refused the sacrament as they are so haughty in their disregard for the Church and the Eucharist. Just who do they think they are?? One would love to see them slapped down. Actions have consequences and, one way or another, they will receive theirs.
March 21, 2013 at 9:34 am
I think it is the hypocrisy of the hierarchical church in general, that needs to be condemned. As a Catholic you are told live your life by strict guidelines, and to abstain from Communion when you are in a state of mortal sin. The approach is the same for the rapist or the mass murderer as it is for the person who masterbated once this year, no communion until you go to confession and truthfully confess. I used to get strapped by Christian Brothers for pathetic things, but nothing for people that promote the death of thousands and even millions all over the world. Really, if the Pope and other Vatican officials don't people like Pelosi, then they are in the wrong business and have lived with their heads in the ground. This is another example of why I am starting reconsider my believe in any divine truth to the Church. What's next, it seems the Pope would approve homosexual unions as a "compromise" to so called gay marriage. Seriously, what next?
March 21, 2013 at 12:38 pm
This exemplifies what I mentioned earlier – that allowing foreseeable, avoidable egregious sacrilege of the Blessed Sacrament to take place at the inauguration Mass of the Pope is so scandalous that it endangers many souls, brings Bishops and priests into disrepute, even worse brings the authenticity of Church teachings (and therefore, the Church itself) into question. Lord, have mercy!