Bishop Raymond Burke, appointed Archbishop of St. Louis on December 2, 2003, privately and publicly proclaimed boldly in August, 2003, that pro abort Catholic politicians, if they persist in their evil activities and if they are outside the Catholic Church, should not present themselves to receive the Holy Eucharist because they would not be Catholics in good standing. Many national pro-life groups have been energized by this statement, sending Archbishop Burke their good wishes and encouragement.
Sounds good, but is it really?
Will Archbishop Burke rightly enforce the penalty of Canon Law 915 as he is bound to do? Will he and his clergy deny Holy Communion to these pro abort, pro sodomite Catholic politicians as they are bound to do by Canon Law? Unfortunately, Burke's statement may not be as promising as we would hope. Here's why.
Archbishop Burke's statement is the same ineffectual statement as issued earlier this summer by Archbishop Sean O'Malley of Boston (regarding pro abort Senators Kennedy and Kerry), Bishop William Weigand of Sacramento (regarding pro abort Catholic Governor Gray Davis), and Sioux Falls' Bishop Robert Carlson (regarding his long obstinate pro abort Senator Tom Daschle). Admired by millions of faithful Catholics (including this writer) as Holy and good men, these four Bishops issued very similar private and public warnings. According to Canon Law, these bishops have not only the right but also the duty to stop a grave manifest sinner from committing sacrilege and scandal. Have our 'Four Horsemen' gone far enough in their duty as Bishops? Here's what happen and what is likely to continue happening.
Archbishop O'Malley's scorecard
The Archbishop made the most incredibly ambiguous statement on July 29, 2003, from his Archdiocese's Public Release Office, "that a Catholic politician who holds a public, pro-choice position should not be receiving Communion and should 'on their own volition' refrain from doing so. The Church presumes that each person is receiving in good faith. It is not our policy to deny Communion. It is up to the individual." The Archbishop also said he wrote pro abort Senators Kennedy and Kerry private warnings. Here's what happened after the Archbishop proclaimed his quasi-warning.
On July 30, 2003, just one day after making his private and public diocesan warning to dissidents Kennedy and Kerry, Archbishop O'Malley stood idly watching as these two manifest pro abort Senators marched up to his Altar and received sacrilegious Communion at his Holy Mass of Installation as Archbishop of Boston. The Archbishop's weasel clause, 'of their own volition' and 'It is up to the individual' is why Kennedy and Kerry marched up to Communion. What penalty did these publicly known 'merchants of death' receive? Why were Canon Law and other Vatican documents not enforced by the Archbishop?
Canon Law 915 states in part: "Those who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to Communion." Canon Law 1398 reads: " A common excommunication is automatically incurred by receiving or participating in an abortion." Canon 1369 tells bishops: "A person is to be punished with a just penalty, who...gravely harms public morals...." Who could refute the fact that for years the Senators Kerry and Kennedy have 'participated' by writing, endorsing, encouraging and passing pro abortion and pro sodomite legislation.
The Church has an innate and proper right to coerce offending members by means of penal sanctions (Canon Law 1311). Diocesan bishops as well as the Pope possess legislative power, and the Code of Canon Law (Canons 1315 and 1318) expressly recognizes their right to enact laws for their dioceses.
In January 2003, two months after the Holy See's 'Doctrinal Note' was issued, both Kennedy and Kerry cited church-state separation as their guiding principle. Kerry who is running for president said: "As a Catholic, I have enormous respect for the words and teachings of the Vatican, but as a public servant I've never forgotten the lasting legacy of President Kennedy, who made clear that in accordance with the separation of church and state no elected official should be 'limited or conditioned by any religious oath, ritual or obligation (sic).' "
In a recent magazine article, Senator Kennedy said his personal beliefs were what mattered and dismissed Church leadership, saying, "I know what I believe...it's their problem [Catholic bishops], not mine." So much for an undying obedience to the Vicar of Christ.
Unfortunately, it has not been made known publicly if Archbishop O'Malley and his priests have ever enforced Canon 915 and denied Communion to these and other manifest pro abort politicians.
Bishop Weigand's scorecard
Shortly after his January 22, 2003 public and private warning to Gov. Gray Davis, Bishop Weigand also declared, "Such a person should have the integrity to choose 'of his own volition' to abstain from receiving Holy Communion until he has a change of heart." Again, the weasel clause, 'of his own volition' negated any impression of a warning.
On his part, Gov. Davis then publicly told the media that he was a Catholic in good standing and would not stop going to Communion. Davis' own pastor reaffirmed Davis as an outstanding Catholic in his parish and one who deserves to receive Holy Communion.
Unfortunately, it has not been made known publicly whether Bishop Weigand and his priests have ever enforced Canon 915 and denied Gov. Gray Davis and other manifest sinners Holy Communion.
Bishop Carlson's scorecard
To the good Bishop Carlson's credit, the debate between him and pro abort, pro sodomite 'Catholic' Senator Daschle has been constant and intense since 1995. Unabashedly, in l997, the arrogant 'remarried outside of the Church' Daschle spoke out publicly on the floor of the Senate in Washington, D.C., as recorded in the Congressional record, denouncing Bishop Carlson before all Americans as a radical religious leader.
In a reply form letter to this writer, dated March 31, 2003, in answer to my question why doesn't the Bishop deny Senator Tom Daschel Holy Communion, Bishop Carlson states, "I have dealt with this concern (Daschel) several years ago, and the entire matter has been reported to the Holy See. Further, at this point we are praying for the Senator's conversion, and I invite you to join the prayer effort!"
Unfortunately, it has not been made known publicly whether Bishop Carlson and his priests have ever enforced Canon 915 and no attempt has been made to deny Daschel and other manifest sinners Holy Communion.
Known Courageous World Bishops Who Did Uphold Canon 915
On March 25, 2002, Pentecost Sunday, Archbishop George Pell refused 70 sodomite Catholics and their supporters from receiving sacrilegious Communion. The Archbishop said, "It's not a question of refusing homosexuals, but the rule is basically for all Catholics. A person who publicly defines himself at any given time as supporting or practicing activities contrary to Church teaching in a serious matter is not entitled to receive Holy Communion."
In 2001, the Archbishop of Lima and Primate of Peru, Juan Luis Cardinal Cipriani, instructed his pastors to deny Holy Communion to politicians (Canon Law 915) who refuse to abandon their pro-abortion views.
Moreover, Calgary Bishop Fred Henry, refusing to recant his earlier warning that Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chrétien's official political decisions were risking his eternal salvation, told reporters on August 2, 2003, that he would likely enforce Canon Law 915 and refuse the Prime Minister Holy Communion.
Separation of Church and Church
In answer to Bishop Raymond Burke's August 2003 warning, pro abortion Catholic Democrat Senator Julie Lassa told the media:
"I'm concerned that the bishop would pressure legislators to vote according to the dictates of the church instead of the wishes of their constituents because that is not consistent with our Democratic ideals... I appreciate that the bishop has expressed his opinion and I will take that into consideration, but I have to consider what's in the best interest of my constituents... But I can't let my religion take precedence over my duties as a legislator."
By the refusal of dissident Catholic politicians to submit to the Church by withholding obedience from the Holy Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on earth, these people live in mortal/grave sin, or 'merita mortificata' (dead to merit), while scandalizing the many faithful citizens who must live under their high influence as Congressional public servants. They say the Church cannot not tell them how to live their faith.
The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith's 'Doctrinal Note' on some questions regarding the participation of Catholics in political life (November 24, 2002), states in No.4:
"John Paul II, continuing the constant teaching of the Church, has reiterated many times that those who are directly involved in lawmaking bodies have a 'grave and clear obligation to oppose' any law that attacks human life. For them, as for every Catholic, it is impossible to promote such laws or to vote for them."[Evangelium vitae, n.73.]
Shortly after the CDF's November, 2002 'Doctrinal Note' on Catholics in political life, in the Congregation of Divine Worship's December, 2002 Notitiae edition we read from its prefect Cardinal Estevez (emphasis is this writer's):
"Another fundamental right of the faithful, as noted in Canon 213, is 'the right to receive assistance by the sacred Pastors from the spiritual goods of the Church, especially the word of God and the Sacraments.' In view of the law that 'sacred ministers may not deny the sacraments to those who opportunely ask for them, are properly disposed and are not prohibited by law from receiving them' (canon 843 ¶ 1), there should be no such refusal to any Catholic who presents himself for Holy Communion at Mass, except in cases presenting a danger of grave scandal to other believers arising out of the person's unrepented public sin or obstinate heresy or schism, publicly professed or declared."
The Holy Father, John Paul II's beautiful recent 'Ecclesia De Eucharistia' states that only the faithful who have confessed grave sins in the Sacrament of Penance may receive Holy Communion, and that those who "obstinately persist in manifest grave sin" must be denied Communion.
To receive Holy Communion worthily
You must be in a state of grace, have been to confession since your last mortal sin, believe in transubstantiation, observe the Eucharistic fast, have made first Communion, and, finally, not be under an ecclesiastical censure such as excommunication. A mortal sin is any sin whose matter is grave and which was committed willfully and with knowledge of its seriousness (this is why the four Bishops notified the politicians privately and publicly). Grave matter includes, but is not limited to, murder, receiving or participating in an abortion, homosexual acts, having sexual intercourse outside of marriage or in an invalid marriage, and deliberately engaging in impure thoughts.
Even in the parish Missalettes throughout the US, the following statement is required
"As Catholics, we fully participate in the celebration of the Eucharist when we receive Holy Communion. We are encouraged to receive Communion devoutly and frequently. In order to be properly disposed to receive Communion, participants should not be conscious of grave sin and normally should have fasted for one hour. A person who is conscious of grave sin is not to receive the Body and Blood of the Lord without prior sacramental confession except for a grave reason where there is no opportunity for confession. In this case, the person is to be mindful of the obligation to make an act of perfect contrition, including the intention of confessing as soon as possible (canon 916). A frequent reception of the Sacrament of Penance is encouraged for all." (November 29, 1999 Copyright © by United States Catholic Conference)
"I will not obey"
Lucifer, the first antichrist, the highest of the pure spirits created by God, performed the first act of disobedience of the creature towards the Creator was when he made known his willful act: "Non serviam!" — "I will not obey (serve)!" Ever since that first act of disobedience to God, disorder continues to rule a creation once subject to Divine order.
Only by a return to the order established by God in all our social structures, including obedience to God and His divinely ordained Roman Pontiff, by all public servants, could the way to true peace and true justice in this world be attained. Everything else is a false peace, a false justice. Manifest pro abort 'Catholic' politicians' disobedience contributes to the disorder which rules creation once subject to Divine order.
As the church teaches, we surely cannot make known 'private sins.' However, 'public sins' require public rebukes and repentance, as the above courageous bishops have recently required. Public sinners, the Holy Father John Paul II has said, cannot receive Holy Communion without having a change of heart. That is what the Vatican has been saying for years about the non-admission of public sinners to the Eucharist whether they be pro abort, public sodomites, divorced and remarried outside the Church, Mafia figures or people who are notorious criminals.
The Holy Remedy is simple
Conversion of the Catholic politicians' recalcitrant theology, reception of the Sacrament of Confession, repentance, firm purpose of amendment, and public recantation of the politicians' disobedience to God. God will grant them the grace if they simply ask. He waits for their return. The entire Church prays for their return. Until such time, all Bishops and the priests and deacons under the bishops, must publicly deny the politicians Holy communion when they obstinately approach the Altar. In other words, the bishops must 'walk and talk.' This is most important today as the presidential campaign intensifies nationwide and Catholic voters ask: "is it's permissible to vote for these pro abortion politicians who receive sacrilegious Communion every Sunday."
The now confused laity's reasoning could go as such: "If a Catholic politician can publicly deny the Church's teaching on abortion and call himself a faithful Catholic and the bishops do not deny him the Eucharist when he approaches the Altar, why can't I ignore the Church's teaching on contraception, or IVF or homosexuality?"
Walking the Talk
Pontius Pilate told Jesus, "It was your own people and the chief priests who have handed you over to me" (Jn. 18:35). And Jesus responded to Pilate that "he who handed me over to you is guilty of the greater sin" (Jn. 19:11). Are the chief priests (bishops) of the Catholic Church today repeating this "handing over" of Our Savior Jesus Christ to the secular authorities for crucifixion by putting Our Lord into the hands of "pro-choice" politicians at Communion?
Bishops are, as 'Priest, Prophet and King,' called to 'govern' and 'correct.' An unworthy public or private Holy Communion, willfully chosen 'of his own volition,' is a serious matter. When a "pro-choice" politician disregards a bishop's directive and comes to Holy Communion 'of his own volition,' and the bishop or priest gives the Host to him, the bishop or priest is doing evil, what Pope Paul VI condemned — he is "doing evil so that good may follow therefrom."
Let us pray that we never are able to make the same statement of the good Archbishop Raymond Burke,
"Unfortunately, it has not been made known publicly if Archbishop Burke and his priests have ever enforced Canon 915 and denied Holy Communion to manifest pro abort politicians."
To send a note of encouragement to Archbishop Burke to 'walk the talk' and enforce Canon Law 915, you may send email via his secretary: svlasak@dioceseoflacrosse.com
© Barbara KralisThe views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.