Archbishop Gregory says he won’t deny Biden communion. How will Catholics respond?

https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/...en-communion-how-will-catholics-respond-51669
Washington’s archbishop, who will be made a cardinal this weekend, told a journalist Tuesday that in his diocese, he will not deny Holy Communion to a politician who has pledged to enshrine access to abortion in federal law and permit federal funding of abortions. That politician is President-elect Joe Biden.

Archbishop Wilton Gregory’s comment is sure to raise questions about the Church’s pro-life witness. But for some Catholics, the remark might also raise questions about the sincerity of U.S. bishops on the topic of ecclesial reform.

What shame. I am highly disappointed.

Lets look at what a Pope had to say when he was a cardinal:
In 2004, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, then head of the Church’s doctrinal office, told U.S. bishops in a memo that a Catholic politician “consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws” is engaged in “manifest,” and “formal cooperation” in grave sin.

In such a case, the politician’s “pastor should meet with him, instructing him about the Church’s teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin, and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist,” Ratzinger wrote.

If the Catholic perseveres in grave sin and still presents himself for Holy Communion, “the minister of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute it.”

Ratzinger’s memo was an application of canon 915 of the Code of Canon Law, which says that Catholics “obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.”

In short, Ratzinger’s memo gave bishops instruction on how to apply the Church’s law. On Tuesday, Archbishop Gregory said he has no plans to do so.

 

Very sad. Unfortunately Roman bishops have always been weak-spined and have abetted the local powers that be. This is not a surprise. You can go all through the middle ages and the modern era to find the Papacy rubber stamping whatever the secular rulers dictated.

 

Given that one of the foundational principles of the faith catholic is that the informed conscience is the absolute guide.

We are in the end called to be one in Christ, not one in opinion. If, as it seems likely, that the President elect is likely to seek spiritual food and comfort in the Holy Sacrament, as he takes on the task of leading the nation, I would say that is a good thing. A good thing for the Church and a good thing for the people of America.

In my view, Abortion is not a good outcome, however I also recognize that sometimes it may be the eat worst outcome. I know that is untidy, however sometimes in an imperfect world untidy is as tidy as we get.

 

And lets not forget that the Church’s doctrinal office is what the inquisition has devolved down to.

Is it because of a the more Agnostic/Atheistic world that we have now that Gregory is not put on the rack?





Interestingly the RC Church hasn't always regarded abortion as homocide.

" The Catholic Church had always said that abortion was sinful, but in 1969 it went further to call it homicide.

Before then, no homicide was involved if abortion took place before the foetus was infused with a soul and became a human being. “Ensoulment” was the word used to describe this. That, it said, took place at “quickening”, when there is the first movement in the womb.

In 1591 Pope Gregory XIV set “ensoulment” at 166 days of pregnancy, almost 24 weeks. In 1869, Pope Pius IX moved the clock to the moment of conception under penalty of excommunication, influenced, it was said, by scientific discoveries in the 1820s and 1830s."

 

Sounds as if Abp. Gregory is playing politics. If the RCC angers Biden, they stand much less chance of influencing him in matters favorable to the RCC. Expediency always carries the day over morality in power struggles.

 

Yes, but a deformed conscience is not an absolute guide.

We can use available public evidence of his support for abortion and other abominable sins to reasonably conclude that his conscience is deformed, at best, and he may be an outright apostate as well. The outward evidence is very clear, whatever he may think on the inside. And therefore by the public evidence, we may conclude that he has a deformed conscience, and thus he cannot be trusted to follow the faith, and thus eating the Sacrament of the Body and Blood will severely harm him and work him unto damnation.

Thus to save him from the harm he'd do to himself, the Archbishop should mercifully deny him the awful punishment of the Sacrament received unworthily.

 

This seems sadly judgmental. I am however sure that is not your intent.

 

The same perverted logic that excuses murder as "Sending reprobates to their maker, for their own good"? Rom.14:4. A policy adopted by the Conquistadores I think.

Are we saying any priest is to disregard Rom.14:4 and become 'the control freak arm of the law' judging who and who cannot safely receive the body and blood of Christ which was given for them?

Are we suggesting that this judgement cannot safely be left with the risen and ascended Christ? That the leaders of the Church are obliged by Christ to regulate the conduct of all individuals in 'the world' who come to communion, by rationing or starving the undeserving?

Would this, supposedy efficatious, policy of starving and rationing the sacrament to all undeserving communicants be practically enforceable for every crime of every individual anyway? If not why should it be adopted for this particular 'crime'?
.

 

I am not Catholic but from what I understand is that a Catholic Priest is supposed to withhold the sacrament from people who are openly living in sin if they have not come to confession

 

Ah but you see, I don’t operate under secular (ie. fake) norms or standards. In the Scriptures people are called hypocrites, wolves, wicked children of mammon, sons of the devil, and told they are and will be damned. I am a Christian, and I follow the Christian Scriptures.

When a fire expert reaches for the fire, we assume expertise and stand by. But when someone who visibly lacks understanding reaches for the fire, we reasonably conclude they’ll get horribly burnt, and restrain them out of mercy and fear.

When someone of visibly well-formed conscience approaches to receive the Sacrament, we stand by. But when someone with a visibly ill-formed conscience approaches to eat unto their own damnation, we restrain them out of mercy and fear.

In the not too distant past it was the job of the priest to examine the conscience of every recipient, and himself decide who would receive and who wouldn’t.

That’s what it means to be an Anglican.

 

Duplicate.

 

Whilst that may be true, those same scriptures also urge caution in judgement.

Matthew 7:1-3
Judging Others
‘Do not judge, so that you may not be judged. For with the judgement you make you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get. Why do you see the speck in your neighbour’s eye, but do not notice the log in your own eye? Or how can you say to your neighbour, “Let me take the speck out of your eye”, while the log is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your neighbour’s eye.​

I don't know that that is true, and I certainly doubt that any would have seen that as the specific role of the priest.

That is an insufficient explanation of what it is to be Anglican, and in any case I am not aware that Bishop Gregory (soon to be cardinal) would see that as something to strive for.

 

Don't you think a priest is called upon to make wise decisions and exercise good judgment on behalf of his flock? We're not talking about one layperson 'being judgmental' about another layperson when we talk about a RC priest withholding communion.

As a former RC I can vouch for the fact that RC priests are (or were) under instructions from their superiors to withhold communion from any who they knew to be in mortal sin. The RCC views abortion as a mortal sin, so aiding and abetting abortion would likewise be one.

 

@Stalwart

Unless we are squeaky clean ourselves though, criticising others can be a dangerous occupation sometimes bordering on the Pharisaic. There but for the grace of God go ourselves etc.

Be careful that you are not given over to the torturers after grabbing your debtor by the throat. Matt.18:23-35. We are not necessarily qualified to comment negatively on the conduct of others but more often equipped to advise the foolish out of our experience and godly wisdom.
.

 

Yes I do, however, we are talking about a soon to be Cardinal and his pastoral responsibility for someone who is soon to move to Pennsylvania Avenue. It is not my place to make judgement about how he believes he should act in the best interests of his flock, in terms of admitting or refusing the Holy Sacrament. Surely, in a free society, and within the bounds of probity, it is the responsibility of the communicant to make some assessment as to their own standing.

We are called to be ambassadors for Christ. We are called to be a people welcoming others on the way into the joyful assembly. We are called to lift Jesus high that others may see him and be drawn to him, not to build the walls higher to keep everybody out.

I return to my earlier statement:

We are in the end called to be one in Christ, not one in opinion. If, as it seems likely, that the President elect is likely to seek spiritual food and comfort in the Holy Sacrament, as he takes on the task of leading the nation, I would say that is a good thing. A good thing for the Church and a good thing for the people of America.​

 

There are some though who would even use the eucharist as an opportunity to weild a rod over the backs of their enemies. Diagnosing sin and culpability in the human race is a complicated affair left to the angels by God, (Matt.13:39-41. Matt.13:49, Matt.16:27, Matt.24:31, Mk.13:27).

Reducing the issue of legislating legal controls on medical terminations at various stages of gestation to a black/white, either/or, sin/rightiousness, good/bad equasion is both a crass oversimplification of the issue and false diminuation of the pervasiveness of sin in the human race. Like the condemnation of homosexuality it offers the satisfaction of finger pointing at the supposed reprobate to the self righteous bigot while ignoring all other sorts of sin within themselves. Matt.23:27-28.
.

 

I agree on many levels, and I also take the point that the Eucharist, and the question of admission to it, has not been given to us as a tool to use for political purposes.

 

No one is suggesting that Abp. Gregory should order the withholding of communion from a wayward parishioner for political reasons. Rather, we question the wisdom of not ordering communion to be withheld by reason that the parishioner is demonstrably unfit to receive spiritually. We ask whether the shepherd is shirking his duty to that particular sheep by allowing it to wander from spiritual safety without providing proper admonishment and leadership. The fact that said parishioner happens to be a prominent politician would be beside the point, but for the fact that he proposes (with willfulness and specificity) to use the power of political office to enable more of the sinful conduct that is so grossly abhorrent.

 

And is this supposedly 'pastorily caring' policy to be extended to all denomonations and all politicians and every political issue over which any denomination claims 'pastoral oversight'?
.

 

Of course, and that’s the right thing to do. We should always be careful, but that does not mean that we in principle cannot make judgments, which is the usual mistaken context under which that verse is cited.

Everyone older than a child understands that strong judgments must be made carefully and under advisement. But in addition to the natural necessity of making judgments under natural law, and in addition to the countless examples of strong judgment in the Scriptures, we are explicitly commanded to make judgments, in God’s Word:

John 7:23-24
‘If a man on the sabbath day receive circumcision, that the law of Moses should not be broken; are ye angry at me, because I have made a man every whit whole on the sabbath day? Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.’

Matthew 5:36-37
Sermon on the Mount
‘Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black. Let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes’, and your ‘No’ be ‘No’; anything else comes from the devil.’

Revelation 3:16
‘because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spew thee out of my mouth.’

Just drawing a contrast with Anglican tradition vs. the Roman practice which has always been to comply with secular rulers in order to attain temporal advantages. The Popes and Cardinals historically have never had wide-ranging examples of standing against secular rulers at personal detriment. Every decision the Popes and Cardinals have ever made historically was for personal betterment, and the case with Cardinal Gregory here is no example.

I agree. Biden should have been excluded from the Sacrament long before this became political.