Tuesday, May 13, 2008

Archbishop of Kansas City Asks Governor to Forgo Eucharist

The Archbishop of Kansas City, Joseph Naumann, wrote a piece in the archdiocesan newspaper asking the pro-abortion Governor of Kansas to refrain from receiving the Eucharist. Some quotes:

Recently, it came to my attention that the governor had received holy Communion at one of our parishes. I have written to her again, asking her to respect my previous request and not require from me any additional pastoral actions.
My concern has been, as a pastor, both for the spiritual well-being of the governor but also for those who have been misled -- scandalized -- by her very public support for legalized abortion.
...she [should]refrain from presenting herself for reception of the Eucharist until she had acknowledged the error of her past positions, made a worthy sacramental confession and taken the necessary steps for amendment of her life which would include a public repudiation of her previous efforts and actions in support of laws and policies sanctioning abortion.
This is a very big deal. His original letter is here.


Anonymous said...

This is beautiful. And a long time coming. A person that positively rejects an essential Church teaching on faith or morals is in schism and should not present themselves for Holy Communion. And a person publicly supporting an action contrary to such teaching should be refused the Sacrament. Even without looking at canon law this would seem rational.

However, to be rationally consistent, for the same reason anyone who rejects the Church's teaching on contraception, fornication, or euthanasia should also not present themselves for Holy Communion, and they who publicly support any of these should be refused.

And I'll go one step futher in the interest of rational consistency and the health of the body of Christ. Those that have been given the honor and responsibility of teaching the faithful, and refuse or positively neglect to teach clearly these critical moral issues of our day, they too should be refused the Sacrament. This is the real foundation of scandal - the continue the conspiracy of silence on these crucial moral evils in the midst of the contemporary world's very loud promotion of them.

This Liberal said...

Well, Anonymous, I share your happiness. It is indeed a long time coming and I can understand your frustration at the delay.

I do think, however, that there is a space for those who are "figuring things out". These are confusing times, in no small part due to teachers who are not teaching, or at least not teaching clearly.

I once read a story about the Archbishop of Mainz, Germany in the late 12th century. He rode, in full armor, at the head of a conquering army that had invaded Italy. So as not to miss the comforts of court while on the road, the Archbishop traveled with his harem. After conquering a city, he would vest and celebrate a high mass in the cathedral.

There is also the example of the bishops of England before Henry VIII's schism with Rome. All of the bishops, with the exception of Saint John Fisher of Rochester, betrayed Rome and went without a fight over to King Henry.

Scandal is scandal, and scandal is scandal. But let's make sure we're judging these men in the proper light. We may be grateful for what we get.

Anonymous said...

A problem within the Church today, and subsequently the world, is that we do not shout fire when the house is burning down. Refusing Communion to those that continue to support abortion is one way to shout fire. Regarding the other intrinsic evils of the moral law that are routinely disregarded today (some of which were mentioned in the last post), there must be some form of "shouting fire" to match the severity and urgency of these evils. If a blind person is about to walk off a cliff it should be met with an urgent and immedediate response by those around him. Although much of our society today is blind on the 5th & 6th Commandments, something urgent, loud, and clear must be the response of the Church. No?

This Liberal said...

I agree with everything you said.

I agree with everything in your first post, as far as content is concerned. All of my disagreement was a matter of tone.