Bishop Skylstad says, in part:
The Eucharist really is the source and the summit of our life as Church. Eucharist defines us. Eucharist is what we do best – or try to do best. Christ’s people, gathering in his name, just as he asked us to do. Christ present with us, among us, just as he promised he would be.All emphasis above is mine. I am appalled by the apparently intentional elimination of the definite article "the" which is too often missing such as in, "...they will deny Eucharist to Catholic politicians."
I fear that we are...taking God’s great gift to our Church and using it as a weapon of divisiveness and destruction.
Some bishops have stated that they will deny Eucharist to Catholic politicians who have supported abortion legislation. Eucharist is God’s gift to us, God’s presence among us. It is a most precious part of our Catholic heritage. I strongly oppose using Eucharist as a weapon.
As a bishop, I believe we are called to persuade, not to bludgeon.
And are we to believe that "Christ’s people, gathering in his name...is Eucharist"? The Eucharist is what we do best??? What does this mean? The Holy Eucharist is the Real, True, and Substantial Presence of Jesus Christ - the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of our Lord - ...Are we to hand Him over to those who persecute and deny Him and His Truth?
Also, how does one persuade those who have so obstinately and defiantly rejected the teachings of the Church? By acting as if their actions are not wrong? By promoting the continuation of scandal?
The Holy Father says in Ecclesia de Eucharistia:
The celebration of the Eucharist, however, cannot be the starting-point for communion; it presupposes that communion already exists, a communion which it seeks to consolidate and bring to perfection. The sacrament is an expression of this bond of communion both in its invisible dimension, which, in Christ and through the working of the Holy Spirit, unites us to the Father and among ourselves, and in its visible dimension, which entails communion in the teaching of the Apostles, in the sacraments and in the Church's hierarchical order. The profound relationship between the invisible and the visible elements of ecclesial communion is constitutive of the Church as the sacrament of salvation. Only in this context can there be a legitimate celebration of the Eucharist and true participation in it. Consequently it is an intrinsic requirement of the Eucharist that it should be celebrated in communion, and specifically maintaining the various bonds of that communion intact.Again, all emphasis is mine. One would certainly hope that all bishops and priests have read the Holy Father's encyclical. However, it appears that many have not - for Pope John Paul II could not be clearer in his directives regarding those who “obstinately persist in manifest grave sin” -they are NOT to be admitted to Holy Communion.
Keeping these invisible bonds intact is a specific moral duty incumbent upon Christians who wish to participate fully in the Eucharist by receiving the body and blood of Christ.
However, in cases of outward conduct which is seriously, clearly and steadfastly contrary to the moral norm, the Church, in her pastoral concern for the good order of the community and out of respect for the sacrament, cannot fail to feel directly involved. The Code of Canon Law refers to this situation of a manifest lack of proper moral disposition when it states that those who “obstinately persist in manifest grave sin” are not to be admitted to Eucharistic communion.
Even before this Encyclical, there was an interpretation of Canon 915 by the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts which stated, in part:
The phrase "and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin" is clear and must be understood in a manner that does not distort its sense so as to render the norm inapplicable.Articles like Bishop Skylstad's might be seen as an additional source of scandal for the faithful in that they conflict with the Holy Father's explicit directives and the Code of Canon Law as interpreted by the Pontifical Council. What a disgraceful example that this article demonstrates for already confused Catholics and others who are looking for courageous leadership from the shepherds of the Church.
The three required conditions are:
a) grave sin, understood objectively...
b) obstinate persistence, which means the existence of an objective situation of sin that endures in time and which the will of the individual member of the faithful does not bring to an end, no other requirements (attitude of defiance, prior warning, etc.) being necessary to establish the fundamental gravity of the situation in the Church
c) the manifest character of the situation of grave habitual sin.
In effect, the reception of the Body of Christ when one is publicly unworthy constitutes an objective harm to the ecclesial communion: it is a behavior that affects the rights of the Church and of all the faithful to live in accord with the exigencies of that communion...That scandal exists even if such behavior, unfortunately, no longer arouses surprise: in fact it is precisely with respect to the deformation of the conscience that it becomes more necessary for Pastors to act, with as much patience as firmness, as a protection to the sanctity of the Sacraments and a defense of Christian morality, and for the correct formation of the faithful.
The discernment of cases in which the faithful who find themselves in the described condition are to be excluded from Eucharistic Communion is the responsibility of the Priest who is responsible for the community. They are to give precise instructions to the deacon or to any extraordinary minister regarding the mode of acting in concrete situations.
4. Bearing in mind the nature of the above-cited norm (cfr. n. 1), no ecclesiastical authority may dispense the minister of Holy Communion from this obligation in any case, nor may he emanate directives that contradict it.
Bishop Skylstad's article, "Engaging the culture", is here.
No comments:
Post a Comment