Bishops' stances not supported by the Church

Here is another attempt to spin the truth with flawed opinions and previously refuted 'facts'. This article by Jimmy Patterson of the Midlan Reporter-Telegram is laced with error even though he has some truth in it. Not only that, but the innuendos of the article can be seen as attempts to discredit both Archbishop Raymond Burke and Bishop Michael Sheridan.

Was he [Archbishop Burke] in error for acting as judge and jury in a case involving someone's [John Kerry] personal convictions?

The simple answer, which Mr. Patterson fails to note, is no. It is the obligation of the bishop to teach, govern and sanctify, and protecting the Holy Eucharist from sacrilege and protecting the faithful from scandal are duties entrusted to him.

[W]as the archbishop's assertion simply a case of trying to sway his Catholic electorate by casting the Democratic candidate in a negative light?

Had the author read or listened to any of Archbishop Burke's responses over the past several weeks or months, he would not hav had to even ask this question - but - this rhetorical question was asked precisely to cast doubt and confusion among unsuspecting readers.

Whatever the ultimate agendas of these two representatives of the church, local Catholic officials say the statements of the two are theirs alone and insist the church does not practice the withholding of Holy Communion from its faithful because personal beliefs may differ from the dictates handed down by the Vatican.

Here the author is dead wrong...the discipline of the Church demands that Holy Communion be withheld in cases involving obstinate and manifest grave sin. Merely because the discipline has not been enforced, especially here in the US does not mean that the Church condones the failure. This is evident in Cardinal Ratzinger's "Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion: General Principles".

And personal beliefs which are contrary to what the Church proposes for us to believe separate one from communion with the Church - it is a sin against faith. Faith is the theological virtue by which we believe in God, believe in all that God has said and revealed to us, AND believe in all that the Church proposes for our for our belief, because He is Truth itself (CCC 1814). To reject a truth of the Faith is to reject God. One's personal beliefs, therefore, must be in accord with the teachngs of the Church if one is to remain in communion with Christ and His Church.

The author proceeds to quote both Bishop Michael Pfeifer, of the Diocese of San Angelo, who says he would do things differently, and Fr. Tom Kelley, parish priest at Our Lady of San Juan Catholic Church. Fr. Kelley states,

"I would give him Communion, I wouldn't hesitate. Kerry is not saying he believes in abortion. What he is saying publicly is that he believes in our country and that the United States is based on the Constitution and the decision that everyone has a right to make his or her own decision."

Thankfully, Fr. Kelley is not a bishop and were he to be in a diocese where the bishop stated otherwise, one would hope he would be obedient at least to the bishop since he evidently pays no attention to the Holy See which has stated:

When “these precautionary measures have not had their effect or in which they were not possible,” and the person in question, with obstinate persistence, still presents himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, “the minister of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute it” (cf. Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts Declaration “Holy Communion and Divorced, Civilly Remarried Catholics” [2002], nos. 3-4).

The eminent Fr. Kelley proceeds:

Kelley said Burke and Sheridan's views were "out of it, quite frankly."

"If a person came to Communion who really very publicly had caused even a major scandal of some sort, even then (withholding Communion) would be a judgment call. When (Burke) suggests not giving Communion to Kerry, he has made a decision that Kerry has a moral flaw."

The priest is wrong again. As the Holy Father has previously stated and as Cardinal Ratzinger made perfectly clear recently:

This decision, properly speaking, is not a sanction or a penalty. Nor is the minister of Holy Communion passing judgement on the person’s subjective guilt, but rather is reacting to the person’s public unworthiness to receive Holy Communion due to an objective situation of sin.

Once again one has to question what, if any, theological education some of our priests and bishops received? It seems that many may have been absent during several of the classes.

Article is here.