Thursday, July 30, 2009

Don't go wobbly on us!

Lifesite did an interview with Cardinal Canizares, prefect of the CDWDS, a few days ago.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/jul/09072703.html

The Cardinal, who went as far as re-installing the Communion rails in Toledo and encouraging people to use them, wonders, in the interview if maybe we should be encouraging people to kneel because the Pope is doing it.

Is this a trick question, your Emminence?

Folks! this is why it is so important for laity, l-a-i-t-y, to become active in the campaign to restore kneeling! Clergy, especially politically successful bishops and cardinals, have inherent fortitude problems that come with the job. The laity helped St. Athanasius save the Church from Arianism. The good clergy were wobbling and the rest were open antagonists to the Truth.

The Pope has opened the door for us, will we walk in or will we gripe and complain or even just sit idly by?

k. c.

Sunday, July 26, 2009

Kneeling Catholic defeated!?

Dear Gem, (my comments are in red, yours are in black)

Forgive me for placing your comment as a separate post, but I think your sentiments are so widespread, among ordained and laity, that we kneeling Catholics must either concede defeat or else defeat your arguments ...



gemoftheocean said... I think your argument doesn't hold water.(the argument is that there is a positive correlation between 'hand Communion' and pro-choice Catholicism) Because a chicken appears on main street and a plague didn't happen is not an argument that chickens keep plague away.I guess the Catholic who recieved in the hand for almost 1000 years weren't prolife, by your argument. ...

BTW, the particular bishop in question IS a total *******, I'd agree.Like most euroidiots, he didn't have a clue who zero really was -- just was [over excited] that [the president elect] was "Black." You quoted him accruately. Catholic bloggers pointed this out at the time and excoriated him via private email. Myself included. The upshot was that he was forced to crawl to admit that zero was perhaps not the annointed one and he had to apologize for his statements.I entirely agree with refraining from the common Communion cup, particularly in a time of epidemic. But the fact remains that there are ALWAYS people who will manage to nail a priest or EM's fingers with their tongues by moving, etc. There IS a possibility of spit to pass from one person to another by this way, unless you don't mind if the priest stops everything to go wash his hands.If uou prefer Communion on the tongue, more power to you. I frequently (and lately more often than not recieve that way myself) but lame arguments to bolster that cause simply don't cut it.It's a temporary measure, not a permanent one. July 24, 2009 6:11 AM


POINT 1....The practice we have today is not even 'Communion in the hand' as it was anciently practiced. What we have today is 'Communion any old way AOW! In his book Dominus Est! Bishop Athanasius Schneider demolishes your argument that modern hand Communion is somehow a return to an older practice. An important point Bishop Schneider makes is that even where Communion in the hand was practiced, there was never the casual disregard for the Sacred Crumbs that today's practice necessitates. Today, for example, inspecting and or cleansing palms afterwards is not practiced. Cyril of Jerusalem, of the fourth cty who is hand Communion Catholics' main source, said it would be better to loose a finger than to loose a Crumb of the Sacrament. Honestly! Do you see that sentiment on display at parishes which practice hand Communion? ........


When you take Communion in the hand --not elaborately and ritually cleansing your hand before and afterwards -- as was was the practice for priests and laity whose hands touched the Sacrament), you are not uniting yourself with early Catholics, but instead you are plowing a deep furrow between yourself and the Faith as it has been practiced for a hundred generation of Catholics and incidentally showing your solidarity with the early protestant reformers (whose Communion is the only one today's Catholic hand Communion does resemble). .....



POINT 2.......Another fact that indicates that even the ancient, elaborate hand Communion described was not the primary mode of the first 1000 years is that a survey of the other 'apostolic' churches which split with us yields zero churches which currently practice hand Communion. The Orthodox split in 1054. The Ethiopians, Copts, and Armenians split back in the fifth century. Hand Communion is banned in all these churches...



To me this is signficant. Liturgical 'experts' told us that banning hand Communion was a late development. How can that be? Are you saying the Ethiopians, Copts and Armenians, who haven't listened to us in 1500 years, banned it so they could be like us? .....



POINT 3..........Consider this diagram of my argument:

1. the circle 'I' is all Catholic priests and bishops who are indifferent with regards to the Pope's promotion of kneeling Communion received on the tongue.....

2. the smaller oval 'circle', is all Catholic priests and bishops who are not indifferent 'NI', such as Cardinal Canizares -- the new head of the CDWDS or Cardinal Caffarra of Bologna, and have either spoken against hand Communion or else have taken measures against it....

3. The black circle is 'pro-choice' priests and bishops. .....

4. The white sections of the circles are 'not pro-choice' priests and bishops. I would say 'pro-life' but this definition is losing its meaning. Even President Obama would call himself 'pro-life'. ...
..


If there were no correlation between hand Communion and being 'pro-choice', then wouldn't you expect to see a little black circle in the 'NI' circle also? Instead 'pro-choice' priests are entirely a subset of the huge group of priests who are indifferent to the Pope's 'do-as-I-do' campaign to restore kneeling Communion received on the tongue. ....

If you imagine the white circles to be living cells and the black circle to be a virus, then shouldn't you wonder why one cell is infected while the other isn't? If this does not make you wonder, then perhaps you were not there when they were passing out the curiosity! K. C. has been following, studying, searching, obsessing, .... this subject for some time now and this is why I maintain that there is a correlation. Even though not all liturgical clown dancers are pro-choice, 100% of pro-choice clergy are indifferent to the Pope's campaign to restore kneeling Communion ....

If you want to prove me incorrect, you only need to find me one 'NI' priest or bishop (advocate for a return to kneeling Communion) who is 'pro-choice'. As the Albanian kidnapper said to Liam Neeson in the movie 'Taken'....good luck! ....

K. C.





Friday, July 24, 2009

Pro-choice Bishop bans Communion on the tongue

For all my friends who insist there is no connection between hand Communion and pro-choice Catholicism, I present his Excellency, Crispian Hollis of Portsmouth, England:
>>>, “With millions of others, I have been thrilled by Barack Obama’s victory and I thank God for it. For me, it represents a rare moment of hope and optimism which shows American democracy at its best and it is of seismic significance and potential for the whole global community. .......Bishop Crispian Hollis, Portsmouth, England.<<<<
Later on, after being barraged with criticism the bishop said >>>
“I am aware of what he has said about abortion and about the so-called freedom of choice and I deplore his words. There is no way in which I endorse his position on these crucial ‘life’ matters, nor, as a Catholic bishop, could I ever do so.”>>>
but, your Excellency, you create scandal when you seem to oppose the Church's moral dogma. Backing a candidate is backing that candidate's policies. Not his hairstyle, not his physique, but his policies. That's democracy.
Just a couple of days ago bishop Hollis issued the following directive
>>>>>>CATHOLIC CHURCH REGULATIONS: SWINE FLU EPIDEMIC


During the current swine flu epidemic, in keeping with the latest guidelines that I have received, I recommend that the following measures be implemented in Catholic Churches throughout the diocese from this weekend:....
1) The Sign of Peace during Mass: instead of a handshake members of the congregation are asked to join their hands together, as in prayer, turn to their immediate neighbours, bowing slightly and saying “Peace be with you”.....
2) Holy Communion is to be given only on the hand, not on the tongue or from the chalice.....
3) Ministers of the Sacred Host are asked to ensure their hands are washed with sanitizers (provided) before and after ministering communion. What's wrong with using the sacrarium?These regulations will remain in place until further notice. It is hoped that the reasons for this temporary policy will be understood and appreciated. They have been made out of particular pastoral concern for the vulnerable, namely, the elderly, children and those with underlying health problems.

Bishop Crispian Hollis 23rd July 2009 <<<<<<< [Bishop Hollis is one of those who uses the 'seamless garment' metaphor when discussing pro-life issues]

Is K. C. being unfair to label Catholics who back pro-choice politicians over pro-life ones as being 'pro-choice'?

K. C.

Thursday, July 23, 2009

Wednesday, July 22, 2009

How did K. C. miss this june 30, 2009 article?

It come's by way of Rod Dreher-former-catholic-turned-orthodox-because-of-pedophile-priests.

Dreher references Patricia Snow and her referencing of Martin Mosebach. Mr. Mosebach has written a book, 'the Heresy of Formlessness' which attacks most post-Vatican II developments.

Anyway, the article is basically about how faithless and un-catholic the recent 'public health' move against Communion on the tongue (is).



http://blog.beliefnet.com/crunchycon/2009/06/communion-on-the-tongue-vs-han.html

Sunday, July 19, 2009

Archbishop de Noia

As you might guess from the last couple of posts....K. C. would like someone to chime in and say why Archbishop de Noia is going to be an asset at the CDWDS. Help me out here! Surely someone has something positive to say!

I fear, keeping in mind the John Kerry affair, that the Archbishop might be a fan of 'nuance', i.e. 'yes is yes, no is no,----but mumbo jumbo is mumbo jumbo and trumps everthything'. Please tell me how his 2004 reaction, or perhaps some other action of his, should give those of us who desire clarity some hope!

I'm not skeptical, just ignorant.



K. C.

Wednesday, July 15, 2009

New CDWDS Secretary Archbishop de Noia and John Kerry

Re: the old question of whether Catholic politicians can support abortion and remain in good standing.....

K. C. ran across this NY Times article in 2004. apparently another CDF father had written 'hypothetically' that they cannot, but then the erstwhile Father de Noia intervened.....



(Excerpt with K. C.'s bold emphasis)

<<<>>>


<<<...But on Tuesday, Father Di Noia, an American priest who is highly influential in his position as under secretary of the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, took steps to distance himself from the letter. He told The Catholic News Service that "the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has had no contact with Mr. Balestrieri" and that Mr. Balestrieri's "claim that the private letter he received from Father Basil Cole is a Vatican response is completely without merit."


Father Di Noia's remarks to the news service seem to reflect a reluctance by at least some Vatican officials to be perceived as trying to meddle in an American presidential election, experts on the Vatican said.
"I think they know that if they intervene in the election in that direct a manner, it's very problematic diplomatically," said Chester Gillis, chairman of the theology department at Georgetown University.
Efforts to reach Father Di Noia on Tuesday were unsuccessful, but Mr. Balestrieri's and Father Cole's version of events suggest that his office did have contact with Mr. Balestrieri.
On Aug. 30, Mr. Balestrieri said, he went to Rome and met with the Rev. Diaz Pedro Miguel Funes, a member of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Mr. Balestrieri said that he asked whether someone who publicly supported abortion rights was guilty of heresy, even if the person was personally opposed to abortion, as Mr. Kerry is.
Mr. Balestrieri said he did not disclose to the Vatican that he was seeking to have Mr. Kerry excommunicated, but it is not clear whether Vatican officials knew about his effort, which received some news media attention over the summer.
In any case, Father Cole, an associate professor at the Dominican House of Studies in Washington, who described Father Di Noia as a friend, said he received an e-mail request from Father Di Noia several days after Mr. Balestrieri's visit.
"I was asked to write a letter as a friend to a friend," Father Cole said. "I had no idea the man was involved in the Kerry thing."

Mr. Balestrieri said that he called Father Di Noia last week to ask him if it was all right to publicize the letter. He said that Father Di Noia told him Father Cole's response was "excellent and solid" and that it could be published.
Father Cole said that last Friday, when Mr. Balestrieri released his letter to a Catholic television station, Father Di Noia sent Father Cole an e-mail message that said something like: "By the way, there was something on television. I'm sorry I got you into this mess. You're going to have people calling you ."
Father Cole said he thought Father Di Noia's comments on Tuesday indicated he was "distancing himself from it as an official." He explained: "There's a distinction in Rome when something's official and when something is off the record. This was off the record.">>>>>>


http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/20/politics/campaign/20catholic.html

Monday, July 13, 2009

more thoughts on Canadian P. M. pocketing Holy Communion

Te- Deum blogspot, a blog whose name I am very jealous of!, makes the point that Mr. Harper can be excused for his ignorance regarding Holy Communion, however the Canadian Archbishop, Andre Richard of Moncton, New Brunswick, cannot be excused so easily since he is the responsible authority, AND he new he was handing out Holy Communion to the highest ranking official in his country who he knew was not Catholic!


Good point! T. D.!

K. C.

Saturday, July 11, 2009

a video of Canadian Prime Minister 'not eating' a Host

The following link, provided it is still active, looks very bad for people who claim the Prime Minister of Candada consumed the Host.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6SMp_KwmJMk&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Funambig%2Ewordpress%2Ecom%2F2009%2F07%2F08%2Fdid%2Dstephen%2Dharper%2Deat%2Dthe%2Dhost%2F&feature=player_embedded

Please note how the empty Communion rail shown at the beginning of the video contributes to this sacrilege. No one kneeling, everyone grabbing Hosts in the hand. If everyone who wanted to receive Communion had to kneel, this incident would have been avoided.


K. C.

from the AP: Pope informs President Obama of Church's position on life issues

>>>Even in his gift to the U.S. leader, the pope sought to underscore his beliefs. Benedict gave Obama a copy of a Vatican document on bioethics that hardened the church's opposition to using embryos for stem cell research, cloning and in-vitro fertilization. Obama supports stem cell research.

"Yes, this is what we had talked about," Obama said, telling the pope he would read it on the flight to his next stop, Ghana.

Earlier, the pope's secretary, the Rev. Georg Ganswein, told reporters the document would "help the president better understand the position of the Catholic church."<<<<

We must pray for the Holy Father! His intentions, and his health!

Those who hoped for polite mush to gush from his Holiness cannot be happy!

Pray for President Obama!

K. C.

Friday, July 10, 2009

debate swirls around Canadian Prime Minister

The video -- which apparently did not show him putting the Host into his pocket but instead him holding it a long, long time, -- has been taken down.

Is someone trying to hide something here? This raises several questions....

1) why has the video been 'censored'? --usually that is a bad sign
2) why does Archbishop Andre Richard hand out Hosts like a mardi gras queen passing out tootsie rolls? --- irreverently and with no regard....
3) did he not recognized the Prime Minister of his own country?

there are two versions of what happened, the PM's press secretary and that of a concerned parishioner present at the Mass.... we might have to end up considering sources.

K. C.

>>>The Prime Minister’s Office moved Wednesday to refute allegations that Stephen Harper pocketed a sacramental communion wafer at the funeral mass of Romeo LeBlanc instead of consuming it.

“It’s totally absurd,” the prime minister’s press secretary, Dimitri Soudas, said. “The priest offered the host to the prime minister, the prime minister accepted the host and he consumed it.”

Questions arose after LeBlanc’s funeral in Memramcook, N.B., Friday.

Msgr. Brian Henneberry, vicar-general and chancellor in the Diocese of Saint John, says a parishioner approached him following the funeral and “expressed concern” that the prime minister accepted the host during the funeral mass, but then slipped it into his pocket instead of eating it.<<<<

from

http://www.kelowna.com/2009/07/09/prime-minister-accepted-wafer-at-funeral-mass-and-consumed-it-harpers-spokesman-says/

Monday, July 6, 2009

Somebody's listening


Friday, July 3, 2009

Father John Forbus' argument demolished

...by a woman who heroically denies human respect. She does not withold her name.
Father Forbus had leveled a blanket dismissal of prolifers who pray in front of abortion clinics
saying that they are easily ignored and implying that they lacked virtue. ( http://kneelingcatholic.blogspot.com/2009/06/south-texas-catholic-article-by-local.html )

Father, would you also condemn one such as this? Why are you so certain she might not save someone's life? Or perhaps a soul? Is she that 'easily ignored' by women seeking abortions?

Do you think the Lord Jesus is ignoring her?

Mensaje del Cardinal de Bologna, Italy

Comunion en la mano: prohibido en unas iglesias!
(gracias a The Hermeneutic of Continuity Blog!)

English version here! (The Cardinal Caffarra has banned hand Communion in the more prominent churches of his archdiocese.) Yes we reported it earlier, but here are his words...
http://www.caffarra.it/eng270409.php

[el enfasis is mio] k.c.
>>>>DISPOSICIONES SOBRE LA DISTRIBUCIÓN DE LA COMUNIÓN EUCARÍSTICA

Decreto del 27 de Abril de 2009
Desde los orígenes la Iglesia apostólica ha manifestado la convicción de fe que los discípulos encontraron con el Resucitado, hacen la experiencia el primer día después del sábado escuchando la Palabra de Dios y su explicación, y partiendo el pan eucarístico (cfr. Lc 24, 13-35; Hech 20, 7-12). San Justino en la I Apología, en el n. 67 testifica el ulterior desarrollo de esta práctica.
Después, la predicación de los Apóstoles ilustraba a los fieles la grandeza del Sacramento del Altar y las disposiciones interiores necesarias para poder participar con fruto, sin correr el riesgo de comer y beber la propia condena (cfr. 1 Cor 11, 29), sino al contrario para que comiendo de aquél pan, Cuerpo de Cristo dado para la vida del mundo, quien crea pueda tener la vida eterna (cfr. Jn 6, 51).
Por lo tanto, es deber del apóstol exhortar frecuentemente a los cristianos para que puedan recibir dignamente el Cuerpo de Cristo plasmando la propia vida a imagen de Aquél que en el sacramento viene recibido.
La piedad y la veneración interior con la cual los fieles se acercan a la Eucaristía se manifiesta también exteriormente en el modo con el cual ellos reciben el Pan consagrado.
La catequesis de los pastores, por lo tanto, que no falte en detenerse incluso respecto a la manera con la cual se puede acercar a la Eucaristía, para que se evite lo más posible que el Santísimo Sacramento de la Eucaristía sea tratado con superficialidad o hasta de manera irreverente o, peor todavía, sacrílegamente.
Debemos, efectivamente, tomar acto que desgraciadamente se han repetido casos de profanación de la Eucaristía aprovechando la posibilidad de recibir el Pan consagrado sobre la palma de la mano, sobre todo, pero no exclusivamente, en ocasión de grandes celebraciones o en grandes iglesias objeto de paso de numerosos feligreses.
Por este motivo está a bien vigilar sobre el momento de la santa Comunión partiendo de la observación de las comunes normas bien conocidas por todos.
La distribución de la Eucaristía se haga de modo sereno y ordenado, se realice en primer lugar por los ministros ordenados (presbíteros y diáconos); solo en ausencia de ellos, por los ministros instituidos para éste propósito (acólitos). Solamente en casos verdaderamente excepcionales se acuda a otros ministros instituidos (lectores), a las religiosas o a fieles bien preparados.
Durante la comunión, quienes acolitan asistan al ministro, en cuanto sea posible, vigilando que cada fiel después de haber recibido el Pan consagrado lo consuma inmediatamente delante del ministro y que por ningún motivo sea llevado a su lugar, ni colocado en los bolsillos ni en las bolsas o en otro lugar, ni tampoco que caiga por tierra y sea pisoteado.
Efectivamente, la Eucaristía es el bien más precioso que la Iglesia custodia, presencia viva del Señor Resucitado; todos los fieles se deben sentir llamados a hacer todo esfuerzo para que esta presencia sea honorada ante todo con la vida, y luego, con los signos exteriores de nuestra adoración.
En todo caso, considerando también la frecuencia de señalamientos de casos de comportamientos irreverentes en el momento de recibir la Eucaristía, disponemos que a partir de hoy en la Iglesia Metropolitana de San Pedro, en la Basílica de San Petronio y en el Santuario de la Beata Virgen de San Lucas en Bolonia los fieles reciban el Pan consagrado solamente de las manos del ministro directamente sobre la lengua.
Recomendamos, entonces, a todos los sacerdotes de recordar al pueblo a ellos encomendado, la necesidad de estar en gracia de Dios para poder recibir la Eucaristía y el gran respeto debido al sacramento del Altar: con la catequesis, la predicación, la celebración atenta y amorosa de los Santos Misterios, educando a los fieles a adorar al Dios hecho hombre con el comportamiento de vida y con la participación cuidadosa en todo, también en los gestos, a la Mesa del Señor.
Exhortamos, finalmente, a los fieles a poner todo el empeño para que la Eucaristía, fuente y culmen de toda la vida cristiana, sea siempre más amada y venerada, reconociendo en ella la presencia misma del Hijo de Dios en medio de nosotros.
Bolonia, desde la Residencia Arzobispal, 27 de Abril de 2009.
+ Cardenal Carlo CaffarraArzobispo
La traduzione, non rivista dal Card. Caffarra, è di Dino De Paz Cigarroa

Thursday, July 2, 2009

Bishop Roberto Gonzalez' letter to the Diocese of Corpus Christi



regarding 'pro-choice' Catholics..... This letter, though written in 1999, is still binding for our diocese.

>>>>>ROMAN CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF CORPUS CHRISTI
PASTORAL GUIDELINES
CONCERNING CATHOLICS WHO PUBLICLY DISSENT FROM THE CHURCH'S
TEACHING ON ABORTION, ASSISTED SUICIDE AND EUTHANASIA AND THE
USE OF CATHOLIC FACILITIES BY PRO-CHOICE ADVOCATES
DIOCESE OF CORPUS CHRISTI
EFFECTIVE JANUARY 25, 1999
INTRODUCTION:
The Catholic Church and Sanctity of Life
Life issues are the most important social issues that we face in our society today. While they are not the only issues of political and social life, they remain the most significant among those which challenge us as a people in the United States. In both the old and the New Testaments, Scripture calls us to be life-givers. "Choose life…" Deuteronomy urges (30:19), and Jesus tells us: "I came that they might have life and have it to the full." (Jn.10:10). In the light of these teachings, the Catholic Church consistently upholds the sanctity of life in all its stages.
Dissent from the Teaching of the Church
With great anguish of heart, I note that today, on life issues, some Catholics feel free to take public stands in dissent from the formal magisterial teaching of the Catholic Church. The most frequent examples of this are those who publicly dissent from the Church’s teaching on abortion, assisted suicide, and euthanasia. People who so dissent range from those who disagree with Church teaching to those who accept that teaching for themselves but advocate "freedom of choice" for others as the norm for society. Tragically, we have seen some of our Catholic people take these positions publicly. In regard to abortion, the scandal of Catholics debating and agreeing with the President’s decision to veto "the partial-birth abortion ban" is real and has intensified the grave concern among bishops about their responsibilities as pastors and teachers of the faith. I therefore call on all the people of our Diocese to study anew and to recommit themselves to the teachings of Pope John Paul II on the sanctity of life in the mother’s womb as he sets forth this teaching in his encyclical letter, The Gospel of Life.
Human life is sacred and inviolable at every moment of existence, including the initial phase which precedes birth. All human beings, from their mother’s womb, belong to God
Who searches them and knows them,Who forms them and knits them together with his own hand,Who gazes on them when they are tiny shapeless embryos,And already sees in them the adults of tomorrow whose days are numberedAnd whose vocation is even now written in the "book of life" (cf.Ps.139:1,3-16)
There too, when they are still in their mothers’ womb - as many passages of the Bible bear witness1 - they are the personal objects of God’s loving and fatherly providence. (Pope John Paul II, The Gospel of Life #61)
Furthermore, euthanasia and the phenomenon of assisted suicide openly practiced have underlined the lack of respect for life in our modern world, and the need to reiterate the Church's teaching on the sanctity of life in all of its stages. From many applicable ecclesial statements, we choose from the Second Vatican Council a principle which says:
Let all be convinced that human life and its transmission are realities whose meaning is not limited by the horizons of this life only; their true evaluation and full meaning can only be understood in reference to our eternal destiny. (Gaudium et spes, art. 51,4).
Living the Gospel of LIfe
The full body of Catholic Bishops for the United States adopted at their November 1998 General Meeting, Washington, DC, a Pastoral Statement on life issues entitled, Living the Gospel of Life: A challenge to American Catholics. The message of this statement contained principles that are general guidelines for American Catholic citizens in the face of today’s advocacy of abortion and other attacks on innocent human life. The following quotes from Living the Gospel of Life give particular strength to these Diocesan Pastoral Guidelines.
"We believe that the Gospel of Jesus Christ is a 'Gospel of Life". We cannot simultaneously commit ourselves to human rights and progress while eliminating or marginalizing the weakest among us. Nor can we practice the Gospel of life only as a private piety. American Catholics must live it vigorously and publicly, as a matter of national leadership and witness, or we will not live it at all." (Gospel of Life #20)
"Priests, religious, catechists, Catholic school teachers, family life ministers and theologians all share, each in their appropriate way, in the Church’s task of forming the Catholic faithful in a reverence for the sanctity of life…Physicians, nurses and healthier workers can touch the lives of women and girls who may be considering abortion with practical assistance, counseling and adoption alternatives." (Gospel of Life #30)
"Catholics who are privileged to serve in public leadership positions have an obligation to place their faith at the heart of their public service, particularly on issues regarding the sanctity and dignity of human life." (Gospel of Life #31)
"We urge those Catholic officials who choose to depart from Church teaching on the inviolability of human life in their public life to consider the consequences for their own spiritual well-being, as well as the scandal they risk by leading others into serious sin." (Gospel of Life #32)
"No public official, especially one claiming to be a faithful and serious Catholic, can responsibly advocate for and actively support direct attacks on innocent human life." (Gospel of Life #32)
"Those who justify their inaction on the grounds that abortion is the law of the land need to recognize that there is a higher law, the law of God. No human law can validly contradict the Commandment: "Thou shalt not kill." (Gospel of Life #32)
Rationale for Issuing Guidelines
To assist pastors in these difficult situations, to maintain integrity of heart, and for the greater good of all of the People of God, as Bishop of Corpus Christi, after extensive consultation with the Presbyteral Council, the Deans, and the Bishop’s Cabinet, I have determined to issue guidelines to be enforced by every pastor and by persons responsible for every Catholic institution, school, or agency within the Diocese. I realize that these steps will cause pain to some people. Their purpose, however, is medicinal: to bring those who dissent to study deeply the Church’s position on life issues and to form their conscience in accord with the law of God. The Code of Canon Law (canon 752) and The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches us:
In the formation of conscience, the Word of God is the light for our path; we must assimilate it in faith and prayer and put it into practice. We must also examine our conscience before the Lord’s Cross. We are assisted by the gifts of the Holy Spirit, aided by the witness or advice of others, and guided by the authoritative teaching of the Church. (Catechism #1785)
Guidelines for the Diocese of Corpus Christi
In a context of love and concern for the spiritual well-being and salvation, then, for all people, I issue the following guidelines:
(
A) Guidelines for the Catholic Persons:
(1) Catholics who have publicly declared themselves pro-choice may not serve in any Public ministry such as extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion, lectors, cantors, or greeters at Mass. They may not teach classes in religion nor serve on Parish Pastoral Councils nor on Finance Councils. They may not serve on Boards of any Institutions or Agencies of the Diocese, and Catholic institutions in the Diocese, e.g. Catholic hospitals. They may not be invited to speak at parishes, schools, or any Diocesan institutions or agencies nor at Catholic institutions in the Diocese.
(2) Catholics who are publicly pro-choice and who are currently serving in any of those positions are to be asked by the person responsible for the institution to resign immediately from the positions they hold and to refrain from active public roles until such time as they have come to accept the objective error of their positions and are willing to conform their convictions to the teaching of the Church.
With regard to situations not covered by the above guidelines (e.g. funerals), pastors and those responsible for institutions of the Diocese should consult with the Episcopal Vicars or the Vicar General / Moderator of the Curia

(B) Guidelines for Use of Catholic Facilities:
(1) Pastors and those responsible for any Catholic institution, school, or agency of the Diocese or operating within the Diocese may not invite those who hold pro-choice views to be speakers at public events nor allow them to take active part in any public program of a Catholic institute "whether the person is a Catholic or not."
(2) Pastors and those responsible for institutions of the Diocese or Catholic institutions may not allow Church property to be used for any gathering or meeting by any group that includes those who are publicly pro-choice.
Particular Pastoral Concerns
(1) As pastors enforce these guidelines, they are reminded that they must always be aware of the personal situation of individuals and of the need to treat them with respect, dignity, and pastoral sensitivity. The privacy and good name of each person is to be respected (Canon 220 and 221). A clear but compassionate expression of the reasons why the Church, in fidelity to Christ, must take these actions should be made to those who are publicly pro-choice. Hopefully, they can then be drawn to a re-consideration of their pro-choice positions and be brought to a real conversion of heart so that they may accept wholeheartedly the Truth of Christ as taught by the Church.
(2) I note that, in matters that are morally acceptable and pertain to the common good, the Church’s position on life issues does not prevent her from collaborating with public servants who are so called "pro-choice" Catholics or others who disagree with her teachings. All are called to promote the common good which the Second Vatican Council defines as "the sum total of social conditions which allow people, either as groups or as individuals, to reach their fulfillment more fully and more easily" (Gaudium et spes, #26,1). This common good concerns the life of all, and as far as possible, every citizen should participate in promoting it. Of no citizen is this more true than of the follower of Jesus Who says: "I am the way, the truth, and the life" (Jn. 14:6).
Conclusion
As we celebrate The Great Jubilee and begin the third Millennium of Christianity our historical context challenges us in a singular way to be Prophets of The Gospel of Life, The Gospel of Jesus Christ. Above all, this requires a continuing conversion of our hearts and growth in holiness that there may be due coherence between our private and public lives. Conversion means a change of heart. Saul, the Pharisee, saw the light of Christ, and heard His voice, on the road to Damascus. Saul, the persecutor, became Saint Paul, the Apostle. Paul went to his death in Rome faithful until the end. "I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith. From now on a merited crown awaits me." (2 Tim. 4.7.)
I hope that these Pastoral Guidelines will help you, My Sisters and Brothers in the Lord, to fight the good fight for the Gospel of Life. If, like Paul, you must suffer in doing so, you know there is a well merited crown awaiting you on high.
Feast, Conversion of St. Paul, Apostle 1999
Bishop of Corpus Christi<<<<


www.diocesecc.org/releases/episcopal/display.asp?rid=139

Wednesday, July 1, 2009

From Sunday's Gospel....


"And behold there came a man whose name was Jairus, and he was a ruler of the synagogue: and he fell down at the feet of Jesus, beseeching him that he would come into his house: "
It was difficult to find this illustration. It comes from "David C. Cook's" graphic art New Testament. Google image couldn't find it. Hopefully now it can. As always K. C. is trying to make the point that when people say they don't like kneeling because it means "thus and such" [fill in the blank. _____ usually what they don't like is penance] ....they are just plain wrong!
Kneeling means quite a number of other things as well: gratefulness, surrender, worship, humility, just being plain awe-struck, and on and on. K. C. sees the importance of kneeling as its intensity, its exclamation point!!!
"Lord Jesus, I need you! Now!!"
K. C.
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...
Loading...