www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Catholic Bishop vs. "Catholic" Politician

Dear Friends,

At least one RC Bishop is standing up to the so-called "Catholic" politicians on the subject of the definitions of marriage and family. The following was posted on EWTN News.

----------------------------------------------

6-August-2003 -- Catholic World News Brief

CALGARY BISHOP SAYS HE WOULD REFUSE PRIME MINISTER COMMUNION

Calgary, Aug. 6 (LifesiteNews.com/CWN) -

Calgary Bishop Fred Henry has not been daunted by politicians and newspapers attacking him as a hatemonger and worse for his clear defence of Catholic teaching on homosexuality and his daring to call to account Prime Minister Jean Chretien who calls himself "Catholic". Rather than back down from his widely reported warning that the Prime Minister was risking his eternal salvation, Bishop Henry used the media frenzy to teach.

In an interview with Sun Media, Bishop Henry noted that a good Catholic must be in communion with the Church. "As a Catholic if he can't listen to the Pope and he can't listen to the bishops then we have a problem with the Catholicity of this man. We have a serious problem. You can't go around calling yourself a good Catholic and act in a contrary manner. Acts have consequences."

The Bishop also noted that he would refuse Chretien Communion. "Given his status, if the prime minister were to come to Calgary and line up for Communion in the ranks at the cathedral and I were the celebrant I would probably refuse him and give him a simple blessing. I don't want to embarrass anyone publicly but at present he is not in communion with the Church. I don't intend to threaten the prime minister but I think his eternal salvation is at risk and I pray he experiences some kind of conversion and enlightenment and mend his ways."

-------------------------------------------

May all of our Bishops find the courage to tell the poiticians that there is a perfectly fine name for those who do not accept the teachings of the Church. That name is protestant, not Catholic.

John
Pilgrim and Odd Duck

Does anyone know of the official Vatican policy re: such public statements specifically attacking a political leader?

Yours,

kl

attacking a political leader?

That was no attack, that was stating a truth. He is stating what many should have been doing all along.

It's too bad that some bishops waited for this issue to take such a stand.

I wonder what would have happened if some of them had done the same thing with the abortiion issue after Roe vs. Wade in 1973.

In Christ,

BOB

There's a pretty comprehensive article [globeandmail.com] on this subject in the Globe And Mail of Friday, the 8th, written by Margaret Somerville, Samuel Gale Professor of Law at the McGill Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law.

Rumors in California that like he did for Davis, the bishop of Sacramento will declare that pro-abort "Catholic" Arnold Schwarzeneger should not go to communion. Any confirmation of this?

Axios

Dear Friends,

The issue is not the politician's opinions about any issue. The issue is whether someone who publically advocates or participates in a policy or activity which the Church has stated to be immoral, can properly be called a "Catholic" politician in campaign materials, news coverage, etc.

The issue is whether the Church can determine who is a member of the Church. You are not Catholic because you say you are, but because you accept the moral authority of the Church.

A second issue is whether the right of free speech is abandoned by those who profess the Catholic faith. Do clergy and laity abandon their rights to participate public debate by following the teachings of their Church? Margaret Somerville seems to think so. This seems to be becoming a serious problem in Canada, with recent court decisions about "hate speech".

A parallel situation occured some years ago in New Orleans, during the times of racial segregation. The Archbishop proclaimed that all Catholic Churches, Schools, and services were to integrated, although state and local laws required segregation. Some local "Catholic" public oficials said that they would continue to enforce the local laws. The Archbishop excommunicated a number of Sheriffs, County Commissioners, etc.

John
Pilgrim and Odd Duck

Of course "the Church" can and has every right and responsibility to make that determination. I am no expert on the canons regarding how the church does that, but ISTM that the Bishop of Calgary is way out of line is in making a declaration of excommunication ("he is not in communion with the Church") regarding a someone who is (presumably) not a member of his diocese. I further assume that such a judgement is beyond the realm of the laity.

I don't think so (nor do I think that Margaret Sommerville does). If people wish to argue that thay are opposed to certain legislation solely because it conflicts with the teachings of their church, they have every right to do so. But in a nation that has no established religion, such an argument is likely to carry little weight, and may generate more backlash than support. It is necessary to make better arguments.

Where do we find in the teachings of our Lord the idea that a man can be a Christian on Sunday and act and behave like a pagan the rest of the week? Where do we find the idea that "church is church and public life is public life and n'er the twain shall meet?" Where do we find the idea that politics is a sacred arena where religion must not infringe the truth?

This is the issue, and it is high time that the Church begin to make people realize that the living of the Christian life goes to every spectrum of society in every day and affecting everyone. The bishop was well within his rights to openly declare what he did. He was merely stating the obvious: i.e, that if this political hack came to a Liturgy in which he was the celebrant, as a matter of conscience and responsibility before God, he would have to deny the politician the Eucharist. He further went on and urged the politician to repent. Now that is certainly Biblical.

In Handels' magnificent MESSIAH, there is in the "Halleleujah" chorus, this great truth:

"for the kingdoms of the world have become the kingdoms of our Christ" (sorry, I know the wording is not precise -- brain cramp).

THAT, my friends, is the whole point of the redemption: taking the world back from the devil. Bringing it in line with the heavenly. Making disciples of both men and nations, so that they are ruled and governed by the law of God, which first law is LOVE. But love does not excuse sin or give men a "right" to practice it openly and defiantly in the name of "tolerance" or "civil rights".

In the early days of Christianity, whole cultures were changed because the missionaries to these people groups would not bend God's law to accomodate their pagan practices such as cannabalism or human sacrifice. Many died martyr's deaths as they continued to bring the message of God's love and justice to the faces of those who wished the status quo to continue so that their power over others might continue also.

The culture war is PRECISELY about this issue:

WHO is going to rule?

Christ the King through the ministry and governance of the Church?

Or the world, the flesh, and the devil, the three enemies of our souls according to Scripture, through the ministry and governance of the depraved passions and emotionalism?

"Choose ye this day whom ye will serve..."

And here is the flaw in all of this. The bishop specifically made the point if the Minister came to HIM at HIS Cathedral. If this is a private judgement of the bishop he is way out of line.

If it is a universal truth, then why the ommission of any instructions to his clergy? Why not calling to task his fellow bishops who allow the Minister to receive? Why does the bishop not mention other public officials (like members of the Conservative Party) who have the same views?

I think the bishop in his ham-fisted approach committs a sacrilidge, treating the Eucharist as a doggy biscuit to be given for sitting up and begging.

Let the proper authority come up with some universal, consistent and transparent standards. Anything less is a greater scandal than the communion reception of these people.

On a relatd note, it appears that the Bishop of Sacramento refuses to apply to Arnold the same standard he applied to Davis. How to you say 'hypocrite' in Latin?

Axios

Good. The constant teaching of the Church holds that clerics MUST refuse Holy Communion to those who are living in a state of "public sin." In my opinion, the Bishop of Calgary is a courageous man for standing up when other bishops refuse.

Axios, you can't condemn the Bishop of Calgary just because the others aren't doing THEIR duty. And there IS a universal, consistent standard in the teaching of the Church--Bishops these days simply don't apply it--for which they ought be (and sometimes have been) rebuked even in public. We'll see what happens with Schwartzanegger. I didn't even know he was a Catholic.

I think, Axios, that you would do well to stop grinding your anti-Catholic axe. (Cf: the thread on starting new parishes).

In Caritate Christi,

LatinTrad

And here is the flaw in all of this. The bishop specifically made the point if the Minister came to HIM at HIS Cathedral. If this is a private judgement of the bishop he is way out of line.

No, he's not. And you could think along these lines:

"Wonderful. One brave bishop who is setting a standard in a see of wavering vacillation."

But you would just rather punch holes in the RCC, right?

If it is a universal truth, then why the ommission of any instructions to his clergy?

I don't know. Good question. Perhaps you should write him and suggest that he make it a diocesan law.

Why not calling to task his fellow bishops who allow the Minister to receive?

An excellent question. Perhaps there are reasons. Rocking the boat is not always a lot of fun or something one engages in recklessly.

Why does the bishop not mention other public officials (like members of the Conservative Party) who have the same views?

Again, good question. Worth consideration. Let's indeed be even handed.

I think the bishop in his ham-fisted approach committs a sacrilidge, treating the Eucharist as a doggy biscuit to be given for sitting up and begging.

The last time I checked out my understanding of how a covenant relationship works, and particularly the New Covenant, eternal life IS the reward of obedience and covenantal faithfullness. The whole point of excommunication is to put the fear of loss into the laity, that they might understand that by their choice of wickedness, they are forfeiting any claim they have to eternal felicity. It is union with Christ which gives us this eternal blessedness, therefore, being severed from Him here on earth is a true mercy, for it should make the one severed stop and reflect upon his eternal destiny and repent. It only seems ham fisted to you perhaps because I have never heard of an Orthodox excommunication. Do you guys actually perform such discipline, or is that reserved for Latins and Byzantines only?

Let the proper authority come up with some universal, consistent and transparent standards. Anything less is a greater scandal than the communion reception of these people.

We have one. It is called the Catholic Catechism. The problem is that we have a bunch of traitors in mitres who have no interest in what it says. That does not detract from what is written in the catechism.

On a relatd note, it appears that the Bishop of Sacramento refuses to apply to Arnold the same standard he applied to Davis. How do you say 'hypocrite' in Latin?


Not sure. Never learned Latin. But I would agree with you. If it's good for Gray Doofus, it's good for the Bavarian Muscleworks.

Dear All:

What I'm about to post might be really dumb, but here 'goes.

While talking about this subejct with a friend the other day, I was reminded of an episode of the West Wing.

I was the one where the President was faced with the decision of whether to commute a death sentence to life in prison for a federal crime.

The President's Catholic faith told him that the killing of a human is wrong, even in situations of a grave crime. On the other hand, the President could not find any justification in the civil law to commute the sentence. (I'm over-simplifying, but you get the picture).

The final scene of that episode was an overhead shot as the Jeb Bartlett the man knealt (on the Presidential Seal no less) on the carpet in the oval office and offered his confession to his priest.

Yours,

kl

AMDG
Okay, we need to clear up this thing about "killing a human being is wrong."

The Catholic faith does not teach that "killing a human being" is always wrong.

The Catholic faith does teach that MURDER is always and everywhere and under all circumstances wrong.

The question then becomes, what makes killing murder?

The deliberate killing of an innocent person is murder. Judicial execution is an ESSENTIALLY different act. To be perfectly clear: it is NOT because "circumstances" sometimes justify doing what is objectively wrong. Circumstances NEVER justify doing what is objectively evil. It is because judicial execution, just wars, self-defence, etc., are ESSENTIALLY DIFFERENT ACTIONS that they are not considered intrinsically evil.

The present Pope's stance on the Death Penalty is widely misunderstood, and wrongly invoked by those who believe the Death Penalty is *in and of itself* wrong. JP2's call for the elimination of *most* executions is based on the present state of the prison and judicial systems; the Church has NEVER taught, in 2,000 years, that the Death Penalty was intrinsically evil.

Thoughts?


In Christ and Mary,
LatinTrad

Dear Latin Trad:

I knew I would get in trouble by over-simplifying the issue, and so I have.

The main point, of course, is that Bartlett the man felt he committed a sin while Bartlett the President did what he thought he had to do as President.

Difficult choices. That's all I'm saying.

kl