This Washington Post article talks about the bishops getting criticism from both liberals and conservatives (their words) over the Communion flap. It’s interesting that even the WP lumps Voice of the Faithful with Call to Action and Catholics for a Free Choice. After all, they always sound the same.
Steve Krueger, executive director of the lay Catholic group Voice of the Faithful, said yesterday that the bishops’ statement was “perplexing.”
“They specifically talked about ‘worthiness’ to receive Communion, yet every time I receive Communion, I say ‘Lord, I am not worthy to receive you,’ ” he said. “I think a divisive debate is being created that does not serve the interests of the church, which is deeply in need of healing.”
It sounds like Krueger doesn’t even know that the Church teaches that someone who is in mortal sin should not receive the Eucharist, or that there is ever a situation in which one should not receive. You also shouldn’t receive if you haven’t fasted an hour before approaching for Communion. Does the “I am not worthy” prayer render that requirement moot, too?
This is terrible. Who taught these people the bare basics?
It’s troubling because this is the <style was sinful, he was convinced that the <i>Domini, non sum dignus</i> prayer is, essentially, an adequate substitution for Reconciliation and absolution.
This is horrible, because it attempts to reduce the Faith to a series of “magic incantations.” Perhaps I shouldn’t be surprised at Krueger’s statement, but I am.
Good grief.
I just took a glimpse at Mr. Krueger’s parish web-site (Saint Ignatius of Loyala, Chestnut Hill) and the links seem to say something: VOTF, of course, National Catholic Reporter, Boston Liturgical Dance Ensemble…you get the picture.
Somebody is doing this gentlemen a vast disservice—and he, in turn, is passing it on.
An interesting, related blurb from John L. Allen’s column today:
I had the chance to chat over lunch with Manolo Fenqueasy.
Ideally, what they would like is to dispense with the charade and just demand that all elected officials renounce any religion but secular humanism, but there’s still the tricky fact that the majority of voters are religious people and they still think that their politicians should be too.
]]>
3328
2004-06-25 14:38:27
2004-06-25 18:38:27
open
open
politics_and_religion
publish
0
0
post
As a liberal, I would argue against the separation of religion and politics, in the sense most people might mean. Religion informs a person’s morality, spirituality, and personality. A truly religious person can no more divorce her faith from life than a fish can decide to live in a tree.
Of course, liberally-inclined politicians might start bringing Matthew 25 into the public sphere, dispensing with war profiteering, or other self-serving tendencies. Certainly no seriously religious person would advocate torture of prisoners, even by looking the other way.
The key difference, Todd, is that we are talking about the teaching of the Church, not the individualistic actions of proto-Protestants waving a Bible.
War and Capital punishment seem to be in the same slot: they are not proscribed by the Church but the teaching is that they should be avoided and, thusly, should be rare. They are last-resort items so-to-speak.
Abortion is not a last-resort item. It is always evil, the people that perform them are committing an evil act and the people that agree to them are giving assent to evil.
People who emphasize the separation of Church and state and basically saying that Catholics should not participate in politics. Hence, we get Kerry and his still-born Catholicism. He’s the equivalent of the “Great Patriotic Catholic Church” in China..it has buildings and worship services..but is it Catholic? I don’t think so.
Kerry and his ilk remind me of the perverted little monster that Satan held in The Passion of the Christ while Mary followed her son on the other side of the road. Satan and Kerry can only mock, only offer a cheap, ugly substitute for the real thing.
Kerry is a servant of the culture of death.
Funny, also, how Kerry voted for the war in Iraq. I guess he is a loser on all counts.
Kerry is a servant in the culture of death.
Oooooo Tom…wasn’t that perverted little dwarf a touch of Gibson genius…..mocking the madonna …imitating the reality….but a twisted caricature……………..and so is kerry as he promotes the culture of death…..we’ve got to do everything we can to defeat him………….you can get your catholicsagainstkerry bumper sticker from that website….no vested interest on my part…
“Religion informs a person’m not opposed to a good conspiracy theory.
Here are some facts.
1. The Catholic Church is the only minority in the United States that can be openly discriminated against without fear of being labled a bigot.
2. John Kerry is Catholic (?)
3. The bishops didn’t pick this fight, the pro-death politicians did.
So, here’s the theory. Kerry wants to be president, but he knows that there are still a lot of people who won’t vote for him because he’s Catholic. He also knows that there are a lot of people who will vote for him because he’s Catholic.
What to do? What to do? Wait! What if he can go to war with the church and make himself look like the poor victim? He wants to be a good Catholic but the mean ole bishops won’t let him.
The anti-Catholic crowd is happy. He gets their vote. Many Catholics, who don’t understand Church teaching, will be sympathetic. He gets their vote. The time spent discussing this issue means less time spent on other issues where he has no opinion anyway. It’s a win-win!
Remember, this whole thing started when then-Bishop Burke sent private letters to three Wisconsin politicians. The letters were made public, not by the church, but by the politicians. They made the letters public only after it was announced that Bisop Burke was being elevated to Archbishop of an important diocese.
It’s just a theory. It sounds farfetched. But, so does blowing up an asprin factory to direct attention away from Monica’s testimony to the Senate.