Baton Rouge Diocese: “Who are we to judge whether public sinners believe or not?” July 22, 2015Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Basics, disaster, episcopate, Eucharist, foolishness, General Catholic, persecution, pr stunts, priests, sadness, scandals, secularism, sexual depravity, Society, the struggle for the Church.
Mind you, that is public sinners: as in those who, in some way, publicly proclaim their sin, in this case, rejection of Catholic Doctrine, i.e., heresy.
A case – likely to be increasingly frequent in the near future – developed in the Diocese of Baton Rouge, LA. A man publicly known to be lost in sins of sodomy and even to have a pretended “marriage” to another man, presented for Communion. This man was publicly unrepentant of his sin. The priest, aware of this man’s condition, quite rightly protected the sanctity of the Blessed Sacrament and defended the sinner’s soul (in great charity) by refusing to allow him to blaspheme the Blessed Sacrament. The man, naturally in this day and age, complained publicly over this act of kindness (which he took to be a cruel abuse), and the bishop, equally naturally, promptly caved, issuing a scandalous apology.
Just another day in the American Catholic Church, I suppose (my emphasis and comments):
Tim Ardillo, an avowed aberrosexual “married” to another man, [public declaration of which in and of itself is grounds for excommunication and denial of the Blessed Sacrament] is claiming that he was denied Communion at the funeral of his dead mother on July 10 in St. Helena’s Church in the Diocese of Baton Rouge (Louisiana). Ardillo wanted to receive the Body of Christ in Communion, however, he was denied by Pastor Mark Beard.
The magazine The Advocate stated that the Diocese of Baton Rouge has since apologized to Ardillo for the incident, personally from the archbishop of New Orleans himself, Msgr. Gregory Aymond. [This has been widely reported, but was it confirmed?]
According to Ardillo, pastor Beard had justified his refusal by saying it was because he was “not married in church.” The presumed reason, according to the aberrosexual, was that he had previously said in the obituary for his mother he was described as being “married” to a man. [There we go, very public declaration of unrepentant grave sin. The pastor, being apparently aware of the man’s identity and status, should have, in charity, approached him before Mass and addressed the matter, making clear his intent, but perhaps that was impossible for any of a number of reasons.]
The Secretariat of Archbishop Aymond declined to comment. The apology was neither confirmed nor denied. No one from the parish wanted to take a position……..
……..What this meant in practice, at least in the Diocese of Baton Rouge, said the diocesan press officer, Donna Carville, a communion assistant (Eucharistic Minister): The diocese will not tolerate refusal of Communion to Catholics, “just because they are gay.” [This is a very dangerous and unfortunate statement. Would she say the same of some other, less culturally popular sin? Being possessed of strong attraction for people of the same sex is profoundly disordered. It may or may not be sufficient grounds for denial of the Blessed Sacrament (it depends how it is acted upon). But this was not the case here. This was the case of a man making a public declaration of grave sin! Canon Law is exceedingly clear on this point.]
It was “very surprising that Communion was denied. This does not work … We do not have people refuse communion. Who are we to judge whether they believe [the Church’s teaching on Communion] or not? This is a matter between them and God,” said Donna Carville. [Well we can certainly see the rhetoric of the current pontificate in this statement. But she’s completely, totally wrong. Once again, we don’t have to peer into anyone’s soul, the man made a public declaration of which the priest became aware. That’s perfect grounds for the priest’s action. In addition, Canon Law stipulates very clearly, contrary to this bonehead quoted below, that public sin requires public retraction and penance PRIOR to amelioration of the sin and an ability to return to the Blessed Sacrament. That is why the continued reception of grave public heretic politicians is such an enormous scandal, they have never publicly retracted their heresy.]
It should not be used to deny the Eucharist, because someone is not married in Church, seconded the canon lawyer, Roger Keeler, coordinator of the Canon Law Society of America, and a priest of the Archdiocese of Edmonton in Alberta State (Canada). “The Communion is not a weapon. It is not a reward for good behavior. It is food for tired souls,” said Keeler. [Once again, direct quotes of Pope Francis, and very damaging ones] The priest could not know the marital status of those who come forward for Communion. [WRONG. In this case, he did. And that was manifest sufficient grounds for his actions. He should be commended by all involved, starting with his bishop, but also the man who attempted to receive, piling sacrilege on top of his other sins.]
Let’s see what Canon Law really says:
Can. 915 Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.
Can. 916 A person who is conscious of grave sin is not to celebrate Mass or receive the body of the Lord without previous sacramental confession unless there is a grave reason and there is no opportunity to confess; in this case the person is to remember the obligation to make an act of perfect contrition which includes the resolution of confessing as soon as possible.
Of course Canon 915 is perfectly clear. “Others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin – like an open declaration of no just sodomy but pseudo-sodo-marriage – are not to be admitted to Holy Communion.” That seems very clear to me, and indeed was, for about the first 1950 years of the Church’s existence. But now its a matter for apologies and groveling worries about “weaponizing” the Blessed Sacrament.
In all this mass abrogation of duty, it is the souls who ultimately pay the price. The souls of laity falling into hell like snowflakes, and the souls of bishops, too, paving the floor of hell.