Doesn't make a lot a sense to try to pin something on the Holy Father here. I get the optics from an American perspective, but denying communion at the Vatican hasn't been the practice of the Church in modern times. Maybe it should be, but it's something that would need a lot of thinking through beyond the American implications.
The better way for Francis to make an impact would be on the bishops he chooses to favor and advance. He clearly favors the types of bishops who disagree with Cordileone, even if you can make an argument that some of his rhetoric is supportive of the decision the San Francisco archbishop made. In other words his actions don't match his words.
The problem is not just with refusing her Communion but with refusing her communion. This was the greatest failing of St. John Paul II and Benedict. They both kept on publicly friendly terms with people whom they knew to be moral reprobates. A little more public shaming would be nice, and even excommunication. A little less friendly greeting murderous maniacs, whether Mugabe or abortionists. A little more of the way that Jesus treated Herod.
Father,respectfully,how about a little more of how Jesus FORGAVE the little guy/gal? Not the kings and authority figures. I think Jesus was pretty clear about that. I often wonder what He would be writing in the sand about me- do you?
Did Jesus forgive Herod? He mostly refuses to speak to him. He does express his opinion about Herod when he says, "Go tell that vixen..."
He was writing in the sand the eleventh commandment, just as the finger of God wrote the first ten in stone. The eleventh commandment is, "Let the one without sin cast the first stone." I am not advocating stoning politicians, just shunning and excommunicating them, as Jesus taught us to.
Father, you seem to have some personal knowledge of Herod. Also a real lock on what was in the mind of Jesus. I do not so I reserve judgement in these things.
Well, sometimes Jesus told us what he had in mind, as in the case in Matthew 18:15-17:
“If your brother sins [against you], go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have won over your brother. If he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, so that ‘every fact may be established on the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church. If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector."
And in Luke 13:31-33:
At that time some Pharisees came to [Jesus] and said, “Go away, leave this area because Herod wants to kill you.” He replied, “Go and tell that fox, ‘Behold, I cast out demons and I perform healings today and tomorrow, and on the third day I accomplish my purpose. Yet I must continue on my way today, tomorrow, and the following day, for it is impossible that a prophet should die outside of Jerusalem.’
If she wants to be forgiven, she knows how to look up confession times at a local parish and to amend her life. That Jesus will forgive anyone who walks in and makes a good confession (kings, authority figures, little guys and gals) is indeed radical and astonishing, but at the same time, it is a hard thing to do because of the necessity to die to self, and so people put it off. On our end we ought to pray, fast, and do penance for the conversion of sinners and in order to avoid pride we might add "foremost among whom, I count *myself*".
The whole public papping of Catholics at Church just seems off to me. We can witness and teach without doing that. It just seems like the tale of the Pharisees way vs Jesus way from Scripture.
I was livid when I heard she was given communion and this article has calmed me down a bit. She seems to want to push the limit but I still can’t see why those in power couldn’t have warned all not to distribute to her. It just seems like the right thing to do is not that difficult.
It seems that way, but to go from her bishop to the priest that happens to be administering communion that day is actually a ridiculously convoluted process in multiple languages. I honestly don’t think it’s a good idea for the Sacristy at st Peters to have a list of people barred from communion like they’re banned from a bar pinned to the wall.
The Vatican and Holy See HAVE TO do their best to stay neutral in both diplomatic and political matters and also in ecclesial matters, which could be interpreted as interference of the political kind. So the responsibility is on the person receiving (as with all of us) to be ready to receive. Pray for Nancy Pelosi because she does not know what she is doing, so blind she is to her sin.
I don’t, but based on some of the biographies of some saints who were excommunicated in their time, (I’m thinking of St Mary of The Cross, excommunicated quite vindictively and then the bishop repented and lifted it on his deathbed) and bore it with patient obedience. Pelosi strikes me as someone who is not quite this kind of saint and used to getting her own way. You don’t survive as long in politics (especially as a female when she was beginning her career) as she has without such an attitude.
She does not fully know what she is doing, I suppose (although people have told her that it is wrong, of course), and if we would like to come slightly closer to knowing what we ourselves are doing when we sin (which would tend, I think, to lead us to sin somewhat less, if we have not yet attempted to habitually refrain from all deliberate venial sin), https://newmanreader.org/works/discourses/discourse16.html St JHN's discourse on "Mental Sufferings of Our Lord in His Passion" is an interesting bit of prose.
In a way the extent of her knowledge of what she is doing does not matter except insofar as it affects her culpability. It is fairly obvious that there is something demonic about the pro-abortion lobby. One only has to observe their behaviour in recent days and the irrational response to any reasoned argument setting out the Natural Law. The devil must regard Pelosi as a key weapon in his campaign to promote abortion and the devil cares nothing for people's motives so long as they do his will. But the existence of this demonic element in the proposed communicant should surely make the priest hesitate. What would he be doing other than attempting to thrust Christ into the presence of the Devil?
Thank you for your reference to Newman. If nothing else I believe he is the greatest writer of English prose since John Donne. But do we need to add to Christ's mental suffering?
I am confused - I was informed repeatedly that it was Cordileone who was politicizing the issue. This seems like just another campaign stop for Madam Speaker, who is using the Church as a backdrop.
You hold the body of Christ in your hand. Do you really have no problem in giving it to somebody who openly defies teaching of the Church in the most public manner and what is more promotes that view from a position of considerable power? I do not think diplomacy, politics or the customs of the Vatican have any relevance in answering that question. Are we to believe that Pelosi will not use that incident to promote the idea that the Church is not really serious about the ban on abortion? Maybe it was her planned intention to receive communion in order to promote that view?
You know what I always, always see left out in these conversations? There is never a mention of the requirement to be in a state of grace before presenting oneself to receive Communion. We are, all of us, required to be in a state of grace. For ordinary people, of course, the priest must take it on trust that the recipient is in such a state. Nancy Pelosi has been very publicly flouting this requirement for YEARS. I understand the delicate nature of the diplomatic dance which the Vatican must perform, but is it really too much to ask for a rousing homily on the subject? By all means, let's not create a spectacle in the Communion line, but why shouldn't an attempt be made to make an unrepentant sinner squirm a bit in the pews?
My teen daughter and I were at St Peter’s two weeks ago (on the Italian feast day of Corpus Christi), privileged enough to attend Mass. To my utter shock, the Italian-speaking priest distributing Communion denied it to two women in line in front of me. So please don’t tell me it’s not the policy of the Vatican to deny Holy Communion to anyone!!!
I’ll bet it was because they weren’t observing the dress code! Although I’m amazed they got passed the guards at the gate. They turned back my (then) boyfriend for his shorts not covering his knees at the gate.
They were in full compliance with the dress code. They were wearing gorgeous saris that covered their shoulders and all the way to the ankles. The dress code was absolutely not the issue. I don’t think they spoke or understood Italian, so when the priest questioned them, they stepped aside as to not draw undue attention. It really was shocking given that the security guard vetted everyone before we sat down for Mass.
Now that is weird. I have no other thought other than maybe their traditional dress made the priest think they were Hindu and not Catholic? That is still not great however.
Seems to me Pelosi knows exactly what she is doing and has no repentance whatsoever. She certainly appears in Rome with the Pope frequently, in between speeches touting abortion as 'healthcare' and claiming it is a 'right'.
Doesn't make a lot a sense to try to pin something on the Holy Father here. I get the optics from an American perspective, but denying communion at the Vatican hasn't been the practice of the Church in modern times. Maybe it should be, but it's something that would need a lot of thinking through beyond the American implications.
The better way for Francis to make an impact would be on the bishops he chooses to favor and advance. He clearly favors the types of bishops who disagree with Cordileone, even if you can make an argument that some of his rhetoric is supportive of the decision the San Francisco archbishop made. In other words his actions don't match his words.
The problem is not just with refusing her Communion but with refusing her communion. This was the greatest failing of St. John Paul II and Benedict. They both kept on publicly friendly terms with people whom they knew to be moral reprobates. A little more public shaming would be nice, and even excommunication. A little less friendly greeting murderous maniacs, whether Mugabe or abortionists. A little more of the way that Jesus treated Herod.
C. S. Lewis has an interesting article on this topic: http://archive.spectator.co.uk/article/7th-december-1945/8/after-priggery-what
Father,respectfully,how about a little more of how Jesus FORGAVE the little guy/gal? Not the kings and authority figures. I think Jesus was pretty clear about that. I often wonder what He would be writing in the sand about me- do you?
Respectfully, forgiveness is for the repentant. Go and sin no more, not, carry on with what you are doing.
Did Jesus forgive Herod? He mostly refuses to speak to him. He does express his opinion about Herod when he says, "Go tell that vixen..."
He was writing in the sand the eleventh commandment, just as the finger of God wrote the first ten in stone. The eleventh commandment is, "Let the one without sin cast the first stone." I am not advocating stoning politicians, just shunning and excommunicating them, as Jesus taught us to.
Father, you seem to have some personal knowledge of Herod. Also a real lock on what was in the mind of Jesus. I do not so I reserve judgement in these things.
Well, sometimes Jesus told us what he had in mind, as in the case in Matthew 18:15-17:
“If your brother sins [against you], go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have won over your brother. If he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, so that ‘every fact may be established on the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church. If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector."
And in Luke 13:31-33:
At that time some Pharisees came to [Jesus] and said, “Go away, leave this area because Herod wants to kill you.” He replied, “Go and tell that fox, ‘Behold, I cast out demons and I perform healings today and tomorrow, and on the third day I accomplish my purpose. Yet I must continue on my way today, tomorrow, and the following day, for it is impossible that a prophet should die outside of Jerusalem.’
Herodias, presumably, would have been the vixen.
If she wants to be forgiven, she knows how to look up confession times at a local parish and to amend her life. That Jesus will forgive anyone who walks in and makes a good confession (kings, authority figures, little guys and gals) is indeed radical and astonishing, but at the same time, it is a hard thing to do because of the necessity to die to self, and so people put it off. On our end we ought to pray, fast, and do penance for the conversion of sinners and in order to avoid pride we might add "foremost among whom, I count *myself*".
So if Pelosi is Audrey Hepburn, who's Gregory Peck?
…and please tell me she’s going to put her hand in the Mouth of Truth.
On this and many other issues, it’s hard not to feel gaslit by the Pope and the college of bishops at large. They say one thing, and do another.
The whole public papping of Catholics at Church just seems off to me. We can witness and teach without doing that. It just seems like the tale of the Pharisees way vs Jesus way from Scripture.
I was livid when I heard she was given communion and this article has calmed me down a bit. She seems to want to push the limit but I still can’t see why those in power couldn’t have warned all not to distribute to her. It just seems like the right thing to do is not that difficult.
It seems that way, but to go from her bishop to the priest that happens to be administering communion that day is actually a ridiculously convoluted process in multiple languages. I honestly don’t think it’s a good idea for the Sacristy at st Peters to have a list of people barred from communion like they’re banned from a bar pinned to the wall.
The Vatican and Holy See HAVE TO do their best to stay neutral in both diplomatic and political matters and also in ecclesial matters, which could be interpreted as interference of the political kind. So the responsibility is on the person receiving (as with all of us) to be ready to receive. Pray for Nancy Pelosi because she does not know what she is doing, so blind she is to her sin.
How do you know that she does not know what she is doing? We cannot see into her soul.
I don’t, but based on some of the biographies of some saints who were excommunicated in their time, (I’m thinking of St Mary of The Cross, excommunicated quite vindictively and then the bishop repented and lifted it on his deathbed) and bore it with patient obedience. Pelosi strikes me as someone who is not quite this kind of saint and used to getting her own way. You don’t survive as long in politics (especially as a female when she was beginning her career) as she has without such an attitude.
She does not fully know what she is doing, I suppose (although people have told her that it is wrong, of course), and if we would like to come slightly closer to knowing what we ourselves are doing when we sin (which would tend, I think, to lead us to sin somewhat less, if we have not yet attempted to habitually refrain from all deliberate venial sin), https://newmanreader.org/works/discourses/discourse16.html St JHN's discourse on "Mental Sufferings of Our Lord in His Passion" is an interesting bit of prose.
In a way the extent of her knowledge of what she is doing does not matter except insofar as it affects her culpability. It is fairly obvious that there is something demonic about the pro-abortion lobby. One only has to observe their behaviour in recent days and the irrational response to any reasoned argument setting out the Natural Law. The devil must regard Pelosi as a key weapon in his campaign to promote abortion and the devil cares nothing for people's motives so long as they do his will. But the existence of this demonic element in the proposed communicant should surely make the priest hesitate. What would he be doing other than attempting to thrust Christ into the presence of the Devil?
Thank you for your reference to Newman. If nothing else I believe he is the greatest writer of English prose since John Donne. But do we need to add to Christ's mental suffering?
I am confused - I was informed repeatedly that it was Cordileone who was politicizing the issue. This seems like just another campaign stop for Madam Speaker, who is using the Church as a backdrop.
You hold the body of Christ in your hand. Do you really have no problem in giving it to somebody who openly defies teaching of the Church in the most public manner and what is more promotes that view from a position of considerable power? I do not think diplomacy, politics or the customs of the Vatican have any relevance in answering that question. Are we to believe that Pelosi will not use that incident to promote the idea that the Church is not really serious about the ban on abortion? Maybe it was her planned intention to receive communion in order to promote that view?
Excellent article. This was much more thorough than a mere "Nothing to see here. Move along."
You know what I always, always see left out in these conversations? There is never a mention of the requirement to be in a state of grace before presenting oneself to receive Communion. We are, all of us, required to be in a state of grace. For ordinary people, of course, the priest must take it on trust that the recipient is in such a state. Nancy Pelosi has been very publicly flouting this requirement for YEARS. I understand the delicate nature of the diplomatic dance which the Vatican must perform, but is it really too much to ask for a rousing homily on the subject? By all means, let's not create a spectacle in the Communion line, but why shouldn't an attempt be made to make an unrepentant sinner squirm a bit in the pews?
My teen daughter and I were at St Peter’s two weeks ago (on the Italian feast day of Corpus Christi), privileged enough to attend Mass. To my utter shock, the Italian-speaking priest distributing Communion denied it to two women in line in front of me. So please don’t tell me it’s not the policy of the Vatican to deny Holy Communion to anyone!!!
Wow, what happened? Did the women just walk away or try and insist?
They looked puzzled, and were escorted away by a security officer.
We definitely need some context. If I was refused Holy Communion I'd want to know why.
I’ll bet it was because they weren’t observing the dress code! Although I’m amazed they got passed the guards at the gate. They turned back my (then) boyfriend for his shorts not covering his knees at the gate.
They were in full compliance with the dress code. They were wearing gorgeous saris that covered their shoulders and all the way to the ankles. The dress code was absolutely not the issue. I don’t think they spoke or understood Italian, so when the priest questioned them, they stepped aside as to not draw undue attention. It really was shocking given that the security guard vetted everyone before we sat down for Mass.
Now that is weird. I have no other thought other than maybe their traditional dress made the priest think they were Hindu and not Catholic? That is still not great however.
You’re trying to cover for Francis here, but I am not convinced. A totally discouraging act for pro-life Catholics. A scandal.
Seems to me Pelosi knows exactly what she is doing and has no repentance whatsoever. She certainly appears in Rome with the Pope frequently, in between speeches touting abortion as 'healthcare' and claiming it is a 'right'.