My detailed argument is made in digestible portions:
What follows
is part 4 of my argument.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Yet another epistle
denouncing the Archbishop of Canada’s capital city? Unfortunately, yes, as God
is my witness (and my judge), I must say what needs to be said. I warn the
reader that this is a lengthy posting: judge yourself accordingly but I will
not be accused of a superficial critique in respect to deadly spiritual dangers
taking root through the gross negligence of one who claims to represent Jesus
Christ.
I make no pretense; this subject is not only an intense one
for others but also for me, in addition to being laborious, and on occasion,
quite draining.
I have no personal animus against this Bishop or any other,
nor do I have any personal relationship with him or any grievance outside that
which is outlined in the several postings of this blog. On the contrary, my heart
is full of good will and love especially in regard to Priests and Bishops. Theirs
is a high and weighty calling that wins for them either great reward or awful
judgment. My hope and daily prayer for all Priests and Bishops is that they may
be found faithful to God in the discharge of their duties and thus enjoy the
fullness of God’s favour and His eternal rewards.
Critics take note: My argument is comprehensive and includes
at least four lengthy postings. Do not expect me to respond to flippant
criticisms. However I welcome constructive comments.
Canon Law and the
Mission of the Church
What, in fact, is meant by “Canon law” in the context of the
Catholic Church? Here’s the intro to the Wikipedia
entry:
The canon law of the Catholic Church is the system of laws and legal
principles made and enforced by the hierarchical authorities of the Church to
regulate its external organization and government and to order and direct the
activities of Catholics toward the mission of the Church.
Keep in mind that the mission of the Church is intimately
connected to her supreme goal, as detailed in the final norm of the Code, Canon
1752: "...having before one's eyes the salvation of souls, which is always
the
supreme
law of the Church."
Take note then, dear reader, that the following point is
most crucial for the discussion at hand: The Canon Law of the Catholic Church
exists for only one reason, i.e. to order the actions of her members so as to
best accomplish her divine purpose, which is the salvation of mankind. Any and
all other considerations may be regarded as important but are to be viewed as
secondary.
Any Catholic who disobeys, denies, obfuscates, misrepresents,
ignores or otherwise demeans canon law, particularly in the sphere of his/her
realm of God given authority, is therefore guilty—to some degree—of jeopardizing
the very plan of God for mankind, and ought to be held fully accountable for
the consequences of those actions.
Given the extreme weight and consequence of the office of a
Catholic Bishop, a failure to respect and adhere to Canon Law by a Bishop must
be viewed as seriously problematic, all the more so when that failure subjects
an entire nation to the machinations of a political son of Satan. Many of my
more recent postings have made exactly this case in regards to our newly
elected Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his Ottawa shepherd, Archbishop
Terrance Prendergast, who himself has discussed in numerous interviews the
implications of Canon 915 in connection with Justin Trudeau’s stated views on
abortion.
The Substance of Canon 915
Now we may graduate to the original question: “What is meant
by the term “Canon 915”?
Canon 915 is
actually quite a brief and straightforward law which states:
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.
[I have referred numerous times over many years in my
postings to Canon 915. Click
here for a
listing of relevant posts and
here for
relevant tweets.]
1. Categories Singled Out by Canon 915.
Reading Canon 915 above, we see three categories of Catholics disciplined under
this law:
a)
Those who have been “excommunicated.” The Church
formally declares the individual out of communion and publicly imposes the
censure. This is a rare event.
b)
Those who have been “interdicted.” Again, the
Church formally censures an individual or group in public fashion and prohibits
them from taking part in certain stated activities or rites. This also happens
rarely.
c)
Those who are “obstinately persevering in
manifest grave sin.” This is the category which is pertinent to the case of
Justin Trudeau (confirmed also by Archbishop Prendergast in media interviews) since
Trudeau is under no formal censure by the Church, having been neither
excommunicated as in a) above nor interdicted as in b) above. Although no
formal declarations by the Catholic Church have been made against him, there is
near unanimity that he qualifies as a Catholic “obstinately persevering in
manifest grave sin.” More clarification related to this charge will be forthcoming
in a section that follows.
2. Action to be Taken. According to
Canon 915, Catholics who fall into either of the above three categories “are
not to be admitted to Holy Communion.” Note that this is an unequivocal
statement instructing the minister of Holy Communion not to admit the
particular sinner in question to Holy Communion. The statement bars from Holy Communion those
Catholics judged unworthy under a) or b) or c) above; in other words this canon
forthrightly commands the denial of Holy Communion. Naturally in an ideal
setting the pastor and parishioner would have cultivated a relationship over
time that would be conducive for a frank discussion of the requirements of
one’s Catholic stance in the public arena. Such discussion ought to lead to a
productive conclusion whereby the individual conforms his/her behaviour to
objective standards of the Catholic faith but failing that outcome the
individual would be subject to the discipline of the canon until such time as a
conversion of heart and due repentance was demonstrated. It is important now to note the
following:
a) The canon does not appeal to the sinner to judge himself/herself before receiving Holy Communion. Other canons, most notably
Canon 916, do in fact encourage the Catholic to an examination of conscience. Canon 915 IS NOT to be confused with Canon 916.
b) Canon 915 applies irrespective of any protests or objections on the part of the disciplined party. As long as the identified, objective state (“obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin”) persists, Holy Communion must be denied.
c)
Historically, with respect to this discipline, “the minister of Holy Communion was held, under pain of mortal sin, to deny the sacraments to the unworthy.”
What’s a Minister of Holy Communion to do?
To
summarize our findings on Canon 915 up to this point, it ought to be clear that
any Catholic who is judged as “obstinately persevering in manifest grave
sin” must be denied the Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ by the Minister
of Holy Communion. Naturally every Minister of Holy Communion in a diocese is a
representative of the Bishop so in a perfectly ordered system the Bishop would
have the information required to make such determination and then pass the
instruction on down the line, first to priests and then to those who minister
the Sacrament to the faithful. However it must be pointed out that whether the
order comes to the Minister of Holy Communion through the Priest or Bishop or
whether it comes directly to the Minister of Holy Communion via Canon 915,
“those…obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to
Holy Communion.” The Sacrament must be protected and the sinner must be
admonished. That is the purpose and the history behind Canon 915.
To
put a fine point on this, if a Minister of Holy Communion who is familiar with
Canon 915 (and I certainly hope they all are), were to find our new Prime
Minister Justin Trudeau in the communion line, it would be unsurprising—if not
expected—to find that the minister denied him Holy Communion. Such action would
be entirely in keeping with the spirit and letter of Canon 915. In fact,
wouldn’t the local Bishop especially want all Ministers of Holy Communion in
his diocese to understand the simplicity, yet urgency, of Canon 915 and to
teach them accordingly, for the sake of protecting the Holy Eucharist as well
as signalling care for the soul of the sinner? I would go one step further and
suggest that a wise and obedient Bishop would instruct his Ministers that, in unusual,
perhaps rare, circumstances, it is incumbent on them to withhold the sacrament
from any Catholic who they know of a certainty fulfils the terms of Canon 915,
whether or not the Minister of Holy Communion has received a heads up warning beforehand
from the Priest or the Bishop.
Let
us consider one possible example of such a scenario. Suppose you are a Minister
of Holy Communion in your parish. You are perhaps one of those few Catholics who
know a fellow Catholic who has been officially excommunicated by the Catholic
Church; let us say this excommunicated Catholic that you know is a longstanding
and outspoken member of the
Army
of Mary in Quebec, a group excommunicated in 2007 by Pope Benedict XVI.
This Catholic is visiting in your area and shows up at Mass and joins the
communion line, coming your way to receive the Body and Blood of Christ. Your
pastor has said nothing to you, neither has your Bishop but your Catholic
spidey-sense is tingling
and you know of a certainty Canon 915 is on the line. What do you do? Do you
hold up the communion line while you run and make an emergency call to your
Bishop? Hardly. You do that which is appropriate and that which is commanded:
You deny Holy Communion under Canon 915.
Now
that wasn’t so difficult was it? Likewise,
if you are a Minister of Holy Communion and just after Mass has started the new
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau arrives unexpectedly, along with his entourage,
to share in the celebration of Mass. At the appointed time the PM joins the
communion line and once again your Catholic spidey-sense tingles. Many, many
Catholics you know have been scandalized by Trudeau’s public and longstanding
position on “a woman’s right to choose” death for her baby, and you know that
not only has Trudeau claimed to be a “pro-choice” Catholic but he also supports
sodomy, gender ideology and same-sex “marriage.” You also know that he stubbornly
ramped up his rhetoric soon after becoming leader of the Liberal Party of
Canada, defying the conscience rights of his own MP’s and demanding they all
tow the party line on supporting abortion, and then persisted in the policy
even after public rebuke by powerful prelates of the Church, some even
questioning his Catholic bonafides. How
can you allow this devilish imposter to now share in the Cup of Christ? How can
you hand over, like Pontius Pilate, your Lord Jesus Christ to His enemies? It
would be sacrilege. It would send all the wrong signals not only to others, but
to Trudeau himself. His soul would receive no rebuke and he would persist yet
longer in his evil errors. What do you do? Do you hold up the communion line
while you run and make an emergency call to your Bishop? Hardly. You do that
which is appropriate and that which is commanded: You deny Holy Communion under
Canon 915.
Obstinately
Persevering In Manifest Grave Sin
The
above scenario leads us to answer a crucial question: What precisely does it
mean to judge a Catholic as “obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin”? From
an historical point of view, Canon 915, instituted in 1983, replaced the
previous 1917 Code of Canon Law #855:
All
those publicly unworthy are to be barred from the Eucharist, such as
excommunicates, those interdicted, and those manifestly infamous, unless their
penitence and emendation are shown and they have satisfied beforehand the
public scandal [they caused].
We
are dealing then with “publicly unworthy” individuals, Catholics who are known
in the public realm and who, in some sense, are considered “unworthy” and who
have not, up to that point, repented and “satisfied” the scandal they have
caused. According to the dictionary,
obstinate means “stubbornly
adhering to an attitude, opinion, or course of action.” To
persevere is “to persist
in or remain constant to a purpose or idea’.
Manifest means “clearly
apparent to the sight or understanding; obvious”.
“Grave
sin” is a modern expression of the older term “
mortal
sin,” which signifies serious matter requiring confession for forgiveness, as
opposed to venial or minor sin.
A
picture is emerging and now coming into focus: A Catholic easily recognized as a public figure and as one who
stubbornly persists in what the Church calls serious sin(s) must be barred from
Holy Communion.
How do Popes,
Cardinals and Canon Law Experts Regard Canon 915?
What
of the claim that many laws in the Church are commonly overlooked or
disregarded in the context of our modern times? Church leaders, it is said,
often have to make judgments of their own in complex circumstances of human
affairs and politics and they do their best to take into account many factors.
It is even said that Bishops have full latitude in such matters within their
own diocesan limits and the proof is that the Vatican rarely, if ever, corrects
them.
The
simple answer to such arguments is that a Bishop promises obedience to Christ
and to His Vicar on earth, the Pope. In fact, the Bishop is the
embodiment
of Christ in his diocese and he knows that Christ has given over all authority
to His Church. Faithfulness to Christ is faithfulness to His Church. The Bishop
is a servant to Christ and to His Church and the Church is the repository of
the teachings and laws of Christ. The Bishop is not his own, he has been bought
with a price and his duty is to follow, whether that be in respect of Sacred
Scripture or the Tradition of the Church or her laws. Again, the supreme
mission of the Church is the salvation of souls and every resource Christ
offers to His Pastors to accomplish that mission flows from His Church. To
disobey, disregard or ignore any element of that divine assistance would be a
mark of infidelity to Christ.
The
Bishop is primarily accountable to Christ and to God, not to the Pope or the
Vatican, although he promises faithful obedience to the Successor of Peter. Yet
he is answerable to Christ for his ministry. Examine now what the highest
authorities of Christ’s Church and canon law experts have said about Canon 915,
either directly or indirectly by insisting on the denial of Holy Communion.
5. Regarding the grave sin of abortion or euthanasia, when a person’s formal cooperation becomes manifest (understood, in the case of a Catholic politician, as his consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws), his Pastor should meet with him, instructing him about the Church’s teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin, and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist.
6. When "these precautionary measures have not had their effect or in which they were not possible," and the person in question, with obstinate persistence, still presents himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, "the minister of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute it" (cf. Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts Declaration "Holy Communion and Divorced, Civilly Remarried Catholics" [2002], nos. 3-4). This decision, properly speaking, is not a sanction or a penalty. Nor is the minister of Holy Communion passing judgment on the person’s subjective guilt, but rather is reacting to the person’s public unworthiness to receive Holy Communion due to an objective situation of sin.
37. The judgment of one's state of grace obviously belongs only to the
person involved, since it is a question of examining one's conscience. However,
in cases of outward conduct which is seriously, clearly and steadfastly
contrary to the moral norm, the Church, in her pastoral concern for the good
order of the community and out of respect for the sacrament, cannot fail to
feel directly involved. The Code of Canon Law refers to this situation of a
manifest lack of proper moral disposition when it states that those who
“obstinately persist in manifest grave sin” are not to be admitted to
Eucharistic communion.
III.
His Eminence, Raymond Cardinal Burke, Vatican Prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of
the Apostolic Signatura
A.
In an
interview
in April 2014 with
Catholic Voice,
Ireland
Question: It
is clear from Canon 915 that abortion is a mortal sin and a collaboration with
evil, can those who claim to be Catholic vote for it and remain full members of
the Church? Also what is the role of the local bishop with regard to this
matter?
Answer:
With regard to Canon 915, it states that those who obstinately persist in
manifest grave sin should not be admitted to receive Holy Communion. There can
be no question that the practice of abortion is among the gravest of manifest
sins and therefore once a Catholic politician has been admonished that he
should not come forward to receive Holy Communion, as long as he continues to
support legislation which fosters abortion or other intrinsic evils, then he
should be refused Holy Communion. In my own experience, when I have informed
Catholic politicians who were supporting anti-life or anti-family legislation
not to approach to receive Holy Communion, they have understood and have
followed the discipline of the Church as it is set forth in Canon 915.
Depending on
the situation, the Diocesan Bishop may be involved directly in admonishing the
politician, but it is also within the pastoral care of the parish priest to
admonish anyone in his congregation who is persisting obstinately in manifest
grave sin not to approach to receive Holy Communion. The local Bishop should
teach clearly in the matter and also encourage his priests to make sure that
the Church’s discipline is observed, in order to avoid the grave sin of
sacrilege on the part of the Catholic politician who approaches to receive Holy
Communion when he is persisting obstinately in grave moral evil, and to prevent
the scandal which is caused when such individuals receive Holy Communion,
because their reception of Holy Communion gives the impression that the
Church’s teaching on the intrinsic evil of abortion is not firm.
B.
From a
detailed
abstract on “The Discipline Regarding the Denial of
Holy Communion to Those Obstinately Persevering in Manifest Grave Sin” prepared
for The Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome for its periodical PERIODICA
DE RE CANONICA vol. 96 2007.
This document traces “the history of the legislation articulated in can. 915,
in order to understand the Church's constant practice and the mind of Pope John
Paul II, the legislator of the 1983 Code of Canon Law” and is an outstanding
resource for the subject.
Quote is taken from “Conclusions”
section of document:
“The United States of America is a thoroughly secularized society which
canonizes radical individualism and relativism, even before the natural moral
law. The application, therefore, is more necessary than ever, lest the
faithful, led astray by the strong cultural trends of relativism, be deceived
concerning the supreme good of the Holy Eucharist and the gravity of supporting
publicly the commission of intrinsically evil acts. Catholics in public office
bear an especially heavy burden of responsibility to uphold the moral law in
the exercise of their office which is exercised for the common good, especially
the good of the innocent and defenseless. When they fail, they lead others,
Catholics and non-Catholics alike, to be deceived regarding the evils of
procured abortion and other attacks on innocent and defenseless human life, on
the integrity of human procreation, and on the family.
“As Pope John Paul II reminded us, referring to the teaching of the
Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, the Holy Eucharist contains the entire good
of our salvation [91]. There is no responsibility of the Church's shepherds
which is greater than that of teaching the truth about the Holy Eucharist,
celebrating worthily the Holy Eucharist, and directing the flock in the worship
and care of the Most Blessed Sacrament. Can. 915 of the Code of Canon Law and
can. 712 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches articulate an essential
element of the shepherds' responsibility, namely, the perennial discipline of
the Church by which the minister of Holy Communion is to deny the Sacrament to
those who obstinately persevere in manifest grave sin.”
IV.
Cardinal
Robert Sarah is Prefect of one of the highest Vatican offices,
The Congregation for Divine Worship and
Discipline of the Sacraments. He was appointed by Pope Francis on 23
November 2014. Quoting from the Cardinal’s book “God or Nothing”, journalist
Sandro Magister
records
the following as one question among many posed to the Cardinal.
Question:
According to one critic whose fidelity to the priesthood I admire, thousands of
priests do not hesitate to give communion to all.
Answer:
In the first place we note the absence of doctrinal authority in this myriad of
sacred ministers, who in other ways are certainly respectable. Moreover, no
matter how authentic this “statistic” may be, this position mixes up, among
persons living in a notorious and habitual state of sin (for example, adultery
and permanent infidelity to one’s spouse, frequent and grave fraud in
business): a) a
believer who finally repents with the firm intention to avoid falling in the
future, receives holy absolution and as a result may receive the holy
Eucharist, and b)
the believer who does not want to stop committing acts of grave objective guilt
in the future, contradicting the Word of God and the covenant signified
precisely by the Eucharist. This
latter case excludes the “firm intention” defined by the Council of Trent as
necessary to be forgiven by God. We should specify that this firm intention
does not consist in knowing that one will not sin again, but in making the
deliberate decision to employ the means suitable for avoiding the sin. Without
a firm intention (and apart from a total and non-culpable ignorance), such a
Christian would remain in a state of mortal sin and would commit a grave sin by
receiving communion.
In the hypothesis that his state is
publicly known, the ministers of the Church for their part have no right to
give him communion. If they do so, their sin will be more grave before the
Lord. It would be unequivocally a premeditated complicity and profanation of
the Most Holy Body and Blood of Jesus.
V.
Canon
Lawyer Edward Peters is a world renown, very highly respected canon as well
as civil lawyer and was appointed in 2010 a Referendary of the Apostolic Signatura
by Pope Benedict XVI. His comprehensive research and experience on canon law is
documented
online and his extensive
work on Canon 915 is available
here. The following
statements are found in a recent
commentary
he made (December 12, 2015) regarding statements made by Chicago Archbishop
Blaise Cupich.
Canon 915, however, in contrast with Canon 916, directs ministers of
holy Communion to withhold the Sacrament, not from “sinners” per se (as if
ministers could read souls!), but rather, from those who “obstinately persevere
in manifest grave sin”. Now there is zero doubt but that, in Catholic
tradition, attempting marriage following a civil divorce and/or entering a
“same-sex marriage” is to undertake the kind of gravely wrong public action
that triggers ministerial obligations under Canon 915. Thus, when Cupich (and
he is not alone in talking this way) says “It’s not up to any minister who is
distributing the Eucharist to make a decision about a person’s worthiness or
lack of worthiness” he misses the point: a minister is not assessing personal
“worthiness” when withholding holy Communion from one’s whose conduct is
described in Canon 915, but rather, is acting in accord with an age-old
sacramental discipline designed to protect both the Sacrament from the risk of
possible sacrilege and the faith community from the harm of classical scandal
caused by someone’s public contrarian conduct.
Update: Although unrelated to Dr. Edward Peters, a
more recent commentary by an American Bishop on the modernist appeal to conscience
can be found
here as well as
an additional
interview
of great significance with a Cardinal and a Bishop.
Why Torture Canon
915?
Now
that we have a solid understanding of how the Church views Canon 915, let’s
examine statements of Ottawa Archbishop since 2008 on denying Holy Communion to
pro-abortion Catholic politicians, most notably Justin Trudeau. The
Archbishop’s words will be highlighted in red and my comments, if any, will
follow his. I believe this exercise will readily show that the Archbishop is in
reality torturing the plain reading of Canon 915. Bear in mind that Archbishop
Prendergast is a highly educated Jesuit, having earned a Doctorate degree in
Theology, a degree which is basically equivalent to a Ph.D. His specialty is
theology, which is
defined
as “the systematic and rational study of concepts of God and of the nature of
religious ideas.” Of all people he shouldn’t haven’t any trouble grasping the
meaning, significance and application of one straightforward canon law. Let the
reader be the judge of whether the Archbishop appears coherent—let alone
obedient—on this matter and whether he has lived up to his words to date.
Relevant quotes and commentary:
Prendergast
said he would have to put the best possible interpretation on what the
politician was doing and "engage in dialogue" with him. "As I
get to know the politicians I will speak to them on these issues and hopefully
we’ll be able to make progress".
So Archbishop Prendergast would engage in dialogue with the politician(s)
and, over time, hope to make progress. However, as we have seen, nowhere in the
Church’s thinking about Canon 915 does it support such a subjective, ambiguous
approach. Once a politician has caused public scandal by his persistent
advocacy for abortion, the objective situation of grave sin has been
established and the serious scandal must be quickly redressed; the politician
is to be admonished to refrain from Holy Communion until he publicly conforms
his conscience to Church teaching; should he present himself for Holy Communion
before such a turnabout, he is to be refused the Sacrament.
Seeming to echo the approach of Cardinal
Theodore McCarrick in his 2006 address to the Canadian bishops on the issue,
Prendergast continued, that if the attempts to teach fail he would say,
"Given your stubbornness on this particular issue, you should not publicly
receive the Eucharist until you’ve changed your mind."
This begs the question: In the case of Justin Trudeau, has the Archbishop
already informed him that he should not present himself? The gravity of the
scandal would demand that Canadians be informed immediately of such
instruction, lest souls be furthered damaged and lost through Trudeau’s evil
behaviour regarding the advocacy of abortion. However, it can only be surmised from
all 2014/2015 statements made about Trudeau that the Archbishop has not taken
such action as he indicated in 2008 he would. Of course his previous ambiguous
comment would leave lots of room for him to say that he’s in the midst of
“dialogue” with Trudeau and still hoping for progress.
"The bishop is
not a policeman," he said. "He is a father in Christ, a Shepherd of
his flock."
Here, by this statement, the
Archbishop reinforces his ambiguous position. Of course, standing on its own
merits, this statement is quite true but in the context given, we find no
relevance whatever to the spirit or the law of Canon 915. In fact it deflects
from the mind of the Church on such a grave, urgent matter as scandal, the
damage to the common good and the danger to a politician’s soul. Keep in mind
that Trudeau’s position on abortion has been public knowledge for a great many
years. This interview took place in 2008 and I
blogged
just a week or so later that the Archbishop has not only left himself lots of
wiggle room but he has really muddied the waters.
Furthermore, think of the false
dilemma advanced by the Archbishop. Why would he frame it as a choice between
being a policeman or a shepherd, as though the Church has no right (or duty!)
to judge and discipline her members out of love (not spite)? The Archbishop
does a great disservice to Holy Mother Church in discrediting her just role in
this regard.
Incidentally, the Archbishop’s
ambiguity and deflection on this grave public scandal not only prolongs it and causes
it to fester but also introduces an entirely new scandal: that of the betrayal
felt by knowledgeable and well informed Catholics when their Shepherd fails to uphold
the Faith in a plain matter of public breakdown of morals. Some can be
seriously wounded and even give up on the Church.
2.
March 8, 2008 Ottawa Citizen (a very insightful report
exposing very problematic behaviour!):
No
communion for pro-choice politicians, archbishop says Subtitled:
Ottawa's Catholic archbishop says he will refuse
communion to any politician who "obstinately" supports access to
abortion, but only if he or she cannot be persuaded to stand down.
Relevant quotes:
"I
think if a bishop is going to involve Canon 915, he has to know (the
politicians), and speak with them or have the priest speak with them. Ultimata
that come down from on high don't help anybody.
More wiggle room, did you notice? But at the same time it’s breathtaking
in its contempt for authority. The Archbishop is insinuating that on a subject
so grievous as a Catholic politician’s public advocacy for the killing of
innocent unborn children that a carefully crafted, age old Church position designed
to protect human life, prevent scandal and save the souls of politicians can’t
really be expected to do much. Can you imagine Jesus or the Apostles uttering
such a maxim? Is that what the Ten Commandments are? Is that what the commands
of Christ represent: an ultimatum that comes “down from on high” that “doesn't
help anybody”? In other words, we really can’t expect politicians (or other
Catholics) to be informed about—let alone take to heart—weighty Church laws
until we pull them aside (might take months or years), give them a good talking
to (depending on the cleric’s style), and tell them this is really serious
stuff. This statement really says so much about the leadership of the Canadian
Catholic Church in our day. Furthermore, couldn’t this be taken as a slur
against papal “ultimata” that are imposed on the Bishops (like maybe Humanae Vitae)? Should the Pope have to
pull Bishops aside and sit down with them to convince them of the seriousness
of Church law and order? (Maybe that’s what Canadian Bishops are still waiting
for!) The Archbishop really seems to be saying that Canon 915 (and all church
laws like it) is an ultimatum that has little practical value unless the Bishop
or priest actually knows the politician and sets up a “dialogue.”
"As a
Jesuit principle, I have to put the best possible interpretation on my
neighbour's proposition, then speak to him about it, and only then draw the
line and say, 'Look, given your stubbornness on this position, I think you
should not publicly receive communion until you change your mind'.
Of course we should be quick to give everyone the benefit of the doubt in
the early stages but likewise we should be quick to seek clarification so that
good order and discipline might be kept. Consider these are the Archbishop’s
words in 2008. Has he actually followed this line of thinking with Trudeau?
Obviously not or we would not still be talking about this in 2015. The Archbishop
also waffles on the action demanded by Canon 915: it’s not a case of saying to
the politician “I don’t think you should receive Holy Communion”. Instead Canon
915 is crystal clear, the Minister must say: “If you present for Holy
Communion, you will be denied.” It must be noted here as well that the
Archbishop said, “I think you should not publicly receive communion” but,
whether intentional or not, this is a misleading statement: the politician is
not to receive Holy Communion in any setting, public or private! After all,
would it be right for Trudeau to receive Holy Communion at a private Mass said
by his priest or by the Archbishop?
Since his
arrival nine months ago, Archbishop Prendergast said he has not met many
politicians, but that "when I do get to know them, I will discuss
it." Ottawa South Liberal MP David McGuinty is a Catholic and a brother of
Ontario's premier, who is also Catholic. Both are pro-choice, as are many
Canadian politicians. He said the archbishop hasn't been in contact with him,
but if he does call, he'd be delighted to sit down and discuss the issue.
This news report was dated March 2008. It is now 2015. As I explained
previously
in my discussion of timeline with respect to Justin Trudeau, the Archbishop has
had lots of time to get to know and educate the Catholic politicians in Ottawa,
“many” of whom are pro-choice (!!!) according to the news writer. And truly
they are due to the fecklessness of Canada’s Bishops who not only fail to
discipline them but who entirely fail to educate (catechize) them firstly as to
their duties and moral obligations as Catholics and secondly as to their
weighty responsibilities as
champions
and advocates of the common good. So few Catholic politicians have even the
barest understanding of the concept of
common
good that it would be no exaggeration to tag as a “rare breed” indeed any
of them that could correctly define the term. It would be a great service if
some news reporter would contact MP David McGuinty and other Catholic MP’s to
inquire as to whether Archbishop Prendergast has been busy since 2008 meeting
with these renegade politicians. May I ask why LifeSiteNews hasn’t done so as
an important component of their news reporting on the Trudeau-Prendergast affair?
Mr.
McGuinty said he comes from a long line of Catholic politicians who have been
able to be pro-choice while remaining true to their religion.
"I
long ago reconciled my public duties and responsibilities with my faith. I,
like many politicians, keep those things separate," he said. "I don't
just represent Roman Catholics. I don't just represent people of any faith for
that matter." The archbishop doesn't buy the view of many elected
officials who believe they must represent their constituents' point of view,
not their own.
Note well Mr. McGuinty’s comments. He believes he can self-identify as
“pro-choice” and still stay true to his religion. Somehow he’s got the notion
that he can compartmentalize his faith and keep it separate from politics, like
his brother
Dalton
McGuinty. Now where would he and so many of his fellow Catholic politicians
get such a troubling view of their participation in politics? Here’s a
suggested clue: Who are the teachers and mentors of all the Catholic faithful
in Canada? Are they not the Bishops, the ones who over the lifetime of these
politicians—most of whom have been Catholics since their cradle days—have
formed their consciences and their thinking? Isn’t it about time for them to
take responsibility for the
monsters
they have created?
"At
the end of the line, I would have to say, 'Don't pretend you're in community
with the Catholic Church, because that's what communion is, a coming together.'
I think somebody has to come out and say that."
So the Archbishop thinks someone should come out and say that! Well, it
would certainly be about time for Catholic Bishops to do just that and more! After
all, there is NO recorded instance of a dissenting, pro-abortion
Catholic politician of any stature in Canada EVER being denied Holy
Communion! So the fact is that the “end of the line” was reached long ago and
the Archbishop ought to be affirming the instruction from Canon 915 and telling
these politicians that if they do not publicly retract their positions on
abortion that they will be denied Holy Communion, but still he falls short of
the instruction and uses word games to make it appear he is in favour of being
tough on these wayward politicians. Why now get into a game of semantics on
what the word “communion” means? Why not simply focus on Canon 915 and go ahead
and put it into practice? Clearly the reason is that the Archbishop is only
puffing his chest and when push comes to shove he will fold like an accordion
when he faces these politicos. History proves my point completely.
In 2001,
Calgary Bishop Frederick Henry chastised former prime minister Jean Chrétien
and opposition leader Joe Clark for their pro-choice stand. Last year, Pope
Benedict XVI said recalcitrant leaders ought to be excommunicated.
Again, a Canadian Bishop chastises a politician but no politician is
denied Holy Communion. Does anybody see a pattern developing here? The Calgary
Bishop was speaking of politicians who did not reside in his diocese but what
of the Bishops who were actually responsible for the souls of these
politicians? Why did they not act in accordance with Canon 915? It was an act
of disobedience not to do so: “Those…persevering in manifest grave sin
are not to be admitted to Holy
Communion.” The newspaper noted that Pope Benedict gave Bishops a strong
go-ahead to discipline the renegade Catholics, but still nothing is done. Remember
that Pope Benedict had specifically
instructed
the American Bishops in 2004 that "the Minister of Holy Communion must
refuse to distribute it (Eucharist)" when the conditions of Canon 915 have
been met. Why has Archbishop Prendergast failed to carry through on such an
urgent matter? Is the Catholic faith different in Canada?
This is yet another interview with the Archbishop in March of 2008
following the controversial comments he made two weeks previous. Still more
confusion about Canon 915 is fostered by the Archbishop’s remarks in this
interview.
"What
is at issue is whether a politician who does not himself or herself participate
in an abortion but supports ‘a woman’s right to choose’ (or however else shows
support for abortion) is guilty of grave sin and then obstinately persists in
this state of grave sin."
No, clearly, that is not the issue. The Archbishop continually chooses to
shift the focus to avoid expressing plainly the issue. The issue is, as I noted
above: A Catholic easily recognized as a
public figure and as one who stubbornly persists in what the Church calls
serious sin(s) must be barred from
Holy Communion. Attention Archbishop Prendergast: this entire
conversation has centred on politicians who publicly support the killing of
unborn children and who persist in their advocacy despite being corrected.
There can be no question or issue about whether such a politician is guilty of
grave sin. The Archbishop himself makes that plain in other parts of his
interview. That is also the basic teaching of the Catechism and can be
reiterated by a child. Likewise the politician who persists in that position
without public retraction risks the censure of Canon 915, which is the denial
of Holy Communion. Why not speak plainly Archbishop? Why confuse the matter by
raising the question of whether the politician is actually guilty as charged?
Why not simply focus on that politician who meets the conditions of Canon 915
and avoid other complicating questions?
The
decision to take "medicinal" remedies, says the Archbishop, is not
taken lightly, and is simply an attempt at direct intervention with the
politicians. "Perhaps politicians
embrace the support of a woman’s right to choose unthinkingly, following party
policy; this is where the church with the help of its pastors and through
fellow believers needs to come to the assistance of those who serve the public
good," he said.
Why does the Archbishop continue to employ so casually the deadly
euphemism “a woman’s right to choose” when each and every time a woman makes
such a choice, a child dies? This is at a minimum a very poor choice of words
and plays directly into the hands of the devil’s social engineers. Furthermore,
what an awful and tragic state of affairs it is when a Catholic politician
could “choose unthinkingly” to support legislation that permits the killing of
an innocent human being. In using this language the Archbishop is playing down
any serious expectation we might have not only of “Catholic” politicians but of
any of his flock. He might as well say anything goes for the Catholic until
he/she gets hauled into the Bishop’s office! Could it be that this style of careless
speech betrays the Archbishop’s uncritical and very low standards for the
people of God?
"It
may take time to work with political figures before one can conclude that they
are obstinately persisting in manifest grave sin and that, therefore, denial of
communion or of encouraging them not to present themselves for communion is
reached as the medicinal remedy to draw them back to the way of Christ, Our
Lord, the Way, the Truth and the Life."
Here again, why does the Archbishop avoid the plain meaning of Canon 915?
As was pointed out earlier, the Canon clearly applies to an objective reality
where a Catholic who is easily recognized as a public figure and as one who
stubbornly persists in what the Church calls serious sin(s)
must be barred from Holy Communion.
The objective reality is either present or it is not. Either the politician has
created public scandal or he has not. A conversation with the politician will
not determine whether this objective condition has been met; the fact of the
public scandal determines it! I fear the Archbishop dangerously rejects, to
some degree, the crucial Catholic teaching on
objective
truth, guaranteeing he will fall victim to what Pope Benedict XVI termed
the dictatorship of relativism.
So, no, it does not require, as the Archbishop suggested, “time to work
with them” to conclude they are obstinately persisting in manifest grave sin.
If the grave sin is manifest (clear, established in the thinking of the public)
and they have been warned, then the conditions for Canon 915 have been met and
it is justifiable to deny Holy Communion. This is not rocket science,
Archbishop Prendergast! Fine, work with them all you like after they have been
warned not to present themselves for Holy Communion, but don’t use the pretext
of a dialogue to obfuscate the clear instruction of the Canon! In the
meanwhile, should they present for Holy Communion, they MUST be denied, as the
Canon forthrightly says. The Archbishop timidly says that the renegade
politician should be “encouraged not to present themselves for communion.” I
ask the reader, Is that what Canon 915 says? No. The guilty party must
be denied Holy Communion once he/she has been advised of the objective reality
of his/her sin and yet will not/does not publicly recant.
One other
consideration in addressing seriously such grave violations of Church teaching
is scandal. "If one were to allow
Catholic political (or other public) figures to freely espouse abortion without
drawing to their attention that this is a grave evil," explained
Archbishop Prendergast, "other believers might be tended to accept this,
not knowing any better and be led on the wrong path: that is what ‘scandal’
is. One must do everything possible to
prevent others from falling away from the path of Christ - i.e. from being
scandalized."
Note well: the Archbishop has just told us that he is well aware of the
gravity of scandal. The scandal caused by “Catholic” Justin Trudeau and his
advocacy of grave sins that carry enormous societal consequences is simply
flagrant and wicked—and has grown steadily under the watch of Canada’s Bishops
since 2001 and
under
Archbishop Prendergast’s watch since 2013. The Archbishop says that “one
must do
everything possible (my
emphasis) to prevent others from falling away from the path of Christ -
i.e. from being scandalized." Everything—it would seem—except employ the
very prescription of the Church, i.e. Canon 915, for just such egregious
offenses. God help you, where is your conscience Archbishop Prendergast?
4.
May 19, 2014, Catholic Register by
Deborah Gyapong:
Catholics
in public life must adhere to Catholic teachings, says Prendergast NOTE:
This article contains a serious error in that it confuses Canon 915 with 916. Amazingly,
and almost two years later, the correction has not yet been noted by the editor
of the journal. Differences in these two Canons have been highlighted in the
beginning section of this posting. Here is the offending paragraph:
“Catholics
are warned against taking the sacrament of Holy Communion unworthily, both in
Scripture and in Canon Law section 915 which says: “Anyone aware of having
committed a grave sin is obliged to refrain from receiving Communion without
first obtaining absolution in the sacrament of Reconciliation.”
The
archbishop said he would not go so far as to advise Trudeau to no longer
receive communion without meeting with him beforehand. He thinks that after
Trudeau’s public statements a meeting would be “a good idea.”
Note the date of this article—2014. Six years have passed since the three
interviews we’ve already examined above. As of the date of Gyapong’s interview
Archbishop Prendergast has been leading the Ottawa archdiocese since 2007, a
period of seven years. Despite Trudeau’s scandalous statements and actions
since 2001, as previously
recorded,
the Archbishop infers that he has yet to meet with Justin Trudeau to discuss
his renegade positions or to redress the scandal or to try to save his soul. Didn’t
he
say
back in 2008 that he was going to start meeting with all these politicians who
needed “medicinal” help? There is also nothing on record to indicate that any
of his priests have made any similar efforts. The scandal grows by the year and
cries out for redress, Catholics have been staging protests and rallies calling
for action for several years, multiple articles have been written by Catholic
media and bloggers warning of the possible consequences, yet still the
Archbishop has not so much as met with the politician in question, arguably
Public Enemy #1 in terms of scandal generating public Catholics.
Despite all of
the Archbishop’s rhetoric from 2008, it required a crisis to get him talking
tough again! In fact it took an explosion in the national media; a consequence
of Justin Trudeau’s ramped up abortion advocacy which insisted all his party
members must vote pro-death, regardless of personal conscience. “Imagine,” many
were thinking, “he’s not even the Prime Minister yet and already he presumes to
rob others of basic freedoms!” Indeed, many were imagining a national, cultural
storm brewing, all thanks to a very rebellious “Catholic” running for the
highest political office in the land. But as regards the Church’s remedy—Canon
915—for just such a scandal, exacerbated by this latest evil twist, the
Archbishop still dallied! That in itself is jaw-dropping and nothing short of a
dereliction of duty.
Yet, take note, this report indicates the Archbishop was
still very far from getting serious about the
denial of Holy Communion
which is called for by Canon 915! We know this because, says the report, he wouldn’t
even go “so far” as a cautious warning to “advise Trudeau to no longer receive
communion,” a step unquestionably preliminary to denial of the Eucharist and
one quite reasonably to be expected from a shepherd given the circumstances. After
all, the Archbishop had
issued,
according to Gyapong, “a statement May 16 on moral issues and communion with the
Catholic Church in response to Trudeau’s statements,” in which he meant to
leave no doubt that Trudeau was “not in communion with the Church’s values and
teaching” and that “One may not dissent from these core teachings on life
issues and be considered a Catholic in good standing.”
Why then would the Archbishop not, at a minimum, advise Trudeau to hold
off on Holy Communion until he had met with him personally, in order that
scandal be curbed, the Eucharist be saved from possible profanation and Trudeau’s
soul be protected from greater condemnation?
Why indeed, unless the Archbishop never had any such intention to obey
Canon 915? After Trudeau’s latest outrage over a forced “pro-choice” party vote
there can be no reasonable doubt that any rational, mature Catholic would assess
Trudeau as a public sinner causing grave damage to the faith, so why would not a
highly educated Jesuit, a Doctor of Theology, a Professor and a prelate of the
Catholic Church?
“We always
have to presume the best of people unless we know for sure the interior state
of their lives,” the archbishop said. “Someone might be in a state of sin when
they come to Holy Communion, but I don’t know that.
In the context of a public figure scandalizing the faithful I note that
the Archbishop has not quoted any official source for his statements here,
neither from Sacred Scripture nor the Tradition of the Church. Over and over
again, the Archbishop refuses to zero in on the substance of Canon 915. There
seems to be no end to the excuses raised to avoid the unpleasant reality of dealing
with sin. Not only that but in the process he denies and obfuscates the wise
counsel of the Church in providing effective means of redress. Let’s ask a
question or two of the Archbishop in regard to his comments: How might a
Minister of Holy Communion know of a certainty of the interior state of a
public official? Can any person know for certain whether another is in a state
of (serious) sin? Will a dialogue settle the matter definitively?
Of course not. There can never be certainty in such a matter, except in
the mind of God. With man there can be, at best, an assumption. If an
assumption by a Priest or Bishop is sufficient to settle the matter of
worthiness to receive Holy Communion, today we may be worthy, tomorrow we may
not. Fortunately Holy Mother Church does not deal with souls in terms of
subjective realities but rather in terms of objective relationship with God and
with sin. Rather than the chaotic, spiritually dangerous approach set forth by
the Archbishop, Canon 915 takes aim directly at the objective situation of sin
posed by a public official. As recorded earlier in this post, Cardinal
Ratzinger—later Pope Benedict XVI—observed: Nor is
the minister of Holy Communion passing judgment on the person’s subjective
guilt, but rather is reacting to the person’s public unworthiness to receive
Holy Communion due to an objective situation of sin.
Archbishop Prendergast, how difficult can it be? A Catholic easily recognized as a public figure and as one who
stubbornly persists in what the Church calls serious sin(s) must be barred from
Holy Communion.
“If there
are persistent signs of a resistance to hold the Church’s teachings, there
would seem to be an incompatibility between what the Church understands and
what the person is professing,” he said. “But no one from the beginning
presumes to judge a person’s conscience.”
Ah, the conscience argument again: Justin Trudeau rescued once more. Read
the Canon again, Archbishop Prendergast. Earlier in this posting Dr. Edward
Peters et al examined the conscience argument in relation to Canon 915; please
refer to that section. It’s altogether rich that the Archbishop says “But no
one from the beginning…” implying that we mustn’t immediately judge Mr.
Trudeau, as though he appeared on the scene overnight and nobody has the
slightest bit of evidence by which to judge him. The truth is that Justin
Trudeau has been causing grave scandal in Canada’s public sphere for about
twelve years, as I have pointed out elsewhere in this posting.
Time To Call It
What It Is
Truly, this kind of literary examination becomes dreary and
depressing after a while. Yes, I could go on and on about this historic scandal
and dissect every statement made by the Archbishop but in the end the evidence will
continue to shout out one compelling conclusion: wittingly or unwittingly
Archbishop Prendergast is aiding and abetting an enemy of Christ to ascend into
the highest ranks of political power and expose our nation to the appetites of
demons.
The
Archbishop is a highly trained thinker—an intellectual—but unfortunately it
appears that dissimulation, confusion, and misrepresentation of Catholic
teaching rules his thinking when it comes to the medicinal remedy encapsulated
in Canon 915, to the spiritual deprivation of an entire nation of peoples.
Prayer for the Conversion or Downfall of Archbishop Terrence
Prendergast
Dear
St. Joseph, Terror of Demons and Protector of Holy Church, Chaste Guardian of
Our Lord and His Mother, hear my urgent prayer and swiftly intercede with our
Saviour, whom as a loving father you defended so diligently, that He will pour
abundant graces upon His chosen shepherd, Terrence Prendergast, Archbishop of
Ottawa, Canada so that he will embrace fully his duties towards all the
faithful under his care, in accord with the laws and precepts of Holy Mother
Church, and, because of the gravity of their public positions, particularly towards
all wayward Catholic politicians in Canada’s capital city, starting with our
newly elected Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. Should the Archbishop persist in a
callous disregard of Church law which demonstrates contempt for God and man and
which ultimately condemns countless
souls to Hell, dear St. Joseph similarly intercede that through sickness,
adversities, or other divine judgements all his ministrations will promptly fail
and come to their just end in order that an example of God’s displeasure be
manifest unto all God’s faithful and that a worthy Bishop may take his place
and restore order and discipline amongst all Catholic souls in Ottawa, the most
symbolic see in our great nation. Assist me further, dear St. Joseph, in interceding
that in the case of such a calamitous outcome, the Archbishop himself may, in
the end, find repentance with the Lord. Amen. ***
***The preceding prayer was modelled somewhat after a similar prayer published by another blogger, particularly in its opening paragraph. I won't link to it for obvious reasons but I do want to acknowledge some degree of credit. Google the first couple lines and I'm sure you'll find it.
