Reply
Sat 24 Apr, 2004 09:04 am
I hope this action will cause a backlash of support for John Kerry among those who believe in the separation of church and state---and complying with the law of the land.---BBB
April 24, 2004
Vatican Rules Out Liberalized Liturgy
A senior cardinal says politicians who support legal abortion must be denied Communion.
By Tracy Wilkinson, Times Staff Writer
VATICAN CITY ?- The Vatican issued a series of rules Friday aimed at stopping what it called "habitual abuses" of traditional church practices in the celebration of the Roman Catholic Mass, and the senior prelate responsible for the instructions said politicians who support legalized abortion must be denied Holy Communion.
Cardinal Francis Arinze, a top Vatican official, would not single out U.S. Democratic presidential candidate John F. Kerry by name. But when asked in general terms whether a priest should refuse to give Communion to a Catholic politician who supports abortion rights, as Kerry does, Arinze replied with an emphatic yes.
The exchange occurred during a news conference at the Vatican that was called to unveil a long-awaited document commissioned by Pope John Paul II that orders strict adherence to church norms for celebrating Mass and giving and receiving Communion, the central rites in Catholicism.
The document is meant to reinject a measure of sobriety to liturgical practice and comes in response to what church conservatives see as serious abuses: the growing participation of laypeople in religious ceremonies, the use of unapproved prayer texts and the introduction of non-Catholic elements in the service.
In Washington, Bishop Wilton D. Gregory, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, called the Vatican statement "a carefully developed tool to foster the authentic celebration of the Mass."
"There is no more important work than the care and attention that we give the sacred liturgy," Gregory said. "Fidelity to the liturgy, as given to us by the church, is fidelity to Christ."
The document, 71 pages in English translation, was watered down from an earlier draft that reportedly forbade altar girls, applause, dance and certain music during Masses. Those provisions, leaked to a Catholic magazine last summer, created a furor among priests who want the church to be more inclusive, especially in parts of the world where traditional religion is declining and where the Catholic Church, these clerics believe, must adapt.
Priests in the Assn. of Professors of Liturgy petitioned the pope, expressing "bewilderment, unease, fear and concern" over the tone of the earlier draft, which they felt attempted to undermine the spirit of reform launched by the Second Vatican Council. In the 1960s, the council liberalized many liturgical practices, such as allowing priests to face their congregations during Mass and lead the service in languages other than Latin.
The document released Friday was softer than the draft and largely restates existing rules for Mass and worship at church. It allows girls and women to serve at the altar if a local bishop permits it, although it says using men and boys for the practice is "laudable."
No mention is made of the clapping and ritual dance that are increasingly common, especially in Third World and U.S. services. But music, it says, must be "true and suitable sacred music." Only approved Scripture readings are allowed, and they should not be replaced with nonreligious selections, such as poetry.
Laypeople may not distribute Communion or deliver sermons, except in extreme circumstances when priests and deacons are in short supply or indisposed, the document said. Currently in some parishes, the lay faithful and even women take lead roles in the Mass, a development the Vatican is attempting to discourage.
Arinze said the celebration of Mass and sharing of Communion must always demonstrate proper reverence for God.
"You do not go [to Mass] to applaud a maestro or to have camaraderie with the priest," he said. "We go to adore Christ."
The document is also firm in reiterating church policy that Communion must not be shared with non-Catholic Christians ?- a common practice in some churches seeking to cultivate a spirit of ecumenicalism ?- nor can it be administered to a Catholic who knows he or she is in "grave sin" and has not gone to confession to alleviate that sin.
Catholics believe that they are receiving the body and blood of Christ when they receive the Eucharistic wafer and wine at Communion. It is too important a ritual, the Vatican says, to be tampered with or altered by individual priests fulfilling a "personal whim." "In some places, the perpetration of liturgical abuses has become almost habitual, a fact which obviously cannot be allowed and must cease," the document says.
Initially, Arinze was asked whether Kerry should be denied Communion, because he supports the right of a woman to choose abortion, which the church views as murder and a mortal sin. Arinze said it was up to U.S. bishops to interpret the rules. "The norm of the church is clear," he said.
Later, when asked more broadly whether priests should refuse Communion to a politician who holds such views "unambiguously," he said, "Yes."
"Objectively," the cardinal said, "the answer is there."
Arinze, a Nigerian who is frequently mentioned as a potential candidate to succeed John Paul and become the first black pope, is known for his conservative doctrinal views. He heads the Vatican department that writes the rules for how the holy sacraments should be practiced.
He helped write the document released Friday, titled "The Sacrament of Redemption: On Certain Matters to Be Observed or to Be Avoided Regarding the Most Holy Eucharist."
"Not infrequently, abuses are rooted in a false understanding of liberty," the document says. "Yet God has not granted us in Christ an illusory liberty by which we may do what we wish, but a liberty by which we may do that which is fitting and right.
"If the bond
which the Sacraments have with Christ himself were to be broken
it would not be beneficial to the faithful but rather would do them grave harm," the instructions continue. "Anyone [at Mass] who gives free rein to his own inclinations, even if he is a priest, injures the substantial unity of the Roman Rite, which must be vigorously preserved."
The Vatican edict, Gregory noted, makes no change in existing liturgical law but emphasizes that it must be followed in view of "abuses" that have occurred over the years, including unauthorized Eucharistic prayers and unauthorized people taking part in portions of the Mass reserved for priests.
----------------------------------------
Times staff writer Larry B. Stammer in Los Angeles contributed to this report.
It would appear that the Vatican is not above religious blackmail. I for one, with that in mind, will great trepidation voting for a truly religious Catholic. In a secular nation such as ours, politicians, in affairs of government IMO owe their first allegiance to the people they serve. If they are unable to they should not be seeking political office.
au1929 wrote:It would appear that the Vatican is not above religious blackmail
I don't believe this can or should be called "religious blackmail." The Vatican is only ensuring that respect be given to the holiest of sacraments, the Eucharist, which we believe is the actual body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. Allowing someone to partake in this sacrament who is in a state of mortal sin, does not believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, or - in this case - believes it is ok to commit murder, would be the ultimate profanity and offense to God.
In addition, I believe only someone whose first allegiance is to God could truly serve their fellow man.
geesh - did someone help them get the log out of there own eye?
The greatest Commandment = Love
Of course turning people away is a sure way not to - I think you need to let God do the sorting out - that's not our job to judge and sort out other peoples short-sightedness.
ptreegrdn
Quote:In addition, I believe only someone whose first allegiance is to God could truly serve their fellow man.
That is religious poppycock. If you are an elected official your first civic duty is to serve your constituents. If you are unable to fulfill that requirement you have no business rung for office in a secular with diverse population such as ours. I believe the Vatican issuing edicts on the political behavior of politicians and attempting to enforcing them by blackmail is out of place and unacceptable.
au1929 wrote:ptreegrdn
Quote:In addition, I believe only someone whose first allegiance is to God could truly serve their fellow man.
That is religious poppycock. If you are an elected official your first civic duty is to serve your constituents. If you are unable to fulfill that requirement you have no business rung for office in a secular with diverse population such as ours. I believe the Vatican issuing edicts on the political behavior of politicians and attempting to enforcing them by blackmail is out of place and unacceptable.
That is only if you believe that allowing murder is "political behavior" and not a moral issue. The Vatican is only enforcing the rules of the Church, which do not change whether or not you are a politician - if one does not want to follow the rules of the Church, then he/she should join another faith group. By calling himself a "pro-choice" supporter and a Catholic, Kerry is contradicting himself. My statement only meant that if your first allegiance is to God, you will by default be serving your fellow man. I don't believe you can separate yourself into two persons - one of "such-and-such job" and another of "such-and-such faith." That would be like saying that a woman with two children stopped being a mother when she went to work at the hospital as a nurse. If you want to be a Christian, you have to be a Christian all the time. You can't pick and choose when to uphold your beliefs just when it suits you - or to gain votes.
ptreegrdn
If you are unable to compartmentalize and separate your religions dogma from government you should not be in government. Why should an atheist or someone of a different faith or belief system be subjected to the religious tenets of Catholicism?
If you want to "compartmentalize and separate religious dogma from government," then how can you complain about an action of the Church? The Vatican has only ruled on a Church matter - taking Communion. That has nothing to do with the government, and is definitely not making anyone subject to its rules, unless they choose to be. If Kerry can separate his religion from his politics, there is no issue, but he can't have it both ways.
Here's a few questions for you - why is murder illegal? why is theft illegal? There must be some belief system necessary in our government to have these laws...
ptreegrdn
Are you suggesting that murder and theft is illegal because of religion. They would be illegal with or without religion. After all religions are all the invention of mans fertile brain. Both laws and religion come from the same source so obviously it a case of what came first the chicken or the egg?
I think I agree with ptree here.
The Catholic church is a religious organization.
In this case they are making a religious judgement about a religious belief (that abortion is a sin) and a religious ritual (communion).
A Catholic politician who is pro-choice is at odds with his or her religion. They need to reconcile this in their own lives. It is the politician's responsibility to sort out their own beliefs, not the church's.
Communion is not a part of political life. It is a part of religious life. The Church is acting appropriately according to its beliefs.
I don't see what the big deal is.
ptreegrdn wrote:Here's a few questions for you - why is murder illegal? why is theft illegal? There must be some belief system necessary in our government to have these laws...
Well, certainly not because the bible says it is naughty. If that were so, then we would be executing people for adultry, homosexuality, or disobedience to parents.
"There are no witches. The witch text remains; only the practice has changed. Hell fire is gone, but the text remains. Infant damnation is gone, but the text remains. More than two hundred death penalties are gone from the law books, but the texts that authorized them remain." Mark Twain
Quote:
I hope this action will cause a backlash of support for John Kerry among those who believe in the separation of church and state---and complying with the law of the land.---BBB
I believe strongly in the separation of church and State.
Kerry will not receive my support (or my vote) for this or any other reason-- but that's because he has abandoned anything close to progressive values.
No. That's my point.
The church has every right to administer its rituals as it chooses based on its doctrine. A politician has every right to act according to his beliefs.
A priest who upholds the doctrine of the church by refusing to perform a sacrament on a member who is defying the church is behaving ethically. If a politician is at odds with his church, he can always leave.
If a politician is religious, his only ethical duty is to be up front about his beliefs to his constituents before they elect him. If they understand his beliefs and values and elect him, so what. That is his right and their right.
There is no problem here. The church is performing the role of a church. The politician should perform the role of a politician.
The Catholic church has done a number of things that I have found offensive.
This isn't one of them.
ebrown_p- Agree. If a person has sworn to uphold the Constitution, that is his duty. It is the duty of the church to uphold their teachings. If there is a conflict, and the politician considers that his church's teachings supercede the constitution, it is his duty to step down from his office.
truth
EBrown, I agree that Kerry's political actions and values are not sufficiently progressive, but I will vote for him because of the drastic position of Bush.