Steve is correct...

 

Steve is correct: the link to the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops November 2006 Happy Are Those Who Are Called to His Supper is not working. But not to be deterred from reading this important text, I did some trolling on the USCCB website—that must make me a fisher of documents—and found the PDF version of the text which is uploaded here [Download Happy Are Those Who Are Called to His Supper].

 

But, I apparently take a different tack on how the bishops’ text on the Eucharist is to be understood. First of all, it is essential to understand the Eucharist is union with Christ. The bishops of a particular episcopal conference, i.e., the United States, in the proper exercise of their teaching authority as confirmed on several occasions at the Second Vatican Council (e.g., Lumen Gentium; Christus Dominus), note that there are occasions when members of the Church “should refrain from partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ” because this union with Christ is gravely compromised. Nevertheless, they acknowledge the need for being cautious when a judgment is made about whether or not another person should receive Holy Communion or not. Of course, when one is in mortal sin, his or her relation with God and the Church is compromised because of the failure to be in the necessary state of grace.

 

In the proper exercise of their teaching authority, the bishops present a non-exclusive list of some thoughts, acts, and omissions that constitute such compromises. Included are:

 

·     Believing in or honoring as divine anyone or anything other than the God of the Holy Scriptures

 

·     Swearing a false oath while invoking God as a witness

 

·     Failing to worship God by missing Mass on Sundays and holy days of obligation without a serious reason, such as sickness or the absence of a priest

 

·     Acting in serious disobedience against proper authority; dishonoring one’s parents by neglecting them in their need and infirmity

 

·     Committing murder, including abortion and euthanasia; harboring deliberate hatred of others; sexual abuse of another, especially of a minor or vulnerable adult; physical or verbal abuse of others that causes grave physical or psychological harm

 

·     Engaging in sexual activity outside the bonds of a valid marriage

 

·     Stealing in a gravely injurious way, such as robbery, burglary, serious fraud, or other immoral business practices

 

·     Speaking maliciously or slandering people in a way that seriously undermines their good name

 

 

·     Producing, marketing, or indulging in pornography

 

 

·     Engaging in envy that leads one to wish grave harm to someone else

 

Lots of compromises here as you can see, including some of those to which Steve refers. But being pastors, the bishops offer help to those not in a state of grace by reminding all that the Sacrament of Penance is available to remove the infirmity that impedes union with Christ. This sacrament is available not only to those who “knowingly and obstinately...reject the defined doctrines of the Church” but to all who compromise their status and are not in the necessary state of grace. I disagree with Steve’s argument that what is really being refused are the “teachings of the Bishops.” Rather, something else is being refused: it is a knowing and obstinate rejection of the defined doctrines of the Church including Her “definitive teaching on moral issues,” some of which have been quoted above. This is a crucial distinction. So, it is not failure to “accept the teachings of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops” as Steve argues that constitutes the compromise; rather, it is the knowing and obstinate refusal of the Church’s teachings that the bishops, by their office and the authority conferred therein, are obliged to teach.

 

I am not sure I follow Steve’s point about the Nicene Creed. But, if he is suggesting that this is all that the bishops are obligated to teach, something is missing, i.e., Revelation and almost two thousand years of the Church’s teaching. In this latter context, the Apostle Paul had more than one occasion to address moral issues that many of our contemporary society dismiss as being solely confined to the tastes of the autonomous individual.

 

Finally, I am not sure if there exists today the “typical liberal Catholic” to which Steve refers or, for that matter, the “typical conservative Catholic” whom he does not mention. But if such persons do exist, I wonder which kind was Mr. Leander Perez; or Mrs. Bernard Gaillot; or Mr. Jackson Rickau...

 

RJA sj