Card. Kasper Should Apologise For Racist Remarks About African Bishops

[John Ryan]

Well, gays are allowed to receive communion; those who are unchaste are not.  Just as unchaste straight people.

 

Does anybody actually believe the priests are commonly preventing unchaste heterosexual couples from receiving communion? 

[Basilisa Marie]

Does anybody actually believe the priests are commonly preventing unchaste heterosexual couples from receiving communion? 

 

Um, seeing as it's NOT THEIR JOB to screen people before they approach for communion? Like, against canon law, for their own protection? 

 

(**obvious exception for cases of grave public sin, i.e. evil politicians, yadda yadda yadda**)

[John Ryan]

Um, seeing as it's NOT THEIR JOB to screen people before they approach for communion? Like, against canon law, for their own protection? 

 

(**obvious exception for cases of grave public sin, i.e. evil politicians, yadda yadda yadda**)

 

There is no screening on the partaking of communion, but do not Churches retrain the right to screen outside of the Mass. I was already stopped by a priest after Mass, to make sure that I am actually a baptized Roman Catholic.

[Basilisa Marie]

There is no screening on the partaking of communion, but do not Churches retrain the right to screen outside of the Mass. I was already stopped by a priest after Mass, to make sure that I am actually a baptized Roman Catholic.

 

Yeah screening people before mass is playing way too fast and loose with canon law, imho. What are you calling for, users asking people as they walk through the door, "Hey, have you committed any mortal sins lately?"  People cannot be compelled to answer such questions re: confession and the state of their soul because that resides in the internal forum. You can tell people that only Catholics in a state of grace can properly receive, but you're not allowed to deny anyone who presents themselves for communion, communion (again, unless there's a situation of grave, manifest, public sin).  

 

This sort of "screening" seems like it violates the spirit of these laws. It just starts to place an impossible implied responsibility on priests (and EMHCs) to determine the state of a person's soul before communion. I'm sure it's done with good intentions in mind, preventing sacrilege and 'protecting' the Eucharist, but it's misguided. 

 

I'm not trying to say that whatever "screening" a priest did on you was sinful, just that things of that nature get too close to stepping over that canonical line. 

[truthfinder]

It all comes back to canon 915: Can.  915 Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holycommunion.

 

The definition of manifest becomes important then.  Some would argue that if they tell the priest they are in a morally irregular/sinful situation, in a way which is not in the internal forum, and still present themselves for communion, they have manifested their sin.  

 

We also come to this canon, and the understanding of "take" comes into question: Can. 1367 A person who throws away the consecrated species or takes or retains them for a sacrilegious purpose incurs a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See; moreover, a cleric can be punished with another penalty, not excluding dismissal from the clerical state.

 

Take probably indicates more in the physically take away, rather than "take communion" as in receive communion, but those in grave sin are still guilty of sacrilegious communions.

[John Ryan]

Yeah screening people before mass is playing way too fast and loose with canon law, imho. What are you calling for, users asking people as they walk through the door, "Hey, have you committed any mortal sins lately?"  People cannot be compelled to answer such questions re: confession and the state of their soul because that resides in the internal forum. You can tell people that only Catholics in a state of grace can properly receive, but you're not allowed to deny anyone who presents themselves for communion, communion (again, unless there's a situation of grave, manifest, public sin).  

 

This sort of "screening" seems like it violates the spirit of these laws. It just starts to place an impossible implied responsibility on priests (and EMHCs) to determine the state of a person's soul before communion. I'm sure it's done with good intentions in mind, preventing sacrilege and 'protecting' the Eucharist, but it's misguided. 

 

I'm not trying to say that whatever "screening" a priest did on you was sinful, just that things of that nature get too close to stepping over that canonical line. 

 

I may have swung to the conservative position in this discussion. If the priest knows that somebody is a flagrant adulterer, for instance, I think there has to be some measure in place to prevent him or her from receiving communion.

[Nihil Obstat]

I may have swung to the conservative position in this discussion. If the priest knows that somebody is a flagrant adulterer, for instance, I think there has to be some measure in place to prevent him or her from receiving communion.

Well like Basil said, if someone is for instance living in an adulterous situation for , e.g. an attempted but invalid second 'marriage', he is prohibited by Canon 915 from receiving, and the onus is on the minister of Communion to deny him. If it came right down to it, a priest should turn such a person away if he was aware of his situation. There are other scenarios which fall under this canon. Pro-abortion 'Catholic' politicians, for instance. A 'married' (under civil law) gay couple.

[truthfinder]

Well like Basil said, if someone is for instance living in an adulterous situation for , e.g. an attempted but invalid second 'marriage', he is prohibited by Canon 915 from receiving, and the onus is on the minister of Communion to deny him. If it came right down to it, a priest should turn such a person away if he was aware of his situation. There are other scenarios which fall under this canon. Pro-abortion 'Catholic' politicians, for instance. A 'married' (under civil law) gay couple.

I would think other notorious sinners as well: brothel owners and drug runners/Mafia.  (The latter, I believe, has come up in Mexico).

[Nihil Obstat]

I would think other notorious sinners as well: brothel owners and drug runners/Mafia.  (The latter, I believe, has come up in Mexico).

Yeah, I should think that those tend to fall into the public sphere.

[truthfinder]

Yeah, I should think that those tend to fall into the public sphere.

Yeah, I think we the fact that the canon is broad enough to also cover other manifest grave sins needs to be acknowledged.  I'm not sure how often these sorts of people show up at weekly Mass at least in NA, but limiting the discussion solely to abortionists and same-sex couples is problematic.

[Nihil Obstat]

Yeah, I think we the fact that the canon is broad enough to also cover other manifest grave sins needs to be acknowledged.  I'm not sure how often these sorts of people show up at weekly Mass at least in NA, but limiting the discussion solely to abortionists and same-sex couples is problematic.

True, true.

I would imagine that the nature of the word "public" is very precise in canon law, but it would make sense that it should apply to businesses. So that would similarly exclude, say, the owner of a pornography shop or a strip club. I wonder if there is a meaningful debate to be had in terms of organized crime, if the crime group operates on a secret basis.

[truthfinder]

Hmmm good question. There were public funerals for Mafiosi banned by Pope Francis, but I'm not sure about those who manage to stay under the radar. They're still committing sacrilege by receiving though. Better question might be communist party leaders or other organizations which are banned: masons or the IRA during the Troubles.

[Benedictus]

Eh, I am probably just trying to be inflammatory. Or maybe my view of this issue is through friends and family rather than the bishops themselves. Probably the latter. And, sorry, in the second paragraph, I meant the laity, not the conservative-traditionalist bishops. I know some people who are going to break from the Church if "gays are allowed to partake of the Eucharist."

 

They already do. Have I missed something :think2:

[Gabriela]

I have to say: I both read the transcript and listened to the full interview, and I think the cries of racism are exaggerated. It seemed to me that Cardinal Kasper was saying, "The cultural situation in Europe is very different from that in Africa, and bishops need to be able to pastor according to local circumstances, so the Africans really shouldn't tell us how we should pastor in our cultural context." Which I would tend to agree with.

 

Except, of course, I disagree with how Kasper wants to pastor in his cultural context (and I live in more or less the same one). And he did lie about (not) giving the interview, which is inexcusable.

 

Still, the racism accusation seems over the top to me.

[Basilisa Marie]

Really? I thought the subtext was much more like, "The African cultural context is so messed up when it comes to gay people that it's nearly impossible for the African bishops to have anything worthwhile to contribute, because they're tainted by homophobia." 

 

But even if he's thinking more along the lines of what you're saying, it still reeks of Western superiority, and even if it's not truly racism, it's pretty close. Plus, it means that the Western bishops can't tell the Africans how to pastor, which they would want to do if they don't like the African response to homosexuality.