There have been quite a few news reports and blog posts since Archbishop Vigneron made statements earlier in the week about the reception of Communion by supporters of “Gay-marriage.” I wanted to create a list for some that are hoping to get caught up on the matter.
I think that answers my questions from earlier. I will continue to monitor this, and add more later.
The Free Press this morning had a front web-page story about Archbishop Vigneron. It was about the Holy Eucharist and people who publically support things like “Gay-marriage.”
The article is written by their religion beat writer, whom I am somewhat familiar with from Twitter. In terms of Catholic coverage, they are fairly straight forwardin their approach but hardly ever crack even the surface of basic understanding of the faith. I don’t expect much from a paper on such matters because it isn’t their expertise, so I read everything with a grain of salt hoping they don’t trash Catholicism.
This had to be some sort of stretch-of-truth or maybe it was a contortion of various statements, added to this or that, and an insinuation stretched into a statement. This is a pretty profound thing, especially in our state where we have quite a few public Catholic’s that support many things from Abortion to ‘Same-sex marriage.’
So I read the article quickly, and then tried to corroborate it with… anything. I couldn’t. So that is my caveat. This is one article, I don’t know when and where the Archbishop said the following, but hopefully the reporter did their job. If this turns out to be something that it is not… I will let you know:
Last month, Vigneron said at a news conference that maintaining views that oppose abortion and support traditional marriage are important for Catholics.
“Were we to abandon them, we would be like physicians who didn’t tell their patients that certain forms of behavior are not really in their best interest,” said Vigneron, who oversees 1.3 million Catholics in southeastern Michigan.
On Sunday, Vigneron said about supporting gay marriage and receiving Communion: “For a Catholic to receive holy Communion and still deny the revelation Christ entrusted to the church is to try to say two contradictory things at once: ‘I believe the church offers the saving truth of Jesus, and I reject what the church teaches.’ In effect, they would contradict themselves. This sort of behavior would result in publicly renouncing one’s integrity and logically bring shame for a double-dealing that is not unlike perjury.”
Vigneron said the church wants to help Catholics “avoid this personal disaster.”
This is a strong statement from an Archbishop. He has always been very careful, and tactful in his statements and so I am not surprised to see that he has been careful to speak strongly and yet at the same time carefully wrap those words in spiritual truth and care. This clearly isn’t about politics to him, but the truth of the teachings of the Church. He uses words such as integrity, logically, personal disaster, and contradict.
To Vigneron, this is a factual analysis of truth and Church teaching. This isn’t about opinion or desire, but about what is and isn’t allow in the faith. But that analysis, or its theological underpinnings aren’t arbitrary. This is about a cohesive and logical construction of truths and beliefs that must fit together in continuity.
I am going to work on getting more information about when and where this was said, and to see if there are more comments that accompany it. This is a huge statement for Michigan, and for other Bishops around the country. I pray that this statement is presented in proper context and that this isn’t some stretch to create controversy. I also pray that it unifies the Church.
The Catholic world is in an uproar right now. In fact, the AP posted a story: “Pope’s foot-wash a final straw for traditionalists.” The problem is focused on the Mandatum Mass, where there is an optional “foot washing” that can be done during the Mass by the priest. The Rubrics, which are supposed to be followed – because they exist, call for men’s feet to be washed.
Many Catholic blogs through the years have focused on this, again option, portion of the Mandatum and have written extensively, myself included. As I, and others, have said – the Rubrics are clear and priests should follow the Rubrics.
This isn’t to say that the Rubrics must say this, or that priests even elect to do this ceremony during the Mass.1 Some have gone so far as to argue that the foot-washing should remain men only because of its symbolic link to the priestly ministry. Yet, some others have argued that it isn’t that women’s feet shouldn’t be washed ever, but that the Rubrics say what they say, and therefore should be followed.
The issue is rather complex actually, because it touches upon several areas, and layers, of Church law. No one better than Dr. Ed Peters can break down a complex issue, and speak about it in a way that educates, analyzes, and charitably explains it in the simplest of ways. So when I was his post on this issue I was reminded of just how well he does exactly that.
A part I found to be the most well said, really affects both traditionally minded Catholics that are full of anxiety due to the Pope’s actions, and those that are attempting to argue that it means more than it probably does. Peters says:
A pope’s ignoring of a law is not an abrogation of the law but, especially where his action reverberated around the world, it seems to render the law moot. For the sake of good order, then, the Mandatum rubrics should be modified to permit the washing of women’s feet or, perhaps upon the advice of Scriptural and theological experts, the symbolism of apostolic ministry asserted by some to be contained in the rite should be articulated and the rule reiterated. What is not good is to leave a crystal clear law on the books but show no intention of expecting anyone to follow it. That damages the effectiveness of law across the board.
I get the feeling everyone is so busy pigeonholing the Pope, scrutinizing everything he does or says, measuring him according to their preconceived notions on what and how he is supposed to be doing things, that they are hardening their hearts and not listening to what the Holy Spirit is doing or saying.
Unfortunately, that is probably true. Although, I do agree with Peters, that the best thing to do is keep with the Rubrics, or to change them and provide Catechesis.
Not to compare the brother Popes, but what Benedict always did well, was to provide Catechesis for any changes or reforms. We knew exactly what and why.
Lex orandi, lex credendi.
In fact, I have pondered whether the ceremony might be done prior to the Mass, for many reasons, as are other various rites for certain occasions. [↩]