This is what the bishops should be saying

This is what the bishops should be saying

A great letter to the editor in a North Dakota newspaper about the whole Communion controversy. I wish more lay Catholics had the articulation, education, and gumption to write similar letters to their own hometown newspapers.

Jim Grimestad writes:

It is with great amusement that I read non-Catholics entreat the Catholic Bishops of America not to enforce the ban on communion to those Catholics in political life who support abortion. The church is merely sticking to its guideline of asking those who receive communion to be in communion with the teachings of the church.

It’s as simple as that. At one time there was a very basic rule for Catholics: You do not receive Communion if you are in a state of mortal sin. And if you give the appearance of mortal sin (like a public divorce and remarriage without an annulment) you would not be allowed to receive before you fixed the situation. No more. Now it’s free sample day at the supermarket and anyone who wants a taste can come right up and get one. Meanwhile, every Tom, Dick, and non-Catholic Harry feels like he has the right and obligation to tell Catholics how they should practice their faith and who should be allowed to partake of their most sacred rituals. There’s not a whole lot of freedom of religion left nowadays and our bishops are leading the way into it.

  • Dom, a point of clarification regarding your comment: He didn’t stay there, going to the US and Italy. Evidently he was barred from ministry in Pakistan and was looking for a new place to be a priest.

    What strikes me most about this whole thing is that there two explanations for how this international “safe house” phenomenon was allowed to happen. In some cases, there were active attempts to slough off the problem elsewhere, to hide the priest outside of the country where he was accused. In other cases, it was just sheer negligence. Either a failure to investigate these foreign priests properly, or to make sure that they stuck around to face the legal consequences of their actions.


    2004-06-23 10:26:54
    2004-06-23 14:26:54

    2004-06-23 12:29:30
    2004-06-23 16:29:30
    From here on out, no American judge should allow a priest to be released on bail, as they are flight risks (and the bail money isn’t theirs anyway).

    Again, I say people responsible will not pay attention until they themselves end up in prison.

  • Again, the welfare of children is the dead last priority.

    Many of our Church leaders do not really care about children.  And a good many of them are dangerous enemies of children…

  • And it’s very easy for a priest to be a flight risk, because:
    1) they don’t own a lot of property usually, and property they need (plus) gets instantly replaced when they show up at a new parish,
    2) they don’t have wife and family to care for so they can just pack up and leave,
    3) I’m convinced that the usual transcript routine that goes on in business doesn’t occur in the priesthood.  A guy just shows up with a certificate and a smile in some cases, I think.
    4) a lot of priests are bilingual due to their educations and can move very easily from one culture to another.  They find the “instant niche” much more easily than most of us would.

    They need to be tracked very carefully when they’ve violated the law.