I am so glad there is a good explanation for giving Communion to the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence.
"At Most Holy Redeemer Church Oct. 7, I noticed no protest, no demonstration, no disruption of the Sunday Eucharist," said Archbishop Nierderauer. "The congregation was devout and the liturgy was celebrated with reverence. Toward the end of the Communion line two strangely dressed persons came to receive Communion. I did not see any mock religious garb. As I recall, one of them wore a large flowered hat or garland."
Who knew Mr. Magoo became a Bishop?
This picture could be used as a eye test for prospective Bishops.
Doctor: Tell me what you see?
Prospective bishop: I see a flowered hat.
Doctor: Nothing else.
Prospective bishop: Nothing out of the ordinary.
Doctor: Next applicant.
Accepting his explanation the real question is what would he have done if he did know they were part of the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence? Though I guess we already know that since he had no problem giving Communion to Nancy Pelosi.
Though I guess the primary question is what does he think the spiritual effects are for a person receiving Communion who have committed objectively grave sins? I know St. Paul’s answer, I just wonder if his would match? The scandal this causes is quite secondary to the concerns for the souls of these people.
Update: American Papist has his own commentary on this that is quite excellent.
Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees.
Too bad it comes across as proof his moral blindness and not any physical eye impairment.
And the kiss on the lips is totally gross.
what I said in the previous post concerning this idiocy:
“If I run and tackle them so they don’t receive communion, would that consider sinful?
If I make a scene denouncing these reprobates so the celebrant will not give communion in fear of scandal, would that be sinful?
If the answers are “no” I’ll definetely do one of the above if I were there.”
And the bishop said, “I noticed no protest, no demonstration, no disruption of the Sunday Eucharist … The congregation was devout and the liturgy was celebrated with reverence.”
So, the bishop is asking for it. Next time these two apostates do so I implore anyone to do what I would do. Because his emminence needs some bad@$$ demonstration before his sense of crisis develops.
Literally a case of, “By their fruits ye shall know them.”
On a more serious note, what were the ushers doing when these “sisters” got up for Communion?
I was a Pentecostal for a couple of years and served as an usher in that church. We were told that as the gatekeepers we should be aware of any possible problems and respond accordingly.
Seems the ushers are part of the problem here. Had they stopped the “sisters” from entering in the Church or told them they couldn’t receive the Eucharist this all might have been avoided.
That doesn’t excuse the archbishop. Even if he was blindsided by the ushers refusing to do their job he should have only given a blessing to these clowns. Period.
But there seems to be plenty of blame to spread around.
He did noticed that the “sisters” did have a somewhat ‘wide stance’….
Literally a case of, “By their fruits ye shall know them.”
Hey c’mon, take it easy on Pope Benedict. It isn’t easy to appoint bishops for the whole world, especially when they have to get through that tough Democratic senate. Sometimes you have to take a risk on those stealth Catholic bishops, and sometimes they come out duds.
And it’s not like he could have forseen that the diocese of San Francisco would have required a bishop that was absolutely rock solid on the life and sexuality doctrines. I mean, the city is named after Saint Francis of all people. Who could have predicted that in the short span of the last two years, the culture in that city could have degraded so substantially from the beacon of Catholic holiness that produced our current Prefect of the CDF?
I cannot but be reminded of Henry II’s line in “Becket” – not that Henry II was taking the high moral ground, but the one-liner fits this situation perfectly:
“I would spit, were I not in God’s House.”
Not unlike what is promised to the lukewarm.
Is it humanly possible that a person could become so inured to weirdness that it just doesn’t register? If so, I think he needs a break.
BillyHW, I might suggest that perhaps– I dearly hope– the entire world DOES NOT know that San Fran is full of nuts and had belfries fully occupied.
I still think maybe the Bishop should get his eyes checked, though….
I agree with the assessment of the bishop’s behavior, but does the video on American Papist’s blog feel like a setup to anyone else? Why was there a random videographer there to capture this? Was there prior indication that this was going down?
This is downright scandalous behavior, and the bishop has done no good by letting it pass.
The good bishop might be on to something: Since the “sisters” are not wearing the tell-tale lapel pins seem to be the only thing that denotes vowed religious women today, there is no mocking of current religious garb.
Insight Scoop has the text of an apology from Archbishop Niederauer:
I certainly appreciate the Archbishop’s apology, however I can’t help noticing that he never mentions the topic of homosexuality, and also that he seems to be a bit out of touch with the whole situation with these so-called “sisters.” I do see the apology as a positive sign though, and I think that we should all pray that he will have the courage to make tough decisions when situations like this come up again.
Here’s my take on this. If the bishop refused communion, me thinks that this would have been playing in to their hands. With their propensity for histrionics and “street theatre,” all I can see is scenes of the John Kerry speech at FSU..
….Don’t taser me bro! Don’t Taser me!”
Wouldn’t the anti-catholic media love that? It would be on the nightly news, and not on the blogs of committed Catholics (HT to the Jester).
By letting them receive communion, by their own free will, do they not heap ruin on themselves, and have to answer to their maker for the abomination they have committed?
LifeSite News has coverage here:
“what were the ushers doing when these “sisters” got up for Communion?”
Ushers?? Oh, you mean one of the ladies at Mass that forces you to shake her hand, as she so very helpfully points you to the Communion line?…
“By letting them receive communion, by their own free will, do they not heap ruin on themselves, and have to answer to their maker for the abomination they have committed?” Thank you, a point well made. Yes, they will have to answer for their actions, to be sure, as we all will have to answer for the times when evil was allowed to flourish because of our sins of omission. May God have mercy on us all. Have we forgotten that the gate is narrow? The ushers should have made sure that the main entrance to the parish church was a very narrow gate that day. On reflection, the Archbishop was put in a very difficult spot. Yes, he could and should have refused them communion. Lesson learned, one hopes. San Francisco is the front line in a war between light and darkness. Given the likelihood of a major natural disaster looming on the horizon, one would think that people living on the edge of two major tectonic plates would pay more attention to the verses in Holy Scripture that remind us to be ready to meet the Lord at any moment.
This incident brings up another related issue, that of appropriate clothes for church.
In our “anything goes” society, any type of clothing, however inappropriate, is accepted in church. I have never heard a priest mention anything about acceptable dress.
The way these two people were dressed clearly indicated they were not there as serious worshipers.
Comments are closed.