As Senator John Kerry travels throughout the U.S. in his bid for the Democratic nomination for the Presidency, this pro abortion, dissenting 'Catholic' legislator receives sacrilegious Holy Communions wherever and whenever he attends the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
Each and every Sunday, Senator Kerry enters a different parish, approaches the altar, receiving the Eucharist while obstinately refusing to obey the Church's clearly defined laws against his unlawful reception of Communion. Each parish receives advance notice of Kerry's clamorous arrival, yet, in parish after parish, both pastors, priests, deacons and lay extraordinary eucharistic ministers (EOEMs) willfully give Kerry sacrilegious Communions.
Can a minister of the Eucharist deny Holy Communion to Kerry, a manifest (publicly known), persistent, obstinate politicians, on their own, without their bishop's permission? The Catechism teaches that all clergy who administer the Sacrament of the Eucharist to manifest, obstinate, persistent sinners also participate in this grave cardinal sin of sacrilege (CIC, n.1755). Isn't it clear they must deny these politicians the Eucharist? In addition, all diocesan bishops, priests, deacons and lay EOEMs are ecclesiastically bound to obey Church law, regardless of whether their bishop or pastor does not obey. In fact, canon 915 places the responsibility on the minister Ñ 'ne admittantur' Ñ who, in some canonists' opinion, could be punished themselves according to canon 1389 ¤2, should he unlawfully administer the sacrament with the consequent danger of scandal for the rest of the faithful. Canon 1339 prescribes the possibility of punishing any person who causes grave scandal by any violation of a divine or ecclesiastical law.
Senator Kerry's bishop, Boston's Archbishop Sean O'Malley, allowed Kerry to receive sacrilegious Communion; in fact, O'Malley said he would not deny Kerry the Eucharist if he approached the Altar at his Mass. To his credit, O'Malley did give Kerry (and Senator Ted Kennedy as well) both private and public warnings not to approach the altar, so why does O'Malley ignore his own warnings?
To further my point, the good Archbishop Raymond Burke, St. Louis, in contrast to Archbishop O'Malley, said that he (Burke) would deny Kerry the Eucharist if he were to present himself at his (Burke's) Mass. Is Archbishop Burke wrong and Archbishop O'Malley correct? I don't think so and neither does canon law.
Did you know that a minister of the Eucharist cannot be forced by his bishop or pastor to distribute the Eucharist to a known, manifest, persistent sinner. To do so would be to do evil so that a good may come from it (the good being, perhaps, not to embarrass the sinner). However, I suspect that many parish priests are afraid their bishops will punished them, take away their Faculties or rights to administer the Sacraments if they do not give the pro abortion politicians Communion.
Isn't it correct, then, that ministers of the Eucharist, nationwide, must deny the Eucharist to Kerry, regardless of whether or not Kerry's own bishop or pastor denies him? Should this sanction not apply to all manifest, obstinate, persistent politicians nationwide (and there are hundreds), not just Kerry?
Just recently, on Sunday, March 14, 2004, in Bethlehem, Pa. Msgr. Michael Chaback, S.T.D., pastor of the one hundred year old Slovak parish of SS.. Cyril and Methodius, disregarding the Church's clearly defined canons of the Church, distributed Holy Communion to the manifest, obstinate, persistent sinner Kerry, causing scandal for the faithful of his flock and to every faithful Catholic in the world. Scandal is the sin of another by any word or deed which is or appears to be evil, thus causing wrong thinking or acting in others.
At SS. Cyril and Methodius parish, a parishioner who wishes to remain anonymous told this writer that pro abortion Senator Kerry and his entourage came to Sunday Mass very late, during the homily, disrupting everyone in the church with his tardy and exhibitionist entrance. Moments later, Kerry approached the Altar and was given sacrilegious Holy Communion. Most parishioners watched in shock.
A perfect example of giving scandal to the faithful is what took place after Kerry's Mass. I was told that many parishioners remained outside of Church and asked one another if abortion was still a sin, or did the Church change her teachings on this murder. Some laity argued that it's not a sin to vote for the pro abortion Democrat John Kerry because the pastor gave him Communion. Others argued that the pastor sinned by failing to deny the Senator. Most of these people, confused and angry, left Church wondering what the Church really teaches. Several people said they were leaving the parish, that giving Kerry the Eucharist was the 'last straw.'
SS. Cyril and Methodius is also the parish of another pro abortion legislature, democrat State Legislator T.J. Rooney. Rooney, his wife and children, attends the parish each Sunday, and each Sunday, pro abortion legislature Rooney receives sacrilegious Holy Communion by the parish clergy.
Like legislator Rooney, John Kerry also says that he is a faithful Catholic in good standing, yet promises Americans that if elected: "I will not overturn Roe v Wade; I will not appoint judges hostile to 'choice;' I will allow poor women to have free abortions; I will never outlaw abortion; I will increase American taxpayer's dollars on population control efforts around the world."
In other words, Kerry has set himself outside of the Catholic faith and has incurred, according to canon law 1398, a common excommunication, lat¾ sententi¾, a censure incurred by the very fact of committing a crime.
Why is the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and it's President, Bishop Wilton Gregory, silent on this subject? Canon 1369 tells all bishops: "A person is to be punished with a just penalty who gravely harms public morals." Who could refute the fact that for years Senator Kerry has participated in abortion by writing, endorsing, encouraging and passing pro abortion and pro sodomite legislation. Doesn't the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith's note "Doctrinal Note on Some Questions Regarding the Participation of Catholics in Political Life" carry any authority with American Bishop's and clergy? Is there an American schism taking place, as many Catholic Church observers have suggested in recent years?
Some have suggested that the silence of the Bishops is due to the fact that U.S. clergy overwhelmingly voting as Democrats and do not want to offend their leaders. A recent poll suggested this was the case, at least, in the diocese of Chicago.
According to an exclusive Illinois Leader analysis of the voting habits of the Chicago Archdiocese's voting Catholic priests, more than 75% of them sided with Democrats in the March 2002 primary election. Consequently, many U.S. Catholics are receiving a message from some priests and bishops, however subtle, that the Church wishes them to vote for the Democrat Party, the official abortion party in America. Is this why many of our pulpits are silent on the infallible Church teachings regarding morals and faith, teachings that definitely offend Democrats?
Will the Catholic Bishops be responsible for the election of pro abortion, pro euthanasia John Kerry because the message they are currently sending to all Americans is that being pro abortion is not a grave offense against God? Could the real reason be U.S. Bishops fear losing their Catholic tax exemption on their land and assets nationwide? The typical tax on a Cathedral in any given U.S. city is approximately $400,000.00 per year. Do some U.S. bishops fear offending powerful politicians, let's use John Kerry and Ted Kennedy as an example, who will later represent legislation to take away the Catholic Church's tax exemptions on it's many properties?
Dear Bishops, let God worry about the money. You must be courageous shepherds over your flock, even at the risk of losing your life, if necessary. You cannot serve two masters.