Eucharistic Coherence

Or perhaps I should entitle this blog "Eucharistic Incoherence"?

If you haven't heard, there is an almighty row going on in the Church right now surrounding Eucharistic coherence. In this blog post I ask why are Catholic Bishops trying to suppress discussion & promote eucharistic incoherence in the USA?

The row has been triggered by the US President, Joe Biden, who has expanded funding for abortion from the very moment he took office. He has done this while literally waving his Rosary at voters.

Biden also has a picture of a meeting with Pope Francis behind his desk in the oval office:

The point here is that he is very public about his Catholic credentials. And yet he is very publicly acting in direct opposition to very clear fundamental tenets of Catholic teaching.

The Catholic Church has long taught that “Those. . .obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.” (Can. 915). Abortion, the killing of innocent unborn children, is a grave sin, as is the legalisation and promotion of this heinous practice. It’s a criminal violation of an unborn person’s right to life. In 2002 Doctrinal Note on some questions regarding the Participation of Catholics in Political Life, Cardinal Ratzinger, then Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), stated: “John Paul II, continuing the constant teaching of the Church, has reiterated many times that those who are directly involved in lawmaking bodies have a ‘grave and clear obligation to oppose’ any law that attacks human life. For them, as for every Catholic, it is impossible to promote such laws or to vote for them.” (Emphasis added).

At, Canon Lawyer Fr Gerald Murray lays the position out clearly:

In the 2004 Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion: General Principles Ratzinger specifically instructed the U.S. bishops that a Catholic politician engages in formal cooperation with the sin of abortion when he consistently campaigns and votes for permissive abortion laws. President Biden obviously promotes the abortion license and has directed that taxpayers’ dollars pay for abortions. He’s an unapologetic and determined promoter of this immoral attack on human life. This is an indisputable fact. Just ask his supporters at Planned Parenthood and NARAL.

Ratzinger told the U.S. bishops that, dealing with such a politician, “his Pastor should meet with him, instructing him about the Church’s teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin, and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist.” He also cited a 2002 Declaration from the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts: “When ‘these precautionary measures have not had their effect or in which they were not possible,’ and the person in question, with obstinate persistence, still presents himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, ‘the minster of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute it.’” (Emphasis added)

The Declaration explains: “The decision, properly speaking, is not a sanction or a penalty. Nor is the minister of Holy Communion passing judgment on the person’s subjective guilt, but rather is reacting to the person’s public unworthiness to receive Holy Communion due to an objective situation of sin.”

An objective situation of sin is scandalous in this case because such a Catholic politician who consistently promotes abortion by that very conduct actively encourages others to fall into the same sin. In Biden’s case, his well-known campaign promises to keep abortion legal and federally funded is clear evidence of his rejection of Catholic moral teaching. He plainly intended to convince other Catholics to join him in gravely sinful behavior. Such conduct renders him publicly unworthy to receive Holy Communion.

The facts, and the applicability of canon 915 to those facts, are indisputable.

For this reason, the recent Letter of the CDF Prefect, Cardinal Ladaria, to the American bishops is disappointing, even confounding. Remarkably, he never mentions canon 915. He calls for dialogue among the bishops “so that they could agree as a Conference that support of pro-choice legislation is not compatible with Catholic teaching.” But the matter is already beyond question. Any bishop who does not agree “that support of pro-choice legislation is not compatible with Catholic teaching” should change his mind or his job.

Ladaria then calls for dialogue with Catholic politicians “who adopt a pro-choice position. . .as a means of understanding their positions and their comprehension of Catholic teaching.” Really? After almost 50 years of legalized abortion, the “pro-choice” position needs no further study. Let alone “dialogue.” It is hard to imagine that President Biden and other Catholic advocates of legalized abortion are unaware of what the Church teaches about the sanctity of human life. They just don’t follow it.

Ladaria calls for further dialogue among the bishops, with other episcopal conferences, and further consultation with his office. How long would this process take? It’s a needless delay in tackling a major scandal.

The Church has a duty to teach God’s law and to sanction members who egregiously and continuously exempt themselves from obedience to that law – and encourage others to do the same. Depriving them of Holy Communion, we may hope, will jar them into reforming their conduct and their opposition to God’s binding law for all mankind.

Public defiance of God’s prohibition of unjust killing is an attack upon the faith and unity of the Church. The Church has a responsibility before God to lead the flock away from diabolical disobedience and into grace-filled obedience.

A Catholic who falls into immoral behavior, knowing that the Church has condemned it, should be presumed by his pastor to be imperiling his soul and the souls of those he is influencing. He needs to be told that his objectively sinful behavior constitutes a culpable offense for which he needs to seek pardon after repenting.

The American bishops should act as a group, and individually in their dioceses, to end the scandal of the continued administration of Our Lord’s Most Holy Body and Blood to the highest public official in our land. To fail to do so amounts to a refusal to uphold the Church’s canon law, to the grave harms of souls. It would be a negligent passivity, a failure to defend the sanctity of the Christ’s greatest gift to his Church.

And it would communicate to all the message that God may be mocked without consequence when an important Catholic public figure decides to support, not God’s law, but rather the gruesome linchpin of the sexual revolution, unfettered legal abortion.

Do you think that's what US bishops are doing?

Well a few are vocally speaking out, most notably Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone who wrote a powerful teaching letter which you can watch and hear him speak about in this interview:

Despite this valuable witness 60 US Bishops have actually written to the President of the Bishop's Conference, Archbishop Gomez, to demand that the discussion doesn't even take place. So much for the Church of dialogue eh? See how this works? The dialogue thing is only ever used to break down teaching, never build it up.

The Pillar have managed to get a list of the names of these Judas bishops which makes very interesting reading. Of course, the list of signatories includes all the names you would expect; McCarrick Protégés Bad Tobin, Soapdish, Gregory. It includes 47 diocesan bishops, five of whom are cardinals, along with 21 auxiliary bishops. 

Given the clarity of Church teaching through the ages on this issue and the clarity of the present manipulation of Catholic credentials by Biden, Pelosi and others to win votes while sacrificing their religious integrity, we can say that this list reveals some very interesting things. 

For example, the Archbishop of Seattle has signed the letter. He has long been considered to be a weak follower with a low profile, yet both he and his Auxiliaries signed this letter. In my opinion this clearly marks him out as a potential force for evil going forward. A number of Texas bishops signed the letter, although not the highest profile ones. By contrast, only Californians from San Diego signed it. O'Malley shows his true colours here and I have already heard from members of his diocese who feel deeply betrayed by his support of this document. Dolan did sign, but thought better of it and removed his signature. Despite O'Malley & Dolan (at least initially) putting their assent to this, it is interesting that none of their Auxiliary Bishops followed suit. 

Noticeable by their absence are some bishops you would really expect to be in the same camp: Wenski of Miami and Baldacchino of Las Cruces for example.

There's a map of where the Judas bishops are here along with useful contact details. Why not email or write and let them know what you think?

This is a political letter and those who signed it did so because they either lead, or are led by, or are intimated by a powerful political junta that leads a thoroughly political caucus embedded within the USCCB. They are not concerned about the laity in their dioceses, they are far too busy jostling for position in what appears to be a forthcoming show down in the Church.

If they won't defend and revere the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord and God Jesus Christ, we know precisely that they are true to another standard. All are calculating; even some of the worst that did not sign it did so because their patron did not sign it. The map shows how much patronage is a part of the US hierarchy. It would be very interesting to see which seminary each of these bishops uses!

In his latest paper, Professor Stephen Bullivant empirically tests a significant, longstanding, and prima facie plausible claim about McCarrick, which the Holy See's McCarrick Report appears to be at significant pains to rebut and/or downplay: McCarrick’s purported influence over episcopal promotions. In this letter as well as many other actions, we see the existential results of McCarrick's direct influence.

Of course, the fish rots from the head and without signals from the top none of this would even be happening I am sure. In his usually way (which I find disgusting I have to say) the Pope has not spoken clearly on this, but rather used social media to engage in the battle. What side is he on? Well, it's not the Catholic side, that much is clear. God help us!


  1. Judas Bishops in a Judas Church.They have let us down,lied to us,cheated us of our patrimony,and said nothing,nothing,nothing,about The Faith over these years.Traditional Orders and the Mass is ,for me,is the way to revive Holy Mother Church.God Bless.

  2. Archbishop Schnurr of Cincinnati says he did not agree to sign the letter, he never saw the contents, but they included him anyway.

    1. I saw that — very interesting. Could be genuine or it could be that they thought they would get away with it & are surprised at the backlash from an already angry Catholic public!


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Real Life Catholics on BBC TV defend Church Teaching on Contraception.

A Cardinal writes: “Roma loquitur. Confusio augetur.”

Cardinal Müller: Fr James Martin's Teaching is Heresy