At least that's what one Patheos-oriented blogger said of me and other faithful Catholics recently. I understand that the bloggers of Patheos receive compensation based on the number of clicks their blogs receive; therefore I will not link to the post directly. In regards to the "super-Catholic" crack we read his speculations regarding the thinking of the Holy Father:
"He means that holier than thou super-Catholics who spend much of their time demanding that the Impure be barred from the sacraments need to pipe down and accept the judgment of their pastors when they allow weak sinners to approach the Altar. He’s addressing a sort of latter day Jansenism that wants to keep as many people as possible from approaching the sacraments."
There's so much sloppy thinking in those few sentences to unpack, but I'll put forth a heroic effort. (After all, I'm Super-Catholic, you know!)
We "super-Catholics" do NOT "demand that the impure be barred from the sacraments". That statement betrays a complete disdain for Canon 915. Let me post Canon 915 for review; it's really very simple. Those upon whom the penalty of excommunication or interdict has been imposed or declared, and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, are not to be admitted to holy communion.
It is Canon 915, not "super-Catholics", that impose a demand, both to honor the dignity of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ AND to prevent a person in mortal sin from incurring the guilt of yet another mortal sin, the sin of sacrilegious Holy Communion. We simply won't let that demand be swept under the rug and ignored out of cowardice and desire to toady to the powerful of this world.
He goes on to make a caricature of us as mean, niggardly scoundrels wanting to keep "weak sinners" from approaching the altar. Well, no. There's not a person alive (even among us super-Catholics!) who isn't a weak sinner. Canon 915 does not address all such people - only those obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, to use the precise language from the Canon. Not all "weak sinners" place themselves in that most serious predicament of being arrogantly in the practice of public mortal sin as do flagrant gays and abortionists and abortion enablers. It is the latter who are to be denied Holy Communion for their own benefit. Should they receive Holy Communion with unconfessed mortal sin on their souls, they incur the guilt of yet another mortal sin, namely the sin of receiving Holy Communion sacrilegiously. When a prelate says they're being "pastoral" by overlooking their Canon 915 obligations, it usually means one of two things: 1) they need some consideration from a CINO big-wig, so they need to butter up that person by profaning the Eucharist or 2) they're afraid of being trash-talked should they dare to act like men of integrity.
An important note regarding the last paragraph. In the first sentence I'm using a word that ended the political career of George Allen - simply because some folks have limited themselves to "valley girl" talk. It is not my problem if my progressive trolls have an insufficient grasp of the English language and its vocabulary. I will not dumb down mine accordingly. Get off your duffs, pull out a dictionary and look the word up. Chalk it up as an educational experience! Now back to the Patheos prattle.
We wind up this expose with an examination of the last phrase "keep as many people as possible from approaching the sacraments". Well, no. That's our entire point. I trust this author does recall that there is more than one sacrament. When one has lost sanctifying grace due to mortal sin, there is one sacrament to which they must fly in haste to avoid eternal damnation. Of course I'm referring to the Sacrament of Confession. We encourage all - particularly those whom the Patheos blogger dismissively calls "impure", to make good and frequent use of that Sacrament of Confession. After they've been restored to a state of grace, by all means receive the Eucharist.
One In Royal David’s City
33 minutes ago