Father Fidel Rodriguez Defended The Blessed Sacrament In Florida

At the 10 am Mass on Sunday May 19, in St Thomas Aquinas Church in St. Cloud, FL, a woman presented herself for Holy Communion.  Because she didn't open her mouth or reply "amen", Father Fidel Rodriguez had reason to question her eligibility for receiving Holy Communion.  When he asked, she refused to tell him when she last went to Holy Communion or Confession.  He gave her a blessing.  The woman's name is Jetty Nique.

She tried it again at the 12pm Mass.  When Fr. Rodriguez asked about her last confession again, she replied it's "not his business".  Then she extended her hand towards the ciborium bowl, grabbed several Hosts, crushed them and threw/dropped them on the floor.  There was a struggle.  Father had to hold the bowl and defend himself.  It was then that he bit her, to defend both the Blessed Sacrament and himself from Nique's aggression.  LifesiteNews has an account of the incident.  Other video can be found at WRAL News.  

A commenter on the LifeSiteNews piece raises some interesting points.  The existence of these two videos speaks of an accomplice of Nique's who was at the ready to record her actions and the fallout.  It was a set up, no doubt.

Later Nique told the police "he wouldn't give me the cookie".  The cookie!  Either she is ignorant of just what the Consecrated Host really is, or she is being flippant to the point of blasphemy regarding the Real Presence.

As of this writing, charges have not yet been filed against Father Rodriguez.  None should be.  She grabbed at him and what he was holding.  He acted in defense of self and the Blessed Sacrament.  Parishioners who witnessed the altercation substantiate Father's account of the matter.

At Florida law, if a person "willfully and maliciously" disturbs a religious assembly (such as a Mass), it is a first-degree misdemeanor that can become a third-degree hate crime.

To their credit, the Diocese of Orlando is standing by Father Rodriguez.  Let us stand by him, too, and invoke the intercession of St Tarcisius. 

Holy Communion At St Silly's

Let me preface this video by stating that this is not intended as judgment on those who have received Holy Communion in the hand.  I too was taught that in the hand was the proper way to receive Our Lord in Holy Communion.  Not until I was exposed to the truth and did some research on my own did I realize that I was unwittingly committing sacrilege with my unconsecrated hands.  By the way - this was quite some time before I started attending the Traditional Latin Mass on Sundays.

Anyway, here's another "tongue-in-cheek lesson" from "Father Timmy at St Silly" on how they think Holy Communion is to be received.  Of course we lay folks are not to touch Our Lord - not even during "pandemics".  

The SSPX Kerfuffle

In most areas of the country, and even the world, Catholics are deprived of the Mass.  Please spare me the drivel about "spiritual communion being just as good as receiving physically".  It isn't, for the very simple reason that we are both spirit and body, and we need to receive PHYSICALLY.  Read John 6.  Of course I salute the priests who are live-streaming Mass, etc.  Being under obedidence, they have no choice.

SSPX priests on the other hand are in obedience to their own bishops and many of them are offering Holy Mass while observing "social distance" regulations.  For the past several weeks, I myself have been attending such Masses AND receiving Holy Communion.  For the time being, I will not broadcast the location of the Mass. Suffice it to say that I drive a considerable distance - but receiving Our Lord, Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity, is well worth it.  I would not be doing so if I wasn't certain that such a Mass is being offered in conformity with the Magesterium.  The SSPX is NOT in schism, although their canonical status isn't regular.

That is why I look askance upon some attacks upon the SSPX that have arisen over these past few weeks.  With the Church in such disaray, thanks in no small part to the way that our bishops are bungling the response to this pandemic, I would think that the attackers might have more pressing matters to address. 

My friend and colleague at Les Femmes addresses this in a recent blog post.  I think it's worth studying.  I hope I needn't write anymore on this, but I will respond to any more nonsense if it arises.  I'm not sure why this arises at this moment, but I hope money is not an impetus.

Also study the text below.

THE PREFECT OF CLERGY CARDINAL CASTRILLÓN HOYOS HAS STATED THE FOLLOWING:

"It cannot be said in correct, exact, and precise terms that there is a schism. There is a schismatic attitude in the fact of consecrating bishops without pontifical mandate. They are within the Church. There is only the fact that a full, more perfect communion is lacking – as was stated during the meeting with Bishop Fellay – a fuller communion, because communion does exist."

MANY ARE CONFUSED AS TO THE STATUS OF THE SOCIETY OF SAINT PIUS X. IS THE SOCIETY "SCHISMATIC" ? EXCOMMUNICATED ? THE VATICAN, IN SEVERAL IMPORTANT DOCUMENTS HAS DECLARED NO.

A recent letter stated that ecumenical dialogue with the SSPX will not be held because they are not considered schismatic.

"The situation of the members of this Society [SSPX] is an internal matter of the Catholic Church. The Society is not another Church or Ecclesial Community in the meaning used in the Directory. Of course, the Mass and Sacraments administered by the priests of the Society are valid. "

-- Letter from the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity Cardinal Edward Cassidy, President (3 May,1994)

Letter of The Sacred Congregation For The Clergy Under signature of Silvio Cardinal Oddi, President (17 March, 1984):

[In answer to a family attending Mass at an SSPX chapel as to whether such attendance fulfilled her obligation for Sunday Mass,]

"According to the New Code of Canon Law, 'The obligation of assisting at Mass is satisfied wherever Mass is celebrated in a Catholic rite.... I hope that settles your doubts."

DECREE OF THE CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH (HOLY OFFICE) Under signature of Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect Known as the "Honolulu Decision" (Protocol No. 14428, 4 June,1993):

In response to an appeal by one of the Honolulu Six against the decree of the Bishop of Honolulu, the Congregation decreed:

"This Congregation has examined carefully all the available documentation and has ascertained that the activities engaged in by the Petitioner ... are not sufficient to constitute the crime of schism. Since [the Petitioner] did not, in fact, commit the crime of schism and thus did not incur the 'latae sententiae' penalty, it is clear that the Decree of the Bishop lacks the precondition on which it is founded. This Congregation, noting all of the above, is obliged to declare null and void the aforesaid Decree of the Ordinary of Honolulu."

LETTER OF THE PONTIFICAL COUNCIL FOR CHRISTIAN UNITY Under signature of Edward I. Cardinal Cassidy, President (May 3,1994):

"The situation of the members of this Society [SSPX] is an internal matter of the Catholic Church. The Society is not another Church or Ecclesial Community in the meaning used in the Directory. Of course, the Mass and Sacraments administered by the priests of the Society are valid. "

COUNT NERI CAPPONI, D.CN.L. - LATERAN (DOCTOR OF CANON LAW) LL.D. - FLORENCE (DOCTOR OF LAWS), Professor Emeritus of Canon Law at the University of Florence, Accredited as an Advocate of the Holy Roman Rota, Accredited as an Advocate of the Apostolic Signatura, (the Holy See's highest appeals tribunal):

"The fact is that Msgr. Lefebvre simply said: 'I am creating bishops in order that my priestly order can continue. They do not take the place of other bishops. I am not creating a parallel church.' Therefore, this act was not, per se, schismatic."

"Pope John Paul II, in 1986, asked a commission of nine cardinals two questions. Firstly, did Pope Paul VI, or any other competent authority, legally forbid the widespread celebration of the Tridentine Mass in the present day?

The answer given by eight of the cardinals in 1986 was that, no, the Mass of Saint Pius V has never been suppressed. I can say this; I was one of the cardinals."

"There was another question, very interesting. Can any bishop forbid a priest in good standing from celebrating a Tridentine Mass again? The nine cardinals unanimously agreed that no bishop may forbid a Catholic priest from saying the Tridentine Mass. We have not official publication, and I think that the Pope would never establish an official prohibition ... because of the words of Pius V, who said this was a Mass forever." -- Cardinal Alfons Stickler, Prefect of the Vatican Archives

Further, the Pope explains why the Society is not in schism by applying the very definition of schism to the Society’s case and recognizing they do not meet it:

"This gesture [remitting of excommunication] was possible once the interested parties had expressed their recognition in principle of the Pope and his authority as Pastor, albeit with some reservations in the area of obedience to his doctrinal authority and to the authority of the Council."

These words of the Pope are absolutely devastating to any Neo-Catholic claims of any type of schism, either formal or material. First, there has not been any official Vatican document declaring the SSPX to be in schism (as even Voris admits), thus no formal schism. Second, after this letter from Pope Benedict, one is no longer allowed to even hold the opinion that there is a “material schism.” For the Supreme Pontiff just applied the definition of schism to the Society right before our eyes and found the charge wanting. As the Society has been saying all along, in conjunction with previous Saints and canonists, in order to be schismatic, one must reject the authority of the pope in principle. Mere disobedience, even for a protracted period of time, does not make one schismatic. “Reservations in the area of obedience” do not equal schism.

Satan And His Prelate Henchmen Curtail Holy Mass

Padre Pio once said "it is easier for the earth to exist without the sun than without the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass".  By now we have heard that Italy's government has banned public Masses.  Far from protesting this draconian measure, the Vatican has smiled upon it.  St Peter's Square is blocked off to the public.  An elderly Italian priest celebrated Mass for eight people anyway; he now faces conviction.

Here in the US we are seeing some changes.  Holy water fonts are disappearing.  More distressingly, bishops and priests are refusing to administer Holy Communion on the tongue.  Leaving aside the fact that distribution in the hand is far more unsanitary, it is a serious violation of canon law to deny Holy Communion on the tongue.  On a happier note, the hand-holding and hand-shaking has been eliminated, proving that many clouds have silver linings, but I digress.

The cessation of Mass in Italy and elsewhere in the world is nothing short of demonic, especially in light of what Padre Pio said.  In this sin-sick world, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is needed more than ever.  The Polish Bishops' Conference recognizes this and they have correctly called for an increase in Masses.  We also recall that Pope St Gregory the Great held a penitential procession in Rome during a deadly plague that killed many people , including his predeccessor.  Gregory saw the plague as a chastisement for many wanton sins, sins for which there needed to be public penance. Clearly the same can be said for our age, particularly when so much apostacy and other evils are emanating from the Vatican itself.

In the United States, I cannot see the civil authorities being so brazen as to ban public worship - at least not under the Trump administration.  I can, however, see feckless and faithless prelates doing that deed.  In truth, even if the virus attaches to the Host, that still is no reason not to have the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.  As a friend pointed out, during Mass, it is only mandatory that the priest take Holy Communion.  The faithful are NOT obliged to receive (except at least once during the Easter season: that is, Easter Duty).  We can make acts of spiritual communion in that case.  Here is one that can be used.

The question has been asked whether or not this corona virus is a chastisement.  Why wouldn't it be, given the depths of depravation to which civilization has sunk?  The Polish bishops are correct; more Masses are needed.

Deconstructing The Faith With Amoralis Lamentia

I need not spend too much time reinventing the wheel as it were.  Suffice it to say that if one has had their eyes open and if they haven't been given over to a pollyanna-esque happy-clappy self-deception, they will understand the dangers to souls that have been coming from the Vatican, at the apparent instigation of the pope.  The Wild Voice put together a chronology (not all-encompassing, by their own admission) of doings and sayings of Pope Francis that have been, at best, most unseemly for a Vicar of Christ.

I will post after the jump break two videos.  One is a talk given by John-Henry Weston, one of the two co-founders of LifeSiteNews, given at the same conference at which Michael Hichborn spoke when he spoke of "Catholic Charities and the Culture of Death".  Weston addresses the various things that the pope has done to undermine the Faith and he does so from the perspective of the Fatima predictions.

The one following that is a homily posted by Sensus Fidelium entitled "The Road To The Dubia: Amoris Laetitia".  In it the priest lays out just why that document is a deliberate attack on three Sacraments: Confession, Communion, Matrimony.  He calls Amoralis Lamentia "a Henry VIII moment in the Church".  In the very beginning, he also gives definitions of Church Tradition, public revelation, etc.  Please invest the time to listen to these talks and to be informed.  If some, particularly parents, claim not to have the time to do so, understand that the eternal salvation of your children may well depend on you being informed about the spiritual wolves that are waiting to devour your children.  As Weston states, we must be informed so that we can both pray properly and speak in defense of the truth.  Now the videos:

Bishop Schneider's Talk Today In DC Archdiocese

As I announced last Monday, Bishop Athanasius Schneider spoke today at Annunciation Church in

The bishop autographing a copy of his book

Washington DC.  It was quite a turnout to hear His Excellency, as well there should have been.  Many thanks are due to both the Paulus Institute and the American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property (TFP) for organizing this event.  At this talk, copies of Bishop Schneider's book, Dominus Est, were on sale.  I procured a copy.  The book is his reflections on Holy Communion; his talk today dealt with the topic of Holy Communion and the Mass.

The organizers of the event had their own professional video recorder do the recording of the bishop's talk; they will advise me when it's posted to youtube.  At that time I'll link to it.  In the meantime, I present to you an audio-only recording that I took with my pocket-size Sony recorder.  I think it's clear enough for you to get the gist of this afternoon's discussion.  Not only may you listen, but you should be able to download this mp3 file.

Please pray for Bishop Schneider and all those who hold fast to the teachings of Jesus Christ, that they'll stand fast against the onslaught of the progressives in high places, even at the top of the Vatican.

Gross Sacrilege At Papal Mass In Manila

This happened last Friday at the Papal Mass.  Our Lord, in the Eucharistic Host, was manhandled, grabbed, mauled, passed about like a mere cookie.  How many particles - or whole Hosts, dropped to the ground, only to be trampled?

If distribution of Holy Communion cannot be done without due reverence and solicitation for the Real Presence, it shouldn't be done at all!  There's no sin in some not receiving: better that than the sacrilege that you'll see as you watch!  What an utter travesty!

Pope Expounding On Kasper's Mess With Divorcees And Holy Communion

Rorate Caeli has a quote from an interview in which the Holy Father is asked to clarify Cardinal Kasper's controversial remarks about Communion and remarried divorcees.  My colleague at the Tenth Crusade commented on the interview.  She got far more out of it than did I.  For the life of me, I still cannot make heads or tails of that verbal gobblygoop. Mea culpa!

Why Non-Catholics Are Not Permitted To Receive Holy Communion

As Father says, most appreciate an honest, complete answer.

Guess What?? I'm Super-Catholic!!

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.

At Thanksgiving Mass Today

At St John Neumann Church in Gaithersburg, the 9am Mass was packed today.  It could have been a Sunday Mass.  This was a nice thing to see, especially since Thanksgiving is not a Holy Day of Obligation.

Towards the end of Communion reception, with several people still in line, the priests and Extraordinary Ministers ran out of Consecrated Hosts.  There was an apology for that at the end.  However, not all was lost.  One of the concelebrating priests hurried back to the rectory as there were Consecrated Hosts there.  The announcement was made that those who were in line could receive after Father returned in 5-10 minutes.

I am grateful for those two priests who took the trouble to ensure that all could receive Holy Communion today.  Clearly they took seriously their call to administer the Sacraments to their parishioners.

I'm also grateful that we retain (for the time being) our rights as American citizens.  A component of gratitude is being actively vigilant in their protection.  From that task we cannot rest for one iota of a second.  Ora et labora.

Washington Post: Statement From Archdiocese On Holy Communion

Father William Byrne is Archdiocesan Secretary for Pastoral Ministry and Social Concerns.  Today the Washington Post published a statement of his regarding the importance of Holy Communion to Catholics.  I commend its reading to you.

A statement from that article, relevant to the situation at St John Neumann last weekend is "The priest has an obligation to make sure that the sacraments are respected, and any person who obstinately perseveres in manifest grave sin is not to be admitted to Holy Communion.  Ideally, the priest will handle such a situation pastorally by discussing the consequences of such sin with the person privately before actually denying them Communion."  Two questions:

1. Did the daughter "obstinately persevere in manifest grave sin"?  Consider: she introduced herself and the other woman to Father as "lovers".  She certainly had no bones about letting Father know her "orientation" in a most up-front manner.
2. Did Father have the opportunity to "handle the situation pastorally and privately"?  I suspect he would have wanted to do so, but they hurried away before he had opportunity.  Now consider that the daughter had been a long-time Catholic school teacher; that being said, how could she not have known that homosexual conduct is mortally sinful?  Having lacked such opportunity, Father did what he had to do when he was deliberately set between a rock and a hard place.  He did not want to facilitate the woman's mortal sin of sacrilegious Holy Communion (which would have been sinful for him) and he wanted to protect the Eucharist from being treated disrespectfully.     

I thank Father Byrne for writing this and the Post for publishing it.  These statements make plain that Father Marcel Guarnizo was only fulfilling his duties as a Catholic priest and that the apology issued by Bishop Knestout is a lamentable farce.

Chaput Takes A Bold Stand - Well, Maybe Or Maybe Not

Lifesite News has an article detailing an address that Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver, as well as some of the proceedings from a subsequent Q&A session.  He remarked that in regards to dealing with pro-abortion "catholic" politicians, the bishops are not in unity regarding how to deal with them (no kidding!).  He also stated that "refusing to act on pro-abortion politicians has not worked".  Both of these truths have been all-too-obvious for the faithful Catholic in the pew.

He then said that "catholics" who support abortion should never approach Holy Communion.  While that's true enough, I fail to see why so many of my fellow bloggers wax lyrical over this.

An important distinction must be made very clear.  Canon 915 is not about telling pro-aborts not to present themselves for Holy Communion.  That's a common confusion with Canon 916, which speaks to the recipient of Holy Communion.  What is needed is a statement declaring that if a publicly dissident Catholic is so brazen as to get into the Communion line, then the Minister of Holy Communion will deny the Eucharist to him/her.  That is Canon 915, which speaks to the minister of Holy Communion.  As I read this piece, I don't see the Archbishop making such a declaration.  That is what is needed, for that is where the rubber hits the road.  When such denials start happening, that is when we might see real change.  It's one thing to talk the talk, but now the bishops must walk the walk.

Archbishop Burke: Pro-Abortion Catholic Pols Must Repent Publicly

Last week at the HLI World Prayer Congress in Rome, Archbishop Burke stated plainly that (and I quote verbatum) “When a person has publicly espoused and cooperated in gravely sinful acts, leading many into confusion and error about fundamental questions of respect for human life and the integrity of marriage and the family, his repentance of such actions must also be public.”


I urge you to read the full article at Lifesite News, which also contains links to the full address and to the video.  Archbishop Burke has spoken on this subject before, and has also been quite plain in proclaiming truth. 

I urge all prelates in the United States, and the world, to take seriously to obey Canon 915 in dealing with those politicians who remain recalcitrant.  That's an obligation, not a "pastoral option".  It's not a matter of "turning Holy Communion into a weapon".  It's a matter of preserving the Blessed Sacrament from blasphemy and preventing the politician from committing yet another mortal sin, that of sacrilegious Holy Communion.  I also raise the question of whether or not the knowing distribution of Holy Communion to such a person constitutes formal and material cooperation with the blasphemy - a serious matter in and of itself, I'd think.

White Wash Of Red Mass Sacrilege

The annual Red Mass occurred this past Sunday, October 3rd at the Cathdral of St Matthew in Washington DC.  Many of us were unable to be there (as we were last year), owing to other commitments.  Unfortunately, but not unexpectedly, it appears that at least one sacrilegious reception of Holy Communion occurred. 

Cardinal O'Malley, It's Called "Canon 915"!

Cardinal Sean O'Malley of Boston recently told Lifesite News regarding the denial of Holy Communion to pro-abortion politicians, ""Well, I think that the only way that that solution [denying communion] should be invoked is if there were a large catechesis or if it was universal for the whole church. You can’t have people doing things in one parish and another, you would only divide the Church hopelessly."  He then goes on to call for a change in Canon Law and/or a papal directive.

Let's restate the obvious.  Canon 915 is universal for the whole church.  It's actually quite simple, and I'll now quote it in its entirety.  "Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion."  That's it!  The underlined part is what pertains to the discussion about pro-abortion politicians.  Pro-abortion politicians "are not to be admitted to holy communion."  Who does the admitting?  It's the minister of Holy Communion, be they ordinary or extraordinary.  Canon 915 thus speaks to the minister of Holy Communion, not the would-be recipient of Holy Communion.  Read it.  It's spoken in the passive voice, but the meaning is crystal clear to those who have the intellectual honesty not to try to obfuscate its clear meaning.

The cardinal states that "you can't have people doing things in one parish and another.."  That's true enough.  The real solution, though, is to have all parishes and dioceses conform with Canon Law as it exists.  What makes the Cardinal think that they'll obey a new Canon law or new papal directive when they disobey the already-existing Canon Laws?

As far as papal directives go, the Vatican tried to extend such guidance in 2004 with then-Cardinal Ratzinger's (now the Holy Father) "Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion: General Principles".  The Vatican had intended it to be made known to all the bishops at their meeting in Dallas in 2004.  However, Cardinal McCarrick, who headed the USSCB's task force on the matter of Holy Communion, only made the briefest of reference to it.  Archbishop Burke said later that he was disappointed not to know of the full content of Cardinal Ratzinger's directive during the meeting.  Both Archbishop Burke and Cardinal Arinze have, from their Vatican posts, made clear that the minister of Holy Communion may not give It to pro-abortion politicians.  Cardinals O'Malley and McCarrick, what is so difficult to comprehend about that?

Sebelius Prohibited from Communion by Her Bishop

Kathleen Sebelius, former Kansas governor and current Secretary of HHS has always been a flagrantly pro-abortion Catholic who has used her positions to promote baby-killing. As Kansas governor, she repeatedly used her authority to shield one of the most notorious abortionists, the late George Tiller, from the law that she was sworn to uphold.

Her bishop, Archbishop Joseph Naumann, attempted to help her understand that her support of abortion was gravely sinful. After she flouted his private plea to refrain from Holy Communion, he publicly forbade her from Communion until she repents of her serious sin. In a press interview, she complains that this is painful to her, not recognizing that this is a discipline necessary not only to prevent dishonor to the Blessed Sacrament, but to prevent her from committing yet another mortal sin, that of sacrilegious Communion.

Let us join Archbishop Naumann in praying not only for Sebelius's conversion, but that of all Catholics who support abortion. While we do not doubt Sebelius's pain, we also know that if she dies in a state of mortal sin, she will endure the eternal, horrible pains of hell.

Let us also pray that more bishops will have the courage and clarity of Archbishop Naumann. We can make that an intention as we gather at St Matthew's Cathedral (see post below).