Grave Scandal At Inauguration Mass

Defence of the week, the easy way.

Defence of the week, the easy way.

It has now transpired both Pelosi and Biden (attempted to) receive communion during the inauguration Mass.

Whilst the ceremony was transformed in the usual mass-exercise of the V II era (apparently more than 500 people, many of them certainly priests, distributing communion) and we do not know the exact modality of what has happened, it seems clear to me this grave scandal was at least made possible by the Holy Father, who was accessory of their grave sin at the very least by silence.

Pope Francis is certainly aware of the atrocious work of the two Catholic Pharisees in matter of abortion. If he himself gave communion to them, he did so in full knowledge of the grave scandal they continuously give, and can certainly not hide himself behind the finger of the two perhaps having reached perfect contrition in the minutes preceding the reception of the consecrated host. The scandal given by the two being very public, their being allowed to receive in itself gives scandal.

Even if the Pontiff did not give communion to the two himself (which I find improbable, both because of the rank of the hosts and for security reasons) and the two slipped among the crowd to receive from some other priest or “Eucharistic minister” unaware of who they are or too scared to refuse communion to them, the Pontiff is responsible for it because he made it possible through his silence.

It would have been sufficient to address a warning during the homily, impersonal but clear, on the lines of “those who directly or indirectly support abortion in full knowledge of the gravity of their sin are not allowed to receive communion, and are therefore invited not to present themselves in front of me to receive” to keep both Biden and Pelosi solidly anchored to their pews without any names being made; none of the two would have dared to stand up in line and be publicly refused communion by the Pontiff, or simply ask for a benediction acknowledging they are unworthy to receive; nor would they have dared to (attempt to) receive from some other person, lest they are exposed in front of all the planet like the con tricksters they actually are.

Someone may say that this was a diplomatic exercise, and therefore had to be conducted according to the usual rules of diplomacy. Fine, and no one asks the Pope should have refused to have Biden and Pelosi at the Mass and should have asked Obama to send him presentable representatives instead. Still, when the rules of diplomacy impinge on the Sacraments, a line too much has clearly been crossed.

Nor can it be said this is not the first time such scandals happen (Pope Benedict apparently did exactly the same when he visited the US, and he certainly gave communion in Germany to “Catholic” politicians of whom he knew they gave scandal) and therefore the matter should be looked at with more leniency. Scandals committed in the past by past Popes do not justify scandals committed in the present by the present one, and no one is ever obliged to receive, or ever forced to give, Holy Communion.

The result of the Inauguration Mass is that Pelosi and Biden will now be able to continue their work undisturbed, and brag with everyone they have even received Communion at a Mass celebrated by the Pope – and very probably from his own hands – so they must be fine Catholics after all.

It is utterly irrelevant whether this is how things really stand, or not; that is, whether the two have validly received. This is how the two will be perceived by the huge number of ill-instructed and ill-informed Catholics in the US, and the Pope enabled them to continue to do so.

This Papacy claims to be on the side of the weak and unprotected. Posed in front of the choice between the hundreds of thousand of babies slaughtered every year in the United Stares alone and the prospect of seriously angering powerful people – and their President – by clearly upholding Catholic values for all the world to see, the Pope chose to please the second rather than defend the first; but he was not shy in making popular gestures in front of the world cameras, like stopping the car and go to the disabled man in the wheelchair.

Up to now, the “defence of the week” seem to be all right when a world audience is there and there’s nothing to be feared, but to stop when it becomes inconvenient; but the Holy Father wears a metal cross and used to travel by bus, so he must be a friend of the oppressed. At least of those who have not been butchered because of Biden and Pelosi.


Posted on March 21, 2013, in Catholicism and tagged , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 12 Comments.

  1. The 1928 Anglican Book of Common Prayer has a paragraph at the beginning which could serve as a model for good practice:

    If among those who come to be partakers of the Holy Communion, the Minister shall know any to be an open and notorious evil liver, or to have done any wrong to his neighbours by word or deed, so that the Congregation be thereby offended; he shall advertise him, that he presume not to come to the Lord’s Table, until he have openly declared himself to have truly repented and amended his former evil life, that the Congregation may thereby be satisfied; and that he hath recompensed the parties to whom he hath done wrong; or at least declare himself to be in full purpose so to do, as soon as he conveniently may.

  2. If Biden and Pelosi did indeed receive communion, as it appears from reports they did, the profanation of the Sacred Species is horrible. If the Pope knew beforehand and did nothing, to whom are we to turn? In his eyes, has diplomacy trumped the Sacred?

    I still hope, feebly, that this is untrue.

    • Indeed, diplomacy has trumped the Sacred.
      I will turn to the Blessed Virgin and implore her that she may put an end to this shame.
      The beauty of Catholicism is that it relies on an immutable truth depending on heavenly, not earthly authority.


  3. When I was a Lutheran, my synod was very strict in who could receive Communion. No one who was an infidel, an openly immoral person, or a ‘Christian’ who wasn’t in communion with the synod could partake of it. We didn’t hesitate to deny communion even during the ceremony itself if the person was arrogant enough to come forward. We Catholics have the real thing, we should be even more zealous than my former synod to protect the body and blood of our Savior from being taken unworthily.

  4. From what I’ve read, Pope Francis did not give communion to anyone. That being said, I’m not quite sure what to make of all this.

    • Yes it appears it didn’t. But as I have tried to explain, this is nothing more than a propaganda detail for the two if he allowed them to receive.

  5. Pope Francis, and all before him who have not publicly denounced the actions of these people…and that includes their outright ex-communication from the Church, defile their office and defile our Church in general. To heck with diplomacy. One of the spiritual works of mercy is to admonish the sinner, an it seems that nobody, not even the Pope himself, cares enough about the souls of these lost human beings to set them straight. Its sort of like walking up to your jewish friend and saying, “don’t worry pal, just loyally stick to your faith and you’ll be in heaven some day”. As far as I’m concerned, that is the worst, most un-caring thing you can do to someone.

%d bloggers like this: