News
Featured Image
 Shutterstock.com

KNOXVILLE, Tennessee, December 11, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – The signature of the Vatican’s liturgy chief is missing from a controversial letter signed by the secretary of the Vatican body that supervises worship and sacraments in the Church. The letter supports the decision of a U.S. bishop to ban reception of Holy Communion on the tongue in his diocese on account of the coronavirus outbreak.

In a letter from the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments dated November 13, the Vatican dicastery stated it had “received and attentively studied” a petition from the faithful regarding a decision by Bishop Richard Stika of the Diocese of Knoxville, Tennessee, to ban Holy Communion on the tongue during the COVID-19 pandemic.

“As has already been enunciated in the circular letter of Card. Robert Sarah of August 15, 2020, and approved for publication by His Holiness Pope Francis, ‘in times of difficulty (e.g., wars, pandemics), Bishops and Episcopal Conferences can give provisional norms which must be obeyed’, even clearly, as in this case, to suspend for whatever time might be required, reception of Holy Communion on the tongue at the public celebration of the Holy Mass,” the letter states.

“This Dicastery does hereby therefore act to confirm the decision of Bishop Stika and thereby rejects your petition seeking its modification,” the letter adds.

The letter was signed by Arthur Roche, Archbishop Secretary of the Vatican’s Congregation for Worship and the Sacraments.

The signature of Cardinal Robert Sarah, who is the prefect of the Congregation, did not appear in the document.

The letter contradicts a 2009 letter from the same Congregation regarding the same question in the midst of the H1N1 influenza pandemic. At that time, the Vatican under Pope Benedict, wrote that Church law on the subject stipulates, “each of the faithful always has the right to receive Holy Communion on the tongue” and that it may not be abrogated. 

— Article continues below Petition —
PETITION: Ask Pope Francis to clarify and rectify scandalous remarks on homosexual civil unions
  Show Petition Text
22714 have signed the petition.
Let's get to 25000!
Thank you for signing this petition!
Add your signature:
  Show Petition Text
Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.
Keep me updated via email on this petition and related issues.

Remarks attributed to Pope Francis (and, not denied by the Vatican) in support of homosexual civil unions have caused grave scandal to the faithful.

Please SIGN this urgent petition which asks Pope Francis to clarify and rectify these heterodox and scandalous remarks on homosexual civil unions, and which will be delivered both to the Vatican and to the Papal Nuncio of the United States (the Pope's official representative in the U.S.).

As the last guarantor of the Faith, the Pope should clarify and rectify these remarks, which go against the perennial teaching of the Church, even including the teaching of his living predecessor, Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI.

"What we have to create is a law of civil coexistence [meaning civil union law, for homosexuals]...," Pope Francis is reported to have remarked, in what is arguably his clearest statement of public support for a practice morally prohibited by official Catholic Church teaching.

In fact, the Church has been crystal clear in Her opposition to homosexual unions.

Just in 2003, Pope Saint John Paul II approved a document from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, titled 'Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions between Homosexual Persons' and written by Cardinal Ratzinger (now, Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI), which concludes with the following:

"The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behaviour or to legal recognition of homosexual unions. The common good requires that laws recognize, promote and protect marriage as the basis of the family, the primary unit of society. Legal recognition of homosexual unions or placing them on the same level as marriage would mean not only the approval of deviant behaviour, with the consequence of making it a model in present-day society, but would also obscure basic values which belong to the common inheritance of humanity. The Church cannot fail to defend these values, for the good of men and women and for the good of society itself."

It could not be more clear: the Church is calling people to repentance, not to be left to indulge in grave sin.

Since becoming public, several senior prelates as well as other notable Catholic figures have voiced their opposition to these remarks attributed to the Pontiff.

Cardinal Raymond Burke stated: "It is a source of deepest sadness and pressing pastoral concern that the private opinions reported with so much emphasis by the press and attributed to Pope Francis do not correspond to the constant teaching of the Church, as it is expressed in Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition."

Cardinal Gerhard Müller commented: "Where there is tension between the plain and obvious Word of God and the infallible interpretation on the one hand, and private expressions of opinion even by the highest church authorities on the other, the principle always applies: in dubio pro DEO [When in doubt, be in favor of God]."

And, Catholic theologian and apologist Scott Hahn, without directly quoting Pope Francis, shared on Facebook the 'Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons,' published by the CDF in 1986, with the statement: "Holy Father, respectfully and humbly, I beg to differ... if that is indeed what you said. In any case, please clarify and rectify your statement, especially in view of the official teaching of our Lord through the magisterium of His Church."

But, the silence from the Vatican has been deafening, with no clarification forthcoming.

We must, therefore, ask the Pope for clarification in this serious matter.

Please SIGN and SHARE this petition which asks Pope Francis to clarify and rectify remarks attributed to him in support of homosexual civil unions.

FOR MORE INFORMATION:

'Cdl. Burke: Pope’s homosexual civil union remarks ‘contrary’ to Scripture, Tradition' - https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/cardinal-burke-on-popes-homosexual-civil-union-remarks-contrary-to-the-teaching-of-sacred-scripture-and-sacred-tradition

'Cardinal says Catholics ‘can and should’ disagree with Pope’s ‘opinion’ on gay civil unions' - https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/cdl.mueller-popes-words-on-gay-civil-unions-purely-private-expression-of-opinion-which-every-catholic-can-and-should-freely-contradict

'Archbishop Vigano, Bishops Tobin and Strickland respond to Pope’s approval of homosexual civil unions' - https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/archbishop-vigano-and-bishops-tobin-strickland-respond-to-popes-approval-of-homosexual-civil-unions

'Pope’s comments on gay civil unions cause shockwaves around the world' - https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/deepest-sadness-cardinal-burke-condemns-pope-franciss-remarks-supporting-civil-unions

  Hide Petition Text

The new letter from the Congregation was published today on the Diocese of Knoxville’s website. A separate letter from the Vatican informing Bishop Stika of the decision was also published on the diocese’s website.

While the document quoted Sarah’s August 15 letter titled “Let us return to the Eucharist with joy!” as justification for suspending Holy Communion on the tongue, at no point in this document did the cardinal make such a point. He only referred to bishops giving “provisional norms which must be obeyed” without mentioning anything about such norms including rules for the reception of Holy Communion.

“In times of difficulty (e.g. wars, pandemics), Bishops and Episcopal Conferences can give provisional norms which must be obeyed. Obedience safeguards the treasure entrusted to the Church. The measures given by the Bishops and Episcopal Conferences expire when the situation returns to normal,” wrote Sarah in his August letter.

Cardinal Sarah, when asked in a May 2020 interview during the height of the pandemic about what should be done when Catholics return to churches after the lockdowns and may be told it is “more appropriate” to receive Communion in the hand, replied: “There is already a rule in the Church and this must be respected: the faithful are free to receive Communion in the mouth or hand.”

Indeed, the Church’s 2004 instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum teaches that “each of the faithful always has the right to receive Holy Communion on the tongue.” The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments under Cardinal Antonio Cañizares Llovera reaffirmed this teaching in the midst of the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic, making it clear that a pandemic did not negate this teaching.

LifeSiteNews reached out to Cardinal Sarah with the following questions regarding the letter sent to Bishop Stika from the Congregation which the Cardinal heads.

  1. Were you aware that a letter from your Congregation was sent to U.S. Bishop Richard Stika of the Diocese of Knoxville on Nov. 13, 2020 confirming him in his decision to ban Holy Communion on the tongue on account of the pandemic?
  2. Does this letter accurately reflect your position and the position of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments on this matter?
  3. Does this letter reflect a change in Church teaching regarding the right of Catholics, as taught by Redemptionis Sacramentum, to receive Holy Communion on the tongue?

LifeSite did not hear back by press time.

Dr. Peter Kwasniewski, a Thomistic theologian and liturgical scholar, told LifeSiteNews that the Congregation’s letter to Bishop Stika was “most unfortunate.”

“It undermines the universal norms and tradition of the Church, reiterated many times, concerning the most appropriate and reverent manner for receiving the Holy Eucharist,” he said.

Kwasniewski said that the letter establishes a “dangerous open-ended precedent.”

“Since it is clear from all actual scientific evidence that we are not in a grave pandemic like the 1918 Spanish Flu, much less the Bubonic plague, the decision reflects and reinforces the panic-driven response of civil and ecclesiastical authorities,” he said.

“In this way the CDF's defense of Bishop Stika's policy establishes a dangerous open-ended precedent that can be easily abused, given how often there are seasonal illnesses that threaten the lives of certain members of the faithful. Moreover, since many doctors and pastors recognize communion on the tongue as no less hygienic than communion in the hand (and indeed have argued that communion in the hand presents its own hygienic problems), the decision also betrays a lack of appreciation for the age-old wisdom of the Church as well as a lack of consultation with qualified experts,” he added.

The liturgical scholar noted that the Congregation’s letter only adds to the “worldwide crisis of sacrilege and apostasy” when it comes to Catholic belief.

“Above all, the decision strengthens the worst plague of our time, namely, the utilitarian pragmatism that has made the Mass into a communion service, and communion into a mere token of our belonging, which we feed to ourselves like ordinary food. No emergency could ever justify compelling the faithful, in many cases against their consciences, to adopt a practice that conflicts with the spirit of humble adoration given to Our Lord in the host, whom the Church entrusts to the hands of ordained ministers. In that sense, this decision contributes to the counter-catechesis of bad liturgy that has created a worldwide crisis of sacrilege and apostasy,” said Kwasniewski.

Kwasniewski’s point about the “counter-catechesis of bad liturgy” is backed by data. Last year, Pew research found that only one-third of Catholics believe that the Eucharist is the body and blood of Jesus.

Kwasniewski said the Congregation’s letter to Bishop Stika “far from being the end of this discussion, indicates instead the ill-informed and confusing advice the faithful are receiving from the hierarchy today.”

He cautioned Catholics about the decision, saying that they “cannot be obliged by anyone on earth to violate tradition, law, common sense, conscience, and medical evidence.”

Comments

Commenting Guidelines

LifeSiteNews welcomes thoughtful, respectful comments that add useful information or insights. Demeaning, hostile or propagandistic comments, and streams not related to the storyline, will be removed.

LSN commenting is not for frequent personal blogging, on-going debates or theological or other disputes between commenters.

Multiple comments from one person under a story are discouraged (suggested maximum of three). Capitalized sentences or comments will be removed (Internet shouting).

LifeSiteNews gives priority to pro-life, pro-family commenters and reserves the right to edit or remove comments.

Comments under LifeSiteNews stories do not necessarily represent the views of LifeSiteNews.