Incredible Document: No Communion for Cohabitating Couples

by Thaddeus Baklinski

(LifeSiteNews.com) - The Catholic archbishop of Santa Fe has issued a pastoral letter, read in all parishes of the archdiocese on April 3, that explains the Catholic Church’s position on reception of the sacraments to those living in cohabitation.

“We are all painfully aware that there are many Catholics today who are living in cohabitation,” the pastoral letter by Archbishop Michael Sheehan begins. “The Church must make it clear to the faithful that these unions are not in accord with the Gospel, and to help Catholics who find themselves in these situations to do whatever they must do to make their lives pleasing to God.”

The Gospel teaches that, when it comes to sexual union, “there are only two lifestyles acceptable to Jesus Christ for His disciples: a single life of chastity, or the union of man and woman in the Sacrament of Matrimony,” the archbishop states. “There is no ‘third way’ possible for a Christian. The Bible and the Church teaches that marriage is between one man and one woman and opposes same sex unions.”

In the short and concise pastoral letter, Archbishop Sheehan explains the objection of the Church to the “three groups of people who are living contrary to the Gospel teaching on marriage” receiving Communion.

These three groups are those who cohabit; those who have a civil union with no sacramental marriage; and those who have a civil union who were married before.

“These people are objectively living in a state of mortal sin and may not receive Holy Communion. They are in great spiritual danger. At the best - and this is, sadly, often the case - they are ignorant of God’s plan for man and woman. At the worst, they are contemptuous of God’s commandments and His sacraments.”

The solutions available to these people are straightforward, according to the archbishop.

“Of these three groups, the first two have no real excuse. They should marry in the Church or separate.”

“The third group, those who were married before and married again outside the Church, can seek a marriage annulment and have their marriage blest in the Church. Please remember that divorce still is no reason to refrain from Holy Communion as long as they have not entered into another marriage or sinful relationship. Many Catholics are confused on this point.”

Archbishop Sheehan also states that people in these three situations may not be commissioned as Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion, nor be admitted to the role of sponsor for Baptism or Confirmation.

“It is critical for the sponsor to be a practicing Catholic - and can anyone be seriously called a practicing Catholic who is not able to receive the sacraments because they are living in sin?” the archbishop posits.

“Many of these sins are committed out of ignorance,” Archbishop Sheehan observes, adding, “I ask that our pastors preach on the gravity of sin and its evil consequences, the 6th and 9th Commandments of God, and the sacramental nature and meaning of Christian marriage.”

“I urge especially young people to not cohabitate which is sinful, but to marry in the Church and prepare well for it,” the archbishop concludes.

The full text of Archbishop Sheehan’s pastoral letter, titled, “Pastoral Care of Couples Who are Cohabitating” is available here.

Saint Gemma Galgani

“If you really want to love Jesus, first learn to suffer,

because suffering teaches you to love.” Saint Gemma

Written by Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira

This photograph is of Saint Gemma Galgani (1878-1903), a famous mystic who lived in the enchanting town of Lucca, Italy.

Her countenance is impressive for several reasons. First, we note her profound reflection and the harmony of her traits. Second, the saint’s gaze has something elevated and sublime about it. Her thoughts are not of this earth: her countenance displays a supernatural aura.

Her dignity and angelic purity are striking. This is seen by the way her head rests on her shoulders: straight and unpretentious.

She wears no adornment at all. Her hair is simply combed and arranged. Her face is very clean and reveals nothing of a desire for embellishment.

Her dress is black and simple. Yet, St. Gemma combines an extraordinary dignity with a virginal purity which is impalpably reflected in the luminous splendor of her skin. One could say that her skin is as luminous as her gaze. Moreover, her gaze reflects total uprightness. It is that of a mystic immersed in that which she sees. Even we discern something of what she perceives.

The virtue of fortitude also shines forth in her countenance. When the Faith commands her to do something, her will is unbending.

What does she desire? She wants to serve God, Our Lady and the Catholic Church. She forges ahead on this road regardless of the obstacles. She represents the strong woman of incomparable values referred to in Holy Scriptures. Like a rare stone, one readily walks to the ends of the earth to find her.

Her feast is on April 11.

(Published in the August 1999 issue of Catolicismo)

Front Alley Abortion

One of the major arguments that feminists use to impose abortion upon our country is that women, especially poor women, are going to get abortions anyway.

By providing “safe” facilities to these poor women, we can prevent them from resorting to shady back alley abortion doctors, persons lacking the necessary skills, or environments lacking minimal medical standards. Such operations, they claim, were often botched and lead to the death, not only of the babies, but countless women.

It may be true that legal abortion may have managed to diminish the wildly inflated incidence of back alley abortion in America. However, this fact has exposed women, especially poor women, to a much more grave danger: the front alley abortion.

As bad as the back alley abortion is, the front alley abortion is much worse.

Front alley abortions are those legal abortion mills that operate normally and are open to the public. They have all the appearances of a legitimate business. They may even have nice sounding names like Woman’s Medical Society or similar misnomers.

These establishments have all the protection of the government since abortion enjoys legal protection under law. They also have the slavish support of liberals and media who see these mills as essential to “reproductive rights.” Government regulating agencies seem to be more interested in tanning salons than what goes on inside these abortion mills.

The appearance of these clinics in the front part of the alley, and not the back, gives them all the appearance of respectability.

Protected by the veneer of this respectability and the force of law, some operators have used these fronts as a shield allowing them to commit the most horrible acts with impunity. What goes on behind the closed doors of these front alley clinics can go far beyond anything in the back alley.

Of course, the most obvious case is what is now called Gosset’s House of Horrors, alias Women’s Medical Society, a clinic operated in West Philadelphia by Kermit B. Gosnell, M.D. According to the District Attorney’s report, Gosnell staffed his decrepit and unsanitary clinic entirely with unlicensed personnel, let them practice medicine on unsuspecting patients, unsupervised, and directed them to heavily drug patients in his absence. In addition, he regularly performed abortions beyond the 24-week limit prescribed by law. As a result, when viable babies were born, Gosnell killed them by plunging scissors into their spinal cords. He taught his staff to do the same. Meanwhile, government regulatory agencies turned a blind eye to blatant violations of health codes and practices.

Yet it seems Gosnell’s case is not the only one. Other houses of horror have been found. While most do not reach the point of Gosnell’s “House of Horrors,”the blatant disregard for any kind of standards seems to be a typical or systemic characteristic of front alley abortion mills. Indeed, violations of health regulations rules seem to be a common occurrence – and government failure to enforce the regulations as well. Consent laws are often circumvented by operators who secure abortions for minors. As the recent sting operations against Planned Parenthood have shown, many employees appear to have adopted the policy of failing to report abuse to the authorities. Many abortion doctors seem to have a hard time holding on to their licenses – and some workers never had them in the first place.

Just recently, the Texas Medical Board, for example, received complaints about the medical practices of twelve Texas abortion providers, called the “Dirty Dozen” by a pro-life watchdog group who claim to have documented violation of state and federal abortion laws. These front alley clinics were chosen at random and pro-life activists say that they found mishandling of private patient medical records, violations of consent laws, violations of the 24-hour waiting period required by law, improper disposal of biohazardous medical waste, the counseling of minors on how to flout parental notification laws, and more.

That is to say, behind the shield of the front alley abortion clinic some of the most horrific things still take place. Yet it is not surprising. The nature of the business of abortion is such that it brutalizes human sensibilities. In this sense, every abortion, front or back alley, is a tragic denial of our humanity and will lead to that which is inhuman.

Guilty Until Proven Guiltier

by John Horvat II

No one denies that some priests have terribly abused minors, and some bishops failed to act properly to stop this unspeakable harm. This is the qualifier that must be placed before any rational discussion of the sexual abuse scandals.

However, there is a story that is not being told. In the hysteria surrounding these scandals, many innocent priests are being falsely accused. No one tells their story. David F. Pierre’s book Double Standard: Abuse Scandals and the Attack on the Catholic Church is a book that does much to expose this grave injustice.

The book is incredibly focused. It does not seek to enter into the details of many of the cases he cites. His message is simple: There is a double standard involved in the prosecution of abuse cases. There is a one-sided bias that assumes any priest who has been accused is “guilty until proven guiltier.”

The author cites case after case of media mistreatment of the scandals. One finds total publicity for those making accusations and little exposure for the priests to proclaim their innocence. The slightest charge receives a media uproar whereas the rampant abuse in the public schools and administrative cover-up get almost no coverage. Decades-old cases involving deceased priests are treated as if they happened yesterday and are constantly rehashed by the media. One often sees all the efforts the Church has made to remedy the situation ignored by activists and reporters.

However, the worst part of this attack is that the priests themselves are marked forever as an accused. When priests are exonerated, their innocence is rarely reported and some are taken out of their ministries “just in case.” Some of these are priests with excellent records of decades of parish work without incident. The priest who has every right to his good reputation is not given this right. A number of priests have even refused to plea bargain and admit to a guilt they do not have. One of these chose to go to prison until he can establish his complete innocence.

Mr. Pierre cites numerous cases of false accusations – and false settlements which again are rarely reported. Many dioceses without the resources to get involved in many lawsuits simply make a joint settlement which assumes guilt on decades-old cases and besmirches the good names of the dead who have no defense. At times diocesan officials did not even ask for specifics about the time and place of alleged abuse, turning the settlement into something similar to “a trip to an ATM machine.”

Indeed, there is a double standard which the book well documents. In the name of one scandal, another one has been created by those leading the charge to associate every Catholic priest with abuse. There should be one standard – the standard of justice where everyone is innocent until proven guilty and not “guilty until proven guiltier.”



To purchase Double Standard: Abuse Scandals and the Attack on the Catholic Church by David F. Pierre, Jr., please click here for our Amazon.com link. A percentage of what you pay will benefit the TFP.

2+2=5: The Case for Number Equality

by John Horvat II

There are so many politically correct causes out there that it would not surprise me that even the most basic truths might be called into question.

For example, I was taught in my arithmetic class in primary school that 2+3=5 and any other answer would defeat the arithmetic purpose of counting. However, I could imagine confronting an activist that would contest this primary truth and proudly proclaim that 2+2=5.

The activist would affirm that in the name of “number equality” there is no real reason why 2 and 2 cannot add up to 5. All numbers are equal and they can pretty much add up to what we want them to mean. As long as we can add them together, why not allow them to equal 5?

Of course, my reply would be that 2+2 is simply not 5 no matter how much you wish it to be so. If you do this, you will destroy arithmetic. As soon as I say this, I already expect to hear the indignant response of the number equality activist almost shouting at me:

Why can’t 2+2=5? How concretely does my believing this hurt you? You are free to believe 2+3=5. Why do you hate those who proclaim the contrary? How does this destroy arithmetic?

Of course, the fact that my activist opponent believes that 2+2=5 does not really concretely hurt me. It will not directly destroy arithmetic. There are plenty of individuals out there who believe crazy things and this one would merely join the crowd of flat earthers.

However, the problem starts when the activist’s ideas start gaining acceptance and spreading around. Suddenly, merchants will be confronted by number equality activists who insist upon paying $4 for five dollar purchases. If the merchant refuses, he finds himself surrounded by activists screaming discrimination and insisting upon receiving five-dollar goods.

While even this might not destroy arithmetic, it certainly would cause major mathematical problems and agitation inside all areas of society where numbers have importance. As time goes on it would start to wear upon society.

The next phase, however, is where the real problems start. Suffering from the discrimination of merchants and other number-intensive trades (engineers for example), the activists will seek to have their cause recognized by the state. For too long, 2+3=5 has dominated arithmetic. In the name of equality and diversity, the 2+2 crowd will demand recognition and acceptance for number equality and arithmetic rights. They might even put some provisions in the law to punish those mathematically incorrect who refuse this recognition.

Even at this point, the activist will insist that the 2+3 people have nothing to fear. They are still free to believe in their cause as a kind of parallel universe where numbers don’t merely add up but serve a function in society.

Then we reach the final phase of the number equality agenda and here we return full circle to where it all begins. With state recognition of 2+2=5, the primary schools would be forced to teach that both 2+2 AND 2+3 are equal to 5. The children are free to choose which option or options they feel more comfortable with. And here, yes, arithmetic is destroyed since it can no longer fulfill its function of counting.

I am reminded of the number equality activists in the same-sex “marriage” debate. One man and one woman equal marriage. It has a specific function in society of procreation, the mutual affection of spouses and the education of children. The minute you introduce another formation which features a naturally contraceptive union, it is not marriage no matter how much marriage “equality” activists insist that it is. The minute you get state recognition for this new formula and insist that it be equally taught to children as marriage, marriage is destroyed.

It is something that should be as obvious as 2+3=5.