Tuesday, May 24, 2022

Trivializing the Eucharist for all the world to see

 Is what I'm seeing a particular group of Catholics do in light of the news about Nancy Pelosi:

Beyond the very Protestant approach of 'if you don't like this Bishop's version of Catholicism, just drive down the street and find a Bishop's version of Catholicism you do like' approach, it essentially mocks the Eucharist.  

After all, nothing says 'Psssst, we don't really think it's anything other than a wafer and some wine' more than acting like it's nothing other than a wafer and some wine.  Because nothing says to the world that we believe there is nothing real or substantive that goes on at Communion than acting as if it is a commodity to be bargained over by the highest bidders.  

Nope, in the last two years as the world has revealed itself, we've watched in stunned amazement as line in the sand after line in the sand is stepped over by those who would conform to the world.  And now we have Catholics acting as if the Eucharist is everything the world has said it is, and less.  

In fairness, Sam is hardly the only Catholic to react this way.  His was just one of the more flippant. 

6 comments:

  1. I'm not sure if it would have been possible, under current canon law, to excommunicate politicians the same way we hear about a few politicians being excommunicated in the 1960's in Louisiana over segregation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. At this point, just getting elected to national office is a red flag. If you were able to get that far in our political system, you probably achieved it by doing something worthy of excommunication. I'd say ban the lot of 'em, left, right and center. I'm not a canon lawyer though, so take my words with a grain of salt

      Delete
    2. I'll admit I don't know canon law. I just wonder about the consistency. If the Church has so barred people before, then I don't see the problem. And if I were to be denied Communion if I flaunted Christian morals, then so be it. The more I read, the more it seems like it shouldn't be a big issue.

      Delete
  2. What's Sam's backstory? Is he openly pro-choice? Or is he one of those "I'm pro-life but I vote democrat because Trump is literally Hitler," types?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sam Rocha is one of those types that goes in lock step with the democrats on every issue, but then constantly evades committing to a specific position if challenged. I don't know if he has done this specifically on the matter of abortion, but he certainly has done it on a host of other issues. There was a recent debate on Catholic Answers about whether a Catholic can be socialist, and his tactic was to defiantly refuse to call anything specific "capitalist" or "socialist" (even after being repeatedly asked what Church documents condemning socialism are condemning, since they must be condemning something.)

      But looking through his twitter feed I feel pretty confident that he is of the "I'm pro choice but I'm not going to say it" crowd. Notably he has attacked the decision of Cordileone at length without discussing the morality of abortion at all, but he has also retweeted a tweet saying that 60% of Catholic laity want legalized abortion and that we should have a dialogue about it, and tweeted that saying things like "abortion is worse than racism" is infantile. He's certainly willing to discuss issues related to abortion, but he won't come out and say anything about whether abortion is wrong or not.

      The thing is that I know for a fact that Sam Rocha searches through the comments of sites like these to see if anyone is badmouthing him. So there is a good chance he is reading this comment. If so, then all you have to do Sam is to respond to this comment saying that you do believe that abortion is a grave evil.

      Delete
    2. Sam was my editor at Patheos. At that point he came across as 'nice guy Sam', though his progressive leanings were obvious. Like many others at the time, he wasn't 'how can non liberals think Jesus can save them?' with his attitude. Though again, it was obvious he leaned left. He also clearly was happy to add to the anti-white/anti-American rhetoric of the left. We once bickered because he was all about America as genocide in a paradise world, I tried to point out all was not paradise before the Europeans arrived, but he shut me down and said it's basically where the evils of the West are that we're prepared to stop our discussion. A common, and successful, leftwing tactic. Since then, however, he's become more and more what so many become who slip down that leftwing pitcher plant end up becoming, and that's a shame.

      Delete

Let me know your thoughts