Phoenix Diocese wine-less Mass criticized
from: http://tucsoncitizen.com/arizona-news/2011/09/24/phoenix-diocese-wine-less-mass-criticized/
by Michael Clancy on Sep. 24, 2011, under Arizona Republic NewsThe Phoenix Diocese decision to restrict wine in Communion rituals received criticism nationwide on Friday.
Most who commented said they could not understand the reasoning behind Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted’s decision. And some believed the reasons had to do with unsanitary conditions or profane actions surrounding the wine, which Catholics believe to be the blood of Christ after it is consecrated.
Bryan Cones, managing editor of U.S. Catholic magazine, rhetorically asked whether any Catholics were “starting to feel like a second-class citizen?”
He said the diocese’s question-and-answer document explaining the move was “deeply dishonest – basically a collection of half-truths,” which “provides an incredibly narrow reading of church law on this matter.”
“This decision is no less than an abuse of power by the bishop, a withdrawal from the faithful what they have a right to by their baptism,” he writes.
Deacon Eric Stoltz of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, whose comments appeared on several websites Friday, said the Phoenix Diocese used “dishonest doublespeak” to defend the decision.
The Whosoever Desires blog, put together by seven Jesuit priests, also criticizes the decision.
The Rev. Nathan O’Halloran of New Orleans said he cannot figure out the reason for the change.
He said Olmsted’s decision appears personal, not required by church law.
He disagrees with the reasons given for the restriction, including possible profanation of the sacrament and that use of laypeople to distribute community has gotten out of hand.
O’Halloran said that in 29 years as a priest, he has seen little that could be called “profanation,” and that if Communion in the form of wine is available, then it should be utilized.
He said use of both bread and wine during Communion – the central act of worship in the Catholic Mass – links people to the early church and that restricting Communion creates a wedge between the clergy and the laity that does not need to exist.
Jeffrey Tucker, managing editor of the journal Sacred Music, was one of a few bloggers to support the decision, although more are likely to come forward.
On the Chant Cafe blog, Tucker said he is happy the diocese “has chosen to take the first step that competent theologians and liturgists have urged for decades.”
He gave no names or citations.
Canon lawyer Ed Peters, a widely known blogger, supports the decision because he has witnessed “stop-the-line” spills of the consecrated wine. “Extremely disconcerting,” he said.
Philip Lawler of the Catholic Culture website criticized Friday’s Arizona Republic story about the change for not using Catholic terminology such as “blood of Christ.” He makes no comment on the change, which the diocese said was being made based on Olmsted’s understanding of the church’s new translation of the Mass and other church documents.
The change is considered one of the most fundamental to Roman Catholic Church customs in decades. An effective date has not been announced.
Olmsted has declined a request for an interview on the issue.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Distribution and Reception of
Holy Communion Under Both Kinds
PHOENIX
(Sept. 21, 2011) — The Roman Catholic Diocese of Phoenix announced today its
intentions to implement new norms for the distribution of Holy Communion under the forms of
bread and wine that are in keeping with new universal Church standards for the distribution of
Communion.
The new norms will promote unity in the celebration of the Eucharist all around the world, and
come from the revised General Instruction of the Roman Missal, 3rd Edition, together with the
final edition of The Norms for the Distribution and Reception of Holy Communion Under Both
Kinds for the Dioceses of the United States of America, published in June 2011.
The priests of the Diocese of Phoenix recently discussed the new norms and a provisional text
for its local implementation. At the present time, these diocesan norms, together with a time
frame for implementation in the Phoenix Diocese, are under preparation and should be
completed within the next few months.
Since the 11th century, the Latin Rite Catholic Church distributed Holy Communion to the faithful
under the form of bread. At the end of the Second Vatican Council, the Fathers of the Council
directed the Sacred Congregation on Divine Worship to provide for occasions where the practice
of distribution and reception of Holy Communion under both kinds to the laity could be restored.
In the Roman Missal (1975), 14 instances were provided when the chalice could be offered to
the Laity.
From 1975 on, the United States, United Kingdom and Oceania were given experimental
privileges for the distribution of Holy Communion under both kinds. These privileges expired in
2005 and were not renewed by the Holy See. The new norms issued in June 2011 are what
guide the liturgical practice today and in the future.
These universal norms for the distribution of Holy Communion under both kinds greatly
expanded those times when the chalice could be offered to the lay faithful for most of the
Catholic world (since in most countries their practice was virtually non-existent). In the Diocese
of Phoenix, like other places where the practice of reception from the chalice became frequent
or even commonplace, the new norms call for the practice of less frequent distribution of Holy
Communion under both kinds than the faithful may have been accustomed.
Though these norms are for the universal Church, latitude is given to the local bishop to apply
them for his particular diocese. In the Diocese of Phoenix, the norms provide for the distribution
of Holy Communion under both kinds for special feast days and other important occasions (e.g,
the Chrism Mass, Holy Thursday, the Feast of Corpus Christi, retreats, spiritual gatherings,
weddings, and more).
The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches in paragraph 1390, “Since Christ is
sacramentally present under each of the species, communion under the species of bread alone
makes it possible to receive all the fruit of the Eucharistic grace.”
###
Media Contact
Robert DeFrancesco
Director of Communications
rdefrancesco@diocesephoenix.org
(602) 354-2130
Phoenix Restricts Communion Cup
October 4, 2011, 9:45 pm
Posted by Lisa Fullam
Well, the times they are a’changin’ in Phoenix. Like those in most US dioceses, Catholics in Phoenix have routinely received communion under both species, but now Bishop Olmsted is putting a stop to THAT. Announcing a forthcoming decree, the diocese’s Communications Office indicates that the cup will be shared with hoi polloi only on the very limited occasions mandated by the new GIRM or specially permitted by the bishop (patronal feasts, e.g.), and sometimes not even then, depending on whether the appropriate conditions for doing so are met.
Why? Several reasons are given for keeping the laity from the cup:
1. The risk of profanation by, e.g., spillage or swilling. (Swilling? Really? Is this an issue in Phoenix?)
2. It’s not required for salvation to receive under both species. It’s just a fuller sign of Holy Communion. (Um…isn’t that a good thing?)
3. It will make special feast days more special, since only then will the cup be offered. (Of course, that’s exactly what some Protestant churches say when explaining why they only have Communion monthly or quarterly…)
4. Most Catholics in the world don’t receive under both species, so it’s an act of solidarity with the world Church. (odd–I’d think that a better approach might be to help see to it that other Catholics in the world DO have Communion under both species,)
5.”In normal circumstances, only priests and deacons are to distribute Holy Communion; when both forms of Communion are used frequently, “extraordinary” ministers of Holy Communion are disproportionately multiplied.”
Ah!! Now we’re getting to it. The Q&A reiterates this point:
As highlighted in the GIRM, the practical need to avoid obscuring the role of the priest and the deacon as the ordinary ministers of Holy Communion by an excessive use of extraordinary (or lay) ministers might in some circumstances constitute a reason for limiting the distribution of Holy Communion under both species.
In fact, this is why the cup may not be offered to the laity even on the limited occasions mentioned in the GIRM:
For example, let’s say a pastor deemed it appropriate to have Holy Communion under both species on the feast of Corpus Christi, but his particular situation would necessitate a dozen extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion. While he and a deacon would be the only ordinary ministers, it is common sense that he would not be able to judge the necessary conditions as met.
Let me be clear–I’ve been at Masses where it was unwise to offer Communion under both species, and so we shared only the host. But to take the cup away from the laity of an entire diocese?
The backstory goes like this: in 2001, an indult was granted that allowed for much wider reception of the Eucharist under both species in the US. That indult expired in 2005 and was not renewed. While the 2001 indult clearly recognized the bishop’s authority in deciding how widespread the practice of receiving in both forms was to be, the language of the request made a clear and beautiful case for the cup being offered to the laity:
Since, however, by reason of the sign value, sharing in both eucharistic species reflects more fully the sacred realities that the Liturgy signifies, the Church in her wisdom has made provisions in recent years so that more frequent eucharistic participation from both the sacred host and the chalice of salvation might be made possible for the laity in the Latin Church….today the Church finds it salutary to restore a practice, when appropriate, that for various reasons was not opportune when the Council of Trent was convened in 1545. (32) But with the passing of time, and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the reform of the Second Vatican Council has resulted in the restoration of a practice by which the faithful are again able to experience “a fuller sign of the Eucharistic banquet.”
But not in Phoenix any more.
Bishop Thomas Olmsted: Episcopal career according to WIKIPEDIA See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_J._Olmsted
Bishop of Wichita
On February 16, 1999, Olmsted was appointed Coadjutor Bishop of Wichita, Kansas, by Pope John Paul II. He received his episcopal consecration on the following April 20 from Bishop Eugene Gerber, with Archbishop James Keleher and Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz serving as co-consecrators, at the Century II Convention Center.[2] He selected as his episcopal motto: Jesus Caritas, or "Love of Jesus", the name of the priestly fraternity, founded by the Blessed Charles de Foucauld, to which he has belonged since 1974.[4] He succeeded Eugene Gerber as the seventh Bishop of Wichita upon Gerber's retirement on October 4, 2001.[2]
[edit] Bishop of Phoenix
Olmsted was later named the fourth Bishop of Phoenix, Arizona, on November 25, 2003. Formally installed on December 20 of that year, he replaced Bishop Thomas O'Brien, who resigned after being arrested for his involvement in a fatal hit-and-run car accident.
- During the 2008 presidential election, Olmsted declared a candidate's position on abortion to be the most important consideration for voters, stating, "When it comes to direct attacks on innocent human life, being right on all the other issues can never justify a wrong choice on this most serious matter."[5]
- On February 12, 2006, Olmsted denied communion to a 10-year-old autistic boy. In a letter to the boy's family, Olmsted stated that the boy could not receive Communion until he could "actually receive the Eucharist, actually take and eat."[6]
- In 2008, after the diocese had spent several million dollars to settle about 20 lawsuits, Olmsted led an initiative to shield the diocese from further sex abuse claims by incorporating local parishes individually.[7]
- On September 12, 2008, Olmsted released a YouTube video[8] urging Arizona voters to vote for Proposition 102, a referendum to amend the Arizona constitution to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
- From January 2008 to February 2009, he was Apostolic Administrator of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Gallup, New Mexico, acting as that diocese's interim leader until the appointment of James S. Wall.[2]
- On March 8, 2010, Olmsted, as Bishop of Phoenix, joined in signing a letter with two other bishops of Arizona in expressing concern over Arizona SB 1070 indicating that if passed it might will instill fear in those illegal immigrants who are victims of crime and deter them from going to the police out of fears of deportation.[9]
- On March 10, 2009, Olmsted condemned President Barack Obama for lifting former President George W. Bush's restrictions on embryonic stem cell research, saying, "American taxpayers will now be paying for the killing of human beings at a very early stage in their lives (as embryos), so that scientific research can make use of them for experiments that may or may not yield positive results."[10] He also referred to stem cell research as "homicidal research".[10]
- In March 2009, the Bishop criticized the University of Notre Dame for selecting Obama as the commencement speaker for its graduation ceremony and awarding him an honorary doctoral degree, calling the choice a "grave mistake." Olmsted asserted that Notre Dame's actions went against a previous decision of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops in their June 2004 Statement “Catholics in Political Life”: "The Catholic community and Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles. They should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions."[11]
- Under Olmsted's tutelage, the Diocese of Phoenix has researched and cataloged an index of its clergymen accused of sexually abusing children and now has released some of their identities to the public. The Diocese is putting out a list of sexually abusive clergymen on its newly revamped website. Joe Baca, the Phoenix director of the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests stated: "It's the right thing to do and I've got to give them that much. They need to use these names to help victims to come forward. But you know, there's still more they can do."[12][13]
[edit] Sister Margaret McBride excommunication controversy
Main article: Excommunication of Margaret McBride
In May 2010, Olmsted declared that Sister Margaret McBride who served on the ethics committee of St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center in Phoenix, was automatically excommunicated after permitting an abortion at St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center. McBride allowed doctors to perform an abortion on a mother of four who was 11 weeks pregnant and suffering from pulmonary hypertension. Hospital doctors had estimated that the woman's chance of dying if she continued the pregnancy was "close to 100 percent".[14][15]
McBride has been accused of permitting a "direct abortion," which according to the Catholic Church's position is always wrong.[16] The Diocese of Phoenix stated that she was excommunicated because “she gave her consent that the abortion was a morally good and allowable act according to Church teaching" admitting this directly to Bishop Olmsted. "Since she gave her consent and encouraged an abortion she automatically excommunicated herself from the Church.”[17][18]
As a result of the above case, and because hospital management would not refuse to perform similar abortions in the future, Olmsted announced on December 21, 2010, that the Diocese of Phoenix was severing its ties with St. Joseph's Hospital in mid-town Phoenix and that the facility could no longer be called "a Catholic hospital".[19] Olmsted is attempting to work with the hospital to help them fulfill requirements of self-identified Catholic institutions.[17] In order to return to full communion with the Catholic Church, McBride would need to admit and confess her sin to a priest through the Rite of Confession.
A poll taken in May, 2011, showed the majority of Catholics surveyed disagreed with Olmsted's decision and felt he had misused his power.[20]
No comments:
Post a Comment