PLAYING “THE FLOAT GAME”
(or, “Sinner, Sink Thyself!”)
by Kelly Clark — the lady in the pew — July 19, 2004
If you’re like me (heaven forbid!) the whole “Communion Controversy”* is beginning to make your head spin. Or ache.
*If you don’t know what I’m talking about, it boils down to whether ministers of Holy Communion should or should not offer the Blessed Sacrament to openly pro-abortion “Catholics,” openly pro-homosexual lifestyle “Catholics” or openly pro-euthanasia “Catholics.”
Like me, you may have read what was reported to be Cardinal Ratzinger’s instruction to the United States Bishop on the matter, early in June of this year, by the Italian weekly L’espresso.
(I’m not as hip to Italian newspapers as I should be. For one thing, I can’t seem to find a connection to Cardinal Ratzinger, United States politicians, Holy Communion and coffee aficionados. Can you?)
L’espresso writer Sandro Magister leads off with:
“Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, prefect of the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, was clear with Theodore Cardinal McCarrick, archbishop of Washington and the head of the “domestic policy” commission of the U.S. Catholic bishops’ conference. He was more than clear, he set it down in writing: no eucharistic communion for the politicians who systematically campaign for abortion.
Read: no communion for the Democratic candidate for the White House, the Catholic John F. Kerry.”
This was followed by the release of a “leaked” memo by Cardinal Ratzinger. (Link to the whole article follows this article — no peeking, yet!)
After reading this, people I know — perhaps understandably — leapt to the conclusion that the United States Bishops were in defiance of the Vatican on this issue.
It gets a bit confusing, though.
For one thing, the same L’espresso article tells us that the Holy Father administered Holy Communion, back in 2001, to some politico named Francesco Rutelli, “one of most active supporters of Italy’s abortion law, which is among the most permissive in the world.”
Hey. I’m no canon lawyer. (I mean, once I met somebody on the subway whose cousin’s brother-in-law happened to be the favorite barber of a canon lawyer, but my credentials end there.)
Still, though. If the Pope didn’t refuse “one of the most active supporters of Italy’s abortion law,” then what’s the scoop, here? What’s (forgive me) brewing, L’espresso?
And just to really blur things up —
— We learn that, L’espresso to the contrary, Cardinal Ratzinger apparently views the U.S. Bishops’ position on “Catholics in Political Life” as “very much in harmony” with the Vatican, according to his letter sent to Theodore Cardinal McCarrick on July 9, 2004. (Link at the end of this article and you know the rules!)
Get out the Advil™ — it gets even crazier.
The June 24, 2004 Washington Post reports:
“In their statement, the bishops declared that politicians who support legalized abortion are ‘cooperating in evil’ and should not be given ‘awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions.’ But they stopped short of saying that such politicians should be turned away from Communion, leaving intact the status quo, which is that each bishop is free to set the policy in his diocese.”
Prompting Steve Krueger, Head Guy of the (unrecognized by anybody but the secular media and even that attention seems to be waning) “Catholic” organization known as Voice of the Faithful™, to comment:
“They [the bishops] specifically talked about `worthiness’ to receive Communion, yet every time I receive Communion, I say ‘Lord, I am not worthy to receive you.’ “I think a divisive debate is being created that does not serve the interests of the church, which is deeply in need of healing.”
Steve, Steve. For heaven’s sake, Steve!
We all say the “Domine non sum dignus” prayer — including the priest — because nobody is worthy!
And you use the word “divisive” as if that’s something necessarily bad.
It’s not. I mean, let’s not even get into Matthew 10:34-11:1.
(Let’s not get into it now, is what I really mean. But, hey, let’s do get into this reading, as well as Isaiah 1:10-17, and soon. Both were heard on Monday July 12, 2004, and are linked in the “End Notes” section.)
Anyway, there seems to be a recurring theme happening here.
A Minnesota guy and his fellow parishioner, involved in an openly homosexual relationship, were asked by their pastor to refrain from Communion until, presumably, they have reconciled themselves with God and with the Church. Responded one of the men:
“’I have no hopes of changing church doctrine,’” Sand said. He knows the church sees sex between two men as wrong. But he sees the promise of forgiveness as bigger than the law against sin. `Before Communion, we always pray, Lord, I am not worthy to receive you, but only say the word, and I shall be healed. I don't hear any exceptions in that.’”
“Kelly? If you’ve got some bleepin’ light to shed on all this fine, but otherwise —”
Oh, but I do!
In fact I’ve got something Very Important, and Very Useful to share with you! Think of it, if you’d like, as a reward for sticking with me thus far. Here it is:
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::drum roll:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
“Check 21” is coming this October! Tell your friends, tell your neighbors, tell your kinfolk, tell your co-workers!!!!
“Huh?”
Yes, indeed!
Check 21 — or, the “Check Clearing Act for the 21st Century” — was signed into law last year and goes into effect this October.
So, now is the time for you to tell all those deadbeat friends and relatives of yours to quit trying to float their checks.
“‘Float?’ What’s that? (And incidentally, pass the Advil™, sheesh)”
Well, of course you wouldn’t know about “float,” because like the responsible citizen and all-around law abiding person that you are, you wouldn’t dream of using it. (It’s, by the way, illegal. I mean, it often works — I don’t know this myself but my, uh, cousin, yeah, my cousin told me all about it — but it’s still illegal. And after October, it won’t work anymore.)
“On Floating.” Ahem.
“Floating a check” is when Cousin Suzie (whose real name is “Susan”) mails her Macy’s charge account payment on Wednesday, knowing it won’t get there until Thursday at the earliest, which outta work out okay since she gets paid on Friday mornings and plans to deposit her paycheck into her checking account on Friday afternoon, which (please, God!) will give enough time to cover the check she wrote to Macy's. Suzie is, or was, aided in her practice by the fact that Macy’s had to do all sorts of “bank” stuff before ultimately getting its hands on Suzie’s (at some point in this zany escapade) non-existent funds.
That’s what “float” is.
“Check 21” is designed to sink the “floaters.”
Oh, well, that’s not the primary reason for it. I’m no banker (gee — there are so very many things I’m not, aren’t there?) but I gather it does some wonderful stuff such as “streamlining check processes” and — well, stuff like that.
But, from Cousin Suzie-and-her-ilks’s point of view, “Check 21” spells Trouble in River City.
Because as of October, there’s pretty much no such thing as “float.” Once a check is written, consider it cashed. Macy’s, or The Phone Company, or whoever the payee happens to be, will now have some sort of magic potion — okay, let us be adult here: some “computer-thingy” — that’ll turn that lil’ ol’ piece of paper into a monster that’ll suck out Suzie’s account faster than a speedin’ crawfish. (Suzie lives in The South.)
And, since her account is running on empty, her check’ll bounce higher than a ______ [please fill in your own cliché here].
And she’ll have to pay a whopping penalty.
Bottom line?
With insufficient funds, Suzie can’t count on the “float” for a reprieve.
With insufficient funds, she isn’t fit to acquire merchandise.
Until, of course, her account is filled again.
Getting back to Holy Communion, the “Domine non sum dignus” prayer, and now that I think of it, holiness in general —
It seems to me that relying on the prayer we recite just prior to receiving Holy Communion can be construed as a way of “playing the float” with the Lord.
Like the check floating game, it’s wrong. It’s just plain wrong to presume that it takes the place of repentance, reconciliation, and penance.
And also like the check floating game, it’s risky as hell, if you don’t mind my saying so. If not arrogant in the extreme. Even if the prayer took the place of proper Reconciliation (which is most emphatically does not), what the bleep happens if one dies beforehand? Duh!
Finally, given the Lord’s Infinite Mercy, it seems to me to be in the poorest taste imaginable to rely on it only before receiving Him in the Eucharist!
“Yes, Lord, I want to receive You right now. I mean, I’m here, after all. So, what the heck: I’m sorry. You know, for, well, whatever. See ya next week.”
No. NO. NO!!!
If one is in the state of grave sin, one does not, may not, dare not approach Jesus in the Most Holy Sacrament of the Altar.
What does the sinner do? After years of experience, I outta know:
Confess to and repent of sin through the Sacrament of Reconciliation;
Atone for sin through the penance imposed by the confessor in the Person of Jesus Christ;
Renounce sin using whatever means he or she has to do so (and politicians and other people who are interviewed in newspapers are blessed, it seems to me, with ample means to do just that), and,
Gratefully receive the Sanctifying Grace abundantly available to those who avail themselves of the Sacrament.
With a soul filled up with Grace, then — and with great humility and joy and thanksgiving — eagerly receive Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament!
“Yeah, but Kelly? About the Communion Controversy?”
Taking into consideration all the things I’m not — theologian, canon lawyer, banker, you name it — I don’t see that there is, or should be, any controversy at all.
If somebody is in the state of grave sin, that person may not present himself or herself for Holy Communion. Period.
(And please. Certainly not accompanied by a bleepin’ camera crew. We’re not talking about Disneyworld, so quit acting as if Jesus Christ is Mickey Mouse!)
“This issue isn’t going to go away quietly, Kelly.”
Yeah. I know it isn’t. Prayers are needed, and needed badly. Mine. Yours. Sometimes I talk a good game, but I really (gasp!) don’t have all the answers at all.
But you know what? I do know one thing.
As awful as the penalty for a bounced check might be, the penalty for a bounced soul is utter hell.
Thanks — and a post script (which is different from the “End Notes”).
I’ve been having a pretty interesting — edifying even — discussion about this whole thing (and some side issues, too) with a new friend who happens to be a Protestant. I’m hoping to organize the exchange and upload it here in the near future, God willing. (And, given my friend’s permission.) In case you’re interested.
Keep the folks mentioned here in your prayers, would you? And me, too. I pray for you all the time.
In Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament,
Kelly
End Notes (Whew! A lot this time!):
If you read nothing else at all, please read the First Reading and Gospel from Monday, July 12, 2004, which can be found here:
http://www.usccb.org/nab/071204.htm
The L’espresso article referenced may be found here:
http://213.92.16.98/ESW_articolo/0,2393,42196,00.html
For the Washington Post article referenced, please go here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A4129-2004Jun24.html
The Grand Forks Herald article regarding the homosexual men and Communion is here:
http://www.grandforks.com/mld/grandforks/8625175.htm
The United States Bishops document on “Catholics in Political Life” is here:
http://www.usccb.org/bishops/catholicsinpoliticallife.htm
And the article containing Cardinal Ratzinger’s response is here:
http://www.usccb.org/comm/archives/2004/04-133.htm
And now for the fine print:
Kelly Clark is your basic nobody. She serves on no parish councils, belongs to none of the myriad of designer-chic "Catholic" groups, or any Catholic group, for that matter, other than the Roman Catholic Church. Holding no theology degrees, she has no desire to see herself or any of her sex wearing a clerical collar. She figures Jesus knew what He was doing when He established His Church, and also figures that it’s His Church, not hers, and not yours. She’s an ordinary parishioner of Cathedral of the Holy Cross, Boston.
Use the links on the left to e-mail Kelly, to visit her parish, read past columns, and check out other cool stuff. (If you don’t see any links on the left, you’ve probably been directed here by a search engine. Just point your browser to http://www.pewlady.com to get to the main site.)
Copyright: Kelly Clark, 2004. I don’t care if you share this stuff with others. In fact, I hope you do! Only I’d appreciate it if you’d link me, or print it off as it is. In other words, don’t change anything. Thanks.
“The Lady in the Pew” column is updated regularly, God willing. To be notified of updates, please e-mail me. The link’s on the left.
“Mary, Mother of the Church, pray for us.”
