Cardinal Blase Cupich of Chicago wrote to Denver Archbishop Samuel Aquila last week to express “a number of concerns,” after Aquila published an essay on theological and pastoral issues concerning the reception of Holy Communion. Cardinal Cupich urged the archbishop to offer a “public clarification” of his arguments.
Aquila’s essay was published in America April 14.
“I am compelled to address the error that any baptized Catholic can receive Communion if he or she simply desires to do so. None of us have the freedom to approach the altar of the Lord without a proper examination of conscience and proper repentance if grave sin has been committed,” Aquila wrote.
“The Eucharist is a gift, not an entitlement, and the sanctity of that gift is only diminished by unworthy reception. Because of the public scandal caused, this is especially true in the case of public officials who persistently govern in violation of the natural law, particularly the pre-eminent issues of abortion and euthanasia, the taking of innocent life, as well as other actions that fail to uphold the church’s teaching regarding the dignity of life,” the archbishop continued.
Several sources, among them a senior official in one U.S. archdiocese, told The Pillar this week that shortly after the essay was published, Cupich wrote to Aquila, taking issue with that argument.
The cardinal’s letter to Aquila — which has been seen by The Pillar — was dated April 14, the same day Aquila’s essay was published. The letter said that Cupich had “a number of concerns” with Aquila’s essay, and was especially concerned about the paragraph quoted above.
“I respectfully note that to claim that we can do anything to diminish the Eucharist, or its effects, is contrary to the church’s longstanding teaching,” Cupich wrote.
“Catholic sacramental theology is based on the premise that the sacraments are the work of Christ, which is the meaning of the Church’s affirmation at Trent (DS 1608) that the sacraments act ex opere operato, or, as St. Thomas wrote in the Summa, III, 68,8: ‘The sacrament is not wrought by the righteousness of either the celebrant or the recipient, but by the power of God.’ Owing to the nature of God, Christ and his works can never be diminished by any act on our part.”
“I write as a brother bishop with the suggestion that you consider offering a public clarification of your point,” the cardinal added.
The Pillar was unable to confirm whether Aquila responded directly to Cupich. But in a second essay, published April 18 at Catholic World Report, Aquila offered a public clarification, of sorts.
While he did not identify the bishop who wrote to him, Aquila wrote that a bishop had expressed concern about his essay and had asked for a clarification.
“Because of the confusion I may have caused, I promised the bishop that I would make a public clarification,” Aquila wrote. His essay proceeded to offer a thorough explanation of his view, which the archbishop called an “amplification of the point” he had previously made.
Aquila’s April 18 essay affirmed that sacraments make available grace ex opere operato — the point Cupich raised in his letter. But the archbishop wrote that he also affirms another principle of sacramental theology, namely that “right faith” is necessary for a person “to reap properly the salvific benefits of the sacrament.”
The archbishop cited St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Augustine, Scripture, and the Second Vatican Council to argue that Catholic doctrine teaches that “the unworthy reception of the Eucharist diminishes the effect of the sacrament.”
“The benefit of receiving the sacrament is dependent upon the condition of the subject’s spiritual disposition,” Aquila explained in his essay.
“As I said at the onset, I take seriously my obligation, lest I be condemned, to proclaim clearly, fully and coherently what the Church believes and teaches, for only then am I feeding the faithful under my care the fullness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ,” the archbishop added.
“I hope that in the above, I have clarified the intent and content of my original article. My deepest prayer is, both in my original article and now in this clarification, that this can be a moment when our Catholic faith can be proclaimed clearly and courageously, and people will come to encounter Jesus Christ most especially in the sacraments of the Church, and in the gift of the Eucharist,” he wrote.
The theological disagreement comes as the doctrinal committee of the U.S. bishops’ conference is reportedly preparing a text to address the issue of “Eucharistic coherence,” its term for questions related to the reception of the Holy Communion by pro-abortion politicians and other Catholics publicly and consistently at odds with some aspect of Catholic doctrine.
The bishops are expected at their upcoming virtual meeting in June to take an initial vote on whether to publish such a document; they would vote subsequently on a completed text.
The letter from Cupich to Aquila was dated April 14, the same date Aquila’s essay in America was published.
A spokesman for Aquila declined comment on the letter itself, the date on which Cupich’s letter was received by the archbishop, and whether Aquila had sent any direct response to the cardinal. The spokesman told The Pillar that Archbishop Aquila was away from the chancery attending the archdiocesan priests’ convocation and was unavailable for comment.
The Pillar asked a spokesman for Cupich Wednesday for clarification on the other concerns mentioned in the cardinal’s letter, and whether Aquila’s “clarification” essay had satisfied the cardinal’s theological objections to Aquila’s America essay.
The Pillar also asked whether the letter had actually been sent on the day it was dated, the same as the publication of Aquila’s essay, and if the cardinal had obtained a copy of Aquila’s essay before it was published.
The Archdiocese of Chicago did not respond to The Pillar’s request for comment.
Aquila’s original essay in America was published in conjunction with a second essay on the subject of Eucharistic coherence, which was published on the same day. That article was written by Fr. Louis J. Cameli, a priest of the Archdiocese of Chicago and Cardinal Cupich’s delegate for formation and mission.
Fr. Cameli argued that, in cases touching canon 915 of the Code of Canon Law, which bars reception of Communion by those obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin, the minister of the sacrament must judge if the person “is indeed in manifest or evidently grave sin—that is, an objective situation of sin.”
“Are two people in a same-sex marriage or union in an objectively sinful situation? Not necessarily,” concluded Cameli, despite a recent clarification from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on the subject.
The Pillar asked America if an advance copy of Aquila’s essay had been given to the Archdiocese of Chicago. America’s editor told The Pillar that the magazine has a policy not to comment on its internal decision-making and practices….
The above comes from an April 22 story in The Pillar.
Dear Cdl. Cupich,
I want to tell you about this thing called the Bible. If you open it, you’ll find this really neat passage by a guy named St. Paul who said about the Holy Eucharist,
Seems to me, dear Cardinal, this guy Paul might want a word with you.
“I respectfully note that to claim that we can do anything to diminish the Eucharist, or its effects, is contrary to the church’s longstanding teaching,” Cupich wrote
“Whoever eats the bread and drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many among you are ill and infirm, and a considerable number are dying.” (I Cor. 11:27-30)
Cupich and his deputy are clearly wrong. Rumor is that Cupich could be appointed the prefect of the Congregation for Bishops, which would give him virtually sole control over future appointments to sees in the United States.
It is not a kindness to encourage unrepentant sinners to receive Holy Communion. Cupich leads his flock astray by not teaching this. They will curse him from their place of eternal punishment.
He’ll probably be right next to them, within earshot.
“Are two people in a same-sex marriage or union in an objectively sinful situation? Not necessarily,” concluded Cameli.
There is no such thing as “same-sex marriage”. Camelia is a wack job heretic. Avoid him and anyone who agrees with him.
Would be interesting to ask him whether three people in a marriage or union are in an objectively sinful situation and see what he says. That’s coming next. I’m sure the same clerical apologists for same-sex unions will contort Scripture and the Catechism further to accommodate and “accompany” throuples or quadrouples. After all, all that matters is that people luuuuv each other. That’s what Jesus said.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that the fruits of the sacrament vary with the disposition of the recipient.
In Catholic definition a disposition is a quality or condition of a person necessary for the performance of some action. Commonly applied to the conditions required for the valid reception or administration of the sacraments, as the state of grace is required for the sacrament of the Eucharist or sincere contrition to receive absolution in the sacrament of penance.
Catholics in civil marriage are not supposed to receive the Eucharist.
All Catholics… who exchange vows in the presence of civil officials are not considered validly married in the eyes of the Catholic Church. If they marry in a civil ceremony and are living with their spouse, they should not present themselves to receive Holy Communion. allentowndiocese
Depending on when you come to the realization that you are gay, you may be bound to the single vocation, a single life dedicated to God. Priesthood is not for you; marriage is not for you. When you are young you may think about what you can’t have. When you are older you will thank God for your single vocation.
If you are in a sacramental marriage and you realize you are attracted to people of your same sex, that is a thorn in your side. The marriage you are in still your vocation. Your vows still need to be honored. It may be more difficult for you than for others but it is not impossible. All that you are giving up is a sin.
If you are a priest and you realize that you are sexually attracted to people of the same sex, again, that is a thorn in your side. The priesthood with celibacy and continence is still your vocation.
Get your eyes off this world and live for the next. Think of things above.
The diminutive Aquila should have told the diminutive Cupich to “Pound sand, your Eminence!”
The Omission that Haunts the Church —– Peter Kwasniewski
In all the discussion that is happening over the Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia, undoubtedly the question of who may or may not receive Holy Communion will remain at the forefront. In the Church today, many seem to be wholly unaware of the terrifying consequences of approaching the sacred banquet without being in a state of grace, that is to say, receiving the Eucharist in a state of mortal sin.Instead, in keeping with a programmatic decision to avoid what they considered “difficult” biblical texts,[5] the revised Lectionary altogether omits 1 Corinthians11:27–29. St.Paul’s “stern warning” against receiving the Body and Blood of the Lord unworthily, that is, unto one’s damnation, has not been read at any Ordinary Form Mass for almost half a century.[6]
Let us be frank: the concept of an unworthy communion has disappeared from the general Catholic consciousness, at least in the affluent, self-satisfied West.I recall the surprise of more than a few commentators when the Synod fathers were debating whether anyone should refrain from receiving communion.Surely, doesn’t everyone — almost without exception — go forward at communion time?[7]
Kwasniewski wants the novus ordo suppressed. He has some kooky ideas and is very fringe.
Anon: Another liberal Catholic who thinks all is well, if Kwasnieski os fringe then so is America magazine and Fishwrap…
Anyone who wants to do away with the new Mass is legitimately considered and labeled fringe and not worth paying attention to.
If by Fishwrap, you mean National Catholic Reporter-they are not fringe. They are dissident. Is that the right word? heterodox?
But they still have some value in the areas where they are not heterodox.
I don’t trust America magazine. You have to use discernment with them.
i do not know Kwasnieski.
What if there were two warring armies, and one side though it had the civil, martial, and materiel advantage, continued to lose century after century. Each time the losing army had its adversary in a no-win situation, it piled up the bodies and won battle after battle.
But after each battle, the vanquished somehow managed to get stronger despite its apparently being routed time after time, battle after battle, century upon century.
And then the army decided to try a completely new tactic. Instead of meeting and vanquishing its rival in open battle, it seeded the rival’s ranks with junior officers who were in fact on the vanquisher’s side. These false warrior leaders grew strong and moved up through the ranks, until they held every single general’s post, and all the senior officers were in their thrall. These turncoat infiltrators drew up new battle plans, with the intention that their new side would lose but from within.
That’s where we are today. Our generals are turncoats and and traitors, and they control every position of authority within our army.