|LMS AGM 2012, with Bishop Rifan. Would Mgr Loftus refuse them all Communion?|
This is from his Catholic Times column of 21st July, which I'm catching up with.
The usual prolix introduction about about the how bad it is to resist change, the characteristic of 'integrism' as he understands it, or 'intransigence'.
Even when the 'law' allows flexibility, as in the case of receiving Holy Communion standing and in the hand, permitting female altar-servers and lay ministers of the Eucharist, or having white vestments at funerals, there are those priests who will not comply.
What does 'comply' mean here? How can you 'comply' with a permission? The context suggests he is talking about cases in which the Faithful have asked for something, and the priest is saying no. In the case of Altar servers and Eucharistic Minsters, is he really suggesting that priest can never say 'no' to someone who is unsuitable or just unnecessary?
|At the Summer School in Pantasaph, North Wales|
But he attains another level of strangeness in the implicit suggestion that there are priests who refuse to give Communion in the hand to people standing, at the Ordinary Form. (There is no indication that he is talking about the EF.) I have never heard of such a thing; it is utterly incredible. What has happended, to such an extent that the Congregation for Divine Worship had to condemn it, was priests refusing communion to people who were kneeling. Redemptionis Sacramentum 91:
[I]t is not licit to deny Holy Communion to any of Christ’s faithful solely on the grounds, for example, that the person wishes to receive the Eucharist kneeling or standing.
Maybe Loftus is condemning those priests who were intransigent about allowing the Faithful to receive kneeling? Sadly, that's not a possible reading of the sentence, and this exposes some strange double-standards. On a previous occasion Loftus condemned people for receiving kneeling, in the guise of criticising their clerical puppet-masters, and their
...varied attempts to infantilise and individualise the People of God who approach Holy Communion in a united and adult manner, all conflict both with that common priesthood and with the unity of the whole People of God.
The lesson is, if you want something traditional, then you are the victim of clericalism and must be forced to be free. If you want something progressive, then anyone who opposes you is a clericalist. It is the mad logic of the extreme Left: workers who oppose them have false consciousness, they've been brainwashed; workers who agree with them are free.
Next he says:
Yet when we look at the Church as a whole, it has always valued institutional diversity. We just need to learn to extend this to individuals.
Yes, Mgr, and that means you! In this sentence he has made hypocrisy an art form.
|A First Holy Communion in Oxford|