Feed Thine Enemy

This time around it was Sister Delta Goodhand and company who sought to steal the spotlight that has shone ever so brightly upon the Catholic Church in recent years, borrowing Archbishop Burke’s tactic of exploiting the Eucharist to make a statement. Sister Delta Goodhand, along with another member from the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, a group comprised of male gay rights activists, were recently lambasted by a slew of conservative Catholics for their “provocative gesture” at the Most Holy Redeemer Church in the Castro district of San Francisco. Sporting flamboyant nun-resembling outfits and faces caked with makeup, the two were accused of making a mockery out of the church ceremony, culminating in their attempt to receive the Eucharist from the much obliged Archbishop Niederauer. While other clergymen in the past, such as our old pal Burke, have taken the liberty to grant themselves the power of discretion to administer the Eucharist to those of their liking, it was rather reassuring to know that other clergymen still followed the basic sacramental principle of communion distribution despite any personal reservations.

According to Reverend Jim Bretzke, a professor of moral theology at the University of San Francisco, the basic sacramental principle makes one a “manifest public sinner” if one were to deny the Eucharist to anyone who requests for it. Despite adhering to this rule thus dodging the label of a “manifest public sinner,” Archbishop Niederauer still suffers from the backlash from his innocent action involving the distribution of communion to these two “Sisters.” Unfortunately, he continues to take flak from the more conservative members of the Catholic Church, thus pressuring him to release a letter of apology to Catholics and the Archdiocese of San Francisco.

As a concerned Catholic, I find it quite troublesome how many Catholics are so quick to decry Archbishop Niederauer’s actions. The only wrongdoing on the Archbishop’s behalf was the issuance of a coerced letter of apology, capitulating to angry Catholics under the pressure of the San Francisco Archdiocese. Unless the two members of the activist group were formerly excommunicated from the church, he had no authority to deny their request to receive communion. Rather than be scrutinized, Archbishop Niederauer ought to be praised for his judgment call in choosing to administer the Eucharist to these two individuals despite belonging to a group which has a history of making a mockery of the Catholic faith, in one instance even distastefully reenacting the last supper of Christ and his apostles by dressing up as leather-clad homosexuals.

If Jesus were willing to dine with former sinners, then I find no harm in Archbishop Niederauer’s willingness to do the same. Sure, activists will continue to rant over the “practicing and promoting of sodomites in the middle of a gay friendly mass,” however, such criticism should never trump or influence a skewed interpretation of the basic sacramental principle. Nor should any form of criticism merit the issuance of an apology merely to quell the negative sentiment at the expense of an innocent individual. Or perhaps one day, these individuals may similarly make their way up to the alter, stand face to face with an Archbishop whose beliefs contradict their own, to only have their request for the body of Christ, denied.