When the world demands acceptance, celebration...and the Eucharist

The recent refusal of a South Carolina priest to give Communion to former vice president Joe Biden has brought back into the mainstream the debate about how to handle loud, public heretics. While discussing this issue, one such case-study emerged on the Drew Mariani radio show yesterday. Listen here for the full backstory: Former VP Joe Biden Denied Communion.

During the show, a caller named “Francis” rang in to tell his own story about how hurtful it is when one is denied Communion. Francis, it seems, is a trans-person who was denied Communion by a particularly cruel priest. Not only did he deny Francis Communion, but this horrible priest had Francis removed from the church by force. Francis told Drew that he is a very devout person, a member of that particular parish for over 40 years, celibate for eight years, and serves in a variety of local Catholic groups. Drew and his guest, a canon lawyer, sympathized with Francis’s situation, and advised him to contact his bishop. Francis assured Drew that he has already told the bishop and that the bishop apologized to him. Furthermore, the police told him that he didn’t do anything wrong.

Francis’s story came across as heartfelt and sincere, and no doubt many of Drew’s listeners sympathized with Francis in the same way that Drew and his guest did.

There’s only one problem. Francis only told one side of the story. For you see, this particular incident happened in my parish and the situation with Francis has been an ongoing and quite public scandal.

In the interest of fairness, I present to you the other side of the story.

Francis was being honest when he said that he had been a member of the parish for over 40 years. During most of that time, he presented as a man. Then suddenly, quite recently, he began showing up for Mass dressed as a woman. Not surprisingly, this caused a scandal, particularly when Francis presented himself for Communion in this guise despite the Church’s clear teachings on transgender behaviors, which even Pope Francis has condemned in no uncertain terms.

The incident Francis described in his call to the Drew Mariani Show did, in fact, happen. But Francis left out a few highly relevant details. First, he was removed from the church after causing a loud and continuous disturbance during Mass when he was not given Communion. Worse, this incident took place during a Mass for the school children when the entire school was gathered together, and included Francis shouting that he is trying to show the children that it’s ok to be transgender. As a result of this incident, adults aside from school teachers are no longer allowed to attend school Masses at our parish. As you might imagine, this change in policy due to one person’s unreasonable demands to be served generated considerable irritation.

Since then, Francis has caused other disturbances during Mass. He has also occasionally appeared in the sacristy dressed as a woman. For those of us with young boys who serve at the altar and who are often in the sacristy preparing for Mass, this is absolutely unacceptable.

I do not claim to know Francis’s motivations, nor am I able to make a good assessment of his mental state. Several of my fellow parishioners have speculated that his purpose is to force the parish to accept his behaviors (which includes using the ladies room at the church while young girls are in it) and, if not, to create problems for our good and holy priest with our bishop and local law enforcement. His actions to date seem to bear out that hypothesis.

And yes, I should point out that our pastor is an outstanding, hard-working, holy priest of many years who wants nothing more than to defend his people from the depravity of the world. The idea that he is somehow awful, rigid, or unsympathetic is, frankly, ludicrous. Again, I can not say with certainty what Francis is truly attempting to accomplish, but I can observe that his actions at the parish do not seem to be those of the devout, innocent, humble follower of Jesus Christ that he portrayed on the Drew Mariani Show.

The ongoing scandal with Francis has been instructive to me as a case-example of what happens when local parishes knuckle under to the urgent demands of the world. For every surrender, new demands will emerge. For every inch of ground that’s ceded, miles more will be required. And for every Francis whose bizarre behaviors are welcomed via the front door no questions asked, a dozen regular Catholic families will exit via the side-door if for no other reason than to protect their children.

I would ask those who carry crosses like the one carried by Francis to put their own wants and needs last in favor of the wants and needs of their fellow Catholics. After all, that's what true love is—willing the good of the other before your own good. Do not cause scandal during Mass, especially in the presence of children. Give serious consideration to the words of Our Lord when he said: "And whosoever shall scandalize one of these little ones that believe in me; it were better for him that a millstone were hanged around his neck, and he were cast into the sea." [Matthew 18:6]

As for the rest of us, we should be very wary of the sympathy-inducing confessional literature that is presented to us by those attempting to inject the novel teachings of the corrupt world into the Holy Catholic Church. Very often, their tales only tell half the story.

"Drive out the murderer Barsaumas!" ~ Saint Flavian and the Robber Council of Ephesus

The feast day of Saint Flavian, martyr, falls on February 18. Flavian was archbishop of Constantinople from AD 446 through 449. Though he lived long after the traditional age of Christian martyrs, Flavian is nonetheless accounted one of their number, though he was slain by men calling themselves Christians--indeed, he died either during or in the immediate aftermath of a Church Council.

The deposition of Saint Flavian from Shea's The Pictorial Life of the Saints.

As one of the principle parties at the so-called Robber Council of Ephesus, Flavian found himself on the wrong side of the powerful Patriarch of Alexandria, Dioscorus, and a veritable army of monks led by the Syrian archimandrite, Barsaumas. These two were intent on defending the presbyter Eutyches, who had taught in error that Christ had but a single nature. Dioscorus had the tacit support of the emperor, Theodosius II, and especially of Chrysaphius, the powerful imperial chamberlain. Supporting Flavian was Pope Leo I in Rome, who sent legates to the council. When it became clear that Dioscorus and his henchmen would use force to impose their will, one of these legates, Hilarius (later Pope himself), shouted "Contradicitur!" and then with difficulty escaped the council.

How Flavian was killed is not precisely clear. Here is an account of what happened drawn from the Ecclesiastical History of Evagrius, written not long after the event, as part of Evagrius's explanation of why the Council of Chalcedon was called:

While entertaining these intentions, the emperor [Marcian] is addressed both by the legates of Leo, bishop of the elder Rome, who alleged that Dioscorus had, during the second council of Ephesus, refused to receive the epistle of Leo, containing a formula of the true doctrine; and also by those who had been contumeliously treated by Dioscorus, intreating that their case might be submitted to the decision of a synod. But Eusebius, who had been president of the church of Dorylaeum, was especially urgent, and affirmed that both himself and Flavian had been deposed by the intrigues of Chrysaphius, the minister of Theodosius, because, in reply to his demand of an offering in gold, Flavian had, in acknowledgment of his own appointment, sent the sacred vessels to shame him; and also that Chrysaphius made a near approach to Eutyches in erroneous doctrine. He also said, that Flavian had even been brought to a miserable end by being thrust and trampled on by Dioscorus himself. These circumstances caused the synod at Chalcedon to be assembled; for which purpose the bearers of missives were despatched, and the prelates in all quarters were summoned by pious letters. [The Ecclesiastical History of Evagrius, Book II, Chapter II).

In most accounts modern accounts of this event, Flavian is said to have been gravely injured by this rough handling and perished a few days afterwards. Blame for his death was affixed by many to Dioscorus and Barsaumas, as we can see more clearly in a dramatic scene recorded in the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon shortly after AD 451:

Diogenes the most devout bishop of Cyzicus said: ‘Barsaumas, who entered among them, slaughtered the blessed Flavian. He was standing there and saying, “Slaughter him.” Since he is not in the petition, why has he come in?’ 

All the most devout bishops exclaimed: ‘Barsaumas destroyed all Syria. He incited thousands of monks against us.’ 

The most magnificent and glorious officials said to the monks: ‘In accordance with your request in the petition, our most divine and pious master gave orders both that the holy council should convene and that you should now gain entrance. So now that you have entered, have the patience to learn the decisions of the same most holy council concerning the faith.’ 

Carosus and Dorotheus the most devout archimandrites and the other monks said: ‘We ask that the plaint we have brought be read out.’ 

The most devout bishops exclaimed: ‘Drive out the murderer Barsaumas. The murderer to the stadium! Anathema to Barsaumas! [Send] Barsaumas into exile!’ 

Saint Flavian's name would be forever immortalized, however, by the Tome of Leo which was written before his death. Addressed to Flavian by Pope Leo, this work was a condemnation of Eutyches, a staunch defense of Flavian's position, as well as an act of faith that would become a doctrinal statement on the two natures of Christ, human and divine.

The Gruesome Death of Arius, AD 336

Here is an account, from the Ecclesiastical History of Sozomen, of the horrible death of the heresiarch Arius in AD 336. It was written about a century after the event, so Sozomen was not an eye-witness (who would want to be?). However, he appends to his own account that of St. Athanasius of Alexandria--the main opponent of Arius during his lifetime and a champion of Orthodoxy.

Of special note is the extra anecdote offered by Saint Athanasius of the horror which people evinced toward the exact spot where Arius expired, and the fact that a wealthy man of the Arian persuasion later purchased the latrine and tore it down so that this foul memorial to Arius might be forgotten.

Here is Sozomen's account, taken from Book II, Chapter XXIX and XXX of his Ecclesiastical History.

Russian portrayal of St. Nicholas
striking Arius (top), and Arius
expiring in the privy (bottom).

After the Synod of Jerusalem, Arius went to Egypt, but as he could not obtain permission to hold communion with the Church of Alexandria, he returned to Constantinople. As all those who had embraced his sentiments, and those who were attached to Eusebius, bishop of Nicomedia, had assembled cunningly in that city for the purpose of holding a council, Alexander, who was then ordering the see of Constantinople, used every effort to dissolve the council. But as his endeavors were frustrated, he openly refused all covenant with Arius, affirming that it was neither just nor according to ecclesiastical canons, to make powerless their own vote, and that of those bishops who had been assembled at Nicæa, from nearly every region under the sun. When the partisans of Eusebius perceived that their arguments produced no effect on Alexander, they had recourse to contumely, and threatened that unless he would receive Arius into communion on a stated day, he should be expelled from the church, and that another should be elected in his place who would be willing to hold communion with Arius. 

They then separated, the partisans of Eusebius to await the time they had fixed for carrying their menaces into execution, and Alexander to pray that the words of Eusebius might be prevented from being carried into deed. His chief source of fear arose from the fact that the emperor had been persuaded to give way. On the day before the appointed day he prostrated himself before the altar, and continued all the night in prayer to God, that his enemies might be prevented from carrying their schemes into execution against him. 

Late in the afternoon, Arius, being seized suddenly with pain in the stomach, was compelled to repair to the public place set apart for emergencies of this nature. As some time passed away without his coming out, some persons, who were waiting for him outside, entered, and found him dead and still sitting upon the seat. When his death became known, all people did not view the occurrence under the same aspect. Some believed that he died at that very hour, seized by a sudden disease of the heart, or suffering weakness from his joy over the fact that his matters were falling out according to his mind; others imagined that this mode of death was inflicted on him in judgment, on account of his impiety. Those who held his sentiments were of opinion that his death was brought about by magical arts. 

It will not be out of place to quote what Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, stated on the subject. The following is his narrative: 

"Arius, the author of the heresy and the associate of Eusebius, having been summoned before the most blessed Constantine Augustus, at the solicitation of the partisans of Eusebius, was desired to give in writing an exposition of his faith. He drew up this document with great artfulness, and, like the devil, concealed his impious assertions beneath the simple words of Scripture. The most blessed Constantine said to him, ‘If you hold any other doctrines than those which are here set forth, render testimony to the truth. but if you perjure yourself, the Lord will punish you,’ and the wretched man swore that he held no sentiments except those specified in the document.

Soon after he went out, and judgment was visited upon him, for he bent forwards and burst in the middle. With all men life terminates in death. We must not blame a man, even if he be an enemy, merely because he died, for it is uncertain whether we shall live till the evening. But the end of Arius was so singular that it seems worthy of some remark. The partisans of Eusebius threatened to reinstate him in the church, and Alexander, bishop of Constantinople, opposed their intention. Arius placed his confidence in the power and menaces of Eusebius. It was Saturday, and he expected the next day to be re-admitted into the church. The dispute ran high. The partisans of Eusebius were loud in their menaces, while Alexander had recourse to prayer. The Lord was the judge, and declared himself against the unjust. A little before sunset Arius was compelled by a want of nature to enter the place appointed for such emergencies, and here he lost at once both restoration to communion and his life.

The most blessed Constantine was amazed when he heard of this occurrence, and regarded it as the punishment of perjury. It then became evident to every one that the menaces of Eusebius were absolutely futile, and that the expectations of Arius were vain and foolish. It also became manifest that the Arian heresy had met with condemnation from the Savior as well as from the pristine church. Is it not then astonishing that some are still found who seek to exculpate him whom the Lord has condemned, and to defend a heresy of which the author was not permitted by our Lord to be rejoined to the church? We have been duly informed that this was the mode of the death of Arius. It is said that for a long period subsequently no one would make use of the seat on which he died. Those who were compelled by necessities of nature to visit the public place, always avoided with horror the precise spot on which the impiety of Arius had been visited with judgment. At a later epoch a certain rich and powerful man, who had embraced the Arian tenets, bought the place of the public, and built a house on the spot, in order that the occurrence might fall into oblivion, and that there might be no perpetual memorial of the death of Arius."

Saint Athanasius's account also survives in a letter he wrote to Serapion regarding the death of Arius. In that document, Athanasius says that although he wasn't in Constantinople when Arius died, he received this account of the heresiarch's death via a priest named Macarius who was present when it happened.

That heretics should die such hideous deaths would have been no surprise to 4th and 5th century Christian Romans. It was a common view that pagans and heretics who persecuted orthodox Christians would come to horrifically bad ends as God made manifest His justice on earth in real time. Writing in the early 4th century immediately after the end of the last empire-wide persecution of Christians, Lactantius’s book, On the Death of the Persecutors, details the dramatic and gruesome ends of persecuting emperors such as Nero, Domitian, Decius, Valerian and many others. Sozomen himself relates additional stories in that vein when discussing the demise of the pagan emperor Julian the Apostate and the Arian emperor Valens in his Ecclesiastical History.