Bishop says Notre Dame is wrong to honor Joe Biden

[TMC]

What I said was that the law requires that communion not be distributed. The question (as I also said) was whether particular individuals met the conditions of the law. If the the conditions are met then there is no option to allow communion.
Whatever a bishop believes, the law is clear. Those who satisfy the criteria of canon 915 “are not to be admitted to holy communion.” What part of “are not” is optional?
It is one thing for a politician’s own bishop to be aware of his public positions, but there is little justification in assuming the pope bothers himself with what a country’s politicians are about.

I asked a very specific question earlier to which you have not responded. There are three criteria which must be satisfied for canon 915 to be applied: the sin must be grave, the action manifest, and it must continue over time. Which of these criteria does not apply to Biden?

Ender

I don’t recall you asking me any questions. I have even less recollection of some requirement that I respond to your queries. Here is what I know. I know that Cardinals and Bishops have said that the canon law is a pastoral tool to be used at their discretion, and not a bludgeon to be used by you or anyone else to question their commitment to the faith and the Church. You say that it is indisputable that you are correct that they are wrong. I say that I will side with the bishops on this one.

 

[Tomdstone]

There are three criteria which must be satisfied for canon 915 to be applied: the sin must be grave, the action manifest, and it must continue over time. Which of these criteria does not apply to Biden?

Ender

It applies to those who have been excommunicated. I did not see an official edict of excommunication for Biden.

 

[Ender]

I know that Cardinals and Bishops have said that the canon law is a pastoral tool to be used at their discretion…

If this is in fact what some have said, it is plainly wrong. There is nothing in that law that is optional. What it says is “If condition X is met, the response is to be Y.” It does not say “the response may be Y if that’s what you choose.” It is no more optional to offer communion to those who “obstinately persevere in manifest, grave sin” than it is optional to offer it to those who have been excommunicated. It is in both cases what the law requires.

… and not a bludgeon to be used by you or anyone else to question their commitment to the faith and the Church.

Either their actions are justified under the law or they are not. Huffing and puffing is not a defense of their actions.

You say that it is indisputable that you are correct that they are wrong.

Cite where I said that or stop making things up and ascribing them to me. Respond to what I have said, not to what you invent for me.

Ender

 

[Ender]

It applies to those who have been excommunicated. I did not see an official edict of excommunication for Biden.

It does apply to those who have been excommunicated, as well as all of the others whose actions meet the criteria the law specifies. If a person has been excommunicated there is no other judgment that needs to be made. The criteria listed are specifically for those who have not been excommunicated but are to be denied communion.Can. 915 Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.
The clause beginning with “and others” is the section relevant to the issue.

Ender

 

[commenter]

Laity should allow bishops to make decisions about excommunication, receiving Communion, and the like. What we can, and should do, is influence institutions. Notre Dame, like other faux-Catholic institutions, still gets lots of donations from alumni who got a Catholic education there, when it still was Catholic. Parents pay Catholic college tuition for what is, in effect, public college education; because Notre Dame, etc, are still wrongly perceived as Catholic.

Laity can ask their diocese to drop the Catholic label from these institutions. They can ask their diocesan newspaper to stop giving them free, flattering coverage. We can contact alumni associations, or other Catholic major donors, letting them know the college they are supporting is much less Catholic than others now (Steubenville, Christendom, etc).

I for one am a graduate of a then-Catholic institution. I get letters asking loyal alumni to support Catholic education at my old high school. But my old high school is now mostly secularized, I think the best way to support Catholic education is find a school that is currently Catholic. People tend to equate “heritage” with “age”. But just because a school had a strong Catholic (maybe Franciscan, Jesuit, etc) past, with vocations, etc, and ivy covered religious buildings, does not mean anything as to what kind of education the **current **students are getting. And, some schools and colleges started in very recent years, with mundane, inexpensive facilities, are very solidly in union with Catholic tradition.

 

[TMC]

If this is in fact what some have said, it is plainly wrong. There is nothing in that law that is optional. What it says is “If condition X is met, the response is to be Y.” It does not say “the response may be Y if that’s what you choose.” It is no more optional to offer communion to those who “obstinately persevere in manifest, grave sin” than it is optional to offer it to those who have been excommunicated. It is in both cases what the law requires.
Either their actions are justified under the law or they are not. Huffing and puffing is not a defense of their actions.
Cite where I said that or stop making things up and ascribing them to me. Respond to what I have said, not to what you invent for me.

Ender

You have said that the law indisputably means what you say it means.

Many bishops have demonstrated by their words and actions that they have a different interpretation.

The only conclusion that can be drawn by those facts is that you believe you are indisputably right and that those bishops are wrong. What other conclusion can be drawn?

 

[Ender]

You have said that the law indisputably means what you say it means.

I have made an explicit comment about the law, a comment you continue to ignore. What I said was straightforward: the law states that people who fulfill certain requirements are not to be given communion. It doesn’t say that communion may be withheld; it is cited as a requirement. That really should be in dispute; we have the language of the law before us. What else could the words “are not to be admitted to holy communion” possibly mean, or do words now mean only what we want them to mean?

Many bishops have demonstrated by their words and actions that they have a different interpretation.

I am not arguing with random bishops and what they may or may not have said. I am arguing with you about the precise meaning of the law. So far, your defense is to totally ignore what the words actually say.

The only conclusion that can be drawn by those facts is that you believe you are indisputably right and that those bishops are wrong. What other conclusion can be drawn?

Obama has chosen not to enforce a number of US immigration laws, just as a number of bishops have chosen not to enforce Canon 915. Does anyone believe that just because Obama does not enforce those laws it means he doesn’t understand what they say or disagrees with they mean?

The only conclusion you can draw from my comment is this: the meaning of Canon 915 is simple - it means what it says, and what it says is that people who satisfy certain specific criteria “are not” to be allowed to receive. It does not mean that their reception is optional based on the judgment of the bishop. The bishop may judge that their actions do not satisfy the conditions, but once the conditions are met, denial of communion is mandatory.

Ender

 

[Memaw]

Truly scandalous.

Let’s don’t forget, Jesus ate with sinners!! That doesn’t mean He agreed with them. MERCY!!! God Bless, Memaw

 

[Ender]

Laity should allow bishops to make decisions about excommunication, receiving Communion, and the like. What we can, and should do, is influence institutions. Notre Dame, like other faux-Catholic institutions, still gets lots of donations from alumni who got a Catholic education there, when it still was Catholic. Parents pay Catholic college tuition for what is, in effect, public college education; because Notre Dame, etc, are still wrongly perceived as Catholic.

The fact that the president of ND made an error in judgment in awarding this prize to Biden cannot be taken as proof that ND is no longer a Catholic institution. Nor should anyone conclude that they should lose their designation as such. Catholicism has a very strong presence on the campus.

I do agree that the laity, alumni especially, should make their opinions known, and if they choose not to donate to the university because of this incident I would support that as well. What I do not support are calls to throw in the towel, retreat into safe spaces, and abandon an otherwise solidly Catholic institution.

Ender

 

[zz912]

I don’t understand this need to defend a politician or pretend he is in conformity to Church teaching. Of course he isn’t. He obstinately and blatantly rejects Church teaching.

Why do people keep twisting themselves in knots trying to pretend that Joe Biden, or the DNC for that matter, are compatible with the Christian faith? It’s abundantly clear they are not. Is it an old sentimental attachment to a political party they’ve belonged to for most of their lives? Is it hatred of the GOP? Is it a wish that Church teaching would change? What is it?

 

[commenter]

The fact that the president of ND made an error in judgment in awarding this prize to Biden cannot be taken as proof that ND is no longer a Catholic institution. Nor should anyone conclude that they should lose their designation as such. Catholicism has a very strong presence on the campus.

I do agree that the laity, alumni especially, should make their opinions known, and if they choose not to donate to the university because of this incident I would support that as well. What I do not support are calls to throw in the towel, retreat into safe spaces, and abandon an otherwise solidly Catholic institution.

Ender

It’s not an “error in judgement”, it’s defiance of his bishop (and the institution defying previous bishops for 45 years or so).
You would not call a college “solidly Catholic” if they awarded those who support the right to adultery, but gave equal time to others who are pro fidelity.
The strong elements of Catholicism on campus are used to draw money and credibility to a campus mostly secular. The pro abortion movement got far more mileage out of Obama visiting “Catholic Notre Dame” than out of his visits to state universities.

The Catholic resources at Notre Dame are not the gorgeous church, and many elegant chapels, which are immobile, but the students, tuition, donations, and Catholic identity, are mobile; and can support genuine Catholic education somewhere else. The diocese would still be responsible to offer Catholic campus ministry to the now accurately described secular university, just as they do for Indiana State. And when future pro abortion politicians visit Notre Dame, they will get no more media coverage than if they go to Indiana State.

3 benefits:

1. Genuine Catholic institutions would gain students and resources.
2. The Catholic identity would not be compromised.
3. People like Biden would not be misled this way in their spiritual life.

 

[Ender]

It’s not an “error in judgement”, it’s defiance of his bishop (and the institution defying previous bishops for 45 years or so).

Just to be clear, Bishop Rhoades is the bishop of the diocese of Fort Wayne-South Bend, but he is not the bishop of the University of Notre Dame.

The strong elements of Catholicism on campus are used to draw money and credibility to a campus mostly secular.

When was the last time you were on its campus?

Ender

 

[commenter]

What I do not support are calls to throw in the towel, retreat into safe spaces, and abandon an otherwise solidly Catholic institution.

Ender

The writer uses the term “safe places” in a negative way.
Students at Christendom College have access to secular information, are aware of secular trends in the past and present. So what? If they and their parents pay for a Catholic education, they want to know that what happens here agrees with the Catholic faith.

I watch other channels besides EWTN, most of the time. But I want a channel I can go to, where I know what is presented agrees with the Catholic Faith.

Notre Dame was a safe place, in 1960. It was a good university in 1960. Being “safe” or rather, honest, doesn’t stop a college from being good. It still collects money and recruits students in 2016 because of the reputation from when it was honest.

It is wrong to base decisions in 2016 based on 1960 data.

 

[RUNE190]

Many American Democratic Catholic politicians are pro-choice.

And your point is???

 

[Tomdstone]

and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.

[/INDENT]The clause beginning with “and others” is the section relevant to the issue.

EnderSuppose someone is personally opposed to abortion and believes it to be a grave sin and morally wrong. But OTOH, she does not support laws which would make abortion a criminal offense and put the woman in jail for murder. Would she be “obstinately persevering in manifest mortal sin”? A Roman Catholic priest did not think so.

 

[commenter]

Many new Catholic colleges have been started in US and Canada in recent years, offering a genuine Catholic alternative to the secularism that partly dominates institutions that used to be Catholic. Some new high schools have also been established, where all faculty take an oath of fidelity to the Magisterium.

One solution to the Notre Dame situation is to establish “College of Our Lady” in the South Bend area. Those faculty and staff who truly believe in Catholic higher education would work there, either full time or retaining some part time position at ND for financial reasons. Alumni who have been concerned about ND’s secularism could be encouraged to donate here as the continuation of the ND Catholic tradition, and students could be recruited to be the genuine “Fighting Irish”.

The Theology faculty would take an oath of fidelity to the Magisterium, which is what the ND faculty refuse to do. What would ND itself look like in a few years? It would suffer some losses, as it would now be more obviously the non-Catholic alternative, designated as such by the bishop. I bet they would put lots of money into the Church, and other chapels, more religious concerts and art, all the religious externals on campus.

 

[Ender]

It is wrong to base decisions in 2016 based on 1960 data.

I asked when you were last on their campus. I visit there 2-3 times a year so I’m basing my view on what I have observed recently. What is the source of your familiarity with the school?

Ender

 

[Ender]

Suppose someone is personally opposed to abortion and believes it to be a grave sin and morally wrong. But OTOH, she does not support laws which would make abortion a criminal offense and put the woman in jail for murder. Would she be “obstinately persevering in manifest mortal sin”? A Roman Catholic priest did not think so.

I would agree with the priest. An opinion, even if it is sinful, is not manifest, therefore the conditions have not been met.

Ender

 

[commenter]

Suppose someone is personally opposed to abortion and believes it to be a grave sin and morally wrong. But OTOH, she does not support laws which would make abortion a criminal offense and put the woman in jail for murder. Would she be “obstinately persevering in manifest mortal sin”? A Roman Catholic priest did not think so.

If a person advertised an institution in agreement with the Catholic faith, which includes Catholic faith on abortion and the law; and if that person, having attracted students and donations from trusting people, then used an institution to honor someone who opposes the Catholic faith on abortion and the law, or accept an honor on false pretenses; and if they are cautioned about the 8th commandment and refuse to adhere to Church teaching (not talking about their opinion but how they use their position of power) - then yes, they may be obstinately persevering in manifest mortal sin.

We are not talking about “opinion” here. We are referring to dishonest actions - the 8th commandment.

 

[TMC]

I have made an explicit comment about the law, a comment you continue to ignore. What I said was straightforward: the law states that people who fulfill certain requirements are not to be given communion. It doesn’t say that communion may be withheld; it is cited as a requirement. That really should be in dispute; we have the language of the law before us. What else could the words “are not to be admitted to holy communion” possibly mean, or do words now mean only what we want them to mean?
I am not arguing with random bishops and what they may or may not have said. I am arguing with you about the precise meaning of the law. So far, your defense is to totally ignore what the words actually say.
Obama has chosen not to enforce a number of US immigration laws, just as a number of bishops have chosen not to enforce Canon 915. Does anyone believe that just because Obama does not enforce those laws it means he doesn’t understand what they say or disagrees with they mean?

The only conclusion you can draw from my comment is this: the meaning of Canon 915 is simple - it means what it says, and what it says is that people who satisfy certain specific criteria “are not” to be allowed to receive. It does not mean that their reception is optional based on the judgment of the bishop. The bishop may judge that their actions do not satisfy the conditions, but once the conditions are met, denial of communion is mandatory.

Ender

LOL, seriously you now want to drag the president into this? What does that have to do with anything?

I will stand by what I have been saying. You have your interpretation. I will take the interpretation of bishops, archbishops, cardinals and popes.