Bishops and the Press

  • Thread starter Thread starter Joe_Kelley
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
ProVobis said:
In practice, especially in Chicago, this may not work so well. Any such meetings will no doubt be all over the news and the congregations may protest in favor of the politician or whoever happens to be affected. And not necessarily about communion either as one gay music director got fired recently. Communion was probably the least of his concerns.
Click to expand...
A meeting with a politician would not be made public by the bishop. Some of his staff? Entirely possible. And if the bishop wishes to run his ship, instead of having it run by staff, then in such a leak he would be wise to move swiftly - and someone would end up in one of the more “interesting” areas of the diocese. And if the Politician decided to “out” the meeting; well, a wise bishop would be characterized as “butter wouldn’t melt in his mouth”.

I suspect that your new archbishop didn’t fall off the rutabaga truck as it rolled out of Yakima. If he did, then whoever vetted him needs to be moved to a parish in the hinterland, as he has been moved to one of the more prominent and public posts.

Is he going to satisfy the very conservative element? Probably not; but his job is to pastor the entire flock, not one aspect of it, and pretty much that means he has his work cut out for him. I would not be envious in the least, were I someone who would have wanted that posting (I still suspect Levada did, but he got San Francisco; no red hat, but a major handful all the same).

I think the conservatives want to tell him how to handle matters, and I kind of suspect that the liberals will tell him how to handle things. His job is not to please one segment or another; it is to lead people to Heaven. All in all, a rather formidable task. Glad I don’t have to make an accounting for that.
 
otjm said:
His job is not to please one segment or another; it is to lead people to Heaven. All in all, a rather formidable task. Glad I don’t have to make an accounting for that.
Click to expand...
In the end, the individual stands before God without his bishop and without the Pope. If a person insists on defying the established moral code and parade himself as an example to be set, then you or I won’t have to be accountable for that.

I hope anyway.
 
ProVobis said:
In the end, the individual stands before God without his bishop and without the Pope. If a person insists on defying the established moral code and parade himself as an example to be set, then you or I won’t have to be accountable for that.

I hope anyway.
Click to expand...
Amen to that!
 
bisco1 said:
my post did, but your response didn’t.
Click to expand...
OK, I understand what you are saying now. However, I disagree because it is directly related to what Archbishop Cupich said, referenced in the first post and shown below, and my remark was “A minister of Communion cannot determine that all the proper conditions are met, in the Communion line.”

I would not use the Eucharist or as they call it the communion rail as the place to have those discussions or a way in which people would be either [sic] excluded from the life of the church. The Eucharist is an opportunity of grace and conversion. It’s also a time of forgiveness of sins. So my hope would be that that grace would be instrumental in bringing people to the truth.
 
Vico said:
OK, I understand what you are saying now. However, I disagree because it is directly related to what Archbishop Cupich said, referenced in the first post and shown below, and my remark was “A minister of Communion cannot determine that all the proper conditions are met, in the Communion line.”

I would not use the Eucharist or as they call it the communion rail as the place to have those discussions or a way in which people would be either [sic] excluded from the life of the church. The Eucharist is an opportunity of grace and conversion. It’s also a time of forgiveness of sins. So my hope would be that that grace would be instrumental in bringing people to the truth.
Click to expand...
agreed. and it seems to contradict the second quote in the o/p. it may not, but it seems to, to the o/p and myself.
 
bisco1 said:
agreed. and it seems to contradict the second quote in the o/p. it may not, but it seems to, to the o/p and myself.
Click to expand...
The key to understanding is what constitutes obstinate persistence.

The second quote states that we must “be conscious that they cannot receive holy communion and at the same time act with deeds or words against the commandments”.

This can be taken to work with CIC Canon 915. So communion is denied to those that:
1 are under penalty of interdict,
2 are under penalty of excommunication,
3 obstinately persist in manifest sin.
 
exactly. that’s why, as the o/p stated, they ‘seem’ to contradict each other.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top