Cardinal confusion

[francesco920]

I was reading this interview of Honduran Cardinal Oscar Andres Rodriguez Maradiaga and I got really confused about a point he made about moral theology. He seemed to completely flip flop on the issue of pro-abortion politicians from one question to the next:

**Q. Do you agree with the Pope’s statement that pro-choice Catholic politicians merit excommunication. **
A. It is canon law that everyone who works for abortion is excommunicated. It’s not something the Pope invented. If you favor abortion, you are outside the communion of the Church. And it was necessary to say that. There are people in Mexico saying I am Catholic and I support abortion rights. This is a contradiction in its very essence. As a teacher of the Church, the Pope has a responsibility of teaching when something happening is wrong.

**Q. Do you agree with bishops who deny giving Holy Communion to the these politicians? **
A. This is a different point. For who am I to deny Holy Communion to a person? I cannot. It’s in the tradition of moral theology that even if I know a person is living in grave sin, I cannot take a public action against him. It would be giving scandal to the person. Yes, he should not seek (communion), but I cannot deny it from him.

I must say that I am completely confused

Is the Cardinal right? And what exactly does he mean when he says that he “cannot” deny Holy Communion to a person that he knows is living in great sin?

Here’s the link: time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1620570,00.html

 

[Tom317]

Canon 916:
“A person who is conscious of grave sin is not to celebrate Mass or to receive the Body of the Lord without prior sacramental confession unless a grave reason is present and there is no opportunity to make an act of perfect contrition, including the intention of confessing as soon as possible.”

Canon 915:
“Those upon whom the penalty of excommunication or interdict has been imposed or declared, and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, are not to be admitted to Holy Communion.”

 

[francesco920]

Canon 916:
“A person who is conscious of grave sin is not to celebrate Mass or to receive the Body of the Lord without prior sacramental confession unless a grave reason is present and there is no opportunity to make an act of perfect contrition, including the intention of confessing as soon as possible.”

Canon 915:
“Those upon whom the penalty of excommunication or interdict has been imposed or declared, and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, are not to be admitted to Holy Communion.”

OK, now that makes sense. Thanks for providing the appropriate canons.

I guess the good Cardinal needs a lesson in Canon Law. It saddens me that even though he acknowledges that supporting abortion “rights” is gravely sinful and results in automatic excommunication, he says that he “cannot” refuse such a person Holy Communion. And to make it even worse he states that denying a pro-abortion politican communion would create scandal!

 

[Godfollower]

I was reading this interview of Honduran Cardinal Oscar Andres Rodriguez Maradiaga and I got really confused about a point he made about moral theology. He seemed to completely flip flop on the issue of pro-abortion politicians from one question to the next:

I must say that I am completely confused

Is the Cardinal right? And what exactly does he mean when he says that he “cannot” deny Holy Communion to a person that he knows is living in great sin?

Here’s the link: time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1620570,00.html

Just guessing here, but the Cardinal was probably saying something like he isn’t supposed to make political hay out of the Eucharist – just like you aren’t supposed to approach for Communion while wearing those policital-cause (I forget the issue) sashes.

Generally speaking, when he’s standing at the front of the church distributing Communion, he doesn’t know whether the person standing in front of him has received absolution in the Sacrament of Reconciliation or not. Remember, he makes the point that they aren’t supposed to approach if they’re working for abortion; so it isn’t like he’s saying “everyone come on up!” to them.

His point about causing scandal to the person probably derives from canon law, which states that every person has a right to privacy and a right to his or her reputation. If a bishop were to physically refuse Communion to a politician during Mass based on what to a human being is (let’s face it) merely a probability that the politician persisted in manifest sin, you’d better believe it would make headlines.

I would think that the Cardinal would have to have a private chat with the politician, determine his or her true viewpoints, counsel him or her about them, and then (assuming persistence in the politician’s beliefs) ask him or her not to come up to Communion. The confrontation without warning seems un-Christian (since, unlike Jesus, the Cardinal lacks perfect knowledge).

 

[Tom317]

Just guessing here, but the Cardinal was probably saying something like he isn’t supposed to make political hay out of the Eucharist – just like you aren’t supposed to approach for Communion while wearing those policital-cause (I forget the issue) sashes.

Generally speaking, when he’s standing at the front of the church distributing Communion, he doesn’t know whether the person standing in front of him has received absolution in the Sacrament of Reconciliation or not. Remember, he makes the point that they aren’t supposed to approach if they’re working for abortion; so it isn’t like he’s saying “everyone come on up!” to them.

His point about causing scandal to the person probably derives from canon law, which states that every person has a right to privacy and a right to his or her reputation. If a bishop were to physically refuse Communion to a politician during Mass based on what to a human being is (let’s face it) merely a probability that the politician persisted in manifest sin, you’d better believe it would make headlines.

I would think that the Cardinal would have to have a private chat with the politician, determine his or her true viewpoints, counsel him or her about them, and then (assuming persistence in the politician’s beliefs) ask him or her not to come up to Communion. The confrontation without warning seems un-Christian (since, unlike Jesus, the Cardinal lacks perfect knowledge).

Conversely, a scandal happens when “nothing” is done baout such public sinners.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

I recall that Cardinal Cushing was questioned re Jackie Kennedy remarrying outside the Church. He clained that he was unable to judge who was a public sinner.

He later claimed that he was misquoted - by a tape recorder.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

I was reading …

People in a state of grave sin receive the Eucharist everyday, how could the Priest know who they are? I think you are jumping from loss of grace to heresy in one bound. Heresy is to teach a doctrine contrary to the Church. A heretic is identified by his teaching. Grave sin can be performed in private with no way for the Priest to know the sin has occurred. One of the most common states of sin is simply not attending confession. Had the Priest been asked about heretics your confusion would have disappeared?

 

[MilesXpisti]

People in a state of grave sin receive the Eucharist everyday, how could the Priest know who they are? I think you are jumping from loss of grace to heresy in one bound. Heresy is to teach a doctrine contrary to the Church. A heretic is identified by his teaching. Grave sin can be performed in private with no way for the Priest to know the sin has occurred. One of the most common states of sin is simply not attending confession. Had the Priest been asked about heretics your confusion would have disappeared?

Ah, but there are those, myself included, that believe that these individuals should be refused Communion. Is it a public reprimand on the person’s character? Certainly, but no more public than that individual coming out publicly in favor of infanticide (either because they believe it or to appeal to prospective constituents), and then claim simon-purity in the Faith. He’s not being quiet about it; far from it he goes on record. It would be like a member of Herod’s court privately codemning the slaughter of the innocents, all the while publicly acknowledging that the King, as sovereign ruler has a right to do so. There’s no middle ground in this issue.

A man, especially a man that is supposed to be a role model and servant of the people, can’t serve two masters. He either clings to the truth, for good or worse in his public life, and remains a loyal member of the Church or he is a Pharisee going through the motions to play both sides of the fence. And one could make the argument that they are teaching contrary doctrine, as the opinions of prominent people carry for many in America the same if not more weight than the law of Holy Mother Church. At the very least this promotes gross scandal against the Church and Her faithful. Further, if the Holy Father says that such people merit excommunication there is the tacit impression that mortal sin is the norm in these instances.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Ah, but there are those, myself included, that believe that these individuals should be refused Communion. Is it a public reprimand on the person’s character? Certainly, but no more public than that individual coming out publicly in favor of infanticide (either because they believe it or to appeal to prospective constituents), and then claim simon-purity in the Faith. He’s not being quiet about it; far from it he goes on record. It would be like a member of Herod’s court privately codemning the slaughter of the innocents, all the while publicly acknowledging that the King, as sovereign ruler has a right to do so. There’s no middle ground in this issue.

A man, especially a man that is supposed to be a role model and servant of the people, can’t serve two masters. He either clings to the truth, for good or worse in his public life, and remains a loyal member of the Church or he is a Pharisee going through the motions to play both sides of the fence. And one could make the argument that they are teaching contrary doctrine, as the opinions of prominent people carry for many in America the same if not more weight than the law of Holy Mother Church. At the very least this promotes gross scandal against the Church and Her faithful. Further, if the Holy Father says that such people merit excommunication there is the tacit impression that mortal sin is the norm in these instances.

I understand however you did not answer the question, lets put you as an usher, and assign you the job sorting the approaching people. Who to you deny and how do you know you rejected the correct number of people?

 

[chicago]

Generally, if someone approaches to receive communion, the person administering the Sacrament is to offer it even if they know quite well that this person is in mortal sin. The burden of responsibility is upon the one who approaches to not come up. Otherwise a scene would be made by refusing. I think that this is what the bishop is talking about. That isn’t to say that he couldn’t publically reprimand someone and even ask the person to not receive if they are “public sinners”.

 

[MilesXpisti]

I understand however you did not answer the question, lets put you as an usher, and assign you the job sorting the approaching people. Who to you deny and how do you know you rejected the correct number of people?

Perhaps a good tack to take, and I know this has happened before in my parish (several younger priests), that the vocal members of pro-abortion political movements/groups that profess membership in the Church were asked to meet with the priest, who very calmly told them not to even bother coming up to receive Communion. Several grumbled by this but did so…the other did not and went up anyway. He received a blessing and was sent on his way. I’d never been so proud of my priest.

 

[AKG]

Here’s a loophole in this line of argumentation that may be used by some. I believe the catechism says “a person who is conscious of grave sin” is not to receive communion. The Catholic politician is the one who decides whether or not to receive. The point is moot since the Catholic politician must be “conscious of grave sin,” which means that the Catholic politician must believe that they have committed grave sin by supporting abortion on demand.

Rudy Giuliani, Dennis Kucinich, John Kerry, John Corzine are all Catholic politicians that support abortion on demand. Since they all continue to receive communion, it is obvious that none of these Catholic politicians believe that their support for abortion on demand constitutes grave sin.

As demonstrated in the Terri Schiavo case, there are certain Catholic priests and bishops refuse to exercise the authority they have by virtue of the office which they hold to publicly reprimand or criticize particular Catholic individuals who cause public scandal.

It is no wonder that so many Catholics are confused.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Lets face if folls, the Bishops of the Church aren’t going to turn away people from communion, even though they support abortion, when those people have lots of money and political influence.

The leaders of our Church can be hypocritical at times.

Jim

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Perhaps a good tack to take, and I know this has happened before in my parish (several younger priests), that the vocal members of pro-abortion political movements/groups that profess membership in the Church were asked to meet with the priest, who very calmly told them not to even bother coming up to receive Communion. Several grumbled by this but did so…the other did not and went up anyway. He received a blessing and was sent on his way. I’d never been so proud of my priest.

Again that is hersy, not all sin is hersy. How would you separate the sinner who is not in a state of grace?

 

[francesco920]

Rudy Giuliani, Dennis Kucinich, John Kerry, John Corzine are all Catholic politicians that support abortion on demand. Since they all continue to receive communion, it is obvious that none of these Catholic politicians believe that their support for abortion on demand constitutes grave sin.

I don’t care at all whether or not they believe it constitutes grave sin. They know it is the teaching of the Church and they have rejected it. They are publicly heretical and as such should not be admitted to Communion. If they want to receive they ought to publicly recant and go to Confession.

I think I see what you are saying but I disagree that there is a loophole here.

 

[mark_a]

Canon 916:
“A person who is conscious of grave sin is not to celebrate Mass . . . . .

Not to change the subject, but the above is extremely troublesome for me.

How many times did I attend mass (but not receive communion) before I had the guts to go to confession?

How many times was I, admittedly a slacker, urged to “just come to Church” by a priest?

 

[francesco920]

Not to change the subject, but the above is extremely troublesome for me.

How many times did I attend mass (but not receive communion) before I had the guts to go to confession?

How many times was I, admittedly a slacker, urged to “just come to Church” by a priest?

Brother in Christ,

Fear not! You have simply misread the Canon. It says (my emphasis):

Canon 916:
“A person who is conscious of grave sin is not to celebrate Mass or to receive the Body of the Lord without prior sacramental confession unless a grave reason is present and there is no opportunity to make an act of perfect contrition, including the intention of confessing as soon as possible.”

You may not “celebrate Mass” or “receive the Body of the Lord without prior sacramental confession.” Unless you’re a bishop or priest, the first doesn’t apply to you. The Canon says NOTHING about attending Mass. And yes you should (and must) attend Mass even if you can’t receive the Eucharist.

 

[mark_a]

Brother in Christ,

Fear not! You have simply misread the Canon. It says (my emphasis):

You may not “celebrate Mass” or “receive the Body of the Lord without prior sacramental confession.” Unless you’re a bishop or priest, the first doesn’t apply to you. The Canon says NOTHING about attending Mass. And yes you should (and must) attend Mass even if you can’t receive the Eucharist.

Doh!!!

 

[MilesXpisti]

Again that is hersy, not all sin is hersy. How would you separate the sinner who is not in a state of grace?

I’m not suggesting that you could. But that’s not the question posed by the OP, now is it? His confusion was dealing with those individuals that were public proponents of abortion on demand yet received Communion as though a member in good standing.

 

[AKG]

<I don’t care at all whether or not they believe it constitutes grave sin. They know it is the teaching of the Church and they have rejected it. They are publicly heretical and as such should not be admitted to Communion. If they want to receive they ought to publicly recant and go to Confession.

I think I see what you are saying but I disagree that there is a loophole here.>

They use it as a loophole and get away with it. Many of them have degrees in law and have learned to twist words around to suit their belief systems.

It was absolutely disgraceful last evening to hear Rudy Giuliani say that under no means is slavery ever acceptable, yet continue to argue in favor of what he calls a “woman’s right” to kill an unborn child. I also paid careful attention to the other Catholic politicians who were asked about the issue. Sam Brownback revealed his subconscious view of the unborn by calling the child an “it” numerous times. Even though he claims to be pro-life, the child is not an “it.” Human beings are persons…not “it”'s. Forget about Tommy Thompson,

Abortion on demand is not acceptable under any circumstances period. We don’t have to ***** foot around the issue. It’s not about imposing our view on women. It is about doing what is right and just by defending the most vulnerable among us who have no voice. Standing up firmly against abortion on demand is what Jesus would do.