Cardinal confusion

[stbruno]

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.

Does that make them amoral since they don’t knowingly accept what the church teaches? And logically it follows that if they are amoral, then they must have poorly formed consciences to dissent from the moral teachings of the church. Therefore, they should not receive the Eucharist.

More reasons to pray. Especially when politicians or others believe that they can be cafeteria Catholics, only accepting which guidelines they wish to follow and the rest…pooh on them…uh uh uh!

 

[otjm]

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

Or, they may have a better understanding of Canon law than the average layman, and understand that the fact that the average laymen sees issues in black and white does not make the issues black and white; it simply means that the layman seeing it so is under-catechised. Whether it is Canon Law or civil or criminal law, the issues are much more complex than people understand; people want simple answers to complex questions, and when given the complex answer, are not satisfied. But then, they also do not have to put up with the results that a simple answer to a complex question would engender.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Or, they may have a better understanding of Canon law than the average layman, and understand that the fact that the average laymen sees issues in black and white does not make the issues black and white; it simply means that the layman seeing it so is under-catechised. Whether it is Canon Law or civil or criminal law, the issues are much more complex than people understand; people want simple answers to complex questions, and when given the complex answer, are not satisfied. But then, they also do not have to put up with the results that a simple answer to a complex question would engender.

But they told voters in the 2004 election, that it would be a mortal sin if they voted for a candidate who supports abortion.

You don’t see the inconsistancy here?

Jim

 

[otjm]

But they told voters in the 2004 election, that it would be a mortal sin if they voted for a candidate who supports abortion.

You don’t see the inconsistancy here?

Jim

Some, rather a few, bishops took a public stand concerning denying the Eucharist; my recollection is that it was fewer than 10 and more like fewer than 5.

There is a bit of a difference between speaking out generically about abortion (for which the Church is loudly and repeatedly condemned in the press) and specifically selecting one candidate to bar from the sacraments. The latter is much mroe pointed and direct. There was a good bit of discussion among the bishops as to the propriety of refusing Communion; most didn’t. Several spoke specifically to Kerry about not presenting himself for Communion. Those who didn’t were taken to task by Catholics wanting a censure.

There were threats of lawsuits concerning written information (the primary piece being from Catholic Answers); I don’t know if lawsuits were actually filed. The written material was generic, in that it did not speak to a specific candidate, and as such would not violate IRS rules; issues with a specific candidate would at least potentially give rise to a legal challenge with the IRS; not that it would cause the loss of tax status, but certaily would cost well into a 5 figure if not 6 figure defense cost for each incident challenged. The real damage, however, is not from the potential lawsuits, but from the press coverage which so easily slews voters’ perspectives. At least one of the bishops who publicly took a stand did so in a state that is generally conservative, and so the impact was less as voters already were against Kerry. the same could not be said for states that were “on the fence” or liberal.

So, no, I do not consider the issues inconsistent; one is a generic statement; the other a specific statement. The latter will get more and more directed press coverage of attempting to sway voters politically.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

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.

My guess is you and the OP read that into the Bishops comments, I do not. I believe he said teach them they are out of communion regardless of their personal opinion. Their receiving is invalid. I am not speaking for the Bishop, this is my understanding of his comments.

 

[Steve_O_Brien]

From a human perspective, it’s extremely difficult for any cardinal or bishop to enforce canon 915 against Catholic politicians who support legalized abortion even though this canon cries out for enforcement. The difficulty stems from the fact that our Holy Father has no intention (at least at this time) of enforcing it himself. It’s not easy to buck the boss in any work environment, including that of the Catholic Church.

Actually, however, it’s not canon 915 that should be the line of defense against such politicians, for they should all have been excommunicated by name in publicly announced excommunications (what are known canonically as "inflicted excommunications"). Please note that the “automatic excommunication” for abortion applies only to those who are personally, immediately, and directly involved in the successful procurement of an abortion; hence, it’s incorrect to say that legislators who vote for legalized abortion “have excommunicated themselves." Those legislators need to be excommunicated with inflicted excommunications. The scandal for which they’re personally responsible is public; therefore, the excommunications for the correction of this scandal must be personalized and publicized.

Legislators who support the legalized murder of unborn children can be penalized with inflicted excommunications under the following canons of the Code of Canon Law: 1318, 1341-1342, 1369, 1371, and 1399. The Code of Canon Law can be read by any PC-equipped Catholic on the Vatican’s Web site:

vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_INDEX.HTM

Again, Pope Benedict XVI has no intention of urging the bishops to issue those inflicted excommunications.

Since the failures to enforce canon 915 and to issue the aforementioned inflicted excommunications are among the worst scandals in the entire history of the Catholic Church, we should storm heaven with our Rosaries, imploring Our Lady of Fátima to employ her intercession to change the mind of the Holy Father. Please say the Rosary for this intention. Please do this now**. **Or at least by the end of today.

We should also ask Our Lady of Fátima to intercede for the purpose of persuading Pope Benedict XVI and all the bishops to consecrate Russia to her Immaculate Heart.

Keep and spread the Faith.