Denying Cuomo Communion

  • Thread starter Thread starter Benjinho
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
That is not really responsive to my question, in particular as it ignores the rest of my post.

I can’t speak for you as we have not had the opportunity to sit and talk. But I have found a good deal of vindictiveness and an attitude of “That will show them!” from people I have spoend with, face to face, over their attitude of public excommunication. It is as if their attitude is that the individuals need a public beating and then need to be cast into the outer darkness.

That is not the purpose of an excommunication. The purpose is to clarify, to make crystal clear to that individual that their actions have removed them from the Church, the Body of Christ, and to move them to reconciliation. As such it does not need to be made public. It is not “Yeah! We kicked his @$$ out of here!”, but rather the final step to rectify a major break with the Church.

It most definitely does not need to be done publicly. And the Church uses it very sparingly, contrary to the perceived wishes of many people in the pews - and those who should be but are not in the pews.
 
Theory is always nice; it resounds in the halls of learning.

Then, there is reality.

And the reality of the United States is that a very large swath of the citizenry is not onlly not Catholic, but entirely secular; and to that we can add those of the Catholic Church who are sometimes labeled “progressives” (to which we can add those particularly of the mainline Protestant churches) who ascribe to abortion to one level or another.

I might remind you of the not so subtle show of force against being Catholic which was broadcast nation-wide during the Kavanaugh hearings, as well as the treatment given to Amy Barrett by Diane Feinstein when Barrett was proposed for the 7th Circuit. To say that the Church as well as both candidates went through a meat grinder of a confirmation hearing is simply to put it in terms that can pass family reading. the pure (?) unadulterated hatred of both the Church and those who follow its precepts was glaring.

And so the Church reserves prudential judgement on publicly excommunicating nationally known political figures. it is up to the bishop of the diocese in which such figure resides to make the decision, and if those decisions have been made and not publicly announced, it is likely that part of the consideration may have been the possibility that the individual will be reconciled.

And even in the event that it may appear the individual will not reconcile, it is still within the prudential judgement to not make an excommunication public. there are too many professed and practicing Catholics whose conversations and comments indicate that a Pyrrhic victory is better than a presumption that the bishop is feckless, gutless, too chummy with the politician, a progressive - I think we all know the undercurrent of judgments which have been passed on bishops since Roe vs. Wade, et alia. Too many sound all together too close to Shylock wanting his pound of flesh.

(continued)
 
(continued)
As to scandal, that issue cuts in many directions, a point those pounding the table and demanding the politicians be cast into the outer darkness fail to make. There are few people who have not made a decision concerning the rightness or wrongfulness of abortion; and many can be converted (which is why I support Right To Life); but no showing that an excommunication is going to change anyone’s heart.

I would submit that those who profess to be scandalized by bishops not publicly excommunicating politicians are not scandalized by the moral issue, but rather are poorly or not at all catechized as to the whole issue of excommunication - the why’s and wherefore’s as well as the whole issue of prudential judgement. Or they simply refuse to accept that within the Church, prudential judgement still resides.
 
The Poster you are replying to is a Priest. I think he has a good idea what the Church teaches.
 
Thank you for that. I am, for the avoidance of doubt, aware of what scandal is and apologies if the brevity of my post suggested otherwise but my focus was however on the need for the act in question to be well known amongst the community since the purpose is of course to protect the community. At the same time, we also have to be cautious not to “assume” sin or, for the matter, a lack of confession - just because a parishioner hasn’t come to me for confession doesn’t mean they don’t go at all.
 
Well that all depends on what “it” is. In the case of a pro-abortion politician it’s obviously a no brainer. However, when it comes to a couple who are divorced and remarried they may well be trying to live chastely with each other and going to confession when they fall short. Of course, if they couple in question happen to be the (now very much former) parish priest and choir director then it would be advisable (to put it mildly) for them to attend a different parish!
 
Politicans are public by nature of their office. A couple is private unless they broadcast their lives to everyone in a public manner. Big difference.
 
Last edited:
The text you quoted above actually says “they will be able to receive Eucharistic Communion only remoto scandalo” that is, only if “scandal” can be averted which does not necessarily equate to privately. It all comes down to the particular pastoral circumstances. A small community might make public reception imposible - or it might in fact make it easier for the pastor to be assured of the avoidance of scandal. The opposite is also true, although cathedrals do tend to be useful places to go for anonymity! All this of course assumes knowledge on the part of the pastor! In the end, it’s important to remember that these are often complex pastoral situations which can’t simply be reduced to binary principles. Before anyone gets all excited, I’m not saying give the eucharist to anyone; what I am saying is public denial of the Eucharist is a serious and significant decision which requires sensitivity to all involved (including the good of the community which can of course be harmed by clumsy and insensitive actions).
 
Excommunication is not a punishment for a crime; it is an acknowledging to the individual that they have cut themselves off from the Church by their manifest sin. And while that can be seen as a punishment, the purpose is to call the individual to reconciliation.

And as noted, Canon law can be enforced, if you want to put it in those terms without making the matter public - which simply tends to isolate those not in the Church and push them farther away. the end of the reconciliation is mercy, not vengeance, not punishment. Christ did not come to punish but to call sinners to metanoia, to a turning around, to experience mercy.

Those who speak so loudly of wanting politicians publicly called to an accounting are not seeking mercy; they are seeking vilification.
 
That isn’t mercy, that’s enablement. The bad catholic politicians need to know where they stand with the Church. Saying and doing nothing
like what Cardinal Dolan does
only confuses spiritually weak Catholics and will scandalize them. It will also give more fire to the anti-christians as further proof that Catholics are just hypocrites.

In these times you have to stand by your morals. For mercy without morals is just enablement. Cuomo needs to be rebuked/excommunicated by a prelate. One of two things will happen.

1)He finally becomes honest with himself and he no longer identifies as Catholic
and thus sparing the Church from further scandal
Or
2) He will realize he messed up and repent.
 
Honestly, if you want good, direct answers the first thing to do might be to google ‘Catholic Answers’ & the question. For example, ‘Catholic Answers re-sacrifice’ came up with this:

www.catholic.com

Do Catholics re-sacrifice Christ?

Catholic Answers Senior Apologist Jimmy Akin explains the Catholic teaching about the Eucharist, and whether or not it is a “re-sacrifice” of Jesus...
www.catholic.com www.catholic.com

You can also clarify why Biden or Cuomo might be denied communion by looking up ‘Who can recieve communion’


At the risk of offending (and I do not mean to) your question seems to have alot of underlying protestant distortions of Catholic teaching.

Catholic Answers is IMHO the best site for looking up tracts to clear up those confusions.

and
 
Thank you. Distorted ? What could possibly be distorted ? Council of Trent is my source as well as 35 years catholic born -raised and Rcc schooling . . Are you saying eurcharist is not body of Christ ?
 
Last edited:
I may well have misunderstood, and if so I apologize. I thought you meant that that Catholic Church held that we re-sacrificed Christ; and that isn’t the case.
 
Thank you got your time. We are not on same page . I base all on facts . I will look again on website and read ONLY going forward for an answer.
Thanks again.
 
Last edited:
So…I may or may not have spent the last hour searching for a way to buy Freddos in the U.S.

My kids will be getting a case of them in their stockings…
 
Sounds good. I too base all on facts. My own study plus K-12 Catholic Schools; etc. But we can agree to disagree. God Bless and have a great day.
 
Last edited:
I don’t want to go on forum since I’m positive I will offend by simply asking questions. Believe me and I promise you with all my heart , i thought this way for 35 years as well , so I completely get it. I’m just looking for biblical justification. Not what church says but what God says…

Thanks again.

God bless

LS
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top