G
gracepoole
Guest
Until recently Sean Duffy was a rep from Wisconsin. He voted in favor of a bill supporting the death penalty. Why wasn’t he denied communion?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
M
Maximus1
Guest
Cardinal Burke was speaking via a juridical Order. It was quite deliberate.
The Congregation for the Doctrine of faith stated the exact same requirement. Most deliberate requirement). And the pastoral process was intended to offer more than a SNAP JUDGEMENT IN A ONE VISIT STOP in another state!
The US CONFERENCE OF BISHOPS makes this absolutely clear also.
They wrote about there being sensitive PASTORAL CONSIDERATION only appropriate for a BISHOP. This due to the exingencies of political positions and emotions.
Bingo!
That MEAT ON THE BONES illustrates that what happened was unfortunate and precisely what these authoritative bodies sought to avoid.
I am not certain of precisely how this went down, but the concern about
" politics" kicking in seems “revelation-like. " If this pastor had spoken to the VP, the VP would not have gotten on line to recieve. In that instance there is no excuse to bring that one episode to " the attention of the press”.
If the VP was ambushed on line, all of the writings of the authoritative sources were ignored. And the concern of the Catholic Bishops was realized.
The Congregation for the Doctrine of faith stated the exact same requirement. Most deliberate requirement). And the pastoral process was intended to offer more than a SNAP JUDGEMENT IN A ONE VISIT STOP in another state!
The US CONFERENCE OF BISHOPS makes this absolutely clear also.
They wrote about there being sensitive PASTORAL CONSIDERATION only appropriate for a BISHOP. This due to the exingencies of political positions and emotions.
Bingo!
That MEAT ON THE BONES illustrates that what happened was unfortunate and precisely what these authoritative bodies sought to avoid.
I am not certain of precisely how this went down, but the concern about
" politics" kicking in seems “revelation-like. " If this pastor had spoken to the VP, the VP would not have gotten on line to recieve. In that instance there is no excuse to bring that one episode to " the attention of the press”.
If the VP was ambushed on line, all of the writings of the authoritative sources were ignored. And the concern of the Catholic Bishops was realized.
M
Maximus1
Guest
The damage the authoritative bodies sought to avoid was realized. Joe Biden does not even hold office today. He may never. That is so far removed from participation in the actual sin itself, that the gotcha of a one time visit to a South Carolina parish was inapposite to the prescribed administration of the cannon.
Last edited:
M
MiserereMeiDei
Guest
Because the death penalty is not prohibited.
A
acanonlawyer
Guest
What I am referring to is Burke’s commentary in a canon law journal. Deliberate language, yes, but not a juridical order (not really sure what that means, to be honest).Cardinal Burke was speaking via a juridical Order. It was quite deliberate.
It wasn’t stated as a requirement. It is prudent and recommended but not always possible and/or necessary.The Congregation for the Doctrine of faith stated the exact same requirement. Most deliberate requirement).
Dan
A
acanonlawyer
Guest
Legislative support of civil authority’s right to have recourse to the death penalty is not considered to be a grave sin, is it?Until recently Sean Duffy was a rep from Wisconsin. He voted in favor of a bill supporting the death penalty. Why wasn’t he denied communion?
Dan
S
Socrates92
Guest
I’m fairly sure it’s not just “one way” of encouraging them to wake up, but priests are actually gravely obligated to do this. The fact that most don’t is extremely concerning, for the state of the priests’ souls, as well as that of the grave public sinner in question.
M
MiserereMeiDei
Guest
There are plenty of threads on the death penalty. My response to that amendment is in at least two of them if I’m not mistaken.
M
Maximus1
Guest
The Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith on ," Worthiness to Review Holy Communion," signed by then Cardinal Ratzinger had this to say:
“…If a Catholic politicians formal cooperation in ’ the grave sin of abortion or Euthanasia’ becomes manifest by ’ consistently campaigning AND VOTING for permissive abortion and Euthanasia laws’, the politicians PASTOR is obliged to instruct the politician and the Church’s teaching and inform him that he should not present himself for Holy Communion as long as the objective situation of sin persists…”
The CFTDOTF then goes on to require a warning that if he presents he will be refused.
It was this CURIA body that Cardinal Burke cited along with citation to Church Fathers and citation to Cannon law ( old and new).
First, Biden is not even the nominee. The Memo from the Congregation states " consistently campaigning AND VOTING." This language by it’s terms contemplated a Catholic elected official. And it makes sense! Because you need some nexus to the sinful conduct which is abortion. In representive government we all are potential representitives to some extent. 915 addresses “Other than” potential. You HAVE TO HAVE THE POWER AND JOB OF VOTING as part of the office. HE IS NOT YET THE NOMINEE running against an incumbent.
And this gets you to the concerns of Catholic Bishops. As a nominee, 915 is very potentially not yet ripe. Which brings the express language of ones own pastor into play more substantially. There is a pastoral process they took the time to create and set forth. Catholic Bishops would likely have it a Bishops decision because of the blood sport political atmosphere. This was not yet ripe to affect actual votes. And may never be. BUT IT DID BECOME A NATIONAL STORY AFFECTING A HIGHLY PARTISAN ELECTION. ONE SUNDAY in the man’s 70+ years as a BAPTIZED CATHOLIC. As I have read this, clearly this was something that should not have happened like this.
You say ," not always possible or necessary." I think that whatever that idea speaks to, it is not this one. It doesn’t mean " I may never get another chance because this Catholic is only visiting one day in a lifetime. A chance that includes soliciting a press release. Unfortunate in my humble opinion
“…If a Catholic politicians formal cooperation in ’ the grave sin of abortion or Euthanasia’ becomes manifest by ’ consistently campaigning AND VOTING for permissive abortion and Euthanasia laws’, the politicians PASTOR is obliged to instruct the politician and the Church’s teaching and inform him that he should not present himself for Holy Communion as long as the objective situation of sin persists…”
The CFTDOTF then goes on to require a warning that if he presents he will be refused.
It was this CURIA body that Cardinal Burke cited along with citation to Church Fathers and citation to Cannon law ( old and new).
First, Biden is not even the nominee. The Memo from the Congregation states " consistently campaigning AND VOTING." This language by it’s terms contemplated a Catholic elected official. And it makes sense! Because you need some nexus to the sinful conduct which is abortion. In representive government we all are potential representitives to some extent. 915 addresses “Other than” potential. You HAVE TO HAVE THE POWER AND JOB OF VOTING as part of the office. HE IS NOT YET THE NOMINEE running against an incumbent.
And this gets you to the concerns of Catholic Bishops. As a nominee, 915 is very potentially not yet ripe. Which brings the express language of ones own pastor into play more substantially. There is a pastoral process they took the time to create and set forth. Catholic Bishops would likely have it a Bishops decision because of the blood sport political atmosphere. This was not yet ripe to affect actual votes. And may never be. BUT IT DID BECOME A NATIONAL STORY AFFECTING A HIGHLY PARTISAN ELECTION. ONE SUNDAY in the man’s 70+ years as a BAPTIZED CATHOLIC. As I have read this, clearly this was something that should not have happened like this.
You say ," not always possible or necessary." I think that whatever that idea speaks to, it is not this one. It doesn’t mean " I may never get another chance because this Catholic is only visiting one day in a lifetime. A chance that includes soliciting a press release. Unfortunate in my humble opinion
Last edited:
M
Maximus1
Guest
The current president is proficient at imprecision. I think you would be hard pressed to argue Biden worse.
Looking at your post, you quoted Pope Benedict( when Cardinal).
The quoted language has 2 requirements. " Consistently campaigning AND VOTING." The former is true but the latter is not.
Looking at your post, you quoted Pope Benedict( when Cardinal).
The quoted language has 2 requirements. " Consistently campaigning AND VOTING." The former is true but the latter is not.
N
Nicene
Guest
I’m afraid not. That has been his election platform for years while running his campaigns for office. To get elected he first had to promote his agenda, not the other way around. That’s how democracy works.Biden’s stand on abortion has to do with an oath to serve all the people, not just those who are for or against abortion.
He also officiated a same sex marriage wedding at his house: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/vic...ficiated-wedding-sex-couple/story?id=41058123 Also in accord with his pro same sex marriage stance during campaigns. The “His oath to serve everyone” doesn’t really work when you ran for office on that platform.
Father Morey was spot on, he upheld the decision of his diocese which is the policy not only for his diocese but 2 others, by the Bishops who signed the policy into effect. Cardinal Dolan also applauded the Father.
Peace and God Bless
Nicene
M
Margaret_Ann
Guest
The article was great but their comments section is full of anti-Catholic comments. Caveat lector!
M
Maximus1
Guest
We are mixing issues.
There is belief.
There is promoting a thing politically.
Then there is a politicians ability to vote, or affect the opperation, existence, or wording of law regarding legality vel non.
Then there is the law and scripture pertaining to oaths.
Finally, these questions do not correspond to a final determination of sin, vel non, as an end point.
They are addressed in the context of Cannon 915, and specifical withholding of communion.
We are muddling up the issues which should only be addressed in the context of Cannon 915 when speaking of withholding communion for politicians involving their positions and actions involving abortion.
Yes, Biden’s position can be outside of keeping with the Churches stance on abortion as crime and sin. But as a private citizen, like all of us, a priest would not withhold communion under 915.
They do not withhold it under 915 if ones position is unknown to the congregation I believe. There is a public scandal component.
And
You begin the analysis with the idea that we Baptized Catholics, absent some affirmative reason to withhold communion, are basically ENTITLED TO RECEIVE IT. I AM not cerain of this, but I think Holy Communion is not " owned" by the Church, in the sense of property. When something is owned, it can be withheld via enforcement of some action in trespass for example. The real presence is not owned by anyone and Jesus wanted all Baptized Catholics to have it if in good standing. The relationship of the church as costodian, is more in keeping with a Trust idea for the benefit of Baptised good standing Catholic.
This requires evidence of some reason to cut it off. 915 is one reason. But it must be determined applicable in the juridical sense…
In this case the priest seems to have run afoul of the process that accompanied the release of the cannon itself. Whether the action can be justified via exceptions to procedure I am not sure. What’s done is done for one Sunday.
Applauding it is dubious for any Catholic however, in my opinion.
The procedures are intended to remove the critical decision of receiving, vel non, from what the Church authorities considered political influences in contested races. That consideration became implicated the moment the priest issued a press release.
Another issue that pops out is one akin to " legal ripeness" ( taken from our Federal laws of jurisdiction in the USA).
Pope Benedict, ( Cardinal Ratzinger when writing) spoke of application of 915 when the politician is campaigning actively AND VOTING, which assumes the ability to vote as an officeholder.
Biden is certainly campaigning on this issue, however, as not yet even the nominee of his party, it looks like application of 915 may be premature.
Another words when sworn in, it looks like 915 applies.
OTHERWIZE in
representitive government, 915 begins to swallow up the Congregation so to speak. Biden might never become president. In that regard, he cannot affect abortion legislation I the sense 915 creates grounds for the discipline.
So
We really should not be clapping for this action. The Church contemplates it be handled differently.
There is belief.
There is promoting a thing politically.
Then there is a politicians ability to vote, or affect the opperation, existence, or wording of law regarding legality vel non.
Then there is the law and scripture pertaining to oaths.
Finally, these questions do not correspond to a final determination of sin, vel non, as an end point.
They are addressed in the context of Cannon 915, and specifical withholding of communion.
We are muddling up the issues which should only be addressed in the context of Cannon 915 when speaking of withholding communion for politicians involving their positions and actions involving abortion.
Yes, Biden’s position can be outside of keeping with the Churches stance on abortion as crime and sin. But as a private citizen, like all of us, a priest would not withhold communion under 915.
They do not withhold it under 915 if ones position is unknown to the congregation I believe. There is a public scandal component.
And
You begin the analysis with the idea that we Baptized Catholics, absent some affirmative reason to withhold communion, are basically ENTITLED TO RECEIVE IT. I AM not cerain of this, but I think Holy Communion is not " owned" by the Church, in the sense of property. When something is owned, it can be withheld via enforcement of some action in trespass for example. The real presence is not owned by anyone and Jesus wanted all Baptized Catholics to have it if in good standing. The relationship of the church as costodian, is more in keeping with a Trust idea for the benefit of Baptised good standing Catholic.
This requires evidence of some reason to cut it off. 915 is one reason. But it must be determined applicable in the juridical sense…
In this case the priest seems to have run afoul of the process that accompanied the release of the cannon itself. Whether the action can be justified via exceptions to procedure I am not sure. What’s done is done for one Sunday.
Applauding it is dubious for any Catholic however, in my opinion.
The procedures are intended to remove the critical decision of receiving, vel non, from what the Church authorities considered political influences in contested races. That consideration became implicated the moment the priest issued a press release.
Another issue that pops out is one akin to " legal ripeness" ( taken from our Federal laws of jurisdiction in the USA).
Pope Benedict, ( Cardinal Ratzinger when writing) spoke of application of 915 when the politician is campaigning actively AND VOTING, which assumes the ability to vote as an officeholder.
Biden is certainly campaigning on this issue, however, as not yet even the nominee of his party, it looks like application of 915 may be premature.
Another words when sworn in, it looks like 915 applies.
OTHERWIZE in
representitive government, 915 begins to swallow up the Congregation so to speak. Biden might never become president. In that regard, he cannot affect abortion legislation I the sense 915 creates grounds for the discipline.
So
We really should not be clapping for this action. The Church contemplates it be handled differently.
Last edited:
G
gracepoole
Guest
Great. I’m sure you understand that I’m not going to search through various threads to read your thoughts on the issue when the Church has made Herself clear.There are plenty of threads on the death penalty. My response to that amendment is in at least two of them if I’m not mistaken.
N
Nicene
Guest
Actually you just plain wrong. As cited above the 3 bishops of those 3 diocese set policy which he followed. It appears you are quibbling over the letter of the law vs the spirit of the law. However regardless when bishops and cardinals agree with the decision following the incident vs a dissenter whom do we follow? He was legally and morally right in doing what he did.
Peace and God Bless
Nicene
Peace and God Bless
Nicene
N
Nicene
Guest
FWIW after reading you posts you have hinged you argument on “AND VOTING” . Since 1990 Biden has consistently voted pro abortion. You argument also implied his future voting so 915 couldn’t be applied. As a president he would not get to vote on a bill in Congress being part of the executive branch. However we already know if he would veto or pass into a continuation or abolition of the Hyde amendment. None of these are secrets. The priest was correct on the application of 915, and his diocese policy written by his and two other bishops for their 3 diocese.
The last person I recall saying I’m right and all the bishops wrong was Martin Luther, just something to think about.
Peace and God Bless
Nicene
The last person I recall saying I’m right and all the bishops wrong was Martin Luther, just something to think about.
Peace and God Bless
Nicene
E
Ender
Guest
That cannot be so in light of what I cited before:They wrote about there being sensitive PASTORAL CONSIDERATION only appropriate for a BISHOP.
…no ecclesiastical authority may dispense the minister of Holy Communion from this obligation in any case, nor may he emanate directives that contradict it (Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts)
Every minister of communion has the same obligation under canon 915. It does not apply only to bishops.
Perhaps, but the damage the church seeks to avoid (scandal) was not.The damage the authoritative bodies sought to avoid was realized.
A fact, but one irrelevant to the canon. “Obstinate persistence in manifest, grave sin” includes nothing about holding office.Joe Biden does not even hold office today.
Since you cited Burke before, let me cite him now:That is so far removed from participation in the actual sin itself…
Fourthly, the discipline applies to any public conduct which is gravely sinful, that is, which violates the law of God in a serious matter. Certainly, the public support of policies and laws which, in the teaching of the Magisterium, are in grave violation of the natural moral law falls under the discipline.
This interpretation cannot be correct as it would exempt public figures who actively support (e.g.) abortion. That they cannot vote as legislators on specific bills would not excuse them.Pope Benedict, ( Cardinal Ratzinger when writing) spoke of application of 915 when the politician is campaigning actively AND VOTING, which assumes the ability to vote as an officeholder.
E
Ender
Guest
”if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion.”…There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty" (Cardinal Ratzinger, 2004)Great. I’m sure you understand that I’m not going to search through various threads to read your thoughts on the issue when the Church has made Herself clear.
Francis’ change to the catechism has not changed this.
M
MiserereMeiDei
Guest
I didn’t assume one way or the other. I’m merely trying to keep this thread on topic as much as possible. Suffice to say that the death penalty is not immoral.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.