Matt Fradd on Andrew Cuomo and Excommunication

Status
Not open for further replies.
And Bishop Olmsted was right to excommunicate her, as Cardinal Dolan should with Cuomo.
 
lilypadrees said:
Cardinal Dolan is wrong not to excommunicate him.
Click to expand...
I’ll put my trust in the Bishops of the Church. Otherwise, we are making a claim, similar to that of a well-known politician stating, “I know more than all the generals”.
 
If someone is acting very publicly in way that merits excommunication then if he’s not excommunicated then doesn’t that endanger the souls of others who follow his example as his behavior is seen as acceptable.
 
skelly said:
If someone is acting very publicly in way that merits excommunication then if he’s not excommunicated then doesn’t that endanger the souls of others who follow his example as his behavior is seen as acceptable.
Click to expand...
How would excommunication stop any potential endangerment of the souls of others, without conversion?

Excommunication is an act of Charity used in hopes of turning the offending party to conversion.

Excommunication notwithstanding, a decision by another to commit grave sin is up to their exercise of free will.

It seems many might be viewing excommunication as an act of banishment from “our group” rather than an act of compassion offered by God to the offender in hopes of converting them.
 
Last edited:
HOMM said:
How would excommunication stop any potential endangerment of the souls of others, without conversion?
Click to expand...
It shows that the example of the excommunicated person is not one to be followed and that their actions are seriously wrong.

Just a speech/letter condeming it is not as strong a message. Personally I think a strong message is needed.
 
Last edited:
Fradd isn’t arguing this, did you listen to the entire podcast? He also quoted Aquinas from the Summa directly. He wasn’t paraphrasing
 
Last edited:
TheBard said:
I wonder–is it possible Cuomo’s soul could already be in Hell, and a demon inhabiting his body? I mean, I just see pure, contorted evil in his face.
Anyway, wondering if that’s even possible? I’m being absolutely serious.
Click to expand...
Let’s not get carried away. Human beings are perfectly capable of great evil.
 
Last edited:
Bishop Scharfenberger is awesome and never fails to defend what’s right. I’m sure he’s carefully weighing his options with what to do about Cuomo, since he actually has more jurisdiction that Cardinal Dolan does in this matter.
 
I believe that he does attend Mass, but from what I’ve heard/read he does not receive communion after being warned not to do so several years back.
 
I’m going to say no it’s not, but Dante posits the exact same scenario in the Inferno with a certain group of sinners who are so reprobate that their soul falls to hell before their natural death. The body is left inhabited by demons for the remainder of what would have been their appointed time on Earth.
 
I’m sure I’Inferno is what gave me the thought. It’s mainly the eyes. This is a seriously, fiendishly wicked individual.
 
Last edited:
.
“HOMM said:
lilypadrees said:
Cardinal Dolan is wrong not to excommunicate him.
Click to expand...
I’ll put my trust in the Bishops of the Church. Otherwise, we are making a claim, similar to that of a well-known politician stating, “I know more than all the generals”.
Click to expand...

This is the most intelligent post on the thread.
Excommunication, and lifting of such, is normally a private, confidential action.
The decision to excommunicate is only when the apparent good will likely outweigh the harm. The person’s bishop or pastor normally would have more information on that than I have. This includes both knowledge of canon law in general, and this particular person.
 
Those priests were very bad indeed, but it’s not like they changed laws that will make it more likely that Innocents will die, while pretending how great that is.
 
I admire Matt Fradd far more than I admire Cuomo, but they are similar in one way.
Cuomo’s position is that an educated layperson can reach insights on a given issue that the bishop cannot see. Fradd’s position is, well, the same thing.

Fradd had the option of sending a private communication to his own, or to any bishop, if had specific info they might not have. He chose to do it in public. Why public?

As much as I admire Fradd, isn’t this adopting the secular mindset as regards the Church?
 
Doesn’t matter. We should police our own priests before we police politicians who are usually nominally catholic anyway.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top