New York Cardinal Egan Slams Giuliani for Receiving Communion at Papal Mass - Demands Meeting

  • Thread starter Thread starter childofmary1143
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

childofmary1143

Guest
lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/apr/08042803.html

I find the article a little disingenuous.

It says this:

The decision by several prominent pro-abortion politicians to publicly receive Holy Communion at papal Masses during the recent visit of Pope Benedict XVI, despite clear Church teaching that says that their reception of Communion would constitute a grave sacrilege, may have backfired.

That statement implies that it was the politician’s decision to receive it. I believe that he was able to receive Holy Communion because the Archbishop allowed it to happen. As Bishop and primary liturgist in his diocese, and I doubt that Pope Benedict would have opposed it, he could have informed Rudy before hand not to receive communion.
 
I pray that many, many more bishops and cardinals come out strongly in support of Egan.

And I pray that they will go after Pelosi, Kennedy and the rest too.

.
 
childofmary1143 said:
lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/apr/08042803.html

I find the article a little disingenuous.

It says this:

The decision by several prominent pro-abortion politicians to publicly receive Holy Communion at papal Masses during the recent visit of Pope Benedict XVI, despite clear Church teaching that says that their reception of Communion would constitute a grave sacrilege, may have backfired.

That statement implies that it was the politician’s decision to receive it. I believe that he was able to receive Holy Communion because the Archbishop allowed it to happen. As Bishop and primary liturgist in his diocese, and I doubt that Pope Benedict would have opposed it, he could have informed Rudy before hand not to receive communion.
Click to expand...
It apperars he did (fromthe article you quoted):

He continued, "Thus it was that I had an understanding with Mr. Rudolph Giuliani, when I became Archbishop of New York and he was serving as Mayor of New York, that he was not to receive the Eucharist because of his well-known support of abortion."
 
I am sorry, but I think it would be absolutely horrible if the Church started ordering that certain people were not to receive communion. How on earth would anyone ever enforce this? Suppose you’re a Eucharistic Minister, and someone like Rudy Giuliani comes walking up to Communion. In the first place, you might not know who he is. In the second place, you might know who he is, but how can you judge anything about his private life? For all you know, he has just been to confession and has just received an annulment for the last of his broken marriages. Would you really want to play God and decide that you can’t give him Communion?

If the Church starts refusing Communion to certain people, it will open the worst can of worms imaginable. Is the Church supposed to be a Church or an organization of Secret Police?

When Jesus instituted the Eucharist, I’m sure he knew that there would be some people who received Communion unworthily. I believe that He is capable of handling this. The rest of us don’t have a clue what is going on in someone else’s head, and we are completely incapable of judging whether or not someone else is worthy enough to receive Communion.
 
Listener said:
I am sorry, but I think it would be absolutely horrible if the Church started ordering that certain people were not to receive communion. How on earth would anyone ever enforce this? Suppose you’re a Eucharistic Minister, and someone like Rudy Giuliani comes walking up to Communion. In the first place, you might not know who he is. In the second place, you might know who he is, but how can you judge anything about his private life? For all you know, he has just been to confession and has just received an annulment for the last of his broken marriages. Would you really want to play God and decide that you can’t give him Communion?

If the Church starts refusing Communion to certain people, it will open the worst can of worms imaginable. Is the Church supposed to be a Church or an organization of Secret Police?

When Jesus instituted the Eucharist, I’m sure he knew that there would be some people who received Communion unworthily. I believe that He is capable of handling this. The rest of us don’t have a clue what is going on in someone else’s head, and we are completely incapable of judging whether or not someone else is worthy enough to receive Communion.
Click to expand...
A person in the public eye must renounce his position publicly.
 
I remember hearing the news on the radio reporting how Rudy Giuliani received communion at the Papal Mass and then went on (correctly I might add) to state how you have to be in a Catholic in a recognized marriage ect. to be eligible to receive. Guess I don’t have feelings either way on this since they were reporting the truth. But seemed rather petty considering the many much larger issues that could have received the focus.
 
childofmary1143 said:
lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/apr/08042803.html

I find the article a little disingenuous.

It says this:

The decision by several prominent pro-abortion politicians to publicly receive Holy Communion at papal Masses during the recent visit of Pope Benedict XVI, despite clear Church teaching that says that their reception of Communion would constitute a grave sacrilege, may have backfired.

That statement implies that it was the politician’s decision to receive it. I believe that he was able to receive Holy Communion because the Archbishop allowed it to happen. As Bishop and primary liturgist in his diocese, and I doubt that Pope Benedict would have opposed it, he could have informed Rudy before hand not to receive communion.
Click to expand...
Are you saying that the Cardinal should have tackled Giuliani if/when he saw him in line to receive? Or should non-receiving Catholics not even be allowed to attend Mass?

I’m glad Cardinal Egan is speaking out. 👍
 
Listener said:
I am sorry, but I think it would be absolutely horrible if the Church started ordering that certain people were not to receive communion. How on earth would anyone ever enforce this? Suppose you’re a Eucharistic Minister, and someone like Rudy Giuliani comes walking up to Communion. In the first place, you might not know who he is. In the second place, you might know who he is, but how can you judge anything about his private life? For all you know, he has just been to confession and has just received an annulment for the last of his broken marriages. Would you really want to play God and decide that you can’t give him Communion?

If the Church starts refusing Communion to certain people, it will open the worst can of worms imaginable. Is the Church supposed to be a Church or an organization of Secret Police?

When Jesus instituted the Eucharist, I’m sure he knew that there would be some people who received Communion unworthily. I believe that He is capable of handling this. The rest of us don’t have a clue what is going on in someone else’s head, and we are completely incapable of judging whether or not someone else is worthy enough to receive Communion.
Click to expand...
As an EMHC, I can tell you that it would be very difficult for me to know if someone in my parish was receiving unworthily. Quite frankly, it is one of the difficulties I have with EMHCs. We are here out of necessity (in most parishes), but more vocations and fewer EMHCs would definitely be a better situation.

In the case of a parish priest, he absolutely should deny communion if he knows that a parishioner is in an unrepentant state of mortal sin. It is his Christian duty to do so.

It is completely licit and proper for a Bishop (in this case Cardinal Egan) to know and admonish a public personality like Giuliani for his actions. Especially since, in this case, Giuliani had agreed to abide by the Cardinal’s previous admonishion.
 
If someone is excommuniated, why can they not go to another parish where no one knows who they are? If a priest breaks the seal of confession he ceases to be a priest on the spot, but who will know except him and God? If someone is barred from receiving communion, they can continue to receive out of a spirit of disobedience, just like all the others.

To me it seems like something to effect the conscience of the offender, and to cause a time of reflection of “hey, now why would he say that?” rather than “i don’t like your shoes…you cant come into the club tonight sir”, because that’s not what it’s about.

Also, when it comes to the sacred species of the blood and flesh barring someone from communion is for their own good. I remember watching a documentary about children who had a disability which caused them to repeatedly hit and injure themselves. Some of them were required to wear helmets 24/7 for their own good. Same thing for communion, not discerning the body of the Lord is a horrible thing, which i can only imagine digs a nice deep hole.

And i think if one bishop has the cuillones to lay the law down a little the others will follow.
 
I’d rather they slam Pelosi, Kerry, or Kennedy. Their positions are far more extreme than Giuliani’s.
 
ArdenB said:
I’d rather they slam Pelosi, Kerry, or Kennedy. Their positions are far more extreme than Giuliani’s.
Click to expand...
It is up to their bishops to do this. Pray that they will follow Cardinal Egan’s lead.
 
Concern has been expressed about EEMs’ feelings and about how they are to be expected to judge the consciences of those who approach them for Communion.
These comments show some fundamental misunderstandings of what is going on here.
Canon law makes clear that the minister must refuse Communion to the notorious sinner. “Notorious” doesn’t mean “really bad,” but very public and in-your-face. No one is obliged to read anyone’s hearts or expose any poor wretch’s sins in church.
If a minister doesn’t have the courage to administer the sacrament as the Church requires, then he should cease ministering until he finds by God’s grace the inner resources to make sure the Blessed Sacrament is respected.
I agree that it’s very unfortunate that such things have to be done. It’s very unpleasant. But necessary.
Say what you will about the Archbishop of New York, but I think he was right to speak out as he has. If only the Nuncio, who according to the WaPo actually gave Communion in these cases, and the Archbishop of Washington were so faithful to the Eucharistic Jesus.
 
ppeter said:
Concern has been expressed about EEMs’ feelings and about how they are to be expected to judge the consciences of those who approach them for Communion.
These comments show some fundamental misunderstandings of what is going on here.
Canon law makes clear that the minister must refuse Communion to the notorious sinner. “Notorious” doesn’t mean “really bad,” but very public and in-your-face. No one is obliged to read anyone’s hearts or expose any poor wretch’s sins in church.
If a minister doesn’t have the courage to administer the sacrament as the Church requires, then he should cease ministering until he finds by God’s grace the inner resources to make sure the Blessed Sacrament is respected.
I agree that it’s very unfortunate that such things have to be done. It’s very unpleasant. But necessary.
Say what you will about the Archbishop of New York, but I think he was right to speak out as he has. If only the Nuncio, who according to the WaPo actually gave Communion in these cases, and the Archbishop of Washington were so faithful to the Eucharistic Jesus.
Click to expand...
Agreed. All the noise being made about this issue and how it will effect the EEM’s or the average parishioner is a canard. Canon 915 which addressed specifically the issue of Catholic politicians is very clear on the matter and does not pertain to the anonymous Catholic in the pew on Sunday.

God bless Cardinal Egan. Hoping to hear from more Bishops on this one.
 
I guess not being an Archbishop, it is easy for me to say what Cardinal Egan should or should not do. Perhaps I have been too hard on the Cardinal.

However, I must say that Rudy Guiliani is a VERY public figure and surely everyone in NYC would know of him. He was a CENTRAL figure after 9/11.

If indeed the Cardinal and Guiliani had an agreement, then Guiliani is a weasel for exploiting the situation for his own advantage.

I doubt after this, that Guiliani will do it again in the Cardinal’s presence.
 
Moreso than his stance on abortion, I have a problem with Guiliani in that he is a divorcee whose previous marriage was not annulled by the Church. He is obviously rationalizing the abortion stance (as are the others) but he has no argument for receiving when he knows he should not from the lack of an annullment. That is quite explicit.

And i think it’s a little late for Egan to be talking now. If he wanted to make a stand, he would not have invited Rudy to the mass. By inviting him, he opened the door for this to happen. If he had not invited him, it would have sent a message that his conduct and his policies are not acceptable - i think that would have been a very powerful statement.
 
Will Giuliani have his friends in office threaten to take away the diocese’s tax-exempt status like he did when Bishop Tobin of Providence, RI chastized him for his views?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top