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.
SLR508 said:
At a recent Theology on Tap here in Mississippi, one of the questions asked to the priest was about the reception of the Eucharist. He said that he was taught to never deny someone communion in a public facility. He could meet with them privately and discuss the issues, but never do it in public.
Though Gulianni probably shouldn’t have received the Eucharist, the Cardinal should respect his privacy and address him in a non-public forum.
Click to expand...
From Cardinal Egan’s comments, it sounds like he did handle it in private, but Giuliani then publically thumbed his nose at him by ignoring the “agreement” they had that he wouldn’t receive. I’m guessing Cardinal Egan felt compelled to make a public comment in response…especially after people probably started beating up on him for allowing Giuliani to receive.

I do agree with your priest’s statement though when it comes to my role as an EMHC at our parish. If I suspected that someone had presented themselves unworthily or done something incorrect when receiving (e.g. walked away without placing the host in their mouth), I would inform my priest after Mass. I’ve had two priests tell me that is the correct thing to do.
 
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...
First of all, it is well within the Church’s right to protect the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ from profanation. St. Paul, in fact, was the first of the Apostles, to defend the integrity of the Holy Eucharist. Do you not recall wherein the Holy Apostle wrote:
26 For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall show the death of the Lord, until he come. ***27 Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. 29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord. ***30 Therefore are there many infirm and weak among you, and many sleep.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, this kind of thing was going around even as far back as Apostolic times (of course, St. Paul also has a thing or two to say about the evils of liturgical abuse in this same first letter to the Corinthians).

Therefore, if you are going to be referring to someone as some sort of Eucharistic police, then, you would have to extend that title to St. Paul. Cardinal Egan is most certainly a true successor to St. Paul in this regard.
 
childofmary1143 said:
The linked article said this (emphasis mine):

"Two of my sons and I attended the Papal Mass yesterday. We were seated in section 216, directly above the section in which Ted Kennedy was seated. Several minutes prior to the general distribution of communion a priest walked down to Ted Kennedy and gave him communion. There was some discussion amongst we in our section about the inappropriateness of his reception of the Host. Be certain, he remained seated not out of some self-enforced respect for the sacrament, but rather out of respect for his girth and mobility."
Click to expand...
I know folks like to use Lifesite as a resource but I do think we should be careful about disseminating information based on such flimsy evidence. This is all second hand info reported by an anonymous Mass attendee to a questionable (IMO) news service.
 
rlg94086 said:
Exactly. The Cardinal did what he should have done…made clear to a Catholic politician in his diocese whose public positions contrary to the Church are well known that he is invited to Mass but shouldn’t receive communion.

What is sad is that Giuliani didn’t keep his side of the agreement. I would have had a ton more respect for him if he had not received…especially since it would have been an example to the rest of the Catholic politicians.
Click to expand...
Yes, it’s sad that Giuliani didn’t restrain himself. It’s always sad to see obstinant sinners continually mock the Church in this way. But what saddens me more is the failure on the part of the priests and Bishops to uphold canon law.

I may pray for these folks, but I don’t hold out much hope for their public conversions. However, I don’t want to fall into a state of hopelessness about the leaders of our Church as well.
 
What is so troubling is that our pro-abortion politicians have absolutely no problem going up to receive the Eucharist, while the ordinary citizen, who knows that he should not be receiving because of a marriage issue or other factor, has enough respect for the Eucharist that he stays in the pew instead of approaching to receive.

I don’t know if their bishops or cardinals have talked with them, but it is highly offensive and scandalous that Pelosi, Kerry, Durbin and Kennedy seem to have no problem receiving the Eucharist and even in proclaiming their Catholicism (in the case of Pelosi who has been especially vocal). I applaud the fact that Cardinal Egan has had these talks with Mr. Giuliani, and I pray that Giuliani will refrain from receiving in the future until he is fully able to do so.
 
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...
Hi, If I read the article about Egan correctly, he did warn Guiliani previously and Guiliani had agreed not to receive at any time. I’m happy someone is stepping up to bat. 🙂
 
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...
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...
I would say there should be a ban on the reception of communion on people who are in the public eye, and are known to support abortion, or are guilty of disregard ing another of the Church’s well known policies. All involved in giving communion should be informed of this and the rule would remain until lifted by the Bishop. I acknowledge we cannot “police” everyone, but the acts of complete disobedience we saw in DC and NY by well known politicians gives grevious scandal to the Church because it happened in such a public place.
 
mlchance said:
Actually, it would be much better if the Cardinal and others kept their mouths shut in public about the matter. This is a pastoral issue, not a opportunity to send out press releases.

– Mark L. Chance.
Click to expand...
I don’t agree. These people are public figures, they commited a very public disregard for the rules of the church in public. They should be publicly chastized.
 
Jennifer123 said:
He is a very vocal supporter of abortion rights and a very prominent Catholic. We don’t have to read his mind to know that he isn’t in full communion with his Church. It is possible that he is causing scandal and leading others into sin. Aren’t we called to rebuke the sinner as a work of mercy?
Click to expand...
Yes, especially those very public figures who publicly go against what the Church teaches. And yes, this did cause Scandal. Scandal to those who know what is right in receiving the Eucharist and also to those who don’t and now perceive the Chruch as changing its rules to accomadate politicians.
 
Neil_Anthony said:
I’m very happy that the Cardinal had previously talked to Giuliani about this, and plans to speak to him again. What more can we ask of the Cardinal? It isn’t practical to expect every person giving out communion to know who can and who can’t receive communion. If Giuliani had been in the Cardinal’s line to receive communion, I’m sure the Cardinal would have refused him.

I’m just so happy that the Cardinal is publicly pointing out that Giuliani shouldn’t have done that.
Click to expand...
I hope the same is done with Kennedy, Kerry and Pelosi or any other public Catholic figures who publicly disregarded the Church’s teachings and received Communion in so public a place.
 
SLR508 said:
At a recent Theology on Tap here in Mississippi, one of the questions asked to the priest was about the reception of the Eucharist. He said that he was taught to never deny someone communion in a public facility. He could meet with them privately and discuss the issues, but never do it in public.
Though Gulianni probably shouldn’t have received the Eucharist, the Cardinal should respect his privacy and address him in a non-public forum.
Click to expand...
As I posted before, I don’t agree. The disregard for Church law was done in a public place by public figures and in doing so gave great scandal to the church, especially to those who have no understanding of the laws of the Catholic Church. The public actions of these people give the impression that the Church has changed its rules regarding abortion. In order to restore balance, they should be publicly rebuked.
 
Interesting article written by Robert Novak

In the aftermath of the visit by Pope Benedict XVI, a troublesome question is asked by traditional Catholics: Did American pro-choice politicians receiving Holy Communion at the papal masses indicate a softening on the abortion question by the pope? The answer is that it did not. On the contrary, it reflected disobedience to Benedict by the archbishops of New York and Washington.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Sens. John Kerry, Christopher Dodd and Edward M. Kennedy received communion at Nationals Park in Washington, as did Rudolph Giuliani at Yankee Stadium in New York. They were present because they were invited to the masses by Archbishop Donald Wuerl of Washington and Cardinal Edward Egan, archbishop of New York. Given choice seats, they took communion hosts as a matter of course.

more below…

signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20080429/news_lz1e29novak.html
 
mlchance said:
Actually, it would be much better if the Cardinal and others kept their mouths shut in public about the matter. This is a pastoral issue, not a opportunity to send out press releases.

– Mark L. Chance.
Click to expand...
Don’t really remember if I posted to this before. If so, I apologize for the repeat. But this is not a time when the Cardinals et al should “keep their mouths shut.” What ocurred in DC and NY was Scandal with a capital S. Hurray for Arhbishop Egan. I hope more clergy step forward about the rest of the Notorious Four, Pelosi, Kennedy, and Kerry.
 
mlchance said:
:rolleyes:

The Cardinal was not forced to make a public statement. He chose to make a public statement. And while I can certainly agree God ought to bless Cardinal Egan, I’m not convinced making a public statement about this matter is prudent.

Perhaps I’m wrong, despite not being allowed to have an opinion since I’m neither an archbishop or a cardinal.

– Mark L. Chance.
Click to expand...
Hi Mark. I am neither a Cardinal, nor an Archbishop nor am I elgible to be a priest, but I think you are wrong here. This act was done publicly and seen by millions who probably think the Catholic Church has changed its views on the sacredness of the Holy Eucharist. Without the Eucharist, we would have no church. To publicly defile the Host in such a manner needs a public rebuke and Archbishop Egan is doing just what he needs to do. I hope others of the clergy follow his example. 🙂 Peace.
 
Angels_Watchin said:
May I recommend that everyone give them a call and request that they actually AT LEAST!! do the job they’re being paid to do (and call C. Egan to thank him for defending the sacraments!)
Click to expand...
Also since Guiliani, as I understand it, was mocking Archbishop Egan on Fox News, by saying “He (Egan) has his opinion” and laughing about it, I think we should write Fox clarifying the fact that Guiliani is not a prime example of a good Catholic, not even a minor one. 🙂 Peace.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top