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

[elt1956]

He hates the issue itself. I really don’t think he cares whether it is legal or not. He was obviously pro-choice for political reasons to begin with(running for mayor of NYC) and thought it would be too obvious if he became pro-life just before running for president. I think he’s apathetic while the others really believe deeply that abortion is a good thing.

One can also commit a sin by omission of doing what is right. Peace.

 

[aloysiusg]

He hates the issue itself. I really don’t think he cares whether it is legal or not. He was obviously pro-choice for political reasons to begin with(running for mayor of NYC) and thought it would be too obvious if he became pro-life just before running for president. I think he’s apathetic while the others really believe deeply that abortion is a good thing.

I doubt that they really believe deeply that it’s good thing. I tihnk they are just not willing to stand up to the pro-choice stranglehold that currently suffocates their party. That’s what makes pro-life Dems all the more courageous, for they are certainly swimming against the tide.

 

[elt1956]

I doubt that they really believe deeply that it’s good thing. I tihnk they are just not willing to stand up to the pro-choice stranglehold that currently suffocates their party. That’s what makes pro-life Dems all the more courageous, for they are certainly swimming against the tide.

Hello, what pro-life Dems. are you talking about? I know of none who have stood up to their party on the abortion isssue. I think if they would more people would have faith in that party. The two Dem. candidates for Pres. are certainly pro-abortion, or pro-choice which amounts to the same thing. Thanks.

 

[aloysiusg]

mind you, this is from Wikipedia, so who knows how much of it is true, but at least there are some…

Current Pro-Life Democrats
Several pro-life Democrats currently hold high elected offices in the U.S. Congress and in the States. [12]

Governors
Joe Manchin of West Virginia
Tim Kaine of Virginia
Bill Ritter of Colorado

U.S. Senators
Ben Nelson of Nebraska
Harry Reid of Nevada, Senate Majority Leader[1]
Mark Pryor of Arkansas
Bob Casey, Jr. of Pennsylvania

U.S. Congressmen
Jason Altmire of Pennsylvania
Marion Berry of Arkansas
Dan Boren of Oklahoma
Chris Carney of Pennsylvania
Ben Chandler of Kentucky
Jerry Costello of Illinois
Henry Cuellar of Texas
Lincoln Davis of Tennessee
Joe Donnelly of Indiana
Mike Doyle of Pennsylvania
Brad Ellsworth of Indiana
Baron Hill of Indiana
Tim Holden of Pennsylvania
Paul Kanjorski of Pennsylvania
Marcy Kaptur of Ohio
Dale Kildee of Michigan
Jim Langevin of Rhode Island
Dan Lipinski of Illinois
Stephen Lynch of Massachusetts
Jim Marshall of Georgia
Mike McIntyre of North Carolina
Mike McNulty of New York
Charlie Melancon of Louisiana
Mike Michaud of Maine
Alan Mollohan of West Virginia
John Murtha of Pennsylvania
Jim Oberstar of Minnesota
Solomon Ortiz of Texas
Collin Peterson of Minnesota
Nick Rahall of West Virginia
Mike Ross of Arkansas
Tim Ryan of Ohio
Heath Shuler of North Carolina
Ike Skelton of Missouri
Bart Stupak of Michigan
Gene Taylor of Mississippi
Charlie Wilson of Ohio

 

[neat62]

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.

.

AMEN!!! Its about time the Bishops started speaking up…and actually, its what Pope Benedict stated is their duty and obligation…to “bring our faith into public debate”.

 

[neat62]

Hello, what pro-life Dems. are you talking about? I know of none who have stood up to their party on the abortion isssue. I think if they would more people would have faith in that party. The two Dem. candidates for Pres. are certainly pro-abortion, or pro-choice which amounts to the same thing. Thanks.

Well…they can’t hardly be effective Pro-life Dem’s…when their own platform, not only accepts abortion, but pushes it…along with gay marriage. The party receives major funding from Planned Parenthood, NARAL and NOW…so its not likely that any pro-life Dem will become a leader anytime soon…sadly.

 

[harveyc]

Hello, what pro-life Dems. are you talking about? I know of none who have stood up to their party on the abortion isssue. I think if they would more people would have faith in that party. The two Dem. candidates for Pres. are certainly pro-abortion, or pro-choice which amounts to the same thing. Thanks.

I don’t understand what the smiley is about. None of us should feel good that the majority of elected officials in the Democratic party are “pro-choice”. The first three years of the Walk For Life West Coast in San Francisco had a speaker from Democrats For Life and I thought it was sad that she did not get more support from those in attendance. Unfortunately, I don’t believe she made it there this year. In prior years she always included the statement that pro-life Democrats are the only TRUE Democrats that really care about the “small guy”. While I’m not a registered Democrat, I admired her conviction. I’d vote for a pro-life Democrat before someone like Rudy and it wouldn’t even be a close call.

 

[elt1956]

I don’t understand what the smiley is about. None of us should feel good that the majority of elected officials in the Democratic party are “pro-choice”. The first three years of the Walk For Life West Coast in San Francisco had a speaker from Democrats For Life and I thought it was sad that she did not get more support from those in attendance. Unfortunately, I don’t believe she made it there this year. In prior years she always included the statement that pro-life Democrats are the only TRUE Democrats that really care about the “small guy”. While I’m not a registered Democrat, I admired her conviction. I’d vote for a pro-life Democrat before someone like Rudy and it wouldn’t even be a close call.

I’m not sure which post you are talking about, but if I added a smiley face after saying thanks (for listening/reading) I apologize for being so nice. The smiley had nothing to do with what I posted. If you read any of my other postings you will see I am thoroughly anti-abortion, anti-pro-choice. Some people are too quick to take offense. Cheeeeez

 

[saylo]

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.

.

It’s about commiting sacrilege.

 

[Nordar]

I’m not sure which post you are talking about, but if I added a smiley face after saying thanks (for listening/reading) I apologize for being so nice. The smiley had nothing to do with what I posted. If you read any of my other postings you will see I am thoroughly anti-abortion, anti-pro-choice. Some people are too quick to take offense. Cheeeeez

If it makes you feel better I knew exactly why you had put the smiley face, Just because we may disagree with someone does not mean we can’t be friendly

 

[Melissa]

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.

With all due respect to Mr. Novak, I don’t see how he can ascribe the politicians’ disobedience to the archbishops in question. These politicians know the position of the church, knew they stand outside, and themselves chose to receive, knowing they should not but refusing to be humble enough to be obedient.

 

[blessedtoo]

With all due respect to Mr. Novak, I don’t see how he can ascribe the politicians’ disobedience to the archbishops in question. These politicians know the position of the church, knew they stand outside, and themselves chose to receive, knowing they should not but refusing to be humble enough to be obedient.

Melissa, did you read the document which describes, in explicit detail, the “law” all Eucharistic ministers must follow in the case of politicians who support abortion?

The fifth principle provides instruction for the pastor regarding the handling of a case of obstinate persistence in public serious sin. It refers explicitly to the case of Catholic politicians:Regarding the grave sin of abortion or euthanasia, when a person’s formal cooperation becomes manifest (understood, in the case of a Catholic politician, as his consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws), his pastor should meet with him, instructing him about the Church’s teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist. [57]The principle makes clear the application of can. 915 to the case of a Catholic politician who persists in publicly supporting legislation in grave violation of the natural moral law. It also provides the pastoral instruction regarding the procedure to be followed in observing the norm of the law in the matter.
therealpresence.org/eucharst/holycom/denial.htm

It is not the disobedience of the politicians that is being debated. That is clear. They have all been fully informed about the postion of their Church regarding their support for abortion and some were even admonished by their Bishop’s to refrain from receiving.

The issue is the Bishop’s who refuse to abide by canon law, which specifically addresses this issue, and does not equivocate.

 

[elt1956]

It’s about commiting sacrilege.

And Scandal of the highest order. If I were in Wurl’s archdiocese, if he doesn’t say something about Pelosi and he rest of those PUBLIC figures receiving communion irreverently, I think I would have a hard time believing anything he says about the laws of the Church. As far as I am concerned he has no integrity.

 

[saylo]

And Scandal of the highest order. If I were in Wurl’s archdiocese, if he doesn’t say something about Pelosi and he rest of those PUBLIC figures receiving communion irreverently, I think I would have a hard time believing anything he says about the laws of the Church. As far as I am concerned he has no integrity.

Wurl is McCarrick #2.

 

[Melissa]

Melissa, did you read the document which describes, in explicit detail, the “law” all Eucharistic ministers must follow in the case of politicians who support abortion?

It is not the disobedience of the politicians that is being debated. That is clear. They have all been fully informed about the postion of their Church regarding their support for abortion and some were even admonished by their Bishop’s to refrain from receiving.

The issue is the Bishop’s who refuse to abide by canon law, which specifically addresses this issue, and does not equivocate.

I was addressing the notion in Mr. Novak’s piece that the sin of the politicians who knew they were not to receive but did so anyway ought to be ascribed to the Archbishops for allowing them to be present. Being present at Mass does not equate to automatic reception of the Eucharist. I do not see within these documents anything which says that these politicians should not be present at Mass, only that they should not receive. I cannot agree with ascribing guilt for Mr. Guiliani’s actions to Archbishop Egan (particularly in view of the fact that he spoke on the matter before this Mass as well as after).

 

[rien]

EWTN has tried to whitewash this. Some of the on-line call in hosts said Guliani may have gone to confession the night before, His state could not be judged. Arroyo pooh-pphed it at the time.

Thank God for Novak’s column. Arroyo had to devote today’s show to the topic. He is changing his tune. Sounds lots different than he did during the coverage.

But that is the probvlem. EWTN has become a somewhat, not too, orthodox arm of the American bishops.

I thinbk almost all on-line hosts preach potential universal salvation. And ditort the meaning of Baptism of desire.

EWTN radio just came to my area - not too impressed. its like Catholics trying to mimick the popular mega-churches. The music on New Wave is awful. The apoloigetics has enoughh good in it to maybe offset the bad. But basically madrid, pacwa, Marinelli are saying if you honestly don’t beleive the church then you have a chance for salvation. Well I have a number of former catholic friends who ceased to beleive in the real presence and left the church. became Pentcostal. They can be saved in this construct.

Its an odd teaching. I really don’t think Jesus rose from the dead. My honest feeling. But as long as I do good works and live the law on all humans hearts I will be saved.

And you wonder why catholics are leaving the church by droves and in accelerating numbers.

The new theology gives them assurance in a way. if they don’t beleive in their heart then thhey can choose Pentecostalism, Judaism, islam. As long as the law is written on theiorr hearts and they follow it they can be saved.

Which gets back to the lack of unity in the US church. The reception of the Eucharist is up to the local bishop. As Wuerl just wrote.

Let us be frank - there is no unity of faith or beleif in the catholic church. Among bishops - forget the laity. That is the argument of the new apolgists. The unity.

But the dirty little lie is there is no unity. And most of you here who attend mass know that is the truth. The csatholic church is just 100 years behing where the Anglicans are going IMO.

I love that Novak defacto pointed out the lack of unity. A convert he is - I wonder if he is rethinking things?

 

[CapaxDei]

The csatholic church is just 100 years behing where the Anglicans are going IMO.

I love that Novak defacto pointed out the lack of unity. A convert he is - I wonder if he is rethinking things?

Only if his faith is as shaky as yours appears to be. Why the cynicism? Do you really believe that the Catholic Church will implode like the Anglican “ecclesial community”? The Catholic Church is indefectible. Anglicanism was a rebellion from the beginning. Our Lord promised us that He will be with us “always, until the end of the age.”

Check the label on your bottled water. If it says “Meribah,” dump it out.

 

[harveyc]

Rien,

Honestly, your comments sound ridiculous. Your comments about EWTN and hosts is way off the mark. You need to do a lot more listening to EWTN radio and listen much better.

For what it’s worth, I don’t care for the music on Next Wave Faithful either but I suspect both you and I are much older than its traget audience (25 and under, or something like that). The lyrics conform to the church’s teachings, though (if I can understand them). I’ve been listening to EWTN radio programming for about 10 years and have never heard anything from a host that comes anywhere close to justifying the comments you’ve made. And saying that about Fr. Pacwa is downright strange, really. He is very orthodox and doesn’t hesitate to tell the truth.

 

[bobzills]

Let us be frank - there is no unity of faith or beleif in the catholic church. Among bishops - forget the laity. That is the argument of the new apolgists. The unity.

But the dirty little lie is there is no unity. And most of you here who attend mass know that is the truth. The csatholic church is just 100 years behing where the Anglicans are going IMO.

This is something that came up for me also. For example, how many Catholics today believe that artificial birth control used in a marriage to space children, or after three or four children, is a mortal sin, and that one unrepentant mortal sin would condemn a person to eternal hell fire?

 

[neat62]

EWTN has tried to whitewash this. Some of the on-line call in hosts said Guliani may have gone to confession the night before, His state could not be judged. Arroyo pooh-pphed it at the time.

Thank God for Novak’s column. Arroyo had to devote today’s show to the topic. He is changing his tune. Sounds lots different than he did during the coverage.

But that is the probvlem. EWTN has become a somewhat, not too, orthodox arm of the American bishops.

I thinbk almost all on-line hosts preach potential universal salvation. And ditort the meaning of Baptism of desire.

EWTN radio just came to my area - not too impressed. its like Catholics trying to mimick the popular mega-churches. The music on New Wave is awful. The apoloigetics has enoughh good in it to maybe offset the bad. But basically madrid, pacwa, Marinelli are saying if you honestly don’t beleive the church then you have a chance for salvation. Well I have a number of former catholic friends who ceased to beleive in the real presence and left the church. became Pentcostal. They can be saved in this construct.

Its an odd teaching. I really don’t think Jesus rose from the dead. My honest feeling. But as long as I do good works and live the law on all humans hearts I will be saved.

And you wonder why catholics are leaving the church by droves and in accelerating numbers.

The new theology gives them assurance in a way. if they don’t beleive in their heart then thhey can choose Pentecostalism, Judaism, islam. As long as the law is written on theiorr hearts and they follow it they can be saved.

Which gets back to the lack of unity in the US church. The reception of the Eucharist is up to the local bishop. As Wuerl just wrote.

Let us be frank - there is no unity of faith or beleif in the catholic church. Among bishops - forget the laity. That is the argument of the new apolgists. The unity.

But the dirty little lie is there is no unity. And most of you here who attend mass know that is the truth. The csatholic church is just 100 years behing where the Anglicans are going IMO.

I love that Novak defacto pointed out the lack of unity. A convert he is - I wonder if he is rethinking things?

Sounds like you didn’t actually listen to the coverage and that you actually have little knowledge of the background of EWTN or Mother Angelica. In addition, sounds like you haven’t actually tuned in or ever watched EWTN…as you would know that you are completely wrong in your assessment.

Finally, sounds like you don’t understand that it is the HOLY SPIRIT that guides and protects the Church…and NOTHING can destroy that.