On second day in office, Cuomo attends church with daughters and Sandra Lee

[Ender]

While the Church demands that in certain cases communion be withheld, it is YOU who are demanding that the Church recognize what YOU THINK (without proof) is taking place as one of those valid reasons!

First things first: I was responding to your earlier comment that it: “Looks like Jesus disagrees with withholding communion from grave sinners”. Now that you have acknowledged that the Church does in fact demand that communion be withheld in certain situations we can consider this point resolved.

You fail to understand that you are passing judgment based on YOUR PERCEPTION and not on any facts.

I’m sorry, I thought we were talking about the fact that governor Cuomo is living with his girlfriend. If that’s not a known fact but mere speculation then I would agree with you. On the other hand, if he is in fact living with her then my position is unchanged.

The Church is acting far more in keeping with their understanding that “Ender” doesn’t know all the facts and since those facts are known only to those committing the sins

Once again, does the Church consider this sort of cohabitation sinful and that its public nature attendant with scandal? I thought she did - are you saying she doesn’t?

I am doubting YOUR PERSONAL BELIEF that the criteria of those canons has been met despite the fact that YOU CAN NOT PROVE that the criteria has met without committing the grave sin of breaking the seal of the confessional!

You are focused solely on whether Cuomo is having sexual relations with his girlfriend and believe if they are not then no sin has been committed. I disagree. Without knowing what goes in in their bedroom, their cohabitation alone is scandalous and of itself meets the criteria specified in Canon 915.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Wouldn’t it be just as blasphemus to receive communion while having a hidden addiction to porn? Or to abuse of alcohol? Or to using birth control? Or to masturbation? Or to wishing extreme ill on those who disagree with us politically? Or to any other number of sins?

Whether or not the actions you describe are more or less blasphemous is beside the point. Your own comment describes these things as hidden, but if they are hidden, while they may still be blasphemous, they are beyond the reach of Canon 915.

Ender

 

[Inhimthroughher]

Wouldn’t it be just as blasphemus to receive communion while having a hidden addiction to porn? Or to abuse of alcohol? Or to using birth control? Or to masturbation? Or to wishing extreme ill on those who disagree with us politically? Or to any other number of sins?

As I said, let him who is WITHOUT SIN cast the first stone.

Remember, it is stated clearly in the Bible that NO ONE is without sin.

Don’t judge his motives or his understanding or his culpability for the sins you perceive in him lest you also be judged.

Yes it would be. It would be as blasphemus but not scandalous. No one having committed a grave sin -whether public or private- should approach the Eucharist without prior confession and absolution. Those private sins are unknown to the priest and the public which clears the scandal. They do commit grave sin by if they recieve communion without being properly disposed but the priest would not be assisting in the sin and culpable himself if the sin was private and unknown.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

You are focused solely on whether Cuomo is having sexual relations with his girlfriend and believe if they are not then no sin has been committed. I disagree. Without knowing what goes in in their bedroom, their cohabitation alone is scandalous and of itself meets the criteria specified in Canon 915.

If you believe that, then I suggest that you talk to StanKolbe and Brooklyn, both of whom were living as brother and sister with their respective spouses while awaiting a decree of nullity to be issued. Tell them about Canon 915 and what sort of scandal they were giving by doing that.

Best, however, I’d suggest is for posters here to MTOB and to drop prurient interest in the bedrooms of others.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

Best, however, I’d suggest is for posters here to MTOB and to drop prurient interest in the bedrooms of others.

Aw, what fun is that?

 

[Ender]

If you believe that, then I suggest that you talk to StanKolbe and Brooklyn, both of whom were living as brother and sister with their respective spouses while awaiting a decree of nullity to be issued. Tell them about Canon 915 and what sort of scandal they were giving by doing that.

Scandal is only given if the sin is public. Since StanKolbe and Brooklyn were properly married (as far as the public knew) no one would have been scandalized by them receiving communion. If the priest knew nothing about them he would have no reason to deny communion; if he knew everything about them he would would have no reason to deny communion. You seem to be having trouble distinguishing what is scandalous behavior and what is not.

Best, however, I’d suggest is for posters here to MTOB and to drop prurient interest in the bedrooms of others.

You are trying to shift the focus from where it belongs, not surprising in that you are attempting to defend something the Church rather seriously frowns on as she recognizes cohabitation as detrimental to the institution of marriage and to the faith.

• … the de facto unions we are concerned with here (which are formed on the margin of a traditional kind of cultural anthropology), and pose a challenge for the inculturation of the faith in the Third Millennium of the Christian era.*
• It is important to ask the deep reasons why contemporary culture is witnessing a crisis in marriage, both in its religious and civil dimensions, and the attempt to gain recognition and equivalency for de facto unions. *

In today’s open and democratic societies, the State and the public authorities must not institutionalize de facto unions, (Pontifical Council for the Family - Family, Marriage and “De Facto” Unions)

You, like the bishop of Albany, are making a bad situation worse.

Ender

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Scandal is only given if the sin is public. Since StanKolbe and Brooklyn were properly married (as far as the public knew) no one would have been scandalized by them receiving communion. If the priest knew nothing about them he would have no reason to deny communion; if he knew everything about them he would would have no reason to deny communion. You seem to be having trouble distinguishing what is scandalous behavior and what is not.

And, if some of the public knew that they weren’t married? Scandalous then.

As for Cuomo, does he take Communion? I know he attends Mass regularly, but I was under the impression that he did not receive. Can you or anyone else confirm that he does?

You, like the bishop of Albany, are making a bad situation worse.

Nice going. You criticize the Church for its death penalty stance and now you criticize the Bishop of Albany. At least you’re consistent in your criticism of the institution and its hierarchy.

 

[Secret_Square]

Most of the posters on this thread seem to be preoccupied with the issue of whether Cuomo should or should not have been given Communion.

What really bothers me more is the fact that the bishop here went out of his way to call attention to Cuomo in his homily and to praise Cuomo’s policies – which presumably include continued abortion on demand – as a form of “evangelization.” That, in my opinion, was totally unneccessary and possibly more scandalous (in the sense of encouraging people to believe something is OK when it isn’t) than Cuomo receiving Communion.

If it had merely been a case of Cuomo presenting himself for communion and not being refused – perhaps most people (other than the really conscientious Catholics like us who regard this as important) would have thought it was just a matter of good manners or not making a scene. But why did Bp. Hubbard have to add insult to injury, so to speak, by singling Cuomo out for praise as if he were some kind of super exemplary Catholic? That’s what I don’t understand.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

What really bothers me more is the fact that the bishop here went out of his way to call attention to Cuomo in his homily and to praise Cuomo’s policies – which presumably include continued abortion on demand – as a form of “evangelization.”

Which of the Governor’s policies did the bishop praise? Did the bishop include continued abortion on demand (which the Governor couldn’t stop if he wanted to as it is a federal “right”)?

 

[canadianguy1143]

Which of the Governor’s policies did the bishop praise? Did the bishop include continued abortion on demand (which the Governor couldn’t stop if he wanted to as it is a federal “right”)?

Should a Catholic Bishop praise an unapologetic abortionist if he gives all his money to a soup kitchen? Doesn’t the holocaust of abortion trump anything else that person may do?

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Should a Catholic Bishop praise an unapologetic abortionist if he gives all his money to a soup kitchen? Doesn’t the holocaust of abortion trump anything else that person may do?

For all his faults, Cuomo is not an unapologetic abortionist.

 

[estesbob]

Which of the Governor’s policies did the bishop praise? Did the bishop include continued abortion on demand (which the Governor couldn’t stop if he wanted to as it is a federal “right”)?

So if I believe it is okay to rape nine-year-old girls you should not hold it against me as long as I couldn’t stop the prohibition against it anyway ?

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

So if I believe it is okay to rape nine-year-old girls you should not hold it against me as long as I couldn’t stop the prohibition against it anyway ?

Now you are accusing the Governor of child rape.

What next? That Cuomo pimps his daughters and his girlfriend? That he is a Satan-worshiper and a cannibal? You people are too much! LOL!

 

[estesbob]

Now you are accusing the Governor of child rape.

What next? That Cuomo pimps his daughters and his girlfriend? That he is a Satan-worshiper and a cannibal? You people are too much! LOL!

You know Rich your posts are getting more and more bizarre. I am beginning to agee with those who say you cant be taken seriously.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

You know Rich your posts are getting more and more bizarre. I am beginning to agee with those who say you cant be taken seriously.

Then don’t. I can’t take your remarks seriously when you imply that he’s a child rapist.

 

[dmelosi]

Then don’t. I can’t take your remarks seriously when you imply that he’s a child rapist.

Please quote where he implied that about Cuomo.

 

[Ender]

As for Cuomo, does he take Communion? I know he attends Mass regularly, but I was under the impression that he did not receive. Can you or anyone else confirm that he does?

Given that it was reported in the NY Daily News it is reasonable to assume that he did, especially as there was apparently no correction given to a story that ran a week ago. I’ll readily admit there is no scandal if he didn’t receive communion, but that doesn’t seem to be the case. He did receive and there was scandal.

Nice going. You criticize the Church for its death penalty stance and now you criticize the Bishop of Albany. At least you’re consistent in your criticism of the institution and its hierarchy.

The question of the death penalty is irrelevant to this discussion. The question of the questionable behavior of the bishop of Albany is still on the table - and it doesn’t look all that good for him or Governor Cuomo.

Ender

 

[Secret_Square]

What estesbob likely MEANT to say, and should have said, was “If, for example, I believe it is okay to rape nine-year-old girls…” This would have made it clear he was merely citing that as an example, and not accusing anyone of actually doing this.

 

[estesbob]

What estesbob likely MEANT to say, and should have said, was “If, for example, I believe it is okay to rape nine-year-old girls…” This would have made it clear he was merely citing that as an example, and not accusing anyone of actually doing this.

He knew the point I was making. He couldn’t address it so he posted some nonsense in response.