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

[PatriceA]

Cohabitants and pro-choicers should not be receiving communion. But there seems to be a deeper issue which bothers me here. Communion has become a political tool, not exactly to give greater glory to God. Maybe they should remove cameras from those events or turn the cameras away from people receiving communion. Scandal becomes scandal because of the publicity given to the act. There are many non-Catholics watching and you don’t want to give them the wrong idea of Catholic communion.

The cameras being present is bothers me. I wouldn’t want anyone to start and pick people out of the communion line because they thought they were unworthy to receive the Eucharist. Whenever somebody in politics or a celebrity of some sort goes to mass and is about to receive the Eucharist, its becoming a photo opportunity. The focus is taken off the Eucharist. I think it bothers me that someone has to be so “public” with their faith life in such a way that its plastered all over the press in this manner. If you’re going to publicly display your faith, at least try to adhere to the teachings of the Church.

 

[Ender]

Perhaps this is why the Bishop is hesitant to approach Mr. Cuomo publicly on the matter. We have no way of knowing what or whether the Bishop has said anything privately to Mr. Cuomo, but it certainly doesn’t help the Church or the ministry of the Bishop to second guess his actions.

This is such a dodge. Whether or not the bishop has spoken privately to Cuomo or not is beside the point; the issue is the public nature of the governor’s sin. Public sins require public contrition. The problem is not merely his sin but the scandal that accompanies it.

*The Church, therefore, with great wisdom ordained that when anyone had committed a public crime, a public penance should be imposed on him, in order that others, being deterred by fear, might more carefully avoid sin in future. *(Catechism of Trent)

Ender

 

[klaatubob]

There are many non-Catholics watching and you don’t want to give them the wrong idea of Catholic communion.

The non-Catholics ALREADY have the wrong idea of Catholic communion. Their own churches do not withhold communion from such people because to them it is only an act done in remembrance and has no involvement of the real body and blood of Christ. And if they aren’t Christian, seeing a Catholic politician receive communion in a way that the Church says is undeserving isn’t going to have an impact on them becoming Catholic. There are far larger issues already at play there.

 

[PatriceA]

The non-Catholics ALREADY have the wrong idea of Catholic communion. Their own churches do not withhold communion from such people because to them it is only an act done in remembrance and has no involvement of the real body and blood of Christ. And if they aren’t Christian, seeing a Catholic politician receive communion in a way that the Church says is undeserving isn’t going to have an impact on them becoming Catholic. There are far larger issues already at play there.

But it can have an impact on other Catholics that may or may not have a full understanding on how to receive the Eucharist in a proper manner.

 

[klaatubob]

This situation is not merely obvious but blatant and I am at a loss for words to describe my feelings on reading about it. One can only wonder how Catholics can take seriously anything the bishops say when they don’t appear to take Church teaching seriously themselves.

Ender

You have placed yourself in a very precarious position with this comment. First, you are making a presumption (possibly right, possibly wrong) that this person is doing something sinful which you have passed judgment on him for. You do not know that he and his “live-in” girlfriend are living in any manner other than a chaste one.

Second, you have made a presumption (possibly right, possibly wrong) that he is NOT in a state of Grace because of the presumed sin above. However, that presumes that he is fully aware of the graveness of any sinful actions and has actively chosen to defy God by continuing to commit those sins as opposed to not understanding that they are truly sinful acts.

Third, you also presume that IF he isn’t living chastely that he ALSO hasn’t repented and been sacramentally forgiven of such grave sins. And unless you are the priest in the confessional, or the gov himself, you really do NOT know this to be the case, you only presume this and are again, passing unwarranted judgment on him.

Fourth, you MAY have also made a presumption that he isn’t living chastely because of things he himself (or his live-in girlfriend) have said. Just remember what we all most likely learned back in grammar school. Just because someone brags about doing something doesn’t mean that they really are doing that something.

1: you presume he and his live-in girlfriend aren’t living chastely.

2: you presume that he understands his actions are gravely sinful and has actively chosen to defy God on the matter

3: you presume to know what he has and hasn’t been forgiven of in the confessional which in and of itself is a grave sin on your part to divulge such knowledge of what happens in the confessional if you really DO know it… but then, you’d have to be the priest involved or the gov himself if you DO know it, and if you are, then talking about it is a violation of the seal of the confessional.

4: you are too ready to presume the worst and unwilling to admit the possibility that you don’t know what is written on his heart which only GOD can truly judge.

Yes, he may be giving the appearance to people like you or I of being scandalous, but does that truly and honestly mean that he is?

I wouldn’t want to go there if I were you.

 

[davidv]

This is such a dodge. Whether or not the bishop has spoken privately to Cuomo or not is beside the point; the issue is the public nature of the governor’s sin. Public sins require public contrition. The problem is not merely his sin but the scandal that accompanies it.

The Church, therefore, with great wisdom ordained that when anyone had committed a public crime, a public penance should be imposed on him, in order that others, being deterred by fear, might more carefully avoid sin in future. (Catechism of Trent)

Ender

Can you provide official Catholic teaching the states what you said above?, (see bold)

See Matthew 18

[15] "If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother.
[16] But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses.
[17] If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.

Do you see any meantion of doing this in public?

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

The Bishop needs to throw him out of the Church while he continues to “cohabitate”. Period.

 

[klaatubob]

The Bishop needs to throw him out of the Church while he continues to “cohabitate”. Period.

Why? Couples can choose to live together chastely, without being in danger of committing sin, so that they can pool resources and help one another.

Please show me where in the Bible we are told to never live in the same house chastely with someone of the opposite sex who isn’t related to us?

 

[FredM]

Completely and totally disgusting.
I emailed the Papal Nuncio. I also called the Bishop’s office and expressed myself.

If you are so inclined, you may call the Bishop’s office at (518) 453-6611.

Fred

 

[Inhimthroughher]

Why? Couples can choose to live together chastely, without being in danger of committing sin, so that they can pool resources and help one another.

Please show me where in the Bible we are told to never live in the same house chastely with someone of the opposite sex who isn’t related to us?

This seems to be a very Protestant mentality. Show me where in the bible it says Trinity. As Catholics we understand the bible does not contain everything, the bible even states this. We have traditions and teachings along with the bible.

Cohabitating is grave scandal.

 

[klaatubob]

As Catholics we understand the bible does not contain everything, the bible even states this. We have traditions and teachings along with the bible.

Cohabitating is grave scandal.

If you look at all the writings about cohabitating, and the references they point to in the Catechism (examples, 1604, 2337, 2353), the presumption is made that the people living together are NOT doing so chastely. Again, from my earlier post, how do YOU definitely know that’s the situation?

I’m not defending the man, I’m not being naive about what’s going on, but I AM pointing out that banning someone from communion based on a lack of definitive knowledge of the truth is simply being judgmental and is itself a grave sin we should avoid.

Don’t let your prejudice against his public persona and his political persona lead you down that path. You don’t know authoritatively what is happening behind closed doors. Don’t presume to know and judge him based on that.

That’s all.

Nothing protestant about it.

 

[Ender]

First, you are making a presumption (possibly right, possibly wrong) that this person is doing something sinful which you have passed judgment on him for. You do not know that he and his “live-in” girlfriend are living in any manner other than a chaste one.

It doesn’t require judgment to point out sin when it occurs, which we have a positive obligation to do. Nor, as far as the scandal his behavior causes, does it matter what his relations with his girlfriend are. The point about scandal is the affect it has on others and pretty much everyone will - reasonably - assume that the governor is shacked up with his girlfriend in the governor’s mansion and that the Church doesn’t appear to think this is a big deal.

Second, you have made a presumption (possibly right, possibly wrong) that he is NOT in a state of Grace because of the presumed sin above. However, that presumes that he is fully aware of the graveness of any sinful actions and has actively chosen to defy God by continuing to commit those sins as opposed to not understanding that they are truly sinful acts.

Does it really seem reasonable to you to assume that a lifelong Catholic and lawyer is really too dense to recognize that the Church has actually condemned sex outside of marriage? Can you believe there is anyone who doesn’t recognize that fact, Catholic or not? As to whether he believes it is sinful behavior, it seems pretty clear that he doesn’t. And perhaps he’s right: his bishop doesn’t seem to disapprove of the behavior either.

Third, you also presume that IF he isn’t living chastely that he ALSO hasn’t repented and been sacramentally forgiven of such grave sins. And unless you are the priest in the confessional, or the gov himself, you really do NOT know this to be the case, you only presume this and are again, passing unwarranted judgment on him.

Did you not read the comment from the Catechism of Trent that public penance is required for public crimes? Do you not understand what that means? One cannot receive sacramental forgiveness for public sins without public penance.

*But with regard to public sinners, as we have already said, they were never absolved until they had performed public penance. *(Catechism of Trent)

Yes, he may be giving the appearance to people like you or I of being scandalous, but does that truly and honestly mean that he is?

Scandal is caused by the perception of his behavior. Even if that perception is inaccurate, the scandal remains:

2284 Scandal is an attitude or behavior which leads another to do evil.

If other unmarried couples are tempted to emulate the governor’s behavior (or even become less inclined to condemn it), not simply by his example but - more egregiously - by the bishop’s inaction, then both the bishop and the governor are guilty of scandal.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Can you provide official Catholic teaching the states what you said ( Public sins require public contrition.)

Yes. See the Catechism of Trent, especially the section I just quoted in my previous post. Also read JPII’s Reconciliatio et Paenitentia (#29) as to whether what was said then has bearing now:

… the new Rite of Penance.(177) For the latter has made its own the whole of the teaching brought together by the Council of Trent, transferring it from its particular historical context (that of a resolute effort to clarify doctrine in the face of the serious deviations from the church’s genuine teaching), in order to translate it faithfully into terms more in keeping with the context of our own time.

Ender

 

[PatriceA]

We can debate about if he’s living a chaste life, despite having a live-in girlfriend for several more pages. But I haven’t really seen it discussed yet in this thread, his very public opinion on abortion. There’s no way to ignore that he’s pro-choice and that is another reason why some are concerned about Cuomo receiving the Eucharist, at least it concerns me whenever a public official says they support abortion but still receive the sacraments.

 

[klaatubob]

It doesn’t require judgment to point out sin when it occurs, which we have a positive obligation to do.

Ender

Prove it’s occurred and then you can point it out. Until you can prove it, shut it. Plain and simple.

Does it really seem reasonable to you to assume that a lifelong Catholic and lawyer is really too dense to recognize that the Church has actually condemned sex outside of marriage? Can you believe there is anyone who doesn’t recognize that fact, Catholic or not? As to whether he believes it is sinful behavior, it seems pretty clear that he doesn’t.

Ender

So you acknowledge that HE doesn’t think it’s sinful, therefore it’s not a GRAVE sin that he’s culpable of in this situation. And therefore NOT punishable by refusing to give him the Eucharist.

Did you not read the comment from the Catechism of Trent that public penance is required for public crimes? Do you not understand what that means? One cannot receive sacramental forgiveness for public sins without public penance.

Ender

First, there’s no “public sin”. He’s not having sex out in the open on the town common, and as far as YOU know there isn’t any sex at all. You can’t prove there is.

Second, public penance is NOT the same as publicly punishing someone.

Scandal is caused by the perception of his behavior. Even if that perception is inaccurate, the scandal remains:

Ender

What’s more scandalous? Punishing someone for private behavior that we’ve established above by YOUR statement that HE HIMSELF doesn’t think it’s sinful, which therefore means it’s not a grave sin, and which we can NOT establish is taking place? Or the scandal of what he MAY be doing, even though we can’t prove it?

I think your requiring him to be publicly punished (NOT the same as Public Penance!) for what you can’t prove, but YOUR dirty mind is THINKING is taking place is the bigger scandal here! You fail to understand the difference between the mortal sin being committed by someone who doesn’t understand the seriousness of his actions and the one who commits the mortal sin knowing it’s in direct defiance of God.

If other unmarried couples are tempted to emulate the governor’s behavior (or even become less inclined to condemn it), not simply by his example but - more egregiously - by the bishop’s inaction, then both the bishop and the governor are guilty of scandal.

Ender

If other unmarried couples are tempted to emulate the governor’s behavior, attending mass and receiving the Eucharist, you think the world would be a worse place? That’s the ONLY behavior that YOU have any proof that he’s done!

And lest we ALL forget, not ONE of us is without sin. Let him who is without sin cast the first stone. I’m not going down that road, but you appear all too eager to do so.

 

[TMC]

If you are referring to NY’s Archbishop Dolan, I don’t think that he has been made a Cardinal yet, but I do wish he, being the loudest Catholic voice in NY and now the USCCB president would say something…

You are correct that he is not yet a Cardinal. He has, however, said something. He has said that he does not favor denying communion to politicians that take postions against Church teaching. Our newest Cardinal - Cardinal Wuerl - has said the same and has also pointed out that the Church has historically not denied communion in these circumstances. That is consistent with the practices of the vast majority of bishops, including Pope Benedict and Pope John Paul.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Cohabitating is grave scandal.

IF it is occurring. Unless you have evidence, you can’t make that presumption.

One of the frequent posters on this Forum described how, while he and his non-Catholic wife were awaiting approval of the declaration of nullity for her prior marriage so that they could marry in the Church, he and she lived as brother and sister.

You don’t know the situation with Cuomo to condemn him as an adulterer.

 

[Inhimthroughher]

You are correct that he is not yet a Cardinal. He has, however, said something. He has said that he does not favor denying communion to politicians that take postions against Church teaching. Our newest Cardinal - Cardinal Wuerl - has said the same and has also pointed out that the Church has historically not denied communion in these circumstances. That is consistent with the practices of the vast majority of bishops, including Pope Benedict and Pope John Paul.

You are wrong on Benedict and JPII. Benedict as Ratzinger said they must be denied communion. The document earlier cited was by him. Cardinal Burke, head of Canon law, also says they must obey Canon 915. Those who disobey the law do not change the law.

 

[TMC]

You are wrong on Benedict and JPII. Benedict as Ratzinger said they must be denied communion. The document earlier cited was by him. Cardinal Burke, head of Canon law, also says they must obey Canon 915. Those who disobey the law do not change the law.

As Cardinal Ratzinger, he may have opined that they could be denied communion, but he did not mandate that politicians that take positions aganst Church teaching must be denied communion (nor would he have had the authority to mandate that). I don’t know what his practice was as a “regular” bishop, but as Pope he has given communion to pro-abortion politicians - the former Italian prime minister, for example. Pope John Paul II had the same practice - for example, he famously gave communion to Tony Blair. As I said earlier, Cardinal Wuerl has spoken out on the issue more than once and says that he does not believe that Canon 915 was ever intended to be used in this way. Based on their actions, it seems to me that the current and last Pope agree with him.

 

[Inhimthroughher]

As Cardinal Ratzinger, he may have opined that they could be denied communion, but he did not mandate that politicians that take positions aganst Church teaching must be denied communion (nor would he have had the authority to mandate that). I don’t know what his practice was as a “regular” bishop, but as Pope he has given communion to pro-abortion politicians - the former Italian prime minister, for example. Pope John Paul II had the same practice - for example, he famously gave communion to Tony Blair. As I said earlier, Cardinal Wuerl has spoken out on the issue more than once and says that he does not believe that Canon 915 was ever intended to be used in this way. Based on their actions, it seems to me that the current and last Pope agree with him.

As they say, wrong is wrong even if everybody is wrong and right is right even when no one is right. Canon law is clear, as is the bible, regarding unworthy reception. I do not wish to stand before God guilty of desecrating the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Those who wish to are “free” to do so. I have enough sins of my own without having to worry about cooperating in the sins of others.

An answer given by a Bishop when asked why he would not give communion to grave public sinners “I’m not going to hell for those people.”