I believe that the jury is in on Cuomo’s unfitness to receive Communion on the basis of his pro-choice stance. But, unless someone can prove that Cuomo and Lee are having sexual relations, we can’t presume that they are.Cohabitants and pro-choicers should not be receiving communion.
Canon 915 says they can’t receive communion if they’ve been excommunicated. Are you presuming they’ve been excommunicated?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.
While that may be true, what ISN’T CLEAR is that the person in question is definitely, without any possibility of it being otherwise, receiving unworthily. Again, you don’t know his personal situation, his confessional record, what’s in his heart, the demons he is fighting. YOU are committing a sin by judging him in a way that is reserved for only God.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…
Rich, c’mon, gimme a break!! You and I and everyone else knows they aren’t living together because they both like to play Scrabble. Besides, we are warned by the Apostle Paul in I Thes 5:22 to avoid even the appearance of evil, and an unmarried man and woman living together gives every appearance of evil, and that is why it is considered a mortal sin by the Church. As you stated, though, no matter what other liberal bishops might have said about pro-abortion Catholics receiving communion, Cardinal Burke, the Prefect of the Vatican’s Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura, has stated unequivocally that they are not to receive communion.I believe that the jury is in on Cuomo’s unfitness to receive Communion on the basis of his pro-choice stance. But, unless someone can prove that Cuomo and Lee are having sexual relations, we can’t presume that they are.
To quote from Cardinal-designate Archbishop Raymond Burke’s keynote address at Human Life International’s October 9th Prayer Congress:
“To ignore the fact that Catholics in public life, for example, who persistently violate the moral law regarding the inviolability of innocent human life or the integrity of the marital union, lead many into confusion or even error regarding the most fundamental teachings of the moral law, in fact, contributes to the confusion and error, redounding to the gravest harm to our brothers and sisters, and, therefore, to the whole nation. The perennial discipline of the Church, for that reason among other reasons, has prohibited the giving of Holy Communion and the granting of a Church funeral to those who persist, after admonition, in the grave violation of the moral law (Code of Canon Law, cann. 915; and 1184, § 1, 31).
catholiccoalitionnm.org/?p=203”When a person has publicly espoused and cooperated in gravely sinful acts, leading many into confusion and error about fundamental questions of respect for human life and the integrity of marriage and the family, his repentance of such actions must also be public. The person in question bears a heavy responsibility for the grave scandal which he has caused. The responsibility is especially heavy for political leaders. The repair of such scandal begins with the public acknowledgment of his own error and the public declaration of his adherence to the moral law. The soul which recognizes the gravity of what he has done will, in fact, understand immediately the need to make public reparation.”
Right is right and wrong is wrong, but I think I will go with Pope John Paul, Pope Benedict, Cardinal Wuerl and Archbishop Dolan’s interpretation of Canon law over yours. Canon 915 simply does not require what you say it does. I will also go with 2,000 years of Church tradition and practice over the overheated rhetoric and hate that seems so popular today. The Pope and the bishops do not believe in using the Eucharist as a carrot and stick to keep politicians in line and I agree with them on that.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.”
You KNOW? Everyone else KNOWS? How? Talked with someone who was in a menage a trois with them? You spoke with a friend who peeked through their bedroom window?Rich, c’mon, gimme a break!! You and I and everyone else knows they aren’t living together because they both like to play Scrabble.
Why do you think the Apostle Paul wrote that we are to avoid the appearance of evil? What do you think that means? That means that we could be doing something which may be innocent, such as a man and woman living together (and if you really believe that Andrew Cuomo and his girlfriend are living chastely, I have a bridge in my city you might be interested in buying), but if that action gives all appearance of being evil, it is sinful. You’re old enough to remember when living together without benefit of marriage was considered a scandal in society. Our society no longer has any moral values, so living together, having babies outside of marriage, homosexuality - all things that were once taboo are now totally accepted. But I guarantee you that no thinking person believes for one moment that Cuomo and his girlfriend are living like brother and sister. So even if they are, the very fact that they are giving the appearance of evil is scandalous and sinful.You KNOW? Everyone else KNOWS? How? Talked with someone who was in a menage a trois with them? You spoke with a friend who peeked through their bedroom window?
Your argument is the same as saying that someone was arrested - therefore they are guilty.
The prurient interest we might have in the private lives of others doesn’t equate to proof that the couple is engaging in anything irregular.
Ask StanKolbe about his saying that he lived with his wife as brother and sister until a declaration of nullity for a previous marriage was received. Would you accuse him of sinning absent proof of it?
Charity in all things is expected from those of us to the extent that we might consider ourselves Catholics.
What about Cardinal Burke’s “opinion?” I guess we can just pick and choose here.Right is right and wrong is wrong, but I think I will go with Pope John Paul, Pope Benedict, Cardinal Wuerl and Archbishop Dolan’s interpretation of Canon law over yours. Canon 915 simply does not require what you say it does. I will also go with 2,000 years of Church tradition and practice over the overheated rhetoric and hate that seems so popular today. The Pope and the bishops do not believe in using the Eucharist as a carrot and stick to keep politicians in line and I agree with them on that.
Well, the couple is not engaging in anything irregular as far as modern society is concerned but living together certainly gives the appearance of irregularity as far as the Church is concerned. You don’t seem to recognize the nature of scandal, which is given not solely by acting immorally but also by seeming to act immorally, which is the best that could be said of governor Cuomo. In this behavior he is culpable and a bishop who turns a blind eye to it is very likely culpable as well. Nor can the public actions of a governor be ignored or dismissed as merely pertaining to his private life.The prurient interest we might have in the private lives of others doesn’t equate to proof that the couple is engaging in anything irregular.
Charity yes, self delusion no.Charity in all things is expected from those of us to the extent that we might consider ourselves Catholics.
Why not apply that to other Catholics who are supposedly “living as brother and sister”?if you really believe that Andrew Cuomo and his girlfriend are living chastely, I have a bridge in my city you might be interested in buying)
But I guarantee you that no thinking person believes for one moment that Cuomo and his girlfriend are living like brother and sister. So even if they are, the very fact that they are giving the appearance of evil is scandalous and sinful.
Why them and not Stan or you? Why are you above suspicion, but Cuomo is guaranteed guilty? Why does he give the appearance of EVIL (a very strong term!), but the Catholics on this Forum who have been in the same position don’t?StanKolbe living with his lawful wife does not give the appearance of evil. I too had to live with my husband as brother and sister while waiting for convalidation of our marriage.
It is certainly true that I am choosing to disagree with Cardinal Burke’s opinion. In doing so, I take comfort in the fact that I am choosing to instead agree with the vast majority of the bishops, including the Pope.What about Cardinal Burke’s “opinion?” I guess we can just pick and choose here.
And what is that “2,000 years of Church tradition and practice” that you are talking about? Please be more specific, because I have no idea what you mean.
Receiving the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ is not a “right.” It is something we must be worthy of. The Apostle Paul wrote: "This means that whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily sins against the body and the of the Lord. A man should examine himself first; only then should he eat of the bread and drink of the cup. **He who eats and drinks without recognizing the body eats and drinks a judgment on himself **(1 Corinthians 11:28-29).
Withholding communion is not a form of punishment. It is actually trying to protect people from committing an even worse sin. To receive communion when you are in a state of mortal sin, as Paul wrote, is to bring judgment upon yourself. The Church does not “punish”. The Church is in the job of saving souls, and everything she does is to that end.
Did it occur to you that the fact he did not have the authority to make such a mandate was the reason he didn’t mandate it?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).
Based on his actual comments, it is clear that BXVI does not agree with Wuerl.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.
If Pope Benedict believes Cardinal Wuerl is wrong, why did he make him a Cardinal? More importantly, if Pope Benedict believes that politicians that disagree with the Church should be denied communion, why does he give communion to pro-choice politicians?Did it occur to you that the fact he did not have the authority to make such a mandate was the reason he didn’t mandate it?
Based on his actual comments, it is clear that BXVI does not agree with Wuerl.
4. Apart from an individual’s judgment about his worthiness to present himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, the minister of Holy Communion may find himself in the situation where he must refuse to distribute Holy Communion to someone, such as… an obstinate persistence in manifest grave sin (cf. can. 915). (Letter to McCarrick)
What is unclear about that comment? Communion **must **be denied to anyone showing an obstinate persistence in manifest grave sin. You may argue, as others here have tried, that the matter of his girl friend doesn’t rise to the level of obstinate persistence in manifest grave sin, but there is no argument that whoever satisfies those criteria should be allowed to receive communion, Archbishop Wuerl’s comments notwithstanding.
Ender
That is a very good question and one I would personally like an answer to. But it is definitely true that Pope Benedixt XVI does believe Cardinal Wuerl is wrong, as stated here:If Pope Benedict believes Cardinal Wuerl is wrong, why did he make him a Cardinal? More importantly, if Pope Benedict believes that politicians that disagree with the Church should be denied communion, why does he give communion to pro-choice politicians?
ROME, May 9, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A reporter aboard the Alitalia plane chartered to transport the Pope to Brazil Wednesday asked Pope Benedict XVI if he supported the Mexican bishops in their warning to politicians who supported legalizing abortion that they would face excommunication. The Pope responded saying, “Yes, this excommunication was not an arbitrary one but is allowed by Canon law which says that the killing of an innocent child is incompatible with receiving communion, which is receiving the body of Christ.”
lifesitenews.com/?/news/pope-supports-excommunication-for-pro-abortion-politicians-incompatible-witReferring to the Mexican bishops, Reuters reports the Pope added, “They did nothing new, surprising or arbitrary. They simply announced publicly what is contained in the law of the Church . . . which expresses our appreciation for life and that human individuality, human personality is present from the first moment”.
First off, I did not receive communion until my marriage was convalidated, to avoid the appearance of evil. Secondly, both Stan and I were civilly married, and were working on validating our marriages in the church as well. Cuomo is not only not married to this woman, he is a divorced man. This from an article by Church canonist Ed Peters:Why not apply that to other Catholics who are supposedly “living as brother and sister”?
Why them and not Stan or you? Why are you above suspicion, but Cuomo is guaranteed guilty? Why does he give the appearance of EVIL (a very strong term!), but the Catholics on this Forum who have been in the same position don’t?
Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. I would NOT suspect Cuomo any more than I would suspect you or Stan or others who were in those circumstances. I, for one, believe that some Christian charity is called for, in all such cases, and would give all of you - and him - the benefit of the doubt…
Andrew Cuomo, governor of New York, and Sandra Lee, a television celebrity, live in what is known technically as public concubinage. The fact that both Cuomo and Lee are divorced renders the concubinage adulterous on both sides as well.
Cuomo, on the grounds of his public concubinage alone (and setting aside complications arising from his strong support for legalized abortion, etc.), should not approach Communion per Canon 916; if he does approach, he should be refused the sacrament per Canon 915. Cuomo should still attend Mass, of course (c. 1247), and within one year of his last Confession he should duly receive that sacrament again (c. 989), but he should not be taking Communion while he lives in public concubinage. And if Lee is Catholic, the exact same analysis would apply to her.
canonlawblog.blogspot.com/2011/01/cuomos-concubinage-and-holy-communion.htmlIt is Albany Bp. Howard Hubbard’s responsibility to see to it that the common discipline of the Church is promoted and that all ecclesiastical laws are observed, exercising particular vigilance against abuse of the sacraments and the worship of God. 1983 CIC 392. Unfortunately, Hubbard’s rah-rah inaugurational homily before Cuomo and Lee, in which, without admonition for their objectively and publicly sinful status, the prelate seemed to have anointed the pair as his kind of evangelizers in government, and his complicity in the administration of Communion to Cuomo, amounts, in my opinion, to another dereliction of pastoral duty.
Exactly.How does one reconcile receiving our Lord in Communion while supporting abortion? It’s blasphemous. Whatsoever you do to the least of My brothers, that you do unto Me. Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.
The 2000 year tradition, as explained by Cardinal Wuerl, Archbishop Dolan and others, of not using the Eucharist as a sanction in an attempt to coerce public figures to change their stance on issues.That is a very good question and one I would personally like an answer to. But it is definitely true that Pope Benedixt XVI does believe Cardinal Wuerl is wrong, as stated here:
lifesitenews.com/?/news/pope-supports-excommunication-for-pro-abortion-politicians-incompatible-wit
I’m still waiting for your answer about what 2000 year Church tradition supports your stand that pro-abortion politicians, who are in direction violation of Catholic law, should be allowed to receive communion.
Evidently governor Cuomo does not believe the Church has absolute authority. The Church is fine for photo ops but one must evidently never ,never let the church interfere with their political views.Leave it in God’s Hand the Church is not the absolute authority.
Tom
There is no such tradition. In fact in the past entire countries were put under interdiction, which forbade the sacraments to be celebrated, for their governments disobedience to the teachings of the church. Having said that I do not agree that politicians should be publicly denied communion. They should be privately counseled about the scandal they are gig The truth is Gov. Cuomo, if he had respect for the church and for fellow Catholics, would not present himself for Communion.The 2000 year tradition, as explained by Cardinal Wuerl, Archbishop Dolan and others, of not using the Eucharist as a sanction in an attempt to coerce public figures to change their stance on issues.