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

[imno1doc]

Amen to that estesbob

 

[Brooklyn]

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.

Proverbs says that the fear of God is the beginning of all wisdom. Obviously, these politicians have no fear of God.

 

[estesbob]

Amen to that estesbob

I might add that no one is asking that communion be used to coerce politicians to change their position on an issue.The Church is asking is that the members of the church follow the teachings of the church on worthiness to receive communion. Obviously one who supports taxpayer-funded abortion on demand is not worthy to receive communion. They are more than welcome to put their political views ahead of the teachings of the church but should respect the church’s teaching on worthiness to receive communion. This issue should never come up and only becomes an issue because too many Catholic politicians want to participate in the charade that they can support abortion and still be Catholics in good standing.

 

[Ender]

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.

This mischaracterizes the issue - it is not about politics. For the Church, misbehavior X results in response Y. In this case, X is public cohabitation and Y is the denial of communion. There is no question, because the governor is a public official, that the (proper) response from the Church would have political ramifications, but is the Church supposed to give priority to political considerations ahead of her moral responsibilities? According to your argument, politicians would be exempt from Church sanctions no matter what they did. How do you justify drawing a circle around politicians and claiming that the Church may sanction others but she cannot sanction them? Either their actions merit the sanctions or they don’t and the fact that they are politicians is irrelevant.

Ender

 

[TMC]

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.

Then why do our bishops and Cardinals say that it is not in the tradition of the Church to use the Eucharist in this way? Perhaps the historical instances you mention are outliers rather than representative of the mainstream of Catholic tradition. Either way, I agree that private counseling is the better course in these circumstances.

 

[TMC]

This mischaracterizes the issue - it is not about politics. For the Church, misbehavior X results in response Y. In this case, X is public cohabitation and Y is the denial of communion. There is no question, because the governor is a public official, that the (proper) response from the Church would have political ramifications, but is the Church supposed to give priority to political considerations ahead of her moral responsibilities? According to your argument, politicians would be exempt from Church sanctions no matter what they did. How do you justify drawing a circle around politicians and claiming that the Church may sanction others but she cannot sanction them? Either their actions merit the sanctions or they don’t and the fact that they are politicians is irrelevant.

Ender

First, I am only repeating what our bishops and Cardinals have said - although it is true that I agree with them.

Second, for my part, I do think that this is a political issue as most of those that I see demanding that these politicians be denied communion are undeniably political enemies of the same politicians. In my opinion, it also becomes political when politicians are singled out to be treated like this. If a bishop has a policy of denying communion to all that he knows are sinners, then I would not have a problem with that policy being extended to all. In my parish, I believe that would result in very few being able to present themselves for communion.

 

[estesbob]

Then why do our bishops and Cardinals say that it is not in the tradition of the Church to use the Eucharist in this way? Perhaps the historical instances you mention are outliers rather than representative of the mainstream of Catholic tradition. Either way, I agree that private counseling is the better course in these circumstances.

Again there is no tradition, contrary to what a couple of bishops may have said, prohibiting withholding the sacraments from officials who publicly reject church teaching. As I said before the shame lies with Cuomo presenting himself for Communion. He should not put any bishop or priest in that situation.

 

[TMC]

Again there is no tradition, contrary to what a couple of bishops may have said, prohibiting withholding the sacraments from officials who publicly reject church teaching. As I said before the shame lies with Cuomo presenting himself for Communion. He should not put any bishop or priest in that situation.

Let me be more exact in my statement. I am not saying that there is a tradition prohibiting witholding the sacraments (or if I did, I’m correcting myself now). I am saying that, contrary to what some here have said, there is no tradition of requiring (or even encouraging) denying politicians the sacraments based on their political positions. The tradition is that each bishop deals with each person as a person, and each bishop makes individual pastoral decisions. Canon 915 did not mandate a change in that tradition. I am also saying that bishops throughout history have generally (although not always) declined to deny the Eucharist to politicians in these situations. I wholeheartedly agree that each individual Catholic has the responsibility to search his or her own conscience before receiving, and that no Catholic should put his or her pastor in that situation.

 

[estesbob]

Let me be more exact in my statement. I am not saying that there is no tradition prohibiting witholding the sacraments (or if I did, I’m correcting myself now). I am saying that, contrary to what some here have said, there is no tradition of denying politicians the sacraments based on their political positions. The tradition is that each bishop deals with each person as a person, and each bishop makes individual pastoral decisions. Canon 915 did not mandate a change in that tradition. I am also saying that bishops throughout history have generally (although not always) declined to deny the Eucharist to politicians in these situations. I wholeheartedly agree that each individual Catholic has the responsibility to search his or her own conscience before receiving, and that no Catholic should put his or her pastor in that situation.

Agreed. It is up to each individual bishop to deal with his flock. If Cuomo has been counseled in private it is even more egregious for him to present himself for Communion- however denying him communion would be about as much of a scandal as him receiving it. The only good solution to this is for Cuomo not to go to communion

 

[canadianguy1143]

Forget about Cuomo living with his girlfriend for a minute will you all. Maybe he is having sex maybe he isn’t. But we are all in agreement that he is publicly pro-choice and that is scandalous.

In my opinion that is reason alone to deny him communion until he repents of it.

To those of you who say that it is wrong to deny communion even to a pro choice Catholic politician, let me ask you this:

What if Bishop Williamson of SSPX comes and says that the Holocaust never occurred. Should Rome not take some type of punitive action?

 

[Ender]

I do think that this is a political issue as most of those that I see demanding that these politicians be denied communion are undeniably political enemies of the same politicians.

The motivation of the people who support the denial of communion is totally irrelevant. The Church either should or should not withhold communion in any specific case (e.g. governor Cuomo) and that determination is to be made according to Church law without consideration of the suspected motivation of the public.

In my opinion, it also becomes political when politicians are singled out to be treated like this.

You have no way of knowing to whom Canon 915 has been applied but clearly the better known the individual the more likely it is that the public will know of his transgression. In the case of politicians it is simply unavoidable, but, once again, none of this matters. The argument that “the Church doesn’t do the right thing in every case so she shouldn’t do the right thing in any case” is not all that compelling.

If a bishop has a policy of denying communion to all that he knows are sinners, then I would not have a problem with that policy being extended to all. In my parish, I believe that would result in very few being able to present themselves for communion.

Once again you mischaracterize the situation. “Bishops” don’t have policies on this; the Church does and bishops either enforce Canon 915 or they don’t. Nor, more significantly, does that canon apply to sinners in general: it applies specifically to those “obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin.” That is an entirely different category that needs to be addressed as it is without distortion.

Ender

 

[Tsuwano]

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

Yes Ender, but it is not you who is called upon to impose this public penance, but the Bishop who is the representative of the Church in his diocese. It is by the Bishop’s authority that such a penance is imposed, not by a public show of hands on the internet. The Bishop has a heavy burden in discerning when or if to impose this penance and our support should be in prayer, not in naysaying or second guessing the Bishop’s actions. If you consider this a dodge, then so be it, but it is nevertheless the truth.

 

[Tsuwano]

Receiving the Eucharist in an unworthy manner is a mortal sin. It is not punishment to protect someone from desecrating the Body and Blood of Christ and commiting a mortal sin. Is it punishment to not let someone do something that is bad for them?

As I said before, refusing someone the eucharist may indeed by an aid to someone who has fallen away, but for the faithful believer, it is no less a punishment. Of course it is a punishment to not let someone do something that is bad for them. Do you not have children? As you say, it can also be a service, but it can be a punishment at the same time.

 

[Tsuwano]

Again there is no tradition, contrary to what a couple of bishops may have said, prohibiting withholding the sacraments from officials who publicly reject church teaching. As I said before the shame lies with Cuomo presenting himself for Communion. He should not put any bishop or priest in that situation.

I agree with you here. I also think that castigating the Bishop for not inflicting the punishment you or I think is appropriate is not helpful. Our response to the situation the Bishop finds himself in should be constant trust, prayer and support. Now, if you or anyone else wishes to call on Mr. Cuomo to reflect on his actions and consider that they may indeed be a rebuke to the very faith he professes, then I support that, but by all means consider the great burden the Bishop finds himself under and pray for him.

 

[klaatubob]

Looks like Jesus disagrees with withholding communion from grave sinners including one who intended to turn Jesus over to those who would kill him.

catholic.com/thisrock/quickquestions/?qid=580

Since Judas’s betrayal of Jesus likely was a grave sin, why did Jesus give him Communion at the Last Supper? Or had Judas left the table by that point?

If Judas did receive Communion—as Scripture appears to indicate (Lk 22:19-23)—then there may be any number of reasons why Christ allowed it even though he had already been plotting Christ’s betrayal (Lk 22:3-4). Two possibilities include: Christ may have hoped that the grace of Communion ultimately could save Judas’s soul. Judas did indeed feel remorse for what he did (Mt 27:3-4), although he chose the wrong means to demonstrate that remorse (Mt 27:5). Or perhaps Christ respected Judas’s free will, just as he respects our free will, and so did not deny Judas Communion even though he apparently did not have faith that it was Christ’s body and blood (Jn 6:66-71).
—Michelle Arnold

I think Michelle’s answer above is a perfect example of why it is wrong to withhold communion from the governor.

 

[Ender]

Yes Ender, but it is not you who is called upon to impose this public penance, but the Bishop who is the representative of the Church in his diocese.

Agreed, this is his responsibility.

The Bishop has a heavy burden in discerning when or if to impose this penance

Well, yes and no. The Church has been very specific in defining the criteria that lead to the imposition of this restriction (to withhold communion) so discerning who meets those criteria is really not all that difficult. Second, withholding communion is not imposing penance, it is what must be done until the appropriate penance has been served, and finally, imposing such a severe sanction may be an unpleasant task but it is not optional; it is the obligation of every bishop.

our support should be in prayer, not in naysaying or second guessing the Bishop’s actions.

These are not mutually exclusive, and after the devastation caused by the instances of sex abuse, a devastation enormously expanded by the actions of way too many bishops, we should be disabused of the notion that a bishop’s actions are not to be commented on.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Looks like Jesus disagrees with withholding communion from grave sinners including one who intended to turn Jesus over to those who would kill him.

I love these “Jesus agrees with me” arguments. Given that the Church has specified in Canon 915 that communion not only may be withheld but in fact must be withheld from those “obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin” it would appear that there are only two possibilities here: you are right and the Church is wrong or you are wrong and the Church is right.

It is the Church, not us, who demands that (in certain cases) communion be withheld. There may be some merit in arguing that e.g. Cuomo’s actions don’t rise to that level but there is no merit at all in the argument that that level doesn’t exist.

Ender

 

[klaatubob]

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.

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.

 

[klaatubob]

I love these “Jesus agrees with me” arguments. Given that the Church has specified in Canon 915 that communion not only may be withheld but in fact must be withheld from those “obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin” it would appear that there are only two possibilities here: you are right and the Church is wrong or you are wrong and the Church is right.

It is the Church, not us, who demands that (in certain cases) communion be withheld. There may be some merit in arguing that e.g. Cuomo’s actions don’t rise to that level but there is no merit at all in the argument that that level doesn’t exist.

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!

You fail to understand that you are passing judgment based on YOUR PERCEPTION and not on any facts. 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 and those who are present in the confessional, then the facts can’t be known to any extent that any action can be taken. “Ender” however, demands that the Church accept HIS PERSONAL BELIEF that something is meeting the criteria that the Church has set forth, so because “Ender” says it meets that criteria, it’s closed to discussion.

I don’t doubt what canon 915 or any other canon says. I am not doubting the Church’s authority to enforce those canons, or even their authority to write them in the first place. 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!

 

[estesbob]

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?

.

No it wouldn’t. For instance would you not think it would be much more cause for scandal and more blasphemous if person publicly masturbated on the church steps and then presented themselves for communion than if they had done it in private?.

Please do not try to make this a political issue. This is an issue of a person who publicly rejects the teachings of the church and how his Bishop should handle it