Senior Vatican Advisor wants No Communion for Cuomo

[JMJSHJ]

And yet nowhere in the world is it carried out. Somehow, I think that means Rome is less enthusiastic than others on this issue…

Once again, once Cardinal Burke obtained his position he didn’t, apparently, pressure anyone to follow that opinion.

I think everyone knows what could be done, the debate still exists as to what should be done…

Except that by having Burke and Ouellet in the Vatican in powerful positions, one can very reasonably infer that Rome is willing to slowly evolve on this issue. Of course the Vatican moves very slowly.

 

[Ender]

And yet nowhere in the world is it carried out.

This is incorrect. A number of bishops have implemented this policy, as we just read regarding Cardinal Egan and Mayor Giuliani, nor is the issue simply one of the personal opinions of the bishops. As we have seen, canon law is fairly clear on the point.

*“The Church’s law is very clear. The person who persists publicly in grave sin is to be denied Holy Communion, and it [Canon Law] doesn’t say that the bishop shall decide this. It’s an absolute.” *(Abp. Burke, 2009)

Once again, once Cardinal Burke obtained his position he didn’t, apparently, pressure anyone to follow that opinion.

“Pressure”? Each bishop is the final word in his own diocese. Archbishop Burke has no authority to impose his position on other bishops … nor, apparently, does the Vatican. Burke has been consistent and clear on this point - not to mention repetitive.

Ender

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

This is incorrect. A number of bishops have implemented this policy, as we just read regarding Cardinal Egan and Mayor Giuliani, nor is the issue simply one of the personal opinions of the bishops. As we have seen, canon law is fairly clear on the point.

A few points:

1. Individual bishops have made individual decisions, yes, that’s what I said originally. The Vatican is, as of now, ok with letting individual bishops deal with the individual situations as they see fit. There is no blanket policy of denial of communion. No one appears to be forcing bishops’ hands on this issue.
2. Cardinal Egan stated in the article posted that the Mayor should not have received communion, he did not say that he would refuse him communion or that anyone else should. That’s a big difference. Bishops have asked politicians not to come forward for communion but very few have actually been refused at the rail.
3. Canon Law does indeed allow for the option, however few bishops have chosen that option.

*“The Church’s law is very clear. The person who persists publicly in grave sin is to be denied Holy Communion, and it [Canon Law] doesn’t say that the bishop shall decide this. It’s an absolute.” *(Abp. Burke, 2009)

If the Vatican wanted that to happen without question then there’d be an official directive not interview/speech quotes.

“Pressure”? Each bishop is the final word in his own diocese. Archbishop Burke has no authority to impose his position on other bishops … nor, apparently, does the Vatican. Burke has been consistent and clear on this point - not to mention repetitive.

Yes and no. The Vatican has ways of forcing hands when it wants. For example, when bishops were denying people the right to receive communion on the tongue during the swine flu scare the Vatican took the unusual action of publicly and officially demanding an end to such bans.

As for your quote of Archbishop Burke, I hope it wasn’t from the Randall Terry interview because Burke had this to say afterwards:

I gave the interview as a Bishop from the United States to encourage those engaged in the respect life apostolate, not as the Prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura.
I was never informed that the videotape would be used as part of a campaign of severe criticism of certain fellow bishops regarding the application of Canon 915 of the Code of Canon Law.
If I had known what the true purpose of the interview was, I would never have agreed to participate in it.
I am deeply sorry for the confusion and hurt which the wrong use of the videotape has caused to anyone, particularly, to my brother bishops.

 

[Ender]

1. Canon Law does indeed allow for the option, however few bishops have chosen that option.

According to the prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura - the highest judicial authority in the Church - it is not optional and is not left to the discretion of the bishops.

Basically your position is that, since a number of bishops have taken no action, that approach must be valid. By that standard their widespread inaction during the sex abuse fiasco was valid.

As for your quote of Archbishop Burke, I hope it wasn’t from the Randall Terry interview because Burke had this to say afterwards:

No, it was not, but it wouldn’t have mattered as far as the content of his comments. He was concerned about offending his brother bishops, not about having said something he didn’t believe.

Ender

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

According to the prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura - the highest judicial authority in the Church - it is not optional and is not left to the discretion of the bishops.

Actually he has not said that as prefect. If he did there’d be an official communication bearing that information.

Basically your position is that, since a number of bishops have taken no action, that approach must be valid.

What I’m saying is that the Vatican isn’t pushing anyone to do it. The Apostolic See understands very well what is happening since they face the exact same issues in Europe. Americans need to remember that the Church is not an American institution and its not an American system of laws. The Church works quite differently.

We need to remember that not even the prefect of the Apostolic Signatura is the ultimate authority on this matter, the Holy Father is the supreme judge and interpreter of the law.

By that standard their widespread inaction during the sex abuse fiasco was valid.

Sorry, but I don’t address the sex abuse crisis in threads that have nothing to do with it. There’s plenty of other threads to discuss that in if you choose. I see no link between Church sacramental discipline and the gravely horrific sexual molestation of innocent children.

No, it was not, but it wouldn’t have mattered as far as the content of his comments. He was concerned about offending his brother bishops, not about having said something he didn’t believe.

You need to reread his statement. He clearly pointed out that he was not speaking as prefect and that he was not only sorry because he offended but because the quotes had caused confusion. If Archbishop Burke had intended to “lay down the law” he’s doing it in a very strange way…

 

[pataburd]

Scolding Andrew Cuomo will be ineffectual as long as the Bishop of Albany, Howard Hubbard, continues to aid and abet New York State’s infamous “Catholic” governor. The Vatican’s actions should be directed primarily at Bishop Hubbard, out of whose diocese Cuomo continues to promote grave evil, apparently with “ecclesiastically awarded” carte blanche.

Bishop Hubbard’s decades-long track record–an embarrassment and a scandal–is and has been out there for the public to see, yet the Vatican seems to be “missing the forest for the trees” on this one.

“It’s about time” is an understatement for those Catholic Faithful who have been under Bishop Hubbard’s episcopacy for the last 34+ years. “Too much, too little, too late” might seem more apropo, given the present situation.

 

[Ender]

Actually he has not said that as prefect. If he did there’d be an official communication bearing that information.

Are you unaware of the document he wrote on Canon 915? Are you suggesting that because he wrote it prior to becoming prefect it has no weight?

We need to remember that not even the prefect of the Apostolic Signatura is the ultimate authority on this matter, the Holy Father is the supreme judge and interpreter of the law.

So when you said *“the Vatican isn’t pushing anyone to do it” *you meant “until the pope says so”, since clearly the Apostolic Signature is part of the Vatican. What about the comments Cardinal Ratzinger made on the subject before he became pope? Are we to ignore them as well since he wasn’t our pope at the time?

Sorry, but I don’t address the sex abuse crisis in threads that have nothing to do with it.

My comment had to do with the nature of your argument which is “It must be right because a lot of bishops are doing it.” I used an example from the very recent past that highlights the weakness of that position.

You need to reread his statement.

I didn’t cite that interview so I don’t need to review it.

What is clear is that we know the minds of both the pope and the prefect on this subject; their position has been unambiguously expressed and no one can be in doubt about what they said. Nor is there any doubt about the duty of the bishops, regardless of how many of them fail to do it.

Ender

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

Are you unaware of the document he wrote on Canon 915? Are you suggesting that because he wrote it prior to becoming prefect it has no weight?

Yes.

So when you said *“the Vatican isn’t pushing anyone to do it” *you meant “until the pope says so”, since clearly the Apostolic Signature is part of the Vatican.

What I’m saying is that if the Apostolic Signature officially did it, then it would essentially the same as the Pope doing it. However, when the prefect gives internet/blog/speech interviews they carry no official authority no matter his position.

What about the comments Cardinal Ratzinger made on the subject before he became pope? Are we to ignore them as well since he wasn’t our pope at the time?

I wouldn’t say “ignore” but they certainly don’t carry official authority.

I didn’t cite that interview so I don’t need to review it.

I said that in reference to your claim that he was merely sorry for offending other bishops in his statement, I pointed out that was not the case. Either way, its irrelevant.

What is clear is that we know the minds of both the pope and the prefect on this subject; their position has been unambiguously expressed and no one can be in doubt about what they said. Nor is there any doubt about the duty of the bishops, regardless of how many of them fail to do it.

There’s a huge difference between what someone thinks should be done and what they’ll officially push to do be done. Until its officially pushed in some way then the Vatican sends the message that its content with the status quo…

 

[Gift_from_God]

Abortion will remain legal until Catholic democrats come to love the unborn more than they hate the GOP.

No it won’t. Saying you’re pro-life is just a way to get right-wing support

 

[Gift_from_God]

Folks tend to want official church action against those politicians with whom they disagree.

Definitely.

 

[JMJSHJ]

No it won’t. Saying you’re pro-life is just a way to get right-wing support

Being Pro life is essential to be a good Catholic. Are you suggesting that “right wingers” are the only Catholics out there?

 

[Gift_from_God]

Being Pro life is essential to be a good Catholic. Are you suggesting that “right wingers” are the only Catholics out there?

Most Catholics are not right-wing, so no, I am not suggesting that. I meant right-wing support in general

 

[JMJSHJ]

Most Catholics are not right-wing, so no, I am not suggesting that. I meant right-wing support in general

It is true that some politicians will say that they are pro life but then don’t act like it (Stupak), but there are many that do back up the talk with action (voting). President Bush did appoint 2 Catholic Pro-Life Supreme Court Justices!

 

[Ender]

There’s a huge difference between what someone thinks should be done and what they’ll officially push to do be done.

This is an interesting position. What you’re saying is that the pope and the prefect are giving lip service to the problem but aren’t really concerned about it. They’ve said it’s a serious matter but apparently don’t believe what they’re saying since they didn’t carve it into stone tablets and affix them to the doors of St. Peters. That is, until they say “Simon says …”, their comments are irrelevant.

Until its officially pushed in some way then the Vatican sends the message that its content with the status quo…

If they are all that content with the status quo I’m surprised they bothered saying anything at all. This looks like the worst option of all - saying something and not meaning it. What you’re claiming is that receiving communion unworthily is not all that big a deal, which does not appear to be the Church’s position:

• Saint John Chrysostom, with his stirring eloquence, exhorted the faithful: “I too raise my voice, I beseech, beg and implore that no one draw near to this sacred table with a sullied and corrupt conscience. Such an act, in fact, can never be called ‘communion’, not even were we to touch the Lord’s body a thousand times over, but ‘condemnation’, ‘torment’ and ‘increase of punishment’”* (JPII)

That comment applies to the private as well as the public sinner, but with the public sinner the obligation to deny communion lies with the minister of communion; he is at risk as well:

These things I say to you that receive, and to you that minister. For it is necessary to address myself to you also, that you may with much care distribute the gifts there. There is no small punishment for you, if being conscious of any wickedness in any man, you allow him to partake of this table. “His blood shall be required at your hands.” (St. John Chrysostom)

Was JPII wrong - or is he, like Burke, Ratzinger, and Chrysostom, simply irrelevant?

Ender

 

[Benedict54]

I totally agree with Teelynn.
It is nice to see these things taking place

 

[Ridgerunner]

This is incorrect. A number of bishops have implemented this policy, as we just read regarding Cardinal Egan and Mayor Giuliani, nor is the issue simply one of the personal opinions of the bishops. As we have seen, canon law is fairly clear on the point.

Bishop Baumann publicly excommunicated Kathleen Sebelius for her support of abortion, including partial birth abortion, so there are some bishops who don’t recoil from the powerful.

 

[Veridical16]

Isn’t Bill Donahue a divorced Catholic? I don’t know if he received an annulment or not. I do remember the mayor of Chicago (married to a divorced man) receiving communion from the pope in 1979. Rudy Giuliani also has certainly lived a life outside of the canons, if you view them strictly.

Again MORAL EQUIVALENCY. lame. Who cares about past instances this is now.
This isn’t about partisanship.

Plus, ALL CATHOLICS should know Abortion/Gay Marriage are intrinsic evils. Abortion , gay marriage, etc. Are 5 non-negotiables.

Does it ever get tiresome to always play the moral equivalency card for the sake of partisan bias? Especially when this particular, news article is focused on Cuomo alone.

If we lived in a world where everything is mere-disagreements (who are you Jon Huntsman?) , then everyone is a hypocrite.

That comment also set ups a strawmen to inject politics into the conversation away from Cuomo alone. Those knowledgeable would know, nobody, on the “right wing” camp defend those guys vociferously or look the other way, they also did not do actions so egregious as Cuomo actively; Republicans, people excoriate Guiliani a lot, his pro-abortion/gay positions are deal breakers, and lots of Catholic voters who are well-formed wouldn’t support Guiliani. Also why the mention of Bill Donahue? Is he rightwing? He’s just annoying last time I checked.

Folks tend to want official church action against those politicians with whom they disagree.

Yeah, because we are free to merely disagree right. That’s what Cuomo is doing. Surely he’s not scandalizing the faith, with his public actions and still claiming to be Catholic. And the concern for Cuomo is because of the D next to his name… Not that New York just screwed itself over with a bad Catholic politician, and some complicitly WEAK Church Leadership in the state of New York that is causing people to be upset. It’s merely because he’s a Democrat.

If the Church really got its act together it would start excommunicating these individuals, not placing (rather discussing whether they should ) place an INTERDICT on dissident politicians.

In such a world view exemplified above by such words, where everything is mere disagreements and the R’ & D’s move and shake actions; there are no right and wrong. Such complicity is dangerous and blind, for the sake of the propensity to always play the “hypocrite” card or that everything stems from political bias, and that apolitical motivation (rather how about people think of because it’s the right thing? ) NEVER ever transcends the issue at hand.

Really what a waste to read such erroneous attitudes displayed above. Ultimately they are useless/unproductive worldly statements, obsessing with too high a regard for the political & cause for offense and charges for hypocrisy, for every little thing is unwise & obstructive.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

Bishop Baumann publicly excommunicated Kathleen Sebelius for her support of abortion, including partial birth abortion, so there are some bishops who don’t recoil from the powerful.

Can you provide a link for that? Neither google nor bing show any articles that state she was actually ex communicated…

 

[Veridical16]

This is an interesting position. What you’re saying is that the pope and the prefect are giving lip service to the problem but aren’t really concerned about it. They’ve said it’s a serious matter but apparently don’t believe what they’re saying since they didn’t carve it into stone tablets and affix them to the doors of St. Peters. That is, until they say “Simon says …”, their comments are irrelevant.
If they are all that content with the status quo I’m surprised they bothered saying anything at all. This looks like the worst option of all - saying something and not meaning it. What you’re claiming is that receiving communion unworthily is not all that big a deal, which does not appear to be the Church’s position:

• Saint John Chrysostom, with his stirring eloquence, exhorted the faithful: “I too raise my voice, I beseech, beg and implore that no one draw near to this sacred table with a sullied and corrupt conscience. Such an act, in fact, can never be called ‘communion’, not even were we to touch the Lord’s body a thousand times over, but ‘condemnation’, ‘torment’ and ‘increase of punishment’”* (JPII)

That comment applies to the private as well as the public sinner, but with the public sinner the obligation to deny communion lies with the minister of communion; he is at risk as well:

These things I say to you that receive, and to you that minister. For it is necessary to address myself to you also, that you may with much care distribute the gifts there. There is no small punishment for you, if being conscious of any wickedness in any man, you allow him to partake of this table. “His blood shall be required at your hands.” (St. John Chrysostom)

Was JPII wrong - or is he, like Burke, Ratzinger, and Chrysostom, simply irrelevant?

Ender

The Pope is far away he can’t micromanage. The lay people need to get mad at their bishops.

If reverence returned for the Eucharist, we would be seeing more anger too!!!

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

This is an interesting position. What you’re saying is that the pope and the prefect are giving lip service to the problem but aren’t really concerned about it. They’ve said it’s a serious matter but apparently don’t believe what they’re saying since they didn’t carve it into stone tablets and affix them to the doors of St. Peters. That is, until they say “Simon says …”, their comments are irrelevant.

The Church doesn’t work like an American institution. Bishops say lots of things but it doesn’t mean they’re intending to establish a once and for all precedent. And like I said, the Church has official means of accomplishing these things if She truly wanted to. The fact that She hasn’t means that She is ok with the individual approach.

If they are all that content with the status quo I’m surprised they bothered saying anything at all. This looks like the worst option of all - saying something and not meaning it.

Its called sabre rattling. It doesn’t mean something more won’t eventually be done.

What you’re claiming is that receiving communion unworthily is not all that big a deal…

I’d appreciate it if you don’t put words in my mouth. I never said anything of the sort. No one should receive communion unworthily but that is a burden that’s placed upon their individual soul. Priests don’t normally examine each and every communicant.