Senior Vatican Advisor wants No Communion for Cuomo

[Teelynn]

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!!!

I agree with this. Since when have Bishops in the US listened to the Pope? They listen to him when they want to. When they don’t want to they basically just do what they want. People that haven’t seen this happen time and time again are not really very observant.

On this note, I happened to listen to a Bishop from NY on EWTN on the subject of the latest passing of the bill in general. When asked about Cuomo and other politicians who publically promote lifestyles against Church teachings receiving communion he waffled. He went into this whole song and dance about how an individual conscience is formed and correct formation of conscience and how no one has the authority to read someone’s conscience. So I guess if Cuomo thinks it’s ok it’s ok and he can still receive communion!!! I AM SO OVERLY TIRED OF THE RELATIVISM!!!
AM REALLY SO DONE WITH IT!!!

 

[Veridical16]

I agree with this. Since when have Bishops in the US listened to the Pope? They listen to him when they want to. When they don’t want to they basically just do what they want. People that haven’t seen this happen time and time again are not really very observant.

On this note, I happened to listen to a Bishop from NY on EWTN on the subject of the latest passing of the bill in general. When asked about Cuomo and other politicians who publically promote lifestyles against Church teachings receiving communion he waffled. **He went into this whole song and dance about how an individual conscience is formed and correct formation of conscience and how no one has the authority to read someone’s conscience. ** So I guess if Cuomo thinks it’s ok it’s ok and he can still receive communion!!! I AM SO OVERLY TIRED OF THE RELATIVISM!!!
AM REALLY SO DONE WITH IT!!!

Agree. That IS DUPLICITOUS and wrong. Incorrect and a misrepresentation of what Jesus says, he says judge not by appearance but with RIGHTEOUS judgment.

So they judge by appearance UNREPENTANT politicians pretending to be pious like Pelosi and through the excuse "well we can’t see into his conscience " , even though the things they CAN see that are clearly public sins, he says with his mouth I believe in gay marriage and with his governor’s pen, I believe, and still believe, and I will continue to co-habitate " we can’t see that stuff. They will ignore.

That has nothing to do with individual conscience. that is SEE NO EVIL , HEAR NO EVIL, SPEAK NO EVIL… Out of sight out of mind. Devoid of reason. Devoid of truth.

That might have been one of the Bishops Michael Voris calls out .

 

[Teelynn]

Agree. That IS DUPLICITOUS and wrong. Incorrect and a misrepresentation of what Jesus says, he says judge not by appearance but with RIGHTEOUS judgment.

So they judge by appearance UNREPENTANT politicians pretending to be pious like Pelosi and through the excuse "well we can’t see into his conscience " , even though the things they CAN see that are clearly public sins, he says with his mouth I believe in gay marriage and with his governor’s pen, I believe, and still believe, and I will continue to co-habitate " we can’t see that stuff. They will ignore.

That has nothing to do with individual conscience. that is SEE NO EVIL , HEAR NO EVIL, SPEAK NO EVIL… Out of sight out of mind. Devoid of reason. Devoid of truth.

That might have been one of the Bishops Michael Voris calls out .

I have heard other Bishops and even a Cardinal voice the same excuse for allowing communion for these people. We are STILL dealing with the fallout of the relativism that permeated the Church since Vat ll. I suppose it will go on for some time. I understand the new young priests are much more orthodox in their theology, but it will take time for them to counteract this stench that filled our Church, and is still rearing it’s ugly head. And we might just have to wait for this generation of priest to die out in order for the REAL CHURCH to emerge.

 

[Ender]

No one should receive communion unworthily but that is a burden that’s placed upon their individual soul.

You sound just like the bishops: you refuse to acknowledge the issue by pretending it doesn’t exist. Did you not read the comment from Chrysostom I just posted about the responsibility carried by the minister of communion? Have you not read Canon 915? There is no argument about the obligation the individual carries, the debate is about the obligation of the Church and Eucharistic minister to not give communion to those who are publicly unworthy.

Priests don’t normally examine each and every communicant.

I suspect if you were more comfortable with your position you wouldn’t have to fudge the issue. No one has suggested it is the priest’s responsibility to examine any, let alone all, of his communicants. What we are talking about are those whose sins are public; surely you can recognize the distinction. Perhaps another quote from Chrysostom will help:

And whence know I, you may say, this person, and that person?* I speak not of the unknown, but of the notorious.** Shall I say something more fearful. It is not so grievous a thing for the energumens i.e., vexed with devils to be within, as for such as these, whom Paul affirms to trample Christ under foot, and to “account the blood of the covenant unclean, and to do despite to the grace of the Spirit.” For he that hath fallen into sin and draws nigh, is worse than one possessed with a devil. For they, because they are possessed are not punished, but those, when they draw nigh unworthily, are delivered over to undying punishment. Let us not therefore drive away these only, but all without exception, whomsoever we may see coming unworthily. *(Homily LXXXII)

Ender

 

[TrueLight]

I suspect if you were more comfortable with your position you wouldn’t have to fudge the issue. No one has suggested it is the priest’s responsibility to examine any, let alone all, of his communicants. What we are talking about are those whose sins are public; surely you can recognize the distinction. Perhaps another quote from Chrysostom will help:

Ender

I understand your frustration and I agree with you, but if NewEnglandPriest is in fact a priest, maybe you should address him with the respect that is due his vocation.

You can still prove your point respectfully.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

You sound just like the bishops: you refuse to acknowledge the issue by pretending it doesn’t exist. Did you not read the comment from Chrysostom I just posted about the responsibility carried by the minister of communion? Have you not read Canon 915? There is no argument about the obligation the individual carries, the debate is about the obligation of the Church and Eucharistic minister to not give communion to those who are publicly unworthy.

Like I said, the Church is ok with each bishop taking an individual approach to his diocese. No one is pushing them. The canon is an option but not all are using it. IF the Church was pushing this issue there are official ways of doing it. Giving speeches and interviews is not one of them.
I know its fashionable on these forums to attack the US Bishops as disobedient liberals but I don’t buy it. This issue goes beyond the USA and its being addressed essentially the same all over the world.

 

[Ender]

The canon is an option…

The canon is not an option. It is a book of canon laws, not a book of canon suggestions.

IF the Church was pushing this issue there are official ways of doing it. Giving speeches and interviews is not one of them.

You have yet to engage the substance of the issue; you continue to avoid addressing the question of whether canon 915 applies or not. This is not too surprising; it is surely easier to ignore the question than defend the position that Cuomo should receive communion.

TrueLight:

I understand your frustration and I agree with you, but if NewEnglandPriest is in fact a priest, maybe you should address him with the respect that is due his vocation.

Fair enough … for if he is a priest then the problem is his as well; this question is not for bishops only. In fact it is something every minister of communion must answer for.

NewEnglandPriest: If Governor Cuomo appeared before you to receive communion would you give it to him?

Ender

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

The canon is not an option. It is a book of canon laws, not a book of canon suggestions.

Canons don’t work like American laws. Penalties are always last options.

You have yet to engage the substance of the issue; you continue to avoid addressing the question of whether canon 915 applies or not. This is not too surprising; it is surely easier to ignore the question than defend the position that Cuomo should receive communion.

I don’t think Cuomo should receive communion. However, refusing him at the rail is a whole other matter.

Fair enough … for if he is a priest then the problem is his as well; this question is not for bishops only. In fact it is something every minister of communion must answer for.

No priest or minister of communion is going to refuse anyone without their Ordinary’s backing.

NewEnglandPriest: If Governor Cuomo appeared before you to receive communion would you give it to him?

I’m answerable to my Ordinary. If my Ordinary made it known he wanted us to refuse communion I would, otherwise I would not.

 

[Teelynn]

Canons don’t work like American laws. Penalties are always last options.

I don’t think Cuomo should receive communion. However, refusing him at the rail is a whole other matter.

No priest or minister of communion is going to refuse anyone without their Ordinary’s backing.

I’m answerable to my Ordinary. If my Ordinary made it known he wanted us to refuse communion I would, otherwise I would not.

To allow him to receive Our Lord in the Eucharist is just plain wrong. Doesn’t the Pastor or maybe the Bishop of the Diocese meet with him to discuss his indescretions and his public stance promoting intrinsic evil? And if he refuses to repent ask him not to present himself? I’ve heard this conscience justification for far too long now. If correct consciences are not formed, then it is up to the clergy to do everything in their power to form them! Even THAT is not being done. (they don’t want to impose a hardship or objective truths on people for goodness sake!----besides, it’s not in vogue!) Milk toast Catholicism…that’s what I call it…it is a big part of the reason we are in this mess today. And because of it, there are lots of souls lost…and our pews are EMPTY!

 

[Ender]

Canons don’t work like American laws. Penalties are always last options.

Either they are laws or they are not. You appear to believe they are merely recommendations rather than obligations.

I don’t think Cuomo should receive communion. However, refusing him at the rail is a whole other matter.

Refusing him is what canon law requires.

No priest or minister of communion is going to refuse anyone without their Ordinary’s backing.

The responsibility belongs to the minister of communion, a responsibility from which even the Ordinary cannot dispense him.

• It must also be recalled that <<no ecclesiastical authority may dispense the minister of Holy Communion from this obligation in any case, nor may he emanate directives that contradict it>>* (Archbishop Burke)

I’m answerable to my Ordinary. If my Ordinary made it known he wanted us to refuse communion I would, otherwise I would not.

You are answerable to a higher authority than your ordinary. As you already recognized, Cuomo should not receive communion, and given that fact, you and everyone else have the positive obligation to refuse to give it to him. If you take the unworthy reception of communion so lightly it should come as little surprise that others don’t take it seriously either.

Ender

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

Either they are laws or they are not. You appear to believe they are merely recommendations rather than obligations.

Once again, canon law works differently. Rights set out are always obligation. Penalties on the other hand, unless latae sententiae are used as a last option. The Church has never worked like a set of rigid laws and penalties.

Refusing him is what canon law requires.
The responsibility belongs to the minister of communion, a responsibility from which even the Ordinary cannot dispense him.

Good luck with that in practice/reality. The Church simply doesn’t work like that.

• It must also be recalled that <<no ecclesiastical authority may dispense the minister of Holy Communion from this obligation in any case, nor may he emanate directives that contradict it>>* (Archbishop Burke)

Indeed the minister of communion would have canonical cover for his actions. However his relationship to his Ordinary would be severely wounded.

You are answerable to a higher authority than your ordinary.

Indeed, that’s why I trust in the Holy Spirit’s guidance of my Church rather than going rogue in ministry.

As you already recognized, Cuomo should not receive communion, and given that fact, you and everyone else have the positive obligation to refuse to give it to him.

Lots of people shouldn’t receive communion but we don’t make a show of refusing them.

If you take the unworthy reception of communion so lightly it should come as little surprise that others don’t take it seriously either.

Just because we disagree on methods does not mean that I take unworthy reception of communion lightly.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

Doesn’t the Pastor or maybe the Bishop of the Diocese meet with him to discuss his indescretions and his public stance promoting intrinsic evil? And if he refuses to repent ask him not to present himself?

Yes.

 

[Fink]

Lots of people shouldn’t receive communion but we don’t make a show of refusing them.

The great majority of people who receive unworthily are "private sinners’. Nobody knows.
Cuomo is a blatant public sinner who doesnt attempt to hide what he says and does. Theres a hell of a difference between the two; and you can`t pretend otherwise.

 

[Teelynn]

Like I said, the Church is ok with each bishop taking an individual approach to his diocese. No one is pushing them. The canon is an option but not all are using it. IF the Church was pushing this issue there are official ways of doing it. Giving speeches and interviews is not one of them.
I know its fashionable on these forums to attack the US Bishops as disobedient liberals but I don’t buy it. This issue goes beyond the USA and its being addressed essentially the same all over the world.

Well then, I guess the job of the laity would be to pray for a change. And do a little clamoring while we are at it, even though the Church is not a Democracy, it doesn’t hurt to “plant the seed”. If anyone is going to pull the Church out of the abyss it’s in, it “ain’t” going to be the clergy. The Church needs to put into place a definitive mandate on the distribution of the Eucharist to public sinners that are in the limelight. The laity looks at this charade of public figures marching themselves up to receive communion as SCANDAL. I realize there are not many left in the Church who actually believe in THE REAL PRESENCE, so maybe that is part of the problem. When it is “just a meal” or a “symbol” what does it matter if they receive communion or not? I guess when 75% of American Catholics don’t believe in the real presence, that would include (logically), a number of priests and bishops. I really respect Bishops who do put their foot down. So far, it’s precious few.

Jesus Have Mercy On Us!!

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

The great majority of people who receive unworthily are "private sinners’. Nobody knows.
Cuomo is a blatant public sinner who doesnt attempt to hide what he says and does. Theres a hell of a difference between the two; and you can`t pretend otherwise.

No one is pretending otherwise, but I was responding to a specific comment from a specific post.

 

[Ender]

Once again, canon law works differently. Rights set out are always obligation. Penalties on the other hand, unless latae sententiae are used as a last option. The Church has never worked like a set of rigid laws and penalties.

Whatever may be true of Canon law in general is irrelevant to the meaning of Canon 915 in particular. In a specific case such as this, that canon must be either followed or set aside. Given that the canon is uncomplicated and clearly applicable, on what grounds can it be said to be optional? It is definitive: those who are “obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.” Either Cuomo does not satisfy the criteria, in which case the canon does not apply, or he does satisfy them in which case the canon does apply and he must be denied communion.

It is inaction in cases like this that is absolutely maddening. If you don’t think Cuomo’s actions demonstrate obstinate perseverance in manifest grave sin then make that claim and try to support that position, but if you agree that they fall in that category then there is no rational argument to be made that the canon should not be applied. Do you have any idea how it comes across to the laity when the clergy act as if they don’t believe what the Church teaches?

Indeed the minister of communion would have canonical cover for his actions. However his relationship to his Ordinary would be severely wounded.

If he has canonical “cover” for his actions it can only be because he is doing what canon law requires. Conversely, if he fails in his duty he is liable both for his own sin and for the sin of the recipient. What example does it set for the laity seeing a clergy reluctant to do the right thing because there are so few others willing to do it?

Lots of people shouldn’t receive communion but we don’t make a show of refusing them.

Don’t go there; that’s not what is under discussion. The law requires that the sins be not just obstinate, persistent, and grave … but also manifest.

Just because we disagree on methods does not mean that I take unworthy reception of communion lightly.

You recognize that Cuomo is receiving unworthily but you still would allow him to receive. That is a sin on his part but it is also one shared by the person who knowingly gives him communion. How could you be willing to enable his sin unless you felt it was a trivial offense?

Ender

 

[Ridgerunner]

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

catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0802605.htm

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0802605.htm

That’s not excommunication. Being told to stop receiving communion is serious but its not excommunication. So, once again, I’ll ask where the claim comes from that she has been excommunicated?

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

Whatever may be true of Canon law in general is irrelevant to the meaning of Canon 915 in particular. In a specific case such as this, that canon must be either followed or set aside.

We’re at an impasse here. Feel free to insist bishops throughout the world are disobedient liberals and that the Vatican is powerless to officially do anything.
I’ll choose to see the official inaction of the Vatican to be its typical and usual way of doing business of allowing local bishops to apply the canons as they think their local needs dictate.

By a 183-6 vote, the bishops’ conference opted to leave the decision to individual bishops, a position that Cardinal Ratzinger later said was harmonious with the Vatican’s stance.

Do you have any idea how it comes across to the laity when the clergy act as if they don’t believe what the Church teaches?

That is a a ridiculous and absurd statement.

How could you be willing to enable his sin unless you felt it was a trivial offense?

Once again, an absurd allegation. Since we’ve long since been deadlocked on the key issue and all you have left is to accuse bishops and priests of either not believing or not caring I guess we’re done.

 

[Ridgerunner]

That’s not excommunication. Being told to stop receiving communion is serious but its not excommunication. So, once again, I’ll ask where the claim comes from that she has been excommunicated?

What needs to be added to “don’t present yourself for communion” for it to be excommunication?