Senior Vatican Advisor wants No Communion for Cuomo

[hudson]

You know, most Catholics support the rights of same-sex couples. Most also support a womans right to make her own decisions about her body. How is it that these Priests and Bishops expect politician’s to stand for principals that they themselves can’t get their own perishes to support?

Boy someone has an agenda to push. Every post since you joined has been critical of the Catholic Church. I hope you won’t cry to hard about this, but the Catholic Church will never support gay marriage or abortion. If you are trying to make that happen well I have a feeling you will be very very sad when it don’t. Luckily for all of us, the Catholic Church doesn’t change with the belly aching of its members. When I see people whining about the Church changing, it makes me extremely happy when I realize that their whines will go unheard.

 

[Veritatis3]

You know, most Catholics support the rights of same-sex couples. Most also support a womans right to make her own decisions about her body. How is it that these Priests and Bishops expect politician’s to stand for principals that they themselves can’t get their own perishes to support?

Excuse me, but the people you described above are not Catholic. Meaning, those people are not in communion with the Bishop of Rome.

 

[JMJSHJ]

For starters, the law did not change in 1994. In 1994 The Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts issued an “authentic interpretation” canon 230. The US Bishops had submitted a dubium asking whether the canon included altar servers and the answer was “affirmative.”
Thus, those who interpreted the 1983 Code as allowing female altar servers were proven correct. In fact, several canonical commentaries in the 1980’s pointed out that canon 230 appeared to give permission for female altar servers. But since it seemed rather novel to some there was a great debate which the Vatican felt absolutely zero need to rush in and fix, as it rarely does in trivial matters. And this was a trivial matter since the canon was merely permissive in character and not proscriptive.

In short, if you want to point to a year in which the law changed it would be 1983. Secondly, even prior to 1983 if there was a bishop who permitted female servers the Vatican probably didn’t care all that much since it had bigger issues to deal with. However, had a episcopal conference officially published guidelines for female altar servers when it was “illegal” to do so you can be sure there would have been an official rebuke.
Third, this has little to nothing to do with the issue at hand.

Allowing something to take place as a result of a process is a change. Lets not nitpick if it was actually a law being changed but a change in practice was being permitted. No Bishop or priest could in good conscience allow Altar girls to be permitted prior to 1994.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

Excuse me, but the people you described above are not Catholic. Meaning, those people are not in communion with the Bishop of Rome.

Hold on, they most certainly are Catholic. They might not be “good” Catholics, but they are Catholic.

 

[tskrobacz]

I have been anxiously waiting for someone to say this!!! (hope this goes through)

freep.com/article/20110627/NEWS01/110627047/Sejior-Vatican-adviser-wants-communion-rite-taken-away-from-Andrew-Cuomo-over-same-sex-marriage-stance

Sad really…who among us is truly worthy (including the ordained) to receive the Eucharist? If we make it a worthyness contest then we would end up excluding all from the graces available in the sacrament. Jesus said do this in memory of me…not do this, but only if you are worthy. All were welcome at his table (including his betrayer).

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

Allowing something to take place as a result of a process is a change. Lets not nitpick if it was actually a law being changed but a change in practice was being permitted. No Bishop or priest could in good conscience allow Altar girls to be permitted prior to 1994.

There is no nitpicking, there is only truth and falsehood. The truth is that the Vatican explicitly and officially stated canon 230 permits female altar servers. To correctly apply canon law cannot be disobedience, thus any bishop after 1983 who allowed female servers was entirely orthodox and obedient.

Now, let’s get back to the actual issue at hand.

 

[JimG]

Sad really…who among us is truly worthy (including the ordained) to receive the Eucharist? If we make it a worthyness contest then we would end up excluding all from the graces available in the sacrament. Jesus said do this in memory of me…not do this, but only if you are worthy. All were welcome at his table (including his betrayer).

It is not a worthiness “contest.” Yet St. Paul in 1 Cor 11:28ff does make it clear that one is not to receive the sacrament unworthily. He even says that receiving unworthily is a detriment to a person, and does them harm.

So the admonition not to receive the sacrament in a state of grave sin is for the benefit of the communicant. One does not wish for others to bring on self-harm, either physical or spiritual, through unworthy reception of the Eucharist.

Receiving worthily is the responsibility of every communicant. The question at hand is whether or not a priest or EMHC should make that judgement as to one who approaches for communion. We already know that the communicant is morally obligated not to receive in a state of grave sin.

 

[Ender]

The question at hand is whether or not a priest or EMHC should make that judgement as to one who approaches for communion.

The question at hand is even more specific than that: it is whether Governor Cuomo should be given communion. Arguing about who gets to make the decision has distracted from the debate about the decision itself. So far, although a number of people have supported Bishop Hubbard’s right to make that decision, no one has as yet presented any persuasive defense of the position he has taken.

Ender

 

[Veritatis3]

Hold on, they most certainly are Catholic. They might not be “good” Catholics, but they are Catholic.

To be Catholic means you believe everything that has been and is being taught by the Church. It is the definition of the word. Obviously those who veer from Church teaching aren’t.

 

[TMC]

To be Catholic means you believe everything that has been and is being taught by the Church. It is the definition of the word. Obviously those who veer from Church teaching aren’t.

In that case there are no “real” Catholics as one cannot simultaneously believe everything the Church has taught in the past and everything that is currently being taught by the Church. Even if we limit it to everything that is currently being taught by the Church, you end up with a pretty small set - most Catholics have a quibble with something here or there. For example many American Catholics disagree with the Church’s teaching on the death penalty, most disagree with the Church’s stance on warfare and even more disagree with the Church on birth control. I see Catholics on this board everyday that disagree with the Church on a host of issues, large and small. For the most part they are good Catholics that are doing their best. I suppose that the few perfect Catholics in the world could start up a “Holier than thou” club - they could meet in an average sized coat closet and discuss how vile the rest of us are. But the rest of us regular sinners are still Catholics, flaws and all.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

To be Catholic means you believe everything that has been and is being taught by the Church. It is the definition of the word. Obviously those who veer from Church teaching aren’t.

No, it does not. To be a Catholic is to be baptized Catholic or received into the Church. Once a Catholic, always a Catholic.

Much like the mafia: once you’re in, the only way out is a pine box…

 

[tskrobacz]

It is not a worthiness “contest.” Yet St. Paul in 1 Cor 11:28ff does make it clear that one is not to receive the sacrament unworthily. He even says that receiving unworthily is a detriment to a person, and does them harm.

So the admonition not to receive the sacrament in a state of grave sin is for the benefit of the communicant. One does not wish for others to bring on self-harm, either physical or spiritual, through unworthy reception of the Eucharist.

Receiving worthily is the responsibility of every communicant. The question at hand is whether or not a priest or EMHC should make that judgement as to one who approaches for communion. We already know that the communicant is morally obligated not to receive in a state of grave sin.

Mary’s understanding of her nothingness is also saying something about us. Our worthiness is given. It is not attained. It is God in me searching for God. It is God in you that believes and hopes and cares and loves. There is nothing that we can take credit for. It is something we just thank God for!

So why do we make the Gospel into a cheap worthiness contest? After all, we have all fallen short of the glory (Romans 3:23, 5:12) and all are saved by mercy (Romans 11:32-36). Even Mary proclaims it of herself (four times!) in her “Magnificat” (Luke 1:47-55). Popes and priests, presidents and politicians are all saved “en Cristo” and by mercy and in our undeserved state. No exceptions.

God does not love us if we change. God loves us so that we can change. These are two very different scenarios, but most of Christian history has sadly chosen the first.

 

[JimG]

The question at hand is even more specific than that: it is whether Governor Cuomo should be given communion. Arguing about who gets to make the decision has distracted from the debate about the decision itself. So far, although a number of people have supported Bishop Hubbard’s right to make that decision, no one has as yet presented any persuasive defense of the position he has taken.

Ender

Well, I would just note that in the case of then Governor Sebelius, neither did Archbishop Naumann instruct that she not be given communion. Rather, he instructed her not to receive communion. The obligation to not receive was placed on her. It was not placed on every priest and EMHC in the archdiocese, some of whom might not have recognized her if she had approached them for communion. And even if he had chosen to place that burden on all the communion ministers and extraordinary ministers in his archdiocese, it would not presumably have applied to priests and ministers in the Dodge City diocese or the Salina diocese or the Kansas City Missouri diocese or other dioceses in the country. In any case, his method accomplished what he intended.

Also, for all the discussion I have seen here, I am not even certain if it is the case that Governor Cuomo has in fact received communion since signing this legislation or if he is even a regular Mass goer.

 

[Ender]

Well, I would just note that in the case of then Governor Sebelius…

Her’s is an interesting case … but it isn’t relevant to the question regarding Governor Cuomo.

Also, for all the discussion I have seen here, I am not even certain if it is the case that Governor Cuomo has in fact received communion since signing this legislation or if he is even a regular Mass goer.

I don’t know either, but that doesn’t address the question.

• He has been an active and outspoken supporter of abortion rights.
• He was an active supporter of homosexual “marriage” and signed the bill making it legal in NY.
• He is living in public concubinage with his girl friend.

Canon 915 says that communion must (not may) be denied to anyone who is “obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin.” Is there anyone on this thread willing to argue that his actions do not meet those four criteria? Finally, if his actions meet those criteria, what argument can be made that canon 915 should not be applied?

Ender

 

[Veridical16]

No, it does not. To be a Catholic is to be baptized Catholic or received into the Church. Once a Catholic, always a Catholic.

Much like the mafia: once you’re in, the only way out is a pine box…

Amen to that!

 

[Veritatis3]

No, it does not. To be a Catholic is to be baptized Catholic or received into the Church. Once a Catholic, always a Catholic.

Much like the mafia: once you’re in, the only way out is a pine box…

We aren’t protestant. “Once saved, always saved” doesn’t apply here. Do you understand what the word means?

Catholic comes from the Greek phrase καθόλου (kath’holou), meaning “on the whole,” “according to the whole” or “in general”. Meaning if you profess to be Catholic you believe all that the Church teaches. Not a piece here and there, but everything.

You are baptized in the Catholic (Universal) Church, but you most certainly reject her by rejecting her teachings. Would you call yourself a baptist, yet be baptized in a Methodist Church and profess their beliefs? I think not.

 

[Veritatis3]

In that case there are no “real” Catholics as one cannot simultaneously believe everything the Church has taught in the past and everything that is currently being taught by the Church. Even if we limit it to everything that is currently being taught by the Church, you end up with a pretty small set - most Catholics have a quibble with something here or there. For example many American Catholics disagree with the Church’s teaching on the death penalty, most disagree with the Church’s stance on warfare and even more disagree with the Church on birth control. I see Catholics on this board everyday that disagree with the Church on a host of issues, large and small. For the most part they are good Catholics that are doing their best. I suppose that the few perfect Catholics in the world could start up a “Holier than thou” club - they could meet in an average sized coat closet and discuss how vile the rest of us are. But the rest of us regular sinners are still Catholics, flaws and all.

Sinner here, 100%. I do believe 100% of what the Church teaches though. If I dont understand something I am humble enough to know that the Church knows better than I and I must bow in humility to her authority.
The Catholics that disagree with the Church are wrong, plain and simple. If you don’t understand a certain teaching, fine, but you must follow it regardless.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

We aren’t protestant. “Once saved, always saved” doesn’t apply here. Do you understand what the word means?

Merely being a Catholic doesn’t mean you’re automatically saved.

Catholic comes from the Greek phrase καθόλου (kath’holou), meaning “on the whole,” “according to the whole” or “in general”. Meaning if you profess to be Catholic you believe all that the Church teaches. Not a piece here and there, but everything.

You are baptized in the Catholic (Universal) Church, but you most certainly reject her by rejecting her teachings. Would you call yourself a baptist, yet be baptized in a Methodist Church and profess their beliefs? I think not.

Sorry, the Catholic Church says otherwise. Word games can be fun, but when it comes to defining who is and isn’t a Catholic canon law is the measuring stick. At one time canon law recognized formal defection as leaving the Church however it no longer does. Canon Law contains no provisions for no longer being a Catholic. Thus Semel Catholicus Semper Catholicus!

Look at it this way, can your biological brother ever not be your biological brother? He might not act like your brother, he might not claim you as his brother, he might not even like you. However, DNA (like baptism) is an indelible mark that can’t be changed. Those who are fallen away Catholics are your fallen away brothers and sisters.

 

[JimG]

Mary’s understanding of her nothingness is also saying something about us. Our worthiness is given. It is not attained. It is God in me searching for God. It is God in you that believes and hopes and cares and loves. There is nothing that we can take credit for. It is something we just thank God for!

So why do we make the Gospel into a cheap worthiness contest? After all, we have all fallen short of the glory (Romans 3:23, 5:12) and all are saved by mercy (Romans 11:32-36). Even Mary proclaims it of herself (four times!) in her “Magnificat” (Luke 1:47-55). Popes and priests, presidents and politicians are all saved “en Cristo” and by mercy and in our undeserved state. No exceptions.

God does not love us if we change. God loves us so that we can change. These are two very different scenarios, but most of Christian history has sadly chosen the first.

So I take it that you do not believe what Paul says in 1 Cor 11:28ff about examining oneself before receiving the Eucharist.

 

[tskrobacz]

So I take it that you do not believe what Paul says in 1 Cor 11:28ff about examining oneself before receiving the Eucharist.

We should all be responsible for owning and making amends for our shortcomings - a lifelong process

Paul’s message is to examine yourself…take ownership of your faults and continue to work on them…then you are “worthy”…not because you have reconciled them, instead because you have recognized them and are working to align your life with God’s will.