Senior Vatican Advisor wants No Communion for Cuomo

  • Thread starter Thread starter Teelynn
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ender said:
His opinion would seem to have the benefit of being demonstrably correct.

Ender
Click to expand...
Ah yes, Dr. Peters is the lone wolf crying the liberal wilderness of the Vatican. :rolleyes:

If the Holy See wanted draconian measures taken against US politicians then it’d make that known to the US Bishops and see that it was actually done. However the Vatican actually gives wide latitude to individual bishops to figure out the best solution for their own diocese that won’t ignite a religious war…
 
NewEnglandPries said:
Ah yes, Dr. Peters is the lone wolf crying the liberal wilderness of the Vatican. :rolleyes:

If the Holy See wanted draconian measures taken against US politicians then it’d make that known to the US Bishops and see that it was actually done. However the Vatican actually gives wide latitude to individual bishops to figure out the best solution for their own diocese that won’t ignite a religious war…
Click to expand...
How could denying Holy Communion to, or even excommunicating, a public figure who has so blatantly betrayed his Church, be called “draconian”? How much evil and scandal have he and his fellow travellers caused?

Is there a touch of cynicism in your first comment?
 
NewEnglandPries said:
It should be remembered that Dr. Peters is merely an advisor, he carries no authority. His opinion is simply that, it is not official Church application/interpretation/implementation.
Click to expand...
On another thread someone had this to say about the application of canon law that might apply to this thread.
Indeed commentary itself holds no power. However as any lawyer will tell you, simply knowing the text of law means you know little more than nothing. Canon law is no different, there’s context, application principles, and guidance that’s received from various other documents
Click to expand...
.

Is it not Dr. Peters job as advisor to assist the Church in the application/interpretation/implementation of the law? As you can see from the bit that I posted from another thread some hold that the commentary to the law is necessary…just like Dr. Peters commentary.

M
 
NewEnglandPries said:
Ah yes, Dr. Peters is the lone wolf crying the liberal wilderness of the Vatican. :rolleyes:

If the Holy See wanted draconian measures taken against US politicians then it’d make that known to the US Bishops and see that it was actually done. However the Vatican actually gives wide latitude to individual bishops to figure out the best solution for their own diocese that won’t ignite a religious war…
Click to expand...
I guess if there was a counter argument to Dr. Peter’s position we would have heard it by now. Pointing out that the bishops haven’t taken the steps he recommends is not such an argument.

Ender
 
NewEnglandPries said:
If the Holy See wanted **draconian measures **taken against US politicians then it’d make that known to the US Bishops and see that it was actually done. However the Vatican actually gives wide latitude to individual bishops to figure out the best solution for their own diocese that won’t ignite a religious war…
Click to expand...
Draconian eh? Explains your bias on CAF. I guess its okay to disrespect Jesus so as long as you don’t rock the establishment.
 
Fink said:
How could denying Holy Communion to, or even excommunicating, a public figure who has so blatantly betrayed his Church, be called “draconian”? How much evil and scandal have he and his fellow travellers caused?

Is there a touch of cynicism in your first comment?
Click to expand...
Gee, then why hasn’t the Holy See demanded it? Secondly, unlike many others, the Church isn’t seeking WW3 with her wayward children. She seeks to bring them back to Her. Even denial of communion and excommunication are meant to be medicinal in use.
The Holy See has no interest in permanently driving away large segments of the Catholic population.
 
mlldrl said:
Is it not Dr. Peters job as advisor to assist the Church in the application/interpretation/implementation of the law? As you can see from the bit that I posted from another thread some hold that the commentary to the law is necessary…just like Dr. Peters commentary.
Click to expand...
Dr. Peters’ job is to be a consultant for the Apostolic Signatura. He is one of dozens of international consultants. He is used on a “as needed” basis depending on what kinds of issues they’re dealing with. His opinion is valuable as to what the canons might allow for. However when it comes to the actual practice of the Church that’s what the Pope, Bishops and heads of Congregations are for.

Now there are, of course, two kinds of commentary. There’s commentary which explains how canons have been used in the past. That is commentary which shows the traditional practice/application of the canons, the stare decisis of the canonical system if you will. Then there’s commentary that shows how canons might be able to applied. The two are both important but of different worth.

Dr. Peters through his blog often likes to propose how canons might be able to be applied. However, he has no authority to officially interpret the canons in such ways nor is he in position to determine the pastoral effectiveness of such applications.
 
JMJSHJ said:
Draconian eh? Explains your bias on CAF. I guess its okay to disrespect Jesus so as long as you don’t rock the establishment.
Click to expand...
Take your complaint to Rome then. The Holy See has shown no interest in entering into a religious/political war in any country. The Bishops often are in private conversations with these political figures in an attempt to get them to stop receiving on their own…
 
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.

Folks tend to want official church action against those politicians with whom they disagree.
 
Ender said:
I guess if there was a counter argument to Dr. Peter’s position we would have heard it by now. Pointing out that the bishops haven’t taken the steps he recommends is not such an argument.

Ender
Click to expand...
Dr. Peters is correct that denial of communion is a “weapon” in the bishops’ canonical arsenal. No one is disputing that. What is in dispute is whether it should be done. He’s free to recommend anything he wants, as are you and everyone else on the internet. The bishops however look to Rome for their cues, not internet bloggers.
 
April 29, 2008:

"Cardinal Edward M. Egan said on Monday that former Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani should not have received holy communion during the visit of Pope Benedict XVI because Mr. Giuliani supports abortion rights.

Cardinal Egan, head of the Archdiocese of New York, said in a statement that he and Mr. Giuliani had reached “an understanding” when he became archbishop in 2000 that Mr. Giuliani “was not to receive the eucharist because of his well-known support of abortion.”

“I deeply regret that Mr. Giuliani received the eucharist during the papal visit here in New York,” the cardinal said.

He said he would like to meet with Mr. Giuliani “to insist that he abide by our understanding” about not receiving communion.

A spokeswoman for Mr. Giuliani, Sunny Mindel, said that the former mayor was willing to meet with the cardinal, but she did not address any of the specifics in the cardinal’s statement. Ms. Mindel added that Mr. Giuliani’s faith “is a deeply personal matter and should remain confidential.”

nytimes.com/2008/04/29/nyregion/29communion.html?pagewanted=print
 
I would refuse him Communion over his position on abortion. I believe that supporting the pro-choice movement to the extent that he does really places him at odds with the Catholic Church. No Catholic can support the taking of another human life.
 
NewEnglandPries said:
Dr. Peters is correct that denial of communion is a “weapon” in the bishops’ canonical arsenal. No one is disputing that. What is in dispute is whether it should be done. He’s free to recommend anything he wants, as are you and everyone else on the internet. The bishops however look to Rome for their cues, not internet bloggers.
Click to expand...
Your observation appears to be incorrect, since if the bishops actually looked to Rome, and the Apostolic Signatura (which is the highest judicial authority in the Church), they would know their duty. Nor would they have to interpret mere “cues” since the head of that body, Cardinal Burke, wrote a forty page analysis of the question which was published by the Periodica de re Canonica, an international canon law journal published in Rome, barely six months before he was appointed to his current post. There is no real dispute about what should be done, merely bishops unwilling to do it.

Ender
 
Beau_Ouiville said:
Folks tend to want official church action against those politicians with whom they disagree.
Click to expand...
This - unsurprisingly - sidesteps the debate. Either Cuomo should be denied communion or he shouldn’t and the reason a person chooses a position has nothing to do with the correctness of the position he has chosen. If you think a case can be made in Cuomo’s defense then let’s hear it.

Ender
 
Is the reluctance of Bishops to act due, in part, to social interaction between Church leaders and civic leaders/politicians? Too much rubbing shoulders at social functions, being accepted as part of the community…?
“[Politician X] is a really nice bloke when you get to know him. Weve become good friends." Sometimes, perhaps: "He even has insights Id never considered.”.
Or am i totally mad? 🤷
 
Ender said:
Your observation appears to be incorrect, since if the bishops actually looked to Rome, and the Apostolic Signatura (which is the highest judicial authority in the Church), they would know their duty.
Click to expand...
And yet nowhere in the world is it carried out. Somehow, I think that means Rome is less enthusiastic than others on this issue…
Nor would they have to interpret mere “cues” since the head of that body, Cardinal Burke, wrote a forty page analysis of the question which was published by the Periodica de re Canonica, an international canon law journal published in Rome, barely six months before he was appointed to his current post.
Click to expand...
Once again, once Cardinal Burke obtained his position he didn’t, apparently, pressure anyone to follow that opinion.
There is no real dispute about what should be done, merely bishops unwilling to do it.
Click to expand...
I think everyone knows what could be done, the debate still exists as to what should be done…
 
Beau_Ouiville said:
April 29, 2008:

"Cardinal Edward M. Egan said on Monday that former Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani should not have received holy communion during the visit of Pope Benedict XVI because Mr. Giuliani supports abortion rights.

Cardinal Egan, head of the Archdiocese of New York, said in a statement that he and Mr. Giuliani had reached “an understanding” when he became archbishop in 2000 that Mr. Giuliani “was not to receive the eucharist because of his well-known support of abortion.”

“I deeply regret that Mr. Giuliani received the eucharist during the papal visit here in New York,” the cardinal said.

He said he would like to meet with Mr. Giuliani “to insist that he abide by our understanding” about not receiving communion.

A spokeswoman for Mr. Giuliani, Sunny Mindel, said that the former mayor was willing to meet with the cardinal, but she did not address any of the specifics in the cardinal’s statement. Ms. Mindel added that Mr. Giuliani’s faith “is a deeply personal matter and should remain confidential.”

nytimes.com/2008/04/29/nyregion/29communion.html?pagewanted=print
Click to expand...
Have not read the entire article, but yes, I most fully agree Rudy Giuliani SHOULD NOT receive communion because of his pro abortion stance. Whether R or D I am really over the top disgusted with the leniency to receive Our Lord in the Eucharist and then publically promote intrinsic evil. (I am conservative btw if no one has noticed:)) To me, it doesn’t matter who it is, if they promote evil publically, I would say out you go, and I would announce it to the world.

You gotta love it…“his faith is deeply personal and should remain confidential”! ha!!! Right!!! But he publically promotes abortion? Another one, this time Republican that doesn’t know the meaning of common sense.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top