Senior Vatican Advisor wants No Communion for Cuomo

[NewEnglandPriest]

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

Excommunication is a specific canonical penalty for specific canonical crimes. Canon 915, which is the canon used to justify refusal of communion, is not part of the canons that treat ecclesiastical sanctions or punishments, and therefore, can not possibly be called excommunication.
Having a pro-abortion voting record is gravely sinful and thus excludes one from receiving communion, however it is not a canonical crime.

Canon 915 prohibits the pro-abortion politician from communion but not all sacraments. An excommunicated person, however, is barred from all sacraments. So, for example, a pro-abortion politician could get married in the church but someone who has been excommunicated could not.

 

[TMC]

Let’s see, should we demand the Church accede to the demands of some “advisor” that no one has ever heard of, or should we allow the Vicar of Christ and the Successors of the Apostles to exercise their duties in the way they have always seen fit? I think that the bishops, including the Bishop of Rome, are on the right side of this one.

 

[JimG]

With respect to Archbishop Naumann and Kathleen Sebelius:

It should be noted that Archbishop Naumann’s public letter to Kathleen Sebelius was preceded by a number of private communications with her, both by him and his predecessor archbishop. He only made the final letter public when it became apparent that she had ignored his (private) request not to present herself for communion.

The Archbishop’s request, now public, was simply that she not present herself for communion. He did not ask diocesan priests or EMHC’s to not give her communion, although he specifically reserved that as an option, saying that was not a step that he was ready to take.

In any case, it seems that Sebelius subsequently did refrain from presenting herself for communion.

 

[Ender]

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.

The impasse is caused by your refusal to address the question directly. Do Cuomo’s actions meet the criteria specified in canon 915? That’s a yes or no question. If they meet the criteria then should he be denied communion as the canon directs? That’s another yes or no question. Why won’t you answer?

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.

As a general statement this is probably true, but the question here is specific: what about the actions of Governor Cuomo?

Ender:

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.

The canon is straightforward and simple. The actions of Governor Cuomo clearly fall under its purview yet nothing is done. What am I missing? The Church says “If someone does X, the clergy must do Y.” Cuomo did X but the clergy has not responded as the Church has instructed and I’m still waiting for an explanation of why.

Ender:

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

Once again, an absurd allegation.

What have I gotten wrong this time? Is it not a sin for someone to receive unworthily? Is it not also a sin to cooperate in someone else’s sin? Isn’t that what catechism says?

*1868 … we have a responsibility for the sins committed by others when we cooperate in them: … - by not disclosing or not hindering them when we have an obligation to do so; *

I’m confused about what I’m supposed to believe. The words are easy to understand but you seem to infer they don’t mean what they obviously say.

Ender

 

[TMC]

The impasse is caused by your refusal to address the question directly. Do Cuomo’s actions meet the criteria specified in canon 915? That’s a yes or no question. If they meet the criteria then should he be denied communion as the canon directs? That’s another yes or no question. Why won’t you answer?

As a general statement this is probably true, but the question here is specific: what about the actions of Governor Cuomo?

The canon is straightforward and simple. The actions of Governor Cuomo clearly fall under its purview yet nothing is done. What am I missing? The Church says “If someone does X, the clergy must do Y.” Cuomo did X but the clergy has not responded as the Church has instructed and I’m still waiting for an explanation of why.

What have I gotten wrong this time? Is it not a sin for someone to receive unworthily? Is it not also a sin to cooperate in someone else’s sin? Isn’t that what catechism says?

*1868 … we have a responsibility for the sins committed by others when we cooperate in them: … - by not disclosing or not hindering them when we have an obligation to do so; *

I’m confused about what I’m supposed to believe. The words are easy to understand but you seem to infer they don’t mean what they obviously say.

Ender

Fortunately, your own personal opinion of what Canon 915 means is not relevant. Cardinal George, Cardinal Wuerl and Archbishop Dolan have each said that the Canon was never intended to be used as you describe, has not traditionally been used that way and that they do not intend to use it that way. (as I am sure you know as this has been discussed at length in many threads here) The current and past Pope clearly agree as each as offered communion to politicians that are pro-life and/or pro-gay rights. (as has also been discussed in the same and other threads). I am willing to take the word of three of the leaders of the Church in this country as to the import of that particular clause in the Canon, particularly when their word is consistent with the actions of the current and past Bishops of Rome.

 

[Ender]

Let’s see, should we demand the Church accede to the demands of some “advisor” that no one has ever heard of, or should we allow the Vicar of Christ and the Successors of the Apostles to exercise their duties in the way they have always seen fit? I think that the bishops, including the Bishop of Rome, are on the right side of this one.

Good, then you should be able to defend the decision to allow Governor Cuomo to receive communion. Which is your position: that Cuomo’s actions don’t meet the criteria defined in canon 915 or that the canon should be ignored in his case?

Ender

 

[Ridgerunner]

Excommunication is a specific canonical penalty for specific canonical crimes. Canon 915, which is the canon used to justify refusal of communion, is not part of the canons that treat ecclesiastical sanctions or punishments, and therefore, can not possibly be called excommunication.
Having a pro-abortion voting record is gravely sinful and thus excludes one from receiving communion, however it is not a canonical crime.

Canon 915 prohibits the pro-abortion politician from communion but not all sacraments. An excommunicated person, however, is barred from all sacraments. So, for example, a pro-abortion politician could get married in the church but someone who has been excommunicated could not.

Well, I’m not a canon lawyer, but the Catholic encyclopedia says this:

"Excommunication, especially a jure, is either latæ or ferendæ sententiæ. The first is incurred as soon as the offence is committed and by reason of the offence itself (eo ipso) without intervention of any ecclesiastical judge; it is recognized in the terms used by the legislator, for instance: “the culprit will be excommunicated at once, by the fact itself [statim, ipso facto]”. The second is indeed foreseen by the law as a penalty, but is inflicted on the culprit only by a judicial sentence; in other words, the delinquent is rather threatened than visited with the penalty, and incurs it only when the judge has summoned him before his tribunal, declared him guilty, and punished him according to the terms of the law. It is recognized when the law contains these or similar words: “under pain of excommunication”; “the culprit will be excommunicated”.

Excommunication ferendæ sententiæ can be public only, as it must be the object of a declaratory sentence pronounced by a judge; but excommunication latæ sententiæ may be either public or occult."

So, it seems Sebelius’ excommunication was actually incurred automatically by herself. The bishop’s making it public is simply one option open to a bishop. The fact that it was not made the subject of a tribunal hearing does not make her any the less excommunicated.

It does go on to say that all sacraments received by an excommunicated person are illicit.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

So, it seems Sebelius’ excommunication was actually incurred automatically by herself. The bishop’s making it public is simply one option open to a bishop. The fact that it was not made the subject of a tribunal hearing does not make her any the less excommunicated.

No, you are incorrect. Sebelius was asked not to receive communion due to her being a public sinner, however she was not excommunicated.

Excommunication is a specific penalty for a specific canonical crime. Having a pro-abortion voting record is gravely sinful and thus excludes one from receiving communion, however it is not a canonical crime.

 

[TMC]

Good, then you should be able to defend the decision to allow Governor Cuomo to receive communion. Which is your position: that Cuomo’s actions don’t meet the criteria defined in canon 915 or that the canon should be ignored in his case?

Ender

I just did. And have in probably half a dozen other threads.

Let’s recap. Your position is “I know better than the Pope and some guy that calls himself an expert agrees with me.” My position is that I will follow the Successors of the Apostles. You are certainly entitled to your view; I am comfortable with mine.

 

[Holly3278]

Hopefully the Bishop or Archbishop of New York will abide by this and refuse to allow Holy Communion to be given to him.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

Well, I’m not a canon lawyer…

Here is what Dr. Peters has to say about (non)excommunication and pro-abortion politicians:
, support for their position among credentialed canonical scholars around in the world.no

 

[Ender]

Let’s recap. Your position is “I know better than the Pope and some guy that calls himself an expert agrees with me.”

Not exactly. My position is that Cuomo’s actions demonstrate obstinate perseverance in manifest grave sin. This claim is either correct or incorrect. What is your opinion on the matter?

And that “guy” you airily dismiss is supported by the prefect of the Apostolic Signatura and it is worth noting that he and the pope have both said the same thing: someone who obstinately perseveres in manifest grave sin is to be denied communion, just as it says in canon 915. Your charge would be accurate if you changed it to say that I agree with the pope and the person who is in fact the leading canon lawyer in the Church.

My position is that I will follow the Successors of the Apostles.

I would have thought that the sex abuse scandals would have diminished the appeal to an unthinking acceptance of whatever the bishops did.

You are certainly entitled to your view; I am comfortable with mine.

Are you really all that comfortable holding a position you are unwilling and unable to defend on its merits? After all, if that many bishops believe as you do then surely the arguments must all lie with them - so what are they? Beyond claiming “the bishops must be right because they’re bishops” what is the argument that canon 915 does not apply in this case?

Ender

 

[Ridgerunner]

Here is what Dr. Peters has to say about (non)excommunication and pro-abortion politicians:
Those wishing to invoke Canon 1398 against pro-abortion politicians should, at the very least, be aware that there is little, and perhaps no, support for their position among credentialed canonical scholars around in the world.

While there certainly seem to be distinctions among the various forms of excommunication, and, apparently, lawyerly disputations concerning what, exactly, is included within the term “procuring” an abortion, it appears there is little doubt that a Catholic official who supports abortion cannot be admitted to communion. therealpresence.org/eucharst/holycom/denial.htm

Apparently this is not just an obligation on the part of the abortion-promoter to refrain from receiving communion, it is also an obligation of the eucharistic minister not to give it to him/her.

 

[Ender]

In reviewing the way this discussion has gone it appears I have tacitly accepted an invalid assertion, and that would be that “the bishops” are on one side of the issue and I am on the other. Whatever was said about whether the decision to enforce canon 915 is the obligation of the local bishop, the issue here is particular, not general: was the decision made by Bishop Hubbard of Albany to allow Governor Cuomo to receive communion correct?

It is no good to respond by saying it was Hubbard’s decision, he made it, and therefore it is right simply by the fact that the choice was his. That’s like saying there is no right or wrong decision. One would like to believe he actually considered the issue and came to a conclusion on the merits, but if that’s so then he must himself believe there is a right and a wrong answer or he wouldn’t have needed to consider anything at all.

It may well be that the decision was Hubbard’s to make but that cannot mean that whatever he decided was therefore correct any more than a parent who has the responsibility to make choices for his children will always choose correctly. Responsibility does not confer wisdom and I think in this case, given that no one has presented any argument to support Hubbard’s decision, the wrong choice was made. The real question here is not about who gets to decide but what decision is the correct one based on the facts as they are known.

Ender

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

While there certainly seem to be distinctions among the various forms of excommunication, and, apparently, lawyerly disputations concerning what, exactly, is included within the term “procuring” an abortion, it appears there is little doubt that a Catholic official who supports abortion cannot be admitted to communion.

Someone who votes pro-abortion should not receive communion. However, they are not excommunicated. False claims have been made that Sebelius was excommunicated when she was not.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Someone who votes pro-abortion should not receive communion. However, they are not excommunicated. False claims have been made that Sebelius was excommunicated when she was not.

I’m not yet persuaded that they’re false. If, by one’s acts one is automatically precluded from receiving communion, and if that status is affirmed by one’s bishop, and if Cdl Burke says Eucharistic ministers ought not to give communion to such a person, it seems to me the rest is legal distinctions.

I will agree that someone who votes pro-abortion should not receive communion.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

I’m not yet persuaded that they’re false. If, by one’s acts one is automatically precluded from receiving communion, and if that status is affirmed by one’s bishop, and if Cdl Burke says Eucharistic ministers ought not to give communion to such a person, it seems to me the rest is legal distinctions.

Legal distinctions are very important. They inform us of the difference between a civil and a criminal charge, a misdemeanor and a felony, a state and a federal crime, etc., etc., etc.

The bottom line is that no pro-abortion voting politician has been excommunicated because what they have done, while gravely sinful, is not a canonical crime.

 

[JMJSHJ]

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.

That is a a ridiculous and absurd statement.

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.

I remember a time when it was also against Canon Law that altar girls were NOT to be used but Bishops and Priests who knew more than the Pope or the teachings of the Church reasoned that since women could be EMHC then why not altar girls. The Pope knew about it and did nothing to stop it, but that didn’t change the fact that Bishops and Priests were disobedient to Canon Law in that regard prior to 1994.

How do you judge this situation to that?

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

I remember a time when it was also against Canon Law that altar girls were NOT to be used but Bishops and Priests who knew more than the Pope or the teachings of the Church reasoned that since women could be EMHC then why not altar girls. The Pope knew about it and did nothing to stop it, but that didn’t change the fact that Bishops and Priests were disobedient to Canon Law in that regard prior to 1994.

How do you judge this situation to that?

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.

 

[GeorgetownHoya]

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?