Senior Vatican Advisor wants No Communion for Cuomo

[tskrobacz]

Dear T_,
Andrew Cuomo is a prominent public figure whose very **public **stance on same-sex “marriage”–in open, public opposition to the Church’s teaching–has now spurred a national, public rallying cry among homosexual activists.

To argue that Cuomo’s action is “clearly a personal matter” denies the plain facts of the case.

If the “oppositional energy”, as you describe it, is used by those specifically ordained to teach and guide (i.e. the U.S. bishops) to promote a clear, reasoned and public defense of Catholic teaching, then the momentum garnered for legalizing same-sex “marriage” would at least be checked, and the movement’s claims reasonably examined. Doing nothing is just that: nothing; and it correspondingly accomplishes just that: nothing.

Whether such pro-activity on the part of the U.S. bishops succeeds politically is secondary. That they publicly preach the truth, a duty to which all bishops are bound by Our Lord through their ordination, is primary. And THAT, I assert, WILL change the momentum where it matters: in the hearts and minds of men, not just on the chairs and benches of the U.S. Government.

Cordially,
PAB

Remember the whole biblical drama begins with an act of transgression; a necessary transgression. We pretend to be disappointed that Adam and Eve ate the apple, but we have to know that is the whole point! They had to eat the apple. There is no story without it. That is how the conflict is set up. That is how we break through to consciousness. We don’t come to God by doing it “right.” Doing it right just makes us fall in love with ourselves, not God. In the story of the Prodigal Son we see it clearly (Luke 15:11-32). There is one son who does it right and one son who does it wrong. The one that does it wrong ends up, in fact, right; and the one who does it right ends up dead wrong.

We can’t see this because the ego does not want to see it. It gives us no sense of the superiority and ego control we are seeking—instead of seeking God and divine union. Paul calls this counterintuitive wisdom by various names, and one is “the folly of the cross.” He says it is a “revelation” from beyond and normal common sense cannot and will not see it (read 1 Corinthians 1:17-2:9). Someone has to tell us with authority that it is true.

On one hand our nation believes in separation of church and state, on the other hand the church has much to say if the state does not follow her teaching. My sense is this is a necessary tension to help us to continually seek to find the non-dualistic path of unity.

A Swiss theologian, Hans Urs Von Balthasar (1905-1988), who had real influence at Vatican II, said toward the end of his life: “All great thought springs from a conflict between two eventual insights.”

1. The wound which we find at the heart of everything is finally incurable - this clearly applies to homosexuality, abortion, addictions, etc…
2. Yet we still must try! And, in fact, we are driven to try!

This largely unsuccessful effort is itself the training ground for all virtue and growth in holiness.

This “wound at the heart of life” shows itself in many ways in different lives, but our holding and “suffering” of it will make each of us into a wise and holy person. It makes us patient, loving, hopeful, and compassionate. What else do we need?!

 

[Ender]

It is a hard call between denying a man the spiritual medicine he needs to get better, or the punishment of denial of sacraments to make him well.

The Eucharist is not a magic elixir; it has no power to heal the impenitent. Nor is there any punishment involved: “… the discipline is not penal but has to do with the safeguarding of the objective and supreme sanctity of the Holy Eucharist …” (Cardinal Burke)

The pastor of the man, not just in the Cuomo case but in general has been given the charge by God to make that call. The Bishop ultimately can also make that call.

The guidelines have been clearly defined - and Gov. Cuomo has clearly overstepped them. This is not a close call; if Cuomo’s actions don’t deserve sanction it is not clear what actions would.

The goal is to make a manifest sinner repent and recant.

This is a serious understatement of the concerns involved. Canon 915 exists for several reasons, not least of which is the concern for scandal - the effect on other people. So, while one goal may be to get a manifest sinner to repent, a second goal is to keep others from falling into the same sin. I should also add that a third goal is to prevent the sin of receiving unworthily, which is clearly what Cuomo is doing. Nor should we underestimate the seriousness of this sin: …" indeed no small punishment is appointed to them that partake unworthily." (St. Chrysostom). I would also think there would be a fourth goal of preventing the minister of communion from sinning:* “There is no small punishment for you, if being conscious of any wickedness in any man, you allow him to partake of this table.*” (ibid) Last, but surely not least, would be the safeguarding of the Eucharist itself.

Admitting the unworthy to communion in the hope they will amend their ways is exactly backwards: But these things I say, not that we repel them only, nor cut them off, but in order that we may amend them, and bring them back, that we may take care of them. (Ibid)

If the punishment in meaningless to the manifest sinner then the effect desired is out of reach. If local Ordinary and Pastor judges that the better course is to let the man take Communion unworthily, in the hope that Jesus can work a miracle, then we are in the position of making a Bishop our personal marionette.

The action is not penal and the responsibility of the clergy is not optional. As Canon 915 states, the publicly unworthy “are not to be admitted”.

The Churches precedent and hence her position, is not to deny Communion to anyone if there is any hope it may do them good.

The Church’s precedent and her position are precisely to deny communion to those who are publicly unworthy, a position going back to Paul himself.

Are there any other cases where the Church has denied an individual by name is not to be admitted to the sacraments, without an additional decree of excommunication? I know of none.

The Canon does not require excommunication and explicitly recognizes that those who have not been excommunicated fall under its purview: “Those who have been excommunicated … and others …”

Not to be long winded, but in the 1940s and 1950s Archbishop Rummel and Cardinal Ritter threatened segregationalist school administrators with excommunication for opposing integration of parochial schools. In that case the treatment they chose worked…

Perhaps the bishops of Maryland should use this approach with their governor who is pushing for homosexual “marriage” in his state. I’m guessing had this been done to Cuomo, Gov. O’Malley might be having second thoughts about his position, but as it is, who could blame him for feeling safe from sanctions in a Church that never hands them out?

Ender

 

[David_Carlon]

Cuomo, Biden and ALL cafeteria Catholics should be barred from receiving the Holy Eucharist… they have no faith.

 

[Roy5]

Those Catholics who argue that Cuomo, Biden and others should be denied communion remind me of Catholics when I was young. Catholics were forbidden to even enter a Protestant church - a major sin. I recall one young woman from a Catholic family who married a Protestant in his church. Many Catholics assumed that she was on her way to hell.

 A nun told me years ago that Vatican II changed Catholicism from a religion of rules to a religion of love. Judging from what I read on many postings here, that message hasn't reached many Catholics. They are quick to judge, quick to want to treat those who diverge a bit from traditional Catholicism like heretics who deserve to be denied the Eucharist.

 As I imagine Jesus, he was ready to associate with all manner of sinners, and mixed with lepers, praised Samaritans, and in other ways taught us by example to befriend outcasts. It was the established church that wanted him crucified. Sometimes I think we crucify him again and again when we act harshly and without love and tolerance for those who may not follow lock-step as we think they should.

 

[Ender]

A nun told me years ago that Vatican II changed Catholicism from a religion of rules to a religion of love.

And you believe this silliness? Do you really believe the Church had it all wrong for over 1900 years until Vatican II came along to straighten her out? One can only wonder what the Holy Spirit had on his plate that kept him so busy he wasn’t able to get the Church righted for nearly two millennia.

They are quick to judge, quick to want to treat those who diverge a bit from traditional Catholicism like heretics who deserve to be denied the Eucharist.

It would be a nice change of pace if someone would make an actual argument to support his position instead of relying on snide remarks about others.

Sometimes I think we crucify him again and again when we act harshly and without love and tolerance for those who may not follow lock-step as we think they should.

By “lock-step” do you mean following the laws of the Church? It was, after all, the Church - and not us harsh, unloving, and intolerant goose steppers - who wrote Canon 915. Does this mean the Church also is harsh, unloving, and intolerant?

Ender

 

[pataburd]

The Church’s precedent and her position are precisely to deny communion to those who are publicly unworthy, a position going back to Paul himself.Ender

Ender,
To your entry, I add the following, where Paul addresses a case of fornication in the Corinthian church (re: 1 Cor. 5, D-R Bible):

[3] I indeed, absent in body, but present in spirit, have already judged, as though I were present, him that hath so done, [4] In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, you being gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus; [5] To deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.

For St. Paul, this action IS at this stage–that of public scandal–the only, viable charitable treatment of the sinner. Notice that he does NOT molly-coddle the member who publicly persists in fornication (and thereby grant license to the sin), nor is he afraid to exercise his apostolic authority.

Dr. Dietrich von Hildebrand’s “Charitable Anathema” is also a useful reading in these circumstances.

What about the countless people who are scandalized by Cuomo’s persistence in grave sin? They potentially lose their faith and their salvation while the public sinner is left on the loose to spread more poison.

Cordially,
PAB

 

[pataburd]

Remember the whole biblical drama begins with an act of transgression; a necessary transgression. We pretend to be disappointed that Adam and Eve ate the apple, but we have to know that is the whole point! They had to eat the apple. There is no story without it. That is how the conflict is set up. That is how we break through to consciousness. We don’t come to God by doing it “right.” Doing it right just makes us fall in love with ourselves, not God. In the story of the Prodigal Son we see it clearly (Luke 15:11-32). There is one son who does it right and one son who does it wrong. The one that does it wrong ends up, in fact, right; and the one who does it right ends up dead wrong.

We can’t see this because the ego does not want to see it. It gives us no sense of the superiority and ego control we are seeking—instead of seeking God and divine union. Paul calls this counterintuitive wisdom by various names, and one is “the folly of the cross.” He says it is a “revelation” from beyond and normal common sense cannot and will not see it (read 1 Corinthians 1:17-2:9). Someone has to tell us with authority that it is true.

On one hand our nation believes in separation of church and state, on the other hand the church has much to say if the state does not follow her teaching. My sense is this is a necessary tension to help us to continually seek to find the non-dualistic path of unity.

A Swiss theologian, Hans Urs Von Balthasar (1905-1988), who had real influence at Vatican II, said toward the end of his life: “All great thought springs from a conflict between two eventual insights.”

1. The wound which we find at the heart of everything is finally incurable - this clearly applies to homosexuality, abortion, addictions, etc…
2. Yet we still must try! And, in fact, we are driven to try!

This largely unsuccessful effort is itself the training ground for all virtue and growth in holiness.

This “wound at the heart of life” shows itself in many ways in different lives, but our holding and “suffering” of it will make each of us into a wise and holy person. It makes us patient, loving, hopeful, and compassionate. What else do we need?!

T_,
O.K.
But–to reiterate the question I asked earlier–how does this relate to the Church–Jesus’ Body on earth–reversing her dogmatic teaching of an immutable Truth (i.e. that homosexual acts are “objectively disordered” and “intrinsically evil”)?

Cordially,
PAB

 

[pataburd]

The point is the same God that fused matter and spirit as revealed by Christ in Jesus continually illustrates the pattern of death in resurrection in the natural world. We must all die to our self (deny ourself as Jesus said), our ego, and align our lives to the will of God. God so loved his creation that he gave us many examples of the pattern of dying and rebirth so we can accept and trust the path we must follow, which is Jesus.

T_,
Will you please explain what you mean in the bolded text from your quote above?

Thank you.

Cordially,
PAB

 

[pataburd]

From Matthew, Chapter 18 (D-R Bible):

[15] But if thy brother shall offend against thee, go, and rebuke him between thee and him alone. If he shall hear thee, thou shalt gain thy brother. [16] And if he will not hear thee, take with thee one or two more: that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand. [17] And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican. [18] Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven.

This is the framework that Our Lord Himself gave the Church for dealing with members who persist in sin.

Definition of HEATHEN (from Webster’s Dictionary):

1: an unconverted member of a people or nation that does not acknowledge the God of the Bible

2: an uncivilized or irreligious person

Given Jesus’ use of the term, “heathen”, from the Gospel of Matthew and its definition, we have a strong case for withholding Communion from recalcitrant public sinners.

A few faithful bishops have followed this instruction by first talking privately with the offender. Next–having gained clear understanding that the person they have admonished–Jesus uses the no-uncertain-term “rebuke”–shows no inclination toward penitence (e.g. a pro-abortion/pro-same-sex marriage legislator continues to publicly advance such manifest evil), the bishop then instructs the member not to present him-/herself for Holy Communion. Lastly, the bishop instructs priests in his diocese as to the suitable action to be taken with such a member.

Another problem emerges at this point, because high-profile politicians, like Cuomo, Biden and Sebelius, frequently traverse several diocesan boundaries. What we see–as in the case with Joe Biden and Bishops Martino (Scranton) and Malooly (Wilmington)–is scandalous inconsistency among the bishops themselves. Bishop Martino puts Biden on notice in Scranton, but then Biden simply crosses the diocesan line into Wilmington and is cajoled and embraced by Bishop Malooly–even though it is obvious that Biden’s radical pro-abortion activity continues unchecked.

When bishops fail to act in accordance with the dictates of the Gospel, we see scandal heaped upon scandal, with more and more of the faithful being scandalized in the process.

Also, the words of Jesus from Matthew 18:

[7] Woe to the world because of scandals. For it must needs be that scandals come: but nevertheless woe to that man by whom the scandal cometh.

Cordially,
PAB

 

[tskrobacz]

T_,
O.K.
But–to reiterate the question I asked earlier–how does this relate to the Church–Jesus’ Body on earth–reversing her dogmatic teaching of an immutable Truth (i.e. that homosexual acts are “objectively disordered” and “intrinsically evil”)?

Cordially,
PAB

I’ve not suggested she must reverse her teaching.

I would however argue that seems highly unlikely for a politician of one party or the other to both serve in public office and have all of his or her decisions in that office fully aligned to the Church’es teaching. For the Church to make public examples of people in these positions seems counterproductive to me as their motives are likely not tied to this single issue but are intertwined with complex legal, political, economic and social realities…a “legal marriage” in this case does not require the Church to recognize it as a “sacramental marriage”…there are indeed plenty of other laws (Abortion etc) that do not align to Church teachings.

 

[tskrobacz]

T_,
Will you please explain what you mean in the bolded text from your quote above?

Thank you.

Cordially,
PAB

In John 1 we learn “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God”…“And the word became flesh and lived among us”

This is the reference to the Word/Spirit (Christ) becoming flesh (matter) in the person of Jesus.

 

[pataburd]

In John 1 we learn “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God”…“And the word became flesh and lived among us”

This is the reference to the Word/Spirit (Christ) becoming flesh (matter) in the person of Jesus.

T_,
Precisely what do you mean in your previous post by spirit and matter being “fused”?

Cordially,
PAB

 

[pataburd]

I’ve not suggested she must reverse her teaching.

I would however argue that seems highly unlikely for a politician of one party or the other to both serve in public office and have all of his or her decisions in that office fully aligned to the Church’es teaching. For the Church to make public examples of people in these positions seems counterproductive to me as their motives are likely not tied to this single issue but are intertwined with complex legal, political, economic and social realities…a “legal marriage” in this case does not require the Church to recognize it as a “sacramental marriage”…there are indeed plenty of other laws (Abortion etc) that do not align to Church teachings.

T_,
There have been saintly rulers, like St. Louis IX, St. Lucia, for example–and I concede that they represent a monarchical system. Just because the practice of ones faith is often difficult shouldn’t mean that a Catholic politician not try it, let alone create public scandal by obstinately persisting in grave sin.

For Pete’s sake, with examples like Cuomo, Biden and Sebelius, we don’t even see a bare minimal effort on their part! They become public witnesses of the Church which, according to St. Philip Neri (I think), is said to be “mystically present” in the actions of all its members.

Plus, the Church’s evangelical mission and character–which Vatican II taught was of singular importance–extends outside her immediate ecclesiastical confines and must work for the good of the culture and society at large. Isn’t that the whole point of her being “the sacrament of salvation” for the world? Otherwise, what is the point?

Same-sex marriage has negative implications for those currently outside the Church; why should the Church neglect these souls (and abandon her mission to “teach all nations”)?

Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse provides a very sound, research-based based argument in favor of Traditional marriage, if you care to listen to her. : )

Cordially,
PAB

 

[ComputerGeek25]

Those Catholics who argue that Cuomo, Biden and others should be denied communion remind me of Catholics when I was young. Catholics were forbidden to even enter a Protestant church - a major sin. I recall one young woman from a Catholic family who married a Protestant in his church. Many Catholics assumed that she was on her way to hell.

I belive this is false. If I’m reading the old version of Canon Law correctly, it is a mortal sin to actively participate in a Protestant Mass, such as recieving their form of Eucharist.

The church has always allowed people to marry Protestants, with the proper dispensation. However, it has not been encouraged and people have been warned about the possible issues.

I think the issue is people took this to the extreme though.

 A nun told me years ago that Vatican II changed Catholicism from a religion of rules to a religion of love.

This is a misleading statement by the nun. Vatican II was nothing more than re-stating and clarifications of church teaching that had been around for thousands of years. The seeds of Vatican II had been planted at least 50-100 years previously.

Judging from what I read on many postings here, that message hasn’t reached many Catholics. They are quick to judge, quick to want to treat those who diverge a bit from traditional Catholicism like heretics who deserve to be denied the Eucharist.

The church has always taught that those who are in mortal sin should not recieve the Eucharist.

 As I imagine Jesus, he was ready to associate with all manner of sinners, and mixed with lepers, praised Samaritans, and in other ways taught us by example to befriend outcasts. It was the established church that wanted him crucified. Sometimes I think we crucify him again and again when we act harshly and without love and tolerance for those who may not follow lock-step as we think they should.

You’re forgetting the second half of this. Jesus also said to “repent and sin no more.”

 

[tskrobacz]

T_,
Precisely what do you mean in your previous post by spirit and matter being “fused”?

Cordially,
PAB

The Word (Christ) became flesh (Jesus)…pure spirit fused (became) matter…In Jesus we have the incarnation…and for the first time the clear understanding of this joining that is also the essence of each of us. As one Theologian put it…your deepest you, is God.

 

[Ender]

I’ve not suggested she must reverse her teaching.

True; what you are arguing is that she should ignore them.

I would however argue that seems highly unlikely for a politician of one party or the other to both serve in public office and have all of his or her decisions in that office fully aligned to the Church’s teaching.

This perspective distorts the issue. It is surely not true that if two politicians or two parties are not perfect then they are equally bad. Beyond that, however, it is not all that difficult to behave morally while in public office; I’m surprised you think otherwise. The Church in fact has very few issues which do not allow prudential choices. Do you really think the command not to support intrinsic evil is all that complicated?

For the Church to make public examples of people in these positions seems counterproductive to me…

For the Church not to act as if she takes her teaching seriously is catastrophic.

… as their motives are likely not tied to this single issue but are intertwined with complex legal, political, economic and social realities.

There is nothing complex about evil. What you are mixing in with moral issues are all the prudential ones … about which the Church has no specific solutions. The individual may vote as he pleases on health care, immigration, the budget, etc. There is no Church position on these issues.

Ender

 

[Urbano_Macchi]

I recall one young woman from a Catholic family who married a Protestant in his church. Many Catholics assumed that she was on her way to hell.

Actually, if a baptized Catholic marries without the approval of the Church, she is objectively committing a mortal sin. The marriage is NULL and VOID and thus any sexual acts committed within the “marriage” objectively constitute fornication.

This is STILL the law of the Church. Nothing has changed, there is only a perception that somehow Vatican II changed these hard moral rules. That perception is merely the product of liberals projecting their view of how the Church “should be” on Vatican II.

 

[ComputerGeek25]

Actually, if a baptized Catholic marries without the approval of the Church, she is objectively committing a mortal sin. The marriage is NULL and VOID and thus any sexual acts committed within the “marriage” objectively constitute fornication.

This is STILL the law of the Church. Nothing has changed, there is only a perception that somehow Vatican II changed these hard moral rules. That perception is merely the product of liberals projecting their view of how the Church “should be” on Vatican II.

A lot of people are under the incorrect assumption that Vatican II drastically changed the church. The only thing that happened is that the church re-stated and further clarified doctorine, dogma, etc. Some interperted this incorrectly like the nun that Roy5 was talking too.

 

[pataburd]

The Word (Christ) became flesh (Jesus)…pure spirit fused (became) matter…In Jesus we have the incarnation…and for the first time the clear understanding of this joining that is also the essence of each of us. As one Theologian put it…your deepest you, is God.

T_,
So you are suggesting an “equivalence” between spirit and matter (i.e. when you state that spirit became matter)? I’m a bit confused becasue this sounds a lot like materialism and/or pantheism.

PAB

 

[pataburd]

Actually, if a baptized Catholic marries without the approval of the Church, she is objectively committing a mortal sin. The marriage is NULL and VOID and thus any sexual acts committed within the “marriage” objectively constitute fornication.

This is STILL the law of the Church. Nothing has changed, there is only a perception that somehow Vatican II changed these hard moral rules. That perception is merely the product of liberals projecting their view of how the Church “should be” on Vatican II.

The Church is very prudent when establishing such conditions for “mixed” marriages. My wife and I are both Roman Catholics, yet we have experienced sometimes turbulent points of difference concerning the Faith. I know several Catholics who married Protestants, many with disastrous effects: some are divorced, some have neglected or lost their faith altogether, a good number of the children born to these marriages were not taught the Faith, etc.

More disastrous outcomes proceed from misapplications of “ecumenism”, so-called, with illicit inter-Communion, a dulling or outright denial of distinctly “Catholic” points of doctrine.

Generally, the moral lives of U.S. Catholics today are indistinguishable from those of their Protestant–or even Pagan–counterparts. Look at divorce, abortion, use of contraception, for example: Catholics have been conformed to the world and not–as it ought to be–vice versa.