" The Dolan Decree - New York archbishop lays down the law on SAME-SEX Marriages "

[NewEnglandPriest]

The governor may be free to act as he wants but the bishop has no such freedom; he has obligations he must fulfill.

Can. 1369 A person who in a public show or speech, in published writing, or in other uses of the instruments of social communication utters blasphemy, gravely injures good morals, expresses insults, or excites hatred or contempt against religion or the Church** is to be punished** with a just penalty.

Ender

Good luck with that. Canon 1369 has been rarely used against the laity. In fact, the last time Dr. Peters could even recall a similar canon being invoked was back in 1962. So not only was it the old code but its also 50 years ago. Not likely to happen.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

Well, since Cuomo is pushing for abortion, and is in effect aiding those who want an abortion, he would seem to be guilty.

**Canon 1398: “A person who procures a completed abortion incurs a latae sententiae excommunication.” **

Sorry, canon 1398 only applies to a person who is directly involved in a particular abortion.
You can read a more detailed explanation here:
, support for their position among credentialed canonical scholars around in the world.no

*Canon 1364 §1: “an apostate from the faith, a heretic, or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication.” *

Well, he is not an apostate nor a schismatic so I guess you’re accusing him of being a heretic. However, heresy has never been applied to political votes. Cuomo would have to make a theological/religious statement rather than a political one to be suspected of heresy.

These would seem to say that even if the bishops won’t do it publicly, Cuomo has in effect excommunicated himself.

No.

Also, I think it is safe to say that anyone who is not in a state of grace, i.e., in a state of mortal sin, has excommunicated him or herself because they cannot receive the sacraments of the Church, although, of course, they do not need an official lifting of that excommunication.

No, that is incorrect. Excommunication is a specific canonical penalty for specific canonical crimes.

 

[A_Catholic]

Canon 915 is NOT excommunication, it is a discipline of the sacrament. Being denied communion under canon 915 is NOT excommunication.

That is technically correct. Excommunication does involve more. But being denied communion by the church is a gravely serious matter, and indicates that unless the person repents, he will go to hell.

Sorry, canon 1398 only applies to a person who is directly involved in a particular abortion.
You can read a more detailed explanation here:
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.

Whoa - are you working for Cuomo? You are one of his best defenders, that’s for sure.

Okay, so I’ll agree that Canon 1398, per se, is not applicable to Cuomo. But 1329 surely is:

Canon Law 1329 Catholics who are accomplices in enabling and permitting the crime of abortion to occur, who without their assistance the crime would not have been committed, incur the same penalty.

This is what Cardinal Raymond Burke said about pro-abortion politicians:

*“For instance, on the question of a person who publicly and obstinately espouses the right of a woman to choose to abort the infant in her womb receiving Holy Communion, strikes me as something very clear in the 2,000 years of the church’s tradition - she’s always firmly held that a person who is publicly and obstinately in grave sin should not approach to receive Holy Communion and, if he or she does, should be denied Holy Communion.”

Cardinal Burke explained that the sanction on receiving Communion for a person who publicly dissents from Church teaching is intended to “avoid for the person - himself or herself - committing a sacrilege: in other words, receiving the Sacrament unworthily, and also because the holiness of the Sacrament itself demands that one be in a state of grace to receive the Body and Blood of Christ.”

“It is discouraging that either members of the Church claim not to understand this or they claim that in some way there is an excuse for someone who is publicly and obstinately in grave sin to receive Holy Communion,” Cardinal Burke said.*

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

That is technically correct. Excommunication does involve more. But being denied communion by the church is a gravely serious matter, and indicates that unless the person repents, he will go to hell.

No it most certainly does not mean someone will go to hell. Only God judges the soul.

Whoa - are you working for Cuomo? You are one of his best defenders, that’s for sure.

No, I work for the Church so I go by the Church’s rules and I don’t just make up my own rules.

Okay, so I’ll agree that Canon 1398, per se, is not applicable to Cuomo. But 1329 surely is:

Canon Law 1329 Catholics who are accomplices in enabling and permitting the crime of abortion to occur, who without their assistance the crime would not have been committed, incur the same penalty.

No, 1329 most assuredly is not applicable. As the article I already posted from Dr. Edward Peters points out, canons 1398 and 1329 require a direct involvement and cooperation with a specific abortion. These canons cannot be applied to politicians and votes.

This is what Cardinal Raymond Burke said about pro-abortion politicians…

Cardinal Burke was discussing canon 915 and “obstinate manifest grave sin.” That is the applicable clause of the canon to refuse Gov. Cuomo communion. However he is not excommunicated.

 

[JReducation]

We’re mixing things up here that don’t go together.

Excommunication has the effect of separating the person from receiving the sacraments. However, separating the person from the sacraments, is not excommunication. Any person in a state of grave sin is separated from Holy Communion, but he is not excommunicated. For example, a person who is married, divorced and remarried.

We’re also being very selective here in how we apply penalties. I have seen many of you who want to excommunicate Mr. Cuomo and others, defend the right of the SSPX bishops to celebrate the Euharist while they were excommunicated. The truth is that they did not have that right, nor did they have the right to receive Holy Communion while excommunicated.

Unless a canon explicitly says that the consequence for an action is excommunication, a bishop cannot unilaterally excommunicate, because the Holy See can turn it around, since it’s not in the law. There is nothing in the law that says that someone who supports same-sex unions/marriages incurs excommunication. The law is very clear. We can never justify such actions.

The bishop’s letter is to his clerics and religious. There is no need for the laity to be sent a copy. This was put into the news as a matter of information sharing. At the end of the day, those who make the decision to participate or allow such ceremonies would be clerics and religious. The laity does not witness these unions, does not administer chapels or parishes and does not have in its possession sacred vessels and other liturgical artifacts mentioned in the Archbishop’s letter. There are many of these letters floating around, form bishops and from major superiors of religious. They are always sent to those who would be in a position to break these rules.

There is nothing in Church law that targets politicians for excommunication for voting on such a position. The law says that they should not be received to Holy Communion. It does not say that they incur excommunication. The law does not require that bishops deal with this publicly either. This desire to see bishops come down on these people and make a public spectacle of it is not in the mind of the Vatican. The Vatican does not function this way. The Vatican takes into account several factors.

a. The Church must deal with the politician as with any other son or daughter of the Church and show the utmost respect for his dignity and his reputation in the community. It is not the job of the Church to destroy a person’s reputation in order to right a wrong. The ends never justifies the means.

b. In dealing with political figures, the Church also understands that she must choose the greater good. The greater good is always the welfare of the whole Church. It is not in the interest of the whole Church to destroy the diplomatic relationship between the Church and political figures over one issue. While you try to fix one conflict, you can hurt many people in other situations. A public confrontation between political figures and the Church is a last resort, not the starting point.

c. It’s not a matter of whether the laity can or cannot do whatever it wants without impunity. The real issue is that the Church exists to teach, to guide, to govern, but not to micromanage. The lay faithful have the same duty as anyone else to manage themselves without having to be threatened.
We have to be firm in our defense of moral truth and at the same time we must be prudent and patient as we go about bringing people around to compliance. It’s important to strike a balance.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[irishpatrick]

Our politicians, and all people, are part if the culture. That includes all Catholics, and SS marriage is something a great many Catholics support. We need to get the culture back.

 

[ANNE_2]

J. Reduction (BRO JR OSF),
Techincally you are legally correct regarding formal excommunication.
However, I respectfully disagree with you on some things.

1. Canon 915 must (but is not) upheld by all Bishops.
   " Can. 915 Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion."
   Political expediency does not trump Sacrilege.
   Saving Souls trumps political considerations.
2. Catholic Politicians by their public statements, public actions, and public voting records can cause Scandal amongst Catholics and non-Catholics alike.
   When scandal is involved, sins are no longer a private matter, because the offending person made the sin public himself.
   When a Catholic politician OBSTINATELY perseveres in his sin, Canon 915 must be imposed for the Soul of the Politican and for the Souls of those he/she scandalizes. This is a teaching act. - Not micro-management.

CCC - " 2284 Scandal is an attitude or behavior which leads another to do evil. The person who gives scandal becomes his neighbor’s tempter. He damages virtue and integrity; he may even draw his brother into spiritual death. Scandal is a grave offense if by deed or omission another is deliberately led into a grave offense. "

CCC - " 2286 Scandal can be provoked by laws or institutions, by fashion or opinion.
Therefore, they are guilty of scandal who establish laws or social structures leading to the decline of morals and the corruption of religious practice, or to “social conditions that, intentionally or not, make Christian conduct and obedience to the Commandments difficult and practically impossible.”
This is also true of business leaders who make rules encouraging fraud, teachers who provoke their children to anger, or manipulators of public opinion who turn it away from moral values. "

CCC - " 1491 The sacrament of Penance is a whole consisting in three actions of the penitent and the priest’s absolution. The penitent’s acts are repentance, confession or disclosure of sins to the priest, and the intention to make reparation and do works of reparation.

Those who commit Scandal must do their best to undo the public damage done by their Scandal - “reparation”.

The lack of upholding Canon 915 in each Diocese, is one of the causes of relativism by Catholics;
and the appearence of double standards is one of the reasons some Catholics have left the Church.

FYI - I have not taken any position on SSPX, and I support Pope Benedict. Hopefully there will be reconciliation.

 

[Ender]

b. In dealing with political figures, the Church also understands that she must choose the greater good. The greater good is always the welfare of the whole Church. It is not in the interest of the whole Church to destroy the diplomatic relationship between the Church and political figures over one issue. While you try to fix one conflict, you can hurt many people in other situations. A public confrontation between political figures and the Church is a last resort, not the starting point.

Several years ago I wrote to my bishop and asked for an explanation of his action - or rather, lack of action - with regard to our governor, a pro-abortion Catholic. I specifically asked why the governor was allowed to receive communion given his public support of abortion and the answer I received was pretty much in line with your explanation: it was a tactical decision made by the bishops collectively not to challenge politicians on this subject.

Whatever one may think of the effectiveness of that approach - and I think it has been disastrous - the larger problem affects not merely the fight against abortion but the state of the Church herself. What are people likely to think when viewing the bishops rationalization for inaction? Why would the same argument not be valid for individuals trying to choose between their duty and their self-serving perception that the easy way might really be the most effective way?

I am pleased with Archbishop Dolan’s decree. I am pleased when any bishop forthrightly and unapologetically not only proclaims Church teaching but then acts as if it matters.

We’re also being very selective here in how we apply penalties. I have seen many of you who want to excommunicate Mr. Cuomo and others, defend the right of the SSPX bishops to celebrate the Eucharist while they were excommunicated.

This argument is irrelevant. The question is not whether individuals are selective in how they wish to see sanctions applied but whether it is appropriate to apply them in the examples they raise. With regard to the reception of communion by politicians like Governor Cuomo there is no doubt that Canon 915 applies and no valid excuse for not applying it.

Ender

 

[A_Catholic]

No it most certainly does not mean someone will go to hell. Only God judges the soul.

No, I work for the Church so I go by the Church’s rules and I don’t just make up my own rules.

No, 1329 most assuredly is not applicable. As the article I already posted from Dr. Edward Peters points out, canons 1398 and 1329 require a direct involvement and cooperation with a specific abortion. These canons cannot be applied to politicians and votes.

Cardinal Burke was discussing canon 915 and “obstinate manifest grave sin.” That is the applicable clause of the canon to refuse Gov. Cuomo communion. However he is not excommunicated.

A personal question for you. Do you think it is okay for Catholic pro-abortion, pro-homosexual, pro-stem cell research, etc. politicians to receive communion? Do you believe that there is no scandal involved here, the definition of scandal being:

According to St. Thomas (II-II, Q. liii, a. 1) scandal is a word or action evil in itself, which occasions another’s spiritual ruin. It is a word or action, that is either an external act—for an internal act can have no influence on the conduct of another—or the omission of an external act, because to omit what one should do is equivalent to doing what is forbidden; it must be evil in itself, or in appearance; this is the interpretation of the words of St. Thomas: minus rectum.

Do you think it is okay for a public person to publicly disobey the laws of the Catholic Church and yet still receive the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ? You don’t believe the bishops have any responsiblity to say anything here?

I don’t know if you went to the link for the article about Cardinal Burke, but here it is, and there is absolutely no menion of Canon Law 915. He talking about pro-abortion politicians receiving communion.

lifesitenews.com/news/cardinal-burke-its-very-clear-pro-abort-politicians-should-be-refused-commu/

As far as whether such politicans will go to hell, I would never judge anyone. But I do know that if a Catholic does not die in a state of grace, he or she will go to hell. That is the plain teaching of the church. And someone who disobeys the Church on issues such as abortion or homosexuality is in a state of serious mortal sin and their souls are in mortal danger. That is Catholic teaching and cannot be disputed.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

A personal question for you. Do you think it is okay for Catholic pro-abortion, pro-homosexual, pro-stem cell research, etc. politicians to receive communion? Do you believe that there is no scandal involved here…

Scandal is, as you pointed out, that which could lead others to sin or lose faith. While I do not support the actions of such politicians, their actions are not a “scandal” to me since they do not lead me to any possible sin or loss of faith. However, I do understand that its possible it might lead others to such a situation. But scandal swings both ways. If the Church condemns a politician and it leads many to think the Church is too involved in politics and leads people to lose trust in the Church then that too is a possible scandal.

Do you think it is okay for a public person to publicly disobey the laws of the Catholic Church and yet still receive the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ? You don’t believe the bishops have any responsiblity to say anything here?

Bishops should be in communication with the politician and should inform them that they should not receive communion. However, the bishop has no obligation to make such dialogue/discussion public.

Remember, all penalties are ultimately meant to be medicinal not punitive. The Bishop is concerned about the soul of the politician as well. Making such conversations public could harden their hearts and minds against the truth.

I don’t know if you went to the link for the article about Cardinal Burke, but here it is, and there is absolutely no menion of Canon Law 915. He talking about pro-abortion politicians receiving communion.

Yes, I read the article. Bishops/Cardinals can’t just unilaterally declare someone shouldn’t receive communion. They need a canonical basis for such a declaration. Notice the carefully chosen words of Cardinal Burke: “a person who persists publicly in grave sin is to be denied Holy Communion.”

He chooses a few words for a specific reason.
Canon 915 reads: “obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.”
Burke says “persists” which equals “obstinately persevering.”
Burke says “public” which equals “manifest.”
Burke says “grave sin” which obviously equals “grave sin.”

Cardinal Burke was indeed referring to canon 915, he simply paraphrased it.

As far as whether such politicans will go to hell, I would never judge anyone. But I do know that if a Catholic does not die in a state of grace, he or she will go to hell. That is the plain teaching of the church. And someone who disobeys the Church on issues such as abortion or homosexuality is in a state of serious mortal sin and their souls are in mortal danger. That is Catholic teaching and cannot be disputed.

Someone may be objectively committing grave sin but for various reasons are not guilty of grave sin. The Church can only point out objectively that grave matter is present and the person is making an objectively sinful choice. How morally guilty he or she is, that’s up to God.

 

[A_Catholic]

Scandal is, as you pointed out, that which could lead others to sin or lose faith. While I do not support the actions of such politicians, their actions are not a “scandal” to me since they do not lead me to any possible sin or loss of faith. However, I do understand that its possible it might lead others to such a situation. But scandal swings both ways. If the Church condemns a politician and it leads many to think the Church is too involved in politics and leads people to lose trust in the Church then that too is a possible scandal.

Bishops should be in communication with the politician and should inform them that they should not receive communion. However, the bishop has no obligation to make such dialogue/discussion public.

Remember, all penalties are ultimately meant to be medicinal not punitive. The Bishop is concerned about the soul of the politician as well. Making such conversations public could harden their hearts and minds against the truth.

Yes, I read the article. Bishops/Cardinals can’t just unilaterally declare someone shouldn’t receive communion. They need a canonical basis for such a declaration. Notice the carefully chosen words of Cardinal Burke: “a person who persists publicly in grave sin is to be denied Holy Communion.”

He chooses a few words for a specific reason.
Canon 915 reads: “obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.”
Burke says “persists” which equals “obstinately persevering.”
Burke says “public” which equals “manifest.”
Burke says “grave sin” which obviously equals “grave sin.”

Cardinal Burke was indeed referring to canon 915, he simply paraphrased it.

Someone may be objectively committing grave sin but for various reasons are not guilty of grave sin. The Church can only point out objectively that grave matter is present and the person is making an objectively sinful choice. How morally guilty he or she is, that’s up to God.

Sigh. :nope: There is really nothing more to say to this post. You are splitting hairs to the nth degree. Very dangerous. You seem to think you can read Cardinal Burke’s mind and know exactly what he is saying even though he is not saying it. I think I’ll just stick with his plain words and not put my own meaning into it:

on the question of a person who publicly and obstinately espouses the right of a woman to choose to abort the infant in her womb receiving Holy Communion, strikes me as something very clear in the 2,000 years of the church’s tradition - she’s always firmly held that a person who is publicly and obstinately in grave sin should not approach to receive Holy Communion and, if he or she does, should be denied Holy Communion

 

[JReducation]

J. Reduction (BRO JR OSF),
Techincally you are legally correct regarding formal excommunication.
However, I respectfully disagree with you on some things.

1. Canon 915 must (but is not) upheld by all Bishops.
   " Can. 915 Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion."
   Political expediency does not trump Sacrilege.
   Saving Souls trumps political considerations.
2. Catholic Politicians by their public statements, public actions, and public voting records can cause Scandal amongst Catholics and non-Catholics alike.
   When scandal is involved, sins are no longer a private matter, because the offending person made the sin public himself.
   When a Catholic politician OBSTINATELY perseveres in his sin, Canon 915 must be imposed for the Soul of the Politican and for the Souls of those he/she scandalizes. This is a teaching act. - Not micro-management.

CCC - " 2284 Scandal is an attitude or behavior which leads another to do evil. The person who gives scandal becomes his neighbor’s tempter. He damages virtue and integrity; he may even draw his brother into spiritual death. Scandal is a grave offense if by deed or omission another is deliberately led into a grave offense. "

CCC - " 2286 Scandal can be provoked by laws or institutions, by fashion or opinion.
Therefore, they are guilty of scandal who establish laws or social structures leading to the decline of morals and the corruption of religious practice, or to “social conditions that, intentionally or not, make Christian conduct and obedience to the Commandments difficult and practically impossible.”
This is also true of business leaders who make rules encouraging fraud, teachers who provoke their children to anger, or manipulators of public opinion who turn it away from moral values. "

CCC - " 1491 The sacrament of Penance is a whole consisting in three actions of the penitent and the priest’s absolution. The penitent’s acts are repentance, confession or disclosure of sins to the priest, and the intention to make reparation and do works of reparation.

Those who commit Scandal must do their best to undo the public damage done by their Scandal - “reparation”.

The lack of upholding Canon 915 in each Diocese, is one of the causes of relativism by Catholics;
and the appearence of double standards is one of the reasons some Catholics have left the Church.

FYI - I have not taken any position on SSPX, and I support Pope Benedict. Hopefully there will be reconciliation.

I’m not saying that you pesonally took a position for or against the SSPX. I’m seeing some people who defended the “right” of the excommunicated bishops to consecrate and receive the Eucharist while excommunicated and are now demanding an excommunication for an offense that does not carry the penalty of excommunication.

The canon says that such a person is not to receive Holy Communion. It does not say that such a person incurs excommunication. This is what Father and I are trying to tell you.

Archbishop Dolan is not threatening with excommunication. He does not have the authority to threatent with excommunication an action that is not identified by Canon Law as one deserving of excommunication.

Archbishop Dolan is threatening with canonical sanctions. Those are many. If he proceeded to excommunicate any politician for supporting same sex marriage, the Vatican would turn that excommunication around in a heartbeat in an appeal. There are only three ways that you can excommunicate:

1. The law explicitly says so.
2. The Holy Father explicitly says so.
3. A male who is the major superior of a religious institute requests it

This is the process that has been followed by the Church since the establishment of Canon Law. Canon Law is very specific about what actions incur excommunication. We cannot demand excommunication when the law does not allow for it.

As to the other bishop who said that he had made a tactical choice, that is allowed by the Church. Bishops must always choose what is in the best interest of the Church over the individuals. Look at Ven. Pius XII. He never took a public stand against the Nazis, because it put the Church in grave danger and probably many more Jews as well. However, he acted very covertly and allowed others to violate all kinds of laws in order to protect the Jews. He opted to say nothing, but to do a great deal behind the scenes., because it was the greater good. He has been slammed by many who do not know what he did behind the scenes. The same applies to these bishops. Many do a great deal behind the scenes that we won’t know about until some time in the future, while in the public arena they appear to be doing nothing.

The primary duty of a bishop is to protect the welfare of the local Church. If a crisis reaches a point when the welfare of the local Church is going to suffer whether he takes a public stand or not, then the greater good is to take the stand. If there is a chance that he can endanger the welfare of the local Church by taking a public stand, then he must choose the greater good. That is always the welfare of the Church. He has to find another way of dealing with an issue.

It is not easy to be a bishop in today’s world. Try it.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Holly3278]

This is an excellent policy! Personally, I wouldn’t care if my own brother or sister was gay and was having a gay “wedding” I most certainly would not attend and I would make sure that they knew of my disapproval.

 

[A_Catholic]

I’m not saying that you pesonally took a position for or against the SSPX. I’m seeing some people who defended the “right” of the excommunicated bishops to consecrate and receive the Eucharist while excommunicated and are now demanding an excommunication for an offense that does not carry the penalty of excommunication.

The canon says that such a person is not to receive Holy Communion. It does not say that such a person incurs excommunication. This is what Father and I are trying to tell you.

Archbishop Dolan is not threatening with excommunication. He does not have the authority to threatent with excommunication an action that is not identified by Canon Law as one deserving of excommunication.

Archbishop Dolan is threatening with canonical sanctions. Those are many. If he proceeded to excommunicate any politician for supporting same sex marriage, the Vatican would turn that excommunication around in a heartbeat in an appeal. There are only three ways that you can excommunicate:

1. The law explicitly says so.
2. The Holy Father explicitly says so.
3. A male who is the major superior of a religious institute requests it

This is the process that has been followed by the Church since the establishment of Canon Law. Canon Law is very specific about what actions incur excommunication. We cannot demand excommunication when the law does not allow for it.

As to the other bishop who said that he had made a tactical choice, that is allowed by the Church. Bishops must always choose what is in the best interest of the Church over the individuals. Look at Ven. Pius XII. He never took a public stand against the Nazis, because it put the Church in grave danger and probably many more Jews as well. However, he acted very covertly and allowed others to violate all kinds of laws in order to protect the Jews. He opted to say nothing, but to do a great deal behind the scenes., because it was the greater good. He has been slammed by many who do not know what he did behind the scenes. The same applies to these bishops. Many do a great deal behind the scenes that we won’t know about until some time in the future, while in the public arena they appear to be doing nothing.

The primary duty of a bishop is to protect the welfare of the local Church. If a crisis reaches a point when the welfare of the local Church is going to suffer whether he takes a public stand or not, then the greater good is to take the stand. If there is a chance that he can endanger the welfare of the local Church by taking a public stand, then he must choose the greater good. That is always the welfare of the Church. He has to find another way of dealing with an issue.

It is not easy to be a bishop in today’s world. Try it.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I appreciate your clarifying this issue. However, I can only point to Cardinal Burke who says it is very clear what must be done in these situations. I don’t know about you, but if I was told by the church that I could not receive Holy Communion, it wouldn’t matter if I was officially excommunicated or not. The fact that I was barred from receiving the Sacraments of the Church would be enough to put a very holy fear in me.

Also, I would like to know on how taking a public stand that a Catholic cannot support abortion or homosexuality in any way is endangering the welfare of the Church. I think this is very disingenuous to compare this to Pope Pius XII fighting the Nazis. It seems to me that you are endangering the spiritual welfare of all good Catholics by not pointing out this evil, as Cardinal Burke would seem to agree. And you are certainly endangering the spiritual welfare of Catholic politicians by allowing them to receive Holy Communion when they are not in a state of grace.

 

[JReducation]

I appreciate your clarifying this issue. However, I can only point to Cardinal Burke who says it is very clear what must be done in these situations. I don’t know about you, but if I was told by the church that I could not received Holy Communion, it wouldn’t matter if I was officially excommunicated or not. The fact that I was barred from receiving the Sacraments of the Church would be enough to put a very holy fear in me.

Separating someone from the sacraments is not the same as excommunication. Excommunication places one outside of the Church. That’s the big difference.

Also, I would like to know on how taking a public stand that a Catholic cannot support abortion or homosexuality in any way is endangering the welfare of the Church. I think this is very disingenuous to compare this to Pope Pius XII fighting the Nazis.

First of all, the use of the term dinsgenuous is very rude and I do not appreciate it. I know exactly what I’m talking about, since I’ve been working for bishops and diocese since 1974.

It seems to me that you are endangering the spiritual welfare of all good Catholics by not pointing out this evil, as Cardinal Burke would seem to agree.

Carindal Burke and I agree that the local Church must protect the spiritual welfare of all good Catholics. I never said that I disagree with him. However, did you ask him what to do when there are other dangers?

Many of us have asked and you’d be surprised at his answers.

And you are certainly endangering the spiritual welfare of Catholic politicians by allowing them to receive Holy Communion when they are not in a state of grace.

And you are way out of line. I strongly suggest that you back down very fast… How dare you accuse any priest or religious of endangering souls without knowing them. That is arrogant to the extreme.

You offense has been noted and reported.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

Sigh. :nope: There is really nothing more to say to this post. You are splitting hairs to the nth degree. Very dangerous.

So now its dangerous to follow the canons of the Church?

You seem to think you can read Cardinal Burke’s mind and know exactly what he is saying even though he is not saying it. I think I’ll just stick with his plain words and not put my own meaning into it…

LOL, he’s essentially quoting canon 915. There’s nothing to “read into”, he literally saying it. Cardinal Burke knows you can’t deny someone communion just because you want to, he knows there needs to be a canonical basis. That’s why he used very specific words.

There’s no disagreement that politicians who persist in pro-abortion legislation despite being corrected by their Ordinary should not receive communion. I’m not sure why you insist on additional penalties that don’t exist or why you insist a bishop needs to make everything public when he has absolutely no obligation to…

 

[A_Catholic]

So now its dangerous to follow the canons of the Church?

LOL, he’s essentially quoting canon 915. There’s nothing to “read into”, he literally saying it. Cardinal Burke knows you can’t deny someone communion just because you want to, he knows there needs to be a canonical basis. That’s why he used very specific words.

There’s no disagreement that politicians who persist in pro-abortion legislation despite being corrected by their Ordinary should not receive communion. I’m not sure why you insist on additional penalties that don’t exist or why you insist a bishop needs to make everything public when he has absolutely no obligation to…

I can only say that I think that when a Catholic causes public scandal, it should be dealt with publicly to mitigate the scandal. Many were scandalized when Gov. Cuomo received holy communion. Ed Peters wrote about this extensively. Therefore, it would seem to be important that if any kind of sanctions were applied, it should have been done publicly. I understand that just being refused communion does not officially mean that one has been excommunicated. And I’m not saying that the official sanction of excommunication has to be applied if Canon law does not call for it.

But it would seem only logical that scandal be dealt with. Cardinal Burke has made it very clear. If you would like to see Cardinal Burke’s exact thoughts on Canon 915, here is a paper he wrote on it entitled: “The Discipline Regarding the Denial of Holy Communion to Those Obstinately Persevering in Manifest Grave Sin.”

 

[ANNE_2]

I’m not saying that you pesonally took a position for or against the SSPX. I’m seeing some people who defended the “right” of the excommunicated bishops to consecrate and receive the Eucharist while excommunicated and are now demanding an excommunication for an offense that does not carry the penalty of excommunication.
The canon says that such a person is not to receive Holy Communion. It does not say that such a person incurs excommunication. This is what Father and I are trying to tell you.
Archbishop Dolan is not threatening with excommunication. He does not have the authority to threatent with excommunication an action that is not identified by Canon Law as one deserving of excommunication.
Archbishop Dolan is threatening with canonical sanctions. Those are many. If he proceeded to excommunicate any politician for supporting same sex marriage, the Vatican would turn that excommunication around in a heartbeat in an appeal. There are only three ways that you can excommunicate:

1. The law explicitly says so.
2. The Holy Father explicitly says so.
3. A male who is the major superior of a religious institute requests it
   This is the process that has been followed by the Church since the establishment of Canon Law. Canon Law is very specific about what actions incur excommunication. We cannot demand excommunication when the law does not allow for it.
   As to the other bishop who said that he had made a tactical choice, that is allowed by the Church. Bishops must always choose what is in the best interest of the Church over the individuals. Look at Ven. Pius XII. He never took a public stand against the Nazis, because it put the Church in grave danger and probably many more Jews as well. However, he acted very covertly and allowed others to violate all kinds of laws in order to protect the Jews. He opted to say nothing, but to do a great deal behind the scenes., because it was the greater good. He has been slammed by many who do not know what he did behind the scenes. The same applies to these bishops. Many do a great deal behind the scenes that we won’t know about until some time in the future, while in the public arena they appear to be doing nothing.
   The primary duty of a bishop is to protect the welfare of the local Church. If a crisis reaches a point when the welfare of the local Church is going to suffer whether he takes a public stand or not, then the greater good is to take the stand. If there is a chance that he can endanger the welfare of the local Church by taking a public stand, then he must choose the greater good. That is always the welfare of the Church. He has to find another way of dealing with an issue.
   It is not easy to be a bishop in today’s world. Try it.
   Fraternally,
   Br. JR, OSF

Thank you for your response. I again respectfully disagree with some of your statements. My post of today’s date above stands.
Sacrilege and Scandal take precedent in the USA in today’s society.

Canon 915 should be upheld regarding those who obstinately manifest grave sin.
I am NOT demanding excommunication.
When responding to my post, please respond to what I wrote, not someone else.

US Bishops should obey Canon Law to prevent Sacrilege and Scandal and confusion amongst their flock.
In fact, I would state that by doing nothing when this continuous Scandal is well known by the Bishop and his flock, that the Bishop may be participating in remote material cooperation if he does not enforce 915.
(Similar to the remote cooperation dicussed by Cardinal Ratzinger in “Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion”.)

We are not talking about the danger of murderous Nazi’s in today’s USA society.
This is mixing apples and oranges in this thread.

I think you are incorrect about the Bishop’s primary task is to protect his Church. What document states this ? Please provide a link.

CCC - "** **888 Bishops, with priests as co-workers, have as their first task “to preach the Gospel of God to all men,” in keeping with the Lord’s command.
They are “heralds of faith, who draw new disciples to Christ; they are authentic teachers” of the apostolic faith "endowed with the authority of Christ. "

Their main job is to Save Souls through their teaching office.

 

[Robert_Bay]

MODERATOR NOTICE

This thread is wandering, please return to the topic of the original post.

 

[TrueLight]

Good. But why nothing about excommunicating or denying communion to Gay ‘marriage’ advocates like Andrew Cuomo?

Exactly!

I’m glad he did this, but where was he when they were passing the law in New York? He was literally out of the state, and then didn’t even mention it in his sermon the following Sunday. Then he went so far as to apologize to the “gay community”. This seems like too little too late. The damage has been done, and the Church is being set up for major persecution.

Yep!