Thoughts for an exasperated Catholic?! Swine flu/Bishops right? [edited]

[Whitacre_Girl]

I really don’t get this entire thing with the H1N1 and receiving communion. I tend to think its just an excuse for Bishops to stamp out the more traditional practice they don’t like anyway. There has been absolutely no issues in the Orthodox Church and if anyone is familiar with they way Orthodox receive communion (Body and Blood) it would seem the more likely way to contract H1N1. Has there been any issues with Eastern Catholic Bishops or is this just the Western Bishops? I would be curious to know!

I disagree with this. Having had the swine flu, I can totally understand this. It knocked me on my butt as much as chicken pox did. Because I have never had it before, my body had no way to fight it off. I got a high fever, felt dizzy, and could barely breathe. I technically should have gone to the hospital because of the high fever and trouble breathing but I knew there were people there who has a weaker immune system than I, and I didn’t want to infect them. I am, after all, a 24 year old and able to fight things off easier. And swine flu totally took me out!

I didn’t go to mass for about 3 weeks until I was sure that I wasn’t contagious. There are lots of elderly and children at my parish, and I wasn’t about to risk giving them a disease that was highly infectious and extremely dangerous for these people. I think that going to mass and infecting them (possibly killing them) was a worse sin than missing altogether. Even after I was better I recieved in the hand and skipped the cup for a week or two just to be safe. Having had the flu, I think that if you are sick, you need to STAY HOME. The germs you bring in don’t harm you that much, but they could kill others.

 

[o_mlly]

So, are you saying that when one has a legitimate concern and knows, with supporting documentation, that the bishop is acting incorrectly, that individual should not have recourse to the appropriate Vatican agency to deal with this matter?

Didn’t say that. One, I think, is obligated to make such inquiries.

No one is defaming the bishop. However, his own actions run contrary to what the CDWDS has mandated and stated. It is our duty to point out when actions wind up violating the mandates of the Church. In this case, the bishop has clearly overstated the bounds of his authority.

I think here is where we disagree. Your duty is to refer or, if you like, make accusation, to the appropriate authority (and I would add, do so discretely). However, it seems to me you have unwisely taken on the additional roles of judge and jury and in a public forum.

If we hold true to your line of reasoning, then, the laity would not have the right to file a legitimate complaint with the CDWDS? This, as I see it, is ridiculous, since RS guarantees the laity that right.

No, that does not follow my line of reasoning. Absolutely, make your complaint and await the outcome of the inquiry of those in authority. Usurping the legislators’ role is, I think, is not a good idea when the reputation of the bishop is at stake. Remember, it’s “ready, aim, fire” not “ready, fire, aim.”

 

[brigantine]

I disagree with this. Having had the swine flu, I can totally understand this.

What part of what I wrote do you disagree with? There is no issues in the Orthodox Church with taking communion the normal way. No uprising and no Bishops saying to stop taking cummunion the way we always have. I’m wondering why this is so. Either we have Bishops and laity that don’t care (or are to dumb to care) about the spread
of H1N1 or there is not a high risk issue. I tend to go with the not being a high rish of contracting H1N1 during communion. So then I have to ask what is the motives for some RC Bishops wanting to stop CoTT? I may be wrong but I think this issue here has more to do with the Bishop using this crisis to stop something he did not like to begin with. I still would like to know what Eastern Catholic Bishops are asking their people to do.

 

[Whitacre_Girl]

I may be wrong but I think this issue here has more to do with the Bishop using this crisis to stop something he did not like to begin with.

Right, and I do think you’re wrong. This is what I disagree with. I think the bishops are simply wanting to help stop the spread of a disease that is highly dangerous to groups in the church.

 

[brigantine]

Right, and I do think you’re wrong. This is what I disagree with. I think the bishops are simply wanting to help stop the spread of a disease that is highly dangerous to groups in the church.

I concede I could be wrong and you right but then what does that say about all the Bishops that are not doing this? Also why does the Pope just not put a temporary hold on CoTT until the crisis passes? Are these other Bishops less educated or less caring? These questions are what gives me pause to question what is going on. I think if the danger was that great the Pope himself would put a stop to CoTT and end the questions.

 

[benedictgal]

Didn’t say that. One, I think, is obligated to make such inquiries.

I think here is where we disagree. Your duty is to refer or, if you like, make accusation, to the appropriate authority (and I would add, do so discretely). However, it seems to me you have unwisely taken on the additional roles of judge and jury and in a public forum.

No, that does not follow my line of reasoning. Absolutely, make your complaint and await the outcome of the inquiry of those in authority. Usurping the legislators’ role is, I think, is not a good idea when the reputation of the bishop is at stake. Remember, it’s “ready, aim, fire” not “ready, fire, aim.”

I am afraid that you are wrong on all counts, O’Malley. The CDWDS has already issued its judgment on the matter, and I am basing what I am saying on what the Congretation has already noted. The bishop in question, is the one usurping the legitimate authority of the CDWDS.

In another thread I asked you if you have ever personally dealt with the CDWDS. You never responded. I have dealt with the CDWDS. There was an issue concerning some action and inaction that the bishop had taken. The CDWDS has been working with us to resolve the matter and things are slowly improving. The bishop has to answer to the CDWDS, since that is the authority over him, something that you do not seem to understand.

 

[Whitacre_Girl]

I concede I could be wrong and you right but then what does that say about all the Bishops that are not doing this? Also why does the Pope just not put a temporary hold on CoTT until the crisis passes? Are these other Bishops less educated or less caring? These questions are what gives me pause to question what is going on. I think if the danger was that great the Pope himself would put a stop to CoTT and end the questions.

There are a lot of factors I am sure that contribute to their decisions that we aren’t aware of. There is a reason they are in the position to make these calls. Maybe some regions have problems with the spread, and other areas are largely unaffected. My area is a very problematic one, and was especially when the outbreak started because of the amount of people who regularly travel to Mexico. There are other regions that may have a handful of cases, and the bishops don’t see the dire need to halt a good practice for an issue that is largely controlled in their area. Basically, we just don’t know the reason why because we are not in these seats of power. I trust that the church knows what they are doing.

However, if there are bishops that are not halting the practice and KNOW that people are coming to church sick and high risk groups are getting infected, then they are (IMHO) commiting a very serious offense. It reckless endangerment.

 

[bmadamsberry]

I think that some people are forgetting, though, that the bishop has not forbid Communion on the tongue.

When we got home, I looked at the Diocese website, and I see that in fact the Bishop has only said it is now ‘sensible’ that communion be given in the hand, under one kind only.

The Bishop said it was sensible, in essance he suggested (not forced).
If my Bishop suggested to me that, because of the Swine Flu, I recieve only in the hand then I would because of his office as bishop. However, if he demanded or forced me to recieve in the hand then I would write to the CDWDS because the bishop has no right to do it.

I think that it is responsible for a bishop to tell his flock that it is okay to recieve on the hand because of the swine flu, but it is wrong for him to demand it.

 

[FrDavid96]

Let’s get a canon lawyer’s opinion.

Who Interprets Canon Law?
Perhaps a good place to begin exploring canon law and eucharistic devotion is with the question, “Who is competent to interpret canon law?” The Code of Canon Law foresees this question, answering as follows in the first paragraph of canon 16: “Laws are authentically interpreted by the legislator and by that person to whom the legislator entrusts the power of authentic interpretation.” Those with legislative power within the Church are the Roman Pontiff and the bishops in communion with him, and not canonists and theologians unless they happen to be the Roman Pontiff or a bishop. In the case of canonical legislation affecting the universal Church, canon 331 reminds us the Roman Pontiff is both the supreme legislator of canon law as well as the supreme interpreter of canon law.
Peter Vere, JCL

Heretics, from the Greek root hairesis – to choose, select a portion of Scripture and elevate its importance as superior to all other verses. A similar error may happen when non-canonical persons select specific canons and elevate them as more important and controlling than an examination of the entire code. Thus, I hope those who are not canon lawyers and persist in citing particular canons will indulge those of us who gratefully accept your (name removed by moderator)ut but believe we need an expert’s (name removed by moderator)ut before defaming any bishop as being a canonical-criminial.

Good point.

canon 16: “Laws are authentically interpreted by the legislator and by that person to whom the legislator entrusts the power of authentic interpretation.”

THE ROMAN CURIA
In exercising supreme, full, and immediate power in the universal Church, the Roman pontiff makes use of the departments of the Roman Curia which, therefore, perform their duties in his name and with his authority for the good of the churches and in the service of the sacred pastors.
CHRISTUS DOMINUS (source of the text vatican.va/roman_curia/index.htm)

Let’s further look at canon law vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P1A.HTM

Can. 360 The Supreme Pontiff usually conducts the affairs of the universal Church through the Roman Curia which performs its function in his name and by his authority for the good and service of the churches. The Roman Curia consists of the Secretariat of State or the Papal Secretariat, the Council for the Public Affairs of the Church, congregations, tribunals, and other institutes; the constitution and competence of all these are defined in special law.

Can. 361 In this Code, the term Apostolic See or Holy See refers not only to the Roman Pontiff but also to the Secretariat of State, the Council for the Public Affairs of the Church, and other institutes of the Roman Curia, unless it is otherwise apparent from the nature of the matter or the context of the words.

As we have been saying all along, if the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments says that Catholics in good standing cannot be denied their right to receive Communion on the tongue, then Catholics in good standing cannot be denied their right to receive Communion on the tongue.

So then, why is this even an issue?

 

[benedictgal]

I think that some people are forgetting, though, that the bishop has not forbid Communion on the tongue.

The Bishop said it was sensible, in essance he suggested (not forced).
If my Bishop suggested to me that, because of the Swine Flu, I recieve only in the hand then I would because of his office as bishop. However, if he demanded or forced me to recieve in the hand then I would write to the CDWDS because the bishop has no right to do it.

I think that it is responsible for a bishop to tell his flock that it is okay to recieve on the hand because of the swine flu, but it is wrong for him to demand it.

Right. Daniel Cardinal DiNardo simply suggested this as an option; however, he also noted that he could not outright forbid it.

Now, concerning the distribution of the Precious Blood, there is no requirement that states that it needs to be done. This is optional. In fact, this is an instance where the bishop has the right to determine if and how it should be done. According to Redemptionis Sacramentum:

[101.] In order for Holy Communion under both kinds to be administered to the lay members of Christ’s faithful, due consideration should be given to the circumstances, as judged first of all by the diocesan Bishop. It is to be completely excluded where even a small danger exists of the sacred species being profaned.187 With a view to wider co-ordination, the Bishops’ Conferences should issue norms, once their decisions have received the recognitio of the Apostolic See through the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, especially as regards “the manner of distributing Holy Communion to the faithful under both kinds, and the faculty for its extension”.188

[102.] The chalice should not be ministered to lay members of Christ’s faithful where there is such a large number of communicants189 that it is difficult to gauge the amount of wine for the Eucharist and there is a danger that “more than a reasonable quantity of the Blood of Christ remain to be consumed at the end of the celebration”.190 The same is true wherever access to the chalice would be difficult to arrange, or where such a large amount of wine would be required that its certain provenance and quality could only be known with difficulty, or wherever there is not an adequate number of sacred ministers or extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion with proper formation, or where a notable part of the people continues to prefer not to approach the chalice for various reasons, so that the sign of unity would in some sense be negated.

So, if a bishop decides to suspend the distribution of the Precious Blood, that is his prerogative under the authoritative documents of the Holy See.

 

[o_mlly]

…

Can. 360 The Supreme Pontiff usually conducts the affairs of the universal Church through the Roman Curia …

So then, why is this even an issue?

Lawyers live on words. I emphasized one that seems to me important.

However, if you’re right then we will soon see the bishop reverse his policy, read about his resignation or excommunication. If not, then I would assume His Holiness used his authority as Can. 360 specifies.

 

[benedictgal]

Lawyers live on words. I emphasized one that seems to me important.

However, if you’re right then we will soon see the bishop reverse his policy, read about his resignation or excommunication. If not, then I would assume His Holiness used his authority as Can. 360 specifies.

With all due respect, you need not be so flippant in your responses. The fact remains that the bishop acted beyond the scope of his authority. Now, the only way that the Holy See will know is if someone writes to them. There is a very good chance that this will happen. The end result will be that the bishop will have to rescind his order, especially since it was not his call to make in the first place.

 

[FrDavid96]

Lawyers live on words. I emphasized one that seems to me important.

However, if you’re right then we will soon see the bishop reverse his policy, read about his resignation or excommunication. If not, then I would assume His Holiness used his authority as Can. 360 specifies.

Can. 360 The Supreme Pontiff usually conducts the affairs of the universal Church through the Roman Curia …

Yes, the word “usually” is important. Very important in fact, because it emphasizes the point that the Holy Father “usually” employs the CDWDS to act in his name, rather than “usually” handle things personally.

So your point emphasized the fact that the CDWDS is the “usual” office to handle liturgical matters, and does indeed speak with the authority of the pope. Good point.

 

[o_mlly]

Can. 360 The Supreme Pontiff usually conducts the affairs of the universal Church through the Roman Curia …

Yes, the word “usually” is important. Very important in fact, because it emphasizes the point that the Holy Father “usually” employs the CDWDS to act in his name, rather than “usually” handle things personally.

So your point emphasized the fact that the CDWDS is the “usual” office to handle liturgical matters, and does indeed speak with the authority of the pope. Good point.

Well, that’s obviously true but, no – that wasn’t my point.

The point is that the Supreme Pontiff may decide this issue w/o the agreement or even particpation of the CDWDS.

My point is that our institutional Church is a hierarchy and, unlike our democracy, the Pope with his plenitude of power is above the canonical laws. Do you disagree?

 

[o_mlly]

With all due respect, you need not be so flippant in your responses. The fact remains that the bishop acted beyond the scope of his authority. Now, the only way that the Holy See will know is if someone writes to them. There is a very good chance that this will happen. The end result will be that the bishop will have to rescind his order, especially since it was not his call to make in the first place.

There was nothing flippant in my response. To demonstrate, this is an example of flippancy.

… I have dealt with the CDWDS. …

And I slept at a Holiday Inn Express last night. So what. Our expert on fallacious agruments, FRDavis96, can refer you if you like to the fallacious forms of argument your post takes.

 

[FrDavid96]

Well, that’s obviously true but, no – that wasn’t my point.

The point is that the Supreme Pontiff may decide this issue w/o the agreement or even particpation of the CDWDS.

My point is that our institutional Church is a hierarchy and, unlike our democracy, the Pope with his plenitude of power is above the canonical laws. Do you disagree?

Yes indeed. The Pope may choose to handle this personally. That’s not to speculate that he will, only to agree with the statement that if he chooses to review, or over-rule his own dicastery, he can. A decision made by the CDWDS can be appealed to the Supreme Pontiff, but there is no appeal from a decision of the Supreme Pontiff.

I would hesitate on the unqualified and too-vague statement that he is “above canon law” because he’s still morally obligated to follow his own law (obligated yet that obligation itself has limits), and he is bound to follow canon law insofar as it articulates Divine Law. He has the authority to change the law as he sees fit, to dispense others from it, and to exempt himself from it, as well as to create new laws as he sees fit. No doubt on any of those points (and a few others which could be added), but I think the all-encompassing statement “above the code of canon law” can be too easily misinterpreted because one would have to also explain the meaning of “above.” It’s just too vague a statement. No pope would consider a re-write of the entire codex to be issued every Thursday for example–that’s just chaos, and he has a moral obligation toward stability, and yet it would still come under the heading of “above the law.”

As far as the statement itself, in this context, yes, he’s “above the law.”

 

[FrDavid96]

Well, that’s obviously true but, no – that wasn’t my point.

The point is that the Supreme Pontiff may decide this issue w/o the agreement or even particpation of the CDWDS.

My point is that our institutional Church is a hierarchy and, unlike our democracy, the Pope with his plenitude of power is above the canonical laws. Do you disagree?

Actually, since you did invite me:

It sounds like an argument to the future. don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#future

What might or might not happen in the future doesn’t change what is happening now. And it’s a given that right now, the CDWDS is making clear that the right of Communion on the Tongue cannot be denied.

 

[FrDavid96]

There was nothing flippant in my response. To demonstrate, this is an example of flippancy.

And I slept at a Holiday Inn Express last night. So what. Our expert on fallacious agruments, FRDavis96, can refer you if you like to the fallacious forms of argument your post takes.

hmmm…
Well, an argument from authority is only fallacious if the speaker does not have expertise on the subject (false authority), or if the speaker wishes the listener to accept the argument based on the authority of the speaker rather than based on the validity or truth of the speaker’s argument (I’m the boss, therefore I’m right).

An argument from authority can be perfectly valid in the case of an expert in a given field. If someone says “I’m a doctor licensed to practice medicine, and therefore I know human anatomy” isn’t fallacious. The doctor might be proven wrong in the end, but it’s not a fallacious argument. Arguments from authority are admitted all the time in court cases: we call them expert witnesses.

Benedictgal’s “argument from authority” was made in such a way that she was offering her own experience in a matter to illustrate the point that the CDWDS has the power to over-rule a diocesan bishop; not in the sense that every bishop will be overturned, but only as one example of how this is possible. So I don’t see it as fallacious.

 

[zab]

hmmm…
Well, an argument from authority is only fallacious if the speaker does not have expertise on the subject (false authority), or if the speaker wishes the listener to accept the argument based on the authority of the speaker rather than based on the validity or truth of the speaker’s argument (I’m the boss, therefore I’m right).

An argument from authority can be perfectly valid in the case of an expert in a given field. If someone says “I’m a doctor licensed to practice medicine, and therefore I know human anatomy” isn’t fallacious. The doctor might be proven wrong in the end, but it’s not a fallacious argument. Arguments from authority are admitted all the time in court cases: we call them expert witnesses.

Benedictgal’s “argument from authority” was made in such a way that she was offering her own experience in a matter to illustrate the point that the CDWDS has the power to over-rule a diocesan bishop; not in the sense that every bishop will be overturned, but only as one example of how this is possible. So I don’t see it as fallacious.

With all due respect… you refuse to understand… the doublestandard when it comes to accusing another of Ad Hominem attacks
don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#hominem

 

[FrDavid96]

With all due respect… you refuse to understand… the doublestandard when it comes to accusing another of Ad Hominem attacks
don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#hominem

I’ll avoid pointing-out the irony in your post.

I have not engaged in any ad hominem attacks, therefore I would thank you to refrain from posting any further untruths about me.