WHO should be REFUSED THE SACRAMENTS and WHO SHOULD BE EXCOMMUNICATED?

  • Thread starter Thread starter just_a_catholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

just_a_catholic

Guest
Back a few years ago, Bishop Bruskewitz excommunicated a few groups and it was upheld by the Vatican. (Call to Action, Planned Parenthood, Masons, etc) He is also one of the bishops who has stated he would not give communion to pro-abortion polititians.

te-deum.blogspot.com/2006/12/vatican-supports-bruskewitz-on.html

A few weeks ago, Bishop Neiderauer gave communion to 2 of the group Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence
americansfortruth.com/news/more-san-francisco-nuttiness-catholic-archbishop-gives-communion-to-sisters-of-perpetual-indulgence.html

and THEN, after more than a week of public outrage, he said that he should not have given them communion.

(linked on this article)

lifesite.net/ldn/2007/oct/07101204.html

If people who publicly profess things that are absolutly against what the church teaches (like Call to Action and Planned Parenthood) then shouldn’t the Sisters also be excommunicated?

If you vote in the poll, please give comments (and any references to supporting documents).
 
Until the sinner confesses and repents of mortal sin they should not receive the sacrements. This is the teaching of the Catholic Church.
 
I’m not sure exactly how to say how much polls like this scare the bejeebers out of me. Why ask such questions?
 
And if you excommunicate any or all of these persons, how do you propose to enforce the excommunication? How exactly do you ensure that no clergyman administer sacraments to them? In this day of easy long distance travel, the chances of anyone being recognized as an excommunicate in all parts of the Catholic world are slim to none.
Excommunication doesn’t work. Try to find something else.

Matthew
 
Why does this scare you?

PUBLIC sinners need to repent PUBLICLY.

Until they do, the sacraments need to be protected by the one put in charge. The local bishop.

And it seems to be happening in Nebraska and St. Louis, but not in San Francisco or Boston or Los Angeles (Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence in San Francisco, all the pro-abort *Catholic *Democrats in Massachusetts and the Rainbow Sashers in LA, just to name a few)
Either this is a Catholic Church (ONE - unity) or it’s not. -
Why don’t the rules apply in San Francisco and Boston and LA?
 
drafdog said:
And if you excommunicate any or all of these persons, how do you propose to enforce the excommunication? How exactly do you ensure that no clergyman administer sacraments to them? In this day of easy long distance travel, the chances of anyone being recognized as an excommunicate in all parts of the Catholic world are slim to none.
Excommunication doesn’t work. Try to find something else.

Matthew
Click to expand...
Publicly - press release, print it in the diocesan paper and the local bulletins… Issue names to diocesan offices. We don’t need to ensure this - we need to proclaim it. The church can’t “enforce” the Catechism either - but they print it and sell it and teach it for the betterment of the church. We are expected to do the possible and pray for the impossible.

What, you suggest we do nothing? THAT"S NOT the teaching of the church.
read canon 915. It demands that the bishop refuse them.

**The Code of Canon Law establishes that “Those upon whom the penalty of excommunication or interdict has been imposed or declared, and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, are not to be admitted to Holy Communion” (can. 915). **

NOT TO BE ADMITTED - that’s pretty strong language for something you want to do nothing about.

It’s the clergy’s JOB to not administer the sacraments to them. and it’s the Bishop’s job to see that it happens.
 
Here’s my question. How are we to recognize these people to refuse them communion? I do think I’d notice the very oddly dressed ones, and the more famous politicians, but I really don’t think I’d automatically recognize every possible politician or member of an ‘outlawed’ group. I don’t think the average priest would either.

I do think that pro-abotion politicians should be called into their bishop’s office for a ‘discussion’ (like the kind you used to have with your father when he had a switch in his hand). And I do agree that if/when they repent they need to take public action to make reparation for their public sins. I just am not sure exactly how refusing communion would work for the less well known.
 
There wasn’t an option reading “None of the above” which I would have checked.

Because it ain’t my job to make this call.
 
We have all tended to forget that everyone is to judge his or her own worthiness for the Sacraments. Holy Mother Church teaches what is and is not to keep us from the Sacraments. So with personal sin it is our place to decide. Public sin is the responsibility of the priest and Bishop when the situation is known by them.

When you publicly go against the teachings of Holy Mother Church (and you publicly say you are a member of Holy Mother Church) and you repent then your repentance should also be done in public not private so others will know you have decided to follow the teaching of your professed religion.

Public sin = Public apology & confession & private repentance

Private sin = private apology(person to person if needed) & confession & private repentance
 
had it been there I would have checked the box that said: I am neither a priest nor a bishop so never under any circumstances will I be competent to make such a judgement about an individual, a judgement which is reserved for those given this pastoral responsibility by Christ himself.
 
Sr_Sally said:
Here’s my question. How are we to recognize these people to refuse them communion? I do think I’d notice the very oddly dressed ones, and the more famous politicians, but I really don’t think I’d automatically recognize every possible politician or member of an ‘outlawed’ group. I don’t think the average priest would either.

I do think that pro-abotion politicians should be called into their bishop’s office for a ‘discussion’ (like the kind you used to have with your father when he had a switch in his hand). And I do agree that if/when they repent they need to take public action to make reparation for their public sins. I just am not sure exactly how refusing communion would work for the less well known.
Click to expand...
Good ideas! A great start!! If all our bishops did this, the work would be begun. We are not called to be successful, we are called to be faithful.

Now everybody,call your bishops and request that they uphold the laws of the church!
 
puzzleannie said:
had it been there I would have checked the box that said: I am neither a priest nor a bishop so never under any circumstances will I be competent to make such a judgement about an individual, a judgement which is reserved for those given this pastoral responsibility by Christ himself.
Click to expand...
Why do you say that the judgement is reserved to them? - Please give an official document that states that. - Let’s keep this an objective debate - not just a list of opinions.

Again,
I just asked if they SHOULD based on OBJECTIVE CANON LAW.
The OBJECTIVE answer is “Yes” they shouold at LEAST be refused the sacrament - it’s the excommunication I don’t have a canon law that I’m aware of to observe - Any (name removed by moderator)ut?
 
The “group” question really bothers me. Obviously, you can’t excommunicate or withhold sacraments from a “group,” so I assume you mean members of a group. Or supporters of a group. Or people who don’t publically renounce the group? Does that mean those on the membership rolls regardless of involvement or understanding of the group? People who gave money? Now? Ever? People who hang out with people who belong or support? People who are involved because of some aspect but not others? Fellow travelers?

Look out, here comes Joe McCarthy . . .

Think I’ll leave a earthly determination of someone’s soul to others more qualified . . . and to God.
 
IrishAm said:
The “group” question really bothers me. Obviously, you can’t excommunicate or withhold sacraments from a “group,” so I assume you mean members of a group. Or supporters of a group. Or people who don’t publically renounce the group? Does that mean those on the membership rolls regardless of involvement or understanding of the group? People who gave money? Now? Ever? People who hang out with people who belong or support? People who are involved because of some aspect but not others? Fellow travelers?

Look out, here comes Joe McCarthy . . .

Think I’ll leave a earthly determination of someone’s soul to others more qualified . . . and to God.
Click to expand...
You need to read the links.

The vatican has already approved the excommunication of a number of groups. Do you reject the authority of the vatican?

Please read the links
 
You need to read the links.
Click to expand...
The vatican has already approved the excommunication of a number of groups. Do you reject the authority of the vatican?
Click to expand...
Please read the links
Click to expand...
I read the links. Before I spoke. And I stand by my statements which in no way reject Vatican authority.

Or, are only those who agree with **your **position on a very complicated issue viewed as supporting the Vatican (and its position that the single bishop in question had the hierarchical right to make a decision which affected only those in his minor diocese in a single country, about which I don’t disagree at all)?

I propose, as well, that you do not want a discussion on this thread. You want to either be assured you are correct or to bully those who disagree.
Look out, here comes Joe McCarthy . . .
Click to expand...
 
I have an apology to make to all on this thread. I just realized “justacatholic” is a “new” poster; or perhaps an “old” poster retured to create issues.

It worked. I took the bait.

Please forgive my imprudence. It’s been a long day . . . 😉
 
just_a_catholic said:
Why do you say that the judgement is reserved to them? - Please give an official document that states that. - Let’s keep this an objective debate - not just a list of opinions.

?
Click to expand...
well you could begin with the fact that only priests and bishops can forgive sin, according to Christ’s commission to the apostles on Easter Sunday night when he ordained them, so binding and loosing is a pastoral function reserved to priests and bishops. No one who does not have the power to absolve sin has the power to decide who will be denied communion on the basis of that sin.
 
just_a_catholic said:
Why does this scare you?

PUBLIC sinners need to repent PUBLICLY.

Until they do, the sacraments need to be protected by the one put in charge. The local bishop.

And it seems to be happening in Nebraska and St. Louis, but not in San Francisco or Boston or Los Angeles (Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence in San Francisco, all the pro-abort *Catholic *Democrats in Massachusetts and the Rainbow Sashers in LA, just to name a few)
Either this is a Catholic Church (ONE - unity) or it’s not. -
Why don’t the rules apply in San Francisco and Boston and LA?
Click to expand...
The poll is a waste of time because it is NOT up to us to decide or say who should be excommunicated and refused the Sacraments. That decision lies solely with those in the Church with such authority.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top