I’m not trying to trap you, I’m trying to understand.
You free as a Roman Catholic laymen (I’m assuming you are) to accept or reject the teaching of your Bishop?
I’m not Mrs DOn-o, but I would argue that we aren’t required to accept what our Bishops do if it goes against teaching or if it isn’t truly doctrine. In this case it appears that Church law (vs doctrine) has been ignored.
From what I am gathering, bishops are allowed to respond to Church law as they see fit; however, I have also seen strong comments, writings by Cardinal Burke, head of Canon Law (not sure of the exact title or group) saying that this particular Church law *must* be obeyed.
I think this particular law is too serious to be left to bishop’s judgment. I would like to see the Pope himself make a statement as to denying communion to politicians who promote anti/non-Catholic views. This is serious stuff and should be something the Church shows unity on. But I’m not feeling to oconfident that our POpe will do such a thing.
We are obliged to accept his teaching which is in conformity with the truths which Christ teaches us in the Catholic Church.
We are obliged to reject his teachings when they are against those truths.
A good example of this would be the martyrdom of St. Thomas More --- a 16th century layman: husband, father, chancellor of England --- whose position in the matter of King Henry VIII contradicted that of every bishoip in England, except John Fisher.
And to the point: a bishop who offers Communion to a person in manifest, grave, obstinate and unrepentant sin, is in violation of Scripture (1 Corinthians) and, exactly and specifically, of Canon Law (Canon 915).
These bishops --- all of them --- are clearly in the wrong. No one has an obligation to obey a sinful order, even from a Bishop. Even from a Pope. Even from a demon assuming the appearance of an angel of light!
Which is correct, the Code of Canon Law or the Bishop, that's the real question.
A Bishop can talk about a "pastoral" approach all he likes but I can't find anything anywhere that says Canon Law can be ignored for the sake of a "pastoral" approach.
Besides, what sort of "pastoral" approach is it for a Bishop to encourage someone they're supposed to care about to continue mocking the Eucharist and damning themself in clear violation of Canon Law and Scripture?
It's like a drunk who periodically goes on drinking and womanizing binges being "helped" by his physician prescribing amphetamines and Viagra for him. It makes no sense to argue that the crafty physician is applying reverse psychology and by encouraging even more self-destructive behavior is helping his patient.
Don't forget about the people who see such a clear insult to the Eucharist and obvious violation of Canon Law. Who is looking out for their pastoral care when the Bishop makes it clear that both Canon Law and Scripture are to be taken with a grain of salt? Far from being a reasonable "pastoral" approach, this is a fostering of disrespect for Canon Law, the Bishop himself, the Church, Scripture, and the Eucharist.
If the Bishop is going to completely disregard Canon Law, Scripture, and the sacred nature of the Eucharist, the Bishop may as well grab himself a nun off the next bus that passes through town and nail his list of Dolanisms to the Cathedral door.
As for the laity, Catholics aren't expected to march into Hell with their eyes wide open in the name of obedience to a Bishop who seems intent on having his skull added to the skulls of Bishops already paving Hell.