Posted on 04/01/2014 3:25:16 PM PDT by NYer
SAN FRANCISCO, CA, March 31, 2014 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Speaking with LifeSiteNews about the matter of worthiness to receive Holy Communion last week, Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone said that Church teaching on the matter “has been very clear and consistent from literally the very beginning."
The Church's teaching goes "all the way back to St. Paul who writes in 1 Corinthians that anyone who does not receive the Eucharist worthily, that is if they are in a state of sin, blasphemes the body and blood of the Lord," the archbishop explained.
The leader of San Francisco’s 444,000 Catholics noted that those who would dissent “from a defined Church teaching” and those who would violate the moral teaching of the Church in a serious way, “are not properly disposed to receive Holy Communion.”
“As St. Paul teaches, if they dare to approach knowing that they are in such a state of sin, they bring condemnation upon themselves,” he said. “This is not a harsh judgment of the Church, but our understanding of the Eucharist is that it is not simply a way of welcoming people, a way of affirming people.”
He concluded by noting that the sacrament of penance is there for all Catholics who find themselves in such situations so they can “confess their sins and receive sacramental absolution to be restored to a state of grace so they can worthily receive Holy Communion.”
Ping!
He’s still too chicken to discipline Pelosi.
I don’t think so.
Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone
Cordileone = heart of a lion
Send me a note when Lion-heart makes a statement that denies both Pelosi and Boxer as well as their family and their local supporters access to the sacrament.
Well, considering that Babs Boxer is Jewish, her presence in the Communion line hasn’t been a problem heretofore.
Boxer was raised as a Jew. Did she convert? https://www.njdc.org/site/page/barbara_boxer
Glad to hear it.
Feinstein’s the one who went to Catholic school (SF Convent of the Sacred Heart), but I don’t think she converted either.
They also should not be buying 2.2M$ homes.
No way....he is TOUGH.
Boxer is a Jew.
I presume you are referring to Bishop Wilton Gregory. Knowing the history and facts behind the acquisition, sheds light on the situation. The following is from Catholic Exchange.
Hats off to Archbishop Wilton Gregory for making a simple, sincere, manful apology when he realized that he had caused scandal by spending over $2 million on a new residence.
The archbishop could have attacked his critics, saying that the complaints about his building plans were motivated by anti-Catholic bigotry. He could have tried to rationalize the plans, claiming that every expense was necessary for the work of the archdiocese. He could have argued that the expenses were covered by private donations and would not affect the archdiocesan budget. Or he could have stood on his authority, saying that he has the legal authority to spend funds as he sees fit. Sad to say, American bishops have used each one of these dodges to justify their spending in other cases.
What Archbishop Gregory did instead was refreshing, even edifying. He said that he was wrong. He recognized that the criticisms he had received were “stinging and sincere.” He acknowledged that “I should have seen them coming.”
With this apology, Archbishop Gregory has silenced all but his harshest critics. How can you remain indignant at a man who so fully admits that he was wrong?
Yes, he was wrong. The archbishop sees that now. But to be fair, it’s very easy for American bishops to embark on big-spending projects. They are surrounded by people who are anxious to win their approval, and therefore disposed to support their plans. Their financial advisers are usually wealthy donors, who live in their own very comfortable homes, and are unlikely to be shocked by the price tag on the bishop’s residence. But the price is shocking to the thousands of working-class Catholics who are struggling to keep up with their monthly bills.
In the past the Catholic faithful rarely questioned their prelates’ spending. Maybe it was even a source of pride for poor immigrant Catholics to see the bishop living in a palatial residence. No longer. The Catholic hierarchy, struggling to regain public trust after a very bad decade, can no longer afford to live in regal style. Pope Francis has helped to set a new tone with his battered suitcase and his little sedan. He sent a strong message, too, by removing the notorious “bling bishop” from office in Limburg, Germany. Today’s Church needs bishops who are leaders in service, not in style.
Archbishop Gregory saw—a bit late, but better late than never—that “the world and the Church have changed.” Let’s hope that his brother bishops with their own big-spending plans will see as well.
You should also read freeper AnAmericanMother's comments on the situation, here. She is much closer to the situation than any of us. God bless.
Yes, he should have seen them coming.
It's not HIS house - it belongs to the archdiocese and it's a multi-purpose building. The local paper, which is not just anti-Catholic but anti-religion in general (if it's Christian), has boomed this story and neglected to give people the facts. The usual suspects don't read past "Catholic archbishop builds $2.2 million house" and start foaming at the mouth.
Which is it, the paper made this up and it never happened, or the Bishop’s apology for his excesses?
I would have never apologized, because he did nothing wrong. I also would have gone all "Dagger John" on the nasty small-minded church women who took this story to the media and are refusing to accept the apology and continuing to trash the man on local radio.
But if you think about it it's certainly a viable strategy, as it quickly separates the reasonable from the haters. You have to be a real jerk to continue to trash the man after an apology like that.
A couple of things, not every multi-million dollar act you are caught doing, can be brushed aside with an apology.
Second, his apology is in keeping with what his critics are saying, isn’t it?
“He said that he was wrong. He recognized that the criticisms he had received were “stinging and sincere.” He acknowledged that “I should have seen them coming.”
Excerpts:
“has apologized for using a bequest to construct a 6,400-square-foot residence at the cost of $2.2 million.”
(snip)
“I personally failed to project the cost in terms of my own integrity and pastoral credibility with the people of God of north and central Georgia,” he said.
“I failed to consider the impact on the families throughout the Archdiocese who, though struggling to pay their mortgages, utilities, tuition and other bills, faithfully respond year after year to my pleas to assist with funding our ministries and services,” he added. “To all of you, I apologize sincerely and from my heart.”
Archbishop Gregory said that after consultation, he hoped that the archdiocese would sell the residence and that he “would look to purchase or rent something appropriate.”
Yes, maybe so. No matter how it all panned out, at the end of the day, no church leader, and especially a man of the cloth, should be housed in an expensive abode. Period. But that’s just me. In my mind, Mother Teresa set the standard for all!! Of all religions.
Here are the facts, in case you care:
Executive summary: (1) the 'residence' is necessary; (2) the location is expensive; (3) the cost is prudent and reasonable taking into account the use of the property and the local cost of existing homes and new construction.
The bishop of a large diocese is the functional equivalent of a CEO of a large corporation. His "residence" is actually not his, but belongs to the diocese; it is the center of operations for the office of bishop. It is not only a residence but also a guesthouse, dining room, meeting venue etc. A bishop is constantly receiving visitors - diplomats from the Vatican, visiting priests, bishops, abbots, heads of religious orders, etc. He holds conferences and seminars there. So this "residence" is actually a multi-purpose venue and necessary for the archbishop to do his job - the alternative is renting hotel conference and banquet space, which is just money paid with no lasting benefit.
You also need to know about the area where the Cathedral is located. CtK was built in 1937 when Buckhead was WAY out of town, and you could have gotten all the Catholics in North Georgia into a pole barn. Now the Cathedral parish alone has over 5,000 members, and the property is seriously overcrowded and built out to the max. But it is completely hemmed in on all sides - Peachtree Rd. to the west, commercial property to the south, two more churches to the north, and an existing residential neighborhood to the east.
This part of Buckhead is now a very trendy and expensive neighborhood, probably the most expensive in city limits except for West Paces Ferry - the little 3/2 bungalows on tiny lots behind the Cathedral are selling for anywhere from $600k to $1M (Zillow says you can get a real bargain on an unrenovated 1950s junker on a 10,000 s.f. lot - $375K!) The houses across Peachtree (W. Wesley/Habersham/Arden) are even more expensive. The Governor's Mansion is on the northern edge of that area.
Margaret Mitchell (the Gone With the Wind lady) had a nephew who died recently w/o family and left his home and land on Habersham as well as a large donation to the Archdiocese. The archdiocese (not the archbishop all by himself) developed a building plan which was approved two years ago: the current archbishop's residence on the Cathedral grounds was renovated and turned over to the clergy on Cathedral staff (there are six of them) for their residence, since they need to be on the spot while the archbishop travels a good deal. The Mitchell house was to be converted into the archbishop's new residence.
Somewhere in this process it was determined that the Mitchell house could not be renovated. My family has built 3 houses from scratch, added on to 2 of those and renovated two others - plus I've represented architects and general contractors, so I am pretty familiar with the calculus between renovation and new construction. I have no idea what exactly was determined, but there are plenty of reasons - structural, layout, condition - that a house can't be renovated cost-effectively, and you're just better off starting over.
$2.2 million is NOT an unreasonable cost in this neighborhood for either a "deep" renovation or new construction. There are some TEN AND FIFTEEN MILLION DOLLAR homes in this neighborhood. No joke.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.