‘Glad to finally see this article for first time. Father Vincent Fitzpatrick makes the very best arguments I’ve heard on the subject. Please read whole article.
“…that Communion should not be used as a political weapon.”
The fact is there frequently just are political consequences for one’s views and practices. But that fact hardly nullifies any adherence to truth and to proper responses to sin and scandal. Jesus’ actions in pointing out the sin of the ruling Jews caused a huge shift in the political influence of the Jewish scribes and Pharisees.
This is proven when we see that they and the Roman government got so irate with Jesus for threatening their political positions that they crucified Him. Clergy must follow Christ, not try to manipulate politics by denying politicians corrective measures for the good of theirs and the multitude of observers’ souls.
Thank you for pointing that out. Any political consequences from obedience to Canon 915 are accidental.
Cardinal Wuerl and Cardinal O'Malley have both made remarks indicating that political consequences are practically all that matters.
Cardinal O'Malley told a reporter several years ago that it is all-important that the bishops not be seen as picking on one political party.
World-class b---s--- artists, all of them.
Thanks.
What the article boils down to is that refusing to obey Canon 915 is mortal sin—and all but about a dozen bishops in America are stubbornly continuing to commit this mortal sin.
Throughout the history of the Church, it seems, bishops have a tendency to view the wearing of some red or purple fabric to place them above the civil law, moral law, divine law, and canon law.
We certainly saw this in the case of sexual abuse. Two-thirds of American bishops violated the civil law, the moral law, and canon law in those cases. Nothing got their attention until it cost them a few billion dollars.
When pro-life people were getting arrested in the doors of abortion clinics, the police were carrying them away for the express purpose of re-opening the abortion clinics. NO American bishop—NOT A SINGLE ONE—ever instructed the police that they were collaborating directly and formally in abortions by removing people who were preventing abortions.
In 1968, the year of Humanae Vitae, only ONE bishop in the U.S. suspended priests who had announced their rejection of the Church’s teaching—Patrick O’Boyle of Washington. (Cardinal Sheehan of Baltimore did the same, but quickly backtracked.) The process by which the courageous, principled O’Boyle would be succeeded by a string of ever-more-degenerate weasels was already laid bare.
The crimes of the American bishops, as a body, are as serious as those of any episcopate in history that has stood with an oppressive government against the Church. As tens of millions of babies have been murdered, the solicitude of American bishops for the tender feelings of thousands of pro-abortion politicians has been unremitting.
It must be emphasized that Denial of Communion, which is what Canon 915 mandates, is not a penalty. That is, it is not a "corrective measure" that a bishop or priest MAY use. Rather, it is a sacramental discipline which is OBLIGATORY. NOT denying Communion in these cases is a MORTAL SIN.
The underlying problem is that the vast majority of American bishops do not recognize the concept of an OBLIGATION.
This was seen in the case of the pro-life rescue movement. It was seen in their defiance of civil law and the moral law in the case of sexual abuse. It was seen in their defiance of Pope Paul VI in the case of contraception.
Somehow, someday, we must have bishops who recognize that the civil law, the moral law, and canon law actually apply to THEM.