Posted on 07/03/2004 8:15:10 AM PDT by Polycarp IV
Ratzinger can't force McCarrick to do anything. A new conservative Pope who actually believes in Catholic Dogma may be able to but Ratzinger can't.
When I see Ratzinger's letter in some other venue than an Italian newspaper, I'll concur.
What is the relation between the...ahem...consensus of the latest missive on receiving Holy Communion by pro-abortion cheerleaders and the authentic teaching of the Catholic Church??? Can you campaign to harvest embryonic stem cells with wild abandon on Saturday and receive Our Lord on Sunday in good conscience? How does that make ANY sense???
I predict it will generate its own whole news cycle, at least in Catholic circles. The mainstream media won't like this one bit, but if nothing else it may bring out the screaming anti-Rome, anti-Catholic bigots complaining of Romish interference in American politics and bantying about that dread word theocracy.
Pray for W and Our Awesome Troops
JPII doesn't believe in Catholic Dogma?
Bishops are free to refuse the Eucharist if they choose; that's what the USCCB statement said. It's a prudential judgment, especially in an election year.
The USCCB statement was as forceful a statement as could be issued, without a direct confrontation. The idea that 183 bishops (some very consevertive bishops)are all somehow corrupt on this issue is just nuts.
Bishops are free to refuse, or not refuse.
Take this church and shove it...I won't listen anymore
If I want to...to mass I'll be coming...with an intern whore
And if I want to take Communion...just what will you do
Take this church and shove it...I ain't listening to you
Pontiff, dear, my wife's loaded...and she's my only boss
If you try to give me lectures, it will be a total loss
Winning votes is all that matters...the DNC leads the way
So as I watch your lips moving...blah, blah is what you say
Take this church and shove it...I won't listen anymore
If I want to...to mass I'll be coming...with an intern whore
And if I want to take Communion...just what will you do
You'd better take this church and shove it...I ain't listening to you
If I want babies aborted...then that's how it will be
So please just stop your harrassment...it never will influence me
I hope you get what I've been saying...'cause it really isn't too hard
I learned my lessons from my hero...that fat, drunk lifeguard
Take this church and shove it...I won't listen anymore
If I want to...to mass I'll be coming...with an intern whore
And if I want to take Communion...just what will you do
You'd better take this church and shove it...I ain't listening to you
(musical break)
Take this church and shove it...I won't listen anymore
If I want to...to mass I'll be coming...with an intern whore
And if I want to take Communion...just what will you do
Take this church and shove it...I ain't listening to you
Take this church and shove it...I ain't listening to you
How does that compare to the canonical status of Ratzinger's clarification? Can a bishop say anything he wants and that's right...i.e., that is the authentic Catholic teaching? Sigerian double-truth theory.
Yes, that is their consensus.
But its also open schism.
The question was, "what is the canonical status of this latest "consensus"?
Canonically, it is an openly schismatic and defiant act, no better than any trad schismatic.
No,no,no.
JPII has done the Lords work but he no longer has the voice to speak out forcefully. His time, sadly, is past. He is a great man and great Catholic but time has passed him by. It happens to us all.
A new younger Pope can speak out forcefully. What we have now is American Bishops taking a "pro choice" stance vis a vis abortion. Kerry and others can choose to support unlimited abortion laws and still receive the Holy Eucharist. That is the ideology of pro choicers. The Catholic Church really can not be seen to be moving in that direction.
It would split the church IMHO.
BTTT
1. There is always an element of prudential judgment in applying general principles to specific cases. The science which applies to this relationship is called casuistry (from the Latin for specific cases) and it deservedly has a bad name because it is (and has been) easily abused.
2. That said, in most cases making a prudential judgment is pretty simple. A murderer is a murderer, and must be refused communion until he has confessed and has been absolved, which in itself may be contingent on making reparation and paying a just penalty. The same with a procurer of abortion.
3. So, I would conclude that it IS up to each individual bishop to make a prudential judgment. But any bishop who up and says that it's OK for Kerry to receive communion, or that he is not going to refuse communion to any proabortion politicians, regardless of how deep in the mire they are, is NOT making a proper prudential judgment. He is failing in his job and should be condemned by his fellow bishops and removed by his superiors.
The problem is not in the wording of the bishops' statement or anything of that kind. The problem is that although things have improved somewhat we still have too many bad, weak, incompetent bishops, who wouldn't know what a prudential judgment was if it bit them on the rear end.
What the laity must do is hold their feet to the fire, and make it just as difficult and unpleasant for them to do the wrong thing as the media and the liberals make it for them to do the right thing. In fact, more difficult.
The USCCb needs to be dissolved.
Burke is my bishop. Does this mean we're not in schism?
I know the answer, but this is going to be very confusing to the uncatechized among us. And there are soooo many.
None of it makes any sense, but the lab scientists are darn good at compartmentalizing their consciences.
It all needs to be stated in black and white, very clearly. Burke is trying.
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.