Skip to comments.The Kerry Affair: What Ratzinger Wanted from the American Bishops (Rome: "REFUSE Eucharist!")
Posted on 07/03/2004 8:15:10 AM PDT by Polycarp IV
click here to read article
Read: no communion for the Democratic candidate for the White House, the "Self-Professed" Catholic John F. Kerry.
6. When these precautionary measures have not had their effect or in which they were not possible, and the person in question, with obstinate persistence, still presents himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, the minister of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute it (cf. Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts Declaration Holy Communion and Divorced, Civilly Remarried Catholics , nos. 3-4). This decision, properly speaking, is not a sanction or a penalty. Nor is the minister of Holy Communion passing judgement on the persons subjective guilt, but rather is reacting to the persons public unworthiness to receive Holy Communion due to an objective situation of sin.
The USCCB has refused to obey Rome's direct demands regarding Holy Eucharist and Catholic politicians. There can no longer be any debate whatsoever where Rome stands on this.
The US bishops are in open declared schism, by refusing to obey these demands to obey Canon Law regarding the central belief of our Faith, the Real Presence of the Eucharist.
The USCCB voted 183 to 6 NOT to obey this clear definitive demand from Rome. (So what makes the American Catholic church any less schismatic than the SSPX?)
Rome HAS spoken.
The good guys to the rescue!
Kerry supports euthanasia?
"Regarding the grave sin of abortion or euthanasia, when a persons formal cooperation becomes manifest (understood, in the case of a Catholic politician, as his consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws), his Pastor should meet with him, instructing him about the Churchs teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin, and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist."
Um...ahem...Cardinals McCarrick, Keeler, & Co. are no longer in union with Rome. They do not represent or speak for the Catholic Church.
What does the fact that they voted, or didn't vote, for something have to do with anything?
Is not each bishop responsible only to the Pope?
bump to read later
"O.K guys next time Kerry comes up for Communion,put your hands like this and wrap them around his throat,and choke some sense into him."
And the Catholic hierarchy doesn't listen. As more of the faithful are scandalized, and fall away. Our bishop in Tucson is more interested in encouraging illegal immigrants to cross the border.
Then let Ratzinger force McCarrick to back down.
Cononically? Except for minor decisions regarding church discipline, they have no role and no authority whatsoever. They are an aberration in the history of the Church.
My Catholic Church teaches us to do right especially when it's unpopular.
The bishops are cowards and should resign.
Coddling democrat baby killers is what led the American Church astray, it started in the sixties and I watched it from a front row seat.
Basically, it's a discussion club or debating society where bishops discuss the meaning of church documents. The USCCB seems to have been modelled on the DNC, the ADA, or the ACLU. It's a kangaroo court dog&pony circus with buffet dining. Aside from the photo-ops and the quiche, it has little if anything to do with Catholicism.
Under Bernardin and during the '80s (Reagan era), there was some political flexing for cameras on nukes and socialist pieties, half in nostalgia for Vietnam-era social protest. The sodomy scandals have sort of quieted things down. No serious Catholic takes the USCCB seriously. It has about as much to do with the Catholic faith as the DNC.
Imagine trading Heaven for looking cool at a Massachusetts beach vacation and being accepted by other annoying, liberal Harvard people. You get the idea. It's that dumb. Sad. Pathetic. Evil is banal.
But at least you now admit that Rome HAS spoken, right?
John Paul II does. He has devolved authority in certain areas to the national bishops conferences (Friday abstinence, observance of certain Holy Days on Sundays, communion in the hand, and other liturgical matters). Of course, no episcopal conference can bind an individual bishop, but they do tend to express consensus through those conferences.
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.