Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: JosephW; Coleus
"refusing them Communion would be, not the first, but more than likely, the last stage in a serious of steps"

This is the orthodox response. The real question is whether or not the bishop means it. It seems clear that some bishops never intend to go through these steps, while others have shown their readiness to do so.

The Bible as well as canon law and the Pope's letter to the American bishops when he was still Cardinal Ratzinger all say the same thing. Counsel a sinner privately to start with, and then if necessary work all the way up to a public confrontation. There are several ends to be kept in view: trying to save the guilty politician's soul, avoiding public scandal, and avoiding a watering down and compromising of the Church's teachings. If the politician refuses private counseling, then at some prudent stage it's the bishop's duty to make the matter public. Especially when, as in the case of Kennedy or Pelosi, the politician has already made the issue public.

So, nothing wrong with what this bishop says, if he really means it, as he seems to do.

29 posted on 02/02/2007 9:14:26 AM PST by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies ]


To: Cicero

My comments were not directed at the bishop in this article, but rather the episcopate as a whole. There are many good bishops, but I fear maybe more bad :(


32 posted on 02/02/2007 9:55:49 AM PST by JosephW (Mohammad Lied, People die!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson