Posted on 10/03/2007 1:19:30 PM PDT by SmithL
Saint Louis (AP) -- Roman Catholic Archbishop Raymond Burke, who made headlines last presidential season by saying he'd refuse Holy Communion to John Kerry, has his eye on Rudy Giuliani this year. Giuliani's response: "Archbishops have a right to their opinion."
Burke, the Archbishop of St. Louis, was asked by The St. Louis Post-Dispatch if he would deny Communion to Giuliani if the former New York mayor approached him for the sacrament.
"If the question is about a Catholic who is publicly espousing positions contrary to the moral law, and I know that person knows it, yes I would," the paper quoted the archbishop as responding.
Burke has said of Giuliani: "I can't imagine that as a Catholic he doesn't know that his stance on the protection of human life is wrong. If someone is publicly sinning, they should not approach to receive Holy Communion."
Asked about it Wednesday while campaigning in New Hampshire, Giuliani said:
"Archbishops have a right to their opinion, you know. There's freedom of religion in this country. There's no established religion, and archbishops have a right to their opinion. Everybody has a right to their opinion."
Burke says that anyone administering Communion is morally obligated to deny it to Catholic politicians who support an abortion-rights position contrary to church teaching.
He is expected to push the nation's bishops to take that stance in a document on political responsibility they will issue to Catholics before the 2008 election.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Remind me never to go into battle with you. If I’m walking toward a land-mine, by your logic, you’ll stay out of my “self-inflicted” injury and let me go.
The Church is the conduit of the Sacraments. It should not administer them to those for whom it would be a burden on their souls. This is a matter that is spiritual (dealing with the things of God—and the souls of the faithful) and temporal (the Sacraments instituted by Christ).
What you fail to note is that 1) this question was asked of the bishop... so it was a setup to stir controversy. It was a question that demanded a response and he referenced Canon Law correctly. 2) Guiliani calls himself a Catholic. However, he doesn’t consider himself subject to Canon Law. Refusing him the Eucharist is not a political matter, it is a Church matter. He can avoid the issue by declaring what is obvious... he is not a Catholic. Then he won’t have to worry about presenting himself for communion.
You ask that the Church neuter Herself.
Have a good day.
Yes, Cardinal Egan has given Rudy communion - on the live broadcast of Midnight Mass from St.Patrick’s Cathedral with Judy also receiving. A scandal. Regards,
> Remind me never to go into battle with you. If I’m walking toward a land-mine, by your logic, you’ll stay out of my “self-inflicted” injury and let me go.
Mate, if you are going into battle with me, you would not be walking toward a land-mine in the first place. The mines would have been cleared long, long before you had any opportunity to stumble into one.
> You ask that the Church neuter Herself.
No, I ask the Church to attend to matters Spiritual, and allow the rest of us to attend to matters Temporal.
Ok then. Will you please share with the rest of the class how referencing the Eucharist at Mass in response to a question involving Canon Law is outside the bounds of Church discussion...
“You are so ignorant I can’t talk to you.”
Oh dear (holding head, reaching for aspirin), if only more had taken that view! :)
Every person and institution has a right to have their voice heard in this democratic society.
Quit trying to silence people with whom you disagree.
Your attempts at intimidation of the Church are noted.
Take your anticlerical, Church hating bigotry to Mexico ... it was official COMMUNIST government policy there for several decades in the XX Century. If Mexico isn’t to your likeing, you might try the Peoples’ Republic of China ... they’re certainly giving a good try at silencing the Church.
In these United States of America we have freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.
!!!!Viva Cristo Rey!!!!!!
AMEN AND AMEN
“Attention Catholic Church: The more you become involved in America’s domestic politics, the less relevant you become to your American parishioners. Your job has been and still is the salvation of souls, one at a time, if necessary, not the control of government, not the intimidation of voters and not the policy-making of a secular government.”
attention continental soldier...
When politicians want to pander to certain voters by claiming membership in their Church, it is the right of that Church to publicly point out the requirements have not been met.
It is the right of religous organizations to determine conditions of membership.
It is the right of religious organizations to determine how breaching the conditions will be handled.
Rudy should not be presenting himself for communion knowing darn well he has violated the Church rules.
He was in violation even without this issue, as I am assuming he was not granted an annulment for his previous marriage.
Go and learn what this means - God desires mercy, not sacrifice. Which version of 1Cor11 do you want to believe in?
NIV:
17In the following directives I have no praise for you, for your meetings do more harm than good. 18In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it. 19No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God’s approval. 20When you come together, it is not the Lord’s Supper you eat, 21for as you eat, each of you goes ahead without waiting for anybody else. One remains hungry, another gets drunk. 22Don’t you have homes to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the church of God and humiliate those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you for this? Certainly not!
NAS:
17But in giving this instruction, I do not praise you, because you come together not for the better but for the worse.
18For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that divisions exist among you; and in part I believe it.
19For there must also be factions among you, so that those who are approved may become evident among you.
20Therefore when you meet together, it is not to eat the Lord’s Supper,
21for in your eating each one takes his own supper first; and one is hungry and another is drunk.
22What! Do you not have houses in which to eat and drink? Or do you despise the church of God and shame those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you? In this I will not praise you.
KJV:
17Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse.
18For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.
19For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.
20When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord’s supper.
21For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken.
22What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? what shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not
YLT:
17And this declaring, I give no praise, because not for the better, but for the worse ye come together;
18for first, indeed, ye coming together in an assembly, I hear of divisions being among you, and partly I believe [it],
19for it behoveth sects also to be among you, that those approved may become manifest among you;
20ye, then, coming together at the same place — it is not to eat the Lord’s supper;
21for each his own supper doth take before in the eating, and one is hungry, and another is drunk;
22why, have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or the assembly of God do ye despise, and shame those not having? what may I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I do not praise!
I forgot this version, not sure if you recognize it:
11:17. Hoc autem praecipio non laudans quod non in melius sed in deterius convenitis
11:18. Primum quidem convenientibus vobis in ecclesia audio scissuras esse et ex parte credo
11:19. Nam oportet et hereses esse ut et qui probati sunt manifesti fiant in vobis
11:20. Convenientibus ergo vobis in unum iam non est dominicam cenam manducare
11:21.Unusquisque enim suam cenam praesumit ad manducandum et alius quidem esurit alius autem ebrius est
11:22. Numquid domos non habetis ad manducandum et bibendum aut ecclesiam Dei contemnitis et confunditis eos qui non habent quid dicam vobis laudo vos in hoc non laudo
Uh, this is supposed to prove that the Christians in Corinth were refusing communion to the poor and drinking the communion wine to excess???
If you marry in the Catholic church and later get divorced and then re-marry, then you are still married in the eyes of the Catholic church and are commiting adultery.
The Catholic church does not recognize divorce unless the marriage is annulled.
Doesn’t “prove” anything other than that is what we are told Paul wrote to the Corinthians. Believe what you want, but I am curious as to what it is that you do believe God intended by having the Ruach HaKodesh inspire Paul to write this.
Kinda what Jesus thought, too.
BTW, I am pretty sure there were no “Christians” in Corinth in Paul’s time, but merely Jewish followers of The Way. But there are plenty of Christians now. Make of that what you will.
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.