Posted on 10/04/2007 5:50:34 AM PDT by NYer
Catholic Ping
Please freepmail me if you want on/off this list
I’m not a Catholic, but I would’ve thought his multiple marriages would be enough to not receive Communion (based on my Catholic school years). I think the first was annulled, so that wouldn’t be enough, but I don’t think his second was a clean break in the Church’s eyes. Certainly his views on abortion wouldn’t help his case.
Rudy is a queer lover and cross dresser who has a scandalous personal life. He doesn’t deserve communion.
***”I have very, very strong views on religion that come about from having wanted to be a priest when I was younger, having studied theology for four years in college,” he said.***
I’m glad he realized the priesthood wasn’t his vocation!
And I would deny the Republican nomination to Rudy.
"Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or the declaration of a penalty as well as others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to communion."
This is not some bishop's "opinion" and it is not for cross-dressing and other nonsense. It is prescribed by Canon Law for those who obstinately persist (after having been warned) in "manifest" (publicly known) "grave sin"(like, among other things, being an accomplice in the killing of an innocent human being)--- and the purpose is to protect the faithful from scandal, protect the Blessed Sacrament from public profanation,and protect the offender himself from further acts of sacrilege, praying always for his repentance.
This is not a political football. It is a necessary--- in fact, mandatory--- defense of spirtual integrity.
Too bad only Burke and a few others are faithful enough to actually enforce Canon Law. It applies to beishops, priests, deacons, EM's and anybody else who is entrusted with the grave responsibility of ministering the Sacrament.
“Hey look at me, I’m over here. See how important I deserve to be, look over here it’s me the important looking guy”.
"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."What an astonishingly stupid response.
How are you so sure Burke is doing this to attract attention to himself?
It IS astonishingly stupid - but the US bishops have allowed Catholic politicians to get away with it for 40 years (and many other less visible Catholics, too, of course).
The "matter of opinion in a free society" defense was invented by a Catholic priest (Fr. Drinan) for the benefit of Senator Kennedy and has spread far and wide since then.
It's my opinion (as a non-Catholic) that unless there is some public act of refusal of communion by other than the occasional bishop that the practice of apostates receieving communion will continue unabated.
With acumen like yours, you should be sitting on the couch between those two rocket scientists Behar and Goldberg.
"Burke, the archbishop of St. Louis, was asked"
Giuliani's answer is really a red herring. Of course bishops have a right to their opinion. But that's not the question. The question is, Do bishops have the authority and obligation, under Church law, to deny Giuliani communion?
I wish more publicly unrepentent sinners had the courage of their convictions that Jim McGreevy had and would just leave. But unless, as you say, refusing communion to these clowns becomes standard practice, I suppose they have no reason to.
Well, that's A question, all right.
But it's not THE question.
THE question is, "if the bishops have the obligation to deny communion to Giuliani (and all the others), then why don't they do so?"
He has completely refused to discuss his religious situation -- re going to church, presenting himself to receive, etc. Absolute refusal. But he still calls himself a Catholic. I guess he still is one unless he disowns the Church, since he could always go to Confession, get right with God, and receive.
That tells me that all he wants is to call himself Catholic to snag the paisano vote. He probably isn't even going to Mass, let alone going up to receive.
That's another issue. Giuliani seems to be deliberately obfuscating the fact that the bishop is acting rightly, under Church law.
But your question is equally important. And the only answer I can come up with is cowardice. There may be extenuating circumstances in some cases, but they would be very few.
i totally agree. he knows enough to know he shouldn't and i don't think he would attempt to receive. but yes, he won't give up the appellation of Catholic, bc he can still attract the lapsed who see him as one of their own.
it is an absolute necessity, and not done nearly enough. i am floored to hear people saying that the bishop should just SHUT UP. what is the function of a religious leader other than to LEAD?
In short, Burke is just answering honestly, according to canon law. In his memorandum entitled ‘Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion – General Principles,’ Pope B16 (when he was Cardinal Ratzinger) said without ambiguity:
“The minister of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute it [Holy Communion] when warning and counsel given to the manifest sinner have not had their effect.”
Neither Burke nor Benedict invented this as some kind of political novelty. It's the unremarkable enforcement of ecclesiastical law, which you can see quoted verbatim at post#7.
The only "remarkable" thing is how so few bishops bother to heed the law. That's been the shame and the bane of the Church for decades: long on doctrine, short on discipline.
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.