Replies

I agree it was a baited question to begin with when he was asked. The reaction and answer was a for gone conclusion. He could have said no comment, but choose to again repeat is already quoted answer which was then printed calling attention, again, to himself.

There are many more Church leaders who would refuse to answer such a leading question when first asked let alone to repeat the same answer again.

But then again maybe the he likes to be quoted.

What seperates one persons “sin” being different from anothers is really the unanswered real question.

I know Archbishop Burke. He's my bishop, and I don't detect an attention-seeking bone in his body. He is a quiet, soft-spoken gentle-hearted man. His heart is to uphold the teaching and doctrine of the Church, for the sake of Christ, and for the good of the Church. It so happens that Archbishop Burke's efforts toward that end attract attention, in part because these sorts of things are not as common as they should be, and in part because those who oppose such things (particularly the liberal media) draw attention to them in a negative manner.

-A8

"What seperates one persons “sin” being different from anothers is really the unanswered real question."

For those interested in Canon Law, let's really look at the real words of the text:

"Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted
after the imposition or the declaration of a penalty
as well as others who
obstinately... they were explicitly warned, and ignored the warning
persist ...they repeatedly commit or or keep justifying the offense
in manifest... public, easily seen by all, not private
grave sin ...murder, sodomy, blasphemy, adultery, fraud, abuse of a sacrament: something of a visible, scandalous nature
are not to be admitted to communion."

A pretty good short layman's-language overview can be got from used for less than five bucks.

An important thing to remember is that canon law is ecclesiastical. It does not cover the whole law of God; it does not cover secular criminal law; it often assigns ecclesiatical penalties for offenses which are NOT covered by secular law.

For instance, there are a zillion crimes not explicitly dealt with by canon law, because they are already covered by secular criminal law. But striking a priest incurs ecclesiastical penalty, not because it's worse than striking the President of the United States, but because it involves the delict of contempt for persons, places or things associated with God, and thus requires spiritual amendment.

Anyone who commits ANY serious sin should abstain from Communion, all Catholics know this; but a person who commits public sin without publicly epenting and renouncing it, should be publicly stopped, if necessary, to prevent them from profaning the Sacrament.