[AAABEST]

We have here a bishop and Cardinal so far who seem to have a far different interpretation of the very clear directive from Cardinal Ratzinger. Who would've thunk it? Yeah really. I however held out the possibility that Ratzingers letter may have had wiggle room. That wasn't the case though as there is no 2 ways to interpret the following.

"When ìthese precautionary measures have not had their effect...and the person in question, with obstinate persistence, still presents himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, ìhe minister of Holy Communion MUST refuse to distribute it."

McCarrick didn't merely choose to be creative with an ambiguous document from Ratzinger, he outright intentionally lied through his teeth after reading a very one.

[Desdemona]

McCarrick didn't merely choose to be creative with an ambiguous document from Ratzinger, he outright intentionally lied through his teeth after reading a very one.

That's what needs to be publicized.