Posted on 03/24/2014 6:24:52 AM PDT by Arthur McGowan
Here is the text of Canon 915: “Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to Holy Communion.”
Several American bishops have made statements to the effect that a bishop must exercise “discretion” regarding whether to “impose the penalty” of denial of Communion. Among them: Chaput, Dolan, O’Malley, and Wuerl.
All bishops who refuse to “impose the penalty” are participating in a lie. Namely, that denial of Communion is a penalty.
Denial of Communion is NOT a penalty.
So? What is the import of this fact?
It means that denial of Communion is not an option that MAY be chosen. It is MANDATED by Canon 915. No bishop, priest, or other minister of Communion is free to disobey Canon 915, for the simple reason that the action Canon 915 forbids is ALWAYS gravely sinful.
It needs to be emphasized that Canon 915 is NOT a canon that may be “applied” or “not applied.” Canon 915 can only be obeyed or disobeyed. And disobeying Canon 915 is always gravely sinful.
Canon 915 exists precisely because giving Communion to a person “obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin” is always gravely sinful. Doing so is always to give grave scandal, and to participate knowingly in a sacrilegious act.
Let that sink in. Always gravely sinful.
In terms perhaps more familiar to the laity: To give Communion knowingly and deliberately to ANYONE delineated in Canon 915 is ALWAYS a mortal sin.
Cardinal Donald Wuerl has been the most outspoken of those bishops who refuse to obey Canon 915, but all of them are on record, as he is, as endorsing the commission of MORTAL SINS by their priests and other ministers of Communion. Cardinal Wuerl has even punished those who have obeyed Canon 915.
Of course, this is something he has no right to do, because no bishop has the authority to command anyone to commit a mortal sin!
“Bearing in mind the nature of the above-cited norm (cfr. n. 1), no ecclesiastical authority may dispense the minister of Holy Communion from this obligation in any case, nor may he emanate directives that contradict it.” Cardinal Wuerl and many other bishops have been doing PRECISELY what they are EXPRESSLY forbidden to do by this statement from the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts!
They have also emanated specious arguments. Here are some of Cardinal Wuerl’s preposterous, irrelevant statements, made in these or very similar words:
That’s not my style.
I follow a “pastoral approach” rather than a “canonical approach.
”We need to find out if the canon was written for the purpose of bringing politicians to heel.
I will not deny Communion to anyone who has not been formally excommunicated.
Now, that is a stunning statement, because the divorced-and-illicitly-remarried are not excommunicated. Yet, does anyone doubt that, were Cardinal Wuerl to direct all ministers of Communion in his jurisdiction to give Communion to the divorced-and-illicitly-remarried, the news would flash around the world, and Rome would take action within hours?
But Canon 915 mentions no particular SPECIES of sin! That is, the KIND of sin in which a would-be communicant is publicly involved is of no account!
In other words, Cardinal Wuerl’s long-standing determination to give pro-abortion people Communion is precisely as outrageous and scandalous as would be a directive to give Communion to the divorced-and-illicitly-remarried. Yet, there is no evidence that this massive scandal has attracted the attention of Rome.
It is said by many, including Cardinal Wuerl, that Communion should not be used as a political weapon.
Absolutely true. And the reception of Communion is being used as a political weapon—by pro-abortion politicians. As long as they are permitted to receive Communion, the bishop (e.g., Cardinal Wuerl) endorses their claim to be “ardent Catholics” whose promotion of abortion is NO SIN.
Abraham Lincoln is credited with the statements: You can fool all of the people some of the time. You can fool some of the people all of the time. Cardinal Wuerl and other bishops appear to be relying on the truth of these observations. It appears that it has been left up to the laity to demonstrate the truth of Lincoln’s further statement: But you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.
If this scandal is to end, Rome needs to hear a great deal more noise from the laity. As Pope Francis told the youth of Brazil: “Raise a ruckus.”
For further reading on Canon 915, please see the following links:
http://tinyurl.com/canon915 http://www.canonlaw.info/a_denialofeucharist.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_915
A native of Washington, DC, Fr. Vincent Fitzpatrick is a retired priest of the Diocese of Fargo.
Forty years ago, the American bishops were over 90% Democrat. That generation did almost NOTHING to oppose abortion. The Party came first.
The problem still exists. The official position of the USCCB is that Canon 915 should be disobeyed if there is any danger of appearing to support Republicans. (They don’t word it quite like that, but that’s exactly what they meant.)
Believe me, there are many, many bishops out there who, right this minute, would tell you that it has been wise of the bishops to soft-pedal abortion, because otherwise, we might not have Obamacare!
You mean the 19-aughts. As soon as Joe Kennedy got REALLY rich, in the 1920s, he OWNED the Cardinal Archbishop of Boston. The Kennedys still own the Cardinal Archbishop of Boston.
Then you have a much bigger problem than taking communion unworthingly.
Do you believe what Paul said when he stated that a man should examine himself, meaning it is up to him and not some one else?
Or are you too cowardly to use scripture to try to prove a point?
Pastors, Protestants included, are human beings who sin. They aren't ANY better than anyone else in the world. And, boys have been molested by men (priest, rabbis and ministers included) since the beginning of the human race.
HALF/MUCH of the blame has to be on the mother/women of the family who KNEW what daddy was doing to their sons but ignored it for whatever reason. They KNEW and did nothing to confront the abusive father or protect their son.
Back in the 1960's the Catholic Church was glad to receive these new men, homosexuals, into the Church. The Church has always told us to hate the sin, not the sinner.
Unfortunately, homosexuality, bisexuality and asexuality are CHOICES, as we are all genetically heterosexual. Those CHOICES, is seems, are made when children are in their early to mid teens, 13-15 years of age when they really don't have the maturity to envision what their CHOICES entail. (Googled this.)
So those children made their choice NOT to be heterosexual. They also KNEW it was wrong but did it any way. Are they to be held to a lower standard than the rest of us?
They might not have had the wherewithal to resist the impulse at 13-15 but, at 18 and older, they KNEW what they were doing was anathema to EVERYONE in every faith on the planet earth, but let it happen and didn't change it.
We really DON'T KNOW exactly what the Church knew and didn't know. "Turning a blind eye" isn't QUITE what they did. They weren't heavily into the psychology of it all. They are now and filter those men with a fine tooth comb.
You MIGHT say "too little, too late," but that is NOT so for those boys who won't be molested.
Where were the parents/family and friends of that poor molested boy in your parish? Did NO ONE notice his demeanor? No child can hide those feelings very well or for very long. What happened to that priest? How is that victim doing these days? Well, I hope.
I remember an Irish priest in our parish who smelled of whiskey. I smelled it ONLY in the confessional. Father Casey.
Good post.
The Catholic Church gave the compiled Bible to the world. I believe they know what it says. <sarc off
The Church decides morality. Advocacy for something to apply to politicians voting is political.
Yes, a man should examine himself.
Or are you too cowardly to use scripture to try to prove a point?
Cowardly? Why would scripture be used with one who acknowledges that they think scripture is full of personal opinions by some of the authors, that it doesn't contain what the Holy Spirit intended? I'd have to see an approved list of scripture, just the books, that you haven't determined as tainted. And yeah, if one thinks that scripture is full of the human writers' opinions, not the Holy Spirit's intended words, then you do have a bigger problem than your worthiness for communion. The sacrament is in scripture, but perhaps the Lord was misquoted just like the Pope seems to be today.
The Catholic Church gave the compiled Bible to the world. I believe they know what it says. <sarc off
Not news. But I REMEMBER that abortion wasn't an issue to anyone at all. It wasn't spoken about. Birth control pills were just coming out. THAT was HUGE.
Sherri Finkbine (sp?) as I recall was the first American woman to have a legal abortion in this country.
From GOOGLE: Sherri Finkbine (born Sherri Chessen in 1932) is an American television actress.
Finkbine was known as Miss Sherri on the local Phoenix, Arizona, version of the franchised children's show, Romper Room. The Finkbine Case began in London, England, in 1961, when her husband was chaperoning sixty-four high school students on a European tour. He obtained some Thalidomide and carried the remainder home. Finkbine took thirty-six of the pills in the early stages of her pregnancy. Neither she nor her husband was aware until July 1962 that the pills contained Thalidomide.
Sherri was pretty stupid...and, IMHO, evil. Why didn't she HAVE the baby and give him/her up for adoption? Oh well. Her aborted baby is LONG PAST with our good Lord.
=============================
The problem still exists. The official position of the USCCB is that Canon 915 should be disobeyed if there is any danger of appearing to support Republicans. (They don’t word it quite like that, but that’s exactly what they meant.)
Now you are the mind reader. I have NEVER seen the "official position" of the USCCB where Canon 915 should be disobeyed. I am Catholic and Republican and have been so, OPENLY, in a very liberal city. Politics are NEVER, EVER, ever mentioned. Not even remotely. Priests are ON MESSAGE with the rest of the world's Catholic Church. Well, that is MY parish.
Canon law is one thing but expecting priests to be mind readers and NOT give communion? I have never seen ANYONE turned away from Holy Communion. I've been to Mass ALL OVER the world...even in Saudi Arabia where my husband worked for ARAMCO, the Arabian-American Oil Company. The company provided "special teachers," that is, Protestant ministers, priests and even an Anglican priest for the six Anglicans on camp. There were about equal numbers of Catholics and lumped-together Protestants.
That is where I started going to DAILY Mass. Imagine, getting the daily Mass habit in a Muslim country.
My co-worked there was an Indian Catholic and he REALLY objected to my taking off 20 stinking minutes to go across the street to the clubhouse room where Mass was held. I went on Sunday mornings because SUNDAY was MY holy day, not Fridays! He (Harry) said that I should go to Mass on Fridays with the rest of the Catholics. He was so angry with me that he went to our Saudi boss to "tell on me."
I remember that VIVIDLY. Our boss said: "Harry, God is number one. There is always time for God. Cloud Mountain (of course, not my real name) can go to pray whenever she wants."
Hah, I don't know WHOSE jaw fell farther or faster, Harry's or mine. So, I WENT to Mass and went daily. I THINK that the Holy Spirit was a huge part of that. I continue with daily Mass these 30 years later.
======================================
Believe me, there are many, many bishops out there who, right this minute, would tell you that it has been wise of the bishops to soft-pedal abortion, because otherwise, we might not have Obamacare!
I don't believe you. Sorry.
We don't get homilies on abortion so it isn't "soft-pedaled" or ever mentioned unless it was germane to the readings.
None of our four priests (or visiting priests) have EVER mentioned Obamacare. Why would they?
And yeah, if one thinks that scripture is full of the human writers’ opinions, not the Holy Spirit’s intended words, then you do have a bigger problem than your worthiness for communion.
I did not say that i thought any thing, i just said i did not know, big difference.
1 Corinthians 8:2
2 And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know.
I don,t know about you but i live by faith, if i knew every thing i would not have to live by faith.
Does the Catholic Church really believe all scripture comes from God? and do you?
28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.
In view of what Paul said,Do you agree or disagree with the thread?.
Let's change it to Pastor, I'm not Catholic. If the steward of the supper doesn't know that a person is unqualified (for whatever reason)he should not bar access to the Supper. If he does know one is disqualified, He should bar access out of Christian love.
1 Corinthians 8:2 2 And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know.
Not in context. The 'knowledge Paul was speaking of referred to the existence of idols.
Does the Catholic Church really believe all scripture comes from God?
Most claim to, but considering the Catholic treatment of scriptures, the fruit would say otherwise.
do you?
I believe what scripture says about itself, and by the faith in God that is is His Word.
In view of what Paul said,Do you agree or disagree with the thread?.
What Paul said about self-examination is irrelevant to this situation, he already spoke of people like this, if they don't repent, turn them over to Satan. 1Cor5.
Let’s change it to Pastor, I’m not Catholic.
1Cor 11:26-28. The Lord's Supper isn't celebrated in a void, it is a confession of the church. James 3:1.
So you think a man is puffed up if he claims to know anything about eating something offered to idols, but he is not considered puffed up if he claims to know everything else?
Context, can't read what you want in to it. If I am thought of as harsh in my judgement that lack of faith in God's Word is worse that communing unworthingly, reprove me from scripture, don't create an understanding of a verse where that isn't the context. Rom 3:4.
Talk about irrelevant, and you come up with this? Paul was not talking about communion, he was talking about kicking a member out of the Church.
Read the article. The hierarchy isn't following their own canon. To some Catholics, that is worse than not following God's Word. But if these won't relent and repent how is that different the than the unrepentant Paul spoke of? The pro-aborts should be excommunicated publicly. The Catholic church hasn't the conviction to do so, thus the scandal. Paul would have, in light of their unrepentance turned them over to Satan. Just as he would have pushed for these 'shepherds' to repent, lest they get the same.
Have to read it first.
Forty years ago was 1974, not 1962.
Canon 915 has nothing to do with mind-reading because it concerns only sins that are “manifest.”
If a politician behaves or votes in a way that is seriously unjust, that makes him a serious sinner.
A person who is involved in public, serious sin must not be given Communion.
It’s that simple.
Father,
Why should any of these bishops change their tune when Francis himself allowed the same pro-aborts to receive communion at his inaugural mass?
Where do the scriptures say that?
1Cor 11:26-28. The Lord’s Supper isn’t celebrated in a void, it is a confession of the church. James 3:1.
26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death till He comes.
Examine Yourself
27 Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood[a] of the Lord.
28
But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup.
James3
1
My brethren, be not many masters, knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation.
Also easy to see leaders are judged with a greater strictness, cuz it says so.
Below is the very verses you named to prove just the opposite.
How so? Do you take communion at home? Under what conditions do you receive communion? Do you a layman (assumption) consecrate the elements yourself? If non-consecrated, it doesn't really matter nor does it if you are alone.
Himself.
I said a man should examine himself. Have you repented, have you received absolution in a church setting. If you are home administering communion, then it really doesn't matter does it. A faithful (to God)pastor will know his flock. If one is known to be engaged in sin and currently is unrepentant, he has a responsibility to the communicant and the rest of the group to bar the unrepentant who in his folly would eat and drink judgement on himself.
Now if you are a one man army who worships in creation away from any house of God, Heb 10:25 do what you want. The 'sacrament' in that case is worthless.
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.