Dear Mr. Donohue:
You have publicly stumbled (I hope it was an unwitting stumble) into endorsing, quite explicitly, a mortal sin.
The mortal sin in question is: giving Communion to a person who is obstinately persisting in manifest grave sin. It is a grave sin of scandal because whenever a minister of Communion gives such a person Communion, he: 1) publicly collaborates, with knowledge, in the commission of a sacrilege; 2) gives public approval to the communicant's notorious grave sin.
You are, of course, aware that these are the precise reasons the Church has always required Denial of Communion to persons living publicly in a state of adultery.
The principle involved applies equally without any regard to the SPECIES of the sin that the would-be communicant is involved in.
Your blunder is in thinking that the moral principle demanding Denial of Communion has some specific connection with the Sacrament of Matrimony. I.e., the divorced-and-remarried.
This is a bit of nonsense that the majority of American bishops have promoted, by approving the document "Catholics in Political Life," in which it is said that a bishop may "legitimately" give Communion to pro-abortion politicians. I.e., the bishops said (and say) that the moral principles that MANDATE Denial of Communion to the divorced-and-remarried do not mandate Denial of Communion to public promoters of abortion.
Cardinal Wuerl's many statements on this subject have been nothing but a concatenation of lies. (In the case of a Cardinal of the Catholic Church, one cannot attribute them to ignorance.)
A partial list:
He has persistently outlined the demands of Canon 916, and pretended he is talking about Canon 915. I.e., he has persistently pretended that ONLY the would-be Communicant has anything to say about whether he will receive Communion. (Of course, the Cardinal is secure in the knowledge that Joe Lunchpail and Sally Housecoat are not familiar with the texts of Canons 915 and 916.)
++++++++++++
He has persistently claimed that Denial of Communion is unjust unless the minister of Communion knows the "state of the soul" of the would-be communicant.
Since this is metaphysically impossible...well, you can finish this sentence.
++++++++++++
Cardinal Wuerl has declared that he will never deny Communion to anyone other than an excommunicate. (And even then...only after lots and lots of "dialogue.")
Cardinal Wuerl has never offered a scintilla of explanation as to why Canon 915 MAY be obeyed in the case of excommunicates, but MUST NOT be obeyed in the case of persons who are "obstinately persisting in manifest grave sin."
++++++++++++
Cardinal Wuerl claimed several years ago that, before he would consider obeying Canon 915, it was necessary to find out whether the canon was written for the precise purpose of "bringing politicians to heel."
The Cardinal had to know that NO canon was written for that precise purpose, ergo...you can finish this sentence, also.
++++++++++++
He persistently calls Denial of Communion a "penalty."
It is not a penalty. Canon 915 is not a penal canon. It does not offer Denial of Communion as a penalty that a bishop MAY apply. It MANDATES Denial of Communion for the simplest of all possible reasons: Giving Communion to excommunicates and those obstinately persisting in manifest grave sin is always a mortal sin.
The reason for falsely calling Denial of Communion a "penalty" is to support the false claim that it is something that a bishop MAY "impose," but Cardinal Wuerl chooses not to "impose," for assorted "pastoral" reasons, such as "leading" pro-abortion politicians into closer union with Christ and the Church. When asked not long ago in an interview to name a pro-abortion politician who had become pro-life as a result of receiving Communion sacrilegiously in tandem with "dialogue" with Cardinal Wuerl, he could not name one. (It has been more than 43 years since the platform of "the natural home of Catholics" endorsed abortion, and nearly 43 years since Roe v. Wade.)
++++++++++++
You have parroted Cardinal Wuerl's caricature of Denial of Communion as "using the Eucharist as a weapon" with which to "smack" pro-abortion politicians.
Well, then, you therefore accuse Pope St. John Paul II of "using the Eucharist as a weapon," with which to "smack" the divorced-and-remarried--in a Magisterial document! (Familiaris Consortio.)
I hope I need hardly elaborate on the grave scandal that is given, and the strict, grave obligation to correct it, when the President of the Catholic League has publicly, in writing, endorsed the commission of mortal sin.
Sincerely,
(let me be the first)
Ah yes...the red whirly-bird.
[[The attacks are coming from The Church Militant, a loose gang of angry right-wingers who specialize in character assassination,]]
Hmmm- This one sentence kinda looks like a sentence full of character assassination to me- “Loose gang” “Right-Wingers” (obviously used in a pejorative manner) “Specialize in”
didn’t bother reading past the obvious attack on those durn ‘right wingers’
Billy Donahue sold his soul eons ago. I never listen to him anymore. He endorses and promotes evil. He is one of the “reasons” we have “gay” LOL “marriage”.
I will listen to the “right wing”——ha ha——”Catholic Militant” and Niles ANYDAY, because they alway state the truth and it is well-researched, based on the Catholic Canon, which Donahue tends to wrinkly up and throw away.
Donohue described Pope Francis as “the ultimate maverick” on The Alan Colmes Show, saying “the left is going to like the fact that he has more of a socialist model in terms of his vision of the structure of the economy. He’s anti-market in the encyclical.”
On March 30, 2010, Donohue appeared on CNN’s Larry King Live on a panel discussing sexual abuse of children by priests. Donohue contended that the decades-old problem consisted mostly of offenses involving postpubescent boys aged 12 or more, which offenses therefore, according to Donohue, should be considered the acts of homosexual priests, rather than the actions of pedophiles.
Q: Because of your regular national TV appearances, even critics have called you media-saavy, and a 2000 editorial in America once lauded your bi-partisan willingness to break ranks with Republicans and others who agree with you on most issues. What’s the secret to your success in the secular media?
A. The media like me because I am quick, pithy, and unafraid of criticism. They like my passion, and ability to deliver with clarity. That is what I have been told by friend and foe alike in the media.
Politically, I started as a Democrat, got fed up with them, joined the Republicans, got fed up with them, and have been happily independent for more than two decades. I have a problem with Catholic Democrats who have lost their moorings on the life issues. I have a problem with Catholic Republicans who are more Republican than Catholic, and Washington is loaded with these people. Many of them no longer trust me because I have attacked Republican politicians and have a reputation of not being a player. The reputation is accurate. Thank God we are headquartered in New York, and not in Washington where the operatives want to own you.
If “Catholics” like Pelosi, et al. are allowed to receive Communion, so should non-Catholics who attend Mass.
wuerl was NOT doing what he should have been doing.
So when Rudy Giuliani received communion at a mass celebrated by Pope Benedict, did His Holiness publicly stumble?
Donohue uses the same type of slippery language liberals use to try to get conservatives to stop promoting the Constitution. Their characterization of enforcing Cannon law “as a weapon” because it disadvantages Donohue’s friends is the same as liberals arguing that the Constitution should not be enforced because it disadvantages potential Democrat voters.
Short for "Johnson".
Wuerl was channeling Hardon when he gave his TV series of lectures on the subject.
Sounds pretty queer to me.