I'm back, having been gone a few days. I see others have responded to my comments. Joy.
If he has privately rejected that communion, is he still in communion because his dissent isn't public?
If it's private, how would anyone else know? God knows. All mortal sin is a separation from communion. There is always the sacrament of Penance. Yet none of us needs to be re-baptized. Priests and Bishops don't get re-ordained.
For example, if he knowingly and conciously defies the pope in a matter of faith, but makes it seem like a matter of not understanding him.
These type of politics have been going on since, well, the garden of Eden. While baptism removes original sin, its' effects of wounded nature remain to tempt us. Therefore, the dangers of these problems will remain till the end of time. The challenge for us is to remain obedient to the Lord - Who still works through even evil and wicked Priests and Bishops. Lord knows, the effects of the '70s and "liturgical experimentation" are still with us and apparently this Cardinal, in addition to a host of many other Bishops (who all seem to have grayer hair all the time), is a champion of them. History is not on his side.
If anyone has explicit and damning evidence against the Cardinal, pursue it through the Church's canon process. I don't know the specifics of how it works. The St. Joseph Foundation (I think that's the name) would. Ultimately, it would have to be the Pope who made the final decision to "fire" the Cardinal.
Consider this. Pope John Paul II will die some day. What if Cardinal Mahoney were elected in his place? Do we break trust with the Holy Spirit then? Through prayers for him, could the Cardinal become orthodox and holy again (I seriously do not know enough about him - one way or the other - to say he is or is not)? We've had wicked Popes before in our history, yet the Church has survived. I think emotions are running high. Regarding the posted article, I didn't see where the Cardinal showed heresy. Perhaps not the best answers concerning "centering prayer" or whatever it's called, but certainly not heresy.
Heh. Been there. Welcome back in any case.
The challenge for us is to remain obedient to the Lord - Who still works through even evil and wicked Priests and Bishops.
To take this further, it would seem the ful challenge is to remain obedient to God before anything else. Meaning, if you believe a prelate is leading you astray from the Lord, you must not follow him.
From the Catholic Encyclopedia: "Hence, notably, we cannot heed the behests of any human power no matter how venerable or undisputed as against the ordinances of God."
I don't see any call to blind obedience to a prelate in Catholic doctrine, and I never have. I do see great caution urged in defying one, and therefore find myself on the fence frequently in these matters. But since I cannot peer into human hearts, I cannot distinguish easily between schism and faith.
If anyone has explicit and damning evidence against the Cardinal, pursue it through the Church's canon process.
But in the mean time, follow him where your conscience tells you is heresy? Surely not.
Pursuing charges against the cardinal would be an act of charity. But it would be distinct from the act of obedience to God in defying the heresy itself.
Consider this. Pope John Paul II will die some day. What if Cardinal Mahoney were elected in his place? Do we break trust with the Holy Spirit then?
I prefer to think the Holy Spirit will prevent a formal heretic from ascending to the throne of Peter. If Mahoney is not one, and so should ascend, then I believe the Holy Spirit will prevent him from causing material harm to the body of faith, should it be entrusted to him (which is not to say he won't cause other sorts of harm.).