Posted on 04/28/2008 11:41:35 AM PDT by NYer
April 28, 2008 --
NEW YORK - New York Cardinal Edward Egan says Rudy Giuliani should not have received Holy Communion during the pope's visit because he supports abortion rights.
Egan says he had "an understanding" with the former presidential candidate and New York mayor that he is not to receive the Eucharist. The Catholic Church teaches "that abortion is a grave offense against the will of God."
The cardinal says Giuliani broke that understanding when he received the Eucharist during Pope Benedict XVI's visit.
Egan says he will be seeking a meeting with Giuliani "to insist that he abide by our understanding."
Giuliani's spokeswoman, Sunny Mindel, said Monday that he is willing to meet with the cardinal but added that his faith "is a deeply personal matter."
Egan's statement does not address the fact that Giuliani is on his third marriage.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
“One would think that a sin so public as to cause a scandal would require public remorse.”
And we can’t forget the teaching aspect of resolving such public matters in a public manner. A little public discipline would teach a lotta folks that the Church is not foolin’ when it comes to the acceptance and aid of baby butchery.
Freegards
“It’s interesting to ponder great saints who were bishops, and their different personalities, and try to imagine what they would do in today’s situation!”
It sure is!! Lotsa them Saints had much, much higher standards that I can even imagine trying to hold myself or anybody else to. I’m not saying I have a better idear of what needs to happen than Bishops do, I’m saying it seems to me, with my meager faculties, that public discipline can be a very potent aspect of teaching that mostly doesn’t get used in a day and age when it would seem to be very effective.
Freegards
You’re right, because the effectiveness has been demonstrated clearly in those rare dioceses with strong bishops who do use their authority for public discipline. Men like Burke and Bruskewitz. We see that the parishes in these places have high Mass attendance, high attendance at adoration and other devotions, and that there are more vocations to the priesthood, and active pro-life efforts. I’ve also heard that in individual parishes the priests have fewer liturgical abuses.
So maybe it’s not merely that the public figures are called to account, but that somehow that clear demonstration of the faith reassures and strengthens the average Catholic layperson. The bishop’s actions in one case become a means of both teaching and sanctifying the many, without needing to do anything different in how he governs them, because the truth becomes evident to all.
The reverse is equally true -- if the bishop is seen as a weak-kneed wuss who's more afraid of offending the 'spirit of the age' or political correctness than he is of God Almighty, his flock thinks, "Well, he doesn't take it seriously, why should I?"
sorry...can’t buy it.
Amen on tough love.
However, failure to condem or demand proper action thereafter because some one wants to be liked is something else.
“He cannot do anything, officially.”
I disagree.
A bishop may not instruct a Catholic attached to another diocese what he may or may not do in dioceses outside of the bishop's diocese.
But a bishop may certainly determine what are sacramental practices within his own diocese, and could easily ban Catholics from other dioceses from the reception of the Blessed Sacrament within his own diocese.
As an example, in 2004, Archbishop Burke of St. Louis stated publicly that John Kerry would be forbidden to receive the Blessed Sacrament in any Catholic church in the Archdiocese of St. Louis. John Kerry was not then a Catholic attached to the Archdiocese of St. Louis.
In that Archbishop Burke is considered the foremost expert on Canon Law among the bishops, I'll consider his actions dispositive until a higher authority says differently.
Every bishop could ban any pro-abort Catholic politician from receiving the Blessed Sacrament within his own diocese.
And every bishop should act thusly.
The bishops who take no action in this regard disgrace themselves.
sitetest
Religion, politics and celebrity. It’s who you are that makes the difference. The church is NOT one anymore.
I wasn’t speculating. It showed him sitting in his pew and from what I read he did not receive. I do’tn have to read more anyway...we all know how it works, don’t we?
I will stay with waht I was taught and how I was raised. The Catholic church has changed...not me.
Well, either way. Their abortion beliefs are wrong and they should not have received from what the authorities had said about politicians and Communion.
but really, you should know that those who are not of the Diocese of New York must properly be prevailed upon by their bishops, not by Cardinal Egan.
If the church is one then we should all have to abide by the rules. It is not a rule for some parishes yet not another. Where are the rest of the Biships. Sorry to sound pessimistic but this has been this way for a very long time. People with big names and celebrity and politicians...it’s always the same and will never change.
In a case of divorce and re-marriage?? Absolution wouldn't occur unless he stopped living with his concubine. How would a priest not know if he was no longer married and had returned to a celibate lifestyle outside of his original marriage? It's Rudy Giuliani, for crying out loud!
bttt
How would the Cardinal know who is pro-life vs who is pro-choice?
And does he call them out by name in the church bulletin?
Do Democrat voters who are Catholics get communion?
Are they kicked out of church?
Do Democrat voters or pols who are gay get communion? Is this Cardinal a Democrat?
As you have already noted, there is no way to know who does / does not support abortion, other than their individual confessor. In the case of politicians, the situation is quite different. They have made formal, public statements in support of their positions. It is the responsibility of the local ordinary to meet with them privately. In fact, according to the above article:
Egan says he had "an understanding" with the former presidential candidate and New York mayor that he is not to receive the Eucharist.
Ultimately, public figures generate and further misundertandings among Catholics and the media, by their statements vs their actions.
Are they kicked out of church?
The Church does not "kick" people out. Jesus came to save sinners, did He not? Some Catholics become obstinate in their rejection and excommunicate themselves latae sententiae .
probably because rudy lives within his diocese and the others don’t?
And why Catholics in general that vote for Dims feel free to partake of communion in the Catholic Church?
And knowing that RG has campaigned vigorously for pro-life Republicans in my state and others since 98, (I have NEVER heard of any Democrats listed above campaigning for prolife pols), it all seems curious to me.
But of course you must have noticed that I'm not Catholic, and very ignorant on the rules.
Is this calling out of a pol in public to embarrass them, an order, rule or law in the Church?
As you can probably imagine, there is no short answer to this question. I plan to post a thread later today specifically on this topic and will ping you to it, okay?
But of course you must have noticed that I'm not Catholic, and very ignorant on the rules.
The "rules" as you put it, all stem from Canon law which, in turn, is based on Scripture. Will include you in the ping to the thread and expect it will raise additional questions ;-) Not a problem. Ask away.
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.