I know. I’m asking a question. Is it a Catholic Caucus thread because you say so?

From the Religion Moderator's profile page:

Types of Religion Forum threads and guidelines pertaining to each:

Religion Forum threads labeled “Prayer:”

Prayer threads are closed to debate of any kind.

Religion Forum threads labeled “Devotional:”

Devotional threads are closed to debate of any kind.

Religion Forum threads labeled “Caucus”

Caucus threads are closed to any poster who is not currently and actively a member of the caucus group.

For instance, if it says “Catholic Caucus” and you are not currently, actively Catholic, then do not post to the thread.
However, if the poster of the caucus invites you, I will not boot you from the thread.
The “caucus” article and posts must not compare beliefs or speak in behalf of a belief outside the caucus.
There is little to no tolerance for non-members of a caucus coming onto the caucus thread to challenge whether or not it should be a caucus. Gross disruption usually follows.
If you question whether the article is appropriate for a caucus designation, send me a Freepmail. I'll get to it as soon as I can.

Religion Forum threads labeled “Ecumenical”

Ecumenical threads are closed to antagonism.

To antagonize is to incur or to provoke hostility in others.
Unlike the “caucus” threads, the article and reply posts of an “ecumenical” thread may discuss more than one belief, but antagonism is not tolerable.
More leeway is granted to what is acceptable in the text of the article than to the reply posts. For example, the term “gross error” in an article will not prevent an ecumenical discussion, but a poster should not use that term in his reply because it is antagonistic. As another example, the article might be a passage from the Bible which would be antagonistic to Jews. The passage should be considered historical information and a legitimate subject for an ecumenical discussion. The reply posts however must not be antagonistic.
Contrasting of beliefs or even criticisms can be made without provoking hostilities. But when in doubt, only post what you are “for” and not what you are “against.” Or ask questions.
Ecumenical threads will be moderated on a “where there’s smoke, there’s fire” basis. When hostility has broken out on an “ecumenical” thread, I’ll be looking for the source.
Therefore “anti” posters must not try to finesse the guidelines by asking loaded questions, using inflammatory taglines, gratuitous quote mining or trying to slip in an “anti” or “ex” article under the color of the “ecumenical” tag.

Unlabeled Religion Forum threads:
All other Religion Forum threads are “Open” by default.

Open threads are in a town square format.

Antagonism though not encouraged, should be expected
Posters may argue for or against beliefs, deities, religious authorities, etc. They may tear down other’s beliefs. They may ridicule. “Open” RF debate is often contentious.
It requires thick skin. A poster must be able to make his points while standing his ground, suffering adverse remarks about his beliefs - or letting them roll off his back.
Members of religions which are as much culture as belief sometimes take religious debate personally. If you keep getting your feelings hurt because other posters ridicule or disapprove or hate what you hold dear, then you are too thin-skinned to be involved in “open” RF debate. You should IGNORE “open” RF threads altogether and instead post to RF threads labeled “prayer” “devotional” “caucus” or “ecumenical.”

Posters may designate threads posted in the Religion Forum with Caucus status. As there is nothing in the original post that violates Caucus designation guidelines established by the Religion Moderator, I chose to designate this thread as such.

From the Religion Moderator's profile page (emphasis added):

Religion Forum threads labeled “Caucus”

Caucus threads are closed to any poster who is not currently and actively a member of the caucus group.

For instance, if it says “Catholic Caucus” and you are not currently, actively Catholic, then do not post to the thread.
However, if the poster of the caucus invites you, I will not boot you from the thread.
The “caucus” article and posts must not compare beliefs or speak in behalf of a belief outside the caucus.
There is little to no tolerance for non-members of a caucus coming onto the caucus thread to challenge whether or not it should be a caucus. Gross disruption usually follows.
If you question whether the article is appropriate for a caucus designation, send me a Freepmail. I'll get to it as soon as I can.

If you are not currently, actively Catholic, then do not post to this thread. Thanks.

If you question whether an article qualifies for a caucus designation, send me a Freepmail.

Do not disturb a caucus.

For the record, to qualify for an RF caucus designation the article itself - and all reply posts - must not speak for or comment on belief groups which are not members of the caucus. If such statements are made, the thread must be opened so the non-members can speak for themselves.

Whether the RF article also concerns politics, history, philosophy, science, etc. is irrelevant to its designation as a caucus.

In the Light of the Law

A Canon Lawyer's Blog

March 20, 2013

Nancy Pelosi will not change on her own

Communion time in St. Peter’s is, for the vast majority of lay persons (not heads of state, and not folks chosen to receive from the pope), pretty much a mob scene, so there is nothing to be gleaned from the fact that Nancy Pelosi took holy Communion at Pope Francis’ installation Mass—nothing, that is, except that either Pelosi suffers from one of the most malformed consciences in the annals of American Catholic politics or that she is simply hell bent on using her Catholic identity to attack Catholic values at pretty much every opportunity. Certainly, Pelosi’s taking the Sacrament is not, in the slightest, a Roma locuta on pro-abortion Catholics and Communion.

Nancy Pelosi is America’s problem, not Rome’s, and it is obvious that, if left to her own lights, she will never mend her ways. For her sake, therefore, and for those confused by the chronic scandal she gives, Pelosi needs to be formally warned against taking holy Communion for so long as she promotes, as consistent with our Catholic faith, a variety of gravely immoral policies (per cc. 916, 1339); ministers, meanwhile, in her environs need to be directed to withhold Communion from her till advised otherwise by the competent ecclesiastical authority (per c. 915).

” But Cardinal Donald Wuerl of Washington, part of the conclave that elected Francis, has said he would offer Pelosi communion despite her views on abortion because he didn’t believe communion should be used as a weapon. “We never -– the Church just didn’t use Communion this way. It wasn’t a part of the way we do things, and it wasn’t a way we convinced Catholic politicians to appropriate the faith and live it and apply it; the challenge has always been to convince people,” Wuerl said in a 2010 interview. His position would logically extend to Biden. The vice president’s bishop, Francis Malooly of Wilmington, Del., has also said he would not deny communion to Biden. “

Cardinal Wuerl and Bishop Malooly are wrong.

In fact, Cardinal Wuerl is guilty of creating a straw-man to rationalize his disobedience to the Catholic Church.

Cardinal Wuerl and Bishop Malooly are wrong.

Absolutely! I in no way posted that to DEFEND them;I was only pointing out that the Pope himself did not give communion to Biden or Pelosi!

Revised to comply with stringent Caucus thread rules and reposted

“This is troubling.”

Beyond very troubling.

If the Pope didn’t know what sort of people these two are, why not?

Is Canon Law now invalid, no longer enforced, or only applicable to “little people”, not the political elites?

People don’t think things through. Any “Diplomatic” problem should have been welcomed as an opportunity to point out that it's King Barry and the two clowns he sent who have egg on their faces since they all should have known the clowns would be denied communion. Canon Law clearly says they've excommunicated themselves when they publicly advocated abortion and voted for abortion in direct contradiction to Church Teaching. No only that, they’ve both made very public statements to the effect that they decide for themselves what to believe with Church Teaching being only one element that they consider, not their guiding light as it should be if they are Catholic.

In addition, their public statements put them solidly in the camp with Hans Kung and Karl Rahner as opponents of the Catholic Church, not faithful or any other kind of Catholics no matter what they want to claim to the contrary. The result is, . . . nothing. No matter what sort of screw-up may have happened, there’s no way around the fact that those who have standing in politics, the very same persons the Pope has referred to in the past as needing to be denied Communion, presented themselves and their behavior was ignored.

The case can and will be made that those who have sufficient political clout don’t have to worry about anything the Pope or the Church say. Furthermore, here’s “proof” for people to point to and argue that this Pope is already a hollow shell who doesn’t mean what he says and who can therefore safely be ignored. After all, he just allowed the very people he said should be denied communion, to take communion. Pretty hollow, indeed. No matter what is said to the contrary, there has already been a solid case made that Catholics don’t have anything to worry about when they defy the Church because political power, specifically US political power, nullifies and superceeds Church Teaching and Canon Law.

So, who cares what the HHS mandate says and whether or not it survies a USSC test? Catholics will know they're still free to support politicians who advocate abortion and contraceptives. Which is the battle King Barry and the democrat fascists really care about, the battle over holding onto Catholic votes. The HHS mandate is nice if you can get it, but it’s peanuts compared to losing millions of votes when people think they may actually be called to account over violations of Canon Law.

Especially older, wealthier, Catholic voters who might be starting to worry more about the afterlife than their sex life. Sure, there may be some reason for this other than the Church deliberately putting political standing ahead of Canon Law. So what? As of now, it’s an uphill battle to fight the propaganda that even when politicians deliberately insult the Pope, the Church, and Canon Law, all in one move by even presenting themselves in the first place, the Church will meekly help them make the insult stick.

Either the Truth is important or it’s not.

Either the Church is teaching the Truth, or it’s not.

Either Canon Law applies to Catholics or it doesn’t.

If the Church is teaching the Truth, why does the Truth take a back seat to what may have been portrayed as a diplomatic incident, something that actually doesn’t make any sense at all since this was a Church function they were attending, not a State visit to the Vatican State?

This WILL lead to the Church being mauled by a pack of dogs and probably very soon.

IMHO, it will lead to much worse than any potential “diplomatic incident” and be much more difficult to deal with.

More important than any of that, though, is just how many within Church hierarchy have so little Faith that they worry over potential diplomatic consequences more than over the consequences of ignoring Canon Law and Scripture? That’s the real question, not what sort of scum take advantage of that lack of Faith, but just who the faithless party is that makes this sort of decision if not the Pope. This Pope has made the very public and widely quoted statement that politicians exactly like Pelosi and Biden should be denied communion. I actually believe he would stand by that but I also believe someone made very sure the Pope didn’t recognize these two for what that are.

There are those in the Vatican who are well aware of what sort of scum King Barry sent and they are already working hard to make sure the Pope looks bad over his stand on politicians being refused communion. Just how much help someone has within the hierarchy if they’re working to make the Pope look bad is an exercise left to the reader.

People who understand US politics very, very, well were at work in this and the Vatican not only blew it, they aided and abetted the perps.

JMHO

Les Femmes

The Scandal Continues: Biden and Pelosi Committed Sacrilege at Papal Mass

Well, the White House has confirmed it: Pelosi and Biden went to Communion sacrilegiously at the papal installation Mass. (Huffington Post article.) What I found especially hypocritical, however, was Cardinal Wuerl's statement:

Cardinal Donald Wuerl of Washington, part of the conclave that elected Francis, has said he would offer Pelosi communion despite her views on abortion because he didn't believe communion should be used as a weapon. "We never -– the Church just didn't use Communion this way. It wasn't a part of the way we do things, and it wasn't a way we convinced Catholic politicians to appropriate the faith and live it and apply it; the challenge has always been to convince people," Wuerl said in a 2010 interview. His position would logically extend to Biden. The vice president's bishop, Francis Malooly of Wilmington, Del., has also said he would not deny communion to Biden.

Denying Communion to a public heretic (a person who denies at least one doctrine of the Church)
is not using the Eucharist as "a weapon." It is exercising Church law articulated in Canon Law 915. It shows concern for the soul of the person who is heaping up mortal sin on mortal sin which does several things to the unfortunate soul, i.e., makes it harder to repent, increases the moral debt of the soul so to speak, creates grave scandal when the heretic is a public figure which merits a "millstone," etc. Biden and Pelosi parade their "Catholic" credentials while they give the finger to Catholic doctrine.

Cardinal Wuerl shows little concern for his Washington, D.C. political flock when he announces he will never refuse to let them crucify Christ by unworthy reception His body and blood. Did Christ die for pro-abortion Catholic politicians? Of course. Does He want them to pile up one mortal sin of sacrilege after another? Hardly!

Frankly, I am sorely grieved at the lack of pastoral care bishops like Wuerl have toward these outrageous public sinners. He appears to care more for human respect and his own place in the halls of power than for their eternal salvation. He is like a father who buys his drug-addicted son the next fix instead of loving him enough to say no, because he doesn't want to alienate his son.

When I see Cardinal Wuerl's cowardice (What else can it be?) I think of his foils, bishops like Rene Gracida (bishop emeritus of Corpus Christi) who is a model of pastoral concern and courage when it comes to warning "obstinate public sinners" to refrain from Communion. (See a case study describing how Bishop Gracida put a Catholic politician under interdict.) Why should Biden and Pelosi and others of their ilk repent? Why should they even believe that Christ is present in the Eucharist? There certainly doesn't appear to be much evidence that their bishops believe it. If they did, would they, like Judas, turn Christ over to them to be crucified again? That's exactly what they do when they give Jesus to heretics.

Cardinal Wuerl and other bishops of his ilk illustrate clearly why the Church in the U.S. is in such a mess. They care less about scandalizing the hoi polloi in the pews than hobnobbing with the rich and powerful. Is it any wonder saints lamented that the floor of hell is littered with bishops' skulls and mitres? Sad!

Mary Ann Kreitzer

It falls on Biden and Pelosi to abstain from receiving.

Finally, someone with some sense posted.

The folks distributing the Eucharist at the Vatican that day probably didn't know Biden and Pelosi or what they were about. And if those two wish to commit sacrilege, then that's on their shoulders ... not the Church's.

"And if those two wish to commit sacrilege, then that's on their shoulders ... not the Church's."

What?? Canon 915 isn't about them and they, in fact, aren't the real problem other than being the clowns Barry sent as a deliberate insult to the Church.

"What part of, “. . . are not to be admitted to holy communion” is all that hard to understand?"

Especially after the Pope has very publicly gone on record as saying that politicians who support abortion should not be allowed to take communion. Burke is the highest legal authority in the Vatican and he said the same thing, these politicians are not to admitted to communion and permitted to partake of the Eucharist. That is a declared interdict that prohibits a specific class of persons from participating in holy communion. Period. Those who are responsible for a given Mass are supposed make it their business to know who is presenting them self at communion, especially if public figures from a class of persons under interdict will be present.

Why? Because Canon 915 is about the Clergy and what they are responsible for, not about the clowns who present themselves when they shouldn't. 915 itself has nothing specifically to do with the individuals who might attempt to take communion. It is concerned with the Clergy who are clearly responsible for ensuring that those who, ". . . obstinately persist in manifest grave sin" (not only those who are excommunicate by their own doing or by an official act) are not admitted to holy communion.

Whoever is responsible for the Mass is responsible for complying with 915 and in the annotated Code of Canon Law it refers to what the appropriate penalties for the those who do permit such persons to partake. There's no way around it. There is a direct, clear, requirement of Canon Law that was ignored, period.

What anyone thinks about the scum who present themselves to partake of communion knowing full well they should not is a secondary matter because 915 does not apply to them. Other sections of Canon Law may apply to them, but not 915 which is very specific and very clearly about the fact that responsible Clergy are expected to ensure that such persons are not admitted to communion.

Face it, there's no wiggle room here because it has nothing to do with the strawman about the two clowns who presented themselves.

Canon 915 is about who the Clergy must refuse the Eucharist to, it was very publicly ignored for some reason, and no matter what that reason was, whoever "admitted them to holy communion" made a mockery of Canon Law right along with the two clowns in question who were mocking Jesus Christ who is present in the Eucharist, the whole Church, Canon Law, and everyone who was present while they were mocking these things by presenting themselves for communion.

No, the real GOD.

There are stories in the Bible where people who lied and then went into church and lied again, to the Pastor, dropped dead!

If people think it cannot happen .. then they just don’t know GOD. In the last days, and we are already there, people will start dropping dead when confronted by the Holiness of GOD’s messengers.

"And if those two wish to commit sacrilege, then that's on their shoulders ... not the Church's."

What?? Canon 915 isn't about them and they, in fact, aren't the real problem other than being the clowns Barry sent as a deliberate insult to the Church.

Take it in context of the conversation. In this particular instance, Biden and Pelosi presented themselves for communion ... probably to total strangers that didn't even know who they were. In that case, yes ... it's on their shoulders. The minister distributing likely knew nothing about them thus was not in a position to deny them the Holy Eurcharist.

Context is important.

=PATHETIC...when I went to Catholic School, we were taught that this was causing scandal to the church.....they were right!!!

the wafer and wine that Catholics believe transform into the blood and body of Christ when consecrated during Mass

all true christians have believed that for over 2,000 years! can't you figure it out???

Some Catholics actually believe what the Catholic Church teaches.

unfortunately not enough...sad

In the Light of the Law

Nancy Pelosi will not change on her own

Wednesday, March 20, 2013

The Scandal Continues: Biden and Pelosi Committed Sacrilege at Papal Mass