By all means, continue, gentlemen. Pay no attention to me!
Posted on 11/16/2014 2:11:34 PM PST by marshmallow
One of Pope Francis' most vocal critics, who was demoted last week from his leadership of the Vatican's Supreme Court, has said he would refuse Holy Communion to any Catholic legislator who voted for same-sex marriage.
Speaking before a Limerick conference on the Catholic family, Cardinal Raymond Burke declined to comment on the Government's planned referendum over gay and lesbian marriage.
However, he said he would refuse Communion to pro-gay marriage Catholic legislators in the same way he did in the case of pro-choice legislators in his native United States.
He also reiterated his call to the Pontiff, made during last month's Synod on the Family, to clarify "at this point" where the Catholic Church stands on homosexual relations and on giving Holy Communion to divorced and civilly remarried couples.
(Excerpt) Read more at rte.ie ...
My sister who lives in St. Louis would disagree with you on Cardinal Burke being a bully. There were a lot of people who did not like him because he drew a straight line that could not be stepped over.
A couple of years ago in the Diocese of Minneapolis I believe, there was a gay group called the "Rainbow Sash movement" which would go up for Communion while wearing, guess what, rainbow sashes. This was supposed to symbolize the moral acceptability of Gay Pride.
IIRC they were not given Communion, were excorted out, and were told not to re-enter the church premises with those sashes. They were openly (not secretly) unrepentant.
Sounds to me that you are taking liberties in interpreting those scripture verses.
That's not bullying, is it? If so, Christ was a bully. But I ain't buyin' that labeling.
Cardinal Burke’s position is the ONLY possible position for a Catholic. It is grave scandal—a mortal sin—to give Communion to a person who is notoriously in a situation of grave sin. E.g., gay couples, divorced-and-remarried people, and supporters of abortion and same-sex marriage and other social evils.
Every bishop (Wuerl, Chaput, Dolan, O’Malley, Gomez, and hundreds of others) who opposes Burke on this is scandalously promoting MORTAL SIN. In fact, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops authorized themselves to commit mortal sin in 2004, when they adopted a document (Catholics in Political Life) in which they said that a bishop may “legitimately” choose to give Communion to pro-abortion Catholics.
What we have is a debate between the most eminent living canon lawyer on the one side, and true moral imbeciles on the other—Catholic bishops who cannot recognize their own mortal sin when their face is shoved in it. For Burke has done that repeatedly.
http://tinyurl.com/canon915
http://tinyurl.com/pont915
You think a Catholic who promotes abortion and is refused Communion is going to keep giving to the Church?
It is because they give GOVERNMENT MONEY to the Church that bishops refuse to deny them Communion.
BTW: Denial of Communion in these cases is NOT OPTIONAL. It is MANDATED by the moral law and by canon law.
http://tinyurl.com/canon915
http://tinyurl.com/pont915
Doesn’t say much for my sister or those who didn’t like Burke, does it?
Cardinal Burke’s position is the ONLY possible position for a Catholic. It is grave scandal—a mortal sin—to give Communion to a person who is notoriously in a situation of grave sin. E.g., gay couples, divorced-and-remarried people, and supporters of abortion and same-sex marriage and other social evils.
Every bishop (Wuerl, Chaput, Dolan, O’Malley, Gomez, and hundreds of others) who opposes Burke on this is scandalously promoting MORTAL SIN. In fact, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops authorized themselves to commit mortal sin in 2004, when they adopted a document (Catholics in Political Life) in which they said that a bishop may “legitimately” choose to give Communion to pro-abortion Catholics.
What we have is a debate between the most eminent living canon lawyer on the one side, and true moral imbeciles on the other—Catholic bishops who cannot recognize their own mortal sin when their face is shoved in it. For Burke has done that repeatedly.
http://tinyurl.com/canon915
http://tinyurl.com/pont915
Matthew 18:17 shows that Jesus taught Christians to treat unrepentant sinners as pagans or tax collectors.
1 Corinthians 5:11 indicates not to even eat with unrepentant sinners.
Seem many “religions”,have lost their moral compass
“Call Evil By its Name and into the Light of Truth. This is what Every Christian is Called to Do, Have You? or have you failed to do something?”
Too many failed to do this because of one word: FEAR.
Of course he must publicly repent, because his sin has been committed in public. He must, of course, stop supporting and start opposing same-sex marriage, abortion, and any other grave evil he has publicly promoted.
Burke is a canon violating heretic and the subject of numerous complaints from Orthodox patriarchs on down and has been for years. I don’t doubt that you Latins are happy to disregard the canons of the early Church but I am surprised that you will go to mattresses for a hierarch whose was notorious for hiding child molesting pederast priests, quite aside from his reputation as a diocesan tyrant, a man willing to intrude himself in violation of the canons on a regular basis into the affairs of other dioceses. Why do you think he was removed from St. Louis and sent to Rome a la Bernie Law? You’ll rip the Latin Church apart for such a creature?
The Holy Bible doesn’t say anything specific about denying communion to church members who show by their actions that they are unrepentant sinners (corrections welcome). But the Bible essentially indicates in Matthew 18:17 and 1 Corinthians 5:11 that church members should not associate with such people.
I don’t know whether “like” has much to do with it.
Those faithful types are killin' the interfaith pastoral high, man.
From the Catechism
Latæ and Ferendæ Sententiæ
Excommunication, especially a jure, is either latæ or ferendæ sententiæ. The first is incurred as soon as the offence is committed and by reason of theoffence itself (eo ipso) without intervention of any ecclesiastical judge; it is recognized in the terms used by the legislator, for instance: “the culprit will be excommunicated at once, by the fact itself [statim, ipso facto]”. The second is indeed foreseen by the law as a penalty, but is inflicted on the culprit only by a judicial sentence; in other words, the delinquent is rather threatened than visited with the penalty, and incurs it only when the judge has summoned him before his tribunal, declared him guilty, and punished him according to the terms of the law. It is recognized when the law contains these or similar words: “under pain of excommunication”; “the culprit will be excommunicated”.
In effect they ex themselves
THE SAME APPLIES TO ABORTION SUPPORTERS OR THOSE WHO LOOK THE OTHER WAY.
By all means, continue, gentlemen. Pay no attention to me!
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.