By Staff Reporter
(Catholic Herald) The debate over Amoris Laetitia has intensified, after Pope Francis suggested that some responses do not understand the document.
In an interview with the Italian newspaper Avvenire, partially translated by La Stampa, the Pope criticised “a certain legalism.” He said that responses to Amoris Laetitia exemplified this, and that some people thought issues were “black and white, even though it is in the course of life that we are called to discern”.
The Pope added: “The Council told us this, but historians say that a century needs to pass before a Council is properly assimilated into the body of the Church… we are half way.”
It comes after four senior cardinals asked the Pope to clarify Amoris Laetitia. In a letter to the Pope, Cardinals Raymond Burke, Carlo Caffarra, Walter Brandmüller and Joachim Meisner submitted five “dubia” – a traditional way of asking for clarification.
The cardinals asked the Pope whether certain Church teachings about Communion and the moral law, which Amoris Laetitia discusses ambiguously, are still valid.
These included the doctrine that the divorced and remarried cannot receive Communion unless living as brother and sister, and the doctrine that some acts are intrinsically wrong.
The submission of “dubia” invites a yes-or-no answer. In this case, it was a question of whether the Pope thought some teachings, especially Catholic doctrine on the moral law, should still be regarded as true.
The letter was sent in September, but the Pope has not replied. The cardinals said they took this as an invitation to publish the letter and let the debate continue in public.
In an interview with the Vatican journalist Edward Pentin, Cardinal Burke said that if the Pope remained silent, it might be necessary to issue a “formal act of correction of a serious error”.
Pentin told EWTN yesterday: “I do understand, from sources within [the Pope’s residence] Santa Marta, that the Pope is not happy at all, that he’s quite at his…boiling with rage.” Fr Antonio Spadaro, an associate of the Pope, has dismissed these reports...
Meanwhile, two American archbishops have clashed over implementation of Amoris Laetitia.
Archbishop Charles Chaput has issued guidelines for his own archdiocese of Philadelphia, in which he says that the divorced and remarried should be treated with mercy. He also restates the Church’s teaching that they may not receive Communion unless they endeavour to live as brother and sister.
In an interview with Catholic News Service, Cardinal-designate Kevin Farrell criticised the guidelines, saying: “I don’t share the view of what Archbishop Chaput did, no...” (continued)
Link:
Related:
Showing posts with label communion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label communion. Show all posts
Friday, November 18, 2016
Tuesday, November 15, 2016
Pope Francis declines to answer four cardinals’ Amoris appeal
The cardinals have taken the unusual step of publicly requesting clarification on Communion and the moral law
By Dan Hitchens
(Catholic Herald) Pope Francis has declined to answer an official appeal from four cardinals to clarify his recent apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia.
Cardinals Raymond Burke, Carlo Caffarra, Walter Brandmüller and Joachim Meisner sent a request for clarification to the Pope in September. They received an acknowledgment but no reply, which they said they have taken as “an invitation to continue … the discussion, calmly, and with respect”, by making the appeal public. It is highly unusual for cardinals to take such a step.
The letter takes the traditional form of asking theological “dubia” – questions to the Holy See which ask for a yes/no ruling on doctrinal matters. The cardinals’ dubia relate to the sacraments, and to absolute moral norms.
The first of the dubia asks whether “it has now become possible to grant absolution in the Sacrament of Penance and thus to admit to Holy Communion a person who, while bound by a valid marital bond, lives together with a different person more uxorio [as husband and wife] without fulfilling the conditions provided for by Familiaris Consortio”.
In Familiaris Consortio St John Paul II reaffirmed the Church’s practice of not admitting the remarried to Communion if they are still in a sexual relationship with their new partner.
The other four dubia relate to actions which Catholic teaching considers “intrinsically evil”. The cardinals ask whether there are still “absolute moral norms that prohibit intrinsically evil acts and that are binding without exceptions”, and whether those who habitually commit these acts are “in an objective situation of grave habitual sin”.
It also asks whether St John Paul II’s teaching in the encyclical Veritatis Splendor is still valid: that, in the words of the encyclical, “circumstances or intentions can never transform an act intrinsically evil by virtue of its object into an act ‘subjectively’ good or defensible as a choice”.
Finally, the cardinals ask whether Catholics should still follow Veritatis Splendor’s teaching on conscience: that, as the cardinals paraphrase it, “conscience can never be authorised to legitimate exceptions to absolute moral norms that prohibit intrinsically evil acts by virtue of their object”.
The cardinals say that the letter should not be seen as a “conservative” attack on “progressives”. They say they are motivated by their concern for “the true good of souls” and their “deep collegial affection that unites us to the Pope”.
The cardinals refer to “grave disorientation and great confusion” among Catholics, including bishops, about “extremely important matters”... (continued)
Link:
By Dan Hitchens
(Catholic Herald) Pope Francis has declined to answer an official appeal from four cardinals to clarify his recent apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia.
Cardinals Raymond Burke, Carlo Caffarra, Walter Brandmüller and Joachim Meisner sent a request for clarification to the Pope in September. They received an acknowledgment but no reply, which they said they have taken as “an invitation to continue … the discussion, calmly, and with respect”, by making the appeal public. It is highly unusual for cardinals to take such a step.
The letter takes the traditional form of asking theological “dubia” – questions to the Holy See which ask for a yes/no ruling on doctrinal matters. The cardinals’ dubia relate to the sacraments, and to absolute moral norms.
The first of the dubia asks whether “it has now become possible to grant absolution in the Sacrament of Penance and thus to admit to Holy Communion a person who, while bound by a valid marital bond, lives together with a different person more uxorio [as husband and wife] without fulfilling the conditions provided for by Familiaris Consortio”.
In Familiaris Consortio St John Paul II reaffirmed the Church’s practice of not admitting the remarried to Communion if they are still in a sexual relationship with their new partner.
The other four dubia relate to actions which Catholic teaching considers “intrinsically evil”. The cardinals ask whether there are still “absolute moral norms that prohibit intrinsically evil acts and that are binding without exceptions”, and whether those who habitually commit these acts are “in an objective situation of grave habitual sin”.
It also asks whether St John Paul II’s teaching in the encyclical Veritatis Splendor is still valid: that, in the words of the encyclical, “circumstances or intentions can never transform an act intrinsically evil by virtue of its object into an act ‘subjectively’ good or defensible as a choice”.
Finally, the cardinals ask whether Catholics should still follow Veritatis Splendor’s teaching on conscience: that, as the cardinals paraphrase it, “conscience can never be authorised to legitimate exceptions to absolute moral norms that prohibit intrinsically evil acts by virtue of their object”.
The cardinals say that the letter should not be seen as a “conservative” attack on “progressives”. They say they are motivated by their concern for “the true good of souls” and their “deep collegial affection that unites us to the Pope”.
The cardinals refer to “grave disorientation and great confusion” among Catholics, including bishops, about “extremely important matters”... (continued)
Link:
Tuesday, September 13, 2016
Vatican Radio confirms Pope’s leaked letter on Amoris Laetitia as authentic
By John-Henry Westen
September 12, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) – On Friday LifeSiteNews published leaked documents showing for the first time the Pope’s own opinion on the matter of Holy Communion for divorced and remarried Catholics who do not qualify for annulment. The letter set off an explosion of comments since many held that the Pope did not agree with the thesis of Cardinal Walter Kasper which was that in certain cases Holy Communion could be administered for such couples. Many comments suggested that the letter could not be authentic.
Now, however, Vatican Radio has itself reported the letter as authentic, including specifically in its most controversial aspects – that of allowing communion to divorced and remarried Catholics in some cases and that there is “no other interpretation” other than that.
Says the Vatican Radio report: “Pope Francis has written a letter to the bishops of the Buenos Aires region of Argentina, praising them for their document which spells out ways in which priests should apply the teachings of his apostolic exhortation ‘Amoris Laetitia’.”
The Vatican Radio report relates, as LifeSite reported Friday, that in the letter Pope Francis responded “to a document by the bishops entitled ‘Basic criteria for the application of chapter 8 of ‘Amoris Laetitia.’”
“That chapter focuses on the need to support and integrate divorcees into the life of the Church, specifying that ‘in certain cases, this can include the help of the sacraments,’” says the Vatican Radio report. “Expressing his appreciation for the ‘pastoral charity’ contained in the bishops’ document, Pope Francis insists 'there are no other interpretations' of the apostolic exhortation which he wrote at the conclusion of the two synods on the family in 2014 and 2015.”
Link:
September 12, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) – On Friday LifeSiteNews published leaked documents showing for the first time the Pope’s own opinion on the matter of Holy Communion for divorced and remarried Catholics who do not qualify for annulment. The letter set off an explosion of comments since many held that the Pope did not agree with the thesis of Cardinal Walter Kasper which was that in certain cases Holy Communion could be administered for such couples. Many comments suggested that the letter could not be authentic.
Now, however, Vatican Radio has itself reported the letter as authentic, including specifically in its most controversial aspects – that of allowing communion to divorced and remarried Catholics in some cases and that there is “no other interpretation” other than that.
Says the Vatican Radio report: “Pope Francis has written a letter to the bishops of the Buenos Aires region of Argentina, praising them for their document which spells out ways in which priests should apply the teachings of his apostolic exhortation ‘Amoris Laetitia’.”
The Vatican Radio report relates, as LifeSite reported Friday, that in the letter Pope Francis responded “to a document by the bishops entitled ‘Basic criteria for the application of chapter 8 of ‘Amoris Laetitia.’”
“That chapter focuses on the need to support and integrate divorcees into the life of the Church, specifying that ‘in certain cases, this can include the help of the sacraments,’” says the Vatican Radio report. “Expressing his appreciation for the ‘pastoral charity’ contained in the bishops’ document, Pope Francis insists 'there are no other interpretations' of the apostolic exhortation which he wrote at the conclusion of the two synods on the family in 2014 and 2015.”
Link:
Tuesday, November 24, 2015
Bill Donohue vs. Michael Voris
From Bill Donohue at the Catholic League followed by Michael Voris' response:
Bill Donohue addresses recent attacks on Cardinal Donald Wuerl:
The crazies on the Catholic right have set their sights on Cardinal Donald Wuerl, Archbishop of Washington. Why? Because he is close to Pope Francis, and they hate the pope. The attacks are coming from The Church Militant, a loose gang of angry right-wingers who specialize in character assassination, and American Spectator hater George Neumayr.
Three recent hit pieces by Church Militant author Christine Niles set the agenda. She says “today’s archbishop of Washington owns a penthouse in a complex valued at $43 million.” That is a lie. He owns not a centimeter of his third-floor “penthouse,” an apartment that sits atop Our Lady Queen of the Americas parish. Like bishops all over the world, he resides in a spot that was specifically designed for the local Ordinary. There is nothing scandalous about this Church patrimony.
Church Militant head Michael Voris says his unidentified sources claim that when Wuerl was the Bishop of Pittsburgh his gay-friendly approach earned him the nickname “Donna the Girl.” I taught at a Pittsburgh Catholic college during Wuerl’s years and never once did I hear anyone tag him as such. Voris also says that Wuerl stole a “Catechism work composed by Fr. John Hardon by simply putting his name to it.” That’s another lie. I guess Wuerl was channeling Hardon when he gave his TV series of lectures on the subject.
Neumayr is so far gone that he accuses Wuerl of being a Communist because someone spotted a copy of Mao’s Little Red Book in his office in the 1970s. That would make me Chairman of the Politburo: I have a copy of Das Kapital in my office right now.
These crazies are mad at Wuerl because he doesn’t believe in using the Eucharist as a weapon to smack liberal Catholic politicians. Wuerl has said that the refusal of Holy Communion “should be made only after clear efforts to persuade and convince the person that their actions are wrong and bear moral consequences.” Exactly. Wuerl is a great gift to the Catholic Church. These critics are as ignorant as they are malicious.
Link:
And from ChurchMilitant.com:
There's a saying that goes: "If you start getting flak for what you are saying, know that your bombs have hit their target."
Such is the case with a couple of stories that ChurchMilitant.com released a few days back about establishment kingpin Washington, D.C. Cardinal-Archbishop Donald Wuerl. His Eminence has moved to the front of the quiet assault against orthodox Catholicism in the United States and is joined by various allies both in the clergy and certain Catholic media circles in that assault.
To show the behind-the-scenes influence Cdl. Wuerl exhibits, shortly after our reports ran, Catholic-Establishment attack dog Bill Donohue of the self-described Catholic League came out calling us here at ChurchMilitant.com "right-wing nut jobs" (nice Catholic language, by the way, Catholic League man).
He took umbrage at our reports, enough to actually issue a press release where he accused us of "attacking" (by the way, it's called reporting) Cdl. Wuerl because he is a friend of the Pope, and (he claims) we "hate the Pope."
What a stupid charge revealing the stupidity and lack of research on the part of whoever wrote it. ChurchMilitant.com is the one faithful Catholic organization that has been pilloried by other Catholic organizations for not calling the Pope a heretic, possessed, evil and every other name under the sun. We have, in fact, done the exact opposite of what Donohue portrays. We have been the voice of reason in the Catholic media saying that the Holy Father must be given every benefit of a doubt, and if something needs to be addressed, it needs to be in the most charitable, respectful terms possible.
But Donohue, in his excitement to be seen as Supreme Guardian of the Establishment and always being the attack dog so he can continue to curry favor and rub elbows, totally disregards facts and just bullies whomever he wants. Cardinal Wuerl has a disgraceful record as cardinal archbishop, and it needs to be talked about, regardless of what Bill Donohue deems worthy of reporting. Who set up Bill Donohue as overlord of what is newsworthy and what is not?
Donohue, you will recall, was out front and center defending Cdl. Timothy Dolan's pitiful example of cheering active homosexuals who work for NBC to be permitted to march openly in the New York City St. Patrick's Day parade. True to form, when Catholics outside the well-cocooned establishment saw this as a bad move, Donohue went on the attack, even calling us and others names and hurling insults around at anyone who would even dare to think that a cardinal could err. He even came out and personally supported the move, throwing the weight of his one-man operation Catholic League behind the gay propaganda offensive.
He had to; Dolan had supported and cheered it, so the very non-independent Donohue had to get in lock step and do the same. His official excuse: He had been promised that since sodomites could openly march in the parade, then so could pro-life groups. Riiiiight. Sure they could!
Then suddenly, in a move that anyone with a quarter-brian could see coming, the pro-sodomite parade committee changed their minds and said no to pro-life groups. That sent Donohue into a frenzied tizzy as he voiced his opposition to such a double-dealing, back-stabbing action on the part of the parade committee.
Well, Bill, what do you expect? You and your establishment wine-and-cheese crowd have always misjudged the depth of the evil. You sleep with dogs and you're gonna' get fleas. Or more precisely, play with the devil and you're gonna get burned. That Donohue could have so badly misjudged, so pathetically thought that this crowd could be appealed to for fairness disqualifies him from any further consideration by serious Catholics. What a colossal lapse in judgment.
And the proof is even further demonstrated at the immaturity and lack of clear thinking on the part of Donohue and the other establishment crowd when we now see that the St. Patrick's Parade committee — the very ones that Donohue had initially applauded — now want to remove St. Patrick himself from the parade and remove the existing requirement that Catholics be on the committee.
In a couple of years, the former St Patrick's Day parade up 5th Avenue will be nothing more than a polyglot of sexual deviants and a celebration of multicultural, pluralistic-society idiocy — and it would have been accomplished because men like Cdl. Dolan and most especially Bill Donohue co-operated with the first stage because their own pride and hubris got in the way and they did not sufficiently stand up for Our Blessed Lord.
And why? Because they were having too much fun and spending too much time making sport of serious Catholics who saw the hand-writing on the wall and who were put off by the scandal of a prince of the Church leading a parade with active, proud sodomites all under the banner of the very saint who helped bring about an end to homosexuality in Ireland.
So you will excuse us and everyone else if we simply dismiss Bill Donohue and wish him a good retirement. He has proven that his allegiance is with the establishment, right or wrong. He has conflated in his mind that an individual cardinal or bishop equals the Church. They do not. As St. John Chrysostom so aptly warned, the floor of Hell is paved with the skulls of such.
We need to pray for the bishops as we are constantly stating and re-inforcing here at ChurchMilitant.com. We need to uplift and praise the faithful ones who are bold in declaring the truths of the Church. But the sorry, conniving, double-dealing ones with their own agenda of changing the Church need to be exposed because they are wicked.
Donald Wuerl has consistently said that canon law 915 needs to be ignored because it does not apply to pro-abortion Catholic politicians. It does, and he is wrong.
He was one of the major agitators in Rome at the Synod for sacrilegious reception of Holy Communion by adulterers.
He is the point man on tarring any Catholic who disagrees with him and his "New Church" garbage as an enemy of the Pope, a line of thought picked up and run with by Donahue with regard to us.
He plays his connections with the liberal media to smear other good cardinals who oppose him, such as he did in the case of The Tablet's "story" that Cdl. Burke lives in palatial surroundings in Rome. So does Cardinal Wuerl In Washington, D.C. What's good for the goose is good for gander.
Sources through the North American College in Rome have told us that Wuerl is constantly bad-mouthing Cardinal Burke and pillories him every chance he gets.
When bishop of Pittsburgh, in addition to living in luxurious accommodations, Wuerl had extremely friendly relations with the homosexual crowd in the Church and various sources say those connections also exist in Rome.
For Bill Donohue to go on the attack to defend this prelate reveals an awful lot. Why didn't he go on the attack against The Tablet for their insinuation that Burke lives in luxury? Because he knows that the establishment doesn't like Burke, so he felt no need to defend him. But when the darling of the "New Church" crowd, the wine-tasters and party-throwers and friends of the political crowd and the antique collectors get rightfully pointed out as hypocrites, his misguided fury knows no bounds.
In case you missed the memo, Mr. Donahue, things have changed. There are simply too many Catholics in the rank and file, we peasant Catholics, who will no longer keep quiet about your business-as-usual, status-quo approach to the Church. Holy Mother Church is in crisis, and you and your cronies — including various prelates — have helped to bring it about. Bluster all you want, but none of us is going away.
You can stop the class warfare in the Church, Bill. We aren't the ones living in multi-million dollar houses and jetting around the world on the nickles of widows who throw their money in the plate each week.
Pray that Mr. Donahue comes around to his senses.
Link:
Bill Donohue addresses recent attacks on Cardinal Donald Wuerl:
The crazies on the Catholic right have set their sights on Cardinal Donald Wuerl, Archbishop of Washington. Why? Because he is close to Pope Francis, and they hate the pope. The attacks are coming from The Church Militant, a loose gang of angry right-wingers who specialize in character assassination, and American Spectator hater George Neumayr.
Three recent hit pieces by Church Militant author Christine Niles set the agenda. She says “today’s archbishop of Washington owns a penthouse in a complex valued at $43 million.” That is a lie. He owns not a centimeter of his third-floor “penthouse,” an apartment that sits atop Our Lady Queen of the Americas parish. Like bishops all over the world, he resides in a spot that was specifically designed for the local Ordinary. There is nothing scandalous about this Church patrimony.
Church Militant head Michael Voris says his unidentified sources claim that when Wuerl was the Bishop of Pittsburgh his gay-friendly approach earned him the nickname “Donna the Girl.” I taught at a Pittsburgh Catholic college during Wuerl’s years and never once did I hear anyone tag him as such. Voris also says that Wuerl stole a “Catechism work composed by Fr. John Hardon by simply putting his name to it.” That’s another lie. I guess Wuerl was channeling Hardon when he gave his TV series of lectures on the subject.
Neumayr is so far gone that he accuses Wuerl of being a Communist because someone spotted a copy of Mao’s Little Red Book in his office in the 1970s. That would make me Chairman of the Politburo: I have a copy of Das Kapital in my office right now.
These crazies are mad at Wuerl because he doesn’t believe in using the Eucharist as a weapon to smack liberal Catholic politicians. Wuerl has said that the refusal of Holy Communion “should be made only after clear efforts to persuade and convince the person that their actions are wrong and bear moral consequences.” Exactly. Wuerl is a great gift to the Catholic Church. These critics are as ignorant as they are malicious.
Link:
And from ChurchMilitant.com:
The Empire Strikes Back
Say the truth about the evil in the Church and wait for the fireworks.
There's a saying that goes: "If you start getting flak for what you are saying, know that your bombs have hit their target."
Such is the case with a couple of stories that ChurchMilitant.com released a few days back about establishment kingpin Washington, D.C. Cardinal-Archbishop Donald Wuerl. His Eminence has moved to the front of the quiet assault against orthodox Catholicism in the United States and is joined by various allies both in the clergy and certain Catholic media circles in that assault.
To show the behind-the-scenes influence Cdl. Wuerl exhibits, shortly after our reports ran, Catholic-Establishment attack dog Bill Donohue of the self-described Catholic League came out calling us here at ChurchMilitant.com "right-wing nut jobs" (nice Catholic language, by the way, Catholic League man).
He took umbrage at our reports, enough to actually issue a press release where he accused us of "attacking" (by the way, it's called reporting) Cdl. Wuerl because he is a friend of the Pope, and (he claims) we "hate the Pope."
What a stupid charge revealing the stupidity and lack of research on the part of whoever wrote it. ChurchMilitant.com is the one faithful Catholic organization that has been pilloried by other Catholic organizations for not calling the Pope a heretic, possessed, evil and every other name under the sun. We have, in fact, done the exact opposite of what Donohue portrays. We have been the voice of reason in the Catholic media saying that the Holy Father must be given every benefit of a doubt, and if something needs to be addressed, it needs to be in the most charitable, respectful terms possible.
But Donohue, in his excitement to be seen as Supreme Guardian of the Establishment and always being the attack dog so he can continue to curry favor and rub elbows, totally disregards facts and just bullies whomever he wants. Cardinal Wuerl has a disgraceful record as cardinal archbishop, and it needs to be talked about, regardless of what Bill Donohue deems worthy of reporting. Who set up Bill Donohue as overlord of what is newsworthy and what is not?
Donohue, you will recall, was out front and center defending Cdl. Timothy Dolan's pitiful example of cheering active homosexuals who work for NBC to be permitted to march openly in the New York City St. Patrick's Day parade. True to form, when Catholics outside the well-cocooned establishment saw this as a bad move, Donohue went on the attack, even calling us and others names and hurling insults around at anyone who would even dare to think that a cardinal could err. He even came out and personally supported the move, throwing the weight of his one-man operation Catholic League behind the gay propaganda offensive.
He had to; Dolan had supported and cheered it, so the very non-independent Donohue had to get in lock step and do the same. His official excuse: He had been promised that since sodomites could openly march in the parade, then so could pro-life groups. Riiiiight. Sure they could!
Then suddenly, in a move that anyone with a quarter-brian could see coming, the pro-sodomite parade committee changed their minds and said no to pro-life groups. That sent Donohue into a frenzied tizzy as he voiced his opposition to such a double-dealing, back-stabbing action on the part of the parade committee.
Well, Bill, what do you expect? You and your establishment wine-and-cheese crowd have always misjudged the depth of the evil. You sleep with dogs and you're gonna' get fleas. Or more precisely, play with the devil and you're gonna get burned. That Donohue could have so badly misjudged, so pathetically thought that this crowd could be appealed to for fairness disqualifies him from any further consideration by serious Catholics. What a colossal lapse in judgment.
And the proof is even further demonstrated at the immaturity and lack of clear thinking on the part of Donohue and the other establishment crowd when we now see that the St. Patrick's Parade committee — the very ones that Donohue had initially applauded — now want to remove St. Patrick himself from the parade and remove the existing requirement that Catholics be on the committee.
In a couple of years, the former St Patrick's Day parade up 5th Avenue will be nothing more than a polyglot of sexual deviants and a celebration of multicultural, pluralistic-society idiocy — and it would have been accomplished because men like Cdl. Dolan and most especially Bill Donohue co-operated with the first stage because their own pride and hubris got in the way and they did not sufficiently stand up for Our Blessed Lord.
And why? Because they were having too much fun and spending too much time making sport of serious Catholics who saw the hand-writing on the wall and who were put off by the scandal of a prince of the Church leading a parade with active, proud sodomites all under the banner of the very saint who helped bring about an end to homosexuality in Ireland.
So you will excuse us and everyone else if we simply dismiss Bill Donohue and wish him a good retirement. He has proven that his allegiance is with the establishment, right or wrong. He has conflated in his mind that an individual cardinal or bishop equals the Church. They do not. As St. John Chrysostom so aptly warned, the floor of Hell is paved with the skulls of such.
We need to pray for the bishops as we are constantly stating and re-inforcing here at ChurchMilitant.com. We need to uplift and praise the faithful ones who are bold in declaring the truths of the Church. But the sorry, conniving, double-dealing ones with their own agenda of changing the Church need to be exposed because they are wicked.
Donald Wuerl has consistently said that canon law 915 needs to be ignored because it does not apply to pro-abortion Catholic politicians. It does, and he is wrong.
He was one of the major agitators in Rome at the Synod for sacrilegious reception of Holy Communion by adulterers.
He is the point man on tarring any Catholic who disagrees with him and his "New Church" garbage as an enemy of the Pope, a line of thought picked up and run with by Donahue with regard to us.
He plays his connections with the liberal media to smear other good cardinals who oppose him, such as he did in the case of The Tablet's "story" that Cdl. Burke lives in palatial surroundings in Rome. So does Cardinal Wuerl In Washington, D.C. What's good for the goose is good for gander.
Sources through the North American College in Rome have told us that Wuerl is constantly bad-mouthing Cardinal Burke and pillories him every chance he gets.
When bishop of Pittsburgh, in addition to living in luxurious accommodations, Wuerl had extremely friendly relations with the homosexual crowd in the Church and various sources say those connections also exist in Rome.
For Bill Donohue to go on the attack to defend this prelate reveals an awful lot. Why didn't he go on the attack against The Tablet for their insinuation that Burke lives in luxury? Because he knows that the establishment doesn't like Burke, so he felt no need to defend him. But when the darling of the "New Church" crowd, the wine-tasters and party-throwers and friends of the political crowd and the antique collectors get rightfully pointed out as hypocrites, his misguided fury knows no bounds.
In case you missed the memo, Mr. Donahue, things have changed. There are simply too many Catholics in the rank and file, we peasant Catholics, who will no longer keep quiet about your business-as-usual, status-quo approach to the Church. Holy Mother Church is in crisis, and you and your cronies — including various prelates — have helped to bring it about. Bluster all you want, but none of us is going away.
You can stop the class warfare in the Church, Bill. We aren't the ones living in multi-million dollar houses and jetting around the world on the nickles of widows who throw their money in the plate each week.
Pray that Mr. Donahue comes around to his senses.
Link:
Tuesday, November 17, 2015
What Did The Pope Really Say… about Lutherans and Communion?
From Father Z:
Link:
"There is the tone with which he speaks and there are the words with which he speaks. We are left to untangle the knot.
That said, for this issue the Pope made a clear statement:
“I wouldn’t ever dare to allow this, because it’s not my competence.”
Before anyone gets out onto the ledge outside the window, read that again and repeat it to yourself. The Pope is not saying that Lutherans can go to Communion... "
Link:
Wednesday, October 14, 2015
Out of the Lobby
By Father Ray Blake
The Holy Father asked for forgiveness for the scandals in the Church, without mentioning which scandals, it could be the latest episode of Vatileaks or more likely the removal two Discalced Carmelites, one of whom accused the other of homosexual acts after a male prostitute spent several months in hospital after being beaten up, and of course the opening scandal of the Synod with that CDF Monsignor 'coming out'. Presumably what he is not asking for forgiveness for is the pro-Gay Fr Rosica fronting the English language section of the media briefings who seems to introduce at every opportunity or Abbot Jeremias Schröder who took part in this mornings briefings wants and the issue of homosexuality to be delegated to local bishops' conferences to decide, who has himself long called for the Church to bless homosexual unions, nor Archbishop Forte who added pro-gay clauses to the Relatio of the extra-ordinary Synod last year and is on committee that will oversea the final document - which may or may not be published.
Some have suggested this should be called the 'Gay Synod', rather than the Synod on the Family, what is more than apparent is that what was once a shadowy lobby is now front and centre out of the lobby and sitting in the drawing room. The Synod presenters, if not the discussions themselves, seem to be obsessed by the homosexual issue... (continued)
Link:
Friday, April 24, 2015
Archbishop Blase Cupich allows non-Catholic Governor to receive Holy Communion
By Michael Voris
CHICAGO, April 24, 2015 (ChurchMilitant.com)—Eyewitness reports as well as television footage clearly prove that Illinois governor Bruce Rauner received Holy Communion at Cardinal George's funeral Mass at Holy Name Cathedral on Thursday, April 23.
Therefore, what appears to be a grave violation of Canon 844 has been committed. Present at the Mass was Chicago's new archbishop Blase Cupich.
In addition to the violation of canon law, the question is being asked: Was a sacrilege committed on the new archbishop's watch?
According to canon law, since the governor is a non-Catholic, he is unable to be given Holy Communion unless a number of conditions are all met:
- Foremost, there must be a grave and urgent need, usually understood to mean danger of death.
- The governor must demonstrate Catholic faith in the Real Presence.
- He must be duly disposed, and not conscious of any grave sin.
Did the archdiocese of Chicago, while extending an invitation to the governor to attend the funeral, perform its minimal duty to prevent any sacrilege by informing the governor's office that Holy Communion is reserved for Catholics in the state of grace?
Was political favor shown to the governor in the dismissing of canon law?
The USCCB has issued a clear directive on the matter of non-Catholics receiving Holy Communion. The directive states in part, "Because Catholics believe that the celebration of the Eucharist is a sign of the reality of the oneness of faith, life, and worship, members of those churches with whom we are not yet fully united are ordinarily not admitted to Holy Communion" (emphasis added).
So the question remains: Is Archbishop Cupich disregarding the directives of his brother bishops?
In November 2014, newly appointed Archbishop Cupich created a controversy in the Catholic world when he was interviewed by CBS's Face the Nation. Cupich was asked point blank if he would give Holy Communion to pro-abortion Catholic politicians. He ducked the question by saying he didn't want the issue to come up at the communion rail.
(Answer at 3:30)
Cupich's appointment was disappointing to many faithful Catholics owing to his more politically progressive stands on issues like illegal immigration and global warming. In a move that stunned many faithful Catholics in Spokane, Washington, he forbade any of his priests from participating in pro-life prayer rallies, especially those in front of abortion chambers.
This newest scandal of not properly safeguarding the Holy Eucharist from sacrilege is only heightening the concern of faithful Catholics.
Link:
Thursday, April 16, 2015
German Cardinal Lashes Out Against New Catholic Proposals
By Edward Pentin
(Newsmax) A German cardinal has lambasted fellow church leaders who support admitting divorced and civilly remarried Catholics to Holy Communion, calling them heretics who are putting the unity of the Catholic Church at risk.
Cardinal Walter Brandmüller, a former head of the Vatican’s commission for historical sciences, told LifeSite News Tuesday that those who support such a change are “irresponsible” and “in contradiction to the teaching of the church.”
This is the first time that a cardinal has openly voiced what a number of senior figures have said privately that those promoting such admission are teaching heresy and are no longer Catholic.
Brandmüller was responding to a proposal, put forward last year by fellow German Cardinal Walter Kasper, for remarried Catholic divorcees to receive Holy Communion after a period of penance.
The church has always forbidden such a practice on the grounds it would undermine Jesus explicit teaching that marriage is indissoluble, and that a person who divorces and “remarries” commits adultery.
The church teaches that divorced and civilly remarried Catholics can only be admitted to communion if they have obtained an annulment of their first, sacramental marriages, or abstain from sexual relations with their new partners and live as "brother and sister."
Kasper’s proposal, the subject of a church synod on the family, has therefore caused much hand-wringing in the church, with a number of cardinals publicly at loggerheads over the issue.
The church’s pastoral practice “cannot stand in opposition to binding doctrine nor simply ignore it,” Brandmüller said. “A change of the teaching, of the dogma, is unthinkable. Who nevertheless consciously does it, or insistently demands it, is a heretic — even if he wears the Roman purple...” (continued)
Link:
Thursday, October 23, 2014
Clarification from Michael Voris
Clarification
By Michael Voris
Hello everyone. Michael Voris coming to you from Rome with a clarification. This past weekend we aired a breaking news report about Cardinal Raymond Burke having granted an interview to a secular outfit in which he publicly revealed for the first time he was going to be transferred AND, in his estimation the pope not speaking out openly about the crazy ideas floating around the synod was harming the church. We decided to go with the story for two main reasons.
One – the tone of discourse had not risen to that level prior – that harm was being done to the Church and that he had now CONFIRMD he was going to be transferred.
Secondly – unlike much of the “inside the Catholic world” news reports that had been published before – THIS one had been released by the secular media – it had broken out of the Catholic media bubble and into the mainstream.
We approached the story and its details strictly from a journalistic point of view. In hindsight, that was a mistake because ANOTHER unintended impression was generated – that we were criticizing the Pope.
I could give a number of reasons why we didn’t forsee this – being close to the story here on the ground, being tired etc., but they aren’t sufficient to offset the unintended impression.
Given that some people may think we were criticizing the Pope, it was wrong to air the story. I alone made the decision so the responsibility is entirely mine. Again, I was approaching this from a journalism aspect, and not enough, or at all, from an apostolate standpoint. Other media outlets who cover Catholic things can run with the story as a newsworthy story, but this apostolate has an additional filter. What we do at Church Militant.tv is use the tools of the new media to further the cause of the Church. Period. We don’t use them as an end in themselves. On this occasion, I unthinkingly inverted those priorities and ran with it. For that I offer you my deepest apologies and ask your forgiveness.
I have dedicated the remainder of my life to serving the Church and to have to consider that I did something that brought some harm to Her makes me heart sick. On a personal note, to show you how bothered in spirit I am by my actions, I chose not to receive Holy Communion on Sunday, and have gone to confession over this entire matter.
Now .. shifting to the harm to the Church question, again, the harm has come in that some individuals have interpreted this report as being a criticism of the Pope, and by extension the Papacy, and by further extension the Church.
To whatever degree this has happened, again, I am to blame.
But others have taken my mistake and DELIBERATELY ran with it to imply that I and/or the apostolate have now hopped on the bandwagon of publicly criticizing the Pope. A very clear distinction needs to be made here. There are those in the Catholic blogosphere who do not like the pope and openly mock him and have practically created a cottage industry out of combing thru every syllable he utters and producing reams of criticisms over them.
They introduce to the Catholic world things that most Catholics would never hear of if it weren’t for their on-going discussions of them. He has been called evil, a heretic, an anti-pope – they have openly speculated that the conclave that elected him was bogus and Benedict is still somehow the real pope. They are sewing massive and countless doubts in the minds of many Catholics about this Pope’s legitimacy and authority and driving them to consider leaving the Church and entering independent Catholic enclaves that exercise no legitimate authority in the Church.
I wish to make abundantly clear that in no way shape or form do we condone anything of the sort. Pope Francis is the legitimate Pope and any kind of pretended communion with the Church while rejecting him is not possible. You are either in full communion or you are not.
Other blogs have speculated that I have “seen the light” at last. Wrong. I reported what I thought was a legitimate newsworthy story – I did not even consider, much less intend to destabilize belief in the Pope’s authority.
In short, my mistake is now being used to make hay and I decry that. Pope Francis is the Pope. He is the Holy Father. We are called to love the Holy Father, to pray for him. He is the very first name I mention in offering up my daily rosary. The Holy Father should not be being publicly criticized by lay Catholics, much less mocked and called insulting names and made the butt of jokes. If others do that, then they will have to give an account to Our Lord for mocking His Vicar when they die. I want no part of that, and make very clear in your understanding, I NEVER intended anything of the sort. Again, I was mistaken, and that mistake should not be being multiplied by those who see it as an opportunity.
Thank you and please keep our work here in your prayers. GOD Love you
Link:
h/t to Fr. Z.
Related:
- Michael Voris, Card. Burke… corrections
- From Bishop Tobin: Random Thoughts About the Synod on the Family
- On the Fixation with Moderation
- Starting Tuesday Off Right: Face In The Dirt Beheading Edition
- Marriage & Communion, Fr. Robert Dodaro with Raymond Arroyo
- Michael Voris Interviews Edward Pentin Regarding Cardinal Kasper
- Pope Benedict’s private secretary speaks on Synod, divorce, same-sex relations
- Michael Voris Daily Rome Report 10-18 - Video
- Pope Francis speech at the conclusion of the Synod
- Catholic Bishops Scrap Welcome To Gays
- BBC: Catholic synod: Pope Francis setback on gay policy
- Full text: Updated mid-term report on family synod
- Cardinal Burke to CWR: confirms transfer, praises pushback, addresses controversy over remarks by Cardinal Kasper
- Interview With Cardinal Raymond Burke: Full Transcript
- Conservative Cardinal Who Clashed With Pope Francis Confirms He Has Been Ousted
- ¡Hagan lÃo! Synod Bishops revolt against leadership and get their way – UPDATE!
- Pope Francis revealing his take on Synod controversies in his private homilies?
- Document-gate
- DAILY ROME REPORT
- Statement on Cardinal Kasper Interview
- Reports of Circuli Minores now available on Vatican website
- What’s the liberals next move?
- The Robber Synod!
- ¡Hagan lÃo! Synod Bishops revolt against leadership and get their way – UPDATE!
- Burke Blasts Back
- Blindsided: Press received document before synod fathers
- Did no one know that when the MSM got hold of the ‘Relatio’, people were going to go bananas?
- Revolution on the Way - Synod Coverage
- “The truly bizarre document that the Vatican released Monday”
- Cardinal Burke says statement from Pope Francis defending Catholic teaching is ‘long overdue’
- Cardinal Burke: Synod's mid-term report "lacks a solid foundation in the Sacred Scriptures and the Magisterium"
- Confused, Contradictory Chaos in Rome
- Magister: Pitched Battle on a Mad Monday at the Synod, Our conclusion: Bruno Forte made up homosexuality paragraphs by himself
- Press Grill Vatican on Divorce, Remarriage, and Homosexuality
- VIDEO: Card. Burke’s clear, articulate, blunt answers about divorce, remarriage, Card. Kasper
Sunday, October 19, 2014
Marriage & Communion, Fr. Robert Dodaro with Raymond Arroyo
h/t to Fr. Z.
Related:
- VIDEO: Stop this and watch this
- Michael Voris Interviews Edward Pentin Regarding Cardinal Kasper
- Statement on Cardinal Kasper Interview
- Cardinal Burke to CWR: confirms transfer, praises pushback, addresses controversy over remarks by Cardinal Kasper
- Pope Benedict’s private secretary speaks on Synod, divorce, same-sex relations
- Roman Breakfast
Pope Benedict’s private secretary speaks on Synod, divorce, same-sex relations
By
In the interview published in the print edition of Chi magazine last week, Archbishop Georg Gänswein said, "The Church has always declared, based on the Scriptures and tradition, that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” The acts, he said, “are contrary to natural law, because they prevent the gift of life, the purpose of the sexual act.”
Gänswein went on to acknowledge that for people experiencing same-sex attraction the inclination can be a trial. “These people,” he said, “are called to live the will of God in their life and if they are Christians, to unite their sacrifice to the cross of the Lord, with the difficulties they meet because of their condition.”
The remarks echo the language of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which was published in 1992, when Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger headed the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF). They also bear marked similarity to the language of the 1986 Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons, published by the CDF and signed by Cardinal Ratzinger.
“Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that ‘homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered,’” says the Catechism. “They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life.”
In the 1986 letter on the pastoral care of homosexuals, Cardinal Ratzinger had written, “What, then, are homosexual persons to do who seek to follow the Lord? Fundamentally, they are called to enact the will of God in their life by joining whatever sufferings and difficulties they experience in virtue of their condition to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross.”
While Archbishop Gänswein did not directly address Cardinal Walter Kasper’s much-discussed proposal to allow divorced and remarried Catholics to receive communion in some circumstances, he left a clear impression that he opposed it. Even if a married couple separates, he said, "starting a new union contradicts what the Lord has indicated."
When asked directly if Catholics who have been divorced and subsequently entered a second marriage should be permitted to receive Holy Communion, Archbishop Ganswein said, "This is a very delicate question. According to Catholic doctrine, the sacrament of marriage is indissoluble, just like God's love for man.”
"The Church doesn't close Her eyes to the difficulties of the Faithful who live in delicate and thorny situations," Ganswein added. "Nevertheless, the Church must offer sincere answers which directs, not towards the spirit of the times, but to the Gospel, to the word of Jesus Christ, who is the Son of God.
"The evangelical message takes much effort but it is worthwhile to live it," he said. "God welcomes, forgives, this is true, but it is also true He asks for conversion."
Vatican watchers told LifeSiteNews this would not be the first time that Pope Emeritus Benedict's private secretary has hinted at Benedict's own thoughts. Most notably, in an interview on German television in March of this year, Archbishop Ganswein revealed that Pope Benedict had written a 4-page critique of Pope Francis’ controversial interview with a Jesuit magazine wherein the pope had said the Church, “cannot insist only on issues related to abortion, gay marriage and the use of contraceptive methods.”
The release of the interview with Archbishop Georg Gänswein came on the heels of the surprise publication of an interview with Pope Francis, which was unknown to the Vatican press office prior to its release, by the Argentine newspaper La Nacion on the opening day of the Synod.
In the interview, published October 5, Pope Francis was asked about the cardinals who have criticized Cardinal Kasper’s proposal to allow Communion for divorced-and-remarried Catholics. In response, he indicated that he is not in agreement with the “very conservative” bishops, but said he still enjoys “debating” them as long as they are “intellectually well-formed.”
The pope also said that the Church must not “stigmatize” and “impugn” those who are living together in what the Church calls “irregular” situations outside of marriage.
“We have to approach social conflicts, new and old, and try to give a hand of comfort, not to stigmatize and not to just impugn,” Pope Francis said.
“So many young people prefer to live together without marrying,” he added. “What should the Church do? Expel them from its breast? Or, instead, approach them, embrace them and try to bring them the word of God? I’m with the latter position.”
Link:
Friday, October 10, 2014
VIDEO: Card. Burke’s clear, articulate, blunt answers about divorce, remarriage, Card. Kasper
From Father Z:
Link:
Related:
His Eminence Raymond L. Burke gave an interview to Raymond Arroyo of EWTN.
You don’t want to miss this. Arroyo does not lob softballs. He starts out with a question about Pope Francis praise of Card. Kasper!
This is refreshing and it gets better and better as it goes along.
It is about, in part, the “Five Cardinals Book”.
Related:
Wednesday, April 23, 2014
Pope Francis 'phones divorced woman' to say she can receive Communion. This is potentially a huge story
By Damian Thompson
(The Telegraph) Pope Francis has phoned a divorced and remarried Catholic woman in Argentina to tell her that she could "safely receive Communion", according to an extraordinary report in La Stampa.
The woman's husband, writing on Facebook, claims that the Pope – introducing himself as "Father Bergoglio" – spoke to his wife, who'd been divorced before marrying him and told her that men or women who were divorced and received Communion weren't doing anything wrong. He apparently added that this matter is under discussion at the Vatican. (Quick health warning: given the complexity of this subject, we need much more clarity on what Francis reportedly said. I find it hard to believe that he would make such an unqualified statement...) - continued..
Link:
Related:
Wednesday, March 27, 2013
Saturday, December 29, 2012
Another Manifesto on Communion in the Hand
From Carol at The Tenth Crusade:
This article, written by David Gray, rebuts an apparent attempt by Voris to promote the reception of Eucharist by tongue.
Boy, the claws really come out when a Catholic tries to spread a deeper respect for the Eucharist.
The discussion always takes on a preternatural quality...as if the demons are summoned from every corner of the earth. It never fails to get creepy and weird. And, from sources that can surprise you.
David (on Facebook) said while he appreciates people who promote reception of the Eucharist by mouth, he's sick and tired of it because it makes people who receive by hand feel demonized.
I'll bet you know what Carol has to say about the people who feel demonized when they are reminded that their manhandling of the Eucharist is leaving particles of the Divinity of Christ on the floor, onto shoes, where He is carried out into dog poo?
Cry me a river.
I'm not sure how much success I had explaining to him that the feelings of the Deity involved in the interaction are excluded from his hypothesis, but I offered to God a valiant effort.
I learned a lot of things from a Fr. John Higgins I'm willing to bet you never heard before.
He first tried to tell me that the Church teaches that the Divinity of Christ is not in the substance of particles that fall from the Eucharist. Only a whole piece of bread has the substance of Christ's Divinity. The rest is dust. Worthless dust. He told me folks like us who believe that the Divinity of Christ is in pieces that break off of the Eucharist are like the people who worry about the fumes of the 'wine'.
He switched up the story a bit when he realized he wasn't talking to your average Catholic idiot when I asked him why, if the Church taught that Christ's Divinity was not in particles broken off of the Host, why then would they provide a Corporal and other linens which are, according to protocol, handled as if they carried particles of Christ's Divinity? He said the Church teaches the Divinity of Christ is only in particles broken by the priest but not in particles that break off in the Communion lines.
When I asked him why the Romans would then use a paten for the distribution of the Eucharist which is only permitted by mouth, he got the big violins out. Poor Fr. Higgins, the victim of a modernist vicious woman who simply will not listen to her superior. He and all the Bishops and the Pope touch the Eucharist with their hands and receive standing up. Why, Pope John Paul even gave him the Eucharist in his hands. The paten is just for people who receive on the tongue because they are irreverent, fumble and drop the Eucharist.
He and others in the thread divulged several more of their screwball ideas, but you get the gist.
A number of pathetic sappy sorts with misplaced empathy chimed in. Poor Fr. Higgins. Stupid, insane woman with a filthy mouth that is a source of sin. Blasphemer. Shame on me for being disrespectful to Fr. Higgings (crumpled in the corner with his wounded self-esteem). I am a modernist. Others claimed I was a RadTrad (the use of which I explained is a perverse insult to the communion of the faithful who practice a Rite approved by the Church). A heretic. I need a team of psychiatrists and an exorcist.
The poor, poor lambs.
I was on my best behavior until Fr. Higgins chimed in again with more news. The Altar rail is/was only for keeping wild animals out of the Sanctuary. Whilst I did have the fortitude not to say what I wanted to say, i.e., it is a crying shame they don't have a gate like that at the seminary admissions office - it got a bit ugly... (continued)
Link:
- Another Manifesto on Reception by Hand
- New (12/30/12): Receiving Holy Communion by hand & YOUR "Reverence". Hello self-absorption.
Tuesday, April 3, 2012
Cardinal Wuerl's Continuing Crisis
By George Neumayr at The American Spectator
Last week I reported that Cardinal Donald Wuerl's communications director, Chieko Noguchi, lodged a complaint with my editor. I did not object to the fact of the complaint; I objected to its form: an attempted traceless phone call. By contrast, I noted that Cardinal Roger Mahony's old pit bull, Tod Tamberg, nipped at my heels in plain sight. Tamberg sent a letter to TAS, signed it, and placed his title below his name. That's more honorable than a record-less phone call designed to silence me.
Critics of my column, such as Ed Peters, a canon lawyer from the archdiocese of Detroit, say that my complaint about the complaint resembles the very thin-skinned whining I bemoan in Cardinal Wuerl. No, it doesn't. I welcome Cardinal Wuerl's criticism. I invite him to write a formal letter of complaint, and I urge TAS to publish it in full. Moreover, TAS offers readers a comment box in which readers can launch limitless attacks upon my pieces.
Cardinal Wuerl's silence is deafening. He still hasn't commented directly on his baldly unjust "administrative leave" order to Fr. Marcel Guarnizo. Nor has he explained to the faithful why Barbara Johnson, the self-described practicing lesbian and Buddhist to whom Fr. Guarnizo properly denied Communion, enjoys a canonical right to the sacred species.
Perversely, Cardinal Wuerl has at once violated the canonical rights of a faithful priest while inventing out of thin air a "policy" that orders his subordinates to distribute the Eucharist to anti-Catholic activists and defiant mortal sinners. In his apology to Barbara Johnson, via one of his auxiliary bishops, Cardinal Wuerl rebuked Fr. Guarnizo for a lack of "pastoral" sensitivity. This is Cardinal Wuerl's euphemism for priestly action that takes orthodox teaching and discipline seriously.
The word "pastoral" should make the faithful groan at this point. It is one of the great weasel words of the "spirit of Vatican II" Church in America. The word "pastoral" invariably dribbles from the lips of bishops like Cardinal Wuerl who regularly expose their flocks to wolves. Jesus Christ said that the "good shepherd" watches the gate. Cardinal Wuerl's "policy" is to leave it wide open for the Church's fiercest enemies. This is why the Pelosis and the Barbara Johnsons just keep coming up for Communion. Since Cardinal Wuerl refuses to control the sacrament, they will.
Notice that "pastorally sensitive" bishops produce very few pastors (by punishing orthodox priests like Fr. Guarnizo, they cause vocations to dry up); they scatter flocks through feeble and slippery catechesis; and they provide plenty of cover for wolves in Catholic clothing, such as New York Governor Andrew Cuomo and Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley, who wade into the Communion line and tout their "Catholicism" on the campaign trail while slam-dunking secularism over feckless and compromised bishops.
"Do not scatter pearls before swine," Jesus Christ said. "Do not give what is holy to dogs." How pastorally insensitive of the Son of God! A Church official who has watched Wuerl's persecution of Fr. Guarnizo with horror commented to me that if Jesus Christ had served in Cardinal Wuerl's archdiocese "he would be on administrative leave too." Unlike the Cardinal Wuerls, Christ didn't felt the need to play patty cake with the enemies of the Church. He liked struggling sinners but not unrepentant ones who seek to defile his temple.
It amazes me that a clericalist culture of toadying and flattery still exists in American Church circles, given the scandals into which the bishops have routinely plunged the faithful. I have no desire to participate in this worldly game of ring-kissing in which the Cardinal Wuerls wallow. They enjoy the trappings of their office without actually exercising it for the good of souls. They demand 13th-century obedience while behaving like 21st-century flakes who play church in costume and staff.
As St. Augustine said, God does not need our "lies." He needs our truth-telling, even if that truth-telling means wounding the egos of derelict successors to his disciples.
The aforementioned Ed Peters suggests that I am guilty of canonical offenses for criticizing Cardinal Wuerl. I mentioned this to another canon lawyer. He laughed openly, dismissing the charge as clericalist bluster.
The faithful have not only a right but a duty to resist heterodox bishops. Without that resistance clericalism runs amok and the integrity of the faith is lost.
Last week I was called the journalistic equivalent of Hugo Chavez -- a "right-wing fanatic, a man whose dogmatism is as scary as the authoritarians on the left." Perhaps I should complain to the bishops' Catholic anti-defamation group, the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights. But, wait, I can't: the statement above comes from the Catholic League's head, Bill Donohue, who added that he has "known Cardinal Wuerl for about 25 years" and that he "got me involved in the Catholic League."
It all sounds very chummy. An "anti-defamation" league that defames orthodox Catholics as "authoritarians" is exactly what one would expect from one of Cardinal Wuerl's clericalist tentacles. I apologize for nothing and repeat that he is guilty of a gross dereliction of duty. He has damaged the reputation of an innocent priest while emboldening the Church's enemies. This is a scandal which cries out to Pope Benedict XVI for correction.
Link:
Related:
Last week I reported that Cardinal Donald Wuerl's communications director, Chieko Noguchi, lodged a complaint with my editor. I did not object to the fact of the complaint; I objected to its form: an attempted traceless phone call. By contrast, I noted that Cardinal Roger Mahony's old pit bull, Tod Tamberg, nipped at my heels in plain sight. Tamberg sent a letter to TAS, signed it, and placed his title below his name. That's more honorable than a record-less phone call designed to silence me.Critics of my column, such as Ed Peters, a canon lawyer from the archdiocese of Detroit, say that my complaint about the complaint resembles the very thin-skinned whining I bemoan in Cardinal Wuerl. No, it doesn't. I welcome Cardinal Wuerl's criticism. I invite him to write a formal letter of complaint, and I urge TAS to publish it in full. Moreover, TAS offers readers a comment box in which readers can launch limitless attacks upon my pieces.
Cardinal Wuerl's silence is deafening. He still hasn't commented directly on his baldly unjust "administrative leave" order to Fr. Marcel Guarnizo. Nor has he explained to the faithful why Barbara Johnson, the self-described practicing lesbian and Buddhist to whom Fr. Guarnizo properly denied Communion, enjoys a canonical right to the sacred species.
The word "pastoral" should make the faithful groan at this point. It is one of the great weasel words of the "spirit of Vatican II" Church in America. The word "pastoral" invariably dribbles from the lips of bishops like Cardinal Wuerl who regularly expose their flocks to wolves. Jesus Christ said that the "good shepherd" watches the gate. Cardinal Wuerl's "policy" is to leave it wide open for the Church's fiercest enemies. This is why the Pelosis and the Barbara Johnsons just keep coming up for Communion. Since Cardinal Wuerl refuses to control the sacrament, they will.
Notice that "pastorally sensitive" bishops produce very few pastors (by punishing orthodox priests like Fr. Guarnizo, they cause vocations to dry up); they scatter flocks through feeble and slippery catechesis; and they provide plenty of cover for wolves in Catholic clothing, such as New York Governor Andrew Cuomo and Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley, who wade into the Communion line and tout their "Catholicism" on the campaign trail while slam-dunking secularism over feckless and compromised bishops.
"Do not scatter pearls before swine," Jesus Christ said. "Do not give what is holy to dogs." How pastorally insensitive of the Son of God! A Church official who has watched Wuerl's persecution of Fr. Guarnizo with horror commented to me that if Jesus Christ had served in Cardinal Wuerl's archdiocese "he would be on administrative leave too." Unlike the Cardinal Wuerls, Christ didn't felt the need to play patty cake with the enemies of the Church. He liked struggling sinners but not unrepentant ones who seek to defile his temple.It amazes me that a clericalist culture of toadying and flattery still exists in American Church circles, given the scandals into which the bishops have routinely plunged the faithful. I have no desire to participate in this worldly game of ring-kissing in which the Cardinal Wuerls wallow. They enjoy the trappings of their office without actually exercising it for the good of souls. They demand 13th-century obedience while behaving like 21st-century flakes who play church in costume and staff.
As St. Augustine said, God does not need our "lies." He needs our truth-telling, even if that truth-telling means wounding the egos of derelict successors to his disciples.
The aforementioned Ed Peters suggests that I am guilty of canonical offenses for criticizing Cardinal Wuerl. I mentioned this to another canon lawyer. He laughed openly, dismissing the charge as clericalist bluster.
The faithful have not only a right but a duty to resist heterodox bishops. Without that resistance clericalism runs amok and the integrity of the faith is lost.
Last week I was called the journalistic equivalent of Hugo Chavez -- a "right-wing fanatic, a man whose dogmatism is as scary as the authoritarians on the left." Perhaps I should complain to the bishops' Catholic anti-defamation group, the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights. But, wait, I can't: the statement above comes from the Catholic League's head, Bill Donohue, who added that he has "known Cardinal Wuerl for about 25 years" and that he "got me involved in the Catholic League."
It all sounds very chummy. An "anti-defamation" league that defames orthodox Catholics as "authoritarians" is exactly what one would expect from one of Cardinal Wuerl's clericalist tentacles. I apologize for nothing and repeat that he is guilty of a gross dereliction of duty. He has damaged the reputation of an innocent priest while emboldening the Church's enemies. This is a scandal which cries out to Pope Benedict XVI for correction.
Link:
Related:
- The Scandal That is Eating the Heart out of the Catholic Church in America
- Cardinal Raymond Burke: Obama’s Policies ‘Have Become Progressively More Hostile Toward Christian Civilization’
- Cardinal Wuerl's Open Scandal
- Cardinal Wuerl's Dereliction of Duty
- A Canonical Defense of Father Marcel Guarnizo
- Pontifical High Mass Honoring Pope Benedict XVI at National Shrine Cancelled
- A canonical contribution on the Washington Eucharistic Affair
- Guest letter challenging Dr. Peters on canon 915, Communion, and "manifest" sin
- EITHER BISHOPS TAKE CONTROL OVER THE SACRAMENTS OR THE CHURCH’S ENEMIES WILL
- Archdiocese of Washington reprimands priest for denying communion to a lesbian
- Father Guarnizo's Faculties Suspended - D.C. Bloggers Recommend Taking Action
- Fr. Marcel Placed on Administrative Leave
- Fr. Marcel (!) Guarnizo receives gift from Chancery
- Washington D.C.: Homosexual Agenda Leads to Yet Another Priestly Suspension
- Lesbian denied Communion at her mother’s funeral is also a Buddhist
- Lesbian with kids in Catholic school demands removal of Catechism quote on homosexuality
- Archbishop Wuerl Weasels Out
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
A Canonical Letter Challenging Dr. Peters on the Father Guarnizo Eucharistic Affair
From RORATE CÆLI:
Links:
When Church matters are filled with the marks of injustice and persecution of Priests and lay faithful who merely wish to do what they are and have always been called to do (for instance, taking the greatest of cares for the Most Blessed Sacrament), it is quite understandable that people remain moved to speak up.
That was the case with George Neumayr and his article for The American Spectator.
It was also the case of a reader, Scriptor, who has sent us this letter on the several canonical aspects involved in the Washington Eucharistic Affair as a follow-up to his shorter post on the same matter posted in The New Theological Movement.
Greetings in Christ,
In light of Fr. Guarnizo’s recent letter and Dr. Peters’ recent posts in response to that letter, I would like to continue discussion and reflection on the application of c. 915 vis-Ã -vis the Guarnizo-Johnson controversy. I continue to find myself disagreeing with Dr. Peters’ interpretation of c. 915 in this case. For the sake of argument, permit me to consider the situation in abstraction from Fr. Guarnizo’s own self-understanding of what he was doing when he refused communion to Ms. Johnson. I want to focus on c. 915 and in particular on its use of the word “manifest”.
An Insuperable Burden?
In one of Dr. Peters’ recent posts (“Canonical observations…”, March 15th) he cites a number of canons to show that, in light of its having the effect of restricting the rights of the faithful, we need to interpret c. 915 “as narrowly as reasonably possible”. He then goes on to cite a number of traditional commentators to the effect that before a minister refuses the sacraments to someone, he must have no reasonable doubts about whether the person is publically unworthy in the technical sense. Both these points are well taken. I will argue though, that when analyzing Guarnizo-Johnson case, Peters does interpret c. 915 in an unreasonably narrow fashion. I will also argue that a priest in Fr. Guarnizo’s shoes could reasonably have been free of doubts as to whether c. 915 applied to Ms. Johnson. Peters writes, “…the burden is, without question, on the minister of holy Communion to verify that all of the conditions listed in canon 915 are satisfied before he withholds holy Communion from a member of the faithful who approaches for it publicly.” In the Guarnizo-Johnson case, I don’t think this is an insuperable burden.
Peters writes, “To justify withholding the Eucharist under Canon 915 according to its plain terms, the conduct in which a communicant perseveres must be obstinate, manifest, grave, and sinful.” First off, I think he is rhetorically loading the deck in his favor by highlighting five distinct words. The PCILT document that I often cited in my post on The New Theological Movement breaks c. 915 down into just three distinct concepts (see the post for March 12th on the New Theological Movement, “Guest Letter Challenging Dr. Peters…”). There is no question of withholding communion in the case of venial sins and so the only sort of sin we are considering here is serious or gave sin. That’s one notion. I think we can know that a woman who introduces to us her “lover” is engaged in serious sin. The second condition of c. 915 as interpreted by the PCILT document is “obstinate perseverance”. I dealt with this in the New Theological Movement post. We can reasonably know that this condition too would obtain for Ms. Johnson. So the third and last condition is “manifest”. This is the crux of the matter.
Towards A More True-To-Life Adjudication of When Obstinate Grave Sin Is “Manifest”
Dr. Peters’ approach to “manifest” in c. 915 remains two-dimensional and unrealistic. He reduces the public knowledge of a person’s obstinate grave sin to what is already actually known by the particular witnesses who are present when the sinner in question presents himself for communion. For example, in one of his recent posts (“A brief thought…”, March 17th), he writes, “However sinful it might be, conduct that is not already widely known in the community is not manifest as canon law understands that term in this context.” [Emphasis mine] A little later on, he writes, “Some folks…think the Church is being too lenient in dealing with grave-but-as-yet-private sin. They’re free to make that case, though I think the Church’s wisdom is more than canon-law deep here. Anyway, though they disagree with the law, they understand it, so my job is done in their regard.” Apart from bringing notice to what I consider an unfair conflation of his readers differing with him in his interpretation of the Church’s law with his readers having differences with the Church, I would like to underscore his phrase “grave-but-as-yet-private sin.” Is “as-yet-private-sin” never “manifest” in the technical canonical sense?
In another one of his recent posts (“Three recent questions…”, March 13th), Dr. Peters touches briefly upon the principle, entertained as a legitimate opinion by canonists for many ages now, that the “notoriety” of a person’s sin can be present in one community while not being present in another. Take the unlikely but possible scenario of a man whose unworthiness is known say in Sacramento California but completely unknown in Richmond Virginia. Now say there was a priest of Richmond Virginia who knew of this man and his bad reputation in Sacramento. If this man were to come into this priest’s parish in Richmond and present himself for communion, the priest might have poor grounds for considering this man’s unworthiness to be “notorious” or “public”. It could be public in Sacramento while not being public in Richmond. The priest should in this case give the man communion. There is a flip side to this principle, though. If the nature of the man’s obstinate grave sin is such that the knowledge of it is likely to spread from the first into the second community, then the priest who is administering the Eucharist to this man in the second local is justified in regarding this man’s sin as “manifest” even though to those in the second community it is “as-yet-private”. Those who are witnessing the man present himself for communion may not be actually currently aware of the man’s sin, but the priest has good reason to believe they will soon be aware of it. The point is that when making a decision as to whether an obstinate grave sin is manifest, the minister doesn’t simply take into account the actual but also the possible or likely knowledge of the witnesses. To do this, he must take into account the nature of the community or communities in question and also the kind of sin that is being dealt with.
Here is a passage from a classic moral theology manual which takes into account the above mentioned factors: “The Sacraments are to be refused to a public sinner, whether he asks for them publicly or secretly…Such a one has no right to the Sacraments, with the exception of Penance. That sinner is called a public sinner, absolutely speaking, if he is notoriously so; he will be a notoriously public sinner, if he has been juridically condemned as such, or has admitted his sin, or if his sin cannot be concealed nor excused, or if his sin is noised abroad so that it can be easily known anywhere.” [Emphasis mine] (Moral and Pastoral Theology, by Henry Davis, S.J., vol. III, p. 35) One of the conditions for the “notoriety” and thus technically “public” status of the sinner in question is whether or not his sin can be concealed or excused. Notice how the kind of sin and its potential to become common knowledge to others are relevant considerations. Now what happens when the sinner in question is not ashamed of his sin and doesn’t even try to conceal it in public? What happens when the sinner in question has even adopted a personal m.o. of actively making known his sin to others even upon first introductions? What happens when the sinner in question doesn’t just regularly make his sin known to others but wants and even expects others to accept and applaud his sin as normal and good? What if such a sinner even thinks that he has a right—his habit of making his sin known in public notwithstanding—to the precious and immaculate body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ? This, I suggest, is the case of the baptized Catholic who is also a practicing and open homosexual. According to the standards of the above cited manual, such a person’s sin could not be concealed and would thus count as “notorious” or “public” or “manifest”.
To bring it home a little closer to the actual circumstances of the Guarnizo-Johnson case, the practicing and open homosexual in question showed up to the funeral with her lover and presented her to the priest as such. I think it reasonable for a priest who had received such an introduction to conclude very quickly that this woman likely had already introduced herself and her lover as such to others at the funeral. This priest might also justifiably conclude that, given the nature of this woman’s sin, if the people at the funeral don’t already know about it, they probably will by the time the funeral is done. Two active and open homosexuals present at a funeral who have introduced themselves to the priest as such are going to be verbally making known to others their status as “partners”. What’s more, the two homosexual lovers are likely going to be relating to each other physically and socially in a spousal manner. This is not going to be just about hugs and hand holding but a total way of relating to each other that sends a multitude of subtle but clear signals to others as to who they are. And the witnesses have plenty of opportunity to catch those verbal and non-verbal signals. There is the funeral mass itself but also the burial and often also the reception after the burial. There is also, in many cases, the wake the night before. The sin of such a couple is of such a kind that it’s not going to remain secret for very long. It’s the kind of sin that can’t be concealed. This is what we are dealing with when it comes to this phenomenon of “out-of-the-closet” gays. Let’s not ignore the obvious.
There Is More Than Just One Conscience We Need To Respect
In the first of Dr. Peters’ posts that I cited above (“Canonical observations…”, March 15th), he makes it clear that that “Canon 916 binds gravely in conscience and an accounting to God of one’s conduct under that canon (or at any rate, under the values it protects) will be owed by each Catholic at Judgment.” But what he fails to mention, although I know he would acknowledge it as true, is that canon 915 also binds gravely in conscience before God. The reader is left with the impression though, that canon 916 is a matter of conscience while canon 915 is something else. This is a misleading way of presenting the situation. The obligation of the minister to withhold communion from the publicly unworthy (canon 915) is just as much a divine law as the obligation of the communicant to make sure he is rightly disposed before receiving communion (canon 916). Referencing different authorities, we read, “Divine and ecclesiastical law command absolute exclusion from the Holy Table of all persons publicly unworthy of it, unless they have shown signs of conversion and amendment and repaired the scandal given to the community” (Legislation on the Sacraments in the New Code of Canon Law by H. A. Ayrinhac, 1928). And from a more recent commentary, we read: “…this [c. 915] is a norm of divine-positive law…declared by the council of Trent in its decree on the Holy Eucharist, received by the 1917 Code, and restated by Vatican II’s post-conciliar legislation.” (Gramunt, in EXEGETICAL COMM (2004) III/1: 614-615.) Thus the person who violates the divine precept underlying c. 915 will be accountable to God on Judgment Day just as much as the person who violates the divine precept underlying c. 916. Arguably, the law of the Church itself recognizes by way of sanction the seriousness of violating c. 915. At least in the opinion of Gramunt, the minister who violates this precept “can be punished by virtue of c. 1389 sec. 2, or by invoking c. 1399 which foresees, in a general way, the possibility of punishing those who cause grave scandal by an external violation of divine or ecclesiastical law” (Gramunt, p. 616).
Dr. Peters talks about the importance of interpreting canon law in continuity with the tradition of the Church. To that I say ‘Amen’. This was one of the concerns of my previous post. So to continue in that vein, and to bring home with one more citation the seriousness of the divine precept underlying c. 915, let’s reference yet one more authority—an older one. Here is Rev. James O’Kane’s 1867 commentary, Notes on the Rubrics of the Roman Ritual, p. 380:
“[Public sinners] are not to be admitted to Holy Communion in any circumstances, until they have given proof of their repentance and amendment. They have no claim to be admitted. By their exclusion they are merely prevented from consummating an act of sacrilege; and even their reputation cannot suffer, since they are, by supposition, public sinners; and on the other hand, great scandal would arise from admitting them. The priest, therefore, is bound to exclude them. According to some theologians, he might administer the sacrament to save his own life, provided he were not required to do so in contempt of religion. St. Liguori for a time thought this opinion probable, but he afterwards rejected it, and maintains that the priest must refuse the sacrament to the notoriously unworthy, at the risk of his life, even when contempt is not intended.”
In the opinion of St. Alphonsus Liguori, a Doctor of the Church, the minister should rather die than give communion to the publicly unworthy. By anyone’s account, this is pretty serious stuff. Have we today lost the sense of the seriousness of the sin of sacrilege and scandal? Upon the altar of the rights of the individual, have we sacrificed God’s right not to be profaned and the right of the community not to be scandalized? We need to respect the conscience of the minister bound by such serious obligations just as much as we need to respect the right of the individual to be provided with the sacraments. Have we focused on the latter to the exclusion of the former—unwittingly embracing an unbalanced hermeneutic that distorts our reading of canon law and the sacramental life of the Church?
Differences of Opinion on Prudential Judgments Calls for Charity
Looking through a number of manuals and commentaries from the 19th and 20th centuries, it becomes clear that there is wide variety of factors to take into account when deciding whether or not a particular case of sin is “public”. In the last analysis, this is not an exact science but a matter of prudential judgment. The authorities themselves concur. Stanislaus Woywod, for example, in A Practical Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, vol. I (1925), says: “No general rule covering all cases can be given for distinguishing a public sinner from an occult one, and the circumstances of every individual case must be considered.” To return to the O’Kane commentary, we read on p. 381: “We need not seek for mathematical accuracy in a matter of this kind, and Carriere concludes that a crime may be looked on as public in any community when, considering the crime itself, the persons to whom it is known, and the community of which there is question, the knowledge of it is morally certain to spread.” It is true that the minister must have a practical certainty that any given person falls into the category of those who “obstinately persevere in manifest grave sin” before he is bound to withhold communion from that person. I have argued above that practicing and open homosexuals could very easily fall into that category. More specifically I have argued that such an active and open homosexual as is being considered in the Guarnizo-Johnson does in fact do so. But more to the point here is that even if in your judgment a priest in a situation like Guarnizo’s would not have made the right prudential decision by withholding communion from the person in question, it should at least be acknowledged that his decision was not wildly unreasonable. We can in all charity acknowledge that one minister’s doubtful case might be another minister’s clear case. We can respect his certain conscience even if in the same situation ours would have been doubtful. We can acknowledge that there are situations in which different prudential judgments can be made by different people without either side faulting the other for negligence on the one hand or insensitivity on the other. The Guarnizo-Johnson case is certainly one such case. For example, probably Dr. Peters himself has a good pulse on the academic world of canon law and would know whether or not there are at least some respectable canonists who would disagree with him on this issue. Are there no canonists who would judge that, per c. 915, Ms. Johnson should have in fact been withheld from communion? I would imagine we could find a few.
A Broader Perspective
Peters can also, no doubt unintentionally, sometimes write as if canonists are the only people who should have anything to say on this issue. Are there not other specialists whose respective expertise would be helpful? What might a Scripture scholar, for example, have to say about this issue? We often quote I Cor 11:27-29 when talking about the divine obligation undergirding canon 916. But the Church has also traditionally cited Mt 7:6, “Give not what is holy to the dogs”, when talking about the divine obligation undergirding c. 915 (cf. Didache 9). Is Mt 7:6 Eucharistic? Does it have a sacrificial subtext to it? (cf. Ex 29:37; Lev 2:3) Who are the dogs? (cf. Rev 22:15; Deut 23:18) Maybe the canonists can learn from the Scripture scholars?
Also what might a moral theologian have to say about the little known fact that the good name of the occult sinner is actually not a proportionate reason for the minister of communion to materially participate in the sinner’s sacrilegious communion but that the minister is only morally justified in materially participating in such a sacrilege in light of the possible negative effects a refusal might have on the community? How might the perspective of the common good adjust our antecedent considerations that we bring to bear on reading and applying the Church’s law in the case of c. 915? Also, if the sinner who presents himself for communion has the right to his good name, what happens when the sinner in question thinks his sin should be made public? Is it even meaningful to talk about protecting the good name of the active and open homosexual? What reputation is there left for the Church to protect at this point and how might this affect our application of c. 915? These are all questions moralists could fruitfully explore and canonists benefit from... (continued)
Links:
- A canonical contribution on the Washington Eucharistic Affair
- Guest letter challenging Dr. Peters on canon 915, Communion, and "manifest" sin
- Cardinal Wuerl's Dereliction of Duty
- EITHER BISHOPS TAKE CONTROL OVER THE SACRAMENTS OR THE CHURCH’S ENEMIES WILL
- Pontifical High Mass Honoring Pope Benedict XVI at National Shrine Cancelled
- Archdiocese of Washington reprimands priest for denying communion to a lesbian
- Father Guarnizo's Faculties Suspended - D.C. Bloggers Recommend Taking Action
- Fr. Marcel Placed on Administrative Leave
- Fr. Marcel (!) Guarnizo receives gift from Chancery
- Washington D.C.: Homosexual Agenda Leads to Yet Another Priestly Suspension
- Lesbian denied Communion at her mother’s funeral is also a Buddhist
- Lesbian with kids in Catholic school demands removal of Catechism quote on homosexuality
- Archbishop Wuerl Weasels Out
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)