Courtesy of 1 Peter 5
O’DONNELL: So, when you say we cannot politicize the communion rail, you would give communion to politicians, for instance, who support abortion rights.
CUPICH: I would not use the Eucharist or as they call it the communion rail as the place to have those discussions or way in which people would be either excluded from the life of the church. The Eucharist is an opportunity of grace and conversion. It’s also a time of forgiveness of sins. So my hope would be that that grace would be instrumental in bringing people to the truth.
or
O'DONNELL: So, when you say we cannot politicize the communion rail, you would give communion to politicians, for instance, who support abortion rights?
CANON 915: Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.
To be filed under 'Depressing Appointments in the US Church'.
This is so misleading: "The Eucharist is an opportunity of grace and conversion. It’s also a time of forgiveness of sins." Does an Archbishop really need someone to explain to him that if a person is not sorry at all, as evidenced by their public life in terms of voting, that they are not forgiven and that reception of the Holy Eucharist, instead of being an opportunity for grace, becomes an opportunity for their condemnation?
I am not sure that PeterOneFive is correct in putting an accent on the 'e' of 'Blase' when referring to Archbishop Blasé Cupich but maybe he is! But then perhaps it is just the spellchecker that did it as it seems to have done it to me above.
ReplyDeleteIronically those who have voted for abortion are NOT laetae sententiae excommunicate - yes I know Canon #1329 refers to conspiracy but senior canon lawyers argue that the most narrow of interpretations must be taken on the most punitive punishments - ie those co-operating with the deaths of millions are not excommunicate while those who directly co-operate with one - are!!! Yes it's madness - yes those who vote for ANY form of abortion legislation - including incrementalist or compromising legislation which endorses the murder of some to save more of the 'save-able' are guilty of mortal sin. And to approach communion in such a state is well? We haven't forgotten our catechism if our hierarchy has...
ReplyDeleteThe lawmakers who provide the "legal" framework and system for the "legal" murder of millions of babies, are directly morally culpable for all the murders carried out under such legislation. They are as morally responsible as those that wield the knife. But for such evil "laws", almost all of the babies brutally and systematically murdered on an industrial scale would not be murdered. And people would not be growing up, taught that it is morally right to kill a baby in utero, and even "ought" to be done in some circumstances.
ReplyDeleteBlasé: Unimpressed with or indifferent to something because one has experienced or seen it so often before
ReplyDeleteOTSA is quite right about the problem of how strictly you can enforce #1329 but if laetae sentential does not apply then there is the possibility of ferendae sententiae. Instead of being automatic the excommunication only happens if the wrong-doer has been warned beforehand. I wonder if politicians were warned before voting in favour of abortion. if not why not? Certainly in the case of Catholic Hospitals being involved in any way in abortions there have been cases of Bishops not taking action when they could have done. Cardinal Cormac and the Hospital of St John & St Elizabeth is a very questionable story.
Many Bishops have failed in their duties and become rather blasé as a result. I suppose they feel hesitant about reprimanding anybody else if they have failed themselves.
Rather curious is the reference to the communion rail. Do such still exist? I would have thought it would be much easier for a priest to just pass by an excommunicate kneeling at the rail rather than refusing someone at the head of the standing queue we now have.
I would have thought that those who voted for abortion are excommunicated as heretics, given that the teaching of Evangelium Vitae is of divine and catholic faith.
ReplyDeleteThere can be no question that the practice of abortion is among the gravest of manifest sins and therefore once a Catholic politician has been admonished that he should not come forward to receive Holy Communion,” he said.
ReplyDeleteNot only should he not come forward himself, “as long as he continues to support legislation which fosters abortion or other intrinsic evils, then he should be refused Holy Communion,” the cardinal added.
From Burke, to clear the air, and I do not know what happened to my comment, but I shall repeat some of it.
First of all, no one in mortal sin gets grace from Communion, and cooperating with evil is mortal sin.
Second, the English Catholic Church has a long history of saints battling the State-Thomas a Becket, Thomas More, John Fisher, and today's feast day saint, Edmund Campion.
Their lives ended with unjust laws and the perpetrators, such as Elizabeth I, was excommunicated.
Third, we do not have merely private consciences but public actions, which determine whether we go to heaven or hell. And disobedience to NATURAL LAW is a basic serious sin.
Fourth, what about Jesus? Who is protecting the Vulnerable Christ in the sacrament? This clergyman should be honoring God by not giving him to serious sinners.
Fifth, scary...I would not want to be this man--St. John Chrysostom's famous line comes to mind.
"The road to hell is paved with the skulls of priests."
Blasé was hand picked by Jorge--so of course he ignores the 'small minded rules' as Jorge puts it.
ReplyDeleteWhen Blase was bishop of Spokane, he forbade priests standing outside abortion mills.
Seattle Kim
This gift, sponsored by Pope Francis...who am I to judge? TM God help us all.
ReplyDeleteReceiving Communion only remits venial sins.
But what are to make of the Austen Ivereigh saga? According to the Catholic Herald Ivereigh recounts a meeting between Bergoglio, Cardinal Cormac and others when Bergoglio was asked whether he would accept the papacy. Cormac told him to be careful and Bergoglio accepted and said he understood. Cormac has now denied that this meeting took place and according to Il Sismografo Lombardi says that all the Cardinals supposed to have been at the meeting deny it. Ivereigh's response is that he will change this in future editions of his book and to be more accurate will say that they got the impression that Bergoglio would accept the papacy.
ReplyDeleteI am not clear how one gets an impression other than by observing someone directly at a meeting - it is not the kind of impression that you might get from spotting someone on the other side of St Peter's square.
So did the meeting take place? If not did Ivereigh invent it? In which case what else does his book invent? Or was he told about the meeting by someone else who did or did not invent it? I think we have a right to know.
As for his proposed revision was this done just to please his former boss or in the interests of accuracy?
It is important to know whether the man who gave us Kieran also gave us Bergoglio.
Someone should ask him if he would give communion to a practicing pedophile or promoter of pedophilia? Then explain to me how promoting the killing of a child isn't the worst form of abuse and exploitation. - Metro
ReplyDeleteNicolas the reason for denial is Universi Dominici Gregis #81 which excommunicates any guilty of canvassing a candidate or lobbying for a particular agenda
ReplyDelete- Ivereigh claims his 'amendment' will clarify
[which is ironic considering he condemned a Church of clarity last week and called for Francis's 'Church of mission' as if clarity [I suppose of doctrine and moral teaching] is antagonistic to mission rather than being an imperative for true evangelisation?!!]
BUT There are actually three separate problems:
a] Cormac declaring "it is your turn now!" - indicating irrefutably that this was said after Pope Benedict's resignation. Which Cormac either said or didn't say.
b] Bergoglio saying "capisco" - which he either said or didn't say. [note it hasn't been claimed he said the Spanish 'entiendo']
c] The actual "team Bergoglio" which either existed or did not exist.
Excommunicable offences which would invalidate conclave if true.
Ivereigh's lazy 'whitewashing' 'impression he consented' ironically confirms that Bergoglio MUST have AT LEAST been aware of the canvassing in order for even implied consent by omission. It remains confirmation [if true] of an excommunicable offence.
Hence we have a cognitive cacophony of Ivereigh refusing to deny events and actions and Cormac categorically denying them.
Yet if Ivereigh's claims are true - that cardinal Bergoglio knew his candidacy was being canvassed and did not oppose it - we do not have a Pope!!
[Ironically the whole published and distributed manifesto with which Cardinal Bergoglio came to conclave appears to corroborate this scenario]
Of course after ++Burke's expulsion we now have no-one in the Apostolic Signatura who could deal with this minefield.
This whole thing stinks!
Ivereigh is allowed to say what he wants.
Nobody has either the strength, the position, the potential or the will to make any attempt to address the issues.
If Ivereigh is telling the truth we are in a state of sede vacante.
[admittedly if Ivereigh said ten and ten were twenty I should instantly remove my socks - and given his libel trials where he ultimately was 'vaindicated' because the ladies involved 'erroneously' inferred what Dr Ivereigh was not implying when he said certain things - that is he...?]
It cannot be allowed to stand.
He should be expected to retract immediately and publish a public apology to all involved.
But will it happen?
Fr Lombardi has now sent a confidential denial which the italian blog Il Sismografo issued
"In a book recently published about Pope Francis, written by Austen Ivereigh in English with the title, The Great Reformer: Francis and the Making of a Radical Pope (Henry Holy & Co.), and in Italian as, Tempo di misericordia. Vita di Jorge Mario Bergoglio (Mondadori), there is affirmed that in the days preceding the Conclave, four Cardinals: Murphy O’Connor, Kasper, Daneels e Lehmann, “first secured Bergoglio’s assent” to his eventual election, and “then they got to work” with a campaign to promote his election.
I can declare that all of the four Cardinals, just named, explicitly deny this description of the facts, both as much as regards the request of prior consent on the part of Cardinal Bergoglio, and as much as regards the conduction of a campaign for his election, and (that) they desire to be known that they are stupefied and opposed to what has been published."
Ivereigh should retract and apologise unreservedly - and if he had a scrap of integrity would resign from any public Apostolate work.
Will it happen?
Naaaaaaahhhh
OTSATA, it is unlikely that Ivereigh will retract because he probably isn't aware of the gravity of what he has reported. Even if he is aware of the gravity, he is unlikely to take Canon Law seriously (most clergy in his circles don't) and does not believe that anybody will pursue it.
ReplyDeleteHowever, as Lombardi has issued denials on behalf of all four Cardinals named (four men who include a proven liar and a protector of clerical paedophiles amongst them) somebody in the Vatican obviously takes this seriously enough to seek clarification from them in the first place.
Lombardi's denial is one of the most interesting and telling facets of the story so far.
If Bergoglio is not a validly elected Pope, that would explain a lot about this disastrous "papacy" and the diabolical disorientation it has unleashed on the Church.
He also forbade the congregation to kneel at the Consecration, unknown, and he discouraged Adoration. I am unfortunate enough to be in the Diocese WITH him, and I don't mind saying I will not obey him in the irreverence of the Consecration if he pulls that here. Even if he yanks the kneelers out of every Church, I will kneel on the floor.
ReplyDelete