Vatican prelate says individual bishops have final say on Communion
‘It’s not up to bishops in general to make these decisions. It’s the bishop of the person,’ said Cardinal Michael Czerny. But at least one canon lawyer argues that when it comes to Communion for heads of state, it should really be up to the pope himself.
I think the National Conference of Catholic Bishops should stay out of it!
Follow Canon Law, please, individual bishops of the USA
Archbishop Cordilione, don’t allow Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi to receive Holy Communion in your archdiocese.
Cardinal Gregory, don’t let President Biden of S of H Nancy Pelosi receive Holy Communion in your diocese.
Thus I agree with Micheal Cardinal Czerny. But I also agree with the canon lawyer who argues that when it comes to heads of state, like President Biden, the Pope should make that decision.
Ultimately though, bishops should follow canon law and not hide behind national conferences of bishops. I don’t give a flip about what the national conferences of bishops say collectively after having taken a politicized vote.
I do care about what my bishop has to say and what the Pope has to say. And I agree with the college of bishops when they are faithful to the Deposit of Faith, Canon Law, and the perennial magisterium of the Church when handing on the faith and morals of the Church based upon Scripture and Tradition.
Anything else that I can’t find in that Deposit of Faith, which is out in the open and for all to find, clergy or laity, I consider Gnosticism and I reject it.
(Cardinal) Czerny pointed to the “confusion” surrounding debates on giving Communion to Catholic politicians who hold positions contrary to Catholic teaching, adding that individual bishops have the final say in cases where there is “a clear scandal.”
In cases “where the government is claiming that it has the church’s support for some measure that we really can’t accept at all, that would be an example where the bishop would have to stand up,” the cardinal said, “but it’s up to the bishop.”
Apart from the common sense of the good Cardinal and unnamed canon lawyer, you have the divisiveness of a bishop who makes it up as he goes:
Other bishops have described a Communion ban as “the wrong step.” In an article published in America Magazine on Wednesday, Bishop Robert W. McElroy of San Diego warned of the “destructive consequences” that such a decision might entail for the unity of the United States and Catholics’ understanding of their own worthiness to receive the sacrament.
Bishop McElroy, please follow canon law and Cardinal Czerny! That’s my most humble opinion.
Bishop McElroy’s limp wristed approach has already destroyed Catholic unity.
“...Bishop Robert W. McElroy of San Diego warned of the “destructive consequences” that such a decision might entail for the unity of the United States and Catholics’ understanding of their own worthiness to receive the sacrament.”
Our son is trying to raise his young family as a faithful Catholic in that diocese. Nearly impossible situation. We have supported our grandchildren in Catholic schools for years, but our son says they probably will not go the route due to all the liberal progressive confusion. The “destructive consequences” of that particular Bishop will be destroying the unity of Catholics understanding in that very large diocese for years to come.
The problem with progressive stances is that often the person's logic is convoluted as in this case. It is the Catholic politician who has weaponized the Eucharist by publicly receiving Holy Communion while in a public state of mortal sin, the enablement of abortion/infanticide being the mortal sin.
Make no mistake, not only does a Catholic politician who promotes such heinous sins commit a mortal sin, he, as a natural leader, is also trying to usurp the authority of the Church and imposed his political views upon Catholics so they will accept his and his party's political views and gain more votes.
President Biden want to change the Church but in doing so he is clearly divisive and has divided bishops against bishops, pope against bishops, laity against bishops and against other laity.
Biden has weaponized the Eucharist, the bishops calling for canonical sanctions toward him and other pro-choice Catholic political leaders.
It may be an individual bishop's job to enforce discipline in the sacraments in his diocese, including quashing any and all attempts to partake of Holy Communion when in any and all states of unconfessed/unabsolved mortal sin, to include any sex outside of lawful marriage, use of birth control, lying, theft, etc etc etc...
But, it is the Pope's job to make sure bishop's do theirs.
For the ordinary Joe who isn't president or anyone who is a non public figure and has not stated publicly their opposition to central Church teachings, thus their personal sins are hidden from the public, no one should publicly out them.
In the case of adulterous civil unions where a previous sacramental marriage still exists, the pastor or priest should indicate to the couple privately they should refrain from receiving. The same for public living in sin. These should be handled privately.
It is the notoriety of the person publicly sinning and disagreeing with the Church that should entail a public censure.
Nobody said anything about publically humiliating anybody. Even Biden should be told privately to not present himself unless he wanted a public embarrassment. But flocks need constant and public reminder of what are the teachings, and consequences of going against these teachings.
When I was a kid, I doubt half the people went up for Communion, because they still knew and were taught what was sin and knew they first needed to go to Confession before approaching, plus they knew Communion was not something required at each and every Mass. They simply attended out of obligation, and many spent that time simply praying as God was made present.
Today, it is a club membership badge, and must be shown lest people think one is not a member of the club.
This problem has gone on for so long and is so out of control, how do the bishops think they will put the toothpaste back in the bottle? It is not just Biden and Pelosi who are the problem. There are many people in political life, on both sides, who say they are Catholic and have voting records that show they are pro-abortion. In the last year, one of the local "Catholic" high schools honored a deceased alum who was a congressman who was very strong pro-abortion. The archbishop said nothing. Also, what about doctors, who on their websites and in their their practice, dispense contraceptives, then on Sunday distribute Holy Communion. Should they be banned?
In regard to the abortion issue in America, a massive amount of dishonesty exists on every level.
To begin with politicians:
The Democrat, Candidate D, plays the dishonest "I oppose abortion personally...but I don't have the right to subject society to my view of abortion" game.
The Catholic voter who supports Candidate D plays the following game: "I am not keen on abortion. But Candidate D said that he opposes abortion. I accept that."
The Republican, Candidate R, plays the dishonest "I am anti-abortion. I support abortion when a baby has been conceived via rape, incest, or the mother's life is at risk (supposedly). But I am 100 percent pro-life."
The Catholic voter who supports Candidate R responds: "Candidate R is pro-life. He opposes abortion. He supports abortion when a baby has been conceived via rape, incest, or the mother's life is at risk (supposedly). But he is 100 percent pro-life."
Utter nonsense from the left-wing, and right-wing in regard to abortion. .
Pro-abortion Catholic politicians couldn't care less as to Church teaching in regard to abortion. Why would they care about a Communion ban?
Catholic voters will continue to justify their votes for pro-abortion, Culture of Death politicians.
There is dishonesty and nonsense in regard to America's abortion issue.
That begins with Catholic (and non-Catholic) politicians who scheme to justify their pro-abortion stances.
-- "I oppose abortion personally, but..."
-- "I support abortion when a baby has been conceived via rape, incest, or the mother's life is at risk (supposedly). But I am 100 percent pro-life."
-- "Let us make abortion safe, legal, and rare...except that I don't have any intention to make abortion rare."
Total nonsense from pro-life, as well as pro-abortion, politicians and voters.
'am 100 percent pro-life...but
How many Catholics in the pews today practice contraception (some statistics say up to 98%)? How many young single people are already sexually active (and using birth control)? How many believe abortion and same-sex marriage is okay? The list could go on and on. Yet almost everyone receives Holy Communion and almost none ever go to the Sacrament of Penance. It's not just politicians who need their consciences raised.
Bishop McElroy, please do us all a favor and retire. That's my most humble opinion.
I spent 45 years of my life in the Diocese of San Diego and attended Catholic school all the way through high school. Our legacy of bishops is a mixed bag, but the current bishop is embarrassing to me as a Catholic--very embarrassing. The Catholic schools in that diocese--with a few exceptions--are far more concerned with "academic excellence" (READ: "Contemporary Academia" and all that that entails) than they are with the spiritual formation of the young. There are some very supportive groups of homeschooling Catholic families. If your priority is raising saints, try that route. The odds of San Diego's diocesan schools helping you do it are slim.
Thank you Robert, that certainly confirms what son has been telling us. So sad a commentary on what used to be a given, i.e. conscientious Catholic spiritual formation. I’m all for academic excellence, and plenty of private schools offer that. But Catholics have the right to expect excellence in spiritual formation as well. Historically, Catholic schools accomplished both in tandem with predictable regularity. Again, sad...
Quit lying about Republicans. We know you are a leftist and are projecting leftist dishonesty on Republicans to ease your conscience. There is no moral equivalence between the parties no matter how hard you try. Democrats support intrinsic evils like abortion, Republicans do not
"Yet almost everyone receives Holy Communion and almost none ever go to the Sacrament of Penance. It's not just politicians who need their consciences raised.'
No doubt, but what better way than to start with the current President,who, like it or not, is the face of the Catholic Church in America. This man presents himself as a good and faithful Catholic, but on the most fundamental issues blatantly contradicts Church teaching. His loathsome and scandalous impiety should not go unanswered.
Dear Anonymous 9:25,
You must be new here. Mark Thomas is...well, those of us who post here with regularity know what he is and we just let him post his stuff and avoid engaging with him. It's a fruitless rabbit hole to try to talk sensibly with him. Let's just leave it at that.
Next time, just don't take the bait. It leads nowhere.
Anonymous at 7:36 AM,
Good advice: do not feed the trolls, even remarkably bad ones
I suspect Anonymous TJM knows who Mark Thomas is already.
If we really do want to talk sensibly, here is a thought-provoking article analyzing the concept of intrinsic evil. The thesis of the piece seems to be that the term has become just another political slogan nowadays, and that much more should be considered in addition to the question whether or not a particular act is an intrinsic evil:
Now, I wonder who will engage “sensibly” in rational argument and who will dismiss the piece a priori in an ad hominem sort of way because it was published in America magazine. It will be interesting to see.
By the way, according to the author, lying (as, for example, in “the Big Lie”), is also intrinsically evil. For details, just ask the very conservative and very Republican Liz Cheney.
I will read that article.
Also, regarding what I believe is a BIG lie, I can recommend:
New Discourses : The Birth of a New American Mythology.
As a teenager in Catholic high school it was explained to me that when something is intrinsically evil it is morally wrong, sinful, and even evil, by its very nature; and a 1001 various circumstances can never make an intrinsically evil act morally acceptable.
Thank you for the reference. I have now read up about the “New American Mythology” and about James Lindsay and his hoax academic papers, and I will plan to listen to the podcast when things quieten down a bit after the current very busy period. My preliminary comment, based on what I have just read, is that ridiculous excesses on the Left do not excuse ridiculous excesses in the Right, and of course vice-versa.
Anonymous at 7:36 p.m.
I believe that is correct. The issue, however, is not whether the act in question is “morally acceptable,” but the relevance of other considerations in determining how we make choices (especially political choices) when several “intrinsically evil” or “morally unacceptable” issues are in play.
One of the biggest lies of the past decade (and an intrinsic part of the pseudo-reality of the Left) is that functioning Western democracies are in fact terribly racist, misogynistic, homophobic oppressive tyrannies.
To describe the USA, the UK, Western Europe, Canada and Australia in 2021 etc as oppressive, racist nations - by historical and world standards - is not only a big lie but is almost clinically delusional.
To many on the Left it is an awful heresy to state the obvious - ie that our societies and communities in the West, by world and historical standards, are in fact quite tolerant places and most people, the vast majority of people, are fairly decent and not racist, not sexist nor homophobic; and that REAL and GENUINE far right, white supremacist, truly racist people are a tiny, TINY minority.
Anonymous 2 is a non-thinking, leftist faculty lounge lizard, who does not know what to believe without reading The New York Slimes in the morning. His Party’s platform is based on intrinsic evils like Abortion, just like it was based upon Slavery until the Civil War took that away from them, although it is doing a great job today smearing Blacks like Senator Scott who has escaped their modern plantation of dependency. A Texas legislator referred to Senator Scott as an “oreo” and his Party will NOT accept his resignation!
Anonymous at 8:03 PM,
Anonymous 2 and his ilk create White supremecists since they are in short supply while ignoring communist, violent racists like BLM who are in abundance
Anonymous @ 7.36,
Your teachers in your Catholic high school forgot to inform you that it is not just 1001 various circumstances that are irrelevant but INTENTIONS are also irrelevant when an act is intrinsically evil.
I have appreciated your excellent contributions to Father McDonald's excellent blog.
Peace and good health to you and your family.
-- LifeSiteNews: "Pope Francis has caused dreadful confusion with public statements to the press distorting Church teaching about contraception, cohabitation, homosexuality and transgenderism."
-- Cardinal Sarah in regard to Pope Francis: "...the Holy Father openly and vigorously defends Church teaching on contraception, abortion, homosexuality, reproductive technologies, the education of children and much more."
The Three Leftist Amigos: Father Kavanaugh, Anonymous 2, and Mark Thomas
Anon 7:36 - An intrinsically evil act is always morally wrong and circumstances don't alter that. Circumstances CAN have a signitifance impact on the culpability of the person who does the act.
Like voting for the Party of Instrinsic Evil? Old Joe has ramped up funding for the Abortiontoriums quickly as you knew he would!!!
Did you read the article I linked? If you didn’t, you have nothing pertinent to say. If you did, I would be interested in your rational response, not your usual drivel and rantings as above.
Thank you for your kind comment.
A faculty lounge lizard and Woke devotee is not worthy of a response. Mark Thomas would be a perfect fit in the faculty lounge
Yes, as I suspected, your non-response is the usual drivel. Why are we not surprised?
I can often disagree with you but I still appreciate and can occasionally learn, I think, from your contributions to this blog.
Anonymous at 8:38 a.m.
Thank you for your comment. Like many others here, I try to approach the “substantive” comments on the Blog in the same spirit, which is the only way to engage in rational enquiry and make progress in our thinking. It is mystifying to me why we tolerate ill-mannered and disruptive ad hominem heckling from the peanut gallery on this Blog. We certainly would not tolerate it—or at least we shouldn’t—during an in-person gathering attempting to engage in rational discussion. Why should we do so when we attempt to engage in rational enquiry on social media, most especially perhaps on a Catholic Blog, where, surely, on would expect the dialogical virtues, not their opposites, to be most typically exhibited?
Post a Comment