Are Catholics Going Nuts?

[Lord Philip]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1785029' date='Feb 18 2009, 07:59 PM']I've got to say I'm with "Lord Philip" here.
Obviously, the Church is not a democracy, and the bishops are not obligated to heed the petition, but there is certainly nothing wrong with making such a petition.

This is not a case of Catholics trying to "democratically" change Church teaching or official practice, but rather a plea that they [b]follow the standards already set by the Church on giving Holy Communion to obstinately pro-abortion politicians.[/b]
From the CDF letter to the bishops regarding worthiness to receive Holy Communion written by Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI):~ [url="http://www.priestsforlife.org/magisterium/bishops/04-07ratzingerommunion.htm"]Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion General Principles by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger[/url]

Quite frankly, bishops who blithely allow blatantly pro-abort "Catholic" pols like Pelosi, etc. to receive Communion are failing in their duties, and should be encouraged in charity to follow their duties in this respect.

While this petition provoked some howls about lay people trying to "do the bishop's job," the truth is that too many bishops are not doing their own job.
While some here complain about "nutty" conservative Catholics trying to influence the bishops, it's a sad fact that too many Bishops have in fact gotten too cozy with left-wing politicians and the Dem Party, and are willing to cut them undue slack for political reasons. There's no reason outside influence on bishops should only come from the Left.

There's also nothing wrong with faithful lay persons criticizing bishops and urging them to be more dutiful in their public actions. As mentioned, St. Paul criticized St. Peter, and St. Catherine of Siena wrote to criticize the Pope himself.
While some lay people may indeed have an overly-critical insubordinate attitude, there are cases where legitimate criticism is called for, and I believe the negligence of many bishops concerning the serious public scandal of pro-abort "Catholic" pols is one of these.

While I'm not familiar with the blogger originally quoted in this thread, I wonder if he'd be similarly outraged by lay people petitioning for some more pc cause, or if he'd instead praise the "voice of the people" or something.

I think more orthodox Catholics should make their voices heard on such matters in a positive and constructive manner (like this petition). Certainly better than just sitting around bitching among ourselves.[/quote]

Thanks "Socrates." I think your post adequately presents any rebuttal I would have added here.

Not sure what one can say in light of such blinding evidence.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote name='Lord Philip' post='1784625' date='Feb 18 2009, 03:50 PM']Canon 212 states that the Catholic faithful have "..the right, indeed at times the duty, in keeping with their knowledge, competence and position, to manifest to the sacred Pastors their views on matters which concern the good of the Church."

This is stated in the petition.

Reminds me of when St. Paul rebuked St. Peter for refusing to eat with Gentiles. St. Paul could have just "let the pope be the pope", but even though he held an inferior office in the Church, he let St. Peter know that he had seriously transgressed against the New Covenant.

The heretics within the Church have been using some of the reforms of Vatican II (giving more of a role of the laity within the Church) to their evil ends long enough. It is high time the orthodox start using it to stamp out the heretics and to reclaim the Church from their Satanic clutches. We can no longer make peace with the devil. It is time now for war.

The bishops are the successors to the Apostles, but in today's environment it is all to easy for them to become reduced to program administrators. This petition simply reminds them that they are princes within the Church and that they are given power from Christ [b]for a reason[/b]. Christ does not just throw around Apostolic authority to no purpose. This petition simply reminds the bishops of that and lets them know that we, the Catholic faithful, stand by them. Christ has given them the 20 talents, will they just bury that spiritual investment until the last day comes upon the world? God forbid; for their sakes and for the sake of the world.

Pope St. Pius V said: "All the evil in the world can be attributed to lukewarm Catholics." Damnation and hellfire. This means we can prevent evil but that we continue to choose to do nothing. Fie on the outrage.

People who cry out against this with the "just let the people who are responsible for this take care of it..." mentality should stop, realize their duty to change the world, and sign the petition. At least it's a start. At least it's [b]something[/b].[/quote]


well said.

also soc's was well said as well.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Didacus' post='1785445' date='Feb 19 2009, 01:01 PM']Its true, The Church is NOT a democracy. And it is not up to the liaty to put pressure on the bishops to act in a way we see fit.

If the petition was towards Biden and/or Pelosi to repent and refrain from accepting communion, that would be a different story.

Just my 2 canadien cents, whuich recently is not worth as much as those US cents anymore, but in time may regain that plateau versus the mighty greenback.[/quote]
As I've said before, this is not about the Church being a democracy - it's not about putting pressure on the bishops to act in a way [i]we[/i] see fit (as with liberal "Catholics" petitioning the Church to allow contraception, or gay marriage, etc.), but rather with petitioning the bishops to act as [i]the Church[/i] sees fit. (Please re-read the CDF document I had quoted concerning giving Communion to pro-abortion politicians).

As said document makes clear, this is not a matter of telling the bishops how to manage the private discipline of individuals for private sins, but a matter of grave public scandal.
With so much confusion among Catholics today on this matter, and so many (including clergy) being perfectly okay with supporting pro-abortion politicians and thinking you can be a good Catholic and also have a "pro-choice" political stance, the Church should do all it can to make it clear that one cannot take such a stance and be in good standing with the Church.

From the article concerning the petition:[quote][b]Canon 212 S3, states that the Catholic faithful have " ..the right, indeed at times the duty, in keeping with their knowledge, competence and position, to manifest to the sacred Pastors their views on matters which concern the good of the Church."[/b][/quote]

Did you also read the examples of the saints, and the quote from Archbishop Sheen given in this thread?

And maybe one should ask who this Terry Nelson character is, and why his opinion should somehow carry greater weight.

This whole idea that the faithful laity should simply sit on their rears and say nothing regarding whether the bishops do their duties is entirely baseless, and is an example of clericalism at its worst.
I'm signing that petition.

[KnightofChrist]

[color="#FF0000"][b]"The Church's law is very clear, the person who persists publicly in grave sin is to be denied Holy Communion, and it [Canon Law] doesn't say that the bishop shall decide this. [u]It's an absolute."[/u][/b] - Archbishop Burke, Apostolic Signatura.[/color]

[url="http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/feb/09020402.html"]Vatican Official: [b]Bishops Have no Choice[/b] But to Refuse Communion to Pro-Abort Politicians[/url]

By Hilary White

ROME, January 30, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Archbishop Raymond Burke, in an exclusive interview last week, told LifeSiteNews.com that the issue of pro-abortion politicians continuing to receive Holy Communion is still one of major concern and that it is the duty of bishops to ensure that they are refused.

He told LifeSiteNews.com, "I don't understand the continual debate that goes on about it. There's not a question that a Catholic who publicly, and after admonition, supports pro-abortion legislation is not to receive Holy Communion and is not to be given Holy Communion."

"The Church's law is very clear," said Archbishop Burke, who was appointed last year by Pope Benedict XVI as the head of the Church's highest court, the Apostolic Signatura. "The person who persists publicly in grave sin is to be denied Holy Communion, and it [Canon Law] doesn't say that the bishop shall decide this. It's an absolute."

Among the US bishops directly to address the issue, Archbishop Burke was one of around a dozen who vigorously supported a directive of the Vatican that said pro-abortion Catholic politicians "must be refused" Holy Communion if they attempt to receive at Mass. Others have refused to abide by the Vatican instruction and the Church's own Code of Canon Law, saying they would rather focus on "education" of such politicians.

Archbishop Burke called "nonsense" the accusation, regularly made by some bishops, that refusing Holy Communion "makes the Communion rail a [political] battle ground". In fact, he said, the precise opposite is true. The politician who insists on being seen receiving Holy Communion, despite his opposition to the Church's central teachings, is using that reception for political leverage.

In 2004, when self-proclaimed Catholic and candidate for the Democrat party, Sen. John Kerry, was frequently photographed receiving Holy Communion despite his vigorous support of abortion, the US Bishops Conference issued a document which said only that it is up to individual bishops whether to implement the Church's code of Canon Law and refuse Communion. The issue has remained prominent with the appointment of Joe Biden, another pro-abortion Catholic politician, as Vice President of the United States of America.

Archbishop Burke recalled previous experiences with Kerry, pointing to the several occasions when the senator was pictured in Time magazine receiving Communion from Papal representatives at various public events. Burke said that it is clear that Kerry was using his reception of Holy Communion to send a message.

"He wants to not only receive Holy Communion from a bishop but from the papal representative. I think that's what his point was. Get it in Time magazine, so people read it and say to themselves, 'He must be in good standing'."

"What are they doing? They're using the Eucharist as a political tool."

In refusing, far from politicising the Eucharist, the Church is returning the matter to its religious reality. The most important reasons to refuse, he said, are pastoral and religious in nature.

"The Holy Eucharist, the most sacred reality of our life in the Church, has to be protected against sacrilege. At the same time, individuals have to be protected for the sake of their own salvation from committing one of the gravest sins, namely to receive Holy Communion unworthily."

Archbishop Burke also dismissed the commonly proffered excuse that such politicians need more "education". Speaking from his own direct experience, he said that Catholic politicians who are informed by their pastors or bishops that their positions in support of pro-abortion legislation makes it impossible for them to receive Holy Communion, "I've always found that they don't come forward."

"When you talk to these people, they know," he said. "They know what they're doing is very wrong. They have to answer to God for that, but why through our pastoral negligence add on to that, that they have to answer to God for who knows how many unworthy receptions of Holy Communion?"

Archbishop Burke said that the issue had been debated enough. He rejected the idea that the matter should be left to the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, saying the Conference has no authority in the matter. "This is a law of the universal Church and it should be applied."

"I think this argument too is being used by people who don't want to confront the issue, this whole 'wait 'til the Conference decides'...well the Conference has been discussing this since at least 2004. And nothing happens."

When asked what the solution was, he responded, "Individual bishops and priests simply have to do their duty. They have to confront politicians, Catholic politicians, who are sinning gravely and publicly in this regard. And that's their duty.

"And if they carry it out, not only can they not be reproached for that, but they should be praised for confronting this situation."

Edited February 20, 2009 by KnightofChrist

[HisChildForever]

I thought we were already nuts.

[tinytherese]

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1786048' date='Feb 19 2009, 10:44 PM']I thought we were already nuts. [/quote]

I'm already nuts.

What will people do if they know I'm a Jesus freak?

Edited February 20, 2009 by tinytherese

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1785042' date='Feb 18 2009, 09:11 PM']How are people supposed to find and sign a non-public petition? Politicians pay attention to such things because people who are mad enough to sign a petition are also people who vote.[/quote]
What I mean is 'less public' as in mostly kept to themselves in the particular diocese.
I mean people in the diocese have to know so they can sign, but if possible, is there really good reason for the rest of the world to know?

[thessalonian]

A few years back the rainbow sash group was making a statement on the day of Pentecost here in Minnesota down at our beloved Cathedral. It had been going on for several years and the archbishop had been allowing it. A group got together called "Ushers of the Eucharist". We went and confronted the gays and asked them not to receive communion. The Archbishop opposed our actions because he said we shouldn't be making statements at Mass (yet oddly he was allowing the gays to do it). We did not recieve communion at that Mass. I know how grave a thing it is to oppose the bishop but I joined the group and participated. This got all the way back to the Vatican it seems and our Archbishop was called in to the JPII and who knows what was said. But the next year the gays and all who wore the sash were denied commuion. I don't regret my actions. I did go to confession about it but was supported by the priest in confession over the matter. The scandal was very great. In truth I think this scandal is as great or greater. Thanks for posting the petition. I signed and am going to pass it along. Sometimes the magesterium does need to be told that yes, in fact, we the laity are being scandalized. I've seen people leave the church over such scandal. People who at one time were walking the walk.

Edited February 20, 2009 by thessalonian

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' post='1786288' date='Feb 20 2009, 10:43 AM']I mean people in the diocese have to know so they can sign, but if possible, is there really good reason for the rest of the world to know?[/quote]
Absolutely!
If we don't stand for Christ in the Eucharist, who will?

[Slappo]

"Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself." 1 Cor 11:27-29

We are signing the petition because we desire the salvation of souls and the protection of the Eucharist from profanation. We petition as to give our bishops courage to stand fast to such truths for the protection of the souls of the Church and the reverence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist. Many people that sign the petition don't have bishops that are dealing with such abuses and scandals and therefore the bishop isn't being corrected by his faithful, but encouraged to stand fast if ever such problem arise.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1786305' date='Feb 20 2009, 09:18 AM']Absolutely!
If we don't stand for Christ in the Eucharist, who will?[/quote]
I guess I've been viewing this as an internal diocesan matter... but it really isn't, is it?

[CatherineM]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' post='1786582' date='Feb 20 2009, 04:27 PM']I guess I've been viewing this as an internal diocesan matter... but it really isn't, is it?[/quote]

Not when we are talking about people who A) are supposed to be role models and B) use being a "practicing Catholic" on their resume.

[Maggyie]

[quote]People who cry out against this with the "just let the people who are responsible for this take care of it..." mentality should stop, realize their duty to change the world, and sign the petition. At least it's a start. At least it's something.[/quote]

[quote]Quite frankly, bishops who blithely allow blatantly pro-abort "Catholic" pols like Pelosi, etc. to receive Communion are failing in their duties, and should be encouraged in charity to follow their duties in this respect.[/quote]

I assume you include the bishop of Rome, the Supreme Pontiff, when you say that bishops who allow pro-abort "Catholic" politicians to receive Communion are failing in their duty. Because he does let them, and so did John Paul II. From his own hands. Neither of these popes, as bishops of Rome, have ever issued any directive to the many Roman politicians who support abortion rights. Nancy Pelosi's bishop has probably already done more publicly than the popes have with their flock! Everyone always brings up Cardinal Ratzinger's letter to the U.S. Bishops. (Interestingly that letter was not intended for the laity at all but was a private communication among brother bishops, but it wasn't long before the laymen got their hands on it and seized on it as a handy blunt object). Strange isn't it that Pope Benedict XVI laid down such clear rules and yet he does not follow them himself? How is that?

Again I have to say that I am in absolute agreement that the Speaker of the House should not be waltzing her way up the communion line. But her bishop, the pastor responsible for her soul, has so far made a different pastoral decision (or at least if he has decided differently he has chosen not to make it public) and we need to respect that. In addition I have to say again that signing a petition like this is exactly the wrong strategy to take. It is a meaningless exercise although I suppose if it makes people feel better - that they are "taking action" - it does have some value. I believe that prayer for our lost sheep or direct pro-life work at a pregnancy resource center would be the best "something," the best "start," rather than a gesture which ultimately will have no effect and will definitely NOT change the world.

For all of Phatmass, I have a suggestion. If you ever get a chance, ask a bishop (even the most conservative) whether he is much moved by online petitions. He's not. Believe me he's not. Here's something to try instead: write your bishop. Don't go on about how Pastor X is a jerk or Pastor X is the most wonderful thing ever; don't complain that the long-suffering, saintly SSPX isn't being dialogued with, or that the Pope is being too friendly with the nasty, diabolical SSPX; don't write a long letter explaining why you, as a layman who may or may not know anything about the complex canonical situations that apply, who may or may not be an experienced confessor or a pastor, feel that so and so should not be allowed to receive the Blessed Sacrament.

Just write to him and tell him that you love him as your father and you are praying for him! Make no reference to any current controversy! He will probably fall over from shock! How often do our bishops hear from us except when we want to apply political pressure (like an ordinary lobbying organization, taking names for a petition or flooding phone lines or mailboxes with protest calls and letters) or a bone to pick or a complaint. They get plenty of mail telling them what to do.

Edited February 21, 2009 by Maggie

[Socrates]

[quote name='Maggie' post='1787168' date='Feb 21 2009, 02:50 AM']I assume you include the bishop of Rome, the Supreme Pontiff, when you say that bishops who allow pro-abort "Catholic" politicians to receive Communion are failing in their duty. Because he does let them, and so did John Paul II. From his own hands. Neither of these popes, as bishops of Rome, have ever issued any directive to the many Roman politicians who support abortion rights. Nancy Pelosi's bishop has probably already done more publicly than the popes have with their flock! Everyone always brings up Cardinal Ratzinger's letter to the U.S. Bishops. (Interestingly that letter was not intended for the laity at all but was a private communication among brother bishops, but it wasn't long before the laymen got their hands on it and seized on it as a handy blunt object). Strange isn't it that Pope Benedict XVI laid down such clear rules and yet he does not follow them himself? How is that?[/quote]
Are you saying that the Pope didn't mean what he said, or was just joking around, when he wrote that letter as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith? Or are you calling him a hypocrite?
I don't know about the circumstances of him allegedly giving communion to pro-abortion politicians, and I suspect, neither do you. (It seems the instructions are for the individual pastors - it's dubious the Pope can know the exact status of everyone who comes to receive communion at a papal mass.)

However, the CDF letter is quite clear and unambiguous in its instructions regarding pastoral policy regarding pro-abortion politicians receiving Communion (and Archbishop Burke strongly agrees on that matter).
Again:[quote]5. Regarding the grave sin of abortion or euthanasia, when a person’s formal cooperation becomes manifest (understood, in the case of a Catholic politician, as his consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws), his Pastor should meet with him, instructing him about the Church’s teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin, and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist.

6. When "these precautionary measures have not had their effect or in which they were not possible," and the person in question, with obstinate persistence, still presents himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, "the minister of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute it"[/quote]
Nothing unclear or overly-complex about that, is there?

And yes, the letter was to the U.S. bishops, however it was a public letter (on the Priests for Life site, it says "made public in the first week of July 2004."
There is no evidence it was "private" or some secret document meant to be kept from the eyes of the laity.

[quote]Again I have to say that I am in absolute agreement that the Speaker of the House should not be waltzing her way up the communion line. But her bishop, the pastor responsible for her soul, has so far made a different pastoral decision (or at least if he has decided differently he has chosen not to make it public) and we need to respect that. In addition I have to say again that signing a petition like this is exactly the wrong strategy to take. It is a meaningless exercise although I suppose if it makes people feel better - that they are "taking action" - it does have some value. I believe that prayer for our lost sheep or direct pro-life work at a pregnancy resource center would be the best "something," the best "start," rather than a gesture which ultimately will have no effect and will definitely NOT change the world.

For all of Phatmass, I have a suggestion. If you ever get a chance, ask a bishop (even the most conservative) whether he is much moved by online petitions. He's not. Believe me he's not. Here's something to try instead: write your bishop. Don't go on about how Pastor X is a jerk or Pastor X is the most wonderful thing ever; don't complain that the long-suffering, saintly SSPX isn't being dialogued with, or that the Pope is being too friendly with the nasty, diabolical SSPX; don't write a long letter explaining why you, as a layman who may or may not know anything about the complex canonical situations that apply, who may or may not be an experienced confessor or a pastor, feel that so and so should not be allowed to receive the Blessed Sacrament.

Just write to him and tell him that you love him as your father and you are praying for him! Make no reference to any current controversy! He will probably fall over from shock! How often do our bishops hear from us except when we want to apply political pressure (like an ordinary lobbying organization, taking names for a petition or flooding phone lines or mailboxes with protest calls and letters) or a bone to pick or a complaint. They get plenty of mail telling them what to do.[/quote]
Obviously, you disagree that the petition is an effective way to make one's thoughts known on this matter - and that's fine. If you don't like the petition, don't sign it; it's really that simple.
I doubt any petition in itself will change anyone's mind, however, as part of a larger effort, it may have some effect, especially in showing a bishop who may be weighing a decision that following the Church's policies has support behind it. Writing individual letters to the bishop may be better, but not everyone has time for that. I suspect a large part of the reason bishops are not heeding the CDF's instructions is due to fear of upsetting a "constituency" and creating unpleasant turmoil among persons in high places. Bishops' decisions are not made in a vacuum, and it would be naive to think that outside pressures have no influence.

And whether or not you believe such petitions effectual, are you implying that Canon 212 S3 no longer applies when it states that the Catholic faithful have " ..the right, indeed at times the duty, in keeping with their knowledge, competence and position, to manifest to the sacred Pastors their views on matters which concern the good of the Church"?

Were St. Catherine, St. Hildegard, etc. simply wasting their time when they petitioned popes and bishops?

And you should re-read the words of Apostolic Signatura Archbishop Burke as quoted in Post #24:"[quote][b]I don't understand the continual debate that goes on about it. There's not a question that a Catholic who publicly, and after admonition, supports pro-abortion legislation is not to receive Holy Communion and is not to be given Holy Communion."

"The Church's law is very clear," said Archbishop Burke, who was appointed last year by Pope Benedict XVI as the head of the Church's highest court, the Apostolic Signatura. "The person who persists publicly in grave sin is to be denied Holy Communion, and it [Canon Law] doesn't say that the bishop shall decide this. It's an absolute.[/b]"[/quote]

Are you going to simply dismiss Archbishop Burke as just another right-wing troublemaker who doesn't know what he's talking about?
Or is he just another "Catholic going nuts"?

I really don't understand why the words of Terry the blogger or Maggie from Phatmass should carry greater weight with us regarding this issue.

But maybe I'm just going nuts.

Edited February 22, 2009 by Socrates

[Maggyie]

I am sure the pope absolutely meant what he said when he was a Cardinal. His letter was well-written and nothing was unclear about it. However the reality is that his letter establishes general principles, it does not treat specific cases nor would he have tried to in that kind of communication. Actual pastoral application of the law in a specific instance often differs from the "letter of the law" so to speak. This goes a long way to explaining why the Pope could write the words you cite and yet give Communion to pro-abortion politicians with his own hands, and without the slightest bit of hypocrisy. The politicians they communed are well-known people, for instance John Paul II repeatedly gave the Eucharist to the Mayor of Rome who is unabashedly pro-abortion and everyone including the Pope knew it. John Paul II also gave Holy Communion to Tony Blair, another well-known liberal on abortion and other issues.

Individual cases have to be treated individually, and in Pope Benedict's papacy and in all the years of John Paul II's reign, they did not encounter one individual case in which they chose to apply the relevant canons. Maybe being closer to the situation they knew private details which outsiders would not. That is why decisions about who gets to receive communion are made by pastors and confessors and not by laymen looking at the situation from outside.

Archbishop Burke is hardly a trouble-maker of any kind, right-wing, left-wing, purple, pink, or brown. As ordinary in St. Louis he exercised his pastoral judgment on the issue which is truly his right. The bishops of Rome have exercised their own pastoral judgment and come up with a different response in the specific cases they have encountered, and I am positive that Archbishop Burke has no problem with them doing that.

The canon says in part that we have " ..the right, indeed at times the duty, in keeping with their knowledge, competence and position, to manifest to the sacred Pastors their views on matters which concern the good of the Church." The key phrase is [b] in keeping with their knowledge, competence, and position[/b]. In these discussions, no layman knows the content of the discussion a bishop has been having with a wayward politician; no layman is privy to any details of particular circumstances. Most of all, laymen ABSOLUTELY do not have the [b]competence [/b]and are not in the [b]position [/b]to determine who should be receiving Holy Communion. That decision rightfully belongs to pastors and bishops and there is implicit acceptance of that fact even in this petition, since it is addressed to the episcopacy which actually has the competent authority.

This is so far above our pay grade it isn't even funny! This is not about sin - because let's face it, no one knows if Nancy Pelosi just got out of the confessional before Mass. There's every chance in the world she could be in the state of grace. And it's not any of our business if she is or not, actually, since it is NOT OUR CALL whether she gets to receive or not. Now I understand that her sins are public and her contrition should be public as well, most definitely!

The last few years we have encountered a somewhat similar, somewhat different question with the SSPX. Laymen can gather all kinds of information and make all sorts of arguments for why the SSPX really weren't excommunicated (and their friends and allies did try), but the reality is that if the Bishop of Rome says you aren't in communion with him, you aren't in communion. Nancy Pelosi etc. have rather the opposite case going on...

[Socrates]

[quote name='Maggie' post='1787580' date='Feb 21 2009, 10:40 PM']I am sure the pope absolutely meant what he said when he was a Cardinal. His letter was well-written and nothing was unclear about it. However the reality is that his letter establishes general principles, it does not treat specific cases nor would he have tried to in that kind of communication. Actual pastoral application of the law in a specific instance often differs from the "letter of the law" so to speak. This goes a long way to explaining why the Pope could write the words you cite and yet give Communion to pro-abortion politicians with his own hands, and without the slightest bit of hypocrisy. The politicians they communed are well-known people, for instance John Paul II repeatedly gave the Eucharist to the Mayor of Rome who is unabashedly pro-abortion and everyone including the Pope knew it. John Paul II also gave Holy Communion to Tony Blair, another well-known liberal on abortion and other issues.

Individual cases have to be treated individually, and in Pope Benedict's papacy and in all the years of John Paul II's reign, they did not encounter one individual case in which they chose to apply the relevant canons. Maybe being closer to the situation they knew private details which outsiders would not. That is why decisions about who gets to receive communion are made by pastors and confessors and not by laymen looking at the situation from outside.

Archbishop Burke is hardly a trouble-maker of any kind, right-wing, left-wing, purple, pink, or brown. As ordinary in St. Louis he exercised his pastoral judgment on the issue which is truly his right. The bishops of Rome have exercised their own pastoral judgment and come up with a different response in the specific cases they have encountered, and I am positive that Archbishop Burke has no problem with them doing that.[/quote]
Did you even read[url="http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/feb/09020402.html"] the quoted article about Archbishop Burke[/url]?

He most certainly does see bishops not applying the law concerning publicly pro-abortion politicians receiving communion as a problem, and one which needs to be fixed.

Again:[quote][b]"I don't understand the continual debate that goes on about it. There's not a question that a Catholic who publicly, and after admonition, supports pro-abortion legislation is not to receive Holy Communion and is not to be given Holy Communion."[/b]

"The Church's law is very clear," said Archbishop Burke, who was appointed last year by Pope Benedict XVI as the head of the Church's highest court, the Apostolic Signatura. [b]"The person who persists publicly in grave sin is to be denied Holy Communion, and it [Canon Law] doesn't say that the bishop shall decide this. It's an absolute."
[/b][/quote]

[quote]Archbishop Burke said that the issue had been debated enough. He rejected the idea that the matter should be left to the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, saying the Conference has no authority in the matter. [b]"This is a law of the universal Church and it should be applied."

"I think this argument too is being used by people who don't want to confront the issue, this whole 'wait 'til the Conference decides'...well the Conference has been discussing this since at least 2004. And nothing happens."[/b]

When asked what the solution was, he responded, [b]"Individual bishops and priests simply have to do their duty. They have to confront politicians, Catholic politicians, who are sinning gravely and publicly in this regard. And that's their duty.[/b]

"And if they carry it out, not only can they not be reproached for that, but they should be praised for confronting this situation."[/quote]
It most certainly does not sound to me like Archbishop Burke "has no problem with" Bishops deciding for themselves whether or not to refuse Communion to politicians who, after receiving counsel, obstinately persist in promoting abortion!
And he was clearly not speaking just of his own "pastoral judgment" as Ordinary of St. Louis, but was speaking concerning pastors throughout the Church in America, and as head of the Apostolic Signatura. He's not exactly small-fry in the Church Hierarchy.

In fact, that was the whole point of the article. It seems you either did not read it, or ignored it entirely.

If this was not a problem, there would be no point in Archbishop Burke's complaints, nor would there be a reason for the CDF document in the first place (which clearly set policy - it was not just a nice suggestion). Again, read what the Archbishop said before you comment further.

[quote]The canon says in part that we have " ..the right, indeed at times the duty, in keeping with their knowledge, competence and position, to manifest to the sacred Pastors their views on matters which concern the good of the Church." The key phrase is [b] in keeping with their knowledge, competence, and position[/b]. In these discussions, no layman knows the content of the discussion a bishop has been having with a wayward politician; no layman is privy to any details of particular circumstances. Most of all, laymen ABSOLUTELY do not have the [b]competence [/b]and are not in the [b]position [/b]to determine who should be receiving Holy Communion. That decision rightfully belongs to pastors and bishops and there is implicit acceptance of that fact even in this petition, since it is addressed to the episcopacy which actually has the competent authority.

This is so far above our pay grade it isn't even funny! This is not about sin - because let's face it, no one knows if Nancy Pelosi just got out of the confessional before Mass. There's every chance in the world she could be in the state of grace. And it's not any of our business if she is or not, actually, since it is NOT OUR CALL whether she gets to receive or not. Now I understand that her sins are public and her contrition should be public as well, most definitely!

The last few years we have encountered a somewhat similar, somewhat different question with the SSPX. Laymen can gather all kinds of information and make all sorts of arguments for why the SSPX really weren't excommunicated (and their friends and allies did try), but the reality is that if the Bishop of Rome says you aren't in communion with him, you aren't in communion. Nancy Pelosi etc. have rather the opposite case going on...[/quote]
It may be "above our paygrade" (thank you, Mr. Obama) to decide to actually withhold communion to anybody, but it most certainly is not beyond our "competency" to petition that bishops actually follow a clearly stated Church policy.
It is clear (and apparently Archbishop Burke agrees) that many are neglecting their duties in this regard, for political or other reasons. It is the duty of the lay faithful to petition the bishops to do their duties - whether they choose to or not is up to them of course.

Regarding whether Pelosi, etc. are in a state of grace is not the issue here. While God alone can know the interior disposition of their souls, the fact remains that these politicians continue to consistently promote and support pro-abortion policies, and as long as they continue to do so, they may not receive Holy Communion.
From the CDF letter:[quote][b]This decision, properly speaking, is not a sanction or a penalty. Nor is the minister of Holy Communion passing judgment on the person’s subjective guilt, but rather is reacting to the person’s public unworthiness to receive Holy Communion due to an objective situation of sin.[/b][/quote]

The primary issue is the [b]public scandal[/b] in the Church these politicians create with their[b] public[/b] policy and actions.

Archbishop Burke spoke of the problem of these politicians use Holy Communion as a tool to gain "political leverage."
[quote]Archbishop Burke recalled previous experiences with Kerry, pointing to the several occasions when the senator was pictured in Time magazine receiving Communion from Papal representatives at various public events. Burke said that it is clear that Kerry was using his reception of Holy Communion to send a message.

[b]"He wants to not only receive Holy Communion from a bishop but from the papal representative. I think that's what his point was. Get it in Time magazine, so people read it and say to themselves, 'He must be in good standing'."

"What are they doing? They're using the Eucharist as a political tool."[/b][/quote]
This is not a matter of private discipline, but of a public scandal which continues to do untold damage and sow confusion in the Church - I've seen this very confusion over Catholics publicly holding a "pro-choice" stance myself plenty of times on here.

Since this public scandal effects all the Church, including us lowly laity, we certainly have the right and duty to petition the bishops to act concerning this.

Obviously, you disagree about the prudence or effectiveness of such petitions, and that's fine; we probably won't agree on this any time soon. However, as our concerns are exactly the same as expressed by Archbishop Burke, and at least deserve a fair hearing, I find the contemptuous, dismissive tone towards our side expressed by such things as "Are Catholics going nuts?" "The Church isn't a da[font="Arial"]mn[/font] Democracy!" and sarcastic trademark signs next to "orthodox Catholics" to be completely uncalled for.

Edited February 23, 2009 by Socrates

[Nihil Obstat]

I agree with that.

This is as clear a case of scandal that we will possibly ever see in our lives.
I was just thinking that over, and I believe that is the truth.

[Lilllabettt]

(deleted)

Edited February 23, 2009 by Lilllabettt

[Maggyie]

[quote]QUOTE (Socrates @ Feb 22 2009, 11:08 PM) *
Did you even read the quoted article about Archbishop Burke?

He most certainly does see bishops not applying the law concerning publicly pro-abortion politicians receiving communion as a problem, and one which needs to be fixed.

Again:


It most certainly does not sound to me like Archbishop Burke "has no problem with" Bishops deciding for themselves whether or not to refuse Communion to politicians who, after receiving counsel, obstinately persist in promoting abortion!
And he was clearly not speaking just of his own "pastoral judgment" as Ordinary of St. Louis, but was speaking concerning pastors throughout the Church in America, and as head of the Apostolic Signatura. He's not exactly small-fry in the Church Hierarchy.

In fact, that was the whole point of the article. It seems you either did not read it, or ignored it entirely.

If this was not a problem, there would be no point in Archbishop Burke's complaints, nor would there be a reason for the CDF document in the first place (which clearly set policy - it was not just a nice suggestion). Again, read what the Archbishop said before you comment further.


It may be "above our paygrade" (thank you, Mr. Obama) to decide to actually withhold communion to anybody, but it most certainly is not beyond our "competency" to petition that bishops actually follow a clearly stated Church policy.
It is clear (and apparently Archbishop Burke agrees) that many are neglecting their duties in this regard, for political or other reasons. It is the duty of the lay faithful to petition the bishops to do their duties - whether they choose to or not is up to them of course.

Regarding whether Pelosi, etc. are in a state of grace is not the issue here. While God alone can know the interior disposition of their souls, the fact remains that these politicians continue to consistently promote and support pro-abortion policies, and as long as they continue to do so, they may not receive Holy Communion.
From the CDF letter:

The primary issue is the public scandal in the Church these politicians create with their public policy and actions.

Archbishop Burke spoke of the problem of these politicians use Holy Communion as a tool to gain "political leverage."

This is not a matter of private discipline, but of a public scandal which continues to do untold damage and sow confusion in the Church - I've seen this very confusion over Catholics publicly holding a "pro-choice" stance myself plenty of times on here.

Since this public scandal effects all the Church, including us lowly laity, we certainly have the right and duty to petition the bishops to act concerning this.

Obviously, you disagree about the prudence or effectiveness of such petitions, and that's fine; we probably won't agree on this any time soon. However, as our concerns are exactly the same as expressed by Archbishop Burke, and at least deserve a fair hearing, I find the contemptuous, dismissive tone towards our side expressed by such things as "Are Catholics going nuts?" "The Church isn't a beaver dam Democracy!" and sarcastic trademark signs next to "orthodox Catholics" to be completely uncalled for.[/quote]


I am very aware of Archbishop Burke's opinion on the matter and he is entitled to it... I agree with him in many respects. The fact remains that his opinion was binding only in St. Louis when he was ordinary there and while he certainly occupies high office now and hopefully will get a red hat, he still does not really have any authority over bishops' pastoral choices in their own dioceses in this matter. His words do not make universal law. His interpretation of canon law is learned but it is one interpretation among many, it seems.

Archbishop Burke is not "exactly small fry," true, but neither is the pope. What I meant to imply was that I am certain Archbishop Burke does not mean to scold the Holy Father for his application of canon law. I'm pretty sure the archbishop does not have a problem with the Pope. It amazes me how people will seize on the ideas of one single man like the archbishop for ammunition in this debate, even to the point of misunderstanding the role of the Apostolic Signatura! Deciding who gets Communion is not part of their job, either! The Apostolic Signatura is a court of appeals. The handle administrative questions, appeals from the Rota, conflicts of jurisdiction etc. Absolutely nothing to do with and no authority over the Communion issue.

We can all read what Archbishop Burke says but we can all see what the Holy Father does, and the two do not match up.

The petition doesn't mean that Catholics are "going nuts" so to speak - but it is a huge waste of time and therefore easy to dismiss. It will not accomplish anything besides using up some space on the Internet. Not to mention, things like this are symptomatic of big problems with authority roiling just beneath the surface on both the right wing and the left wing, both of which see themselves as representing "pure" Catholicism against the compromising, weak-willed powers that be. Both liberal and conservative laymen think they own the Church and should get to call the shots! Hence the ™. When in fact She belongs to Jesus, not to them. And Jesus gave us bishops. Increasingly the laity see themselves as the arbiters of discipline, doctrine, etc. where once this was recognized as the competence of the authorities Jesus chose. Not a good trend.

Edited February 23, 2009 by Maggie

[CatherineM]

I'm a member of the public, and I am scandalized by their actions. There, I'm glad to have gotten that off my chest.