Skip to comments.Living in sin? NY Gov. Andrew Cuomo in trouble with Vatican official for ‘public concubinage’
Posted on 02/23/2011 3:21:56 PM PST by SeekAndFind
New Yorks budget-cutting Gov. Andrew Cuomo may have found himself in hot water with the Catholic Church.
Dr. Edward Peters, a consultant to the Vaticans highest court of canon law, told CNS News that Cuomo committed an objectively sacrilegious act that produces grave scandal when he received communion on New Years Day. Cuomo, a Democrat, is pro-choice and supports gay marriage, two positions the church vocally opposes. Of serious concern to Peters, however, is that Cuomo, who divorced Robert Kennedys daughter Kerry eight years ago, is currently living with Food Network host Sandra Lee.
Andrew Cuomo, governor of New York, and Sandra Lee, a television celebrity, live in what is known technically as public concubinage, Peters wrote on his blog after Cuomos inauguration last month. The fact that both Cuomo and Lee are divorced renders the concubinage adulterous on both sides as well.
Peters says that Cuomo should be denied Communion under a rule known as Canon 915 from the churchs Code of Canon Law. According to the code, persons who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, are not to be admitted to holy communion. He also criticized the pastor who celebrated the mass, Bishop Howard Hubbard, for not challenging the governor to begin his reform of the state with a reform of his person.
A Quinnipiac poll released Wednesday showed Cuomo with a 56 percent approval rating among New Yorkers.
That sound’s like one of Bill O’Reilly’s words of the day: “Don’t engage in concubinage. Wow, what a great word! I have to remember that one!
“Cuomo, who divorced Robert Kennedys daughter Kerry eight years ago, is currently living with Food Network host Sandra Lee.”
I had no idea. Well, there goes my opinion of Sandra Lee.
I’ve never really thought of someone’s only live-in partner as a concubine....
I’ve always thought of the term in the plural (mostly applicable to Kings and Emperors).
The Church reminds me that this isn’t so.
LOL, I wonder how Sandra Lee feels about being labeled a concubine?
NY dems are an interesting mix. Some are very devout and observant and not at all happy with the democrat party as it is today.
These are the democrats from other decades and I can’t be more precise because I don’t want to give any clues.
Let’s just say the Progressive party is not to their liking.
I read Sara. I thought Sara Lee was a hoot.
“LOL, I wonder how Sandra Lee feels about being labeled a concubine?”
Ask her when she sobers up!
Supporting abortion okay, living with girlfriend not okay?
sandra lee is an idiot so that probably means she’ll make it big on the food network....I notice that her stupid shows are on more....what a crock.....
I'm guessing ole Andy's not in into her for the intellectual stimulation.
How does this square with the fact that a Roman Catholic cardinal officiated at Ted Kennedy’s requiem mass???
Everybody knows The Church's position on abortion.
sadly many of our worst pols are “Catholic”
Yeah but as a Catholic it makes me want to puke when I see them putting on the mantle of Catholicism in the public arena.
Why did the Church not mention denying communion on the grounds of his support for abortion? They used the excuse that he has a live in girlfriend.
I stopped watching FN when they just before the election. She also had on and is great friends with the Carters. I emailed them my outrage, said I would stop watching them and have followed through.
“How does this square with the fact that a Roman Catholic cardinal officiated at Ted Kennedys requiem mass???”
There is always the hope that the sinner dies reconciled to God. Ted was very ill months before his death. Hopefully, he repented. That isn’t for any of us to say.
We simply cannot judge whether he is or not. Judgment is God’s and God’s alone.
Are you willing to say now on this forum whether Kennedy repented before he died?
Excommunicate his azz....
The Catholic Church has become so weak and mixed up morally. They give an extremely mixed message to the world. They have no excuse whatsoever to allow those that promote abortion and gay "rights" including a debauchery of the holy sacrament of marriage to continue as members of their church. If I were a Catholic I would leave and search for a Church that stood on moral principles. If I could not find one I would start one.
Mat 18:20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.
Sandra Lee has NO idea of wht “concubine’ means!! NOT the BRIGHTEST BLUB in the CHANDELIER!!
And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven. -Matthew 16: 18-19
Excommunicate the reprobate.
If they were Muslim,they would be stoned to death,and no I don’t mean smoking marijuana till they die.
Bertie Ahearn did this for many, many years as PM of Ireland and the Church did nothing.
They have to be very careful not to play favorites when they discipline politicians. One rule for all is best.
Fortunately, a number of Catholic bishops have already called for denying communion to pro-abort politicians. It’s good to see a Catholic leader now bringing in shacking-up, too.
At least some leaders care about traditional values. You certainly won’t find them in our disgraceful pro-homosexual radical White House.
Good grief, Ahearn did that?!
One rule for all is best. One rule for all libertine Democrats: You are denied communion.
Since Andy probably does more thinking with the little head than with the big head, he probably gets plenty of "intellectual stimulation".
Not only for European or other Kings & Emperors of bygone yrs.
Currently, there are many females in Iran, who live as concubines. They are called “sigheh” & are officially (religiously) sanctioned by the mullahs. “Sigheh” is more a Shi’ite Islam practice. Sunnis, mostly, do not accept this practice & view it as legalized prostitution.
The “sigheh contract” in Islamic Iran can last between a few days, a few months or yrs (depending on the terms of the contract between a man & a woman, which, in turn, must be recognized, endorsed & blessed by an official mullah) - it is, essentially, about religiously legitimizing sex between a man & one or more women at the same time.
Noteworthy is that in Islam (sunni or shia), a moslem man can be legally “married” to up to 4 women at the same time. And, in Shia Islam, under sigheh practice, a man can also have up to, IIRC, 12 women (concubines) at the same time.
Well I wish I was as bright as Sandra because I would be living the life of luxury from the money I made myself. I love how people who can’t stand others always call them stupid, even though they are much more accomplished than they themselves are.
Failure to enforce the law in once instance does not mean that the law can't be enforced in another instance. "My neighbor drove faster than the limit the other day, and you didn't ticket him" isn't a defense against a speeding ticket.
Also, a requiem mass and communion aren't the same thing. Anyone can have a requiem mass -- you don't need to be Catholic, for one thing. Canon law says that funeral rites are to be refused to apostates, schismatics, and heretics, and "manifest public sinners" if necessary to avoid scandal. Keep in mind that a requiem mass is not supposed to be some sort of church endorsement of someone's life. It's prayer for their soul in purgatory. The traditional rite, at least makes that brutally clear.
OTOH, it's a positive requirement of charity to refuse communion to someone who is contumaciously guilty of grave sin, not merely to prevent scandal, but because they make their sinful situation much worse by receiving the sacrament unworthily.
That is why a requiem mass for Ted the Swimmer is small potatoes compared to giving communion to Nancy Pelosi.
Cardinal O'Malley didn't celebrate the Mass at Ted Kennedy's funeral. He sat on the altar, but didn't say the Mass.
The Cardinal later said that he felt he should be be there because the President was attending the funeral, and he's the Cardinal-Archbishop of the Diocese of Boston. I frankly don't think he should have been anywhere NEAR the building.
I put faith in Christ by my union with His Mystical Body, the Church, and the Church Militant on earth is the Catholic Church.
Yes, by their fruits ye shall know them, not the Church.
When the fruit becomes rotten the LORD has left.
Read Judges, Kings, and Chronicles sometime. Israel's fruit became rotten shortly after Jericho fell, and it got worse from there. When did the Lord leave Israel?
And then there's that parable of the wheat and the tares ...
You really need to read the entire scriptures to know who the real Rock is that the church is built on. It aint Peter.
Read Matthew 16 again!
In other places in scripture Jesus is referred to as the corner stone, but the rock that the church is build on is the Father.
If you want reference to God as the Rock here are some verses.
Deut. 32:4 He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.
2 Sam. 22:2 And he said, The LORD is my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer; 3 The God of my rock; in him will I trust: he is my shield, and the horn of my salvation, my high tower, and my refuge, my saviour; thou savest me from violence.
Psalm 18:31, "And who is a rock, except our God."
Isaiah 44:8, "Is there any God besides Me, or is there any other Rock? I know of none."
Rom. 9:33, "Behold, I lay in Zion a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense, and he who believes in Him will not be disappointed."
1 Cor. 3:11, "For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ,"
1 Cor. 10:4, "and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock (petras) which followed them; and the rock (petra) was Christ."
1 Pet. 2:8, speaking of Jesus says that he is "A stone of stumbling and a rock (petra) of offense"; for they stumble because they are disobedient to the word, and to this doom they were also appointed."
If you want to try to replace God as the Rock in your belief systme you go right ahead. Ill not blaspheme God Himself in that way.
Nope. Wrong again, Jesus addresses Peter and only Peter.
Matthew 16:17 And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. Bible 18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
BTW, Jesus is the Rock, but Peter is Christ’s representative. So really the two become one. So really, your argument falls flat on it’s face.
Like I said, you go right ahead and disregard all the other verses pointing out plainly that God is the Rock the church is built on at your own peril. The RCC has evidently done a good job of indoctrinating you.
The words in Matthew are directed at Peter—”rock,”in this case. Are for your interpretation, why should it prevail over others?
You show one verse, which you misinterpret, that you try to get me to believe is the source of your belief that Peter is the rock and has been given the keys. I point to eight other references to prove that both in the Old Testament and New Testament the Rock upon which the church is built is God and you ask why my belief should prevail. God Himself told us that He is the Rock upon which the church is built. I would say its His word that prevails not mine.
I show you Matthew 18 where it clearly shows that the authority to bind and loose is given to all the apostles and yet you try to tell us that Peter alone has been given the leadership?
Of course Peter is the leader. Of the 12 he has far more prominence in the New Testament than any other. Only Paul has more “ink.” and that because so many of his letters are included.
The “rock” referred to in Mat 16:18 is the same rock Jesus referred to in Mat 7:24-25. And in neither instance is he referring to Peter himself.
Acts 15:12 Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them. 13 And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me: 14 Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. 15 And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written, 16 After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up: 17 That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things. 18 Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world. 19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:
Before you use the excuse that Peter wasnt there you had better read the whole chapter, especially verse seven where it tells us that Peter was there and spoke to the group.
Also in Luke we see that the disciples themselves did not think that Peter was the designated leader or they would not have asked the question of Jesus they did.
"Now there arose a dispute among them, which of them was reputed to be the greatest. But he said to them, 'The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them, and they who exercise authority over them are called Benefactors. But not so with you. On the contrary, let him who is greatest among you become as the youngest, and him who is chief as the servant.'" (Luke 22:24-26)
If Jesus had designated Peter the leader He would have told them at that point but He clearly didnt. The RCC uses Matthew 16:18 to try to justify the papacy yet 26 years later when Luke was written it was clear that Peter was not the leader.
Sir, when James said “Wherefore I judge”, he’s joining his judgment with that of Peter. So your argument holds no ground.
>>Sir, when James said Wherefore I judge, hes joining his judgment with that of Peter.<<
LOL James made the final definitive declaration after all had spoken. If Peter had been designated the leader by Jesus he would have been the spokesman for the group and you know it.