Posted on 03/23/2014 3:08:00 PM PDT by markomalley
Bishop Egan
“When people are not in communion with the Catholic Church on such a central thing as the value of life of the unborn child and also in terms of the teachings of the church on marriage and family life – they are voting in favour of same-sex marriage – then they shouldn’t be receiving Holy Communion.”.
Bishop Egan explained that rather than a punitive measure, the denial of Holy Communion is “always an act of mercy.” It is done, he said, “with the hope and prayer that that person can be wooed back into full communion with the Church.”
“Nobody is forced to be Catholic. We’re called by Christ and He’s chosen us, it’s a free choice. We live under the word of God. It’s not my truth, it’s God’s truth. One would hope that in that case it would encourage someone to come back to seek communion with the Lord with the truth and say I’m sorry I got lost.”
Cardinal Burke
“The exclusion of those who persist in manifest and grave sin, after having been duly admonished, from receiving Holy Communion is not a question of a punishment but of a discipline which respects the objective state of a person in the Church. Even as Saint Paul, in chapter 11 of the First Letter to the Corinthians, admonished the early Christians: “For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself” (v. 29), so also the Church, down the ages, has admonished those engaged in manifest and grave sin not to approach to receive Holy Communion. In the case of a politician or other public figure who acts against the moral law in a grave matter and yet presents himself to receive Holy Communion, the priest should admonish the person in question and then, if he or she persists in approaching to receive Holy Communion, the priest should refuse to give the Body of Christ to the person. The priest’s refusal to give Holy Communion is a prime act of pastoral charity, helping the person in question to avoid sacrilege and safeguarding the other faithful from scandal.”
Amen.
When the leaders of the pro-abortion party can travel to meet their Pope and take communion at the Vatican, and look forward to grand church funerals upon their deaths, and win the vote of the majority of Catholics for their agenda, change doesn’t look likely.
This article has probably been written quite a few times over the decades.
Unfortunately, even Bishop Egan seems to miss an important point: Denial of Communion is NOT an act of charity in the sense that it is a loving CHOICE. Rather, it is OBLIGATORY. Bishop Egan seems to think this issue requires discussion at the bishops’ conference level. This is nonsense.
Any minister of Communion who gives Communion to a notorious promoter of some serious evil—e.g., abortion—is committing a MORTAL SIN.
Canon 915 exists because of this fact, not the other way around.
With about a dozen exceptions, every bishop in America has pressured or commanded his priests to give Communion to notorious sinners—public supporters of abortion. No bishop has the authority to do this—i.e., to command ANYONE to commit MORTAL SIN!
Only the laity can do anything about this scandal. The press will not help. No one is going to sue the bishops to get their attention, as with the sexual abuse scandal.
Cardinals Wuerl, Dolan, O’Malley, George, Chaput—all are on record as claiming the power to command their priests and other Communion ministers to commit the mortal sin of giving Communion to notorious sinners. The outrageousness of their position needs to be proclaimed from every rooftop.
com union
in union with
if you are NOT - then go away.
The Church’s job is to get people to Heaven; like, to save their souls.
Allowing them to continue to think that gravely sinful behavior will not have damning consequences - is a sin on the part of the Church, for not doing its job.
They're not being, "pastoral" by ignoring Canon Law, they're being Judas goats.
The church needs gradations of this sin.
There are the lowest tier, for whom this sin is personal; that they engaged in abortion or other acts for themselves.
The next tier are those who lead others to this sin, either as woefully bad advice, or for their own benefit, such as men who did not want responsibility for impregnating a woman and thus encouraged or coerced abortion.
The tier worse than that are those who physically carried out or abetted the sin. Who did so voluntarily and perhaps for profit.
Even worse are those who created the political climate for those of the former tier. Who give them legal protection, and seek to take from others who object to this, the money to pay the abortionists.
The worst tier of all are those who defend the sin, and fight against ending it, or the redemption of those who have fallen to it.
Deacons, Priests and Bishops have no discretionary wiggle-room over this, and no excuse.
I was just reminded of another of Wuerl’s many evasions: “She’s not part of my flock.”
Since Wuerl has no REAL authority to command his underlings to commit mortal sin, THEY do not need his PERMISSION to refrain from committing the mortal sin of disobeying Canon 915.
Wuerl’s invented term “Pastoral Approach” is nothing but disobedience to Canon 915—a mortal sin each and every time.
I reminded constantly of JPII’s Penance and Reconciliaton, in which he identifies as sinners those who “sidestep the effort” of opposing grave social sins, inventing “specious reasons of a higher order.”
Everything Wuerl, O’Malley, Dolan, Chaput, et al. have ever said on this subject has consisted of “specious reasons of a higher order”—pretending that the issue is “the unity of the Church” (O’Malley), “we can’t appear to be favoring one political party” (O’Malley), “I’m hoping for conversion” (Wuerl), etc.
Of course, ALL “reasons” for committing mortal sin will be specious.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.