Well, here it is (Part I)
I have mixed feelings about this. Still working through my thoughts so I will hold for now.
Here ya go.
Well, here it is (Part I)
I have mixed feelings about this. Still working through my thoughts so I will hold for now.
Here ya go.
© 2024 Creative Minority Report — Powered by WordPress
Theme by Anders Noren — Up ↑
September 4, 2013 at 3:45 pm
Well Geez…. The USCCB president in cahoots with the Democratic Party Of Death?? What a big surprise….
I'm so confused with the USCCB's actions that I dont know where to start. As a revert back into my faith, Dolan's chummyness with Obama (remember, God bless Planned Parenthood)and mixed signals on Obamacare, CCHD, CRS, etc makes me rethink taking the USCCB-omnibus serious with anything!
September 4, 2013 at 3:53 pm
Thanks for posting this. Here is a link to the entire episode, with better video quality:
http://www.colbertnation.com/full-episodes/tue-september-3-2013-timothy-cardinal-dolan
September 4, 2013 at 3:53 pm
I also love how he doesnt mention a Catholic (Cobert) needs to even go to Mass. This modernist "we are all the same and Catholicism is just some "ther religeon – Do what you want) is NAUSEATING!!
September 4, 2013 at 4:52 pm
http://theeye-witness.blogspot.com/2013/07/cardinals-abbott-and-costello.html
I believe Cardinal Dolan needs to step down and enter a monastery where hopefully he can take stock of himself and the Church.
September 4, 2013 at 4:59 pm
If our clergy are going to go on the media circuit, they need to take lessons from Archbishop Fulton Sheen.
September 4, 2013 at 5:18 pm
I see an awful lot of judging and precious little evidence here. We could all learn a lesson or two from Archbishop Sheen. Humility, for instance. How do you know that Colbert doesn't go to church on Sunday, every Sunday? And, "Dolan's chumminess with Obama"??? Puhleez! And, finally, as someone who knows his eminence, while I don't understand every move he has or has not made, I'd put his understanding of the Church and his personal holiness over anybody in the American blogosphere. There's a reason he was created a cardinal by non other than Pope Benedict XVI.
September 4, 2013 at 8:26 pm
Fr. Michael-
I agree with you, and I look at Cardinal Dolan in much the same way. I met him personlly on a couple ocassions – what you see is what you get.
As for Colbert – politically, I probably have more in common with his character than with him, but in real life, he DOES go to mass, teaches religious ed., and loves his faith. All you have to do is hear him speak about his mother (who recently died)and its clear. She raised him after the deaths of his father/brother in a plane crash. Perhaps, we could say a prayer for him. He's closer to Mother Church than most so called "Catholics" and uses his friendship with Dolan and the Cardinal's heasy going humor as a way of plugging the church every chance he gets. Most of is viewers probaly find themselves responding positively. Not a bad deal.
September 4, 2013 at 8:52 pm
Fr. Michael, since you know his eminence, please explain to us why he allowed Vice President Biden to receive the Eucharist despite his support for legalized abortion.
Besides, the about-to-be-canonized Pope John Paul II made Roger Mahony, Bernard Law and Rembert Weakland cardinals, and look what great examples of morality, fidelity and orthodoxy they turned out to be.
I'm sorry, Father, but some of us don't take the argument-from-blind-adherence-to-authority model seriously, anymore.
September 4, 2013 at 10:42 pm
Joseph,
It is certainly the opinion of some (but certainly not all) non-ordained canon lawyers that the code of canon law requires that ministers of Holy Communion deny the sacrament to politicians who support legalized abortion. The vast majority of actual priests and bishops will not do so though because their understanding of canon law suggests that the primary responsibility for determining worthiness to receive Holy Communion lies with the individual presenting himself or herself and that to deny the faithful the Sacrament when it is not justified to do so is to violate canon law in an equally serious manner as it is to give the Sacrament to someone who is unworthy. You are certainly free to disagree on this point, but the actual practice of – again – the vast majority of clergy not just in the United States but in the whole of the Western world does not reflect the position of, say, a Cardinal Burke or a Mr. peters on this question. If Cardinal Dolan is a sinner in this matter then he is a sinner in very broad company indeed.
And while Vice President Biden is of course a very notable example of a politician who supports legalized abortion, we could expand this inquiry substantially. Catholic teaching is clear that abortion is an evil that should not be legal in any circumstances. Thus under the same interpretation of canon law that would say that Cardinal Dolan (or anyone else) is duty-bound to deny the Sacrament to Joseph Biden one would need to also conclude that the Cardinal (or anyone else) is duty-bound to deny the Sacrament to anyone who supports a policy of making abortion illegal except in cases of rape or incest. This group includes of course almost every nominally pro-life member of the Republican Party. A perfectly reasonable and consistent position – but the only tenable position for those who think that Mr. Biden should be refused Communion. And for that matter, Catholic teaching would call for a legal ban on IVF. So now we'd need to expand the circle of politicians who must be denied Communion always and everywhere to those who would not support legislation that would outlaw this practice. There MIGHT be a half dozen folks left in the House and Senate would would still qualify to receive Communion under this standard (providing of course that they favored a legal ban on all forms of torture).
BTW: Rembert Weakland wasn't made a Cardinal by Pope John Paul II. He was in fact never made a Cardinal. And he was appointed Archbishop of Milwaukee by Pope Paul VI.
September 5, 2013 at 1:00 am
The vast majority of actual priests and bishops will not do so though because their understanding of canon law suggests that the primary responsibility for determining worthiness to receive Holy Communion lies with the individual presenting himself or herself and that to deny the faithful the Sacrament when it is not justified to do so is to violate canon law in an equally serious manner as it is to give the Sacrament to someone who is unworthy.
That, to me, sounds like a cop out. Given human nature and the lax standards within Catholicism these days, do you seriously expect an "unworthy" candidate to present himself as such before a priest? Anyone viewing himself as "unworthy" would not bother receiving in the first place.
Besides, your argument could well be used (and most likely has been used) by bishops to palm responsibility in such off to other bishops. It's a convenient rhetorical trick that merely covers episcopal backsides.
Thus under the same interpretation of canon law that would say that Cardinal Dolan (or anyone else) is duty-bound to deny the Sacrament to Joseph Biden one would need to also conclude that the Cardinal (or anyone else) is duty-bound to deny the Sacrament to anyone who supports a policy of making abortion illegal except in cases of rape or incest. This group includes of course almost every nominally pro-life member of the Republican Party.
While it's impossible for priests and bishops to read minds, it's not impossible to make judgments based on public knowledge. Besides, you're essentially arguing that, since we can't catch everybody, we won't catch anybody. If law enforcement acted like that, the crime rate would skyrocket thousands of innocent people would be traumatized beyond repair.
BTW: Rembert Weakland wasn't made a Cardinal by Pope John Paul II. He was in fact never made a Cardinal. And he was appointed Archbishop of Milwaukee by Pope Paul VI.
I stand corrected. Nevertheless, my factual error doesn't deny how pathetic he was morally, spiritually and theologically. Nor does it deny the Vatican's irresponsibility in failing to supervise him.
September 5, 2013 at 1:50 am
Well, Joseph, I guess I can only say that things were a LOT more black and white before I was a pastor than after. What's more, I'd point out that the first pope was St. Peter (the plodder), not James and John (the Sons of Thunder), nor Paul (who could drop a bit of thunder himself). Blessings to all and God's mercy on us as we continue to make our way on this pilgrimage of faith.
September 5, 2013 at 3:30 am
Stephen, you write "their understanding of canon law suggests that the primary responsibility for determining worthiness to receive Holy Communion lies with the individual presenting himself or herself"
That's true of Canon 916, but the main question is of Canon 915. It states that one who publicly and obstinately persists in mortal sin is not to be admitted to Holy Communion. Who does the "admitting"? It's the minister of Holy Communion, not the recipient. Moreover, Canon 915 speaks not one whit about the recipient's "heart", but his/her very obvious actions. The minister of Holy Communion cannot turn a blind eye to those actions, lest he facilitate yet another mortal sin, that of sacrilegious reception of Holy Communion.
September 5, 2013 at 4:03 am
Restore:
1) "Obstinately" requires a degree of judgment. One may conclude that a given politician, while sinning, and indeed publicly sinning (by sinning in his or her capacity as a public official) is nonetheless not "obstinate" in said sin. For a sin to be mortal it must 1) concern a grave matter and be 2) committed with full knowledge of its sinfulness and 3) full consent of the will. A given clergyman may legitimately conclude that he does not have a sufficient understanding of the state of a given Catholic's mind and heart to know whether all three criteria are met – especially #2 and #3. The person receiving Communion can presumably assess these criteria for himself or herself and is obligated to not present himself or herself for Communion if indeed a state of Grace is not present, but the minister of the Sacrament does not have perfect knowledge in this matter.
2) A clergyman cannot typically know, at the time of administering the Sacrament, whether the person presenting himself or herself for Communion has recently repented of theirs sins. Let's say Joe Biden has a Damascus Road moment, repents of his support for abortion, confesses his sins, and then goes to Mass. To deny him – a Baptized Catholic who is at the moment fully right with God – Holy Communion would itself be a grave violation of canon law.
3) People do sometimes mistake one person for another. There are after all other people in the world that look a lot like Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi.
Now, I have no beef against a clergyman who decides in his considered judgment to deny Communion to a pro-choice politician. But I also don't presume to judge a clergyman who decides in his judgment to provide Communion to such a person.
September 5, 2013 at 5:31 am
Stephen,
In regard to public manifest sin, the penitent is going to have to repair the damage they did which will a require a public renunciation of their public errors. Otherwise, public return to the Eucharist without any hint of public repentance still creates scandal among the faithful.
If anyone would read ++Burke's piece on Canon 915, you find that the conclusion is that bishops do NOT have the authority to dispense the communion minister from applying Canon 915. That is, it is up to each person acting as a communion minister no matter what the local bishop says about it. Failure to prevent a profanation of the sacrament under 915 is a mortal sin on the part of the COMMUNION MINISTER.
September 5, 2013 at 5:49 am
What's more, I'd point out that the first pope was St. Peter (the plodder), not James and John (the Sons of Thunder), nor Paul (who could drop a bit of thunder himself).
First, so what? Second, have you forgotten that Jesus Himself twice cleared the Temple of moneychangers who were charged by the Pharisees to rip off those making pilgrimages to Jerusalem? What do you think He'd do at the Vatican, let alone at the chancery in New York?
September 5, 2013 at 5:57 am
Patrick, do you want to know why Catholicism is becoming Woody Allenesque, to borrow your phrase? Just look at Stephen's and Fr. Michael's responses, which are merely useless rhetoric to cover for the ecclesiastical institution. Or, look at Cdl. Dolan's jovial refusal to implement canon law. Or, look at Cdl. Wuerl's refusal to do the same. Or, look at the Magisterium arbitrarily changing Catholic teaching on capital punishment simply because a popular Pope wanted it changed. Or, look at how Rome refuses to discipline bishops who commit theological or moral malfeasance.
Jesus had another description besides "Woody Allen Catholicism." It was being "lukewarm." He used it to describe the church in Laodicea (Rev. 3:16). That description fits the Catholic Church to a "T."
Read Rev. 3:17, as well. It's an even more accurate description. I'll let you do your own research on that one….
September 5, 2013 at 6:52 am
Cassandra,
If a public sinner repents and validly confesses his sin, and receive sacramental absolution, then he is fully forgiven. He is then well within his rights under canon law to receive Communion. And canon law forbids confessors from assigning public penances.
One can only give scandal in committing a sin (the scandal thereby compounding the gravity of the underlying sin). One cannot give scandal in committing an act that is not sinful (and indeed – in the case of an absolved sinner receiving Communion – positively glorious). When a sinner repents, receives absolution, and then approaches the minister of Holy Communion, he is not committing a sin. He is a forgiven sinner in a state of Grace and well within his rights as a Catholic to receive Communion.
Cardinal Burke is indeed a very smart and learned man. But he is not the only smart and learned canon lawyer in the world and there are others who sincerely and honestly interpret the canons differently from him. He is not the pope, and as such cannot speak ex cathedra to bind the consciences of the faithful on matters that have not yet been explicated by the Church.
September 5, 2013 at 8:45 am
So, Stephen, if what you say to Cassandra is true, then what's the point of having canon law? For that matter, what's the point of having hierarchical governance, since every bishop can interpret it for himself and apply it as he wishes?
The more I read such nonsense as you've offered, Stephen, the more I view Catholicism as nothing but a clique for episcopal careerists with monarchist pretensions, pseudo-intellectuals and their respective sycophants. Any connection with Christ appears truly incidental, despite Catholic claims to the contrary.
After all, who are you going to believe, a self-serving Magisterium or your own eyes?
September 5, 2013 at 12:57 pm
speechless…utterly, utterly speechless.
We are in BIG trouble.
September 5, 2013 at 1:07 pm
Stephen,
Your understanding of the requirements of absolution in confession is sorely lacking.
Where possible, the sinner must show repentance by *undoing* the harm done. In many sins, this is not possible.
Some sins, however, require more than just saying you're sorry. If you steal something, you cannot be absolved unless you return the item. Being repentant for stealing–a condition of absolution–requires returning the property (if at all possible). You cannot profit by sin.
As Joseph pointed out, you're spewing a lot of nonsense. In reply to your critique of ++Burke, I'd like to point out that just because you can type, doesn't make your words true. And just because *you* have an opinion, doesn't mean it isn't erroneous.