AmericanPapist Comments
Props to Cardinal Egan, as I said when I shared the link on facebook, "it's about time." The Holy Father's visit seems to be doing great things for the Archdiocese of NY, now we hope and pray that the momentum moves to the surrounding dioceses as well.
I think congratulations are due more to Robert Novak than to Cardinal Egan.
I think we as laity should always pray for our leaders in the Church-esp the bishops. They have the difficult job of being always in the pub eye while we for the most part remain anon. Pray 4 Giuliani & others like him who are endangering their souls. We ALL need GOD's grace to do or say what is right. "For the sake of His sorrowful Passion have mercy on us and on the whole world."
Anytime a RINO like Guiliani gets slammed on, I'm all game.
Well, I don't see His Eminence's action as "unambiguous" or "a slam-dunk" or "swift and firm." First of all, his statement makes it look like Giuliani's big crime is not abiding by their agreement. Nowhere does he say anything like what the LifeSite writer did: It was a "grave sacrilege," a violation of the convenant between Giuliani and God, not between him and the Cardinal.
Secondly, granted, it was probably prudent to wait until after the Holy Father's visit was over -- but is this really swift? And making the consequences be a polite request to chat is hardly firm.
As for canon law, I'm no canon lawyer (so I am open to correction), but I would have to characterize the Cardinal's action as more of a lay-up than a slam dunk. Now, a formal decree of excommunication, to accompany the automatic one subsequent to Giuliani's actions, with specification of those actions and how to reconcile with the Church -- that would be a slam dunk.
Still, I am happy he said SOMETHING. It's a lot more than Pelosi's and Kerry's bishops did.
OK, this is fine, but since Egan moved around predator priests throughout his time as a bishop he should be denied communion too.
Giuliani's face in the first photo is as guilty as can be...
My-what a prayerful, holy bunch we bloggers are. Our LORD would be "proud".
I have long admired the Cardinal Archbishop of New York and I am very glad for this statement. It should be observed that this comes from the only other American bishop whose Canon-Law expertise comes close to Archbishop Burke. I think Cardinal Egan's way of privately admonishing Mr Giulani not to receive Holy Communion shows exactly the way to go about implementing canon 905. His Eminence's measured but direct statement is an equally good example of how to handle the matter once a bishop has been forced to go public. Finally, Cardinal Egan's decision not to include Giulani's marital status makes clear the validity of Archbishop Burke's repeated claim that a politician's consistent public support of abortion is sufficient reason to deny the Eucharist.
I think Allen's inference is more likely than Novak's unequivocal "no." No one can possibly convince me that a discussion of such a scenario never took place between diocesan and Vatican officials, unless everyone in Rome is incredibly dense to not see this issue arising, and I think the conclusion of everyone involved was that to deny these politicians Communion would become the story that would've undoubtedly dominated the news for the rest of the Pope's trip. It would've been, "Yep, this is the Ratzinger we've always known." Instead, the media treated the visit as an astounding success. Now was Egan's denunciation part of some post-visit plan? I don't know, but I would also think it highly likely.
Chief Justice Roberts was in attendance in D.C., as well, and did he take Communion mere days after writing the opinion of a case in which he ruled that lethal injection isn't cruel and unusual? I know abortion and the death penalty are treated differently, but killing people is killing people, isn't it? And of course, the other four Catholic justices quite frequently, if not always, support the death penalty.
The hierarchy really needs to sit down and figure out a collective response to those who support positions contrary to Church teachings.
"...but killing people is killing people, isn't it?"
No, that is not the case.
One is intrinsically evil, the other is a matter of prudential judgment.
A person can be a good Catholic and support the death penalty. A person can not be a good Catholic and support abortion.
I'm not so certain what's prudential about the death penalty, not when life in prison without the possibility of parole is an alternative option. Putting felons to death is absolutely unnecessary in this day and age. It's essentially state-sanctioned euthanasia, which during Mass on Sundays we pray for an end to alongside abortion.
Then you have other issues that frequently challenge someone's commitment to Church teachings. Is supporting the right of a gay couple to marry worthy of being denied Communion? What about supporting the use of contraceptives when studies show abstinence-only education isn't doing anything to stymie teen pregnancy rates?
All I'm trying to say is that the bishops would need to be consistent across the board.
Wuerl's statement today slyly dodges the issue by changing the subject. Who knows who "best" can address this issue with the pro-abortion politicians? Canon Law doesn't say who "best" can do anything. It says who is obliged to do something.
What we do know is that it's the bishop IN WHOSE DIOCESE the sacrilegious Communions are taking place who is OBLIGED to address the issue--by obeying Canon 915.
And the 2004 USCCB statement that Wuerl ties on as a fig leaf was written after Cardinal McCarrick 1) lied to the bishops about Ratzinger's position; 2) concealed from the bishops the letter written by Ratzinger and intended for the bishops--which would have exposed his lie. So Wuerl continues to pick fruit from the poisonous tree of McCarrick's lies and the USCCB's statement composed under the influence of those lies.
Too little too late, as far as I'm concerned.
Come on, now, did Cardinal Egan seriously believe Rudy would NOT receive Communion after being invited to a PAPAL MASS?
Rudy was invited by...the Archdiocese headed by...Cardinal Egan. Cardinal Egan could have simply NOT invited him to the Mass. Why was he there anyway? He's a former mayor.
Nathan,
I refer you to Cardinal Ratzinger's 2004 Letter to the U.S. Bishops on the Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion.
"3. Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia."
The full text of the letter can be found here: http://www.catholicculture.org/l...cfm?
RecNum=6041
The Catechism of the Catholic Church acknowledges the possible use of the death penalty (see CCC 2267) even though, following John Paul II, it says that such situations seem to be rare, if not practically non-existent. That, however, is a prudential observation.
The difference between the death penalty and abortion/euthanasia is the difference between innocence and guilt. The killing of an innocent human person is always an intrinsic moral evil. For other reasons, contraception and gay marriage are also intrinsic evils. These are non-negotiable.
Other political issues such as the death penalty, waging war, immigration, managing the economy, etc. are not intrinsic evils. The fundamentals of Church teaching regarding these are non-negotiable, but the application of these principles are not. The application is itself prudential. The Church does not interfere in the legitimate defense of a society and the means employed unless those means involve intrinsic evils (like killing non-combatants or innocent domestic civilians). The church does not dictate how an economy should best be managed. Nor does it concern itself with how best to handle poverty on a national or international level. What's non-negotiable is concern for the poor.
" Br. Thomas Petri, O.P. | 04.30.08 - 7:48 am |"
Pretty much everything said by Br. Thomas Petri. I was going to quote the same document, but he beat me to it.
As for contraception/abstinence education: the numbers really show that 'safe sex' education has failed equally as badly as abstinence education.
Since we now have a value-neutral (literally, amoral) education system we no longer teach virtues. By definition, abstinence education will always be a failure.
Teaching the virtue of chastity, however... now that's a different story.
Bummer, Nathan. I guess you better inform the Pope he's mistaken and he needs to tailor Catholic theology to fit the political needs of politicians, predominantly Democrat ones I might add. Tom
The "Seamless Garment" and "a consistent ethic of life" have been the two most successful pieces of PRO-abortion sloganeering in the past 25 years. Every attempt to explain that abortion is MORE EVIL than a lollipop shortage or government-provided Teddy Bears that aren't fuzzy enough runs afoul of Catholics who have been stuffed full of this sludge: "But aren't just as many people dying from Global Warming as from abortion?" "But isn't it inconsistent to oppose abortion, but be against health care?" "I think to be TRULY 'pro-life,' you have to care about immigration just as much as abortion."
Any bishop, priest, or layman who repeats the "Seamless Garment" or "consistent ethic of life" drivel is promoting mental smog, verbal sludge, intellectual oobleck.
The language of the Catholic Church is: Name the sin and define its gravity. Cardinal Bernardin, the abortionists' best friend, taught the Church in the U.S. how to duck, dodge, and weasel (better). Cardinal Ratzinger's letter was an attempt to pierce the fog.
This is why Cardinal McCarrick lied to the U.S. bishops about Ratzinger's position, and lied to them about that letter. Yesterday, Abp. Wuerl cited, as justification for his disobedience to Canon 915, the statement the U.S. bishops produced four years ago--the statement that contradicted Cardinal Ratzinger's position.
One has to wonder: Does Wuerl NOT KNOW that McCarrick's pro-abortion shenanigans in 2004 were exposed? Does Wuerl NOT KNOW that, with the exposure of McCarrick's lies, the bishops' statement that favored disobedience to Canon 915 was rendered irrelevant?
As to why Giuliani was invited. NY has often had the current mayor and former mayor at "major events." It was said somewhere that Cardinal Egan and Giuliani have talked about this. It might "late" in the opinion of some, but at least Cardinal Egan said something and is taking action. That is better than nothing. Look at the comments going around about the lack of action in DC. There appears to be a no-win situation for some.
The Holy Father while head of the Catholic Church is also a head of state, therefore it would be appropriate to have the current "head of state" aka the mayor of the city and the former mayor as well. Ed Koch was often at Midnight Mass and I believe still is even though he is not Catholic.
And a Catholic can be in good standing while being pro-death penalty. Simply put abortion is the taking of an innocent life while the criminal who would receive the death penalty is often not innocent, and it is to be used as a last resort as in there is no other way to reform that person. The taking of an innocent life, abortion and euthanasia are never ever right.
Rudy! Tsk! Tsk! Tsk!
I thought Mr Giuliani was once again a private citizen.
But his unrepentant acts remain public.
Mary: "And a Catholic can be in good standing while being pro-death penalty. Simply put abortion is the taking of an innocent life while the criminal who would receive the death penalty is often not innocent, and it is to be used as a last resort as in there is no other way to reform that person."
Correction is in order. In Catholic teaching, the death penalty can be used as a last resort NOT if there is no other way to reform the person, but if there is no other way to protect society. In modern states like our own, such a last resort is extremely rare as to be practically nonexistent. We don't have to kill incarcerated prisoners to protect society. So the "last resort" to death penalty simply does not exist in the US in general or in any of the states.
Does anyone know if Arnold came East for the papal festivities? I hear he is still receiving communion.
Anonymous:
AmericanPapist:
AmP is correct. It is not the holding of public office that is relevant here. It is the fact that the person's "situation of sin" is public knowledge.
Politicians have been the focus of attention not because they wield political power, but because their pro-abortion views are public knowledge.
Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg has never held political office, but is publicly pro-abortion. Thus, any bishop in whose diocese she receives Communion is equally obligated to refuse the sacrament to her as to her uncle Teddy.
"Any bishop, priest, or layman who repeats the "Seamless Garment" or "consistent ethic of life" drivel is promoting mental smog, verbal sludge, intellectual oobleck."
So when the Pope talks about defending life from conception until natural death, he's spewing B.S.? Interesting. Just for proof that Benedict has in fact said that, here's a link:
http://www.catholicnewsagency.co.../new.php?
n=4046
"Seamless Garment"
"Consistent ethic of life"
"from conception to natural death"
Do those three phrases appear identical to you?
Are you so filled with rage about something that you lose your ability to read?
I'm not filled with rage at all. I really don't know where you're getting that from. Your definition must certainly differ from mine, because my interpretation of "consistent ethic of life" is that promoting human dignity alongside the right to life is important. Promoting the right to life isn't to be subordinated to promoting human dignity, but what you seem to be implying in your mockery of things like health care for the poor or other forms of social justice is that those things are inconsequential to Catholics. I would be stunned if a priest truly believes that. Are people not to be cared about once they're born? Should felons who pose no threat to society behind bars be put to death? I'm nothing but consistent in my pro-life rhetoric. My interpretation of "From conception until natural death" happens to encompass what comes in between, and that's where a "consistent ethic of life" comes into play. If that makes me come across as angry, well, whatever.
Nathan:
"Are people not to be cared about once they're born?"
Do you have any idea how questions like that sound to pro-lifers? It's the same old implication that the pro-life movement is composed of kooks who want to see babies born, and then thrown in the gutter. This implication has been used countless times by people who wanted to rationalize voting for pro-abortion politicians--because the pro-life politicians (who are, let's face it, generally more conservative) want to "kill everybody except the unborn." According to Abp. Roach in 1984, as he hugged Walter Mondale in public, "This is the REAL pro-life candidate, because he's against nuclear war." I am not making this up. So tell me--who was running in 1984 who FAVORED nuclear war? I was there--there were PLENTY of bishops, priests, and laity who voted straight-ticket pro-abortion, and were quite explicit--Ferraro was a good Catholic because she was a Democrat, end of story. And Reagan wanted to blow up the world.
That's how outrageous the soft-on-abortion bishops and laity have been for forty years. Since they couldn't rationally justify voting pro-abortion, they simply resorted to accusing pro-lifers of wanting to starve people, send pickpockets to the gas chamber, and blow up the world. The fact is, you have used basically the same argument over and over. And you seem blind to how insulting it is, let alone how dishonest.
"A consistent ethic of life" was ALWAYS part of this same strategy: "It's okay to vote pro-abortion because the pro-life politicians want to kill just as many people as the pro-abortion politicians." It was ALWAYS a slam at the pro-life movement. It always implied that there was somebody out there who was being inconsistent. And it was never the pro-abortion movement that Bernardin was slamming for "inconsistency." He was smearing the pro-life movement, and he knew it.
Ratzinger's letter is devoid of American political slogans. He says what the pro-life movement has always said: Abortion is a WORSE evil than any of the other evils that are cited by those who try to rationalize voting pro-abortion. Abortion is worse than inadequately-funded ANYTHING. Abortion is worse than any war we are likely to get into, worse than the current application of capital punishment. All of these so-called "life issues" are highly debatable, largely a matter of prudential judgment, and in any case, far lesser evil in terms of sheer numbers of people killed, than abortion.
Catholic pro-lifers are NAUSEATED by the tired, dishonest, weasely argument that we simply must vote pro-abortion, because the pro-life candidates--being more conservative--just can't wait to KILL EVERYBODY!!!!
If you MUST vote pro-abortion, please be honest enough to refrain from salving your conscience by flinging around the charge that the pro-life candidates want to starve and murder millions.
I'm quite sadenned by Archbishop Wuerl's reaction. I expected more from the teacher and catechist that is Pope Benedict's highest profile appointee (to date).
I'd love to read a tag team betweetn you, T.P., and your dad, the Canon Lawyer... seems like a Bishop should defend the Blessed Eucharist regardless of one's domicile.
Father, you're obviously a lot older than I am and have perhaps been shaped by what you've seen over the course of your long years, but you're insulted by what I've had to say? You're implying that I vote for pro-choice candidates simply because I care about issues that extend from the right-to-life movement. Now that's insulting. I don't know why it's so difficult to grasp that one can be against abortion and against all these other things that violate human dignity, as well. I don't believe you can only be for one or the other. I acknowledge that those who are pro-choice make such a distinction as you say, but I also think many pro-life people are guilty of doing the same thing. I know so many anti-abortion Catholics who are for the death penalty, xenophobic (and perhaps just flat racist), and think the poor are simply just lazy and don't deserve help. Am I supposed to think they're great Catholics simply because they oppose abortion? I don't. They may vote in accordance with Church teachings, but being a good Catholic one day every two years isn't very impressive to me. I'm not saying I'm perfect by any means, but I'm consistent in my views and to my knowledge, those views are in line with what the Church teaches. You can accuse me of being a supporter of pro-choice candidates, but there's nothing that I've said that can lead you to think that. I vote based on the teachings of the Church. If anyone wants to keep pretending that I do otherwise because of my opinions on matters outside of the womb, that's okay. I sleep just fine at night. With that, I'm moving on to other discussions to be had.
Commenting by HaloScan
