 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5349 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu May 17th, 2007 10:16 pm |
|
Tegucigalpa, May 17, 2007 / 06:27 pm (CNA).- In statements to Carlos Polo, director for Latin America of the Population Research Institute, Cardinal Oscar Andres Rodriguez Maradiaga of Tegucigalpa, Honduras, said he agrees that Communion should be denied to politicians who publicly support abortion.
In an interview with Time magazine, Cardinal Maradiaga was asked, “Do you agree with the Pope’s statement that pro-choice Catholic politicians merit excommunication?” The cardinal responded by saying: “It is canon law that everyone who works for abortion is excommunicated. It’s not something the Pope invented. If you favor abortion, you are outside the communion of the Church. And it was necessary to say that. There are people in Mexico saying I am Catholic and I support abortion rights. This is a contradiction in its very essence. As a teacher of the Church, the Pope has a responsibility of teaching when something happening is wrong.”
Later he was asked: “Do you agree with bishops who deny giving Holy Communion to these politicians?” The cardinal replied: “This is a different point. For who am I to deny Holy Communion to a person? I cannot. It’s in the tradition of moral theology that even if I know a person is living in grave sin, I cannot take a public action against him. It would be giving scandal to the person. Yes, he should not seek [communion], but I cannot deny it from him.”
Nevertheless, in statements to Carlos Polo, reproduced exclusively by the Catholic News Agency, Cardinal Maradiaga, who is in Aparecida participating in the V General Conference of the Latin American Bishops’ Council, said his comments to Time magazine should be reformulated “in light of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith teaches in its document, ‘Worthiness to Receive Communion’.”
“A politician who publicly supports abortion, he excommunicates himself. It’s not question of receiving Communion or not; he has already done serious harm to the communion of faith of the Church, to the communion of moral life, and therefore that person himself is doing an act that is inconsistent with what he says he believes,” the cardinal said.
“That is, we’re talking about a person who has become a broken-off branch of the tree of life of the Church, a dry branch that has lost its vital sap and is doing something that is a lie. One who is against life and who is clearly opposed to the message of the Lord Jesus, as is an abortion supporter, cannot be in Communion with Holy Mother Church,” he stated.
“Therefore, if one uses the desire to receive Communion as a justification, it is the worst manner of doing so, because one is doing an act that contradicts what one says he believes,” the cardinal said.
“In addition,” he continued, “a recent declaration of the Holy See clearly states that when all 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.”
“This is the current law of the Church and it would be best if these people who know it do not try to receive Holy Communion because they are committing an act that is completely immoral and inconsistent with truth,” he said in conclusion.
The above article is reposted with permission from the Catholic News Agency.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
brian
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Chicago South Burbs, Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 803 |
| First Name: | brian | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | methodist, evangelical, anglican, catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed May 23rd, 2007 04:38 am |
|
cajunrick wrote:
Later he was asked: “Do you agree with bishops who deny giving Holy Communion to these politicians?” The cardinal replied: “This is a different point. For who am I to deny Holy Communion to a person? I cannot. It’s in the tradition of moral theology that even if I know a person is living in grave sin, I cannot take a public action against him. It would be giving scandal to the person. Yes, he should not seek [communion], but I cannot deny it from him.”
“In addition,” he continued, “a recent declaration of the Holy See clearly states that when all 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.”
These two statements seem to contradict eachother. Can someone clarify how the one paragraph says he can not deny it from him and the second paragraph says he must refuse to distribute it. Is the second paragraph only in light of when the approach of the first paragraph has been exhausted. It just sounds to me like if the first statement is true, how can the second be true.
Also, I am wondering how this is playing out. Are the Mexican politicians excommunicated by canon law. What exactly does the canon law say, because on CAtholic radio i thought I heard a talk show host say that they are not worthy to receive communion but they are not excommunicated unless they are involved in procuring or performing the abortion. As in a specific abortion. Do you think the canon law is clear enough that even voting for it makes one guilty of excommunication or does the law state you have to be directly involved with a specific abortion?
Have they indeed clarified tat excommunication has taken place or is it that they simply can not receive communion while in the state of sin they are in?
Also, it seems after reading the other posted articles I was confused if they were truly excommunicated or just denied communion. I believe you and David seemed to stand by the interpretation that they had excommunicated themselves. I still am not sure you are correct or if they simply are cut off from communion which is a separate possible penalty and the one being mentioned in canon law 915, but does not mean the same thing as excommunication. http://www.canonlaw.info/2007/05/legislating-in-mid-air-possible-but-not.html
This article seems to argue that it could mean either or, or both penalties.
Anyway, I just pray that the Church will deal justly, accurately, and clearly in this matter and I will defend her position as soon as I better understand it.
Last edited on Wed May 23rd, 2007 05:06 am by brian
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 2068 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed May 23rd, 2007 04:14 pm |
|
Brian, we have discussed this question in another thread. I am aware that among Americans the debate still rages, but the facts are clear. You are not even seeing the points the cardinal is making:
It is canon law that everyone who works for abortion is excommunicated. It’s not something the Pope invented. If you favor abortion, you are outside the communion of the Church. And it was necessary to say that. There are people in Mexico saying I am Catholic and I support abortion rights. This is a contradiction in its very essence. As a teacher of the Church, the Pope has a responsibility of teaching when something happening is wrong.
This tells us that the interpretation I set forth in the other thread is absolutely correct: canon law does indeed apply in this case, and the politicians are in fact automatically excommunicated. The Mexican bishops have said so, the pope has confirmed it.
Later he was asked: “Do you agree with bishops who deny giving Holy Communion to these politicians?” The cardinal replied: “This is a different point. For who am I to deny Holy Communion to a person? I cannot. It’s in the tradition of moral theology that even if I know a person is living in grave sin, I cannot take a public action against him. It would be giving scandal to the person. Yes, he should not seek [communion], but I cannot deny it from him.”
As the cardinal points out, this is an entirely different question: Can or should a minister (or extraordinary minister) of holy communion deny the sacrament to these excommunicated politicians? And the cardinal’s reply is: No, the communion line is not the time or place for a confrontation. The excommunication remains in effect, and the excommunicated person commits sacrilege by receiving the Eucharist, but it is not the minister’s job to police or to confront.
“In addition,” he continued, “a recent declaration of the Holy See clearly states that when all 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.”
This poses the case where an excommunicated person persistently and repeatedly flouts his canonical status and attempts to receive communion anyway. At this point, the pastor is obliged to step in and have the person removed.
No matter what canon lawyers in the United States may argue, their point of view is not that of either the Mexican bishops nor of the Vatican. A bishop has authority to interpret canon law in these cases; a canon lawyer or tribunal has only an advisory status with no authority unless such authority is specifically delegated by the bishop. The pope, meanwhile, has agreed with the bishops who confirmed the excommunication of the politicians in question, and the matter should be considered closed.
David
|
|
|
brian
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Chicago South Burbs, Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 803 |
| First Name: | brian | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | methodist, evangelical, anglican, catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu May 24th, 2007 01:24 pm |
|
David W. Emery wrote: Brian, we have discussed this question in another thread. I am aware that among Americans the debate still rages, but the facts are clear. You are not even seeing the points the cardinal is making:
I am seeing the points. Maybe not as clearly as you would like me to. I did see this as the strongest evidence that excommunication has taken place. However, I have heard and read other things including statements in the articles posted that seem to make it seem confusing especially when they specifically refer to not receiving communion. I will believe your interpretation unless I hear more substantial reasons not to.
Later he was asked: “Do you agree with bishops who deny giving Holy Communion to these politicians?” The cardinal replied: “This is a different point. For who am I to deny Holy Communion to a person? I cannot. It’s in the tradition of moral theology that even if I know a person is living in grave sin, I cannot take a public action against him. It would be giving scandal to the person. Yes, he should not seek [communion], but I cannot deny it from him.”
As the cardinal points out, this is an entirely different question: Can or should a minister (or extraordinary minister) of holy communion deny the sacrament to these excommunicated politicians? And the cardinal’s reply is: No, the communion line is not the time or place for a confrontation. The excommunication remains in effect, and the excommunicated person commits sacrilege by receiving the Eucharist, but it is not the minister’s job to police or to confront.
So I am to understand that ministers of communion are not to withhold it until a special case has been declared by the pastor regarding an obstinate repeat offender? So the answer to the above question is a no in normal circumstances, but not 100% of the time if the circumstances reach that point?
Brian
Last edited on Thu May 24th, 2007 01:25 pm by brian
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5349 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu May 24th, 2007 01:53 pm |
|
Brian, try this analogy.
Your mother calls to tell you that Thanksgiving dinner will be at 2 p.m. You tell her you've decided to go on a fishing trip instead. She is highly offended and tells you that if you don't show up, you're not really part of the family any more. You don't show up.
Mom gets sick in the middle of December. She's not critically ill, but she's in the hospital at Christmas time.
You show up for Christmas dinner.
Mom didn't kick you out of the family. You did it yourself.
Mom is not there to ask. Should your brother let you in?
Maybe if he lets you in and invites you to the table, it will lead to a reconciliation between you and your mother. At any rate, your problem is between you and her, not you and him. Maybe you called or visited her in the hospital and were forgiven. How is he to know?
Should he slam the door in your face? Is that the charitable thing a family member should do? Should he keep you outside while he drives to the hospital to ask your mother if it's OK to let you in? Or should he let you in and hope that if you haven't already been reconciled, that sharing a meal with the family will lead to healing? Of course, if you continue to show up at family meals sporadically and make no effort at healing the relationship, there will likely come a time when the door will be slammed in your face.
This is the Cardinal's delimma. The Church has not formally excommunicated the politicians. They have excommunicated themselves. How can we as communion ministers judge whether that break in the family has been healed? Should we even try? Or should we allow them at the table in hopes that if reconciliation hasn't already taken place, their place at the table will lead to it? But if they persist in their anti-family activity, there will come a time when the door will indeed be slammed in their faces and they will no longer be permitted to stay for dinner.
So the Church says the ministers should not decide whether someone is eligible to receive communion worthily unless they have persisted in manifest grave sin, and then only on the instructions of a priest or bishop. A lay person serving as an Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion should never withhold communion from anyone unless a higher authority (priest, bishop, pope) has told him directly to do so. It is simply not his place.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
brian
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Chicago South Burbs, Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 803 |
| First Name: | brian | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | methodist, evangelical, anglican, catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu May 24th, 2007 04:09 pm |
|
Makes sense. Though if someone estranged showed up at my door for a family meal and I was unsure they were welcome, I might tell him/her to wait a minute while I consulted with the rest of the family to find out what happened. But I understand and respect the way that we are handling this.
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5349 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu May 24th, 2007 04:56 pm |
|
brian wrote: Makes sense. Though if someone estranged showed up at my door for a family meal and I was unsure they were welcome, I might tell him/her to wait a minute while I consulted with the rest of the family to find out what happened.
Do you think it would be appropriate for an EMHC to stop the communion line while he walks over to the priest to have a discussion about it?
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
Current time is 03:20 am | |
|
|
|
|
|
