Are Catholics Going Nuts?

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1786305' date='Feb 20 2009, 09:18 AM']Absolutely!
If we don't stand for Christ in the Eucharist, who will?[/quote]
I guess I've been viewing this as an internal diocesan matter... but it really isn't, is it?

[CatherineM]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' post='1786582' date='Feb 20 2009, 04:27 PM']I guess I've been viewing this as an internal diocesan matter... but it really isn't, is it?[/quote]

Not when we are talking about people who A) are supposed to be role models and B) use being a "practicing Catholic" on their resume.

[Maggyie]

[quote]People who cry out against this with the "just let the people who are responsible for this take care of it..." mentality should stop, realize their duty to change the world, and sign the petition. At least it's a start. At least it's something.[/quote]

[quote]Quite frankly, bishops who blithely allow blatantly pro-abort "Catholic" pols like Pelosi, etc. to receive Communion are failing in their duties, and should be encouraged in charity to follow their duties in this respect.[/quote]

I assume you include the bishop of Rome, the Supreme Pontiff, when you say that bishops who allow pro-abort "Catholic" politicians to receive Communion are failing in their duty. Because he does let them, and so did John Paul II. From his own hands. Neither of these popes, as bishops of Rome, have ever issued any directive to the many Roman politicians who support abortion rights. Nancy Pelosi's bishop has probably already done more publicly than the popes have with their flock! Everyone always brings up Cardinal Ratzinger's letter to the U.S. Bishops. (Interestingly that letter was not intended for the laity at all but was a private communication among brother bishops, but it wasn't long before the laymen got their hands on it and seized on it as a handy blunt object). Strange isn't it that Pope Benedict XVI laid down such clear rules and yet he does not follow them himself? How is that?

Again I have to say that I am in absolute agreement that the Speaker of the House should not be waltzing her way up the communion line. But her bishop, the pastor responsible for her soul, has so far made a different pastoral decision (or at least if he has decided differently he has chosen not to make it public) and we need to respect that. In addition I have to say again that signing a petition like this is exactly the wrong strategy to take. It is a meaningless exercise although I suppose if it makes people feel better - that they are "taking action" - it does have some value. I believe that prayer for our lost sheep or direct pro-life work at a pregnancy resource center would be the best "something," the best "start," rather than a gesture which ultimately will have no effect and will definitely NOT change the world.

For all of Phatmass, I have a suggestion. If you ever get a chance, ask a bishop (even the most conservative) whether he is much moved by online petitions. He's not. Believe me he's not. Here's something to try instead: write your bishop. Don't go on about how Pastor X is a jerk or Pastor X is the most wonderful thing ever; don't complain that the long-suffering, saintly SSPX isn't being dialogued with, or that the Pope is being too friendly with the nasty, diabolical SSPX; don't write a long letter explaining why you, as a layman who may or may not know anything about the complex canonical situations that apply, who may or may not be an experienced confessor or a pastor, feel that so and so should not be allowed to receive the Blessed Sacrament.

Just write to him and tell him that you love him as your father and you are praying for him! Make no reference to any current controversy! He will probably fall over from shock! How often do our bishops hear from us except when we want to apply political pressure (like an ordinary lobbying organization, taking names for a petition or flooding phone lines or mailboxes with protest calls and letters) or a bone to pick or a complaint. They get plenty of mail telling them what to do.

Edited February 21, 2009 by Maggie

[Socrates]

[quote name='Maggie' post='1787168' date='Feb 21 2009, 02:50 AM']I assume you include the bishop of Rome, the Supreme Pontiff, when you say that bishops who allow pro-abort "Catholic" politicians to receive Communion are failing in their duty. Because he does let them, and so did John Paul II. From his own hands. Neither of these popes, as bishops of Rome, have ever issued any directive to the many Roman politicians who support abortion rights. Nancy Pelosi's bishop has probably already done more publicly than the popes have with their flock! Everyone always brings up Cardinal Ratzinger's letter to the U.S. Bishops. (Interestingly that letter was not intended for the laity at all but was a private communication among brother bishops, but it wasn't long before the laymen got their hands on it and seized on it as a handy blunt object). Strange isn't it that Pope Benedict XVI laid down such clear rules and yet he does not follow them himself? How is that?[/quote]
Are you saying that the Pope didn't mean what he said, or was just joking around, when he wrote that letter as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith? Or are you calling him a hypocrite?
I don't know about the circumstances of him allegedly giving communion to pro-abortion politicians, and I suspect, neither do you. (It seems the instructions are for the individual pastors - it's dubious the Pope can know the exact status of everyone who comes to receive communion at a papal mass.)

However, the CDF letter is quite clear and unambiguous in its instructions regarding pastoral policy regarding pro-abortion politicians receiving Communion (and Archbishop Burke strongly agrees on that matter).
Again:[quote]5. Regarding the grave sin of abortion or euthanasia, when a person’s formal cooperation becomes manifest (understood, in the case of a Catholic politician, as his consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws), his Pastor should meet with him, instructing him about the Church’s teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin, and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist.

6. When "these 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"[/quote]
Nothing unclear or overly-complex about that, is there?

And yes, the letter was to the U.S. bishops, however it was a public letter (on the Priests for Life site, it says "made public in the first week of July 2004."
There is no evidence it was "private" or some secret document meant to be kept from the eyes of the laity.

[quote]Again I have to say that I am in absolute agreement that the Speaker of the House should not be waltzing her way up the communion line. But her bishop, the pastor responsible for her soul, has so far made a different pastoral decision (or at least if he has decided differently he has chosen not to make it public) and we need to respect that. In addition I have to say again that signing a petition like this is exactly the wrong strategy to take. It is a meaningless exercise although I suppose if it makes people feel better - that they are "taking action" - it does have some value. I believe that prayer for our lost sheep or direct pro-life work at a pregnancy resource center would be the best "something," the best "start," rather than a gesture which ultimately will have no effect and will definitely NOT change the world.

For all of Phatmass, I have a suggestion. If you ever get a chance, ask a bishop (even the most conservative) whether he is much moved by online petitions. He's not. Believe me he's not. Here's something to try instead: write your bishop. Don't go on about how Pastor X is a jerk or Pastor X is the most wonderful thing ever; don't complain that the long-suffering, saintly SSPX isn't being dialogued with, or that the Pope is being too friendly with the nasty, diabolical SSPX; don't write a long letter explaining why you, as a layman who may or may not know anything about the complex canonical situations that apply, who may or may not be an experienced confessor or a pastor, feel that so and so should not be allowed to receive the Blessed Sacrament.

Just write to him and tell him that you love him as your father and you are praying for him! Make no reference to any current controversy! He will probably fall over from shock! How often do our bishops hear from us except when we want to apply political pressure (like an ordinary lobbying organization, taking names for a petition or flooding phone lines or mailboxes with protest calls and letters) or a bone to pick or a complaint. They get plenty of mail telling them what to do.[/quote]
Obviously, you disagree that the petition is an effective way to make one's thoughts known on this matter - and that's fine. If you don't like the petition, don't sign it; it's really that simple.
I doubt any petition in itself will change anyone's mind, however, as part of a larger effort, it may have some effect, especially in showing a bishop who may be weighing a decision that following the Church's policies has support behind it. Writing individual letters to the bishop may be better, but not everyone has time for that. I suspect a large part of the reason bishops are not heeding the CDF's instructions is due to fear of upsetting a "constituency" and creating unpleasant turmoil among persons in high places. Bishops' decisions are not made in a vacuum, and it would be naive to think that outside pressures have no influence.

And whether or not you believe such petitions effectual, are you implying that Canon 212 S3 no longer applies when it states that the Catholic faithful have " ..the right, indeed at times the duty, in keeping with their knowledge, competence and position, to manifest to the sacred Pastors their views on matters which concern the good of the Church"?

Were St. Catherine, St. Hildegard, etc. simply wasting their time when they petitioned popes and bishops?

And you should re-read the words of Apostolic Signatura Archbishop Burke as quoted in Post #24:"[quote][b]I don't understand the continual debate that goes on about it. There's not a question that a Catholic who publicly, and after admonition, supports pro-abortion legislation is not to receive Holy Communion and is not to be given Holy Communion."

"The Church's law is very clear," said Archbishop Burke, who was appointed last year by Pope Benedict XVI as the head of the Church's highest court, the Apostolic Signatura. "The person who persists publicly in grave sin is to be denied Holy Communion, and it [Canon Law] doesn't say that the bishop shall decide this. It's an absolute.[/b]"[/quote]

Are you going to simply dismiss Archbishop Burke as just another right-wing troublemaker who doesn't know what he's talking about?
Or is he just another "Catholic going nuts"?

I really don't understand why the words of Terry the blogger or Maggie from Phatmass should carry greater weight with us regarding this issue.

But maybe I'm just going nuts.

Edited February 22, 2009 by Socrates

[Maggyie]

I am sure the pope absolutely meant what he said when he was a Cardinal. His letter was well-written and nothing was unclear about it. However the reality is that his letter establishes general principles, it does not treat specific cases nor would he have tried to in that kind of communication. Actual pastoral application of the law in a specific instance often differs from the "letter of the law" so to speak. This goes a long way to explaining why the Pope could write the words you cite and yet give Communion to pro-abortion politicians with his own hands, and without the slightest bit of hypocrisy. The politicians they communed are well-known people, for instance John Paul II repeatedly gave the Eucharist to the Mayor of Rome who is unabashedly pro-abortion and everyone including the Pope knew it. John Paul II also gave Holy Communion to Tony Blair, another well-known liberal on abortion and other issues.

Individual cases have to be treated individually, and in Pope Benedict's papacy and in all the years of John Paul II's reign, they did not encounter one individual case in which they chose to apply the relevant canons. Maybe being closer to the situation they knew private details which outsiders would not. That is why decisions about who gets to receive communion are made by pastors and confessors and not by laymen looking at the situation from outside.

Archbishop Burke is hardly a trouble-maker of any kind, right-wing, left-wing, purple, pink, or brown. As ordinary in St. Louis he exercised his pastoral judgment on the issue which is truly his right. The bishops of Rome have exercised their own pastoral judgment and come up with a different response in the specific cases they have encountered, and I am positive that Archbishop Burke has no problem with them doing that.

The canon says in part that we have " ..the right, indeed at times the duty, in keeping with their knowledge, competence and position, to manifest to the sacred Pastors their views on matters which concern the good of the Church." The key phrase is [b] in keeping with their knowledge, competence, and position[/b]. In these discussions, no layman knows the content of the discussion a bishop has been having with a wayward politician; no layman is privy to any details of particular circumstances. Most of all, laymen ABSOLUTELY do not have the [b]competence [/b]and are not in the [b]position [/b]to determine who should be receiving Holy Communion. That decision rightfully belongs to pastors and bishops and there is implicit acceptance of that fact even in this petition, since it is addressed to the episcopacy which actually has the competent authority.

This is so far above our pay grade it isn't even funny! This is not about sin - because let's face it, no one knows if Nancy Pelosi just got out of the confessional before Mass. There's every chance in the world she could be in the state of grace. And it's not any of our business if she is or not, actually, since it is NOT OUR CALL whether she gets to receive or not. Now I understand that her sins are public and her contrition should be public as well, most definitely!

The last few years we have encountered a somewhat similar, somewhat different question with the SSPX. Laymen can gather all kinds of information and make all sorts of arguments for why the SSPX really weren't excommunicated (and their friends and allies did try), but the reality is that if the Bishop of Rome says you aren't in communion with him, you aren't in communion. Nancy Pelosi etc. have rather the opposite case going on...

[Socrates]

[quote name='Maggie' post='1787580' date='Feb 21 2009, 10:40 PM']I am sure the pope absolutely meant what he said when he was a Cardinal. His letter was well-written and nothing was unclear about it. However the reality is that his letter establishes general principles, it does not treat specific cases nor would he have tried to in that kind of communication. Actual pastoral application of the law in a specific instance often differs from the "letter of the law" so to speak. This goes a long way to explaining why the Pope could write the words you cite and yet give Communion to pro-abortion politicians with his own hands, and without the slightest bit of hypocrisy. The politicians they communed are well-known people, for instance John Paul II repeatedly gave the Eucharist to the Mayor of Rome who is unabashedly pro-abortion and everyone including the Pope knew it. John Paul II also gave Holy Communion to Tony Blair, another well-known liberal on abortion and other issues.

Individual cases have to be treated individually, and in Pope Benedict's papacy and in all the years of John Paul II's reign, they did not encounter one individual case in which they chose to apply the relevant canons. Maybe being closer to the situation they knew private details which outsiders would not. That is why decisions about who gets to receive communion are made by pastors and confessors and not by laymen looking at the situation from outside.

Archbishop Burke is hardly a trouble-maker of any kind, right-wing, left-wing, purple, pink, or brown. As ordinary in St. Louis he exercised his pastoral judgment on the issue which is truly his right. The bishops of Rome have exercised their own pastoral judgment and come up with a different response in the specific cases they have encountered, and I am positive that Archbishop Burke has no problem with them doing that.[/quote]
Did you even read[url="http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/feb/09020402.html"] the quoted article about Archbishop Burke[/url]?

He most certainly does see bishops not applying the law concerning publicly pro-abortion politicians receiving communion as a problem, and one which needs to be fixed.

Again:[quote][b]"I don't understand the continual debate that goes on about it. There's not a question that a Catholic who publicly, and after admonition, supports pro-abortion legislation is not to receive Holy Communion and is not to be given Holy Communion."[/b]

"The Church's law is very clear," said Archbishop Burke, who was appointed last year by Pope Benedict XVI as the head of the Church's highest court, the Apostolic Signatura. [b]"The person who persists publicly in grave sin is to be denied Holy Communion, and it [Canon Law] doesn't say that the bishop shall decide this. It's an absolute."
[/b][/quote]

[quote]Archbishop Burke said that the issue had been debated enough. He rejected the idea that the matter should be left to the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, saying the Conference has no authority in the matter. [b]"This is a law of the universal Church and it should be applied."

"I think this argument too is being used by people who don't want to confront the issue, this whole 'wait 'til the Conference decides'...well the Conference has been discussing this since at least 2004. And nothing happens."[/b]

When asked what the solution was, he responded, [b]"Individual bishops and priests simply have to do their duty. They have to confront politicians, Catholic politicians, who are sinning gravely and publicly in this regard. And that's their duty.[/b]

"And if they carry it out, not only can they not be reproached for that, but they should be praised for confronting this situation."[/quote]
It most certainly does not sound to me like Archbishop Burke "has no problem with" Bishops deciding for themselves whether or not to refuse Communion to politicians who, after receiving counsel, obstinately persist in promoting abortion!
And he was clearly not speaking just of his own "pastoral judgment" as Ordinary of St. Louis, but was speaking concerning pastors throughout the Church in America, and as head of the Apostolic Signatura. He's not exactly small-fry in the Church Hierarchy.

In fact, that was the whole point of the article. It seems you either did not read it, or ignored it entirely.

If this was not a problem, there would be no point in Archbishop Burke's complaints, nor would there be a reason for the CDF document in the first place (which clearly set policy - it was not just a nice suggestion). Again, read what the Archbishop said before you comment further.

[quote]The canon says in part that we have " ..the right, indeed at times the duty, in keeping with their knowledge, competence and position, to manifest to the sacred Pastors their views on matters which concern the good of the Church." The key phrase is [b] in keeping with their knowledge, competence, and position[/b]. In these discussions, no layman knows the content of the discussion a bishop has been having with a wayward politician; no layman is privy to any details of particular circumstances. Most of all, laymen ABSOLUTELY do not have the [b]competence [/b]and are not in the [b]position [/b]to determine who should be receiving Holy Communion. That decision rightfully belongs to pastors and bishops and there is implicit acceptance of that fact even in this petition, since it is addressed to the episcopacy which actually has the competent authority.

This is so far above our pay grade it isn't even funny! This is not about sin - because let's face it, no one knows if Nancy Pelosi just got out of the confessional before Mass. There's every chance in the world she could be in the state of grace. And it's not any of our business if she is or not, actually, since it is NOT OUR CALL whether she gets to receive or not. Now I understand that her sins are public and her contrition should be public as well, most definitely!

The last few years we have encountered a somewhat similar, somewhat different question with the SSPX. Laymen can gather all kinds of information and make all sorts of arguments for why the SSPX really weren't excommunicated (and their friends and allies did try), but the reality is that if the Bishop of Rome says you aren't in communion with him, you aren't in communion. Nancy Pelosi etc. have rather the opposite case going on...[/quote]
It may be "above our paygrade" (thank you, Mr. Obama) to decide to actually withhold communion to anybody, but it most certainly is not beyond our "competency" to petition that bishops actually follow a clearly stated Church policy.
It is clear (and apparently Archbishop Burke agrees) that many are neglecting their duties in this regard, for political or other reasons. It is the duty of the lay faithful to petition the bishops to do their duties - whether they choose to or not is up to them of course.

Regarding whether Pelosi, etc. are in a state of grace is not the issue here. While God alone can know the interior disposition of their souls, the fact remains that these politicians continue to consistently promote and support pro-abortion policies, and as long as they continue to do so, they may not receive Holy Communion.
From the CDF letter:[quote][b]This decision, properly speaking, is not a sanction or a penalty. Nor is the minister of Holy Communion passing judgment on the person’s subjective guilt, but rather is reacting to the person’s public unworthiness to receive Holy Communion due to an objective situation of sin.[/b][/quote]

The primary issue is the [b]public scandal[/b] in the Church these politicians create with their[b] public[/b] policy and actions.

Archbishop Burke spoke of the problem of these politicians use Holy Communion as a tool to gain "political leverage."
[quote]Archbishop Burke recalled previous experiences with Kerry, pointing to the several occasions when the senator was pictured in Time magazine receiving Communion from Papal representatives at various public events. Burke said that it is clear that Kerry was using his reception of Holy Communion to send a message.

[b]"He wants to not only receive Holy Communion from a bishop but from the papal representative. I think that's what his point was. Get it in Time magazine, so people read it and say to themselves, 'He must be in good standing'."

"What are they doing? They're using the Eucharist as a political tool."[/b][/quote]
This is not a matter of private discipline, but of a public scandal which continues to do untold damage and sow confusion in the Church - I've seen this very confusion over Catholics publicly holding a "pro-choice" stance myself plenty of times on here.

Since this public scandal effects all the Church, including us lowly laity, we certainly have the right and duty to petition the bishops to act concerning this.

Obviously, you disagree about the prudence or effectiveness of such petitions, and that's fine; we probably won't agree on this any time soon. However, as our concerns are exactly the same as expressed by Archbishop Burke, and at least deserve a fair hearing, I find the contemptuous, dismissive tone towards our side expressed by such things as "Are Catholics going nuts?" "The Church isn't a da[font="Arial"]mn[/font] Democracy!" and sarcastic trademark signs next to "orthodox Catholics" to be completely uncalled for.

Edited February 23, 2009 by Socrates

[Nihil Obstat]

I agree with that.

This is as clear a case of scandal that we will possibly ever see in our lives.
I was just thinking that over, and I believe that is the truth.

[Lilllabettt]

(deleted)

Edited February 23, 2009 by Lilllabettt

[Maggyie]

[quote]QUOTE (Socrates @ Feb 22 2009, 11:08 PM) *
Did you even read the quoted article about Archbishop Burke?

He most certainly does see bishops not applying the law concerning publicly pro-abortion politicians receiving communion as a problem, and one which needs to be fixed.

Again:


It most certainly does not sound to me like Archbishop Burke "has no problem with" Bishops deciding for themselves whether or not to refuse Communion to politicians who, after receiving counsel, obstinately persist in promoting abortion!
And he was clearly not speaking just of his own "pastoral judgment" as Ordinary of St. Louis, but was speaking concerning pastors throughout the Church in America, and as head of the Apostolic Signatura. He's not exactly small-fry in the Church Hierarchy.

In fact, that was the whole point of the article. It seems you either did not read it, or ignored it entirely.

If this was not a problem, there would be no point in Archbishop Burke's complaints, nor would there be a reason for the CDF document in the first place (which clearly set policy - it was not just a nice suggestion). Again, read what the Archbishop said before you comment further.


It may be "above our paygrade" (thank you, Mr. Obama) to decide to actually withhold communion to anybody, but it most certainly is not beyond our "competency" to petition that bishops actually follow a clearly stated Church policy.
It is clear (and apparently Archbishop Burke agrees) that many are neglecting their duties in this regard, for political or other reasons. It is the duty of the lay faithful to petition the bishops to do their duties - whether they choose to or not is up to them of course.

Regarding whether Pelosi, etc. are in a state of grace is not the issue here. While God alone can know the interior disposition of their souls, the fact remains that these politicians continue to consistently promote and support pro-abortion policies, and as long as they continue to do so, they may not receive Holy Communion.
From the CDF letter:

The primary issue is the public scandal in the Church these politicians create with their public policy and actions.

Archbishop Burke spoke of the problem of these politicians use Holy Communion as a tool to gain "political leverage."

This is not a matter of private discipline, but of a public scandal which continues to do untold damage and sow confusion in the Church - I've seen this very confusion over Catholics publicly holding a "pro-choice" stance myself plenty of times on here.

Since this public scandal effects all the Church, including us lowly laity, we certainly have the right and duty to petition the bishops to act concerning this.

Obviously, you disagree about the prudence or effectiveness of such petitions, and that's fine; we probably won't agree on this any time soon. However, as our concerns are exactly the same as expressed by Archbishop Burke, and at least deserve a fair hearing, I find the contemptuous, dismissive tone towards our side expressed by such things as "Are Catholics going nuts?" "The Church isn't a beaver dam Democracy!" and sarcastic trademark signs next to "orthodox Catholics" to be completely uncalled for.[/quote]


I am very aware of Archbishop Burke's opinion on the matter and he is entitled to it... I agree with him in many respects. The fact remains that his opinion was binding only in St. Louis when he was ordinary there and while he certainly occupies high office now and hopefully will get a red hat, he still does not really have any authority over bishops' pastoral choices in their own dioceses in this matter. His words do not make universal law. His interpretation of canon law is learned but it is one interpretation among many, it seems.

Archbishop Burke is not "exactly small fry," true, but neither is the pope. What I meant to imply was that I am certain Archbishop Burke does not mean to scold the Holy Father for his application of canon law. I'm pretty sure the archbishop does not have a problem with the Pope. It amazes me how people will seize on the ideas of one single man like the archbishop for ammunition in this debate, even to the point of misunderstanding the role of the Apostolic Signatura! Deciding who gets Communion is not part of their job, either! The Apostolic Signatura is a court of appeals. The handle administrative questions, appeals from the Rota, conflicts of jurisdiction etc. Absolutely nothing to do with and no authority over the Communion issue.

We can all read what Archbishop Burke says but we can all see what the Holy Father does, and the two do not match up.

The petition doesn't mean that Catholics are "going nuts" so to speak - but it is a huge waste of time and therefore easy to dismiss. It will not accomplish anything besides using up some space on the Internet. Not to mention, things like this are symptomatic of big problems with authority roiling just beneath the surface on both the right wing and the left wing, both of which see themselves as representing "pure" Catholicism against the compromising, weak-willed powers that be. Both liberal and conservative laymen think they own the Church and should get to call the shots! Hence the ™. When in fact She belongs to Jesus, not to them. And Jesus gave us bishops. Increasingly the laity see themselves as the arbiters of discipline, doctrine, etc. where once this was recognized as the competence of the authorities Jesus chose. Not a good trend.

Edited February 23, 2009 by Maggie

[CatherineM]

I'm a member of the public, and I am scandalized by their actions. There, I'm glad to have gotten that off my chest.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Maggie' post='1789040' date='Feb 23 2009, 12:38 AM']I am very aware of Archbishop Burke's opinion on the matter and he is entitled to it... I agree with him in many respects. The fact remains that his opinion was binding only in St. Louis when he was ordinary there and while he certainly occupies high office now and hopefully will get a red hat, he still does not really have any authority over bishops' pastoral choices in their own dioceses in this matter. His words do not make universal law. His interpretation of canon law is learned but it is one interpretation among many, it seems.

Archbishop Burke is not "exactly small fry," true, but neither is the pope. What I meant to imply was that I am certain Archbishop Burke does not mean to scold the Holy Father for his application of canon law. I'm pretty sure the archbishop does not have a problem with the Pope. It amazes me how people will seize on the ideas of one single man like the archbishop for ammunition in this debate, even to the point of misunderstanding the role of the Apostolic Signatura! Deciding who gets Communion is not part of their job, either! The Apostolic Signatura is a court of appeals. The handle administrative questions, appeals from the Rota, conflicts of jurisdiction etc. Absolutely nothing to do with and no authority over the Communion issue.

We can all read what Archbishop Burke says but we can all see what the Holy Father does, and the two do not match up.

The petition doesn't mean that Catholics are "going nuts" so to speak - but it is a huge waste of time and therefore easy to dismiss. It will not accomplish anything besides using up some space on the Internet. Not to mention, things like this are symptomatic of big problems with authority roiling just beneath the surface on both the right wing and the left wing, both of which see themselves as representing "pure" Catholicism against the compromising, weak-willed powers that be. Both liberal and conservative laymen think they own the Church and should get to call the shots! Hence the ™. When in fact She belongs to Jesus, not to them. And Jesus gave us bishops. Increasingly the laity see themselves as the arbiters of discipline, doctrine, etc. where once this was recognized as the competence of the authorities Jesus chose. Not a good trend.[/quote]

What part of this did you miss?
Canon 212 states that the Catholic faithful have "..the right, indeed at times the duty, in keeping with their knowledge, competence and position, to manifest to the sacred Pastors their views on matters which concern the good of the Church."
And please don't go on about knowledge, competance and position - the definition of scandal is not exactly rocket science. Watching pro-death catholics line up for Communion is a scandal.

[Slappo]

I'm a member of the public, and I am scandalized by not only the actions of Pelosi et al, but by the Bishops who continue to allow public scandal in their dioceses.

I am scandalized that bishops continue to allow those who publicly seek to increase the number of deaths of the innocent to receive our Lord Jesus Christ in the Blessed Sacrament. Christ humbled himself to such a degree that it is now the role of the Church in a way to defend the Eucharist from abuse, and members of Holy Mother Church are failing in successfully doing so.

[Maggyie]

What can I say? Obviously no one is going to budge on this issue. All I can say is that if it's the Pope vs. a horde of know-it-all [i]liberal [/i]laymen who want their way, I'm going to side with the Pope. If it's the Pope vs. a horde of know-it-all [i]conservative [/i]laymen who want their way, I'm going to side with the Pope. There is nothing at all about the Holy Father's ministry that I find scandalous and I am surprised that people think Benedict is causing scandal. I don't understand why he gives Communion to people like Nancy Pelosi but he does. In public. On multiple occasions. Without one word of public rebuke for them, before or after. And I think he has more understanding of the situation than all of us on Phatmass combined. So while I admit to being puzzled by the Holy Father's actions, that's more my problem than his. Why are Catholics always so eager to be "more Catholic than the pope"?

So, I will give you "knowledge," in that if it causes some Christians scandal, we know it is probably bad. But again, [i]competence [/i]and [i]position[/i]. The fact remains that it [i]is not our role as laymen to determine who is worthy to receive Communion[/i]. It just. Is. Not. Never has been. [i]Ever[/i]. Have you ever noticed how no bishop sidles up to you and asks your opinion on this? They don't ever ask me, either. That's because they don't NEED our opinions to figure this one out. They don't need to take a poll. It doesn't work to present a petition. These are the successors of the apostles we are talking about. If they made pastoral decisions based on petitions, the Church would be in terrible trouble.

Most bishops' decisions on this (including THE POPE'S) are different from what I would do but, hey, there's probably a reason I'm not a bishop...

[AccountDeleted]

I don't know how we Catholics can expect our non-Catholic families to understand why we are so anti-abortion when our Church allows people like Nancy Pelosi to receive Communion despite her pro-abortion stance. Yes, it is a scandal to me too, and I wish her Bishop would take some positive action to let her know that she is not in Communion with the Church, and therefore not allowed to receive Communion!

I support our Bishops, but I really wish they would all have the courage to carry out their duties according to God's law - and not worry about the fallout from it. There is more scandal in doing nothing in this case (my humble opinion).

[Lil Red]

+J.M.J.+
here's his follow-up column about Pelosi and the Pope's meeting.
[url="http://abbey-roads.blogspot.com/2009/02/pelosi-aand-church.html"]http://abbey-roads.blogspot.com/2009/02/pe...and-church.html[/url]
i'm excerpting what i think are relevant parts:
[quote]Nevertheless, the controversy over the reception of the Eucharist must be addressed, and finally settled, by her bishop and/or the bishops of the United States, who can then instruct their priests. It is my understanding, as things stand now, any priest or deacon can, may, maybe should, deny communion to any notorious public sinner to prevent scandal. Although one problem I see with lay extraordinary ministers of the sacrament is that they have no competence to arbitrarily deny communion on their own. (Yes, that's right - I do not like the use of lay people to distribute communion at Mass - taking it to the sick is another matter entirely. But I digress.)[/quote]

[quote]One hopes the Archbishop will work together with the other U.S. bishops to make a definitive statement and require pastors to enforce the decision.[/quote](speaking of Archbishop Burke)

[quote]I may be wrong, but I have to wonder if the bishops are a little too permissive and perhaps a bit too concerned about public opinion when it comes to political figures and unpopular issues? They sometimes come across as rather weak-willed, and seem to rely too heavily upon a secular notion of diplomacy, scared to death they might scare away unfaithful Catholics if they assert Catholic teaching. I'm not suggesting priests and bishops start screaming hell and brimstone threats to the miscreants, but they need to say something definitive. Right now it appears there is an exaggerated concern for human respect (political correctness) on the part of more than a few churchmen, which only retards action, as well as undermines the credibility and authority of Catholic teaching. We have arrived at a point where laicism has become dogma in the American mentality, to such an extent even self-proclaimed "ardent" Catholics in government feel free to legislate immorality in defiance of Church teaching and natural law.[/quote]