I just wish bishops would start sitting down with pro-abortion politicians, or at least start inviting them to sit down, instead of everybody on either side bubbling about procedures.  It also wouldn’t hurt if bishops or somebody competent started articulating in depth the teaching of the Church on abortion and the situations a politician or voter may find himself in, e.g., the move in the UK to change the limits on abortion but still permitting the practice, or two pro-abortion candidates but one with a less enthusiastic stance for the practice (e.g., the last gubernatorial contest in Massachusetts).  If leaders in and out of the hierarchy started articulating these things we would be less likely, I think, all of us, to take refuge in “ignorance.”  These teachings aren’t mysteries, though we’re treating them that way.

From McCarrick:  “I would emphasize that Cardinal Ratzinger clearly leaves to us as teachers, pastors and leaders WHETHER to pursue this path.”

From Ratzinger:  “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” “

———————————

Cardinal McCarrick is a LIAR. 

(Just like a lot of our other bishops - especially with regard to the molestation scandal.)

WE DESERVE HONEST MEN TO LEAD OUR CHURCH.

But note that Cardinal Ratzinger disagrees with Bishop Sheridan’s view that voting for any pro-abort politician is necessarily a mortal sin (assuming sufficient reflection and full consent of the will:  “When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favour of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.”

Seamus, I don’t think Ratzinger or Sheridan are in disagreement. Just what proportionate reasons could there be to vote for a pro-abortion candidate? I think they are so rare, apart from the reasons we’ve discussed here; for example, if both candidates are pro-abortion, but one would be less so than the other.

Seamus, Cdl R’s position on voting for a pro-abort is exactly what I expected it to be.  It SEEMS to be different from the statement of Abp. Burke, also.

I suspect that Bps Burke and Sherman will clarify to make certain that we understand voting for GWBush, for example is ‘remote material..which can be permitted…’

The emphasis should be on the word ONLY—as in voting for a pro-abort ONLY because he/she is pro-abort…

Dom, since GWB is a “restrictions” but pro-abort candidate, the proportionality argument comes into play.  In this case, GWB is a FAR ‘better’ pro-abort than is Kerry….and there may be other valid reasons to vote FOR GWB, such as integrity.

“Proportionate Reasons” I believe Card. Ratzinger is saying if there is a case of no pro-life candidates (with a reasonable expectation to win)then go to the 2nd tier of social issues and weigh them.
Again Fr. Stephen Torraco has provided a “Brief Catechism for Catholic Voters” at [url=http://www.EWTN.com]http://www.EWTN.com[/url] go to “voters resources”. He goes through an array of scenarios and gives the morally permissible answer to some difficult situations.

Mr. Bettinelli,

This is a great example of what I was talking about earlier in my posting about obedience.  We were to be obedient to the particular local bishop until there was clarification from the Holy See “trumping” this decision.  In my estimation that has taken place.

There has been clarification from the Holy See on this matter and I am in total agreement with what Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger has to say, precisely because he is the compitent authority on the matter and it is this teaching that I must assent my will to.

However, even Cardinal Ratzinger cautions us by saying, “This decision, properly speaking, is not a sanction or a penalty. Nor is the minister of Holy Communion passing judgement 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.” (Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion General Principles no.6)

This means that we cannot nor should we pass judgment on anyone on this matter.  Simple.

Rome has spoken and I am obedient.

Camilam

Why should we trust anything McCarrick says, when he blatantly lies?

And why should a blatant liar be given the job of writing the aforementioned report?

And why doesn’t anyone in authority in our Church expose this lie and condemn the man who made it?

And why should anyone be obedient to a man who is a blatant liar?

And if other bishops concur with McCarrick’s report, why should we be obedient to them - knowing they are countenancing a blatant lie?

Sinner,

Let me guess, you think that McCarrick is a blatant liar?

Where is the charity? 

Is it right for me to go around saying, “Why should we trust Sinner, he is a hard-hearted so and so?  Because sinner is a hard-hearted so and so,  should we give credence to him?  Why doesn’t Mr. Bettinelli stop him from being blatantly uncharitable toward a prince of the Church, because he is a so and so?  And why should anyone believe a hard-hearted so and so?  And if others concur with Sinner, why should we trust them - knowing that they are countenancing a hard-hearted so and so?

Charity IS fraternal correction.  However, calling names is not.  That is the point of the example I just gave.  Sometimes it is about the nuance of what is said.  Whether true or not, it causes dissent.

Look to what Cardinal Ratzinger said, “This decision, properly speaking, is not a sanction or a penalty.”

Perhaps that plays a part in HOW Cardinal McCarrick and Bishop Gregory came to their decision.

Promoting dissent from the authentic bishops of Rome is never to be tolerated.  That is also a sin.

“Fraternal Correction is here taken to mean the admonishing of one’s neighbor by a private individual with the purpose of reforming him or, if possible, preventing his sinful indulgence.”

and

“Every one, however, whether having an official competency or not, is bound to give the admonition when the sin, committed though it be from ignorance, is hurtful to the offender or a third party or is the occasion of scandal.” (The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume IV)

But this is to be done in private, not in public.  We can’t air dirty laundry in public.

Again, practice charity….anything else does no one any good.  Even Cardinal Ratzinger says so.  Look to what he says in Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion General Principles, no.5.

Camilam

Cardinal McCarrick told the press something that was patently NOT true.  He tried to substitute his own opinion for the statements of the CDF in such a way that no one would find out what Cardinal Ratzinger (of the CDF in Rome) had actually said.  That’s lying by definition.

He did not expect that he would be found out apparently.  I think it’s just and quite funny he was caught, if you want to know the truth. 

I think he’d ought to have his BUTT KICKED. 

Cam,

This is where we disagree. I don’t think disagreeing with the local bishop on the interpretation of canon law or his duty as a bishop and pastor is disobedience. If I were to advocate that priests and laypeople ignore the bishop’s lawful commands, then that would be disobedience.

Ya know,  perhaps Cardinal Dulles has it right.  In reading a link that is associated with this.

Cardinal Dulles says, “In that situation, the priest has limited options. Often, to avoid an ugly scene that would disrupt the ceremony, the priest will feel obliged not to refuse Communion. In the absence of some formal decree excluding a person from the sacraments, most priests will be very cautious about turning Catholics away at the altar.

The primary responsibility rests on those asking for Communion to examine themselves regarding their dispositions, as Paul says in 1 Corinthians 11:27-29. Only God can know with certitude the state of the communicant’s soul at the moment.”

This is in response to the following question: “What should a priest do when confronted with a publicly dissenting politician who appears in the Communion line?”

Cardinal Dulles also says, “In moral theology an important distinction is made between ordering or performing an action and cooperating in the action of another. Where the cooperation is remote, its influence on the effect may be very slight.

To vote for an appropriations bill that includes some provisions for funding abortions would not be so gravely sinful as to warrant excommunication under Canon 1398. The vote might arguably be licit if the funding for abortion were only incidental and could not be removed from a bill that was otherwise very desirable.

The legal problem about abortion in the United States does not come primarily from legislators but from the judiciary, which interprets the Constitution as giving a civil entitlement to abortion practically on demand. This interpretation of the Constitution, we believe, is erroneous and should be corrected.”

This is in response to the question, “Some observers wonder why canon law stipulates excommunication for a woman who has an abortion—under certain conditions—yet doesn’t apply the same penalty to a politician whose votes might help to finance thousands of abortions. Is there a loophole in canon law?”

I think that, from a theological standpoint, Cardinal Dulles and Cardinal Ratzinger agree when Cardinal Ratzinger says, “This decision, properly speaking, is not a sanction or a penalty. Nor is the minister of Holy Communion passing judgement 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.”

Sometimes reality is different from academia.  What do I mean?  If you go to the thread where Jaime and I were discussing Latin, the ideal would be that Latin is still normative.  The reality is that Latin will never be normative again.  Is that an abuse.  Absolutely.  Will I speak out about it forever, absolutely.  Will it ever change?  Probably not. 

The example shares something with the abortion issue.  They are both about salvation.  They are both about obedience.  They are both about dissent.  But why are we not as passionate about preserving the Sacred Liturgy?

I would assert this….if start with the Sacred Liturgy, everything else will start to right itself.  The Mass is the source and summit of our Faith.  While abortion and homosexuality are certainly sickening, how can we be properly catechized when we cannot even celebrate Mass properly? 

I know this is a deviation, but it is a logical step to find the cause of all of these effects.  The two are also very linked.

Camilam

Mr. Bettinelli,

“I don’t think disagreeing with the local bishop on the interpretation of canon law or his duty as a bishop and pastor is disobedience.”

Neither do I, God knows, but I don’t think that it is appropriate to speak out in public.  See the above post about fraternal correction.  That is a private matter, not a public one.

Camilam

“I think he’d ought to have his BUTT KICKED. “

Yeah, michigancatholic.  Someone should kick his butt.  That no one, so far, will do it - just attest to the sorry state of our Church leadership today.

In fact, kicking his butt would be a highly charitable act for all of us suffering Catholics.

Let’s clarify this a bit

Disagreeing with the bishop

“I don’t agree that Kerry should receive Communion”

Being disobedient

” why should anyone be obedient to a man who is a blatant liar” and of course “I think he’d ought to have his BUTT KICKED. “

There lies the difference.  Mr. Bettinelli you are not advocating disobedience but clearly some here are.

Jaime

“Just what proportionate reasons could there be to vote for a pro-abortion candidate?”

If, for example, the office is where the pro-life candidate would have little practical effect on abortion policy (e.g., most local government offices), but would be incompetent to do the job.  (Where, for example, the election was for sheriff in a county where that officer has law enforcement responsibilty, and the pro-choice candidate is a 20-year veteran of the sheriff’s department who intended to administer the law fairly and competently, and the pro-life candidate is a 24-year-old nutcase fresh with an M.A. in sociology, who thinks that the biggest problem facing the county is “police brutality” and who wouldn’t enforce the laws against “victimless crimes.”)

If, for example, the choice is between a (pro-choice) party like the Social Democratic Party of Germany and the (pro-life, or at least anti-abortion) National Socialist German Workers Party (at a time when the Nazis weren’t openly in favor of genocide).  Or, to give a more recent example, the choice is between the (pro-choice) African National Congress and the (pro-apartheid) Nationalist Party in South Africa.

If, for example, there is a three-way race for U.S. Senate, in which the Democrat and the Republican are both pro-choice, and the Constitution party candidate is pro-life, but where the Constitution party candidate has no realistic chance for winning, and votes for him will probably siphon votes away from the Republican, causing the Democrat to be elected, perhaps resulting in Democratic control of the U.S. Senate, and the bottling up of all pro-life judicial nominees in the Judiciary Committee.

If, for example, someone like Pim Fortuyn (gay, presumably pro-choice, but who wants to preserve the Western culture of the nation) is running against a pro-life Muslim whose declared intention is to set up an Islamic state, where abortion would be illegal—and so would the construction or repair of Christian churches, or any public practice of Christianity.  (I can also see how it might be permissible to vote for the Muslim, if one judges that his vote in the legislature might make the difference on some abortion bill, but that he’d be unable to get anywhere with his sharia project.  But that just underscores the importance of applying prudence rather than simply saying categorically that one may *never* vote for a candidate who takes a particular position.)

Right, Jaime…  Being ‘obedient’ around here (and just about everywhere else) means, in many, many, many cases, not going to the police when you know of a priest who is sodomizing boys.  (The bishop told me to say nothing, nothing… that he would ‘take care of it.’)  In the meanwhile, lots more boys get sodomized…

In this case, we have a cardinal caught in a blatant self-serving lie.  As a Catholic, I’m required to be obedient to(accept as truth) the teachings of the Magisterium, regarding faith and morals.  But I am not required to be obedient to some two-bit lying cardinal.

Thousands of boys have been raped by priests, and most Catholics go on just like nothing at all happened.  That’s what the Cardinal is counting on now.  Now that’s he’s caught in his deceit, he’s coming up with all sorts of other [non-provable] assertions.  (“No, no, no - if you only knew what Ratzinger really told me on the telephone, etc. etc.”)  [Right.  Ratzinger told you on the phone to do exactly the opposite of what he explicitly told you do in a written letter.]  Those Catholics who actually do care about integrity in their leaders are once again insulted and abused…

I’m not sure what Sinner means when he talks about obeying Cardinal McCarrick.  I would think that would only come up if Sinner were a priest or extraordinary minister of Holy Communion in the Archdiocese of Washington, who believed he was morally and legally obligated under canon 915 to deny communion to the likes of Sen. Kerry, but was being instructed by Cdl. McCarrick to admit them to communion anyway.  Unless that’s the case, he—and all the rest of us on the blog who aren’t priests or eucharistic ministers in Washington—are just kibbitzing about decisions being made by someone else.

Well, Seamus, here’s the thing.  McCarrick wrote a report on the denial of Communion thing, on behalf of all the American bishops - who are supposed to be our (local) spiritual leaders in our Church.

But the report is based on a blatant LIE - regarding moral instruction on this issue from the Vatican.  Now without this lie being exposed, many of our American bishops would run with this (and many will probably still do so anyway!) - and proceed to teach us something which is based on a lie.  That is a huge moral wrong.  It’s an insult to any sincere Catholic.  It’s a hideous manipulation.

But on the issue of ‘obeying’ a bishop.  My point was that we aren’t required to!  It’s others on this and other threads who seem to believe that we must always obey what our bishop (or the Americans bishops) tell(s) us.  We don’t have to, and in many cases, we shouldn’t. 

In fact, given the nature of things such as this (and the molestation scandal) - I think we should be very careful about any ‘moral’ guidance we are ‘provided’ from the American bishops.

Bottom line:  I don’t trust many of them - and they’ve given us manifold reasons not to.  I think many of these ‘men’ are heavily compromised by various forms of evil.

Let me try again:  In exactly what respect is Cardinal McCarrick asking Sinner to obey him?  I just don’t see the issue coming up, unless, as I said, Sinner is a priest or eucharistic minister in the Archdiocese of Washington. 

(If Sinner is saying more generally that there is no obligation to obey a bad bishop, then he’s simply wrong.  After all, even if your parents were liars, you still were obligated to obey them, unless they were commanding you to do something sinful.  Bishops aren’t absolute despots, and thus can’t just order their subjects to do whatever they want us to do.  They can’t, for example, command that we join the Knights of Columbus, and they may not insist that we send our children to the diocesan high school.  But they do have a certain sphere of authority, and within that sphere obedience is commanded by the fourth commandment, no matter how bad the bishop is.)

Seamus,

It’s not Sinner saying that McCarrick wants him to obey him on this, it is others who commented on this blog.

Sinner said, in reference to Cardinal McCarrick, “But I am not required to be obedient to some two-bit lying cardinal.”  I just don’t see how the question of obedience or disobedience to Cdl. McCarrick even comes up.

Because someone else said he was required to be obedient to him. Not in this thread, but in several other threads.

Sinner

This is way too funny.  I had a side bet with Camilam putting an over/under on how long it would be that someone would post something about “sodomizing boys”.  I put the over/under at 5 posts past Camilam’s last one. 

Camilam its officially a push

I put the over/under at 5 posts

Jaime -

I’m truly sorry that you can’t see the connection between these things.  Truly.

For me and (so, so) many others, it’s part and parcel of the same evil infection.

When I think my children (and other children) are safe, physically and spiritually and morally, from the incredibly morally corrupt leaders of our Church, I will stop bringing it up.  For a bizillion reasons, I don’t think that right now.

I know my thoughts bug you.

My concern for my and others’ Catholic children - in terms of their souls and physical and moral well-being,as well as the future of the Church - far outweighs my concern about your distress.

And hey - if you and Camilam find joy in your little betting game - go for it. 

Sinner

You’re apologizing for my inability to connect the dots?  Save it.  Its meaningless.  You want to apologize for your own actions?  Go right ahead.  Otherwise you’re just being rude. 

Can I connect the dots?  Yup.  Child molesting priests…. bishops that cover things up… both bad.  Figured out that one long before I found this site.

Couple of questions though.  If you have a bizillion (I’m gonna assume that’s a lot) reasons for why your children aren’t safe, how about bringing up a few other ones?  Maybe its really only one.  I’ll give you this, its a really good one!! 

Do your thoughts bug me?  No Sinner, criminey we both believe the same thing.  Everyone here believes the same thing.  John Flippin Kerry agrees with you.  No more abusing our children. 

“My concern for my and others’ Catholic children - in terms of their souls and physical and moral well-being,as well as the future of the Church - far outweighs my concern about your distress. “

We’re all concerned Sinner.  We’ve all done things(and continue) to varying degrees to protect the kids.  But if you use this concern as an excuse to exacerbate your and other’s rage, it doesn’t help. It hurts.

If you’re truly concerned for the children, teach them what it means to heal.  After that you can show them how to stay on topic. 

Jaime

That someone else was me…..I have given copious sound examples of the reasoning behind obedience.  And still not one person has given a cogent argument against those statements.  NOT ONE PERSON. 

What is the crux of all of this?  It is obedience.  Are we bound to be obedient to a sin?  Of course not, but we are bound to follow the lead of our competent authority.  In this case, the bishops.  Whether one likes it or not, they are the competent authority.  If one cannot reconcile that with his or her conscience, the Church does not require that one remains a member. 

We have free will.  We have the ability to choose.  As I have said several times, I often disagree with the bishops of the dioceses that I live in.  However, I undertstand the rules, as set forth and I follow them.  We are to approach the bishop in private.  We are to question his authority in private.  We are to admonish him in private.  NOT IN PUBLIC!!!!!  The Church teaches us this.  Out of defference to Mr. Bettinelli, I will not repost….look back if you wish.

Speaking to this, I have stated all along that I would be obedient to the Ordinary until the Holy See clarifies.  The Holy See has done so, therefore, I assent my will to that of the Holy See.

BTW, I still contend that it is the abuse of the Liturgy that is the cause of all of this.  Without sound catechesis at Mass, how can we expect sound teaching elsewhere?  Without mystery in the Liturgy, how can we expect a sense of respect and awe to be fostered?  We have lost a sense of the Sacred.  There is a Latin priniciple that must be recovered.  Instaurare Sacra.  That is the key.

And Sinner,

The thing that bugs is this:  You are obsessed not with the cause, but the effect.  If you put as much effort into the root cause of all of this, you’d probably feel a lot better.  What is that?  It is not the scandalous actions of the priests, but the lack of proper catechesis at the parish and seminary level.

When we can’t get proper formation as laymen and seminarians, how can we expect to follow and UNDERSTAND the life of the Church?  You are at one extreme and the VOTF, CTA, etc….are at the other.

There is an old addage, “The Church is like a streetcar, get off on the right side, you’ll get left behind; if you get off on the left side, you’ll get left behind; but if you stay on the streetcar, you’ll find your way, to the destination.”

Camilam

And what I have said tiime and time again, but you don’t seem to understand is that I am not questioning the bishops’ authority. I acknowledge that they have the authority to decide to give the Eucharist to thos “who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin,” but I also contend they would be in violation of that same canon 915 if they do so.

And since I am not questioning any bishop’s authority, but only his prudence and judgments, I will do that in public. After all, is anyone under any illusion that most bishops will listen to our private communications? They would get filed away unread like all those letters they received during the Scandal. It wasn’t until people started going public with their disgust at how the Scandal was (not) being handled that bishops started doing anything anyway.

You can pretend that your private emails and letters are useful. But the days of quiet deference and automatic kowtowing are past us, lost by the bishops’ own incompetence and negligence. Perhaps if they once again began to do their duty, those days may return in the future. I don’t think it will be any time soon though.

Oh, and how do you think you were able to actually learn what the Holy See really wanted to say. McCarrick wasn’t going to tell us. No, it was someone going PUBLIC (not private) with what they knew.

Mr. Bettinelli,

Gee, sorry I have faith in the Catholic system.  Sorry that I do think that my letters do make a difference.  Sorry that I have this rightly formed idea of truth.  Sorry that I have an undying obedience to the Church.  Sorry that I follow reason and the teachings of the Church.  Sorry that I don’t agree with you, I forgot, you are the moral compass that we should follow, oh wait, that is the Church. 

“Oh, and how do you think you were able to actually learn what the Holy See really wanted to say.”

The same way I did.  READ and follow the Holy See’s lead and the lead of the Ordinary Magisterium.

“I acknowledge that they have the authority to decide to give the Eucharist to thos “who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin,” but I also contend they would be in violation of that same canon 915 if they do so.”

You would be the only one to contend so.  Even Cardinal Ratzinger and Archbishop Burke don’t make the assertion that you just did.

Cardinal Ratzinger says about canon 915, “This decision, properly speaking, is not a sanction or a penalty.”

Archbishop Burke says, ” First of all, Canon 915 is not part of Book Six of the code, which treats of ecclesiastical sanctions.”

You’re making a pretty big leap, Mr. Bettinelli.  Canon 915 is a clarification of canon 912.  It is not a proper decision on its own.  I have discussed this on a previous thread as well.

What else does Cardinal Ratzinger say?  “....Nor is the minister of Holy Communion passing judgement on the person’s subjective guilt….”

It sure does seem that some on this blog are.  That is in direct conflict with the teaching of the Holy See.

Camilam

“The thing that bugs is this:  You are obsessed not with the cause, but the effect. “

You know, Camilam, I am obsessed with both - out of love for Christ’s Church and the children (including mine) growing up in it.  And in my estimation - neither the cause nor the effect is being adequately addressed - or has even begun to be adequately addressed.

“If you put as much effort into the root cause of all of this, you’d probably feel a lot better.  What is that?  It is not the scandalous actions of the priests, but the lack of proper catechesis at the parish and seminary level. “

I guess those priests were never told that it was wrong to lust after and rape teenage boys.  I guess those bishops were never informed that to move molesting priests from one place to another was not right.  I guess all of them were never told to put the safety of children first.  I guess our Cardinals were never told not to lie baldly and boldly to our faces.

A lot of our priests and bishops and cardinals are sub-normal - for even normal people would not do the things they do - even people who had had no catechesis at all.  Even most people who are not Catholic and who are not Christian would not do these things.

That’s what’s so frightening.

“If you’re truly concerned for the children, teach them what it means to heal.”

They are, Jaime, endangered by various forms of evil in the Church.  The only way to deal with unrepentant evil is to eradicate it.

Healing comes after the evil is eradicated - and is for those who have been harmed by that evil.  You cannot ‘heal’ unrepentant evil (no matter how much you may want to).  That is why people go to hell.

And as for my children, they in fact have a thousand times more integrity than many of those who lead our Church.

So in sum, I completely disagree with you with regard to what my children need.

(And I appreciate the pointers on rudeness…) (Did ya win another bet?)

Sinner,

“I guess those priests were never told that it was wrong to lust after and rape teenage boys.  I guess those bishops were never informed that to move molesting priests from one place to another was not right.”

You are projecting the sins of a few on the whole, again.  When I talk about the cause, THAT effects all priests and laity.  You are talking about the effects of a few.

“I guess our Cardinals were never told not to lie baldly and boldly to our faces.”

I don’t disagree that there was an untruth told, but I concur with Seamus’ statement.  See above.

“A lot of our priests and bishops and cardinals are sub-normal - for even normal people would not do the things they do - even people who had had no catechesis at all.  Even most people who are not Catholic and who are not Christian would not do these things.”

Sin is a horrible thing.  But it is a matter for those and their confessors.  How dare you judge.  When we are called to admonish the sinner, we are called to do this in private, not in public.  And certainly not by you and me on a blog that may influence others on matters of faith.

Have you ever thought that your own “harsh statements” may be construed wrongly by a passer-by and that could cause scandal, if they are Catholic, or could cause someone who is considering converting, not too.  There is harm in that.  And that is contrary to the Christian life.

Camilam

“You are talking about the effects of a few. “

No, Camilam, the majority of bishops and a great many current priests are complicit in the evil in this Church.

“I don’t disagree that there was an untruth told.”

Good.  So what should be done about it?

“Sin is a horrible thing.  But it is a matter for those and their confessors.”

When it endangers my and others’ children, as it clearly does, it is MY CONCERN and the concern of every loving Catholic who loves children.

“How dare you judge.” 

I am judging the acts, Camilam, as all Christians are called to do.  Christ will judge the souls.

“When we are called to admonish the sinner, we are called to do this in private, not in public.”

Wrong, Camilam.  When people molest our children and lie to us blatantly, we should publicly and harshly rebuke them.  They should feel the sear of societal disapproval.  Not so doing helped lead to the metastasis of the evil within the Church to begin with.

“Have you ever thought that your own “harsh statements” may be construed wrongly by a passer-by.”

I am sickened by what I see in our Church.  It is an act of love and charity to expose the evil within her.

What have we learned in the past few weeks?

Homomolesting priests are being moved all over the world, the leader of the Salesians is a big fat liar and one more molestor shuffler; Bishops Gregory and McCarrick are big fat liars; and we’ll hand out the Eucharist to unrepentant promoters of vicious evil.

If I did not believe in the truth of the Church, I would leave it in two nanoseconds.  BUt since I do, I have no choice but to fight the evil within it.  The first part of that fight is to name it when you see it.

I wish it weren’t so.  But it is.

Less than 3% of priests involved in the scandal and you’re fighting it by driving every topic on a Catholic blog to one repetitive statement.  Interesting tactic.  Kids are still safer in church than in school but you’re probably taking care of that on some school blog.

Incidentally, the healing I was referring to was yourself.  Heal thyself Sinner before it gets chronic. 

Stop putting words into my mouth. You have an awful tendency to attribute meanings to people’s words that aren’t there in the first place. You can’t read my mind, so stop attributing false motives to me.

“I acknowledge that they have the authority to decide to give the Eucharist to thos “who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin,” but I also contend they would be in violation of that same canon 915 if they do so.”

You would be the only one to contend so.  Even Cardinal Ratzinger and Archbishop Burke don’t make the assertion that you just did.

Oh really? Then why does Ratzinger say: “Apart from an individuals’s judgement about his worthiness to present himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, the minister of Holy Communion may find himself in the situation where he must refuse to distribute Holy Communion to someone, such as in cases of a declared excommunication, a declared interdict, or an obstinate persistence in manifest grave sin (cf. can. 915).”

He’s quoting canon 915 and saying that the minister of Holy Communion must take action. I don’t care whether you call it a sanction or penalty. Ratzinger is saying that, based on canon 915, the minister of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute Communion to a person who fits the criteria. I have said this over and over, but you keep ignoring it. Instead you prefer to get snarky and sarcastic.

And canon 912 simply says that anyone not permitted by law can and must be admitted to Communion. Thus those in violation of canon 915 must not be. I don’t know how to make it any plainer. You appear to be obstinately refusing to see what’s right in front of you. If you want to get pissy about it, fine, but don’t expect me to continue to have a conversation with you if you do.

Sinner,

“No, Camilam, the majority of bishops and a great many current priests are complicit in the evil in this Church.”

That smacks of dissent.  Calling the majority of the priests and bishops evil is uncalled for.  It has been proven time over time that you are speaking about the minority of priests and bishops.

I have asked you this before and I ask you again, if you have no faith in Holy Mother Church, why not just leave?  Or have you already left?

“So what should be done about it?”

I have already answered the question, start listening and stop ranting.

“Wrong, Camilam.”

Prove it.  I have shown you several times that we are to admonish in private.  I have shown you several times that your attitude is not what the Church teaches, but rather is simply an opinion.  And a bad one at that.

“It is an act of love and charity to expose the evil within her.”

Where does the Church teach that we should do that in the manner that you are proposing?

“Homomolesting priests are being moved all over the world, the leader of the Salesians is a big fat liar and one more molestor shuffler; Bishops Gregory and McCarrick are big fat liars; and we’ll hand out the Eucharist to unrepentant promoters of vicious evil.”

What good does name calling do?  Are you solving anything?  Are you even trying?  Or are you just promoting an adgenda that is accuastory and hurtful to the Church that you profess to love.

“BUt since I do, I have no choice but to fight the evil within it.”

You are not fighting anything.  You are simply stating an opinion that is, quite frankly, uncharitable.  You do nothing but gripe and complain.  You do nothing but promote dissent.  You should be trying to find a way to heal this so-called fraction.

“The first part of that fight is to name it when you see it.”

No, actually the first part is to “Offer no resistance to one who is evil.  When someone strikes you on [your] right cheek, turn the other one to him as well.”  (Mt 5:39)

and

“Stop judging, that you may be judged.  For as you judge, so you will be judged, and the measure which you measure will be measured out to you.”  (Mt 7:1-2)

Man, you need to start loving and stop hating.  Hate gains nothing, but love gains much. 

“No, Camilam, the majority of bishops and a great many current priests are complicit in the evil in this Church.”

That smacks of dissent.  Calling the majority of the priests and bishops evil is uncalled for.  It has been proven time over time that you are speaking about the minority of priests and bishops.

Don’t twist his words. He said they were complicit in the evil, not that they were evil. As for the numbers, according to several reviews, about 2/3 of currently sitting bishops were involved in shuffling perverts in ministry from place to place either as bishops themselves or as officials in dioceses. Many priests also remained silent or covered up what they saw happening.

I have asked you this before and I ask you again, if you have no faith in Holy Mother Church, why not just leave?  Or have you already left?

You just don’t get it, do you? For people like Sinner and me, the bishops aren’t the Church. The Church is the body of Christ, the whole people of God, not just the bishops. I have faith in the Bride of Christ, I have faith in the Holy Spirit, I have faith in the institutional and hierarchical nature of the Church. I don’t have faith in some of the men who currently hold the title and office of bishop. There is a big difference and it is mighty presumptuous of you to assume that Sinner would abandon his faith because of the sins of some men in the Church.

After all, wasn’t it a variation of just that saying—“If you have no faith in Holy Mother Church, why not just leave?”—that was used by priest-abusers against their victims when they dared to question what was being done to them? No one man or group of men is the Church.

Mr. Bettinelli,

Are we not saying the same thing?

You say, “Ratzinger is saying that, based on canon 915, the minister of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute Communion to a person who fits the criteria.”

I say, “There has been clarification from the Holy See on this matter and I am in total agreement with what Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger has to say, precisely because he is the compitent authority on the matter and it is this teaching that I must assent my will to.”

Why pick a fight?  Looking back to the very first post, I stated that I agree with Cardinal Ratzinger.  I agree with Cardinal Ratzinger.  I agree with Cardinal Ratzinger.

“Stop putting words into my mouth. You have an awful tendency to attribute meanings to people’s words that aren’t there in the first place. You can’t read my mind, so stop attributing false motives to me.”

I have not done that at all.  But, honestly, you can’t read my mind either.  So back at ya big guy. 

But again, Mr. Bettinelli, we agree.  I don’t see where the problem is, other than you can’t accept the fact that you and I might actually hold the same view.  (Shocker!!!!)  Which we do to a greater extent, rather than a lesser.

Camilam

I’m watching with some amusement.  Cardinal McCarrick is going to be getting his comeuppance here pretty quick, I expect.  I think it won’t be very pretty.

But if somehow he escapes it again because he’s so well hooked up, he’ll retire in a year or so, I hope, and then we’ll be able to file him wherever we filed Cardinal Whatsisname from Milwaukee.

Here’s hoping that the Holy See has wide open eyes on this one and appoints someone without this particular set of problems….

Mr. Bettinelli,

“For people like Sinner and me, the bishops aren’t the Church.”

They are part of the Church and they are the compitent authority.  The Church has said so.  As a Catholic you have to assent your will to that.  While you don’t have to like everything that they say, they are the authority. 

As with everything, you have a right to disagree, but there is a way to do it.  I have described the way to do it and I follow that way laid out by the Church.

Just because you don’t like the way that it is done, doesn’t give you licesnse to publicly defame her leaders.  That is what I take issue with. 

On most things, we agree.  On most ideas, we agree.  I just think that there is more to the bishopric than the men who they are.  But the men are due the respect of you and of me, not because they are sinful humans, but because they are apostles.  Peter and Paul disagreed, but they respected each other.  And even though they disagreed, Paul showed respect to Peter as head of the Church.  That is all I am trying to get across.

“There is a big difference and it is mighty presumptuous of you to assume that Sinner would abandon his faith because of the sins of some men in the Church.”

Now who is twisting words?  I asked a question, an honest one, based upon his views.

Camilam

Are we not saying the same thing?

No, we are not. I said: “I acknowledge that they have the authority to decide to give the Eucharist to those “who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin,” but I also contend they would be in violation of that same canon 915 if they do so.”

You said: You would be the only one to contend so.  Even Cardinal Ratzinger and Archbishop Burke don’t make the assertion that you just did.

Then I showed where Ratzinger did make the assertion.

Apart from that, our fundamental disagreement is the meaning of obedience to the bishop, what kind of deference they are due, and whether it’s okay to express in public my opinion of how they carry out their duties. You’re not going to change my mind, so let’s leave it at that.

“Incidentally, the healing I was referring to was yourself.”

Thanks Jaime for your concern.  I’ll be find and dandy when the Church comes close to approximating what it is meant to be, and when I have a strong assurance that my children are safe growing up in It - both physically and spiritually and catechetically.  Until then, you’ll just have to continue being concerned for me.  I expect that you’ll become quite wealthy over time from your bets and wagers.

———————————————————-

“Man, you need to start loving and stop hating.”

What I hate, Camilam, are the outrageous sins of so many of the people leading our Church.

And if I didn’t love God and Christ and children, I wouldn’t care.  But I do, so I do.

————————————————————-

“What good does name calling do?”

A lot of good, Camilam.  The simple fact is, if the press had not started to alert people to the sick and depraved homomolestations of boys within the Church, it would still be going on.  Why?  Because our current batch of leaders (still in place) did not have an ounce of the moral fortitude necessary to stop it. 

Without the name-calling of the press, lots of priests would be raping boys right now.  That’s something to think about, isn’t it?

————————————————————-

“Just because you don’t like the way that it is done, doesn’t give you licesnse to publicly defame her leaders.  That is what I take issue with. “

I know.  I disagree.  You’ll have to deal with it.

Mr. Bettinelli and Sinner,

You both miss the point of my posts.  I am not trying to change your minds.  I am simply trying to give another more conservative viewpoint.  It goes to the old addage, “There is more than one way to skin a cat.”

As I said, on most things we agree.  I still believe that.  But, I look at is as a matter of staying within the scope of the Church’s teaches on all things.  You do not.  I don’t begrudge you that, but I only offer alternative (and probably) more effective ways of dealing with the issues at hand.

For your own information,  every single time that I have written the Archbishop I have received correspondance.  Every single time that I have asked for a meeting with the Archbishop, I have been received by him.  What does that prove?  To you, probably nothing, but to me, it shows that he is willing to listen. 

Honestly, I do care whether you change your minds.  But, I don’t care if you do it tomorrow.  You have minds of your own and you have your own free will.  The choice is yours to assent it to the Church, even when you disagree with her.  I do it all the time.  Ask Jaime, he’ll be quick to tell you.

An example, from what you have read, do you think that I like Mass in English?  The answer is no.  I think that it is an abuse.  But I accept the Mass in English, precisely because it is the Church that says as much.  I have written the Archbishop about this and I have even talked to him about this.  He has an answer for me that is very accepting.  It is this.  There is no interdict on the parishes to say Mass in English only, but I am not going to force them to say Mass in Latin.  If they choose to do so, that is fine, if they choose not to, that is fine.  I celebrate Mass in Latin when I am outside the USA, except when with a pilgrimage group.  Do I think that there are flaws in that?  Yes I do, but ultimately he is being a pastor and he is looking out for the best interest of his diocese.  It shows that I can personally disagree with the Archbishop on a matter that I find to be of utmost importance, but still assent my will to that of the Church.  Maybe not as serious in your minds, but it is an exercise in obedience.  Not of the man Harry Flynn, but of Archbishop Harry Flynn.

So, I will continue to do what I do.  You will continue to do what you do.  I am sure that you will continue to rue the day that I ever set type to this blog, but alternative viewpoints are healthy.  And at the very least, I hope that I cause you to think.  Isn’t that the point of all of this anyways. 

AMDG+

Camilam

See, this is the problem. You think that I am outside the scope of the Church’s teachings and that I am not assenting my will to the Church. Well, you’re wrong.

And what’s the difference between you airing your difference with Archbishop Flynn on the Mass in English in public and my airing my difference with a whole host of bishops on giving Communion to pro-abortion politicians in public? You seem to be violating your own rule.

Just like you, I’m not saying that I’m going to go around smacking the Eucharist out of the hands of priests who attempt to give it to pro-aborts. I’m airing my disagreement on their judgment and saying where I think they err.

Mr. Bettinelli,

“You seem to be violating your own rule.”

No, I am doing it within the scope of how the Church wants it handled.  In a private forum.  By doing what I am doing, I am voicing my concerns, but I am doing as much by talking to him in a private manner. 

Show me where we are to question the bishops openly, by Church law and I will change my view.  I have shown where we are to do this in private.  That is what I am doing.  I am not violating any rules.

I am doing what any faithful Catholic should do if he disagrees with his Ordinary, questioning it, but I don’t advocate doing so publicly.  And neither does the Church.

“Just like you, I’m not saying that I’m going to go around smacking the Eucharist out of the hands of priests who attempt to give it to pro-aborts.”

I am glad to hear that, but there are some here who are.  And to that end, I have never disagreed with you personally.  Actually, if you go back and look, you’ll see that we agree more than we disagree.  That was my point earlier.

I have also said that I think that they may be wrong, but I am to submit to the compitent authority until there is a clarification.  There has been one, so I now defer to that authority.  This seems to have moved beyond the scope of a particular judgement, into a universal one, precisely because the CDF has taught on the issue.  So, with that being said, I will defer to that if the issue comes up in the future, rather than submitting to a particular Ordinary.

But again, this is how the Church works.  This is the principle of collegiality.  We are to take up issue with our bishops in a private forum, not in public.  We are to assent our will to the teaching of the Church.  Sometimes that means to the local Ordinary, even when we don’t personally like it.  Sometimes it means to the Holy See, even when we don’t like it.  But our scope of understanding is less than that of the Holy See and often times less than that of the Ordinaries.  The reason being that we only get parts of the story.  There is often times a much bigger picture.  And a greater Truth is waiting to be revealed.  As in this case.

So again, we agree on most things.  And we disagree on some.  But that is normal.  We are separate people.

Camilam

BTW, sorry for the double post…..

“And what’s the difference between you airing your difference with Archbishop Flynn on the Mass in English in public….”

I have never questioned him in public.  It was done at the Chancery in his office.  And on other issues, it was by post, with “MATTER OF CONSCIENCE” labeled on the envelope.

Certainly not a public display.

Camilam