waiting for guidance
By Diogenes (articles ) | February 19, 2010 5:17 PM
Questioned about the vexing issue of whether pro-abortion politicians should be admitted to the Eucharist, Cardinal Sean O'Malley--who faces such questions frequently in his Boston archdiocese--told LifeSite News that clear guidance from the Vatican is necessary.
LSN: “So you think it needs a directive from the Pope or be made clear in Canon Law?”
O’Malley: “It’s the only way it is really going to work."
What a good idea! Something clear. Something in the Code of Canon Law. Something like this:
Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.
If the Vatican approves this wording, let's call it Canon 915.
An appeal from our founder, Dr. Jeffrey Mirus:
Dear reader: If you found the information on this page helpful in your pursuit of a better Catholic life, please support our work with a donation. Your donation will help us reach five million Truth-seeking readers worldwide this year. Thank you!
Our Fall Campaign
Progress toward our final 2013 goal ($21,823 to go, assuming receipt of matching funds):
All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!
Posted by: annedanielson4099 -
Feb. 23, 2010 1:15 PM ET USA
Oh wait! Ad Tuendam Fidem.
Posted by: Frodo1945 -
Feb. 20, 2010 9:08 AM ET USA
Awhhh, quit complaining. At least in Boston they didn't hold an interfaith meeting in their Cathedral and have the local Imam sound the Muslim call to prayer, followed by a reading from the Quran, followed by a speech telling us that the end of violence in our city will come when we are all under Shia law.
Posted by: Cornelius -
Feb. 20, 2010 7:48 AM ET USA
What I can't figure out is why Cardinal Ratzinger/CDF sent "Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion" was sent as a private letter to Cardinal McCarrick, so that the latter could spin it as he wished and everyone could pretend that the Vatican was staying mute on the controversy. Why PRIVATE? Why?
Posted by: opraem -
Feb. 19, 2010 9:46 PM ET USA
sean wants the nuremberg defense 'i am just following orders' when he teaches explicit church doctrine. so much for the college of bishops. rome fails time and again to read the riot act and actually do something about it. and people wonder why the us bishops are respected only for their choice of recipes. the pope and the bishops need our prayers.
Posted by: Pseudodionysius -
Feb. 19, 2010 9:06 PM ET USA
Back in the Boston diocesan office, a lone figure in shadow answers the phone -- a long distance call from Rome -- and hears a cock crow three times in the distance.
Posted by: maynardus -
Feb. 19, 2010 6:35 PM ET USA
And it worked out so well the last time the Cardinal Archbishop of Boston contacted Rome for guidance, i.e. about washing the feet of women. Thanks to his pusillaninity and Rome's passing-of-the-buck back to ol' Sandals - leaving it up to his "pastoral wisdom" to make the decision - spineless bishops all across the fruited plain now have a heterodox precedent to hide behind. What do we need bishops for if they won't govern, teach, or sanctify?
Posted by: -
Feb. 19, 2010 6:35 PM ET USA
Perhaps the good cardinal thinks that the Latin version of the Code was translated poorly. Keep him away from the ICEL!