www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News No Communion For Public Sinners In The Diocese Of Scranton

Are any of them public sinners?

One statement of Bishop Martino's disturbed me somewhat: The problem with these reasons is that neither one is the principal reason for denying someone Communion, which is to prevent the grave scandal of presenting a clear moral teaching on the one hand, and then showing everyone what hypocrites we are when we act as though that teaching only applied to the rank and file and could be freely dispensed with by the elite.

(Hypocrisy--ever notice that no other sin came anywhere near evoking such strong language from Our Lord in its condemnation?)

In addition, I feel that a distinction should always be made between a politician who merely votes in favor of a bill (and may have other reasons for doing so), and one who declares himself/herself strongly in favor of abortion "rights."

Another item that needs to be mentioned here is Bishop Martino's repeated use of the term "unworthy"--as if the rest of us were all "worthy!" This is a poor line of reasoning and should not be used.


Peace,
Deacon Richard

Nobody is worthy.

I know Bishop Joseph quite well. He was involved in my formation at St. Charles Seminary in the RC Archdiocese of Philadelphia (my Eparchy did not have it's own program of formation at the time). He is orthodox. His thrust has been to try and stop the nonsense of pro-death "Catholic" politicians pretending to be members in good standing while, at the same time voting to allow the murder of the innocent. He, in refusing to distribute Holy Communion to pro-death politicians (who, after being counseled and refusing that counsel, are "public sinners"), is being obedient to Canon Law. This is crucial in NEPA, where the tendency has been to vote for Democrats at all cost, even if they are on a moral plane with the likes of Genghis Khan, Josef Stalin, or Jack the Ripper. Another thrust of his is to push "Catholic" institutions of higher learning to "fish or cut bait" on the issue of "Catholic identity". He's currently doing battle with the Sisters of Mercy, who own and operate Miserecordia College, a local institution which has made a practice of featuring pro-abortion and pro-gay agenda speakers at "diversity" events. These nuns are a poison in the church, and have been that for quite some time. The reader will recall that it was a Mercy nun who made a public protest against Pope John Paul II when he first visited the U.S. They are into "womanpriest" and a host of other modernist causes. I support what Bishop Joseph has been doing in this area 1000%.

Dn. Robert

(1.) The Catechism of the Catholic Church acknowledges the right of the State to use capital punishment, for the protection of society, but presently counsels governments not to do so if other means of protecting society can be found. This is a "prudential judgement" of the Magisterium. One can disagree, with this prudential judgement, and uphold the right of the State to use capital punishment, and still be in the good graces of the Church. But, Direct Abortion is always intrinsically evil, and can never be justified.

(2.) As to those other situations, if a person has been pastorally counseled, and continues to commit these sins publicly, then Canon Law (both Roman and Eastern Catholic) insists that he/she not be given Holy Communion.

Bishop Joseph is correct, and is merely doing his job. More Bishops need to do likewise.

Dn. Robert

I would say for the sake of consistency there should be a crackdown on all of the above then.

Deacon Robert summarizes Catholic Teaching quite well. Bishop Martino is simply proclaiming the Catholic Faith and applying the prescriptions given in the canons.

No one rejoices in the fact that a politican - or any other Catholic - should engage in actions that exclude himself from partaking of the Eucharist. Indeed, I morn for such people and pray for them.

It is, however, very good to see a bishop stopping politicians from using the Eucharist as a political tool. Sadly, many politicians use the Eucharist as a political tool. They reject the Catholic Faith on life issues, publicly take Communion, and try to use the photo-op to say to voters (and the world) that you can vote to keep killing babies in the womb and be a good Catholic. I will note that the Church has clearly rejected the idea that there are other issues (even added together) that would comprise a moral good that would allow voting for a moral intrinsic evil (like abortion).

I also support Bishop Joseph 100% and will pray for him.

John

Do you really think that's what the politicians are saying?

What about politicians who support funding initiatives that advocate contraception? Should they be refused communion? What if it came to light that there were any lay Catholics using contraceptives? Refuse them communion?

I would also have to assume that since Bishop Botean said the following


That anyone who falls in to that category would also be denied communion.

There is certainly abundant evidence that many politicians do just that. Speaker of the House Nancy Pilosi has quite clearly and openly stated that she can be a Catholic in good standing while supporting abortion and even promoting it (through legislation that enables it and pays for it using taxpayer dollars). There are numerous others who have done the same (the two senators from Massachusetts and the former New York Mayor are other prominent examples).

Yes. This should be obvious.

Yes. This also should be obvious. It is generally listed in the self-examination guidelines to prepare for Confession and Eucharist.

A pastoral response to a politician who is working against Catholic values in the legislative arena is going to take a different form than that of an individual couple. In the case under discussion, Bishop Joseph has already attempted to speak privately with politicians. He has also contacted educational institutions with types of pastoral letter remaining them that their obligation to live and promote Catholic values caries into all parts of their lives. It is they who have continually rejected his pastoral counsel, and they who are responsible for him needing to publicly remind them of the penalties they incur on themselves. A Catholic bishop certainly has the right and obligation to insist that those who do not hold the Catholic Faith should not approach to partake of the Eucharist.

Bishop Botean certainly deserves respect. On the matter of the war to liberate the Iraqi he is mistaken. The war was not against the people of Iraq. It was to liberate them by removing a dictator. The Vatican has acknowledged that the war can legitimately be seen as meeting the Just War theory and that support for it not a grave evil, nor a matter of mortal sin. The Vatican does make clear that all war is a failure to keep peace and that all war should be avoided (which is obvious). In April, in his speech to the United Nations, Pope Benedict XVI acknowledged the justness of the war (without supporting the war) by noting that the international community has an obligation to intervene when a country defaults on its duty to protect its citizens. This is perfectly logical since even Just Wars are a failure and should not be fought(if possible). The Holy Father did not place blame for the war upon the United States but, rather, spoke of how “the world’s problems call for interventions in the form of collective action by the international community.” He did not offer specifics but it was pretty clear that the larger burden was place upon the international community (and specifically the United Nations) to have resolved the issues peacefully before military intervention was deemed necessary.

To continue to present one bishop’s perspective as if it outranked the Vatican’s official position is not really a wise tactic.

I will add that I agree with AMM there should be more consistency in reminding people of the penalties they incur when they reject Catholic Teaching. Had the bishops done so from the start these questions would not need discussing since everyone would be aware of the proper application of remedial measures.

Archbishop Chaput of Denver spoke clearly about this issue last week:

So his encyclical is actually mistaken and he misled his flock in to thinking support for or participation in the war is a mortal sin? Isn't that incredibly dangerous?

Is anyone who voted for the Democrats this year guilty of a mortal sin? Should communion be withheld from everyone who did?

I agree that bishops must take great care in presenting Catholic Teaching.

There are both pro-life and pro-abortion candidates and politicians in the various parties competing for our votes. The individual voter has a responsibility to first elect officials who are pro-life. To vote for a pro-abortion candidate when there is a pro-life candidate available is indeed a moral failure.

If I might amend your statement to include not just pro-abortion Democrats but also pro-abortion Republicans (and pro-abortion candidates of all parties) the answer is “yes”. Those who use their vote to work against Catholic values should not take communion until they examine their conscience and reform their lives.

But why isn’t this obvious?

If we are Catholic and Orthodox then we believe in the sanctity of human life. If we believe in the sanctity of human life we must support it 24/7/365, and especially with our vote. If we do not support respect for human life with our vote and instead place human life down the list after some preferred cause then are we really Catholic? Or Orthodox? Do we respect human life or don’t we?

Let me quote Archbishop Chaput more tightly:

So did Bishop Botean tell his flock that something is a mortal sin when it wasn't? Isn't that a pretty big deal?


Based on the various stances of both major parties, and the ways that participation in public life (as a politician or regular citizen) could inevitably lead to violation of Catholic values either through direct participation or support, how many people do you think are fit for communion at this time?

I don’t know if it is a pretty big deal. It is my opinion that it was certainly a lost opportunity. I have been told that Bishop John Michael has since noted that he would have chosen his words differently, but I have not seen that in writing so I don’t know if he would have said the same thing differently or something rather different if he had to do it all over again. You might contact him to ask him about the issue.

I have no idea. I do not think it is a numbers game.

I know that I seldom am fit to partake of the Eucharist. I am not surprised that there are others who keep falling down in sin, too.

Administrator,
Thank you for your clear insight on the Catholic moral position.
You are right.
And I for one would have taken a stand against Bishop Botean.
He was clearly in the wrong and overstepping his authority. You are right, war can be justified when it is declared to liberate a people from tyrany, as was clear in the case of Sadam Hussein, whether or not he had weapons of mass distruction.
Stephanos I

If my bishop started telling people something was a mortal sin, i.e. their souls were in peril of being eternally lost, and it turns out it was just something he made up on his own; I would consider it a fairly big deal. I for one would not trust his judgment or leadership.


I would guess that if you look at what both major parties do and stand for, you can find a slew of things (and big things) that directly violate Catholic principles. If our ability to receive communion is based on our participation in politics or public life, nobody should be receiving communion ever.