Tag Archives: Canon 915

2023-02-19 · 5:27 am

Deny Holy Communion! Book sent to each priest and bishop in these USA: Canon 915

  • Thank you, Thomas J. McKenna. This is triumph for the life of the Church. Blessings upon you. You time and talent and treasure… thank you.
  • Thank you, Raymond Cardinal Burke, for these your efforts to defend the Most Blessed Sacrament, back in the day when rebels were setting up the apostasy and mockery of Jesus we see rampant everywhere today.
  • Thank you, Julián Cardinal Herranz Casado, who way back in the day headed up the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts.
  • Thank you, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, who guided and protected Canon 915.

Just guessing at the timeline, but I think this is what happened back in the day:

  • A certain parish in Australia, a most filthy liberal rotten dark parish, most anti-Catholic, had perhaps the highest number of public unrepentant grave sinners receiving Holy Communion in the world. This maelstrom of evil sucked many into its vortex, utterly destroying deacons, priests, bishops and Cardinals who all had to have a hand in the ongoing evil. The higher ups surely tried to defend themselves in written blather vomited out to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
  • Surely in response to “some authors” and similar situations, but very much those involved in whatever way with this particular parish, the then Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, CDF, ghost-wrote an interpretation of Canon 915 for the Pontifical Council of Legislative Texts.
  • On 24 June 2000, Cardinal Herranz signed and published what the CDF had written as an authentic interpretation of Canon 915, which is about denying Holy Communion to public, that is, notorious unrepentant grave sinners.
  • Who would’ve guessed, but not long afterwards yours truly was assigned to that parish. Canon 915 was put into effect and the shock waves of that nuclear explosion went around the world. 😎 The vindictive revenge against me was immediate and vicious, and threw me around the world into the depths of the caves of the library of the Pontifical Biblical Institute in Rome, where, for the next years, the thesis defending the Immaculate Conception in Genesis 3:15 was penned. Jesus is so good. 😎
  • Not long after my removal from Down Under, the member Cardinals of the CDF congregated at the Feria quarta, that is, their regular Wednesday meeting, and were deciding on deleting Canon 915 from the Code of Canon Law. No surprise there. I’m sure there were unending phone calls from Australia that were frantic to make sure that our Lord would continue to be dishonored in the Most Blessed Sacrament. But there were two surprises: (1) The Cardinal members were reminded of that parish and what yours truly had done with Canon 915 and then of the subsequent revenge meted out to me. (2) They changed their minds and kept Canon 915 in the Code of Canon Law. 😎

I’m tempted to get a license plate for the Toyota which reads [CIC 915]. Is that bragging? Well, I suppose. That’s how weak I am. On the other hand, I do want to point out by way of experience to my fellow priests and bishops that our Lord does take care of those who are smacked down hard for His sake. Truly. Have no worries. Jesus is the Sovereign High Priest, the great King of the Heavens and the Earth.

And if there are those who, armed with this little volume penned by Cardinal Burke, deny Holy Communion to the powerful and public sinners of our day who seem to especially enjoy mocking our Lord in the Most Blessed Sacrament, know that however much you are smacked down by your fellow priests and bishops, it is Jesus Christ who will support you. You honor Him. You protect Him. It is He who will introduce you to our Heavenly Father in Heaven, as His gift to our Heavenly Father.

For the sake of completeness, the authentic interpretation of Canon 915 is included here.

https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/intrptxt/documents/rc_pc_intrptxt_doc_20000706_declaration_en.html

PONTIFICAL COUNCIL FOR LEGISLATIVE TEXTS – DECLARATION –

CONCERNING THE ADMISSION TO HOLY COMMUNION OF FAITHFUL WHO ARE DIVORCED AND REMARRIED

The Code of Canon Law establishes that “Those upon whom the penalty of excommunication or interdict has been imposed or declared, and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, are not to be admitted to Holy Communion” (can. 915). In recent years some authors have sustained, using a variety of arguments, that this canon would not be applicable to faithful who are divorced and remarried. It is acknowledged that paragraph 84 of the Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris consortio, issued in 1981, had reiterated that prohibition in unequivocal terms and that it has been expressly reaffirmed many times, especially in paragraph 1650 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, published in 1992, and in the Letter written in 1994 by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Annus internationalis Familiae. That notwithstanding, the aforementioned authors offer various interpretations of the above-cited canon that exclude from its application the situation of those who are divorced and remarried. For example, since the text speaks of “grave sin”, it would be necessary to establish the presence of all the conditions required for the existence of mortal sin, including those which are subjective, necessitating a judgment of a type that a minister of Communion could not make ab externo; moreover, given that the text speaks of those who “obstinately” persist in that sin, it would be necessary to verify an attitude of defiance on the part of an individual who had received a legitimate warning from the Pastor. Given this alleged contrast between the discipline of the 1983 Code and the constant teachings of the Church in this area, this Pontifical Council, in agreement with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and with the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments declares the following:

  1. The prohibition found in the cited canon, by its nature, is derived from divine law and transcends the domain of positive ecclesiastical laws: the latter cannot introduce legislative changes which would oppose the doctrine of the Church. The scriptural text on which the ecclesial tradition has always relied is that of St. Paul: “This means that whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily sins against the body and blood of the Lord. A man should examine himself first only then should he eat of the bread and drink of the cup. He who eats and drinks without recognizing the body eats and drinks a judgment on himself.”

This text concerns in the first place the individual faithful and their moral conscience, a reality that is expressed as well by the Code in can. 916. But the unworthiness that comes from being in a state of sin also poses a serious juridical problem in the Church: indeed the canon of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches that is parallel to can. 915 CIC of the Latin Church makes reference to the term “unworthy”: “Those who are publicly unworthy are forbidden from receiving the Divine Eucharist” (can. 712). In effect, the reception of the Body of Christ when one is publicly unworthy constitutes an objective harm to the ecclesial communion: it is a behavior that affects the rights of the Church and of all the faithful to live in accord with the exigencies of that communion. In the concrete case of the admission to Holy Communion of faithful who are divorced and remarried, the scandal, understood as an action that prompts others towards wrongdoing, affects at the same time both the sacrament of the Eucharist and the indissolubility of marriage. That scandal exists even if such behavior, unfortunately, no longer arouses surprise: in fact it is precisely with respect to the deformation of the conscience that it becomes more necessary for Pastors to act, with as much patience as firmness, as a protection to the sanctity of the Sacraments and a defense of Christian morality, and for the correct formation of the faithful.

  1. Any interpretation of can. 915 that would set itself against the canon’s substantial content, as declared uninterruptedly by the Magisterium and by the discipline of the Church throughout the centuries, is clearly misleading. One cannot confuse respect for the wording of the law (cfr. can. 17) with the improper use of the very same wording as an instrument for relativizing the precepts or emptying them of their substance.

The phrase “and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin” is clear and must be understood in a manner that does not distort its sense so as to render the norm inapplicable. The three required conditions are:

a) grave sin, understood objectively, being that the minister of Communion would not be able to judge from subjective imputability;

b) obstinate persistence, which means the existence of an objective situation of sin that endures in time and which the will of the individual member of the faithful does not bring to an end, no other requirements (attitude of defiance, prior warning, etc.) being necessary to establish the fundamental gravity of the situation in the Church.

c) the manifest character of the situation of grave habitual sin.

Those faithful who are divorced and remarried would not be considered to be within the situation of serious habitual sin who would not be able, for serious motives – such as, for example, the upbringing of the children – “to satisfy the obligation of separation, assuming the task of living in full continence, that is, abstaining from the acts proper to spouses” (Familiaris consortio, n. 84), and who on the basis of that intention have received the sacrament of Penance. Given that the fact that these faithful are not living more uxorio is per se occult, while their condition as persons who are divorced and remarried is per se manifest, they will be able to receive Eucharistic Communion only remoto scandalo.

  1. Naturally, pastoral prudence would strongly suggest the avoidance of instances of public denial of Holy Communion. Pastors must strive to explain to the concerned faithful the true ecclesial sense of the norm, in such a way that they would be able to understand it or at least respect it. In those situations, however, in which these precautionary measures have not had their effect or in which they were not possible, the minister of Communion must refuse to distribute it to those who are publicly unworthy. They are to do this with extreme charity, and are to look for the opportune moment to explain the reasons that required the refusal. They must, however, do this with firmness, conscious of the value that such signs of strength have for the good of the Church and of souls.

The discernment of cases in which the faithful who find themselves in the described condition are to be excluded from Eucharistic Communion is the responsibility of the Priest who is responsible for the community. They are to give precise instructions to the deacon or to any extraordinary minister regarding the mode of acting in concrete situations.

  1. Bearing in mind the nature of the above-cited norm (cfr. n. 1), no ecclesiastical authority may dispense the minister of Holy Communion from this obligation in any case, nor may he emanate directives that contradict it.
  2. The Church reaffirms her maternal solicitude for the faithful who find themselves in this or other analogous situations that impede them from being admitted to the Eucharistic table. What is presented in this Declaration is not in contradiction with the great desire to encourage the participation of these children in the life of the Church, in the many forms compatible with their situation that are already possible for them. Moreover, the obligation of reiterating this impossibility of admission to the Eucharist is required for genuine pastoral care and for an authentic concern for the well-being of these faithful and of the whole Church, being that it indicates the conditions necessary for the fullness of that conversion to which all are always invited by the Lord, particularly during this Holy Year of the Great Jubilee.

Vatican City, June 24, 2000. Solemnity of the Nativity of Saint John the Baptist

Julián Herranz
Titular Archbishop of Vertara
President

Bruno Bertagna
Titular Bishop of Drivasto
Secretary

By the way, and just to say, since this little volume was sent out to every single priest and bishop in these USA…

THE PRIESTS AND BISHOPS HAVE NO EXCUSE

3 Comments

Filed under Eucharist

Tagged as , , , , , , ,

2022-06-29 · 11:36 am

Papal Mass today: Pelosi scores Holy Communion: sacrilege. How very disgusting.

Big day today for Nance the fanatic abortionist. She got Holy Communion at the Papal Mass. That’s after she countenanced the violent protests of the overturning of Roe v Wade, which included an assassination attempt on one of the Justices of the Supreme Court. Rewarded, honored, publicly. Where’s Canon 915?

By the way and just to say, politicians have always been put in a special section for diplomats and politicians right up front close to the altar at Papal Masses, but that section is special in the sense that no one in that section is ever to be administered Holy Communion. Maybe that rule’s been tossed. Did they go way of their way to make sure that she received Holy Communion? Was that a mistake?

Whatever the case, if I knew before who’s who, and there was a Nancy Pelosi or Joey Biden or John Kerry, I would not administer Holy Communion to any public sinner, “notorious,” as Canon Law says. To do that would only be confirming them on their trip to hell, eating and drinking their own condemnation, as Saint Paul says.

So, this is Pope Francis’ version of the New Mass is it? This is the lens through which I will be reading his new encyclical Desiderio desideravi. Some people like how nice they perceive it to be. I’m only half way through, and my perception is that everything is wrong, including every “and” and “the.” How very disgusting. More on that later, but it’s all-a-piece with Nancy the super-abortionist getting Holy Communion.

15 Comments

Filed under Pope Francis, Pro-Life

Tagged as , , , ,

2021-11-15 · 9:00 am

You politicize / weaponize Eucharist against unborn giving Holy Communion to pro-abort pols

Those who say that NOT to give pro-aborts like Joey Biden Holy Communion is to politicize and weaponize the Eucharist.

Wait… What?

To give pro-aborts like Joey Biden Holy Communion IS to politicize and weaponize the Eucharist over against the least of the brethren in the womb.

That minister, that (arch)bishop, any Pope who politicizes and weaponizes the Eucharist as a ticket to murder the unborn will be severely judged by our Lord Jesus. All He will have to do is point to Himself in His mother’s womb, and to Saint John in the womb of Saint Elizabeth.

This is not rocket science.

But priests and bishops say that “the Magisterium” says it’s OK, and don’t think you can know better than the Magisterium.”

That is so very cynical. Deadly cynical. Just. Wow. How many millions more have to die with this fake-divine-mandate? No. Really. Tell me. Cowards.

If that claptrap blahbadiblahblahblah is the Magisterium, then I do know better than the Magisterium. But that’s not the Sacred Magisterium. To say that encouragement to murder is the Magisterium is evil. That has zero authority. Zippo. Zilch. Nada. Nothing.

The bishops say that they are going to give the foundational doctrine of the Eucharist and that will be able to be used for Eucharistic Coherence, meaning denying giving Holy Communion to Joe Biden. But they won’t say that people have to be denied, will they? We’ll see. So far, speaking about the truth of the Eucharist and the evil of abortion hasn’t stopped Joe Biden from approaching to receive Holy Communion, nor has it stopped anyone from giving Joe Biden Holy Communion. So, why not just make a statement affirming Canon 915?

Leave a comment

Filed under Eucharist, Free exercise of religion, Pro-Life

Tagged as , , , ,

2021-11-01 · 4:44 am

Dear Pope Francis: I’ll deny Joe Biden Holy Communion. It’s divine law, not human prudential policy.

Divine Law is truthful and just and charitable, all at once, by definition. And it is divine law that people who do not discern the Body and Blood of the Lord are not to receive Holy Communion (see below). But people don’t get that. Sending people to hell with a complacent conscience is uncharitable. Let’s be specific: that objectively monstrous people like Joey Biden who effectively picks his teeth with the ribs of aborted babies while he comes up to receive Holy Communion is just plain wrong, and it’s gotta stop. I don’t care what the bishops have to say about it, it’s divine law:

  • 1 Corinthians 11:27 — “So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. 29 For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves.”

And then there’s this:

  • “But Father George! Father George! You’re hurting Joey’s feelings on purpose! We know! You’re an old meanie! The most important thing, like, ever, is feelings, not eternal life or eternal death, heaven or hell, but feelings! And you are hurting feelings! Bad! Bad! BAD!”

Well, the Holy Spirit inspired those words of Saint Paul. If I needed a reprimand to get myself on to heaven I hope people would give it to me even if it hurt my feelings. But judging that I’m uncharitable for not judging the subjective state of someone, but rather their objective state from what they themselves obstinately and publicly and scandalously present most contentiously is a little bit weird. It’s a great charity to help someone turn to the Lord who needs to do that.

I’m not saying that Pope Francis said what Joey Biden said Pope Francis said about Joey being a good Catholic and that Joey should continue to go to Holy Communion. After all, Joey Biden spoke without a teleprompters. But Joey said what he said, and it’s out there, and it’s putting enormous pressure on the bishops in these USA to just throw 1 Corinthians 11:27-29 right out the wide open windows while the smoke of Satan enters in.

The effect is the same if Francis says nothing to correct what Joey said. But, truth be told, Pope Francis already declared himself on the matter in the recent plane trip when he condemned abortion then instantly allowed “pastoral” decisions of pastors to allow pro-abort politicians to receive Holy Communion, calling any denial of Holy Communion to such monsters mere ideological politics. In other words, abortion doesn’t matter. Joey Biden’s soul doesn’t matter. It’s all mere politics and ideology. Don’t expect Pope Francis to be making any correction. Joey Biden said exactly what Pope Francis wanted him to say regardless of whether or not Pope Francis said it.

I suggest that Pope Francis ought not say that 1 Corinthians 11:27-29 is – even though inspired by the Holy Spirit – the mere rubbish of rigid ideological politics as he effectively said in the plane interview. True, it will be said with their own false judgment that these verses are not written for our salvation and therefore in their own minds are not inspired. (They’re wrong on that: it’s all inspired, all for our salvation.) Or they’ll say that we’re all more clever today anyway, so it doesn’t matter. after all, we’re all infallible.

At any rate, I’m lucky to have such a small parish. Our parking lot couldn’t fit all the vehicles in Joey Biden’s entourage. Our little church could hardly fit in those of his entourage. But there’s plenty of room in the penitent side of the Confessional for him alone. And I’m still a Missionary of Mercy. About whatever undeclared excommunication he would have picked up I can absolve.

When Joey converts, we need him to go back to the Vatican and reprimand Pope Francis for not reprimanding him.

7 Comments

Filed under Eucharist, Pope Francis

Tagged as , , ,

2021-05-13 · 8:22 am

CDF giving Holy Communion to Biden: Canon 915 now impossible except…

In Canon 915 we read that those who are…

  • “obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to Holy Communion.”

Cardinal Burke commented on ongoing past controversy about all this, recounting that:

  • “The discussion among the Bishops uncovered a fair amount of serious confusion regarding the discipline of can. 915. First of all, the denial of Holy Communion was repeatedly characterized as the imposition of a canonical penalty, when, in reality, it plainly articulates the responsibility of the minister of Holy Communion, ordinary or extraordinary, to deny Holy Communion to those who obstinately persevere in manifest grave sin.

Scenario: Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion is to flat out deny admission of Holy Communion right in front of God and the whole church even though he/she or his/her pastor has not had any ongoing dialogue with said Joey Biden.

The point is that Joey Biden’s sin is a sin, it is grave, is it manifest (public and unmistakable) and from which he has not publicly repented, and therefore he is to be flat out denied, turned away, even forthwith escorted from the church by security if he disrupts the religious service, a crime, I think, pretty much everywhere in these USA.

However, the Prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has the pretense of rejecting the universal law of the Church, which follows upon Divine Revelation, as we read in Saint Paul that those receiving the Eucharist without discerning the Body and Blood of Christ are eating and drinking their own condemnation. I should think that the Cardinal Prefect has better think again before he seemingly calls the Holy Spirit a damned fool.

The Cardinal Prefect “requires that dialogue occurs in two stages: first among the bishops themselves, and then between bishops and Catholic pro-choice politicians within their jurisdictions.” Meanwhile, I’m thinking about the priest or deacon or other who must deny Joey Biden on the spot, and not wait during Communion time for such two-stage dialogues to occur. Sigh.

The Cardinal Prefect wants the bishops to be unanimous. When’s the last time any bishops in the history of the church were unanimous about anything? The answer is never.

The Cardinal Prefect wants this to apply not only to politicians, but to everyone. Great idea! But then he adds all moral issues into the mix using the heretical “seamless garment” idiocy that holds abortion and moving violations as equivalent. In other words, no one receives Holy Communion ever, and we cannot tolerate that, so everyone all the time no matter what can receive Holy Communion.,

Since the Cardinal Prefect insists on unanimity, and since Cardinal Wilton Gregory has mandated that the unrepented Biden is to be given Holy Communion at churches in the archdiocese of Washington D.C., the “dialogue” is over, and everyone everywhere no matter what is to be given Holy Communion, you, Pachamama Satanists…. everyone!

No.

This is one priest who will simply follow Saint Paul and Canon 915. I would rather die than give unrepented Joey Biden Holy Communion. I won’t.

But don’t think I’m angry and cold hearted and unmerciful. I’m totally lighthearted in being able to deny Joey Biden Holy Communion. I’m doing what I’m supposed to be doing as a priest. I’m helping Joey Biden to repent and get to heaven. I’m taking his soul seriously. So is that priest in South Carolina who denied Joey Biden Communion. There are many. And the number is growing.

The Cardinal Prefect and his sycophant bishops literally don’t give a damn about Joey Biden’s soul, do they? They speak only of division in politics. The priests who deny Joey Biden Holy Communion want Joey Biden in heaven, you know, all things being right with his conversion and such.

And, yes. Denial will have political implications if Joey Biden is turned away. Rightly so. And it will have implications for the better among Catholics as believers as well.

Jesus said that He did not come to bring peace, but the sword of the Word, the Father’s Living Truth, in which we rejoice. Amen.

2 Comments

Filed under Canon 915, Eucharist, Free exercise of religion

Tagged as , , , , , ,

2020-10-19 · 2:44 pm

Denying Joe Biden Communion? Of course! My Canon 915!

A comment came in from a supposed Kanuck who doubts that she may be welcome to comment seeing that she is a Kanuck. I guess she has an ultra-nationalist sway, but she can ask herself about that one. I wanted to give that comment a bit more of an audience and so I’m placing it here, but with my [comments]:

/// I’m a Canadian; so, I concede that I’ve little ‘right’ to comment on this topic [No, really, go ahead!]; but, I find it difficult to understand HOW a Priest of the Catholic Church can deliberately, and publicly, sully the professed ‘Catholicism’ [you put that in scare-quotes, didn’t you? Isn’t that a hypocrisy on your part?] of a public, political figure [She’s talking about Joey Biden at this post: Joe Biden: anti-Catholic, anti-human and horrifically racist… says this priest ] — on the word (gossip?) of another Priest [Umm… “this priest” in the title refers to me, the publisher and owner and writer of this blog, so I guess you’re gossiping about me gossiping, are you not?]. I sincerely believe that such would be the ‘job’ of the appropriate Bishop (who could then, publicly deny Mr. Biden his ability to receive The Eucharist ‘in good faith’). [Well, I don’t care what you sincerely believe. And I didn’t mention denying Joey Holy Communion in that post, did I? Anyway, living in Ottawa as you do you would think you could do a bit more research on the Canon Law of this matter with the Dominicans at Université Saint-Paul, where a good friend directs doctoral theses in Canon Law. But, nooo…. you jump right into it. Check out Canon 915 there missy. Or maybe you did and you don’t actually like all that hierarchical stuff like promulgated universal law of the Church. And I see you put “in good faith” regarding the Bishop[!] in scare quotes, or are you referring to Biden? Pfft.] Such is the situation here, in Canada, where Mr. Trudeau — who claims to be Catholic — has very publicly stated that he is ‘pro-abortion’ [and why would you put pro-abortion in scare quotes?]; and that he has no intention of ever ‘reversing’ or ‘changing’ the Law regarding abortion! [I guess your scare quotes mean you think that reverse or change of abortion law is just impossible anyway?] After that, the Bishop of Ottawa PUBLICLY stated that Mr. Trudeau would no longer be able to participate in receiving “the Body and the Blood of Christ”. However, several weeks later, a Catholic Elder Statesman died; and in honor of the deceased, a TELEVISED Catholic Funeral was held for him at The Cathedral in Montreal, Quebec (where he had resided). The church was packed, and Mr. & Mrs. Trudeau sat right at the front of the church. So, when the time came for the reception of the Eucharist, Mr. & Mrs. Trudeau were the first to present themselves at the Communion rail — and they both received The Body & Blood of our Lord, Jesus Christ!! Needless to say, I was shocked … that Mr. Trudeau had even DARED to present himself to receive Communion; and that the Bishop of Montreal did not seem to know that this privilege had been revoked for Mr. Trudeau, by the Bishop of Ottawa! I considered it a public scandal; but no one in the Church and NO ‘Catholic’ clergy ever publicly said one more word about it. [So, you want me to sully their names on the hearsay of others? I wasn’t there. But I’m to take this from you?] ///

====================

Here’s the deal: Joey Biden doesn’t think he is sullying his name or that I am sullying his name just because I present what he has done with all of his pro-abortion, pro-gay-marriage, pro-persecution of the Catholic Church, pro-forced transgender rubbish, etc. Joey Biden sullies his name all on his own. He’s proud of it. What are you talking about?

Regarding denying Holy Communion to notorious sinners such as Biden and Pelosi and Kerry and Teddy Kennedy back in the day, and so on, even an Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion is to deny Holy Communion to such notorious sinners even if there has been no previous warning and even if there has been no consultation with the pastor of the parish, the priest of that Mass, the bishop, the metropolitan, the bishops conference, whatever. Notorious sinners must be denied, on the spot, every time. Joe Biden is one of the most notorious sinners in world history. And not even a bishops conference can undo the universal law of the Church. A priest or EMHC denying Joe Biden Holy Communion is not being disobedient to any bishop who demands that Joe Biden be given Holy Communion. No. We are not to be obedient to a sinful order. Ecclesiastical authorities who demand sin are acting ultra vires, beyond their powers, and in doing that they lose authority for that demand.

Anecdote: Just because the commenter seems to be purposely ignorant of Canon 915 (I’ll leave that up to her own exam of conscience) doesn’t mean that others are ignorant of it.

Back in the day I was parochial vicar in the most liberal parish in Australia, and that’s saying quite a bit. There had been horrific world-class scandal and sin in that parish on a very public scale. The larger picture involved deacon-whistleblowers getting sacked, priests being laicized, priests getting married to the secretaries who became rectory cleaners[!] while the priests continued as grounds crew; bishops and cardinals galore were involved, and some of those were sacked. It all came to a head again when I said I was going to refuse one of the extremely unrepentant and super-public miscreants Holy Communion. All hell broke loose. But that’s a very long story, epic in every way. What happened made it’s way through rank and file of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and finally to a General Congregation where is was the pivotal example that would keep Canon 915 as is, and not weakened. It silenced all objections to Canon 915. I have a lot of friends in a lot of high places. Thank you […]. And thank you – at the time – Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, and thank you, now Saint Pope John Paul II. :-)

Just to say: I have been so tempted through the years – and I still might do this – tempted to get a license plate for the car which says CANON915. That’s eight letters, and in North Carolina you get eight letters to use on a personalized license plate. :-)

8 Comments

Filed under Eucharist, Free exercise of religion

Tagged as , , ,

2017-04-11 · 4:38 am

Questions for + Charles Scicluna

scicluna

Your Grace: Why did the Malta Times take down their article about you? Were they wrong? Did they misrepresent you? Really? Since you invite dialogue, as a Missionary of Mercy I will put some questions before you for the sake of, you know, promoting justice, for the good of the Church, pro bono ecclesiae. So…

  • Your Grace: You say that the teaching of the Church — let’s just call it by the name of the encyclical Humanae vitae — is only for married couples which you say can be constituted only of one man and one woman, but that you don’t judge other couples, though you insist that extramarital sex is sinful but at the same time insist that adulterous couples can receive Holy Communion if they are at peace with themselves regardless of their flagrant rejection of Jesus’ teaching, of Sacred Scripture, of Sacred Tradition, of the constant interventions of the Magisterium of the Church: does this mean that you are making a sacrament of sinful behavior?
  • Your Grace: Lest anyone think that is a sarcastic question, let’s provide an analogous question regarding your longstanding promotion of the civil celebrations of homosexual love in civilly recognized homosexual unions, as long as there is no sexy hanky panky going on, though all love including homosexual love, you say, is given by God and is good and holy: are you saying with your recent statements about peaceful consciences for adulterous couples that homosexual acts are also a kind of sacrament, objectively sinful as they may be, as long as the homosexuals involved are at peace with themselves regardless of their flagrant rejection of Saint Paul’s teaching, of Sacred Scripture, of Sacred Tradition, of the constant interventions of the Magisterium of the Church?
  • Your Grace: You seem to be throwing a tantrum that the Malta Times got it wrong, but would you say that — you know, in being honest here — that they had a good instinct about your utter hypocrisy regarding sexual morality, so that anything whatsoever is just fine, including contraception also in marriage as long as those involved are at peace with their consciences?
  • Your Grace: Do you put condom dispensers in your Catholic parochial school bathrooms for those who judge their consciences to be at peace? Or do you put those dispensers out, say, in the lunchroom along with free copies of the Qur’an which you let be taught in your parochial schools?
  • Your Grace: Jesus warned those who teach people to break the commandments, so are you going to spit on Jesus while you continue to teach people to break the commandments?
  • Your Grace: You slit the throats of those seminarians who wish to follow the teaching of Jesus and Paul, that is, those seminarians who do not reject Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition and the constant interventions of the Magisterium of the Church: so do you think that Jesus, who is calling them to His priesthood, is happy with your violence against them?
  • Your Grace: Your close friend (Monsignor) Edward Arsenault, at the epicenter in so many ways of the abuse crisis, just got out of prison and is in home confinement, where he just received the news that he has been dismissed from the clerical state (laicized): is what you are doing with your not so ambiguous and inconsistent but really very clear statements related somehow to demands of his, you know, because he could spill the beans about how things have actually gone in these USA, over in Europe, and at the Holy See?

1 Comment

Filed under Abuse, Amoris laetitia, Canon 915, Eucharist, Holy See, homosexuality, Marriage, Missionaries of Mercy, Pope Francis

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , ,

2017-02-22 · 11:16 am

Tender snowflakes melting down want to validly, forcibly depose Pope Francis precisely as Bishop of Rome

dung snow

It ain’t gonna happen. It can’t happen. That’s not how it works. Anyone who thinks the contrary, anathema sit, as that’s straight out and out heresy. Traditional-ism-ists, that is, as personifiers of ideology, can be heretics like any others. I remember a certain seminary back in the day citing Hans Küng of all people to justify their irregular situation in the Church. Sometimes opposites attract, right?

If a Pope can be deposed for what he himself says is a non-Magisterial contribution to a dialogue, a contribution held by some to be outrageous (whether it is or not being beside the point), that means that any Pope for any reason can also be deposed by people who make up the rules as they go along (what they call constitutionalism: note the “-ism). Thus, in that view, a Pope such as Pius V or Pius X could also be deposed for personally being saints and for speaking clearly and rightly to the whole Church.

Also, in that case, and this is the point, such is the Protestant mis-exegesis of Matthew 16. The Rebels say that Jesus founded the papacy on Peter’s faith, not on his person. The Catholic doctrine is that Jesus founded the papacy on Peter.

I suggest to the tender snowflakes that they stop cowering before their own hurt emotions, grow up, and do something helpful to bring about a good situation for the salvation of souls. But this bit about deposing the Pope because their feelings are hurt is not helpful. It just reveals something under the snow.

2 Comments

Filed under Amoris laetitia, Canon 915, Pope Francis

Tagged as , , , ,

2017-02-15 · 9:20 am

Accompaniment: “When I am lifted up on the cross I will draw all to myself”

A priest-friend sent this in from a twitter account. So, we have an analogy: This is the image of the fall of a venial sin in which we are nevertheless still assenting to being dragged to heaven by our Lord (via Calvary and the Cross). A mortal sin would be to jump off altogether in contempt.

Saint Thomas Aquinas speaks of repentance from a mortal sin, whether one can, as it were, jump back on where one left off in the spiritual life. He answers that, yes, this is possible, depending on one’s contrition, one’s purpose of amendment, the grace of God’s charity to which one assents in order that this contrition is brought to fruition with the indwelling of the Most Holy Trinity. It does, in grace, also depend on our generosity in following the grace being given. What would prohibit this assent would be presumption, lack of contrition, lack of firm purpose of amendment. But, all things being equal, as it were, yes, one can come back into God’s good friendship, whether a bit diminished, whether pretty much the same, whether far advanced. But NO presumption, with contrition and purpose of amendment being necessary.

Tangled webs can be woven. But tangled webs can be broken. Sometimes things are difficult.

Confession brings things back in good order. Sometimes we need the help of others, of the Church, of Jesus. Find a good confessor.

 

1 Comment

Filed under Amoris laetitia, Canon 915, Confession, Missionaries of Mercy

Tagged as , , ,

2017-01-16 · 11:12 am

Fearful Roman Curia discerning the way of the Holy Spirit in the Beatitudes

JESUS I AM

You have heard that it was said that those working in whatever capacity in the Holy See (the “Vatican”) are scared. I say that if they are ever afraid, whether priests or bishops or religious, they shouldn’t be. Fear is a sign of the lack of truth, a lack of discernment of the truth, a lack of the Holy Spirit who would instead lead us to the truth. To be established in him who is truth is not to fear. Being one with him who fearlessly says “I AM” cannot at the same time tolerate fear.

“But what should we do? Give us clear direction!”

So, I guess you missed it the first time around. Here it is: “If you love me, keep my commandments.”

“But you don’t get it, Father George, that’s considered Pharisaical, Pelagian, Promethian self-absorbed idol worship.”

“Really? Are you making that application? Even if that were true on whoever’s part, so what? Since when did we lose sight of the Beatitudes? Since when are we to mope about, have nervous sweats, panic attacks and ulcers instead of rejoicing and being glad that great is our reward in the Kingdom of the heavens because we love Jesus and want to share the greatest love of our lives, namely, Jesus? Is not Jesus the Divine Son of the Immaculate Conception, the King of kings, the Lord of lords, the Wonder Counselor, Prince of the Most Profound Peace, who will be the one to come to judge the living and the dead and the world by fire, the very fire of God’s love, the fire of the Holy Spirit? Yes, that would be him. He’s the One who said: “I AM.” So what are you afraid of? Amen.

P.S. I mean, really, what are these protestations of fear about? Is this a way of making an excuse? “Oh! I’m so fearful that my fear acted as a coercion forcing me to do something I otherwise would never do! It’s all the fault of fear! I’m soooo afraid.”

To which I say, grow up, love Jesus, and be a good son of his good mom. Also, and I don’t say this lightly, have some respect for your guardian angel who sees God in the face.

2 Comments

Filed under Amoris laetitia, Canon 915, Confession, Jesus, Marriage, Mercy, Missionaries of Mercy, Pope Francis, Priesthood, Spiritual life

Tagged as , , , , , , , , ,

2016-12-09 · 8:54 am

Correcting Pope Francis’ Correctors

pope-francis-cardinal-burke

Respect and joy in the Lord

I love and respect both Pope Francis and Cardinal Burke.

You have heard that it was said by the latter:

“My position is that ‘Amoris laetitia’ is not magisterial because it contains serious ambiguities that confuse people and can lead them into error and grave sin. A document with these defects cannot be part of the Church’s perennial teaching. Because that is the case, the Church needs absolute clarity regarding what Pope Francis is teaching and encouraging.”

This Missionary of Mercy says in response:

  • Amoris laetitia cannot yet be spoken about as if it were a document already published by the Acta Apostolicae Sedis, for it is not.
  • Amoris laetitia, even if published as is, is not an Apostolic Constitution or even an Encyclical, but simply an Apostolic Exhortation, whose author, mind you, goes way, WAY out of his way in articles 3-4 of Amoris laetitia to assert that Amoris laetitia is simply a conglomerate of opinions for the sake of encouraging more dialogue on the matters at hand. Pope Francis completely disowns this having anything whatsoever to do with any kind of Magisterial intervention of the Church whatsoever, whether ordinary or extraordinary. If it’s published as is in the Acta, well, that just doesn’t make any difference, to wit:

“Since ‘time is greater than space’, I would make it clear that not all discussions of doctrinal, moral or pastoral issues need to be settled by interventions of the magisterium. Unity of teaching and practice is certainly necessary in the Church, but this does not preclude various ways of interpreting some aspects of that teaching or drawing certain consequences from it. This will always be the case as the Spirit guides us towards the entire truth (cf. Jn 16:13), until he leads us fully into the mystery of Christ and enables us to see all things as he does. Each country or region, moreover, can seek solutions better suited to its culture and sensitive to its traditions and local needs. […] The various interventions of the Synod Fathers, to which I paid close heed, made up, as it were, a multifaceted gem reflecting many legitimate concerns and honest questions. For this reason, I thought it appropriate to prepare a post-synodal Apostolic Exhortation to gather the contributions of the two recent Synods on the family, while adding other considerations as an aid to reflection, dialogue and pastoral practice, and as a help and encouragement to families in their daily commitments and challenges.

  • To say that Amoris laetitia would be part of at least the ordinary Magisterium of the Church (see “perennial teaching”) if anyone might like to agree with its contents but that it cannot be part of at least the ordinary Magisterium of the Church (see “perennial teaching”) if anyone might like to disagree with its contents seems to me to be saying that the Pope has no authority to teach on matters of faith and morals to the universal Church as the Successor of Peter. That, of course, would be quite wrong. Amoris laetitia is not part of any teaching of the Church whatsoever not because of anyone’s opinion, however well founded, but because Pope Francis himself denies that it is part of any teaching of the Church whatsoever, insisting as he does on dialogue, etc.

A question might be asked as to whether Pope Francis has a good understanding of Papal Infallibility. Let’s analyze his extensive statements on the matter, and then compare that with what Scripture has for us. This is from Pope Francis’ speech on October 17, 2015, the 50th anniversary of the Institution of the Synods of Bishops:

On the eve of last year’s Synod I stated: “For the Synod Fathers we ask the Holy Spirit first of all for the gift of listening: to listen to God, so that with him we may hear the cry of his people; to listen to his people until we are in harmony with the will to which God calls us”.(14) The Synod process culminates in listening to the Bishop of Rome, who is called to speak [chiamato a pronunciarsi=called to pronounce (a word used for ex-cathedra statements)] as “pastor and teacher of all Christians”,(15) not on the basis of his personal convictions but as the supreme witness to the fides totius Ecclesiae, “the guarantor of the obedience and the conformity of the Church to the will of God, to the Gospel of Christ, and to the Tradition of the Church”.(16)

The fact that the Synod always acts cum Petro et sub Petro — indeed, not only cum Petro, but also sub Petro — is not a limitation of freedom, but a guarantee of unity. For the Pope is, by will of the Lord, “the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful”.(17) Closely related to this is the concept of “hierarchica communio” as employed by the Second Vatican Council: the Bishops are linked to the Bishop of Rome by the bond of episcopal communion (cum Petro) while, at the same time, hierarchically subject to him as head of the college (sub Petro).(18)

14) FRANCIS, Address at the Prayer Vigil for the Synod on the Family, 4 October 2014.

15) FIRST VATICAN ECUMENICAL COUNCIL, Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus (18 July 1870), ch. IV: Denz. 3074. Cf. Codex Iuris Canonici, can. 749, § 1.

16) FRANCIS, Address to the Third Extraordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops, 18 October 2014.

17) SECOND VATICAN ECUMENICAL COUNCIL, Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium, 23. cf. FIRST VATICAN ECUMENICAL COUNCIL, Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus, Prologue: Denz. 3051.

18) Cf. SECOND VATICAN ECUMENICAL COUNCIL, Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium, 22; Decree Christus Dominus (28 October 1965), 4.

Impressive. This makes us wait for an infallible pronouncement by:

  • The Bishop of Rome precisely as the Successor of Peter
  • pronouncing on a matter or many matters of faith and/or morals
  • especially deciding a matter or many matters of controversy
  • directing the instruction to the entirety of Christ’s faithful.

Just to say the obvious: This has not happened to date (this being written on December 9, 2016), and, just to repeat, Amoris laetitia has been excluded from any consideration of it as any kind of teaching of the Magisterium of the Church by the indications of Pope Francis himself.

Meanwhile, I do believe I understand what Pope Francis is doing in not answering various theologians and Cardinals, to wit, he is trying to emphasize Matthew 18:18 (the voice of some of the laity and some of the Synod members) more than Matthew 16:19 (the lone voice of Peter, the Rock), at least for the moment. He is interested in the richness of dialogue, but we see from that October 17, 2015 speech cited above, he is also interested in what can be provided by infallible Peter. Let’s analyze these passages and see some surprising take aways:

Let’s review Matthew 16:19 in utterly pedantic translation

“Whatever you may bind at any given time (second person singular subjunctive aorist active) upon the earth will (third person singular indicative future middle) already have been made to be perfectly standing in that way (nominative neuter singular participle perfect passive) in the heavens.”

What do the verbs mean in this context?

  • Second person singular subjunctive aorist active – The second person singular refers to Peter alone. The subjunctive here is not so much a kind of conditional or wishfulness, but rather depicts the state of actually choosing an option; from the perspective of the actor, there is freedom to the choice: “Whatever you may bind at any give time.” The aorist time frame, whatever delusion your introductory Greek grammars insist on providing to you, is literally “without borders”, that which can happen in the past, present or even future (as is the case here: see below), though usually something which itself happens in a defined time frame, such as the choice to bind. Active simply refers to something actually being accomplished.
  • Third person singular indicative future middle – The third person singular refers to any given object of the action, its state of being. It will simply be what it is (indicative) at that time (future). The middle voice is here used to indicate the status quo to which the actor is also subject, that is, retroactively to his decision to bind something, the truth of that which is described by the following verb, which this singular indicative future middle (“will”) helps to describe.
  • Nominative neuter singular participle perfect passive: The nominative neuter singular refers to the object which is being bound (passive), that is, in an ongoing fashion (participle) in a perfect manner (perfect); mind you, in Greek, “perfect” never refers to a perfectly accomplished action at one point in time, but rather to an action which is perfectly ongoing in a perfect manner since its inception: it always was and will be this way, perfectly, with no change: “already have been made to be perfectly standing in that way.” This “perfect” action structures the capacity of the actor, Peter, to act subjunctively, preempting all choices of Peter except for the one which is consonant which the truth which has always been this way in the heavens. Whatever he may choose to bind at any given time will already have been the case, is the case, and will always continue to be the case in the heavens. Peter cannot choose anything which is not already perfectly established in the heavens. What is in heaven is not an affirmation of what Peter might pronounce; what is in heaven simply is what it is, absolute truth, so to speak. If Peter is wrong about what he intends to pronounce upon, he simply will not be able to pronounce upon it.

Indeed, the part of this equation that people always forget about when trying to figure out the tenses, is that there is a part of this equation which is utterly expendable: Peter. If he is going to get it wrong, he will either die or be incapacitated, but he will not be able to work against what is in heaven already. Being the Successor of Peter isn’t so much an honor as it is a service that may involve laying down his life, for, after all, what do we know? The Orthodox or any others should never be envious of infallibility.

The bit about loosing is exactly the same, verbatim:

“Whatever you may loose at any given time (second person singular subjunctive aorist active) upon the earth will (third person singular indicative future middle) already have been made to be perfectly standing in that way (nominative neuter singular participle perfect passive) in the heavens.”

Let’s review Matthew 18:18 in utterly pedantic translation

“Whatever ye may bind at any given time (second person plural subjunctive aorist active) upon the earth will (third person singular indicative future middle) already have been made to be things perfectly standing in that way (nominative neuter singular participle perfect passive) in heaven.”

And then:

“Whatever ye may loose at any given time (second person plural subjunctive aorist active) upon the earth will (third person singular indicative future middle) already have been made to be things perfectly standing in that way (nominative neuter singular participle perfect passive) in heaven.”

There are some differences besides the plural heavens and singular heaven. Matthew 18:18 is addressed also to the laity about any number of things that may be under dispute. But the verbs and their meanings are exactly the same. But the context removes any infallibility from this other crowd. Let’s see how:

Firstly, in Matthew 16:19, where Peter alone among the Apostles is addressed, only Peter is given the keys of the Kingdom of the Heavens. There is no reference at all to such keys for anyone else in Matthew 18:18. That they have the same access to the understanding of the faith as does Peter is contingent for them in agreeing with Peter, for, as we see in context, the process of a dispute will bring them right back to the Church, that is, as differentiated from Christ’s faithful in general so as to refer to Peter in particular. They are not infallible, he is.

What if Peter is wrong? He can’t be wrong. That’s the point. But say that it could happen, that wouldn’t mean that we ignore him, correct him, unseat him, burn him at the stake, say that he’s not a nice guy or something like that; that would mean that there is no such thing as the Church at all. It can’t happen. Period. Is “dialogue” among the faithful expected by our Lord? Yes. He explicitly speaks of it. But then there is a process to follow. But there is a richness to be expected among so many. That richness is not to be ignored, calling the faith provided to the faithful useless, thus insulting the Holy Spirit.

Pope Francis knows this. He respects it. After Matthew 18:18 we go to Matthew 16:19. We are still in the Matthew 18:18 phase.

Might Pope Francis choose to go to Matthew 16:19, to pronounce in an infallible way on the matter? Sure. That is yet to be seen. He surely has set up a scenario in which it seems he truly wants to pronounce an infallible statement. He surely has prefaced this with a great deal of dialogue. To the degree that he is insisting on dialogue, that is the degree he may be incisive in pronouncing an infallible statement.

Have some perhaps jumped the gun? Perhaps. Can it be said that all involved may well be filled with Apostolic charity, that is, both the four Cardinals and the Holy Father? Yes. Are they merely asking him to move from Matthew 18:18 to Matthew 16:19? Perhaps. Again, I don’t like the statement of one of the Cardinals who said: “My position is that ‘Amoris laetitia’ is not magisterial because it contains serious ambiguities…” His opinion is not why Amoris laetitia is not magisterial. It is not magisterial because Pope Francis said it is not magisterial. Otherwise, how many popes do we have? So…

We pray. That is to be expected and desired by all involved, right? Yes. We pray.

Does my having written this article mean that I don’t have my own concerns which happen to be well stated in the five dubia? No, it doesn’t mean that. Does the present non-answer of Pope Francis mean that he doesn’t agree with the intent of the five dubia? No, it doesn’t mean that. What it all means is that we haven’t yet moved from Matthew 18:18 to Matthew 16:19. That’s all. Might I say to Pope Francis that I sure do hope for the good of the Church that our Lord’s desire that our present dialogue with Matthew 18:18 will move to Matthew 16:19? Sure. But the timing is the judgment call of Vicar of Christ, not mine or anyone else for that matter. Again, might we ask him politely to move to Matthew 16:19? Sure, and I think everyone has been polite, although, again, that bit of one of the Cardinals about why he thinks Amoris laetitia is not magisterial is, I think, out of place. And in view of that, I must defend the fact of the papacy itself. Might that make me lose many friends. I suppose. That saddens me. But I am also filled with fortitude. Hier stehe ich and all that. Amen.

3 Comments

Filed under Amoris laetitia, Canon 915, Confession, Eucharist, Holy See, Missionaries of Mercy, Pope Francis, Synod on the Family, Year of Mercy

Tagged as , , , , , , ,