Showing posts with label Canon 915. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Canon 915. Show all posts

Monday, June 27, 2011

Ed Peters talks Canon Law and Gov. Andrew Cuomo



The Bishops of New York recently issued a statement concerning gay "marriage" bill just signed in that state:

Statement of the Bishops of New York State on SSM

June 24, 2011


The following is a statement from Archbishop Timothy Dolan and the bishops of New York State:
The passage by the Legislature of a bill to alter radically and forever humanity’s historic understanding of marriage leaves us deeply disappointed and troubled.


We strongly uphold the Catholic Church’s clear teaching that we always treat our homosexual brothers and sisters with respect, dignity and love. But we just as strongly affirm that marriage is the joining of one man and one woman in a lifelong, loving union that is open to children, ordered for the good of those children and the spouses themselves. This definition cannot change, though we realize that our beliefs about the nature of marriage will continue to be ridiculed, and that some will even now attempt to enact government sanctions against churches and religious organizations that preach these timeless truths.


We worry that both marriage and the family will be undermined by this tragic presumption of government in passing this legislation that attempts to redefine these cornerstones of civilization.


Our society must regain what it appears to have lost – a true understanding of the meaning and the place of marriage, as revealed by God, grounded in nature, and respected by America’s foundational principles.”

http://www.archny.org/news-events/news-press-releases/index.cfm?i=20810

Canon lawyer discusses questions surrounding Catholic Gov. Andrew Cuomo's actions
A little lesson in canon law from blogging canonist, Ed Peters concerning the actions of Gov. Andrew Cuomo in the recent approval of gay "marriage" in New York. 

Some may feel that it is none of the Church's business what Cuomo does.  It's true that he can make choices for himself, and he can choose to govern as he pleases. God has given all of us a free will.  But, the Church has a right, and even a duty, to offer clarity when those actions are not in harmony with the Gospel and Church teaching, lest others be led into scandal.  This is especially true, when one uses their Catholic status in discussions (the Pelosi-special) or is well-known to be a Catholic. This is explained by Dr. Peters.

In his footnotes, I especially like his drawing our attention to a 1962 case in which several lay people were dealt with for creating a resistance against desegregation of archdiocesan schools (see his footnotes).

Ed first starts out with a few points since the secular news media has misrepresented him and his position so many times. Do follow the link to read his full post to get a complete understanding. 

What canonical consequences might Andrew Cuomo face now?

Reminder: 1. This website offers my* commentary on the canonical implications of certain news events. 2. My regular readers are familiar with sound Catholic thought in such areas as, for example, the nature of marriage, the moral parameters of private and governmental decision-making, personal sin and public scandal, the theology of holy Communion, and the basic role of canon law in the Church, and so I do not lay the kinds of foundations in such matters that one engaged in, say, apologetics would otherwise have to provide. 3. If anyone finds himself insufficiently familiar with some of the Catholic terminology and concepts assumed in this discussion, I would urge study of the pertinent passages in the Catechism of the Catholic Church or consultation with the auctores probatos.

The Catholic Church, drawing upon the teachings of Jesus Christ and echoing Natural Law, holds that marriage is possible only between a man and a woman and, consequently, that only men and women who have undertaken to live in such a relationship should be recognized and treated as married. The male-female requirement for marriage is an unalterable teaching of the Church and, while it might be subjected to ridicule by some nowadays, it is not subject to revision by either Church or State. Moreover, unlike some teachings of the Church that have no practical implications in the civil arena, that teaching which holds marriage possible only between a man and a woman has vital ramifications for civil society and—long story omitted—for those Catholics privileged to be especially charged with caring for the common good through political institutions.

Continue reading: What canonical consequences might Andrew Cuomo face now?  See also his footnoes there.


For interesting news items I don't have time to blog on, check out my Twitter Feed: @TeDeumBlog


Te Deum Laudamus! Home

The obedient are not held captive by Holy Mother Church; it is the disobedient who are held captive by the world!
Note: The recommended links below are automatically generated by the tool, so they are not necessarily related content.

Monday, February 21, 2011

CNSNews: Vatican Canon Law Adviser: NY Governor Andrew Cuomo Should Be Denied Communion


Governor Andrew Cuomo and Food Network's Sandra Lee
Photo: Kramer/AP
 Ed Peters, JD, JCD, who teaches locally at Sacred Heart Major Seminary, and who is a consultant who serves the Apostolic Signatura, has been interviewed Michael Chapman of CNSNews about a fairly recent incident in which Gov. Andrew Cuomo was given Holy Communion by Bishop Hubbard, when it is pretty much public knowledge that he has been co-habitating with Food Network's Sandra Lee

Go read the opinion of Dr. Peters Here: Vatican Canon Law Adviser: NY Governor Andrew Cuomo Should Be Denied Communion




For interesting news items I don't have time to blog on, check out my Twitter Feed: @TeDeumBlog

Te Deum Laudamus! Home

The obedient are not held captive by Holy Mother Church; it is the disobedient who are held captive by the world!
Note: The recommended links below are automatically generated by the tool, so they are not necessarily related content.

Monday, November 22, 2010

Cardinal Burke discusses abortion supporters and Holy Communion in Vatican Radio interview


Raymond Cardinal Burke with Pope Benedict XVI during the 2010 Consistory of Cardinals

I can't help thinking that Cardinal Burke enjoys considerable support, not just of the Holy Father, but of others in the Curia.  He is not only the Prefect of the Apostolic Signatura, but has been named to 4 additional congregations and a number of councils and committees since going to Rome.  On it's face, we see his skills being put to work.  However, perhaps not so apparent, is the rounding-out that he is being given, along with the broad exposure to others who are getting to know him even better.  I'm just sayin'. 

Despite that stack of duties, he still finds time to teach by speaking at conferences and granting interviews such as this one with Vatican Radio.  While it may not be changing the hearts of some of the more visible bishops who disagree with him on denying Holy Communion to pro-abort Catholic pols, it may be moving the hearts of other bishops who are in the middle.  They are the silent majority who are just trying to figure out.... who's right?  If anything, by example, Burke is teaching them to speak up, and to be bold. 

Here is a question, and an excerpt.  You can listen to the full audio here (mp3 | Real).  Emphasis mine highlighted in yellow.

Q. You’re known as a man with very firm ideas about the moral rectitude of those who profess Catholicism -- ideas that don’t always sit comfortably with everyone -- and I’m thinking of some of the remarks you’ve made about pro-abortion politicians, for example, receiving Communion -- the Holy Eucharist -- in the United States. Have you ever felt discouraged that people aren’t just getting the message?

Burke: I think it’s only natural to be tempted to discouragement, and I’ve had those temptations -- for instance, on the question of a person who publicly and obstinately espouses the right of a woman to choose to abort the infant in her womb receiving Holy Communion, strikes me as something very clear in the 2,000 years of the church’s tradition -- she’s always firmly held that a person who is publicly and obstinately in grave sin should not approach to receive Holy Communion and, if he or she does, should be denied Holy Communion.


Why? First of all, to avoid for the person -- himself or herself -- committing a sacrilege: in other words, receiving the Sacrament unworthily, and also because the holiness of the Sacrament itself demands that one be in a state of grace to receive the Body and Blood of Christ. Therefore, when I set this forth, really -- and it’s not a new idea on my part -- and if I’m firm about it I have to say that that is in line with the constant tradition of the church.


It is discouraging that either members of the church claim not to understand this, or they claim that in some way there is an excuse for someone who is publicly and obstinately in grave sin to receive Holy Communion. I look at it this way: this response on the part of many in the church comes from living in a society that’s completely secularized, and the thinking that is marked -- the God-centered thinking which has marked the discipline of the church -- is not easily understood by those who are bombarded day in and day out with a kind of God-less approach to the world and to many questions.


And so I try not to get discouraged but to try to continue to speak the message in a way that people can understand. I try not to be -- and I don’t believe that I have been -- harsh or angry in my teaching. Certainly, I always could’ve been more effective in it, but try to speak the truth with love as the Holy Scriptures say, but also to realize that one has to continue to proclaim the message in season and out of season, and whether it’s being warmly received or not being received or being resisted or criticized doesn’t excuse the bishop or the priest from teaching clearly or steadfastly.


The interview also includes some discussion of the clerical sex abuse scandal.

Further reading:
Te Deum Laudamus! Home
The obedient are not held captive by Holy Mother Church; it is the disobedient who are held captive by the world!
Note: The recommended links below are automatically generated by the tool, so they are not necessarily related content.

Friday, October 15, 2010

Archbishop Raymond L. Burke on dissenting Catholics; role of bishops in curbing


You will want to read the entire article.  Here is just a nibble of what Archbishop Raymond L. Burke had to say in his address at  Human Life International gathering...

The American prefect of the Apostolic Signatura began by pointing out that society is experiencing "a period of intense and critical struggle" in advancing a culture of life, made worse by temptations to relativize the authority of the magisterium.
"Man is tempted to view the magisterium in relation to his individualism and self-pursuit," he told the large gathering of representatives belonging to the pro-life movement. Referring to the popularly known phrase "cafeteria Catholicism," he called first and foremost on bishops to uphold the natural moral law, reminding them of Benedict XVI's exhortation to bishops "to be aware of the challenges of the present hour and have the courage to face them."
Noting that the bishop, as chief teacher of faith and morals in the diocese, carries an especially "heavy and constant burden" in providing sound teaching that safeguards all life, he stressed that obedience to the magisterium is a virtue, one obtained "through the practice" of such obedience.
"When shepherds of the flock are obedient to the magisterium entrusted to their exercise, then surely the numbers of the flock grow in obedience," he said. "If the shepherd isn't obedient, the flock easily gives way to confusion and error." Quoting the Prophet Zechariah, he said the shepherd can be "especially tempted" by the assaults of Satan who, "if he can strike him, the work of scattering the flock is made easy."
"Faith is first of all personal adherence of man to God," underlined Archbishop Burke, and recalled the words of a wise professor of canon law he knew who would often tell his classes: "Where there are problems of chastity, there are problems of obedience." Rebellion against the moral truth, Archbishop Burke noted, "is a rebellion against God and all that he teaches us."

Go Read: A Plea for Life, Truth, and Obedience at Zenit

UPDATE:  Here is a full length video and text at Human Life International

Pray for dissenting and confused Catholics.  Please pray for priests and especially for our bishops. May God bless them with wisdom and holy boldness to rid the Church of the dissent and ambiguity which has confused generations of Catholics

Te Deum Laudamus! Home
The obedient are not held captive by Holy Mother Church; it is the disobedient who are held captive by the world!
Note: The recommended links below are automatically generated by the tool, so they are not necessarily related content.

Friday, March 26, 2010

Canonist Ed Peters: One canon 915 case at a time: Nancy Pelosi

Ed Peters, J.D, J.C.D, in his great blog, In Light of the Law, offers some thoughts about the application of Canon 915 with regards to those who "obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin". 

One canon 915 case at a time: Nancy Pelosi
Some who believe that Canon 915 is meant to be enforced might yet harbor reservations about actually barring from Communion this pro-abortion Catholic politician or that one, for fear of igniting endless debates about why one does not also bar that pro-abortion Catholic politician or this one. The prospect of being criticized for "imperfectly" applying the law might cause some prelates otherwise inclined to invoke the law to hesitate doing so.

I understand their concern, and have argued elsewhere that enforcement of Canon 915 is not as simple as some seem to believe. But, lest the perfect become the enemy of the good, I am convinced that one has to start what one might call the 'national application'* of Canon 915 somewhere, and that the best case to start with is that of Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi.
Continue reading the rest of his insightful post, including the footnotes (and a link to a French version): One canon 915 case at a time: Nancy Pelosi
Te Deum Laudamus! Home

The obedient are not held captive by Holy Mother Church; it is the disobedient who are held captive by the world!

Wednesday, May 13, 2009

Local Canon Lawyer Challenges Abp Wuerl's Interpretation of Canon Law on Politicians and Holy Communion


I'm a little late getting this out due to the busy schedule I've had over the past two weeks, but it's better late than never.

Canon Lawyer, Ed Peters, who teaches at nearby Sacred Heart Major Seminary, and writes periodically on his own blog, In Light of the Law, looks closely at the words of Archbishop Donald Wuerl as they appeared in a "Inside Politics Daily" article: Wuerl: Why I Won't Deny Pelosi Communion.

I don't want to repeat the relevant quotes because Peter's isolates them in his eloquently written post. He presents the quotes offered in the original article, then offers some insight on those things.

Go read: A response to Abp. Wuerl's claims that canon law supports his inaction in regard to Nancy Pelosi. Do read the footnotes.

Related Links:


Te Deum Laudamus! Home

The obedient are not held captive by Holy Mother Church; it is the disobedient who are held captive by the world!

Tuesday, March 31, 2009

Canonist Ed Peters on Canons 915 & 916, and Abp's Burke & Wuerl

I just received a Canon Law update from Ed Peters, JD, JCD on Canons 915 and 916, and how two camps of bishops are looking at these, led by Archbishop Burke on one side and Archbishop Wuerl on the other. I have maintained two things:

    1) There is one Holy Spirit influencing the consciences of both men. In the end, what is important is what God wants and it's up to our bishops to discern that completely, through prayer and dialogue. We need to pray for them to properly discern and we will know it is done when there is unity.

    2) I choose to believe that inaction on Canon 915 by most bishops not acting on it, has everything to do with a fundamental problem with understanding, not with any kind of moral or virtuous lapse. This is a christian way to look at such disagreements.
I still think the men need to celebrate Mass together one day, then go lock themselves into a nice room with a coffee, Jameson, scotch, cigars and any other legitimate thing that might help them through some robust dialogue.

Ed's analysis is very charitably done and sheds light on something interesting. He looks at Canons 915 and Canon 916 together and suggests this is where differences abound.

I'll start you out here, then follow the link to Ed's blog - In Light of the Law - to read the rest of the post:


Abps. Wuerl (c. 916) & Burke (cc. 915-916) on admission to Communion I often tell my students, the answer to a canonical question is seldom found in a single canon.

Two prominent American prelates, Abp. Donald Wuerl of Washington DC and Abp. Raymond Burke of the Apostolic Signatura, are the lead figures in a significant disagreement over admitting certain pro-abortion Catholic politicians to holy Communion. Wuerl basically believes that, under Canon 916, Catholics, including pro-abortion politicians, should determine their own eligibility for reception of Communion. Burke argues that, beyond Canon 916, Canon 915 requires ministers of holy Communion to withhold the Eucharist from some pro-abortion politicians if they don't refrain from approaching on their own. Both sides can't be right, and I suspect that the more compelling case is made by reading the two canons together instead of reading one to the exclusion of the other.

Some preliminary thoughts toward sorting this out.

First, awareness of Church history helps contemporary Catholics sleep at night. This is not the first time that upright bishops have differed over important points of pastoral practice; for that matter, strong episcopal conflicts over (unsettled) matters of doctrine are not unknown in the Church. So, let's be confident in Holy Spirit's power to lead the Church through this issue as He has led us through others. Second, one must avoid "personalizing" the debate.

Both archbishops are distinguished thinkers and both have many decades of loyal service to the Church behind them, including some services rendered under very difficult circumstances. In short, each is an attractive figure. But, while it's tempting to rally behind one or the other, personalities are not what's at issue here.

Continue reading the analysis by Dr. Ed Peters

Te Deum Laudamus! Home


The obedient are not held captive by Holy Mother Church; it is the disobedient who are held captive by the world!

Monday, March 30, 2009

Bishops applying Canon 915 to be backed by Washington and Arlington bishops?

Deal Hudson has offered some interesting thoughts on the matter of Canon 915 and traveling politicians. It sounds like Catholic politicians whose bishops have asked them not to receive Holy Communion, will be subject to that while in the Washington and Arlington dioceses. As Deal points out, this sets a precedent - one that may influence bishops in this area, if they know they will be backed.

From Lifesite News - Commentary: Closing Ranks on Canon 915: Bishops Confirm that Sebelius Should Not Receive Communion

Gov. Kathleen Sebelius received some good news last week when abortionist Dr. George Tiller was found not guilty of breaking state laws regulating late-term abortion. The relationship between Tiller and Sebelius would surely have played a role in her upcoming confirmation hearings had he been found guilty.

But Governor Sebelius got some bad news as well -- something not noticed much in Catholic media or the secular press. The bishops of Washington, D.C., and Arlington, Virginia, confirmed publicly they would uphold the declaration of her ordinary, Archbishop Joseph Naumann of Kansas City, stating that Governor Sebelius should not present herself for communion.

A spokeswoman for the Washington Archdiocese, Susan Gibbs, said Archbishop Donald Wuerl would expect Sebelius to follow Bishop Naumann's request while in Washington. Joelle Santolla, spokeswoman for the Arlington Diocese, announced that Bishop Paul Loverde would expect the same while she was in Northern Virginia.

That Archbishop Wuerl and Bishop Loverde would back up Bishop Naumann in regard to the future Secretary of Health and Human Services is a significant development in the effort of some bishops to enforce Canon 915: "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."

This will send the message to other bishops that if they choose to pronounce members of Congress from their dioceses unfit for communion, their authority will be respected in D.C. and across the Potomac in Virginia. The ramifications are enormous: For example, if Sean Cardinal O'Malley of Boston stated publicly that Sen. John Kerry was in violation of Canon 915, he would not have been able to receive communion at Pope Benedict XVI's Mass in Washington, D.C., a year ago. Rep. Nancy Pelosi would not have been able to celebrate her elevation to speaker of the House with a special Mass at Trinity College, if Archbishop Neiderhauer had found her wanting according to the standard of Canon 915.

Some will argue that neither Archbishop Wuerl nor Bishop Loverde will attempt, through their priests, to deny Governor Sebelius communion. But this misses the point, and the significance, of how the combined statements of Bishops Naumann, Wuerl, and Loverde have created a new and more vulnerable situation for the pro-abortion Catholic members of Congress. As Archbishop Raymond Burke has explained, Bishop Naumann did not impose a "sanction" on Governor Sebelius; Bishop Naumann asked Sebelius, not the clergy, to apply Canon 915 to herself.

But if Sebelius were to receive communion in D.C. or Northern Virginia, it would likely generate a news story that would mushroom quickly, involving the priest who administered communion and his bishop. This is not news coverage that Sebelius, or the Obama administration, would want to deal with.

No doubt there are priests in both dioceses who would have little compunction about giving communion to pro-abortion Catholic politicians, but whether they want to get into a media-generated spat with their bishop over a high-profile politician is another matter.

A final point: Archbishop Wuerl and Bishop Loverde's collegial response to Bishop Naumann destabilizes the relationship between pro-abortion Catholic politicians and their bishops back home. The question will arise as to why Governor Sebelius should be the only politician in Washington who has been called to account under Canon 915. What about the dozens of others in Congress who have a 100 percent pro-abortion voting record? What about Vice-President Joe Biden himself?

Will other bishops seize this opportunity to apply Canon 915 to politicians in their dioceses, knowing that Archbishop Wuerl and Bishop Loverde will back them up? Given the determination of the Obama administration and the Congress to roll back all restrictions on abortion, I wouldn't be surprised.


Te Deum Laudamus! Home

The obedient are not held captive by Holy Mother Church; it is the disobedient who are held captive by the world!

Friday, March 27, 2009

Continuing discussion on Catholic dissidence, Archbishop Burke and Randall Terry

In my post, Archbishop Burke was duped by Randall Terry on purpose of interivew, a comment was dropped in by Stan Williams, PhD, and we are engaged in a little friendly blog-debate about the issue. I think it's a good dialogue and worth pulling out, because it highlights that solid, loyal Catholics can disagree on some things and maintain charity. I also do this here so I can add links and because my response is too long for the combox.

Before continuing, you might want to see that original post of mine in the opening link to get context - with comments, then drop into a post Stan made at Crossing Nineveh, to get his feedback: Archbishop Burke Chastises Randall Terry

DEAR STAN:

Point well taken about St. Paul. To go along with your examples, I would say that some of the Church Fathers got into people's faces to defend the faith, as well. Honestly, this does give me pause at times, so I will continue to reflect on it.

A bishop wants to isolate the sick lamb so that the sickness does not spread to others. If he goes nuclear on the sick lamb, he scatters the flock in such a way as to lose more sheep than if he had used a less nuclear approach. I think this is often a bishop's dilemma. He wants to correct the situation, but bring along as many of the lambs as possible. I think mistakes have been made and false-charity crept in. However, as a body, I think they are learning.

There is a new generation of bishops, better formed, who have the mind of the Church. This itself will bring about interesting growth within the USCCB and I look forward to what they will bring us years down the road when their numbers increase. The focus has seemed to be on the individual dissenter and their self-esteem. That focus is now shifting in a big way towards the scandalization of other Catholics (the illness spreading from one sheep to many).

I see a boldness growing in the body of bishops that is promising, but we didn't get here overnight and it won't change overnight. One thing I learned from the writings of W. Edwards Deming years ago, was that sweeping change isn't nearly as effective as incremental change. God is a great engineer and if we look back in history, we will see that He works in decades and centuries, not days, weeks, or months.

Let's get back to that combox dialogue

First, in response to your second comment in the link at top...

I think we may agree on the following points:

1) People - including priests and bishops have been engaged in a kind of false charity, whereby admonishent, correction, discpline, etc, is avoided on the basis that it might hurt someone's feeling or their self esteem. You and I probably agree that priests and bishops need to be concerned more with the salvation of those under their care, moreso than their self esteem.

2) There are dissidents, such as the priest you mention, who will try to justify things which are foreign to our faith. When such people given a platform at a parish, diocese, Catholic university, or Catholic newspaper, many people are led into scandal, most especialy today with the uncatechized and ill-catechized. Equally damaging is when things are being advanced by these people which clearly fly in the face of clear and constant teachings of the Church, and are met only with silence by priests and bishops.

3) I agree that the more than 30,000 Protestant denominations stemmed from someone disagreeing with the Catholic Church hundreds of years ago and starting their own thing. It all started with that first "protest", and multiplied exponentially as others split away, many from the first, second and third generation protestant denominations.

4) Going back to Canon 915 as mentioned in your first comment, we both agree that Canon 915 ought to be applied. I would go a step further and would suggest that there are cases that warrant a pronouncement of excommunication, when someone rejects dogma/doctrine and is obstinately leading others into scandal despite adequate pastoral intervention by their pastor and bishop.

Second: I struggle with your argument in the following ways:

1) If I see a child stealing a loaf of bread, I can judge his actions and call it stealing. This is not being judgmental, but simply stating a fact. But, I would fall into rash judgment if I said that the child's motivation was purely due to greed. Perhaps he stole the bread because he is living on the street and has not had anything to eat. It would still be wrong, but God has the authority to mitigate such things, which is why judgment of such things is left to him.

I feel the same way when looking at the actions (or inactions) of otherwise orthodox bishops (we will suspend discussion of dissident bishops in this post), who have not been more proactive in using Canon 915, public statements and other disciplinary actions. I can certainly make an observation that a particular action has not taken place, but I cannot judge the motivation of any bishop, attributing inaction to cowardice. Could this be a factor for some? It's possible. But, I don't know that. I can't know that. I leave that to God because He knows their heart.

2) On dealing with dissidents, I have already stated where we agree and perhaps this is just an expansion of that. Dissidents ought to be dealt with and not pampered where they lead many others into scandal. If you look through the examples below, you will see that while I don't agree with certain tactics, I don't believe in bishops sitting back making like a wall-flower while the wolves carry the sheep away. It's a matter of how it is dealt with. Each of these actions taken by bishops has undoubtedly been labeled as "uncharitable" by those on the other side of the issue, and perhaps a few bystanders who don't really know any better:

I have been a proponent of the approach taken by Bishop Martino in Scranton in his handling of Misericordia Univeristy, the St. Patrick's Day Parade, and with Senator Robert Casey. Some would say he is being mean and hurting people's feelings. I say, it's a bishop doing his job. I have supported Bishop Morlino's recent firing of a lay pastoral associate. I know there are people in Madison, Wisconsin who think the bishop is being uncharitable. What they don't understand is that he is showing the greatest charity to those who would be subjected to "strange teachings". And, I liked the approach taken by Bishop Allen Vigneron, while still in Oakland when faced with an unexpected survey on priestly celibacy by the dissident group, Call to Action (after the fact). Note how carefully Vigneron walks the line of charity, balanced with firm clarity on Church teaching (and made it public as promptly as he could). In one last example, I highly support the approach taken by Bishop Jamie Soto, then co-adjutor of Sacramento, who accepted an invitation to be the keynote speaker at a parish-sponsored homosexual event, only to use it for a teaching moment.

I do not consider these "in your face" or uncharitable. Rather, they are firmly, and with great charity, teaching the faith and upholding it, without blinking.

3) With regards to the 30,000+ protestant denominations stemming from bishops not standing up for the faith, I would ask how many priests and bishops were martyred during the reformation? I like history now, but for whatever reason, didn't much pay attention in my school years, unfortunately.

4) With Canon 915, let me put it this way: I won't assume cowardice on the part of any bishop for reasons stated above - it crosses the line into judging their motivation which my conscience tells me is wrong. They are, for the most part, united in that pro-choice Catholic pols should not present themselves for Communion. Where they are divided is on just how to apply Canon 915. All of the calls, emails, letters and protests will not change a bishop's mind, if in his conscience he feels he understands Canon 915 and has come to a different conclusion than another bishop. Make no mistake: There is one Holy Spirit acting on the consciences of all bishops. Hence, I believe that there cannot be varied interpretations of such a thing. Jabs, potshots, and not-talking will not get them closer to what God wants. They must pray and continue to work together. We must pray with them.

RANDALL TERRY
As for Randall Terry, I stand by my original post. I found it highly unusual for a Vatican official to authorize such a video-event in the manner presented by Mr. Terry. Something seemed "off" and my senses were right. I was suspicious of it initially and said nothing, holding my breath hoping it wouldn't implode. Not long ago - as a prelude to Terry's press conference, when we heard that Vatican officials were "entertaining the removal" of certain archbishops, the alarm bells went off. I believe damage was done by this stunt. Where rich, fraternal dialogue should be taking place, a wall has just gone up, thanks to Randall's "clever" trick on Archbishop Burke. The ends do not justify the means. I still say it was an injustice not only to Burke, but to Wuerl, Loverde and others who came under the spotlight through certain questions. I wondered if that dig went right over Abp Burke's head.

ABP BURKE, ABP WUERL and CANON 915
It is my hope that Archbishops Raymond Burke, Donald Wuerl and others would meet - privately, spend some time in prayer together, and then discuss Canon 915 over some coffee, Jameson, scotch, cigars and anything else that might help. Perhaps they could set up a chimney and puff some of that stogie smoke outside to let the rest of us know, we have unity on Canon 915.

Truly people, if you want to help the bishops, turn to prayer. Go to adoration on their behalf; pray Rosaries for them, offer up your Mass intentions and daily sacrifices. The graces will come to them. Recall that Our Lord pointed out some demons can only be taken out with prayer.



Te Deum Laudamus! Home





The obedient are not held captive by Holy Mother Church; it is the disobedient who are held captive by the world!

Thursday, March 26, 2009

Archbishop Burke was duped by Randall Terry on purpose of interivew...

***Post Updated***

Oh, boy. This is interesting in many ways...

It surprised me that with all of the professional media outlets and worthy pro-life groups, Archbishop Burke would allow such an interview with Mr. Terry. Now we get the much needed clarification. It was a classic case of exploitation.

According to His Excellency, Randall Terry misled him as to how the videotape would be used. In it, the archbishop discussed Canon 915. The archbishop is dismayed with how it is being used to attack his fellow bishops.

Archbishop Burke does not criticize specific bishops in the interview, but in one question - which was somewhat awkwardly asked, Mr. Terry takes a jab at a few archbishops, naming their location and referring to their not denying Holy Communion ahead of the election. In watching the actual video of the interview (which has been added to my original post), I'm wondering if Archbishop Burke caught the jab made by Terry in the question.

Setting aside that question, if you listen to Burke's response it stands well on it's own, not as a criticism of other bishops, but as an invitation for everyone to look closer at Canon 915.

The Archbishop has released this statement:




ROME, Italy - In response to the March 25, 2009 press conference of Mr. Randall Terry in Washington, D.C., the Most Reverend Raymond L. Burke, Archbishop Emeritus of Saint Louis and Prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura, issued the following statement:

“Recently, Mr. Randall Terry and some of his associates visited me in Rome and asked to videotape an interview with me to share with pro-life workers for the purpose of their encouragement. The interview was conducted on March 2, 2009.

“Sadly, Mr. Terry has used the videotape for another purpose which I find most objectionable.

“First, Mr. Terry issued a media advisory which gave the impression that I would be physically present at the press conference during which he played the videotape, when, in fact, I was in Rome.

“Second, I was never informed that the videotape would become part of a press conference.

“Third, I gave the interview as a Bishop from the United States to encourage those engaged in the respect life apostolate, not as the Prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura.

“Fourth, I was never informed that the videotape would be used as part of a campaign of severe criticism of certain fellow bishops regarding the application of Canon 915 of the Code of Canon Law.

“If I had known what the true purpose of the interview was, I would never have agreed to participate in it.

“I am deeply sorry for the confusion and hurt which the wrong use of the videotape has caused to anyone, particularly, to my brother bishops.”

Tom Peters got it right when he suggested that folks in the Vatican start using "google" to do some quick checks.

EDIT 5:00AM March 27th: InPhiladelphia's, The Bulletin, an article, Catholic Archbishop Remorseful for misuse of his comments, points out:



Mr. Terry responded Archbishop Burke knew the goal of the campaign and the interview would be distributed [he just doesn't get it - he exploited the archbishop and the headlines in the news are a manifestation of that exploitation]

While many media outlets are attributing the archbishop with having said President Barack Obama is an “agent of death,” the following is the actual quote given by Archbishop Burke:
“But in any case, no matter who is the President of the United States, here is a world leader with a tremendous capacity to promote the common good, but at the same time sadly, who could — by promoting and implementing anti-life legislation measures — could be an agent of death.”

Here is the full Associated Press version that will be plastered all over the nation this morning - it does not show the context. Note even the title which makes it sound like the Archbishop is sorry for his comments - which were in accord with Catholic teaching - as opposed to being remorseful for the exploitation of his words.

For myself, it is pretty much confirmed, that Archbishop Burke had no clue who he was dealing with in Randall Terry. I'm sure I'm not the only one who was raising an eyebrow about the interview when it was first announced. I always saw Terry as a loose canon, but had not heard anything about him in decades, aside from the fact that he became Catholic in 2005. I thought that perhaps he had lost his militant edge, but it is clear he has not.

In my personal opinion - an opinion I have held for many years, Randall Terry has done considerable damage to the pro-life movement through "in your face" tactics. Exploiting Archbishop Burke to call for Abp Wuerl and other archbishops to be removed from their post for not denying Holy Communion is just one more example. Pray for him, and pray for Archbishop Burke, Archbishop Wuerl and others who were harmed by this stunt.

Te Deum Laudamus! Home




The obedient are not held captive by Holy Mother Church; it is the disobedient who are held captive by the world!

Wednesday, March 25, 2009

Archbishop Raymond L. Burke discusses Canon 915 in interview


EDIT: Actual video has been uploaded to YouTube and embedded here. Before watching, please read the statement released by Archbishop Burke in which he says he was misled as to the purpose of the interview, among other things.







Here is the interview we learned about earlier in the week....


(Pewsitter.com)March 25, 2009 - Washington, DC - Following is the transcript of Randall Terry’s interview with His Excellency, Archbishop Burke, Prefect, Apostolic Signatura on March 2, regarding Canon 915 and the withholding of communion from Catholic politicians that support abortion. The actual video footage of this interview was shown earlier today at a press conference at the National Press Club, in Washington DC. More information can be found at www.humbleplea.com


Mr. Terry: Your Excellency, it’s a delight to be with you. Thank you so much.

Archbishop Raymond Burke: Pleased to have you come, and to visit with you.


Mr. Terry: For the umpteenth time, I and the others are asking, under Canon 915 what should or should not be done?

Archbishop Burke: The Canon is completely clear, it is not subject in my judgment to any other interpretations. When someone is publicly and obstinately in grave sin we may not administer Holy Communion to the person. And that, basically, for two reasons: number one, to prevent the person himself or herself from committing a sacrilege, and secondly, to protect the sanctity of the Holy Eucharist. In other words, to approach, to receive our Lord in Holy Communion, when one insists on remaining in grave sin, is such a violation of the sanctity of the Holy Eucharist, so that Communion must not be given to people who are publicly, obstinately, in grave sin.


Mr. Terry: And so does that apply to politicians of any party that are saying: "Yes, it’s okay to abort children" –to kill children?

Archbishop Burke: Yes, for someone who in any way contributes in an active way to the murder of innocent defenseless infants in the womb—children in the womb—from the very inception of human life, this is the greatest of sins. And such a person, until he or she has reformed his or her life, should not approach to receive Holy Communion.


Mr. Terry: And if they do approach, the person who is administering Holy Communion should say, “No.”?

Archbishop Burke: Right. In fact, the Canon puts the burden upon the minister of Holy Communion whether it’s the ordinary minister which would be a bishop, a priest, a deacon—or an extraordinary minister—it doesn’t make any difference. It says they’re not to be admitted to receive Holy Communion. Normally speaking, in my experience, when I have spoken with, for instance, Catholic politicians who have insisted on supporting pro-abortion legislation and told them they should not approach any more to receive Holy Communion, in my experience they don’t. Now, where Bishops have not applied the Canon, often times it’s said that this will cause some kind of disorder at the time of distribution of Holy Communion. That’s not verified. It’s not using Holy Communion to make a statement at all, it’s simply respecting this most sacred gift we have - namely, the Body and Blood of Christ—which can only be received when one has repented of his sins. And I would also make the point—and I believe that it is true that on the contrary - those public figures—Catholics—who are consistently promoting pro-abortion legislation and policies—use reception of Holy Communion to try to justify what they are doing; in other words, to present themselves as devout Catholics, when in fact they are sinning against the most fundamental teaching of the moral law. [Thou shall not murder.]


Mr. Terry: When the election was approaching, Bishop Martino said he would not serve Communion to Vice Presidential Candidate Joe Biden. There were a handful of other bishops who made similar statements, for which the laity and the faithful were rejoicing.

But the deafening silence from so many other Bishops—and also the bishops who stepped up such as in Washington D.C., Virginia, others …Massachusetts…[and] said that we will serve communion—was so painful for us. What word of encouragement would you give, first to the laity on our struggle to bring orthodoxy back, and then to your brother bishops and priests?

Archbishop Burke: I think simply to say: reflect upon this norm of the Church’s discipline—Canon 915—which is one of the most important canons to safeguard the greatest treasure that we have in this life, namely, the communion that we have with our Lord Jesus Christ, and His true body and His true blood; and to, in every way work so that also public witness is given to the sacredness of the Holy Eucharist. And so I would encourage the faithful when they are scandalized by the giving of Holy Communion to persons are publicly and obstinately in sin, that they go to their pastors, whether it’s their parish priest or to their bishop, to insist that this scandal stop. Because, it is weakening the faith of everyone. It’s giving the impression that it must be morally correct to support procured abortion, in at least in some circumstances, if not also generally. So they need to insist that their parish priest and the bishops, and for the rest…to my brother bishops and brother priests…simply to say: the service of the Church in the world today has to begin first and foremost with the protection of the life of those who are the most defenseless and the most innocent, namely the unborn, and certainly has to extend also to those who are gravely ill, or burdened with serious illness, who have special needs; and also now more and more their lives are being threatened by a culture of death which sadly has infected our nation. So I would just urge my brother bishops and my brother priests to see as the most fundamental witness and service which they can give in leading also the faithful in their pastoral care is the apostolate of the respect for human life.


Mr. Terry: The election of Obama sent shock waves around the world concerning the right to life of babies because of his commitment to pursue FOCA, to try to force hospitals - Catholic hospitals - into giving the morning after pill, other things – [the repeal of the] Mexico City policy. From your vantage point here in the Vatican, what kind of fruit around the world is this poison that’s percolating in America producing?

Archbishop Burke: There is no question, and I certainly see it here, living now here in Europe, and Italy, and also with the kind of communication within all of Europe that Barack Obama—President Obama—is a charismatic figure. And there was a great deal of—especially through the media—a great deal of publicity and so forth regarding the “hope,” the word that he used so much, that he offered—not only for the United States— and for the world. And so you can be certain that the whole world, and especially the English speaking world—which let us recall, is a great part of the world—is following very carefully and attentively what this man is doing—this world leader—which he is. And therefore, it becomes more incumbent upon us then ever, also in our responsibility for the scandal and the harm being done, not only in our own nation which is in itself— which we think about 50 million since the Roe v. Wade decision, 50 million unborn infants murdered—but also to consider the effect that our nation is having on the whole world in this culture of death.

America has the call to lead—to use its influence in the way that will give glory to God and will serve the common good in its most essential element: and that is by turning around this culture of death, and especially protecting the right to life of the unborn. So our responsibility is even greater than just for our own nation - which is in itself such a weighty matter. But we have to see how this is also having, adding a tremendous influence in the English speaking world, but also in the whole world, because of the charismatic nature of our present President. But in any case, no matter who is the President of the United States, here is a world leader with a tremendous capacity to promote the common good, but at the same time sadly, who could—by promoting and implementing anti-life legislation measures—could be an agent of death.


Mr. Terry: If I was a Catholic in another country, I would be watching the news unfold in America hearing the silence of so many Catholics, the debate over communion, and it might have the effect of me just saying, “Well, we have abortion here, they’ve got it there, let’s just all learn to live with it and go on about our business.”

Archbishop Burke: Well, I think this is precisely the effect that it has had. The communications today are instantaneous. The whole world knows that a very high percentage of Catholics in fact voted for this very anti-life candidate and so they watch this very carefully, and what the world needs to see now is a strong witness on the part of all Catholics and we can’t be content with the fact that some 55% - or whatever it is - who for whatever reason, supported this anti-life program. They have to see now that Catholics in the United States are alive and faithful and that they are going to work to protect human life, and above all, to let the President of the United States know that this is the number one issue.


Mr. Terry: There are many Catholics who believed that to vote for Obama - knowing his promises to extend child-killing even further - that to knowingly vote for him under those circumstances was a type of cooperation with moral evil. It was cooperating with evil. Do you concur with that and if so, why?

Archbishop Burke: Well, the fact of the matter is, it is a form of cooperation, because by voting we put a person in office. And people say, “What does my vote matter?” Well, your vote is either a vote to put someone in office who will do what is right and just, or someone who won’t. And so if you, knowing that abortion is a grave crime against human life – is the killing of an innocent, defenseless human life - and you vote for the candidate who says that he intends to make that more available – that practice of infanticide - you bear a responsibility. That is, you have cooperated in the election of this person into office, there’s no question about it.


Mr. Terry: Archbishop, thank you for your time. Do you have any closing comments or exhortations?

Archbishop Burke: President Obama uses this word “hope” in a way that for us is very disturbing. We need to have hope, the hope that is founded in Jesus Christ, alive for us in the Church; Jesus Christ who gave His life for everyone without exception, and with a particular love for the suffering and for those who are the most defenseless. And so we have to be filled with hope and give ourselves more than ever to His work, to His mission of protecting human life, and so I ask God to bless you very much in what you are doing to advance the cause of life.


Mr. Terry: Thank you, Your Excellency; long life to you.


Te Deum Laudamus! Home


The obedient are not held captive by Holy Mother Church; it is the disobedient who are held captive by the world!