Dr. Hudson:

You think a lot more highly of our bishops than I believe their conduct and track-records warrant, and your optimism in the final paragraph borders on naivete.

The most we're gonna get is more hot air from Burke all the way in Rome. He'll give his interview sound-bites to conservative Catholic news sites, but won't back it up with concrete disciplinary measures.

And business will go on as usual, with out prestigious Catholic unviersities, in full communion with the Church and the Holy Father, continuing to award honorary degrees and platforms to the pro-abortionists.

Like I've said before: We are all Anglicans now.

Maybe I should take back that last statement. I really shouldn't insult our Anglican brothers by conflating them with us.

After all, there's a LOT more Catholicism to be had in any conservative Anglican diocese than there is at your average Catholic parish, and a lot more respect for the office of the Pope.

And most of the conservatives even have valid orders, what with their infiltration by Old Catholic, Eastern, and other validly ordained clerics.

No, I don't endorse the Anglican schism; but there's something sickly wrong with our church when we're more likely to see Anglican episcopates care more about doctrinal and disciplinary integrity than we do our own bishops. All the legalities aside, it seems one gets more Catholic the more schismatic one becomes.

And for the record, I worship at a Novus Ordo parish; I'm just making observations.

So, for all the attacks on Randall Terry, it seems his little mission to Rome has born some good fruit, despite the controversy about whether or not he misrepresented himself to Archbishop Burke.

Lex,

I'm not sure which (Rome or Canterbury) is less flattered by the comparison. I've yet to find an Anglican body which cares more about doctrinal and disciplinary integrity than . . .well, I've yet to find one that cares, period. They certainly don't exist in GAFCON if they think they can make nice with the heresy of women's "ordination". But that's an argument for another website I think.

I suspect you may be a little bit too pessimistic about this part of Deal's column: "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." At the very least, it will be cause for just a little hesitation, a little question. No?

Kamilla

Kamillah:

I doubt it.

I'm at a point where I get the same feeling when I watch the Oscars as when I watch the USCCB at their plenary meetings.

The best thing that could happen to either of these two crowds who have done so much to pervert the moral and spiritual fabric of this nation is that God's permissive will allows an Islamist to crash an airplane (one not containing any passengers!) into whatever building they assemble in.

I say that half-jokingly.

By the way, I do not in any way endorse terrorism or murder of any kind.

It's just that I won't be shedding any tears if God's permissive will permits such a calamity to befall certain sectors of society: Catholic bishop, porno film directors, drug-dealers, serial killers, etc.

Lost amid all the jockeying and "closing ranks" is this simple truth: The obligation to obey Canon 915 does NOT flow from the decision of any bishop.

A bishop who denies Communion to known pro-abortion people is simply obeying Canon Law and the moral law.

A bishop who does not deny Communion to known pro-abortion people is simply disobeying Canon Law and the moral law.

No bishop has the right to set a "policy" with respect to Canon 915--any more than he has the right to set a "policy" with respect to obeying vs. disobeying one of the Commandments. As a matter of fact--bishops as such are utterly irrelevant to the whole issue of Canon 915. The Canon imposes its obligations directly on ALL ministers of Communion.

It is long past time for it to be universally understood: NO bishop has any authority in this matter at all. EVERY minister of Communion is strictly obliged to obey Canon 915, regardless of what any bishop anywhere (the "local" bishop or the "home" bishop) may say about it.

The USCCB had no business issuing its statement in 2004 purporting to authorize bishops to disobey Canon 915. No national conference of bishops has such authority!

And the bishops (all but about fifteen!) who have, for the last four years, refused to obey Canon 915, have simply been perpetuating a charade. They have been spreading a fog of confusion, pretending, by virtue of their office, to have the right to disobey Canon Law, pretending to have the right to commit sacrilege and cause scandal. Needless to say, the office of bishop does not confer a "right" to commit mortal sin!

Cf.:
tinyurl.com/canon915
tinyurl.com/pont915

Two comments:

First, stating that an individual should not "present" himself for Communion doesn't seem to capture the import of the Canon. It seems to imply that "non-admission" to Communion (as stipulated by the Canon) would only occur vacuously, i.e., by virtue of the individual complying with the admonition not to present himself, and that if he were to do so he would be admitted. If the advice given is couched in terms of forgoing Communion rather than being denied it, there would appear to be a serious ambiguity in what's being communicated.

Second, in addition to and complementing the injunction not to "present" himself for Communion, is the individual being advised of what is necessary in order that he may be re-admitted to Communion (apart from publicly renouncing abortion and withdrawing his support for it)? Is confession ever mentioned, for example? Or is it considered "inappropriate" to mention to politicians what is rarely or never mentioned to the rest of us Catholics?

Deal, Thank you for this information on Catholics and the abortion business. Yes, it does seem like this is a positive development. The Amish have distinctive customs and we can have them too.
It will be interesting to see what happens. I am hopeful. Let's pray for our bishops, priests, and for ourselves.

Gerard, your distinction between "forgoing" and "being denied" is a helpful one. I think, at this point, that I am right in interpreting Naumann's statement as one about "forgoing." But I also think you correct in pointing out that the full import of Canon 915 goes further in the direction of "being denied."

Deal,
Why didn't you mention the recent news that Gov. Sebelius just signed the Kansas Right to Know legislation?

Gov. Sebelius was blasted by many for her veto of the original version of the bill. She said the original bill was unconstitutional because it would open up women's medical records to the state and asked for those provisions to be removed, so that it could hold up to constitutional challenges. When she got the clean bill, she signed it. Why not give credit, when credit is due?

I for one was happy to see her sign the bill and think it at least deserves a mention.

Since these goings-on in Kansas do not change the fact that Sebelius is a fanatical abortion enthusiast, and thus, a public sinner, they have no bearing on what Deal was writing about here.

Canon 916 is addressed to Communicants. They are not to seek the Sacrament when they are conscious of grave sin.

Canon 915 is addressed to ALL ministers of Communion. They are required to deny the Sacrament to those who are publicly known to be in situations of grave sin. There is NO ROLE for the bishop. The bishop is irrelevant.

Those who have spoken of the denial of Communion as a "sanction" or a "penalty" have been misleading the public. This group includes a number of bishops and canon lawyers.

These same bishops have been falsely claiming the authority to "set policy" in their dioceses regarding Canon 915. This, too, is a falsehood. The obligation to obey Canon 915 is a STRICT and GRAVE obligation. I.e., those who choose not to obey Canon 915 are committing objectively grave sin--i.e., they THEMSELVES are in a situation of manifest grave sin, and thus they THEMSELVES are forbidden to celebrate Mass or receive Communion.

Until this false notion that obedience to Canon 915 is in any way UP TO THE BISHOP is banished from discussions of the issue, the bishops (and other ministers of Communion) who wish to muddy the waters and evade their GRAVE obligation to obey Canon 915 will continue to do so.

Cf.:
tinyurl.com/canon915
tinyurl.com/pont915

Best news I've heard all week, Deal; thanks!

I'm fascinated that the media, usually hot on stories related to denial of communion, skipped this story.

Also, I followed your link to Newsweek through to the original Washington Times story. Even that conservative source blew the explanation of Canon 915, claiming that the second part of the canon ("obstinately persist in manifest grave sin") asks communicants to police themselves, obviously confusing Canons 915 and 916, something that happens over and over.

--Eric

For readers who might think that Fr. Fitzpatrick overstates the situation, here is a quote from Archbishop Burke's very scholarly analysis of Canon 915 written less than six months before he was appointed Prefect of the Apostolic Signatura.

While the judgment regarding the disposition of the individual who presents himself to receive Holy Communion belongs to the minister of the Sacrament, the question regarding the objective state of Catholic politicians who knowingly and willingly hold opinions contrary to the natural moral law would hardly seem to change from place to place.

The bishops do have a critical role in all of this, however, which unfortunately seems lost on most of them. As Abp. Burke observed at the end of his document.

No matter how often a Bishop or priest repeats the teaching of the Church regarding procured abortion, if he stands by and does nothing to discipline a Catholic who publicly supports legislation permitting the gravest of injustices and, at the same time, presents himself to receive Holy Communion, then his teaching rings hollow.

Hi BDK,

From what I've read in Kansas Catholic papers, there was massive support for the bill, far more than necessary to override any veto she would have made. It would have been foolhardy for her to try to veto the bill, in any event. I doubt that this situation represents any real change in her pro-choice views, and thus it doesn't merit any cheers, unfortunately. We need to give credit where it is due when pro-choice pols actually reject some aspect of their pro-choice belief system, not when their hand is forced to do so politically.

Do you have any doubt whatsoever that Sebelius is unrepentant in her stances? I sure don't.

I do applaud that some bishops are at least saying these scandalous pro-abortion politicans should NOT present themselves for Holy Communion. I have to wonder if it bothers their conscience much considering they promote and vote for the killing of the innocent unborn. But what wil bother them is bad publicity if is is public knowledge that their bishop has told them not to come forward and they do and a picture gets published. THAT they would not care for. The sacrilege of doing so is another matter.

Yes, I would like to see the canon enforced by denial. All this wishy-washy 'pastoral' cowardice leads to things like Notre Dame honoring Obama and the furthering of disobedience and scandal. But at least it is a step in the right direction after decades of non-action.

Did John the Baptist not get jailed and then eventually beheaded for calling a politician out for a publicly grave sin (adultery)?

Is this not a clear enough example for our priests and bishops to follow in dealing with publicly sinful politicians? Why can't most of our leaders SEE?

LEX!

Your charitable observations about the shepherds of our Church here in the US are filled with wonderful sentiments to meditate on this Passion Week. Sentiments like these lead to bombings of abortion clinics. Maybe you should join the Taliban!

St. Ignatius of Loyola used to say that he knew of no sermons more useful and beneficial than those on hell. Reflections on the beauties of virtue and the delights and attractions of divine love have little influence upon course, sensual men and women. Amidst the noisy pleasures of their lives, the seductive bad examples set before them, the traps and pitfalls set beneath their fet, the threat of hell is the only curb powerful enought to keep them on the path of duty. For the same reason, St. Teresa of Avila would often bid her austere nuns to go down to hell in spirit and thought during their life, so as to avoid, she said, going there in reality after their death.

Lex writes: "We're more likely to see Anglican episcopates care more about doctrinal and disciplinary integrity than we do our own bishops"

You mean like Vicky Gene Robinson?

Bill mentions John The Baptist and rightly so, but he's been demoted. Don't you remember? He's not mentioned much anymore. He got dropped from the Confetior, and he's barely mentioned in the LOTH where we used to recite the Canticle of Zecheriah everyday at Laudes. No one remembers That Jesus said he was the best born of women, but we're modern, and we're progressive, now, so be of good cheer, and join hands, or use the orian position, and sing kumbyah. 54% of Catholics voted for Obama. God's not amused, any longer.

Evil cannot stand when exposed to the light. Lord please inspire your bishops to shine forth your light by all of their words AND actions and give them the courage to stand firm to the truth. In the name of the Father, the Son and Holy Spirit. Amen

Judging from the comments on this posting, it seems that some of us have forgotten that throughout the Church's 2,000 year history there have been many heretical--or less than virtuous--bishops and priests. The only guarantee of infallibility is the one given to Peter and his successors, the Popes--and that's only under very specific conditions.

Catholics need to be aware of this and not be scandalized by the words and actions of weak bishops--but pray for them instead! All of us are negatively influenced by the culture and times in which we live, but if we stay close to the Lord in prayer and frequent confession, He will give us the grace to be courageous in living out our Christianity in a world becoming increasingly hostile to it.

The bishops are showing signs of coming around, and realizing that they cannot continue to ignore these Catholic politicans and dissident clergy, etc. Let's keep praying for them that they, too, will have the courage to take whatever steps are necessary to deal with these people in an appropriate manner.

Personally I believe that some Catholic bishops and priests have become so desensitized, they no longer have feelings for the little babies in the womb.

["Why can't we call a spade a spade"

Governor Sebelius is a bad example. Just as Jesus spoke of the Tree of Good and Bad Fruit, so it may be with her family. She is proud of a game her son has come up and markets. This game has (as one aspect) to try to put "glass" into someone's food.

We have someone being up for Health and Human Services Secretary whose son is advocating putting "glass in people's food?" This is truly horrible!

Maybe her son should be denied communion as well.

Article about this on the Internet:

Title: Kansas Governor's son has game that advocates "putting glass into people's food"

URL: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2206302/posts

+God bless.

ChristopherMHoss

I'll take Gene Robinson over Cardinal Mahony any day. Not only are Robinson's liturgies better celbrated, and his sacraments probably valid (given the intrusion of Old Catholics and some Eastern bishops Anglican ordination ceremonies), but at least the Episcopal Bishop has the intellectual and moral honesty not to pretend to be a Roman Catholic.

M. Kozak;

Apart from the tulitarian consideration of whether they do more harm than good, are you honestly upset when you hear that abortion clinics are bombed (assuming no one gets hurt or killed)?

No, I do NOT sanction such bombings, for a host of reason. I simply don't mourn them when they do happen.

I haven't been following all the back-and-forth, but let me just chime in that the "clinic bombing" cliche is infuriating.

There have been far more acts of violence committed by "anti-war pacifists" and by "animal rights" activists than by anti-abortion protestorrs. There have been *plenty* of acts of violence over the years *against* pro-life demonstrators. Like, back in 2000, when a guy in a van intentionally plowed through a group of pro-lifers (admitting as such), and the authorities refused to prosecute him for assault with a deadly weapon and gave him a minor traffic ticket. Fr. Pavone tried to make a national case of it, but the media didn't pay attention.

I read the observation somewhere that there have maybe been one or two abortion clinic bombings in the past 36 years, unless you watch _Law and Order_, where they seem to happen every season.

Thank you Father Vincent Fitzpatrick for your wisdom, knowledge, and crystal-clear explanation of Canon 915! Even the rocks can understand. Thanks also to Christopher Hoss for information on Sibelius's son inventing & marketing a game "putting glass in people's food." That's horrible enough, and worse that Gov. Sibelius is proud of son's "game" invention. Birds of a feather...... I didn't know this information. You're correct: maybe son shouldn't be given Communion either. That family is strange.

Kamilla,

"...[Anglicans] think they can make nice with the heresy of women's 'ordination'.

It is only in the Catholic Church, where there is valid, sacramental, holy orders, that there is heresy (actually schism) for attempting to confer priestly ordination on women. With the exception of "former" Catholic priests, now Anglican, all Anglican "priests" are actually lay ministers, so it does not make a difference if they are men or women, i.e., neither actually confect the Eucharist.

Anyway, Gov. Kathleen Sebelius never will lack a priest who okays her stance on abortion, to give her Communion although almost (!)US bishops forbid this.

The name of the game is not "putting glass in people's food".

I cannot put the name of this game on this forum because it is a Catholic Forum. It would offend people -- just the name of the game.

+God bless.
Christopher M. Hoss

I think this is a very good thing. We need to put some pressure on politicians who claim to be Catholic to actually live up to their titles. Of course, we all have to make right with God concerning our sins, and perhaps people go to receive communion too easily as it is.

Dear Dr. Hudson,

I am thankful for your active support for the enforcement of Canon Law 915, however there seems to be a consistent misinterpretation of that particular Church law that is being perpetuated by the bishops and the media. The bishops who are taking credit for “enforcing Canon 915” are doing so under the auspices of requesting the individual in question not to present themselves for Holy Communion. But this is not what Canon 915 says. The impetus of the individual aware of grave sin not to present themselves for Holy Communion falls under Canon Law 916, but under Canon 915, “… those who obstinately persist in grave manifest sin are not to be admitted to Holy Communion.” This is a very important distinction because it deals with the nature of scandal!

Consistently, Canon 916 is being mixed with Canon 915. Canon 916, which states, “A person who is conscious of grave sin is not to celebrate Mass or to receive the Body of the Lord without prior sacramental confession …” is a reflection of St. Paul’s admonition of those who receive the Body and Blood of Our Lord “unworthily,” and is a warning against committing sacrilege. It has to do with personal awareness of one’s own sinfulness so as not to compound their own condemnation. But the bishops, when asked to enforce Canon 915, either state that they are unaware of the last time such individuals have been to confession (placing the impetus back on the individual) or claim that such individuals should not present themselves for Communion (again, placing the impetus on the individual).

Canon 915, however, deals with persistence in “grave manifest sin,” which means it is visible to others. The reason such individuals are “not to be admitted to Holy Communion” is to prevent the faithful from being scandalized or fooled into believing that such manifestation of sin is either not grave matter or worse yet, not sinful. As such, the impetus for the denial of Holy Communion rests solely upon the shoulders of the one distributing, not the one receiving! Furthermore, because of the nature of scandal, merely going to confession is not enough to again be permitted to receive Holy Communion. A public reconciliation with Church teaching is necessary to correct the manifestation of their grave sin.

I do hope you will work with us in correcting this unfortunate misconception.



--Michael Hichborn

Hurray--Catholic commentary that makes sense. I have been away from Church for a number of years and have returned with a new hope. After reading these posts about the bishops and priests finally being confronted with this scandal--that is--allowing communicants to receive communion while professing a pro choice position is making Satan scerm and bringing great joy in heaven. Thank you all from a grateful Catholic father of six children and seven grandchildren--my heart soars!

It is actually more correct to say that faithful Catholics want their bishops to OBEY Canon 915, than to say that we want them to "enforce" Canon 915.

Canon 915 spells out an obligation of any minister of Communion--i.e., to deny Communion to public grave sinners. When the minister of Communion denies Communion, he is not "enforcing" anything. He is OBEYING the Church's law--and the divine law.

Canon 915 is not a penal canon. I.e., the denial of Communion is not a penalty, and it is not, as penalties usually are, up to the discretion of some authority, such as a bishop, to impose or not impose, to "enforce" or not "enforce."

Every bishop, priest, deacon, or EMHC who gives Communion to public supporters of abortion is flouting Canon Law, flouting divine law, and giving scandal to the Church and to the world. No bishop, priest, deacon, or EMHC has the authority to disobey Canon 915. No one can give someone else permission to disobey Canon 915. This is why the USCCB's decision, taken in 2004, that it is up to "each bishop" to obey or disobey Canon 915, is really a nullity.

The faithful should not be PLEADING with bishops to "enforce" Canon 915. The faithful should be ANNOUNCING, wherever and whenever possible, that obedience to Canon 915 is an OBLIGATION--a strict, grave obligation that exists utterly independent of any bishop's choice, "style," "preference," etc.

By rights, if a bishop or priest makes it known that he intends to continue to disobey Canon 915, the faithful should refuse to attend, and clergy should refuse to concelebrate, any such bishop's or priest's Masses. All such celebrations of the Eucharist are public acts of sacrilege, because the principal celebrant is an obstinate, manifest, grave sinner.

Cf.:
tinyurl.com/canon915
tinyurl.com/pont915

If you read the article closely, nothing has been solved. Neither bishops Wuerl, Loverde or Naumann have learned anything. Mr. Hudson states, "Bishop Naumann asked Sebelius, not the clergy, to apply Canon 915 to herself."

That's an incorrect application of Canon 915, according to the language stated in the Canon itself. Archbishop Burke, in his interview with Randall Terry, states "the Canon puts the burden upon the minister of Holy Communion.." This statement is in response to Mr. Terry's third question. Bishop Naumann, in asking Sebelius to apply the canon to herself, is in fact copping out of his responsibilities as stipulated in Canon 915. Bishops Wuerl and Loverde are simply complying with the copout.

I agree with Father Fitzpatrick. The issue is not the enforcement of Canon 915 by the clergy, but whether or not they'll obey it, since it is a command directed at, and binding on them - not the laity.

I'm glad to see some stronger language from the Bishops. And now we see she didn't pay her taxes either meaning once again she doesn't respect the law or her fellow citizens.

It's interesting that Catholic politicians make up the largest denominational religious group in Congress with 25 Senators or 25% of U.S. Senate and 130 Congressmen or 30% of the House Representatives. Yet, barely a handful of these Catholics in the public square are in communion with the Church.The US Bishops have agree almost unanimously [with 2 votes against] that a bishop may 'admit' a manifest, grave sinner to Holy Communion. However, this is not correct, this sacrilege and scandal is clearly forbidden by Canon Law c. 915. If the bishops really believe abortion is evil, then why is it acceptable to their Conference that 'bishops can legitimately make different judgments on the most prudent course of pastoral action [regarding c. 915]?" This article does nothing good, only supports the confusion the Bishops perpetuate.

There is a wise old mediaeval scholastic axiom that teaches in Latin: 'Quidquid recipitur ad modum recipientis recipitur.' In English, 'Lessons are received according to the nature of the recipient.' Some persons are obstinately resistant to revealed truth. This includes politicians as well as bishops.

Over one hundred 'Catholic' pro-abortion US legislators are not without intelligence, even though some may act otherwise. They are not ignorant of the Church's timeless teachings on matters of life of the unborn. The reality is, instead, their nature or disposition is what has rejected Church teaching and law. And the Bishops, except for 16, enable them to do this evil. Woe to them all.

As a child preparing for my First Holy Communion, the nuns taught that the worst sin a person could commit was sacrilege--to receive the pure Body and Blood, Soul & Divinity of Our Lord while in a state of mortal sin. They compared it to tossing the Sacred Host into a sewer.

Sadly, due to years of dissent and heretical teachings by many in the Church, most have forgotten--or never were taught--this fundamental teaching. Since so many abortion backers seem to feel they have the right to receive the Holy Eucharist and will not obey and refrain from receiving, it is up to the bishops to formally excommuncate them and insist that their priests and Eucharistic ministers refuse to give this most Blessed Sacrament to public, unrepentant abortion enablers. Their first duty to is protect Jesus Himself from outrage.

Minimally paraphrasing one of my favorite authors on the subject: "When a public pro-abortion person disregards a bishop's directive to stay away and comes to Holy Communion 'of his own volition,' and the Minister of the Eucharist gives the Host to such a person, the bishop is doing evil if he has not instructed his Ministers to deny. Under c 915 the burden IS upon the Minister to deny, NOT upon the communicant to stay away.

Canon Law also places the responsibility on the minister who could be punished according to canon 1389 §2, should he knowingly unlawfully administer the sacrament with the consequent danger of scandal for the rest of the faithful. Canon 1339 prescribes the possibility of punishing any person who causes grave scandal by any violation of a divine or ecclesiastical law."

Our Church is based upon the authoritative teachings of Jesus Christ and, accordingly is not a democracy. It is scandalous indeed that so many of our bishops are not in compliance with the dictates of our Holy Father.

The cafeteria Catholic bishops who refuse to obey the laws of the Church, who refuse to protect the Blessed Sacrament and who care nothing about the souls of the so-called Catholic politicians who persist in their sacrilege aren't worthy of their office. All but 16 cower in the face of evil and bow to human respect. Little wonder that we have nearly 50 million dead or that we have President JUDAS Jenkins at Notre Dame. Politics is their god. May the Lord bless the faithful 16, and may B XVI deliver us from the rest of the traitors.

We are no closer to closing ranks on Canon 915. In fact, the only ranks that are closing are the USCCB members who fail to enforce Canon 915, and simply talk without any action, closing ranks in their collective resolve not to enforce Canon 915 as written. I urge all Catholics who want to know the truth to go to the Vatican website and read for themselves,

"Can. 915 Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion."

If a public figure who is publicly well known (and also creating public scandal) to be "obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin", which includes promoting and supporting abortion, presents themselves to receive Holy Communion whose responsibility is it to protect the Body of Our Lord from defilement? Clearly the sinner is not concerned with being in a state of grace and fit to receive, nor are they concerned with the fact that to receive in such a state is a sin (and a sin to the one who knowingly provides the Most Holy Eucharist to such a known sinner); who then must protect the Body of Our Lord?

The words "not to be admitted" clearly indicates someone is responsible for not admitting one who is "obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin" to receive. So if such a person presents themselves to receive, the only person able to prevent the defilement of the Most Holy Eucharist is the person administering the Most Holy Eucharist!!!

It is up to the bishop, the priest or eucharistic minister to withhold the Body of Christ from any person know to be "obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin". The failure of most bishops to enforce Canon 915 and protect the Body of Christ from defilement is the main problem. Until our bishops and priests do more than talk about Canon Law, until they enforce Canon Law, we will never "close ranks"!

The responsibility for withholing Communion still remains with the Ordinary and Extraordinary Ministers of Communion.

The new Archbishop of New York has heretofore taken the position that he has the right to disobey Canon 915. This position directly contradicts what Abp. Raymond Burke has conclusively demonstrated: that obedience to Canon 915 is a grave obligation. It follows from this obligation that all bishops who, like the new Archbishop of New York, claim the right to disobey Canon 915, are themselves obstinately persisting in manifest grave sin.

What this means is that, absent an announcement by the new Archbishop that he will obey Canon 915, his installation Mass at Saint Patrick's Cathedral, on April 15th, will be a sacrilegious celebration of the Eucharist, and will involve the very public sacrilegious reception of Communion by the Archbishop himself. (The same will continue to be true of all Masses he celebrates.)

Like all ministers of Communion, the new Archbishop has a strict, grave obligation to obey Canon 915. Being a bishop, he has the additional obligation to announce that he will do so, and to be watchful that all ministers of Communion under his authority do so as well.

tinyurl.com/canon915
tinyurl.com/pont915

Not until the Vatican and the United States Catholic Conference of Bishops (USCCB) adhere to the Canons of our Roman Catholic Church will the pews fill back up and the donation flow in. When you have such double-speak from those from Rome (Burke, now) and the majority of the USCCB will our Catholic Church be built on the principles of JESUS CHRIST and be healed from such grave mis-shepherding from our Popes, Cardinals, Bishops and Priests. Let's not for get the many religious Nuns that have mislead their flocks into grave sin.

We as parents try to teach the truth to our children and when let out into society, the educational system, including the Catholic educational system, indoctrinates them into lies and deception. We parents trained before Vatican II are still true to the Canons and after Vatican II, to quote a pun, "our leadership went to hell." Only the people in the pews can get this back on track as the leadership of our Catholic Church has lost its way.

The flock needs to be in constant prayers that holy leaders will prevail and take back our Holy Roman Catholic Church.

Deal, I can't believe that you think the bishops are getting closer to holding firm on Canon 915. They still want to hold the communicant responsible to not come forward to receive. Their responsibility is very clear, they are not to "admit" those who are not in communion with the Church to receive. They know the law, they're just disobedient - face the facts.

And now a full NINE(out of 220 + US bishops)have stood up in criticism of the ND president, Fr. Jenkins. Big deal! They all agreed to disallow platforms and honors to the likes of Obama. Where are the other 200+ bishops hiding?

I wish to thank Fr. Fitzpatrick for his wonderful information on Cannon 915. This is information that the sheep of the church need to hear and learn. I very much would like to contact Fr. Fitzpatrick for more information in regard to the posts he has made. Please let me know how I can do this.

I agree with "no communion" for the ex-governor, but it should also apply to the head of ND. In addition it should also apply to pediphile priests. I am not making judgment for it is not for me to make one. But just as situations in life apply, sometimes it appears that the folks in the church, our church, God's church forget about our saviors words and make exceptions. If exceptions are applied to one then they should be applied for all.

Perhaps the real problem is that many, far too many, of the Bishops don't really believe in sin or Hell, so they are not the least bit afraid of what will probably happen to them in Eternity for their refusal to obey Canon Law.

Once when I told my late friend, Bishop Austin Vaughn, that I did not believe, because of the way they acted, that most of his brother Bishops really believed in Hell, he told me "oh no Ken, they believe in Hell. They just don't believe anyone goes there, and that is silly because why would Our Lord have gone through the hell he went through in order to save people from a place that no one goes too?"

God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher, Founder & Chairman
Concerned Roman Catholics of America, Inc.

I was just wondering what will happen at the funerals of these public figures some day if they fail to correct themselves? They are very public figures and their deaths will be very highly publicized too.

Dan McGuire is a former priest and Theologian at Marquette University ( a Catholic University (?) ).

However, he teaches "heresy", in my opinion.

In the case of Dan McGuire, the USCCB took the steps to condemn two pamphlets which he used the word "Catholic" in.

Maybe something like this should be done for Catholic politicans...

Here are the titles of the two pamphlets that Professor Dan McGuire sent to all the Bishops of the USCCB in 2006:

(1) The Moderate Roman Catholic Position on Contraception and Abortion
(2) A Catholic Defense of Same-Sex Marriage

Just by the titles of the two pamphlets one can tell that these pamphlets are in serious error.

The USCCB responsed.

The URL of the "public correction" of these pamphlets can be found at:

http://www.usccb.org/dpp/twopamphlets.htm

This was formulated by the "Committee of the Doctrine" at USCCB...

There is also "news item" from USCCB (along these lines) from the Office of Media.

The Title of that article is:

Doctrine Committee Offers “Public Correction” of Theologian’s Pamphlets on Contraception, Abortion, and Same-Sex Marriage

And the URL is: http://www.usccb.org/comm/archives/2007/07-051.shtml

Ted Kennedy will die in the near future. He will have a big, splashy, televised Kennedy funeral in a Catholic church, with hundreds of pro-abortion "Catholics" receiving Communion in front of cameras.

Any pro-lifers who complain will be instructed that they need to learn something about Christian charity.

A number of central issues have been touched upon in the foregoing debate generated by certain activities of senior and prominent politicians and their receiving of the Blessed Sacrament. Perhaps however, the core issue has not been brought to the fore, namely, that the belief in the real presence of Christ is being categorically and explicitly denied and hence the receiving of communion is not regarded as an issue.

I still recite the Canticle of Zecheriah every morning. Has something change in the LOTH of which I am not aware?