SDG here with no time to comment on encouraging developments on Canon 915 noted by Deal Hudson at Inside Catholic (hat tip to an AmP combox reader – I don’t think AmP has picked up on this yet).
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.
Good news for supporters of the application of canon 915 to pro-abort politicians. Give it four more years, and we may have a growing consensus that the canon means what it says (nuance from Ed Peters), and pro-abort politicians should be denied communion (you know, if necessary, after being counseled on the gravity of the issue, urged to abstain from communion, etc.).
Also, USCCB president Cardinal George found the guts to say something about the Notre Dame Obama scandal — an “extreme embarrassment” to Catholics, in his words. (Obligatory AmP hat tip.)
What does Catholic Church Social Teaching teach about socialist politicians paying their taxes?
If you asked me I would rather listen to Jean Sibelius than hear about Kathleen Sebelius.
The story is about the bishops and canon 915, not Kathleen Sebelius.
Rather snarky, SDG.
You DID mention her by name. Hope today is better for you.
Snarky? I thought my tone was pitched a couple of clicks to the high ground of the comment to which I was responding. (Why would someone comment on a blog post that they would prefer another activity to reading about a topic referred in the post?)
Not if “mention” means something I wrote, I didn’t. I copied a sentence from a news story. In context I think it’s pretty clear that what interests me about the sentence and the larger story is the development of bishops upholding one another’s pastoral decisions, not the particular circumstances in which this development happens to have emerged.
Do you really? Interesting wish. It seems to be formally positive with an ironic backhand. Reminds me somehow of this. Anyway, in the words of one of my cinematic heroes, bless you too, Matthew.
I did mean it, regarding hoping today is better for you. There was no downside intended. Still do, and thanks.
And, although this really is stretching any relatedness, try to listen to Mozart’s K-136:
Mozart Divertimento in D major.
If that does not put some joy into your day, then, I have done my best and failed you.
I just had another idea. Stream in WCPE from Raleigh, North Carolina. What a great classical station.
Take care!
We really need a Vatican III. With anathema.
If anyone saith that they are personally opposed to abortion but cannot stand up for the defense of the unborn children, let them be anathema.
If anyone saith that they may worship their mirror, and still remain a good Catholic, let them be anathema.
If anyone saith that unborn children are not human beings who are endowed by their creator with human rights, let them be anathema.
If anyone saith they may be prejudiced against the unborn children, let them be anathema.
Cardinal George “Found the guts”? That ~is~ snark. As the Cardinal noted, his authority is moral and not canonical. He’s an advisor and servant to the bishops and other priests in America. I liked what he said about The Church being a “network of relationships” with inter-related consequences. But I would’ve liked for him to talk about how academic freedom, politics, and Church life mix. The Church is about faith and intellect, but not always about the material compromises that are about politics in a democracy. The material question on the issue of abortion, for instance, is between gradualism and abolitionism. Proponents of gradualism might, and do I think, see Obama as an ally. The abolitionists see him as Stephen Douglas, not Lincoln. If the country is not the mood for a Civil War, then Douglas is okay. – TL
BTW: Thanks for the Ed Peters link. The tension between 915 and 916 might explain why Cardinal George hasn’t directed those within his purview to deny communion to a certain prominent politician heading the city of Chicago. – TL
Karl:
I’m glad to hear that you meant it. In context, it’s hard not to read it as taking my earlier response for evidence of something wrong with the day I was having, which would be both snarky and incorrect. If you mean to disavow such an implication, though, I’m happy to take you at your word.
Tim Lacy:
Yeah, I agree. Perils of blogging in haste. Frankly, I was disappointed with Cardinal George’s initial response consisting solely of disclaiming administrative responsibility or authority, without any exercise of moral or pastoral clout. I should have couched the point without the untoward cheek, though.
I think Peters (and Burke) correctly adjudicate the relationship of 915 and 916, though. I don’t see the argument on the other side. I just see a preference for 916 eliding 915 entirely.
I just thought from the tone of what you wrote, not unlike what you thought of mine, that you were not having the best day. If that was not correct and that did offend you, then, absolutely, I apologize.
Ed Peter’s blog is a great reference and a straight forward read. I am gratful for his sharing his knowledge on the many issues he chooses to comment on.
Thanks.
The problem with 915 and 916 is that the Church has (seemingly) allowed for a paradox, but canon law is supposed to clarify and not confuse. Hopefully future revisers of canon law will combine or rewrite those two canons. I meantime, I lean slightly toward 916 for reasons cited in the Peters post (related to Wuerl’s position). – TL
Interesting read, folks.
A Canon 915 will ALWAYS have to be on the books (to hold otherwise would be to hold that Church will abandon it’s duty toward the Sacred Species) and therefore a Canon 916 will NEVER be the only relevant canon in these circumstances.
We really need a Vatican III. With anathema.
Vatican III: Vatican with Anathema.
This time it’s Papal.
Rated SG (Spiritual Guidance suggested).