Shakespeare himself could not have devised a better name for Archbishop Cordelione! He is a worthy successor to the Apostles. May his courage be rewarded. He will undoubtedly be vilified by partisans of Pelosi and Biden but he is truly doing the Lord's work--in every sense--and deserves our approbation and prayers. I pray also that the Holy Spirit will touch the hearts and minds of millions of Pelosis and Bidens across our nation and that they will be willing to accept the truth and repent.
Jesus associated himself with sinners not “holy” Archbishops he has driven many thousands of Catholics from the church. If that was his aim… he has succeeded grandly!
I, so many times, had wished the “bishops & priests” had stopped the terrible sin of sexual abuse SIN within the church. Don’t misunderstand me I am absolutely PRO LIFE, but there are so many other terrible abuses in our country that needs the churches attention besides…not just a single focus on this one issue. Pray
So where has he been all these years? Is she THE ONLY POLITICIAN in his archdiocese? Where is his stand all the OTHER issues of the Catholic Church? You have to wonder 🤔🥴
Who has been shown the door in this matter? Nobody. Archbishop Cordileone said specifically that this was not a political: "I assure you that my action here is purely pastoral, not political."
The thousands that leave the Church over this have created a counterfeit Christ that more closely resembles the person in the mirror than Our Lord. Adrianne has it exactly right: our Lord called sinners to repentance not to revelry in their sin.
So let’s just ignore 68% of Americans, not to mention 6 South American countries, who now permit some from of it! I am afraid the Church has become a tool to be USED by the Republican party.
These assertions of yours are absurd non-s equities. Since when did popularity or prevalence become a standard of morality or truth? And who mentioned Republicans? What culpability do pro-abortion Democrats who claim to be “devout Catholics” have? Are not they attempting to use the Church as a shield—or at least attempting to use their faith for political gain?
Interesting that Republicans supporters of anti-abortion just voted against baby formula crisis support. Crazy right? Fetus more important than live babies
I'm in England, we have loads of baby formula. My kids had it, it's great. But I can't send it to you because the FDA won't let it in to the US. The baby food shortage is caused by protectionist import restrictions, not by a closed factory.
Seems to me that the baby formula crisis is directly attributable to the Biden administration, which closed an formula factory in Michigan, one of only 4 in the U.S. for several months.
... which isn't a defense of Pelosi- was it intended as such? I fully agree with you that many Republicans fall short of pro life consistency on economic issues. I don't understand why this gets brought up in contexts like this article, though. Is that R insufficiency supposed to make me ok with abortion? I think many Rs are bad on pro life issues and almost every D is worse. Does that satisfy you?
I think the whole approach to discouraging abortions is totally misplaced. Women will get abortions. The only difference is the more affluent will travel and the poor will die from unsafe procedures. Lord have mercy, Christ have mercy
No it isn't. Let's discourage abortions by: providing healthcare for mother and child, providing shelter and educational opportunity for mother, providing child care so mother can support herself and the child, by pursuing the father, who too frequently disappears into the ether, by prosecuting the baby's father for rape, incest, etc.
But what you state IS absolutely being done. I am personally involved in such efforts both locally and statewide here in Texas.
Of course we could always do more. And I certainly wish we could do more. But it’s never going to be perfect.
So respectfully, we need to do more than just “discourage” abortions.
We need to insist that unborn life is treated with the love and dignity that it deserves.And that means doing everything we politically can to rid ourselves of laws that resulted in the termination of untold tens of thousands of innocent lives
Logic check: let's use your logical reasoning on another moral evil to see if it holds. I'll substitute "abortion" for "rape":
"I think the whole approach to discouraging [rape] is totally misplaced. People will [rape]. The only difference is that the more affluent will travel and the poor will die from unsafe [rape]"
I do this to illustrate that if you except abortion is a grave evil, your logic is seriously flawed. If you dispute that abortion is a grave evil, then that's a different issue, but it seemed an assumption of your statement so I don't think that's the case.
I don't know why people have no concern for the souls of current and potential future abortionists. We're not supposed to want anyone to choose hell, and they are at far greater risk on a daily basis than the mothers who are pressured into the procedures they perform.
When abortion is legal they have a respected career and little girls may even be taught to look up to them as though it is a "helping profession". When abortion is illegal, the loss of human respect and the change in exterior circumstances has at least some chance of moving abortionists to repentance. All of us should desire their repentance.
"Representative Peter Meijer (R., Mich.) tweeted, “This one-page bill is just a $28M increase for FDA salaries. That’s it. If baby formula shortage was caused by an underfunded FDA, this would help. But it wasn’t." ”
That is one point of view from a very politically conservative publication Here we are again about what is truth. Oh yeah. Trump is really our President
The truth about this bill is easily found; you can read the full text of the bill yourself online. It's very short and easy to follow. When you do, you will find that it makes no provision for anything except $28 million to the FDA.
The point is that you questioned the publication's veracity, on the grounds that it is very conservative. But looking at the bill, you can see that the publication was stating the plainest truth. The logical conclusion is that a conservative publication has told the truth. Your ethos suffers when you fail to recognize that.
Wow, this has really 'thrown the cat among the pigeons' now regarding the US Bishops. June's USCCB meeting is going to be very interesting, to put it mildly!
Hooray! It is way past time for bishops to discipline the likes of her! He should have gone further and excommunicated her, but his action is a start. Besides, it might be awkward if Cardinal Wilton wouldn't honor sacramental discipline on Mrs. Pelosi and the rest of the Counterfeit Catholics in Washington.
This was a terrible decision. First, it is a political decision made publicly fir a political purpose. Second, it singles out one politicia/person. Third, it singles out one sin. Fourth, it is disproportionate since it fails to indicate how *anyone* can elect a Catholic because they must subordinate themselves to the Church for their political decisions *even though* they are elected to represent the public *not* the Church.
From now on, every priest *must* deny communion to *any* parishioner who is any of the following..
Cohabiting.
Masturbating.
Gambling.
Watching pornagraphy
(Note pornography and masturbation are *mortal* sins ie *as bad as abortion*.
Any man who has supported or paid for or required an abortion.
Any actor who simulates sex scenes, drug taking, or any behaviour contrary to the Church's teaching.
Any homosexual. (This must include any homosexual priest or nun.)
Any parent engaging in physical or sexual abuse of their partner or their children.
If the Church and Bishops fail to excommunicate these followers it fails to be consistent and it demonstrates its *political* goal is greater than its Christian goal.
Is this the Church we want? Would Christ, who famously chose not to cast the first stone, recognise this Church?
Remember that confession does *not* absolve you from your sins if you don't stop your sins. Think on that. You sin and confess and do it again then you are *no different* from Pelosi theologically speaking. At that point, you should be excommunicated if the priest and Bishop should publicly stste you have been excommunicated *and *why*.
Embrace it because if you want it to apply to Pelosi in your righteous indignation then you *must* expect it to be applied to you.
Enjoy. This is what the decision means for Catholics.
To your main point, yes. If a priest is aware that anyone is living a life of habitual, public sin, they should be called to repentance. If they fail to do so, this is the appropriate response. So yes, we should all take our sins seriously.
That we can't addresses singular sins because it doesn't address "every sin" is frankly ridiculous. It's a complete non sequitur.
To your other points, the idea that Catholic politicians are not subject to discipline by the Church is also on its face ridiculous. Making this arbitrary secular/religious dichotomy is directly opposed by the entirety of Catholic tradition and teaching.
Nice attempt to dodge the political point. You fail to consider they chose a public or political issue. They have not excommunicated any prostitutes, actors, gangsters. Why?
Anyone who publishes works contrary to the Church teaching need to be excommunicated.
More to the point they need to be excommunicate publicly because that is the standard now.
I think you're missing an important distinction in the argument. Public persistence in grave sin (after individual and public calls to repentance) is a different situation than an individual's private sin. The latter requires no public recognition or action for it is between that individual and God, the priest is merely the vessel for sacramental grace. The former, however, can cause confusion without a public response.
To wit, Pelosi has said many times publicly that she sees no problem with being pro-abortion while maintaining her fidelity to the Catholic faith. The Catholic church has offered her teachings for the benefit of those who belong to her, which specifically contradict this. As the teachings themselves are not well known, well represented, or often publicly disseminated in a formal manner, the Church has a duty to respond with her full authority to remove any doubt or confusion from the faithful who might otherwise be led into error by her. It is specifically fitting that she is barred from communion because, following Pope Francis's statement on Communion and community, it is the clearest way the Church can communicate that the individual is not acting as a member of the community, despite what she may claim, and that her error is great enough so as to cause grave harm, even separation from God.
If, say, the Church or a minister were to somehow learn of another sin she is guilty of that she does not publicly address, then they would not issue a public correction because she is not in danger of leading others into error. For this reason, unless there is a Catholic politician out there actively prostituting himself out while publicly maintaining it's moral permissibility even in the context of his faith, your example of prostitution and other grave sins don't really apply to Pelosi's situation.
Finally, being barred from communion is not excommunication. It's an important distinction emphasized in the article and I think it's particularly to avoid equivocation in discussions here.
And if you do read this far, thank you for taking the time to do so.
Oh, I'm not dodging it whatsoever. Addressing abortion IS a political issue as it has to do with our common, civic life (the life of our polis). You're trying to make this odd distinction the Church has never recognized. The Church is called to engage politically (in the true, classical sense). What we don't have to do is the modern, cynical way of "doing politics."
You keep stating that the Church now has to "publicly" admonish every person in mortal sin. Yet, what you're missing is that most mortal sin is not public. Pelosi has essentially forced the Archbishop's hand. If you can name a Catholic who is publicly committing or advocating any of the other sins you list, then they should be treated in the same way as Pelosi is here.
The ending of peoples lives is part of natural law, not solely a political issue. The fact that it’s public is how they know about the sin. They can’t tell Pelosi to come to confession about abortion unless she made it public what her view was on it. There’s more to it than that, but that’s all I have to say at the moment on that.
And regarding excommunicating those other peoples, that would require his knowledge of them being that. He can’t know what people do or their beliefs unless they publicly declare them. That’s why.
Also, why do you keep mentioning excommunication? He didn’t excommunicate her.
The canon 915 cited in this article is about those who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin and doesn't include all (nor even most) instances of the things you mention. It's a matter that has some overlap with the more general principle that it is not spiritually beneficial to us to receive Holy Communion if we are aware of being in a state of mortal sin--but it is not identical with that principle. If someone is aware they have committed a mortal sin then ordinarily they need to repent and go to confession and they should choose not receive Holy Communion till they do so--but it's entirely up to them to do the right thing. The circumstances where a minister of Holy Communion can refuse Communion to a person are more specific.
A sin that is "manifest" is surely one that is done in public. Obstinate perseverance is perseverance in the manifest grave sin after having been (privately) corrected about it by the legitimate authority.
Look, if you go to confession and continue to sin, you don't get to go to communion if you don't stop sinning. This is not sin on Saturday, repent on Sunday, and sin on Monday, repent on Sunday type of deal.
If your priest is indulging this, he is in error and leading you and his followers astray.
Persisting in sin is grounds for excommunication. Now, it is to be done publicly.
Look, I don't make the rules, I am telling you how they apply now.
Public scandal? The church knowing and intentionally covered up sexual abuse.
From 1973 until 2022, no Catholic politician was excommunicated. They chose a woman not a man like Cuomo. I find that problematic to say the least and it isn't even in the top four of the reasons why this is a terrible political decision.
Why do you assume that no other sin should be called out? The Bishop set the precedent. He chose a political action. So, a Republican that promotes pornagraphy as part of "free speech" *must* be publicly called out and excommunicated.
Except they won't because they focused on the political issue that suited them.
Any Catholic soldier who supports the use of nuclear weapons is now suspect as well according to the Bishop's precedent.
Mrs Pelosi has not been excommunicated. Priests in the Archdiocese of San Fransisco have been told to withhold Holy Communion from her.
The reason that the Archbishop has taken this decision is that Mrs Pelosi is the only Speaker of the House to have introduced a Bill to Congress that legalised abortion up until birth in all 50 states, with zero conscience provisions. So she tried to force medics to partially abort babies by crushing their skulls with forceps and throwing them in the trash. You might like to think about the gravity of this matter instead of kvetching and moaning about how political this is.
You more or less understand the principle that you are responsible for abstaining from Holy Communion when you are aware of having committed any mortal sin that you haven't been absolved of, although you may not understand that you can receive the Sacrament of penance repeatedly, and being absolved of something like the sins you mention after having a bad habit of it and falling back into the sin repeatedly doesn't require lifting a canonical censure. You do not understand canon 915. Canon 915 doesn't simply codify the same principle in law. A minister of Holy Communion is not authorized by Canon Law to refuse you communion for any and all mortal sins he's aware you haven't repented of and confessed. He might know you did something but if you present yourself for Holy Communion he is going to give you Holy Communion. It was up to you to choose not to receive Holy Communion.
I feel like you laid out so many different things it’s impossible to have a coherent response, but 2 points.
1) being addicted to gambling and pornography is not the same as willfully supporting the ending of lives. I don’t know anyone that literally has an addiction to abortion. As long as you are remorseful it’s a different story. I think the point is Pelosi sees no qualms with abortion.
2) reconciliation does absolve you of your sins even if you continue to do that sin. It’s about you having a contrite heart. So things like gambling and pornography, if I truly want to stop and then get sucked in again that doesn’t mean it nullifies my previous confession. Those past sins are forgiven. I feel like it’s very important everyone knows that. Otherwise everyone is going to be uber scrupulous.
Thank you for mentioning no. 2. It is very important to note that the efficacy of the Sacrament of Confession only requires your sincete contrition and firm intention to "amend [your] life", i.e., not commit those sins again. It does not mean that the Sacrament is invalid or God's mercy is not granted to you if you commit those sins ever again. This is an especially important distinction for those struggling with sins of addiction, who are already heavily burdened with "For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate." If God's mercy was not available to those of us who struggle with sins of addiction, it would be nigh impossible to carry on with any hope of redemption. Praise be to God that He offers His salvation to us in even the worst of circumstances!
> From now on, every priest *must* deny communion to *any* parishioner who is any of the following..
> Cohabiting. [ ... ] then you *must* expect it to be applied to you.
Oh sweet summer child; do I not wish that it had been? Would I have been too proud to listen? or would I, tender-hearted, have been horrified and contrite to think of how badly I had treated Christ? It seems to me (though I may be wrong) that I would have gone to confession and amended my life many years sooner than I actually did. It is an unfailing remedy for ingratitude, and for resentment towards others, since I have only to recall that I have done objectively much worse things for many years to the best person I know, than anything that the person I am tempted to resent has ever done.
> Would Christ, who famously chose not to cast the first stone
We should all see ourselves as that woman, suddenly caught, seeing one's shame exposed to the light, facing certain death alone (one's companion in sin having vanished), regretting so many of one's choices but too late; and then suddenly reprieved, stunned by this act of undeserved mercy by the One who has the authority to forgive sins and who can read the movements of our hearts: go, and sin no more; what love we should feel for Him! How greatly we should desire to pray and do penance for the repentance of all sinners - for the salvation of souls - so that we all may love Him as He deserves and follow Him without reservation! Think on your sins - weep over His feet - dry them with your hair - !
I hope this becomes a come-to-Jesus moment for many who publicly advocate for grave sins like abortion. The conversion of hearts needs to always be our top priority -- it seems like this was done in good faith, and after years of his warning that he may have to do this. I hope it moves all politicians and advocates for the evil of abortion to repentance and renewed communion with the mystical body of christ.
Cordelione has now asked thousands of Catholics to leave the church. This is terrible and flys in the face of our holy father Pope Francis. May God forgive him for demanding thousands to leave the archdiocese!!!
Yes, the Archbishop should have been like Jesus and changed his teaching when people said "This is a difficult teaching. Who can accept it?" Don't you remember Jesus running after the crowd in John 6:61 and saying "I didn't actually mean what I said, come back!"
Cordileone has made a mistake. As the Commentary (CLSA, 2000) on canon 915 states "it is necessary that there be some urgent need that pertains to the common good, in particular, the need to preclude grave scandal on the part of the community that would arise from the public sinner's reception of communion. ... moreover ... What causes scandal in one part of the world may not cause scandal elsewhere. In North America the faithful often are more scandalized by the Church's denial of sacraments ... than by the sin that occasions it."
Oddly, the Pillar's "Explainer" on this topic says nothing about scandal within the community. And in this case -- San Francisco -- it is likely that most Catholics are with Pelosi on this: how the heavy hand of the law should deal with the problem is openly disputed; it's not just about the unborn child in the womb, as the original Roe v. Wade opinion understood. To have a law which simply prohibits abortion (as required by paragraphs 68 through 74 of JPII's 1995 encyclical "The Gospel of Life) is a blanket approach that may make sense to the Catholic right but not to most Catholics.
This is a difficult and complex problem. For the last fifty years the headlines have gone to those who advocate for unrealistically simplified versions of the problem: it's all about the life of the child, or it's all about the autonomy of the woman. Most Catholics -- certainly in San Francisco -- see the complexity and have an intuitive sense that using the prohibitions of the law is like bringing a meat cleaver to a surgery that requires a scalpel.
It's not about one side or the other being right or wrong. It's a complex problem that most Catholics understand requires social policy more loving than using a meat cleaver. In these circumstances there is not the "grave scandal on the part of the community" that Cordileone would need to justify his position. Indeed, his position itself will scandalize the Church.
Whether he will have the common sense (or the good advice of competent canon lawyers) to recognize his mistake is another question.
As a Catholic in the diocese next door, in the heart of the Capitol where nominally Catholic lawmakers are currently trying to ram through an amendment to the state constitution "building a firewall" around the "right" to an abortion at any moment, I have been far more scandalised by the deafening silence surrounding publicly Catholic persons actively advocating for the preservation of evil as good than by any medicinal measures proposed, let alone taken, to save the souls of our leaders.
Yes. This is an urgent need related to the common good. The wanton killing of unborn life unleashed by Roe v Wade has been a catastrophe for the “common good.” In reaction to Roe’s potential demise, Pelosi is campaigning for a bill that would obliterate all protection for the unborn in all 50 states. Oh, and fund abortion with taxpayer dollars or mandated insurance coverage. This is not a “nuanced” position reflecting the potential conflict of interests/rights of mother and unborn child. It is abortion absolutism, accompanied by public denigration of the teaching authority of the Church. And, “scandal” is not a subjective term — it’s not up to how we “feel” about this or that action. Rather, it’s objective — and Mrs Pelosi’s abortion advocacy crosses that line.
You misunderstand the definition of "scandal" in canon law. It's the reality in the community, which in this case is divided for the simple reason that the underlying problem is more complex than the life of a child.
There is a reason why canon law takes this position. The main thrust of canon 915 is against those who are excommunicated or under interdict. In order for the catchall phrase "obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin" to rise to the level of excommunication and interdiction the term "manifest" has come to require that the "grave sin" be regarded as such by the community. This is what scandalizes the Church. When the community itself is divided, something else is going on. Whatever it is, it is not scandal as contemplated by canon law. Consequently, canon 915 doesn't apply.
I would buy into this argument - but *only* if we were *Protestants*.
We are not. We are Catholics. We believe in fundamental, unalterable, *eternal*, God-given edicts. "Scandal" takes a back seat to these, as does canon law. (Eternal law trumps canon law, *every time*.) If canon 915 is based more in eternal law, it applies in spades.
Shakespeare himself could not have devised a better name for Archbishop Cordelione! He is a worthy successor to the Apostles. May his courage be rewarded. He will undoubtedly be vilified by partisans of Pelosi and Biden but he is truly doing the Lord's work--in every sense--and deserves our approbation and prayers. I pray also that the Holy Spirit will touch the hearts and minds of millions of Pelosis and Bidens across our nation and that they will be willing to accept the truth and repent.
Jesus associated himself with sinners not “holy” Archbishops he has driven many thousands of Catholics from the church. If that was his aim… he has succeeded grandly!
Our Lord associated with repentant sinners. There is no evidence to suggest that Pelosi is repentant in the least.
Showing Pelosi and thousands of Catholics the door and making this”move” just before the June USCCB meeting smacks of a POLITICAL maneuver! So sad.
I, so many times, had wished the “bishops & priests” had stopped the terrible sin of sexual abuse SIN within the church. Don’t misunderstand me I am absolutely PRO LIFE, but there are so many other terrible abuses in our country that needs the churches attention besides…not just a single focus on this one issue. Pray
So where has he been all these years? Is she THE ONLY POLITICIAN in his archdiocese? Where is his stand all the OTHER issues of the Catholic Church? You have to wonder 🤔🥴
Who has been shown the door in this matter? Nobody. Archbishop Cordileone said specifically that this was not a political: "I assure you that my action here is purely pastoral, not political."
Or . . . sinners repented because they met Jesus. That is our hope for pro abortion politicians and voters in this case.
The thousands that leave the Church over this have created a counterfeit Christ that more closely resembles the person in the mirror than Our Lord. Adrianne has it exactly right: our Lord called sinners to repentance not to revelry in their sin.
So let’s just ignore 68% of Americans, not to mention 6 South American countries, who now permit some from of it! I am afraid the Church has become a tool to be USED by the Republican party.
These assertions of yours are absurd non-s equities. Since when did popularity or prevalence become a standard of morality or truth? And who mentioned Republicans? What culpability do pro-abortion Democrats who claim to be “devout Catholics” have? Are not they attempting to use the Church as a shield—or at least attempting to use their faith for political gain?
'non sequiturs', which apparently your spellcheck doesn't know (either).
I actually wrote "non sequiturs" but the spell check changed it and I had hit send before I noticed it...
Interesting that Republicans supporters of anti-abortion just voted against baby formula crisis support. Crazy right? Fetus more important than live babies
per our congressman- the liquid baby formula is at the border
What?
I'm in England, we have loads of baby formula. My kids had it, it's great. But I can't send it to you because the FDA won't let it in to the US. The baby food shortage is caused by protectionist import restrictions, not by a closed factory.
Seems to me that the baby formula crisis is directly attributable to the Biden administration, which closed an formula factory in Michigan, one of only 4 in the U.S. for several months.
It was closed because babies died from contaminated formula. https://detroit.cbslocal.com/2022/05/18/what-we-know-about-shuttered-baby-formula-plant/
“But it’s not certain the bacteria came from the plant; strains found at the plant didn’t match the two available samples from the babies.”
Oh I agree. They should have allowed the contaminated factory to continue making formula.
FDA’s food director Susan Mayne. “We simply don’t have the evidence to demonstrate that causality.”
Abbot says the lack of a strain match indicates “there is no evidence to link our formulas to these infant illnesses.”
... which isn't a defense of Pelosi- was it intended as such? I fully agree with you that many Republicans fall short of pro life consistency on economic issues. I don't understand why this gets brought up in contexts like this article, though. Is that R insufficiency supposed to make me ok with abortion? I think many Rs are bad on pro life issues and almost every D is worse. Does that satisfy you?
I think the whole approach to discouraging abortions is totally misplaced. Women will get abortions. The only difference is the more affluent will travel and the poor will die from unsafe procedures. Lord have mercy, Christ have mercy
“I think the whole approach to discouraging abortions is totally misplaced.”
Wow. What a disgusting comment.
No it isn't. Let's discourage abortions by: providing healthcare for mother and child, providing shelter and educational opportunity for mother, providing child care so mother can support herself and the child, by pursuing the father, who too frequently disappears into the ether, by prosecuting the baby's father for rape, incest, etc.
“Discourage abortions”?
But what you state IS absolutely being done. I am personally involved in such efforts both locally and statewide here in Texas.
Of course we could always do more. And I certainly wish we could do more. But it’s never going to be perfect.
So respectfully, we need to do more than just “discourage” abortions.
We need to insist that unborn life is treated with the love and dignity that it deserves.And that means doing everything we politically can to rid ourselves of laws that resulted in the termination of untold tens of thousands of innocent lives
Yes, “discourage.” Even if legal abortion goes away, illegal abortion which results in more maternal deaths, will not.
You seem very selective about what innocent lives you care about and are concerned about
Logic check: let's use your logical reasoning on another moral evil to see if it holds. I'll substitute "abortion" for "rape":
"I think the whole approach to discouraging [rape] is totally misplaced. People will [rape]. The only difference is that the more affluent will travel and the poor will die from unsafe [rape]"
I do this to illustrate that if you except abortion is a grave evil, your logic is seriously flawed. If you dispute that abortion is a grave evil, then that's a different issue, but it seemed an assumption of your statement so I don't think that's the case.
Dear me! That is not the only difference.
I don't know why people have no concern for the souls of current and potential future abortionists. We're not supposed to want anyone to choose hell, and they are at far greater risk on a daily basis than the mothers who are pressured into the procedures they perform.
When abortion is legal they have a respected career and little girls may even be taught to look up to them as though it is a "helping profession". When abortion is illegal, the loss of human respect and the change in exterior circumstances has at least some chance of moving abortionists to repentance. All of us should desire their repentance.
From a Republican rep who voted against it:
"Representative Peter Meijer (R., Mich.) tweeted, “This one-page bill is just a $28M increase for FDA salaries. That’s it. If baby formula shortage was caused by an underfunded FDA, this would help. But it wasn’t." ”
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/house-republicans-were-right-to-vote-against-more-fda-funding/?utm_source=blog-landing&utm_medium=mobile&utm_campaign=continue-reading
That is one point of view from a very politically conservative publication Here we are again about what is truth. Oh yeah. Trump is really our President
The truth about this bill is easily found; you can read the full text of the bill yourself online. It's very short and easy to follow. When you do, you will find that it makes no provision for anything except $28 million to the FDA.
I guess because that's what's needed to get the facility open
The point is that you questioned the publication's veracity, on the grounds that it is very conservative. But looking at the bill, you can see that the publication was stating the plainest truth. The logical conclusion is that a conservative publication has told the truth. Your ethos suffers when you fail to recognize that.
Thanks for hearing our prayers Holy Trinity
Wow, this has really 'thrown the cat among the pigeons' now regarding the US Bishops. June's USCCB meeting is going to be very interesting, to put it mildly!
Hooray! It is way past time for bishops to discipline the likes of her! He should have gone further and excommunicated her, but his action is a start. Besides, it might be awkward if Cardinal Wilton wouldn't honor sacramental discipline on Mrs. Pelosi and the rest of the Counterfeit Catholics in Washington.
So do remember why it was closed?
Interesting twist on “truth”. A separate reality
Pray she repents
A move that comes half a century too late for millions of thoroughly scandalized Catholics who support abortion.
This was a terrible decision. First, it is a political decision made publicly fir a political purpose. Second, it singles out one politicia/person. Third, it singles out one sin. Fourth, it is disproportionate since it fails to indicate how *anyone* can elect a Catholic because they must subordinate themselves to the Church for their political decisions *even though* they are elected to represent the public *not* the Church.
From now on, every priest *must* deny communion to *any* parishioner who is any of the following..
Cohabiting.
Masturbating.
Gambling.
Watching pornagraphy
(Note pornography and masturbation are *mortal* sins ie *as bad as abortion*.
Any man who has supported or paid for or required an abortion.
Any actor who simulates sex scenes, drug taking, or any behaviour contrary to the Church's teaching.
Any homosexual. (This must include any homosexual priest or nun.)
Any parent engaging in physical or sexual abuse of their partner or their children.
If the Church and Bishops fail to excommunicate these followers it fails to be consistent and it demonstrates its *political* goal is greater than its Christian goal.
Is this the Church we want? Would Christ, who famously chose not to cast the first stone, recognise this Church?
Remember that confession does *not* absolve you from your sins if you don't stop your sins. Think on that. You sin and confess and do it again then you are *no different* from Pelosi theologically speaking. At that point, you should be excommunicated if the priest and Bishop should publicly stste you have been excommunicated *and *why*.
Embrace it because if you want it to apply to Pelosi in your righteous indignation then you *must* expect it to be applied to you.
Enjoy. This is what the decision means for Catholics.
Think on your sins.
So just to be clear, there are no incidents which warrant someone being excommunicated?
Yes there are. I mentioned them. Anyone who repeatedly does them and refuses to stop must be according to the Bishop's letter and done *publicly*.
Certainly not for bishops who cover for those accused of sexual assault.
To your main point, yes. If a priest is aware that anyone is living a life of habitual, public sin, they should be called to repentance. If they fail to do so, this is the appropriate response. So yes, we should all take our sins seriously.
That we can't addresses singular sins because it doesn't address "every sin" is frankly ridiculous. It's a complete non sequitur.
To your other points, the idea that Catholic politicians are not subject to discipline by the Church is also on its face ridiculous. Making this arbitrary secular/religious dichotomy is directly opposed by the entirety of Catholic tradition and teaching.
Nice attempt to dodge the political point. You fail to consider they chose a public or political issue. They have not excommunicated any prostitutes, actors, gangsters. Why?
Anyone who publishes works contrary to the Church teaching need to be excommunicated.
More to the point they need to be excommunicate publicly because that is the standard now.
I think you're missing an important distinction in the argument. Public persistence in grave sin (after individual and public calls to repentance) is a different situation than an individual's private sin. The latter requires no public recognition or action for it is between that individual and God, the priest is merely the vessel for sacramental grace. The former, however, can cause confusion without a public response.
To wit, Pelosi has said many times publicly that she sees no problem with being pro-abortion while maintaining her fidelity to the Catholic faith. The Catholic church has offered her teachings for the benefit of those who belong to her, which specifically contradict this. As the teachings themselves are not well known, well represented, or often publicly disseminated in a formal manner, the Church has a duty to respond with her full authority to remove any doubt or confusion from the faithful who might otherwise be led into error by her. It is specifically fitting that she is barred from communion because, following Pope Francis's statement on Communion and community, it is the clearest way the Church can communicate that the individual is not acting as a member of the community, despite what she may claim, and that her error is great enough so as to cause grave harm, even separation from God.
If, say, the Church or a minister were to somehow learn of another sin she is guilty of that she does not publicly address, then they would not issue a public correction because she is not in danger of leading others into error. For this reason, unless there is a Catholic politician out there actively prostituting himself out while publicly maintaining it's moral permissibility even in the context of his faith, your example of prostitution and other grave sins don't really apply to Pelosi's situation.
Finally, being barred from communion is not excommunication. It's an important distinction emphasized in the article and I think it's particularly to avoid equivocation in discussions here.
And if you do read this far, thank you for taking the time to do so.
Oh, I'm not dodging it whatsoever. Addressing abortion IS a political issue as it has to do with our common, civic life (the life of our polis). You're trying to make this odd distinction the Church has never recognized. The Church is called to engage politically (in the true, classical sense). What we don't have to do is the modern, cynical way of "doing politics."
You keep stating that the Church now has to "publicly" admonish every person in mortal sin. Yet, what you're missing is that most mortal sin is not public. Pelosi has essentially forced the Archbishop's hand. If you can name a Catholic who is publicly committing or advocating any of the other sins you list, then they should be treated in the same way as Pelosi is here.
The ending of peoples lives is part of natural law, not solely a political issue. The fact that it’s public is how they know about the sin. They can’t tell Pelosi to come to confession about abortion unless she made it public what her view was on it. There’s more to it than that, but that’s all I have to say at the moment on that.
And regarding excommunicating those other peoples, that would require his knowledge of them being that. He can’t know what people do or their beliefs unless they publicly declare them. That’s why.
Also, why do you keep mentioning excommunication? He didn’t excommunicate her.
The canon 915 cited in this article is about those who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin and doesn't include all (nor even most) instances of the things you mention. It's a matter that has some overlap with the more general principle that it is not spiritually beneficial to us to receive Holy Communion if we are aware of being in a state of mortal sin--but it is not identical with that principle. If someone is aware they have committed a mortal sin then ordinarily they need to repent and go to confession and they should choose not receive Holy Communion till they do so--but it's entirely up to them to do the right thing. The circumstances where a minister of Holy Communion can refuse Communion to a person are more specific.
You have missed the point in the later paragraphs. If you commit these sins and fail to stop you have persisted in them.
Pornography and masturbation are *mortal* sins. They destroy your relationship with God. They are on par with abortion and murder as mortal sins.
Look, I don't make the rules, I am only explaining how they now apply.
A sin that is "manifest" is surely one that is done in public. Obstinate perseverance is perseverance in the manifest grave sin after having been (privately) corrected about it by the legitimate authority.
You are confused as to the relationship between the natural and positive law.
Read Dante's Inferno. Sins of the intellect are worse than sins of the passions. There are levels to hell as there are levels to heaven.
Dante's Inferno is a work of fiction. It is not a work of Catholic Theology supervised by the Church.
Dante's Divine Comedy is not a work of fiction.
Look, if you go to confession and continue to sin, you don't get to go to communion if you don't stop sinning. This is not sin on Saturday, repent on Sunday, and sin on Monday, repent on Sunday type of deal.
If your priest is indulging this, he is in error and leading you and his followers astray.
Persisting in sin is grounds for excommunication. Now, it is to be done publicly.
Look, I don't make the rules, I am telling you how they apply now.
Public scandal? The church knowing and intentionally covered up sexual abuse.
From 1973 until 2022, no Catholic politician was excommunicated. They chose a woman not a man like Cuomo. I find that problematic to say the least and it isn't even in the top four of the reasons why this is a terrible political decision.
Why do you assume that no other sin should be called out? The Bishop set the precedent. He chose a political action. So, a Republican that promotes pornagraphy as part of "free speech" *must* be publicly called out and excommunicated.
Except they won't because they focused on the political issue that suited them.
Any Catholic soldier who supports the use of nuclear weapons is now suspect as well according to the Bishop's precedent.
Mrs Pelosi has not been excommunicated. Priests in the Archdiocese of San Fransisco have been told to withhold Holy Communion from her.
The reason that the Archbishop has taken this decision is that Mrs Pelosi is the only Speaker of the House to have introduced a Bill to Congress that legalised abortion up until birth in all 50 states, with zero conscience provisions. So she tried to force medics to partially abort babies by crushing their skulls with forceps and throwing them in the trash. You might like to think about the gravity of this matter instead of kvetching and moaning about how political this is.
You more or less understand the principle that you are responsible for abstaining from Holy Communion when you are aware of having committed any mortal sin that you haven't been absolved of, although you may not understand that you can receive the Sacrament of penance repeatedly, and being absolved of something like the sins you mention after having a bad habit of it and falling back into the sin repeatedly doesn't require lifting a canonical censure. You do not understand canon 915. Canon 915 doesn't simply codify the same principle in law. A minister of Holy Communion is not authorized by Canon Law to refuse you communion for any and all mortal sins he's aware you haven't repented of and confessed. He might know you did something but if you present yourself for Holy Communion he is going to give you Holy Communion. It was up to you to choose not to receive Holy Communion.
I feel like you laid out so many different things it’s impossible to have a coherent response, but 2 points.
1) being addicted to gambling and pornography is not the same as willfully supporting the ending of lives. I don’t know anyone that literally has an addiction to abortion. As long as you are remorseful it’s a different story. I think the point is Pelosi sees no qualms with abortion.
2) reconciliation does absolve you of your sins even if you continue to do that sin. It’s about you having a contrite heart. So things like gambling and pornography, if I truly want to stop and then get sucked in again that doesn’t mean it nullifies my previous confession. Those past sins are forgiven. I feel like it’s very important everyone knows that. Otherwise everyone is going to be uber scrupulous.
Thank you for mentioning no. 2. It is very important to note that the efficacy of the Sacrament of Confession only requires your sincete contrition and firm intention to "amend [your] life", i.e., not commit those sins again. It does not mean that the Sacrament is invalid or God's mercy is not granted to you if you commit those sins ever again. This is an especially important distinction for those struggling with sins of addiction, who are already heavily burdened with "For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate." If God's mercy was not available to those of us who struggle with sins of addiction, it would be nigh impossible to carry on with any hope of redemption. Praise be to God that He offers His salvation to us in even the worst of circumstances!
> From now on, every priest *must* deny communion to *any* parishioner who is any of the following..
> Cohabiting. [ ... ] then you *must* expect it to be applied to you.
Oh sweet summer child; do I not wish that it had been? Would I have been too proud to listen? or would I, tender-hearted, have been horrified and contrite to think of how badly I had treated Christ? It seems to me (though I may be wrong) that I would have gone to confession and amended my life many years sooner than I actually did. It is an unfailing remedy for ingratitude, and for resentment towards others, since I have only to recall that I have done objectively much worse things for many years to the best person I know, than anything that the person I am tempted to resent has ever done.
> Would Christ, who famously chose not to cast the first stone
We should all see ourselves as that woman, suddenly caught, seeing one's shame exposed to the light, facing certain death alone (one's companion in sin having vanished), regretting so many of one's choices but too late; and then suddenly reprieved, stunned by this act of undeserved mercy by the One who has the authority to forgive sins and who can read the movements of our hearts: go, and sin no more; what love we should feel for Him! How greatly we should desire to pray and do penance for the repentance of all sinners - for the salvation of souls - so that we all may love Him as He deserves and follow Him without reservation! Think on your sins - weep over His feet - dry them with your hair - !
Cordelione - even in name now- mafia?
It means Lion Heart, if I understand correctly. Courageous!
It means no har to me
I'm sure Ed is pleased with this.
I think Ed might have preferred a trial for heresy, but this works too.
Yes you’re probably right
I hope this becomes a come-to-Jesus moment for many who publicly advocate for grave sins like abortion. The conversion of hearts needs to always be our top priority -- it seems like this was done in good faith, and after years of his warning that he may have to do this. I hope it moves all politicians and advocates for the evil of abortion to repentance and renewed communion with the mystical body of christ.
Cordelione has now asked thousands of Catholics to leave the church. This is terrible and flys in the face of our holy father Pope Francis. May God forgive him for demanding thousands to leave the archdiocese!!!
What are you talking about?
Yes, the Archbishop should have been like Jesus and changed his teaching when people said "This is a difficult teaching. Who can accept it?" Don't you remember Jesus running after the crowd in John 6:61 and saying "I didn't actually mean what I said, come back!"
You are extrapolating way too far. No one has been asked to leave the Church.
No “good” answer in the face of this evil. May God lead the other bishops in their decisions
Cordileone has made a mistake. As the Commentary (CLSA, 2000) on canon 915 states "it is necessary that there be some urgent need that pertains to the common good, in particular, the need to preclude grave scandal on the part of the community that would arise from the public sinner's reception of communion. ... moreover ... What causes scandal in one part of the world may not cause scandal elsewhere. In North America the faithful often are more scandalized by the Church's denial of sacraments ... than by the sin that occasions it."
Oddly, the Pillar's "Explainer" on this topic says nothing about scandal within the community. And in this case -- San Francisco -- it is likely that most Catholics are with Pelosi on this: how the heavy hand of the law should deal with the problem is openly disputed; it's not just about the unborn child in the womb, as the original Roe v. Wade opinion understood. To have a law which simply prohibits abortion (as required by paragraphs 68 through 74 of JPII's 1995 encyclical "The Gospel of Life) is a blanket approach that may make sense to the Catholic right but not to most Catholics.
This is a difficult and complex problem. For the last fifty years the headlines have gone to those who advocate for unrealistically simplified versions of the problem: it's all about the life of the child, or it's all about the autonomy of the woman. Most Catholics -- certainly in San Francisco -- see the complexity and have an intuitive sense that using the prohibitions of the law is like bringing a meat cleaver to a surgery that requires a scalpel.
It's not about one side or the other being right or wrong. It's a complex problem that most Catholics understand requires social policy more loving than using a meat cleaver. In these circumstances there is not the "grave scandal on the part of the community" that Cordileone would need to justify his position. Indeed, his position itself will scandalize the Church.
Whether he will have the common sense (or the good advice of competent canon lawyers) to recognize his mistake is another question.
As a Catholic in the diocese next door, in the heart of the Capitol where nominally Catholic lawmakers are currently trying to ram through an amendment to the state constitution "building a firewall" around the "right" to an abortion at any moment, I have been far more scandalised by the deafening silence surrounding publicly Catholic persons actively advocating for the preservation of evil as good than by any medicinal measures proposed, let alone taken, to save the souls of our leaders.
Yes. This is an urgent need related to the common good. The wanton killing of unborn life unleashed by Roe v Wade has been a catastrophe for the “common good.” In reaction to Roe’s potential demise, Pelosi is campaigning for a bill that would obliterate all protection for the unborn in all 50 states. Oh, and fund abortion with taxpayer dollars or mandated insurance coverage. This is not a “nuanced” position reflecting the potential conflict of interests/rights of mother and unborn child. It is abortion absolutism, accompanied by public denigration of the teaching authority of the Church. And, “scandal” is not a subjective term — it’s not up to how we “feel” about this or that action. Rather, it’s objective — and Mrs Pelosi’s abortion advocacy crosses that line.
You misunderstand the definition of "scandal" in canon law. It's the reality in the community, which in this case is divided for the simple reason that the underlying problem is more complex than the life of a child.
There is a reason why canon law takes this position. The main thrust of canon 915 is against those who are excommunicated or under interdict. In order for the catchall phrase "obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin" to rise to the level of excommunication and interdiction the term "manifest" has come to require that the "grave sin" be regarded as such by the community. This is what scandalizes the Church. When the community itself is divided, something else is going on. Whatever it is, it is not scandal as contemplated by canon law. Consequently, canon 915 doesn't apply.
I would buy into this argument - but *only* if we were *Protestants*.
We are not. We are Catholics. We believe in fundamental, unalterable, *eternal*, God-given edicts. "Scandal" takes a back seat to these, as does canon law. (Eternal law trumps canon law, *every time*.) If canon 915 is based more in eternal law, it applies in spades.
If the “community” is confused on the morality of abortion, it needs more shepherds like this one to clarify matters.