Bookmark and Share
My Photo

FROM the EDITORS:

  • IMPORTANT INFORMATION:
    Opinions expressed on the Insight Scoop weblog are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the positions of Ignatius Press. Links on this weblog to articles do not necessarily imply agreement by the author or by Ignatius Press with the contents of the articles. Links are provided to foster discussion of important issues. Readers should make their own evaluations of the contents of such articles.

NEW & UPCOMING, available from IGNATIUS PRESS







































































« Calumny in the Blogosphere | Main | Saint Gianna: A Model For Mothers »

Saturday, May 10, 2008

Comments

Brian Schuettler

It looks like law has come to Dodge City again...and the blood spilling in Kansas, this time of murdered children in the womb, is being confronted by a great bishop of the Mystical Body of Christ.

Hats off to a hero, Archbishop Joseph F Naumann!

Dave Deavel

God bless Abp. Naumann. It's a tough but courageous and loving thing he's done.

Augustine II

"And no one should want that."

In my view, if these sanctions are what it takes to turn them from error, then everyone should want that. Of course we'd like them to turn before Book Six is applied, but if they don't, one is in fact uncharitable not to want the application of Book Six.

"To love is to will the good of another."

-St. Thomas Aquinas

Ed Peters

We don't disagree, Auggie 2.

Augustine II

I'm glad! By the way, Ed, I got your Q & A book on excommunication. It looks good.

Ed Peters

Great minds run alike.

Margaret

If only there were more bishops who took a moral stance...

BillyHW

Archbishop Naumann is truly a master catechist.

Michael McCormick

The mid-west to lead the Catholic Revival? Archbishop Burke in St. Louis, Bishop Finn in KC/St. Joseph and now Archbishop Naumann in KCK? Hhhmmmm

Tom

Naumann's cooperative, consultative effort with his brother bishops ought to be a model for Abp. "Presumably it's being taken care of in their home dioceses" Wuerl.

LJ

Does this statement in the Diocesan paper constitute sufficient notice to all of the priests and EMHC's in the Diocese?
I am curious, because presumably if she remains defiant, she could present herself at any parish, at any mass, before any priest or EMHC. And what are they to do in that case? Clearly, by consulting the other Bishops he is not only presenting to her the Church in solidarity but is also putting the word out, so to speak, in the event she should try to circumvent his directive.
Ultimately, if she and others like her want to test the Church's resolve, that is where it will be played out, in the Mass, regardless of what sanctions the Archbishop imposes.

LJ

I guess I should have checked the Code first;
To answer my own question, if it does come down to Book Six, and we hope not, then Canon 1331, Number 2, part 1 gives the priest or EMHC a directive to refuse communion, and in Canon 1332 it is made clear that 1331,&2,1/ applies either to an interdict or excommunication if either is declared.

I hope it doesn't come to a showdown in Dodge City, but it seems that those who distribute communion, priest or EMHC, would be subject to sanctions as well if they were to ignore a directive from the Bishop regarding someone who is under declared interdict or excommunication. That would apply universally so that in cases where the person is living for lengths of time outside of their home diocese, any other Bishop, for example in Washington, DC, would be bound to comply.

That's the way I read it anyway. Ed Peters would know a lot more about Book Six. But again, we all hope and pray it doesn't come to that.

Robert Miller

Why don't the bishops prohibit participation of Catholics in any party whose "platform" supports abortion, or for that matter any other serious moral evil condemned by the Church? Any Catholic who violated the ban might then be subject to the book of penalties. The ban should apply even in instances in which a politician takes pro-life positions on issues, but his party is publicly committed to anti-life positions, because as we all know, it's party peformance that determines who the legislative leadership will be and who will be appointed judges.

Preventing desecration of the Holy Eucharist is a vital concern of the Church, and Bishop Naumann is to be praised. But denying Communion to politicians is a defensive political strategy that will not do much to put the Catholic people on notice that they must be pro-life in their voting and civic participation.

Dan Deeny

We should all pray for Gov. Sebelius. And we should pray for ourselves. This has gone on for a long time. I remember hearing about the abortion business while teaching in the Peace Corps in Ethiopia. When I returned to the U.S., I was amazed at the numbers. Let us pray for ourselves, and for the Catholic priests and politicians who have helped keep this business legal.

joanne

Robert, I can see switching parties temporarily, but after this year's elections, how is the Democratic Party to reform and embrace reason and truth if there's no one reasonable and truthful in it? Just wondering what your suggestions might be.
For the Church to ban one of our two major parties would be awful. It would lead to a Catholic party, a move that would corrupt the Faith.

Stohn

"The ban should apply even in instances in which a politician takes pro-life positions on issues, but his party is publicly committed to anti-life positions, because as we all know, it's party peformance [sic] that determines who the legislative leadership will be and who will be appointed judges."

1) It is nonetheless the individual who is elected. The party does determine a lot, but as long as the individual votes the correct way, they are not in any serious sin.
2) Legislative leadership only applies to legislative bodies, thus a Governor, County Commissioner, etc, can not be held responsible for what their party's caucus does in legislatures. Likewise, approval of appointed justices only applies to the U.S. Senate, thus an elected official in any other body (except President, of course) cannot be held responsible.
3) Parties are way too complex (trust me, I worked for one [give you a hint, they appointed a 72-year old for their pres candidate] for 3 months... and then swore off all political parties forever) to simply ban one due to a general consensus within the party. What a party is, is to hard to define, is it the DNC/RNC? The NRSCC/DCCC? State Parties? Local Parties?
4) Party platforms really mean nothing as a candidate/elected official is not bound to it. Both parties are equally corrupt...so, if we are going to excommunicate Democrats, we'll have to excommunicate Republicans too.

"how is the Democratic Party to reform and embrace reason and truth if there's no one reasonable and truthful in it? "

That is a gross generalization. Parties are large and complex, and have a wide range of individuals within them. There are many reasonable and honest Democrat party officials out there, they might not have a lot of power, but they're there. Also, the Republican Party is NO better. They run their party just as much on deceit, dishonesty, popularity, rhetoric, and corrupt politics, so why don't we also discuss how the Republican Party is in just as much need of reform??????

Ah! Democracy...

The comments to this entry are closed.

Ignatius Insight

Twitter


Ignatius Press


Catholic World Report


WORTHY OF ATTENTION:




















Blogs & Sites We Like

August 2017

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31    
Blog powered by Typepad