THE CHURCH MILITANT - BELEAGUERED BY BERGOGLIANISM

The following selection of articles says all that needs to be said about the State of New York signing into law one of the most permissive abortion laws anywhere on the anniversary day of Roe v Wade - even if none of them is expressed in the intemperate language of rightful outrage.

Catholic abortion supporters
like Governor Cuomo
must face penalties
It must be made clear to all that
no Catholic can support such legislation.

January 23, 2019

There comes a time when something is so egregious and boldly sinful that it must be met with strong ecclesial and canonical penalties and remedies.

We have certainly seen this in the Church with the McCarrick case and other matters and scandals of a similar nature. And, as we have seen, too often these matters were not dealt with forthrightly and promptly — or, in some cases, at all.

A similar situation has set up in New York, where one of the most permissive and callous state abortion laws was not only passed, but was also greeted with applause by the New York state senators as it passed.
- The bill allows abortion up to the final day of pregnancy.
- Under the 'Reproductive Health Act', non-doctors are now allowed to conduct abortions.
- The procedure could be done until the mother’s due date if the woman’s “health” is endangered. (The previous law allowed abortions after 24 weeks of pregnancy only if a woman’s life was at risk.)
- This “limit” is no limit at all. New York State now allows, without limit, all abortions until birth itself.

Of course, allowing non-doctors to perform abortions endangers abortive mothers, but never mind that:
- When it comes to abortion, the right to abortion is all that matters, all former concerns about “coat hangers” and “back-alley” abortions notwithstanding.
- Further, the “health” of the mother is undefined and can mean anything at all.

To add further to the ignominy of this terrible bill, the Freedom Tower was lit up pink (to symbolize women’s “rights”) in celebration of this abortion bill.
- Recall that more than 1,000 people died at the World Trade Center site now occupied by the Freedom Tower. They were murdered by terrorists on 9/11.
- How callous and bold to use this very site to celebrate the unjust killing of infants in the womb.

Even worse, the “Catholic” governor of New York, Andrew Cuomo, not only signed the bill on the 46th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, but decreed a celebration.

He said, “I am directing that New York’s landmarks be lit in pink to celebrate this achievement and shine a bright light forward for the rest of the nation to follow.”

To date, the Catholic bishops of New York have issued a statement expressing dismay and “profound sadness” and rang a church bell in protest. Respectfully, that is not enough.

Canonical penalties are due to the governor and other Catholics who voted for this legislation. This is necessary both for the common good, to avoid the scandal of tolerance of evil, and as a strong summons to the governor and others to repent before the Day of Judgment.


From Mons. Pope's lips
to the bishops ears!

January 24, 2019

Msgr. Charles Pope, on no one’s Top Ten List of Catholic Hot-Heads, captures the sense of faithful Catholics everywhere when he writes, regarding the major role that New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo played in pushing, signing, and celebrating that state’s new, gruesome abortion law, that Cuomo-qua-Catholic must now face ecclesiastical consequences for his egregious actions.

Pope acknowledges, though, that he is not a canon lawyer and seems implicitly to ask for input from those who are regarding possible consequences. My thoughts follow.
1. Cuomo is already barred from the reception of holy Communion per Canon 915 (a sacramental disciplinary norm, not a penalty) in light of his openly living with a woman to whom he is not married. This matter was widely discussed back in 2011. My understanding is that Cuomo, to his credit, has not approached for holy Communion since that matter was aired.

2. Regardless of Cuomo’s ineligibility for holy Communion on other grounds, his conduct in regard to New York’s new abortion law also suffices, in my view, to bar him from holy Communion per Canon 915. If information should reach ecclesiastical authority that Cuomo is, despite the foregoing, being given holy Communion by ministers under their authority, Church leaders should act immediately to prevent such administration. Canons 375, 381, and especially 392, among others.

3. Cuomo is not liable for excommunication for abortion under penal Canon 1398. I have made this argument many, many times and won’t repeat it here. Neither is he, in my view, liable for prosecution as an accomplice to abortion per Canon 1329.

4. Cuomo has, however, committed acts that, in my view, suffice to invoke penal Canon 1369 against him. That possibility occasions some observations for Catholics forming their expectations about exactly who in the Church could be doing exactly what in a case like this.
a) Penal jurisdiction in this matter rests with the bishop of Albany (as the place where some or all of the canonically criminal conduct was committed, per Canon 1412) and/or with the archbishop of New York (as the place where Cuomo apparently has canonical domicile, per Canon 1408).
- They are authorized to initiate canonical penal procedures under Canons 1341 and 1717, among other norms. Neither the state nor national episcopal conference has jurisdiction here.
b) The 1983 Code prefers that penal matters be tried judicially, but an administrative penal process is not precluded (Canon 1342). Either way various rights of canonical defense are owed to Cuomo and would doubtless be honored. Canon 221, among others.
c) Canon 1369, as a penal law, must be strictly (i.e., narrowly) interpreted and applied. This means, among other things, prosecuting Cuomo only for acts that fall within the terms of the canon and not using a Canon 1369 prosecution as a pretext for punishing Cuomo for other acts, that, while offensive to the faith and to the faith community, are simply not embraced by its terms.
d) Canon 1369 authorizes a “just penalty” against those who violate its terms. That broad (but not unlimited) phrase “just penalty” allows for tailoring the canonical consequences in specific cases to the wide variety of fact patterns that could be addressed in its light - here, everything from Cuomo’s speeches and comments in support of this abortion law to his ordering a ghoulish light show in celebration of its enactment.

That said, while the notion of a “just penalty” is broad, there is some question as to whether it extends, at least immediately, to excommunication. Here is not the place to air that technical issue, but neither should its presence derail consideration of using Canon 1369 against Cuomo.
- Some justice is better than no justice and even if (I say, if) excommunication could not be imposed immediately on Cuomo, the Church could still impose some canonical sanctions for his conduct.
- If, moreover, such sanctions as could be imposed per Canon 1369 were ignored by Cuomo, Canon 1393 would allow for their augmentation, making the possibility of a “just penalty” reaching to excommunication stronger.

5. Canon 1399, known as the general penal norm, is also available for canonical use against seriously bad acts but only, in my view, if those acts are not otherwise addressed in penal law. Thus, for example, using Canon 1399 as a backdoor way to prosecute Cuomo for abortion (notwithstanding that Canon 1398 does not reach him) would not be correct.

Identifying adequately what divine or canon law was supposed to have been violated by Cuomo in acting as he did, and identifying that law in such a way that nearly every other sinner would not be liable to criminal prosecution for violating it, is a difficult task. Not an impossible one, perhaps, but difficult.

I say this, by the way, as a canonist who thinks Canon 1399 to be applicable against Uncle Ted.

6. Canon 1339 authorizes “rebuke” against one “whose behavior causes scandal”. That Cuomo’s conduct here causes classical scandal (CCC 2284) seems to me beyond question. Whether canonical rebuke adequately serves, however, the needs of the faith community for good order or Cuomo’s need for personal correction, I leave to others to consider.

7. Much of the above analysis would apply to Catholic legislators supporting abortion laws, but the canonical case against Cuomo is, in my view, so much the stronger that, if ecclesiastical action were not feasible, or taken, against him, it would be harder to see it being taken or succeeding against lesser figures.

8. Two final notes for other prelates concerned about similar actions and actors in their territories.
a) Canon 915 is a sacramental disciplinary norm, not a penal canon, and its application requires no penal process. It is, and has long been, applicable to many prominent pro-abortion/euthanasia Catholic politicos and it has been correctly invoked by a few clear-thinking bishops.

It at least cauterizes the wound inflicted on the Body of Christ by prominent Catholics acting in open disregard of fundamental Church teaching. It is not a cure-all, but it is a serious step toward healing.

b) In terms of penal canon law, the best time to move against a Cuomo-type crisis is, of course, before it happens, i.e., pro-actively instead of re-actively. Because this post deals with what can still be done now, and not what should have been done before, I will simply observe that a penal precept could have, in my view, been issued against Cuomo on these facts (specifically against, say, his promoting or signing this death-dealing legislation) and in turn, that precept could have been enforceable by canonical penalties up to and including excommunication (Canon 1319).
- The canonical prerequisites to such a penal precept could have been satisfied in this case, facilitating the Church in acting justly and in being seen to act justly.
- Cuomo’s conscience would have been confronted and the values of the Catholic community would have been protected.

Again, this observation does not detract from assessing what can be done canonically, even now, in regard to Cuomo, but it does suggest that other bishops looking at similar problems arising in their Churches would do well to consider acting sooner than later.

Msgr. Pope ends his essay thus: “It is time to end the charade, even the lie, that Andrew Cuomo and others like him are Catholics in good standing. They are not, and this must be made plain to them and to others. Join me in praying that Bishop Scharfenberger and other bishops in New York with jurisdiction will do what is right and necessary.”

I join him in so praying.


Canon 915’s moment has arrived
Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s blatant promotion of New York’s
horrid abortion law seems to have been a tipping point

January 24, 2019

Demands, demands, that Catholic leaders do something serious to confront unbridled abortionism in the ranks of Catholic politicos are being published like I’ve never seen them urged in four decades of watching such things. To that authentic Catholic sense, right at so many levels, I give nothing but an Amen.

Here’s my only concern: Catholics at various stations in the Church, most largely untrained in canon law (no shame in that, that’s what five decades of pervasive ecclesial antinomianism will get you), are making, whether they know it or not, demands for canonical actions in Cuomo’s regard, which actions might or (more likely) might not be possible under current canon law and, having missed their mark, will wrongly conclude that canon law offers no remedies in the face of Cuomo-like conduct.

I refer specifically to calls for the formal excommunication of Andrew Cuomo, but the issues in this case are applicable to other cases on the near horizon.

So, first and foremost, and setting aside Richard Burton’s Abp. Becket stentoriously excommunicating enemies of the Church from the cathedral high altar, excommunication is today what it has always essentially been, a canonical penalty that can be meted out only in accord with canon law.

Canon 915 is, in fact, the canon cited by Cardinal Ratzinger, then Prefect of the CDF, in his 2004 election-year letter addressed to the US bishops through then Archbishop of Washington, Theodore McCarrick

As a canonical sanction, the application of excommunication requires, at a minimum,
(1) a law in place that prohibits, under pain of excommunication, a given action,
(2) accessibility to facts sufficient to demonstrate the guilt of an individual accused of doing such an act, and
(3) an independent process to interpret the law and apply it correctly to the facts at hand. [See Canons 18 and 221, and most of Books VI and VII of the 1983 Code.]

Those who think that Andrew Cuomo should be excommunicated for signing New York’s appalling abortion law need no invitation to make their case for that canonical sanction in accord with the canon law. Thomas Becket could make his case for excommunication (the curious and Latin-literate can verify that claim by checking, say, Gasparri’s footnotes to 1917 CIC 2343 § 4, provisions that took a dim view of murdering priests).

But, if moderns cannot make the case for Cuomo’s excommunication (and I, among many others trained in canon law, do not think they can), they should cease calling for the (presently) impossible and focus instead on what can (and I, along with some notable others, think should) be done in the face of a Cuomo-like affront to Church teaching and basic human dignity.

Fine, but what?

Consider: the single most publicly-observable aspect of excommunication (hardly surprising, given the very name of this sanction) is, of course, exclusion from holy Communion.
- Whatever other sacramental and disciplinary consequences are visited upon an excommunicate (and those consequences are several and significant, per Canon 1331), what is most obvious to the individual, to the faith community, and to the general public, is that an excommunicate is barred from participating in the Church’s greatest sacrament, holy Communion (Canons 915 and 1331).
- This public barring prevents sacrilege from being committed against the Sacrament, mitigates the scandal inflicted on the faith community when patently unworthy Catholics pretend to a communion in faith belied by their deeply contrarian actions, and alerts the world that the Church is serious about securing upright witness in her own ranks.

Now, here’s the point: All of the personal, community, and even secular values served by barring an excommunicate from holy Communion as part of the sanction of excommunication are immediately available simply by applying Canon 915, a sacramental disciplinary norm in Book IV of the Code (and not a penal norm from Book VI).
- Canon 915 requires ministers of holy Communion to withhold the Sacrament, not just from those under formal sanction, of course, but also from those who ‘obstinately persevere in manifest grave sin’. Let that phrasing sink in.

Applying Canon 915, moreover,
- is not constrained by narrowly-drawn definitions of crimes and/or cooperation therein,
- does not rely on loophole-ridden latae sententiae procedures (a canonical relic that today is mostly useful for letting bishops avoid making hard decisions), and
- does not continue the rampant disregard for the rule of law in the Church seen over the last 50 years (mostly by figures, I grant, themselves none too concerned about human conduct and the rightful role of the Church in shaping it, and so, in that respect, distinguishable from those lately calling for Cuomo’s excommunication).

Instead, Canon 915 enables, indeed requires, prompt (not precipitous, but prompt) action by ministers
- to protect the Most August Sacrament from abuse,
- to alert an individual about his or her morally gravely dangerous public conduct,
- to protect the faith community from scandal, and
- to give serious witness to the world about the importance of Church teaching to Church members.
Are these not the key goals sought by those calling for Cuomo’s (and some others’) excommunication? If so, why try to purse those goals with a cumbersome penal institute such as excommunication when Canon 915 is sitting right in front of us?

In short, has not Canon 915’s moment, at last, arrived?

Its timing, I grant, could hardly be worse:
- the Church’s prestige (in the good sense of prestige) is battered;
- ignorance of how basic canon law works (seasoned with antinomian attitudes among Church leadership) are common; and
- Catholics in the public sphere have grown thoroughly accustomed to doing Catholicism as they see fit and show little inclination to be told otherwise.
Pretty much any cleric who attempts to apply Canon 915 in any noticeable way should expect to be called a pedophile and ignored.

But all of these are precisely reasons why I think Canon 915’s moment has arrived. The Church’s profane power is unlikely to bring about internal reform in this area today; but the divine witness of laity and clergy faithful to her teachings, can.

As I and others have treated Canon 915 many, many times I will not repeat those points here. But a few matters bear emphasizing:
1. Canon 915 is relevant to a wide variety of crises in the Church today, including public involvement by Catholics in:
- abortion and euthanasia (contrary to Canons 1397 and 1398);
- civil divorce and remarriage outside the Church (contrary to Canons 1059, 1085, and 1141);
- ‘same-sex marriage’ (contrary to Canon 1055); and
- female ‘ordinations’ (contrary to Canon 1024).
Indeed the widespread disregard of Canon 915 is itself a grave scandal. Such disregard is not likely to be corrected overnight, of course, but the scale of reform required is not a reason to shirk it.

b. A few Catholic politicians have been notified of their exclusion from holy Communion by bishops ably applying Canon 915. While many other Catholic politicos should, in my view, be barred from holy Communion based on facts already known, determining what suffices for, say, one’s being “pro-abortion” to the point that Canon 915 needs to be invoked is not always easy.
- In most cases, ministers should seek direction from their bishops, i.e., those primarily charged with maintaining ecclesiastical discipline (Canon 392), rather than making such decisions on their own.
- Bishops, in turn, should set about looking at the most likely cases in their territories and start thinking things through canonically and pastorally — keeping in mind that Canon 915 is obligatory, not suggestive.

c. Andrew Cuomo is already barred from holy Communion and seems to be refraining from approaching for it.

d. Persons interested in proposing reforms of canon law itself whereby actions such as Cuomo’s would be treated as excommunicable canonical crimes, and bishops interested in using penal precepts to address pro-actively specific, Cuomo-like actions threatened in their local Church, should consult with canonists lest errors made in the pursuit of these goals distract from addressing the underlying problems.

Canon 915 is cited by Cardinal Ratzinger, at the time Prefect of the CDF, in his 2004 election-year letter to the bishops of the United States, sent through Cardinal McCarrik, then Archbishop of Washington, DC.

Entitled "Worthiness to Receive Communion", it was intended to provide guidelines to the US bishops on when to refuse to give communion to politicians who openly promote abortion and euthanasia. It said, in part:

---

4. Apart from an individuals’s judgement about his worthiness to present himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, the minister of Holy Communion may find himself in the situation where he must refuse to distribute Holy Communion to someone, such as in cases of a declared excommunication, a declared interdict, or an obstinate persistence in manifest grave sin (cf. can. 915)
6. 5. Regarding the grave sin of abortion or euthanasia, when a person’s formal cooperation becomes manifest (understood, in the case of a Catholic politician, as his consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws), his Pastor should meet with him, instructing him about the Church’s teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin, and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist.

6. When "these precautionary measures have not had their effect or in which they were not possible," and the person in question, with obstinate persistence, still presents himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, "the minister of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute it" (cf. Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts Declaration "Holy Communion and Divorced, Civilly Remarried Catholics" [2002], nos. 3-4).

This decision, properly speaking, is not a sanction or a penalty. Nor is the minister of Holy Communion passing judgement on the person’s subjective guilt, but rather is reacting to the person’s public unworthiness to receive Holy Communion due to an objective situation of sin.

---

A bit of a digression here, but when checking back my facts on the 2004 letter by Cardinal Ratzinger, I, of course, came across the stories of how McCarrick at the time did not pass on the letter to his fellow bishops, and one gets a taste of Uncle Ted's duplicity - and lack of Catholic seriousness - in that respect from a 2006 report on LifeSite News. Worth refreshing your memory, if you have forgotten:

Cardinal McCarrick continues to conceal
Rome’s insistence that pro-abort
politicians be denied Communion
By John-Henry Westen


CORNWALL, October 23, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Last week, recently-retired Washington Cardinal Theodore McCarrick delivered an address to the annual Plenary Assembly of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops.

McCarrick, who headed up the US Bishops Conference task force on Catholics in Political Life, spoke mainly of his experiences on the task force and of the central debate it explored - namely that of whether or not to deny Holy Communion to Catholic politicians who reject Church teachings on central issues such as abortion and euthanasia.

During the 2004 deliberation among US Bishops, then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith sent a letter to the US Bishops to use as a guide. The letter pointed out that obstinately pro-abortion Catholic politicians, after being duly instructed and warned, "must" be denied Communion.

In his 12-page address, however, McCarrick did not even provide the gist of Cardinal Ratzinger’s letter which outlined in six successive points why communion "must" be denied in the specified cases. He did however speak about a bracketed afterthought at the bottom of Cardinal Ratzinger’s letter which spoke of reception of communion for Catholics who vote for pro-abortion politicians.

The failure to mention the central contents of that Ratzinger letter entitled "Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion - General Principles" is seemingly habitual for Cardinal McCarrick.

Although it was sent to the US Bishops via Cardinal McCarrick by Cardinal Ratzinger, the document was not revealed to the US Bishops. Rather McCarrick gave the impression that Cardinal Ratzinger’s letter indicated Rome was ambiguous about the matter. Speaking of Ratzinger’s letter in a June 15, 2004 statement to the US Bishops, Cardinal McCarrick said, "the Cardinal (Ratzinger) recognizes that there are circumstances in which Holy Communion may be denied."

A couple of weeks after Cardinal McCarrick’s speech, the letter from Cardinal Ratzinger was leaked to well-known Vatican reporter Sandro Magister, who published the document in full. In a surprising move, Cardinal Ratzinger’s office confirmed the leaked document as authentic.

In the days after the Ratzinger letter was leaked and confirmed as authentic, noted US theologian Michael Novak told the Washington Times that sources in Rome were perturbed by Cardinal McCarrick’s soft-pedalling of the Ratzinger letter. "Some people in the Vatican were upset that McCarrick was putting on too kind a face on it," Novak told reporter Julia Duin.

Rather than a permissibility to deny communion, Ratzinger’s letter spoke of cases where "the minister of Holy Communion may find himself in the situation where he must refuse to distribute Holy Communion to someone." It went on to explain that an obstinately pro-abortion Catholic politician who has been warned and instructed, if "the person in question, with obstinate persistence, still presents himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, the minister of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute it."

In interviews with Catholic writer Barbara Kralis, two US bishops said publicly that they were disappointed in not receiving the letter from McCarrick . Asked, "Were the contents of the memo made known to you and the other bishops at the Denver meeting?" Archbishop Raymond Burke of St. Louis replied, "It certainly was not made known to me and I do not believe it was given to the other bishops. Cardinal McCarrick referred to the memorandum. We were told that, according to Cardinal Ratzinger, the application of the Canon 915 was up to the prudent judgment of each bishop. The text of the memorandum would have been very helpful at the meeting in Denver. Knowing now about the memo, I am disappointed it was not given to us at the meeting of the Bishops’ Conference."

Bishop Robert F. Vasa of Baker, Oregon also told Kralis the memo was not revealed, even to bishops on the task force. "As I recall, Cardinal McCarrick made reference to some letter, but I did not see a copy of the letter at the meeting. I don’t know if the committee writing the ‘Statement,’ entitled ‘Catholics in Political Life,’ was given a copy of the letter," he said.

Reacting to the controversy, Cardinal McCarrick tried to downplay the significance of the Ratzinger letter. McCarrick said that the leaked Ratzinger letter "may represent an incomplete and partial leak of a private communication from Cardinal Ratzinger and it may not accurately reflect the full message I received."

Some months earlier, Cardinal McCarrick was downplaying or even denying the statements of another Vatican Cardinal on the same topic.

In April 2004, the Vatican’s leading prelate - second only to the Pope - on the Sacraments, Cardinal Francis Arinze, declared unequivocally that unambiguously pro-abortion politicians should be denied Holy Communion. Cardinal Arinze said such a politician "is not fit" to receive Communion. "If they should not receive, then they should not be given," he added.

Cardinal McCarrick reacted to Cardinal Arinze’s statements by suggesting that Arinze did not really mean what he said. Speaking with the National Catholic Reporter, after Cardinal Arinze’s statements were publicized, McCarrick said of Cardinal Arinze, "I don’t think it was his eminence’s official opinion . . . The cardinal’s position . . . was that . . . the United States should figure out what they ought to do."

Since that time, Cardinal Arinze has so frequently been asked the question he has begun to joke about it. In a live interview on EWTN Cardinal Arinze was asked if pro-abortion politicians should be denied communion. He replied: "The answer is clear. If a person says I am in favour of killing unborn babies whether they be four thousand or five thousand, I have been in favour of killing them. I will be in favour of killing them tomorrow and next week and next year. So, unborn babies, too bad for you. I am in favour that you should be killed, then the person turn around and say I want to receive Holy Communion. Do you need any Cardinal from the Vatican to answer that? . . . "Simple, ask the children for First Communion, they’ll give you the answer."