No doubt the title of this post is link bait, but I also use it as a truth.
Ever since I heard St. Thomas Aquinas’ definition of love – willing the good for the other – I have only become more convinced of its accuracy and a guide to how to love my enemies.
Recently Canonist Ed Peters has been much in the news because of his posting that Gov. Cuomo should be denied Communion because he is living with his girlfriend. Not only is this technically public concubinage, but adultery since they are both married and civilly divorced. His post addressed the Canons involved and what should be an easy application of them in this case. This of course was met with a firestorm of progressive Catholics attacking him along with non-Catholics who are politically liberal. Even the Diocese of Albany responded to the post in a unsatisfactory manner and it could easily be said that this Diocese seems to lean in favor of progressive Catholics. Ed Peters has spent considerable time addressing some of the articles written and responding to some requests. While this is a good thing to do, it is often a losing war to respond reasonably to those who won’t be reasonable.
Which brings me to the point of this post. Objectively Gov. Cuomo continues in a state of grave sin that he has not yet repented of. That he is committing an objectively grave sin can not be disputed. All faithful Catholics when it comes to Gov. Cuomo should desire his repentance so as to love him – to will him good. While we can not judge his soul and how culpable he is, we certainly know that the current state of affairs is an extremely dangerous one for him.
It has long been Catholic teaching that receiving the Sacrament of the Eucharist when you are in an objectively grave state of sin profanes the Eucharist.
“For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died” (1 Cor. 11:29–30)
So anybody who loved Gov. Cuomo or anybody else in similar circumstances would want them not to receive Communion. Ideally they would want him to repent and thus be worthy to receive this great sacrament or to at least not go forward to receive being aware of his grave sin. Gov. Cuomo though does indeed still go forward even though he is aware at least of the controversy and surely knows his actions are not in accord with the Church. So again anybody who loved Gov. Cuomo knowing that he would still go forth to receive would want him to be kept from receiving out of concern for his soul in not adding another sin. All of this is of course in the context of a public sinner; one where the objectively grave sin of the person is well known. To think that Gov. Cuomo should be given Communion is to show an objective hatred for him in that you do not will him good, but evil.
I have not read one progressive Catholic who seems to be concerned at all for Gov. Cuomo’s soul and their concern seems to be almost totally political. Their anger is directed towards Ed Peters whose crime is pointing out the application of Canon Law in this matter.
Former Jesuit John C. Dwyer who hasn’t lost the Jesuitical touch said “Cuomo comes from a day and age when living with your girlfriend isn’t a serious, grievous matter … or something that’s seen as a serious violation of God’s will,”
Again confusing what is objectively grave with what a person is culpable for. And if Gov. Cuomo is truly confused about this it was with the help of theology professors like John C. Dwyer.
So why is it that progressive Catholics seem to care more about party affiliation than about someone’s soul? When Mayor Giuliani was running for President many Catholics such as myself were upset when he presented himself for Communion and was given it. Most faithful Catholics opposed his run for presidency because of his personal sins and his embrace of the Culture of Death. Yet so-called progressive Catholics seem to have little concern at all of how badly Catholic politicians are at odds with the faith they profess. Politics trumps sin and just as long as the politician supports the agenda you want – nothing else matters.
I don’t think we will be seeing any articles in America Magazine, National Catholic Reporter, and other outlets of the usual suspects asking people to pray for Gov. Cuomo to repent of his objectively grave sins. Profaning the Lord in the Eucharist doesn’t seem to bother them just as he is one of their guys agenda-wise.
So pray for Gov. Cuomo and his concubine and for those who ignore abuse of the Sacrament of the Eucharist.
* Note: I use the term progressive Catholic since this is how they identify themselves. I only use it since I hate it less than such terms has liberal/conservative Catholics. Really there are only faithful Catholics and unfaithful Catholics. This does not mean that all Catholics will agree with each other on prudential applications, but that faithful Catholics take the Magisterium seriously.
Ed Peters’ original post: Cuomo’s concubinage and holy Communion
12 comments
I can’t speak about all so-called progressive Catholics, but I can tell you that the ones in my family don’t really believe in souls in the traditional sense. They are basically Pelagian, I believe — self-salvation from “our broken world.” Also, the only thing they believe is really “broken” in our world is violence; I don’t think they believe in any other sins. JME
I agree with your presentation except for one statement. Instead of giving Cuomo his title (along with its implied prestige) and calling his girlfriend a concubine, how about referring to him as “the adulterer and his concubine”. Fair is fair.
May God give them light and courage to follow him in all faithfulness and turn away from sin.
I think the term is not “progressive Catholic” but rather “heretic.”
I haven’t been following this at all. And I have no dog on this fight (although I think it’s obvious we should all pray for people ‘living together’–that they’ll see the goodness of marriage and live in a way that honors that).
But maybe the issue is that Dr. Peters isn’t from Cuomo’s diocese? I don’t quite see Cuomo as that much of a national figure that he is suddenly open to correction on a national level (and even then, I think diocesan hierarchies should be respected). Should Peters be speaking on matters in the diocese he works within? And if moved to enlighten a person outside his diocese, write to the canonist(s) in Albany about the situation?
(I’m just posing the question–truly don’t know on this one.)
IC,
Good question, though I think the application of Canon law is not diocese dependent. Gov. Cuomo is certainly a very public figure like his father who advanced ‘I’m against abortion, but…’ Scandal is also not limited to a diocese anymore since news is now world-wide.
The diocese defense on this has been extremely weak in regards to Canon law and contrary to the scholarly paper written by the head of the Roman Rota.
Besides every person regardless of the diocese they live in should have Catholics concerned when they are living in a state of objective sin if they love their neighbor.
We often base our arguments on religious grounds, and the fundamental problem is that the two sides do not start from the same groundrules. It is very difficult to have an productive discussion on how Church doctrine applies to a situation when one side of that discussion does not acknowledge that doctrine as completely valid in the first place.
I think a more fruitful approach, for almost any Catholic argument today, would be to supplement the religious case with the secular one. In this situation, that would be: The personal liberty embraced by the governor requires that sex be separated from commitment, which in turn requires it to be separated from procreation. That widespread notion, exemplified by the governor, has produced an abortion rate of 40%+ of all pregnancies in New York City, which means that New York has lost House seats, electoral votes, and federal funding in the near term, and future voters, workers, and inventors in the long term. In short, pointing out that the libertine culture embraced by New York is imperiling the wider progressive agenda should get peoples’ attention. Making that connection will hopefully lead people to realize that traditional morality exists for the sake of a strong society, that it provides a “shorthand” for evaluating situations, rather than forcing us to derive the wide-ranging, long-term impacts of our every action ourselves.
Bryan Kirchoff
St. Louis
There seem to be a lot more Cafeteria Catholics than there are Cafeteria Politicos. I was thinking about that last week, how people will criticize just about everything they don’t like at work, in their religion, their favorite TV show and even hope their favorite football team loses a big game to “stick it” to the owner, but they’ll sign up for each and every issue their political party signs up for.
Weird.
“Again confusing what is objectively grave with what a person is culpable for.”
That’s where the meat of the problem is: we have gone back to the Garden thinking that WE are the ones who decide what is objectively grave or even wrong.
The answer to your question is that “progressive” Catholics (in name only) have a different religion than you and I: their religion is Leftism. Just as you and I would defend an upstanding member of the Catholic Faith from attack, they are defending the adherents of their religion. Faithful Catholics, and Catholics who support leftist ideals and ideas don’t have the same religion. For the Left, politics is much more important than the soul, hence the Left’s lack of concern for Cuomo’s soul.
I understand the firestorm over whether Gov. Cuomo should receive or not, however, how many other Catholics are in the Eucharist line and should not be? When it’s your neighbor, will you really stand up to them and say ‘hey, I’m concerned about your soul’? We point out the speck in our neighbors eye while ignoring the beam in our own.
Jesus taught us directly to clothe the naked, shelter the homeless and feed the hungry. These are the foundations of our Catholic Social Teachings and are no less important than standing up for life in all stages. When you claim the Catholic faith, you claim all of it. If embracing that includes Catholics that lean left, lets look at why – maybe they are holding true to their Social Teachings and the Gospel – instead of snap judgments and party pooling.
Just maybe we should be the Catholics that not only are Right and Left, but Everywhere. When we pick and pick, national figure or Joe down the street, we are becoming exactly what the Devil wants, separating us from our brethren instead of uniting us in the love of Christ and respect for what it means to be a practicing Catholic.
The progressive Catholics I know don’t believe in sin, they believe in “good and bad choices.” It’s a kind of dualism where your soul is always good, no matter what you do with your body. I think they are puzzled by the idea that anyone COULD be denied communion because “all are welcome” and “Jesus came to include everyone.” They do not think of adultery as a sin, just as something people do that is more or less bad depending on the circumstances, and they don’t know much about Catholicism, they just want to be nice to people. They think the best way to do that is to take care of them with government programs we all share in paying for. I am not being ironic, that is what they really think. That’s why politics is so important to them — it is the vehicle for transforming the world the way they think “good people” want it transformed, and if you don’t want it transformed that way, then you are a bad person who should be fought in any way necessary. Religion doesn’t come into it for them except as a private choice, and where do you get off telling people what to do about their private choice — whether that’s going up for communion or aborting a baby or living in an adulterous relationship? Unless you are doing something political on behalf of everyone, you are engaged in private (thus inviolate) behavior. To them, that is.
If I commit a grave sin that no one knows about and I stand in line and receive communion in a respectful way then I have surely committed another grave sin… but to the casual catholic observer, in line next to me, there is no scandal. they do not see me and say why is he taking communion? has the church changed its teaching? is what he hs done really a sin, since he is receiving?
however were I to be seen around town in the company of a woman to whom I was involved in a very obvious adulterous relationship and stood in line for communion, I would create a great scandal.